Talk:Swords of Eden - Revision history

imported>Lacrossedeamon: /* Sword of Axon */

2019-02-04T05:31:16Z

Sword of Axon

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:31, 4 February 2019
Line 72:		Line 72:
	In the Parthenon shrine, I found the sword of Axon, which really look a like a sword of Eden. Can we considered it as one of them?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 22:41, February 3, 2019 (UTC)		In the Parthenon shrine, I found the sword of Axon, which really look a like a sword of Eden. Can we considered it as one of them?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 22:41, February 3, 2019 (UTC)
	:I don't think we could categorise it as such unless there's some sort of confirmation by the Essential Guide. Either way, there's alot of "out of ordinary" weapons in Odyssey anyway but none are PoEs or SoEs. [[User:XOdeyssusx\|XOdeyssusx]] ([[User talk:XOdeyssusx\|talk]]) 02:00, February 4, 2019 (UTC)		:I don't think we could categorise it as such unless there's some sort of confirmation by the Essential Guide. Either way, there's alot of "out of ordinary" weapons in Odyssey anyway but none are PoEs or SoEs. [[User:XOdeyssusx\|XOdeyssusx]] ([[User talk:XOdeyssusx\|talk]]) 02:00, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

			:Yeah that's also gunna be a "no" from me, dawg. It's just a reskin of the regular Obsidian Sword which in turn is a reskin of Origin's Tempest Blade. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 05:31, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

imported>Lady Kyashira at 02:00, 4 February 2019

2019-02-04T02:00:05Z

Show changes

imported>Francesco75 at 22:41, 3 February 2019

2019-02-03T22:41:28Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 00:41, 4 February 2019
Line 85:	Line 85:



		==Sword of Axon==
		In the Parthenon shrine, I found the sword of Axon, which really look a like a sword of Eden. Can we considered it as one of them?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 22:41, February 3, 2019 (UTC)

imported>Master Sima Yi: Master Sima Yi moved page Talk:Sword of Eden to Talk:Swords of Eden over redirect: No informative purpose to moving these artifact articles to singular.

2018-10-07T12:30:21Z

Master Sima Yi moved page Talk:Sword of Eden to Talk:Swords of Eden over redirect: No informative purpose to moving these artifact articles to singular.

← Older revision	Revision as of 14:30, 7 October 2018
(No difference)

imported>Sol Pacificus: Sol Pacificus moved page Talk:Swords of Eden to Talk:Sword of Eden over redirect: Grammar. Long overdue. There's no need to disambiguate here, and disambiguating by pluralizing is improper anyways.

2018-07-22T23:10:08Z

Sol Pacificus moved page Talk:Swords of Eden to Talk:Sword of Eden over redirect: Grammar. Long overdue. There's no need to disambiguate here, and disambiguating by pluralizing is improper anyways.

← Older revision	Revision as of 01:10, 23 July 2018
(No difference)

imported>Miracle guy at 00:10, 12 September 2017

2017-09-12T00:10:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:10, 12 September 2017
Line 77:		Line 77:

	:We are uncertain of how Pieces of Eden work outside of the fact that they require some amount of [[First Civilization]] DNA to wield well enough, such as by a [[Sage]]. Therefore, we can't be certain. That said, I doubt it had to do with him being a Sage being able to use the lightning, as the nameless Templar in the opening, who is never outright stated to be a Sage and did not appear to have that amount of DNA (especially since he gave zero indication of being a part of the [[Instruments of the First Will]] unlike Germain, Roberts, and Standish), was able to use it to project lightning against [[Thomas de Carneillon]]. We don't know what can break a Piece of Eden beyond functionality, especially in light of how only a shard of a [[Staff of Eden]] was able to control minds and give powers to those who used it in [[Nikolai Orelov]]'s story. It's entirely likely that Arno simply did not know how to do that.[[User:GZilla311\|GZilla311]] ([[User talk:GZilla311\|talk]]) 19:43, November 15, 2014 (UTC)		:We are uncertain of how Pieces of Eden work outside of the fact that they require some amount of [[First Civilization]] DNA to wield well enough, such as by a [[Sage]]. Therefore, we can't be certain. That said, I doubt it had to do with him being a Sage being able to use the lightning, as the nameless Templar in the opening, who is never outright stated to be a Sage and did not appear to have that amount of DNA (especially since he gave zero indication of being a part of the [[Instruments of the First Will]] unlike Germain, Roberts, and Standish), was able to use it to project lightning against [[Thomas de Carneillon]]. We don't know what can break a Piece of Eden beyond functionality, especially in light of how only a shard of a [[Staff of Eden]] was able to control minds and give powers to those who used it in [[Nikolai Orelov]]'s story. It's entirely likely that Arno simply did not know how to do that.[[User:GZilla311\|GZilla311]] ([[User talk:GZilla311\|talk]]) 19:43, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

			==Assassin's Creed: Memories==
			[[File:ACM_Genghis_Khan_1.png\|thumb\|350px\|Genghis Khan.]]

			AC: Memories shows two characters owning a Sword of Eden across different centuries and places: [[Genghis Khan]] and [[Takeda Shingen]]. There is no more data that could suggest that they are the same artifact? '''[[User:Miracle guy\|Miracle guy]] ([[User talk:Miracle guy\|talk]]) 00:10, September 12, 2017 (UTC)'''

imported>GZilla311 at 19:43, 15 November 2014

2014-11-15T19:43:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 15 November 2014
Line 54:		Line 54:
	It makes the most sense (the Sword builds great conquerors), but nowhere is it implied Genghis had the Sword. It's probably best he be removed from this article for the time being. [[User:Vaxis7\|Vaxis7]] 16:03, March 24, 2011 (UTC)		It makes the most sense (the Sword builds great conquerors), but nowhere is it implied Genghis had the Sword. It's probably best he be removed from this article for the time being. [[User:Vaxis7\|Vaxis7]] 16:03, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

	Technically it is implied, but not confirmed. I'd say it's fine to keep as long as the article is clear on it not being confirmed.[[Special:Contributions/70.70.13.203\|70.70.13.203]] 06:51, July 12, 2011 (UTC)		Technically it is implied, but not confirmed. I'd say it's fine to keep as long as the article is clear on it not being confirmed.[[Special:Contributions/70.70.13.203\|70.70.13.203]] 06:51, July 12, 2011 (UTC)

	== Multiple ownership? ==		== Multiple ownership? ==
Line 75:		Line 75:

	Is the sword Arno has broken because it not longer emits lightning? Or is it inaccesebile to him as he does not have the same ratio of first civilization DNA? Not counting the knowledge of first civilization artifacts that sages have been known to display.--FossilLord 07:50, November 15, 2014 (UTC)		Is the sword Arno has broken because it not longer emits lightning? Or is it inaccesebile to him as he does not have the same ratio of first civilization DNA? Not counting the knowledge of first civilization artifacts that sages have been known to display.--FossilLord 07:50, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

			:We are uncertain of how Pieces of Eden work outside of the fact that they require some amount of [[First Civilization]] DNA to wield well enough, such as by a [[Sage]]. Therefore, we can't be certain. That said, I doubt it had to do with him being a Sage being able to use the lightning, as the nameless Templar in the opening, who is never outright stated to be a Sage and did not appear to have that amount of DNA (especially since he gave zero indication of being a part of the [[Instruments of the First Will]] unlike Germain, Roberts, and Standish), was able to use it to project lightning against [[Thomas de Carneillon]]. We don't know what can break a Piece of Eden beyond functionality, especially in light of how only a shard of a [[Staff of Eden]] was able to control minds and give powers to those who used it in [[Nikolai Orelov]]'s story. It's entirely likely that Arno simply did not know how to do that.[[User:GZilla311\|GZilla311]] ([[User talk:GZilla311\|talk]]) 19:43, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

imported>FossilLord: /* broken or inaccessible */ new section

2014-11-15T07:50:34Z

broken or inaccessible: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:50, 15 November 2014
Line 71:		Line 71:

	I have read the article and references, and here it is A LOT of content that it is not stablished as canon. Why do you describe all that (in certain way "imaginary") story about the swords of the eden? Most of their references are just "Assassin's Creed II", and I pressume it's from the glyph about "Piece of Eden 25 - Sword". Ok, in the article says "<span style="color:rgb(255,255,255);">In the late 5th to early 6th century, </span>[http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Arthur Arthur]<span style="color:rgb(255,255,255);"> pulled a Sword of Eden out of a stone, nicknamed it Excalibur, and used it to become King of </span>[http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/United_Kingdom Britain]<span style="color:rgb(255,255,255);">.</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-AC2_0-2" style="color:rgb(255,255,255);">[http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Swords_of_Eden#cite_note-AC2-0 [1]]"</sup>. Really? First of all, it would be "In the late 2nd to mid 3rd century" when Lucius Artorius Castus lived at, but doesn't really matter. Second, we actually DO NOT know that! We just see a picture! It's an illustration by Walter Crane done in 19th century! That picture doesn't mean that "Arthur pulled a Sword of Eden out of a stone", is just a representative painting that Subject 16 is using for telling us "Hey man, do you know that guy in the picture pulling a sword out of a stone? yeah, King Arthur, you got it. Well... THAT guy had got a Sword of Eden. Great, huh?". But that doesn't mean that Arthur actually got it pulling it out from a stone... Can you imagine that? People around seeing a high-tech sword that seems like everything but a conventional sword, and nobody try to get it. And, like another guy said before, Excalibur was not pulled out from a stone. The same happens with the story about Attila and Joan of Arc. This article should contain just the info we actually know and the pictures from the Glyphs. Sorry for my english! [[User:Phonon\|Phonon]] ([[User talk:Phonon\|talk]]) 13:00, April 18, 2013 (UTC)Phonon		I have read the article and references, and here it is A LOT of content that it is not stablished as canon. Why do you describe all that (in certain way "imaginary") story about the swords of the eden? Most of their references are just "Assassin's Creed II", and I pressume it's from the glyph about "Piece of Eden 25 - Sword". Ok, in the article says "<span style="color:rgb(255,255,255);">In the late 5th to early 6th century, </span>[http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Arthur Arthur]<span style="color:rgb(255,255,255);"> pulled a Sword of Eden out of a stone, nicknamed it Excalibur, and used it to become King of </span>[http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/United_Kingdom Britain]<span style="color:rgb(255,255,255);">.</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-AC2_0-2" style="color:rgb(255,255,255);">[http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Swords_of_Eden#cite_note-AC2-0 [1]]"</sup>. Really? First of all, it would be "In the late 2nd to mid 3rd century" when Lucius Artorius Castus lived at, but doesn't really matter. Second, we actually DO NOT know that! We just see a picture! It's an illustration by Walter Crane done in 19th century! That picture doesn't mean that "Arthur pulled a Sword of Eden out of a stone", is just a representative painting that Subject 16 is using for telling us "Hey man, do you know that guy in the picture pulling a sword out of a stone? yeah, King Arthur, you got it. Well... THAT guy had got a Sword of Eden. Great, huh?". But that doesn't mean that Arthur actually got it pulling it out from a stone... Can you imagine that? People around seeing a high-tech sword that seems like everything but a conventional sword, and nobody try to get it. And, like another guy said before, Excalibur was not pulled out from a stone. The same happens with the story about Attila and Joan of Arc. This article should contain just the info we actually know and the pictures from the Glyphs. Sorry for my english! [[User:Phonon\|Phonon]] ([[User talk:Phonon\|talk]]) 13:00, April 18, 2013 (UTC)Phonon

			== broken or inaccessible ==

			Is the sword Arno has broken because it not longer emits lightning? Or is it inaccesebile to him as he does not have the same ratio of first civilization DNA? Not counting the knowledge of first civilization artifacts that sages have been known to display.--FossilLord 07:50, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

imported>Phonon: /* References */ new section

2013-04-18T13:00:09Z

References: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:00, 18 April 2013
Line 67:		Line 67:

	I know that full well. I am simply saying it for the sake of erudition. I also agree it should not be edited but I think it a neat thing to know anyways [[Special:Contributions/198.163.150.6\|198.163.150.6]] 13:16, January 9, 2012 (UTC)		I know that full well. I am simply saying it for the sake of erudition. I also agree it should not be edited but I think it a neat thing to know anyways [[Special:Contributions/198.163.150.6\|198.163.150.6]] 13:16, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

			== References ==

			I have read the article and references, and here it is A LOT of content that it is not stablished as canon. Why do you describe all that (in certain way "imaginary") story about the swords of the eden? Most of their references are just "Assassin's Creed II", and I pressume it's from the glyph about "Piece of Eden 25 - Sword". Ok, in the article says "<span style="color:rgb(255,255,255);">In the late 5th to early 6th century, </span>[http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Arthur Arthur]<span style="color:rgb(255,255,255);"> pulled a Sword of Eden out of a stone, nicknamed it Excalibur, and used it to become King of </span>[http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/United_Kingdom Britain]<span style="color:rgb(255,255,255);">.</span><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-AC2_0-2" style="color:rgb(255,255,255);">[http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Swords_of_Eden#cite_note-AC2-0 [1]]"</sup>. Really? First of all, it would be "In the late 2nd to mid 3rd century" when Lucius Artorius Castus lived at, but doesn't really matter. Second, we actually DO NOT know that! We just see a picture! It's an illustration by Walter Crane done in 19th century! That picture doesn't mean that "Arthur pulled a Sword of Eden out of a stone", is just a representative painting that Subject 16 is using for telling us "Hey man, do you know that guy in the picture pulling a sword out of a stone? yeah, King Arthur, you got it. Well... THAT guy had got a Sword of Eden. Great, huh?". But that doesn't mean that Arthur actually got it pulling it out from a stone... Can you imagine that? People around seeing a high-tech sword that seems like everything but a conventional sword, and nobody try to get it. And, like another guy said before, Excalibur was not pulled out from a stone. The same happens with the story about Attila and Joan of Arc. This article should contain just the info we actually know and the pictures from the Glyphs. Sorry for my english! [[User:Phonon\|Phonon]] ([[User talk:Phonon\|talk]]) 13:00, April 18, 2013 (UTC)Phonon

imported>The-Master Assassin2015: /* Why would such an advanced civilization would have a sword when it can have more advanced weaponry? */

2012-08-01T15:40:27Z

Why would such an advanced civilization would have a sword when it can have more advanced weaponry?

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:40, 1 August 2012
Line 35:		Line 35:

	The First Civilization ''is'' implied to also have had more advanced weapons than swords. If you pay close attention to the projection emitted from Ezio's Apple in AC2 when he accidentally activated it, you can see the silhouettes of, among other items I don't quite recall, both a modern main battle tank and a C-130 Hercules cargo plane. If they had tanks and planes, it's a plausible assumption that they had firearms or some equivalent since, even today, a firearm is far less technologically advanced. And besides all that, we don't know anything about what weapons the war between humans and the First Civilization was fought with, just that it happened. [[User:Ghost Leader\|Ghost Leader]] ([[User talk:Ghost Leader\|talk]]) 15:24, August 1, 2012 (UTC)		The First Civilization ''is'' implied to also have had more advanced weapons than swords. If you pay close attention to the projection emitted from Ezio's Apple in AC2 when he accidentally activated it, you can see the silhouettes of, among other items I don't quite recall, both a modern main battle tank and a C-130 Hercules cargo plane. If they had tanks and planes, it's a plausible assumption that they had firearms or some equivalent since, even today, a firearm is far less technologically advanced. And besides all that, we don't know anything about what weapons the war between humans and the First Civilization was fought with, just that it happened. [[User:Ghost Leader\|Ghost Leader]] ([[User talk:Ghost Leader\|talk]]) 15:24, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

			Yes, but that could have just been from the future not from the first civilization. Kinda like the Altiair memory when he kills the man with the gun (sorry I forgot his name) saying "and the future." before he kills him with the hidden gun that Ezio uses. The sword was probably used as a weapon because the first civilization was focusing thier technology more on science and ways to save the planet then on war, as they say countless times.[[User:The-Master Assassin2015\|The-Master Assassin2015]] ([[User talk:The-Master Assassin2015\|talk]]) 15:40, August 1, 2012 (UTC)

	== Ghengis Khan ==		== Ghengis Khan ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:31, 4 February 2019
Line 72:		Line 72:
	In the Parthenon shrine, I found the sword of Axon, which really look a like a sword of Eden. Can we considered it as one of them?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 22:41, February 3, 2019 (UTC)		In the Parthenon shrine, I found the sword of Axon, which really look a like a sword of Eden. Can we considered it as one of them?[[User:Francesco75\|Francesco75]] ([[User talk:Francesco75\|talk]]) 22:41, February 3, 2019 (UTC)
	:I don't think we could categorise it as such unless there's some sort of confirmation by the Essential Guide. Either way, there's alot of "out of ordinary" weapons in Odyssey anyway but none are PoEs or SoEs. [[User:XOdeyssusx\|XOdeyssusx]] ([[User talk:XOdeyssusx\|talk]]) 02:00, February 4, 2019 (UTC)		:I don't think we could categorise it as such unless there's some sort of confirmation by the Essential Guide. Either way, there's alot of "out of ordinary" weapons in Odyssey anyway but none are PoEs or SoEs. [[User:XOdeyssusx\|XOdeyssusx]] ([[User talk:XOdeyssusx\|talk]]) 02:00, February 4, 2019 (UTC)

			:Yeah that's also gunna be a "no" from me, dawg. It's just a reskin of the regular Obsidian Sword which in turn is a reskin of Origin's Tempest Blade. [[User:Lacrossedeamon\|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon\|talk]]) 05:31, February 4, 2019 (UTC)