Byakuya with ease
Byakuya with difficulty
Shunsui with ease
Shunsui with difficulty
Starrk pulled out his rieatsu swords before Irooni was put into play to counter a charging Shunsui in close combat. Shunsui only explained the rules of Irooni when Starrk was ALREADY holding his swords in his hands. Shunsui did not state cutting techniques were ONLY allowed and there was no sign of Starrk trying to pull out his wolves or guns but was prevented to.
For all we know Starrk could have tried to best Shunsui in a sword battle since...heck he already them in his hands....and was going toe-to-toe till the final blow.
Its inconclusive either way Id say.
Last edited by Broken_Wing; June 12, 2011 at 02:14 AM.
Ah, Okay I see. Sorry bout' that then. i don't really know what I'm talking about lol
He says you can cut all you want nothing will happen. You can only cut the color you call out. Just because it's not explained thoroughly doesn't mean there's something left. And @you Takahashi- you're grasping at Straws if you think Starrk was going to do something different than what was already shown. The 'finishing blow' was going to be wolves. He had used the wolves to great affect on them already. What else was he going to do? The story had to move on, so Starrk lands on a pole creating a shadow for Shunsui to use! There's nothing in the story that suggests Starrk was going to use some other technique or move to finish Love and Rose. I'm grasping at straws but you have nothing to go on with your theory! Shunsui canceled that 'finishing blow' by Forcing Starrk to play his games. He jumped off the shadow and was no longer playing Kageoni. He drew swords out because Shunsui was on a charge. That much is accepted, but how do you get the idea he was going to use some different attack? And how do you figure Shunsui didn't force Starrk into a game? The same can be done to Byakuya, whom many believe isn't Starrk's equal. But yet he's supposed to somehow fare better than him?
I wasn't planning on responding to this, but.....
freshseth, do you know what "grasping at straws" means?
I suggest you look it up, because when you openly admit to doing so, you destroy your argument, especially when you've been so insistent that your argument is fact.
You must've read wrong. I said you claimed I was grasping at straws but you come back with a flawed argument based on nothing. You think Starrk wasn't going to use his wolves to 'finish off' Love and Rose, where do you get that from? How am I grasping at straws? Do you know what the word rhetoric means? I suggest you look it up. I said this: I'm grasping at straws but you have nothing to go on with your theory! I'm quoting you, not admitting what you state. I was being sarcastic if you didn't catch it.
Last edited by freshseth83; June 25, 2011 at 12:26 AM.