• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Maybe. What do the rest of you think about the current OP?
 
I obviously disagree, since I don't see how being transported is resistance to space-time manip, and neither Gogeta, Broly nor Black used negated durability on any moment. I do, however, agree they have space-time manip since they clearly destroy it.
 
space-time was already shattering even before they were transported back to earth.


Spacetimeshatter
As you can see in this image, there they are in the center unaffected by space itself breaking apart. Again no "transportation" happening yet, so that argument is invalid.
"I do, however, agree they have space-time manip since they clearly destroy it." they already have that


wait.. that means they already have some form of durability negation?

Space-Time Manipulation - Characters who have the ability to manipulate space and time, can easily bypass physical durability of objects.
 
That wording should probably be adjusted, as it depends from setting to setting. We cannot assign durability negation to characters that have never demonstrated it.
 
No, slightly adjust a wording so we do not give inaccurate abilities in general.
 
So, does anybody have a suggestion for how we should reword the regulation?
 
Maybe add that it shouldn't be assumed that these abilities automatically grant dura neg unless they have been shown as such?
 
That seems fine to me. Feel free to write a draft for a new wording of the current text.
 
Isn't what I said enough? Like, add a note at the end of that section that says something along the lines of:

Note: It shouldn't be assumed that these abilities automatically grant Durability Negation unless they have been shown to work as such in-verse.
 
Okay. That is probably fine. I will check.
 
I think so, yes. Are you willing to handle it if I unlock the page?
 
Yes. Sorry. I will unlock that page as well.
 
Thank you. Should I close this thread then?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top