ApiesDeathbyLazors
He/Him- 7,236
- 994
They didn't because that was never agreed apon.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
@ApiesFirephoenixearl said:Antvasima said:Bookmaker can both seal others, negate their powers, and reduce their statistics, and works as durability Negation
I don't see how it's only for Kumagawa due to Medaka's version being the same but literally better.TheC2 said:Bookmaker has durability negation but only for Kumagawa.
Book Maker has never displayed Dura Negation and Fire'sonly "Proof" are a bunch of textless scans of people being stabed with a large screw. I hate to be the one to draw this out, but that's the only thing I don't like about this. Even the last scan(the only one with text) isn't proof of dura negation. It's just a fancy description of it's overall effect.Antvasima said:@Apies
Can you summarise your objections?
I think that it is due to that he can seal Najimi, not that he defeated the pluses.ApiesDeathbyLazors said:Book Maker has never displayed Dura Negation and Fire'sonly "Proof" are a bunch of textless scans of people being stabed with a large screw. I hate to be the one to draw this out, but that's the only thing I don't like about this. Even the last scan(the only one with text) isn't proof of dura negation. It's just a fancy description of it's overall effect.
Are you talking about the calculations or about the points? The points have already been concluded and will be added.Iapitus The Impaler said:So what still needs to be applied?
I don't agree with banning them as a hole. Perhaps we can just have one member lay off of them
I have been absent (studies, mainly), sorry. I thought we needed more approval.Antvasima said:@PaChi2
Would you be willing to handle updating the pages?
Didn't we establish that Bookmaker just bypasses the physical body and goes directly at sealing the attributes? It wouldn't have worked on ajimu if that were the case.Antvasima said:I think that you can make the agreed upon edits, with the possible exception of Bookmaker having durability negation.
No, definitely not. This thread is more than chaotic enough as it is. Adding even more topics would make sure that we waste hours more arguing and that nothing gets done.
Again, they acomplish the same thing, both prevent you from using ur powers, but sealing is still sealing and it requires resistance to sealing. And calling a "seal" power null, in a verse where power null and seals are different is wrong. They did differ them for a reason.Wokistan said:Type 2 sealing is a form of power null though. Resisting power null would insinuate resisting type 2 sealing.
Not yet we still need Ant to have his last say on this.Kepekley23 said:Should I make the edits now?
Avoid sealing even though that's the best possible definition?Antvasima said:@Kepekley23
You can make the edits, yes, but it is probably best to avoid adding "sealing" and to only use "possibly durability negation" for Bookmaker.