So now that some time passed what is this boards opinion on Ordeal Call?

[InsertNameHere]

My understanding is that pruned timelines don't exist in the AU either- it can't record possibilities that aren't actually possible in the same way that you can't make parallel lines that intersect. They're not deleted so much as retroactively purged from the records so thoroughly that it is as if they never existed to begin with- more of a factory reset, really. It also presupposes that the records are inviolate once they are stored. If anything the Moon Cell's AU makes more sense not as a library but as a prison- the things there cannot be allowed to go free but the Moon Cell cannot destroy them completely, so it settles for locking them away in a place where they cannot affect the outside world. To extend this comparison, what Zepar did was basically slip a file hidden in a cake to one of the inmates (Kiara), allowing her to break loose.

[TresserT]

My understanding is that pruned timelines don't exist in the AU either- it can't record possibilities that aren't actually possible in the same way that you can't make parallel lines that intersect. They're not deleted so much as retroactively purged from the records so thoroughly that it is as if they never existed to begin with- more of a factory reset, really. It also presupposes that the records are inviolate once they are stored. If anything the Moon Cell's AU makes more sense not as a library but as a prison- the things there cannot be allowed to go free but the Moon Cell cannot destroy them completely, so it settles for locking them away in a place where they cannot affect the outside world. To extend this comparison, what Zepar did was basically slip a file hidden in a cake to one of the inmates (Kiara), allowing her to break loose.

The AU doesn't change and time doesn't "flow" there. That's kind of the whole point- past, present, and future all occur simultaneously like a fixed painting rather than an growing, unfolding tree. Pruning is something that happens to the OU aka the Human Universe of Awareness aka the thing Alaya administers. Alaya being the thing with limited energy (which is the whole reason pruning occurs), there's no reason why pruning would occur in the AU.

[InsertNameHere]

The AU doesn't change and time doesn't "flow" there. That's kind of the whole point- past, present, and future all occur simultaneously like a fixed painting rather than an growing, unfolding tree. Pruning is something that happens to the OU aka the Human Universe of Awareness aka the thing Alaya administers. Alaya being the thing with limited energy (which is the whole reason pruning occurs), there's no reason why pruning would occur in the AU.

Those pruned timelines don't qualify as past, present, or future, though. They're worlds that did not and could not exist under any circumstances, and there's no reason why they could be in the AU.There's nothing to record from them. As another example, look at what happened with Musashi in Olympus- if you were correct, she wouldn't have been rendered as DATA LOST to us in such an irreversible manner. (Or at least it seems irreversible. It's distressingly likely they'll invent an excuse to resurrect her, but that is another story.)

In your comparison, a pruned universe would be a crude scribble taped onto the edge of the painting that insists that it's always been there. The AU has no reason to indulge its delusions and just throws it down a memory hole such that it may as well have never existed.

[TresserT]

Those pruned timelines don't qualify as past, present, or future, though. They're worlds that did not and could not exist under any circumstances, and there's no reason why they could be in the AU.There's nothing to record from them.

In your comparison, a pruned universe would be a crude scribble taped onto the edge of the painting that insists that it's always been there. The AU has no reason to indulge its delusions and just throws it down a memory hole such that it may as well have never existed.

Part of me doesn't feel like arguing because it's generally fruitless, but I'm going to anyway.

By the very definition of what a pruned timeline is in the nasuverse and what the AU (more accurately called the Universe of Records) does, pruned timelines are still recorded in the AU. Your idea of the AU pruning a timeline and then wiping it away like it never existed is completely baseless and doesn't align with anything we know. The only thing in question is whether or not pruned timelines continue beyond their point of pruning in the AU, with it simply beyond what the OU observes, or whether or not they cut off right there.

I was under the impression that the AU comes first, Alaya expends energy tracing along the timelines found there thus creating the OU, and then when Alaya finds a timeline that's stagnant if stops tracing thus "pruning". But from Petrikow's comments it sounds like he thinks the OU comes first, expanding timelines as it sees fit, and then after each QTL it gets recorded into the AU (Though maybe I'm mistaken on his interpretation). Either way pruned timelines definitely still exist in the AU, at least up to a point.

[InsertNameHere]

Part of me doesn't feel like arguing because it's generally fruitless, but I'm going to anyway.

By the very definition of what a pruned timeline is in the nasuverse and what the AU (more accurately called the Universe of Records) does, pruned timelines are still recorded in the AU. Your idea of the AU pruning a timeline and then wiping it away like it never existed is completely baseless and doesn't align with anything we know. The only thing in question is whether or not pruned timelines continue beyond their point of pruning in the AU, with it simply beyond what the OU observes, or whether or not they cut off right there.

I was under the impression that the AU comes first, Alaya expends energy tracing along the timelines found there thus creating the OU, and then when Alaya finds a timeline that's stagnant if stops tracing thus "pruning". But from Petrikow's comments it sounds like he thinks the OU comes first, expanding timelines as it sees fit, and then after each QTL it gets recorded into the AU (Though maybe I'm mistaken on his interpretation). Either way pruned timelines definitely still exist in the AU, at least up to a point.

At this point it's not arguing so much as defining our stances and allowing posterity to see which of us is closer to the mark. I'd certainly be disappointed if you were to just give up your view.

Essentially, you overestimate the power of the AU. It too is subservient to Alaya, and whatever existence those pruned timelines have in the AU is hardly worthy of the name. That, and we already have multiple hints that the "continued" timelines of the Lostbelts are just elaborate simulations using the time of pruning as their starting point. They may be elaborately crafted illusions, but they are still only that - illusions. Their existence is essentially defined by their non-existence.

The AU is the compendium of all timelines that can exist, and since a pruned timeline can't exist it gets the chop. The CCC incident itself was only preserved as it was because a nascent Beast was involved, preventing it from just being purged in its entirety. (You do have to remember that the Far Side was intended as a dumping spot for malignant information too dangerous to allow into the Near Side but too powerful to simply destroy.) Think of it this way: you can't record something that was never observed, or rather has been observed as having never existed to start with. Remember that the plan to stop BB in the normal routes of CCC was to create a present in which her recorded future was rendered impossible.

[TresserT]

At this point it's not arguing so much as defining our stances and allowing posterity to see which of us is closer to the mark. I'd certainly be disappointed if you were to just give up your view.

Essentially, you overestimate the power of the AU. It too is subservient to Alaya, and whatever existence those pruned timelines have in the AU is hardly worthy of the name. That, and we already have multiple hints that the "continued" timelines of the Lostbelts are just elaborate simulations using the time of pruning as their starting point. They may be elaborately crafted illusions, but they are still only that - illusions. Their existence is essentially defined by their non-existence.

The AU is the compendium of all timelines that can exist, and since a pruned timeline can't exist it gets the chop. The CCC incident itself was only preserved as it was because a nascent Beast was involved, preventing it from just being purged in its entirety. (You do have to remember that the Far Side was intended as a dumping spot for malignant information too dangerous to allow into the Near Side but too powerful to simply destroy.) Think of it this way: you can't record something that was never observed, or rather has been observed as having never existed to start with. Remember that the plan to stop BB in the normal routes of CCC was to create a present in which her recorded future was rendered impossible.

What you're saying makes perfect sense. Except that it doesn't work that way. Like I'm presenting you with the fact that the AU contains pruned timelines, and you're denying it because you don't like it. Like there's not much other way for me to say it besides just saying you're wrong.

(I think) The thing that's being questioned is whether pruned timelines continue in the AU or whether the AU only contains their information up to the point of pruning. The AU is not beholden to Alaya the way you claim it is, and this is very explicitly stated, which is why I got the impression that every timeline- even once that should be pruned- are contained there. Because, as Petrikow said, it's Alaya that has energy limitations, not The World as a whole.

[Lily Emilio]

I think diving too deep into lore makes it hard to understand.
At some point, Nasu decided to do QTLs/Compiled Events. This has made a lot of people unhappy and has been widely regarded as a bad move.
The issue is that some of our various TM timelines are clearly way too different to be in the same compiled event - something like Extra would probably just be pruned in FSN. So now we have to have multiple compiled events, and we're back to TM having a bunch of different timelines that can't coexist or interact (except when they do).

Using "timelines" to explain pruning is a mistake (partially my fault as well since I did not want to go too deep on it, but I guess I should have), and that is the difference between how Nasu's parallel worlds work vs those in other works (it has a lot of similarities with Honkai Impact's bubble universe system but that's another matter). If I were to dive deep to explain it, I would call it more accurately as "events", like the original intention of the term "Pruned Event". From Arthur trial quest, we knew that destruction of a timeline (like we understand parallel worlds in other series) isn't strictly tied to pruning. It's just that more often than not when you see a world getting destroyed, it is usually one of those "endings" that is seen in Pruned Events.

This then tie to the concept of different trunks of time which can explain the likes of Extraverse. From Arthur POV, FGO is Isekai (異世界, Otherworld) to his world, while from our POV his timeline is also Otherworld. Otherworlds are different from parallel worlds that are governed by Pruning but we still have no clear info on the criteria, though we can think of them as multiple different trunks independent from the one we are viewing from. The Otherworlds we knew are Prototype, Extra, Requiem, Fairy Britain after being drastically changed. Out of these, Fairy Britain is an example of a world originally designated for pruning that can reverse that status, splitting from the main trunk it originates from and become the foundation of a new trunk. These Otherworlds pretty much are their own "proper histoy" just like FGO having its own "proper history" (this is what fumei and Petri was talking about, the distinction of the PHH of FGO and others) that can be just as strong as FGO's being able to replacing FGO's (Fairy Britain), even if the contents of whatever going on in there are drastically different. So think of each Otherworlds as different trunks that can have their own multiple routes (governing by pruning, these are the parallel worlds sprouting from those respective otherworlds) and are normally not related or connected to any otherworlds. The QTLs are also different between them due to this, like You explained, since the variation of historical events worth locking in different otherworlds should be different from each other.

I do agree that the system, while originally existed for meta reasons (at least to my headcanon), has since became a major narrative concept and the lack of details upon its full mechanic creates different interpretations.

[Parzivus]

Where was this said?

I was referencing Hitchhiker's Guide, I don't know how many people actually like or dislike the system. Personally I think it's a little goofy, but I was never a huge fan of the sci-fi parts of TM.

[InsertNameHere]

What you're saying makes perfect sense. Except that it doesn't work that way. Like I'm presenting you with the fact that the AU contains pruned timelines, and you're denying it because you don't like it. Like there's not much other way for me to say it besides just saying you're wrong.

(I think) The thing that's being questioned is whether pruned timelines continue in the AU or whether the AU only contains their information up to the point of pruning. The AU is not beholden to Alaya the way you claim it is, and this is very explicitly stated, which is why I got the impression that every timeline- even once that should be pruned- are contained there. Because, as Petrikow said, it's Alaya that has energy limitations, not The World as a whole.

You could start by showing me the proof that the AU actually does contain pruned timelines. I haven't seen it yet, and if you posted it already I must have missed it. Where is it? Because so far you've only established that it could contain them, and even that's shaky.

[You]

.

I agree that "Events" is a better way to think about it. After all, the law is called "the Conservation of Events" not timelines.
Too often we think of this system in the context of western timeline scifi, when the structure is more akin to a Visual Novel flowchart (what Nasu knows best).
You have "events" (the VN technical term) that must happen to trigger flags which lock you into routes (trunks). At the same time, some flags must be triggered before being able to go to the next stage.
Although the stories has infinite possibilities, the devs need to choose which they can continue writing.
I guess it would be similar to a live service VN.

[TresserT]

I agree that "Events" is a better way to think about it. After all, the law is called "the Conservation of Events" not timelines.
Too often we think of this system in the context of western timeline scifi, when the structure is more akin to a Visual Novel flowchart (what Nasu knows best).
You have "events" (the VN technical term) that must happen to trigger flags which lock you into routes (trunks). At the same time, some flags must be triggered before being able to go to the next stage.
Although the stories has infinite possibilities, the devs need to choose which they can continue writing.
I guess it would be similar to a live service VN.

That still plays into what I was trying to say though. While the Moon Cell might not be the best example, it still works in the context of my argument. In timeline A the Moon might be alien tech, in timeline B it might just be a hunk of space rock. But as long as both hit the Event checkpoint of "Homo Sapiens evolve" the difference is irrelevent. Then 40,000 years down the line humanity lands on the Moon and suddenly that difference actually matters. Hitting the event checkpoint is what matters, it seems.

[TresserT]

Minor details (from the persepctive of Humanity's development for the first 4.6 billion years) like "the Moon is a machine" or "the Moon is a rock" shouldn't make a difference as long as certain checkpoints are met.

To put it in VN terms, you might make some choices pushing you towards the Sakura route and some choices pushing you towards the Rin route. But once you're locked into a route, the tiny differences between playthroughs don't really matter. But because this is a world and not a VN flow chart, tiny differences COULD wind up becoming something bigger later down the line. That's how I see it anyway.

[Lily Emilio]

I agree that "Events" is a better way to think about it. After all, the law is called "the Conservation of Events" not timelines.
Too often we think of this system in the context of western timeline scifi, when the structure is more akin to a Visual Novel flowchart (what Nasu knows best).
You have "events" (the VN technical term) that must happen to trigger flags which lock you into routes (trunks). At the same time, some flags must be triggered before being able to go to the next stage.
Although the stories has infinite possibilities, the devs need to choose which they can continue writing.
I guess it would be similar to a live service VN.

Yeah my impression on the system is also that it is meta explanation for different settings of different Fate/Tsuki titles that can coexist. They mind their own business with their own routes developed by players' choices, and as writers they want to both trying to make new interesting stories (compiled event) while stop focusing on less interesting stories (pruned event). The FGO movie making event I think is an attempt to tell the readers this.

[InsertNameHere]

Yeah my impression on the system is also that it is meta explanation for different settings of different Fate/Tsuki titles that can coexist. They mind their own business with their own routes developed by players' choices, and as writers they want to both trying to make new interesting stories (compiled event) while stop focusing on less interesting stories (pruned event). The FGO movie making event I think is an attempt to tell the readers this.

You're probably overthinking the movie event. That was just a fun little quasi-mystery for the players, nothing more.

[Lily Emilio]

A fun little event can still pack an underlying message regarding the authors' viewpoint on story writing, poking fun at tropes and themselves, as well as showing certain ideas of worldbuilding. There is no rule stopping it from having more. And if you can't see that then so be it, I ain't wasting my time explaining. You can keep thinking of it as nothing more, and I will keep thinking of it as something more.

[Ubergeneral]

So now that a beast class is a thing. Could it mean that the tokyo grail war might mean that Manaka will show up?

[Kelp24]

Alaya in shambles as Chaldea's Master just keeps flipping her off.

[VTKajin]

The Beasts are our buddies!

[OnesFleetingGlory]

Yep, they're gonna be allies to overthrow New Human Order.

[madarra]

So now that a beast class is a thing. Could it mean that the tokyo grail war might mean that Manaka will show up?

its been a nearly a decade and i never understood the obsession with Manaka. i never expected her to show up.

i still dont believe in Prototype collab, but Yes, Manaka appearance chance sky-rocketed due to the phenomenon of "New Class means we NEED to fill up the roster", so yes Manaka`s chance of ever showing up went from Meh to Good, and Camazotz implementation chances multiplied tenfold