Talk:Anvil mechanics

The trivia section says that you can repair or rename an item even after the prior to work penalty is maximized and explains how to do it. Would this work in survival mode?71.35.186.79 19:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Anomie x (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am bit confused..... 180.190.55.183 23:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Right now in the table it looks like there's no information about crossbow's in the "Enchantment cost multipliers" section. Any idea on where to find this information? El vandragon (talk) 19:44, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This section mentions that the prior work penalty is only happens in any anvil but, any confirmations that enchantments done before in an enchantment table does count for that penalty?

The information presented in the section currently not only contains conflicting information, but gets some of it outright incorrect. The levels required due to penalty is described as simply adding the items used together, but a quick check in game using books shows that the cost applied is clearly not commutative - having the books one way or the other DOES change the cost of combining. In addition, the video presented in the section is incorrect and is based off of this missing information, in fact specifically saying that the most efficient way of combining is incorrect and giving a confusing (and also incorrect) explanation for it. The way that the resulting item inherits penalty, as listed in the article, is correct - one plus whichever item has a higher penalty equals the penalty of the resulting item. However, to reiterate, the resulting cost from the penalty when combining two items with penalty is not correct in both the video and the article. Investigation is required. 72.203.99.244 04:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Investigation still required October 10th, 2020.

There is an example of the "Minimal-cost enchantment order" of boots featured on this site. It costs a total of 68 levels. However, with a selfwritten program, I was able to find a combination with a lower total cost (66). I do not guarantee that this new solution has the lowest cost possible, but I assume it does. 👁 Image
– Unsigned comment added by Torbium (talk • contribs) at 18:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC). Sign comments with ~~~~

I just noticed the same thing. My own self-written program gives the same lower total cost (66), although the solution isn't unique. For example, you could swap Protection IV and Feather Falling IV and/or Soul Speed III and Thorns III. OTOH, that gives a final PWP of 15, versus 7 for the one in the article. 68 levels does seem to be the minimum while achieving a PWP of 7. Anomie x (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add the missing multipliers from item/book for the Mace enchantments, they are unlikely to be modified before release. 212.243.217.116 06:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Please see my edit [[1]] for the section Anvil mechanics#Enchantment equation. The most straightforward reading of the formula, as it was written (without my clarifying parenthetical comment) is that the pre-combination value of the sacrificed item is to be used to determine the value portion of the cost. This interpretation is strengthened by the fact that the work penalties are based on each item's status before the combination, not after. This doesn't matter in most cases. For example, when you apply Depth Strider II to a pair of boots, the value portion of the cost of this anvil operation is 2 XP levels because the value of Depth Strider II is 2. When you combine Protection IV (target or left slot) with Depth Strider II (sacrifice or right slot), the value portion of the cost is also 2 XP levels because the value of Depth Strider II is 2. The new item has Depth Strider II and the original sacrifice also had Depth Strider II. But when you combine books with identical enchantments (thereby raising that enchantment by one level), the value cost is based on the result, not the input. For example (as I wrote in my edit), the value cost of combining a Depth Strider II book with another Depth Strider II book is NOT 4 (the value of the sacrifice) but rather 6 (the value of the result). If you have a better, more succinct way of including this critical point in the formula, let's discuss. Also, would you consider this to be an inconsistency in the mechanic? Thanks! HolyT (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The level of enchantment you use in determining costs is the final level that will be applied to the target, at least for Java; the article says to use the difference in levels for Bedrock. The equation you referenced should be written a little more clearly. Here are a couple of worked examples for Java:

Combining 2 Depth Strider II books:

Total cost = 3 (final level of DS enchantment) × 2 (multiplier for books) = 6

Combining Protection IV boots (left or target item) with Depth Strider II boots (right or sacrifice item):

Note:This assumes that the boots were each enchanted 1 time to get the starting enchantments, work penalty will be different in other scenarios

Total cost = 2 (final level of DS enchantment) × 4 (multiplier for items) + 1 (prior work penalty for target boots) + 1 (prior work penalty for sacrifice boots) = 10
Rampage455 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I understand those examples. Is my change to the equation helpful? Can it be made more succinct? Has anyone thought that this is a bit inconsistent because in most cases, the pre-combination value is what matters (which also happens to be the post-combination value added), whereas combining two enchantments of the same level incurs a charge corresponding to the higher (post-combination) level? Or does everyone intuitively and universally accept that it is consistent, because the value cost is always based on the post-combination value of any enchantment that came from the sacrifice? HolyT (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

In editing this page I'm finding that it has less info re:anvil mechanics than the main Anvil page that links here. If moved, this page's subpages would need to be moved as well (the info from the pre-1.8 one into the history section of Anvil ideally). Not sure where to continue from here. phillapple (talk) 20:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's best to move more info from Anvil here, as that page should describe the block rather than the specific mechanics. --MinecraftExp123^{(talk|contribs)} 02:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)