Talk:Rune Word - Revision history

Trang Oul: added another example which shows that LD is not necessarily a superset of NLD

2026-03-09T12:39:39Z

added another example which shows that LD is not necessarily a superset of NLD

Trang Oul: table col width

2026-03-09T12:15:02Z

table col width

Trang Oul: replies to Onderduiker

2026-03-08T19:13:40Z

replies to Onderduiker

Onderduiker: /* Reign of the Warlock */ Two replies

2026-03-08T16:03:49Z

Reign of the Warlock: Two replies

Trang Oul: replies to Onderduiker

2026-03-07T17:57:42Z

replies to Onderduiker

Onderduiker: /* Reign of the Warlock */ Reply

2026-03-07T13:52:01Z

Reign of the Warlock: Reply

Trang Oul: availability/restrictions proposal

2026-03-03T16:08:40Z

availability/restrictions proposal

Onderduiker: /* Reign of the Warlock */ Replies

2026-02-28T00:34:22Z

Reign of the Warlock: Replies

Show changes

Trang Oul at 07:41, 25 February 2026

2026-02-25T07:41:15Z

Trang Oul: another proposal to solve LD/NLD

2026-02-25T05:38:58Z

another proposal to solve LD/NLD

@@ Line 331: / Line 331: @@
 ! CL !! LoD !! CL !! LoD !! RotW
 |-
-| rowspan="2" | Insight
+| rowspan="2" | {{Ub|=Insight}}
 | NLD
 | No || No || No || Yes || Yes
@@ Line 337: / Line 337: @@
 | LD
 | No || Yes || No || Yes || Yes
 |}
 ::::::::::: That's an overkill. Actually, even 2 columns for both games seem clunky, given that D2R only adds, not removes the content.
 ::::::::::: Maybe we should give this up, agree on simple rules like "CL means always", "LoD means LoD and RotW (and possible future expansions)", "D2R means any mode in D2R" and so on, and, in case of deviations like Mosaic or Static Field mechanics, simply state them with prose? [[User:Trang Oul|Trang Oul]] ([[User talk:Trang Oul|talk]]) 15:13, 8 March 2026 (EDT)
 ::::: I've made some changes to the sample Ladder table above, eliminating redundancy and removing the Item 4 column, adjusting column widths, adding templates and using colour to differentiate between not restricted to Ladder ({{Sb|=No}}) and Mosaic's non-Ladder only ({{Warn|='''No'''}}). However, the latter seems like a temporary one-off based on what I've read, and my (perhaps permanent) prediction is most likely that they won't be able to fix the graphics issue, or they'll never get around to it. [[User:Onderduiker|Onderduiker]] ([[User talk:Onderduiker|talk]]) 19:34, 27 February 2026 (EST)

@@ Line 269: / Line 269: @@
 |-valign=top
 !align=left width=20%| Item
-!width=20%| Availability D2
+!width=10%| Availability D2
-!width=20%| Availability D2R
+!width=10%| Availability D2R
 |-
 |align=left| {{Ub|=The Stone of Jordan}}<br/>(always)

@@ Line 244: / Line 244: @@
 :::::::::: I thought Resurrected meant Classic, Expansion ''and'' Resurrected, so an item available since Classic would also be available in Resurrected (Classic or Expansion).
 :::::::::: [https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/article/23788293/diablo-ii-resurrected-patch-2-4-ladder-now-live#set Set Item Bonus Changes] affect both Classic and Expansion sets and set items, presumably both modes in Resurrected (I've never played, so I don't know), but the ''items'' have been available since Classic even if ''modifiers'' were added or adjusted in Resurrected. [[User:Onderduiker|Onderduiker]] ([[User talk:Onderduiker|talk]]) 12:03, 8 March 2026 (EDT)
 :::::::: The problem would be with Rune Words that are Ladder-only in LoD but not Resurrected (and above?), and possibly those that are Ladder-only in Resurrected if they're non-Ladder in RotW. Would {{D2LoD-inline}}{{LD-inline}} in Availability be taken to mean it's Expansion Ladder-only but non-Ladder in Resurrected and RotW, or also Ladder-only in Resurrected and RotW? In Restrictions, would it be taken to mean it's restricted to Expansion Ladder only, or unrestricted in Resurrected and RotW?
@@ Line 314: / Line 322: @@
 :::::::::: I agree with having two columns, one for Diablo II and the other for Resurrected. I can understand why Resurrected changes haven't also been made to Classic and Expansion, but it's irritating to have these kind of headaches when 90-99% of content is the same (particularly when some of the changes don't look particularly meaningful). [[User:Onderduiker|Onderduiker]] ([[User talk:Onderduiker|talk]]) 12:03, 8 March 2026 (EDT)
+::::::::::: The question is whether two columns are enough? We actually have ''5'' game modes (so far): D2 CL, D2 LoD, D2R CL, D2R LoD and D2R RotW. And Ladder as another dimension (and also yet another for SC/HC, but luckily there is no HC exclusive content!). So to cover all possibilities, we'd need such a monstrosity:
 ::::: I've made some changes to the sample Ladder table above, eliminating redundancy and removing the Item 4 column, adjusting column widths, adding templates and using colour to differentiate between not restricted to Ladder ({{Sb|=No}}) and Mosaic's non-Ladder only ({{Warn|='''No'''}}). However, the latter seems like a temporary one-off based on what I've read, and my (perhaps permanent) prediction is most likely that they won't be able to fix the graphics issue, or they'll never get around to it. [[User:Onderduiker|Onderduiker]] ([[User talk:Onderduiker|talk]]) 19:34, 27 February 2026 (EST)

@@ Line 242: / Line 242: @@
 ::::::::: Resurrected does not automatically mean LoD; there is a CL mode too. And AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) it is not equal to D2's CL - for example, 2.4 set changes were applied to CL too, didn't they? [[User:Trang Oul|Trang Oul]] ([[User talk:Trang Oul|talk]]) 12:57, 7 March 2026 (EST)
 :::::::: The problem would be with Rune Words that are Ladder-only in LoD but not Resurrected (and above?), and possibly those that are Ladder-only in Resurrected if they're non-Ladder in RotW. Would {{D2LoD-inline}}{{LD-inline}} in Availability be taken to mean it's Expansion Ladder-only but non-Ladder in Resurrected and RotW, or also Ladder-only in Resurrected and RotW? In Restrictions, would it be taken to mean it's restricted to Expansion Ladder only, or unrestricted in Resurrected and RotW?
@@ Line 308: / Line 312: @@
 | {{Exp-inline}} {{LD-inline}}/{{RotW-inline}} {{NLD-inline}}
 |}
 ::::: I've made some changes to the sample Ladder table above, eliminating redundancy and removing the Item 4 column, adjusting column widths, adding templates and using colour to differentiate between not restricted to Ladder ({{Sb|=No}}) and Mosaic's non-Ladder only ({{Warn|='''No'''}}). However, the latter seems like a temporary one-off based on what I've read, and my (perhaps permanent) prediction is most likely that they won't be able to fix the graphics issue, or they'll never get around to it. [[User:Onderduiker|Onderduiker]] ([[User talk:Onderduiker|talk]]) 19:34, 27 February 2026 (EST)

@@ Line 212: / Line 212: @@
 :::::::: I don't think we need to add a Patch column to non-Rune (Word) pages. Even then, can you still play earlier patches of Resurrected (and Reign of the Warlock) in Single Player or Other Multiplayer, or must you always play the most recent patch even there? In this case, keeping track of patches would be irrelevant to gameplay.
 :::::::: An Availability column won't be left empty or blank for Classic items elsewhere but, as with Restrictions, will the following be assumed?
@@ Line 239: / Line 240: @@
 :::::::: So all Classic items are available in all game modes, all Expansion items in Expansion and above, Resurrected in Resurrected and above, and RotW.
 :::::::: The problem would be with Rune Words that are Ladder-only in LoD but not Resurrected (and above?), and possibly those that are Ladder-only in Resurrected if they're non-Ladder in RotW. Would {{D2LoD-inline}}{{LD-inline}} in Availability be taken to mean it's Expansion Ladder-only but non-Ladder in Resurrected and RotW, or also Ladder-only in Resurrected and RotW? In Restrictions, would it be taken to mean it's restricted to Expansion Ladder only, or unrestricted in Resurrected and RotW?
 :::::::: Or would there be two columns, Availability (or Release?) and Restrictions? [[User:Onderduiker|Onderduiker]] ([[User talk:Onderduiker|talk]]) 08:52, 7 March 2026 (EST)
 ::::: I've made some changes to the sample Ladder table above, eliminating redundancy and removing the Item 4 column, adjusting column widths, adding templates and using colour to differentiate between not restricted to Ladder ({{Sb|=No}}) and Mosaic's non-Ladder only ({{Warn|='''No'''}}). However, the latter seems like a temporary one-off based on what I've read, and my (perhaps permanent) prediction is most likely that they won't be able to fix the graphics issue, or they'll never get around to it. [[User:Onderduiker|Onderduiker]] ([[User talk:Onderduiker|talk]]) 19:34, 27 February 2026 (EST)

@@ Line 154: / Line 154: @@
 ::::: It think it'd be the best to be explicit. Just put "NLD" in Mosaic, and for RWs available everywhere "NLD/LD". A bit clutter, but accurate, and matches the current runes.txt pattern (with columns "disallowCraftingInLadder" and "disallowCraftingInNonLadder"). Or we can name the column "Restrictions", so it's empty for most RWs but Mosaic (NLD) and Bulwark, Cure, ... (LD).  [[User:Trang Oul|Trang Oul]] ([[User talk:Trang Oul|talk]]) 00:38, 25 February 2026 (EST)
-::::: {|border=1 cellpadding=2 rules=all style="empty-cells:show; font-size:90%; text-align:center" class="wikitable sortable" width=50%
+::::: {|border=1 cellpadding=2 rules=all style="empty-cells:show; font-size:90%; text-align:center" class="wikitable sortable"
 |-valign=top
 !align=left width=20%| Rune Word
@@ Line 162: / Line 162: @@
 !width=20%| Availability
 |-
-|align=left| {{Ub|=The Stone of Jordan}}<br/>(not an RW, just to illustrate CL item)
+|align=left| {{Ub|=The Stone of Jordan}}<br/>(not RW, but Classic item)
 |align=left| {{D2-inline}} 1.07 (?)
 | N/A </span>
@@ Line 210: / Line 210: @@
 ::::::: I've added yet another proposal. Feel free to review/comment. :)
 ::::: I've made some changes to the sample Ladder table above, eliminating redundancy and removing the Item 4 column, adjusting column widths, adding templates and using colour to differentiate between not restricted to Ladder ({{Sb|=No}}) and Mosaic's non-Ladder only ({{Warn|='''No'''}}). However, the latter seems like a temporary one-off based on what I've read, and my (perhaps permanent) prediction is most likely that they won't be able to fix the graphics issue, or they'll never get around to it. [[User:Onderduiker|Onderduiker]] ([[User talk:Onderduiker|talk]]) 19:34, 27 February 2026 (EST)

@@ Line 156: / Line 156: @@
 ::::: {|border=1 cellpadding=2 rules=all style="empty-cells:show; font-size:90%; text-align:center" class="wikitable sortable" width=50%
 |-valign=top
-!align=left width=33%| Rune Word
+!align=left width=20%| Rune Word
-!align=left width=33%| [[Patch]]
+!align=left width=20%| [[Patch]]
-!width=33%| Restrictions
+!width=20%| Restrictions - RWs only
 |-
 |align=left| {{Ub|=Ancients' Pledge}}
 |align=left| {{D2LoD-inline}} 1.07 (1.09 SP)
 | {{E}}<span style=color:white>1)</span>
 |-
 |align=left| {{Ub|=Insight}}
 |align=left| {{D2LoD-inline}} 1.10 {{D2R-inline}} 2.4
 | {{D2LoD-inline}}{{LD-inline}}
 |- bgcolor=#faf0be
 |align=left| {{Ub|=Pattern}}
 |align=left| {{D2R-inline}} 2.6
 | {{D2R-inline}}
 |- bgcolor=faf0be
 |align=left| {{Ub|=Bulwark}}
 |align=left| {{D2R-inline}} 2.6
 | {{D2R-inline}}{{LD-inline}}
 |- bgcolor=faf0be
 |align=left| {{Ub|=Mosaic}}
 |align=left| {{D2R-inline}} 2.6
 | {{D2R-inline}} {{NLD-inline}}
 |- bgcolor=#f4bbff
 |align=left| {{Ub|=Authority}}
 |align=left| {{D2R-inline}} {{RotW-inline}} 3.0
 | {{RotW-inline}}
 |}
-::::: 1) There could be LoD here, but on the RW page it's implicit because there are no runes in Classic. OTOH, in other contexts, like [[Fire Damage]], Expansion should be indicated.
+::::: 1) There could be D2 here, but on the RW page it's implicit because there are no runes in Classic. OTOH, in other contexts, like [[Fire Damage]], Expansion should be indicated.
 :::::: Changing the Ladder column to Restrictions may be a good idea, particularly for those pages listing sources for modifiers: instead of adding icons after item names to indicate whether they were introduced in Lord of Destruction, Resurrected or Reign of the Warlock, these icons could be added to the Restrictions column, and that column could then include any other restrictions. [[User:Onderduiker|Onderduiker]] ([[User talk:Onderduiker|talk]]) 19:34, 27 February 2026 (EST)
 ::::: I've made some changes to the sample Ladder table above, eliminating redundancy and removing the Item 4 column, adjusting column widths, adding templates and using colour to differentiate between not restricted to Ladder ({{Sb|=No}}) and Mosaic's non-Ladder only ({{Warn|='''No'''}}). However, the latter seems like a temporary one-off based on what I've read, and my (perhaps permanent) prediction is most likely that they won't be able to fix the graphics issue, or they'll never get around to it. [[User:Onderduiker|Onderduiker]] ([[User talk:Onderduiker|talk]]) 19:34, 27 February 2026 (EST)

@@ Line 92: / Line 92: @@
 |align=left| {{Ub|=Bulwark}}
 |align=left| [[File:D2R icon.png|Diablo II: Resurrected]] 2.6
-| [[File:D2R icon.png|Diablo II: Resurrected]]
+| {{D2R-inline}}
 |align=left| Helm
 | {{E}} || {{E}} || {{E}}
@@ Line 149: / Line 149: @@
 ::: The Ladder, Sockets and Min Rlvl columns are wider than they need to be, so widths could be reduced if other columns needed more space. [[User:Onderduiker|Onderduiker]] ([[User talk:Onderduiker|talk]]) 17:40, 23 February 2026 (EST)
 ::IMO the suggested table looks nice. One thing I'd change: The ladder info for mosaic. "no" indicates in all other cases that it is both NL and L, so that it would be misleading since in this special case it means it's NL but not L. [[User:Naturelover|Naturelover]] ([[User talk:Naturelover|talk]]) 15:32, 24 February 2026 (EST)