From Old School RuneScape Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
This talk page is for discussing the Unsired page.

This article claims that

if a player has a bludgeon piece, they are guaranteed to obtain pieces that the player has not obtained yet. For example, if a player has obtained a bludgeon axon, they are guaranteed to get either a bludgeon claw or spine.

The articles for the individual bludgeon pieces say something similar. I would love to know where this information is coming from, but there is no source given.

Unfortunately, this statement is not true. I recently received a bludgeon axon from the Font of Consumption and placed it in my bank. Many kills later, I received another unsired, used it on the Font of Consumption, and received an abyssal dagger

I'm not sure how we should go about correcting this mistake. Should we remove it? Should we place a marker or indicator stating that this information is unsourced? 

If anyone receives an unsired and already has a bludgeon piece or two, try placing them in your inventory before using it on the Font of Consumption, and then post the result here. It is possible that this information is true if the bludgeon pieces are in your inventory, but this requires confirmation. The next time I receive an unsired, I will try this and post my result here.

GnomeChild1 (talk) 04:38, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

It means if your unsired rolls for a bludgeon piece, it will be guaranteed not to be a duplicate. For example, if you have a bludgeon axon, and your unsired rolls for a bludgeon piece, it will not be the axon that you will receive. It will be the spine or claw instead. -- Recent uploads SpineTalkContribs 12:47, October 3, 2017 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Thanks! It isn't clear from the text alone which interpretation (mine or yours) is the correct one, so I'll edit the relevant articles later to make it clearer. -- GnomeChild1 (talk) 14:40, October 3, 2017 (UTC)

Why was my last edit on this page undone? The table I changed is a drop table that was using a different structure than every other drop table on the wiki. Surely it is best to keep drop tables' look consistent across the wiki?

Muromasa (talk) 19:54, May 1, 2018 (UTC)

It's not really a drop table, and a drop table is less informative. But I can see where you're coming from maybe a compromise can be made without losing effective chances. iN008talk​ 20:01, May 1, 2018 (UTC)
Do you think adding the effective chance in brackets would look odd? Example:
Rare (Drop Rate) (Effective Chance)
Muromasa (talk) 20:05, May 1, 2018 (UTC)