Talk:Earth Release: Earth-Style Rampart

Range
Does this really look like Mid-range? I think a not should be put on the trivia like Iron Sand World Order. --Thomas Finlayson (talk) 3:48, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just checked the manga and it looks like it could be mid-range, although it would be pushing the boundaries. It really depends on how it is measured, though. it is also very difficult to show precise distances in drawings, which is what we have databooks for. --ShounenSuki (talk 23:25, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mid-range is 10m; the average human height is short of 2m; does the height of that cliff look like it is 5 times taller than the Yamato on top? Much less the length and width? --Thomas Finlayson (talk) 6:05, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps none of those are the way this technique's range is measured. This technique creates earth and uses that to make a rampart. By using that earth to lift up the existing ground surface, one could effect a far greater range of land.
 * There are far too many uncertainties here and there's the very distinct possibility of it being nothing more than bad drawing or even dramatic effect. The point is that drawings are not reliable and Kishimoto-sensei clearly meant for the technique to be up to ten metres in range. --ShounenSuki (talk 08:31, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure about the clearly part, because the databook has made some errors (Iron Sand World Order) and ommited jutsu, (Water Release: Tearing Torrent). Of course it is not the rule, but it must be considered and thus use 'clearly' carefully. And as the previous guy said it does effect a large area (check those to pictures I posted again, if not the height then the length definetely exceeds 10m) and thus requires us to mention it. --Thomas Finlayson (talk) 6:43, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a huge difference between an error in range and an error in physics. When it comes to ranges, it is far easier to make the error in depicting the range in the manga. When it comes to physics, it is far easier to make an error in the description in the databook.
 * Still, I understand where you're coming from and I guess a mention in the trivia section wouldn't be out of place here. Something like "although this technique is said to be mid-range, at most, it seems to affect a greater area than that. However, this could be caused by art errors and it is not know exactly how the range is measured." --ShounenSuki (talk 12:47, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I will put it up. --Thomas Finlayson (talk) 8:29, May 19, 2010 (UTC)