Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why is the statement Is questionable, it was stated by the curator of the technique to be a beam of light, it doesn't sound hyperbole at all, it doesn't bend, explode, it travels in a straight line, it burns/vaporizes, it reflects off surfacesMostly what Damage is saying. The "statement" is questionable, although I'm sure the reflection part is fine.
it was stated by the curator of the technique to be a beam of light, it doesn't sound hyperbole at all
it doesn't bend, it travels in a straight line
explode
it reflects off surfaces
1- punches of justice is hyperbole, you can't be that....un aware if what hyperbole is. "Beam of light" is literal, "punches of justice" isn't, the comparison is false anyway . There is no flowery language in that statement, there us no reason for the curator or the character to lie about it. Prove that the statement is hyperbole or flowery. And yes, mask creates the technique, his words hold much weight than everyone else accept someone who is more knowledgeable or the curator of the series, he invented the technique, he knows the properties that it has. Please prove that his statement is unreliable, flowery or not enough.Hyperbole is not the sole way a statement can be questionable. Mask inventing the technique doesn't necessarily make his statement any more literal than him saying his "punches of justice" are actually literal.
That's only relevant if it solidly satisfies multiple other requirements. You can believe it does, sure, but some staff members here have reasonable doubt.
This isn't mentioned under any of the requirements. Not exploding or exploding seems like it could be case-by-case anyway. In some fiction, lightspeed lasers actually do explode somehow.
Deflection does not necessarily mean reflection.
The statement they are talking about is how Mask (user of the beam) refers to himself as a hero and the oponent as a villain, that's literally it.Mostly what Damage is saying. The "statement" is questionable, although I'm sure the reflection part is fine.
Because Mask as a character has a lot of "flair" and is very boisterous in combat, therefore in the eyes of some, everything he says is a joke.Can someone explain to me why the Beam of Light is invalid?
Wouldnt it be a "possibly ftl" at worse then?Because Mask as a character has a lot of "flair" and is very boisterous in combat, therefore in the eyes of some, everything he says is a joke.
Which is a poor excuseBecause Mask as a character has a lot of "flair" and is very boisterous in combat, therefore in the eyes of some, everything he says is a joke.
"Flowery language " bs as usualCan someone explain to me why the Beam of Light is invalid?
I also want to see the daten evidence; if solid, it could reinforce the beam of the light statement being a solid Option 2 and I could see the light feat is fine.Yes I’ll drop it when I get on my computer.
Let me just point this out. I would have no problem if Mask was explaining his attack. An explanation would be something like "My Star Flash is a beam of light that has yada yada effects and does this and that" or "My Star Flash travels at the speed of light" or something similar, which, you know, explains the attack.Mask doesn't seem to have invalid statements when explaining the effect of his attacks.
Quilge directly reporting a Quincy technique to His Majesty (aka Quincy techniques make it into the battle data Yhwach distributes)
Quincy techniques are reported in battle reports
He already does on there, "beam of light", him referring to himself as a hero or renji as a villain does not make his statement invalidThis statement "A villain shall die by a hero's beam of light" is the furthest thing away from an explanation of an attack, so the point that Mask is explaining how his attack works, is invalid.
I'm not saying his knowledge comes from the daten for Blut inherently, likely because he's a Quincy he just knows it, but the fact that he's REPORTING it to His Majesty means Quincy techniques make it into the battle reports.Why are you assuming Quilge's knowledge of a generic Quincy technique used by every Sternritter comes from the data that Yhwach supplies?
I can see how you would come to that conclusion, but that's a leap of logic that's not supported by the manga as far as I can tell. Quilge's reports to Yhwach aren't linked to the battle data on the enemy that Yhwach distributes to his troops.I'm not saying his knowledge comes from the daten for Blut inherently, likely because he's a Quincy he just knows it, but the fact that he's REPORTING it to His Majesty means Quincy techniques make it into the battle reports.
Ah, but u see, he referred to himself as a hero and renji as a villain, therefore all he says is not valid.Wait so if Mask's attack isn't a beam then what is it?
Because other than the fact that he himself called it a beam..
All this supports the already giving statement.
- it moved in straight light.
- didn't bend.
- was reflected.
- didn't explode.
Questioning that the attack isn't really a laser is by far one of the dumbest arguments I've seen.
I wanted to say this from the beginning but was scared of you know🗡All this supports the already giving statement.
Questioning that the attack isn't really a laser is by far one of the dumbest arguments I've seen.
Why are you attacking the format of a post as if it at all works to aid your point or debunk his point?
- it moved in a straight line.
- didn't bend.
Why are you posting these as separate points as if they aren't the same thing?
I didn't even think it's possible for someone to argue this after so many evidence. Do they want the author to come and say it's light speed before they agree? This argument is pretty dumb tbh.I’d like to pose a question:
If I said “die by the hero’s gun”, pulled out a gun, and proceeded to shoot that gun, would you doubt that it’s a gun?
Would you go out and argue that, because I added the flair of “die by a hero’s”, the gun isn’t a real gun? Despite firing and acting like a real gun?
Same exact case with Mask. “Die by a hero’s beam of light”, does not inherently imply beam of light is hyperbolic. In fact, if this CRT fails then any statement made by characters who aren’t serious all the time should be rejected. After all, if a character has added flair to make their appearances entertaining, then they must have 0 credibility.
Why are you attacking the format of a post as if it at all works to aid your point or debunk his point?
To point out a common mistake here: The bolded things don't really support things at all.Wait so if Mask's attack isn't a beam then what is it?
Because other than the fact that he himself called it a beam..
All this supports the already giving statement.
- it moved in a straight line.
- didn't bend.
- was reflected.
- didn't explode.
I don’t think that’s a contention, I think he’s pointing out a lack of anti-feats for the beam of light.To point out a common mistake here: The bolded things don't really support things at all.
The light beam calc page differentiates between feats that support real light and feats that disprove real light, because the negation of one isn't the other.
It's like: Something being fluid at room temperature means that it isn't iron. But something being solid at room temperature, like iron is, hardly supports the claim that it is iron. That's because all kinds of stuff that isn't iron are also solid at room temperature.
This is similar. A high-pressure water cutter would also fulfill those three points, but is obviously not light. Not to say that attack is that. However, generic energy beams also can have all of those properties.
So, while not having those properties could disprove it being real light (well, technically a real light laser could cause explosions if it vaporizes stuff), having these properties doesn't support it.
But it also is stated to be a beam of light, so, its beam of light statement + others light requisits and no contradictionTo point out a common mistake here: The bolded things don't really support things at all.
The light beam calc page differentiates between feats that support real light and feats that disprove real light, because the negation of one isn't the other.
It's like: Something being fluid at room temperature means that it isn't iron. But something being solid at room temperature, like iron is, hardly supports the claim that it is iron. That's because all kinds of stuff that isn't iron are also solid at room temperature.
This is similar. A high-pressure water cutter would also fulfill those three points, but is obviously not light. Not to say that attack is that. However, generic energy beams also can have all of those properties.
So, while not having those properties could disprove it being real light (well, technically a real light laser could cause explosions if it vaporizes stuff), having these properties doesn't support it.
"Beam of light" is as straight forward as you can get. Lack of anti-feats means it satisfies the "beam of light means it is made of light unless contradicted".Lack of anti-feats don't mean there is sufficient proof and the statement is already contentious. It leaves us with nothing solid.
Read this.I’d like to pose a question:
If I said “die by the hero’s gun”, pulled out a gun, and proceeded to shoot that gun, would you doubt that it’s a gun?
Would you go out and argue that, because I added the flair of “die by a hero’s”, the gun isn’t a real gun? Despite firing and acting like a real gun?
Same exact case with Mask. “Die by a hero’s beam of light”, does not inherently imply beam of light is hyperbolic. In fact, if this CRT fails then any statement made by characters who aren’t serious all the time should be rejected. After all, if a character has added flair to make their appearances entertaining, then they must have 0 credibility.