Talk:Sun and Moon Slash

Does this attack trigger enchantments like live vicariously and vigorous spirit twice?

Er, we aren't actually adding notes to every skill saying which campaign (or Core) they are from, right? That's what the category at the bottom of the page is for? Or does it need to be more prominent? No matter what, the note applied here seems extraneous to me, but I thought I'd ask for comments. --JoDiamonds 12:57, 8 May 2006 (CDT)

Trivia
The trivia that was added was:
 * The theme comes from Shui Hu Zhuan's "One Foot Green Snake", who uses two swords called "Sun" and "Moon".

While it may be a piece of classical Chinese literature, the reference is exceedingly obscure and there is no obvious connection to be found besides "swords." I removed it. --68.142.14.39 18:36, 10 August 2006 (CDT)


 * But Shui Hu Zhuan is of Tolkien fame in Chinese Litereture, except even more so because fantasy/adventure fiction are even rarer nowadays. There are a lot destroyed in the Cultural Revolution and all that, so this is one of the most if not the most popular fantasy story in China (I guess not really, monkeys are more adorable or something), which happens to be Asian, and one of the inspirations for factions. I personally see the relevance, and I find the trivia quite interesting. I think these little facts should be part of what "trivia" is about.--Silk Weaker 05:13, 31 October 2006 (CST)

Update
This skill makes no sense now. It might as well be called Sun and Sun Slash or Twin Sun Slash. Either way, it got buffed indirectly. --8765 19:22, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * aye, it lost its cleverness, oh well... --FireFox [[Image:firefoxav.gif]] 19:33, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * Yeah, probably in for a nerf now. --Shattered Self 20:57, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * Hmm, Twin Sun Slash...How about Sunrise and Sunset Slash? Abbreviation SSS. Hehe. Entropy 20:59, 20 January 2007 (CST)
 * With a name change, though, it loses the Chinese literature reference, as noted above. 404notfound 03:53, 22 January 2007 (CST)
 * Iron Chef: America. The steamroller advances. It's inevitable...as much as I hate it. Thankfully the weekend changes were reverted and this is no longer an issue, at least for now. Entropy 02:07, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Well, what happens now? Entropy 21:30, 1 February 2007 (CST)
 * My guess is, people get killed by this skill. :P Arshay Duskbrow 06:31, 2 February 2007 (CST)
 * You do still need to build the 8 adrenaline in the first place, however... Draxynnic 20:00, 15 February 2007 (CST)


 * this is definitely and infinitely better than hundred blades now since theres no such thing as evade anymore. this totally pwns. hundred blades sucks. Xeones


 * "Hundred Blades sucks"? Any reason why? Or just because? Skax459 18:40, 21 April 2007 (CDT)


 * Hundred Blades:
 * Has long recharge.
 * Is energy based.
 * Having more than a few foes in front of you is really rare (and trying to gather surrounding mobs in front of you may :::::cause your aggro to leak.)
 * Does not add extra damage
 * So basically Sun and Moon Slash is equal to Hundred Blades, but it isn't elite. The elite slot is reserved for more powerful and useful attacks like Dragon Slash. --Aozora [[Image:aozora.png]] 11:41, 14 July 2007 (CDT)

Adrenaline gain
How does this cause any adrenaline gain? You "spend" 25 points of adrenaline to use it and gain 50 points for a total of 25 points, the same as a normal attack would give you, making the only adrenaline gain come from its ability to ignore blocking--Devils Apprentice 15:15, 16 April 2007 (CDT)
 * Because every other adrenal attack won't give you the extra strike. --Fyren 00:12, 17 April 2007 (CDT)
 * because it will hit twice, a furious sword can give back 3 strikes of adrenaline (19% probability) or even 4 strikes (1% probability). For great justice is another way to gain a lot of adrenaline out of sun and moonUtaku Mu Dan
 * The bonus from Strength, anyone ? I love this skill --Aozora [[Image:aozora.png]] 03:11, 26 June 2007 (CDT)

Noise
I love the noise this skill makes. SFING!
 * I agree --Aozora 07:37, 11 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Signed. [[Image:ShidoSig_moebius2.gif]] 15:50, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Doesn't nigh every Sword Attack make that noise? --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG|Ohaider!]]-- (s)talkpage  15:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hitting twice might be different, but I'm not sure. If you want to hear it more, though, use Focused Anger+"FGJ!" on a Paragon primary. Or, you could use Focused Anger+Dark Fury/Mark of Fury from an ally. SPAMMEDY SPAM SPAM ــѕт.  мıкε  18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This skill needs a buff
It really does. Some extra damage wouldn't be a bad idea. Aozora 11:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Something like an additional 0-7 damage per hit would be nice, but the fact that's it's unblockable and hits twice should be enough. Try using this on a P/W with Focused Anger, and have a D/N Arcane Orders Dervish with Dark Fury and Order of Pain and an ally to cast Strength of Honor on you. You'll be able to spam it on every hit, and you'll probably deal as much, if not more, damage than a D-Slash Warrior under the same buffs, and each attack will be unblockable. Some nice 100+ DPS there. =P ــѕт.  мıкε  23:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * x.x78.20.153.111 20:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * olol, no bonus attack damage > dragonslash any day [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, this doesn't need a buff. It's used as is by all sorts of builds. Any buffing would just put it on every skillbar, which would quickly get it nerfed again. (Although, a fun buff would be "The first hit deals Fire damage, the second deals Cold damage", for "Sun and Moon". They could also make it return healing to you, for a reference to Sunmoon!) [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 21:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First hit is vampiric, second hit is zealous. :o [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 22:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's 2 unblockable attacks. It's pretty nice with a Conjure too. I don't see the issue, swords are just never really huge power. --Guild *talk* 22:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the skill made sense before they removed the "evade" mechanic. Tbh, it already is on most Sword bars, and with a Conjure or other damage increases, it can provide some pretty nice unblockable damage. ــѕт.  мıкε  22:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the Effective warrior guide advertises this as a "strong spike skill". [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 22:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted trivia
The 22:14, 10 September 2008 edit by Felix Omni removed the following trivia:
 * "Originally, in this skill, one attack could not be blocked, while the other could not be evaded. When the action of evading was removed from the game, this skill description was changed."

With the justification that:
 * "We don't record skill histories and past functionalities."

OK... but... why? Reading through the Discussion page here, I didn't understand the commentary until I checked the History of the page and found the deleted note. I find this information interesting, relevant to the topic, and completely harmless. Why block it out? I'd like to reinstate the trivia note, but not if it goes against some established Wiki-wide policy. -- AudreyChandler 02:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We, uh, don't actually have a policy about trivia. In fact we've had one in the works for like months now, but it's so low on people's priority lists that we mostly forget about it. However, the general trend has been to not record past versions of skills and other historical notes, as they do not represent the state of the game "today". For example, Signet of Ghostly Might used to have this amazing bug where it would automatically kill the opposing team after 10 seconds. It's quite famous. But we didn't/don't have a note for it since it's not relevant to the skill today.
 * Personally, even though I used to think otherwise, I don't mind having trivia notes for notable skill changes, so I wouldn't mind if it was put back. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at Suggestions/skills history and Pop culture for the relevant discussions, although there are many more scattered all across the wiki too which I can't think of off the top of my head. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 02:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I removed this trivia before we had the Historical template, when it was pretty much the accepted norm that we don't list past skill functionalities. Now that we've moved in a somewhat different direction, it would be reasonable to put the trivia back. [[Image:Felix_Omni_Signature.png]] 05:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the long delay, busy etc. Anyway I've been thinking about this and I have to agree, people coming to the Wiki just to look up skill info probably don't need to learn about what it used to do since that's trivia (although we do have Trivia... lol). On the other hand there are strange individuals who find the lifespan and development of skills very interesting, or just useful to know when its past forms come up in discussions. So I believe there's value to cataloguing a skill's history somehow, but also agree that it may just form needless clutter on the skill's main page. Two ideas spring to mind:
 * Create a "History" section header to go along with "Trivia", "Notes", "Related skills", "Related articles". This way anyone curious can scan through a skill's lifespan but anyone who doesn't care finds it safely segregated away in its own clearly-labelled area. This has the downside of possibly producing extensive clutter for certain heavily-modified skills.
 * Create a set of pages devoted to concisely listing every skill along with a summary of each update made to it and the date it was done. This could have a simple picture of the skill, and its current description/stats (very cursory), and then next to it a list of changes from inception to present for reference. Then, add a "History" link to the skill box template. This has the advantage of keeping it thoroughly relegated to its own little world, but the downside of making it harder for people just browsing through to see the history.


 * I'd be happy to perform the actual cataloguing (...over the course of a year) if either of these ideas sound workable. Let me know. And feel free to move this discussion to a more appropriate page, if there is one. oO -- AudreyChandler 19:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)