Many thanks! I have quite a few of all of the above, so all shall be well (shall be well shall be well)
Do need to get rid of these troublesome insights though. That’s a sneakily vicious new requirement, no second chances.
Does a point exist where that would change, and how far past irrelevant is that point?
. . . the problem is that Enigmas are hard to estimate action-wise, but let me run a quick-and-dirty for echoes for them & mourning candles, I believe I can solve the formula backward for the difficulty.
I can confirm that the Heart’s Desire SMEN option remains unchanged.
Does a point exist where that would change, and how far past irrelevant is that point?[/quote]Answer: no.
Does a point exist where that would change, and how far past irrelevant is that point?[/quote]Answer: no.[/quote]
I can’t quite tell, but in your calculations, did you take into account the fact (bug?) that although the amount of Appalling Secrets needed is (SMEN * 77), the amount actually consumed on success is ((SMEN+1) * 77)? (on failure it only consumes the amount required).
The success rate for burning enigmas is twice that of drowning secrets, so it should take half as many actions (on average) to be successful. The item cost is far, far more than twice as much, regardless of how the extra 77 secrets factors in. Same goes for setting fires.
What about Mourning Candles (“Set fires around the city”)? The wiki lacks info.
I believe the Watchful check for candles is SMEN15; drowning secrets is SMEN20 and enigmas are SMEN*10. Secrets are by far the cheapest option at any level.
[quote=dov]I can’t quite tell, but in your calculations, did you take into account the fact (bug?) that although the amount of Appalling Secrets needed is (SMEN * 77), the amount actually consumed on success is ((SMEN+1) * 77)? (on failure it only consumes the amount required).[/quote]I did the math assuming that you only have on hand the proper amount, in which case only that amount is consumed, with a note to that effect, but the disparity of cost is literally more than an order of magnitude, an extra 77 Secrets is a drop in the bucket.
[quote=Optimatum]I believe the Watchful check for candles is SMEN15; drowning secrets is SMEN20 and enigmas are SMEN*10. [/quote]So my solving the Broad Difficulty equation for the success values shown for me at difficult Watchful values indicates.
Alexis on Twitter: “I kept meaning to say, btw. Fortigan/Forthigan isn’t a typo: it’s a clue”
Back and forth, again.
It’s Forthigan everywhere except on the candle itself, where it is spelled Fortigan. On the other hand, [color=rgb(41, 47, 51)]¯_(ツ)_/¯[/color]
Updated spreadsheet for comparison with Light a Taper option. Conclusion: unless your Watchful is terrible, don’t do it.
I’m immediately (and unhelpfully?) tempted to take it back to Anglo-Saxon:
- For(dh)i-gan - Go Forth[/li][li]Feowertig-an Fortieth[/li][li]Forhti-gan Go Fearfully
I’m probably overthinking this.
I’m immediately (and unhelpfully?) tempted to take it back to Anglo-Saxon:
- For(dh)i-gan - Go Forth[/li][li]Feowertig-an Fortieth[/li][li]Forhti-gan Go Fearfully
I’m probably overthinking this.[/quote]
I don’t think you’re overthinking this at all–we’re dealing with an Alexis creation, remember?
"Go forth" makes sense, since the outcome is presumably to go on pilgrimage to the NORTH, and "Go fearfully" goes without saying. But "Go forth i gan?" That’s scary because it implies that we all went NORTH once before. When? What is Alexis trying to say to us?
Could it be related to the old riddle that went something like: “a word meaning NORTH which isn’t borealis”?
I can’t seem to find any reference to it (to check if I remember it correctly). Was that part of the threads which got Eaten back in the day?
Fortigan? Vortigern? VorTIGERn?
No idea.
Also, Vortigern (alt spelling Vortigan), which is part of the Matter of Britain just like this Fisher-King business seems pretty plausible to me.
edited by Wiwo on 6/16/2016