Blade attacks and durability ignoration

[Ricsi-viragosi]

So, this was brought up a few times in multiple threads, and I tought it should also have a specific page explaining it.

Now, I assume that most can agree that in the real world, cutting ignores durability. This is due to a relatively large amount of energy in a small are, which is why a mosquito can penatrate the skin of a dinosaur and why someone needs to be 8-B to be fully bullet proof.

Despite it being a thing in the real world, I often find people saying that it cannot do so for the characters unless it's specifically shown to do so (MCU). The problem with that is that I'm pretty sue 90% of fiction does represent it as being able to cut throug people who can take normal hits on that level. There is also the fact that we should go with "works like the real world unless contradicted", not the opposite.


This wouldn't be much of a chang I think, beyond at most making a page for it, I doubt profiles would need to be updated unless the durability ignoration was really high compared to what it should be (Again, MCU, they keep harming people a whole tier above them).

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Well, to start off, it's clearly not dura negation, as having a high enough dura ca block bladed and bullet attacks going off of the 8-B thing.

It's usually just better to assume "well, they're more effective than blunt force attacks, but applying science makes it not work with how it generally does in fiction".

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Not all dura negation works on an universal scale, where it affects 3-As as much as 9-Bs. An exemple to this is laser, which can cut steel despite lack of actual energy normaly needed.

 

[Dargoo_Faust]

Uh

Lasers need a significant amount of energy to cut steel?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Yeah, meant attack potency, sorry.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Durability negation isn't really the correct wording, rather that it's just a different type of attack. Bonus damage would be a more accurate term rather than durability negation.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I guess, the mechanics are the same, whatever we decide to call it as.

 

[RRTheEndMan]

Could this be calculated?

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I mean, the strongest bullets were calced at 8-B for being unafected by them, so probably.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

The 8-B bullet calc was rejected for multiple reasons. It was high balled using a composite bullet and initial calc was 9-B. It used the fastest bullet ever traveled (Which was a light weight bullet IRL) with the the heaviest conventional bullet fired (Which was slow IRL). And for penetration, they once again used the volume of the smallest bullet and the joules of energy calculated from above result; which they compared to the volume of an entire persons body. It would have made more sense to compare it to a fist, which the result would be lowered down to 9-A as the actual durability required to be 100% bullet proof.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

That's fair.

 

[Bobsican]

9-A to be bullet proof?

Then why Shrek got Shrekt by an Apache helicopter in that one stomp match? Or there is a difference?