Possible Sub-trope split?: Calling Your Attacks

I see a lot of examples on the Calling Your Attacks page about purposely calling the wrong attack to throw your opponent off. Would it be acceptable to split those examples off?

At the very least, we should soft-split the page for straight examples, Parodies, and Mis-calling.

A soft split seems best, assuming there are really that many.

It depends on how many there are of this.

I know that in Dragon Ball Goku's Rock (Punch), Paper (Block), Scissors (Cant remember) attack he gets Genre Savvy and calls out Paper but really does a punch.

Bump.

So exactly how many Calling Out The Wrong Attack are there? Numbers are on if we soft split it, full split or just leave it as a playing with example IMO.

edited 16th Jun '11 5:36:28 PM by Raso

Eh, why? This seems to be a completely different trope to me.

Isn't the mis-calling thing basically a subversion? Why not just categorise the page that way?

Well, these are all the examples of miscalling.

Anime

Western Animation:

• In the Jackie Chan Adventures cartoon series, the villain Hak Foo usually calls his attacks, and the names can be pretty funny, or oddly specific. Lampshade hung in his debut episode, where the called attack is purposefully not the name of the attack about to be executed; it helped to fool his opponent.
• Inspector Gadget's command of "Go, Go Gadget—(insert gadget name)" could count; he's warning people that he's about to activate a gadget. However, it usually doesn't work as planned (Getting hammer when he wanted rocket, for example) So he would call his attack, only to attack in a different way, and fail nonetheless. *
  ^{(IDK if this is a real example)}

Web Comic:

• The Order of the Stick does this, with Vaarsuvius calling out a spell that he didn't prepare, to get his opponent to admit that that spell would have destroyed his strategy.

edited 17th Jun '11 11:58:40 AM by SalFishFin

Yeah, we don't need a split for just three examples. Soft or hard.

The word "Anime" part is a hottip. Click it.

edited 17th Jun '11 11:59:08 AM by SalFishFin

Still not enough to justify a split. I don't see anything about these that makes them anything other than a subversion of Calling Your Attacks. We don't normally split off a subverted trope as its own unless it starts to demonstrate significant usage as a trope in its own right.

I think creating a new examples list for subversions would be nice.

You mean a soft-split? If you feel that it's appropriate, go ahead.

A soft split will work, if the caller deliberately calls the wrong attack to throw off the enemy

Bump. Unless someone wants to soft-split off the subversions (which hasn't been done yet), I think this thread is finished.

Declining the lock. Decide it's not worth doing, or do it.

(Doing the work would be more useful than just bumping the thread with a holler.)

I don't think its worth doing. Which is why I didn't. Some people seem to disagree, but they haven't split it either.

I don't think it's a good idea to split over this.

Moreover, the Gadget example really isn't one. He is certainly not calling the wrong attack to deceive his enemies: he is triggering the wrong effect because he's an idiot and/or his gadgets are experimental.

Gadget is a subversion because his gadgets don't work as advertised, but not because he's deliberately trying to fool his enemies. That leaves, what, two subversions that are based on intent to deceive? Not enough. I see no reason for a hard or soft split here.

edited 21st Oct '11 6:55:13 AM by Fighteer

Ah well. If there really isn't much to split off, then it's kind of pointless to split.

locking