Calcs or Statements

[Hellbeast]

Stupid question but do we take omniscient narration over fan-calculations? Currently doing a revision and that kinda comes up?

 

[PrinceofPein]

Stupid question but do we take omniscient narration over fan-calculations? Currently doing a revision and that kinda comes up?

Yes, as far as the wiki goes calcs will be headcanon to inverse statements

 

[Dust_Collector]

I have no idea. I know there was an instance with Blazblue where a character explicitly states how many joules it'd take to do a feat and it being Small Planet level but we instead went with a fan-calc that got Large Planet results, but I don't know if that was a mistake or the exception or whatever.

 

[Wokistan]

Yes, as far as the wiki goes calcs will be headcanon to inverse statements

Not actually true, and an easy example of that is that infamous flash feat which is something like three trillion times the speed of light being called "just below the speed of light" by narration.

Ultimately, it depends which one you're better able to argue makes more sense within the narrative. I'd probably defer to the math more often than not but there's a lot of shit you can do depending on which way you want to argue.

I'll provide examples of both scenarios below, and how I would argue them.

Calc favorable: The CW flash feat where they run at """mach seven""" to stop the earth from rotating so they can go back in time. If for some reason anybody tried to seriously argue this was mach seven, you could bring up how the statement just isn't really able to be reconciled with the showing via examples of what mach seven really is like, you could take the premise of trying to stop the planet as proof against this since hypersonic missiles have not yet stopped the planet, you could take the really wonky statements on timeframe the show apparently has in general (mach 2 time travel so I guess bullets just sorta go bye bye lmao) to discredit the veracity of these statements in general, etc.

Statement/context favorable: All the specific examples I can think of right now are hot takes so I'll speak in general terms. You can argue against a lot of calcs pretty well by demonstrating how their proposed rating would make no sense within the context of a work. You could show how x rating would cause a plot hole because it allows them to do y action which they'd have done and solved the plot, or how the character is harmed by or shows other limitations that they wouldn't suffer at such a level, or how other characters display feats nowhere near that character yet are treated as though they're on a similar level, etc.

 

[Armorchompy]

I agree with Wok but I feel like if the calc result is really close to the statement though you should probably use the statement since there's a lot of minor mistakes that the calc itself could have made that aren't really possible to address. This is a pretty niche situation