Talk:Auto-Life (Spell)

From Final Fantasy Wiki

Should we perhaps mention that in FF7, Final Attack and Revive/Phoenix, is basically Auto-Life? Drake Clawfang 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess we should. --SCM 06:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't. --BlueHighwind 13:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that more like a gameplay trick rather than an actual spell/ability? —^BLUER一番。 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It is. - Henryacores^ 16:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're getting technical about it (which isn't a bad thing), it is just a stratagem. However, it is the closest thing to Auto-Life in FFVII, and Auto-Life is very much a staple spell of the series, so it's not an entirely simple decision. Of course, if it were added, we would probably have to add "Ally: Status=KO -> Raise/Arise" and all similar FFXII gambits. Sorceror Nobody 17:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but this is an artical about a spell (or status effect), not an instruction manual telling the reader how to make simple gambit formations. (Armageddon11(DANIELSJ14) 17:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

Sorceror Nobody – Supreme Nonentity User Talk · Sandbox · User Articles: (1) (2) (3) · 17:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC) How about adding the sections, each beginning with a comment along the lines of the following: While there is no actual Auto-Life spell or status in FFVII/FFXII, the player can still automate revival by...

Armageddon11 - "Turtle!" TALK - 18:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Good idea.

Ok, I've done it. Sorceror Nobody 14:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] IX Eiko

I've seen Eiko summon Phoenix after all the party members died once. Why did this happen?  ILHI ^(W/B) 14:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Because there's a chance of that happening in FFIX and FFVIII. It depends on how many Phoenix Pinions you have. - Henryacores^ 15:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] XII =/= Auto-Life

Auto-Life is a spell by which, when a party member is killed, they automatically revive themselves. FF7 can do this with Final-Attack and Revive. But XII's Gambits is not the same. The party member does not automatically revive on their own, they die and another party member revives them without the player telling them to. It would be like saying "in FF5, the player can create an Auto-Life effect by instantly reviving dead party members as soon as they die". Gambits blur this distinction, but it is still there. Drake Clawfang 17:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, if this gets in, then we should add similar sections to Auto-Haste, Auto-Float, Auto-Protect, Auto-Potion...except we shouldn't, because that would be stupid. Drake Clawfang 17:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorceror Nobody – The Supreme Nonentity Talk · Flan's Elbow · Sandbox · User Articles: 1 2 3 4 5 · Walkthroughs: RoF · Puzzles Wiki · 19:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Final Attack-Revive is not Auto-Life. Auto-Life is a single spell and/or status, so we either include both VII and XII, or we include neither. The key point is in the word "Auto", which means that "in FF5, the player can create an Auto-Life effect by instantly reviving dead party members as soon as they die" is clearly ridiculous because it isn't automated. Gambits automate the action, therefore they grant life automatically. What about FA-Phoenix? If this revives the other two party members, it is exactly the same case of the party members being revived by each other. There is actually a distinction between Gambits and Auto-Haste/Protect/Float/Reflect/etc. because the Autos maintain the status and any resulting immunities, e.g. Auto-Haste prevents Slow. The gambits don't maintain it, they refresh it, and having a Haste gambit doesn't prevent Slow either. This is not the same as Auto-Life because Auto-Life is a one-off event each time it is activated. But you're correct about one of them: Auto-Potion would count as similar to Auto-Life gambit-wise, so yes, we'd probably have to add a section for XII on Auto-Potion. The main question here is... why are you so resistant to this? It is perfectly reasonable as long as we clearly state that it is merely a very close equivalent. And guess what? I stated exactly that when I wrote those two sections. Category: Reasoning

The real main question here is "why are you so adamant about it staying". FA+Phoenix, when the party member equipped with it dies they automatically revive themselves. This is NOT the same as Gambits, in which you just tell the computer to automatically cast an action that you yourself can do. Furthermore, it's not automatic for sure, depending on what your party members are doing and what priority it is, your Gambit may not trigger for some time. I really don't know how you can misunderstand that.

"Auto-Life is a spell that automatically revives the user when they die". It's not dependent on other party members, which Gambits are. The party member doesn't revive themselves, someone else does. This isn't what Auto-Life is. Just because you can tell to the computer to do it doesn't make it Auto-Life, because Gambits can make ANY action "Auto-". With the right Gambits you can have "Auto-Blizzard", "Auto-Handkerchief", "Auto-Balance", etc. This is not the same.

Oh, and as for your claim "everyone agreed" - No. You suggested, and one person agreed. And now one disagrees. Drake Clawfang 20:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm adamant about it staying because the primary purpose of a wiki is to provide as much information as feasibly possible on the subject of the article. Auto-Blizzard and so on are irrelevant because they are not established recurring elements, unlike Auto-Life. Gambit priority is addressed by my specifying in the article that setting high priority is advisable. As for agreement, you're the first person in nearly four months to complain, so I'd hazard a guess that pretty much all of the people who've seen the FFXII section of the article in those months are perfectly okay with it. Not direct agreement, but distinctly closer to agreement than disagreement -- Sorceror Nobody, 22:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"they didn't say anything, so they agree"? And as for full coverage, we should only cover things in reason. There are other Auto-life like effects, like the Phoenix Pinion. Why are they not noted here? And that still doesn't answer the main issue - Gambits to revive an ally are not the same as Auto-Life. Drake Clawfang 22:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I never equated silence with agreement, I merely noted that the fact that nobody else disagreed for four months shows that they evidently didn't have a significant problem with it. Phoenix Pinion? Fine. Add it if you want, I'm not stopping you. And no, Gambits aren't the same, and again I never said they were. That is precisely why, from the very start, I made a point of saying that "There is no actual Auto-Life but..." -- Sorceror Nobody, 14:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

8bit BlackMage - Now an orchestra will unfold like an angry dip of many layers on the chips of wildest hopes! TALK - All who resist will be beat like naughty little eggs!- 15:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC) Just wanted to put in this paragraph from the Phoenix Down page: In games where only one character is controlled, such as Dirge of Cerberus -Final Fantasy VII- and Crisis Core -Final Fantasy VII-, instead of reviving a fallen character, the Phoenix Down casts Auto-Life on the player. This is a method of using an item rather than a spell to bestow Auto-Life. Now, I notice this DoC and Crisis Core method is not listed on the page, nor is the Phoenix Pinion method in FFIX. However, in the VII section, a method of arranging materia to achieve an Auto-Life effect is present. I'm hoping to play XII soon but haven't gotten around to purchasing it yet, so I don't know much about Gambits. However, what SN said up there, except with more examples: We include all of these, or we include none, IMHO.