Durability of the Gems

[Ricsi-viragosi]

It doesnt have to inflict High 6-A damage, hell Tornado of Terror never inflicted High 6-C damage with her TK but she's still High 6-C with it, she's High 6-C for stopping a High 6-C attack with her TK

No, those bombs are 7-B tops. She is tier 6 for the amount of kinetic energh she noped and reproduced with absolute ease.

 

[Gojira1234]

Yeah the only reason Alexandrite unfused is because while she was being restrained, the Gems were probably trying to unfuse to get out of it.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Ricsi Yes, that is what i said. She stopped the KE of them which was High 6-C

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

They do when the weapon in question was specifically made to restrain and not to attack, was specifically shown not to do any damage to the target when used, and the closest thing the weapons has to an actual attack is the user throwing the opponent around, which doesn't even use the weapon's power source to its advantage, and isn't a High 6-A attack since both Pearl and Steven survived it.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

She stopped and reproduced it. It had nothing to do with the attacks tier.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

You dont need to damage the opponent for you to have an AP rating, restraining someone of a certain level is enough

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Not when you can't damage them in any way after you restrain them.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

If the weapon can't damage, it's like saying I'm 9-B with nets than can restrict animals.

 

[Wokistan]

Restraining would be more lifting strength type stuff. You can't really produce much KE if you can't move in the first place.

Also pearl would have to be absurdly heavy for throwing her to be relevant, since iirc she doesn't have flight that could complicate things there. Ik it's not the main feat, but having something that much lower next to it seems weird.

 

[Antoniofer]

Yeah, conventional restraing is related to lifting strength, one with TK can ragdoll someone millions of times stronger as long its weight is below the lifting strength of the psychic.

 

[Wokistan]

Well it'd be weird to have AP millions of times stronger and shit tier lifting strength, unless they did it through like a weapon or magic or something else.

Then again, Warhammer exists.

 

[Antoniofer]

And so is DB, but that is derailing.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

If you're best lifting feat is lifting a planet but your best destructive feat is sinking an island with a punch, that doesn't mean you're island level with planetary lifting strength. In that case the lifting feat can scale to AP.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Wok It was in fact done through a weapon

 

[CinnabarManx421]

Indeed. Aquamarine's wand.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Aquamarine's wand isn't an offensive weapon, it doesn't do any damage, it was specifically made to immobilize, and weaker characters like Pearl or Steven can survive being thrown around by her, there's really no reason it should be listed as AP.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Except Pearl and Steven couldnt do anything and were completely helpless when she used the wand on her

 

[Antoniofer]

That still do not translate to AP, if the wand paralyse then of course they wouldn't be able to move, no mater the AP.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

And neither of them took any damage when she used the wand on them, because being restrained by the wand does not do any damage to the target whatsoever, since it is not an offensive weapon.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Doesnt matter if they took damage or not, the weapon has a clearly defined AP

Once again a double standard used against SU

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

> Attack Potency

> "It doesn't matter if you can't use it to attack."

Wat?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Star Trek has ships that are tier 5 with tractor beams

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Go complain to Star Trek fans who wrote that.

 

[Antoniofer]

The stat is still misleading, whoever reads the profile will think that anyone that is affected by the wand whose durability is <<High 6-A will be disintegrated when the really is that it just going inmovilize it with no notable damage.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Paulo How about stop pushing a double standard and use what we accept on this wiki as an AP rating

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Antonio Except they wont because its not worded that way at all

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

"Also, kindly remember that Attack Potency is the measure of Destructive Capacity of an attack, and as such, is measured via its energy damage equivalent."

 

[Antoniofer]

Take into account that removing the High 6-A measure from the profile will not change how her powers works at all, it just better cuz we generally associate paralysis inducement with hax rather than AP.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Paulo them make a CRT about removing all uses of tractor beams as AP because a lot of characters and vehicles use it as a rating

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

I'm only talking about Aquamarine right now, if any other page uses an innacurate definition of AP, that's the page's problem, not mine; as I've said, if you have a problem with Star Trek ratings, go complain to Star Trek fans who wrote that.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Paulo I have no problem with the pages, youre the one who does. You need to make a CRT otherwise youre arguing against the regulations of the wiki itself.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

"Also, kindly remember that Attack Potency is the measure of Destructive Capacity of an attack, and as such, is measured via its energy damage equivalent."

You mean these regulations?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

I mean the regulations that permit using tractor beam feats as AP. If you dont like it youre the one who needs to make a CRT about it.

 

[Paulo.junior.969]

Just show me where these regulations are written, in fact, I have no idea why you didn't do so four hours ago when this discussion first started.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I mean the regulations that permit using tractor beam feats as AP. If you dont like it youre the one who needs to make a CRT about it.

No, the regulation litirally only says destructive force. Someone breaking the rules does not mean that they are right.

The rules verbatum say that it needs to be destructive, so do you have some better reasoning then others did it?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Its not 'someone breaking the rules' its 'we accept tractor beams as legitimate AP feats'. Hell if an AP feat needed a feat of destroying something to be considered AP we would have banned storm feats entirely a long time ago.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

The power needs to be aplicable to destruction.

A storm feat is if it isn't proven that it is equatable to their AP.

Again, a net isn't 9-B in AP.

 

[ApiesDeathbyLazors]

TL;DRed the thread so I've no idea why tractor beams are being talked about, but wouldn't tractor beams be lifting strength, which I've been informed isn't usually scalable to AP?

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Because in this case it is both lifting strength ans AP as the lifting strength it overpowered is Class Z

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

AP is attack potency.

If it doesn't attack, merely inca0acitates, it is not ap.. Again, a web is not 9-B.