• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Hellblaze Regeneration Negation Downgrade/Possible Removal (Seven Deadly Sins)

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's directly said BURN by 3 days 3 night

Burning something doesn't directly become vaporisation from i know. It's can be incinerate, incinerate typically means to burn something to ashes. Hellblaze just doesn't have any vaporize feats, even when red demon burn the entire forest with hellblaze it's just pulverize it not vaporize.

By this logic, a year long coal fire must be can vaporization.

None of demon ability that has burning black color thing except hellblaze.
 
Deceived said:
.......



I'm not arguing against the ability being removed entirely, you guys need to actually read what i'm typing.
Click to expand...
I seen other characters scratching immortals and stabbing an immortal and it counts for negating their regeneration. It’s not fair that this downgrade is only applying for nnt just because of a scar a permanent one mind you. Like I said the op is weak a scar counts for regeneration negation whether you like it or not it the same for other verses yet their regeneration negation is not limited. Also this was done with a broken blade and was a warning so that whole he didn’t kill ban doesn’t apply here.
 
He's saying it's limited, in which it is- at least, based on the evidence transcribed in the OP.

So count me as agree for now, since the opposition has yet to make a convincing argument from what I can tell, anyway.
 
Deceived said:
The onus is on you to prove that anything within that chapter states or implies that Meliodas could've killed Ban with his Hellblaze if he wanted to.

You guys haven't fulfilled that burden yet even though i've asked you multiple times now.
Click to expand...
He extinguished his flames other instances shows What happens when he doesn’t

i don’t think there’s a Burden the context Is Meli nullified his flames i think There is an obvious reason why…
1 - It isn't weak since literally none of you people can actually debunk it correctly 🗿
Click to expand...
We gave other instances/exemples when it negated completely regens on par with Ban’s
I explained how Using a scar isn’t a strong argument when he held back avoiding to use the full extent of the flames power and stopped them

2 - None of you actually have an argument on why Fraudrin and SD examples prove that Hellblaze has Mid-High regeneration negation, you just say "but fraudrin and SD" and act like it's an argument when it quite literally isn't.
Click to expand...
I explained that Fraudrin existed as a formless mass that couldn’t regen his body at Danafor and had to take a body

I Also explained how SD was unable to regen From Kami Chigiri despite having Mid High to possible Low Godly regen

Actually debate what i'm arguing instead of just saying random examples without providing any form context which proves what you're saying is correct, this shit is beyond tedious to deal with.
Click to expand...
Also gave the reasons why it is a weak argument
1 instance against 2
1 instance in Which he held back and litteraly stopped his flames against 2 where he wanted/had to kill his ennemy

The scar argument would be good if there were no contradictions to it There are 2 instances of it that
 
Imma be real with you and say i haven't seen any clear examples for complete regeneration negation yet tbh.
Click to expand...
Fraudrin / SD

The closest thing i've seen was Fraudrin but i've got multiple contentions with it being a regen negation feat in general but i've been told we don't even assume Meliodas used Hellblaze in that instance, which is why we don't assume vaporization for Meliodas's feat with Danafor.
Click to expand...
Meli never showed any fire ability except hellblaze Which Is related to his physiology he used his demonic abilities in this feat

We don’t assume vaporisation cause There is no vaporisation feat (It’s something that has been discussed multiple times)

So i'm not going to even argue against the feat since we don't even assume Hellblaze was used in that scene to begin with (from what i've been told)
Click to expand...
We assume it because it is the most acceptable answer
We should follow Ockham’s razor and eliminate situations that are unlikely to happen
 
Planck69 said:
Deceived seems to be making more sense to me. Count me as agree.
Click to expand...
How tho ? When his point Is litteraly based on something that is contradicted

Fraudrin couldn’t regen his body

SD died and couldn’t regen despite being able to re assemble her body From nothing

Using the single instance in which someone could « heal » when this instance is the only one out of three where Meli stopped the flames and didn’t want to kill as i said let’s follow Ockham’s razor/follow What Nakaba is telling us
 
I see two instances of people dying to something I'm not even sure is Hellblaze and for whatever reason that's enough proof to contradict the fact that it doesn't negate Mid-High regeneration. Right.
 
speedster352 said:
I seen other characters scratching immortals and stabbing an immortal and it counts for negating their regeneration. It’s not fair that this downgrade is only applying for nnt just because of a scar a permanent one mind you. Like I said the op is weak a scar counts for regeneration negation whether you like it or not it the same for other verses yet their regeneration negation is not limited. Also this was done with a broken blade and was a warning so that whole he didn’t kill ban doesn’t apply here.
Click to expand...
Planck69 said:
I see two instances of people dying to something I'm not even sure is Hellblaze and for whatever reason that's enough proof to contradict the fact that it doesn't negate Mid-High regeneration. Right.
Click to expand...
Right at this point it’s appeal to ignorance
 
Planck69 said:
I see two instances of people dying to something I'm not even sure is Hellblaze and for whatever reason that's enough proof to contradict the fact that it doesn't negate Mid-High regeneration. Right.
Click to expand...
Fraudrin existed as a formless being after Meli’s demonic attack did he ever use any other type of fire ? If that’s the case then show it to me please did he ever use anything else that would negate regeneration ? If that’s the case please show it to me.

SD scene shows their fire and show the particles that can’t come back together

As I said let’s follow the context not things that are completely useless

Using an instance where Meli held back and stopped his flames is mid
 
This is not working everyone is just agreeing with this weak op because of a character giving an immortal a scar when other verse do it. For example if a character stabs an immortal and they can’t heal from it wouldn’t that be regeneration negation or limited regeneration negation. Because I see on other profiles characters getting regeneration negation another example is causing bruises on macro when he had mid regeneration because of haki. Is limited regeneration negation even a thing? Why doesn’t one piece have it? Or Naruto or etc? Their is clearly a bias here against nnt. So many attempts to downgrade the verse which is just sad but predictable. Which doesn’t matter since we have an entire community that supports nnt.
 
If you feel that strongly about it then feel free to either revise those verses individually or make a thread on the matter in general. A whataboutism isn't an argument regardless of whether this CRT is passed or rejected.
 
Deceived said:
This is wrong since the feat in question actively debunks this notion, Ban’s regeneration wasn’t completely nullified at all, the fact he has a scar from Meliodas's attack inherently proves he regenerated the wound since scarring only happens when a wound heals/regenerates.
Click to expand...
That’s how scars work in real life not fiction. Also has anyone still had a scar when there body was obliterated because ban still does. And don’t say that it doesn’t count when it clearly does since your arguing about this. If the scar healed why didn’t it disappear after Ban’s body was obliterated. Next we the nnt community has shown scans of hellblaze negating the regeneration of other characters. Hellfire being used to kill vampires and godeses clan members and etc.
 
Planck69 said:
If you feel that strongly about it then feel free to either revise those verses individually or make a thread on the matter in general. A whataboutism isn't an argument regardless of whether this CRT is passed or rejected.
Click to expand...
For one piece it already has been brought up but overlooked for some reason. I won’t get to far into the subject as not to derail however Macro a character with mid regeneration got a few bruises from a haki infused punched and it was accepted as regeneration negation mid. So why is the downgrade only being applied to nnt? I can list a lot of other verses that do the same.
 
Then go talk that out with the supporters of those other verses. That isn't an argument in favour of or against this thread at all. What other verses do or don't is never something that influences a CRT.
 
The damage that Haki did to Marco's body was something simple as a punch, and he could only heal later through medical treatment
 
Planck69 said:
Then go talk that out with the supporters of those other verses. That isn't an argument in favour of or against this thread at all. What other verses do or don't is never something that influences a CRT.
Click to expand...
But it relates to this crt since the op is being biased against nnt and trying to downgrade the verse unnecessarily.
LIFE_OF_KING said:
The damage that Haki did to Marco's body was something simple as a punch, and he could only heal later through medical treatment
Click to expand...
It should still be limited using this op logic since a permanent scar that exist even after the body is blown up doesn’t cut it.
Deceived said:
Imma be real with you and say i haven't seen any clear examples for complete regeneration negation yet tbh.

The closest thing i've seen was Fraudrin but i've got multiple contentions with it being a regen negation feat in general but i've been told we don't even assume Meliodas used Hellblaze in that instance, which is why we don't assume vaporization for Meliodas's feat with Danafor.

So i'm not going to even argue against the feat since we don't even assume Hellblaze was used in that scene to begin with (from what i've been told)
Click to expand...
Also Diane said something about ban almost dying to Meliodas which shocked everyone.
 
Last edited:
He was then attacked by Meliodas and given a lasting wound, despite his regenerative abilities, that would become his only scar, which he calls a special case.[13]
Here is the scan
Also Jericho does some thing similar to ban
 
Arkenis said:
If you're speaking about Naruto in kcm then

Limited Regeneration Negation (Up to Low-Godly; Kabuto stated that it would take time for Muu to regenerate from Naruto's attack due to the new power he acquired),
Click to expand...
My bad then but my point still stands other verses still have full ratings for stabbing and bruising characters with regeneration and they get a full rating. This is just unnecessary.
 
Arkenis said:
Show that too. And if it leaves a scar then it's limited regen neg.
Click to expand...
Are you serious right now? Ban’s body has been obliterated many times and his scars is still there does that make since irl nope but it’s fiction meaning that hellblaze gave ban a permanent scar not matter how many times he regenerated and even the author confirms this.
 
speedster352 said:
My bad then but my point still stands other verses still have full ratings for stabbing and bruising characters with regeneration and they get a full rating. This is just unnecessary.
Click to expand...
No then those verses just need a simple Limited added to their regen neg. The pages are all about being detailed and getting the abilities right so why not make sure you're being accurate on the pages of the verse you do?
 
speedster352 said:
Are you serious right now? Ban’s body has been obliterated many times and his scars is still there does that make since irl nope but it’s fiction meaning that hellblaze gave ban a permanent scar not matter how many times he regenerated and even the author confirms this.
Click to expand...
A permanent scar is because the body couldnt fully heal it right? Not that it couldnt heal it all. You fighting over something pretty simple for no reason
 
Arkenis said:
No then those verses just need a simple Limited added to their regen neg. The pages are all about being detailed and getting the abilities right so why not make sure you're being accurate on the pages of the verse you do?
Click to expand...
I am happy we agree on this
Arkenis said:
A permanent scar is because the body couldnt fully heal it right? Not that it couldnt heal it all. You fighting over something pretty simple for no reason
Click to expand...
Yeah no here the fact he has a scar from Meliodas's attack inherently proves
 
Arkenis said:
A permanent scar is because the body couldnt fully heal it right? Not that it couldnt heal it all. You fighting over something pretty simple for no reason
Click to expand...
Fully heal= not being able to heal that part or heal at all anything else I missed?
 
speedster352 said:
Yeah no here the fact he has a scar from Meliodas's attack inherently proves
Click to expand...
The fact that there is a scar proves that it is limited, because Ban regenerated from the attack

In case Meliodas had negated the regeneration completely, there would be no scar, there would only blood and a cut, nothing else
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Faa_Tzy
Minor upgrade abillities
Replies
25
Views
2K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Dark_Soul20189
Characters that don't need or doesn't deserve their regeneration
Replies
19
Views
2K
ProfectusInfinity
ProfectusInfinity
speedster352
  • Locked
Small nnt upgrades
8 9 10
Replies
399
Views
12K
ByAsura
ByAsura
Dust_Collector
Master Sword Low-Godly Regen Negation Change
Replies
8
Views
885
Shmooply
Shmooply
speedster352
  • Locked
Escanor revision thread
2
Replies
70
Views
3K
ByAsura
ByAsura
Back
Top