• 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.

Standards on Macguffins and Power Sources

3,711
2,690
It's come to my attention that certain threads are being made where a major argument against a rating is that characters who use certain items or sources of power to amp themselves can't provably show they're using all of the object's power (even in spite of evidence otherwise but this is a personal rant of mine) unless it's made explicit.

My question is: Is it our standard to assume a character recieves power fron an object of a specified power with no lower "anti-feats" or canon varying power levels and disregard them scaling to its full power without proof? Instead fully asserting they only used a miniscule fraction of the object's powers? Or do we naturally assume the opposite? That feats such as these would naturally involve a character using as much power as they can from the object and thus scale to the tier the object is rated as unless there's proof otherwise?

This is apparently an important distinction and will impact some current and potentially future CRTs depending on the outcome. I ask that we please decide on a standard or just what to do in situations like these regarding a rating being applied to the character.
 
Last edited:
Case by case is technically the way to put it, but I think there should be some common sense. If a feat was done via one McGuffin artifact, said McGuffin artifact are consistently shown and/or stated they can amp physical powers and magical powers equally, and there needs to be 2 or more copies of said McGuffin artifact for character A to even Match character B, than its logical for character B to upscale from a McGuffin Artifact's feat. Though, multipliers may or may not be best advised.
 
Case by case, as Medeus said. There is no standard assumption that we make in every case, it all depends on the context.

If a tier 9 character absorbs a source of power that can do tier 2 stuff, but gets harmed by say tier 8 stuff and none of his feats come close to the level of the full power of whatever source he absorbed, then we don't make such a huge assumption in that case. And we only rate him based on an unquantifiable amp.

However, with context like a statement saying that he absorbed all the power and he can do the same stuff, even without any shown feats, we assume that the character has been amped to tier 2 level.

Standardizing things like this is not viable since every series has it's own context regarding this stuff, and common sense is enough to use here to determine such things. That's why other verses should never be brought up in any such discussion.
 
Following this, agree with DDM and AKM right now.
 
I also agree with AKM and Medeus.
 
Back
Top