• 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.

Knack Revisions

Status
Not open for further replies.

Agnaa

VS Battles
Super Moderator
Administrator
Calculation Group
Translation Helper
Human Resources
Gold Supporter
15,485
13,696
I recalced the feat currently giving them 7-B and it ended up at 7-C+. This should replace the current rating.

Armageddon Machine has Large Size (Type 3) which requires being over 1km tall, which it doesn't seem to reach up to, this should be changed to type 2.

Artifact Boss and Knack (Character) have Mid-High and High-Mid regeneration respectively, without any scans or explanation. This is a pretty extreme ability to be giving for no proof, so unless someone can back it up, I'd suggest removing it after discussion in the thread, I'd suggest downgrading it to Low-Mid, since he can rebuild himself from just his core.
 
Last edited:
Eh, I feel like with Knack's strange physiology we'd consider the core to be more akin to a combination of the brain + heart.

Perhaps, since that's intact, they should both just be downgraded to Low-Mid regen instead?
 
This seems to make sense to me. Thank you for helping out.
 
Bump.
 
The way the regen works doesn't really change depending what you call it so I don't mind
 
So do we have sufficient agreements here to apply these suggestions, given that this seems to be an uncontroversial revision?
 
Would it be acceptable to just list Regen without a type given this doesn't really conform to our standards?
It doesn't really matter but
 
Eh, I think it fits in our standards well enough, but I wouldn't be opposed to just describing the regen there.
 
I think that it doesn't matter either way. Do what you think seems to fit best.
 
I have applied this revision. The thread can be closed.
 
Okay. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top