I know that some GM's have been a lot more open about sharing the amount of weighting/padding on items recently, directly stating the numerical value in most cases, so would it be possible to get the entire list published with numerical values and the corresponding descriptor?

The list on Krakiipedia isn't accurate based on the numerical value I was told my weapon was at after the last CCF run and what it assesses at. Just curious if it's possible to officially release those values?

-Richard/Fjalar.

Here is the list again:

In order of descending magnitude:
wondrous
incredible
fantastic <-- standard claidhmores
phenomenal
expert
superb
masterful
exceptional
very heavy
heavy <--- standard katanas
decent
somewhat
fair
light
no padding/weighting <-- This is the baseline
slightly diminished
somewhat diminished
noticeably diminished
substantially diminished

Whoops! My bad; good catch, Richard!

The list on krakiipedia (http://www.krakiipedia.org/wiki/Critical_weighting) seems to match everything I have...from somewhat (5 points), heavy (10 points), to exceptional (15 points), masterful (20 points), expert (30 points) and fantastic (40 points). Those are from personal experience with services rendered before, during and after the many events I attended last year. Keep in mind, banes are not picked up by the ASSESS system, so you won't get an additional gain on your read from those.

As the initial post said, the Krakii article is NOT accurate. The number I was quoted on my hammer after the last CCF would put my hammer in the Masterful range, but it assesses as superbly. I confirmed with Wyrom at the time that the number and value were correct as they did not match up with what I had expected. It would have fallen into the VHCW category according to Krakiipedia before CCF as well when it was exceptional.

-Richard/Fjalar.

My apologies, though the numbers and descriptors I post are still accurate today even if the ranges on krakiipedia are incorrect.

I don't do math's, I'm a physics teacher, Wyrom!"