Katanagatari CRT

[Firephoenixearl]

I was never trying to use it as an argument for the abilities, in fact i bring it up as much as I do because Earl kept bringing up shit like Kanna being broken by Completed Shichika as evidence for it not being invulnerable, which is it's own issue because that is 100% a fallacy of some kind, at least when used on it's own, and as reasoning for Namakura not having dura neg, and yes that makes as much sense as it sounds like it does.

Shichika breaking Kanna was used by me as reasoning for why it doesn't have durability neg? You mean me saying "someone with 7-A AP in verse could break the sword, so saying X sword could cut through it as reasoning for it having dura neg doesn't cut it"? That's me debunking your point of "Namakura can cut through anything cus it can cut through Kanna".

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

Your argument was that because Kanna was broken, it was not invulerable. I don't believe I have to explain why that argument in isolation doesn't work, especially when you have to assume that your own argument is right in order for it to even be an argument able to be made in the first place. Also, I was not using that as reasoning for Namakura having dura neg, instead I was using it as support for Kanna being invulnerable.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

Ok so, from what I understand, the NLF argument goes something like

Saying that Namakura or Kanna has actual durability negation or invulnerability is NLF

The reason behind that seems to be the fact that the scale of the series isn't enough to actually justify full on dura neg, according to some people. There is a major issue with this line of logic, namely that it can be used to remove dura neg from every verse where said dura neg doesn't work on the tier 0 of said verse. And no, this isn't a strawman, the scale argument can be reasonably used to remove

>durability negation from people/weapons that do it via sharpness (whether to cut atoms or otherwise)

>durability negation from people/weapons that ignore armor

>durability negation from everything that can't use it to harm tier 0 beings

>invulnerability from everything that can't use it to tank attacks from tier 0 beings

if the argument actually, y'know, worked and was used. Because the scale argument fundamentally does not agree with how we assign powers.

Additionally, every form of durability negation or invulnerability on the wiki has an unspoken footmark that reads "up to the user's dimensional level unless the mechanics would allow it to apply to higher-dimensional beings." This serves to negate NLF from people saying that Chainswords can kill higher-d beings and stuff like that. Because of that, "this sword can cut anything" is automatically turned into "this sword can cut anything on it's dimensional level" because saying that it can outright cut anything whatsoever across all of fiction is actual NLF. I genuinely don't see where the NLF comes from when there are multiple statements across the series of Namakura being able to cut anything, including one that says that only Namakura would be able to cut Kanna because it could cut anything and was closer to Completion, and Kanna being unbreakable when precisely 0 people have said or tried to use this for anything even remotely similar to the example of NLF on the fallacy page.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

You do know that NLF can be even within its own dimensionality right?

NLF exists even if limited to 3D stuff. As an example, look at Encounter. Damage Tranlsation that can send back anything. NLF cus it has no feats of working past 9-A attacks.

Similarly "Can cut through anything". NLF cus it hasn't worked on anything beyond 7-A. Nor does it have a mechanics that gives it true 3D Dura Neg by nature (example cutting on an atomic level cus there exists no durability on that level).

And "Cannot be broken by anything". NLF cus it hasn't tanked anything beyond 8-B attacks with even then implications that it would be broken by said 8-B dude. Nor does it have any mechanics that give it true Invulnerability. A true invulnerability would be something like "The laws of the universe state he cannot take any physical damage" and works up to the dimensional level of the law. That's not NLF cus whether the attack is stronger or weaker, the law doesn't change, the law is not affected by AP, however everything else is just very durable.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

Doesn't Encounter have all of like one statement about being able to send back anything and was still bypassed?

You act like mechanics would instantly validate this but we all know you'd still argue against it because idfk. If I had the time and mental energy, I bet you I could find far less justified forms of dura neg with no mechanic that people would agree with. Not having a mechanic doesn't automatically invalidate shit

See above

In addition, I recommend giving me/Jordan some time to find the "surpasses physics" statement since, unless you're planning on arguing that it's hyperbole like you always do, that would be more than enough justification.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Encounter was never bypassed. But we still can't push the NLF button cus no feats.

Mechanics are the only way to actually press the NLF button. You can't prove dura neg or invulnerability with feats, they need some form of mechanics as to why they negate dura or are immune to damage in the first place. Not having a mechanics doesn't invalidate it, it just means it gets shut down cus it would be NLF as there is no justification for why it would work on things far higher.

Someone saying "i can cut anything" then proceeds to cut down a 4-C being just means he's 4C. Someone saying "I can cut anything cus i hit the soul", then yes, that is full dura neg cus it actually explains why it would negate any level of 3D durability.

Whereas your examples are literally "It can cut anything cus it's sharp" and "It cannot be destroyed because it's tough" (especially when it was broken from the back of a stronger dude).

Well being beyond physics. Sure you can find the scan then i'll say whether they're good proof or not.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Even besides the physics statement, I would still argue that the attributes of the swords are achieved through hax, seeing as how they were supernaturally created through occult and futuristic means, and are intended to be the theoretical peak of each of their attributes

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

You are not the definitive judge of whether evidence counts Earl. Get your head out of your ass and come back to reality

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Futuristic means doesn't mean "immunity to physical damage".

@H13

That's not really adding anything into this discussion. What i meant is "i'll give my input on their validity". Im not the person who says wether evidence counts or not, but im one of the people who will argue whether that's enough or not, you know along with the other people who are opposing this. Obviously by giving arguments. I don't believe you've ever heard me say "no that's wrong" and give no arguments afterwards.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

1: Nice strawman

2: Tell that to yourself above. Also, you literally have done that, like when you assume that your argument is correct in order to try and debunk another one, like with the part about Kanna in your last post.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Ugh.

H13. This has gone on for long enough. Find the proof already and stop derailing. You're not making your arguments any more valid with this.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

Well you see

I literally have at absolute most 2.5 hours a day to watch Katanagatari to find the ******* feat, and that's not accounting for the inevitable IRL bullshit

So again, mind giving us some time?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

If you're short on time, then don't waste it on "oh fire what are you saying" stupidity. Use that time wisely so that you can...you know...actually make a valid point, instead of just derailing or insulting other people thinking it will actually get you anywhere.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

I cant exactly watch Katanagatari on a phone using data you knkw

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I cant exactly watch Katanagatari on a phone using data you knkw

Sure, then cut the redundancies. Just msg back when you got the facts.

 

[Andytrenom]

You are not the definitive judge of whether evidence counts Earl. Get your head out of your ass and come back to reality

It would serve you well if you quit it with these needlessly hostile responses. You've acted like this multiple times on this thread from what I'm seeing and it's a worrying sight to say the least, that you keep making comments like this at the tiniest things

 

[Antvasima]

I agree with Andy. If you keep it up, we might have to give you a temporary ban to cool off.

 

[Agnaa]

@Hl3 Your first response...

1. That dura neg's fine, since we know exactly the level it cuts to, and we have reason to believe that'd work on all 3-D beings, making it not NLF.

2. That dura neg's fine, since we know people still need to clear the body's dura level to damage the character. It doesn't let characters reach dozens of tiers above their own, it makes their attacks more effective and get around strong outer armour.

3. No, we'd just assume the dura neg caps at their dimension, if it has sufficient statements to reach that high.

4. Same as point 3.

I genuinely don't see where the NLF comes from when there are multiple statements across the series of Namakura being able to cut anything

Because statements of "can cut anything" without more to them aren't enough.

Doesn't Encounter have all of like one statement about being able to send back anything and was still bypassed?

Nope, it has many statements about being able to send back anything no matter how strong or fast, and we have it limited at the verse's AP and speed, after many long discussions on the matter.

Even besides the physics statement, I would still argue that the attributes of the swords are achieved through hax, seeing as how they were supernaturally created through occult and futuristic means, and are intended to be the theoretical peak of each of their attributes

Wasn't one of the swords just 1000 swords? Didn't that one not really have supernatural attributes beyond that? I'm not sure if all of the swords have some turbo hax behind them. The armor is just some strong armor that redirects stuff into the ground. The guardian's just a solar-powered robot.

 

[Antvasima]

Agnaa seems to make sense.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Yes there is a sword that is a thousand swords. What makes them special is that they are meant to be hidden as backup weapons, and cannot be detected even by Shichika's clairvoyance during such.

There is also a literal floating hilt that allows one to alter their stats at will and transcend their physical self to become an illusory being, so the swords clearly don't correlate to each other in terms of how weird they are

 

[Agnaa]

I get that there are some really weird swords. I'm just saying that not all of them are insanely supernatural, so one of the swords being "Can cut through things incredibly well" and another being "Is extremely durable" isn't out of the question.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Yeah I hadn't really considered that perspective.

Alright, at this point I'm fine with removing those abilities.

I think all the possible arguments have been addressed

 

[Antvasima]

Would you be willing to handle it Agnaa?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

So there's consensus agreeing with the OP?

And yeah i think Agnaa should handle this, he's more knowledgeable than me on the verse.

 

[Antvasima]

It seems like there is mostly a consensus, yes.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Kanna is still invulnerable in my headcanon so it's all good

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

You know what

I dont ******* care

Don't contact me about Katanagatari ever again

 

[Kisaragi_Megumi]

Then let's say don't touch RKnC ever again and stay salty ovo

Anyway you seems ignoring Andy warning, didn't mean to be an douche but just wondering

 

[Agnaa]

Just to clarify, we're removing Shichika's blade copy too, right?

I'll edit Komori's profile by removing invulnerability from abilities and leaving "Far higher with Zettō Kanna" in durability. I'll edit Ginkaku's profile by removing Durability Negation and changing "can negate durability with Namakura" to "far higher with Namakura (Said to be able to cut through anything, although the full extent of this isn't explored)"

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Yes those are the things that would be changed.

 

[Agnaa]

Should I be removing the limited Danmaku from Shichika's page too? It seems to have blade copying as its justification.

EDIT: Also, is there anything I need to change in Zetto Kanna's description?

 

[Creaturemaster971]

The limited Danmaku may come from Kyoutoryu Ougi, but it's mostly just a series of rapid strikes

 

[Agnaa]

Should I be removing the limited Danmaku from Shichika's page too? It seems to have blade copying as its justification.

EDIT: Also, is there anything I need to change in Zetto Kanna's description?

Please help with this. I cannot finish the revision until I get an answer on this.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Yes please. Danmaku has to be projectiles, right?

 

[Antvasima]

I would appreciate if others here help Agnaa out with input.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

I can work on the description later.

If you'll permit me to make one last argument, you could point out the fact that while some of Shikizaki's weapons are simply of unusual quality, Kanna is very specifically the blade that is described as being supernatural in its construction

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I can work on the description later.

If you'll permit me to make one last argument, you could point out the fact that while some of Shikizaki's weapons are simply of unusual quality, Kanna is very specifically the blade that is described as being supernatural in its construction

Well that is implying that the nlf button can only be pressed on natural things. There are tons of supernatural powers like Gagamarus ability that is by no means normal, but still nlf.

 

[Antvasima]

So can the edits be performed soon? I think that we have talked about this to exhaustion at this point.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Please help with this. I cannot finish the revision until I get an answer on this.

Danmaku can apparently go away. They have to specifically be projectiles.

 

[Creaturemaster971]

Yes it can