- 220
- 140
Currently, Scarlet Witch is scaled to Low 2-C for destroying an uncountably infinite number of Darkholds across the multiverse. This CRT was created to remove that feat and consequently downgrade her.
This CRT is the result of extensive research, debate, and logical reasoning, as well as the collective efforts of multiple people who helped shape it.
Thus, the Scarlet Witch should not have Low 2-C AP, her "at peak" rating should be removed, and she should instead be given Low Complex Multiversal range via Energy Manipulation (Magic) or Limited Causality Manipulation.
Because Wanda wasn't the originator of the energy that performed the feat, it shouldn't be counted as an AP feat to begin with.
The Darkhold does have a precedent for self destruction. While Wanda was dreamwalking in Kamar-Taj, a sorcerer named Sara attempted to stop her by destroying the Darkhold. She pierced the book with a dagger, which triggered a magical reaction as the Darkhold ignited with red flames, reducing both itself and Sara to ashes. Later, when Wanda destroyed every copy of the Darkhold across the Multiverse, each one was consumed by a similar red magical fire.
The official script states:
The audio commentary also states:
Whether or not a self-destruct mechanism exists, the Darkhold does appear to destroy itself when sufficiently damaged or tampered with.
"You have the greatest power of evil, and they're destroyed. [...] There was one pure source of evil. [...] Does that mean in the multiverse there is only one well of evil, and Wanda cut off the links to both of them?"
This suggests that every Darkhold operates through this shared "Multiversal well of evil," a "singular source of evil," much like how a well supplies water to multiple taps. Each copy possibly draws power from this same source. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that Wanda redirected the Darkhold’s magic to interfere with this source, triggering some way the self-destruction of all other Darkholds. At the very least, this implies some form of connection or link between all the Darkhold copies.
The wording in the WoG statements and from Wanda herself supports this interpretation: they emphasize that Wanda "cut off the links" to the multiversal well of evil/multiversal source of evil, and Wanda herself said she had "to close it" when referring to the Darkhold.
The Darkhold is a known amplification totem, a book of dark magic, and a storage of chaos magic. Throughout Multiverse of Madness, Wanda was empowered by the Darkhold for nearly the entire film. This is further supported by the MCU Timeline Book, which states that Wanda had new dark powers when she attacked Kamar-Taj.
Her current key is labeled as being "at peak," specifically during the moment she destroyed the Darkhold. This label is misleading and inaccurate. There is no indication that she reached her absolute peak power during that brief two-minute window when she destroyed the book. It would also imply an uncountably infinite increase in power, going from tier 5 to tier 2, which is absurd considering she was already bloodlusted and actively empowered by the Darkhold in many earlier scenes.
If Wanda was already empowered by the Darkhold during the Kamar-Taj sequence, and her peak is defined as being while empowered by the Darkhold (according to her profile and the CRT that originally upgraded her), then by that logic the shield over Kamar-Taj is capable of withstanding uncountably infinite AP. This seems extremely implausible given the finite number of sorcerers and the limited nature of their magical power. The same applies to Zombie Doctor Strange, who absorbed Wanda’s blasts through the souls of the damned.
The only reason "at peak" is used, despite being clearly misleading and inaccurate, is because scaling Wanda to Low 2-C would create numerous inconsistencies and introduce a range of anti-feats. Labeling her as "at peak" conveniently sidesteps these issues by excluding those anti-feats from consideration.
I was also told that I need to address her current AP justification. At the moment, her justification is as follows:
Secondly, as detailed earlier, the destruction of the Darkhold was achieved by redirecting the Darkhold's dark magic upon itself, not Wanda's own magic, so it should be inapplicable to begin with.
Thirdly, we don't scale based on hypothetical or potential power. The justification relies on a prophecy stating that Wanda "will one day" possess the power to bend or destroy reality, but that is clearly a future possibility. The context, means of achieving this power, and the timeframe are all unknown. Wanda herself explicitly states that she has no intention of fulfilling the prophecy, so I don't see why we should scale her to a power she might have gained under unknown circumstances in the past, especially based on the assumption that she wanted to pursue it, when, in fact, she didn't. Nothing Wanda does in the movie brings the prophecy to fruition. In fact, she destroys the Darkhold in every universe to actively prevent that future from happening and to stop anyone else from being tempted by its power.
Side Note:
I'm still confused as to why, even if we did consider this an AP feat, it wouldn't qualify as an outlier. It represents a jump from a finite level of power to something uncountably infinite in scale. Even multiplying the energy output of her other feats by an infinite amount wouldn't come close to what's required to destroy the Darkhold across the entire multiverse.
According to VSBW’s own outlier criteria, Wanda’s feat meets several of the conditions. That said, this isn’t the main focus of the CRT and is only mentioned for context.
Neutral:
Disagree:
Premise
I think it's important to begin by acknowledging that this feat is highly unusual. Not only is the general information about the Darkhold limited, but details regarding its destruction are even more scarce. That said, the evidence we do have points toward a different interpretation than what was accepted in previous CRTs. The original CRT that led to her upgrade contained several unresolved issues that were never properly addressed. As far as I know, no other character on the wiki has a comparable feat, meaning there’s no established precedent for how to handle something like this. If anything I’ve said is incorrect, feel free to point it out. If you have any new information that could help bring clarity to this, it’s more than welcome.This CRT is the result of extensive research, debate, and logical reasoning, as well as the collective efforts of multiple people who helped shape it.
Summary of the Proposal
I created this CRT to propose that Scarlet Witch’s destruction of the Darkhold across the multiverse in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness should not be treated as an AP feat. Instead, it should be considered hax, specifically either Limited Causality Manipulation or Energy Manipulation (magic), based on consistent evidence suggesting that the destruction was not caused by her power.Thus, the Scarlet Witch should not have Low 2-C AP, her "at peak" rating should be removed, and she should instead be given Low Complex Multiversal range via Energy Manipulation (Magic) or Limited Causality Manipulation.
Evidence
The Marvel Studios 100 Objects: Iconic Artifacts from the MCU offers some insight on the Darkhold and how it was destroyed:This is the only direct statement we have regarding the mechanics of the feat, and it clearly says that Wanda "turned the Darkhold’s dark magic against itself." In other words, she used the Darkhold’s own power to destroy all copies of it. While the phrasing remains somewhat vague, one thing is clear: the destruction wasn’t accomplished through Wanda’s own raw power or magic. What she did, essentially, was redirect the Darkhold’s magic. Based on the surrounding context and supporting evidence, the most viable interpretation is that she triggered, somehow, a self-destruction mechanism.
Because Wanda wasn't the originator of the energy that performed the feat, it shouldn't be counted as an AP feat to begin with.
The Darkhold does have a precedent for self destruction. While Wanda was dreamwalking in Kamar-Taj, a sorcerer named Sara attempted to stop her by destroying the Darkhold. She pierced the book with a dagger, which triggered a magical reaction as the Darkhold ignited with red flames, reducing both itself and Sara to ashes. Later, when Wanda destroyed every copy of the Darkhold across the Multiverse, each one was consumed by a similar red magical fire.
The official script states:
The audio commentary also states:
If stabbing the Darkhold is enough to cause it to erupt in flames and disintegrate into ashes, as seen when Sara pierced it, and all other copies are subsequently destroyed in an almost identical manner (as substantiated by visuals, audio, and the official script), then the most reasonable conclusion is that this destruction results from an intrinsic mechanism inherent to the Darkhold itself, or is otherwise tied to its fundamental nature. A simple stab wouldn't be enough to reduce a powerful tome to ashes. Instead, it's clearly established that the book explodes in magical flames.
Whether or not a self-destruct mechanism exists, the Darkhold does appear to destroy itself when sufficiently damaged or tampered with.
"You have the greatest power of evil, and they're destroyed. [...] There was one pure source of evil. [...] Does that mean in the multiverse there is only one well of evil, and Wanda cut off the links to both of them?"
This suggests that every Darkhold operates through this shared "Multiversal well of evil," a "singular source of evil," much like how a well supplies water to multiple taps. Each copy possibly draws power from this same source. Therefore, the most logical conclusion is that Wanda redirected the Darkhold’s magic to interfere with this source, triggering some way the self-destruction of all other Darkholds. At the very least, this implies some form of connection or link between all the Darkhold copies.
The wording in the WoG statements and from Wanda herself supports this interpretation: they emphasize that Wanda "cut off the links" to the multiversal well of evil/multiversal source of evil, and Wanda herself said she had "to close it" when referring to the Darkhold.
The Darkhold is a known amplification totem, a book of dark magic, and a storage of chaos magic. Throughout Multiverse of Madness, Wanda was empowered by the Darkhold for nearly the entire film. This is further supported by the MCU Timeline Book, which states that Wanda had new dark powers when she attacked Kamar-Taj.
Her current key is labeled as being "at peak," specifically during the moment she destroyed the Darkhold. This label is misleading and inaccurate. There is no indication that she reached her absolute peak power during that brief two-minute window when she destroyed the book. It would also imply an uncountably infinite increase in power, going from tier 5 to tier 2, which is absurd considering she was already bloodlusted and actively empowered by the Darkhold in many earlier scenes.
If Wanda was already empowered by the Darkhold during the Kamar-Taj sequence, and her peak is defined as being while empowered by the Darkhold (according to her profile and the CRT that originally upgraded her), then by that logic the shield over Kamar-Taj is capable of withstanding uncountably infinite AP. This seems extremely implausible given the finite number of sorcerers and the limited nature of their magical power. The same applies to Zombie Doctor Strange, who absorbed Wanda’s blasts through the souls of the damned.
The only reason "at peak" is used, despite being clearly misleading and inaccurate, is because scaling Wanda to Low 2-C would create numerous inconsistencies and introduce a range of anti-feats. Labeling her as "at peak" conveniently sidesteps these issues by excluding those anti-feats from consideration.
I was also told that I need to address her current AP justification. At the moment, her justification is as follows:
The first issue is that if we scale Wanda at Universe level+ for being empowered by the Darkhold and capable of drawing energy from other dimensions, it means that Wanda should be Universe level+ during the entirety of the movie, as she was empowered by it throughout the entire film as confirmed multiple times. That’s not possible due to the anti-feat of her not being able to destroy a shield powered by a finite number of students with a finite amount of magical power.
Secondly, as detailed earlier, the destruction of the Darkhold was achieved by redirecting the Darkhold's dark magic upon itself, not Wanda's own magic, so it should be inapplicable to begin with.
Thirdly, we don't scale based on hypothetical or potential power. The justification relies on a prophecy stating that Wanda "will one day" possess the power to bend or destroy reality, but that is clearly a future possibility. The context, means of achieving this power, and the timeframe are all unknown. Wanda herself explicitly states that she has no intention of fulfilling the prophecy, so I don't see why we should scale her to a power she might have gained under unknown circumstances in the past, especially based on the assumption that she wanted to pursue it, when, in fact, she didn't. Nothing Wanda does in the movie brings the prophecy to fruition. In fact, she destroys the Darkhold in every universe to actively prevent that future from happening and to stop anyone else from being tempted by its power.
Side Note:
I'm still confused as to why, even if we did consider this an AP feat, it wouldn't qualify as an outlier. It represents a jump from a finite level of power to something uncountably infinite in scale. Even multiplying the energy output of her other feats by an infinite amount wouldn't come close to what's required to destroy the Darkhold across the entire multiverse.
According to VSBW’s own outlier criteria, Wanda’s feat meets several of the conditions. That said, this isn’t the main focus of the CRT and is only mentioned for context.
VOTES
Agree: ByArrow, Naeem0304, AsterReal, FentyBeauty, Bernkastelll, Lilybitdun, darkphantom9805, KaramcaS, RoTt35, Isaacbobanka, DarkDragonMedeus, Mr._Propeller_Hat, 1000TonsofFun, Damage3245Neutral:
Disagree:
Last edited:
