Board Thread:Off Topic/@comment-24534644-20170213012304/@comment-25936766-20170329042409

RayStrikeAbius wrote:

1- ....These wormholes in particular are so small and so short-lived that they aren't able to gather enough material to become visible on their own; their only perceptible in the visual distortion they create.

2- ...not sure what you're getting at here.

3-Yes, I suppose it could also warp away objects that are touching the Aura, but by then the damage has already been done and most of the momentum would have been lost, so really what would be the point.

4- You know, like how the characters in the show are able to walk around and grab and hold onto things without their Aura constantly pushing said objects away?

5-If he's holding onto or wearing something, then it's 'within' or 'inside' of his Aura. So yes, his weapons and the projectiles within them are already within his Aura, or touching it as you'd would say, and so he's able to easily move them.

6-If he were only able to move objects just barely outside of his Aura field, then it would require more extreme precision to control his Semblance on them. 1-....There's still the question of how does any object go through a body that small (and note: Unperceivable is not the same as Small, they are completely different things) without shattering in the slightest.

2-You added the term to avoid a "contradiction", as you called it. My point there is, it was almost-obvious that such a thing could not happen given how you described the Semblance.

3-For starters, static objects that the user happens to be touching. And touching is completely different from "got hit by".

4-But we know, and have known for years, Aura does not push objects away. It blocks damage, not contact. Aura or no, it makes no difference regarding whether a character could grab something or not.

So, what's the point? Adding a specific term that complicates things, for something that is pretty much irrelevant and that changes nothing? The characters can grab stuff because they can, Aura is irrelevant in that, since forever.

5-Semantics, please. There's a difference between Within and Touching. If someone told you "the ball is within the box", and someone else told you "the ball is touching the box", would you assume they mean exactly the same? The former says the ball is inside it, the other simply says they're in contact, with the ball not needing to be inside the box.

Or more precisely, Covered. Would you assume the same thing, should A person tell you a box is covered by a curtain, and B person tell you a box is inside a curtain?

6-I was thinking more of the user warping the bullet in the timeframe between being fired, and being released. Remember the bullet maintains contact with the gun for an instant as it moves forward post-firing.