Dura Negation & Deconstruction

[BOEGVELD]

When is something considered Dura Negation? A special move that makes someone cough a considerable amount of blood, but there's no statement regarding internal damage. Is that considered Dura Negation? Or a special move that's stated to do internal damage, but does not have any showings of doing internal damage. Is that considered Dura Negation? I guess I'm just asking what's the bare minimum for Dura Negation lol.

Disintegrating someone falls under Deconstruction, right?

 

[PantatHitam]

The second one has better feats to prove it. It already been state mean it's heavily implied that the user have Dura negation, although it doesn't show any internal organ effected.

The first one is just lack of justification for what the **** is happened to him.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

For the first one no as there is no explanation for what happened. As for the second one, the move may get a possible Durability Negation.

Disintegrating someone is not deconstruction, just like crushing rock into dust is not deconstruction, or burning someone to ash isn't deconstruction. The power has to focus on the deconstruction in some way and not just be a side effect or consequence as stated in the description of the ability.

 

[BOEGVELD]

For the first one no as there is no explanation for what happened. As for the second one, the move may get a possible Durability Negation.

Why would you need an explanation when the conclusion for what happened is pretty staightforward; the opponent took internal damage. The second actually it accepted I think. But how reliable is that really?

Those can be done naturally though. Disintegrating someone via magic, energy or a punch can obviously not be done naturally. That's what I'm talking about.

 

[KleinMoretti770]

When is something considered Dura Negation? A special move that makes someone cough a considerable amount of blood, but there's no statement regarding internal damage. Is that considered Dura Negation? Or a special move that's stated to do internal damage, but does not have any showings of doing internal damage. Is that considered Dura Negation? I guess I'm just asking what's the bare minimum for Dura Negation lol.

Disintegrating someone falls under Deconstruction, right?

To put it succinctly: an attack that inflicts damage on someone, making the other person cough up a significant amount of blood, does not give them a dura neg. Because we don't have enough evidence. He may have coughed up blood due to the condition caused by this attack being so strong. Coming to the other question, an attack said to do internal damage might be enough to neg dura, but a little more proof would be better.

 

[BOEGVELD]

He may have coughed up blood due to the condition caused by this attack being so strong.

That's a valid point for when it happens against someone weaker, but wouldn't fit when it happens against someone comparable or stronger.