|Forums: Index → Narutopedia Discussion → Kai (release) brand of moves||Post|
Thought of this for a while, we have some named techniques, like:
- Infūin: Kai
- Shiki Fuujin: Kai
and then several unnamed/unofficial ones, just like:
- Edo Tensei: Kai (no article, in fact, we were given a name from Impure World Reincarnation Technique: Release chapter and so could be used for the technique article)
- Kage Bunshin: Kai (no article)
- Kuchiyose: Kai (no article)
- Genjutsu: Kai (no article)
So following the template of the two, why don't we make articles for the other four? Aren't they separate moves in their own right? What do you think?--Elveonora (talk) 10:22, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't go around creating "kai" techniques for every releasable technique. If a technique has to be released in an elaborate or specific way, I think a case may be made for it, but for example, two of your proposed four, I'd be against having an article. Releasing a shadow clone is merely releasing the technique. It may not be something that one simply stops using, for example, a fire-breathing technique that goes on until the user stops breathing the fire, but it requires no specific set-up to be released. Same goes for summoning. Summons are called, and then stay on the battlefield until the technique wears off, or they get weak enough to remain where they were summoned. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 16:26, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
- Edo Tensei: Kai uses different hand seals than the summoning technique, so I think it should have had an article long by now.
- Unless I'm mistaken, the clones can also dispel themselves not just the user them, the effect is noteworthy I think. This move severs the chakra link between the user and the clone/s, it's not like they have to maintain it to our knowledge, so it's not even cancelling an effect of a technique, but dispelling an existing technique, unique move enough imo to warrant an article.
- But isn't a summon returning back prematurely on purpose by itself a technique? It's not like wearing-off, but reverse teleportation.
- I can see why you oppose this one. My only argument is that anything within Narutoverse may be a technique, even a kick or a thing that does not even use chakra at all. These not only use chakra but have their hand seals.
That clones are able to dispel themselves can be added to respective clone article, if it's not already there. Nothing has ever implied the existence of a separate technique for dispelling clones. Your entire second sentence on shadow clone releasing is pure speculation. Worse, it goes against the mechanics explained by Tobirama on how the shadow clones work, their resonance with each other as long as there's trace amounts of chakra. On summons, no. We've seen that summons can have a time-limit, per Gamakichi and Katsuyu in recent chapters. Them leaving early on their own is essentially them breaking the Summoning Technique, much like a shadow clone can dispel itself. What does chakra disruption have to do with being a technique? Technically, every technique that uses chakra changes how chakra flows in one's system, so every jutsu would sort disrupt one's chakra. If this is about the genjutsu dissipation, I'm not necessarily opposing that, but I don't feel as willing towards it as I do towards IWRR. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 22:29, September 29, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I meant the "genjutsu dissipation". For the clones, I meant that there is no known time and range limits for them, they can exist for as long as they keep enough chakra to maintain their existence, aren't hit and the user still lives. The user doesn't need to use additional chakra continuously to keep the shadow clone technique active. By "it" in the second sentence, I didn't mean the link (it's there and needed I know that) but the technique itself, I worded it badly. Unless I'm wrong, the user doesn't need to be "using" the technique once it's executed, so I get it that dispelling them isn't a cancellation of a process, but more like the summoning/creating process in reverse. Well, 1,5 of an agreement out of 4 is better than nothing ;)--Elveonora (talk) 12:27, September 30, 2013 (UTC)