And yet, the Ancient Powers (earth bull and fire elephant - also Rak) are... beasts. Associated with shinheuh (that's how the wiki classifies them FWIW - ancient shinheuh that can control the elements). They are animals/creatures, but they are set apart as they are more ancient, more powerful, and have elemental powers which standard shinheuh do not have these traits. Edit: they are also likely immortal (or at least the 5 main ones) in that they probably reincarnate if not sealed away. More on that later though.
Beast≠creature
these are 2 different terms
=The wikis don't classify them that way they classify them in "Species in Tower" they are in a different category from shinheuh which are in the subcategory "Shinheuh"
The only time this is contradicted is when EVK's elephant is classified as a shinheuh (which seems to be a mistake as they call the elephant a creature when their own sources classify it as an ancient species) for no reason
and there is also this:
The appearances of one ancient to another varies greatly. Each of them have unique design that really distinguish them from ordinary
Shinheuh.
that comparison comes out of nowhere. The ancients are not shinneuh and conversely the shinheuh are not ancients. they are two different things.
annnnndddddddd again, that's a function of the host being weak, NOT Acrinak. What is supposed to be the takeaway with this comment?
You keep talking about him when he hasn't done anything impressive against an FH, talking about him is useless
Complete assumption, and you don't know that at all -
what is your source? It was pierced through. We don't know if it can be killed at all. Talk about assumptions over fact!
Do you remember why the ancient monster had to be sealed inside the '7 sacred swords'?? Because it could not be killed and that (sealing it) was the only way to keep it from respawning.
Unnamed Ancient Monster (name unknown) is a man-eating monster who used to terrorize the village where Hong Danhwa and Hong Chunhwa were from. The soul of the monster is now sealed within a series of swords known as "The Seven Sacred Swords."[1] The ancient monster appears as an enormous, stout...
towerofgod.fandom.com
"Long ago, the
monster used to terrorize the homeland of Hong Danhwa and Hong Chunwa by feeding on the villagers. However, the monster was later on defeated by seven talented swordsmen of the village at that time and its
soul was sealed within their seven swords
to prevent it from reincarnating. The swords were then passed into the next generations and are known as "The Seven Sacred Swords.""
At the very least we have precedent that ancient monsters/shinheuh can/do in fact reincarnate if they are not sealed. This very likely extends to other ancient powers as well, such as what we see play out with Acrinak - bested (lethally in appearance) but able to dissolve and come back later.
I'd argue that this is also relevant to what we see happening with the red thryssa as well, as it mimics the idea a bit. After all, admin are basically giant, ancient creatures thought to be immortal in the tower.
uh no a fact, did you forget about EVK's flashabck when she was talking to her elephant
Evankhell. You can't do that. Remember what I asked you for back when I chose you as a host? Our goal is to stay alive and make sure this power survives. The important thing is for us to stay alive, until the time comes. That's why we keep going from host to host to make sure we survive S3-473
.It's not debatable they can die they can be killed
Acrinak is not a shinheuh, the ancient monster is a shinheuh, invalid comparison, example rejected
I mean, that's kind of my point. *we don't know*
that's why we make assumptions and dispute
LOL. Now I know you're not discussing this in good faith. Yes, you can be beaten by being too lenient but you can ALSO be beaten because you aren't strong enough or qualified enough to do enough damage no matter how hard you try. And sometimes if you are close in power it is merely a matter of chance that will sometimes go your way, sometimes not in your favor. You're arguing from the perspective that the only way you can lose is by pulling your punches and either not trying hard enough or trying too hard, but say nothing of what if you're not capable enough in the first place.
"If it beats you that's because you allowed it to" (tell that to someone just starting the game and going after one that's fully-evolved, GTFOOH). That's a bit dishonest (well, more than a bit). I think we're devolving into the arguing just to argue territory at this point, so no thanks.
Have you played any pokemon games lately?
This is serious. I'm going to put pokemon arceus aside for now, and concentrate on the old games.
What you are proposing is normally not possible.
- You can't be beaten for not being strong enough, especially when your pokemon levels are normally higher than the average pokemon in the area (from the start your starter is at level 5 so stronger than the overwhelming majority of the pokemon in the area at the beginning of the game). You can have special areas where there are pokemon that are massively stronger than the average of your team (but even then you can beat them and capture them if you play correctly).
example:
The player comes across a gyrados lvl 96. I'll tell you right now he could have beaten it without losing the lucario if he had the right attacks and he still lost one pokemon out of 6, it's nothing
-If you do your best against the opposing pokemon and still lose you suck (sorry but if a wild pokemon succeeds in 1v6 your team then you just suck there is no other word)
- "tell that to someone just starting the game and going after one that's fully-evolved, GTFOOH" this is not possible in any old game (the only thing that comes "close" to this is sword and shield where you run into the legendaries at the beginning of the game and get beaten up but it's normal, it's scripted)
The only game where this is possible is in Arceus and the player doesn't just stumble upon them by chance, he decides to go there and fight his pokemon on his own (who are clearly above him) so he deserves what happens to him.
So again, it's the indulgence that makes you fail to capture a pokemon: the indulgence of not doing XP your pokemon when you're supposed to. If you're struggling, it's your fault and your fault alone.
We' re not arguing for the sake of arguing, you' re making an inaccurate analogy and I' m explaining why your analogy is wrong.
-> I'm saying we don't know, but I *think* X is true and here's my evidence.
-> You're saying we don't know, but Y *HAS* to be true unless it's proven otherwise.
You're literally substituting one assumption for another, then lecturing me about assumptions. You ASSUME your assumption is the default position, and don't even realize that's what you're doing. (all the while admitting my speculations are possible)
Proof? You haven't provided any of this.
every time i make a statement i base it on a piece of information
I extrapolate from what I've been told or shown.
Yes with that I think my assumptions are valid by default and have priority over hypotheses that are not based on anything(I don't aim at you, for you everything seems to be an attack for you so I repeat I don't aim at you) . as any hypothesis with more proof than mine will have priority over mine (isn't that how it works?)
- yes I said "possible" not "probable" they are 2 different terms. something probable is necessarily possible something possible is not necessarily probable.
Dunno what you mean here (terrible grammar). Are you arguing that sometimes fights aren't down to pure luck and that 2 people can fight 10 times with 10 different results? SIU seems to acknowledge that's possible when the two are close in power (why I referenced his notes on Jinsung v Kallavan - the results are not always clear he says), why can't you say that's a possibility as well?
Are you suggesting I've contradicted something somewhere? You haven't made that point clearly. Just a list of counter-assumptions really, which you admit are assumptions later below.
Dude, that was just a comment on Kallavan vs Jinsung. Chill was not an argument
Well, apparently you aren't familiar with the concept that sometimes a characters words and actions don't always match up, and sometimes egomaniacs might say things to save face. Read on, and I'll give you a good example of what he says not being reliable at all, and rather counter to the truth.
.
Okay, and you have proof that he is wrong?
I know sometimes that words and deeds don't add up, but I don't remember that applying to Traum. there has to be a contradiction, the reason why the bug is locked up and not killed is unknown, so there is no contradiction yet with his statement.
And so Rei is too naive to even know when his opponent isn't really dead? The one he wanted so badly that he moved huge armies against?
1: acrinak dissipated like a fog Traum had no way to check.
2: why would he check if he could? If you want to confirm a death, you really want to make sure it's a death. Traum doesn't care about Acrinak he would have no reason to check even if he could.
3: We still don't know who took the initiative to capture Acrinak
Acrinak is such a little trifle it took 2 GF multi-force with several HR's to take it on (and they still would have lost if it didn't get interested in WW), and Zahard personally wants to oversee the operation? Not likely.
Why don't you understand he's using that term to shame and humiliate (and because like Gustang he's a supremacist), as he can't fathom not being in control all the time (in spite of examples of him not being able to control)? Just because he CALLS something a trifle doesn't mean he can/could control it, case in point whatever's sealed in the Nest. And likely Acrinak as well.
It is you who think that the FH say this to humiliate the Towerborn.
1: Is it supposed to be impressive?
2: we don't even know why Zahard wanted to go there (he didn't even bother to come in person)
Yeah he's a common trifle
It is you who think that the FH say this to humiliate the Towerborn.
I think you should reread 528.
Kirin asks Rei if he's back from the Nest, and the state of the creature.
Rei: "it still does not understand my will... I assume it will be like that from NOW on... now that I've ABANDONED it it's fine"
*grips jacket at the thought he couldn't control a trifle*
Rei pointedly thinks nothing will change, and has abandoned the creature into the seal. Literally the opposite of your claim that he's saving it for later. There is no thought of future gain, or future control, and the voice makes it clear here that it hasn't been visited exactly. Rei doesn't appear to have any intent of ever letting it out or interacting with it again.
The best thing it can do for his mental stability and control-freak mentality (he literally grips his jacket at the thought of not winning out) is to stay sealed (dead would be better). It has LOST IT'S VALUE to him, and per his other statement this means he should have killed it by now. If he could. Implying he can't. He says in 529 "death is a gift to those that have lost their value to even be dominated." And yet he readily admits he will not be able to dominate this creature, therefor its value is null - per Rei himself! By his own words he should kill it instead. Oh, wait.... he didn't. Well, there goes that idea. I thought his words were gospel?
you know that the perception of value does not work that way.
just because you can't get the value of something doesn't mean it has no value. this doesn't contradict what i said
Rei makes a point to say in 529: "death is easier to perform than domination" so controlling should be harder, and he cannot control at least one creature (the one in the Nest), probably the Acrinak as well, so he has to resort to 'death' (or what he thinks is death for it apparently). He's literally saying it's harder to control things in front of something he's 'opting' to kill instead of control - implying he cannot control it by default.
Rei also says "there's not a single trifle I cannot control in this tower" (a clear lie) - and yet just one previous chapter ago we see that's not the case (the animal he can't control in the Nest).
What Rei SAYS isn't always factual. He has motivation to save face like any other maniacal monarch, and we see right here he's NOT a reliable source at all.
Okay, so what? I'm talking specifically about his line about the value of things.
the example you gave is proven wrong
the sentence about value is still not proven false.
So it is still valid. Until proven otherwise
At BEST Rei thought he had killed Acrinak and couldn't even perceive that he hadn't succeeded. This doesn't mean he could control it. It doesn't mean he can even kill it. It just means he was fooled into believing he had. That was the best move for something (the Acrinak) that couldn't fight due to a weak host. But we just witnessed what Rei thought of - what SHOULD have been - a lethal blow (according to you Rei certainly thought so), and yet... no death! Curious, isn't it?
-we know that beings like Acrinak can die
-Acrinak was getting intidimated and cut to pieces by the fandore
- he pretended to be dead
If you want to claim that Acrinak was not going to die if he had continued to fight then you are going to have to prove it. and not with words of real proof that implies that he would not have died, when everything points in that direction.
(implying that I'm not)
Is this where I say how I'm rubber and you're glue?
So am I. I've given you chapters, quotes, referenced the wiki (discussion of what shinheuh are and aren't), analogous incidents (the other ancient that could resurrect and had to be sealed). You're just insisting your assumptions HAVE to be right (unless proven otherwise of course lol); that's all. I haven't made the first claim that contradicts the story to my knowledge, just your opinion of what is to come.
Chill man, I didn't imply anything I would have told you directly if you were aiming, you're paranoid.
- Right, her or the proof of that:
I'm waiting, because last I heard it was based on the idea that the Ancients can reincarnate because something else completely different can. What do they have in common? They're old. 'There's nothing probable that can do the same =not a proof
The second time you pull out proof is here:
Rei: "it still does not understand my will... I assume it will be like that from NOW on... now that I've ABANDONED it it's fine"
*grips jacket at the thought he couldn't control a trifle*
I never said he wanted to use it later.
I said that something that has value will always have value even if you can't extract that value, hence the diamond example = yeah, your proof just made me repeat myself
3rd proof:
Rei also says "there's not a single trifle I cannot control in this tower" (a clear lie) - and yet just one previous chapter ago we see that's not the case (the animal he can't control in the Nest).
You just showed that Traum was not an omniscient narrator and that not everything he says can be taken as absolute fact. I never said the opposite, you have to show me that his statement about value is unfounded, but you don't, a counter example that totally refutes his sentence doesn't exist yet. So I have no reason to question his word. again not a proof at all
Jesus man, it's fiction, don't take it like that, take a
coockie