Posted by Rune(VIP) on May 16, 2000 at 15:05:17:
In Reply to: A bug with Flurry? posted by Confused and Abused on May 16, 2000 at 10:12:56:
If you read the log a bit more careful, you will see, that Ioanis is actually wielding one mace at the time he tries that flurry. Now, it is a bit confusing, that the mud says you must dual wield two swords to flurry, if you try when you can't, but facts are this: You can flurry both with one sword in your primary hand and with swords dual wielded. With one sword you will make up to 4 attacks and with two up to 8. Haste has no bearing on this whatsoever.
In the Aradan log Minalcar has obviously wielded two swords after he was withered, since he is using 2 different types of attack and not only one.
> Now something struck me as odd while reading the log board. In a fight I myself had I boneshattered a warrior which caused him to lose his dual sword. The very next round he flurries (I can post the log later). I figured it was something that could just be done since certain spirits can flurry using one sword. But then I saw this log:
>
> Ioanis vs Muskul
>
> 630hp 366m 741mv flurry
> 630hp 366m 741mv You must dual wield two swords to flurry.
> Muskul has some small but disgusting cuts
>
>
> And then this one:
>
> Minaclar vs Aradan
>
> "Oh. Also. He was withered and lost his Armageddon.
> Yeow."
>
> Someone starts a vicious series of attacks with its swords.
> You manage to partially parry its attack, but are still hit
>
>
> So which is suppose to be right? Can you flurry with only one sword? Is the part in Ioanis' log just a typo/bug or what? Thanks.