- 825
- 109
Bill's durability should honestly be rated as 2-A if we're giving him it as a solid tiering. If not, then Low 2-C, possibly/likely 2-A.
-
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.
Debunking Bill Cipher's 2-A tier + Axolotl downgrade
- Thread starter ShadowWarrior1999
- Start date
- Status
- 3,323
- 2,744
stop right there criminal scumJooCipher said:
- 2,863
- 173
Not reading all of these comment but based on the OP I actually agree
I always sort of thought of it as this "spatial dimension" which I guess could make for a possibly tier since it is pretty vague
But I agree with the speed downgrade
I guess I agree with everything unless if he could get a possibly from the vagueness of the quote
I always sort of thought of it as this "spatial dimension" which I guess could make for a possibly tier since it is pretty vague
But I agree with the speed downgrade
I guess I agree with everything unless if he could get a possibly from the vagueness of the quote
- 85
- 17
"At least Low 2-C, possibly 2-A" seems like the best option to me.
- 2,333
- 326
do don't use link to watch out.Sir sun man said:
- 14,163
- 2,529
They don't receive a rating because of the threat statement, only by actual feats. That's the entire point. What? Threatening an infinite multiverse does not require infinite x because again being a threat is not an ap feat. It could mean quite literally anything and occam's razor only gets you so far when there is a lack of context here.Kepekley23 said:
And?.... What does shaking the universe have to do with this?
Neither does the statement with Bill now, something I've been asking for.
Also your Wither Storm example literally has the reasoning being that he would eat/absorb the entire world... Pretty sure there is a lot more context than "being a threat to the universe" if that's even mentioned. Not to mention your example puts it at best a "Possibly High 3-A". Needless to say, if that page with more context has at most a 'possibility' what do you think would be considered with Bill's rating?
- 12,522
- 3,489
- Thread starter
- #449
I think Data is spot on.
- 2,863
- 173
?ShadowWarrior1999 said:
- 12,522
- 3,489
- Thread starter
- #451
It means I agree with what he's saying.
- 5,450
- 778
If we allow it for Bill then we should allow it for other characters, can't wait for 3-A Kirby (actually that won't be half bad) and Z Goku
- 14,163
- 2,529
- 3,323
- 2,744
oh boyGenericstickman said:
- 15,738
- 7,735
No, because their case would be a False Analogy as their case are not the same.Genericstickman said:
- 9,523
- 1,788
Not really elizhaa
Bill is getting a rating from a vague statement and no feats
According to kep that's how we do things thus any other character with a vague threat statement can get a tier from that
Bill is getting a rating from a vague statement and no feats
According to kep that's how we do things thus any other character with a vague threat statement can get a tier from that
- 19,117
- 6,333
I'm not particularly knowledgeable about Gravity Falls so i'll leave the discussion to others, but "a threat to X" statements only warrant a "possibly far higher" or something without further context.
This guy saved the universe while killing an enemy in his 5-A version, and that's why he has the "likely far higher", for example.
This guy saved the universe while killing an enemy in his 5-A version, and that's why he has the "likely far higher", for example.
- 85
- 17
I'm starting to agree with the downgrade.
- 59
- 19
feats or gtfo
- 59
- 19
somebodydata copy pasted my thoughts here
- 3,635
- 257
Not gonna lie, SomebodyData kinda saved my ass here.
- 2,683
- 571
But Bill has hardly any feats to go off. When a character's power is so vague initself, than sometimes you have to rely on statements rather than actual showings.Paul Frank said:
- 813
- 137
Honestly as of now I completely agree with SomebodyData
And I also agree with that if we're gonna start giving tiers, like at all, based off statements like this then we need to be more lienient to other verses.
And I also agree with that if we're gonna start giving tiers, like at all, based off statements like this then we need to be more lienient to other verses.
- 6,494
- 401
So what's the likely conclusion here
- 9,523
- 1,788
@unoriginal
No if a character has a statement of being a threat x with no backing feats or context to help them out you don't just rely on a statement
No if a character has a statement of being a threat x with no backing feats or context to help them out you don't just rely on a statement
- 12,522
- 3,489
- Thread starter
- #468
But Bill has hardly any feats to go off. When a character's power is so vague initself, than sometimes you have to rely on statements rather than actual showings.
Statements of Bill doing Low 2-C stuff are pretty consistent.
Statements of Bill doing Low 2-C stuff are pretty consistent.
- 825
- 109
"They don't receive a rating because of the threat statement, only by actual feats. That's the entire point. What? Threatening an infinite multiverse does not require infinite x because again being a threat is not an ap feat. It could mean quite literally anything and 'occam's' razor only gets you so far when there is a lack of context here."
Ford's statement of him being a threat is based on destruction, that is pretty evident and what Kepekly is arguing here is quite right with the usage of Occam's Razor. To give an example, "To Bill, it's just a game, but to us, it would mean the end of our world." We have absolutely all the reason to assume that it's destruction-based. To an extent, I do acknowledge your discontent with Occam's Razor here, but it quite literally needs to be applied in a situation like this if we're interpreting what Ford said.
"And?.... What does shaking the universe have to do with this?"
He's quite literally emphasizing the difference between a finite scale and an infinite scale, which is something you don't quite seem to understand with what's being argued. In which, all of your examples, were either to a finite degree, making them straight up irrelevant or they have context going against them. Also, I'm rather sure that the context for Ridley is based off what he does with space pirates ravaging planets. I don't know Metroid personally, but it seems very similar to the Empire from Star Wars is considered a galactic threat. Not because they can destroy galaxies, but it is because they can attack all around it. However, the difference here with Bill is that Stanford is literally perceiving him as a threat based on Destruction. So realistically, your examples have context going against them while Bill has context actually going for him, therefore rendering them as false equivalencies.
Neither does the statement with Bill now, something I've been asking for."
Bill's context is based on destruction, that's made incredibly evident when they didn't focus on the chaos Bill could spread, the narrative made it far more focused on the fact it was him destroying the universe with Stanford's statements. I do not think this needs to be reiterated, the literal fact is that Stanford wrote Journal III, which is where the statement comes from. So in short, we take what Stanford is most terrified of Bill doing, which is destruction-based as indicated with the quote above.
"Also your Wither Storm example literally has the reasoning being that he would eat/absorb the entire world... Pretty sure there is a lot more context than "being a threat to the universe" if that's even mentioned. Not to mention your example puts it at best a "Possibly High 3-A". Needless to say, if that page with more context has at most a 'possibility' what do you think would be considered with Bill's rating?"
Bill's rating honestly doesn't have to be a concrete 2-A, just the fact he should be likely/possibly should honestly be what it is. For reasons I already gave, Bill's statement of being a threat is based on destruction. And when you look between the two arguments from a logical standpoint of, "destroys infinite universes over an infinite amount of time" vs "destroys infinite universes over a finite amount of time." When an author writes in such a statement, what do you think would be the general interpretation? It should literally be the second one because the first takes more assumptions if anything like assuming the author is going off of Bill being immortal. Now, if that was included in the context of the statement, we could disregard 2-A but Bill being perceived as a threat has already been explained it should be a finite amount of time. So even if we want to assume the other is a very likely interpretation as well, I see no reason that doesn't dismiss what was already argued for his 2-A, just rendering it as a potentially like the Wither Storm profile.
Ford's statement of him being a threat is based on destruction, that is pretty evident and what Kepekly is arguing here is quite right with the usage of Occam's Razor. To give an example, "To Bill, it's just a game, but to us, it would mean the end of our world." We have absolutely all the reason to assume that it's destruction-based. To an extent, I do acknowledge your discontent with Occam's Razor here, but it quite literally needs to be applied in a situation like this if we're interpreting what Ford said.
"And?.... What does shaking the universe have to do with this?"
He's quite literally emphasizing the difference between a finite scale and an infinite scale, which is something you don't quite seem to understand with what's being argued. In which, all of your examples, were either to a finite degree, making them straight up irrelevant or they have context going against them. Also, I'm rather sure that the context for Ridley is based off what he does with space pirates ravaging planets. I don't know Metroid personally, but it seems very similar to the Empire from Star Wars is considered a galactic threat. Not because they can destroy galaxies, but it is because they can attack all around it. However, the difference here with Bill is that Stanford is literally perceiving him as a threat based on Destruction. So realistically, your examples have context going against them while Bill has context actually going for him, therefore rendering them as false equivalencies.
Neither does the statement with Bill now, something I've been asking for."
Bill's context is based on destruction, that's made incredibly evident when they didn't focus on the chaos Bill could spread, the narrative made it far more focused on the fact it was him destroying the universe with Stanford's statements. I do not think this needs to be reiterated, the literal fact is that Stanford wrote Journal III, which is where the statement comes from. So in short, we take what Stanford is most terrified of Bill doing, which is destruction-based as indicated with the quote above.
"Also your Wither Storm example literally has the reasoning being that he would eat/absorb the entire world... Pretty sure there is a lot more context than "being a threat to the universe" if that's even mentioned. Not to mention your example puts it at best a "Possibly High 3-A". Needless to say, if that page with more context has at most a 'possibility' what do you think would be considered with Bill's rating?"
Bill's rating honestly doesn't have to be a concrete 2-A, just the fact he should be likely/possibly should honestly be what it is. For reasons I already gave, Bill's statement of being a threat is based on destruction. And when you look between the two arguments from a logical standpoint of, "destroys infinite universes over an infinite amount of time" vs "destroys infinite universes over a finite amount of time." When an author writes in such a statement, what do you think would be the general interpretation? It should literally be the second one because the first takes more assumptions if anything like assuming the author is going off of Bill being immortal. Now, if that was included in the context of the statement, we could disregard 2-A but Bill being perceived as a threat has already been explained it should be a finite amount of time. So even if we want to assume the other is a very likely interpretation as well, I see no reason that doesn't dismiss what was already argued for his 2-A, just rendering it as a potentially like the Wither Storm profile.
- 12,522
- 3,489
- Thread starter
- #470
Bill being a threat to the multiverse could just mean that no universe is safe because any of them are a potential target for him to go to. It doesn't mean that he will destroy every single universe. Think of it as a gunman coming into a room and he will pick any random person to shoot. He's not to going to kill everyone, but he's still a threat to all of those people because any one of them could be on his list.
It's the same case with Bill. He isn't a threat to the multiverse because he will destroy all of existence. He is a threat to the multiverse because he can pick out any random universe and choose to target it.
It's the same case with Bill. He isn't a threat to the multiverse because he will destroy all of existence. He is a threat to the multiverse because he can pick out any random universe and choose to target it.
- 825
- 109
Okay, so I'll assume you dropped your argument from earlier about Bill "just causing chaos" because you seem to agree with me on the destruction intent being what Ford is focused on when writing the statement in Journal III.
I have no idea why you tried to use a school shooter analogy of all things, that's just baffling in of itself you're comparing it to this statement, but it's a false equivalence of a point that's been covered regardless to death.
Bill's rip should be 2-A, Ford again states he threatens the wider multiverse and Time Baby compliments this by saying Bill's rip will collapse existence, an existence far more likely referring to the multiverse if anything. The fact Time Baby makes a distinguished mention between "this dimension" and "existence" is already red flag enough they're not referring to the same thing, it's 2-A regardless of how you look at it.
I have no idea why you tried to use a school shooter analogy of all things, that's just baffling in of itself you're comparing it to this statement, but it's a false equivalence of a point that's been covered regardless to death.
Bill's rip should be 2-A, Ford again states he threatens the wider multiverse and Time Baby compliments this by saying Bill's rip will collapse existence, an existence far more likely referring to the multiverse if anything. The fact Time Baby makes a distinguished mention between "this dimension" and "existence" is already red flag enough they're not referring to the same thing, it's 2-A regardless of how you look at it.
CinnabarManx421
He/Him- 5,764
- 3,507
Well, I think after such long deliberations, that it seems obvious, that Bill is just too difficult a character to gauge and we should just delete him from the Wiki so we can stop this madness, who's with me? ovo
- 12,522
- 3,489
- Thread starter
- #473
@Inverted Tempest
Chaos and destruction aren't exactly mutually exclusive, and by destruction it doesn't have be literally the space and time of the universes themselves. It can be life, planets, etc.
Because Bill doesn't have valid enough evidence from feats or statements to justify putting him at 2-A. He is only said to be a threat to the multiverse while he is rather consistently described as being able to do Low 2-C stuff.
Extrapolation. Time Baby was clearly referring to the universe as he shows a quasar and some dots in the background which can be inferred to be distant galaxies. It also wouldn't make sense to refer to the multiverse as a fabric, but the space-time continuum yes.
Chaos and destruction aren't exactly mutually exclusive, and by destruction it doesn't have be literally the space and time of the universes themselves. It can be life, planets, etc.
Because Bill doesn't have valid enough evidence from feats or statements to justify putting him at 2-A. He is only said to be a threat to the multiverse while he is rather consistently described as being able to do Low 2-C stuff.
Extrapolation. Time Baby was clearly referring to the universe as he shows a quasar and some dots in the background which can be inferred to be distant galaxies. It also wouldn't make sense to refer to the multiverse as a fabric, but the space-time continuum yes.
- 2,863
- 173
eh, the fabric could refer to the fabric and how there is the nightmare realm in between every universe
- 15,738
- 7,735
I do agree with Inverted Tempest's points. Another is that we also use Statements for rating. We have book verse, for example, where feats are statements and the multiverse statement is from the book. Currently, I see Ford Pines's statement about the multiverse being Option 2. Via Occam's razor, it required way more interpretations to say Bill is not 2-A than 2-A.
ShadowWarrior1999, Time Baby never fully made the distinction about universe or multiverse. It just was the general view.
ShadowWarrior1999, Time Baby never fully made the distinction about universe or multiverse. It just was the general view.
- 10,748
- 6,478
Elizhaa a feat being described through statements in a book is not the same as a feat that doesn't actually happen and is only stated to be possible.
Just wanted to say this, I still don't have an opinion regarding Bill's ratings.
Just wanted to say this, I still don't have an opinion regarding Bill's ratings.
- 15,738
- 7,735
From Advice to the staff of the VS Battles wiki, there should be a new thread since we have over 400 message
- Post new official request threads when the old ones are starting to get full (around 400 messages), by copying the text sections of the original posts in the previous threads.
- 231
- 50
This seems fine to me. I agree
- 12,522
- 3,489
- Thread starter
- #480
The statement is that Bill is a "threat" to the multiverse, which by itself isn't enough to warrant a tier.Elizhaa said:
Time Baby shows a quasar with distant galaxies and refers to existence as a fabric. I think it's pretty clear he's referring to the universe.
- Status
