Fezzih_007
He/Him- 9,435
- 4,566
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.
-
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.
Yet another Goku vs Naruto matchup….
- Thread starter MeiouHades
- Start date
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 26,612
- 12,508
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.
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 26,612
- 12,508
I'm arguing that Naruto has the same capabilities as someone vastly inferior to him who has all the same powers. If ******* Jūbito can do it while not even conscious of his own state of being then Naruto can do it when we've seen him morph them into other things. The only reason he never made a shield with them is because literally the only people he fought with TSOs are people who can get around them or deal with them regardless.
Fezzih_007
He/Him- 9,435
- 4,566
I don't remember he ever doing that, but okay.
Anyway, did se reach grace already? Because i not sure If this should be added.
PhantomØ4
Username Only- 2,248
- 1,485
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.
PhantomØ4
Username Only- 2,248
- 1,485
It really shouldn’t. Literally look at all the arguments made that got the votes. They’re always stompy if true.
Goku can’t harm Naruto and is considerably slower unless he uses a very draining and damaging ability just to deal with an army of meaningless shadow clones and can’t even land a hit because if he tries Naruto will EE him out of existence.
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 26,612
- 12,508
The problem with your argument here is that neither of them are in-character for this matchup as stated in the OP.
Fezzih_007
He/Him- 9,435
- 4,566
I mean, the other problem with this match is If the verse equalization should apply or not because of how different the energy they use are.
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 26,612
- 12,508
The energies are considered borderline identical by VSB Standards.
- 3,888
- 4,239
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.
So yeah no even if you equalize verses and say Naruto can negate “energy attacks” like regular chakra, he still wouldn’t be able to do it on a 4-C level.
- 14,135
- 5,637
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
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...
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 18,140
- 13,942
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."
- 3,888
- 4,239
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...
Also, the fact that it says:
Inclines me to believe it’s saying to be careful not to use a no limits fallacy in regards to AP since it says it right after it says the words “negating simple attack potency.”
So from how it’s being described here, no it’s not a 1:1 comparison to durability negation nor is it a complete opposite.
- 3,888
- 4,239
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.
My question goes like this, if I made Goku high 3-A and equalized verses, would Naruto still be able to negate his energy attacks because of his invulnerability?
Because a “yes” to me seems like a clear cut example of a no limits fallacy and I can only assume is against the invulnerability standards with the way this page is worded.
If the standards have changed, then that’s another matter but from the way it is right now, I can only interpret it as you still have to be careful not to apply a no limits fallacy in regards to AP when arguing for invulnerability.
- 14,135
- 5,637
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
- 18,140
- 13,942
Explain to me how superior power is going to overwhelm the TSBs ability to literally erase the energy powering the attacks.
- 3,888
- 4,239
Easy…by having too much energy for the TSB’s to erase.
Can you prove the TSB’s are capable of erasing these levels of energy? Because again, you’re essentially saying a TSB can erase a High 3-A energy attack.
- 3,888
- 4,239
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.
Those are fundamentally different things especially in discussing a no limits fallacy.
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.
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 26,612
- 12,508
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.
- 7,778
- 9,302
What’s even the point of invulnerability if it can be negged by those with finite levels of higher AP lool. This is not a NLF. A NLF would be assuming invulnerability could shrug off higher dimensional attacks or would be unaffected by dura neg.
- 3,888
- 4,239
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.
My argument is just that even if you have the power “invulnerability” listed on your page, it doesn’t mean you’re able to tank attacks way above your tier level like a 4-C or a 3-A level attack since that would seem to go against what the invulnerability page says about not applying a no limits fallacy onto this power.
- 7,778
- 9,302
At that point it’s not even invulnerability but exceptionally high durability which invulnerability is explicitly not.
- 3,888
- 4,239
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.
Things like Higher Dimensional attacks and dura negation are hax which the page isn’t talking about when it warns against employing a NLF. It’s just talking about AP. So I can only take that to mean, you can’t just say you tank an infinite level of AP just because you have invulnerability listed on your profile without some kind of proof.
Maybe we honestly just need an expert on the ability to come explain, because the way the page is worded isn’t clear like this at all when it comes to its stance on what would classify as a no limits fallacy in this case.
Fezzih_007
He/Him- 9,435
- 4,566
Is kinda vague how is worded in the page, so i can't agree exactly.
- 14,135
- 5,637
but it is a limit on what you can burn and fight against, being made of fire doesn't make you able to burn everything, in the example you just gave, liquids such as water are a limit to the burning capability of the fire user
it isn't, at all, the whole point of it is to not get damaged by conventional attacks, that is the very basis of invulnerability, there is nothing on the page saying that higher AP alone can bypass it, it doesn't even make sense, what? does being 1% higher then the invulnerability user makes you able to harm them? if not that how much? 10%? 40%? you are discussing things that are elaborated with rules and guidelines in the page itself, and instead is just supposing how it works while making a stand for everyone to follow it, so unless you give guidelines in a thread and make it applied to the page, then your personal interpretations of the text, which not everyone here agreed with, can not be considered
neither does Invulnerability, but don't dodge the point, tell me the difference between the 2 haxes in function for one to work under one rule and the other to not
- 3,888
- 4,239
But not limited in how much I can produce or what temperatures? You’re basically saying that I can produce as high as a temperature as I want to with my fire so long as there’s no water around because then there’d be “no limit” to the amount of fire I can make or how hot I can achieve it to be.
Even having only “certain limits” on an ability can still mean you’re using a no limits fallacy onto the power as it literally says on the fallacy page itself.
So again, this would still classify as a no limits fallacy, even if you want to say it’s “limited” only by things like Senjutsu.
This is not my personal interpretation, this is what’s on the page itself. I don’t need to give you a percentage on the page as to the amount of AP that “bypasses” invulnerability since that’s not my job to do or the argument I’m making. The page just says not to employ a NLF in regards to AP for the power of invulnerability. “How much” AP is needed above your opponents to “bypass” it or whatever is irrelevant to my argument since all I’m proving is that the position of AP and invulnerability is there in the page itself. Not the specifics to it.
Well, considering there’s several different types of durability negation ranging from magic all the way to conceptual manipulation, there can be a plethora of differences between the two for one rule to work for one but not for the other just based on that fact alone since the power “invulnerability” doesn’t have these kinds of criteria in which it acts functionally similar to durability negation.
- 14,135
- 5,637
yes it is, if the temperature was high enough, the water would evaporate before touching you, aka your fire limited temperature is your weakness
no i am not, this doesn't disprove that the weakness is a limit at all, don't dodge the point
which isn't the case at all since smurf stuff would bypass it, again, the limit you asked was given
nope, i read it, it says to not apply NLF, no one is doing that by giving it limits in the first place and agreeing that 4D levels and up would not be able to be saved by it
yes it is if you want to impose something that you are vaguely interpreting from the page, or else the thing you are proposing in flawed in nature
it never does that, this is again, you interpreting with your vision
you didn't proved ANYTHING you didn't provided the logic behind of it, you didn't formed an concisse argument for it, you are just saying that "it is" without giving a good reason why, so again, why should anyone follow your personal interpretation?
invulnerability quite literally does have the exact same thing, it can be via law hax, or reality warping, or matter manip, or whatever else
- 2,774
- 402
The argument is too complicated for what it is. Invulnerability is basically durability negation, except the complete opposite; invulnerability is, as explained in the page itself, "the defensive equivalent of Durability Negation, negating simple Attack Potency." If Goku's energy blast (which is not anything complicated, and SIMPLY an energy blast) and Naruto has invulnerability against non-senjutsu stuff or SIMPLE energy, then the attack potency of Goku's energy being Star level doesn't matter at all. According to the Invulnerability page, this Goku doesn't have the kind of energy that can affect Naruto in the slightest. What you're trying to argue is that Naruto doesn't have invulnerability, because Goku can just bypass him with sheer power, when it wouldn't work like that at all in this case. And you're also arguing that invulnerability is an NLF power. You're saying that it's NLF when an Invulnerability user is unaffected by simple higher attack potency (WHICH IS LITERALLY EXACTLY WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE), when it's been stated multiple times to actually have a limit, which is higher-dimensional attacks or attacks that the user hasn't showcased being invulnerable to, to which Goku has absolutely none of in this case.
I just wanted to pitch in to my disagreement to the argument that essentially says Invulnerability, as defined on the wiki, is an NLF power. Since everyone clearly disagrees as well, I feel like it would be best to just get back on topic.
Btw, is the vote count even being recorded? I don't see it anywhere; I'd expect it to be on OP.
I just wanted to pitch in to my disagreement to the argument that essentially says Invulnerability, as defined on the wiki, is an NLF power. Since everyone clearly disagrees as well, I feel like it would be best to just get back on topic.
Btw, is the vote count even being recorded? I don't see it anywhere; I'd expect it to be on OP.
Last edited:
