Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He needs to be erased for your argument to be valid for the level of regeneration you're arguing for, yes.He does not need to be erased, as long as he wills to not die. He only needs his will power, not a piece of his body.
See? You just ignore it! You actually have no evidence on the mind being affected at all, and even you prove it isn't!You know what, let's just wait more Staff to see their take on this.
True, after being killed by Frisk, they just turn into a regular flower, I guess their body do remain after death.flowey is not a monster tho
I sent all the proof for law manip. The rest is up to you staff members.True, after being killed by Frisk, they just turn into a regular flower, I guess their body do remain after death.
As someone who has played Undertale in both Japanese and English, such instance does not exist!So uh.. Any proof that Flowey ever got his whole body and mind erased?
Since our wiki lacks any kind of "Gameplay Manipulation" ability, I guess Law Manipulation would be the next best thing.I sent all the proof for law manip. The rest is up to you staff members.
I'd like to ask, it is possible to ask or suggest new powers and abilities pages somewhere?Since our wiki lacks any kind of "Gameplay Manipulation" ability, I guess Law Manipulation would be the next best thing.
I never knew about that page lmao.Since our wiki lacks any kind of "Gameplay Manipulation" ability, I guess Law Manipulation would be the next best thing.
On Zeref's page:He needs to be erased for your argument to be valid for the level of regeneration you're arguing for, yes.
He manifested this will through it's mind, huh?
See? You just ignore it! You actually have no evidence on the mind being affected at all, and even you prove it isn't!
Yes, you can ask here, but coming up with a draft is harder that you might think (needs summary, images showcasing the power, examples of characters that can use it, new categories, etc.).I'd like to ask, it is possible to ask or suggest new powers and abilities pages somewhere?
You just explained the reason why its limited and not flat out. Theres no arguements here that debunk itI respectfully disagree. From my perspective, what has occurred appears to be a violation of established rules, rather than an intentional manipulation of the laws to such an extent that the universe has been altered and impacted by it.
Furthermore, while it is evident that a transgression of the rules has taken place, it does not appear to be of such an extreme nature that it has significantly impacted the universe or had any far-reaching consequences. In my opinion, it is a relatively minor instance of rule-breaking for more game purposes.
Hence why is Minor, because of Sans abusing said rule unlike other characters.I respectfully disagree. From my perspective, what has occurred appears to be a violation of established rules, rather than an intentional manipulation of the laws to such an extent that the universe has been altered and impacted by it.
Why should an impact to the universe matter? Because he's just imposing a law on the opponent in his favor, it's still a hax lol.Furthermore, while it is evident that a transgression of the rules has taken place, it does not appear to be of such an extreme nature that it has significantly impacted the universe or had any far-reaching consequences. In my opinion, it is a relatively minor instance of rule-breaking for more game purposes.
lv is canon to the verse,saving is canon, and other shitI am entirely not sure that game mechanics are classified as laws of verse. Is there any evidence for this claim?
You are manipulating the law of the universe, this is the consequences…Hence why is Minor, because of Sans abusing said rule unlike other characters.
Why should an impact to the universe matter? Because he's just imposing a law on the opponent in his favor, it's still a hax lol.
I never asked for canonicity.lv is canon to the verse,saving is canon, and other shit
Using that in your own favor is still part of Law Hax my guy. You are abusing of a law, when other characters cannot.You are manipulating the law of the universe, this is the consequences…
Read the OP.Also, for latter what exactly is he imposing?
yes you did, they exist in the verse, they arent just a game mechanicYou are manipulating the law of the universe, this is the consequences…
Also, for latter what exactly is he imposing? Can you post feats and the description of them? Because I feel for each it has its own hax, I assume
I never asked for canonicity.
Marsh, for the 10th time, I never asked if they are canon or not, I asked if they are being treated as laws of the universe or not since there is not a single statement or implication for that.yes you did, they exist in the verse, they arent just a game mechanic
Tell me what do you exactly expect from Sans stopping Chara from attacking from not letting them reach their turn.Marsh, for the 10th time, I never asked if they are canon or not, I asked if they are being treated as laws of the universe or not since there is not a single statement or implication for that.
IT IS NOT DEFAULT. UNDERTALE IS NOT LIKE OTHER GAMESThe argument is iffy, I am not stonewalling when I disagree. Game mechanics are nowhere in default “laws of the universe”. They don't even act as laws to begin with, no statement of this.
Fair point I will just ignore herWhy the **** are you even entertaining Dread, who never touched the game?
I see. It appears that you tend to refrain from using the argument that "you never played/read the game/verse" when discussing your own preferred fictional universes, but have used it in other threads to either disagree with or agree with a particular stance, even without having read the respective novel or work.Why the **** are you even entertaining Dread, who never touched the game?
You are the one misinterpreting everything, and force things in your narrative from ignoring context my guy, not me.I see. It appears that you tend to refrain from using the argument that "you never played/read the game/verse" when discussing your own preferred fictional universes, but have used it in other threads to either disagree with or agree with a particular stance, even without having read the respective novel or work.
I would also like to address the fact that your tone in this thread seems to be somewhat confrontational. I urge you to remain civil and avoid any behavior that may be deemed inappropriate. I kindly request that you refrain from any further conduct that may result in the need for intervention, and I hope that we can continue this discussion in a respectful and constructive manner.
Are you saying that your opinion has no value if you haven't played the game?Why the **** are you even entertaining Dread, who never touched the game?
My patience is only this much. Blatantly ignoring proofs and stonewalling is not going to pass lightly under my eye if repeated a certain amount of times.Does not give you right to be aggressive with me, Strym.
I think he means since dread has no idea how the verse works her opinion is not as important as people with knowledgeAre you saying that your opinion has no value if you haven't played the game?
I must insist that you refrain from being confrontational and defensive. Furthermore, I must point out that there is nothing inherently "blatant" about the evidence presented, particularly since there is no statement or indication that the game mechanics in question are actually considered to be laws of the universe, which is a crucial aspect of the argument.My patience is only this much. Blatantly ignoring proofs and stonewalling is not going to pass lightly under my eye if repeated a certain amount of times.
Given that Chara has indeed to obey rules such as not being able to attack under certain conditions in the game (such as waiting for their turn or not being able to attack in shops), it actually is Law Manip.I must insist that you refrain from being confrontational and defensive. Furthermore, I must point out that there is nothing inherently "blatant" about the evidence presented, particularly since there is no statement or indication that the game mechanics in question are actually considered to be laws of the universe, which is a crucial aspect of the argument.
I mean you have to have some knowledge of the verse to be talking about it, i usually don't comment on crts for verses i haven't read/played/completed unless they're obviously wrongAre you saying that your opinion has no value if you haven't played the game?