Imitating Others

Why not just have the clone do a transformation jutsu.Akatsuchi (talk) 22:46, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

For someone who took the name of the character who used this technique shouldn't you have realized that there's some art behind this technique as well? More than likely it's linked to the manner in which he used the Golem Technique which would allow him to sculpt doppelgangers instead of have them transform. All this is speculatory decor ;D --Cerez365 (talk) 22:53, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
It is indeed a bold start for him (though your definite tone is bold too, which I find ironic), but that is a good point on the golem, but I could think off the top of a my head probably a dozen better golem form (# of arms, claws, etc.), so I am not sure it is sculpted, and I still say (with pictures) that it cannot leave the mouth. Moreover, 'clone' thus far has refered to the user. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 23:36, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Though before you point it out, yes, I know you are theorizing yourself a tad, mostly I mean to support Akatsuchi on this. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 23:37, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
To answer the initial question: Perhaps this clone can't even do techniques on its own. Even if it could, why waste chakra doing two techniques, when one can do it just as easily. —ShounenSuki (talk | contribs | translations) 23:49, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it is unable to (are some jutsu limits), but I will wait on this one; but could you remove the part on me, or him, creating clones on people until it is actually clear how the Onoki image was made? Akatsuchi (talk) 23:53, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Why? No matter what, Akatsuchi did create a clone of another person. No need to remove that information. —ShounenSuki (talk | contribs | translations) 00:06, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
It seems worded more towards him making an imitation directly (nothing overt). Akatsuchi (talk) 02:00, October 22, 2010 (UTC)


We should mention on how it was still recognizably intact despite being at such brutal close range to so many explosives.Akatsuchi (talk) 22:46, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Convinced. The fact that it can take such damage is definitely important to mention since that would increase the user's options with this type of clone. (i.e. cutting a rock vs. cutting water). Thomas Finlayson (talk) 23:39, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't look any more durable than ordinary rock, to be honest. It doesn't loose its form when damaged, but that is it. —ShounenSuki (talk | contribs | translations) 23:47, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
I admit the term 'rock' can stand for a long list of elements, but seriously, how much damage do you think that kind of explosion would do? Moreover, the fact it has a durability of a rock, any rock, should be noted. Akatsuchi (talk) 23:50, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
I would expect that kind of an explosion to do exactly that kind of damage. The explosion didn't seem exceptionally powerful or anything. Not that we have any way of judging the power of the explosion in the first place. If the clone had survived the explosion with only minor damage, I would say note the durability in the article. As it stands now, the clone has shown no more durability than one might expect. —ShounenSuki (talk | contribs | translations) 00:05, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I will leave it for now. Akatsuchi (talk) 01:59, October 22, 2010 (UTC)