- 61,134
- 14,563
As does 096
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Can you explain how 9-B possibly higher is well above Tanjiro's AP?Again, 096 has been undamaged by weapons that can fragment a tank which would put its durability well above Tanjirou's AP
Because its High 8-CCan you explain how 9-B possibly higher is well above Tanjiro's AP?
???Because its High 8-C
That tale gave SCP-173 an NLF neck snap if I recall. Crybaby fraOtherwise, SCP-173 had no issue physically snapping SCP-096's neck
682 is 9-A. There needs to be evidence that 682's exposure to 096 resulted in offensive adaptions; all we know is that it shrunk, and 096 was wounded and traumatized after attacking for over a day.096 also fought 682 to a standstill in a span of two days, which I presume is what Weekly is going to use for a CRT to get 096 RPL.
NLF requires very reliable statements. SCP-173 profile does not have durability ignoring attacks, conceptual manipulation, or such. As far as this thread is concerned, Shy Guy got casually damaged by a 9-A.That tale gave SCP-173 an NLF neck snap if I recall. Crybaby fra
Ah you might wanna take a look again at what you wroteM3X himself apparently said that the 9-A calculation is wrong and correct result is ~9-C. So I vote for 096
Then why was 096 traumatized and wounded on a corner?SCP-682 couldn't even scratch the shy guy
Let's say that 173 has more offensive power than baseline SCP-682 or 85% shrunk SCP-682. Doesn't change that Shy Guy gets wrecked by 9-A.yet 173 would have one shot without regen but shy guy did better than peanut did
NLF is bad argumentation + you need a CRT before we can use your argument.You said its bones were still intact. Breaking bones is what 173 does.
And
"Every single test has shown that SCP-096's bones are completely indestructible."
This is followed by 9-A peanut being revealed to break it fun fact several articles by the maker of the tale show stronger weapons in the Foundation's arsenal.
Actually the calculation method is approved and used by multiple calc group members. However Ugarik disagrees with it, but recommended an alternative method that would make the calc 9-A+. So...M3X himself apparently said that the 9-A calculation is wrong and correct result is ~9-C. So I vote for 096
24 hours if there isn't new discussions/arguments.Question if one character hits 7 votes do I request match rn or wait 24 hours
NoHowever Ugarik disagrees with it, but recommended an alternative method that would make the calc 9-A+. So...
What do you disagree with?
With the compressive strength method, according to how Ugarik believes it should be done (but multiple calc group members don't).You said the result is 9-A+ with Ugr's method, but it's 9-C
By the way this is the same method as any regular pulverization calc. The volume is calculated as area times width of the blade. |
It tries to kill anyone who looks at it's face its inability to kill the lizard caused distress as it wasn't actually harmed.Then why was 096 traumatized and wounded on a corner?
Most likely thru durability negating abilities multiple tales imply and the argument is that it is 682>173 but 682>>096.Let's say that 173 has more offensive power than baseline SCP-682 or 85% shrunk SCP-682. Doesn't change that Shy Guy gets wrecked by 9-A.
I am not using any NLF arguments it is that 173 ability is snap neck be the logic used makes me think that is not an acceptable argument and I don't need to make a CRT as the logic you are using also doesn't work as scp 173 vs scp 106 is by the same guy and the Foundation can't do shit to 106 canonically.NLF is bad argumentation + you need a CRT before we can use your argument
We don't have info to assess how much it was physically harmed or what it regenerated, but 096 was severely wounded.It tries to kill anyone who looks at it's face its inability to kill the lizard caused distress as it wasn't actually harmed.
Most likely thru durability negating abilities multiple tales imply and the argument is that it is 682>173 but 682>>096.
Currently the wiki doesn't accept durability negation for 173. For now let's go with 9-A as written in its profile.I am not using any NLF arguments it is that 173 ability is snap neck be the logic used makes me think that is not an acceptable argument and I don't need to make a CRT as the logic you are using also doesn't work as scp 173 vs scp 106 is by the same guy and the Foundation can't do shit to 106 canonically.
TelekinesisCurrently the wiki doesn't accept durability negation for 173. For now let's go with 9-A as written in its profile.
SCP-106's Extended Canon key gives him 9-A in physical durability.
Telekinesis is completely different to durability negation.Telekinesis
Intangible
173 does in fact have dura negging snaps due to its passive power nullTo claim that SCP-096's anti-feat of getting his bones constantly and casually snapped is due to SCP-173 having durability ignoring attacks (even though a CRT is needed for this claim to be usable here), to claim that there is no known upper limit to SCP-096's durability.