What the actual ****...?YES!
There’s a bit more to the story but yeah the guy literally did just randomly decide one day to drive 2+ hours to do this.
The wildest part was that when I first saw this guy, his first words to me were “What’s up (insert my real life name here)!” Again, no prior knowledge on who tf this guy was.
And I’m literally looking back at him like this:
Absolute insanity.
h-he even knew your name?YES!
There’s a bit more to the story but yeah the guy literally did just randomly decide one day to drive 2+ hours to do this.
The wildest part was that when I first saw this guy, his first words to me were “What’s up (insert my real life name here)!” Again, no prior knowledge on who tf this guy was.
And I’m literally looking back at him like this:
Absolute insanity.
Reinhard would revive, I don’t even know why that’s added. This and that are equally as bs. The one in a morbillion chance is insane.
Goku using Hakai as a Wincon.
That's mean.
I do have a argument for Goku hitting Naruto, but i don't want to say It.
I wasn’t calling you stupid my bad lol.That's mean.
I do have a argument for Goku hitting Naruto, but i don't want to say It.
Senjutsu is the stuff he ISNT immune to
Is probally a bad wincon now that i think about, but If Goku uses Solar Flare to blind Naruto for a while, he could hit Naruto by surprise.
Naruto doesn't need his eyes to fight, he has several sensory abilities that double as precog for him and if he does go blind suddenly then he's making a TSO shield around himself that negs everything thrown at him via EE.
He’s portraying Naruto more OP than Kishimoto ever did lmao. I don’t remember naruto doing half the stuff he’s said he will
I don't remember he ever doing that, but okay.
That doesn’t matter, having the capability and actually being in character for him to do so are completely different things. Thus why “arguing abilities” more than the character.
It really shouldn’t. Literally look at all the arguments made that got the votes. They’re always stompy if true.
The problem with your argument here is that neither of them are in-character for this matchup as stated in the OP.
The energies are considered borderline identical by VSB Standards.
Ok wait so I just checked the invulnerability page and it does in fact say you have to be careful not to employ a no limits fallacy when using this ability, which I believe this argument would fall under.
again, a limit has been set, aka it quite literally can't be NLF
vsbattles.fandom.com
That isn't NLF. You're saying the equivalent of "the magic organ punching guy can't punch this guy in the organs because his skin is too dense."
Again you’re not describing a “limit”, you’re describing a weakness. Those are two distinct things.again, a limit has been set, aka it quite literally can't be NLF
the whole point of it is working opposite to how durability negation works, aka it negates all damage, a mere power difference matters not unless it is of higher dimensional existence in comparison, hax in of itself ignores stats per default on this wiki
"Hax is a catch-all term for abilities that can be used to ignore/bypass one or more of a target's statistics, rendering them irrelevant."Hax
Hax is a catch-all term for abilities that can be used to ignore/bypass one or more of a target's statistics, rendering them irrelevant. The most common hax are the ones that ignore durability, and their scale/potency are unrelated to their users' AP & Tier, however, they can be measured with...
I’ve checked the durability negation page, and it doesn’t mention to “be careful not to apply a no limits fallacy” on the page like it does for the invulnerability page.
No, no they are not, a weakness is a limit
Aka your personal interpretation, it doesn't say "in regards to AP"
Yes it is, negating durability is the oposite of negating attack potency to not get hurt
Explain to me how superior power is going to overwhelm the TSBs ability to literally erase the energy powering the attacks.
Easy…by having too much energy for the TSB’s to erase.
No it is not. If I’m fire, and my weakness is water. That doesn’t mean there is a “limit” to how much fire I’m able to produce, that just means water is able to extinguish my fire because I’m “weak” to it.
It’s literally pointing out the distinction while discussing AP, I don’t need to take an English major or get a semantical argument to determine that this statement is in reference to AP when it is literally discussing AP.
Except durability negation doesn’t give any warnings a no limits fallacy when using it for “simple attack potency.” So no, this argument is still susceptible to the no limits fallacy per the page on the ability itself.
It's literally existence erasing hax, all it needs to do is touch it and it's gone. It's not a 4-D existence so it can get nagged by 3-D hax.
Are we talking existence erasure or invulnerability here? Because I’m specifically referring to the “invulnerability” power listed on the page here with reference to not employing a NLF.
At that point it’s not even invulnerability but exceptionally high durability which invulnerability is explicitly not.
On the page itself it says not to apply a NLF when it’s talking about AP. If there is a problem with that by the standards then that page needs to be reworded but that’s literally what it says currently. The durability negation page makes no mention about employing a NLF even though being unable to bypass higher dimensional beings is something durability negation is unable to do either.
