Talk:Blood Legion Homelands

Bigger, I hope. Not the three explorable-areas and one town in EotN. Cress Arvein 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Charr Homelands/Ascalon

Since in GW2, Ascalon (excluding Ascalon City and the Blazeridge Mountains) will be a part of the Charr Homelands - according to the The Movement of the World - shouldn't this be mentioned in the page? Edit: Nevermind, I'm blind "the others being part of the Far Shiverpeaks, and Ascalon." -- Konig Des Todes 17:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Far Shiverpeaks?

Why are parts of the Far Shiverpeaks now considered part of Charr territory? The Norn let Charr pass, but they never gave any territory to them. When that one dragon forced all the Norn out, it didn't just leave, or else the Norn would simply move back. I'm fairly sure the Far Shiverpeaks are still Ancient Dragon territory. 204.73.49.179 17:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Deletion?

The new map (http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/File:Map_of_Tyria.gif) only goes as far as Proph, not EoTN, so the Charr Homelands are not included. As far as "naming" goes, the northest (non-aquatic) zone named in the map is the Northern Shiverpeaks (while the Charr Homelands are east of Far Shiverpeaks). Shouldn't this page be deleted, then? I mean, they might (and most likely will) expand the map in future expansions, but for the moment, this area will not be a part of GW2. --217.129.133.230 17:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That map is for Ghosts of Ascalon, I think, not necessarily Guild Wars 2 the game. They need to include the hall of monuments in the game map somehow, so the map would have to go further northwards. I think it's still a case of wait-and-see. pling 17:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hm, it could be, although I don't understand why they would make a seperate map for the book and the game. And the Charr-Human conflict is present in both, so any mention to the Charr Homelands would be likely. As to the HoM, I think it's very unlikely we'll see our old armors there, heroes, tapestries, etc. It would be a HUGE waste of time to reproduce everything again on the new GW2 engine. I think we'll not receive our rewards by going to the HoM, but instead by having a random NPC saying "you know, your father gave me this and asked me to give it to you. It has been in your family for many generations" or something like that. It would also enable the Asura to receive their rewards at the same time as a Norn would (although the Asura is way further from the HoM). I think it's highly unlikely we'll see more areas in the game, but I guess we can just wait... --217.129.133.230 19:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Father? What if my character is a Charr, you're not makin' sense bro'. --Odal talk 19:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Charr still have fathers, obviously. The only race that doesn't is the Sylvari. But it was just speculation. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, English is not my native language. EDIT: Oh, you are talking about inter-racial descendants. Well, yes, as I said, it was just a suggestion/idea, not bullet-proof. Although all the evidence indicates that there will be no HoM either (or it will be in another place in the world, which is highly unlikely).

With today's news, we can see that "Ghosts of Ascalon" will not be told throughout the entire map (source: see 4th question in http://www.massively.com/2010/07/15/the-story-behind-ghosts-of-ascalon-massivelys-interview-with-j/). So, the question of the Charr Homelands not being in the map but having the possibility of appearing in-game is almost completely answered. Since "Ghosts" isn't set in the Tarnished Coast, the Shiverpeak Mountains, Orr, etc., but those zones are still on the map, it's fair to assume that this is the map of the game. In this way, if the Charr Homelands are not on the map, then it doesn't belong directly to the game and should be removed. We don't even know if it will be mentioned in-game at all, but at this point we don't even have its real name (since it's very unlikely it is called "Charr Homelands" by the Charr). So, 1 vote for deletion. --217.129.133.230 20:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean how would this pass down through the family if you're ultimate ascendant is human? Humans don't make Charr, Sylvari, norn or Asura. You know the facts of life and that's not how it works. --Odal talk 20:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its fair to assume that this isn't in the game. The book and game are separate entities, and though the book is cannon, does not represent the game in its entirety. You shouldn't go around moving and deleting articles because of what a single map from a fantasy book says. My experience with maps in fantasy books is that they include only what pertains to the book, but the rest of the world is still there. And just because its not in the book, doesn't mean its not in the game. Plus the wiki is based on fact and evidence, not speculation and assumption. Vote 1 for non-deletion. Themastermoo 20:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@Odal Yes, I understand what you meant, and I answered it above. You are completely right, I was just making a suggestion of an alternative to the HoM, but I didn't consider that factor.

@Themastermoo I don't think its fair to assume that this is in the game. It was an unknown area until GW:EN, and they look like they are staying with the Prophecies areas - and only the GW:EN areas that are in that area too. And I'm not only referring to the map, but also to the fact that Cantha/Elona are not there, the Norn have coincidentally moved south as well as the Charr (to Ascalon). There is no reason for them to make a different map for the book at all. The thing about fantasy book maps are that they just mention the main areas/cities, but they very rarely - if ever - delete entire areas. Why would they even do that? Why not keep the entire map? It is obvious that it isn't all pertinent to the story, but the Tarnished Coast also isn't and it's still there. Same with the Crystal Desert. And the Ring of Fire. And a lot of other areas. Also, why didn't they already say what the "Charr Homelands" real name is? Or exactly how the HoM work? If it is just go there and get your reward, there shouldn't be much to talk about. There is no 100% conclusive evidence that the Charr Homelands are not in GW2, but it's far more plausible to believe it, as all things indicate that. And I agree with you, the wiki IS based on fact and evidence. And there is no single fact nor evidence that the Charr Homelands will be an explorable area or even referred in-game. The existance of the article is speculation and assumption that the area will be in GW2. Since noone is doing an article on Utopia's continent because it might be an explorable area in GW2 in the future, then the same should apply to this one. There is still no word on the existance of the Charr Homelands in GW2, so the existance of the article is speculation. The inexistance of the article, on the other hand, is not. --217.129.133.230 20:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Personally I agree with Naoroji here.

If the HoM had a bunch of goodies it would have been pillaged a dozen times over between games. Most likely our character will discover the long-lost treasure and think "yoink!" as much as have any legitimate ownership of whatever it is they find. A F K When Needed 20:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Charr Homelands is actually just an extension of Ascalon, and it may have been merged with Ascalon in the map, it may be off the map. I think we should leave it alone until we know for sure. Themastermoo 21:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

<sarcasm> Yes, it's definitely far more probable that two completely different (in looks and history) areas merged than that CH doesn't appear because it also didn't appear in GWO until the last expansion. </sarcasm> I think it's funny how you (not you alone, obviously, but some members of the wiki) proclaim how much you want to abolish speculation and assumptions, and end up speculating and making assumptions. I thought there were plenty of unbiased people in the wiki, but apparently I was wrong - or they just don't manifest their thoughts enough. I can accept other ideas as long as they are logical - as the HoM thing above. I was obviously wrong, but I was just making a side comment that could compensate for the lack of the northern areas. Now on this matter, all you said was something along the lines of "the map of the book may not be as the map of GW2" and "I believe [speculation]". The first argument was a valid one, and I answered above. You didn't make a counter-argument, but instead said what you think happened (with no evidence what-so-ever). This unsettles me, because it's not the first time something like this happens: I give an idea/suggestion with some things that could base it and discuss it, I try do defend my theory (a very likely one, in this case) and exchange arguments. Some of you just say "well, let's wait and see". Well, even if this area does show up in GW2 (which I think it's unlikely), the truth is that until that time, the page WILL BE SPECULATION. That's one thing that most don't understand: the "wait and see" technique should be replaced by "the page is wrong until official confirmation". In the most likely articles (not like this one, though) there should at least say "it's likely that this will be true" in the page. Otherwise, everyone that visits the page will be told unconfirmed "facts". And, as everyone knows, wiki is not meant to have assumptions. Although it does have a lot of them.

I will not say anything else, I think I've said enough in my other entries. My arguments are still there if anyone wants to see them. But please, from now on, everyone try to think outside the box and see if you are really avoiding speculation or if you are in fact just filling the wiki with unbased assumptions. --217.129.133.230 11:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

"the truth is that until that time, the page WILL BE SPECULATION. That's one thing that most don't understand: the "wait and see" technique should be replaced by "the page is wrong until official confirmation""

I think the number of people expecting flawless decisions and judgement calls on every occasion before the game comes out is quite small. Even things officially confirmed by ArenaNet could later be changed before the game is released. Do you think we should maintain just the main page and our user pages until the game does come out? The Wiki and attending community are attempting to provide what information we can - which likely includes incorrect material as any rational person would expect - and a flavour of what the game will be like.

I understand where you're coming from, but I do feel you're being a bit harsh. A F K When Needed 14:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how exactly is this page giving the flavour of the game or providing useful information (and I do think lore is a useful thing). I know it's a one-in-a-thousand situation, but imagine that someone new to GW sees this, then goes to GW1 wiki to check this area out and has high expectations, and then the area doesn't appear in-game. I know, it's very unlikely that someone would freak out over an explorable area, but there are other pages with speculation, maybe about more important subjects to future players. I don't think we should wait until the game comes out, even because after it does, it can still be changed. But I do think that we should wait until the facts are confirmed. They may still be altered (look at the companion system), but at least, because it is confirmed, it means that it's something ArenaNet has already tested to see how it worked out and is pretty sure about. The official word from Anet, even if changed in the future, is still the most true fact we've got. Nothing is writen in stone, not even after the game's launch, but that is completely different from being non-fundamented speculation.

I would like to see wiki really free of assumptions. I though it was a common goal of all the contributors (even because some proclaim it as loud as they can when they see a different idea from their own), but if you all think it's too hard to copy-paste this to a sandbox (to have the data saved if the page goes up again - which is unlikely) and delete the page, then ok, let the speculation go on. And if you want to add all the locations of GW:EN and the campaigns, you can also do it, since eventually it will be accurate data. Until there, well, it's just a few years of "yet-to-become" truthful information. --217.129.133.230 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Firstly, I want to say there's too much text for me to bother reading through everything, especially since at one point it seems to go off topic. Secondly, I disagree with deletion - we don't know of the Ghosts of Ascalon map will be the GW2 map, in fact, I'd say it is unlikely that is the case. 1) Jormag is no longer on the map and it is the main dragonic conflict of the norn, it'll be silly to remove it from the initial release; 2) Kralkatorrik's original sleeping spot is not on the map; 3) Scaling, especially of the east side, seems to be off imo - thus the map may even be off from what we see; 4) ArenaNet said, if I recall, that the island in the northwest corner has a purpose in GW2, the Ghosts of Ascalon map doesn't show that island, 5) Most of the charr territory is cut off, why would that be? 5) If anything, I'd expect there to be a larger map (which, I believe, was even said to be the case by Anet, and I don't mean underwater exploration) which would mean that this can't be the map. And finally, 6) There's a LOT of changes that don't make sense between the EN map and the GoA map, which makes me think that it isn't so much retconing or cause of the tidal wave but that the GoA map is like old earth maps - done by speculation of the shape of the land, i.e., not a bird's eye view. -- Konig/talk 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The off-topic part was just for a bit. Thank you for having arguments!! [Not being sarcastic] I'll say what I think about them in order. 1) Well spotted. But there might be 3 reasons for it: a) the dragon moved (which is likely, since it awoke); b) the dragon doesn't appear in the game, or at least it's not imoblized in a place - it can only fly over villages, etc. (I'm not sure if you do have certainties about it being the main "dragonic conflict" of the Norn; if you do, then this is obviously wrong); and c) they just moved the place of the dragon to fit in the new map. But it's a valid point. 2) Again, same as in 1); also, if he is now in the Crystal Desert, we don't really need to see his original location. 3) Not sure if I understand what you meant, but the map has changed, so the east side (with the Blazeridge Mountains moved and all of it) may be like this in-game. 4) I hadn't heard any of that, but I believe your word. If confirmed to be an accurate information, then it really proves the diference in the maps from GoA and GW2. 5) Anet did indeed say that the map was larger, but in the sense of scaling. This is, if in GW1 going from LA to Divinity's area was 10 minutes, now it will be 20 or something. So, the outlines would be more or less the same, but the distances would be greatly increased and the unexplorable areas in the map reduced. 6) The world has changed in this 250 years. Plus, I don't think they would dedicate so much effort to do a completely different map (because it would have different shapes of the continents, etc.), because there probably isn't much reason for it. I reckon the map will be in the first pages, so that the readers can follow the path of the characters, not the map being a part of the story itself. But this is as speculative as your argument.

If it weren't for your #4 argument, I would still vote for the deletion of this page for lack of evidence. However, if that's indeed true, then the maps from GoA and GW2 are definitely different. So, now I agree the page should remain. ;)

I would like, however, that some contributors saw what Konig did, aka discuss, and learned to refute theories based on arguments, and not on accusing others from being speculative when the most flagrant assumption is their own. Thank you, Konig, for proving me wrong. (I really liked the looks of this area in GW:EN) --217.129.133.230 21:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

To address number 6: Bodies of water—lakes, rivers, etc.—are always changing, unless they are controlled by man or whoever wants to control the water. Constant running water is highly corrosive to an environment (think dredging), so we should expect rivers and lakes to change their size and shapes --Riddle 22:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) What I meant by Jormag being a dragon enemy of the norn (and kodan) is how it inhabits their original home. There is one dragon rival, so to speak, but all dragons hold some threat to races - such as Kralkatorrik having a threat to the charr and Ebonhawke. Jormag is a threat to the norn. Every race has multiple enemies, and Jormag is an enemy to the norn alongside the Sons of Svanir (now tell me, how will the Sons of Svanir get to worship their dragon with it being way off of the map?). And to note, I never said it is stationary, but it is still very much off of the map where it woke up.

In regards to Kralk's original spot: It is still rather important due to the Dragonbrand. In regards to the scaling: That would mean that the map is larger at the same distance, would it not? More space between areas so a larger map at the same distance. For the changes in time, that holds no ground to having islands poping out of nowhere, even with the flooding. Higher land goes above water, lower land goes under - there's not that much loss in terms of the land in the map, but it's just displaced elsewhere.

Not to mention that Hrangmer is off of the EN map, and as such is off of the GoA map, but is said to be the home of the Flame Legion (which with them being a main enemy to the charr, they would be on the map, one would think). And another thing I forgot to mention would be that the GoA doesn't show the Eye of the North, which we know will be in GW2.

Aside from everything, at the most, it should be added to [[:Category:Articles possibly not relevant to GW2]]‏‎. This category was made in order to avoid and remaking articles like what would happen if we were to delete this article just to have to remake it. Do note, however, that Anet said that in GW2 the Charr Homelands will have an actual name, so we will have to move this page eventually.

@ Ezekial: Yes, but islands don't pop up out of no where. I'm not talking about the rivers or the reduced coasts, but the fact that islands pop out of the sea after a flooding. -- Konig/talk 22:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to add that the HoM will be in the game, it was stated in an interview... but I cbf to find the source. Anywho, I don't think anything like this should be deleted bases on the GoA map. Yes its canon, but its not the game. Wait till we get the game map. --hnzdvn 22:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Found this about #4. Not sure if that's what Konig was talking about though. Chriskang 23:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I mistook that for it being in GW2. Either way: There are things that are not on the GoA map that are important to GW2 - Jormag and the Eye of the North/Hall of Monuments being two things. Not to mention there's next to no reason why they'd cut off so much of the map when we have so much important information all the way up in the north. -- Konig/talk 23:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Ascalon again

Just stumbled upon this video, and at the 36:49 mark (roughly), you can see the map unzooming. The Charr homelands seem to appear under the name Ascalon. I'm aware it could be further north, but we see Kryta in the same shot, so I doubt it. -Alarielle- 08:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

This may help you get a point of reference. Ascalon is under charr control, and that was Ascalon (the eastern portion of it) in the video, but the Charr Homelands are further north. -- Konig/talk 09:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

What's in the Blood Legion Homelands? And why doesn't the Dragonbrand start further north?

What exactly is in the Blood Legion Homelands now? Is it now a Branded stronghold after Kralkatorrik's awakening?

Also, why doesn't the Dragonbrand start from Kralkatorrik's original resting spot?
If you compare the GW1 map and the GW2 map, you will see that Kralkatorrik's original resting location was northeast of the Eye of the North in GW1, while if you compare the relative positions of the same 2 locations in GW2, you will see that northeast of the Eye of the North is just green grass and blue water. What looks like the "start" of the Dragonbrand seems to be the big "crater" north of The Infestation and the Citadel of Flame, which is southeast (not northeast) of the Eye of the North.
A possible explanation of this could be that Kralkatorrik only started creating the Dragonbrand a short while after taking off from its starting location, and not immediately the moment it awakened. --210.186.163.10 14:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)