• 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.

Link vs. SCP-682

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Weekly Not really.

Bringing this whole higher dimensional thing everytime despite everyone else always saying it's not allowed is getting really old...
 
Does 682's "essence" have any feats of doing any of these things anyway? From all I know, he was reduced to a 3-D being from his countless-D self.
 
The real cal howard said:
Does 682's "essence" have any feats of doing any of these things anyway? From all I know, he was reduced to a 3-D being from his countless-D self.
His essence is literally his disembodied former self as a 1-B leviathan trapped in a 3-Dimensional shell by 343
 
When the person doesn't add a thing to the discussion then throws a random comment.

Sorry for pointing this out, Ever, but with this kind of attitude, you have 0 rights to call the thread trash.
 
FateAlbane said:
When the person doesn't add a thing to the discussion then throws a random comment.

Sorry for pointing this out, Ever, but with this kind of attitude, you have 0 rights to call the thread trash.
I'm calling a spade a spade.

This thread is a mess, though honestly any thread with over 100+ replies are.

Now we're just discussing the legitimacy of a rule, not even the actual battle (I know it's related to the battle but that's not my point).
 
@Ever See, this I can agree with especially when said "rule" is basically common sense at this point.

Either way, the match itself is pretty much decided. More than 10 votes for Link with next to none for 682.
 
@Fate Considering no one has given a rebutal as to how Link will deal with 682's 1-B conciousness, the votes are dubious at best
 
What Ever said. For now, keep my vote as is based on what was discussed above, though I'm open for a change if fair enough reasons are given for 682 other than "You have to affect 1-B" stuff that is obviously banned.
 
Nice.

Link fra implying he would seal for the duration of sba because 682 very likely would end up adapting eventually. When matters but eventually may not cut it thus link under an assumption sealing will work for sba.
 
@Dodo Offtopic, but on borrowed time atm. Came back because I forgot a Nippon Ichi revision that I'm now too lazy to bump. I'll be going once I'm done with that.
 
So its in character for Link to lead with sealing against an opponent he knows nothing about? And this sealing would seal 682's 1-B conciousness?
 
No that's not true at all. There's only a couple of instances where Link has actually sealed his opponent. One was with Denise when he defeated him, and the other was with Vaati. Everyone else he just either incapacitated, they die from some random nonsense, or others have sealed the enemy for him.
 
No. Lead? No one said lead though.

No. But maybe long enough because like it or not. Link does not need ta seal forever. Just long enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top