Talk:Defiant Was Xinrae

Need to be noted here to be checked later: From the sound of the description, this skill causes all spell used on you to fail, friend and foe.


 * Can someone tell me, what is the difference between the describtion of the spell and the sentence "while you hold Defiant Was Xinrae all enemy spells against you take longer to recharge"? Is this just the ritualist version of spellbreaker, or is there more to this? --Xeeron 04:57, 4 May 2006 (CDT)
 * Yeah. what does they mean by "The caster" ?? something is wrong here. Foo 19:19, 4 May 2006 (CDT)


 * The way the description is written it makes it sound like it blocks spells from one foe. This is obviously worded completely wrong and someone will have to test to see exactly what it does. "The caster" could even mean the ritualist who casted it! --MasterPatricko 05:33, 7 May 2006 (CDT)


 * I think it is safe to say that this is just poorly worded and that it causes all enemy spells used against you to have a longer recharge. "While you hold her ashes, enemy Spells that the caster (caster of enemy spells) and the caster's allies (allies of the enemy who was casting spell, seems completely redundant) use against you are disabled for an additional 5...17 seconds."  So as I read it, this means it serves as a minor version of Diversion, applied to all enemy spells used against you.  As for the difference between this spell and Spellbreaker, Spellbreaker doesn't allow spells to be cast, while this spell does... nowhere does it say it interrupts spells used against you, just lengthens the cooldown.  Still needs to be confirmed though.  --Chronocide 01:50, 8 May 2006 (CDT)


 * That means it should be worded something like: "While you hold her ashes, spells used against you by enemies are disabled for (an additional) 5...17 seconds." That makes sense. Anyone got the cap to confirm? --MasterPatricko 17:23, 14 May 2006 (CDT)


 * Has anyone gotten around to testing this in scrimmage yet? -- Gordon Ecker 20:06, 13 November 2006 (CST)

I have been completely unable to capture this skill- both the bosses listed have Soul Twisting instead. Has anyone been able to actually capture this? --Willow
 * Are you sure both do? The page notes the boss in Raisu has it during the mission but not in the explorable.  I captured it from the Tahnnakai boss, but that was weeks ago.  --68.142.14.60 15:11, 5 July 2006 (CDT)
 * I agree with 68.142, except I captured it at the Temple five minutes ago. -- Dashface [[Image:Dashface.png]] 06:34, 31 July 2006 (CDT)


 * In case anyone is still confused as to what this skill does, it disables spells used against you on both the caster's bar, but also all other enemy's bars. It's a skill made to punish redundant offensive caster builds, generally spikers.   To elaborate:  Let's say you're facing a Blood Spike team.  When one necro uses Vampiric Gaze on a Defiant was Xinrae carrier, Vampiric Gaze is disabled for up to 21 seconds on ALL enemy skill bars.  Even with the cost reduction, though, it's crap.  You just end up not being a high priority target, and without energy management, there's not a lot you can do to create good field presence to MAKE you one.  Xinrae's Weapon has a lot more potential, for all that it costs 25.  Merengue 02:54, 30 September 2006 (CDT)

This is still quite good in PvE on ritualist secondary. Going in first and taking all the spells. For instance, Afflicted Elementalists love to spike the crap out of my assassin with mind burn. With someone on my team with this we only take 1 mind burn. And 1 flame arrows too. :) --Spura 08:09, 17 October 2006 (CDT)


 * I feel that would make a good note on the article page. That effect was not at all clear to me after reading only the skill description. --Xeeron 08:27, 17 October 2006 (CDT)

Does this work if you get hit with an AoE but weren't the primary target? This could be a decent counter to SF builds if so (only one cast just means you get burned for a while, no big deal), though it seems like there are better ways to do that. Just a thought.
 * No, because the spell hasn't targeted or cast on you, you just happen to be in the way, Xinrae will not trigger then.

Removing Diversion
Did you mean to do that, Sarah? I think it's very related. There are very FEW skills that disable skills for extra time on USE (not interrupt). --Karlos 17:47, 5 September 2006 (CDT)

Outdated Note
Shoudln't the note be updated. It says MUST be capped from Raisu Palace Mission. This is not true anymore.

Range?
If you used this in AB, how long range would it disable stuff in? Dumazz 11:29, 19 April 2007 (CDT)
 * yea i thought of this too, does it affect party members, or will it affect every single person in the battle using that skill. could be devastating and incredibly annyoing for searing flamers or basically any nuke 68.226.80.7 17:33, 26 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I would bet that it only disables their party members'  skills. [[Image:GDSig.JPG]] 12:07, 20 July 2007 (CDT)
 * I'm pretty sure it works on all 3 parties in AB, since they are ALLIED to you, and the skill description explicitly says target's allies. X Deity X 20:30, 11 August 2007 (CDT)

Lock the page?
I think this page should be locked due to the number of edits to add Defiant Ancient Sseer's ...(explorable) location. etc. Everyone (myself included) wants to change that as soon as they see it's "forgotten". I've added a note, but someone's going to delete the note eventually. (I'd bet on it.) Unless the acquisition section is locked, this will probably keep happening. (Can probably make the acquisition section an included template and lock that so that the whole page isn't locked.) --Tometheus 18:38, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Hah! That bet didn't take long to collect on... Someone's already deletedthe note and just put the word 'only' in.  That won't stop people from editing it!  --Tometheus 18:40, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Nice idea with the comment in the text. --Tometheus 18:42, 17 August 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks. That usually (*fingers crossed*) prevents people from re-adding stuff they shouldn't. Also, a situation like this is probably not cause for protection since the edits are good faith and clearly not vandalism. BigAstro 18:45, 17 August 2007 (CDT)