Armstrong was stated to be able to one-shot Base Raiden by Doktor, Raiden practically no-sold his "piece of shit" casual punch, Armstrong then held his own against a Raiden who was amped to have Raiden have the advantage in everything except durability. So yeah, there isn't exact exaggeration as to how much he upscales.
Okay, but, that's still not true, because we know he isn't one-shotted based on what is presented so it just renders the statement inaccurate.
Again, with the choice of words, as "no-sold" would be an exaggeration as well. Raiden was put out momentarily and I will stress
momentarily because it was a short period of time, but just because a winded Raiden does get back up doesn't entail he no-sold an attack, as it implies zero effect which is misleading.
This is the problem I have when I say exaggerations, as the feats exist, there are just blown an extra level out of proportion by escalation through word of mouth, this is how it starts:
"Armstrong punched Raiden hard enough to blow up EXCELSUS, which would require x amount of force and subsequently require him to be able to survive said amount to not damage himself. Raiden survives this and is able to return fighting, implying he's this durable as well."
It states the feat and the logical conclusion, but when extrapolated further it will we get addendums to this:
"Armstrong can hurt Raiden, who survived the punch that blew up EXCELSUS, meaning he should be able to punch higher than what the base feat entails."
While not really incorrect, we've now moved on from the base feat which this output is technically all that is necessary for Raiden to be hurt by Armstrong, as he was still hurt from the punch, he just survives and is able to continue the fight.
But when you introduce statements and amps, things get out hand:
"Armstrong is stated to be able to one-shot Raiden by Doktor, who survives the EXCELSUS punch. Armstrong can also still fight a Ripper Mode Raiden who is stronger, also entailing more durability as a consequence to this amp."
It's contextually wrong because, well, he survives the Armstrong punch that is supposed to one-shot him that also blows up EXCELSUS, which would render the statement incorrect naturally but it's being used to justify higher Raiden scaling from the base feat which then makes Armstrong stronger for being able to hurt him still, who then gets amped and furthers this upscaling. It gets blown up to a ridiculous degree that you could redact the statement and it'd suddenly make it much less impressive, because all you need is the base feat and the amp to consider into the upscaling.
So when I say I'm not a fan of exaggerations it isn't unfounded, the feats speak for themselves and we don't need these extra addendums to it to make it much more than it is because we know what it is.
- Armstrong does punch, scales to feat with caveat that he's much more durable from nanomachines. Raiden survives and can hurt Armstrong. (Scaling)
- Raiden has amps and can hurt Armstrong more, creating the need for him to be more durable consequentially so the amps presumably don't break his limbs. Armstrong can still hurt said Raiden. (The upscaling)
When spelled out in this simplistic, fact-based manner it looks much lesser than it's made out to be, but still impressive.
Changes made. Genos takes the field. I know it wasn't said Armstrong vs DSK wasn't a straight stomp, but it really felt like it was just a too easy win.
Are you certain you should be using Post-Superfight key? This Genos is
Low 7-B with a
7-B attack. That's creating at minimum a 10x gap physically, even ignoring the attack.
