This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Damn, guess we might have to wait for someone willing to apply to come around then.
Or we could edit a disclaimer to that calc saying that it shouldn't be used any more.
Or we could try to rally people around fixing it, like I did last time.
Or we can try to push the change to the References...
Problem: It's really difficult to fix issues with calcs on the References for Common Feats page, since one can't distinguish pages that link to one calc from pages that link to another. Troubles resulting from this can be found here and here.
Proposed Solution: Rather than having the calcs...
I'm kinda concerned about doing that, because profiles may still link to it.
That's one thing I don't like about our references for common feats page; every time there's a revision to one of them, it's a massive hassle because there's no easy way to find which pages refer to which calc.
I don't think people would care too much, we have three Adolf Hitler pages.
I don't think the issue is it being a historical muscial, I think the issue is it not having notable stats, nor being from a combat-centric verse. Since that's already a well-established rule, I'm gonna go ahead and...
Notice how these prior conversations weren't about the logic of the verse, it was about the real-world physics. How it'd be quite weird for light to immediately reappear if he absorbed all of Solus' light, due to the lightspeed delay. The current topic about verse mechanics doesn't really...
Yeah, in the same way that it wouldn't be a stretch for a character with Reality Warping who has forcibly transformed other characters into dogs, mice, lions, and geese to be able to forcibly transform a character into a cat. We still wouldn't include that on a profile unless they'd actually...
The text doesn't establish that; that has been a part of my argument since the very start.
My argument was never that Kirito lacked the range, reality warping ability, or anything like that.
My arguments have only been:
The wording doesn't imply absorbing Solus' entire luminosity.
This...
You're right that the actions taking place in that scene are irrelevant; I think it's relevant because it shows a contradiction in how you interpret that sort of wording. With this historical comment you must interpret it as not referring to Solus' entire emitted luminosity, yet for the Release...
I understand the argument, it just doesn't meet our standards for evidence.
If there was a character who had 40 different feats of reality warping, operating on fairly wide scales (such as, having given everyone on the planet a sore stomach). And then, they had a feat where they said "Let's...
I am saying that the text gave a description of a feat. For it to make sense, we have to take it in a way where it doesn't scale to the entire light output of Solus. If you're happy to do that for one feat, you should be happy to do that with the feat with the OP. Not being willing to do that...
We seem to be talking about different things.
I am talking about the statement of what Gigas Cedar was said to do before Release Recollection was ever used with it, which shouldn't have been something that absorbed all the light Solus emitted into the solar system.
In response to that you're...
I think that'd still land at 1-A, without a sufficient explanation, given how Ultima has treated all other concepts he's invoked in this revision.
Transcending and being the basis for things in reality, without being composed of things in reality, is the general definition of "platonic...