Yes, an outlier would be Mario fighting a 3-C Bowser, one drastic discrepancy among a **** ton of feats done with an effort at a far lower threshold. An exception among a mass of context feats that cap him lower.
you mean the English source that’s well known for being extremely contradictory and literally is not used on our profiles? Because yes, that’s the one. I didn’t use it in any of my arguments, and the OP only mentioned it due to not knowing it’s not used for our profiles. I’ve got nothing to backpedal with.An english source that doesn't contradict anything, which according to you is fine and dandy
Unless you're backpedaling?
have you even bothered to check the raws at all
I don’t think the TCG Cards bring any important info to the table that isn’t stated anywhere else, they barely matter here. The English website to my knowledge is fine, we don’t have any notes about not using them unless they’re contradictory and so far they haven’t been proven to be so. Unless you can find something in the Japanese website that contradicts if, if there even is one. This was pointless and didn’t need to be brought up.
A 3C Bowser, alongside the several other Grand Star users, it’s a lot more than just one exception lol, every major boss becomes an exception when viewing Mario as unamped.
Red Star Mario is literally its own power up.
Yeah, it also says that only the most extreme examples. This isn't an outlier, it's you THINKING it's an amp, and because you're working under the notion it's an amp, you're going "well 30% of the time his normal stuff works or is more effective, so they must be outliers", but that'd only be true if it was actually confirmed an amp
The alternative, then, is assuming that those 10 examples I gave are what's inconsistent with Mario's usual level of power, which is a far less reasonable assumption. We can't avoid stupid inconsistencies like this, but the bare minimum we can do is stick with the interpretation that presents is with less of them.
In SMG1? I am 99% certain it is only spin attacks that work after he's been burned in lava, could be wrong though. And the SMG2 fight literally does not make sense if Mario isn't amped, because it'd imply unamped Mario > amped Bowser
In SMG1 Bowser can only be hurt with spin attacks, usually after being burned by the planet’s core. In SMG2 you ground pound meteors into his face.
And what's contradictory about this claim in particular?
It's actually quite relevant, this is simply picking and choosing what not original canon info you get to run with.
Yes, but only Bowser has the 3-C feats, and he's played off as the baddest of the bunch.
30%, 30% Fuji, ignoring a whole 30% of contradictions, and then some, solely because you THINK something is happening and THIRTY PERCENT of the time the thing you merely THINK is happening is contradicted.
Against a nonamped Bowser though, which is my point, a Bowser that scales to Mario normally, can tank the alleged decillion times attack buff.
And what about your position? That, despite your interpretation having more contradictions than support by a factor of over 3, those lone 3 examples are more consistent? That they make more sense? If you believe I'm ignoring 30% of contradictions (I'm not), then that means you're ignoring 70% of contradictions. And, well, I shouldn't have to explain which one is the better position.
"tank" It is literally the only thing Mario can do that injures him, he ain't tanking shit.
You do realize ground pounding meteors into his face is still physically attacking someone. If a through a rock at the moon so hard I blew it up, I must have thrown that rock really hard.
They aren't contradictions though, it's circumstantial, it'd only be a contradiction to my point if it was actually confirmed to do what you says it does, but it isn't, and if it did say it, we wouldn't even be arguing.
"It's circumstantial" wow i guess that clear everything up then, huh!
I was clarifying to Fujiwara what method of harm is made to Bowser in that fight. I literally wasn’t even making a statement of power there, just clarification.
Unless you have anything to show that they’re not stated in Japanese, or is contradictory, I don’t care. Nothing you have to say about it until that point really matters.
Yeah? Various things are useful depending on the circumstances. Your evidence is ACTUALLY circumstantial.
Most either involves knocking an enemy's weakpoint, or jump attacks don't strike the vulnerable parts for starters on a few of them. (Horizontal vs vertical tbh).
Extraordinary? I'd call them pretty ordinary, it's usually just makes sense in the context of the boss. Kamela for example requires throwing things back, so you use the spin to deflect things or throw things back.
We do, all the time actually, they don't do insane damage life-threatening damage, merely stun and daze him. And that's ignoring how, as just mentioned, it's actually accumulating damage, the dude can tank an infinite amount of them actually, it's only when you do 3 in a row and then another once he's down does it do anything. Don't want to hear "well he has a shell" lmao, Mario and lads can hurt his shell as seen in the RPG games.
Uh, lad, burden of proof is on you here? It's you who's saying it's an amp. Shouldn't it be you going through the actual source material to prove your claim instead of using disconnected hyperbole in english media?
So uh, literally EVERYTHING in this thread? And you say it's inconsistent (lmao at the irony), which sure, it could be, but I'm asking why the attack that is said to be gravity would be inconsistent
Dude, if it was 100% perfectly consistent, we wouldn't even be arguing.
But that's unironically what this whole thread has been, you selectively choosing disconnected statements (not even japanese) to paint a narrative that something MUST be happening while ignoring everything to the contrary, all without an actual statement confirming your initial stance.
No, not really. I have official sources from the games, from the manuals (which have NO official Japanese sources to contradict it, as previously stated) and other supplementary media which just support what’s already said in the games & manuals further. I don’t really have to prove anything here, you, as the person arguing against my points, have to show the burden of proof that my scans/links are wrong, which you aren’t doing. For all your begging of scans I actually haven’t seen you post a single one.
At this point you’re just saying shit. There’s nothing inconsistent with the statements of the Lumas granting the power of the stars nor them granting abilities alongside that.So uh, literally EVERYTHING in this thread? And you say it's inconsistent (lmao at the irony), which sure, it could be, but I'm asking why the attack that is said to be gravity would be inconsistent
But, as said in last post, this doesn't actually effect my stance, post statement, or not, that's quite frankly all I care about at this point, I've seen what you've had to say, don't buy any it, statement or bust.
The sources in the games that don't say it's an amp.
Oh, but you do, it's a CRT, your VERY JOB is to prove it, otherwise it won't get accepted.
Then don't complain.
Well of course I'm not gonna do it, I'm not the person arguing for it lmao, the burden of proof is on you. When sticking with english statements only, we get told what it does, so that's how it be.
Disingenuous? It seems you misunderstand, I ain't arguing for that, I'm calling you out on the fact you're using english EXCLUSIVE, in your own words, statements, and how usually we use japanese shit for japanese products, and if the lines don't actually exist in japanese, we'd normally just toss them, kinda like Piccolo's SBC being stated to be lightspeed in the eng dub, we don't use that as it's eng only.
Because I don't have to? What world do you live in where it's up to other people to prove what the originals say? It should be you posting it as it's you making a claim that something is the way it is.
My dude, my argument and counterpoint is you're literally just grasping at straws and doing a jigsaw puzzle between a bunch of disconnected examples and false equivalences to say that it MUST be an amp despite the lack of actual confirmation while ignoring the contradictions, widely varying changes between that has cross scaling unrelated things moot all while ignoring how we already KNOW what it does, and it ain't what you're arguing.
Oh, but there is. Do you not realize that if "power of the stars", which, to be blunt, is nothing but your headcanon, CONSISTENTLY doing DIFFERENT things, and in this very case, doing widely different things compared to ALL your examples given, in which they've even gone on record to denote the very things it DID do, Then, as we would do with any other verse, would make it a REQUIREMENT for a statement to be given, but as odd as it might be, the fact that we do get a statement, multiple, that lacks such a claim is evidence enough they are not the same.
Strawman, that or a very bad reading comprehension.
Because he's unamped? You answered your own question. And no, it'd ONLY be an outlier if Mario was amped untold magnitudes, but if he isn't amped, then there's no issue, this is, as with all your arguments, self fufilling. It's a circular argument, by definition, you argue because it's an amped it's an outlier, and because it's and outlier it must be an amp.
Unironic repeat of what was said above, already argued it.
Bowser can be hurt by non spin attack, bam.
I would love if that was true, but listing off examples, and then going "oh but you MUST ignore these ones because uh they debunk my own argument" isn't empirical evidence, it's flat-out cherry picking.
Yes, because that's the only thing they state it does, and they say verbatim what it gives, that being abilities, no mention of stat boost of magnitudes, which ngl, you'd think is KIND OF IMPORTANT as you've said multiple times, and you can't cross-scale it to disconnected examples as, well, it's an actual wiki rule? Also headcanon.
There's already a mod in here
You need more than one mod opinion to pass or deny a CRT, at least 3There's already a mod in here
And he agrees with me, not you
time to replace every single english scan with japanese ones on the mario profiles or they get the downgrade
Not my job, this ain't my verse, obviously using eng scans if the same thing is said in the raws is fine, but exclusive stuff, that ain't it chief, but you're right, that would need to done eventually.time to replace every single english scan with japanese ones on the mario profiles or they get the downgrade
there's tons of english only localized stuff already on the profiles so get tooo it
It doesn't make sense with how it is written.
力 is used for power like being strong or having great influence.
Japanese sentence you sent doesn't use pronouns and it's not luma talking.
It's also used for a **** of different things too, the root word is force, but it has like 30 meanings given how basic of kanji it is.
I don't think I ever used the word the way you say in my life. Words with the kanji in yes, but not just 力.
You used japanese, so I thought you were japanese too
Because the Grand Star doesn’t provide the same abilities as a Luma? Like how a power star doesn’t provide the same abilities as either? I went over this earlier.
You and this whole thread are arguing that "power of the stars" is some universal power. I already tried that before. It didn't go through. And part of that is because there are MANY stars in the Marioverse that you can literally use for power, whether that's strength or abilities.
You showed that it gives power (力) which is not really what you use for special abilities.
Lmao, the word just means force, but it in itself has a BUNCH of usages, strength? Yes, but it can even mean something as specific as a political power.
There's the word alone 力 and 力 as radical or part of other words. Here it is the word, not the radical or a part of a word.
