Woody Woodpecker - Abilities that were left for later.

[Phsccarvalho]

Hello

Introduction
This crt is a small continuation of this other crt.

In short, two skills from that crt were controversial and had mixed votes, either disagreeing or saying that x skill would make more sense if it were y.

So I'm creating this crt focusing on these two skills. In addition to another possible one that I thought of recently.

Abilities left for later.

• Causality Manipulation (Caused the slashing effect of a guillotine to affect your enemy)
  • During the discussion it was said that this skill could be two others that I will talk about and give my opinions.
    • Attack Reflection - I don't think it is because if it were I think the blade would have to be reflected back to the bear. Going towards him, like I shoot a guy and the bullet comes back to me. In the case of the video, as the blade descended it cut the bear, so it would be like me shooting someone, and while the bullet is moving in the air, it is hitting me at the same time.
    • Damage Transfel - Some said that in this one the target doesn't need to take damage, he can simply make the target take it for him. But I don't think so either, because we're not sure that the bear being cut by the guillotine would prevent the guillotine from cutting Woody if he still had pressure on it. And that's what I said in the previous example, shooting someone, and while the bullet moves towards the target, would it at the same time cause damage to the guy who shot it be considered Damage Transfel? I don't think so, but I don't know.
  • I've already discussed these topics a lot in the previous crt, so I really don't care which skill would pass, whether it's attack reflection, damage transfer or causality.
  • Just vote for what you think best fits based on the video and audio seen.
• Limited Power Nullification (Can cause weapons and traps to fail)
  • During the discussion it was said that this skill could be two others that I will talk about and give my opinions.
    • Technology Manipulation - I think this could be it, I have no problem. Because Woody just made things like guns and traps not work, and maybe they're technology? I don't know.
  • In the same way as before, it could be any of these Abilities, I'll just put it in the most agreed upon.

Resurrection

Spoiler

Okay, in this episode, Woody dies.

This is the first and actually I think this is the only episode where he dies. And despite this, in all episodes after this one, even those explicitly after this one chronologically (based on which year x episode takes place)

If someone asks "How can a toon like Woody who on several occasions turns to ash and comes back die from a simple explosion?"

Because this death is more used as a symbolic form.

The episode where Woody died was:

• Ration Bored - July 26 -1943

And the next episode after that, in which he appears alive again, was:

• The Barber of Seville - April 10 - 1944

If you see these two episodes, which were released one after the other, you will see that Woody underwent a major change in design.

And that's what his "death" is in Ration Bored. It is to represent the "death" of its first design, as it was changed in the following episode.

Despite this, Woody can return to his first design whenever he wants.
-
-
But the question is, is this applicable to combat? I sincerely do not know.

The Woody Woodpecker episodes don't exactly have a chronological order or anything like that, even in future episodes with more recent designs, there are episodes that take place in the age of cavemen or in the era of great navigation.

Besides, it's a very meta cartoon, since they know they're cartoons and in the cartoon itself there are some fans who ask Woody about what he did in past episodes.

There is even an episode where they are in the studios that make their episodes, making an episode.

So I think it's impossible to know how long it took for him to come back. Unless someone wants to use the release time of his short that changed its design, then it would be 1 year.

But there's also this meta episode where Woody "kills" Buzz, and when the episode ends Buzz simply regenerates back.

So I leave it up to the staff whether this would be applicable to combat or not.

Votes
Abilities left for later.
Agree: (3;0) @SamanPatou (Damage Transfel and Technology Manipulation), @LordGriffin1000 (Even though Saman), @DarkDragonMedeus (Even though Saman)

Neutral:

Disagree:
Resurrection
Agree: (3;0) @SamanPatou (as "possibly"/Not applicable to combat), @LordGriffin1000 (Even though Saman), @DarkDragonMedeus (Even though Saman)

Neutral:

Disagree:

 

[Phsccarvalho]

bump

 

[ShionAH]

Eeh the Resurrection just seems to be a mere joke way to show the design change.

It would not be combat appicable either wau

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Eeh the Resurrection just seems to be a mere joke way to show the design change.

It would not be combat appicable either wau

Perhaps. It may be a joke but he still died.

Although I probably agree on whether or not it is applicable, considering the indefinite time.

But I think I'm going to remove this skill, I have others to add, etc.

And this skill would probably be good to put on its own.

I think I'll remove it from the OP.

 

[SamanPatou]

I prefer Damage Transferal, feels less pretentious and applies well to what has happened. Besides, Damage Transferal is already a form of causality manip.
And Technology Manip does fit better, I agree.

Honestly, I can even buy Resurrection, an ability doesn't necessarily have to be combat applicable and he died anyway. Even if meant to be a gag or an exploit, we're talking about a cartoon character, 99% of their abilities are based on that.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

I prefer Damage Transferal, feels less pretentious and applies well to what has happened. Besides, Damage Transferal is already a form of causality manip.
And Technology Manip does fit better, I agree.

OK

Honestly, I can even buy Resurrection, an ability doesn't necessarily have to be combat applicable and he died anyway. Even if meant to be a gag or an exploit, we're talking about a cartoon character, 99% of their abilities are based on that.

So I'll put it back.

So your vote for this is I agree for the resurrection? But do you think it is applicable in combat or not?

Just so I can confirm.

 

[SamanPatou]

I do agree with Resurrection, though we shouldn't talk about combat applicable or not.
And thinking about it, it should be put as possibly, as we don't know the reason why he came back to life, it might have been an external intervention.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

though we shouldn't talk about combat applicable or not.

why?

And thinking about it, it should be put as possibly, as we don't know the reason why he came back to life, it might have been an external intervention.

I mean, if it wasn't for him, he would be the animator. A guy who is already connected to Woody in some ways.

Like Od Laguna for Reinhard.

Although in Woody's case it was more demonstrated than said, and it was something we didn't see happen very often.

Like when Woody threw himself off a cliff to his death (since he was dying of old age) and then the animator erased and redesigned the scene so that at the bottom of the cliff there was a fountain of youth, only for Woody to not die and come back 100%.

 

[SamanPatou]

why?

Because we simply don't know the limitations or how much time it took, and also because it might not have been his own doing.

I mean, if it wasn't for him, he would be the animator. A guy who is already connected to Woody in some ways.
Like Od Laguna for Reinhard.
Although in Woody's case it was more demonstrated than said, and it was something we didn't see happen very often.
Like when Woody threw himself off a cliff to his death (since he was dying of old age) and then the animator erased and redesigned the scene so that at the bottom of the cliff there was a fountain of youth, only for Woody to not die and come back 100%.

We just don't know, he might have fallen from the clouds and gone back to the living world because cartoon logic, or went back into the door he entered from, or banished by God, or whatever else, we just have no way to tell.

The thing about the animator should be looked more in detail, it could be Blessed. Though, that is unrelated to resurrection.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Because we simply don't know the limitations or how much time it took, and also because it might not have been his own doing.

So shouldn't it be "Not applicable to combat"?

Considering all the "?"

We just don't know, he might have fallen from the clouds and gone back to the living world because cartoon logic, or went back into the door he entered from, or banished by God, or whatever else, we just have no way to tell.

The thing about the animator should be looked more in detail, it could be Blessed. Though, that is unrelated to resurrection.

It was just something I thought about considering some things demonstrated by the Animator to Woody and some other statements, although it was not related to this specific scene.

Unless you consider the context outside the cartoon about the design change.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

It seems good

 

[SamanPatou]

So shouldn't it be "Not applicable to combat"?
Considering all the "?"

I prefer to make a distinction between unknown and not applicable, but if we have to write it at all costs, then it's no.

It was just something I thought about considering some things demonstrated by the Animator to Woody and some other statements, although it was not related to this specific scene.
Unless you consider the context outside the cartoon about the design change.

I'm just saying that we have no idea what happened and any possible theory is moot, so I believe "possibly" is more than reasonable.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

I prefer to make a distinction between unknown and not applicable, but if we have to write it at all costs, then it's no.

I mean, unknown would still be in the area of "applicable" to combat like the rest of the skills that have "Possibly".

That's why I'm asking you whether this skill would be applicable in combat or not.

I'm just saying that we have no idea what happened and any possible theory is moot, so I believe "possibly" is more than reasonable.

I understood.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Still voting Damage Transferal for the first. No opinion for the second but Technological Manipulation seems fine.
Update: Icl that looks like blanket toon force abilities. Should be better to call it Supernatural Luck.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Bump

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I prefer Damage Transferal, feels less pretentious and applies well to what has happened. Besides, Damage Transferal is already a form of causality manip.
And Technology Manip does fit better, I agree.

Honestly, I can even buy Resurrection, an ability doesn't necessarily have to be combat applicable and he died anyway. Even if meant to be a gag or an exploit, we're talking about a cartoon character, 99% of their abilities are based on that.

I share the same thoughts.

Possibly for Ressurection works in my opinion.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

I share the same thoughts.

Possibly for Ressurection works in my opinion.

Applicable or not to combat? (Ressurection)

Since if you just say that you agree with possibly, it will automatically be something applicable in combat (if no one wants to remove the possible skills in the match)

Until I respond, I will leave it the same as Samam.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Applicable or not to combat? (Ressurection)

Since if you just say that you agree with possibly, it will automatically be something applicable in combat (if no one wants to remove the possible skills in the match)

Until I respond, I will leave it the same as Samam.

Sorry about that, not applicable. In my opinion.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Sorry about that, not applicable. In my opinion.

Sorry to bother you, but could you ping @Lonkitt?

It's just that the first two skills were from another topic. And I left them for later.

And he was one of those who voted.

Since there is only one vote left, could you call him?

 

[Phsccarvalho]

I prefer to make a distinction between unknown and not applicable, but if we have to write it at all costs, then it's no.


I'm just saying that we have no idea what happened and any possible theory is moot, so I believe "possibly" is more than reasonable.

Sorry to bother you, but could you ping @Lonkitt?

It's just that the first two skills were from another topic. And I left them for later.

And he was one of those who voted.

Since there is only one vote left, could you call him?

If you can, could you do the same?

 

[Phsccarvalho]

bump

 

[Phsccarvalho]

bump

 

[Phsccarvalho]

bump

 

[Dragonite007]

Bump

 

[Dragonite007]

bump

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Have you tried asking for feedback on staff's message walls? This doesn't sound like a very time-consuming revision, could be easier to ask directly.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Have you tried asking for feedback on staff's message walls? This doesn't sound like a very time-consuming revision, could be easier to ask directly.

It's just that I don't feel like it, I'm busy with other things, etc. The good thing is that I'm not in a rush.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

bump

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Bump

 

[Dragonite007]

bump

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks good to me, and agree with what Saman said.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Looks good to me, and agree with what Saman said.

Sorry about that, not applicable. In my opinion.

I prefer to make a distinction between unknown and not applicable, but if we have to write it at all costs, then it's no.


I'm just saying that we have no idea what happened and any possible theory is moot, so I believe "possibly" is more than reasonable.

Finally I applied the changes.

Before this is closed, should I take out that bold part of supernatural luck?

• Supernatural Luck (Wasn't hit by attacks delivered inches from him,[20][17] despite him being immobile.[21] Traps are not triggered for him[22][23])

Since now it is also in the manipulation of technology. Or do they both remain?

• Technology Manipulation (Can cause weapons and traps to fail[1][22][23][48])