GuildWiki has been locked down: anonymous editing and account creation are disabled. Current registered users are unaffected. Leave any comments on the Community Portal.

Talk:Cultist's Fervor

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

What happens when you use 5 energy spells? This has some potentional for Mo/Ns Skuld Monk

Use this with Vigorous Spirit and you have yourself a deal. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.76.20.253 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 3 May 2006 (CDT).

Does this make any spell you cast cause Dark Aura to deal damage? The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kit Engel (talk • contribs) 04:41, 1 June 2006 (CDT).

^ Yes it does. You can use dark pact with dark aura and this to do ~150 damage (because dark pact is a spell). The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.71.86.26 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 17 July 2006 (CDT).

Okay, then if you use a spell like dark pact, does it proc Dark Aura twice (once for DP itself, once for cultist's), or just once for the sacrifice? --Kit Engel 11:13, 4 August 2006 (CDT)
It will cause you to sac life from Dark Aura both times. Jaundiced Gaze goes well with this combination. Be careful though. You're basically a human bomb when doing this. Your may do several hundred points of damage in only a few seconds, but you'll sacrifice nearly as much life yourself. --Crazytreeboy 11:17, 4 August 2006 (CDT)

Just an idea: this could be combined with a vampiric skill to have low energy damage dealt to an enemy while the health loss is negated. The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.67.207.10 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 June 2006 (CDT).

Some spells, yes. The stuff that really puts the icing on the cake in terms of health-stealing - Vampiric Touch and Vampiric Bite IMnotsoHO - just don't work with this because they're skills. Yes, I thought that too. And I was very disappointed when I read the description better after capping this. --Black Ark 05:57, 18 July 2006 (CDT)

Heal Party?[edit source]

62.56.100.85 10:37, 31 August 2006 (CDT)

Bah, when I play as N/Mo in HA with 14 soul reaping, I never run out of energy no matter what I use. Compared to other healing elites, like Healing Hands, this would be a very weak elite.M s4 16:29, 10 January 2007 (CST) (Edit: With a build with lots of spirits or minions of course) M s4 16:30, 10 January 2007 (CST)

Glitch with CF[edit source]

Im currently a N/Rt, and while farming Cultist Milthuran I noticed that whenever he used CF, my spells became cheaper as well, but I had no sacrifice, makes farming him a lot easier, but makes the spell almost useless. Could someone please comfirm if it's just him, or just Necro's that benefit, thanks. Darq 14:28, 2 September 2006 (CDT)

So this skill causes a reduction in E Cost for all spells targeting the person who cast Cultist's Fervor? Friend and Foe, without Sacrifice?... --Amokk 12:37, 12 October 2006 (CDT)

This makes 5e monk skills cost-free. With Healers Boon/holy haste, it can really be pretty sweet. Best tank ever, and when your not tanking, incredible damage. Just not a lot of utility. Xenopia Impellus 15:42, 5 January 2007 (CST)

Minimum Cost?[edit source]

Is there a 1 energy minimum for this skill like the other cost reducing skills (divine spirit, air of enchantment)?-Onlyashadow 14:40, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

No. It might produce the same bug involving those two when air didn't have a minimum, but I'm too lazy to test. --Fyren 14:43, 11 September 2006 (CDT)

An actual build for this[edit source]

I've been thinking about this skill a bit, and I could see some use for this. Using 12+1+3 Blood, 3+3 (another superior), and 12 healing, with no Fortitude weapons, you could bring your health down a good deal. Using a Healing Breeze that only costs 3 energy, and maybe a free Blood Renewal (just throwing out ideas, it's regen in Blood magic, but a very nasty sacrifice) to keep your health up, you could slightly emulate a 55 monk, lowering your overall sacrifice while passively healing over it with regen. Combined with the fact that your healing spells are basically free, and you can easily heal yourself if you get low on health (with a nice Vigorous Spirit, to boot), I could really see an effective Necro healer. It'd probably be best suited for PvE, but might get shoved into AB, Fort Aspenwood, or maybe even into higher level PvP to make up for the loss of super Soul Reaping. Keep in mind this doesn't have to be used all the time (like Healer's Covenant), just when energy runs low and you need a lot of free heals (I just wish it reduced things by, say 5, with a lower sacrifice and/or longer duration, as most of the time, the extra two energy is wasted). May or may not work, I'm gonna test this to see if I've made any sense whatsoever. DancingZombies Aura of the Lich.jpg 18:26, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Initial tests reveal that with no Health boosters, +10 regen, and Vigorous Spirit, CF's sacrifice is meager compared to the benefits. I like spamming Heal Other for 3 energy, don't you? Just needs a few heals that can heal itself, and it's not bad. At max blood with an enchanting spear (and a focus with the Live for Today inscription, for kicks), you can keep CF up for about 23/30 seconds, which is far more than you will ever need. Plus, Vigorous, Breeze, and Renewal all provide nice cover enchantments for CF, depending on how you place them. Found with all Radiant insignias, a +5 energy Spear/+15 energy off-hand, and 6 soul reaping, energy was never a problem. It could even stand to lose some of those energy boosters to something more useful while staying just as potent energy-wise. DancingZombies Aura of the Lich.jpg 18:42, 10 April 2007 (CDT)
Further testing reveals I've spawned the squishiest build in Guild Wars that wasn't intended to do so. Go me. xD DancingZombies Aura of the Lich.jpg 18:55, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

this is a great skill if I have 7 monks in my team or if I want to kill myself and no I will not lower my health to 55

Vigorous Spirit + Cultist's Fervor + 130 health + Heal Other & Jamei's Gaze = constant wtf hax heals with no lifesac. I'd suggest keeping Prot Spirit/Bond on yourself, though, you're marshmallow. --71.229.204.25 16:13, 20 September 2007 (CDT)

Update[edit source]

Saw a few monks running this,it seems like decent energy management,for other classes you could even put in plague touch could very handy, run blood at 4 (ussually spare points ) and drop the rest into whatever you need, and you got a pretty decent start.Durga Dido 12:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Expect a nerf soon for Cultist's Fervor. Its far more powerful energy management than Offering of Blood or Mantra of Recall ever had to offer.

lol, now that you mention OoB, i think of touch rangers, DAMN! now they have expertise to lower the cost of all the skills AND they get this for to lower the skills even more, making them virtually free and they already carry plague touch so omgod imba.Bad thing is izzy loves touch rangers so good luck getting this nerfed ( in a way that touchers also can't use it).Durga Dido 16:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
They already can't. Vamp touch/bite are skills, not spells. - AdVictoriam1.PNGAd Victoriam 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
wtf this skill is way imba bleeding is GOOD as u can easily remove for moar health than it took away and at 17+ Blood it takes away 8 energy!!! we can spam life siphon while getting a NET GAIN of energy from regen!!! - Rabus 16:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah bah nvm about that comment then, i touch it was touch spell , not touch skill.Durga Dido 17:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't work with Dark Aura and Blinding Powder anymore, hehe Entropy Sig.jpg (T/C) 18:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Well its obvious they didn't want monks etc to run it since the update page says "For 20 seconds, your Necromancer spells cost -1..7 Energy to cast but you suffer from bleeding for 10 seconds each time you cast a spell." I guess it will be updated soon 128.113.74.66 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I see many RA monks using this now, nerf imminent. Cress Arvein Cress sig.JPG 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
More like "bug fix imminent." It's supposed to be necro spells only. Felix Omni Signature.png 20:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
This is further proof that anet doesnt test shit. Late last night before this update set in I was experimenting with CF and noticed at a suitably high rank Life Siphon completely negates the skills only drawback (bleed). I figured what the hell, lets throw Necrosis on there forgetting its not under the strictest of terms a necro skill...you can imagine my surprise when I could spam it at will for a 0 energy cost. 98.219.48.111 15:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
If this was a eotn pve skill I'd get what your saying, but its not, necrosis being pve only doesn't make it any less of a necromancer skill. I'd be somewhat surprised if necrosis didn't trigger CV. Deviant Priest 04:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I suppose you can't see why spamming a 90 damage less conditional Discord jr. for 0 energy with no drawback every couple seconds is probably a bad idea. We just don't agree on Necrosis...it may require N/any or any/N but has no additional attribute requirement in any Necromancer line. Since its scaled its not even the same thing as Unlinked which have no scaling or the real PvE skills which are completely de-linked from professions. Its really its own category of skill that happens to be done in Necromancer green/blue. I'm not predicting a broken farm build as a result of it merely pointing out the huge oversight and potential for abuse. 98.219.48.111 17:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there's potential for abuse, but I really don't see where you figure that it isn't a Necro skill. Can you use it if you aren't a necro primary or secondary? No. Therefore it is a Necro skill --Gimmethegepgun 17:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I already explained my position but this was never the point of my original post or any subsequent post. It was to point out that CV coupled with Necrosis has the potential to be stunningly broken...of which we all seem to agree. 98.219.48.111 18:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Stunningly broken? Now that's overexaggerated. If you need CF to spam Necrosis like mad, you're doing something horribly wrong being a Necro. Even without CF, Necrosis can be spammed lots and lots, CF just adds prep time, and the ability to mix in other, expensive spells to spam. --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So it doesnt work anymore with Dark Aura :< --85.60.28.34 20:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

So am I lead to believe you don't believe CV is overpowered Viper? If that's the case don't bother to read on .............What is better than Sabway? Discordway. What is better than Discordway? 0 energy non-elite Discord jr. fresh off a title scaling buff that you only need 9 Blood to cast for 0. If its left as-is there is no reason to not see a viable team farm produced from this combo, yes its that much better. Even if everyone ran a sloppy AE+Nec combo to machine gun it you'd still never go under 50% energy. If you ever even got close to half use Angorodon's Gaze or Foul Feast your friends since they automatically meet conditionality for even more free energy/health. I love my necro but they are on a slippery slope with this type of energy management. I don't have to remind you about the insane QQing over Soul Reaping. For them to change horses mid stream out of the blue on this subject seems pretty ridiculous imo wouldn't you agree? We haven't even touched on secondaries running up blood for cheap necro spells yet because Necrosis was such a convenient example. 98.219.48.111 21:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate the irony if ritualists started using this for cheap energy efficient necro skills. Deviant Priest 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Soul Reaping is passive, unstrippable, and doesn't take up your elite slot. Felix Omni Signature.png 22:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey don't ruin my dreams of angsty blind blood spikers. Deviant Priest 00:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
It's nothing special. Spamming Discord / Necrosis is done before. Also, Cry of Pain completely obliberates Necrosis spamming, because it insta-splodes anything with a 1k+, huge AoE armor ignoring damage nuke. --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

1 Question though are you sure Cf works on necrosis, since it isn't a spell but a skill :/ --94.209.121.205 17:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC) just another necro player

The bleeding starts...[edit source]

When? When you start casing or when you finish? If when you finish, what about interrupts, casting cancellation, and spell failure? --Gimmethegepgun 20:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

On spell completion, no reapplication on cancellation or interrupt. 98.219.48.111 21:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
And does Ang Gaze give energy immediatly, or only when already bleeding? --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I would theorize immediately, since using glyph of immolation with glowing gaze returns energy, but I'll go test it. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yea, the bleeding is applied before angorodon's checks for conditions. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The Real Nature Of This Skill, And Blood Magic?[edit source]

IMO this skill has a point about it, but i think the skill should cost 5e, for 5...10...15 seconds you're spells cost -5..7..8 energy (5% Sacrifice). there was tonnes of people in favour of sac- suiciding, but this way i think it's balanced to both usefulness; and dark aura bombing. I don't want this just to be a comment, but more like a public vote because since the nerf people like me get bored of playing PvP normally. Not only does this need changing but blood magic generally, Vampiric Gaze - 10 energy steals 50hp, Where... a sin does 60 armor ignoring damage with Palm Strike then chains with constant Kd's to make a 550hp spike..

Vampiric Touch

(15e <-----) steals 60hp, Wait 15E OMG!!!>> >> >>No wai..... all necros need this... if they have 15k energy... 

Wallows Bite, 1E but 10% sac, you're dealing 50 damage to target, but supposing you have 550-600hp as a pvp player, you're taking 55-65 health off you're health bar.

And Every Order.... FOR 5 SECONDS<---- What's that guna do???? hit twice with a sword... 17% sac (talking 75hp odd) and gaining back from you're wand 34hp¬. Or the pain one, all party members deal +13damage, sounds good but for 5 seconds it's utterly useless.


Demonic Flesh... somehow relates to having +170hp, It should be like Tainted flesh, but bleeding or poison..... For 20 Seconds (Un affected by attribute level) Recharge 40?

Darkpact- Utterly useless skill, would rather bleed to death with signet of agony.... ??? mix with dark aura??? nah by the time they realise they're standing next to you they've ran away, and you're just killing yourself with that skill.

I think you've heard enough....

Life steal is simply better than damage in every way. Blood Magic cannot be strengthened more than it already has been because of the devastating effects of multiple blood spikers in GvG, HA, whatever. Felix Omni Signature.png 09:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Blood spike is farmed by players with intelligence, and Life Steal isn't better than normal damage in everyway, only in 1 Way, it goes through invicibility promoting skills such as Protectice Spirit and Spirit Bond, or monsters which have invincibility. Besides, they should never of Nerfed it, just of made it weaker in GvG using knowledge, or whatever left of the GWI dev team; to use imagination and problem solving skills...

But anyway, Cultists fervor is what i really want back... maybe more useful, but the sacrifice was effective in many ways.

I've GvGed in plenty decent guilds (guesting; a mate of mine is top 20), and Bloodspike is just stupid. Even if you run something slightly lame/slightly balanced, Bloodspike can just /roll your asses off and hand em over because all your damage ignores every prot. You cannot possibly heal it up because they'll either be faster, or use a followup on you if you used Infuse, killing you.
Life Steal is still "better" than conventional damage in every way.
And about your comment up there; Orders are 6 seconds if you use knowledge, which you seemingly know all about. And that's 4 hits with a Sword/Axe. Which is all you need for a spike. And it's on every Physical damage, so even your Eles can use their spears for some damage.
TF is an elite for a reason. Even with a flat 20 duration, it's elite worthy.
Killing yourself is never useful >.>'
And it's "never have nerfed", rather than "never of nerfed". --- Ohaider! -- (contribs) (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Bleeding bullet belongs under notes[edit source]

"Using Plague Sending while under this enchantment will immediately transfer the Bleeding condition. "

As discussed under User_talk:El_Nazgir#Transferring_Bleeding, I think the above note belongs under Notes: it refers to game mechanics, making it relevant to the game. (As opposed to an easter eggy type of thing, which would belong under Trivia.)  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the discussion you refer to; it is now reproduced below. --◄mendel► 11:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Plague Touch[edit source]

moved from User talk:65.102.211.54

I'd like to ask you for input on my edit to Cultist's Fervor. My edit was related to your own, so I'm interested in your opinion. Due to Cultist's Fervor applying bleeding on every spell cast, I don't view it as a practical way of applying bleeding on other targets. I don't see Plague Touch as being an effective counter, as the energy you save is spent on PT; negating the point of the Elite Skill in the first place.

My edit placed this note as Trivia. The way the skills function with CF is still being documented, though in a section more relevant to tidbits of information, as opposed to the Notes section which has been known to suggest synergy between skills in the past. Do you consider this an acceptable compromise? :-) A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 21:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it, 1)because trivia is meant for tidbits of fun knowledge, not things that affect gameplay (be they ueful or otherwise), and 2) because it 'does not affect plague touch. It's a skill, not a spell. --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 22:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
1) Trivial, Notable. YOUR DOIN IT WRONG
2) Nobody said it affects Plague Touch. We said Plague Touch affects Bleeding. As ineffectively as Plague Transfer manages to (actually less so).
Unless you're suggesting very strong synergy, your information is trivial. Read A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 23:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This convo belongs on Talk:Cultist's Fervor rather than several talk pages around the wiki. As noted on User talk:El Nazgir, I strongly disagree that this is trivia: it's directly related to game mechanics.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Transferring Bleeding[edit source]

moved from User talk:El Nazgir#Transferring Bleeding

I think he just means Plague Touch will get rid of Bleeding, should you have it already. Seems a bit herpie derpie since you'll get it reapplied two seconds later, but technically it's not as wrong as it is pointless.

He may mean to use it after every ability, since recharge-wise that's feasible. But the question of why spend an extra five energy per spell when you're using the other skill for energy management in the first place? kind of kittenstomps such thinking. I advocate a permaban for editing the wiki. Such a folly is unforgivable. A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Is my edit kk to you?
I consider the note about Plague Transfer to be as equally hurr as the one regarding Touch. A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, didn't see you put something here. I guess I'll put things here too in case you miss the others... 1)trivia is meant for tidbits of fun knowledge, not things that affect gameplay (be they ueful or otherwise), and 2) because it does not affect plague touch. It's a skill, not a spell.
Plus, the way you worded it made no sense and was redundant. Of course it would affect it, but plague sending is of special remark due to it doing so immediately at the cast. I know I'm threading awefully close to 1rv, but I consider it to be within the "still acceptable" bounds.--TalkpageEl_Nazgir 22:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
"trivia is meant for tidbits of fun knowledge" - Can of worms spotted. You wish to dictate to me is 'fun' ? ;) I consider Trivia to be anything unrelated, which a reader could potentially be interested by. I am interested in this. Could others not be so?
Neither is an effective counter.
If you don't meant to suggest one, and merely wish to say "this is how the two skills operate together, 't's interesting!"; then that's information nobody will ever use. Information nigh on nobody will care about. There's a section for that. It's trivia.
Pro tip: Something is either Notable, or it is Trivial.
Example: I discover that Recuperation affects Edge of Extinction. Will people - armed with this knowledge of how these two skills interact - pair them together? Will they use the information? Will they care? No and no. So the information is trivial.
I think your edit does violate 1RV. I don't think you should be banned. I do think you should refrain from editing the article for a while (unless reverting yourself). I will do so likewise. A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 22:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I can support the above definition of Trivia. Trivia must always be notable, otherwise it has no place in the wiki. The difference between noteworthy data being placed under Notes or Trivia is whether it affects gameplay (including minmax, role playing, etc.). In the case of the bleeding of Cultist's Fervor being affected by other skills/effects, that is simple game mechanics, which categorizes it squarely under Notes; I don't see any wiggle room there.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is not a single page that supports your definition of trivia. While the style and formatting page is very vague about it, so far on every page I have encountered, notes is for things affecting actual gameplay, while trivia is for things that do not, but are still noteworthy (like "the dude wears XXX armor in the skill icon). --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 08:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
"Nobody said it affects Plague Touch. We said Plague Touch affects Bleeding. As ineffectively as Plague Transfer manages to (actually less so)." Yes the anon said it was affecting plague touch. It put it in the same note as the plague sending, which literally stated that it transferred the bleeding gained from casting it itself. --TalkpageEl_Nazgir 08:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
AFK, check GuildWiki:Article retention for information that we retain on articles. You're welcome to place info that is unrelated (i.e. inferior strategies, unconfirmed pop culture references etc.) but interesting to you on the article talkpage if you want to share it.
I do not think El Nazgir's edit violates GW:1RV.
  • 20:42 anon adds "or Plague Touch"
  • 21:04 El Nazgir reverts
  • 21:50 AFK restores "or Plague Touch" , puts note in Trivia section
  • 22:06 El Nazgir reverts
If your own edit didn't violate 1:RV (because it placed the reverted note in another section as a compromise attempt), then El Nazgir's reversion can't be violating 1:RV since yours was a new edit and not a revert. --◄mendel► 10:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
@TEF & El_Nazgir: That's what the words literally mean. (The discussion should really end at this point, imo.)
Generally external references (to pick an example) are of little value, while a note discussing how the skill works tends to be more immediately helpful for those seeking to learn about the skill (should it be an article on a skill, of course). This is because they searched for information on the skill due to a lack of knowledge regarding it - so obviously information on how it functions is of interest to a majority of those reading the article. Just because such things are normally consistent and to be expected, doesn't mean they're rules set in stone. That's just random chance. You can't call past precedent on it. "Sometimes it's the right thing to do, so it must always be the right thing to do!" is bad logic. It was never decided upon; it's just how shit happens 9/10 times.
@Mendel: I read that page, and I'm forced to wonder if you have. It offered nothing helpful relevant to the discussion at hand.
El_Nazgir twice reverted another person, to submit the same version of the page. I, on the otherhand, reverted nobody - while submitting a revision which had not yet been submitted to the wiki.
@El_Nazgir / Mendel: I deliberately changed what the point said. I presumed the I.P. meant simply that both skills would remove the condition; at the expense of an enemy. We're all guilty of having submitted something that didn't quite say what we meant to in the past. It would appear (we seemingly lack confirmation) that I was wrong, and that the I.P. merely submitted something in error. If that's the case, then, no Mendel, I didn't revert anyone. The I.P. (we presume) commented on the mechanics of how a skill operates, I commented on non-existent synergy. Different topics, in different sections. Violating 1RV? Hardly. I still maintain El_Nazgir's edit did; he reverted to the same revision twice, in a very short space of time. Unless you wish to claim you could not AGF with my edit, then that was inappropriate. Even if judged after WoTs-a-plenty that it did not violate the letter of the policy, that it went against the spirit of it is clear.
@Mendel: I've expressed dissatisfaction previously when you've moved comments of mine, so I won't bother now or in future. You do seem to put doing things your way as a rather high priority. I also wonder how someone unexperienced with wikis would interpret that. As the link sends you to me clearly talking to someone else, it looks rather like you're the only one who went near their talk page. In essence you (again) managed to revert my attempts at editing, without technically reverting my edit. There's nothing but the History tab (which not every new contributor would use - do any?) to suggest I was ever there.
tl;dr: The note, regarding the mechanic, does not belong. The bleeding will immediately be re-applied. If you're talking about synergy then you're hilariously terrible at the game and should uninstall immediately then Plague Touch will leave you without bleeding, just as Plague Transfer will. It won't inflict bleeding of it's own accord, but every spell you cast will, most Necromancers cast at least one every thirty seconds in combat - perhaps you don't? A F K sig 2.jpg A F K When Needed 18:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) @AFK, If I understood your post, you are now arguing that the point is factually incorrect. I have no idea, but if it is wrong, then it should be removed.

No one, afaik, is arguing synergy. They are simply pointing out a factual point about game mechanics. And again, game mechanics, by longstanding convention, belong in Notes. The only non-mechanic that we leave under notes these days are {{Historical}}, but only because (a) we have the nifty template and (b) that template is categorized as a note not as trivia.

Regarding the 1RV: sheesh, no one has changed the page recently. Let's move on; there's nothing to see...unless we want to reignite dramatic potential for the sake of drama.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Trivia =/= Trivial. Different words, different usage, different meanings, even though they have the same root. Plague Sending is notable because it simply transforms into a 10% sac bleeding spell. Is it useful? No. Is it important to understand condition stacking upon the spell? YES. Does it apply to Plague Touch? NO, because its a skill, it doesn't activate it, so there is no condition to transfer. If it activated on all necromancer skills, then it would matter. Because it doesn't, it doesn't. The trivia vs. notes section is based upon whether or not it effects gameplay DIRECTLY. Which it does. So it belongs in notes.--Łô√ë Gigathrash sig G.jpgîğá†ħŕášħ 19:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)