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 | contribs) 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 | contribs) 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 | contribs) 12:47, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
Okay I will put it up. --Thomas Finlayson (talk) 8:29, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Used for offense

Since it can cause 'shape of the rampart can be anything from level ground to a steep, needle-like mountain,' could this then be used as an offensive jutsu likeEarth Release: Rock Pillars Rising? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 03:41, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone at all? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 17:32, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


Why could it not be used for offense? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 03:51, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Why does the wiki need to account for hypotheticals? ~SnapperTo 03:53, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
By hypothetical do you mean a vague probablity, or do you mean something that has a strong argument for it but is not mentioned in the databook? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 22:36, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
A tad snarky I know, but, with the example I gave and the description in the databook, could this not be used offesnsively, from what they did give? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 22:41, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
No. ~SnapperTo 02:41, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
(Sigh) Why? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 03:18, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
If Kishimoto had imagined it having offensive uses, mightn't he have classified it as such? ~SnapperTo 03:21, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
It was a relatively minor jutsu (Rasenshuriken for comparison), and it would directly be used for defense, but it "could" be used for offense. Great Fireball could be used for defense if used right even. Consider:
'shape of the rampart can be anything from level ground to a steep, needle-like mountain'
shape of the rampart can be "anything" from level ground to a steep, "needle-like" mountain Thomas Finlayson (talk) 04:50, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
So, what, "My name is Nobody. I stab cyclopes with thousand foot mountains?" That's got a lot of offensive possibilities.
The databook does not list it as offensive, the wiki does not deal in what could be, and I've lost interest in this discussion. ~SnapperTo 05:01, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
"My name is Nobody, and I can impale that Shinobi that likes to jump in the air as he attacks or retreats."
On might question why the wiki does not use the information it already has to go one step forward. No matter though, walk away from it if you wish. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 06:06, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there's a reason it was only classified as defensive by Kishimoto-sensei, did that possibility cross your mind? Maybe the technique is too slow or too inaccurate to be used offensively? Maybe it takes up too much chakra for that? —ShounenSuki (talk | contribs | translations) 11:38, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I confess I beleived him to be focusing his attention more on other jutsu. Yet, the mention of spike implies doing the enemy damage, not just keeping them away. Speed wise, that cliff seemed to appear pretty fast and over a wide area. Finally, that was a huge cliff but Yamato did not seem tired. In fact he was not tired until also constantly suppressing the Fox, creating and then massively expanding a waterfall, and various wood jutsu. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 20:39, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 00:25, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

We have a databook definition for this rank, no need nor point in debating about this. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 00:44, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
(Sigh) Did you read the other parts besides 'Defensive?' Sorry, but if a shield is capable of doing physical damage I would count it as a weapon. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 02:56, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
If it does damage when it is attacked, it's not offensive per se. Thorns and spikes can be defensive if put to avoid others from hitting you, because they'll get hurt, or they can be offensive if they are actively used to inflict injuries. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:36, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
So not classify it as offensive, but do note it can hurt opponents if they are not wary? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 17:30, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
'This ability means that the user can cause physical damage to foes while in the process of defending.' Thomas Finlayson (talk) 03:21, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

You're assuming this technique is accurate and fast enough to cause damage to anyone but the largest and most careless opponents. Also, the "needle-like" can easily be meant as a simile, so it doesn't actually have to mean the mountain can be literally sharp. —ShounenSuki (talk | contribs | translations) 08:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. First it seemed (I admit 'seemed') to raise pretty fast, especially in light of Naruto's shock. Plus, speed may not be as shinobi have at several times jumped up in the air to attack, which means the user would have a few seconds. A figure of speech is possible, but the connotations with needle is sharp, as in 'needle sharp.' Thomas Finlayson (talk) 17:52, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Most people would think the connotations with needle are thin and pointy, not necessarily sharp. Even real needles are not necessarily sharp. Knitting needles are not sharp, for instance, nor are the needles of most pines and conifers. Then there are various mountains and rock formations named after needles, like the Needle Rocks, the Needles, and the Needle Mountains, none of which are particularly sharp. There are also plenty of buildings named after needles, like Cleopatra's Needle and the Space Needle, that are also lacking sharpness quite a bit. —ShounenSuki (talk | contribs | translations) 18:50, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I agree there is too much ambiguity for offense. What about the speed though? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 22:01, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
What about the speed? It doesn't look particularly fast or slow to me, although the manga doesn't show the speed well. —ShounenSuki (talk | contribs | translations) 23:57, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
Seemed by the dust clouds and Naruto's shock to go fast, but I will leave that alone. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 16:32, August 19, 2010 (UTC)


So, looking at what the techniques do, and their kanji, this seems quite a bit like Earth Release: Earth-Style Wall. This is almost like a single person version of the multiple version used by the Fourth Division. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:46, January 28, 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else what's to discuss this? Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 01:46, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Earth Style or Earth Flow?

Why are two of Yamato's techniques named with "Earth-Style" and other two with "Earth Flow"? They both use same Kanji. --The Omnipotent One (Dreamer) (talk) 17:40, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

I have searched it and kanji used as "Style" 流 means actually "Flow/Stream". Will be corrected.--The Omnipotent One (Dreamer) (talk) 17:48, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

The kanji can be translated both as "flow/stream" and "style". No need to change anything. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 17:50, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

There is need to change anything. Because you have two techniques with "Style" and two with "Flow". Make some consistency. --The Omnipotent One (Dreamer) (talk) 17:58, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

In one jutsu, the translation as "style" is more accurate, in one, the translation as "flow" is more accurate. Simple as that. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 18:02, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

Show me evidence of 流 being translated as "style". All sources I have say that it is "flow".--The Omnipotent One (Dreamer) (talk) 18:04, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

Tangorin, Wiktionary, Google Translator. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 18:12, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

Also Denshi Jisho. --JouXIII (talk) 18:17, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thank you. But I think I would use more accurate and commonly used "flow" on my web. Good luck. --The Omnipotent One (Dreamer) (talk) 18:19, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.