Even by your logic, an explosion gets him
blown up along with totem of undying while totem of undying will
instantly resurrect him. The totem of undying disappear after use.
"The totem's durability
should also be Steve's duraviliry at most though." Are you making a rule for yourself? That's not how it works. @Saikou really need to see this though. It doesn't destroyed by explosion or melted, Steve carried them anywhere and anytime. Totem of Undyings is made of unknown materials so you can't assume they're same durability as Steve, there's nothing notable about it except he just carries there. You have to show a proof that they were destroyed by explosion or interacted with explosion. But it doesn't. Additionally gamemechanic doesn't prove anything, they just lack interaction, Developers doesn't care about it though.
"held/carried" items =/= "dropped" items
The only evidence of totem of undying interacted with something was the void itself. Steve in survival mode had shown can resist the void while eating Notch Apple, the each one Notch Apple gives him 30 seconds survivability in the void. Notch Apple's secondary canon, it can't be crafted thus it's made of unknown materials, it's primary canon (the recipe can be crafted with gold blocks and apple) was still irrelevant though.
Void in-game >>>>>> Explosion in-game
To clarify I added "in-game" because it's not all around resistance nor drawing a conclusion of how "resistance isn't durability" (furthermore totem of undyings doesn't interact with the explosion in-game), though it's all about
how they are built in the game. I meant all of items interaction with the environment in the game. They instantly destroyed, just like cactus, by this logic it'd be like Steve carries diamond then suddenly a random weak explosion exploded near him aftermath his diamond was gone now (Steve's now despair afterwards), so it's contradictory. The consistent gamemechanics was the Void has same interaction with items just like Explosion, Cactus, Lava, and etc. Therefore "same as durability as him" and "explosion should destroy the (held) items" doesn't work.
Also just like I said before, Tiering of AP/Dura can't be easily trusted. I knew you only made a conclusion by you just take Steve's dura as equivalent to Totem of Undying's dura...
Burden of proof fallacy.
| Don't Mind This Rant LMFAO | |
|---|
In narrative games like Undertale uses plot to make the game's gamemechanics a "gamemechanics canon" because they're part of the plot, so I think VSbattle's Game Mechanics rules only applied to narrative games (I think they should add rules about non-linear/non-narrative games to the page).
Using IRL logic to Minecraft while they have contradictories from the game, as they don't make sense to both "equivalence" and "comparison", the conclusions along with contradictories are thrown out. By the way before you draw a conclusion of how gamemechanics are non-canon, there's difference between gamemechanics canon and gamemechanics fallacy on how they were "interpreted" from "equivalance" and they should be consistent from "comparison". So if both "equivalance" and "comparison" are true then they are classified as gamemechanics canon to the game like Minecraft, sandbox game.
This kind of contradictories gives me a headache, just like this guy we're arguing how between the "hardness" and "blast resistance" which one is gamemechanics fallacy.
(Edit: Lol I write essay what the f-. I was hoping you should ignore some of them if it has nothing to do with it and you shouldn't criticize all of the paragraphs above if they aren't necessary. Though I'm making a bookmark of my comments and my other previous comments so I couldn't forget them and add to my knowledge base.)
| |
