Constellation Feats

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

I thought flipping a timeline would be quantifiable... But i guess i didn't know ....

 

[Sera_EX]

@Seed

If they created/split/or destroyed a timeline, that'd be Low 2-C (splitting would be 2-C). However, Time Travel is just hax.

 

[Antvasima]

Sera is correct.

 

[Sera_EX]

@Weekly

Just to say my piece here, Kingdom Hearts isn't moving from where it is.

The power of Kingdom Hearts gave birth to all of the known worlds, each with their own day-night cycles. There are as many worlds as there are stars in the night sky.

Both Xemnas and Vanitas were able to access an incomplete version of this power with their use of a copy of KH created above the World that Never Was and the X-blade respectively.

Vanitas fought Aqua, a Keyblade Master-level fighter, which scales to all relevant characters.

It isn't moving from where it is.

Then shouldn't their reasoning be changed to that then?

 

[Dino_Ranger_Black]

@Sera

No problem at all.

@The 2nd Existential Seed

About the constellation feat, I really don't think Pucca has created them or has anything to do with them either. It seems like the constellation itself is meant to resemble her and Garu.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

Soo created it.... Not Pucca.

 

[Dino_Ranger_Black]

But in the first half of the explanation, it stated that Pucca did. Also, I don't scaring Soo warrants the rating as it seems more like a gag and a rather common one in anime where a lower being would intimidate even the most powerful of creatures. After all, Goku is afraid of Chi chi and the latter is nowhere near as strong.

 

[The_2nd_Existential_Seed]

If that was the case he would've stayed his ground. Also helps Soo was never scared of anyone up until that moment

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I'm kinda with Sera. It may not be 4-A but wouldn't Constellation feats period be 4-B?

 

[Crzer07]

It seems like it would be a case by case

 

[WeeklyBattles]

No, we go by the number of stars x GBE in all case, there would have to be thouands of stars for a constellation to be 4-B

 

[Dark649]

Agree with Weekly, it mainly depends on many stars are produced by in a constellation feat.

 

[Sera_EX]

No, we go by the number of stars x GBE in all case, there would have to be thouands of stars for a constellation to be 4-B

Then I ask you, why is Zeus 4-B for creating a constellation?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Zeus' constellation yielded high end High 4-C, he is 4-B because the feat was ridiculously casual

Unless youre referring to disney Zeus in which case He should be High 4-C

 

[Sera_EX]

Yes, I'm referring to Disney Zeus.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Then yes he should be High 4-C

 

[Kepekley23]

Destroying a constellation is 4-A.

Just saying.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

We're not talking about destroying constellations though, we're talking about creating and moving them

 

[Kepekley23]

> Moving them

4-B

 

[Sera_EX]

Well, creating is the opposite of destroying (duh, Sera), and is arguably more impressive.

Also, aren't Sora and co. 4-B for defeating Hades who scales to said Zeus? The reasoning should be changed to scaling to those empowered by an incomplete Kingdom Hearts.

 

[Kepekley23]

Creation violates the Law of Conservation of Energy, so yeah, it's arguably far more impressive.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Celestial Body Feats

No, creating and moving constellations is High 4-C

 

[Kepekley23]

Incorrect.

It all really depends on the size, but the average constellation is two to three hundred stars. Normal kinetic energy dictates that is 4-B.

I'm not saying it can't be High 4-C, but slapping High 4-C is incorrect.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

"If one planet or multiple planets or stars are moved the equivalent Attack Potency is the sum of their GBE. Per default it is assumed that only the stars themselves are moved whenever stars are moved in the night sky to form constellations. Usually Stars can be considered to be like our sun and planets to be like earth, as long as no better guess is possible."

There would have to be thousands of stars being moved at FTL to be 4-B

 

[The_Everlasting]

"It all really depends on the size, but the average constellation is two to three hundred stars."

Wait what.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

The average constellation does not have 200-300 stars

 

[Kepekley23]

Sounds like BS. You don't have to overpower the GBE to move a planet or a star. That's why entire planets have collided head-on with the Earth in the past without getting torn apart before they even hit.

Unless I'm missing the subject of the conversation.

@Ever

I wouldn't say average, actually, but "decent-sized"

Cassiopeia has roughly 320 stars, and it is in the top 20, roughly.

 

[Sera_EX]

The size of constellations never mention how many stars. 200-300 sounds too big.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Kep The subject of the conversation is "Why are some characters High 4-C for creating constellations while others are 4-A". Creating a constellation is a High 4-C feat unless the constellation contains over 1000 stars. That is the issue being addressed here.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

We're not talking about destroying constellations though, we're talking about creating and moving them

This is one of the few problems/confusions im having with this.

We treat creation feats as far superior to destruction feats so if destroying or moving constellations is indeed above 4-C, then creating them should be above that as well.

 

[The_Everlasting]

@Kep

Gist is, since we can't calculate FTL KE, we just use GBE for calculating moving planets/stars/galaxies at FTL speeds.

 

[The_Everlasting]

We're not talking about destroying constellations though, we're talking about creating and moving them

This is one of the few problems/confusions im having with this.

We treat creation feats as far superior to destruction feats so if destroying or moving constellations is indeed above 4-C, then creating them should be above that as well.

Destroying a constellation means destroying light years of empty space.

This is not equatable with regular creation/destruction feats.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

And why not? Because im pretty sure creating light years of empty space, or better yet, the many star systems inside stars, sounds far more impressive than destroying them.

And even then, creation feats explicty use more effort and power than destruction feats.

 

[Kepekley23]

@Weekly

100 stars at 50% of the speed of light is 4-B. So thousands of stars beig needed to break into 4-B with FTL speed is, to say the least, completely false.

 

[Kepekley23]

@Ever

Oh, so you're talking FTL speeds. Although, if the character was simply stated to move a constellation without a timeframe they don't necessarily need to be FTL, though.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

We're not tlking about them moving at 50% SoL, we're talking about them moving FTL

 

[The_Everlasting]

And why not? Because im pretty sure creating light years of empty space, or better yet, the many star systems inside stars, sounds far more impressive than destroying them.
And even then, creation feats explicty use more effort and power than destruction feats.

Where the hell are you getting "creating light years of empty space"? That space is already there, you're just filling it.

 

[Kepekley23]

Creation is more impressive hax, not AP. It doesn't compare to destruction.

 

[Sera_EX]

It's not the same thing. Creating "light years of empty space" (which isn't exactly a thing) is not equivocal to creating actual star systems and stars. Key word. Empty space. Compared to stars with quantifiable energy.

Like, specifically speaking, destroying both our solar system and alpha centuari, is bare minimum 4-A. Likewise creating two star systems is also bare minimum 4-A.

 

[Sera_EX]

Creation is more impressive hax, not AP. It doesn't compare to destruction.

It still counts as AP (but not DC). Create a universe and you're Low 2-C.