Fate Servant Tiering CRT

[DragonEmperor23]

A continuation of this thread but with a different main topic. Now, it has been pointed out that the calc for Berserker knocking away a 7-A Excaliblast is now outdated and invalid by the current standards of the wiki. A search for 7-A feats to maintain the current tiers for Servants has resulted in the finding for moutain busting statements for Mordred and Heracles along with a recalc of a different cloud clearing feat being worked on. Another proposal was to downscale Servants from High 7-A Arcueid.

Off the 7-A topic but still on Servant tiering, the 6-C tiering for some Servant Noble Phantasm comes from scaling to or above Spartacus's Noble Phantasm. However, it's description doesn't nessecaraily denote 6-C."(Annihilated half of the Fortress of Millennia and covered an entire battlefield. The attack was compared to a calamity like an earthquake and tsunami.). Fortunately, there's a calc for Arjuna's Gandiva that results in 6-C AP. This feat could be evaluated here and then applied as reasoning for the Noble Phantasms that scale.

The main purpose of this is to find more feats that support the tiering and solidify exactly how far into the tiers Servants are.

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

The calc will be done tomorrow.

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

Also I disagree with the High 7-A calc Don't Talk pointed out that's its wrong and hasn't been evaluated by calc members. Arjuna's 6-C feat also needs to be looked at by calc members here, preferably someone should make a blog here and have it evaluated.

 

[Schnee_One]

Even if their is a mountain busting statement it's very vague as to what mountain busting means in context.

If Sabers feat gets say, 7B, it's staying at 7B, as Hercules deflected it but still gets hurt by her normal attacks, albeit she downscales

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

There was also the statement that Excalibur Morgan attacks with "the power to destroy a mountaint." While it is true that not all attacks that destroy mountains are mountain level, they only fall bellow mountain level if you take some of the absolute smallest mountains and use shattering values, but it is a well known fact that Excalibur at the very least vaporizes so it already puts it into mountain range

 

[Schnee_One]

If the Excaliblast reaches less then 7A, the mountain busting statement is irrelevant as Saber still managed to hurt Heracles despite him deflecting the blast.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Even if their is a mountain busting statement it's very vague as to what mountain busting means in context.
If Sabers feat gets say, 7B, it's staying at 7B, as Hercules deflected it but still gets hurt by her normal attacks, albeit she downscales

Clarent Blood Arthur valirpizes, so we know how it destroys.

Neither Excalibur, nor CBA use shattering to destroy, they all vaporize. so the mountain statements would at the very least be 7-A

 

[Schnee_One]

Vaporizing a massive Chunk of a mountain is 7B.

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

Proof that CBA vaporizes? I'm aware that Excalibur can but I don't recall CBA doing the same. As for the statements they require a decent amount of assumptions.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

I talked to some of the calc group members on the thread with the discussion of the mountain levels ranges, and they said the only way a mountain destroying attack wouldn't be 7-A is if it was the smallest of mountains and the attacks had to be shattering it. If it is just destroying some chunk of a mountain that isn't valid then it doesn't disregard the statements, because destroying the chunk of a mountain is not destroying a mountain, and CBA was destroying a mountain range, not a singular mountain.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Proof that CBA vaporizes? I'm aware that Excalibur can but I don't recall CBA doing the same. As for the statements they require a decent amount of assumptions.

Those kinds of sword attacks in general vaporize, not pulverize

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

It doesn't work like that. You need proof to say that CBA can vaporize things. Just because it's a sword beam doesn't mean it can vaporize like how Excalibur can. That's faulty and flawed logic.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

CBA specifically was described as being at least comparable in value/power to Excalibur, and it not vaporizing while excalibur does would make it less valuable. Therefore, it must vaporize

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

Not quite. Excalibur being able to vaporize things doesn't mean that CBA can also vaporize things. Fallacy by Association, if it's not stated that it can vaporize then it can't be assumed to vaporize. I guess anything comparable to Excalibur means that they can vaporize. It doesn't work like that, not to mention that CBA is specifically said to leave things as dust, and that's while clashing against another powerful NP such as Sieg's. I.E CBA can pulverize, not vaporize. Attempting to scale CBA to every aspect to Excalibur is wonky and is the equivalent of me saying that Kizaru and Kuzan can vaporize things just because Akainu via scaling.

 

[Schnee_One]

Pointing out yet again that if the Cloud feat is calced lower then 7A then the statement gets contradicted as Saber can still hurt Berzerker despite being strong enough to deflect it

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

No, its not. One thing vaporizing while the other cannot puts higher value on the previous. For example, since CBA does not vaporize, it will not destroy something like the giant horror completely, unless CBA was somehow stronger to cancel out the deficit of not being able to vaporize. Since we know they are comparable in power, and comparable in value, it must either share the effects of vaporization, or have some other, similar effect, but the latter requires more speculation.

 

[Schnee_One]

A giant horror?

Which one? Casters?

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

Again, being comparable doesn't mean CBA can vaporize. It just means that they should be around the same level of strength, Excalibur has been shown to vaporize things meanwhile CBA hasn't. CBA wouldn't need to vaporize the Giant Horror, simply blowing it to chunks or pulverizing it would do the job. Again, this scaling is flawed and isn't supported by any of Clarent Blood Arthur's showings. Once more, saying that CBA can vaporize is flawed and only supported via speculation. I'm also pretty sure CBA is outright weaker than Excalibur.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Yeah, that is the one I was referencing

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

I don't know how relevant it is.... but i took a picture of it... this came from the new PS4 game Fate/Extella Link. "It's slashes can cut through anything, including light ."... I copied this from a comment on made from another thread on the wiki..

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

You can't vaporize light so that doesn't mean much. Now let's compare the feats and showing of Clarent Blood Arthur and Excalibur shall we? Cite both of the descriptions of CBA and Excalibur.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

You can't vaporize it, but it shows that exetall link saber might be capable of destroying things on a smaller scale like photon particles.. maybe?????

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Again, being comparable doesn't mean CBA can vaporize. It just means that they should be around the same level of strength, Excalibur has been shown to vaporize things meanwhile CBA hasn't. CBA wouldn't need to vaporize the Giant Horror, simply blowing it to chunks or pulverizing it would do the job. Again, this scaling is flawed and isn't supported by any of Clarent Blood Arthur's showings. Once more, saying that CBA can vaporize is flawed and only supported via speculation. I'm also pretty sure CBA is outright weaker than Excalibur.

No, because they are not just comparable in strength, they are comparable in value. One being able to vaporize while the other one can means the previous is worth less than the latter unless the latter has some way to make up for it, which it doesn't. The Horror was just my example, and I just realised that we do not have a Regenerationn level listed. My point was that Excalibur being able to destroy an enemy that requires vaporization while CBA cannot, means Excalibur is worth more. I am not working off of speculation, I am working off of clear statements, which it is supported by. The guides state CBA is at the very least comparable in value, so unless CBA can compensate in other ways than power, then they must be comparable in power

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

Feats >> statements and can I get the statement from said guide? Not all statements are valid especially whenever there's nothing to support the said statements. In the verse, Excalibur is stronger than Clarent Blood Arthur and has much better feats. Again, using Excalibur to say that Clarent Blood Arthur can vaporize is blatantly false. The statement of CBA being comparable to Excalibur is shaky. Especially whenever you match the descriptions for both attacks, CBA is never stated to vaporize and we have outright statements of CBA being an attack that pulverizes, not vaporize. Going by feats and lore Excalibur is stronger than Clarent. Give me scans of CBA ever matching Excalibur or mentioning that it can vaporize.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Yes, feats are usually superior to statements, but no feats contradict it outright unless other interpretations are added. When the conextistence of the consistency of feats and statements can exist, we should default for that. Here are the statements:

" The sword denoting the right of succession of the throne that was stored in King Arthur's armory. It is described as "more dazzling than any silver, and is a treasured sword with worth excelling or at least not inferior to "The Golden Sword of Promised Victory." "

While Clarent's normal power is limited to a lower rank when it is in its normal state, but CBA is Clarent's full power released. If Excalibur does fall above CBA in power, then CBA must have something that compensates it in other ways. I gave you statements straight out of the guide

 

[Schnee_One]

The feat hasn't even been recalced yet

Why are we saying there are no contradictions?

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

There's a massive contradiction from the Light Novel itself and multiple sources stating that Excalibur is outright stronger than CBA.

"It is time for your execution. Come, meet an end worthy of an imitation, Black Saber-!"

Red Saber raised her grotesque sword.

It was clear to any who saw that it would be a killing blow-

"...I come."

Black Saber, just as before, stood and faced her directly without any hesitation. Whether he had a winning chance or not meant nothing to him.

...It needed to be done. Black Saber understood that. He was not risking his life, because he had no life to risk to begin with. The orange light and blood radiance swelled instantly. The whirling air around them screamed, letting all around them know that the two Noble Phantasms were completely released. They were truly the swords of legend. They thundered, as the stuff of dreams, phantasms which slaughtered foes and pierced demons in the hands of heroes who raced across the fields of battle. In their hands were swords. They were two Servants of the Saber class. And they were both of them, enemies whom the other must defeat. Twilight and crimson lightning raced out and crashed into each other. The two streams of light, like surging waves with simply the purpose of destruction, attempted to swallow one another. It was the most unlikely scene possible in the history written by man. It was a clash of two deadly Noble Phantasms, from two heroes who were born in different eras and flourished in different lands. Light filled the space and annihilated everything in the surrounding area. The golems and skeletons crowding around them were overcome and faded into dust. Everyone who witnessed this majestic, unrelenting scene swallowed their breath. The space filled with Red and orange seemed as though it was declaring the end of the world. However, all stories must have an end. The light that had only swelled began to calm, and disappeared like specks of dust


I.E not vaporization. That's outright pulverization. CBA's best feat is pulverizing Fodder, and that's when clashing against another powerful NP.


Now let's compare the faulty CBA statement to Excalibur.

Excalibur: Sword of Promised Victory (þ┤äµØƒÒüòÒéîÒüƒÕïØÕê®Òü«ÕëúÒé¿Òé»Òé╣Òé½Òâ¬ÒâÉÒâ╝, Yakusokusareta Shōri no KenEkusukarib─ü?) is the strongest and most majestic holy sword that symbolizes King Arthur. As that which can be called the physical actualization of her ideals and the symbol of her heroism, it is her greatest and most powerful Noble Phantasm. Excalibur is a Divine Construct, the pinnacle of holy swords, and the strongest holy sword whose equal is the strongest demonic sword Gram


Already there's a massive inconsistency between the two swords.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Well then, that answers it. Since they are equivolent in value, but one is superior in strength, so the other attributes must make up for it in some way. That must means that the capacity to vaporize must be superior to that of excalibur.

You forget that the attack was not just Mordred's. Balmung was there too, so that must be due to Balmungs doing that that part of the blast does not vaporize in the totality

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

You're using quite a bit of speculation and assumptions now. CBA isn't the equivalent to Excalibur, it's weaker. It's weaker, has lower feats and it's best destruction valued ever achieved was pulverization and that's not even taking into consideration that Sieg's NP also contributed to the destruction and it was only done to Fodder Skeletons and Golems. So given how incredibly the statement is, CBA cannot be assumed to be able to vaporize like how Excalibur can. Excalibur has actual feats of vaporizing things, CBA does not. Also value has nothing to do with AP, in the slightest.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

I personally disagree with the fact that CBA vapes. However, I am of the mind that there's no reason that Excalibur can't affect an area quite as big.

And considering how in FGO Mordred mentions she could have indeed destroyed a mountain, and Arash agrees entirely, I am inclined to agree as well. This is the same dude that has acquired some measure of Future Sight and Mind Reading due to Clairvoyance Rank A, so I trust his word.

Finally, NPs aside, Aoko got a 7-A result from a feat she pulls off. This is not even Red, super empowered Aoko who could just punch through Touko's amped traps, this is normal Aoko who was having trouble with her sister. I would really, really, really find it odd they don't scale above her no matter how good Aoko is at blasting things in her base form.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

You're using quite a bit of speculation and assumptions now. CBA isn't the equivalent to Excalibur, it's weaker. It's weaker, has lower feats and it's best destruction valued ever achieved was pulverization and that's not even taking into consideration that Sieg's NP also contributed to the destruction and it was only done to Fodder Skeletons and Golems. So given how incredibly the statement is, CBA cannot be assumed to be able to vaporize like how Excalibur can. Excalibur has actual feats of vaporizing things, CBA does not. Also value has nothing to do with AP, in the slightest.

Not really speculation, just working with ways that does not toss out statements and feats. It diretly states they are at the very least equivolent in value, you cannot toss out statements just cuz they do not fit with your hypothesis. The statement comes straight from the guides, it is very credible and direct. AP very much has to do with value. Something with a lower AP is worth less than something with higher AP unless other factors make up for that.

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

Value doesn't equate to AP. Them being comparable in value is actually irrelevant seeing as how it has nothing to do with Attack Potency. And the statement itself is outright inconsistent whenever other sources state that Excalibur is stronger. And no factors make up for it, CBA is outright inferior to Excalibur via feats, lore and statements. Again, CBA does not vaporize like how Excalibur can. Aside from one faulty statement that's incredibly inconsistent you have no proof that it can vaporize meanwhile there's multiple pieces of evidence going against CBA being able to vaporize. And if I'm being honest here this does seem like a wanked argument to try to avoid a 7-A downgrade and anything lower than 7-B.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

No, but AP does have a lot to do with value, when the primary usage of a weapon is how good it can kill, and a weapon that can destroy less than another has less value, unless the other weapon has other things that can compensate. It isn't contradictory, it just means that it must make up in other ways, so CBE being somewhat weaker and them being equal is value are not mutually exclusive. CBE being able to vaporize just as good if not more makes up for the loss in value from the AP. The only counter points you make do not necesarilly contradict what I have raised unless you read your own interpretation into them. Your perception is irrelevent and wrong.

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

Your arguments literally do not make any sense and all they come down to at this point is "No u." that's not a way to debate. You're outright ignoring statements being incredibly inconsistent and the fact that CBA is nowhere close to being able to vaporize through shown feats. Her best feat of destruction is pulverizing and that's only done to Fodder. Excalibur is quite literally stated to be the strongest and has been shown to vaporize. CBA on the other hand isn't as strong as Excalibur and has zero feats of vaporizing anything. You keep refusing to actually accept this and continue to say that Clarent Blood Arthur can indeed vaporize whenever that's clearly not the case.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

The only reason I would consider the possibility of CBA vaporizing is Anon mentioning how a ton of mana tends to cause a lot of heat, which I do agree with. But we have the entirety of FGO and Fate Apocrypha to look for every time she ends up using CBA to confirm instead of back and forths and speculations.

I already gave my reasons above for why I think the tiers will likely remain, or should remain, the same except for some variation of actual values.

 

[Iapitus_The_Impaler]

Your arguments do the same in an equivolent capacity. I ignored none of your statements, and none of the counter examples you made are mutually exclusive with my points. CBA already has shown the ability to destroy mountain ranges, so it isn't tgonna be on the low end even if you decided to try for pulverization. You keep saying "It doesn't have feats! It doesn't have feats!" but that has literally anything to do with what is being argued. No body is claiming to be working from raw feats. Way to smash that argument that no body made. The arguments are from statements that you attempt to dismis as inconsistent when none of what you has brought dismisses them unless you read your own interpretation into it. Attempting to dismis the source material, and claim that it is inconsistent when a perfectly consistent and just as valid if not more likely, just because you want to maintain your own head canon

 

[Rin_The_Dragon_Empress]

You've outright ignored the statements and entry's I've posted above. Both of which completely go against the idea of CBA being able to vaporize things like Excalibur can. I'm not using my own interpretation I'm going by shown feats and statements that aren't inconsistent. Neither am I using head canons, you're the one who's inserting your own idea of how CBA works without any real means of support. The statement of CBA being comparable to Excalibur is indeed inconsistent whenever the other statements don't match up. Please don't ignore things just because it suits your arguments better. You have yet to explain how that single statement holds more weight than the other statements and the entry of CBA only reducing Fodder to dust, along with its shown feats. I don't care about the size of the mountain or if it's a mountain range or not. What I do care about is using faulty and flawed statements in order to wank a 7-A feat to a 6-C feat without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

You two are really going in circles right now.

 

[AguilaR101]

It doesn't really matter if an attack has vaporized things in the past, we don't assume that attacks always do the same level of destruction when calculating feats. If there is no explicit statement of a technique vaporizing something during an specific feat we don't assume it does, simple as as that.

 

[LSirLancelotDuLacl]

Excalibur does consistently vaporize things though, even versions from earlier drafts like Prototype or imitations of it like the Excalibur of Saber from Strange Fake. I just don't personally care about CBA.