• 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.

A simple yet devastating Undertale Nerf

SOUL Magic: Magic is the main method of attacking for monsters, allowing them to negate conventional durability by directly attacking the soul. (insert description of the specific monster's magic). This does not one shot however, and still requires multiple hits to kill the opponent.
Click to expand...

probably a little more in depth depending on the monster, but this is what i quickly wrote.
 
Ikelaggan said:
I love the pure unadulterated irony of anyone saying "doesn't automatically one shot"
The VS Threads: https://vsbattles.com/threads/sans-vs-kid-buu.149644/post-5500232
Click to expand...
As I said, sounds like a user problem not a profile one. Durability negation doesn't automatically equate to one-shotting and the profiles themselves don't say it. As with nearly everything there is a case by case basis that comes with such abilities, and its up to our users to understand that.

Generally, I don't have much problem with trying to make it clearer on profiles that not everything one-shots or instakills. But the real problem here is on the community side which has a genuine misunderstanding of durability negation. Nor does that mean the durability negation that the characters possess is limited because limited normally denotes a power that is very limited in its application and that isn't really the case here for the monsters.
 
Duedate8898 said:
I thought a thread forever ago already accepted that Undertale Soul Manipulation doesn't one-shot? Hell, durability negation doesn't automatically one-shot in of itself so it sounds like this thread is more arguing for a problem with users than a problem with the profiles themselves
Click to expand...
Durability Negation implies an attack entirely ignores a person's durability, which by definition is a one-shot. Examples from the page include phasing an arm through someone's head (a one-shot, durability notwithstanding), instant death (a one-shot), matter manipulation (a one-shot), space-time manipulation (like using kamui to warp away someone's head: a one-shot), or reality, concept and information warping to do all of the above (all one-shots). Every single example of durability negation presented is an ability that would instantly kill someone. Since Undertale Soul Manipulation doesn't completely ignore durability (the literal only requirement for durability negation), it should have Limited durability negation. This isn't a problem with how user's interpret profiles.

If it's already agreed that Undertale Soul Manip doesn't entirely one-shot, then that means there's even less of a reason for this thread to not pass.
Duedate8898 said:
As I said, sounds like a user problem not a profile one. Durability negation doesn't automatically equate to one-shotting and the profiles themselves don't say it. As with nearly everything there is a case by case basis that comes with such abilities, and its up to our users to understand that.

Generally, I don't have much problem with trying to make it clearer on profiles that not everything one-shots or instakills. But the real problem here is on the community side which has a genuine misunderstanding of durability negation. Nor does that mean the durability negation that the characters possess is limited because limited normally denotes a power that is very limited in its application and that isn't really the case here for the monsters.
Click to expand...
Limited denotes a power that doesn't work to the extent we assume it does by default. Durability Negation's description is "a power that allows the user to attack the target, regardless of it's durability". Monster magic clearly doesn't work 'regardless' of their durability, hence it is limited. A power that is less effective the more durable their opponent is by definition isn't full durability negation-because otherwise they would be unaffected.

On the other hand, if the problem is with the community misinterpreting the durability negation on the profiles, maybe we should edit it to make them clearer. In my original post I already said that the wiki reflects most of what I've been saying. Durability negation that doesn't fully negate durability is limited by definition; fire manipulation that doesn't fully manipulate fire would also be limited.
Comiphorous said:
SOUL Magic: Magic is the main method of attacking for monsters, allowing them to negate conventional durability by directly attacking the soul. (insert description of the specific monster's magic). This does not one shot however, and still requires multiple hits to kill the opponent.
Click to expand...
This is pretty close to what I imagine but we can be more explicit (which pages should be at much as possible):
Comiphorous said:
SOUL Magic: Magic is the main method of attacking for monsters, allowing them to negate conventional durability by directly attacking the soul. (insert description of the specific monster's magic). This does not fully ignore conventional durability, however.
Click to expand...
 
So far the thread has eleven votes, five of which are from staff, and everybody seems to agree that some sort of change needs to be made for the pages. As far as I'm concerned there isn't much of a difference between what Duedate/Comiphorous are proposing and what I propose bar wording. Honestly we could just make it so that SOUL Magic denotes both 'limited dura negation' and 'these attacks don't one-shot', to make it abundantly clear how it functions, at least by the wiki's standards.
 
Ayewale said:
Durability Negation implies an attack entirely ignores a person's durability, which by definition is a one-shot. Examples from the page include phasing an arm through someone's head (a one-shot, durability notwithstanding), instant death (a one-shot), matter manipulation (a one-shot), space-time manipulation (like using kamui to warp away someone's head: a one-shot), or reality, concept and information warping to do all of the above (all one-shots). Every single example of durability negation presented is an ability that would instantly kill someone. Since Undertale Soul Manipulation doesn't completely ignore durability (the literal only requirement for durability negation), it should have Limited durability negation.
Click to expand...
I don’t really care about what happens in this thread, but this paragraph is something I take issue with. The description for Durability Negation is “The ability that allows users to damage the target, regardless of durability”. This does not necessarily mean an instant kill. Durability Negation just refers to an ability to harm characters far above your tier by bypassing conventional durability. It doesn’t say anywhere on the page that it has to be an instant kill move for it to be considered Durability Negation.
 
Ayewale said:
Durability Negation implies an attack entirely ignores a person's durability, which by definition is a one-shot. Examples from the page include phasing an arm through someone's head (a one-shot, durability notwithstanding), instant death (a one-shot), matter manipulation (a one-shot), space-time manipulation (like using kamui to warp away someone's head: a one-shot), or reality, concept and information warping to do all of the above (all one-shots). Every single example of durability negation presented is an ability that would instantly kill someone. Since Undertale Soul Manipulation doesn't completely ignore durability (the literal only requirement for durability negation), it should have Limited durability negation. This isn't a problem with how user's interpret profiles.
Click to expand...
It is very much a problem of how users interpret it because all the examples you sight are dependent upon how the ability is use. One of the best examples is Yogiri who sure, has durability negation with his power where he can insta-kill people. But that same ability also allows him to just kill limbs, is that limited durability negation now? Or poison? Any poison that doesn't immideately kill an opponent, is that limited durability negation? Are those durability negating abilites limted as well, cause they don't one-shot? What you're arguing about is a matter of potency not limitation.
Ayewale said:
If it's already agreed that Undertale Soul Manip doesn't entirely one-shot, then that means there's even less of a reason for this thread to not pass.

Limited denotes a power that doesn't work to the extent we assume it does by default. Durability Negation's description is "a power that allows the user to attack the target, regardless of it's durability". Monster magic clearly doesn't work 'regardless' of their durability, hence it is limited. A power that is less effective the more durable their opponent is by definition isn't full durability negation-because otherwise they would be unaffected.

On the other hand, if the problem is with the community misinterpreting the durability negation on the profiles, maybe we should edit it to make them clearer. In my original post I already said that the wiki reflects most of what I've been saying. Durability negation that doesn't fully negate durability is limited by definition; fire manipulation that doesn't fully manipulate fire would also be limited.

This is pretty close to what I imagine but we can be more explicit (which pages should be at much as possible):
Click to expand...
And I would disagree on the idea that monster magic doesn't work regardless of their durability cause it does. Sure, different items equipped or used can lower or increase defense or damage taken, but so many of the items in undertale in no way are actually increasing your physical durability, AP, or doing anything physical to Monsters to change or lower their own defense or AP. Eating the butterscotch pie in the fight with Asgore will lower his attack for the rest of the fight. The faded ribbon increases defense cause you're cuter. The locket couldn't physically increase your durability if it wanted to. Betrayal damage in of itself is a great example of what actually determines the potency of these's monster's in damaging souls: their and their opponents moods.

Which is why listing their durability negation is limited makes no sense. They're negating durability full stop, they just don't insta-kill their opponents in doing so.

If people are arguing this, once more that isn't the problem of the profiles. Cause not a single undertale profile besides maybe Asriels states their durability negation is a one-shot. That's just an assumption users have been incorrectly making and even the Durability Negation page itself doesn't mention one-shotting or anything of that nature. It states as above notes, causing damage regardless of durability.
 
Chaos Jester25 said:
I don’t really care about what happens in this thread, but this paragraph is something I take issue with. The description for Durability Negation is “The ability that allows users to damage the target, regardless of durability”. This does not necessarily mean an instant kill. Durability Negation just refers to an ability to harm characters far above your tier by bypassing conventional durability. It doesn’t say anywhere on the page that it has to be an instant kill move for it to be considered Durability Negation.
Click to expand...
Every single example provided on the page is an instant-kill. But yes, you're correct that it's an ability to bypass conventional durability...Undertale magic doesn't fully bypass conventional durability. That is my point.
Duedate8898 said:
...
Click to expand...
I mean if Yogiri can both insta-kill people and kill limbs, then he just has multiple uses of durability negation? That example doesn't make any sense (and I dunno who Yogiri is so if there's context I'm missing that's on you for omitting it). If he could only instantly kill limbs, then yes, it would be limited (by definition it's limited to specific targets). A Poison wouldn't get limited durability negation for killing you slower...but if the poison was less effective on people with more durability, then yes it'd be limited. At no point has my argument been that UT dura neg is limited because it's too slow. Potency and limitation also sort of mean the same thing here. If someone's dura neg isn't potent enough to properly neg durability, they would have it be limited.

Also honestly I'd just suggest you go through the conversations I had with other users about whether the items actually increase your durability or not. I've acknowledged that there are items that provide magical defense (like temmi armor) and that food in Undertale is magical in nature. Most of the armor items in Undertale, however, have no reason to be assumed to be providing magical defense. You cannot use very specific examples like the faded ribbon and then extrapolate it to every other defensive item, because most of them are just regular defensive items. And providing stat buffs =/= them providing solely magical defense. Do note that I've said literally everything in this paragraph already and there haven't been too many arguments so far, derailment aside.
 
Ayewale said:
Every single example provided on the page is an instant-kill. But yes, you're correct that it's an ability to bypass conventional durability...Undertale magic doesn't fully bypass conventional durability. That is my point.
Click to expand...
No they are not. Matter manipulation doesn't insta-kill automatically. Nor does energy manipulation, mind control, magic, soul manipulation or really any of the examples on the durability negation page. Depending on how potent they are, they can insta-kill but that will differ depending on who has the ability.
Ayewale said:
I mean if Yogiri can both insta-kill people and kill limbs, then he just has multiple uses of durability negation? That example doesn't make any sense (and I dunno who Yogiri is so if there's context I'm missing that's on you for omitting it). If he could only instantly kill limbs, then yes, it would be limited (by definition it's limited to specific targets). A Poison wouldn't get limited durability negation for k, illing you slower...but if the poison was less effective on people with more durability, then yes it'd be limited. At no point has my argument been that UT dura neg is limited because it's too slow. Potency and limitation also sort of mean the same thing here. If someone's dura neg isn't potent enough to properly neg durability, they would have it be limited
Click to expand...
But Undertale durability negation does properly neg durability. They are attacking the soul. They don't have a harder time attacking the soul in any capacity in undertale. The damage they deal to a soul can range, but that isn't an inditement of their durability negation being anymore limted than a normal power
Ayewale said:
.

Also honestly I'd just suggest you go through the conversations I had with other users about whether the items actually increase your durability or not. I've acknowledged that there are items that provide magical defense (like temmi armor) and that food in Undertale is magical in nature. Most of the armor items in Undertale, however, have no reason to be assumed to be providing magical defense. You cannot use very specific examples like the faded ribbon and then extrapolate it to every other defensive item, because most of them are just regular defensive items. And providing stat buffs =/= them providing solely magical defense. Do note that I've said literally everything in this paragraph already and there haven't been too many arguments so far, derailment aside.
Click to expand...
Most of the armor items in undertale, can't provide physical defense though. Please tell me how an apron, a locket, a bandaid, a ribbon, a tutu, some glasses, or a cowboy hat increase how tough someone is physically without magic? The only actual armor in the game, comes from a monster, and this armor also heals you, increases your attack, and literally denotes a stat that it increases invulnerability frames so clearly its magical for sure.
 
Duedate8898 said:
No they are not. Matter manipulation doesn't insta-kill automatically. Nor does energy manipulation, mind control, magic, soul manipulation or really any of the examples on the durability negation page. Depending on how potent they are, they can insta-kill but that will differ depending on who has the ability.
Click to expand...
Ayewale said:
...Examples from the page include phasing an arm through someone's head (a one-shot, durability notwithstanding), instant death (a one-shot), matter manipulation (a one-shot), space-time manipulation (like using kamui to warp away someone's head: a one-shot), or reality, concept and information warping to do all of the above (all one-shots). Every single example of durability negation presented is an ability that would instantly kill someone. Since Undertale Soul Manipulation doesn't completely ignore durability (the literal only requirement for durability negation), it should have Limited durability negation. This isn't a problem with how user's interpret profiles.
Click to expand...
To add unto that, their examples of durability negation also include shutting off someone's mind and energy attacks that fully ignore durability. Saying none of the examples are not an insta-kill is blatantly dishonest btw, like I could understand saying maybe not all of them are but none of them? One of the examples is instant death.

You need to give more examples of what exactly you think constitutes full durability negation because all the examples on the page are one-shots (I am using oneshots and instant kill somewhat interchangeably, my apologies). Something that negates durability negation but to a limited extent--like being only able to bypass the durability of limbs, or poison getting weaker the more durable you are, or your attack being weakened by conventional durability--is limited by definition.

Duedate8898 said:
Most of the armor items in undertale, can't provide physical defense though. Please tell me how an apron, a locket, a bandaid, a ribbon, a tutu, some glasses, or a cowboy hat increase how tough someone is physically without magic? The only actual armor in the game, comes from a monster, and this armor also heals you, increases your attack, and literally denotes a stat that it increases invulnerability frames so clearly its magical for sure.
Click to expand...
A few things:
  1. Assuming the items provide solely magical defense because they're stupid is just a random assumption, plain and simple. I dunno either, to tell you the truth. But assuming they are magical in nature is a much bigger leap than just interpreting the items as is.
    1. Basically put you're right that it's weird that these items defend you, but "...so they must be magical!" is an assumption that has to be backed with explicit evidence that they're magical. Such evidence exists for some, but not others.
    2. I have acknolwedged multiple times that temmie armor is magical. It's even in the OP.
  2. Assuming that the items provide conventional defense is the better assumption because it's sort of the default interpretation; since so many things about Undertale are vague and undefined, the fairest interpretation is to just take things as written unless there's explicit evidence otherwise (ala the temmie armor).
Duedate8898 said:
But Undertale durability negation does properly neg durability. They are attacking the soul. They don't have a harder time attacking the soul in any capacity in undertale. The damage they deal to a soul can range, but that isn't an inditement of their durability negation being anymore limted than a normal power
Click to expand...
  1. Did you ignore the rest of the paragraph or do you agree that those are correct?
  2. 'The damage they can deal to a soul' is a really bad way to say 'their magic decreases in damage from wearing conventional defenses". Which probably makes it not full dura negation. For the reasons why, see above, every other post I make, and the OP.
 
Ayewale said:
To add unto that, their examples of durability negation also include shutting off someone's mind and energy attacks that fully ignore durability. Saying none of the examples are not an insta-kill is blatantly dishonest btw, like I could understand saying maybe not all of them are but none of them? One of the examples is instant death.

You need to give more examples of what exactly you think constitutes full durability negation because all the examples on the page are one-shots (I am using oneshots and instant kill somewhat interchangeably, my apologies). Something that negates durability negation but to a limited extent--like being only able to bypass the durability of limbs, or poison getting weaker the more durable you are, or your attack being weakened by conventional durability--is limited by definition.


A few things:
  1. Assuming the items provide solely magical defense because they're stupid is just a random assumption, plain and simple. I dunno either, to tell you the truth. But assuming they are magical in nature is a much bigger leap than just interpreting the items as is.
    1. Basically put you're right that it's weird that these items defend you, but "...so they must be magical!" is an assumption that has to be backed with explicit evidence that they're magical. Such evidence exists for some, but not others.
    2. I have acknolwedged multiple times that temmie armor is magical. It's even in the OP.
  2. Assuming that the items provide conventional defense is the better assumption because it's sort of the default interpretation; since so many things about Undertale are vague and undefined, the fairest interpretation is to just take things as written unless there's explicit evidence otherwise (ala the temmie armor).
Click to expand...
Once again, you seem to not understand that negating durability and one-shotting/insta-killing are not the same thing, they are wholly separate. Which is why, if it isn't clear already, I disagree with this CRT. Limited durability negation would only make sense if the monsters for some reason were only able to do damage to the soul under specific conditions. But they do damage to the soul regardless of other factors, therefore it shouldn't be listed as limited durability negation.

So in a game that establishes that magic is a real thing, that humans possess magic, that all the opponents in the game utilize magic to fight you, that the food you eat is magic, that many of the weapons and armor you utilize are toys or mundane items (such as a bullet-less gun which you can shoot with no bullets), that the stats you see are actually real things in the setting, that the default assumption to make is that of all these magical things that the only things which lack this magic is the armor? That the default assumption is to assume that these items somehow (without magic) are able to boost your physical defense?

I very much fail to see how what you're assuming as basis for this CRT makes sense just logically or within the setting itself. Because Undertale does have mystery and all that, but it also does establish a lot of things which you're just handwaving away.
Ayewale said:
  1. Did you ignore the rest of the paragraph or do you agree that those are correct?
  2. 'The damage they can deal to a soul' is a really bad way to say 'their magic decreases in damage from wearing conventional defenses". Which probably makes it not full dura negation. For the reasons why, see above, every other post I make, and the OP.
Click to expand...
And the biggest issue with your entire thread is that you are making the assumption that items which do not natural increase conventional durability, somehow increase conventional durability without being magical. Of course, they don't even have to be magical to increase the defense stat because items can and do impact a monsters ability to harm a player through purely social means because monster's abilities to hurt others is mostly dependent on their mood and their opponents mood.
 
We don't even see Sans use the soul poison shit on anyone else and the one time he does use it, it doesn't even take his opponent to half health that quickly.
 
Fun facts:
This poison is actually called KARMA. There's special line "KARMA goes through your veins."
 
I'm gonna stop at this post because you seem to just be ignoring a lot of the stuff I'm saying:
Ayewale said:
...Saying none of the examples are not an insta-kill is blatantly dishonest btw, like I could understand saying maybe not all of them are but none of them? One of the examples is instant death.

...You need to give more examples of what exactly you think constitutes full durability negation because all the examples on the page are one-shots (I am using oneshots and instant kill somewhat interchangeably, my apologies)....

[I mean if Yogiri can both insta-kill people and kill limbs, then he just has multiple uses of durability negation? That example doesn't make any sense (and I dunno who Yogiri is so if there's context I'm missing that's on you for omitting it). If he could only instantly kill limbs, then yes, it would be limited (by definition it's limited to specific targets). A Poison wouldn't get limited durability negation for killing you slower...but if the poison was less effective on people with more durability, then yes it'd be limited. At no point has my argument been that UT dura neg is limited because it's too slow.]

...Did you ignore the rest of the paragraph or do you agree that those are correct?

...You cannot use very specific examples like the faded ribbon and then extrapolate it to every other defensive item, because most of them are just regular defensive items. And providing stat buffs =/= them providing solely magical defense...
Click to expand...
I've responded to every single point you've made while you've failed to respond to several. Some of these are direct questions and you just...don't answer without giving any explanation why? You can't just dismiss points that are inconvenient, so I see no point in continuing beyond this post. I'll still to respond to your last batch of points though.

Duedate8898 said:
Once again, you seem to not understand that negating durability and one-shotting/insta-killing are not the same thing, they are wholly separate.
Click to expand...
Ayewale said:
...Examples from the page include phasing an arm through someone's head (a one-shot, durability notwithstanding), instant death (a one-shot), matter manipulation (a one-shot), space-time manipulation (like using kamui to warp away someone's head: a one-shot), or reality, concept and information warping to do all of the above (all one-shots). Every single example of durability negation presented is an ability that would instantly kill [or one-shot] someone [and fully bypasses their durability].
Click to expand...

Duedate8898 said:
So in a game that establishes that magic is a real thing, that humans possess magic, that all the opponents in the game utilize magic to fight you, that the food you eat is magic, that many of the weapons and armor you utilize are toys or mundane items (such as a bullet-less gun which you can shoot with no bullets), that the stats you see are actually real things in the setting, that the default assumption to make is that of all these magical things that the only things which lack this magic is the armor? That the default assumption is to assume that these items somehow (without magic) are able to boost your physical defense?
Click to expand...
TL;DR: "Because magic is common, surely everything is magic".
  1. Yes, humans possess an entirely un-quantifiable amount of magic beyond seven magicians. This has nothing to do with your point.
  2. Yes, the stats are also real, as I have acknowledged in several other posts. This also has nothing to do with your point. Stats being influenced by magical sources doesn't imply that they are entirely supernatural, because they're being influenced by conventional armor.
  3. Yes, the food is magic. The food is also partly physical, because monsters themselves are physical too. Just like the magic, which is both physical and magical Therefore, the armor items would provide both a magical and physical defense. Which means soul magic is affected by both magical and physical defense. Which means it's affected by physical defense. Which makes my OP correct.
  4. "The only things that lack this magic" is a strange way to contextualize armor items. Some humans have magic, and monsters and their food are magical--so therefore, everything has magic. This is your logic and I cannot do more other than say it's wrong.
Duedate8898 said:
I very much fail to see how what you're assuming as basis for this CRT makes sense just logically or within the setting itself. Because Undertale does have mystery and all that, but it also does establish a lot of things which you're just handwaving away.
Click to expand...
You should've been more explicit about what I'm "handwaving" because in our conversation (and for the rest of the thread, which I asked that you read earlier because the argument was getting circular) there hasn't been anything that I've ignored. I have acknowledged and talked about literally everything you've mentioned already (ATK and DEF, food magic, some items being made of monster magic) and you have ignored several of my own points (as listed above).

Duedate8898 said:
And the biggest issue with your entire thread is that you are making the assumption that items which do not natural increase conventional durability, somehow increase conventional durability without being magical. Of course, they don't even have to be magical to increase the defense stat because items can and do impact a monsters ability to harm a player through purely social means because monster's abilities to hurt others is mostly dependent on their mood and their opponents mood.
Click to expand...
If they increase conventional durability by being magical, then they're still...conventional durability. My argument has never, ever been that the items aren't magical, it's been that they don't provide 'magical defense', and I've been very specific on that point.

You are correct that ATK and DEF can be impacted purely through social means: does that mean it is the only way to influence ATK and DEF? I don't think so, and you would probably say no, so your point is moot. The defensive items that increase DEF through social means are also few and far in-between because they're explicitly stated to do so.
 
Ayewale said:
Yeah, probably.
Click to expand...
So uh, why did you directly link THIS thread?

why didn't you just... wait for someone to write a blog post/request someone did??? this thread is a mess and i dont think anyone wants to read through this garbage to find out why it doesn't completely dura neg. you didn't even go into detail on the profile WHY it doesn't... thats just plain lazy...
 
Yeah, that change could have been handled better... not only that but it looks wrong on all the pages, as it's not even bolded like the rest of the abilities.

someone should write an actual in depth reason why it doesn't fully dura neg, and then fix the reasoning.
 
Comiphorous said:
So uh, why did you directly link THIS thread?

why didn't you just... wait for someone to write a blog post/request someone did??? this thread is a mess and i dont think anyone wants to read through this garbage to find out why it doesn't completely dura neg. you didn't even go into detail on the profile WHY it doesn't... thats just plain lazy...
Click to expand...
Someone has to write a blog post?

Linking directly to the thread to see the changes that I actually applied seemed self-evident. They could just read the OP and make sense.

Going into detail about the durability negation seems silly since there's an entire thread of detail.
 
Comiphorous said:
Yeah, that change could have been handled better... not only that but it looks wrong on all the pages, as it's not even bolded like the rest of the abilities.

someone should write an actual in depth reason why it doesn't fully dura neg, and then fix the reasoning.
Click to expand...
It's bolded on most of 'em, that's my bad.

Someone HAS written an in-depth reason why it doesn't fully dura neg. It is called the original post, which has been accepted.
 
Ayewale said:
Someone HAS written an in-depth reason why it doesn't fully dura neg. It is called the original post, which has been accepted.
Click to expand...
A blog post would cover someone not having a stroke reading through the arguments, and lead straight to the point. There really isn't much to understand.

don't link the thread, just have someone make a blog post which goes straight to the point on why it doesn't/more in depth and stuff without the discussion giving someone a brain tumor. it's really just for convenience for anyone.
 
TauanVictor said:
Frieza now solos lol

f8655539251c684a9b3c13f4ff65f5a5.gif
Click to expand...
“uhm actually this does not effect sans therefore the match can stay with sans victory” 🤓
 
Comiphorous said:
A blog post would cover someone not having a stroke reading through the arguments, and lead straight to the point. There really isn't much to understand.

don't link the thread, just have someone make a blog post which goes straight to the point on why it doesn't/more in depth and stuff without the discussion giving someone a brain tumor. it's really just for convenience for anyone.
Click to expand...
They could also just...read the OP, I think? It's very detailed and most of my arguments have just been repeating what was already said there.

Anyways, I've edited all the pages' bar Flowey's. Someone else should do that because I have work to do now!

Edit: On sans page he also needs the limited dura neg tag since KARMA isn't even classified as dura negation on his page lmao.
 
Yeah. this change was REALLY rushed...

another thing that needs to be fixed on the undertale profiles, i suppose.

is someone willing to write a SOUL Manip blog post? would be appreciated.
 
Comiphorous said:
Yeah. this change was REALLY rushed...

another thing that needs to be fixed on the undertale profiles, i suppose.

is someone willing to write a SOUL Manip blog post? would be appreciated.
Click to expand...
So what we agreed on here? Monsters dont attack the soul? Kinda off topic but would sans get possibly dura neg in an unknown way since be killed flowey
 
Comiphorous said:
This is why a blog post needs to be written. you seem to have forgotten the fact he's not affected by this CRT 💀
Click to expand...
I didn't forget, I said multiple times that he wasn't affected.

A change targeting Sans specifically would demand a separate thread. I have little interest in changing Sans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

StrymULTRA
  • Locked
Undertale: Minor LS downgrade and Asriel intelligence update
2 3
Replies
97
Views
3K
StrymULTRA
StrymULTRA
StrymULTRA
  • Locked
Undertale: 8-B, Class M, and more!
2
Replies
55
Views
4K
Propellus
Propellus
StrymULTRA
  • Locked
Undertale: Other minor fixes and additions
2
Replies
44
Views
3K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
StrymULTRA
  • Locked
Undertale: Going (almost) back to 2016 [most controversial CRT?]
2 3
Replies
89
Views
5K
StrymULTRA
StrymULTRA
TheOrangeGuy09
  • Locked
Undertale MHS+ (Part 2)
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Back
Top