Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, limiters are the mechanism. In one punch man verse the only reason any person has an upper limit is because they were born with a power limiter. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the limiter removal shouldn’t allow him to copy 3-A. The statements are there, the limiter removal is there, and had this been any other situation then you probably would have already agreed about it, but this just feels like clinging on to nlf just because “well if they didn’t show it then it MUST be impossible”. The reason things get discarded as nlf in the first place is because statements of invincibility and absolute power can be considered outliers or just be considered as being “effectively invincible” when it comes to nothing in the verse being able to stop them. In this situation, the lack of limiter is directly supported by consistent and reliable statements, the graph of exponential growth, and the character already having massive tier jumps to Saitama’s level, who was previously considered the comedically insurmountable meme tier god of the verse that could sneeze away the entire hero association along with the strongest villains from every arc combined. And yet despite all of that, you think that we should just make his copying useless in vs threads, being watered down to the useless “likely far higher” nonexistent amp as far as the standards or whatever are concerned.We don't count statements of Invulnerability as working on 3-As unless there's a mechanism provided. That's not a matter of them needing the means to reach that, and those sorts of statements have the same sorts of "limitless" terminology.
That is not a sufficient mechanism. "I'm invulnerable because magic makes me invulnerable" is not a mechanism, and so does not qualify. There needs to be a real logical throughline.Yes, limiters are the mechanism.
I don't know why that would make it useless in threads. It just lowers the amount of opponents it could work on to those close to his best feats.And yet despite all of that, you think that we should just make his copying useless in vs threads, being watered down to the useless “likely far higher” nonexistent amp as far as the standards or whatever are concerned.
There’s a couple issuesFor abilities that rely on joule values (copying strength, blocking attacks, reflecting attacks), we tend to say that characters can't go beyond their best feat unless there's a canonical explanation for how it works that seems like it would go beyond that.
That's also why we don't consider "durability negation" and "invulnerability" to work on 3-A attacks unless there's a good mechanism given for the ability that would logically allow that.
I may have missed something in my quick read of the thread, but I didn't see any explanation of how Garou's power copying works that would meet that definition, so I'm against this change.
This isn't a real issue. Invulnerability entails not being harmed by things you otherwise would be, attack reflection entails reflecting attacks, durability negation entails hurting regardless of durability. Still, we only let these abilities work on arbitrarily strong opponents if they have a good mechanism.There’s a couple issues
The first being that the ability itself and what it entails is specifically related to going beyond their previous best. Garou is simply just copying the very power of someone so I don’t know why the previous peak of his power would be the cap if his ability literally entails disregarding his own power to copy the power of someone else.
He still has the ability, and it could come up in some situations. If someone made him weaker, he'd be able to copy back up.The second is that to say this, that means you essentially have to remove Garou’s power mimicry of AP from his profile. If you assume Garou’s power mimicry caps out at what he previously copied before then that means he simply no longer has the ability to copy someone’s AP according to that. So it’d straight up have to be removed from his profile from his 4A higher key, which I guess would need its own CRT too.
The ability exists, it's just limited at what it shows canonically.To put it simply: if I have a character who has the power of copying the AP of someone by 100x. And he does so. Then I make a vs thread with that character against someone who’s again 100x stronger than himself, you’d essentially say that the character cannot copy someone 100x stronger than him because that person is 100x stronger than himself. It really wouldn’t make sense given the context of the series and would essentially result in just having to say that the ability to copy someone’s AP simply does exist.
Like I said, limiters are the only things in-verse that allow characters to have an upper limit.That is not a sufficient mechanism. "I'm invulnerable because magic makes me invulnerable" is not a mechanism, and so does not qualify. There needs to be a real logical throughline.
I don't know why that would make it useless in threads. It just lowers the amount of opponents it could work on to those close to his best feats.
His copying being able to boost him to 3-A wouldn't make him able to one-shot a 3-B character; he'd just copy them and be as strong as them. It wouldn't be any more useful against a 4-A than the interpretation I support would be.
I don't think "limiter removal" is a coherent enough means. Just like how, a few months ago, I had people asserting that "Sonic becoming Super Sonic IS the means!", yet I denied that. And just like how, a few years ago, I had people asserting that "The swords being magic IS the means!", yet I denied that.Like I said, limiters are the only things in-verse that allow characters to have an upper limit.
Your argument is essentially “well they can’t have no limits because we don’t know the means through which that makes them limitless” when you don’t seem to understand that the limiter removal IS the means. You are trying to add a limit that doesn’t exist.
Invulnerability requires you taking force from an attack, attack reflection requires you to reflect an attack of x amount of AP, durability negation can be done through simply negating the AP of the attack, each of these moves operate fundamentally different than Garou’s power mimicry as each move is based solely on the capability of the user for withstanding the force of the attack by some means. Garou’s capability as a user wouldn’t really matter, his previous peak wouldn’t either since his specific power is to gain the power of others.This isn't a real issue. Invulnerability entails not being harmed by things you otherwise would be, attack reflection entails reflecting attacks, durability negation entails hurting regardless of durability. Still, we only let these abilities work on arbitrarily strong opponents if they have a good mechanism.
He would not have the ability. It would only be situational at best, but as for his actual profile and keys, no it would actually have to removed from his profile.He still has the ability, and it could come up in some situations. If someone made him weaker, he'd be able to copy back up.
It actually wouldn’t since for Garou’s 4A higher key, you’d have to remove the ability from that key. To just say that the ability no longer works anymore. Since that was the “limit” he showed canonically, therefore he doesn’t have the ability anymore. So anyone of any metric stronger than Garou, Garou cannot copy their AP from that point on. They can be 1.5x stronger than himself or 150x stronger than himself, but either way the ability itself would have to be removed from that key from Garou’s profile. Going back to the x character with 100x stronger ability. Say his keys are idk 6C and 6B or whatever, his 6B key would have to have the ability removed from his profile since according to this standard, he doesn’t have the ability anymore. Which I think would be a more unreasonable or illogical claimThe ability exists, it's just limited at what it shows canonically.
If you think that's saying that the ability doesn't exist, then we, I guess, already do that for a lot of supposed invulnerability/durability negation in fiction.
You do know that makes 0 sense. Saitama is passively increasing his growth so garou can't keep up while garou is manually doing it. Anytime garou did it, saitama would increase it by far more. It literally was stated that it happened until no one could match up to his strength.If he can copy any AP, then saitama Evolution won't have mattered, as the AP he gained from that boost will just be copied, but he gets left in the dust.
Ill use ice instead. If I am stated to be immune to the ice element many times. Why would I not be immune to someone who is a higher tier than me but only uses freezing abilities that makes 0 sense.What does it mean to be "immune to light"? If it's that vague it would be disregarded, because 3-A light would have carry 3-A amounts of energy that would wreck the character.
We also don't take the word "immunity" very seriously. We don't consider characters who withstand 2000 degree fires and are called "immune to heat" to be able to withstand 10^26 degree fires.
Garou=grass levelThe cope about Garou not being 1-A is the only thing "limitless" here
Power mimicry requires you to be able to attain and handle that amount of joules within your body. As such, I think my comparisons are still apt.Invulnerability requires you taking force from an attack, attack reflection requires you to reflect an attack of x amount of AP, durability negation can be done through simply negating the AP of the attack, each of these moves operate fundamentally different than Garou’s power mimicry as each move is based solely on the capability of the user for withstanding the force of the attack by some means. Garou’s capability as a user wouldn’t really matter, his previous peak wouldn’t either since his specific power is to gain the power of others.
Durability negation is just a specific ability, a power that allows the user to ignore the opponent's durability. Yet we still need an actual mechanism to assume that it works on 3-As.As I said each other move operates fundamentally different than Garou’s copying ability. In the case of invulnerability or attack reflection, it’s simply the force of the attack is higher than what those abilities have shown to withstand or tank. But Garou’s is just a specific ability he has, a power that allows him to get the power and strength of others.
No, it'd be possible, it'd just require a mechanism that could be reasonably extended that far. Kakegae Yuzuriha can take the concept of herself, and replace it with the concept of another person, transforming into them, making her as strong as them and giving her all of their abilities. The limits for that would be the other character resisting conceptual manipulation, or lacking a concept. We know from the way it works that it functions through hax instead of AP, which should at least apply to all 3-D beings that don't resist the ability.Furthermore, using this train of logic, it would be fundamentally impossible to prove someone has infinite finite copying capabilities or make any reasonable higher claim than what they were shown despite the feats they present.
...
It’d literally be an impossibility to prove someone can copy indefinitely actually.
Because we only consider resistances to extend as far as they've been demonstrated in-verse, and we don't consider "immunities" to be anything other than resistances, unless it's immunity due to lacking something (even then, characters who can add that thing to opponents and then manipulate it would still have the ability work).Ill use ice instead. If I am stated to be immune to the ice element many times. Why would I not be immune to someone who is a higher tier than me but only uses freezing abilities that makes 0 sense.
So what if my character was stated to be immune to 0 degree temperature. And it was shown once would that then be used?Because we only consider resistances to extend as far as they've been demonstrated in-verse, and we don't consider "immunities" to be anything other than resistances, unless it's immunity due to lacking something (even then, characters who can add that thing to opponents and then manipulate it would still have the ability work).
Right but the difference in joules that Garou withstood in gaining the power mimicry already is as much as the difference in joules he’s already gained. It simply being above him wouldn’t matter since he’s proven to be able to copy things above him.Power mimicry requires you to be able to attain and handle that amount of joules within your body. As such, I think my comparisons are still apt.
Durability negation is a very very broad term that can mean many different things. For example, Luffy is listed as having durability negation because he can attack internally. But I’m not actually “ignoring” your durability altogether. I’m just bypassing your external exterior and attacking you internally. Your guts’ durability is still taking the force. Similarly so, durability negation can also be negating the AP of the attack itself according to it as well. So yeah I would expect so since durability negation is pretty widely varied.Durability negation is just a specific ability, a power that allows the user to ignore the opponent's durability. Yet we still need an actual mechanism to assume that it works on 3-As.
Right, but this kind of doesn’t talk about the specific point I brought up, with the analogy I presented. In that instance, it would be more illogical and require more assumptions to say the character lost the ability after that point. Feats are also determinable for making reasonable statements, and if someone does indeed copy someone by such astronomically high proportions, then yes it is more logical to say they can continue to do so than not. Because simply not having copied a higher finite number doesn’t discredit that he can since there’s an infinite number of higher finite numbers, making that an ever shifting goalpost. And it simply classifying the argument having fallacy of no limits either wouldn’t disprove the position inherently either. So given the feats and statements, yes I find that notion to be more reasonable and logical than not.No, it'd be possible, it'd just require a mechanism that could be reasonably extended that far. Kakegae Yuzuriha can take the concept of herself, and replace it with the concept of another person, transforming into them, making her as strong as them and giving her all of their abilities. The limits for that would be the other character resisting conceptual manipulation, or lacking a concept. We know from the way it works that it functions through hax instead of AP, which should at least apply to all 3-D beings that don't resist the ability.
Yes, it would make the character able to withstand ice attacks that do not go below absolute zero.So what if my character was stated to be immune to 0 degree temperature. And it was shown once would that then be used?
He'd be able to copy values above him, but not values further above him than that, imo.Right but the difference in joules that Garou withstood in gaining the power mimicry already is as much as the difference in joules he’s already gained. It simply being above him wouldn’t matter since he’s proven to be able to copy things above him.
If you want something that doesn't have as many varied meanings, we do not consider statements of "This sword can cut through anything" as meaning that it can cut through 3-As unless there's a good mechanism for why it can cut through anything that would apply to 3-As.Durability negation is a very very broad term that can mean many different things. For example, Luffy is listed as having durability negation because he can attack internally. But I’m not actually “ignoring” your durability altogether. I’m just bypassing your external exterior and attacking you internally. Your guts’ durability is still taking the force. Similarly so, durability negation can also be negating the AP of the attack itself according to it as well. So yeah I would expect so since durability negation is pretty widely varied.
I just don't think there's much more to say.Right, but this kind of doesn’t talk about the specific point I brought up, with the analogy I presented. In that instance, it would be more illogical and require more assumptions to say the character lost the ability after that point. Feats are also determinable for making reasonable statements, and if someone does indeed copy someone by such astronomically high proportions, then yes it is more logical to say they can continue to do so than not. Because simply not having copied a higher finite number doesn’t discredit that he can since there’s an infinite number of higher finite numbers, making that an ever shifting goalpost. And it simply classifying the argument having fallacy of no limits either wouldn’t disprove the position inherently either. So given the feats and statements, yes I find that notion to be more reasonable and logical than not.
Thanks for the clarification, so one more thing lets say I have a feat of surviving an infinite amount of force doesn't matter what the attack is. Does that mean im immune to all regular cutting attacks, pressure, punches, attacks that are only finite?Yes, it would make the character able to withstand ice attacks that do not go below absolute zero.
The stronger he gets then the more he ca handle, if he copied 3-A then he’d be strong enough to handle 3-A by default, so I don’t really see the point in this being brought upPower mimicry requires you to be able to attain and handle that amount of joules within your body. As such, I think my comparisons are still apt.
Ok but it’s more than just the removed limiterI don't think "limiter removal" is a coherent enough means. Just like how, a few months ago, I had people asserting that "Sonic becoming Super Sonic IS the means!", yet I denied that. And just like how, a few years ago, I had people asserting that "The swords being magic IS the means!", yet I denied that.
I don't think you have some crazy interpretation, but I think it's working off of too little to be used on our site. If we indexed a dozen different interpretations for each character, I'd include this one in there. I just don't think it explains enough.
I disagree with that personally.He'd be able to copy values above him, but not values further above him than that, imo.
But simply statements like that can mean anything given the context of each series. It could literally be anything including hyperbole since there’s no context for that statement.If you want something that doesn't have as many varied meanings, we do not consider statements of "This sword can cut through anything" as meaning that it can cut through 3-As unless there's a good mechanism for why it can cut through anything that would apply to 3-As.
But yeah? I’m slightly confused here because outside of niche circumstances it would be him losing the ability. Garou 4A higher key cannot on copy someone stronger than him on his own, he would need them to say weaken him first. It would be ‘practically’ lost if you will.I just don't think there's much more to say.
I've already said that the character doesn't lose the ability, and your response was just "Okay but that situation's niche so I'll still say that they lost it."
I've already shown how it isn't a constantly-moving goalpost; that it can be demonstrated just by having a good mechanism, and I gave you an example of that sort of mechanism for power mimicry itself.
And you think your view is more reasonable, but I don't.
Like, it sounds like you don't think that someone who can copy an opponent who's 1.5x stronger could copy an opponent 10^9999x stronger, but at some arbitrary point (at least around 10^20x) you change your mind and say that the copying becomes bound only by infinity. I say that that should never happen; that we should only uncap it if a good mechanism is given. I can understand how people could see that, if there were half a dozen ends for Garou I'd include it as one of the interpretations, if I talked about the strength of Garou off-site I'd mention it as a possibility, but since we limit ourselves to about 3 interpretations of a character's strength/abilities, I don't think it's reliable enough.
Yes, we take High 3-A characters to be immune to attacks below High 3-A.Thanks for the clarification, so one more thing lets say I have a feat of surviving an infinite amount of force doesn't matter what the attack is. Does that mean im immune to all regular cutting attacks, pressure, punches, attacks that are only finite?
And once you phrase that way it isn't really an issue. Some characters end up with really niche abilities that aren't ever really useful.But yeah? I’m slightly confused here because outside of niche circumstances it would be him losing the ability. Garou 4A higher key cannot on copy someone stronger than him on his own, he would need them to say weaken him first. It would be ‘practically’ lost if you will.
I think that's fine.But if there is no mechanism then the argument would have to, by default move into an ever shifting goalpost. It would be an unfalsifiable position as there would be no way to change that position regardless of statements of “limitless” or feats or what have you.
It doesn't need that, it's just that without them it's capped at their feats. A lot of verses are practically capped on the site, because while their abilities sound really broad, they get so few feats that they aren't particularly useful. Being that strict likely isn't what the author intended, but I think you can get way worse violations of what the author intended by being too loose. Caelius West can manipulate words to warp reality, rearranging words into new ones, then imposing the effects of that new word on reality. But he's only shown one feat for it that involved him sacrificing himself. While realistically, the author believes he can do more than that, I think we'd quickly get outside of stuff the author conceived of as possible for the story if we wrote our own abilities for other words he could form.Which I think is a bit weird to say that ever story ever in fiction needs a strict mechanism for how each of their abilities work every time without fail.
If you send that to me I can translate it; I know enough Japanese for that.I'm also waiting on a translation for the "limitless/infinitely" part which is pretty much the pillar of this argument, though as far as I can see neither of those two words exist in the raw and Garou's just saying he'll keep copying Saitama until he wins.
Would still be supporting evidence even if he was just gonna copy him till he wins, since he clearly has no worry of running into a limit. The “main pillar“ of this argument was the broken limiterCurrent vote count as far as I can see
Agree: @Maitreya @Kiraa, @Recon1511, @ZillertheBucko, @GilverTheProtoAngelo, @Greatsage13th, @Dienomite22, @Cryo123, @GodlyCharmander, @LordGriffin1000, @KillerH, @Vizer04, @Darksmash, @Tural2004, @Unknownnah, @Franako
Neutral: @Damage3245, @Therefir, @LaserPrecision
Disagree: @Pain_to12, @Purgy, @Tony_di_bugalu, @AguilaR202 @The_Axiom_of_Virgo, @Shey, @Agnaa, @Diablo_, @DontTalkDT, @Tdjwo, @Braking, @MARVEL_Future_Fight_Gamer, @BOEGVELD, @ssgengar, @DarlingAurora
I'm also waiting on a translation for the "limitless/infinitely" part which is pretty much the pillar of this argument, though as far as I can see neither of those two words exist in the raw and Garou's just saying he'll keep copying Saitama until he wins.
ThanksIf you send that to me I can translate it; I know enough Japanese for that.
Once I learn how to read katakana ill be set but I can tell you some of them. Well the hiragana part and I think theres some kanji in itThanks
Nlf for reality warping abilities isn’t really comparable to arguing no limits for raw strength increases. I don’t really see how this is relevant to the points I madeAnd once you phrase that way it isn't really an issue. Some characters end up with really niche abilities that aren't ever really useful.
I think that's fine.
It doesn't need that, it's just that without them it's capped at their feats. A lot of verses are practically capped on the site, because while their abilities sound really broad, they get so few feats that they aren't particularly useful. Being that strict likely isn't what the author intended, but I think you can get way worse violations of what the author intended by being too loose. Caelius West can manipulate words to warp reality, rearranging words into new ones, then imposing the effects of that new word on reality. But he's only shown one feat for it that involved him sacrificing himself. While realistically, the author believes he can do more than that, I think we'd quickly get outside of stuff the author conceived of as possible for the story if we wrote our own abilities for other words he could form.
After @ZillertheBucko 's newest post I think this paragraph may also be relevant for them.
It's relevant to your point of "What would the limit look like? Why would we assume it's limited in that way?"Nlf for reality warping abilities isn’t really comparable to arguing no limits for raw strength increases. I don’t really see how this is relevant to the points I made
Nlf is used incorrectly in generalNlf for reality warping abilities isn’t really comparable to arguing no limits for raw strength increases. I don’t really see how this is relevant to the points I made
original text, by the wayどこまでもコイツをコピーして打ち克ってやる!!!