Talk:Kraata Powers

A long time ago, I made a visual chart of all the Kraata powers. (here) Even though it's fanmade, since the actual list can be cumbersome to use when trying to find a specific combination, would it be appropriate to have a link to my chart on the page? Master Inika ^(Talk) 00:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely! Put it in the external links for now, and if other staff are cool with it, you can upload it here directly instead. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 23:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Just in External Links, I think, is best. -- Dorek _Talk 20:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Melding Universe "Telekinesis"

In Brothers In Arms, Chapter 9, Melding Universe Gorast "telekinetically" lifted Vultraz up then slammed him into ground. While Greg confirmed in one quote that Melding Makuta have Telekinesis as a Kraata power,[1] an FF entry states that it was really her Gravity powers.[2] I'm not saying that this definitively means it was Gravity and not Telekinesis, but it is enough to cast doubt, so for the time being, Telekinesis should be left off. I have updated both this page and the Makuta page accordingly. Dag (talk) 20:21, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Then why not leave it the way it was until we have a definitive answer? Let the staff decide. - Toa Jala ^Converse 21:22, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Dag, good catch. This seems like good material for a trivia point for now (and eventually for a behind the scenes section, along with some of the info currently in the lead section). I'll write it up, and then if anyone wants to adjust it, feel free.

Also, it's reasonable to remove the disputed info in this case. In general, it's better for the wiki to be missing some correct information than for it to include incorrect information. I've thought about creating a "disputed info" template for cases like this. Basically instead of removing info and discussing it, it would give editors the option to mark the info and link to the discussion instead. I don't think we should require editors to use it, but it would be an alternative system for those who want it. I'll make it later. -- Morris the Mata Nui Cow (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Renaming the page

So, did we want to move this to Kraata Powers instead (Or Makuta/Rahkshi Powers, not sure what to go with there...)? ~ Wolk (talk) 01:47, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The page should definitely be renamed to focus more on the powers, but to what exactly is difficult. The page discuss all three, Makuta, Rahkshi, and Kraata. Perhaps we should go with Makuta, since Kraata and Rahkshi are simply a creation of Makuta? Any option seems reasonable to me. Dag (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Kraata Powers might be best, due to the page's focus on Kraata in specific... The other two I definitely think should exist as redirects, whatever way we go in. ~ Wolk (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The previous format of the page focused on the Kraata themselves while the new format is very much about the powers they possess. I suppose naming it "Kraata Powers" would be appropriate. I'd hesitate to support "Makuta Powers" as a new title because the Makuta possess additional powers to the 42 Kraata powers, so that name may be misleading.

On that subject, I'd like to point out that prior to the change, this page included information about the stages of Kraata and their corresponding traits (such as their intelligence and ability to withstand sunlight). This information can still be found here. I'm adding a "See Also" section on this page to that effect. - Toa Jala ^Converse 07:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Associated Kanohi

I don't think the Mahiki belongs under Illusion. I know it's called the Mask of Illusion, but its power has nothing to do with the psionic sub-power of illusion. If anything, it's closer in nature to shapeshifting than psionic illusion. - Toa Jala ^Converse 00:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I put them there not as a "Hey, this mask does the same thing," but as "There's another notable Illusion power which you can read about here." Yes, they are different, none of the masks can really be seen as 1:1 - for instance, Accuracy is also different, since it deals with melee where as the Sanok deals with projectiles. ~ Wolk (talk) 04:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Some of the masks at least are the exact same, like Silence and Rahi Control. However, in the case of the Mahiki, it was confirmed that Makuta illusions are fundamentally different from that of the Mahiki, being mental and not physical. I would be perfectly fine removing the Mahiki from under Illusion for that. Dag (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The reason I disagree with removing it is that this allows the reader to look on the Mahiki page and find that they are in fact different. ~ Wolk (talk) 11:20, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess I misunderstood the intention then. My bad. - Toa Jala ^Converse 22:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

In all honesty, it might be better to have it incorporated into the text. ~ Wolk (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Makuta Feats of Power

Should advance examples used by the Makuta be added to specific powers like Teridax teleporting eye beams and Spirah’s weather control manipulating the waves of the sea in Federation of Fear? Also to prevent a unneeded discussion about weather control it was written as the wind and waves not the waves being manipulated by the wind. User:Makuta of Mata Nui

Donno about the weather control thing. Examples, following the style we have on other pages, could probably work where applicable and give us a view of which ones have been used. Also applicable to the Rahkshi encountered by the Nuva and Metru. ~ Wolk (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Vision powers

I found something about the applications of laser vision vs heat vision.

https://greg.thegreatarchives.com/2013-2017/page521#post11484765

I believe this should be added to this page and possibly added to the laser vision and heat vision pages as well.Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Sonic Rahkshi

I found a answer from Greg that clarifies the capabilities of sonic Rahkshi better explaining their abilities. I think this should be added under their power section.

Here is the link https://greg.thegreatarchives.com/2003-2008/page58#post2311

Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 07:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Good find. That's definitely worth mentioning. Don't be afraid to make edits to pages if you have information that you think would benefit them. :) - Toa Jala ^Converse 18:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm still curious as to what he means by "creature made of sound"... Sonic Entity seems like it unless it's a typo, I suppose. Still weird. ~ Wolk (talk) 20:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we always assumed the ability to create Sonic Entities was unique to the Hordika Lohrak. If Rahkshi of Sonics can do it as well, that could change our understanding of Sonics as an element. I'll see if I can find another source to confirm it. - Toa Jala ^Converse 19:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Rahi Control Error

It seems Rahi control can affect organic creatures.

Here is the link, it is number 18 https://greg.thegreatarchives.com/2003-2008/page198#post7885

It does not contradict anything since the quote saying they can not was referring to the mask of Rahi control which even if it functions like the kraata power it could be weaker like the kanohi Sanok and the kraata accuracy power they are both the power of accuracy but the kraata power can work without projectiles. And since it said any of the armies this includes Kalmah’s, Takadox’s, Ehlek’s, and Mantax’s armies which were composed of fully organic creatures that are not Rahi.

Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry that no one responded to this yet, but this has been discussed offsite. For Ehlek, whether Venom Eels are Rahi or not is something that's not totally clear.^[1]

For Kalmah, Sea Squids are definitively confirmed to be native to Aqua Magna,^[2][3] but his army was largely made up of Giant Squids.^[4][5] I wasn't able to find confirmation that Giant Squids are or aren't Rahi, but I did find reference to a Rahi squid under Kalmah's control.^[6][7] I'm not suggesting this is a Giant Squid, but this shows Kalmah's army did have some Rahi squids in it.

For Mantax and Takadox, there's only this single Farshtey Feed post,^[8] and I couldn't find the source quote. FF is pretty reliable, but in the few instances where the source can't be found, that is cause for doubt.

I also just recently happened upon this quote from Dec 2006:

"1) The squid next year are organic. They are not native to the Matoran universe.

2) Nothing else organic plays any role in the story next year or in 2008."

What this implies is that any other creatures in 2007 (at least those with a decently sized story role) other than the vampiric Sea Squids are all Rahi. We know at this point both BL6 and BL7 at least were completed.^[9] However, the Ancient Sea Behemoth is explicitly confirmed to be an SM creature^[10] and had a pretty big role in BL7.

Even if just one of the armies was confirmed to be Spherus Magna creatures, I would still discard the quote you cited because Greg has at times forgotten about the Rahi/creature distinction. We have a more explicit quote saying Rahi Control only works on Rahi, as if the name wasn't confirmation enough. Dag (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The quote I posted said any of the armies could be influenced by either rahi control or insect control. Even though it is called rahi control and not creature control it is not saying it can not control them after all any primitive creature would be called a rahi by a denizen of the matoran universe. Another thing to consider is this is a psionic category power like telepathy which can affect entities both protodermis based and not. Plus the quote saying rahi control can not control creatures is refering to the mask power not the kraata power. Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

The question asked was about Makuta controlling Takadox's army specifically with Insect Control. Then Greg answered more generally that Makuta could potentially control any of the armies using Rahi Control (remember that Rahi control also works on insect Rahi, just not as well as Insect Control). It doesn't say any of the armies could be influenced by either Rahi or Insect Control. That would mean Insect Control would be able to control non-insects. But yes, you're correct that Matoran would define many if not all SM creatures as Rahi, but that's not the definition these powers operate under because it's subjective. There must be an objective definition for what a Rahi is for these masks to operate, but what exactly that is has been debated in the community. However, it's clear that it does not include SM creatures. We also know that the Komau definitely does not work on SM natives, so just because it's a psionic power does not inherently mean it can. And while the quote currently cited on the page is specifically about the Mask of Rahi Control, we have no reason to believe it operates any differently than the Kraata power it was based on, at least in this regard. Dag (talk) 02:28, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy Power Question

The new source of information for the accuracy power says physical objects and weapons not specifically thrown objects and ranged or projectiles weapons. So it is possible that it could be used with melee weapons for example using accuracy with a sword to find where to break a enemies’ shield or where to use a blunt object like a park bench in order to destroy a support pillar.

Here is the quote I am talking about. http://greg.thegreatarchives.com/2008-2010/page245#post9774-line5,10,14,17

Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

It's hard to tell from that one exchange. Some quotes seem to imply that it would be used for melee purposes, while others say it's limited to projectiles, like the Sanok. This page has been fluctuating back and forth for a while. I'd like to answer this question definitively. - Toa Jala ^Converse 22:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

So do I, but I believe it is not limited to ranged combat for the simple reason that there are kraata that are able to use this power even though they do not have the body parts needed to throw or shoot things since they are just a head and tail. After all, all kraata can use their powers without a problem if they have the opportunity which in this case would be a target they wish to hit.

Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 23:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The quote does limit it to projectiles because of the very next sentences.

"If I shoot a laser at you, I can use my accuracy power to hit you, because I am aiming it. If I am a Toa of Ice and wearing a Mask of Accuracy, I can make the ice bolt I hurl have a better chance of hitting you."

I finally added the quote after having sat on it for a while, ultimately because Greg implies the Sanok and Kraata power operate identically. While the Kraata description does suggest it works for melee (how can a Kraata even throw something?), Greg quotes take priority over the Kraata descriptions because Greg did not write them. I'm not aware of any quote where Greg suggested it works for melee (I double checked by searching "accuracy" on the TGA). Also, although it was not given in that quote, the reason Accuracy is not applicable to Fragmentation or Disintegration (which could be considered projectiles) is because Makuta can only use one Kraata power at a time. Dag (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

True however regardless of kraata stages or quotes from Greg it is universally agreed that kraata are slug like in body structure so unless he made a quote saying they need to use their tails or mouths to throw something this power should be compatible with melee combat. And even if it is like the Kanohi power, a kraata power does not always match up with a Kanohi even if they have the same name and ability, and usually the kraata power is capable of doing greater feats like the mask of Rahi control can control a few Rahi while a Makuta’s Rahi control has been shown to have controlled literal armies.

Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 00:41, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Unless the Kraata pounces or otherwise "launches" itself onto a target, in which case the Kraata itself is the projectile. That could resolve the "weak spot" issue, if the Kraata is able to launch itself with near-perfect accuracy. In any case, I have to agree with Dag. If there's no Greg quote stating that the Accuracy power works for melee, we have to assume that it doesn't. - Toa Jala ^Converse 04:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Weather Control Range

I believe weather control might not be limited to a small area after all. Here is a section from Shadows In The Sky chapter 8 that shows it is not as limited as a small area.

“At this point, those two Makuta split off from the rest. Antroz, Chirox, and Vamprah, along with their shadow Matoran, kept on straight for the village. Their job was to use powers that would affect a wide area to keep the Toa Nuva and Matoran penned in their shelter. As Antroz summoned a violent storm, Vamprah and Chirox blanketed the village with alternating sonic attacks and destructive cyclones. Within a few minutes, virtually no buildings were left standing. Even the lightvine barriers were shredded by the assault, leaving nothing to bar the way of the Makuta.”

It specifically says a wide area plus I have other reasons to believe it is not limited to a small area. The weather control Rahkshi possibly did not have its staff so it’s power was more limited though I have trouble remembering if it was taken away or not. Teridax has shown manipulating the weather in a large radius on Mata Nui though this could be due to him knowing how to manipulate the island. Last of all the fact that Antroz did this it could be that the small area concept applies to the rahkshi and kraata only and a Makuta has better control of his powers than even the strongest kraata, so it is not strange if a Makuta can cover a much wider area then a rahkshi could. Also the information about the small area from both sources came long before Shadows In The Sky so it may not be one hundred percent accurate anymore. Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 01:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Good find, however I am skeptical. One, Weather Control is not mentioned by name, so its not entirely certain that the power being used is Weather Control (could also be Cyclone or Vacuum to control Air), although it very well could be. Even if it is Weather Control, dealing with contradictions between books is much more difficult than with Greg's online answers. The tiers of canon for the books are books written by Greg, movie novelizations, then the Hapka books, in that order. In this case, BA3 and BL8 are on the same tier. We could certainly make a note of this on the page, but I don't think we can definitively say its one way or the other. Dag (talk) 02:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

It specifically says summoned a violent storm if it just said storm winds then it might be vacuum or cyclone but since it said storm and it did not specify wind only it is likely this was the weather control power. Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 03:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Shapeshifting

So...Shapeshifting. I didn't know it was this bad. I've known for a while about the problem with Makuta armor, how Greg is adamant that it's a feature of the armor^[1] and Makuta can't shapeshift without it^{[2][3][4][5][6]} or before their evolution into antidermis,^[7][8] despite it being a Makuta/Rahkshi power and acquired when they were created by Mata Nui,^[9] and TMC mentions Miserix shapeshifting, even though he was imprisoned on Artidax years before they evolved.

But also, I recently realized MGttU repeats the Stage 6 Kraata description, that being "has total control over its own shape, although its mass cannot change." The fact it's applied to Makuta suggests they too cannot change their mass. This is in conflict with the Greg quotes about shunting mass off to a pocket dimension. On the other hand, we have definitely seen instances of Teridax shapeshifting into things smaller than him, namely his Matoran form in MNOG and when he disguised himself as Dume. So the question isn't whether he can do that, but whether his mass changed when doing so. Honestly, not sure what to do with this. Dag (talk) 00:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Well Greg didn't write the Kraata power descriptions, so those aren't always accurate. As for Miserix, I think the Makuta must have had the power to not only change shape, but also size, prior to their evolution. Otherwise the chains that bound Miserix to Artidax wouldn't have had their size-changing properties. - Toa Jala ^Converse 01:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You're right about the Kraata descriptions, which is why some of them were changed in MGttU, which Greg did write. Shapeshifting, however, was not changed. Dag (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The bit about not being able to shift prior to the evolution would likely be a mistake, given that Rahkshi existed prior to the evolution (unless not all Rahkshi powers had been discovered at that point, but there's nothing to necessarily indicate that). At a stretch one could conjecture that they couldn't absorb the mass until their new armor was in place, and that the "shapeshifting" was perhaps more of the Illusion variety (which is already dumb!). But it could just be an error; whether or not Greg would have considered his word enough to contradict the story will remain a mystery.

But Rahkshi powers are also not always the full extent of Makuta powers (e.g. Shadow and telepathy), and they obviously need mass to grow bigger, otherwise Teridax wouldn't have specifically "absorbed" Nidhiki, Krekka, and Nivawk (and gained those Nivawk wings in the process). So logic would dictate something happens to mass in the reverse, and that quote is the best we've got as far as I can recall. -- Dorek _Talk 02:11, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Growing bigger isn't the problem. As you said, Makuta need to absorb mass, but that, I think, is a separate ability from Shapeshifting. That would make it consistent with Shapeshifting itself not being able to change their mass. The problem, though, is when they shrink. If MGttU is to be sided with (as I think it should, book vs quotes), that would mean they get denser when they shrink. While not ideal, I think it's better than a pocket dimension. I guess it's also possible (though very, very, implausible) that since they don't have to maintain concentration for their new shape, they could use Density Control to constantly regulate their density. Dag (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

My reading is generally that Makuta COULD use the Rahkshi shapeshifting power (which would require them to obey those limits of not being able to change their mass), much in the same way they COULD use the Rahkshi power of mind-reading to read minds, but because they have access to a more powerful version, they just use that. When Greg talks about shunting mass off to a pocket dimension, that's using the Makuta shapeshifting power; it's just confusing because they use the same name, as opposed to, say, Mind-reading vs Telepathy. I don't think it's that Makuta can always and only absorb mass to grow bigger, because otherwise they would just get denser and denser without any way of changing that. -- Dorek _Talk 03:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I've always considered Telepathy and Mind Reading to be one in the same. My reasoning has been, it's simply referred to as Mind Reading for Rahkshi because they presumably aren't intelligent enough to project thoughts into others (Shadow Kraata can speak Matoran, but we've never seen a Shadow Kraata of Mind Reading use its power to know if it's capable of actual Telepathy or not). That way, you don't have redundancy. The same could also be said for Shadow/Darkness, where for Rahkshi, it's just their power, but for Makuta, it's their actual element, and so have a wider range of it. But I'm hesitant to do that with Shapeshifting. I think I would have to work on the logistics a bit more. Dag (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Haha, it's interesting that you would apply it in reverse! On the wiki, as of now (and pretty much always) we just sub them under their existing power; Telepathy is a sub-power of Psionics, and Mind Reading is an even more limited version of that. I don't think your reading is necessarily wrong (e.g. it's only limited because of the user) but in that case I would say Shapeshifting is the same; the description is only limited because it's a Rahkshi using it, when a Makuta uses it they have access to a wider array of things it can do. But that doesn't necessarily address the inverse, which is what the whole "shunting into a pocket dimension" thing was meant to answer. If a Makuta doesn't change mass to shapeshift down, that means a Makuta can literally only ever GAIN mass, which seems... impractical. -- Dorek _Talk 04:16, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Reading over the quotes you provided, my personal interpretation is that the Makuta can only shapeshift when they're in their own bodies. Like Invulnerability or Elasticity, it's a physical power that they can't access in other bodies other than their own. There also doesn't seem to be much documentation of the Makuta Mass Dimensions. Here Greg implies that the mass goes to the same place as the mass of a Toa using a Mask of Shrinking. Does every Mask of Diminishment have a pocket dimension as well? I always assumed that the Mass Dimensions were exclusive to Makuta, which is why Rahkshi (according to these descriptions) don't have the ability to change their mass. - Toa Jala ^Converse 06:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, I can say that about Shadow/Darkness and Telepathy/Mind Reading because it's inferred by the difference between Rahkshi and Makuta. But what about the nature of Makuta implies that their Shapeshifting is more powerful? The only option is their armor and/or evolution into antidermis, which brings us back to that mess. Dag (talk) 19:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I guess "more powerful" might be too specific, but it's definitely different, otherwise we wouldn't have the whole "absorbing mass" issue to begin with; like, sure, you could make the argument that the ability to absorb mass is entirely separate from the shapeshifting power (do we see them using that ability in an unrelated capacity? I feel like maybe we actually did but I can't recall when specifically), but the fact remains that we DO see Teridax absorb mass in order to grow bigger, so that automatically breaks beyond the bounds of the Rahkshi power. BUT, as pointed out, that power also existed prior to their evolution. So maybe Greg's declaration that they couldn't do it until in their new armor is wrong, that's certainly possible. But that also doesn't invalidate the "shunting" quote. That mass, according to Greg, has to go somewhere. -- Dorek _Talk 04:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

If I recall, Makuta also gain energy when they absorb other beings, so it's conceivable that they could use it for this purpose without shapeshifting, although IDK if there are examples of this. In spite of the other discrepancies, I agree that Greg seems consistent on the "shunting" issue, so at least that part should remain. - Toa Jala ^Converse 04:51, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Found two more Greg quotes that answer some questions. He confirmed that prior to their evolution, Makuta still had all their Rahkshi powers,^[1] which would include Shapeshifting (at this point, I think we can confidently say they did have it since their creation). Next, he also confirms that they did not have the ability to absorb mass prior to their evolution.^[2] Either we throw out this quote based on absorbing mass being intrinsic to the Shapeshifting power (which I haven't seen any evidence of yet), or we keep this quote, and we're forced to conclude that Shapeshifting and absorbing mass are indeed separate abilities and, as I wondered, it does have to do with their evolution. Prior to that, though, it seems they were bound by the same limitations as Rahkshi. However, I still fail to see how exactly the pocket dimension fits into this. I doubt it's a property of the antidermis (Makuta already have 42 powers, I don't wanna add interdimensional on top of that). Nor do I think it's the armor, as the only thing that changed was the Nynrah Ghosts modified it, and while they are expert crafters, I seriously doubt they could just add in a pocket dimension feature. I would also like to point out that although the pocket dimension is also confirmed for the Pehkui, it was never explicitly confirmed where the Mask of Growth gets its additional mass from. Just something to think about. Dag (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's a good find, which supports some of the earlier conjecture we were making; they could shapeshift beforehand, but not absorb mass. I guess on a technical level you could say they absorb mass, and THEN use the Rahkshi power to initiate a shapeshift, but A. the Rahkshi power explicitly says that they can't change mass, and B. as far as we know they only use them in conjunction, so it feels like a bit of a distinction without a difference. Makuta can change their mass when they shapeshift as a result of being able to absorb more of it, while Rahkshi cannot; thus, the Makuta have a "stronger" shapeshifting ability (even if we don't use that word).

I don't think the pocket dimension shunting is a conscious feature in any way, nor is it any specific property of anything, which is maybe where we're seeing the hangup; it's simply Greg's answer as to what happens to that mass. If the Makuta gain it to shapeshift UP, the corollary is that they lose it to shapeshift DOWN. Ignoring that this doesn't necessarily apply to all shapeshifters equally (Krahka??), Greg's invention of this pocket dimension is one of convenience and strange adherence to Newtonian physics, so he doesn't have to write about some explosion every time a Makuta picks a smaller form (not that we ever see this in story, I think?). Like, yeah, there could have been other explanations, he just chose this one. -- Dorek _Talk 16:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Stasis Field Problem

I am not sure the Makuta need concentration to maintain their stasis fields should be included at least not in their current format. The reason I suggest this is why does this seem to be weaker than the stasis field Rahkshi using their power? The reasons for quick healing being weaker for Makuta make sense as depsite they have better control over their powers than the Rahkshi this makes sense since Makuta do not have the organic parts to heal. And the fact that Makuta was in Maxilos does not change this either since creating stasis fields is a power he is able to use while in a robot. Stasis Field Rahkshi were shown to be able to use their power without concentration as that is what happened to one of the Toa Metru. I doubt a wild Rahkshi was maintaining concentration while being far away from the stasis field victim. I have a link that could help explain this better. https://greg.thegreatarchives.com/2003-2008/page261#post10411 While this does mention concentration the way he said a field like that could mean that this is not the norm for this power. Which would make sense as Teridax needed Matoro to be free so he could not have the stasis field last for days or longer. It could be like how a shadow hand needs concentration to avoid the automatic retraction and absorption. Perhaps a Makuta need to concentrate for it to last a specific time instead of a long automatic duration. Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

We can easily address this with a note. Do you have the source for the Rahkshi of Stasis Fields example? - Toa Jala ^Converse 03:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

It was in The Darkness Below chapter 8. Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 03:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I'll make a note. Good find. - Toa Jala ^Converse 04:27, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Disintegration Inconsistency

In the descriptions for the power levels of disintegration, they are mostly described as by contact, while what has been accepted on this page due to an Ask Greg response is that no contact is required. Should we at least make note of that, or decide if it is exclusive to a certain power level? Furthermore, disintegration seems to just be a more powerful and thorough version of fragmentation, with exception to fragmentations explosion ability at level 6. While it isn't up to us to decide whether or not abilities are or even should be equal in power, I feel like pointing out any differences would be something we should do if able. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Guurahk's CD also backs up it being able to be used at range:

Guurahk carries a staff of power able to release a cone-shaped energy wave. When the wave strikes its target, a spiderweb of tiny tracks appears, and the object quickly crumbles to dust.

Panrahk however speaks of using contact in addition to range:

Panrahk wields a staff of power. By touching any object with it, he can make the object fly apart in tiny fragments. It is also capable of working over long-range.

~ Wolk (talk) 17:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Poison seems to have the same setup, where it's only specified to work on contact. However, in all three case, the Stage 6 description doesn't specify whether it works on contact or over a distance. I'd argue that since it doesn't say that a Stage 6 Kraata can't use its power over distance, it's okay to leave them as-is.

Alternatively, I wonder if it's possible that Rahkshi can use their powers in ways the Kraata can't. Maybe being inside Rahkshi armor or wielding a Rahkshi staff gives the Kraata ranged capabilities that it typically lacks? Worst-case scenario, we can amend it with a note - something to the effect of, "Although this power is said to only work on contact, it has been used at range in the story." - Toa Jala ^Converse 04:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Fragmentation Inconsistency

This quote indicates that Fragmentation only works on inorganic objects. However, alternate Teridax used Fragmentation to kill alternate Tanma in The Kingdom. Which is correct? - Toa Jala ^Converse 19:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Good catch. I know story takes precedence over Greg quotes, but I'm hesitant in this case. The reason being that if both Fragmentation and Disintegration can work on living targets, the distinction between the two becomes even less unclear than it already was. I'll look more into it later. Dag (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that quote necessarily implies that it ONLY works on inorganic things, just that's where it's most effective. And given that the bio-to-mechanical ratio is pretty low, I don't think it really contradicts anything. Also The Kingdom doesn't exactly say "how" he died (it technically doesn't say it at all lol, it's just heavily implied) so maybe it's just trauma from having his armor broken, or broken pieces damaging the organic tissue, who knows. -- Dorek _Talk 19:16, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Hunger Limitations

In the Mask of Light Novelazation the Hunger power absorbed more than just energy. Here is the quote. "The Fear-Rahkshi squealed in dismay as the Hunger-Rahkshi’s staff hit it. Its fear energy drained from its body, sending it tumbling helplessly to the ground."

This clearly states a emotion based energy was drained so should a note be added or is a revision needed? Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

It's absorbing the energy of the Fear-power, not the emotion of fear itself. The limitation is referring to the latter, as that is something the Avsa can do. ~ Wolk (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

7th Stage Kraata

While this page references that 7th stage Kraata exist indirectly by saying that certain groups do or do not have as much power or control over power, they are never properly mentioned anywhere, and it leaves it ambiguous as to whether 7th stage Kraata existed in the story and what the implications are(or that there is not much known about them). I don't know much of anything about them, so I don't know what changes to make, but this should be corrected. Firespitter Lhii (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much we can rightly say about them on this page, since their powers were never solidly outlined, nor were they included in the list of Kraata Powers in Encyclopedia Updated and Makuta's Guide to the Universe. They're talked about in Kraata#Shadow Kraata. - Toa Jala ^Converse 20:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

On the subject, I just noticed that this quote is cited saying that Makuta have a greater level of control over their powers than Shadow Kraata, but it looks to me like the question is asking about Shadow Kraata in Rahkshi armor. Since all Rahkshi have the same level of power regardless of Kraata stage, this could simply mean that Makuta have greater control over their power thank Rahkshi do, which is already known. - Toa Jala ^Converse 20:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Weather control range

In shadows in the sky chapter 8 it is mentioned the Makuta were using attacks that covered a wide area and it mentiones Antroz summoning a storm. Doesn't this contradict what is written for weather control? Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 11:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it contradicting anything. A "small area" or "wide area" are relative terms. What Makuta were doing is affecting a wide area relative to the battle i. e. the battlefield, but it is still a small area relative to all of Karda Nui.--ToaKebaka (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Help finding a weather control quote

I remember Greg said that weather control can be used to raise temperatures, those may not be the exact words it could have included the word hotter, heat, or something of that nature, can somebody find it? I have been trying to but I have no luck. Makuta of Mata Nui (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

BEU/MGttU descriptions

In response to Special:Permalink/174968 - Just posting this to say, that yes, Jalaguy is correct. They should not be edited. If you want to add something, either use note or edit the paragraph above the table. ~ Wolk (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Density control affecting objects

While I agree that the Mask of Intangibility should be noted (and was actually about to add a note about it myself, because I noticed it after I edited the page), I have to disagree that the first quote is definitive -- it says nothing about whether objects CAN be effected, just that you can make objects pass through you. I don't know what the general view is on Greg's statement of it being 'like' Density control is, but it's certainly not the exact same -- it can't harden you, for one. I certainly agree that the Mask of Intangibility could be noted, but I don't think it's enough to say that the source saying DC can effect objects is in error -- it's possible that it's something DC can do, but the MoI cannot.--Willess12 (talk) 00:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

"I don't know what the general view is on Greg's statement of it being 'like' Density control is, but it's certainly not the exact same"

I take it to mean that they're the same where they overlap, namely in their overall function, which is a general change in the user's density. So if the mask can't affect objects, it's reasonable to apply that to Density Control too.

"I have to disagree that the first quote is definitive -- it says nothing about whether objects CAN be effected, just that you can make objects pass through you"

What it says, verbatim, is "Density control means you can make yourself rock-hard or ghost-like, so that objects would pass right through you." If objects that you're in physical contact with are also affected by the power, then this wouldn't make sense. For one, how are we defining "in physical contact"? Would the ground the user is standing on change too? Would the weapon passing through them suddenly become intangible itself? You could say that the user can consciously choose which objects they're touching change, but there's no source supporting that idea. I'll also say, before anyone brings it up as an objection, I would think it's reasonable that the user's weapons/armor would be exceptions, so long as the user's density changes as well. This is the same type of exception to Hordika Venom, which generally cannot mutate objects unless it has a strong connection to the being it's mutating.

"it's possible that it's something DC can do, but the MoI cannot."

You're right, it is possible. But do we have something to make us think it's more reasonable? The Kraata Chart is the only thing that suggests objects can be affected, and it wasn't written by Greg. The change made to its description in MGttU I think makes it clear that it wasn't something Greg agreed with. Dag (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not realize that the Kraata Chart wasn't written by Greg, and that does make me agree with you a bit more. I'm curious how much input he had, because he did come up with the powers. But I don't think it's definite that the change for MGttU is definitively because Greg disagreed with the original description -- the rewritten version also mentions Protosteel, which wasn't a thing back in 03 when the original version was made. It's possible that the fact that it can effect objects just got lost in the rewrite.

As for whether you can choose whether to effect an object, while there's nothing saying that that is how DC works, there IS at least one power that is confirmed to work this way: Voporak's Time abilities. I think it's also worth noting, Voporak doesn't cause the ground to collapse under him everywhere he goes.

Personally, I do agree there should be a note about it, especially since the MoI exists. I just don't think it's enough to say definitively that the original description is in error. We don't have anything saying outright that DC can't effect objects, just that the MoI can't, and that it is similar to DC. It's an inference, one that makes sense and should be noted, but I don't think it's strong enough to say the site description is wrong. --Willess12 (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, Greg I guess wrote short descriptions for each power, but the website guys actually wrote the whole chart, so sometimes things got miscommunicated, as was the case with Sleep. For Voporak, there's one small difference in wording that I think is significant:

"He also found that his touch could age anyone and anything if he willed it to do so." (BEU)

The question with Density Control is when it says "any object in physical contact," does any mean all, or does the user have a choice like Voporak? Ultimately I'm nitpicking here, my main point isn't that I think it's not possible, but that to make this argument, you have to apply a tangential similarity, just like I'm doing with the Mask of Intangibility (although I'd say Voporak isn't inherently related since it's a totally different power). If you find Voporak compelling, I don't see how you don't find the MoI argument compelling as well. The one difference, though, is that the Voporak argument is only an explanation to make the Kraata Chart make sense assuming that it's correct, whereas the MoI is an argument for why the Kraata Chart is not correct, hence why I can be convinced by the MoI and not Voporak, but that doesn't hold vice versa. You can't defend a claim with an argument that assumes that claim is true to begin with.

"We don't have anything saying outright that DC can't effect objects"

And what I'm saying is I don't see why there needs to be. I think you agree with me that at least some of these sources could imply that it doesn't affect objects, and if so, is the fact that they're only implications somehow mean they weigh less than the Kraata Chart, even though Greg didn't write it? Or, if your concern is that we might somehow be wrong in how we're interpreting these sources, and thus they may not be implying that at all, we should discuss how else they may be interpretated or other loose wording.

"Density control means you can make yourself rock-hard or ghost-like, so that objects would pass right through you." (1)

I didn't word this as strong as I should've in my first response, but what I meant with this quote is that it's a direct cause and effect. Become ghost-like > objects pass through you. If they pass through you, that means you can't pick them up or hold on to them. This generalization with no defined exceptions implies that the user cannot also turn objects intangible.

"She turns intangible -- that means she can't place the stone inside her body, because she won't be able to pick it up, her hand is intangible too. But let's say she has someone else do it -- X puts the stone inside, but as soon as he takes his hand off it, it drops right out. If she resolidifies too fast, his hand will be inside her, and she'll die. If she does it at the right time, she will have a stone inside her and most likely will die anyway, the same way someone would with a bullet in them." (2)

"If you are intangible, you would not be able to pick it up to swallow it to start with." (3)

Even though the context of these is the MoI, Greg is speaking on the inherent nature of being intangible. If you want to say that the intangibility of the MoI doesn't apply to the intangibility of Density Control, then you have to say they are fundamentally different, contradicting the quote that they work alike. Dag (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like there's a lot being said and I may be confusing some of my points, so I want to clarify what I'm saying here.

1) I don't think any of the Greg quotes about DC even suggest it can't effect objects. Two of them ask about effecting other people, and the first one just states that when you are intangible, objects pass through you, it doesn't say whether you can make them be intangible/harder too. Hence why, in my initial edit, I just removed the note entirely, before I realized the MoI complicated matters.

2)I don't think the rewrite in MGttU proves that Greg disagrees with that part. I think it is Greg clarifying how it works, that you can make yourself intangible or harder, adding a mention of Protosteel, which wasn't a thing back in 03. The fact that people were asking questions about how "Density control" works shows that the original stage 6 description by itself would be too vague. I think it's most likely that there simply wasn't room for the bit about it also being able to effect objects in physical contact. Looking at the descriptions in the physical book, all of them are one or two lines (this could be why Quick healing effecting others got cut as well, since it's the only one rewritten to be significantly shorter), and DC takes up most of the second line. Alternatively, it's also possible it just got left out by accident when it got rewritten.

3) Yes, while you're intangible, you can't touch things or pick them up. However, the way I interpret the description, if you're holding something when you turn intangible, you can make it turn intangible with you. Or you can make the object hard as protosteel with you. If someone hits you with a sword while you're intangible, it doesn't matter, because even if that counts as the sword "touching" you, you already activated the ability. Same thing if you turn protosteel hard and then someone hits you with a sword -- the sword doesn't turn protosteel hard, because you weren't touching it when you activated the ability. That is how I would interpret that description. It's how I would have expected DC and the MoI to work, and I was actually surprised when I realized the MoI supposedly doesn't.

4) This occurred to me as I was typing up this comment, but Greg seems to be making the same assumption I think you are. If you look at the second quote, Greg doesn't actually answer the question. The question asks "what if you swallow something, and then turn intangible", but Greg's answer is "you cannot turn intangible, and then pick up and swallow something". In fact, the same is true of the other quote as well: Greg says you can't pick up the stone because you're intangible. I think it's worth noting that Greg doesn't seem to consider or address what happens if you are holding something (or swallow something) and then turn intangible.

5) Even if we do assume that the MoI cannot effect objects at all, and I think this is a reasonable assumption, I don't think it's a contradiction to say "DC can effect objects, but the MoI, which works like it, cannot". I take it to mean "The MoI makes you intangible by decreasing your density to the point where stuff passes right through you, just like Density control does". They both DO the same thing, it's just that one can also do it to objects as well.

I think it is worth noting that there is a precedent for something like this. The Makuta/Rahkshi power of teleportation can teleport others, but the Kualsi cannot. (Yes, I know there's no statement saying that the Kualsi is like Makuta teleportation; my point is just that it is an example of a case where the mask has a limitation that a similar Kraata power doesn't)

So I guess the final question is, what do I think we should say. I do agree that a note addressing the MoI is necessary. The only part of the note I truly take issue with, is that I don't think it should say that Greg clarifies that DC doesn't work on objects, because none of those quotes are about effecting objects, and they are already on the page when talking about the fact that it can't effect other people. I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't say that the website is erroneous, since there's room for interpretation on everything, but if you still disagree at this point, then I'm willing to cede the point. So I will propose two ways to alter the note (not including the sources for brevity's sake, those would obviously be on there too)

1) "This is to be taken as erroneous, due to the differences in Makuta's Guide to the Universe, and the fact that the Mask of Intangibility, which works like Density Control, cannot affect objects in physical contact." This one assumes 'like' means 'the same in every way'.

2) "This may be erroneous, due to the differences in Makuta's Guide to the Universe, and the fact that the Mask of Intangibility, which works like Density Control, cannot affect objects in physical contact." This one leaves 'like' up to interpretation.

Also, just for the sake of argument, this is what I was going to put initially: "However, the Mask of Intangibility, which works like Density Control, cannot affect objects in physical contact." Like I said, I don't think it proves that the original description is erroneous, or that MGttU proves anything. After this discussion, though, I'll admit the possibility should at least be considered and noted.--Willess12 (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"I don't think any of the Greg quotes about DC even suggest it can't effect objects. Two of them ask about effecting other people, and the first one just states that when you are intangible, objects pass through you, it doesn't say whether you can make them be intangible/harder too."

For those two quotes, the immediate context of the questions being asked is indeed about other people, but Greg's wording in both of his answers simply limits it to the user ("Density control works on you"; "We have only ever seen them use it on themselves"), suggesting objects cannot be effected either. And I've already explained how I interpret the third one.

"I don't think the rewrite in MGttU proves that Greg disagrees with that part."

Sure, it's possible that Greg's rewording does not mean that he didn't agree with the chart, but seeing how some of the other powers that were rewritten do reflect a change or some other contradiction (Limited Invulnerability, Quick Healing, and maybe Hunger), I still think it's more than likely that Density Control's rewrite reflects a change as well. The two exceptions are Anger, which is essentially the same as the Kraata Chart anyway, and Sleep, which I guess Greg just forgot to correct.

"The question asks 'what if you swallow something, and then turn intangible', but Greg's answer is 'you cannot turn intangible, and then pick up and swallow something'. In fact, the same is true of the other quote as well: Greg says you can't pick up the stone because you're intangible. I think it's worth noting that Greg doesn't seem to consider or address what happens if you are holding something (or swallow something) and then turn intangible."

This is exactly why I asked before how exactly we're defining "physical contact." Are you still in physical contact with an object even when you're intangible? I mean, it's not like you turned into a ghost, you're still there physically, just really, really, light (might be similar to how the Kakama Nuva allows the user to vibrate their molecules to pass through things). If so, then this distinction doesn't matter because the Kraata Chart doesn't say "any object in physical contact unless you are already intangible." Although, by definition, intangible means to lack a physical presence, but I just don't see that making sense in the context of this power. How can reducing your density completely remove your physical presence? Like how Rahi Nui's density decreased when it grew; its molecules simply drifted apart, but that doesn't mean its molecules stopped existing.

"They both DO the same thing, it's just that one can also do it to objects as well."

Then they don't do the same thing. One allows the user to change their density, the other would allow the user to change their density and that of any objects in physical contact. I know that sounds pedantic, but we have to be when that Greg quote is admittedly somewhat vague.

"I think it is worth noting that there is a precedent for something like this. The Makuta/Rahkshi power of teleportation can teleport others, but the Kualsi cannot."

I would not use Teleportation because it's an obvious outlier with it's many contradictions. Some sources say they can't teleport others, others say they have to be in physical contact, while others still say it can be over a distance. I'd rather not restart that headache, at least before settling this one first.

"I'm of the opinion that it shouldn't say that the website is erroneous, since there's room for interpretation on everything, but if you still disagree at this point, then I'm willing to cede the point."

The main reason I feel confident saying the chart is wrong is because 1) Greg didn't write it and 2) it's been wrong before, more than once. If it were written by Greg, or if this was the only instance of the chart being contradicted/reworded, I would probably be agreeing with you. But since that's not the case, and the wording of these various sources, I still think, are strong enough to say that it doesn't work on objects, I have no problem saying the chart is wrong here, just as it's been wrong in other places. Dag (talk) 22:49, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"Greg's wording in both of his answers simply limits it to the user."

Actually, that's a really good point, I hadn't looked at it that way. I still think it's only talking about other people (the first one says "DC works on you, not an enemy"), but I can see where you're coming from now. I can see how those quotes can be read to suggest it wouldn't work on objects either.

"I would not use Teleportation because it's an obvious outlier with it's many contradictions."

Fair enough. Honestly, I don't think it was a great way to illustrate my point anyway, because...

"Then they don't do the same thing. One allows the user to change their density, the other would allow the user to change their density and that of any objects in physical contact."

We may just have to agree to disagree here. I would say that "A can do X to you, B can do X to you and to other objects" is still enough to say "A works like B", but at this point it comes down to a matter of opinion. Unless there's another example of Greg saying that "A is like B but B can do _ and A can't", I can't really say your interpretation is wrong, all I can say is I disagree with it.

"The main reason I feel confident saying the chart is wrong is because 1) Greg didn't write it and 2) it's been wrong before, more than once."

Oh yeah, to be clear: I'm fine with saying the chart is wrong. My issue was, I didn't feel there was sufficient evidence in this case to say outright "the chart is wrong", unlike with Sleep, where Greg actually said "the chart is wrong". As soon as I saw the bit about the MoI, however, I absolutely agreed there was at least enough evidence to make a note out of, and this discussion convinced me more.

Honestly, even though I'm tempted to continue to argue the point, and in fact did initially type up another wall of text, I don't think it would do either of us any good. I may not necessarily agree with what the page says; I might have DC effect an object in a fanfic if I still did those; but at this point, I can agree that the page is fine as it is. --Willess12 (talk) 04:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)