I can't access the links.
"Technical"?
Something that meets the criteria to be considered something is that something.
Wow, it's almost there other contexts to certain words
Your lack of interpretation is honestly astounding.
Let me illustrate this for you.
It's like a turn-based RPG attack, you know, the ones you select in a menu.
If someone punches a character from a turn-based RPG in a cutscene, is that an attack in the context of the RPG? One that consumes mana, or a turn? Obviously not.
It's an attack on a literal context, but not in-game context.
Having to give you a basic English class here, Dante.
At what point does the game say that an attack is exclusively harmful things contained within bullet patterns and nothing else?
Because last I checked,
this is called an attack.
Yes, the protagonist attacking is an attack, that's how RPGs works.
Enemy attacks are bullet patterns, that's what an Bullet Hell is, lmfao.
Again, does harming someone without triggering their invincibility frames mean they are ignoring their durability or not?
If it's done through a way the game usually sees as an attack yes. If you bypass INV frames with bullets, the
only scenario where the game triggers them, then you are basically bypassing the mechanics.
But it's not if you,
attack in a way the mechanics don't account for, such as slamming some into the battle box for example.
or if you somehow do damage off-screen without triggering battle mode, (Which never happened, ig)
Except the ones I gave.
Yes I get that.
What I'm saying is: Sans can produce 9-A ammounts of KE by throwing a child against a wall using magic. Why can't he do the same while throwing bones using his magic?
Sans doesn't procude the energy through magic. And he can't use telekinesis on his magical bones ("why????" Because he has never shown to do so).
Why? What statement do we have that says that's how Sans durability negation works?
As far as we know, it could be a status effect inducement and anything harmful to Frisk would ignore their durability.
Which would need to be accomplished through magic, as that's the UTverse's power system.
The same way a particular hax is
usually done through chakra in Naruto, or Ki/Magic in DB unless the show implies otherwise.
Now, am I saying that that's how Sans durability negation works? No, I'm just saying that we don't know how it work, therefore we can't say where it wouldn't work.
"You have to prove a negative" is basically what you're saying.
Burden of proof is on you. An ability is accomplished through the game's power system.
Kinetic energy is not a magic attack.
What I'm saying is, if other attacks also phase the soul without ignoring invincibility frames.
OR!
And this might souns crazy.
The SOUL becomes intangible when it goes into INV frames!
The reason the attacks don't vanish is because their durable enough to keep going, lmao.
Show me an instance of being slammed against a wall both dealing damage and not triggering invincibility frames, IN a context where you have invincibility frames.
You realize you're the one making the extraordinary claim, right? You need to prove the
non-magical/bullet-like attack would trigger INV frames in a bullet-hell game.
There isn't another instance where slamming the SOUL into the battle box happens (and it deals damage) in UT.
On the other hand, if you want to argue that Sans' final rush is not an attack--
Naaah, that's the fun part. I don't have to do that.
The same way I don't have to prove a cutscene punch is an attack in a RPG, I don't have to prove a non-bullet-like "attack" isn't being accounted for as an Attack in the bullet game.
I thought we stablished that ignoring invincibility frames and karma were two different things.
Where? You're acting like Karma can't be the cause of both.
It would be if the instance we have of Sans damaging you with something that is not a magical attack didn't work under the same "No INV frames" mechanic, and if we didn't have to say that an attack is not an attack in order to justify it.
???? This reply made zero sense, rephrase properly.
