• 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.

Clarification for a KE rule

Status
Not open for further replies.
Floxy178

Floxy178

379
218
I've already asked permission from @Agnaa for opening this.

First of all, I'd like to note that this has nothing to do with the rule change. In short, I noticed that a rule on the KE page was misinterpreted by a lot of people and thought it needed to be clarified. Rule:
  • There is a destruction/AP calculation contradicting a kinetic energy calculation. The destruction/AP calculation would take priority over the kinetic energy calculation in this case as the AP calculation would be a better proof in regards to how much damage he/she is capable of in an attack.
    • For example, if a character launches a 200kg metal ball against a common wall at Mach 300, but the wall remains largely undamaged, the energy required to cause the minor damage on the wall would take priority over the kinetic energy derived from speed in this case.
I suggest to add a note like "keep in mind that..." to explain that destruction calculation should take priority over "KE lost during destruction", not "KE that it had before destruction". A thrown ball which have tier 7 energy can easily pass through wall causing tier 9 damage and not lose speed significantly(which means that caused destruction is a tiny part of energy ball had) as it can remain most of its energy even after feat, obviously if it doesn't contradict anything.

I'm sure rule implies this anyway but I saw it being interpreted both ways so I think this needs to be clarified.
 
I'd be fine with adding something like that, if that is actually a point of confusion.
 
Yes. I also approve. I think that it is sufficiently uncontroversial to be applied now. 🙏
 
Actually, Floxy mentioned to me in DMs that some CGMs disagreed with this. I'd like to hear from them before we implement it.
 
Which calc group members disagree with this? We should probably send a notification to them here. 🙏
 
It's less of what the feat does than it is what the feat FAILS to do, hence the example of failing to dent a wall
 
CloverDragon03 said:
It's less of what the feat does than it is what the feat FAILS to do, hence the example of failing to dent a wall
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone disagrees that failing to dent a wall is disqualification. Destruction calculation takes precedence over initial KE in your example because initial KE and lost KE are equal.
 
CloverDragon03 said:
Kinda confused on what exactly is being proposed then, to be honest
Click to expand...

For example if object had X joule energy before impact and Y joule energy after, it's normal to expect that destruction calculation should be equal to X-Y, not X. So if value that you got from calcing destruction contradicts X this should not be disqualification unless it contradicts X-Y.

If you prove that object lost either all or most of its energy, you will still treat destruction over KE.
 
Yes, this is fine.

If a lightspeed bullet shot through a wall completely but it was moving so fast that it only destroyed the tiny amount of brick that it was in contact with as it passed through it, then we wouldn't be able to say "The amount of destroyed material only required a far lower amount of energy to damage so the bullet wasn't that strong."

As opposed to if the lightspeed bullet smacked off an ordinary brick wall and barely damaged it; that raises the question of why a bullet with seemingly huge amounts of K.E. caused negligible damage.
 
Cool, I've added this bullet point then:
Keep in mind that this destruction should be compared to the energy lost by the object during the event. A ball travelling at relativistic speeds creating a hole its size, and continuing to move at nearly the same speed afterwards, would not be considered a contradiction. While a similar feat, with the ball falling to the ground a few meters afterwards, would be cause for concern.
Click to expand...
Keeping this open for a bit just in case any changes should be made to that wording.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

EastofEden07
Some questions about Final Wars Godzilla
Replies
8
Views
973
Nero1215
Nero1215
Napoleondevious
FTL kinetic energy
Replies
8
Views
868
First_Witch
First_Witch
Reiner04
KE question
Replies
4
Views
679
Reiner04
Reiner04
Arc7Kuroi
  • Locked
Does this calc actually violate KE rules?
2 3
Replies
85
Views
6K
Shadyboi0
Shadyboi0
KE and GPE of Floating Bloat (Serina)
Replies
0
Views
417
2021_Animal
Back
Top