Originally posted by fangirl101But this is the whole point. We only concluded that the former version had each gauntlet amp each arm by ten instead of each gauntlet amp by five only AFTER it was shown. It's completely counterintuitive considering that the original gauntlets amped by five each.
It's clearly clear. Queen Hippolyta stated that Two amped someone's strength 10 fold. Let's get technical. When arty started her fight with chauvenist, she had on BOTH. She had one knocked off or something in the fight. Now what we have is a situation where we don't know if she was amped by ten with one arm, or by five with one arm. What we do know is that both amped her entire being by ten. Now when cassie wore the guantlet, her strength was amped by ten. so was her stamina and durability and healing. So One guantlet now amps the entire being by ten. But we do know that both gauntlets amped someone's entire being by ten. There for they stacked either by amping one half of the body each by ten, or they both amped by a factor of five. The result is the same. An entire person's being was amped by ten with both. Which means they stacked some how or had a cumalative effect. Byrne Changed the guantlets. One now amps everything by ten. What he didn't do, was changed the cumalitive effect. Until there is absolute proof that he changed that too, we have to go with established canon. Two gauntlets amp a person by ten. No matter how they did it. either by a factor of five, or by ten on each arm.
And now they change again where one amps by tenfold and without there being concrete proof where they are presented together as ampig strength twentyfold, you want us to assume this, despite their counterintuitive retconned history? It's arguable. It's even probable. But it's not indisputable. Because Byrne may have changed them yet again to the point where he removed the cumulative effect as posited by other people. Whether you wear one or two, it's tenfold. Absolute proof is the standard we are both using. And considering the contradictory retcons that have taken place, and the history of the gauntlets never being described as anything other than tenfold, what I am asking for is absolute proof with respect to a twentyfold amp.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
But this is the whole point. We only concluded that the former version had each gauntlet amp each arm by ten instead of each gauntlet amp by five only AFTER it was shown. It's completely counterintuitive considering that the original gauntlets amped by five each.And now they change again where one amps by tenfold and without there being concrete proof where they are presented together as ampig strength twentyfold, you want us to assume this, despite their counterintuitive retconned history? It's arguable. It's even probable. But it's not indisputable. Because Byrne may have changed them yet again to the point where he removed the cumulative effect as posited by other people. Whether you wear one or two, it's tenfold. Absolute proof is the standard we are both using. And considering the contradictory retcons that have taken place, and the history of the gauntlets never being described as anything other than tenfold, what I am asking for is absolute proof with respect to a twentyfold amp.
Arty had to use both gauntlets to amp her entire body by ten.
With one she was only half amped.
Wonder Girl and Wondy with One guantlet were both Wholly Amped.
So um, The retcon changes it so that one amps fully.
What it didn't change was the cumalitive effect. That is still established canon unless other wise proven.
You can't get around the math. It took two to get arty to full amp.
It only took one to get WG and WW to full power.
This would conclude that two gauntlets in Byrne era would be double the amp. Unless you can prove that Byrne retconned the stacking effect. he didn't anywhere that I've read do that.
Originally posted by Mekrob😐
Bryne actually went on record that he changed it to only amping the power by twice as much. Two make it four times.😬
Where did you hear this? For my part, I take clear and unambiguous on-panel scene that isn't riddled with PIS/CIS/Loeb-style stupidity over writer interviews/bios.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0I have scans, but I'm just waiting until more dumb claims are made, and until someone else posts them so I can rub in that I was right.
😐Where did you hear this? For my part, I take clear and unambiguous on-panel scene that isn't riddled with PIS/CIS/Loeb-style stupidity over writer interviews/bios.
u no how it iz
Originally posted by fangirl101Cumulative effects have changed in the past. How do you know he didn't retcon it again? Especially when the "tenfold" increase is still used to refer to the Gauntlets of Atlas as a whole.
What it didn't change was the cumalitive effect. That is still established canon unless other wise proven.
Originally posted by MekrobThat's pretty petty. Why don't you just post them. Do you have scans of scenes that occur or statements made within a comic or scans of some writer's interview?
I have scans, but I'm just waiting until more dumb claims are made, and until someone else posts them so I can rub in that I was right.u no how it iz
I'm late. And this conversation got even more confusing.
Originally posted by OneDumbG0
Cumulative effects have changed in the past. How do you know he didn't retcon it again? Especially when the "tenfold" increase is still used to refer to the Gauntlets of Atlas as a whole.
That's pretty petty. Why don't you just post them. Do you have scans of scenes that occur or statements made within a comic or scans of some writer's interview?I'm late. And this conversation got even more confusing.
P.S. the ten fold description is used to describe A as in ONE guantlet now.