• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you sure it's remotely fair in terms of AP? Regardless, Amitabha has really strong Conceptual Immortality.
 
It´s a main "3-A sized" universe + "countless" worlds, of which it´s said there are as many as stars in the sky, which can be up to the size of multiple galaxies

His durability can also be increase by casting Aeroga onto himself.
 
A planck length is 1.616255├ù10^ÔêÆ35 meters

The Observable Universe is about 8.8×10^26 meters

As such Amithaba is more than 5.4446853993×10^61 times baseline. That is 61 zeroes.
 
Just through a rough calculation, Amitabha should be around 10^185 times above Baseline 3-A, or the amount of Plank Volumes in the universe.
 
Depends what galaxy we use for baseline, though if it's multiple galaxy sized spaces it's not 3-B because that tier like 4-A is gotten by distance between galaxies.
 
Tbh, I think this is a stomp, Amitabha one-shots his whole tier by breathing too hard and has conceptual immortality to back him up.
 
You can get 4-A with 2 stars. Actually destroying the stars themselves is negligible, it's the distance they're destroyed at that matters. Thanks inverse square
 
I don't either since assuming "countless" means a number as high as 10^61 (lowest number of the 3) doesn't seem right. close time
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top