Z Vs Yang Qi (Strongest Non-Smurf Low 1-C)

[JoshSSJGod]

Also, don't Xenoblade characters have layered Fate Manip even beyond acausal characters? TD and NEP are limited by NLFs if they haven't shown to ignore stuff on this scale.

They do. Its also Probability, Causality, etc etc.

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

I recall it was already concluded that paradoxical Reality to Fiction stuff on Yang Qi's part is useless for our purposes and should be ignored.

Perhaps you concluded that but I already told you it part of their transduality, just not usable for actual tiering after it was assumed to be 1-C.

And durability past a certain point inherently requires the organs to also be about as durable (especially when dealing with infinite AP tiers (High 3-A and above)), I recall the smurf thread overall is agreeing so far that merely hitting weak spots isn't truly ignoring durability too.

No, it does not. You still need proof/context it scales universally. I mentioned internal organs which is quite literally the first type listed on the P&A page.

I also recall the AP was concluded to just be range, anything else would require a CRT.

Infinite power was already accepted for them, the entire argument was regarding infinite range and hence infinitely above baseline 6D for Yang Qi, which lead ThanatosX to ask DontTalkDT and Ultima_Reality.

Also, don't Xenoblade characters have layered Fate Manip even beyond acausal/"fateless" characters? TD and NEP are limited by NLFs if they haven't shown to ignore stuff on this scale.

I have already talked about this. His acausality type 4 is NEP (Type 2) even without counting his NEP physique or transduality.

 

[Bobsican]

Perhaps you concluded that but I already told you it part of their transduality, just not usable for actual tiering after it was assumed to be 1-C.

Read the staff input of the very CRT you linked, all staff input just leans on it being unusable for anything at all, even transduality, make a CRT if you disagree.

No, it does not. You still need proof/context it scales universally.

If anything I only find staff consensus leaning on the opposite when it comes to tier 1:

So, to make things clear: Inflicting damage on a Low 1-C entity, regardless of how minimal, is still Low 1-C. So, as far as I can discern, either this is a huge outlier for Thor and Jormungandr, or it's an anti-feat for Yggdrasil that goes against the notion that it actually transcends the Nine Realms. Either way, it should be adjusted somehow.

I mentioned internal organs which is quite literally the first type listed on the P&A page.

And this is why durability negation and hax aren't inherently the same thing, merely hitting organs isn't hax by definition.

Infinite power was already accepted for them, the entire argument was regarding infinite range and hence infinitely above baseline 6D for Yang Qi, which lead ThanatosX to ask DontTalkDT and Ultima_Reality.

I'll concede on this after looking around.

I have already talked about this. His acausality type 4 is NEP (Type 2) even without counting his NEP physique or transduality.

Eh, is the other work stated to also be canon here to begin with? Right now it appears to not be the case given Yang Qi has another profile for this verse and is even labeled as another verse, implying it's not canon for starters.

 

[Unqver]

Read the staff input of the very CRT you linked, all staff input just leans on it being unusable for anything at all, even transduality, make a CRT if you disagree.


If anything I only find staff consensus leaning on the opposite when it comes to tier 1:




And this is why durability negation and hax aren't inherently the same thing, merely hitting organs isn't hax by definition.


I'll concede on this after looking around.


Eh, is the other work stated to also be canon here to begin with? Right now it appears to not be the case given Yang Qi has another profile for this verse and is even labeled as another verse, implying it's not canon for starters.

Excuse me, is 杨旗 equal to 杨奇？

 

[Bobsican]

Excuse me, is 杨旗 equal to 杨奇？

IDK Chinese, so I'd have to ask what's your point given you're replying to that post.

 

[Unqver]

IDK Chinese, so I'd have to ask what's your point given you're replying to that post.

These two Yang Qi Probably not the same person.

 

[Bobsican]

Which'd further cement using semantics from another verse altogether not being valid here.

 

[Unqver]

Which'd further cement using semantics from another verse altogether not being valid here.

If you think these two are the same person, then Dragon Talisman's Yang Qi should be much stronger than Sage Monarch's Yang Qi

 

[Bobsican]

Eh? You clarified that your point is that they aren't the same character, which I'm using to push my argument further in the case that was right.
Plus we're using the Low 1-C non-smurf one for the purposes of the list either way.

 

[Unqver]

Eh? You clarified that your point is that they aren't the same character, which I'm using to push my argument further in the case that was right.
Plus we're using the Low 1-C non-smurf one for the purposes of the list either way.

It's true that you said so, but I just found that these two works are unreasonable. I looked at Cosmology and found that the universe ocean is H1-B, but the person who created it is not as good as Yang Qi in Dragon Talisman

 

[Khanhba01]

Eh? You clarified that your point is that they aren't the same character, which I'm using to push my argument further in the case that was right.
Plus we're using the Low 1-C non-smurf one for the purposes of the list either way.

I'm a bit wondering if Z's immortal type 9 is in 4D range or 5D range?

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

Read the staff input of the very CRT you linked, all staff input just leans on it being unusable for anything at all, even transduality, make a CRT if you disagree.

When I keep saying it is part of their transduality, the r>f is literally in the accepted blog. If you disagree, then create a CRT.

If anything I only find staff consensus leaning on the opposite when it comes to tier 1:

At what point did I disqualify tier 1 based on internal damage? To quote that, I believe you thought my belief was that tier 1 characters can be damaged by tier 2 or below if they aim for their internal organs. As though they're internal organs aren't tier 1 too. I don't know why you would assume something so extreme rather than use the context surrounding the arguments which scales up to low 1-C.

Also the quote isn't directly related to my point. A quote mentioning the disparity/comparison of biology regardless of any tier would be appreciated.

And this is why durability negation and hax aren't inherently the same thing, merely hitting organs isn't hax by definition.

Don't straw man, rather than actually address my point. Or maybe you're just mentioning it out of the blue? I mentioned the very first type of durability negation and linked the page.

Eh, is the other work stated to also be canon here to begin with? Right now it appears to not be the case given Yang Qi has another profile for this verse and is even labeled as another verse, implying it's not canon for starters.

By canon I think you mean sequel? It is partially a sequel but mostly its own novel. The concept isn't being ripped from another novel, it is present in Sage Monarch.

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

Sage Monarch Yang Qi is 6D while Dragon Talisman Yang Qi is High 1-B & Low 1-A. It was already accepted but never applied.

 

[Unqver]

Sage Monarch Yang Qi is 6D while Dragon Talisman Yang Qi is High 1-B & Low 1-A. It was already accepted but never applied.

Curious, I would like to ask, what do you think of the Cosmic Sea in Dragon Talisman and the Fairyland Flower in Sage Monarch, as well as the Immortal Demon Body and Daqian Zizai?

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

Curious, I would like to ask, what do you think of the Cosmic Sea in Dragon Talisman and the Fairyland Flower in Sage Monarch, as well as the Immortal Demon Body and Daqian Zizai?

Cosmic sea is already accepted by staff as high 1-b. Flower should technically also be high 1-b but a CRT is needed.

Immortal body? I am guessing you mean the tribulation or kalpa body? I don't think that is tier 1, at best being 2-A. You most likely known Chinese far more than me but you didn't elaborate on your reasoning.

As for Daqian Zizai or Chiliocosm Unrestrained Mental Dharma, it should probably be high 1-b.

 

[Unqver]

Cosmic sea is already accepted by staff as high 1-b. Flower should technically also be high 1-b but a CRT is needed.

Immortal body? I am guessing you mean the tribulation or kalpa body? I don't think that is tier 1, at best being 2-A. You most likely known Chinese far more than me but you didn't elaborate on your reasoning.

As for Daqian Zizai or Chiliocosm Unrestrained Mental Dharma, it should probably be high 1-b.

Can I tell a joke?in China Immortal body is sage monarch the one of the most powerful

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

Can I tell a joke?in China Immortal body is sage monarch the one of the most powerful

That is more confusing than funny. I think this conversation should be here instead.

 

[Unqver]

That is more confusing than funny. I think this conversation should be here instead.

I agree, but before that, I'd like to ask some descriptions about Dragon Talisman

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

those are kinda derailing from the intent of the thread. (although it seems people already reached agreement anyway) might wanna ask directly in his forum profile to avoid clutter

 

[Bobsican]

When I keep saying it is part of their transduality, the r>f is literally in the accepted blog. If you disagree, then create a CRT.

Thing is that the CRT that rendered the R>F paradoxical stuff useless was done way after the CRT that got that blog accepted, so it'd have more priority as it was also concluded by the staff, the burden of the CRT would thus be on you if you disagree.

At what point did I disqualify tier 1 based on internal damage? To quote that, I believe you thought my belief was that tier 1 characters can be damaged by tier 2 or below if they aim for their internal organs. As though they're internal organs aren't tier 1 too. I don't know why you would assume something so extreme rather than use the context surrounding the arguments which scales up to low 1-C.

Well, I wanted to be sure, sorry if I took a less assumptive view in my opinion without your expectation.

Also the quote isn't directly related to my point. A quote mentioning the disparity/comparison of biology regardless of any tier would be appreciated.
Don't straw man, rather than actually address my point. Or maybe you're just mentioning it out of the blue? I mentioned the very first type of durability negation and linked the page.

Don't be so nitpicky, the overall point is that organs wouldn't be infinitely below, but I've already kinda conceded that with the above, plus this barely matters, I'll probably do a CRT on this matter later on, however.

By canon I think you mean sequel? It is partially a sequel but mostly its own novel. The concept isn't being ripped from another novel, it is present in Sage Monarch.

As in part of the same cosmology/continuity, you know what I mean, the issue is on if the stuff in Dragon Talisman is retroactively a thing in Sage Monarch by being canon to it, rather than merely having similar elements/characters, as much we don't make Super Smash Bros canon to Mario just because of a few cameos and the same company owners being involved.
Perhaps you could clarify how it's "partially" a sequel?

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

Thing is that the CRT that rendered the R>F paradoxical stuff useless was done way after the CRT that got that blog accepted, so it'd have more priority as it was also concluded by the staff, the burden of the CRT would thus be on you if you disagree.

The 'burden' isn't on me. It was a staff CRT for tiering paradoxical r>f and I have already said multiple times it isn't useful to tiering. As for the actual paradoxical state itself, the last post had the staff member thinking it was nonsense unless I gave examples. If you believe it actually affects the blog, then provide it as an example in the original thread and get staff input or create a new CRT. Until then don't keep mentioning a thread that didn't conclude. It is me who is conceding it isn't useful for tiering, rather than argue further.

Well, I wanted to be sure, sorry if I took a less assumptive view in my opinion without your expectation.

No problem.

Don't be so nitpicky, the overall point is that organs wouldn't be infinitely below, but I've already kinda conceded that with the above, plus this barely matters, I'll probably do a CRT on this matter later on, however.

Not infinitely below, that is for sure. If you do a CRT, I suggest bringing up abstract beings.

As in part of the same cosmology/continuity, you know what I mean, the issue is on if the stuff in Dragon Talisman is retroactively a thing in Sage Monarch by being canon to it, rather than merely having similar elements/characters, as much we don't make Super Smash Bros canon to Mario just because of a few cameos and the same company owners being involved.
Perhaps you could clarify how it's "partially" a sequel?

They're both works by the same author. Sage Monarch was released first. It is 'partially' a sequel because the events in Dragon Talisman are after he reached his peak in Sage Monarch.

As for how he came to be, long story short, due to Gu Chensha's existence, 3000 protagonists were made to overthrow his position as the main character and 6 protagonists were noteworthy, these 6 being Zhou Qin (Buddhism Is Taoism), Wang Chao (Romance of Dragons and Snakes), Hong Yi (Yang God), Fang Han (Eternal Life), Yang Qi (Sage Monarch) and Jiang Li (Emperor of the Cosmos).

 

[Bobsican]

The 'burden' isn't on me. It was a staff CRT for tiering paradoxical r>f and I have already said multiple times it isn't useful to tiering. As for the actual paradoxical state itself, the last post had the staff member thinking it was nonsense unless I gave examples. If you believe it actually affects the blog, then provide it as an example in the original thread and get staff input or create a new CRT. Until then don't keep mentioning a thread that didn't conclude. It is me who is conceding it isn't useful for tiering, rather than argue further.

QuasiYuri was a mod at the time of that thread and explicitly declined that being a feat for anything to begin with as you even linked and Ant overall has agreed on the conclusion too with no staff objections. Seems quite settled to me.
Now if this has indexing connotations and you'd rather handle it in another thread it's another thing, however.

This situation just wouldn't exist. Either one of them is lying/wrong or it isn't the right way to describe the relationship.

It would be as legit as a bad fanfic with smth like "he didn't kill him but he was so strong it still killed him to death".

If you can't explain how the statements can both be true, then there's nothing to tier to begin with. There's no feat. Just bad writing.

Not infinitely below, that is for sure. If you do a CRT, I suggest bringing up abstract beings.

IDK how abstract, incorporeal beings would be a factor here as the issue is on if hitting a organ is truly fully ignoring durability definition-wise, unless you thought of something else?

They're both works by the same author. Sage Monarch was released first. It is 'partially' a sequel because the events in Dragon Talisman are after he reached his peak in Sage Monarch.

As for how he came to be, long story short, due to Gu Chensha's existence, 3000 protagonists were made to overthrow his position as the main character and 6 protagonists were noteworthy, these 6 being Zhou Qin (Buddhism Is Taoism), Wang Chao (Romance of Dragons and Snakes), Hong Yi (Yang God), Fang Han (Eternal Life), Yang Qi (Sage Monarch) and Jiang Li (Emperor of the Cosmos).

Generally a single verse page is done per canon on the wiki, rather than per work, but okay then.

 

[Muchacho_mrm]

QuasiYuri was a mod at the time of that thread and explicitly declined that being a feat for anything to begin with as you even linked and Ant overall has agreed on the conclusion too with no staff objections. Seems quite settled to me.
Now if this has indexing connotations and you'd rather handle it in another thread it's another thing, however.

I said they thought it was nonsense unless I gave examples and then you quoted them only highlighting 'there's no feat'. Also actually read what Antvasima is agreeing to, they're agreeing to QuasiYuri still asking for examples and creating their own examples unrelated to transduality. In summary asking for examples while they try to rationalize it using their own logic and the thread was left in that state.

This situation just wouldn't exist. Either one of them is lying/wrong or it isn't the right way to describe the relationship.

It would be as legit as a bad fanfic with smth like "he didn't kill him but he was so strong it still killed him to death".

If you can't explain how the statements can both be true, then there's nothing to tier to begin with. There's no feat. Just bad writing.

IDK how abstract, incorporeal beings would be a factor here as the issue is on if hitting a organ is truly fully ignoring durability definition-wise, unless you thought of something else?

By logic it shouldn't apply to them but it would best to get staff input, which might lead to a context dependant note hopefully leading to more scrutiny on said beings.

 

[Bobsican]

Well, and then you never expanded on such examples as requested, so the burden of proof would be on you (replying accordingly in that thread per staff request) for the thing in question to be usable for anything, but given that was a staff thread now that I'm looking, we can continue there.

K.