• Rd, so hear me out. Scar is a character from Fullmetal Alchemist who can use Matter manipulation to ignore durability and blow up people’s bodies. He “can ignore conventional durability with Decomposition Alchemy (Destroys the atomic bonds that hold the target together)”.

    By this wiki’s standards, this could work on a Tier 2+ being with a 3D body. And everything below that too likely. This means Scar could one shot Goku if Goku stopped to shake his hand with his face or something stupid.

    Now, I don’t give a shit. I’m fine with whatever happens here, and all that. I just wanna propose a suggestion from a different perspective. So, like, that destroying the atomic bonds thing. Doesn’t that require energy? Of course we won’t know how much energy, because fantasy, but, it makes sense that it would require a lot of energy to break apart things that are strong enough to withstand planets, stars, galaxies, universes, timelines, and so on without taking absolutely any damage whatsoever. I mean, I got called out years ago because I tried to presuppose that characters for the same power and same scenario and blah blah basically I said maybe characters like those are made of some hypothetical fantasy matter that is different than normal matter, and therefore you’ll have a harder time trying to pull a scar on it.

    But, like... We presuppose that 4D+ “minds” can’t be haxed because dimensions. Like, my understanding was that their brains are necessarily different because they... Have more dimensions in their skulls or whatever equivalent, and they just... Big. And not 3D. Something dumb like that. If we can presuppose, without evidence or direct statements that a 4D entity is immune to 3D mind hax even if it has no resistance because “realistic scientific explanation” that is valid but not explicitly true in a fantasy world that says fuck science, why can’t we presuppose, not that characters are made from some super atom, but that it would take more potent Matter Manip to affect characters that are stronger because their bodies and everything are far more durable than anything that actually exists normally? And, from there, why don’t we just... Ask for feats first before assuming hax works on anything way beyond the showings of a character? Like Mind Manip, for example— like, just because I can mind hax my cousin, doesn’t mean I can mind hax Beerus. Like, that’s an extraordinary claim i’m making.

    Again, to be clear, at least for the matter Manip, I propose we require feats for manipulating objects that have high durability/AP in proportion to what the verse has done. Basically, people who have Scar’s power and matter Manip need to have feats like “destroying or reshaping the Master Sword and it’s 3A metals” or, “destroying the atomic bonds of a 2-B 3D being.”

    Like, don’t we just... Say for no scientific reason that the energy used in creating matter and objects like stars is equal to the energy used to destroy it? If deconstruction of atoms counts as much as destruction as breaking shit does, rather than it being purely hax, like, ya know, the opposite of Existence Erasure, then why wouldn’t we require Matter Manipulation to have feats and yield upgrades to AP and stuff. Am I wrong in thinking it requires energy to do Matter Manip and rearrange and/or break apart atomic bonds? I feel like that’s what chemical reactions are, but I haven’t been in chemistry class in, like, years.

    Ya can’t sit here and say Scar could just pull apart the atoms of a character that can sit in a collapsing space time and not get hurt. I mean you can, that’s up to the staff, but... Like... That’s wild.

    Side note: I think most hax should be treated like this, to avoid Babidi vs the DB universe fights and more...

    I tried to say;

    “Does it have proof of doing so? Otherwise why would we assume it could? NLF or Hasty Generalization fallacies are a thing, and it seems like we’re refusing to put limits on things sans the arbitrary 4D and beyond stuff that seems like a bigger nonsequitor than asking if the hax the character uses has done similar crazy shit before, no matter what the hax is. Why don’t we just “require proof” more than just giving out free victories? Y’all do y’all, i’m just lost.”

      Loading editor
    • I personally don't accept that 3D Matter Manip would be able to affect Tier 2s with 3D bodies. Sure their bodies are 3D, but more often than not, said 3D people are downright enhancing their bodies with their 4D energy and there is absolutely 0 reason for 3D Matter Manip. to be able to overpower a 3D-Body enhanced with 4D energy. 

        Loading editor
    • I think that argument can be attributed to literally anything higher than the feats of the Matter Manipulators as well. Dimensions aside, as, imo, they don’t mean anything unless the verse says so, otherwise we’re adding shit that’s not there, which is a no no unless I was valid for my fantasy supermatter bullshit— if you need energy to create/destroy, and destruction isn’t erasure unlike how creation is the spontaneous production of matter that breaks the laws of the universe, I don’t see how deconstructing atomic bonds or otherwise manipulating atoms of things that can otherwise survive the heat and impact of stars, doesn’t require or deal with energy and doesn’t mean that feats concerning that should be required.

      TL:DR; If Scar’s power does what it does, it probably requires energy and power, and that would mean that it needs a certain threshold to complete certain tasks. Wouldn’t this be true for all matter manip, and thus, should be applied?

        Loading editor
    • I don’t know about y’all, but I think Matter Maniping a hunk of metal that can survive star level explosions is a feat. If we don’t consider the durability and all this other shit and just say that it happens no matter what, then the only way Matter manipulators can be better than each other is range and their lack of limitations, rather than potency. But meh. Y’all do y’all.

        Loading editor
    • “The Wright Way I'm going to put my cards on the table. I've had a serious issue with how we treat matter hax here as of late.

      I'm fine with it ignoring durability. I'm not fine with it ignoring all durability. 7-C vs 7-C? Sure. 7-C vs 7-A. Fine. 7-C vs 5-B? If it's potent enough than fine by me. But againt a 4-B? No. Absolutely not.

      And here's why. By and large, we factor in most laws of physics. Including the one that says that if an object or person can produce a certain amount of force without breaking, than they can endure that amount too. This is we know Saitama wouldn't be one-shot by people as strong as him, despite having never fought someone like that. Now, there are exceptions to this, Doomguy isn't as strong as his guns are, but this is still a solid rule.

      My argument rides on the idea that this somewhat extends to the microscopic level. Now, hold on, I'm not saying that it does so fully. Not at all. Cell's cells aren't the same tier as he is. But, what I am saying, is there comes a point where the gap between someone and his cells, is much smaller than the gap between him and his opponent. And that's the point where matter hax doesn't work.

      My suggestion is that once an AP gap is large enough (like, say, Cole MacGrath vs Broly) his matter hax wouldn't work. Broly's atoms are to durable for him to hurt.

      As for where that line should be drawn, weeeeellllll, that's a bit harder to judge. We don't the exact difference between a man and his atoms, but some if the smarter folks might be able to make able to make an educated guess.

      My proposal is:

      A. We try to find out where to draw the line.


      B. We leave a note on both the cell hax and matter hax page saying something along the lines of (without feats, this hax can't be assumed to bypass an AP difference of <insert number here> as such a gap us larger than the gap between the character and his cells/atoms/etc.


      I’m not saying this is my argument. Just posting this as confirming i’m not the only one.

        Loading editor
    • Matter manipulation works as long the target its made of matter, limited by the range of the power, being molecular or particle, quantum or esoteric. X-Dimensional matter hax do not means anything without context.

        Loading editor
    • So, you’re telling me that every single matter manipulator in your mind can manipulate any material no matter how dense or durable or different and more complex than a piece of wood or water, just because they can mess with water?

      “No, they need feats!”

      Exactly. They probably need feats because it requires not just the ability to rearrange matter but the ability to generate the power to change the composition and/or deconstruct and reconstruct the things. If a 10-A matter manipulator can deconstruct a 3A, what’s to say they can’t create a 3A sword? If we’re saying their limited in potency of creation to what they’ve shown, why can’t we say they’re limited in deconstruction to what they have shown too? Feats first, is my meaning. They need to prove they’re good enough to accomplish crazy shit in their verse, not get a free pass just because we have a basic understanding of a trope that relates to their power, rather than an understanding of their limitations.

        Loading editor
    • Their limits are set by the complexity of their powers, Molecular Manipulators wouldn't be able to manipulate gases for example, spatio-temporal locked beings can only be affected by Quantum level Matter Manipulation, and ghost/wraiths can only be affected by esoteric level Matter Manipulators (ie Ectoplasm Manipulation).

      Without feats, there's no reason a corporeal 3-A being will be immune to Molecular/Atomic Manipulation.

        Loading editor
    • Matter Manipulation ignores durability. So any character would need resistance to it for it not to annihilate them. We can't just grant higher tier characters resistances because of their durability. Higher dimensions and higher durability are two different things.

        Loading editor
    • So you wanna say that instead of the reverse? That just because a character has a power it means it’ll work no matter what, barring the power is actually applicable in context? Shouldn’t it usually be the other way around? Like, “without feats, there’s no reason just any old Matter Manipulator can manipulate a 2-B character’s body, or a 4-A sword or metal compound that’s harder than any substance they’ve ever Canonically dealt with”.

      I mean, it makes sense why they may have difficulty with that substance if it’s got traits literally beyond anything they’ve manipulated before. Just because it’s matter doesn’t mean you can manipulate it just the same, because we don’t know the limits of that user. It’s NLF. You can’t presuppose that their power’s limits are tied to anything other than what is established. Sure, a reasonable extrapolation is fine, and needed, but there’s a difference between Scar being able to blow my atoms up, and being able to break the Master Sword, which, irrelevant to its magical nature, can survive impacts that can nuke stars.

      It’s just me, but. I don’t think we should just assume that the powers they use to break apart atomic bonds and then reconstruct them don’t require some variable amount of energy dependent on the task. I’m fairly certain, though I could be wrong, that chemical reactions and splitting atoms and stuff require some kind of energy output to do so.

        Loading editor
    • @Emperor

      It’s not granting a resistance. It’s recognizing a limitation of the power. There’s a distinction. And, the dimensions thing is arbitrary and should be on the verse to establish rather than a blanket assumption. We’re presupposing a bunch of mechanics that aren’t explicitly stated to exist for these characters to be how it works, more than we 100% need to at least, like with basic physics and the existence of dimensions. Why would we not presume that characters who haven’t shown the ability to warp high tier constructs probably need feats to prove they could because it’s probably harder to do? And Unless the verse says 4D beings can’t be affected by matter manip, maybe it’s best to shrug and say we don’t know? Cause I don’t know. On top of that, there’s the whole, 3D beings with 4D durability that fucks with the logic of Matter Manip as well.

        Loading editor
    • Actually after thinking about it, Diamond is harder then other materials because of stronger covalent bonds. It takes a huge amount of energy to melt diamond that is to loosen the bonds. So this is viable, if we say a character is more durable because of stronger bonds in their particles. But then again let's take DB as an example that would be saying stronger ki = stronger bonds.

        Loading editor
    • I’m not against adding to these verses like this, because I think we have to. I’m saying that we shouldn’t be arbitrary with it. I think that 3D matter that can take hits from a 4D power source would inherently be different than 3D matter on its own, both in the same vein and literally infinitely far beyond that of the difference between 3A matter and human level matter. To suggest that the character can manipulate someone who’s body is that different and superior to anything they’ve done without feats of doing so is...

      Kinda wild.

      Like, the 2B body of Xeno Goku is necessarily different than even his 3A form by virtue of somehow being able to take impacts that can affect things an entire dimensional axis beyond his normal body. To say that his matter is identically the same to a normal rock’s is, like, very hard to argue, because, well, how could anything matching the characteristics of a normal thing made of normal matter be able to take a 4D+ attack? I... What?

      If you’re gonna say “we don’t know enough about the bodies of those characters to explain that” or something along the lines of us not having that information, why are we even considering allowing these Matter manipulators to rearrange their mass, without feats to justify it? If Creation is scalable to AP, i’m sure Breaking atomic bonds and then reconnecting them through chemical reactions or transmutations or whatever require energy and are thus feats in a similar vein, however much AP it would scale to. If it’s not, cool. But not only would we assume every single Matter manipulators Powers work without that limitation (despite us not knowing so— not knowing what is and isn’t possible), but we’re allowing them to do things blatantly out of their scale? I don’t get that. It should require a lot more evidence for a Tier 6 Matter manipulator to pull a Scar on a 3A character, because that’s blatantly out of their scale unless they have feats for it.

      Ideally, 3A Matter manipulators should be able to fuck with anything up to 3A and maybe High 3A characters.

      FMA Tier manipulators should stick to their range unless demonstrated otherwise. And so on.

      I propose a shorthand solution is scaling the deconstruction and reconstruct feats of a Matter manipulator to be based on and an indicator of the limitations of their hax, and basically show this as a separate AP rating for their hax itself. We do that sometimes. Where people are 2-C or something with Hax. Have that.

      But whatever.

        Loading editor
    • One thing is punching pretty hard that cause atoms to lost their bounds, and the other is directly manipulating the atom bounds, first one is limited by Durability, the other one is straight hax and ignores it.

        Loading editor
    • @Emperor

      That stronger particles stuff sounds good, that’s what I proposed years ago, but it was rejected because it was adding in headcanon. So, I won’t say that. But I will say that the characters need proof for those reasons. It’s likely harder to manipulate shit that’s so strong like that, so you need feats for it. Not even really discussing or implying their bodies are made of stronger particles, just stating that the power itself has the innate trait that likely translates to “more durable=more power required to accomplish the feat” which sounds like AP to me.

        Loading editor
    • If we assume that matter manipulators need a certain amount of energy to destroy atomic bonds. But that's the same as a really powerful DB character vaporising a much weaker opponent. I think Matter Manip is more elaborate.

        Loading editor
    • It accomplishes the same thing, Anton, and you presuppose it requires either the same energy amount every time to accomplish undoing atomic bonds that, in all honesty, going by your description of punching as breaking atoms through force and energy transfer (paraphrasing), are necessarily stronger than other bonds. My problem is that you assume it ignores that process for what seems to be little reason, especially when we’re not 100% certain every character’s power works like that. Nor should we assume that either. I’m not saying we assume that they need a certain requirement of energy to do their shit, but I am saying that airing on the side of caution in the face of unknowns requires us to avoid making judgements that contradict what we’re not sure is a relevant limitation to the context.

      Point is, we should require proof of that anyway, just in case, unless it’s stated to work on both verses, or at least in one of the two, in the way you describe. Otherwise it’s NLF and us using rules that aren’t confirmed to apply in the verses for everything.

        Loading editor
    • If we assume that haxing stuff requieres energy then it wouldn't be that different than AP. Keep stuff simple, want to be resistent/immune to matter hax? Get resistance/immunity feats (either to the cause or effect of the power) or get out of their range of applications (i.e being non-corporeal). If a character is physically corporeal then by default is within the target of matter manipulation's applications.

        Loading editor
    • Not at all what i’m saying. I’m not saying every hax requires energy, i’m saying that the hax that makes sense to require energy requires energy. Mind hax shouldn’t require energy. Conceptual hax shouldn’t require energy necessarily.

      “Keep it simple stupid” isn’t an argument. It’s just an appeal to the idea that going in depth to actually flesh out our system and come to a logical conclusion is far more work than you think it’s worth. Which seems like the exact opposite perspective we should take on indexing characters accurately and applying their powers accurately in fights, fiction, fun, and function.

      And again. I don’t know what is it with people in thinking I want resistances. I’m not buffing anyone or making a resistance thread, i’m bringing up the weaknesses and nerfing powers that are misunderstood as more powerful and affective than they reasonably should be. And just because a power can apply to the target doesn’t mean it’ll work. You think my universal-ranged tiny slug mind control power will let me mindhax Vegeta? Or even Goku? Without feats for that? How does anyone know if I can mind hax a human for sure when I’ve never done so?

      “Depends on how the power works”. And if you don’t know how a power works, you shouldn’t be so hasty and generalize it could work on anything vaguely under its jurisdiction, that’s NLF. Textbook hasty generalization fallacy. We’d ask to see my feats of mind haxing people, because mind haxing slugs isn’t even proof I can mind hax a person. Someone would only let me do so because they assume I could pool my power into trying to mind Manip at least one target because of this made up inference that my range is an indicator of my potency when that’s not proof of me being able to do it at all. It’s entirely possible I can only mind hax slugs. The same applies to Matter manipulators. We don’t know the ins and outs of how their powers work. Do they require energy to use it? Do they not, and just use the same amount of energy to undo atomic bonds like we assume for some arbitrary reason every other Matter manipulator does?

      Why not assume neither and ask for feats proportional to the task itself being asked to operate at? Even if I can blow people up with TK from the inside, it doesn’t mean I can blow up Galactus? Even if his organs aren’t das durable as his muscles. Just because I can ignore durability by attacking someone’s organs with my punches by shoving energy through their body or making my attacks hit their organs by, like, projecting the force of my punch on the inside of their body, instead of outside, doesn’t mean it’ll hurt Galactus. Sure, he might or might not have super durable organs proportional to his body, but it’s not his job to prove he has those to take the attack, it’s my job to prove I can even accomplish the feat in the first place. Then we check his resistances.

        Loading editor
    • Bump

        Loading editor
    • Bump again...

        Loading editor
    • I understand what you are saying and i agree.

      Dragon Ball is a proof of what you are saying. Trunks reduced Freeza to atoms because he is stronger, but Freeza cant do the same because he is weaker. This also apply to matter manip. If you dont have sufficient power to destroy char X atom, it will be useless. Also cosmic level chars can reduce some low tier chars in atomic level with easy, and its not even matter manip, its just pure power.

        Loading editor
    • Back to my original question. Where do we draw the line?

        Loading editor
    • I would draw the line where at the level of the power, be molecular, atomic, subatomic or particle level, plus any other limitation the power could have (by mass, density, moles, range, etc.), durability (for the wiki's point of view) doesn't have anything to do with "strong molecules/atoms/particles" or similar. As long a the target has a physical body, it is vulnerable to Matter Manipulation.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.