Garou Copying 3A CRT

[BOEGVELD]

Disagree FRA.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

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.

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.


On another note, the information and scans about limiters on this site are basically non existent which is making this more annoying to participate in. I’d appreciate if knowledgeable members made a page about it or something as it’s the closest thing to a universal energy system in Opm verse

 

[ssgengar]

Disagree FRA

 

[Agnaa]

Yes, limiters are the mechanism.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Maitreya12]

For 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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Braking]

Holy shit this finna go on for 6 pages

 

[Agnaa]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The 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.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

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.

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. I’m not saying “if he can copy Saitama he can copy all”, I’m saying that if there is plenty of statement suggesting his AP copying is unlimited, along with the supporting evidence of him having copied a character thatnuntil that point had completely inaccessible and godlike strength, along with the extremely direct statement that he would copy him limitlessly until he won, it gets to a point where it’s just an appeal to a fallacy that no longer applies, using nlf in a way that was not intended. You can’t really pull the nlf standards card here when nlf doesn’t even apply in the first place.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

The vs wiki is the only place where people would tolerate something like standards would tell you “well he hasn’t shown to be able to get .017 joules stronger than his current peak so it’s kinda of a strech according to our uhhhh standards that he could copy that…..”
At the end of the day it’s just drawing an arbitrary stopping point, when the evidence clearly points strongly to it being limitless, and there’s actually 0 counterpoints that can be made that actually says that they are not intended to be limitless, and there’s no evidence of a limit ever existing.

 

[Agnaa]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Darksmash]

While it's true we dont have an underlying mechanism for the power mimicry, I think the context about Garou endlessly copying Saitama's power level and the latter having endless growth potential (which eventually became exponential) should be enough for there not to be an upper limit to the power mimicry.

 

[Maitreya12]

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.

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.

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.

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.

The 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.

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 claim

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.

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. What I mean by this is that say I’m just a basic average human level character, but I have Garou’s copying ability which lets me copy AP. And say I’m fighting someone who’s very high end 3B, say he’s only 10x away from being a baseline 3A. And I copy that person perfectly with no issue and state I have limitless copying ability.

So seeing as how I went from like 10A to 3B without any issue due thanks to my specific power, what logical reason is there to assume that I can’t go from that 3B to the 10x away gap of 3A? Simply saying “that’s a no limits fallacy” wouldn’t discredit or disprove my point and saying that Garou didn’t copy any higher finite value also wouldn’t really matter because his feats demonstrated the capability to copy astronomically higher finite values, there will always be another higher finite value because there’s an endless number of them, but that doesn’t take away Garou still copying all finite values of astronomically higher proportions.

In this instance, it would be more illogical to assume the character can’t get 10x stronger with the ability when he went from 10A to 3B via this ability just because that’s a higher finite value, but there are an infinite number of higher finite values so it’d be impossible and unreasonable to expect the author to be able to accomplish something like that. It’d literally be an impossibility to prove someone can copy indefinitely actually.

 

[Epiccheev]

The cope about Garou not being 1-A is the only thing "limitless" here

 

[Trax]

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.

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.

 

[Trax]

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.

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.

 

[Dienomite22]

I’m still firmly in the agreement side. Garou not having a 3-A copying feat is not proof of no limit fallacy. We have statements and showings of Garou’s copying and it’s limit.

There are statements and showings that Garou could copy however many times he wanted to and showings that there were no drawbacks to his copying.

It is never shown/stated/or implied to have a limit. If it had, Garou would’ve known about it thanks to his knowledge.

It’s only “limit” was not being able to keep up with Saitama’s insane growth speed. Which is not a limit for the ability, and instead is a feat for Saitama’s accelerated developement.

I think the notion that Garou can’t copy power beyond 4-A power is ridiculous and applies a much larger assumption about Garou’s power copying that is not backed by anything within the series and you have to have evidence to support said assumption about Garou’s power mimicry otherwise the claim means nothing.

 

[Trax]

The cope about Garou not being 1-A is the only thing "limitless" here

Garou=grass level

 

[Agnaa]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

 

[Trax]

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).

So what if my character was stated to be immune to 0 degree temperature. And it was shown once would that then be used?

 

[DarlingAurora]

I disagree for now..

 

[Maitreya12]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Agnaa]

So what if my character was stated to be immune to 0 degree temperature. And it was shown once would that then be used?

Yes, it would make the character able to withstand ice attacks that do not go below absolute zero.

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.

He'd be able to copy values above him, but not values further above him than that, imo.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Bernkastelll]

Garou already said he can copy limitlessly so I agree

 

[Trax]

Yes, it would make the character able to withstand ice attacks that do not go below absolute zero.

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?

 

[ZillertheBucko]

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.

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 up

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.

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.

Ok but it’s more than just the removed limiter
it’s also backed up by garou saying he would copy Saitama limitlessly. Taking this as hyperbole is subjective, but considering that Saitama would have continued to grow it would mean that garou basically just said he’d keep copying until Saitama got to 3-A, which is still supported by Saitama getting some insanity amount stronger by the end of the fight and Garou still being able to copy him. There is a difference between stating something is invincible and that it has no limit. Something being stated as invincible in a verse by definition means it can’t be harmed, and if nothing in that verse could harm it then that statement would remain true, while it implying they’re tier 0 omnipotent dura or anything. However that’s fundamentally different from a statement of no limits, while invincibility can be determined as being relative to the rest of the verse, limitlessness is not the same kind of situation, as in being limitless into context of any verse would just be actually limitless. The situation would be different if it was “he can become invincible over time” but this is just the characters having no limit. I am not going to agree to the idea that we just toss out so much evidence and information about limiters, and make it effectively useless in any vs match with 4-A Garou. Not to mention, Garou already has reality warping, which blast implied to be his main power, so for the record that’s most probably the mechanism in which he copies.

 

[Maitreya12]

He'd be able to copy values above him, but not values further above him than that, imo.

I disagree with that personally.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

I understand that, that’s what disagreements are for. We all have positions and stances we believe are more reasonable or logical than the other, we can only argue them to our best capability to prove or explain why we hold the stances we do over others.

No, I do understand that someone who only grows 1.5x stronger can’t just grow 10^9999x stronger, but your position entails that even if I did grow 1.0 x10^9999x stronger because I can copy other people, you could just say “well you didn’t grow to 1.1x10^9999x so you can’t do it.” And that stance would persist regardless if I had other compounding evidence such as statements of being able to copy limitlessly or infinitely. It would be the stance of ‘because he didn’t get .000001x stronger, he can’t from that point on regardless of what his ability presented and has been stated to be capable of.’ There would essentially be nothing I could do from that point on to prove “limitless copying capability” outside of introducing a mechanism as then the stance turns to an ever shifting goal post. 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.

I propose that, like with a lot of things done here this is done by a case by case basis. What compounding or supporting evidence is there that reliably prove the position that is being held. And with this instance I believe there is enough reliably supporting evidence that makes it a more logical conclusion that Garou can indeed copy an ever higher finite number of AP.

Anyway, we just agree to disagree with the positions we hold. I need to do a recounting anyway of all the new votes.

 

[Agnaa]

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, we take High 3-A characters to be immune to attacks below High 3-A.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

What would Garou’s limit even look like? Are you saying he would just find someone 3-A and then try to copy them and he just dies on the spot or something? That there’s just a point where finds someone stronger than him and every bone in his body just immediately clicks out and he collapses? If he gets stronger, then wouldn’t he be able to copy stronger anyways? Cosmic Garou’s ability copying isn’t even some kind of biological function or anything, it’s completely different from monster garou’s. At the worst, he was able to jump from high 4-C to 4-A, so are you just saying that he wouldn’t be able to do the same multiplier again and just spam it till he reached his opponent? It would be headcanon to say that eventually he’d just stop being able to, when his previous AP has nothing to do with what he can copy. If it really was so limited then copying Saitama would have been completely impossible and he would straight up be dead after the grb Saying that there is an upper limit is quite literally just saying the narrator is wrong, limiters are wrong, and there must be a limit because you said so.

 

[Purgy]

Current 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.

 

[Agnaa]

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.

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 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.

I think that's fine.

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.

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.

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.

If you send that to me I can translate it; I know enough Japanese for that.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Current 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.

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 limiter

 

[Purgy]

If you send that to me I can translate it; I know enough Japanese for that.

Thanks

Spoiler

 

[Trax]

Thanks

Spoiler

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 it

 

[Agnaa]

"Like this." (Not sure on this one, Garou slurred his line, but it shouldn't be too important regardless)

"I'll copy and overcome this bastard, come hell or high water!"

There is no mention of infinity or endlessness.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

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.

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.

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

 

[Agnaa]

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

It's relevant to your point of "What would the limit look like? Why would we assume it's limited in that way?"

Limiting abilities looks ludicrous in a bunch of situations where we wouldn't want to chuck out the limit.

 

[Trax]

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 general

 

[Nullflowerblush]

どこまでもコイツをコピーして打ち克ってやる!!!

original text, by the way

 

[Damage3245]

I'll change my vote to disagree on this now.

 

[Lormac_CC]