Skyrim talk:Artifacts/Archive 2

This is an archive of past Skyrim talk:Artifacts discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, except for maintenance such as updating links.

Kyne's Token and The Gauldur Amulet

After noticing that an item known as Kyne's Token seemed extraordinary enough to be an artifact, I noticed it shares its texture with The Gauldur Amulet. While both are rather extraordinary and difficult to obtain, neither has a unique appearance. However, since we made an exception for Rahgot and included it despite it not meeting the definition of an artifact, I wasn't simply willing to remove it on the grounds that it didn't meet our definition of what an artifact was. However if we don't adhere to the definition, we might have to start allowing in more items that we previously wouldn't allow. Neither option seems rather good as it would make this list seem less complete, but I can't think of an easy way to allow them all to stay. Anyone have any idea as to how to solve this quandary? --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 06:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I included Rahgot on the page for technical reasons as much as anything: all of the dragon masks need to be listed together (especially since there's a Dragon Priest Mask redirect), and all the other masks are artifacts. But if that exception is problematic, they could all be moved to the redirect page. --Nephele^Talk 07:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably for the best if the masks are moved off this page. That way, we'll also have a page where we can clearly explain what exactly these things are (as we have that information scattered around, as of now, due to the lack of a quest page relating to them). I guess The Gauldur Amulet belongs at Skyrim:Unique Items, then? Should its article be allowed to remain, or should it be turned back into a redirect? --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 03:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

There's also an ancient nord amulet in the jarl's bedroom in Falkreath which looks like the gauldur amulet. — Unsigned comment by Jamie the Dark Elf (talk • contribs) at 22:21 on 10 August 2012

It doesn't have a unique look or enchantment.--Br3admax 22:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

still, you can sell it for a fair bit of dosh. — Unsigned comment by Jamie the Dark Elf (talk • contribs) at 06:20 on 16 August 2012

(←) While true, the definitions of artifacts for this article are rather strict. It doesn't meet the criteria, which is why it isn't listed. ABCface^◥ 07:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect images

The images for Azura's Star, the Black Star, and the Skeleton Key have the incorrect images displayed. 199.116.173.115 00:09, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

They display fine for me. — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 00:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Must be my browser. Ignore me. 199.116.173.115 00:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They display fine for me as well. It probably has something to do with anonymous editors getting cached paged or something. That is all I can think of that sounds plausible. ES^{Question?•Email•Contribs} 00:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Link for the rueful axe

I can't seem to make the artifact page entry for the rueful axe link to its article page. Can somebody fix it, and tell me what I'm doing wrong, please? --Xyzzy 14:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

It's already on this page and linking to its individual page, so I'm not sure what the problem is. Vely^{►Talk►Email} 14:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't work for me. Solution > bypass your cache. The Silencer has spoken^Talk 14:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Page refresh fail :3. Thanks for responding. --Xyzzy 14:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Rueful Axe Removal

I hate to bring up another pointless argument about what qualifies as an artifact, but the Rueful Axe was recently removed from the page for not having a unique enchantment. As a reward for a Daedric quest, with a unique appearance and guard reaction dialogue, I can't see how not having a unique enchantment disqualifies it from the list. Would it not be better to be more lenient with these guidelines, considering how vague/unhelpful they are, and allow items such as the Axe to remain? --Legoless 18:13, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried arguing this point (More plainly) to the remover of the Rueful Axe. She wouldn't budge. I still agree with you, but it's not my authority to simply move things around to where I think they should be. SlyKhajiit 14:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, it isn't a Daedric Artifact, but it definitely is an artifact. I've always questioned the definition including "having a unique enchantment" (look at the Dragon Priest masks). I think that line should be removed, leaving the only qualifications as being unique and appear once in the game. elliot (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

That sounds more like a Unique Item. Something would have to set an Artifact apart from all other unique items. Perhaps a tie-in to a Daedric Prince?--Xyzzy 18:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a Unique Items page for such items. The two masks that are included have an explanation attached to explain consistancy. Guard Dialogue does not indicate artifact status, just look here to see that many unique and non unique items provoke comments from the Guards. The Silencer has spoken^Talk 18:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The enchantment is arguably the most important criterion for what belongs on this page. From a player point of view, these items are being highlighted as ones that are worth going out of your way to obtain. You can create an item with a better enchantment than the Rueful Axe -- and with a custom enchantment you can put it on your preferred weapon, instead of being stuck with the slowest weapon in the game. Even if it's not an artifact, the Rueful Axe can still keep its own page, meaning extra details, back-story, an image, etc. can be provided. So the only question here is whether it is special enough to be listed side by side with the other artifacts.

The fact that it's part of a Daedric quest isn't really relevant, because it is not the Daedric artifact that is awarded by Clavicus Vile -- that's the Masque of Clavicus Vile. Including the Rueful Axe on this page would actually cause confusion, increasing the likelihood of players mistakenly thinking that it is a Daedric artifact, and therefore causing them to fail to get the Oblivion Walker achievement because they didn't realize that the Rueful Axe didn't qualify.

There are dozens of Unique Items in the game and they don't all belong on this page. If we are going to differentiate the items on this page as being particularly noteworthy, there have to be some criteria used to decide what belongs on the page -- otherwise we have to go through this type of discussion for every single weapon. Without objective criteria, it comes down to subjective arguments about which weapons/armor each player personally prefers, and those arguments generally can't be resolved. So what objectively makes the Rueful Axe so special that it belongs on this page? --Nephele^Talk 21:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well Clavicus Vile does say the axe is an ancient artifact several times. also on the loading screen that is about daedric artifacts it is actually a picture of the rueful axe... — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

(←) Here is the loading screen which mentions the Rueful Axe and displays a model of it:

''Questing heroes of all stripes seek after the fabled Daedric artifacts for their potent combat and magical benefits." -- Haderus of Gottlesfont, from Modern Heretics

And here are some quotes from Clavicus Vile that suggest that the Rueful Axe is an artifact:

0001c4e1: Excellent work. A hero and his faithful companion, retrieving the ancient artifact for the prince. It's almost... storybook. (In reference to the Axe)

000209c1: In Rimerock Burrow, there's an artifact called the Rueful Axe. Bring it to me, and I'll take Barbas back. Simple as that.

0001cdb4: Yeah, yeah, dog gets master, master gets cosmic axe, everyone's happy. Just get over here, mutt. (Uses the word "cosmic")

Ample evidence that the Rueful Axe is an artifact, despite our site's criteria. • JA^Talk 00:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

We could add in something like "The item is generally treated like an artifact." as an additional clause for items not entirely meeting the standards. This would allow a bit more wiggle room, while still leaving out most items. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 02:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Since this has come up again, I'd like to suggest that it be included here on the Artifacts page, since it's identified as an artifact in several places in-game (as previously mentioned), but for the sake of the Oblivion Walkers out there, I think we should significantly highlight that it doesn't count. Yes, it's the first note, but that's not something someone would see at a glance. Maybe we can bold it, or put a coloured box at the top of the page or something? – Robin Hood↝talk 22:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Robin.--Skyrimplayer 22:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking over the discussions related to this, it appears that the majority of users would like to see this added back, and we do normally do things by consensus around here, don't we? I'll add mine to the bunch-- though the artifact may not technically fit the definition on this page, it should be added as an exception like the Dragon Priest masks were. A note should be added about why it's on the page despite not meeting the criteria listed, and it should also have an emphasized note about not counting for the Oblivion Walkers achievement. ABCface^◥ 04:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dragon Masks

Someone added a note to the article section for the Dragon Masks stating that they could be worn with helmets (it was reverted soon after as non-useful). Is this true?? If so, that seems like good info. --Xyzzy 03:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

(Follow up) I tried equipping Nahkriin and 2 different helms. The active magic effects would only show one set of effects or the other, not both (one helm had Fortify Destruction and Fortify Marksman, the other Fortify Restoration). I don't know if maybe trying to equip 2 head gear items with the same enchantment fails, one of them becomes hidden, or you just can't equip them both. Can anybody verify that they CAN get both to work? --Xyzzy 22:43, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it was in reference to the Falmer Helmet glitch. You can wear headgear, ie Dragonmasks and circlet as well as them. The Silencer has spoken^Talk 22:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Amulet Of Articulation

Why is this not on the page? anonymous — Unsigned comment by 72.94.170.124 (talk) at 22:39 on 20 June 2012

It is on the Leveled Items page. --Xyzzy 05:53, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it has a unique enchantment (articulation) and gives you extra armor, which is extremely odd for and amulet. — Unsigned comment by 72.94.170.124 (talk) at 23:06 on 20 June 2012

Good point. I think I agree with you. Let's see if we can get some consensus from other editors. --Xyzzy 06:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be an artifact, however I have some doubts. The NPC version seems to suggest that you can actually buy an unenchanted version at jewelers. If it can be purchased, that would mean it isn't unique and therefore not an artifact. --AKB ^{Talk Cont Mail} 15:19, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm almost certain that the NPC amulet is only worn by Brynjolf and Mercer. The only container which can have it is in some random testing hall. Looks like a artifact to me. —Legoless 18:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Dragon Priest Masks

Are the Dragon Priest Masks collected for any purpose other than the obvious benefits of wearing them?! I heard once (from a colleague - not a good source!) that they are collected to be placed on an alter/statue. I assume he is referencing the image in one of the loading screens. Any guidance? Thanks in advance! (Saddy69 12:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC))

See Skyrim:Bromjunaar Sanctuary. —Legoless 14:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Now just have to find where I put them all! Good Times! (Saddy69 15:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC))

Auriel's Bow/Shield

In light of Dawnguard, shouldn't these two items be added? Both have unique appearances and unique enchantments: sun damage and storing the energy of blocked attacks, respectively. Just sayin.

I agree that they should be added to the artifacts page. Should they be added into the main section, or should a separate Dawnguard section be added? --Xyzzy 06:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to wait until the Artifacts pages are more complete and they have nice images added to them. At the moment most of the Dawnguard Artifacts have no images and those that do are low quality xbox images. — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 06:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a shield until I randomly stumbled upon a frost giant in the forgotten vale and searched the paragons on the UESP. — Unsigned comment by Jamie the Dark Elf (talk • contribs) at 22:29 on 10 August 2012

Rueful Axe vs Volendrung

I saw above an argument about the Rueful Axe's Artifact status, and noticed the main reasoning it was removed is because of its enchantment not being unique. If we go by that, then technically Volendrung should be removed as well, for having the exact same enchantment, albeit a bit stronger. The only real reason that Volendrung remains is because its a Daedric Artifact, but going by the articles description of what determines if an item is suitable for placement on this article page, Volendrung should be removed. By all determinable means, the Rueful Axe should be on the page.--Dro'Bakha 03:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree,

Even though Volendrung is rather measly, i think it should stay on the page for a reason other than it being a daedric artifact.

The Rueful Axe is worse than Volendrung, looks worse, and can fool people into losing the achievement Oblivion Walker during the quest A Daedra's Best Friend.

It doesn't deserve the right to be on this page.

--Jamie the Dark Elf 06:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Unique Appearance

I was just wondering how picky the "unique appearance" criteria is for items to be considered artifacts, as the Dawnguard Rune Hammer, Shield, and Axe all look the same as their regular Dawnguard counterparts but with a slightly different color (more silvery, less/no black). Aside from the enchantments and unique availability (through the Lost Relic quest), the only other difference is that the Dawnguard Rune Shield is Light Armor, while the regular is Heavy. I'm all for including these three items on this list (once their pages are completed, of course), but I wanted to make sure they belong here first. I wasn't sure if they are considered to be "unique in appearance" simply for being a different color version of the regular model. Anyone know how picky this stipulation is? ABCface^◥ 11:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I realized today that the Dawnguard Rune Hammer isn't actually "enchanted" but just has a description and unique effect. Not sure about the other two, but now I'm thinking these should be listed at Skyrim:Unique Items instead. Anyone else have thoughts on this? ABCface^◥ 03:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that a unique effect counts as a unique enchantment, and if it has a unique appearance, no matter how similar it may be to another item, it's unique. Plus, this page isn't exactly overflowing with items, so why not? • JA^Talk 03:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I dont think the rune weapons should be on this page because they aren't unique enough. Consider the steel battlexe of fiery souls and which page that belongs on. Its certainly unique but not remotely an artifact. --SamGhadiali 09:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Why not? It has a unique appearance, as well as a unique enchantment, ergo it's an artifact. The Steel Battleaxe of Fiery Souls has a unique enchantment but does not have a unique appearance, thus it isn't an artifact. This is a completely different situation. • JA^T 17:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the Dawnguard rune items had the same appearence of normal Dawnguard weapons? --SamGhadiali 09:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Blade of Woe not on page

Its in the artifacts category and I can't find it on this page. Is there a reason it got removed? --SamGhadiali 09:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Artifacts Category contains every item that has its own page, not just the ones on the artifacts page. Also I don't think the Blade of Woe has a unique enchantment so im not sure if we would include it anyway. — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Bit confused about this. How come Chillrend is on the artifacts page yet the Blade of woe is not (similar circumstances)? I guess I'm saying what criteria is required to appears on this page as oppose to just its own article? --SamGhadiali 12:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I realise its purely based on enchantment (compared to generic enchanted stuff not custom enchantments) and thought the blade of woe was on the Oblvion artifacts list. All is right with the world. --SamGhadiali 12:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Dawnguard Artifacts

Considering that Dawnguard adds a few artifacts, should they be added to the page in their own subsection, or should a "Dawnguard Artifacts" page be made, and linked to from here? Derejin 18:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Dawnguard artifacts have a separate section here. Following the same style of integration as the other Dawnguard items, we should have the new artifacts added to this page. —Legoless 19:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw that - though since artifacts are a bit more important, I figured they might deserve their own page (or subsection on the main Artifacts page, which you already addressed) instead of just being shoved in with the rest of the new items. Thanks for the info. Derejin 19:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Rings of Blood Magic & Amulets of Night Power

Unique in appearence and unique enchantments plus only one of each exist. Should they not be on this page rather than unique items? --SamGhadiali 09:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Aren't there like 10 of each? Seems like it would overpower the page if you add them all. They would also each need there own page, but there isn't much to write about them except they are ancient vampire rings/amulets allegedly created by Molag Bal. — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I have done many of the vampire quest to which I have only had two quest to get the Rings and Amulets (to which you recieve Amulet of Bats, Gargoyles, Ring of Erudite and Beast). The other rings and amulets don't have a quest on there respective pages and I believe that they are only equipped when you select them from the favourite list allowing you to use there respective power after unlocking there perk. But if there is an inclusion of the Dawnguard relics (rune weapons) I think that the jewellery should be included to show relics of the opposite faction. --SamGhadiali 10:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Just looked at the Knights of the Nine and wouldnt it be simpler to do a page that just documents the items like the Crusaders Relics for the Artifactual items. --SamGhadiali 10:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

KotN added only about twenty items total to Oblivion, so listing the details for each item on the KotN Items page made more sense for that add-on. Dawnguard, however, adds over 200 items (most of which are very minor and definitely don't need a separate page) so the list format of the Dawnguard Items page is much more practical than providing pictures/details there, especially since links are provided to the pages where you can find the details on each item. As for the rings and amulets, I do believe that the four SamG mentioned which are related to quests should be considered artifacts, since they fit the definitions just as well as the Dawnguard Rune items. Their enchantment is unique, you can only receive them once, and their appearances are unique (though basically the rings look the same but different color, and the same applies to the amulets... but I brought that issue up for the Dawnguard Rune items above and if they're considered unique appearance, these would be too). The other five rings and five amulets shouldn't be considered artifacts since you can't actually access them as items in your inventory. ABCface^◥ 18:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked into it a bit last night and though I changed pages to match - but there are only 2 amulets, and 2 rings you can obtain from the vampire half of DG. All the others are just placeholders for abilites and can not be accessed in any shape or form. No need to worry where they go. D521^talk 22:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Dawnguard

It seems the Dawnguard Artifacts have been added to the page so I went and took some screenshots of the ones without imges. However I noticed that the Locket of Saint Jiub does not have a unique appearance, its merely a Gold Jeweled Necklace. Also the Dawnguard Rune Hammer, Axe and Shield are not unique in appearance either, they look the same as the new Dawnguard Weapons. Should these be removed? — Kimi the Elf ^{(talk | contribs)} 05:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently they look only slightly different. I'm not sure what the difference is, though, because I haven't obtained them myself. • JA^T 05:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've actually brought up the Dawnguard Relic items and their "unique appearance" in a section above already, but there wasn't any real consensus to keep them off the list. They are actually different, but barely. The coloring on the original Dawnguard weapons are slightly different from the relics, and if you look in CSList you can see that the model used is actually different as well. I agree that they're not unique enough to be counted as artifacts, but according to the current definitions used for artifacts on the wiki, they qualify. I haven't obtained the Locket of Saint Jiub yet, so I don't know what that looks like, but if it's identical to the regular gold necklace, it doesn't match the definition.

In the section directly above this one, the Amulets of Night Power and Rings of Blood Magic were brought up to add as artifacts as well. My opinion is, if the Dawnguard relics count, these four pieces of jewelry should count as well. To that effect, if the consensus is to keep the Dawnguard relics off because their appearance isn't unique enough, the same should apply to the four jewelry pieces.

As a side note, I preferred to keep all the new Dawnguard items off this page until their individual pages are more complete, but once another editor added two, I figured the rest should be added as well. So that's why they're all up now. ABCface^◥ 12:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Add or Remove Certain Artifacts

Rueful axe should also be added. If not then remove certain ones on the article that are in the same regards, like the Aetherial Staff, or Volendrung as the only reason the Rueful axe isn't on the page is cause someone says its enchantment isn't unique, much like the two items I just mentioned. The Aetherial Staff has the same enchantment as the Dwemer Staff found in Calcelmo's place, and I've encountered randomly generated weapons with the same enchantment as Volendrung. So prove why Rueful axe isn't on the page.--121.72.183.176 03:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Spider Control Rod, the enchantment is definitely not the same as the Aetherial Staff. As for the Rueful Axe, it doesn't meet the existing definition of artifacts, as the enchantment is not unique. The Volendrung enchantment is unique in that you cannot get an enchantment that high from generic magic weapons. ABCface^◥ 04:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

But then in that regard, Volendrung isn't unique because you could create it. And going by the definition on the page about enchantments, nothing is mentioned of requiring a unique amount, just a unique and useful enchantment. So in all rights, either Volendrung needs to be removed for not having a unique enchantment, or Rueful axe needs to be added due to meeting the requirements. You proved it yourself, claiming the page has a set definition that details things, yet your not following that rule by having Volendrung on the page. Since when is it unique just based on the level of enchantment? The effect is still available everywhere so its not unique.--121.72.183.176 08:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Unique does not mean that it must not share a single effect with any other weapon. Unique means that either the combination of enchantments or the strength thereof makes it one-of-a-kind. It doesn't matter if you can make an equivalent enchantment; if you can't *find* another weapon with the same exact enchantment, then it's considered unique. The Rueful Axe, as we more or less decided above, is indeed an artifact, and I don't know why it hasn't been added since. • JA^T 19:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Nightingale set

I also wanted to mention something about the Dragon Priest masks, but apparently that was already done. Anyway, is there any reason that the Nightingale weapons are included here, but the Nightingale armor set is not? They are all leveled items, and their enchantments, while useful, are not particularly unique. MidbossVyers (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2012 (GMT)

The Nightingale Blade and Nightingale Bow have unique enchantmants, so they belong here. The Nightingale Armor, however, appears more than once in the game (Brynjolf and Karliah wear it), so it belongs on Skyrim:Leveled Items. There was a note on this page that mentioned that, but it's gone now, so I'll add a new one. • JA^T 17:55, 18 September 2012 (GMT)

It's the same one as the playable version? I know that the Thieves Guild armor actually has playable and nonplayable versions, but I wasn't sure about the Nightingale armor.

MidbossVyers (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2012 (GMT)

Prev: Archive 1

Up: Skyrim talk:Artifacts

Next: None