Might have to be made a category for the list of weapons. Byakko 1 September 2007

Brionac and Gungnir are not in GoB. They are only mentioned in passing (Gae Bolg description and Archer vs Lancer fight).

Ah, they're both mentioned there. As I mentionned in the GoB discussion I couldn't remember which was were. I'm setting a redirection for the both of them to the Gae Bolg article then, and it'll mention them. Thanks. Byakko 15:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now that there's a "NOble Phantasms" category, this article will be removed - when the majority of the Noble Phantasm articles will be done. This can stay for a list of the NPs until all the pages are created. Byakko 18:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, things are probably done differently here, but on other wikis (at least, those I know of), a category description should not contain any information itself, just a brief outline what belongs into it. The actual data (such as the definition of Noble Phantasms and their common specifications) is only stored in a mainspace article which is then declared "main" one for the category in question. It's generally a good idea to separate actual information and organization IMO because it eventually makes it easier to modify both. --Koveras Alvane 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but I rather do that once more NP articles are ready for the category. Ultimately, the "category" will have only the list, and this article, only the description, yes. I just rather make sure we have a full list of all needed information in either place - here. Like some infodump, if you may. Byakko 09:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry for not making myself clear. What I objected to was deleting this complete article (as opposed to removing just the list of Phantasms) and moving its content to the category description. :) At least, that's how I understood your message from 6 September. Also, I'd like to comment on the removal of Magic category tag: since this article is the main article of NP cat, its OK to put it both in Noble Phantasms and in Magic category IMO. It serves as a sort of bridge between the two, then. :) --Koveras Alvane 09:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I'm the one who got confusing (and confused) back then. Do as you see fit, then. Byakko 10:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Type Edit

Anti-Unit Anti-Army Anti-Fortress Support Anti-World

these types are assigned to each phantasm, but what does each mean? obviously Anti-Unit is man to man, but what is the difference between Anti-Fortress and Anti-Army? which one is stronger? is their a difference? Support is fairly obvious as well. Discuss.

Don't you think something that can destroy an army would be less strong than something that can destroy the entire castle / fortress the same army is in ? The anti- types mean that the NP is "fit for that kind of target", something that's based on killing a large number of enemies, something meant to blow up a huge fortress, something meant to tear the very fabric of reality for the Anti-World that is Ea... Take Caster (4th War, Gilles de Rais) and his book. It's anti-army, it mainly summons countless monsters ; these monsters will usually not be big enough to take down a castle, but the number is more than enough to take down an army. ... Well, this isn't quite a perfect example since there actually is a gigantic sea monster that can probably punch a hole through a castle, but you get the idea. Summoning a bigbed of huge spikes the size of a man could work against an army, but not against a castle, for a random example.
For the comparison, Gae Bolg (thrown version) is anti-army and is mainly a big explosion, though clearly not enough to take down a fortress ; Bellerophon is the most powerful NP in the 5th War after Excalibur and Ea, and is meant to be used with Pegasus plowing through the army with its wings sending shockwaves at 500km/h and whatnot, tearing people to shreds and walls too on its way, but might not be enough to pierce through a fortress ; Excalibur is anti-fortress and the size of the beam can be twice as wide as the highest building in Fuyuki (as seen in FHA) and virtually limitless in length. --Byakko 21:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This is what i originally was inclined to believe, i wanted to hear the thoughts of others. after coming across Anti-Fortress only once i was suspecting it may have been a stand in for army. but now i know it is a separate category. Thank You.

Power levels Edit

What are the effects of the higher NP "ranks"? Is it a coincidence that the only known EX-ranks belong to the "King" Servants (King of Heroes, King of Conquerors, King of Knights)? --Koveras Alvane 12:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

... Uh, what ? Yeah, it's a coincidence. Give Ea to someone else and he'll have an EX ranked NP and wouldn't be a King. Make a random someone gain a NP as powerful as Alexander's Ionioi Hetairoi and he'll probably be worthy enough of being called a king of something if he managed to gather so many people with such faith in him. --Byakko 19:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I meant, how, for example, does Saber's magical defence rank A corellate with the effects that rank A NPs have on her. I just don't get the mechanic behind all of this ranking.
As for EXs, I don't think NPs can be given just like that. Aren't they "part of the respective hero's" legend and such? :-/ --Koveras Alvane 22:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The details on the ranks are given in the stats. A rank A magical defense means that basically no modern magus can hurt her and you need a hugely powerful spell.
As for "giving an EX NP" obviously I mean that as "get a hero whose legend has something like that (big number of powerful people who would follow him through across the world even after death and yadda yadda), and if he was so legendary, he probably was a king of something ; or have a hero receive the sword of Ea and he'll have it as a NP even without being a king". Alternatively if you're a king of something, you probably got that title because you had a really powerful legend, which may or may not be of EX rank as a NP.
It's a coincidence in the way that there's no "king <-> EX NP" rule of any kind, but if you're a king of something, you probably had something powerful and legendary, and if you had something powerful with a huge legend, you probably were a king of something. Alternatively, there can be heroes like Herakles who could easily own a NP with EX rank even without being a king of something.
tl;dr don't look for big rules in simple logic. --Byakko 13:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Oookaay. I won't. :D But still, is magic also ranked? I've seen that part about modern mages being unable to hurt Saber (on Wikipedia) but being an inquisitive person that I am, I wonder what is said about these modern mages themselves in the sources. :) --Koveras Alvane 16:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
... What ? I don't get your question. Modern magecraft is too weak to hurt Saber, that's all. Really powerful spells can probably hit her, mythical beasts can bitchslap her, and magic can hit her depending on what kind of effect it does. What kind of info do you think might be said about magi related to that ? --Byakko 09:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
As I said, I don't understand myself. %) It's just that I'm an RPG geek and when I see the word "rank" or "level" in a spell/ability description, I immediately assume that it fits into some grand unifying magic mechanics system. :) --Koveras Alvane 09:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I'd imagine it might be too, just like how you need a B ranked MGI to not get instantly petrified by Medusa's eyes for example - or even God Hand which is about "nothing ranked B and below can touch him". But in the case of Saber, what is said is that with her MGI rank, "no modern magus can harm her" ; I don't remember if there's any specific rank given for what kind of spell can actually harm her, but that description should be enough :P you'd just have to figure out what rank a modern magus can hope to reach, and you have what you're looking for... But anyway, that description was more of an example, of course you can always make up a modern magus who actually shoots spells as powerful as Medea and bam, you have the exception that confirms the rule. Mind you, the only problem is that even someone like Aoko is specifically said to ber no match for a serious Medea, so that should give you an idea of what kind of power you're looking for and what it means when they say that no modern magus can hope to harm Saber... --Byakko 12:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
The general rule for magecraft can also be how many lines in the spell. Of course this doesn't apply for Caster who's from the age of gods and can use the divine language. But a spell's power usually depends on the incantation. Also since Magic Resistance D is blocks a single action, C blocks two verses, B is blocks three verses, it's safe to assume that A blocks up to a four verse spell. 01:30, July 3, 2011 (UTC) John Smith 6:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Servant Pages Edit

Shouldn't the Servant pages at least have links to their own Noble Phantasms or this page listed somewhere? Perhaps at the bottom of the infobox or something?

True Owner? Edit

Noble Phantasm can only be used by there true owner yet Archer is able to use Noble Phantasms because of his tracing ability. This occurs during his

Sympathizing with the experience of its growth,

Reproducing the accumulated years,

steps. Although these are byproducts of UBW that does mean they are exclusively because of UBW? For example Knight of Honor allows Lancelot to use other's Noble Phantasms. Of course both UBW and Knight of Honor only work for physical noble phatasms. So the question is whether or not it would be possible to "steal" or "reproduce" a conceptual Noble Phatasm. Eg "No Second Strike" or "Knight of Honor." Replication of noble phantasms like "Blood Fort Andromeda" and "God's Hand" seems possible since they just magecraft, close to magic, but still magecraft. If one has the theory and the ability it should be possible except for UBW since it is exclusively EMIYA's and Shirou's world.

Finally what is it about the noble phantasm that exclusively allows it's "true owner" to use it. Is it knowledge? Does the fact become written onto his/her soul? Is it due to humanity linking that hero solely with that weapon/legend/magecraft? If it is just knowledge doesn't that mean EMIYA knows how to use the noble phatasm as a noble phantasm because the sword itself teaches him, the reason for "reproduction of the accumluated years." If so one who was linked to Akasha, 3rd personality Shiki?, should be able to use every single noble phantasm in existance. No idea why she would want to. But it would be possible since Akasha would relay the information of how to operate the noble phantasm to her. Of course this is assuming she had possession of the noble phantasm in the first place. 05:36, November 24, 2011 (UTC)Sebastian

it is impossible to replicate conceptual Noble Phantasm, at least not with Knight of Honor or UBW, reason is because of the application. Conceptual Noble Phantasm is more like special move (must be learned), while physical Noble Phantasm is more like normal weapon (which can be passed around). There is some possibility that if an individual possess enough knowledge and possess capabilities and potential to use a conceptual Noble Phantasm, He/she is able to imkitate it (seeing How Shirou is able to use Nine Lives Blade Works by tracing Berserker's weapon and gaining Knowledge how to use Nine Lives fron that sword).

Given the knowledge, I suppose it might be possible to use a Noble Phantasm that other people possess (though there is no case of one Hero stealing other people's noble phantasm) we can see this from how Gilgamesh own Gae Bolg in gate of Babylion but unable to use it fully while Berserker is able to use most of weapon from Gate of Babylion thanks to his Knight of Honor. Can't really explain it clearly but according to some source EMIYA's ability to use replication of Noble phantasm is somewhat linked to his origins and because UBW automatically record and analyze any weapon that EMIYA see. This might include experience and such. However it should be noted that the Noble Phantasm that EMIYA created in UBW is different in term it is replication with EMIYA as the creator, individually it is different weapon from the original (just like how Caladbolg and Caladbolg II is different) this might also factor that support the reason why EMIYA is able to use most of Noble Phantasm he create.

Dainsleaf 10:45, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Quick question while we're on the subject of true owners. Why the hell isn't Durandal listed as Roland's? I get it isn't confirmed in the Nasuverse, but still. Maybe a refererence to him in the owner column or something? 18:39, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

First, I must say that the UBWs creations are not the Noble Phantasm, but Emiya's 'factory' UBWs itself. Therefore, it goes without saying that Archer's weapons can be stolen and used by anyone, not just individuals with the ability to steal. Furthermore, in response to Dainsleaf's reply, I don't think the fact that UBWs creations are conceptual weapons have any bearing on the fact that they exist within reality as objects governed by the laws of physics. His weapons are not simply 'magical' or some such. They, as you hinted at, are created through a process of scientific understanding and projection into reality, the first part of which is supported by an innate ability in Emiya to comprehend structures simply by observing them. As a result, his creations are not the results of high level magic like Noble Phantasms, but more like 'objects' created magically, and are therefore subject to being taken, should Emiya permit the creation to exist long enough for it to happen

Sunset Braver 08:39, June 2, 2012 (UTC)Sunset Braver, 02/06/2012.


Is it okay for me to put trivia on this page, similar to what I have done to here on the Shakugan no Shana Wiki? The trivia is that both use Hougu (宝具) in their media. Aassdddai talk 07:12, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'll just put in in then if no one responds. Aassdddai talk 07:44, June 15, 2012 (UTC)
Trivia is generally rather pointless and unnecessary. I'm sure the term is probably used in a dozen different series, so there's no need to mention it without an actual connection to the Fate series. EGGS 19:08, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

No Face May King Edit

I looked down at the list of Noble Phantasms at the bottome of the page, and found this within the Noble Phantasms within Fate/Extra. Why is it there? Is it a Noble Phantasm, or a mistake brought about by Robin Hood's Skill, "Faceless King"? Zahadrin (talk) 07:21, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

It's a Noble Phantasm only classified as such in the Extra material encyclopedia like Fierce Tiger Forcibly Climbs a Mountain. EGGS (talk) 15:25, December 11, 2013 (UTC)
Would that not actually make it authentically a Noble Phantasm, in that case? Zahadrin (talk) 19:28, December 11, 2013 (UTC)

owner/user Edit

I think that in place of "owner", the NP template should say "user" instead. Or both. Technically, Gilgamesh should be in almost all NP as owner. For example, Rho Aias is actually Aias'. The one in Unlimited Blade Works is a copy that is used by Archer. Sandubadear (talk) 23:31, June 1, 2014 (UTC) 

Technically Gigamesh doesn't actually own the noble phantasms of later heroes, he just owns the 'ideas' and 'concept' behind them, think of Plato's Idea of Forms. Aias' owned a shield that is "invincible against all projectiles" which takes the shape of a flower petal. The noble phantasm that Gilgamesh has is not the exact same pink petal shield, but a random shield that possess the same "Invincible agaisnt all projectile" ability only one rank higher to being the first weapon that has that ability. This is why Gungnir is consider the predessor of Gae Bolg even though one is in Scandnivia and the other is in Ireland. They have different origins but their abilities are similiar and when they become noble phantasms, Gungnir is superior due to it being older and thus much closer to the concept of "Always strike the Target"(being made for a god also helps).  It's why Excalibur is so unique, it's been crafted from the concept of "hope" in the heart of the planet, which their is no other myth like that. 14:54, March 27, 2015 (UTC)Fbiuzz (talk) 02:37, November 30, 2015 (UTC)

He actually does own them. He owns everything in his Treasury until his passing in life, and his Treasuries were pillaged. He does own Gae Bolg before it was Gae Bolg, so Cu Chulainn's Spear originally was his. If Gilgamesh is called the Owner of those items in Type-Moon Material, then he did in fact own them. Zahadrin (talk) 18:42, March 27, 2015 (UTC)

Really? On his Gates of Babylon that "even though its a paradox he must own it since he's a first hero". I just interpret that because he's essentially the prototype of all hero which all other heroes are based on, he must have a "prototype" of other Heroes Noble Phantasm, and that the Gates of Babylon just retroactively updates itself when a new Heroic Spirit is created. Of course Nasu is not exactly super-specific about that. Fbiuzz (talk) 03:47, August 23, 2015 (UTC)

Nasu isn't super specific about much. Sign your posts.Hawkeye2701 (talk) 05:01, May 6, 2015 (UTC)

Update Grand Order 9th August 2017Edit

List of NP Rank who have been changed :

  • Arjuna : Pashupata, A++ to A+
  • Emiya (Archer) : Unlimited Blade Works, E-A++ to E-A->E-A++
  • Emiya (Archer Alter) : Unlimited Lost Works, E-A++ to E-A-A++
  • Orion : Tri-star Amore Mio, A++ to A+
  • Babbage : Dimension of Steam, A++->EX to A+->EX
  • MHX : Secretcalibur, A++->EX to A+->EX
  • Paracelse : Sword of Paracelsus, A++ to A+
  • Fergus : Caladbolg, A++ to A+
  • Beowulf : Grendel Buster, A++ to A+
  • Mordred : Clarent Blood Arthur, A++ to A+
  • Lancelot (Saber) : Arondight Overload, A++ to A->A++
  • Lancelot (Berserker) : Knight of Owner, A++ to A->A++

Tony Rédraïke (talk) 10:50, August 25, 2017 (UTC)

I'll get to these soonish

N/A 20:31, August 25, 2017 (UTC)Clyton