FANDOM


  • So, I've been strolling across Fate-Pages here and I found that nearly none of the Servants is noted to have Concept anything. It is, however, noted many times that in varying terms that NPs are Crystalizations of Myths/Ideas. They symbolize the Lore of a Character, which is Concept Manipulation. Or at least a conceptual attack with NP.

    And some servants do not even exist in the first place/ were changed when their definition changed. Note here Vlad and Jack the Ripper. 

    So I would like the add "Conceptual" to Noble Phantasms, since they are very much noted to be just that. I believe it is first mentioned in F/SN when Lancer activates his NP, if that helps. 

    Would apreciate input.

      Loading editor
    • Conceptual Attack implies they can hit the concept of opponents, not just hit someone with an attack made out of an idea.

      For the rest, I don't know though.

        Loading editor
    • Hm... It has to be something along the line of Concepts, considering they pretty much swing crystalized Ideas around, or? I will try to get some of the Fate/-Gurus on board. Maybe they know more. 

        Loading editor
    • Bump's a Lot. 

        Loading editor
    • I understand that they're the crystallization of their respective legends, but not all Noble Phantasms are Conceptual Weapons.

      In addition, Conceptual Weapons in the Nasuverse don't always attack with concepts.

      For instance, Kiritsugu's Origin Bullets imprint his "Severing and Binding" Origin on his target, but they don't actually deal conceptual damage.

      The only Noble Phantasm that I know for sure deals conceptual damage js Gáe Bolg, since it's slated to be able to even kill Arcueid.

        Loading editor
    • Doesn't Vlad do conceptual damage tho? cuz he impales with the actual concept of impaling

        Loading editor
    • Weaponizing concept =/= conceptual damage

        Loading editor
    • Is conceptual erasure considered conceptual damage?

        Loading editor
    • Yes

        Loading editor
    • So Ea is conceptual damage then, right?

      Is defending with a concept considered conceptual defense?

        Loading editor
    • ... Just because it's a conceptual weapon that erases things doesn't mean it's conceptual damage.

        Loading editor
    • Promestein wrote: ... Just because it's a conceptual weapon that erases things doesn't mean it's conceptual damage.

      But Ea erases the origin of things so that would qualify for conceptual erasure

        Loading editor
    • You have scans on that? I don't remember that. That would be Conceptual Manipulation though, yeah.

        Loading editor
    • Enuma Elish (The Star of Creation That Split Heaven and Earth) Gilgamesh's final Noble Phantasm which reveals creation--the beginning of everything.
      The severing of space which comes from the Sword of Rupture, Ea, the sword crowned with the name of a god from Mesopotamian mythology.
      The god, Ea, is believed to be the quasi-deification of the power of the planet which turned, smashed, and stabilized the surface of the earth when it was still covered in gas and seas of magma, during the primordial stage of the earth.
      Many gods began building nations after the the primordial earth was stabilized into a world where living creatures could live, but Ea is a god who performed the act of building of planet before that.
      Gilgamesh's sword, which is crowned with Ea's name, changes space itself by agitating space-time through the rotation of three layers of giant power fields.
      It's true power is not something to be used against a single living creature but against the world. Even among the many Noble Phantasms possessed by Servants, it is one considered to be at the top, the sword "which tore apart the world." - Gilgamesh Matrix

      Ea Reverts things to how the were before the planet was fully formed, Destruction Before Genesis, if you will. Ea destroys by returning the world to how it was before its target was ever made, before anything way made. If an Origin is what enters The World and the basis for that things creation, then Ea reverting things to how they were before you were made would erase your origin. Make sense?

        Loading editor
    • Seems like a pretty significant assumption

        Loading editor
    • Promestein wrote:
      Seems like a pretty significant assumption

      how so?

        Loading editor
    • @Iapitus How did you equate cutting space to show the dawn of creation to erasing someone's origin?

        Loading editor
    • The way I interpritted it was creating or reverting the world via splitting and distorting space to, as Gil calls it, “the hellish planet before genesis”. Since it is calling back the world before anything was created, no origins had entered the world. Thus Erased

        Loading editor
    • Yeah that still doesn't make sense. Cutting space to show the primordial world/"truth" =/= erasing origins of things.

        Loading editor
    • Because the things caught within that primodial world are erased, via becoming that world before anything existed. Thus, if they never existed then their origin never entered the world, and would be erased

        Loading editor
    • No, you are overthinking things.

        Loading editor
    • I think it simply follows logically, but agree to disagree

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message