• 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.

Low 2-C Vegito

Status
Not open for further replies.
1,797
243
I wanna settle this

Vegito is rated 3A because he doesn't have low 2C feats or statements but i have some

•Kefla is a fusion of an SSG level character and an Ssj2 level character and they become low 2C

•Vegito is the fusion of two Black saga level SSB characters

•Current SSG fought Dyspo who can beat Hit who was even with Black saga SSB Goku so Current SSG=Black saga SSB

•Logicall fusion of two SSG level Characters should be superior to SSG+Ssj2 so Vegito should logically be superior to kefla

•Kefla unleashes full power but didn't deuse but Vegito goes full power instantly defuses and Vegito lasted only one episode while Kefla lasted 2

•statement from Kaioshin tha Fusion Zamsu's standing as a God is beyond their understanding

•Fusion Zamasu dies but his soul somehow has Low 2C power!?

•We don't take manga featsbut we do have a statement that Vegito=Beerus

So shouldn't Vegito be logically superior to Kefla and get a low 2C rating
 
This is against the rules though and will likely get instantly rejected because your logic is awfully similar to this:

here is no argument to be had here. It is entirely based on a poorly argued idea that "Vegito broke due to his power and Kefla didn't", and an idea that because Tournament of Power Goku and Vegeta > Caulifla and Kale, then Future Trunks Vegito should be above Tournament of Power Kefla, which is nonsnese.

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/1128967
 
I personally think that SSB Vegito may be Low 2-C, but from what I recall the consensus last time was that we have no conclusive proof, and as such cannot assign a higher tier.
 
Your first four points has already been discussed and dismissed here and here .So those 4 are already out

Pretty sure the manga statement has also already been discussed and wasn't accepted because of how different the manga is to the anime.Statements and feats from the manga won't be accepted regardless of the authors intent

Fusion Zamasu is only 3-A, Infinite Zamasu is low 2-C- 2-C
 
Can you explain any other instance where someone who is 3A but has low 2C soul or functions like Fusion Zamasu and infinite Zamasu
 
I'm honestly tired about this topic, we should make a discussion rule about this, which also says that this argument should be brought back again only when new informations about Zamasu, Kefla and Vegito are revealed.
 
Vegito doesnr have any statement putting him above or comparable ro Infinite Zamasu, Kefla does. End of story.
 
Yeah, this has been discussed dozens of times, always the same arguments are used, which are debunked, and it isn't accepted.

This should be closed.
 
@Dark649 & Matthew

Do you have a suggestion for a discussion rule wording?
 
"Please do not try to upgrade Vegito based on scaling to Kefla, this has been discussed multiple times and proven to be inconsistent and unfounded"

Good?
 
Bluetrekking said:
"Do not create new discussion threads trying to upgrade Vegito to Low 2-C via scaling from Kefla or Infinite Zamasu. This topic has been discussed to the point of becoming tiresome and monotonous. Vegito has no indication of scaling to either and the proposal would be unfounded without further proof."
I like.
 
Thanks. Do you wish to add the rule Matthew?
 
Thank you. I think that we can close this thread then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top