Talk:Pierce

Concerning the merge proposal...

Bad idea. Just because two names are associated with a similar effect does not mean they're the same skill. Anybody with that line of thinking would probably think Beastfoe and Beastbane are the same skill, same with Dragonfoe and Wyrmsbane. (According to the shady channels I've researched, all four of the skills I mentioned in the previous sentence are all distinct.) Given how Pierce and Luna have different names in every known language, I really don't see how they could be considered to be the same skill...--Shiningpikablu252 (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggested the merges based on the effects of the skill. Pierce's effect is identical to most iterations of Luna (it negates defence); therefore, it's the same skill. Intelligent Systems haven't proven themselves to be very consistent with naming in the past, so as far as I'm concerned, that's irrelevant. This is basically the same idea as Silencer vs. Lethality; if we're going to keep Pierce and Luna separate, then we should split Silencer and Lethality too. (On Wyrmsbane/Dragonfoe: yes, I can see a slight case for merging those too, though not quite as strong as Pierce/Luna.)--Moydow (Support) 02:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Silencer vs. Lethality is a different, and more convoluted, case. By your reasoning, you could make a case for Silencer in FE8 being the skill that eventually became Bane by Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn--FE8 Silencer and FE9 Lethality have the same Japanese name, whereas FE9 Lethality and FE10 Bane have the same icon basis--and by extension consider what's called Lethality today a skill introduced in Radiant Dawn and not one introduced in The Blazing Blade nameless. The fact that there's a slight difference in effect between FE9 Lethality and FE10 Bane isn't unprecedented--Pavise, ironically the only skill to appear in all six games with a defined skill system, was exclusively a nullification skill before Awakening changed it to a halving skill that only worked against certain weapon types, one more drastic than the difference between FE9 Lethality and FE10 Bane, yet there's no call to consider Awakening Pavise a different skill entirely because of this. Such naming also wouldn't be unprecedented--the aformentioned Pavise was called Great Shield in FE8 (the skill has always been called Great Shield in Japan) and Cancel in FE9, yet there's a distinctly different Cancel skill in FE10.

Furthermore, if Pierce and Luna really were intended to be considered the same skill, then at least the Japanese version wouldn't have given it a name clearly dissimilar to what Luna had both before and after Pierce's lone appearance. Now, Luna ditched the "sword" part of its Japanese name between Thracia 776 and FE9 due to FE9 assigning it to a non-sword-related class (the Halberdier; the General is primarily lance-oriented in FE9, but it can actually wield swords in that game)--yet if it was intended to be the same skill as Pierce, one would think they would have carried on Pierce's Japanese name to FE9 due to the skill becoming more lance-oriented, much like Pierce was in FE8--this in turn, however, would probably then result in Luna having not appeared since FE5.

I would think you'd have a stronger argument had Pavise been given a different Japanese name in FE8--that in turn would probably have wound up having it be considered a distinct skill, and in turn have every defined skill in FE8 having originated on the GBA and leave no skills at all having a perfect attendance in every skill-system game.

Trust me, as far as evidence goes, there's far more out there that considers Pierce and Luna different skills; until this spat came up, I don't think I ever saw any claim that Pierce and Luna were one in the same, and such a claim is quite weak given sizable two-distinct evidence. If it's possible for a skill to have sizable differences between two different appearances yet still be considered the same skill (the aformentioned Pavise fits this bill), then it's also possible for two different skills to have near-identical effects yet still be considered two distinct skills. I really don't think your claims are going to hold up--odds are the only way you'd win this argument (and the Sure Shot/Hawkeye claim as well, a claim possibly even weaker than the Pierce/Luna claim) is if somebody from Intelligent Systems themselves were to speak out in your favor...--Shiningpikablu252 (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea where you pulled Bane out of. I fail to see anything convoluted about Silencer/Lethality. Bane is a different skill - a different effect (reduce enemy to 1HP) - whereas Silencer/Lethality has had the same effect throughout all its appearances (instantly kill the enemy), regardless of what icon, name, or help text it's had. Therefore, Silencer = Lethality, but Silencer != Bane.

Pavise has retained the same basic concept of negating at least some of the attack's effect. Same with Luna, the idea of negating the enemy's defence to some extent has always been there, even when it was tripling the attacker's strength in FE10. Similarly I'd suggest splitting the two iterations of Luna (lance) - going by the "see also" links, we're not merging the Sol lance and sword, despite them having the same names, so why is this any different?

Regarding splitting Pavise on the basis of Lethality vs. Bane, I'd think there's a bigger difference between life and death than there is between the ability to attack at full or half damage (admittedly that may also be what separates an enemy living from it dying, but not many full-power attacks are going to kill in one hit anyway, unlike Lethality).

As I said before, I don't consider naming relevant, so FE10 Cancel, Japanese names, and 月光剣 don't strike me as relevant to the discussion.

Also, who's calling this a "spat"? I don't want a "spat", I want a clean, polite discussion about this. I'll admit that Hawkeye/Sure Strike is a weaker argument, as the effect isn't exactly the same (although having said the Luna/Pavise stuff earlier, they're not incongruous enough to be kept separate), but I can't say the same for this. I can see this discussion just going around in circles between us, though, so might I suggest we put this up to a vote among the community? --Moydow (Support) 00:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Support; they are functionally identical, and we do the same with identical items that have different names in both languages (Zanbato/longsword, polax/halberd, ridersbane/horseslayer to name a few). PikaSamus (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, we have precedent; FE9 Cancel (Winged Protection in Japan) being on the Pavise page. PikaSamus (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Since this my ridersbane and poleax examples are obsolete: the localized terms now overlap in Heroes and Warriors (Heroes localizing horse killer as ridersbane, and Warriors localizing poleax as halberd). The rest still stand though. PikaSamus (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)