GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.



I have just noticed that it seems to be impossible to use weapon upgrades on candy weapons. I tested it with a fiery hilt on a candy cane sword and a insightful head on a candy cane staff so far. Both told me the upgrade was incompatible to the weapon. Will do a little mire testing before editing, though. --Eightyfour-onesevenfive 08:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Just novelties?[]

Do these items have any practical applications? I have seen a few references to using the shields to counteract energy denial. Are there any other uses for these items, besides their hidden power of compulsion (forcing people who have never seen them before to say, "Where did you get that?"). Jkr.jpg Frostty1 14:04, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Na, +30hp mod and +10 armour vs dmg type > 2 armour. They're pretty but thats about it ^^ — Skuld 14:12, 19 December 2006 (CST)
They are useful for testing the damage calculations of skills and spells, possible physical damage weakness/resistance, etc. as well as the damage forumula itself. Because they have no requirements and because their damage isn't random, it eliminates some of the "uncontrolled variables" inherent in weapon testing. That means you do less averaging of results = better and more precise results. So yes, they are mildly useful. 14:17, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Damage affected by related attribute?[]

The Candy Cane Bow article states, "... your Marksmanship... will influence actual damage dealt". Does the weapon related attribute also affect the Candy Cane Axe, Hammer, & Sword? Jkr.jpg Frostty1 17:14, 19 December 2006 (CST)

See Damage for more information. Candy Weapons just have fixed Raw Damage values (RD) Poke.gif Poke 11:23, 23 December 2006 (CST)

Format for articles[]

Since they can't be salvage, no req bla bla bla. I want to change them to a thumb like the unique weapon. I don't see any use for the WeaponInfo box.—├ Aratak 14:18, 6 January 2007 (CST)

That makes sense...excuse me while I smack my head. Wai Fung 14:22, 6 January 2007 (CST)
No need. No edit is bad, well unless you write stuff about how great is your private parts and blanking page.—├ Aratak 14:25, 6 January 2007 (CST)