• 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.

Debunking Bill Cipher's 2-A tier + Axolotl downgrade

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not getting directly involved, but here's something I will say.

Do we rate Namek Saga Frieza being a 3-A/Low 2-C for being a threat to the universe or ruling the universe? Go by this example when discussing the "threat to something = AP" discussion.
 
ShadowWarrior1999 said:
@Kep Difference is he's not just stated to be a threat, he's actually going to eat an infinite amount of stuff so High 3-A is ok for him.
Click to expand...
Uh...yes. The literal only thing that puts it at High 3-A is the fact that the world it was a threat to was infinite. Supercomputer-like characters only mention it consuming "mountains and cities" otherwise.

"He's actually going to eat an infinite amount of stuff".

And Bill, in order to be considered a threat to the existence of a 2-A multiverse, needs to be able to affect a 2-A amount of universes.
 
Xerkser500 said:
Not getting directly involved, but here's something I will say.

Do we rate Namek Saga Frieza being a 3-A/Low 2-C for being a threat to the universe or ruling the universe? Go by this example when discussing the "threat to something = AP" discussion.
Click to expand...
Ruling the universe isn't AP-related and not relevant.

The universe in Dragon Ball is not infinite and thus threatening to destroy it overtime doesn't require an auto 3-A. So that's a flawed analogy.

If the universe in Dragon Ball were infinite, then people like Freeza would definitely be High 3-A because of the multiple "can destroy the universe" quotes attached to him.
 
This is a non-argument at best. "He is a contradictory character thus shouldn't be rated at all."

I mean unknown is a tier for a reason
 
People treat ratings as if they were a zero sum game.

The OP did not debunk 2-A bill, all he did was conflate threat to the multiversal =/= being able to destroy the universe.

I would argue for consistency that Bill is Low 2-C, but I will indulge this idea.

Since the GF Multiverse is infinite, and bill is a 'threat' to it.

Then there is only three rational conclusions.

1. Bill takes an infinite number of time to destroy them all.

2. Bill has infinite/immesurable speed and while he might be Low 2-C, he can do so eventually, but in a finite period of time.

3. Bill is 2-A because of multiversal destruction.

Using the visual evidence from the show of a quasar also is a red herring. No one cares that a quasar exploded. Even in your own example, you said this was evidence of it being Low 2-C, but destruction of a quasar is 4-B/4-A.

Which is ridiculous.

This isnt a zero sum game we are playing, and considering we have two, 2-A statements, one from the book and the show itself, then at the very best, it means bills tier is 'At least Low 2-C, possibly 2-A'.

Nothing more or less.

Lets actually look at what the wiki says on the issue and not examples from other verses

Possibly

Should be used to list a hypothetical statistic for a character, but inconclusive due to lack of feats or viable power-scaling. Probability of said hypothetical statistic should also be indeterminate.

Likely

Should be used to list a hypothetical statistic for a character, but inconclusive due to lack of feats or viable power-scaling. Probability of said hypothetical statistic should be favourable.

Using this as a metric.

Does Bill not have the feats for 2-A? Yes, I will concede that.

Does Bill not have viable power scaling for 2-A? No, we have the book and the show statement. One is a hypothetical and the other, which according to you when used 'context', can be Low 2-C or 2-A. It is literally inconclusive.

It implies Low 2-C, but the book implies 2-A?

So do we dismiss the book just cuz it doesn't fit the narrative? No, we look at it as a secondary canon.

I disagree with the downgrades and I agree with Kep + Ultima. Plus, Kep and Ultima both made the point that if Bill was a threat to the multiverse., it makes more sense that the statement would 2-A, not Low 2-C, since otherwise he wouldn't be much of a threat if he blasted them one universe at a time for an infinite number of time or assuming that bill had immeasurable speed, which he has no feats for.

2-A is more solid. Finally, Ford a supergenius who is capable of creating the rift to begin with also backs this up.

╠Âk╠Âe╠Âe╠Âp╠ ╠Âb╠Âi╠Âl╠Âl╠ ╠Â2╠Â-╠ÂA╠ ╠Âs╠Âo╠ ╠Ât╠Âh╠Âa╠Ât╠ ╠Âw╠Âa╠Ây╠ ╠Âs╠Âu╠Âp╠Âe╠Âr╠ ╠Âs╠Âo╠Ân╠Âi╠Âc╠ ╠Âs╠Âo╠Âl╠Âo╠Âe╠Âs╠ ╠Âg╠Âr╠Âa╠Âv╠Âi╠Ât╠Ây╠ ╠Âf╠Âa╠Âl╠Âl╠Âs╠Â

Use Likely/Possibly, I don't care. But the final verdict for this debunk is that it isnt a debunk and is probably the most popular misinterpretation of a show on this wiki at the moment.
 
Uh...yes. The literal only thing that puts it at High 3-A is the fact that the world it was a threat to was infinite. Supercomputer-like characters only mention it consuming "mountains and cities" otherwise.

"He's actually going to eat an infinite amount of stuff".

And Bill, in order to be considered a threat to the existence of a 2-A multiverse, needs to be able to affect a 2-A amount of universes.

Then show us physical evidence beyond statements that he can do just that.
 
@SinsofMan I'd opt to keep it as it is right now, or either "likely" or "possibly", if the evidence, though still vague, has passable value of validity.
 
Kepekley23 said:
Yeah, Sins summed up my PoV.
Click to expand...
╠Ât╠Âh╠Âe╠Ân╠ ╠Âk╠Âu╠Âd╠Âo╠Âs╠ ╠Âm╠Ây╠ ╠Âc╠Âo╠Âm╠Âm╠Âe╠Ân╠Ât╠ ╠Âc╠Âu╠Âz╠ ╠Âi╠ ╠Ân╠Âe╠Âe╠Âd╠ ╠Âm╠Ây╠ ╠Âc╠Âl╠Âo╠Âu╠Ât╠Â

I guess the only real 'thing' I have left to say to everyone for the downgrade is this.

Which is more reasonable? A supergenius, an in canon book and a statement from the show itself saying Bill could endager everyone in the infinite multiverse, thus he is 2-A. Or conflating/equivocating existence = Low 2-C and ignoring the word 'threat' can be used to back up statements we have previously accepted on the wiki with possibly/likely ratings?

That is all.
 
Dragopentling said:
@SinsofMan I'd opt to keep it as it is right now, or either "likely" or "possibly", if the evidence, though still vague, has passable value of validity.
Click to expand...
Oh I definitely agree that the statement is vague, but it is no merits for a downgrade.

Alot of ratings have sliding scales based on statements, lack of other feats, and other secondary material.

Gravity Falls is no exception to the rule.

I am personally for the 'possibly' tag and just dropping 2-A via dimensional rip.
 
Oh I definitely agree that the statement is vague, but it is no merits for a downgrade.

Alot of ratings have sliding scales based on statements, lack of other feats, and other secondary material.

Gravity Falls is no exception to the rule.

I am personally for the 'possibly' tag and just dropping 2-A via dimensional rip.

Fair enough, if everyone else can agree to the last part.
 
SinsofMan said:
People treat ratings as if they were a zero sum game.

The OP did not debunk 2-A bill, all he did was conflate threat to the multiversal =/= being able to destroy the universe.

I would argue for consistency that Bill is Low 2-C, but I will indulge this idea.

Since the GF Multiverse is infinite, and bill is a 'threat' to it.

Then there is only three rational conclusions.

1. Bill takes an infinite number of time to destroy them all.

2. Bill has infinite/immesurable speed and while he might be Low 2-C, he can do so eventually, but in a finite period of time.

3. Bill is 2-A because of multiversal destruction.

Or 4. Bill being a threat to the multiverse is just a general statement meaning that any universe could be on Bill's radar to target.

Using the visual evidence from the show of a quasar also is a red herring. No one cares that a quasar exploded. Even in your own example, you said this was evidence of it being Low 2-C, but destruction of a quasar is 4-B/4-A.

Which is ridiculous.

It's not just the quasar. You also see dots in the background which indicates distant galaxies, so Time Baby referring to the fabric of existence is Low 2-C.

This isnt a zero sum game we are playing, and considering we have two, 2-A statements, one from the book and the show itself, then at the very best, it means bills tier is 'At least Low 2-C, possibly 2-A'.

Nothing more or less.

Lets actually look at what the wiki says on the issue and not examples from other verses

Possibly

Should be used to list a hypothetical statistic for a character, but inconclusive due to lack of feats or viable power-scaling. Probability of said hypothetical statistic should also be indeterminate.

Likely

Should be used to list a hypothetical statistic for a character, but inconclusive due to lack of feats or viable power-scaling. Probability of said hypothetical statistic should be favourable.

Using this as a metric.

Does Bill not have the feats for 2-A? Yes, I will concede that.

Does Bill not have viable power scaling for 2-A? No, we have the book and the show statement. One is a hypothetical and the other, which according to you when used 'context', can be Low 2-C or 2-A. It is literally inconclusive.

It implies Low 2-C, but the book implies 2-A?

So do we dismiss the book just cuz it doesn't fit the narrative? No, we look at it as a secondary canon.

No one is dismissing the book. The argument being made is that being described as a threat to something by itself isn't enough to warrant a tier rating.

I disagree with the downgrades and I agree with Kep + Ultima. Plus, Kep and Ultima both made the point that if Bill was a threat to the multiverse., it makes more sense that the statement would 2-A, not Low 2-C, since otherwise he wouldn't be much of a threat if he blasted them one universe at a time for an infinite number of time or assuming that bill had immeasurable speed, which he has no feats for.

This is only going by the highest possible interpretation. Bill can still be a general threat to the multiverse if he can travel to any universe he wants to, since any one of those could be next on his radar. It doesn't mean he has to destroy the entire multiverse all at once, or at all.

2-A is more solid. Finally, Ford a supergenius who is capable of creating the rift to begin with also backs this up.

╠Âk╠Âe╠Âe╠Âp╠ ╠Âb╠Âi╠Âl╠Âl╠ ╠Â2╠Â-╠ÂA╠ ╠Âs╠Âo╠ ╠Ât╠Âh╠Âa╠Ât╠ ╠Âw╠Âa╠Ây╠ ╠Âs╠Âu╠Âp╠Âe╠Âr╠ ╠Âs╠Âo╠Ân╠Âi╠Âc╠ ╠Âs╠Âo╠Âl╠Âo╠Âe╠Âs╠ ╠Âg╠Âr╠Âa╠Âv╠Âi╠Ât╠Ây╠ ╠Âf╠Âa╠Âl╠Âl╠Âs╠Â

Use Likely/Possibly, I don't care. But the final verdict for this debunk is that it isnt a debunk and is probably the most popular misinterpretation of a show on this wiki at the moment.
Click to expand...
Replies in bold.
 
Dragopentling said:
Be mindful, even with all that, he's BL 2A at most. :p
Click to expand...
I have no idea why you keep mentioning this, it's entirely irrelevant to the thread and it just seems to be a way to provoke Bill supporters
 
I have no idea why you keep mentioning this, it's entirely irrelevant to the thread and it just seems to be a way to provoke Bill supporters

Will AP calcs matter for Tier 2A or not? If so, then we'd have to know what he'd possibly calc at.
 
@Shadow

Your reply for 4 ignores my first one. Then that means that Bill has to take an infinite number of time to cross to each universe. You can't really be a threat to the multiverse if you require an infinite number of time to destroy/warp each universe.

Occams razor, if the point of a threat is to be backed up by force as per the definition used in a dictionary, then Bill could destroy the multiverse with force.

I argued that the threat to the multiverse statement in the book is evidence for a possibly/likely 2-A rating. Your intrepertation also fits into this narrative too, since you also conceded that it is going by the highest possible interpretation.

Again, you are treating this a zero sum game.

You are choosing to ignore other intrepretations to fit your own, when in reality either/or can be argued.

I honestly don't think that bill can destroy it, I am arguing he could or possibly can.

There is a difference.

I am done with this thread, I think I have made my point across.


Possibly 2-A and no more or less.

I can maybe also be fine with his old tier, which was At Most 2-A, but that sets a hard cap on his power which hasn't honestly been shown.
 
@Drago

I'm not talking about that because I don't care, I do find it annoying that you've repeatedly said "Bill will get rekt by other 2-As and 2-Bs" and "Bill gets stomped in most matches" or "Bill is only baseline lel" in this thread for no other reason than to provoke Bill supporters.

But I digress
 
Edwardtruong2006 said:
I'm not talking about that because I don't care, I do find it annoying that you've repeatedly said "Bill will get rekt by other 2-As and 2-Bs" and "Bill gets stomped in most matches" or "Bill is only baseline lel" in this thread for no other reason than to provoke Bill supporters.
But I digress
Click to expand...
╠Ât╠Âb╠Âf╠ ╠Âi╠ ╠Âa╠Âm╠ ╠Âa╠ ╠Âb╠Âi╠Âl╠Âl╠ ╠Âf╠Âa╠Ân╠ ╠Âb╠Âu╠Ât╠ ╠Âh╠Âe╠ ╠Âg╠Âe╠Ât╠Âs╠ ╠Âc╠Âl╠Âa╠Âp╠Âp╠Âe╠Âd╠ ╠Âb╠Ây╠ ╠Âb╠Âo╠Âl╠Âa╠Âs╠Â
 
Edwardtruong2006 said:
@Drago

I'm not talking about that because I don't care, I do find it annoying that you've repeatedly said "Bill will get rekt by other 2-As and 2-Bs" and "Bill gets stomped in most matches" or "Bill is only baseline lel" in this thread for no other reason than to provoke Bill supporters.

But I digress
Click to expand...
But I mean, it's true, I'm just saying :p

Sry if it sounded so blunt, though.
 
╠Ât╠Âb╠Âf╠ ╠Âi╠ ╠Âa╠Âm╠ ╠Âa╠ ╠Âb╠Âi╠Âl╠Âl╠ ╠Âf╠Âa╠Ân╠ ╠Âb╠Âu╠Ât╠ ╠Âh╠Âe╠ ╠Âg╠Âe╠Ât╠Âs╠ ╠Âc╠Âl╠Âa╠Âp╠Âp╠Âe╠Âd╠ ╠Âb╠Ây╠ ╠Âb╠Âo╠Âl╠Âa╠Âs╠Â

But he's like All Might, ain't what he used to be now xD
 
@SinsofMan

I don't think 1 is bad either because Bill doesn't have to worry about aging. I put option 4 because it's the most consistent with statements that only imply Bill being Low 2-C.

Threat can also mean Bill would just spread his chaos across different realities, and in fact this makes sense as his goal is to make the universe a lawless hell.

I have said I could settle with "possibly 2-A" in the worst case scenario, but I do think this just isn't enough evidence to give Bill a 2-A tier at all.
 
First Witch said:
Drago, i told you already to drop this nonsense. If you really have the urge to gloat about Bills performance in vs threads then do it on someones wall or where ever your boat swims but keep it out from here. Shittalking Bill aint helping the wiki to settle this topic.
Click to expand...
I'm actually trying to help him out here in terms of Vs matches, cause he'd fare better in 2C matches. But whatever, I'm done talking about it, if you really intend to antagonize me if I continue.

It's not like we won't have another revision thread about this in the near future, though. Kinda wished the show continued so we could've gotten more.
 
So what final decision are we gonna settle on?

Straight up 2A, no specifics whatsoever?

Likely?

Possibly?

Keep it as it is?

I don't wanna ham on this anymore and look even more like an antagonist as long as everyone can agree to something here.
 
I believe this matter, clearly different from the original intention of the thread, must be brought into a Staff only discussion.
 
I agree with Sera on staff only threads

It just makes the site seem elitist as a whole

It gives off the idea that a normal user isn't smart enough or important enough to help make any decisions ontop of this there arent really alot of staff who participate in staff only threads

Especially in this case most of the users who are against Bill's rating aren't staff so they would be left out and it would just be Kep arguing for 2-A, Cal agreeing a bunch of I agree with keps and maybe one or two staff arguing against it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

BrainiacWorld
  • Locked
I Don't Agree with Bill Cipher's 1-B Scaling
2
Replies
43
Views
2K
ShionAH
ShionAH
ShionAH
Bill Cipher HDE?
Replies
23
Views
2K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
BrainiacWorld
  • Locked
Bill Cipher Tier High 1-C Upgrade
Replies
5
Views
2K
DarkDragonMedeus
DarkDragonMedeus
StrymULTRA
Bill Cipher: Hax and Speed upgrades
3 4 5
Replies
187
Views
8K
TheOrangeGuy09
TheOrangeGuy09
StrymULTRA
  • Locked
Gravity Falls: Low 1-C/1-B Upgrade (Pt. 2)
Replies
35
Views
3K
StrymULTRA
StrymULTRA
Back
Top