Talk:Anomaly

All bugs link to this page. It should not redirect to the item. 212.180.5.197 15:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Anomaly creature type

we currently have 5 anomalies, do we have enough information about this type of enemy to give them a creature type page? --Doctor Refrence (talk) 09:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. We don't have much information on them, but it seems likely that we're going to be seeing more of them in the future. --Idris (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless I missed somebody, it's really only 4, since the Chaos Fractal one is basically the Thaumanova one repeated since that one is a mishmosh of the fractals, but that's minor. I'm not sure about them being a race, since they're really just a manifestation of when magic, either dragon magic or bloodstone, goes haywire. That and plus according to reddit, they're mechanically wurms, so I'd hold off making any pages or categories until we can get more information/input from others. - Do_odleplex 21:04, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A crap man, I just made it a few seconds before you posted this comment... though because of their name making the category is a nightmare. (Btw do we count Anomaly Fragments as Anomalies? since they are made of concentrated magic.) --Doctor Refrence (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

We have quite a lot more than 5 -- Thaumanova, Shattered Obvervatory, the legendary mob who gives you a daily mystic coin, the thing that starts appearing randomly after you've encountered the coin guy, VG, the thing in Bloodstone Fen, spoiler for final mission of episode 6, various coalesces, etc. However, I agree with Doodle that it's not appropriate for them to be categorized as a creature type -- I misinterpreted what you were proposing, sorry about that. What I think would be a good idea right now is a lore page akin to Undead. --Idris (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The random thing that pops up everywhere and that you can get rid of via achievement, that's more of an apparition/vision than an actual NPC(especially when it's unique to each player) so I wouldn't count that as an NPC. Also, I thought the coalesces & Shards were elementals so I completely forgot about them, but they very well could be the same thing. So the only other anomaly things I can think of are the 3 three from the fractals, the Legendary one that runes through maps and the one in the story instance from Out of the Shadows. Am I missing anybody? =o Also in terms of lore, they could probably fit on the Magic page somehow, though lore isn't my specialty at all. - Do_odleplex 21:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Vale Guardian too, I think. There's enough of them to warrant a lore page imo, particularly because it's clear ANet are building up to something with them. I'm not great at predicting lore, though. Let's drag Konig into this, he's amazing at lore. --Idris (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Their creature type is Elemental. They progress Elemental slayer, or at least some/most of them do. They may have their own lore for what they are, but they're mechanically elementals. The exception to this is only the one in Shattered Observatory, but this is because the NPC was originally a "Time Wurm" but got renamed and model changed to an anomaly. This is worthy of an {{anomaly}} note (humorously).

I want to stress that the Vale Guardian and Unbound Guardian are not anomalies, and neither are coalescences. Though the former has a similar appearance, their origins are different; and though the latter has similar origins, their identity is different. It's like saying an Earth Elemental is the same as an Ice Elemental, or a Lava Elemental is the same as a Magma Elemental (respectively). Whether the "spoiler for episode 6" is an anomaly or not is wholly unknown, they just share the same model.

I actually saw the category being added and was going to delete it, since it's a needless overcategorization of the pages IMHO, but left it due to it being late at night when I spotted it. So since discussion now, I'll say this: no extra category, race = Elemental, no "Anomaly (Race)". I think that the establishment of each anomaly is unique enough that it goes on their own pages, with the generic "coalesnces that have gain humanoid form and sentience" can go on a generically named foe like Veteran Anomaly, or on Elemental or Magic. Konig (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with this from a game mechanics perspective. What about my proposal for adding a page that summarises anomalies and anomaly-like creatures in terms of lore? Do we know enough about them to make that worthwhile? --Idris (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, atleast we got an discussion started about the Anomalies/Coalescences (Which might would have been a better group name retrospectively...) --Doctor Refrence (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think all we know lore-wise is that Anomalies form when there is an extremely high density of magic. The Thurmanova Explosion, Mordremoth's death combined with Zhaitan's spawning the anomolous running ones, the bloodstone explosion forming the Bloodstone Fen VG, VG (formed by collected magic in the pillars, which caught the fallback from Morty's death.), etc. I don't think that's enough to make its own page. Not yet, anyway. --Rain Spell (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the direction I'm leaning in too, tbh. I strongly suspect a lore page will be worthwhile eventually -- perhaps as soon as the next expansion -- but at the moment, information seems sparse. Still, I wouldn't protest if the page was created today. --Idris (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The Vale Guardian (and likely Unbound Guardian) were not created from Mordremoth's death or the bloodstone's explosion. They were bound to be guardians by the White Mantle using mursaat magic, no different than the lore for djinn. Mordremoth's death supercharged the pillars that the guardian was already bound to. Hence why they are not anomalies (in neither appearance, name, nor lore). But anomalies in general are, indeed, elementals formed from high concentrations of magic over ley lines that form at least a minute amount of sentience. That's all the lore we have, sadly. The only oddity in this, really, is the Aspect of Lazarus which use the anomaly model. Konig (talk) 20:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I think they're hinting that there's a connection between Mursaat magic and anomalies. --Idris (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, I doubt we'll see anymore then since the Mursaat story line is over as a far as I can tell. As for Lazarus's aspect, I'd wager since they couldn't make it appear as a phantasm(he's not a mesmer) they decided to just reuse the anomaly model. - Do_odleplex 21:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree that the Mursaat storyline is over. I mean, perhaps it's the case that ANet were simply tying up old loose ends from GW1 that they have no intention of continuing again, but I think that all this White Mantle and Mursaat stuff has been setting the foundation for another, bigger storyline in the future, similar to how Scarlet turned out to be the start of the Mordremoth story. --Idris (talk) 21:26, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The Last Chance makes it clear that every mursaat is now dead, and Where's Balthazar made it clear that the White Mantle are on its death throes. Plot speculation aside though, I do not interpret the Aspects of Lazarus as being an indication of mursaat magic and anomalies being tied, rather it seems more like souls and anomalies are tied (which would fit into the Shadowstone and rifts plots with our characters turning into some form of anomaly; neither is mursaat magic). Konig (talk) 22:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Eh, a little detail like being dead never stopped Abaddon from having a role in the story, so why not the Mursaat too? Though, thinking about it, if the Mursaat are Scarlet, then I suppose Balthazar is Mordremoth, in which case they very well could have served their purpose and really have been written out forever. Aw. As for your last sentence, I agree with your points, but I think they can just as validly be interpreted as a potential connection between Mursaat and the anomalies -- if the anomalies are tied with souls, then perhaps this simply means that the Mursaat excelled at soul magic. --Idris (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Difference between legacy and direct involvement. We also knew for ages that mursaat excelled at soul magic (Spectral Agony for starters, their invisibility functioning the same as souls hiding from mortal eyes secondly). But I digress. We don't know the nature of anomalies (yet if we ever will). There's not really much more we can add to a "Anomaly (race)" article than what is already there - that they're sentient coalesces of magic (and such terminology would be false anyways since they're not a race/species). Our discussion is going away from the merits of such categorizing/article classification, and into lore speculation. Konig (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)