Talk:Legionnaire

In addition to the listed skills, Legionnaire also has Lion's Comfort. Anyone know how to add that? 108.68.182.183 16:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, whoever did it. It may also be worth noting that Legionnaire's attacks do physical damage--not fire damage--despite apparently using a Fiery Dragon Sword. (HB damage is always physical, but Legionnaire's regular attacks and attack skills deal physical damage as well. Tested with Mark of Rodgort, Barbs, and Mark of Pain.) 99.122.16.137 17:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the summon is Rytlock Brimstone from GW2 it's actually wielding Rurik's sword Sohothin, which does physical damage when Rurik uses it too. 86.159.203.14 23:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Evaluation

It matters nothing to me if the NPC is original from GW2, in fact I didn't buy that game and I won't.

I found the evaluation interesting, because its the first Summoning Stone ally that has a complete build, that is what makes Legionnaire outstand.

Normally I won't mind to check it all by myself if:

1. It were to be ressable for easier observation and analysis.
2. Cannot be duplicated since no hero can take those two elites together.

Remember the spirit of Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting: "Please note that these are guidelines to help editors — they are recommendations rather than rules restricting creativity. In situations in which the standardized formatting doesn't fit the purpose, you are free to modify it."

¥oshida Keiji(talk) 10:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't oppose an evaluation section. However, I would argue that if we start with the Legionnaire we should slowly expand the addition to all summoned allies. I'm willing to help with that as needed. Summoned allies all have pros and cons to them and some are definitely valuable additions to a team (think Gaki), and listing these pros and cons would be a decent addition to the articles. - Infinite - talk 11:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I support the idea of giving them an evaluation section since they are basicly henchmen you can add to your party by summoning them. But adding an evaluation section to all of them will be quite some work to do indeed. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

most by far are awful, so you only really have to look out for the ones worth their cost in materials :p -Auron 12:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If the general opinion for summon stone ally Evaluation is positive, I would like Infinite to revert the section removal (that saves me from having to do it). I have obtained this item but haven't used it yet (busy schedule). I don't find much need to analyse all others. The only stone I ever found to be of some use is the Merchant, because it helps me sell my drops in areas where there is no NPC that can help me keep picking up loot. My Xunlai storage has several stacks of these stones (most of the Oni due to massive The Deep farming and all Celestials I never used). The only times I had ever used these stones were while I was MQSCing since dual work is sometimes risky (fail tank/fail smiter) and employed them as decoys to escape, as waiting for a rez without the smiter would turn a Slow Clear instead. Either way, as long as Legionnaire gets an Evaluation I will keep smiling. ¥oshida Keiji(talk) 14:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Happy with the evaluation I gave it? Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 14:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

For team effort, anyone can edit User:Infinite/Sandbox and discuss the content in one location. Feel free, anyway. - Infinite - talk 14:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest not evaluating allies that can only be randomly summoned from stones (e.g. Celestial Summoning Stone, Imperial Guard Reinforcement Order, and Mysterious Summoning Stone). The ally summoned is random, so you can't control which ally you get from those stones. Also, one can't really compare a Devourer from a Chitinous Summoning Stone to an Archer from a Zaishen Summoning Stone, since an Archer isn't always summoned when using a Zaishen Summoning Stone. --Silver Edge 06:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Are the evaluation of the individual allies not equally important in the event that you do summon them (and wonder if you just summoned a liability or a great addition), though? I was under the impression that the evaluations wouldn't be in any way documented on the stones' articles. - Infinite - talk 19:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, evaluations shouldn't be on any of the summoning stone pages. I thought that the summoned ally evaluations was being done so one can determine whether to use a summoning stone instead of another (except in the case of summoning stones that summon a random ally). E.g. one might decide not to forfeit a skill point to use the Legionnaire Summoning Crystal to summon a Legionnaire in an area that doesn't have fleshy foes (since two of the Legionnaire's skills have no effect on non-fleshy foes) and instead use another summoning stone (preferably one that summons an ally that doesn't use skills that require corpses nor inflict bleeding, disease, or poison). If that wasn't the case, then go ahead and evaluate all of them. --Silver Edge 07:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We do not need an evaluation for this summoning stone, but that does not mean we can have good useful notations in the Trivia. I am redoing the page to show my idea. After all, I agree with many others that evaluations are only for henchmen and if you have one on this page, which you do. You would need one for most of the other summoning stones as well. I disagree with this assessment "the first Summoning Stone ally that has a complete build," as I have watched this stone and have not seen a full build used. I wouldn't care if this was in trivia information, instead of "evaluation". Evaluation seems like a waste of an effort and it's redundant of skills and trivia as you could already get some of this information by looking at those two areas. Rodan (talk) 17:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

"Evaluation seems like a waste of an effort and it's redundant of skills and trivia as you could already get some of this information by looking at those two areas." If that is the case then the henchmen also would not need an evaluation since you could just "look at their skills and trivia" for a proper evaluation. Besides, the trivia section is not meant to give information of such sort, nor is the notes section. The evaluation shows the pros and cons of a henchmen (in this case summoned henchmen) of how they use their skills and the advantages and disadvantages they have. Even if it is a random summon, knowing the pros and cons of a summon can be very valuable info if/when you want to use a summoning stone and know wich stone you can use best. The notes section can be used to add additional info about the AI behavior. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Spare me, cause you would have to do other summoning stones like gaki, imp, etc. the same way. It's called consistence among pages, learn it. It's redundant and not like the other summoning stone pages, hence the removal that you undid me on. It's not a henchman either as it only lasts like the other summoning stones and the pros and cons don't help those that can't use it, like they can a henchman. Either do this for all summoning stone pages or remove it. Right now, that's 4 that don't want this against 3 that want it with no real reason. Rodan (talk) 05:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Good thing wiki is not a democracy. Also, the evaluation of the other summoning stones is already being worked, it's not just the Legionnaire that gets an evaluation. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Guys, chill out. If you don't want to research the summoning stones... you don't have to. The project will continue regardless; it's primarily in user space for now, and when the evals are complete we can think about merging them into pages. Also, wikis are fairly democratic in nature. We come to a decisions via consensus, not just pure vote counting, but the outcome is pretty similar most of the time. If a lot of people think an idea sucks, the idea is altered until they're happy with it. The idea isn't just pushed through regardless - editing against consensus leads to revert wars and often bans. (This obviously means both sides have to be willing to compromise, but considering this is a video game wiki about an 8 year old video game, I'm sure we can hold a friendly fuckin conversation for ten minutes about the pros and cons of individual summoning stones). -Auron 12:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Well then...my request to Rodan is to give us, the ones who are working on the eva, some time to complete the evas and add them and judge it when it's complete instead of saying no to it. Please just give the summoning stone eva a chance. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, you have that chance. The merging attempts can wait until they're ready for merging, so we have some prototypes to work with. Nothing's nixed by now. -Auron 13:18, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Tyvm. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 13:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

If you do summoning stones, might as well do Henchmen, NPCs, Disguises, etc., for evaluation. After all, wouldn't this benefit as much as the summoning stones? Rodan (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Henchmen already have an evaluation section (Except the PvP henches but I have no experience with them) and disguises are balanced to the enemies the player encounters during the missions/quests so they have no real pros or cons and thus don't require an evaluation. NPCs can't be added freely to your party and the parts you get an allied NPC is much too limited for an evaluation as well, not to mention that outside of WiK you only get them during quests or missions. Well maybe the WiK NPCs that randomly spawn could get one but that's about it. Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Evaluations are more useful than skill listings due to AI malfunction (Hero behavior/Unexpected behavior), just looking at an NPC bar does not provide performance information.

Your observation ability is very poor, other users had noted those 8 skills... but you didn't, I think we can't trust you as watcher.

" After all, I agree with many others that evaluations are only for henchmen and if you have one on this page, which you do."

"Right now, that's 4 that don't want this against 3 that want it with no real reason."

Who are the others that disagree with Evaluation implementation?

Removal of a section without strong support is counter-productive, {{stub}} is meant to invite other users to participate. Removing a {{section-stub}} will reduce improvement opportunities and should not be just removed without proper consensus.

Finally Evaluations are "Important", anybody who has longwikitime will know better than Rodan, since in the past, there had been Arenanet game updates that modified PvP henchment but were disfunctional and several users showed up to complain about then and it was that such feedback that impulsed "fixing" updates. This kind of interaction between ANet and players is helpful even in PvE grounds. ¥oshida Keiji(talk) 07:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be left up to the reader. A wiki should give information and not baby its readers and give opinion. I didn't come here for someones opinion. Users come here to find out where to get the summon, what skills it has, how a summoning stone works, where to acquire, etc. Cuilan (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately opinions are not included on evaluation sections. We only list facts and flaws about the skill bar and the summon's individual use of it. - Infinite - talk 20:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely based on opinion. And some will see the self-heal as a con because it hurts its DPS. Cuilan (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with Cuilan and why I was really against Evaluation in the first place. It is opinionated and not honestly based on facts alone. I use summoning stones, no matter what one... for when I'm stuck in a rut. They help. Why should I be picky or care about which particular one I should use? Especially basing it on someone's opinion that is called as an evaluation. What may be a pro to one person, might be a con to another in areas. Did we not really think of the consequences when doing this? A wiki, as Cuilan said, should be based on information and actual facts from within the game as in my opinion that's the true hard core useful items. Rodan (talk) 09:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the evaluation of the legionnaire. Which pros and cons are just opinions? The closest to anything resembling opinion is "lacks a defensive skill", and that is only if you do not have to worry about its defense by other means (SY, protting...). Furthermore, these evaluations are irrelevant for people who are familiar with the majority of the skills in the game, which includes the people who are still active on this wiki. To casual players who just want to have some fun with the game once in a while with their guild, however, these summon evaluations are really helpful. When I was still active in a guild (and this was like 3 years ago), most of the people in it had crap heroes because they knew how their main character's profession worked, but little about the others. Therefore concise description about the strengths and weaknesses of a summon is much more helpful than just a list of skills everyone has to look up, and decide from just the description whether to get the summoning stones or not. And even then, some of the summons (Oni, I am looking at you!) look decent on paper, but because of the dumb AI, are utterly useless. Koda 16:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't think the wiki share(d) that perspective (in the past), judging by the sheer amount of walkthroughs and skill suggestions on many mission and quest articles that can be found. This wiki has always been catering to the more casual audience, and only listing specific facts among pros and cons (such as poor AI behaviour with certain skills) can not be an opinion. Obviously contrary to whether or not your party set-up requires an ally to have access to a self-heal or not (and in the event of it not being required, how much it impacts the use of the ally offensively or supportively). I am in favour of keeping evaluations if they stick to the facts, and can easily see reason to oppose them whenever they list opinionated bullet points, such as the use of a healing skill (which depends on the synergy within a player's team, instead of only affecting the ally in question).

In short: as long as they only consist of facts, they're decent additions. Opinion is in the eye of the beholder and should therefore not be listed.

Example: "The AI does not make effective use of Protector's Defense." ( ... because the AI does not limit movement whatsoever during this skill ... ) is a fact, whereas "Healing Signet is a risky self-heal, and will be used regardless of allied healers." ( ... denting the ally's armor and impacting their DPS ... ) is an opinion (as your party could compensate for either). - Infinite - talk 16:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the very few notable facts can be placed in the trivia section or notes section, but I feel much of the evaluation can be easily opinionated with too many that'd defend it. As you don't need something like "Healing Signet is a risky self-heal, and will be used regardless of allied healers" for evaluation, but you'd most likely get it... It's less of a chance for that in a trivia or notes section... Because people would realize that hey, it's an opinion and not a fact and less likely to be overlooked... Rodan (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The page already lists the skills with links for what the skills do. Cuilan (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is arguing that. The point is that the people for whom the entire article is interesting benefit greatly from such an evaluation. Try to address that, instead of a strawman. Koda 15:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The evaluation is useful for how the NPC fits into the party. Melee, aoe, kd, bleeding, DW, and self-heal, not as effective against non-fleshy foes. Seems like the pros and cons section, but less organized or explained. --JonTheMon (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how an evaluation is much of an improvement, considering we can put things in trivia and notes. Not to mention that it doesn't seem to fit with this one as per Guild_Wars_Wiki:Formatting/NPCs as it says there on evaluation "This optional section applies to henchmen only." and you can't get summoning stones as easily as you can henchmen. I'd suggest making changes to that page first, before continuing to change summoning stone pages. Rodan (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

What i am wondering now is why you are so against the evaluation. Is it the additional info in detail it offers that you are against, adding an additional section to it (notes an trivia are not meant for such info btw) or do you want to be right no matter what? Da Mystic Reaper (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you against guidelines? It shows there what the evaluations were meant to be used for with the word "only" and henchmen and heroes. I finally decided to research the npc guideline pages, with people using such as reasons on changes. Need I explain anymore on the why now? Just make your suggestion changes there for summoning stones and the why for those changes. Else, it's no point in these evaluations and the first archive explains exactly what I think and why it is the way it is. The section in the archive is called Evaluation. I am not against evaluations in general, but I've explained why in plain English that I don't think it's needed in more places. Rodan (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wintersday Appearance

He wields a Candy Cane Sword and Gingerbread Shield during Wintersday :D --Tidus (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Special event weapons

He seems to wield a different sword and shield during each special event. Here's a list of special events. Feel free to edit the list and strikethrough any special event you have confirmed. Also, edit the Notes section of the article accordingly. --Silver Edge 20:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Special event	Notes
Canthan New Year
Lucky Treats Week
April Fools' Day
Sweet Treats Week
Anniversary Celebration
Dragon Festival
Wintersday in July
Wayfarer's Reverie
Pirate Week
Breast Cancer Awareness Month	Should be tested while Halloween isn't active, i.e. 1-17 October. --Silver Edge 20:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Halloween
Special Treats Week
Wintersday

Quotes

There is additional quotes depending on the mission or the area. I noticed one in the Arborstone mission, and another one but I don't remember where. My game isn't in English so I can't add the info here, but the quote was about "moving ourself", so it is maybe related to the ground shaking of this mission? GodRage (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone provide a screenshot of any of these quotes? I haven't seen them ever appear. horrible | contribs 01:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

And of course immediately after this some of them appear. fantastic. horrible | contribs 01:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Icy Dragon Sword?

During Aprils fools event 1:20 am eastern standard Time (New York) he loaded in with a Icy Dragon Sword? I Saw no mention of this in the notes on trivia or on the discussion page that such a sword is possible with him.

---

_{Just used it again, seems to be an April Fools event related?}

Look up two sections, this was requested research, albeit a few years old, just never completed. Guess its too late to ask what shield he had. Durp da durp (talk) 06:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I did get pictures, it was the normal shield.