PDA

View Full Version : Discussion Akainu's Magma DF can't damage if He Uses Haki!



jimtors
March 27, 2012, 12:34 AM
The armor haki to use in order to hit Logia DFs will disable the magma effect of Akainus magma punch if he uses to cover himself with it. He was just able to hit ace at that time and burn him since he didn't use haki but he's fruit is superior to Ace's..

hyper_megaman
March 27, 2012, 02:54 AM
The armor haki to use in order to hit Logia DFs will disable the magma effect of Akainus magma punch if he uses to cover himself with it. He was just able to hit ace at that time and burn him since he didn't use haki but he's fruit is superior to Ace's..

yes that was pretty well established by rayleigh

it's also pretty clear if the logia user himself is a haki user, the effects would just be the difference in haki between the logia attacked and the physical attacker, so logias highly skilled in haki are still pretty invulnerable

hoeru
March 27, 2012, 09:00 AM
No, just no. How come Luffy combines both haki and his gomu gomu abilities? If a DF user is combining his power with Busoshoku Haki, the DF power are varied.

And yes. Established by the Skypiea adventure, it doesn't matter if someone uses Busoshoku Haki or not if there's a superior element.

hyper_megaman
March 27, 2012, 09:18 AM
No, just no. How come Luffy combines both haki and his gomu gomu abilities? If a DF user is combining his power with Busoshoku Haki, the DF power are varied.

And yes. Established by the Skypiea adventure, it doesn't matter if someone uses Busoshoku Haki or not if there's a superior element.

wait, did he mean akainu will disable his own magma powers by using haki?

i thought he meant akainu can get hurt by other haki users

Dekker
March 27, 2012, 09:40 AM
wait, did he mean akainu will disable his own magma powers by using haki?

i thought he meant akainu can get hurt by other haki users

I thought he ment Akainu cannot combine his DF with Haki as it will disable it. That was the reason I did not answer in this thread at all. There was neither a question for the start, nor did I really understand what the op said in his first post

mattiaildivino
March 27, 2012, 09:53 AM
what are you talking about? a DF can use haki,and add it to his power! that's what luffy did to Hody,or what marco did to akainu when he hit ace. akainu survived because he used haki too,imo.the same happened to aokiji when Wb stabbed him. if luffy had enough haki,he could stop akainu's magma,as did shanks in chapter 579

jimtors
March 27, 2012, 06:51 PM
My point with this discussion is that Akainu killed ace without Haki since Ace got burned due to the inferiority of his DF.. If akainu used haki when hitting ace, it would act as a shield covering his magma and will just bluntly punch ace and send him flying, not punching through him with the magma... Get the point people? Luffy can perfectly synergize with his haki since he is a rubber man and it will act as a hard glove for him, but for akainu, it will cover the magma effects... Cause haki acts as a shield!

kkck
March 27, 2012, 07:29 PM
Well, luffy uses haki AND can come in contact with people when punching. I don't see any particular reason for akainu to have such a problem when even less experienced people than him have it. I think this would depend on how exactly akainu uses haki though. We have seen haki is capable of repelling stuff however in those cases haki has already been used solely as defense.

hyper_megaman
March 27, 2012, 07:38 PM
My point with this discussion is that Akainu killed ace without Haki since Ace got burned due to the inferiority of his DF.. If akainu used haki when hitting ace, it would act as a shield covering his magma and will just bluntly punch ace and send him flying, not punching through him with the magma... Get the point people? Luffy can perfectly synergize with his haki since he is a rubber man and it will act as a hard glove for him, but for akainu, it will cover the magma effects... Cause haki acts as a shield!

i don't think haki is strictly a hard aura around the person's body, or at least it can be controlled to not be

as kkck has mentioned, loads of haki users do engage in physical contact

remember vista's cuts on akainu? marco's claw rips?

it wouldn't be sharp if it really was an aura, vista would have just clubbed akainu with his club-sword

jimtors
March 27, 2012, 07:47 PM
Well, luffy uses haki AND can come in contact with people when punching. I don't see any particular reason for akainu to have such a problem when even less experienced people than him have it. I think this would depend on how exactly akainu uses haki though. We have seen haki is capable of repelling stuff however in those cases haki has already been used solely as defense.

IF you say that way, then that would be right. As I said before, when he punched through Ace, there was no Haki used since it would just act as a shield between his magma and aces body.

---------- Post added at 09:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 AM ----------


i don't think haki is strictly a hard aura around the person's body, or at least it can be controlled to not be

as kkck has mentioned, loads of haki users do engage in physical contact

remember vista's cuts on akainu? marco's claw rips?

it wouldn't be sharp if it really was an aura, vista would have just clubbed akainu with his club-sword

THe haki of VISTA acted as a hard covering taking the shape of it's container, that is why it's still sharp.. While with akainu, it would cover the shape of his magma, but the burning effect will be covered....

Uriel
March 27, 2012, 08:19 PM
You actually don't know if Ace or Aikanu didn't used Haki, actually.

hyper_megaman
March 27, 2012, 11:08 PM
IF you say that way, then that would be right. As I said before, when he punched through Ace, there was no Haki used since it would just act as a shield between his magma and aces body.

---------- Post added at 09:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 AM ----------

THe haki of VISTA acted as a hard covering taking the shape of it's container, that is why it's still sharp.. While with akainu, it would cover the shape of his magma, but the burning effect will be covered....


or maybe it will merely exaggerate the form of the container, as u said, and enhance akainu's burning effects instead of diminishing it

as uriel said, it's merely conjecture at this point, but frm what oda has shown us it seems to be purely beneficial to the user with no detriment

jimtors
April 02, 2012, 03:17 AM
So you do you think that when Akainu punched through Ace, he used haki? I know it's merely a theory, but basing to what Haki's characteristics are, explained by Rayleigh, we should be abe to throw an educated assumption...

hyper_megaman
April 02, 2012, 04:59 AM
yea but have u seen how luffy uses it?

he doesn't really create a significant boundary over his flesh

he actually just hardens his flesh

that's pretty evidential that colour of armaments haki can be controlled in terms of space

hoeru
April 02, 2012, 05:12 AM
So you do you think that when Akainu punched through Ace, he used haki? I know it's merely a theory, but basing to what Haki's characteristics are, explained by Rayleigh, we should be abe to throw an educated assumption...

It doesn't matter: Magma is the superior element to Flames, which makes as much sense as Rubber being the superior element to Electricity. Ace would have needed Haki to counter Akainu, so all we can say for sure is: Ace didn't use enough Haki while fighting Akainu nor when he shielded Luffy.

We also know that Akainu is able to use haki, though when he blocked Whitebeard's attack on the scaffold. But everything else can be explained without haki usage.

mattiaildivino
April 02, 2012, 10:16 AM
Ace could use king haki when he was just a child,although he couldn't control it. according to what he said when he saw rufy using it,he was able to use haki,and it would have been a waste not to protect rufy with haki. hence I think both ace and akainu used it,yet ace's haki wasn't strong enough to compete to akainu's,as tashigi's one wasn't to bear Law's power.

kkck
April 02, 2012, 11:12 AM
To be completely honest the death of ace by magma has always been exceptionally weird to me. We have seen a number of times how DFs work and their interaction. In particular, one of the most interesting parts of the interaction is how they can cancel or counter each other to almost extreme degrees. Luffy's immunity to lightning, mr 3's capacity to defend from poison and a few other things have almost gone as far as setting the tone for entire arcs and have proven to be defining to say the least. However no matter how I look at it, the explanation about why akainu was able to burn ace is kinda lacking specially considering oda does tend to be rather consistent in those details. Ultimately the explanation given by akainu as to why he was able to burn ace does not exactly make sense to say the least. Why would something hotter be able to burn fire? How is more heat going to affect fire in such a way that it can burn it? If anything, it would make more sense for ace to be able to take in the heat of akainu's magma and add the extra temperature to his own fire IMO. Its not like magma can put out fire in the context we saw it either. There are a number of ways akainu could have conceivably extinguished ace's flame through the use of his very solid magma and then burn him (for example a large enough amount of magma would do the trick as it would burn a decent bit of air around).

Now, when I first saw the manga my first thought was that haki was indeed the reason for this. Haki does not cancel devil fruit abilities in the same way as BB's devil fruit or sea stone however it does allow normal physical contact with the actual body of logia or paramecia users. In this regard, people hit by haki would remain as their particular element. Now, if akainu used haki it would allow for physical contact with ace's body and also burn him with magma since the magma is indeed at a higher temperature than what his fire is.

Now, in writing this thread I actually came up with another interesting idea which would pretty much fit what we saw. As we know, fire needs some fuel or whatnot to burn. Normally we see stuff using oxygen to burn. I think it is a fairly reasonable assumption that under the scenario that ace runs out of oxygen his fire would run out and he would be forced solid. Of course, under that line of thought anything that deprives ace of oxygen would at large force him solid. How about if this was the reason for which akainu was able to burn ace? Magma is under manga rules hotter than fire. This would mean that when akainu punched ace he was at the same time burning the very air ace needed to remain as fire thus it forced him solid thus burning him. It would pretty much fit the idea that he was able to burn ace because he was hotter to some degree right?

llydnarz
June 11, 2012, 10:05 PM
We don't really need scientific explanations for this one. Akainu's magma punch injured Ace because Ace was trying to protect Luffy. He tried to stop the punch using his DF. He used his body as a fire wall to stop Akainu's attack but as Akainu mentioned, his magma is superior to Ace's fire. If Ace wasn't protecting anyone, Akainu's punch would've just passed through Ace's flaming body.

BlackHair
June 11, 2012, 11:07 PM
As to Akainus punch through Ace, I think he used haki. I believe once u mastered haki u will use it regardless. Its in your fighting style, which you acquired through hard training. As such you will do it per instinct.

Even in real life the same concept applies, I mean if you do a certain routine day by day, you will automatically master it. Starting at some point you will do that routine mindlessly. Be it driving, swimming or whatever.

Though not his strongest attack, Akainu put everything into his fist, logically haki included. I don't see a reason for him going holding back at anything, he wanted to take his life for sure. It was a battlefield. That's at least my understanding.


[....] Cause haki acts as a shield!CoA has obviously at least two uses. Creating a force field/shield is one of them. The other being imbuing weapon. That weapon can also be ur own body part. Rayleighs kick on Kiz, Garps punch on Marco, Marguerites arrows.. etc

Furthermore in my understanding u can only create a force field to defend and send back the attack, if the opponent has a lot a weaker haki as urself or no haki at all.


[....] Ultimately the explanation given by akainu as to why he was able to burn ace does not exactly make sense to say the least. Why would something hotter be able to burn fire? How is more heat going to affect fire in such a way that it can burn it? [...]
I was also confused at first. But after reading cnets translation (573) (http://mangahelpers.com/t/cnet128/releases/19672), my doubts disappeared.


Akainu: Are you allowing your Logia nature to make you a little too overconfident? / You are mere "fire"... whilst I am "magma", with the power to consume even fire itself!! // My ability is a natural enemy of your own, boy!!!
In my understanding magma consumes fire. Magma is melted rock, a solid form of dense heat. While fire is gaseous, without any solid form. As such magma sucks in (consumes) fire and makes it part of itself. Hence fire dissolves and becomes part of magma.

That's at least my understanding after reading cnets version of Akainus lines. I don't know if its physically correct or anything, and tbh I don't care. After all Oda was never rly about physics. Anyway, It makes much more sense now in my head with a graphical scenario lol.

kkck
June 11, 2012, 11:11 PM
Well, strictly speaking fire is not gas at all. Fire is pretty much something on its own. Fire can be generated from gas but in itself it is not gas. Even with that explanation my little theory fits though. Akainu gives of heat of his own and does not need anything to burn. Ace needs air to burn thus akainu burning the air faster than what ace did would result in him hurting ace.

BlackHair
June 11, 2012, 11:32 PM
Back in school as I was about 15, so basically 10 years ago I learned of three different forms to describe a element (object of any kind). 1. liquid 2. gaseous and 3. solid. Im not sure whether "gaseous" is the correct English term, here in Germany I learned it as "gasförmig". Via dictionary it translates to "gaseous" xD. feel free to correct me if Im wrong. Im not trying to be physically here, as Im faraway from being an expert.

Anyway, I wasn't saying fire is gas, but that fire is of no solid form. As of ur theory, if you are saying magma burns oxygen faster than fire, Im not disagreeing. As it still fits Akainus line of superior element.

hyper_megaman
June 12, 2012, 09:56 PM
guys, fire IS gas.

fire is GLOWING gas. it can be anything, from nitrogen to carbon dioxide to oxygen, as long as it's heated above a certain temperature it glows. then as it rises up in convection, it loses that heat, and eventually stops glowing. that's why fire flickers.

meanwhile, new gas particles are pulled in from the bottom and side and they get heated up by the reaction too. they go through the same process of glowing, rising, unglowing.

also, (if you're burning something, and that releases gases) the gases produced in the exothermic reaction are hot too, and they go through the same convection, heat loss, stopping glowing

fire IS gas.


fire doesn't have to mean combustion, but i think oda thought it was that.

if you have a hot enough metal rod smothered in an inert atmosphere, even if no combustion is taking place, if the metal can heat the gas to glowing levels, it can be on 'fire', even without any oxygen

fire is glowing gas indicative of combustion, not combustion itself.

SlayerKisame
June 13, 2012, 01:26 AM
guys, fire IS gas.

fire is GLOWING gas. it can be anything, from nitrogen to carbon dioxide to oxygen, as long as it's heated above a certain temperature it glows. then as it rises up in convection, it loses that heat, and eventually stops glowing. that's why fire flickers.

meanwhile, new gas particles are pulled in from the bottom and side and they get heated up by the reaction too. they go through the same process of glowing, rising, unglowing.

also, (if you're burning something, and that releases gases) the gases produced in the exothermic reaction are hot too, and they go through the same convection, heat loss, stopping glowing

fire IS gas.


fire doesn't have to mean combustion, but i think oda thought it was that.

if you have a hot enough metal rod smothered in an inert atmosphere, even if no combustion is taking place, if the metal can heat the gas to glowing levels, it can be on 'fire', even without any oxygen

fire is glowing gas indicative of combustion, not combustion itself.It is actually not gas. Fire is a process of a phenomenological chemical reaction that yields energy. Gas is a medium that can produce gas, but the two are not inversely proportional. aka; it is not a basic form.

hyper_megaman
June 13, 2012, 01:53 AM
It is actually not gas. Fire is a process of a phenomenological chemical reaction that yields energy. Gas is a medium that can produce gas, but the two are not inversely proportional. aka; it is not a basic form.

the combusting material itself, in a gaseous state rising up as it completes the combustion/oxidation process, is one of the ways a flame can be seen

in our environment, that could be one of the most common ways a flame is presented, actually. it's responsible for extremely tall/long flames at much lower temperatures (lighters, etc)

i pointed that out in:

guys, fire IS gas.

fire is GLOWING gas. it can be anything, from nitrogen to carbon dioxide to oxygen, as long as it's heated above a certain temperature it glows. then as it rises up in convection, it loses that heat, and eventually stops glowing. that's why fire flickers.

meanwhile, new gas particles are pulled in from the bottom and side and they get heated up by the reaction too. they go through the same process of glowing, rising, unglowing.

also, (if you're burning something, and that releases gases) the gases produced in the exothermic reaction are hot too, and they go through the same convection, heat loss, stopping glowing

fire IS gas.


fire doesn't have to mean combustion, but i think oda thought it was that.

if you have a hot enough metal rod smothered in an inert atmosphere, even if no combustion is taking place, if the metal can heat the gas to glowing levels, it can be on 'fire', even without any oxygen

fire is glowing gas indicative of combustion, not combustion itself.

if you heat a ceramic plate to say 2000 degrees and wave it around in inert nitrogen gas, there wont' be combustion as there is no oxygen and no oxidant available, but flames will still be visible as you wave it through that inert gas as the ceramic plate heats up the nitrogen.

Kaiten
June 16, 2012, 11:09 AM
This whole debate is ridiculous. Fire can not be burned anymore than water can get wet. Lava is not fire. It's molten rock, superheated by internal pressure in the mantle, rising up through cracks in the surface caused by plate tectonics. Lava is so hot that it can burn or start a fire on contact with combustible material (a tree, grass, people), but it is in no way physically related to fire. Oda was trying to establish Akainu's devil fruit power as stronger than Ace's, and made a rather silly gaff in the process. He is a magaka, not a geologist or physicist, forgive him.

Any debate about how lava can burn fire is closed. It is impossible by definition. If you disagree, go do research. Wikipedia should tell you all you need to know. Dissenting opinions do not count when they contradict reality and high school science. Thread closed.