Fate is about summoning magical stuff to help you, Goetia is a summon that decided to burn everything down instead.Nega Summon, no idea. The name probably to contrast with Solomon's EX-ranked summoning skill, but why it does what it does, dunno.
Fate is about summoning magical stuff to help you, Goetia is a summon that decided to burn everything down instead.Nega Summon, no idea. The name probably to contrast with Solomon's EX-ranked summoning skill, but why it does what it does, dunno.
IIRC Mats IV specified that it only protects from Man and Star Servants.
Beyond what @Squirtodyle already stated:
Given this phrasing, it's likely that Tiamat wouldn't possess resistance against the Noble Phantasms of the Lostbelt Servants.In-Game Material said:現在の進化論、地球創世の予測をことごとく覆す概念結界。
A Conceptual Bounded Field that altogether invalidates the evolutionary theory of modernity, and forecasts of the Genesis of the Earth.
これをおびたビーストⅡは、
Beast II, by which such is borne,
正しい人類史から生まれたサーヴァントたちの宝具に強い耐性を獲得する。
is so endowed with a formidable resistance against the Noble Phantasms of those Servants birthed of the proper History of Man.
On the other hand, it's possible that his wishing to become a human was one of the conditions that made the Incineration possible -- which is why his Clairvoyance only reported the possibility of a calamity when he made his wish.
It's possible that there was more than one trigger, and more than one condition requisite to set the stage. For example, Goetia fully intended for Chaldea to exist in some capacity; and Flauros even put in the effort to plant subroutines within Chaldea's systems so as to track down and eliminate Demon Pillars that betrayed the cause of the collective.As I remember it, the incineration was a chain reaction starting backwards from 2016, with Lev (the final Pillar) as a trigger. I've also heard Lev managed to find a way to kill himself in Cases.
It's possible that there was more than one trigger, and more than one condition requisite to set the stage. For example, Goetia fully intended for Chaldea to exist in some capacity; and Flauros even put in the effort to plant subroutines within Chaldea's systems so as to track down and eliminate Demon Pillars that betrayed the cause of the collective.
My interpretation:Unrelatedly:
Meanwhile, Goetia is ... the negative image of a summon? The Skill entails the negation of all Noble Phantasms, with one exception.
- Tiamat, who possesses Nega-Genesis, can be described as the negative image of a Genesis. The Skill entails the negation of Noble Phantasms birthed of the 'canonical' course of human history.
- Kiara, who possesses Nega-Saver, can be described as the negative image of a Saver. The Skill entails, among other things, the negation of Skills belonging to Servants of the Saver and Ruler classes.
- Beast VI, who possesses Nega-Messiah, is presumably the negative image of a Messiah (though I'm not sure how that would differ from being a negative image of a Saver) ...
Given that Goetia happens to exist in a world that came of or was premised upon Solomon's wish, it's also possible that he himself isn't intimately familiar with all of the conditions necessary to set his stage. Grand Order Material gives that he possesses Clairvoyance EX because it was a feature inherent to the flesh of Solomon, which he now possesses; but that doesn't necessarily give that he saw or can see absolutely everything.This isn't the first time I saw someone suggesting Roman's wish was a requirement to Goetia's plan, but I felt it clashed with Goetia's utter bewilderment at learning of Roman's wish. Heck, he was surprised Solomon had a wish at all (and so was Solomon, at the time).
Shiki can kill gasoline prices ;pI had a dream where Hank Hill was a father figure to Shiki.
"Death Eye's of perception I tell you what"
Why are you telling me something I already know? lol.Invisible Air is a wind magic Arturia herself learned to conceal Excalibur, it's not something inherent to the sword.
That's the thing, Shirou says it is still invisible.Saber Alter choosing to not hide her sword is part of her personality.
I mean, the definition—eyes that don't just passively gather information on environs but change it—interacts weirdly with something that gathers information and tells Musashi how to corner her enemy. Seems more like a Pure Eyes thing, but narrowing the future to one possibility even when fighting Kojirō who can create them sounds like active intervention. (Well, not like she can cut them all off as seen in their endless stalemate.)
Isn't that part of education, though? At the very least, I recall having to learn such in biographical information on authors. This would corroborate my memories:
Thought this was fairly widespread, at least enough to make you Google the answer.
Q: Were Shakespeare's plays written with children as their intended audience?
A: No.
Q: Can the general content of random dialogue in a Shakespeare play be understood by children?
A: No.
Q: What is necessary to introduce Shakespeare's writing to young children, by today's standards?
A: You would need to sanitize the content, and remove any questionable bits, or bits that children can't understand.
Q: Is sanitized Shakespeare the same thing as Shakespeare?
A: No.
Sample dialogue:
sack = a Spanish white wine
capons = castrated male chickens, favored as food; possibly slang
bawds = matrons who run brothels; older prostitutes
leaping-houses = brothels
a fair hot wench = "fair" is light of skin; "hot" might be as in "in heat"
taffeta = a silk fabric, favored by prostitutes
seven stars = the Pleiades
Phoebus = Apollo
wandering knight so fair = knight errant; though "so fair" might be in reference to Henry calling the sun a "fair hot wench"
wag = a rogue; or a young man prone to roguish humor
For comparison, a SparksNotes rendition of the above to modern text:
Anyone who tells you that this sort of language can be presented as-is to the comprehension of young children is blind or willfully lying.
But this is way off-topic.
It's irrelevant, because those are the three writers that Nasu feels to be "the Three Great Children's Writers." This is simply Word of God.
Q: Were Shakespeare's plays written with children as their intended audience?
A: No.
Q: Can the general content of random dialogue in a Shakespeare play be understood by children?
A: No.
Q: What is necessary to introduce Shakespeare's writing to young children, by today's standards?
A: You would need to sanitize the content, and remove any questionable bits, or bits that children can't understand.
Q: Is sanitized Shakespeare the same thing as Shakespeare?
A: No.
Fair enough. I can see why some could view Shakespeare as not child friendly. That's definitely a valid and correct viewpoint.Anyone who tells you that this sort of language can be presented as-is to the comprehension of young children is blind or willfully lying.
A: You would need to sanitize the content, and remove any questionable bits, or bits that children can't understand.
Q: Were Shakespeare's plays written with children as their intended audience?
A: No.
That's strange, because I've heard at least two professors of literature say that they're considered that trio. Both of them tend to teach official material (or what is recognized as correct by legislative bodies) rather than do their own thing.I did Google '3 Great Writers' and '3 Great Children's Authors' but found no result. What search terms did you use?
Pook Press considers him as high, though they're a more niche publisher and focused mainly on what they consider 'English relevant fables'.
History of Literature the group however doesn't consider Aesop or Grimm, but instead calls 'the greats' of children focused literature Hans, Seuss, Dickens, Carroll.
I'm sure if you can look hard enough you can find various different groupings different publishers and organizations consider the greats.
There's lots of different publishers and groups of various sizes, many with similar and very different opinions.
The fables collected by the brothers were partially cautionary tales for children and partially the history, folklore, and identity of the people. There was controversy over such dark stories being included among those for children, but they did caution parents to steer their children toward the friendlier stories (inasmuch that applies to cautionary tales). So to speak, the stories the children were allowed to read depended on their caretakers' opinion on their maturity.Fair enough. I can see why some could view Shakespeare as not child friendly. That's definitely a valid and correct viewpoint.
Though I feel as if it isn't as if there is some widespread consensus on the idea, or that other views are invalid or not correct. From a quick search I found various different opinions.
Though the British Department of Education and Culture did pass some suggestions a few years ago to teach elementary and even primary students Shakespeare's original text. It wasn't a forced mandate, but rather a strong suggestion. At least some seem to feel its suitable for children, or at least it seems subjective enough for some. There's also intermediate views that are mentioned less as well, but I feel those are also valid views as well.
The language is hard, but that's mostly because its outdated.
A lot of it is old slang and grammar construction. Similarly, Grimm fables that they collected did have outdated vocabulary as well, old slang, regional slang, as well as much darker scenes. Many of the stories Grimm collected would not be considered child friendly or for children by many people these days, due to subject material and difficulty of reading old text that many might have. The German text is rather difficult to deal with at times.
Most modern versions of the fables are heavily modified and update to be more comprehensible to people using modern English, modern slang, and others. As well as much lighter or shorter plot summaries. Like a Disney version of a story. There are various adaptations of this in modern media, of Grimm, Shakespeare and others. Children's picture books, animation, audio books, play sets and others.
Though even the original text, if it isn't understood by children entirely, can still get the overall point from a basic read, even without the more modernized 'translation'.
You really should stop asking questions if you know the answers ;p
You're going more and more off-topic, and this isn't content relevant to the subject of this thread. Nasu laid out the Word of God who the Three Authors are within the context of his writing; and Shakespeare is not amongst them.What is 'child friendly' is definitely very subjective though, and depends on culture, time period, and individuals.
You're going more and more off-topic, and this isn't content relevant to the subject of this thread. Nasu laid out the Word of God who the Three Authors are within the context of his writing; and Shakespeare is not amongst them.
That's strange, because I've heard at least two professors of literature say that they're considered that trio. Both of them tend to teach official material (or what is recognized as correct by legislative bodies) rather than do their own thing.
Anyway, not like the information matters much. Certainly not hundreds of words of debate.
The fables collected by the brothers were partially cautionary tales for children and partially the history, folklore, and identity of the people. There was controversy over such dark stories being included among those for children, but they did caution parents to steer their children toward the friendlier stories (inasmuch that applies to cautionary tales). So to speak, the stories the children were allowed to read depended on their caretakers' opinion on their maturity.
I have never heard those figures grouped together specially, at least not apart from others.That's strange, because I've heard at least two professors of literature say that they're considered that trio. Both of them tend to teach official material (or what is recognized as correct by legislative bodies) rather than do their own thing.
Anyway, not like the information matters much. Certainly not hundreds of words of debate.
The fables collected by the brothers were partially cautionary tales for children and partially the history, folklore, and identity of the people. There was controversy over such dark stories being included among those for children, but they did caution parents to steer their children toward the friendlier stories (inasmuch that applies to cautionary tales). So to speak, the stories the children were allowed to read depended on their caretakers' opinion on their maturity.
Aesop, Grimm and Andersen IIRC are all fundamentally fairytale 'authors', which have grown an association with children. Meanwhile, Shakespeare is a playwright whos plays weren't intended for children, and in general haven't become associated as children's tales. Therefore Shakespeare doesn't make sense as one of the "Three great childrens writers".
Alexandre Dumas in Strange Fake.
Wait what? Really? Then I don't remember that scene correctly anymore.
Mystic Eyes of "That's My Purse, I Don't Know You!"
Screenshot sauce would help refresh everyone's memories I'm sure.Wait what? Really? Then I don't remember that scene correctly anymore.
No, not really.And I agree that he's less associated as child focused by most people currently.
My point was that at least a few think he's child friendly enough.
Reread my question properly, jackass. I didn't ask why Saber's sword is invisible, I asked if Alter's still is, because it can be clearly seen in the sprites and CGs, despite the fact that Shirou once said it was invisible.You really should stop asking questions if you know the answers ;p
Wait what? Really? Then I don't remember that scene correctly anymore.
―――My attack's parried.
Ignoring it, I swing the yin-sword Bakuya.
But it does no good.
Saber wards off my attacks harmlessly, and her invisible sword lunges to pierce my throat――――!
Saber Alter's sword isn't invisible right? Because I'm rereading Sparks Liner High and Shirou says it is, lol.
So, what was the point of asking the question in the first place?I didn't ask why Saber's sword is invisible, I asked if Alter's still is, because it can be clearly seen in the sprites and CGs, despite the fact that Shirou once said it was invisible.