Talk:Ghosts of Ascalon

Hmm... books on Guild Wars... If I read that in class... uh... Ah! I could tell the teacher that it is really a philosophic novel exploiting the evils within our own society through the medieval guilds... Still... I don't know the intended audience of this book... I mean... only if EVERY gw fan bought one one this truly help to any great margin... tis my opinion anyway...Τελέως 01:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this article is inaccurate. If the story is set 1 year before the events of Guild Wars 2, then it won't involve King Adelbern seeing as after 249 years he would be dead.

it is. confirmed by anet several times. we don't know why it's called Fall of Ascalon. - Wuhy 20:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

a few days ago i wachted videos of a pax '09 interview about this book. they said it was about something to the effect of the charr are fighting humans on several fronts and with all the problems (ancient dragon, etc.) that the charr and humans have agreed to put some of the fronts on hold until after some of the other things have been settled. to do this the main character has to go on an adventure to acquire a certain item for the charr. i think they said it was some lost artifact vary important to the charr. does seem odd that it would be called the fall well it's more the temporary ceasefire.Akbaroth 15:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

PErhaps it will tell the story of the fall fo Ascalon through flashback as the hero searches for said artifact, uncovering hidden secrets about that moment in which Ascalon became a ghost town, and the events conspiring towards it? 72.174.198.212 21:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that there are Ascalonian ghosts defending their ancient homeland. Perhaps King Adelbern is the King of the Ghosts of Ascalon? Sinny | talk 01:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

After looking at the site of the publisher it seems the book will be published at the end of july. Hope they will change it back to april! --Rodane 23:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Title change possibly? Sardaukar 04:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that the book's title was changed to Ghosts of Ascalon as all new "official" cases of "Guild Wars: Fall of Ascalon" have been removed, but it isn't confirmed yet. -- Konig/talk 04:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

:D Sardaukar 21:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Official knowledge! Also, moved this page to Guild Wars:Ghosts of Ascalon, as that is the full and official name of the book (much like gw1:Guild Wars Prophecies not gw1:Prophecies. -- Konig/talk 21:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that it's not Guild Wars 2: Ghosts of Ascalon?-- Shew 21:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't, but looking at the cover it seems to be. Sad, really, seeing how all game-based books are named after the original (Warcraft, not Warcraft 3, Halo not Halo 2, DOOM not DOOM 2, etc. etc.). I don't get the point of naming it Guild Wars 2: Ghosts of Ascalon.... -- Konig/talk 22:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure it is called Guild Wars 2: Ghosts of Ascalon as the Amazon, eBay, and Barns & Nobles picture all have just Guild Wars: Ghosts of Ascalon. Seems the pictures before had the 2 for some odd reason. It would make sense to not have the 2 in it as Konig said. I guess we will know tomorrow. -- Natalie Black 02:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems that they had removed the 2 from the novel name since the first preview of the novel cover. But it doesn't matter, it is referred to simply as "Ghosts of Ascalon." -- Konig/talk 02:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Both Amazon and Barnes and Noble's sites use the name "Guild Wars 2: Ghosts of Ascalon". Manifold 03:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Titles titles titles....

Okay, so after some moving, Regina was able to give a response regarding the title of the book: "I asked about this, and I also saw an earlier question about the title of the book. It's simply "Ghost of Ascalon" and the "Guild Wars 2" is part of a sentence located at the top of the book." She went on to explain what Will McDermott, one of the writers who worked on the writing process, had to say: "The title of the book is Ghosts of Ascalon. It is the first book in the Guild Wars 2 series of books being published by Pocket Books. Much like any other tie-in novel. The title of the IP goes on the cover as well, to help fans find the book (and to market the IP along with the book to people who don’t know about the game yet)."
As such, let us discuss before moving any more: What do we want the title of the article to be? The title of the book (Ghosts of Ascalon), matching how campaign/expansion articles on GW1W are named (Guild Wars: Ghosts of Ascalon), or how we have it now (similar to the second option, but denoting the sequal aspect). I think we should go with Guild Wars: Ghosts of Ascalon, with the other two as redirects, simply for easier organization (that is, easier to see which articles are about games/books compared to every other article). -- Konig/talk 23:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If we have anything before "Ghosts of Ascalon," it should be "Guild Wars 2" because it's part of the Guild Wars 2 book series. My vote is for Ghosts of Ascalon, though, as we can indicate that this is part of a book series on the page. People may get confused with "Guild Wars 2" in the article name and think that that's part of the title.-- Shew 02:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't really call it a "guild wars 2 book series" - it's based between the two games, and while this book is rather close to GW2, technically, the series is between the games. I'd be more inclined to call them GW1.5 than GW1 or GW2 - or just Guild Wars (in the general GW universe sense). -- Konig/talk 03:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm only stating what Regina posted, as much as I think the series should be Guild Wars (since Guild Wars 2 is part of the Guild Wars series).-- Shew 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets just call it Ghosts of Ascalon. It is shorter, it is the actual book title and we already know the book is related to the GW/GW2 IP because this is GW2W so that information is redundant here. -- Aspectacle  04:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Err...wow. I forgot that you quoted Regina above, Konig. Sorry about that. :p Anyways, are you fine with Ghosts of Ascalon, Konig? It'll still be organized because we could have one of those nav templates at the bottom, a category, and a statement in the article, and like Aspectacle said, this is the GW2W.-- Shew 04:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I'm suggesting Guild Wars: Ghosts of Ascalon not to show that it is part of the GW IP, but so that it mirrors the other release(/games) names, like gw1:Guild Wars Prophecies, gw1:Guild Wars Factions, gw1:Guild Wars Nightfall, gw1:Guild Wars Utopia, gw1:Guild Wars Eye of the North, and it is bound that we'll either have more Guild Wars: <title name> or Guild Wars 2: <title name> if not closer to GW2's release than to its first expansion/campaign. And such a name would separate the articles of released items with in-game/book related articles even more. Not so much for "it's the actual name." It's more of a "it will be done in the future, might as well start now" - if the majority wants "Ghost of Ascalon" I'm fine with that, but I'd like to have the alternative considered by more than 2 other people. :p -- Konig/talk 04:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The campaigns had "Guild Wars" in their name, though. Why would it have to be done in the future? There are other means to separate the books from in-game-based articles than changing the article name.-- Shew 05:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I also prefer Ghosts of Ascalon. -- pling 11:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bump. Should this be moved now? -- pling 00:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems I'm the only one who disagreed, and I don't mind that much, so yeah go ahead and move. -- Konig/talk 02:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

A Mismatched Band of Adventurers

Is it me or does " a mismatched band of adventurers" sound a little like Destinies edge? Just my thoughts, but it could explain how the group was started, even though it wouldn't involve how the sylvari,asura, AND norn are involved. I could be totally wrong, but just thought I should say.-- Kew24 23:51:30 (UTC) February 2010

(Edit Conflict)You mean Destiny's Edge, I take it? It sounds like that, yes, but we cannot be certain still. As for how the others would be connected, I'm assuming that the group already exists and works as a mercenary group by the time of the first book (a year or two before GW2, in which they are broken up, rather hints at that). I wouldn't doubt if we see the group breaking up in this book, then the second and third books have this group from 4-10 years before GW2's time. -- Konig/talk 23:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Destiny's Edge has been my thought since I first read the article, I figured it would be fairly obvious. Eive_Windgrace 00:17, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

And now I am proven wrong. For now... Eive 06:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It may be that the first group is not the only group. Though it would seem silly to go from one group of individuals to another... -- Konig/talk 09:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

*Cough* Maybe I wasn't wrong after all..... Eive 10:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Summer

IS UPON US!!! Who wants a book? Eive_Windgrace 01:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

-->Shew ♠♠♠ 01:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The two online book stores I use are taking pre-orders for 27 of July. bookdepository, amazon. I think I'm gunna pre-order even though the last game tie in books I read sucked (Mass Effect). :D -- Aspectacle  01:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Im making my parents get it for me, i dont read but ima read it(:--IcyyyBlue ♥♥ 16:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@Aspectacle, I liked the Mass Effect books... :( Also, Barnes & Noble is letting you pre-order on the 27th of July as well. Eive Windgrace 19:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The mass effect books were tied too much to the game rather than just being a good book in the universe. They'd do something like the equivalent of saying "I pulled out my trusty firestorm. It had a two second cast time but it was worth it to see my enemy's face when the fiery sparks whirled from the sky, especially when I had used hamstring to capture them in it." That sort of writing style bugged me is all. -- Aspectacle  22:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in this interview, Jeff Grubb says that Matt Forbeck writes "some of the best combat scenes I've seen", and he's been in the fantasy novel/roleplaying game business for a long long time. So I doubt it's anything like that. Arshay Duskbrow 22:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting interview! I'm definitely hopeful for a great book now. :) -- Aspectacle  22:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

How come they dont let us have it now?--IcyyyBlue ♥♥ 04:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably has something to do with the recent zombie invasions and horse-people stampedes it'll be out once we can clean up the mess. :P Eive Windgrace 23:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Documentation

Well, as the release date of the book draws near, we get all excited and want to read the book. I had a thought, to what degree will we document this book? Will we reference entire pages of lore with just the book? Will we be required to list the page(s) its located on?--Corsair@Yarrr 23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I expect it to be a rather big mess, since people will have different opinions about what each part of the book means, people will take artistic liberties in the book as facts for the game ("OMG, character X died and character Y - who happens to be similar to a ranger - didn't resurrect him, that means rangers don't have resurrection skills!!!11!!") and we are likely not allowed to copy anything more than a few paragraphs of the book as far as quotation goes. Erasculio 14:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A few paragraphs? I doubt we'd be able to copy anything verbatim; just like with the Art of Guild Wars 2 book. We may be able to summarize the plot and note down important events, and imo that's all we should do. Anet has already said at least year's PAX that the book won't be taking game mechanics into account so there won't be anything that influences what a profession can and cannot do in the game, I would think. It would be a pure lore extravaganza and we should only denote the important things in lore - which, btw, would have no opinion differences so long as we avoid speculation based off of said events. -- Konig/talk 20:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

"which, btw, would have no opinion differences so long as we avoid speculation based off of said events": assuming everyone knows the difference between facts and speculation, which unfortunately is not true. Erasculio 23:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You love to use portions - and even take things out of context at times - to argue and downsize me, don't you? Seriously, do you have a vendetta against me or something? To clarify those two links, just see this. There's a difference between poorly supported speculation (which is what doesn't belong anywhere but in hypotheses on forums) and limited conclusions - or just simply a poorly supported speculation and a conclusion (as conclusions, in this context, require a line of thought, support, and reasoning). -- Konig/talk 23:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I had already seen the link you mentioned, which basically translates to your claim of how your opinions would be facts, and everyone else's would be speculation. A "line of thought, support, and reasoning" is only valid when you trust said thought and reasoning; and to say the least, some people are less capable of reasoning than others. Instead of having long arguments about opinion differences, it would be far better to document the book based purely on directly stated facts. Erasculio 00:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do you insist on instigating arguments? I never said my opinions are facts and everyone else's are speculation. In fact, I wasn't even the one to put the Versus image on that article. I never said that it was a fact - though what is a fact that of every possibility that has the greatest chance of being accurate, other chances being very minimal. You take my words and completely twist them around - and of what I've seen, you only do that with me! Honestly, what is your issue with me because by now I don't think you disagreeing with me time and time again and instigating arguments with me time and time again - even downright insulting me at times - is pure coincidence. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt until now, but its just too darn constant with you. And not once did I ever say that we should document more than facts. In fact, I excplicitely stated "It would be a pure lore extravaganza and we should only denote the important things in lore" this means that it is just the facts that we'll document! It is because it is just facts, the important things in lore like events and the other things that are told to us as we read do not have speculation to them. They are told to us. So please, stop twisting my words for your constant instigating. -- Konig/talk 01:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"though what is a fact that of every possibility that has the greatest chance of being accurate, other chances being very minimal": and thus you take what is an opinion (your opinion, even), and insist on stating it as if it were a fact, going directly against the statement of "And not once did I ever say that we should document more than facts" - that is exactly what you are doing now.

It's the exact same thing with the previous debate about the Professions reveal article, in which a couple users insisted on writing that one of the concept art images was of a warrior. They had good reasons and it was the most likely outcome; it even was right, as expected. But the consensus was to remove that note since it had not been officially announced yet that said concept art was of a warrior, and therefore it was just speculation.

Once Ghosts of Ascalon is released, since we won't be able to just quote the book, I expect the same thing to happen; I expect people like you to make plenty of "deductions" and decide to add them to this wiki claiming "that it just cannot not be what you think it is" or such other nonsense, instead of adding only what has been stated directly with all letters. Erasculio 02:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Then we can simply come along, clean up the speculation, and leave only the facts. If "people like you (Konig)" do the hard work of finding where the supported evidence is, the least we can do it find the facts in it. And Erasculio and Konig, both of you should stop before this gets out of hand. Eive Windgrace 02:58, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Erasculio, no where did I say we should document more than facts from the book. I also was not against noting it is not confirmed, I was against the complete removal. Unlike what you think, Era, I do not document speculation and if I ever do I am sure to put it in either a Notes of Trivia section and state "Some people believe that..." - and if I ever do that (I've only done that once or twice), I make sure it is a common thought (in previous cases from discussions I saw on a forum or talk page). I never, ever put speculation in the main portions of the article, and whenever I see it, I remove it. I've removed far more speculation and opinion (even those I agree with, little Era) than I've added and your example for how I'm wrong is a different case as removing is different from noting - do note that no where in the conversation on Shew's page did I say "put it back stating it is fact that it is Raven Form!" I instead argued on the likeliness of it.

Now, because I was very stressed earlier (and this only went down a little since then), I forgot to clarify that I didn't want the image back because it "isn't speculation" but rather because it is highly likely and if we were to remove every concept art on this wiki based on the tiniest of speculation... well, we'll be removing a lot. Even clear things such as a centaur concept art wasn't named centaurs - so it is speculation that those are centaurs, since we're not told that it is a centaur - right? Same thing here, isn't it. Now, what I should of said before is that it should be re-added with a note of the possibility of it being wrong. Though I personally don't view that as necessary, that's how it should be done.

Also, as Eive stated: People will put incorrect, poorly described, and speculative bits into their additions - everyone does this and you are not exempt, Era. So instead of complaining that people do, just wait for it to happen (as it always will) and fix it. Just do what you have to do for vandalism and there's less wiki-drama. (of course, mind you, that if you get reverted - unless it is a vandal - it is best to discuss it instead of reverting back).

Everyone makes mistakes so if your constantly going after me for something I did in the past - I think it's time you let it go because I'm once more getting tired of you finding an issue with everything I say. And if you don't have a personal squabble with me, please tell me why you're constantly disagreeing with me (on my talk page, please - let's not detract this conversation anymore than it has). -- Konig/talk 05:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Its a shame to see two prominent and productive members of the community fight so much. The both of you hold strong to your convictions, make valuable edits, and debate/discuss in a very aggressive manner. Often using a few underhanded tactics. (honestly Konig, you have bull rushed me a few times in the lore forums at GW2G, makes me not want to reply.) Erasculo, those links waaay up there you put in were in poor taste and seem to me to be a personal attack, if not on a policy level then at least on a baiting level. I believe that the two of you are good natured people that mean well, but please, for the love of god and all that is holy, TRY to be civil with each other. If you have a snide remark, don't type it, if you are angry, don't respond, if you get baited, don't bite and evade the comment!

Now, to the business at hand that this was originally supposed to discuss, before it turned into a two man shouting match. Since we might not be able to use paragraphs in reference, should we just use a page:paragraph system? Or some other. Page and paragraph is all I can really think of at the moment.--Corsair@Yarrr 05:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So long as it doesn't clog up pages, I don't think using a "Ghosts of Ascalon, page x, paragraph y" kind of system. However, I don't think it is necessary to reference it as it'll be like referencing events in the game like "Guild Wars Prophecies: Mission, Frost Gate, End cinematic" - it's just not necessary. Just put in the facts (or summaries of facts), nothing more, nothing less. (and in my defense, I only respond to posts like you describe, Corsair, in defense of myself - I'm tired of people thinking I'm some conceited backstabbing jackass and I don't want someone to think that I am one when I'm not. Honestly, I don't even know why people think such in the first place... wish people would actually tell me why they think of me in such ways instead of just attacking me because I "am one"). -- Konig/talk 07:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

(If we're going to copy+paste the entire book, that makes buying it pointless >_<) --Neil • 15:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

And also illegal. But we can summarize - supposing it is the same rules as the Art of Guild Wars 2. And by summarize, I mean summarize important events, people, and places, like what was done already from the excerpt of the first chapter - things like Bloodtide Coast, Caledon Forest, the characters is how things should be done. Not something like the Movement of the World. -- Konig/talk 21:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Map

A GW 2 map has been found and pieced together from a preview of this book on an iPhone and posted on GW2G, I'm not quite sure where this would go though... It's a very interesting map though. :D --Odal talk 16:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Here you go: [[:File:User_Odal_gw2map.png]] --Odal talk 16:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

interesting it seem we slighty go further in every way(north, south, east, west). Hum blazeridge montain, maguuma jungle got rename to maguuma waste, wellfar shierpeak got rename north shiverpeak, north shiverpeak beacume south shivepeak, and south shivepeak became steampur montains O: Tech Wolf-Talk 16:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Could be put on Tyria, I suppose. pling 16:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait until we get a higher resolution imo, this is possible to access on an iPad as well, so if anyone has an iPad it would be welcome if you could screencap this. --Odal talk 17:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

ArenaNet just released a high-res super-map on their website - File:Tyria map (novel).jpg :D pling 17:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

May I ask where exactly on the website? Chriskang 18:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.guildwars2.com/en/shop/ghosts-of-ascalon/ pling 19:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, after 10 minutes on ArenaNet website I was finally able to find it on GW2 too :) Chriskang 19:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "interesting it seem we slighty go further in every way(north, south, east, west)" wrong - we don't even go as far north as in EN, in fact most of the Far Shiverpeaks and the Charr Homelands were cut off. We don't seem to go any further west or south. But a tiny bit east on that map. I doubt this is the GW2 map either way, due to the reduced size. -- Konig/talk 20:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Free Preview

Don't know how long it is up for, but you can read the first chapter here. Venom20 12:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Been up for a while but it might be worth mentioning on the page? --Odal talk 12:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I was going to put it on there, but I was unsure as to how long it would stay up on the site. Venom20 12:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth linking, even if it won't be up for much longer, it will help those who come here for information. --Odal talk 12:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fair, added link to notes section Venom20 13:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I posted on GW2G chapter 2 and 3(which is cut in half) dunno if we should link it Tech Wolf-Talk 16:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

UK

Anyone heard anything about this being sold in the UK. the offical page linked to amazon.com which would take like a month or there abouts to get to the UK :/. i was hoping theyd of sold it in the same way they sold the GW2 artbook,via the ncsoft store. makes it easier for people not in amaerica to buy itArthasShadowsong 18:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the book on the UK site, but it hasn't got very many details. I'd suggest keeping an eye on it for now. pling 19:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The UK should have the same release date, so that is amazon failing saying it's not available ,,"Klumpeet",, 19:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The Book Depository is a UK based online book seller. I've purchased from them in the past with no problems and a friend buys all her books there. They have free delivery to pretty much everywhere which makes it compare very favourably to the amazon sites if you don't live in the US or UK. :) -- Aspectacle  22:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that despite of being oficially released in UK at the same time when in US, this is so damn difficult to get a copy in UK is very dissapointing :/ Perhaps ANet should choose a better publisher. Simon & Schuster's UK webside has not even heard of GoA... SO ANNOYING. As a fan and customer, I feel screwed. tazer 16:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that ^, there are easy to find copies of the book. Heck even my mum found one for my birthday :P. Just get it on amazon or something, --Naut 16:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Amazon has either books shipped from US with 1-3 weeks of arrival, or few books that cost 100% more than it should. I'm talking about real distribution in UK, not some bad substitutes of it. In theory yes, you can import the book if you got money and time, but that's true for every part of the world, even for those countries that do not and will not have official release date and publisher. And although GoA has been officially released over a week ago, you can't find it in Waterstones, WHSmith or any other, even large bookstore :/ Not to mention publisher's UK website... tazer 18:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it was available on amazon.co.uk for £4.73, which is where I bought it from (awaiting delivery), but for some reason it isn't there anymore... pling 18:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Still there for me. ShadowRunner 18:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But it is/was shipped from US, so basically they are importing the book for you. And this is what I call a fail - despite official release date, you have to import it and wait long days or actually more like weeks :/ Can you imagine something like that with GW2? :P That's what I'm talking about. With proper publisher being Pocket Books in UK, GoA should be available in most of larger bookstores, and Amazon is for everyone else in the world as they cannot complain that much :p tazer 21:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As advised by Aspectacle, I just got it from The Book Depository. I'm still calling UK distribution a publisher's fail, but oh well. If you really want it, I guess it's a very good place to buy. tazer 10:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I had it pre-ordered in Book Depository since before release and still didn't get it. Did you have it pre-ordered as well or you bought it more recently? ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 10:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ye i think they should of done a better job with the marketing in the uk, i got it from the book depository as recomended , i ordered it the day it was recomended on here and my copy arrived on the release date so cant argue with that :) ArthasShadowsong 11:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

***EAGLEMUT***, I ordered it last Saturday, after few days of 'Processing' it was dispatched on Wednesday, and got it today, Friday 13th (it's always been my lucky number :)) Perhaps you should contact them and clarity the situation, there are some copies of GoA in stock atm tazer 21:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like it was a random issue, I told them about my situation and they have sent me another copy which was successfully delivered within 3 days, so I have the book. ***EAGLEMUT*** TALK 18:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Blimm

I might be missing something here, but how do we know Blimm has anything to do with this? pling 15:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

They have chapter 1 here. I suppose, haven't checked yet, that it's mentioned in that chapter. Ariyen 17:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

iBooks on the iPad has chapters 2 and 3 as well as 1 (along with the map and timeline), apparently in the second or third chapter, it reveals Blimm is related to the catacombs. Makes sense seeing how the asura wants something from it. He's wanting something of Blimm's it would seem. -- Konig/talk 21:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

he's looking for the golem eye that Blimm created Tech Wolf-Talk 21:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is a post containing those 2nd and 3rd sample chapters. Blimm is involved. Thanks again Tech Wolf! Enjoy the read.--Corsair@Yarrr 21:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(Livia and Oola are also mentioned.)--Neil • 22:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Coincidentally they did exist at some time Neil. :P Eive 00:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Holland

Does Someone knows if this book is available in Holland (it is in the UK but i don't know if i could order it there)(TY BTW) The Holy Dragons 12:39, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

NVM ^^ i found a Dutch site ;) The Holy Dragons 13:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It is for sell here[1]when it comes out. Go Anet from the Netherlands --Sahra Delona 19:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Our trusty Bol.com finally has it here:[2] Jonny10 19:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The Book

Ok, so I have the book right now, and I'm wondering if the timeline in it is already up here or not? 72.81.49.132 00:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

That should be on the Timeline. And how do you have the book three days early? (And avoid spoilarz plz) Eive 00:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnes and Nobles has the book. Like all of them. Coming from one in Seattle, P, here in PA. Just go to barnes and noble's website, search for ghosts of ascalon, put in your zip code to find the closest one that has the book. :D 72.81.49.132 00:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(Insert expletive in CAPS here) I was going to go there a few hours ago! I'm going to go buy it right now. Eive 01:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnes and Nobles indeed has released the book early (2 days ago, I believe). I got it with me right now. -- Konig/talk 01:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The book has somewhere between 369 and 371 pages for the record. Eive 03:38, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Documenting locations

I've seen a couple of one-sentence location articles that seem to exist just because they were mentioned in the book. It's not certain that these locations will be accessible/available/mentioned in Guild Wars 2 - how the game functions is different to the way the world is. Also, we generally don't go for one-liner articles whatever the subject. The latter argument is less speculative, I suppose, and more dependent on article content than in-game/in-world relevance.

For now, then, I would suggest documenting the insignificant locations on Locations in Ghosts of Ascalon (or a similarly named article). "Insignificant locations" would be the ones that are just passing mentions or aren't described in detail in terms of the overall story and importance. Each location would have its own section there instead of its own article; significant locations that have their own articles could also be mentioned, but instead of copying the content, we'd use a "main article:" link. Redirects could then be set up to the sections on that page. pling 14:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

We have many dozens of "one-liner articles" on the gww. Many of them can be expanded, but I wasn't sure for the topic of "how far is too close to spoilers?" so I didn't expand them. For instance, Caledon Forest has "great cats" and Dredgehaunt Cliffs is the site of a battle that Gullik Oddsson - cousin to Gyda Oddsdottir - had partaken in (don't recall if the battle had a name). But the situation regarding those comments - and in fact, most of everything around Gullik - brings about a rather big spoiler. -- Konig/talk 00:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it would be okay to mention the locations and such that Gullik weaves his stories in. You can say that he partook in such and such a battle without it being any problem, just so long as it doesn't spoil anything directly related to GoA, such as Gullik fought a one eyed one horn purple flying people eater at the smokestacks of the Kaining. Probably best just to mention that there was a major battle at said location.--Corsair@Yarrr 03:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

After looking through this, and doing a few more edits in regards to the articles with information from the book, I suggest that we make a Category:Ghosts of Ascalon locations for the GoA-only locations, much like there is the Category:Ghosts of Ascalon characters category for GoA-only characters. Edit:That is, until the game comes out and we know if we can get to those places, or someone from Anet says we can. -- Konig/talk 07:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Wanted to ask, would a category for GoA locations be wanted/necessary still - in an interview with Neoseeker, Jeff said that all or almost all locations mentioned in the book will be visitable in game, so the original reason to make a category wouldn't be necessary. But like with the GoA characters category, it wouldn't be a bad thing to document places visited/mentioned in GoA in a category. I was going to make the category anyways, due to the conversation above and no one having made the category, but I figured I should ask. -- Konig/talk 09:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. Manifold 15:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the plot.

Shouldn't the plot to this book be expanded now that the full version is out? The spoiler alert tag is already there, so I don't see the harm in writing an extended summary. I know a lot of people have had this book for more than four days now (Thanks, Barnes and Noble) so I thought this would have been done already. Is the summary going to be left like that? or is someone going to expand it eventually. I'd do it but I haven't gotten my copy from amazon yet =/ --Artaxerxes 04:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I say wait a while before giving potential spoilers out. I'd stop worrying terribly about spoilers at the end of August - that way, most people who will read the book and frequent the wiki will most likely have read it by then. It releases in mid-August in Australia as well, so it isn't out for everyone. -- Konig/talk 08:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Mistakes

So who wants to make a list of mistakes that are no doubt embedded in this book? :D Well I've found one;

Page 230 Killeen says;

""I did it before, beneath Lion's Arch"" When infact, they we're 'beneath' Divinity's Reach. --Naut 12:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a part where the group is talking about when they were in LA before they came to Ebonhawke, but repeatedly say Divinity's Reach when it should of been Lion's Arch. Only real mistake I noticed tbh. -- Konig/talk 15:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My copy is called Guild Wars: Ghosts of Ascalon, yet the official image has Guild Wars 2 on the cover. Is this the case with anyone else's copy?-- Shew 20:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

They changed it last minute, all copies are like that. Eive 20:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, good to know. Thanks!-- Shew 21:09, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, fun thing though. On my receipt, I noticed it says "Guild Wars 2: Fall of Ascalon 7.99" I wonder why the old title still appeared. --Spigs 12:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

@Konig I think what they meant during that scene was that they were using the asura gate that normally led to Divinity's Reach and were recalibrating it to take them to Ebonhawke. They called it the "Divinity's Reach gate" which confused me for a bit, because they were in Lion's Arch. Or are you talking about a different scene? Fabala011 05:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

They said "when you came from Divinity's Reach" along with what you said - maybe not those words, mind you, working off of memory but it was talking about the place at one point as well as the gate in said place. -- Konig/talk 19:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Something that caught my eye: "The was a huge thumping noise, as of a building..." on page 347. Is that 'The' supposed to be 'There' or maybe even 'Then'? --Spigs 05:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Either way, that isn't english. At all :P --Naut 22:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to make a list here: On page 227 Dougal says that Gullik found him in a room in Divinity's Reach, when they actually first met in Lion's Arch. On page 230 Kileen says ""I did it before, beneath Lion's Arch"" when it was in the catacombs beneath Divinity's Reach. On page 347 there's a typo: "The was a huge thumping noise, as of a building...". Then there is what Koenig talked about, but whithout a page reference I can't check it. 84.49.104.185 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The piece(s) I was talking about would be your first two comments - in that entire discussion at the camp, "Divinity's Reach" and "Lion's Arch" were accidentally switched around. Konig/talk 23:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Spoiler?

I don't agree with it being a spoiler because it doesn't relate to any actual game play experience. To be honest this is just lore-fodder for the fan clubs.--Emmisary 02:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the most unnecessary spoiler tag ever. -Auron 02:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers usually only go to the lore. It's not a spoiler to the game, but it could be a spoiler to the book. However, there's not much spoiler in the plot. -- Konig/talk 12:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Spoilers go onto sections that can affect gameplay storyline lore not fan fodder.--Emmisary 19:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh... Since when? That has never been stated to be fact. Just because it hasn't in the past doesn't mean it can't. And it hasn't done in the past because, well, there's never been a book before. And the book's lore is still lore - in essence, the gamplay lore is fan fodder just as much as the book's lore is. -- Konig/talk 19:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikis seem to get stupider every day...--Emmisary 19:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Instead of being vague and insulting, why not state why spoiler tags do not go to mark all of the things that are spoilers, but rather just a portion of the spoilers? Mind you, I'm against overusing the spoiler tags - like what was in the plot summary for instance - but why are the spoilers to books not deemed spoilers in your eyes? -- Konig/talk 20:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me like spoiler tags are perfectly acceptable here. If someone who is planning on reading the novel reads the plot section, their experience is spoiled. The novel is an official product. 82.149.1.199 13:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ty for the Lore

Cause the characters were wayyyy too neurotic to be realish. Every other page someone was threatening to kill someone else and about half way through the book every other page was an offense that wasnt taken offensively. If its the same author for the next book dont be surprised to see Thackery collecting asura ears, norn braids and charr tails to make a necklace out of... Justice 07:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The races are rather rude to each other, so it was "realistic" (in the sense that it was accurate to the lore). Matt isn't writing the second book - and is unlikely to be writing the third. -- Konig/talk 07:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Original Heros

We ever gunna find out what happened to them...u kno like Cynn and Devona?--Icyyy Blue 14:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully those events will be depicted in the third novel. Although I am sure it's been stated somewhere else, too. - Infinite - talk 14:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully or they tell us cuz they were important in Guild Wars...more important then the king and we kno what happened to him...--Icyyy Blue 15:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It'll be more likely to be explored in a future Beyond content, rather than a third book. If Gwen's wedding has anything to say about it, and if the epilogue hints at it... they retired in 1078, sticking with the Ebon Vanguard even, perhaps. -- Konig/talk 19:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I just wanna know what happened to Cynn shes my favorite(shes jus like me kinda!) >:D --Icyyy Blue 19:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we'll find a descendant of Cynn and Mhenlo in gw2?~ Reez 00:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe one from Mhenlo and Devona or Mhenlo and Chiyo or Mhenlo and Emi or... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 00:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the entire tyrian and canthan population will be a descendand from Mhenlo RhoninSoren 18:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Elona-hate? --The Holy Dragons 19:15, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Implying anyone liked Elona in the first place. Eive 22:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I like Elona very much. It was my favorite continent so... But Menhlo didn't seem to have any sweethearts there so. Koss on the otherhand :p --RhoninSoren 12:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

See that's the difference. Mhenlo didn't have to try to score; the ladies were just naturally attracted to him. Koss? Well, Koss is Koss... (Xu Davella 12:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC))

'Bout the french version

Does anyone know by chance what has happened to it ? The Bibliothèque interdite's site doesn't even mention editing it at all. I'd love to know if they cancelled it, so I could just order it in English once and for all. -Alarielle- 15:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)