How do calamities work, again?

[Ilenya]

The Flood of Light on the First would also have been too much if Minfilia hadn't interfered back during HW, so Elidibus was probably counting on Urianger getting involved and asking Minfilia for help.

Was this ever actually mentioned anywhere? After all, the Black Rose had been initially developed back when Gaius had control over some things, so it's not as if it couldn't have been planned at the same time as Dalamud. I'm not sure if double Calamities are possible, but I imagine if they were, a two for one deal would suit the Ascians just fine.

[Sylvain]

Well, Minfilia prevented an entire flood. So it seems that the ascien almost repeated the same mistake they did on the 13th.

Small question, do we know if bahamut event caused a rejoining or was it suppose to absorb the first?

[MistakeNot]

Small question, do we know if bahamut event caused a rejoining or was it suppose to absorb the first?

I don't have quotes at hand, but from what I understand the Seventh Umbral Calamity was indeed a Calamity with the associated Rejoining.

[Dualblade]

I don't have quotes at hand, but from what I understand the Seventh Umbral Calamity was indeed a Calamity with the associated Rejoining.

Specifically it was the (actually successful this time) Darkness attributed Calamity that took I believe the 6th Shard, maybe 5th. It was the last one shown being absorbed when we got the explanation on Calamity stuff this xpac.

Given what we know I'd say the normal elemental attributes were easier for the Ascians to pull of compared to Dark and Light attributed ones, thus why they didn't attempt another Darkness one till after those were done. Light was probably the hardest for them to pull of, and given what little we know of the First's Ascians they may very well have sacrificed themselves to help get it started. After all if the Rejoining works they'll be alive again anyways.

[Jandor]

I just don't understand something.
If à flood occurred on all rejoined shard. Why didn't the 13th (now named the void) joined? The explanation used to be '' a flood of darkness happened making it un rejoins le '' (#useless).
But then we learn that other shard have been flooded and did rejoin.

Soo... I don't get it

What I got was that they overdid it in the void without creating the right conditions on the source. Was the first attempt after all, they weren't sure what they were doing.

The other shards, they aspected them one way or another and made sure the source had a crack in it for the flood to rush through.

The void, they just messed it up without giving the resultant mess anywhere to go, and now they can't get it to go anywhere because it's just a stagnant mass of useless void.

That's how I interpreted it anyway.

[Ilenya]

The void, they just messed it up without giving the resultant mess anywhere to go, and now they can't get it to go anywhere because it's just a stagnant mass of useless void.

If memory serves, the Void no longer has any Aether to send to the source. I imagine there was a point where there was the proper buildup of the right aspected aether, but with no way to get to the Source (Not prepared properly), it all eventually got eaten by what became the Voidsent.

Which makes me wonder what would happen if we just sicced the Voidsent on worlds experiencing a Flood. They'd probably lose, but it's a funny thought.

[Dualblade]

If memory serves, the Void no longer has any Aether to send to the source. I imagine there was a point where there was the proper buildup of the right aspected aether, but with no way to get to the Source (Not prepared properly), it all eventually got eaten by what became the Voidsent.

Which makes me wonder what would happen if we just sicced the Voidsent on worlds experiencing a Flood. They'd probably lose, but it's a funny thought.

Bloody as all hell is what it would be. Better to send the Flood to the Void if anything, atleast if no one but monsters live there at all. Course we'll have to see more of the Void to know for sure.

[Cilia]

More to the point, Floods weren't caused on any shards except the First and Thirteenth - Floods are counterproductive to the Ascians' goals.

The trick is to tip the elemental balance toward an element without causing a Flood, so that the excess elemental aether from the shard will trickle into the Source. After this has gone on long enough, it cracks the barriers between the shard and the Source, after which a Calamity can be used to collapse the shard and return all its aether to the Source.

Floods occur when the barrier isn't cracked, but the elemental aether has built up to catastrophic levels on a shard.

[Daralii]

More to the point, Floods weren't caused on any shards except the First and Thirteenth - Floods are counterproductive to the Ascians' goals.

The trick is to tip the elemental balance toward an element without causing a Flood, so that the excess elemental aether from the shard will trickle into the Source. After this has gone on long enough, it cracks the barriers between the shard and the Source, after which a Calamity can be used to collapse the shard and return all its aether to the Source.

Floods occur when the barrier isn't cracked, but the elemental aether has built up to catastrophic levels on a shard.

We know that the barrier was cracked on the Source because it was stated that the thinning of aether, which was previously stated to always preclude a Calamity, was a result of the Light seeping in.

[Ilenya]

More to the point, Floods weren't caused on any shards except the First and Thirteenth - Floods are counterproductive to the Ascians' goals.

People keep saying the Flood here was counterproductive to what the Ascians want, but I don't recall that ever being said. Does someone have a source for this?