• 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.
Huh... this is a new feeling. Experiencing the thrill of a real fight. Too bad it's overshadowed by ALL THIS UNYIELDING RAGE!
page_17.png
 
BTW, considering that Garou didn't copy Saitama's full power prior to him and Saitama doing a serious punch at each other. Would that make Garou 5-A, likely/possibly High 4-C, up to 4-A or we just gonna go with straight up 4-A?
 
BTW, considering that Garou didn't copy Saitama's full power prior to him and Saitama doing a serious punch at each other. Would that make Garou 5-A, likely/possibly High 4-C, up to 4-A or we just gonna go with straight up 4-A?

Though I prefer the former instead of the latter it probably will be 4-A.

Since Garou still scratched him before the SSSP as of what we know right now.
 
BTW, considering that Garou didn't copy Saitama's full power prior to him and Saitama doing a serious punch at each other. Would that make Garou 5-A, likely/possibly High 4-C, up to 4-A or we just gonna go with straight up 4-A?
Though I prefer the former instead of the latter it probably will be 4-A.

Since Garou still scratched him before the SSSP as of what we know right now.
Yeah, straight 4-A seems like the most sensible choice to me.
 
Isn't a safer assumption to assume stars?
I think it’d be more accurate to assume at least 2 galaxies were up there? It’s not like he destroyed a single layer of light’s, he made that entire area completely black, meaning lights behind lights behind lights were destroyed, and telescope pictures show galaxiws within these lights i think it’s a fair assumption to say at least 2 galaxies were destroyed
 
That there were some 3-C calcs we had problems with.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top