- 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.
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: