Talk:Unbound elemental

I think these are pre-titan elementals, or the 'pure' form of elementals, and because the Elemental Plane is smashed into Azeroth, they can walk (or float) around without their bracers. Just speculation though. It would be nice if there was lore about them anywhere.--SWM2448 04:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Aye.. any lore on anything new would be nice... just seems new models for everything is created every expansion with no reason, other than to appear new. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 04:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Could simply be to provide more variation among the elementals. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that  [30-35] Disrupting the Rituals supports my opinion, but what is fought in the quest are fire revenants. Unless the bracer-less revenants are unbound too.--SWM2448 03:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Besides their prevalence next to Twilight forces, and their name,  [30-35] Mercy for the Bound seems to explain what bound elementals are (or at least their situation). Also, A'noob split the page.--SWM2448 01:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

So, are we going with the assumption that they are just new looks? The usage is inconsistent.--SWM2448 21:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that they're just a new updated look... though possibly more powerful. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Even when during  [30-35] Unbinding you break the elementium off and they become unbound?--SWM2448 01:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bound and Unbound are the same creature, one is just being controlled in some way. But as a whole, they are simply a new version of elementals, cause as players we would get bored of seeing the fire, water, earth, air elementals we've seen since first release. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 01:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I say that the new look has some lore, which I linked.--SWM2448 02:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Coobra: More fun in gameplay by new models and lorewise one of the many forms a elemental can take (like [[1]], [[2]] or [[3]]). Unbound elemental = elemental --LemonBaby (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You would think that those quests meant something.--SWM2448 19:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I highly assume that the quests refers to their bracers also found on their older models: All elementals speak Kalimag and, whether summoned to Azeroth or there of their own free will, wear a set of magic bracers. These bracers form automatically when the elemental leaves the Elemental Plane. They tie the elemental to Azeroth and allow it to exist outside of the Elemental Plane. Hence they are special regarding their bracers: The firestorms up ahead are unbound elementals in the purest form - something I didn't think could exist outside their own plane. Only very skilled summoners could unleash something like this. --LemonBaby (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Unbound elementals, and revenants for that matter, do not have bracers.--SWM2448 20:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Unbound simply refers to the fact that they're not bound, like with the bracers or the skeletal cage thingy. -- Dark T Zeratul (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Correct. With the elemental planes opening into Azeroth, it allows more powerful elementals to enter without needing or having shackles to tie them to Azeroth. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 20:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Hence all elementals in the elemental plane are unbound elementals, but some can reach our plane unbound since the cataclysm --LemonBaby (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So there is a lore difference between them and the older look.--SWM2448 21:39, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If the lore difference is being more powerful, then I'd say yes... they could be considered more pure, but then... seeing the normal elementals in their own plane wearing those bracers (which bind them to Azeroth) would have been silly from a lore perspective... even though we do see some of them. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Are there realy some old models of the elementals with bracers on their planes? That would be very silly...--LemonBaby (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There's normal earth elementals in Deepholme, some normal air elementals in the 5mans Skywall, normal (though corrupted) water elementals in the water plane... and I'm not sure about Firelands yet. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok... But nevertheless I am for a merge with elementals since there is no lore to unbound elementals other than they are look different.--LemonBaby (talk) 08:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

And then are those that have loads of armour that are more intricate which i think are elemental nobles, an i don't think we should merge the elemental page is big enough as it is--Ashbear160 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but armored humans are still listed under humans. As are human nobles. And listening the unbound air elementals under air elementals would hardly do any difference. After all the unbound air elementals page has no content. --LemonBaby (talk) 14:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You mean listing the unbound air elemental in the air elemental page? that i have no problem with—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ashbear160 (talk · contr).

Yes, that was what I meant :-) --LemonBaby (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean there is no lore about unbound elementals other than they look different? I though we just agreed that they had lore involving their lack of bracers and the Twilights binding them?--SWM2448 15:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, of course, sry for the misunderstanding. I mean there is no lore regarding that they are a new or different type of elementals. Like Fire hawk...--LemonBaby (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A new approach

I suggest that we should do it like elemental ascendant page, by making it like the Elemental ascendant article make one page for Unbound elemental and another for Bound elemental and mix all the four elementals in (separating them visually with icons like in the ascendants case).--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Added subraces to the ascedant page, should be more intuitive now to read which elemental is which.--Ashbear160 (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As bound and unbound Elementals are just normal Elementals with different "clothing" they shouldn't even have an own page... Or does every orc with a different model and armor get an own page?--LemonBaby (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably not, but elementals aren't a playable race or a living thing it would be just a creature article, much like we have articles for Whelps Dragons and drakes which are the same race in different age groups, and there is a need to distinguish them from the normal elemental, so yes i think in this case a creature article is needed, which is different from a playable race article.--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Later i will make a mock up in my user page based on the ascendant page.--Ashbear160 (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. They are not just elementals with different clothing, they re slaved elementals. And as Ashbear said, there are pages for every age of the dragon. I think the Bound Elementals should have their own page, while I agree the unbound should be mentioned in the normal Elemental page and their respective Air, Water, Earth and Fire Elemental. --Cemotucu (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

These "unbound" and "bound" elementals are one and the same, with the bound ones wearing shackles/armor. The page was created in hopes of having lore for these new elementals, to which there doesn't seem to be any. Perhaps a merger into their respective elemental pages since that's all they appear to be... new models for creatures that have existed in WoW since the beginning. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 15:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Coobra. Otherwise the old elemental models should be listed under "bound elemental" --LemonBaby (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I still think that they have lore!--SWM2448 17:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If you can provide lore other than "they look different" I'm ok with two articles. The dragon whelps got their own because there are tons of differences between them and a full grown dragon. For now, the only differnce between the "unbound elementals" and the "classic elementals" is their appereance. And we didn't give the old worgen models their own page altought they still exists within the game. --LemonBaby (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Read the above section. Read Cemotucu's opinion.--SWM2448 17:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I also can agree with Cemotuco and all four bound elementals should be fused into one, like in the elemental ascendant page.--Ashbear160 (talk) 18:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, that "standard" that you have is not my point. I just say that they have lore. That lore might even deserve to me merged with the Elemental page. Why do we have to have such massive lists of mobs? At some point, a category might become sufficient.--SWM2448 19:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we can go away with the list of mobs but we should bother to distinguish between types of elemental which for now we have "Normal" "Bound" "Unbound" "Noble" "Prince" "Lord" "Ascendant" and from the RPG "Sprites" which are more or less universal among all four elemental types(there are only 3 types of noble and 2 types of prince), i'm going to do a mock-up, but i think that the bound ones should be their own page from the unbound ones, which the i think the unbound can be merged with the "normal" page.--Ashbear160 (talk) 20:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's one of the smock-ups i promised User:Ashbear160/Unbound elemental, the type list could be removed if someone creates a Category:Unbound elementals, I'll do it in a while if nobody has problems with it, i'm making the bound one first though.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

And here's the bound version that i promised User:Ashbear160/Bound elemental, also missing Category:Bound elementals.--Ashbear160 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Hold off on make them for now. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 02:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The categories or the articles? the articles are already done the info just needs to be moved here and the others deleted.--Ashbear160 (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The categories I find would be useless, as they don't specify their elemental type. So you would end up having to use both categories. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 21:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't specify elemental types? Unbound and bound would be that types, like there is a elemental ascendant category.--Ashbear160 (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Fire water earth air.Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 23:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

do we really need 4 categories for each type of unbound elemental?, we can just add two categories the first for "shape" and the second for the element, isn't it a faster solution? we didn't make 4 different articles and categories for elemental ascendants and even the revenant article got their own category (even trough heavily subdivided).--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's my point.. we don't need more categories for the elementals. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! (^Sssss/_Slithered) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

For bound and unbound we need, we don't need for unbound fire elemental, bound fire elemental, bound water elemental, unbound water elemental...etc..., we don't need 8 new categories when we can use only two(unbound and bound), for example it would be Category:Unbound elementals and Category:Fire elementals on the Flame Warden article it works as simple as that, after all we didn't make new articles for elemental ascendants or elemental lords, and unlike revenants which had RPG lore this one has little so 2 articles would suffice instead of 8 articles.--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Ragnaros got bound by Cenarius during on Heroic.... that's my problem in this whole discussion. Should he now be listed under bound or unbound? --LemonBaby (talk) 09:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes i noticed that, this is more the case of a note rather than being listed--Ashbear160 (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

WoW Cataclysm Behind the Scenes - Art Creation pretty much confirmes that the "new" unbound elementals were created because they were sick of seeing the old elemental model all over the place. It starts around minute 8.--LemonBaby (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That may be the main reason, but I still say they game them in-universe lore.--SWM2448 20:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I would realy love to hear some lore about them, but as far as I know there isn't any. There are even Unbound Fire Elementals and Bound Fire Elementals with the old model further pointing out that bound/unbound is just a description. Like they bound Ragnaros during the heroic encounter.--LemonBaby (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I linked it before...--SWM2448 21:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Binding someone is no lore difference. Enslaved demons are the same demons just enslaved. Bound Elementals are the same elementals just bound. There is no such thing as a bound unbound elemental. Or is Ragnaros now a Bound Ragnaros and before that he was a unbound bound Ragnaros?--LemonBaby (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There may be more then one type of binding, but dismissing things is not the answer.--SWM2448 21:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well the nobles bindings are far more shiny than the rusted bindings carried by unbound elementals--Ashbear160 (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Good for them.--SWM2448 00:41, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I still say we should fuse these 4 article in one like the Elemental Ascendant article--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually make 2 articles, one for bound and another for unbound and turn the rest into redirects to those 2 articles, 8 unnecessary articles into 2 that are necessary.--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Somewhere this got a lot more complex than it needed to be. I'm in favor of less pages.--SWM2448 20:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Like this?--Ashbear160 (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Name section

The page speculates that the name is just a placeholder of sorts taken from the game files. However, the name is used in-game in  [Glyph of the Unbound Elemental]. Could this indicate that "unbound elemental" is officially what they are called? -Aquamonkeyeg (talk) 02:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable enough. --k_d³ 03:29, 22 May 2014 (UTC)