Downgrade of weapon users

[NikHelton]

Kengan revision (attempt number 2)

why does the guy even scale to the energy the whale outputs? even if the whale jumps and hits him with it's full body weight, he would only tank a fraction of the actual energy due to the inverse square law being a thing do we know how he killed it to begin with? what even is the assumption...

vsbattles.com

I believe I can shed some light here. The op participated here where his arguments were shot down by Armor and other participants and it seems he tried to apply this logic in other verses.

Yes, you're right, I made the thread because I found out that we can't scale characters with weapons because of the penetrating damage. Is there a problem with that?

 

[KLOL506]

What are you talking about? I didn't hide anything.
I relied on the words that were said by one of the administrators and tried to apply them in the thread, because according to this logic, you can influence the entire verse.
I said bluntly that I was relying on words from the discussion.

The same thread mod who said the following:

"That's taking things too far- as long as they're generally comparable it's fine to use piercing weapons for that (at least as far as our wiki's very simplified system goes, you are correct in that it would take less effort to cut someone than to hurt them with strikes)- in my opinion it just gets very sketchy when you're scaling to a giant that you're otherwise never shown to be comparable to."

Also, you tried to apply this logic without even reading the context regarding other verses?

Before you twist me and put me in a negative light, and then say "gotcha", make sure that I tried to hide it

I didn't accuse you of hiding stuff, I accused you of throwing shade at those verses to get your CRT to fly through and I accused you of not thoroughly researching the verses before you added them as examples willy-nilly (I don't need to prove the first one and the second one you made abundantly clear to all of us).

Yes, you're right, I made the thread because I found out that we can't scale characters with weapons because of the penetrating damage. Is there a problem with that?

Case-by-case basis, as usual.

 

[NikHelton]

Not to be a pushover, but your thread is literally named "Downgrade of Weapon users".

In which I stressed that maybe there are characters who are not suitable as an example, so as not to start a discussion on other topics that you have started, yes

Plus, my comment about you wording it to be like a shadow downgrade to throw shade at those characters, as well as your attempt to lump in all these characters with varying degrees of context still stands.

In no way did I cast a shadow on Dante and Kratos.

My words verbatim indicate that in a recent discussion, the penetrating damage was not scaled to the strength of the character and this was refuted by a member of the calculation group. I've given other examples where we have penetrating damage.
However, for some reason it didn't work in other cases.

 

[KLOL506]

In which I stressed that maybe there are characters who are not suitable as an example, so as not to start a discussion on other topics that you have started, yes

In no way did I cast a shadow on Dante and Kratos.

No way did I cast shadow on Dante and Kratos

Dante needs weapons to kill Demons

Kratos needs BoO to kill Cronos

Thread named Downgrade thread

You didn't even remove these examples until after repeatedly being told you were misrepresenting these feats altogether, if you truly did imply conventions were at play, you would've at least listed the underlying context behind those feats and you would've argued about what to do with feats that have no such context, instead of rushing head on like this. How am I supposed to take your word at face value after this?

Worse still, they are still in OP, as is the Wolverine example (Which we've already told you is blatantly wrong as per the official sources).

My words verbatim indicate that in a recent discussion, the penetrating damage was not scaled to the strength of the character and this was refuted by a member of the calculation group. I've given other examples where we have penetrating damage.
However, for some reason it didn't work in other cases.

Because it's a case-by-case basis situation. Not all feats of piercing damage are created equal. And Piercing Damage feats involving Tier 2/1 structures cannot be downscaled in any way, shape or form. Harm one part of it, you scale to all of it, as infinites cannot be divided.

 

[NikHelton]

So you're just going to keep lying about your intent then. Cool. Won't bother with that part then.

You keep throwing false accusations. Great.

And? The source material still disagrees with you. You don't get to decide how the mechanisms of these metals work, none of us do. We just roll with what we're given, else it's all headcanon.
We need direct instructions about the property of the metal so that we consider this as an exception.

Stuff that harms High 3-A people and above can't be calculated. PERIOD.

More water. That's literally what I said. I'm talking about cases where it can be measured, not when it's beyond High 3-A

No I'm pretty sure I got it right since piercing damage and anti-feats of this kinda thing are intricately intertwined with each other, but you do you.

I'm afraid to upset you, but no, you got it wrong

There's no slander or demonization to be talked about after what you did in those threads. I've seen how you reacted in that Earthquake thread for Baki where everyone else disagreed with you and you just kept arguing without any merit.

I made arguments and there were people who agreed with me. Please stop distorting the facts.

If they have conventions, they can't be examples to begin with and would automatically be removed from the list.

Okay, I'll do it.

Make separate threads for all of them.

Why would I make a bunch of threads if I should first make sure that this idea is viable.

I had an idea, so I made a thread. You can challenge it or support it. This is the essence of the discussions.

All the members of the calculation group could just say, "No, we are not worried about this because the authors do not attach importance to it. Just use direct scaling" and I would close the thread. It's quite simple.

Kind of does because

1. Case-by-case basis
2. May involve a UES
3. May involve a supernaturally strong metal which renders all attempts at calculating true power null and void.

The Tokugawa family katana is an ordinary katana made by craftsmen.
DS blades are blades that are filled with sunlight. They don't ignore durability, but they block the regeneration of demons.
We have no indication of how durable the Atomic Samurai's katana is, however, we know that his fighting style is tied to the sword and he has never shown that he physically scales up to his sword.

 

[KLOL506]

I'm talking about cases where it can be measured, not when it's beyond High 3-A

Calc-stacking. Plain and simple.

I'm afraid to upset you, but no, you got it wrong

Agree to disagree.

I made arguments and there were people who agreed with me. Please stop distorting the facts.

You presume that just because they agreed there they're gonna agree across the entire board?

Okay, I'll do it.

That would include the Wolverine example as well. Remove that also, because the official sources simply do not agree with your claims here.

Why would I make a bunch of threads if I should first make sure that this idea is viable.

Because again, the very idea of piercing damage being viable for use is a case-by-case basis that varies verse-by-verse.

I had an idea, so I made a thread. You can challenge it or support it. This is the essence of the discussions.

Not like this. Especially when you're lumping in multiple verses like this with little to no knowledge on their context or any willingness to include said context.

All the members of the calculation group could just say, "No, we are not worried about this because the authors do not attach importance to it. Just use direct scaling" and I would close the thread. It's quite simple.

If that were all we had to say about this thread, sure. But the thing is, you used examples that just don't work here and tried to lump them all in. Even when you say you want advice on how we can calculate this where possible (Which still can't happen because calc-stacking), you still stuck out on the example where it physically is impossible to implement or downscale from in any way, shape or form (Wolverine's claws).

The Tokugawa family katana is an ordinary katana made by craftsmen.
DS blades are blades that are filled with sunlight. They don't ignore durability, but they block the regeneration of demons.
We have no indication of how durable the Atomic Samurai's katana is, however, we know that his fighting style is tied to the sword and he has never shown that he physically scales up to his sword.

All these examples are incredibly verse-specific and there isn't a single one-method-does-all solution for this. They have to be judged case-by-case, in their own CRTs. Post the arguments you have and see if they hold merit.

 

[NikHelton]

The same thread mod who said the following:

"That's taking things too far- as long as they're generally comparable it's fine to use piercing weapons for that (at least as far as our wiki's very simplified system goes, you are correct in that it would take less effort to cut someone than to hurt them with strikes)- in my opinion it just gets very sketchy when you're scaling to a giant that you're otherwise never shown to be comparable to."

What did he say to me when I gave specific examples? "hun uh" and all that stuff.

Why is it when a character from a verse where there is a number of tier 9-8 feats performing the feat of killing a huge 8-A creature with a hand and a harpoon, directly emphasizing the strength of the hand, does not scale to 8-A.

And when a 7-A character attacks a High 6-A character with his blades, does he scale?

Also, you tried to apply this logic without even reading the context regarding other verses?


I didn't accuse you of hiding stuff, I accused you of throwing shade at those verses to get your CRT to fly through and I accused you of not thoroughly researching the verses before you added them as examples willy-nilly (I don't need to prove the first one and the second one you made abundantly clear to all of us).

"So it's a blatant case of whataboutism and spite. Gotcha."
"you give away your nature to deceive the audience and perform a shadow-downgrade or throw shade at those verses. Kindly refrain from such acts, you already tried your hand in this once in the Baki threads and failed. Do not repeat the same mistake."
"You used them for the basis of your thread to deceive the people. "
"So you're just going to keep lying about your intent then"

Throughout the entire thread, you are trying to make me look like a liar, whereas I initially indicated that I might be wrong in some points

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Dude just accept your thread was badly made and remove the relevant parts. Or better yet lock it and create new ones. Call them Downgrading weapon users: Kimetsu no Yaiba, Atomic Samurai, Miyamoto Musashi(Baki)

 

[NikHelton]

For the record I agree with it and think it was his primary aim which is however logical. Though that doesn't mean Musashi is human without weapons.

No, Musashi wasn't my target. This was an example.

 

[KLOL506]

What did he say to me when I gave specific examples? "hun uh" and all that stuff.

Because he wasn't going to entertain you or your thread.

Why is it when a character from a verse where there is a number of tier 9-8 feats performing the feat of killing a huge 8-A creature with a hand and a harpoon, directly emphasizing the strength of the hand, does not scale to 8-A.

Baki problems again? Take it to a Baki thread, not here. Stop pretending like all verses abide by this logic.

And when a 7-A character attacks a High 6-A character with his blades, does he scale?

Define what do you mean by "does he scale", because you're not being specific here.

"So it's a blatant case of whataboutism and spite. Gotcha."
"you give away your nature to deceive the audience and perform a shadow-downgrade or throw shade at those verses. Kindly refrain from such acts, you already tried your hand in this once in the Baki threads and failed. Do not repeat the same mistake."
"You used them for the basis of your thread to deceive the people. "
"So you're just going to keep lying about your intent then"

Throughout the entire thread, you are trying to make me look like a liar, whereas I initially indicated that I might be wrong in some points

Then don't make terrible threads like these without careful planning or some sort of pet peeve towards a verse, this makes you look spiteful regardless of your intents.

Make separate threads for each verse and have this one closed. Because we're not going to go anywhere from here.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Also everyone please chill.

 

[NikHelton]

You didn't even remove these examples until after repeatedly being told you were misrepresenting these feats altogether, if you truly did imply conventions were at play, you would've at least listed the underlying context behind those feats and you would've argued about what to do with feats that have no such context, instead of rushing head on like this. How am I supposed to take your word at face value after this?

No, I didn't delete it because I didn't have time.

I am not a native English speaker. First I have to translate your message, formulate a response and translate it. While I'm doing this, you have time to write a few more comments.

I just don't have time to respond and edit

Because it's a case-by-case basis situation. Not all feats of piercing damage are created equal. And Piercing Damage feats involving Tier 2/1 structures cannot be downscaled in any way, shape or form. Harm one part of it, you scale to all of it, as infinites cannot be divided.

Yes, that's why I indicated above that I meant those cases when it is computable

 

[NikHelton]

Dude just accept your thread was badly made and remove the relevant parts. Or better yet lock it and create new ones. Call them Downgrading weapon users: Kimetsu no Yaiba, Atomic Samurai, Miyamoto Musashi(Baki)

I have already deleted Wolverine, Dante and Kratos.

I don't understand why he emphasized these characters when I pointed out that it could be explained by convention.

It's not specifically about Dante and Kratos. It's about how the weapon system works.

The problem was created from a source

 

[KLOL506]

No, I didn't delete it because I didn't have time.

I am not a native English speaker. First I have to translate your message, formulate a response and translate it. While I'm doing this, you have time to write a few more comments.

I just don't have time to respond and edit

Fair enough.

Yes, that's why I indicated above that I meant those cases when it is computable

Unfortunately you still wouldn't be able to do it because of our rules on Calc Stacking. Even downwards calc-stacking is forbidden, and we weren't even allowed to do this with IRL projectiles because they're pressure and they'd tend to inflate results quite a lot or be vastly inaccurate (Or the fact that tanks IRL exist). That's the actual reason why we don't do stuff like this.

Stuff like authors not giving a damn, while not as important as the calc-stacking rule above, is another main issue, yes. UES and weapons being supernatural just fall under "context and narrative".

Ultimately, I feel that even if you make separate CRTs for these verses, the above rules will leave you with very limited options to choose from.

 

[Planck69]

What a nonsensical thread. Setting aside that the wiki really isn't on a position to overhaul durability as a whole, even within the remnant examples, you'd still need a relative amount of strength to pierce through durability.

Like, 80% of the examples got debunked on top of that. It kinda does feel like you threw whatever would stick in the hopes your revision would pass.

Like everyone else, I disagree.

 

[NikHelton]

Because he wasn't going to entertain you or your thread.

In that case, why are you giving an example of a person who is not interested in answering me?

Baki problems again? Take it to a Baki thread, not here. Stop pretending like all verses abide by this logic.

Musashi is given as an example. This has been discussed before.

Define what do you mean by "does he scale", because you're not being specific

Okay, it looks like the translator is preventing us from understanding each other.

We have a verse with superhumans who demonstrate the 9-8 tier skills in every possible way. We have a sperm whale that scales up to 8-A through its KE and a character who kills it with a harpoon using his hands while at a depth of between 300-2000 meters underwater. The character emphasizes that he did it with his arm strength. However, this is not enough to scale his harpoon attack to the strength of a sperm whale.

We also have a verse with superhumans where a 7-A tier character impales a High 6-A character with his knives and this scales his knife attack to the strength of the opponent.

Why is one legal and the other not?

Then don't make terrible threads like these without careful planning or some sort of pet peeve towards a verse, this makes you look spiteful regardless of your in

Make separate threads for each verse and have this one closed. Because we're not going to go anywhere from here.tents. here.

It wasn't a massive downgrade of poetry. The essence of the thread is to understand the use of weapons

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

What a nonsensical thread. Setting aside that the wiki really isn't on a position to overhaul durability as a whole, even within the remnant examples, you'd still need a relative amount of strength to pierce through durability.

Like, 80% of the examples got debunked on top of that. It kinda does feel like you threw whatever would stick in the hopes your revision would pass.

Like everyone else, I disagree.

Would you like to give your opinion on the thread that started it?

Unfortunately you still wouldn't be able to do it because of our rules on Calc Stacking. Even downwards calc-stacking is forbidden, and we weren't even allowed to do this with IRL projectiles because they're pressure and they'd tend to inflate results quite a lot or be vastly inaccurate (Or the fact that tanks IRL exist). That's the actual reason why we don't do stuff like this.

Stuff like authors not giving a damn, while not as important as the calc-stacking rule above, is another main issue, yes. UES and weapons being supernatural just fall under "context and narrative".

Ultimately, I feel that even if you make separate CRTs for these verses, the above rules will leave you with very limited options to choose from.

Klol can you elaborate on your point here? I could not pinpoint exactly what you were referring to.

 

[Vzearr]

Agree with the OP.

 

[NikHelton]

Unfortunately you still wouldn't be able to do it because of our rules on Calc Stacking. Even downwards calc-stacking is forbidden, and we weren't even allowed to do this with IRL projectiles because they're pressure and they'd tend to inflate results quite a lot or be vastly inaccurate (Or the fact that tanks IRL exist). That's the actual reason why we don't do stuff like this.

Stuff like authors not giving a damn, while not as important as the calc-stacking rule above, is another main issue, yes. UES and weapons being supernatural just fall under "context and narrative".

Ultimately, I feel that even if you make separate CRTs for these verses, the above rules will leave you with very limited options to choose from.

Okay, it looks like it's just worth scaling the characters to strength, like we did before.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

......

 

[NikHelton]

Agree with the OP.

I forgot the terms. Who is OP?

 

[KLOL506]

We have a verse with superhumans who demonstrate the 9-8 tier skills in every possible way. We have a sperm whale that scales up to 8-A through its KE and a character who kills it with a harpoon using his hands while at a depth of between 300-2000 meters underwater. The character emphasizes that he did it with his arm strength. However, this is not enough to scale his harpoon attack to the strength of a sperm whale.

You can't downscale to find the AP of the Harpoon here using surface area either because then it'd fall under calc-stacking, as the 8-A KE of the whale is a separately calculated durability feat. Even then, there were issues regarding the whale scaling to its tackle into walls in the first place so I am not sure if that's in a concrete enough position to be justified as usable.

We also have a verse with superhumans where a 7-A tier character impales a High 6-A character with his knives and this scales his knife attack to the strength of the opponent.

In this case it's simply the weapon being supernaturally tough or it being a unique weapon with no IRL characteristics to speak of, especially if said blades have been used to consistently harm High 6-A people.

Why is one legal and the other not?

One is an ordinary harpoon. Another is a weapon made of metals not of Earthly origin.

It wasn't a massive downgrade of poetry.

This makes no sense. I'd suggest brushing up on your English skills further.

The essence of the thread is to understand the use of weapons

There's nothing to understand here other than the status quo ante bellum. Weapons are a case-by-case basis. Scaling to them is a case-by-case basis. Downscaling from them from a specified dura feat is a no-no as it is calc-stacking downwards.

 

[Vzearr]

I forgot the terms. Who is OP?

Original Poster

 

[KLOL506]

Klol can you elaborate on your point here? I could not pinpoint exactly what you were referring to.

Gladly.

Say a person has a calculated durability feat.

You then try to find out a weapon's AP by finding the surface area difference between the weapon's tip and the dude's frontal surface area and then you multiply it with the energy.

That'd be considered calc-stacking.

Even if a durability value is stated in-verse, it'd be considered as the same as above, as we have rules prohibiting finding out piercing AP of bullets this way based on their area of impact.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Gladly.

Say a person has a calculated durability feat.

You then try to find out a weapon's AP by finding the surface area difference between the weapon's tip and the dude's frontal surface area and then you multiply it with the energy.

That'd be considered calc-stacking.

Even if a durability value is stated in-verse it'd be considered as such, as we have rules fprohibiting finding out piercing AP of bullets this way based on their area of impact.

So to find the exact ap of the weapon you would take the surface of the weapon and of the body hit and the total ap needed to hurt him and then come up with a result. That result however would be calc stacking and thus prohibited from being used?

Did I sort of get it? I doubt it, but I tried! Thanks for your time anyway!

 

[NikHelton]

You can't downscale to find the AP of the Harpoon here using surface area either because then it'd fall under calc-stacking, as the 8-A KE of the whale is a separately calculated durability feat. Even then, there were issues regarding the whale scaling to its tackle into walls in the first place so I am not sure if that's in a concrete enough position to be justified as usable.

Sperm whales ram each other at full speed in a fight for a female and are able to survive their KE.
Does this make the situation clearer?

In this case it's simply the weapon being supernaturally tough or it being a unique weapon with no IRL characteristics to speak of, especially if said blades have been used to consistently harm High 6-A people.

Okay, I get it. Unknown metals are an exception.

Can we use this logic when a character uses a conventional weapon?

One is an ordinary harpoon. Another is a weapon made of metals not of Earthly origin.

Does the harpoon matter so much when it is performed by a superman?

I mean, we have Saitama, who suppressed the High 6-A attack with compressed magma, Bullseye, who punched a man's head with a tooth spit, and characters who stop bullets with chopsticks

This makes no sense. I'd suggest brushing up on your English skills further.

Yes, I try to do it when I have the opportunity. However, work and study take a lot of energy.
I hope my use of a translator doesn't cause people a lot of problems.

 

[NikHelton]

So to find the exact ap of the weapon you would take the surface of the weapon and of the body hit and the total ap needed to hurt him and then come up with a result. That result however would be calc stacking and thus prohibited from being used?

Did I sort of get it? I doubt it, but I tried! Thanks for your time anyway!

He seems to mean that all we can do is scale the bullet to the full strength of the enemy. Or mark it "likely higher".

At least that's how I understood his idea.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Maybe a thread should be treated in cg discussion in regards to this? Maybe something like: How much does using a weapon affect the feat? You can post the whale thing as an example.

 

[NikHelton]

I think it definitely makes sense.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Yeah so that a precedent can be created for normal weapons.

 

[KLOL506]

Sperm whales ram each other at full speed in a fight for a female and are able to survive their KE.
Does this make the situation clearer?

Either way, the calc-stacking rule would still apply.

Can we use this logic when a character uses a conventional weapon?

Even then it'd be too iffy because again, calc-stacking.

Does the harpoon matter so much when it is performed by a superman?

Depends. Some animals are depicted as tanks, others are depicted as bags of flesh. Mileage may vary, but surface-area derivation is still off-limits.

I mean, we have Saitama, who suppressed the High 6-A attack with compressed magma, Bullseye, who punched a man's head with a tooth spit, and characters who stop bullets with chopsticks

They just scale to stopping the momentum of the oncoming projectile, that's it. It's why we don't rate people anything above 9B for being invulnerable to bullets (We used to but that proved to be severely flawed and inflated so here we are).

Maybe a thread should be treated in cg discussion in regards to this? Maybe something like: How much does using a weapon affect the feat? You can post the whale thing as an example.

I doubt it would end any differently than it did here, those would also fall under potential cases of calc-stacking downwards or using unofficial multipliers not implied within the narrative, normal weapons or supernatural, doesn't make a difference. Assumptions are to be avoided as much as possible here.

 

[KLOL506]

So to find the exact ap of the weapon you would take the surface of the weapon and of the body hit and the total ap needed to hurt him and then come up with a result. That result however would be calc stacking and thus prohibited from being used?

Yes.

 

[NikHelton]

Either way, the calc-stacking rule would still apply.

I meant. Scale scale If a sperm whale scales up to its KE and is able to survive it, and a superman with a harpoon is able to kill it using his physical strength and a harpoon, then does it scale?

It shouldn't be stacking

 

[KLOL506]

I meant. Scale scale If a sperm whale scales up to its KE and is able to survive it, and a superman with a harpoon is able to kill it using his physical strength and a harpoon, then does it scale?

In the lack of better options, maybe. Maybe not.

It shouldn't be stacking

The mere scaling aspect wouldn't be stacking, yes, but the idea of trying to downscale AP from that using surface area would be stacking.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

I doubt it would end any differently than it did here, those would also fall under potential cases of calc-stacking downwards or using unofficial multipliers not implied within the narrative, normal weapons or supernatural, doesn't make a difference. Assumptions are to be avoided as much as possible here.

So how are weapons tackled? Two different values with and without weapon? Like 9-A without weapons, 8-B with weapons ( able to harm beings with such durability) and durability remaining the same?

 

[NikHelton]

So how are weapons tackled? Two different values with and without weapon? Like 9-A without weapons, 8-B with weapons ( able to harm beings with such durability) and durability remaining the same?

I think it makes sense.

However, if we emphasize that it was the strength of a fighter, not a weapon, and he is able to simulate it with his bare hands, then he must scale completely

 

[KLOL506]

So how are weapons tackled? Two different values with and without weapon?

Using ordinary swords, if you were to try and cut up big strong metal statues or other structures, realistically, the blade would break in half or warp from the impact. In cases like these, more often than not, you'd need more raw power in your hands than rely on the blade alone to cut through anything. You sacrifice toughness of the blade for maintaining a sharp and good edge.

Like 9-A without weapons, 8-B with weapons ( able to harm beings with such durability) and durability remaining the same?

Again, it depends. By default however, we accept that ordinary IRL weapons do not make you stronger (That's impossible), but rather they increase the efficiency of your energy transfer. At the same time however, there's no way you're gonna be below 9-B physically for slicing a tank in half just because you used a sword, you still need to be strong enough to push that blade through all that metal (Which would require a fair bit of rapid LS which would like, count towards several tons of pressure applied over a specific displacement which translates to joules done by the raw body). Context like this also matters massively. It's like botching up a beheading stint because you didn't put enough muscle into the chop with the axe. Also, hardly would you see someone slicing tanks to pieces and not being able to punch through walls.

However, if we emphasize that it was the strength of a fighter, not a weapon, and he is able to simulate it with his bare hands, then he must scale completely

Simulating tank splitting with bare hands and splitting a tank with a blade are going to be the same beast. They'll still require you to output more or less the same amount of strength here because tank armor is built for high-impact stuff like this. If you don't have the physical might that blade is either going to get stuck midway or it's literally going to warp or outright break in half.

This of course, assumes that ordinary blades are being used. So again, case-by-case.

 

[NikHelton]

Using ordinary swords, if you were to try and cut up big strong metal statues or other structures, realistically, the blade would break in half or warp from the impact. In cases like these, more often than not, you'd need more raw power in your hands than rely on the blade alone to cut through anything. You sacrifice toughness of the blade for maintaining a sharp and good edge.


Again, it depends. By default however, we accept that ordinary IRL weapons do not make you stronger (That's impossible), but rather they increase the efficiency of your energy transfer. At the same time however, there's no way you're gonna be below 9-B physically for slicing a tank in half just because you used a sword, you still need to be strong enough to push that blade through all that metal (Which would require a fair bit of rapid LS which would like, count towards several tons of pressure applied over a specific displacement which translates to joules done by the raw body). Context like this also matters massively. It's like botching up a beheading stint because you didn't put enough muscle into the chop with the axe. Also, hardly would you see someone slicing tanks to pieces and not being able to punch through walls.


Simulating tank splitting with bare hands and splitting a tank with a blade are going to be the same beast. They'll still require you to output more or less the same amount of strength here because tank armor is built for high-impact stuff like this. If you don't have the physical might that blade is either going to get stuck midway or it's literally going to warp or outright break in half.

This of course, assumes that ordinary blades are being used. So again, case-by-case.

In that case, can I use scaling to the strength of a sperm whale? This is not an outlier, as the verse already has skills of this level

 

[KLOL506]

In that case, can I use scaling to the strength of a sperm whale? This is not an outlier, as the verse already has skills of this level

Maybe, but hash it out with the verse experts and other calc members who do have an in-depth knowledge about the verse, and in the Baki thread no less. Not here.

 

[Serlock_Holmes]

Maybe, but hash it out with the verse experts and other calc members who do have an in-depth knowledge about the verse, and in the Baki thread no less. Not here.

Oh just a heads up but the sperm whale is in Kengan. Which flows into another matter I wanted to bring up.

Using ordinary swords, if you were to try and cut up big strong metal statues or other structures, realistically, the blade would break in half or warp from the impact. In cases like these, more often than not, you'd need more raw power in your hands than rely on the blade alone to cut through anything. You sacrifice toughness of the blade for maintaining a sharp and good edge.


Again, it depends. By default however, we accept that ordinary IRL weapons do not make you stronger (That's impossible), but rather they increase the efficiency of your energy transfer. At the same time however, there's no way you're gonna be below 9-B physically for slicing a tank in half just because you used a sword, you still need to be strong enough to push that blade through all that metal (Which would require a fair bit of rapid LS which would like, count towards several tons of pressure applied over a specific displacement which translates to joules done by the raw body). Context like this also matters massively. It's like botching up a beheading stint because you didn't put enough muscle into the chop with the axe. Also, hardly would you see someone slicing tanks to pieces and not being able to punch through walls.


Simulating tank splitting with bare hands and splitting a tank with a blade are going to be the same beast. They'll still require you to output more or less the same amount of strength here because tank armor is built for high-impact stuff like this. If you don't have the physical might that blade is either going to get stuck midway or it's literally going to warp or outright break in half.

This of course, assumes that ordinary blades are being used. So again, case-by-case.

This is good and all, but it concerns metal. What about flesh as in the point of the sperm whale? Does it scale? Does it not? Humans can kill whales with spears like in the Faroe Islands, but it's usually more death by a thousand cuts. How should this be tackled? Maybe another crt concerning the feat in question?