- 8,199
- 1,934
Introductio
In a recent VS thread, a topic has been brought up regarding how we treat Power Nullification and Resistance to it, here.
The issue stems from whether or not an ability which can negate AP can also be applied to power nullification scaling based on how the verse in question treats it, and if that makes it inherently superior to power nullification which relies on AP.
Now let's get started.
My Argument
Since the argument stemmed directly from Katekyo Hitman Rebor, I'll use that to present my case. (I also don't know of any other verses that do this)
Sky flame users such as Tsunayoshi Sawada have power nullification via turning their opponent's attacks into stone (Aka Petrification). You cannot overpower your attack being turned into stone, so it should be superior to other forms of power nullification which can be overcome with superior AP.
Counterargument
Petrification is not Power Nullification. You cannot equate the two.
My Rebuttal
In the story it is called power nullification alongside Rain Flames (Such as what Takeshi Yamamoto uses), which have the effect of weakening or negating attacks. It is also treated similarly in terms of nullification and resistance. The "Harmony" aspect of the Sky Flame has been shown to work against other flames, box weapons, and even black holes (Explanation of the harmony attribute here, It being shown to work against black holes, Tsuna states that his Harmony flame wouldn't defeat Daemo, Xanxus is shown nullifiying an attack not just a box weapo, Byakuran negates Tsuna's attack using the sky harmony element, and finally; just like other power nullification in the franchise people who are considerably stronger can resist it seen when byakuran's dragon wasn't turned into stone upon his first clash with Mantello di Vongola Primo but began crumbling away after Tsuna's power up, Seen here)
So, what's the consensus here? Should power nullification which negates AP be considered to be above standard power nullification automatically; and what would constitute as "AP negating Power Nullification"? Would this be enough?
In a recent VS thread, a topic has been brought up regarding how we treat Power Nullification and Resistance to it, here.
The issue stems from whether or not an ability which can negate AP can also be applied to power nullification scaling based on how the verse in question treats it, and if that makes it inherently superior to power nullification which relies on AP.
Now let's get started.
My Argument
Since the argument stemmed directly from Katekyo Hitman Rebor, I'll use that to present my case. (I also don't know of any other verses that do this)
Sky flame users such as Tsunayoshi Sawada have power nullification via turning their opponent's attacks into stone (Aka Petrification). You cannot overpower your attack being turned into stone, so it should be superior to other forms of power nullification which can be overcome with superior AP.
Counterargument
Petrification is not Power Nullification. You cannot equate the two.
My Rebuttal
In the story it is called power nullification alongside Rain Flames (Such as what Takeshi Yamamoto uses), which have the effect of weakening or negating attacks. It is also treated similarly in terms of nullification and resistance. The "Harmony" aspect of the Sky Flame has been shown to work against other flames, box weapons, and even black holes (Explanation of the harmony attribute here, It being shown to work against black holes, Tsuna states that his Harmony flame wouldn't defeat Daemo, Xanxus is shown nullifiying an attack not just a box weapo, Byakuran negates Tsuna's attack using the sky harmony element, and finally; just like other power nullification in the franchise people who are considerably stronger can resist it seen when byakuran's dragon wasn't turned into stone upon his first clash with Mantello di Vongola Primo but began crumbling away after Tsuna's power up, Seen here)
So, what's the consensus here? Should power nullification which negates AP be considered to be above standard power nullification automatically; and what would constitute as "AP negating Power Nullification"? Would this be enough?