• 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.

VS Battles Wiki Forum

Crabwhale
Crabwhale
It's invalid for the very same reason it was declared invalid the last time. Namely, it's still an outlier (Barney never displays anything on this level again), problems with imagination scaling and how the feats themselves work, and also it's nonsensical as Hell.
Bobsican
Bobsican
Well, something of that level only being displayed once doesn't make it inconsistent for the power level of the cast when there's no anti-feats that make this unplausible to relate to the character's capabilities without making the series too inconsistent on this regard.
There's no problems in terms of (imagination) scaling from what I recall, Barney did a constellation by himself, then Baby Bop did another by herself, BJ is often portrayed as more sportive than Baby Bop, and considering that he also holds imaginative powers, it isn't that much of an stretch to scale him above Baby Bop on this regard.
Lastly, how it's nonsensical?
Crabwhale
Crabwhale
It's nonsensical that we're assuming these characters are genuinely creating real stars like this when we've seen the extent of what they can do before. It's nonsensical that this is being considered at all. And it's nonsensical that you're still pushing this even after Wok and I firmly told you no.
Bobsican
Bobsican
Well, back then I thought it was more like the situation being too controversial at the time to properly apply.
Anyways, is the issue in that case that we don't know if they're "actual" stars? If so, then this wouldn't be an outlier, but rather just not a feat in the first place, and then again, wacky feats aren't unheard of, there's the time BJ goes at MFTL+ speeds to catch up with Barney and others, for example, which is an outlier as we do know that its heavily inconsistent with the usual portrayals of the cast as they are shown to not be able to react at such speeds.
See the difference? In this case, Barney and company making up stars isn't an outlier when it doesn't contradict their capabilities with Subjective Reality, respectively.
Bobsican
Bobsican
Bump.
Also, I know verses that scale to a single feat and no one complains as there's no anti-feats for the respective high showing.
Crabwhale
Crabwhale
Bob for the last time them actually manipulating real stars is absolutely ludicrous. This is like trying to get that MTFL+ speed thing accepted, it's just not going to happen.
Bobsican
Bobsican
Well, it's different than that time as I've mentioned because it clearly is inconsistent with every other showing of the cast's capabilities on speed.
This is different as there's no issues on consistency, making it a reasonable end to use as up to what his Subjective Reality can do. Are there any anti-feats that I may be forgetting?
I'm sorry if this is annoying to you, but I just still don't understand the reasoning beyond "just no" or so.
Crabwhale
Crabwhale
Bob, are you honestly right now, claiming to me, that two showings, TWO SHOWINGS of a feat that, let us give a benefit of the doubt and say they WERE real stars, in a 200+ episode series are nowhere close to consistent enough to give these characters a bloody Tier 4 rating? How genuine imagination stuff is is already contentious, and what you're trying to claim would be pushing that to a whole new conclusion that would be frankly ridiculous.
Back
Top