Talk:Action prevention skills quick reference

There is also skill "disabling" quick reference. Should it be just added to this or a separate reference? By this I mean Blackout, Arcane Thievery, ... --Karlos 06:03, 6 October 2006 (CDT)
 * Fail != Disable, Fail prevents an action from happening at all (not the case with SB but meh), while disabling is an action that stops the another action from happening. Xeon 07:23, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * On second thoughts, where does the interrupt qr fit into all this. Xeon 07:25, 16 December 2006 (CST)
 * ah ok got it. mixed them around a bit. Fail prevents any action from happening on the target. Disable changes the skill recharge time of a target and interrupt is an action that cancels another action. They are all related yet different. Xeon 07:28, 16 December 2006 (CST)

I'm fairly sure Mirror of Ice shouldn't be in this reference. It doesn't cause any spells to fail, it just negates damage from the spell. PedroPickles 23:42, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * Removed it and hex breaker. --Fyren 23:47, 7 February 2007 (CST)
 * I double-checked but i'm fairly sure that hex breaker does cause failure.....when i read its description i see "For 15...75 seconds, the next time you are the target of a "Hex", that Hex fails, the caster takes 10...39 damage. It is only a failure of hexes, but failure nonetheless. I would revert it myself but I haven't learned the wiki code very well yet and I'm afraid I'd break something >:3 PedroPickles 00:10, 8 February 2007 (CST)
 * Nope. What actually happens is the target just doesn't get hexed.  Any other effects still occur.  Also, the skill begins its usual recharge afterwards.  --Fyren 00:14, 8 February 2007 (CST)
 * I see. So the wiki considers a skill causing "failure" as one that causes an instant recharge on failure and having the other effects occur as opposed to using skills which have the wording "fail" in them? =p Thanks for clearing that up =). In that case, "Can't Touch This!" should probably be added if it works in the manner that I remember. Looks like I'll have to start catching up on formatting in the wiki so I can do these things myself =) PedroPickles 00:18, 8 February 2007 (CST)
 * Skill descriptions are usually either wrong, imprecise, or too simple to screw up, heh. --Fyren 00:21, 8 February 2007 (CST)

What about self-failing skills, like Gale? (Terra Xin 21:36, 12 February 2007 (CST))
 * I don't think anyone would ever be interested in looking up a list of them. --Fyren 04:22, 13 February 2007 (CST)

The headers are abbreviated so they don't expand the columns (well, "Cam" still does anyway). --Fyren 00:36, 5 March 2007 (CST)

Obsidian Flesh and Vow of Silence don't belong here
They don't cause skill failure, they just prevent spell targeting. i.e. you don't lose energy (nor incur exhaustion), but just get a message "target is protected". See also fail, which explicitly mentions obsidian flesh being something different. 134.130.4.46 10:30, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * Yes they do, they prevent someone from casting a spell on a person, so the spell has failed to be cast. Doesn't matter if they cant be targeted or not or if they lose energy. -- Xeon 10:45, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * For the English word "fail", that would be correct, but "fail" or "skill failure" are technical game terms, whose meaning is clearly defined (see either article, both definitions clearly exclude obsi/vos). It's the same as with "interrupt" really: just because the skill doeesn't complete casting (i.e. is interrupted in the English sense of the word) it's not interrupted in the game meaning, and hence knockdowns, fail skills, disablement skills.. are not listed in Interrupt skills quick reference, which has been clearly established for quite some time now. 134.130.4.46 11:08, 16 July 2007 (CDT)
 * The quick reference dont only follow the game mechanics but are also built for convenience around readers, which is why knockdown, skill failure are placed into their own categories instead of placed into the interrupt article. There isnt going to be a quick reference which lists two skills, when there is already one that has nearly the exact same skill property requirements. There is no difference between the "fail" and "skill failure" articles, the articles should be merged and redirected. The article needs to be fixed up as well, some of the wording is misleading. If someone doesn't do it by the end of the week, I will. -- Xeon 16:39, 16 July 2007 (CDT)