- 813
- 137
Continued from this thread. Ive been busy with school work and other stuff IRL, so I wasnt able to comment on anything towards the end of this thread. Wont hold this against anyone on that.
However, im bringing this back up because the general consensus, like, completely ignored my counter argument against denying First Law being given to Arceus. To make sure it's actually seen this time, im posting it here:
">What I was saying about using game mechanics is that if we are to use something that is purely a game mechanic like this we need to consider it by the rules established by that game mechanic. This means we wouldn't scale it out to Darkrai's thing because the two mechanics never interact.
Darkrai's Dark Cleave, again, does interact with the opponent because it's move is bypassing their resistance. Unless a resistance is suddenly not naturally apart of an individual (much less someone whos omnipresent but this doesnt mean much overall), it is interacting with them. I've had to point this out like 4 times now.
>Okay, but again, none of this is remotely based on the lore. It's not even based on descriptions from the TCG. It's entirely based on stuff that exists purely as game mechanics, and because of that, even taking all of this at face value, none of these are resisted unless added on to another attack.
And again, since when and why is lore needed for an ability to legit? Lore isn't a required standard for a pokemon ability to be real and this case shouldnt be either. Especially since the TCG moves have been proven to be real by several other pokemon (from the examples that i've posted), why Arceus's is suddenly being called into question is a borderline farce. Unless "resistances" and "effects" are suddenly game mechanics for pokemon in general now, it is not a game mechanic.
>Similarly, again going back to Progenitus
First off, using "immunity" here doesnt really make your example any better Azzy. The example is already wrong because immunities in this context are NLF's. They'd be resistances.
Second, I cannot specifically speak about Progenitus here because I know nothing of the verse he comes from. So im only going to be speaking for the context of Arceus here unless Progenitus's part in this is detailed out for me to understand.
>This is a ridiculous way of gathering powers for something without anything in the lore to actually back it up.
Except, from the perspective of the god tiers, it's not ridiculous.
Unless your saying Arceus cannot resist the powers of his creations. Creations that are not only parts of himself, but creations he has also shown to have their powers nulled by him. And mon who are even inferior to them. I would agree with you here if this was about giving Arceus resistances to every power in Pokemon in general. But thats not what this is about and was agreed to not be the case.
>Imagine thinking that the game mechanics rules for a freaking trading card game is valid
Because, in the context of Pokemon, it is valid? Very valid? Where we have an entire manga with storylines and backstories about the pokemon becoming cards in the first place? Where the moves from the TCG are blatantly displayed to be real?
How this is "just game mechanics" is beyond me at this point.
>"Shadow Force in the TCG has a 50% chance of making the opponent's next attack completely useless, damage, hax, and all."
This is bullshit. We know what the attack is based on (Shadow Force), and the reason nothing affects Giratina when he does this is because he straight up vanishes. You can see this happen in the games.
This is not entirely true, and your talking to someone whos looking through the TCG as we speak to make future blogs of these abilities. The TCG has their own unique versions of moves that actually do apply power nullish haxes to their moves. Whether Giratina's is specifically wrong or not is up for debate but im just clarifying that this point is wrong because Shadow Force is not the only move that does this. Many moves do.
>Once again, lying by omission. Renegade Pulse only affects Megas
Like you said, via verse equalization, mega evolved pokemon are literally no different than characters transformed. So im not seeing the problem with this.
>Mewtwo is immune to anything from a verse without some concept of evolution
Resistant. And this is literally just a limited form of power null against anything that doesnt have an evolution or transformation.
>Looking even deeper, I also take issue with Arceus having "Should possess Dialga's Time Crystal TCG ability" as a reason behind its power null without any sort of qualifiers
Anything Dialga has, Arceus has, for being Arceus's creation. This is self explanatory honestly.
>as once again, Time Crystal is a specific power that only nullifies Poke-Bodies.
Poke-Bodies are literally no different than Pokemon Abilities except that they are actively used, not passive. So im not seeing the issue with this either."
This was my last comment from the thread. Others made arguments to disagree with First Law upgrading Arceus, I made rebuttals for all of those points, and they were literally flat out ignored for the rest of the thread. I don't particularly care if the majority agreed to deny any upgrades, but I don't like my counter arguments just being ignored.
So i'd like it if someone could actually address this please. Deny the upgrade? Absolutely fine with me. But not when points that can actually support it are just brushed off like nothing.
However, im bringing this back up because the general consensus, like, completely ignored my counter argument against denying First Law being given to Arceus. To make sure it's actually seen this time, im posting it here:
">What I was saying about using game mechanics is that if we are to use something that is purely a game mechanic like this we need to consider it by the rules established by that game mechanic. This means we wouldn't scale it out to Darkrai's thing because the two mechanics never interact.
Darkrai's Dark Cleave, again, does interact with the opponent because it's move is bypassing their resistance. Unless a resistance is suddenly not naturally apart of an individual (much less someone whos omnipresent but this doesnt mean much overall), it is interacting with them. I've had to point this out like 4 times now.
>Okay, but again, none of this is remotely based on the lore. It's not even based on descriptions from the TCG. It's entirely based on stuff that exists purely as game mechanics, and because of that, even taking all of this at face value, none of these are resisted unless added on to another attack.
And again, since when and why is lore needed for an ability to legit? Lore isn't a required standard for a pokemon ability to be real and this case shouldnt be either. Especially since the TCG moves have been proven to be real by several other pokemon (from the examples that i've posted), why Arceus's is suddenly being called into question is a borderline farce. Unless "resistances" and "effects" are suddenly game mechanics for pokemon in general now, it is not a game mechanic.
>Similarly, again going back to Progenitus
First off, using "immunity" here doesnt really make your example any better Azzy. The example is already wrong because immunities in this context are NLF's. They'd be resistances.
Second, I cannot specifically speak about Progenitus here because I know nothing of the verse he comes from. So im only going to be speaking for the context of Arceus here unless Progenitus's part in this is detailed out for me to understand.
>This is a ridiculous way of gathering powers for something without anything in the lore to actually back it up.
Except, from the perspective of the god tiers, it's not ridiculous.
Unless your saying Arceus cannot resist the powers of his creations. Creations that are not only parts of himself, but creations he has also shown to have their powers nulled by him. And mon who are even inferior to them. I would agree with you here if this was about giving Arceus resistances to every power in Pokemon in general. But thats not what this is about and was agreed to not be the case.
>Imagine thinking that the game mechanics rules for a freaking trading card game is valid
Because, in the context of Pokemon, it is valid? Very valid? Where we have an entire manga with storylines and backstories about the pokemon becoming cards in the first place? Where the moves from the TCG are blatantly displayed to be real?
How this is "just game mechanics" is beyond me at this point.
>"Shadow Force in the TCG has a 50% chance of making the opponent's next attack completely useless, damage, hax, and all."
This is bullshit. We know what the attack is based on (Shadow Force), and the reason nothing affects Giratina when he does this is because he straight up vanishes. You can see this happen in the games.
This is not entirely true, and your talking to someone whos looking through the TCG as we speak to make future blogs of these abilities. The TCG has their own unique versions of moves that actually do apply power nullish haxes to their moves. Whether Giratina's is specifically wrong or not is up for debate but im just clarifying that this point is wrong because Shadow Force is not the only move that does this. Many moves do.
>Once again, lying by omission. Renegade Pulse only affects Megas
Like you said, via verse equalization, mega evolved pokemon are literally no different than characters transformed. So im not seeing the problem with this.
>Mewtwo is immune to anything from a verse without some concept of evolution
Resistant. And this is literally just a limited form of power null against anything that doesnt have an evolution or transformation.
>Looking even deeper, I also take issue with Arceus having "Should possess Dialga's Time Crystal TCG ability" as a reason behind its power null without any sort of qualifiers
Anything Dialga has, Arceus has, for being Arceus's creation. This is self explanatory honestly.
>as once again, Time Crystal is a specific power that only nullifies Poke-Bodies.
Poke-Bodies are literally no different than Pokemon Abilities except that they are actively used, not passive. So im not seeing the issue with this either."
This was my last comment from the thread. Others made arguments to disagree with First Law upgrading Arceus, I made rebuttals for all of those points, and they were literally flat out ignored for the rest of the thread. I don't particularly care if the majority agreed to deny any upgrades, but I don't like my counter arguments just being ignored.
So i'd like it if someone could actually address this please. Deny the upgrade? Absolutely fine with me. But not when points that can actually support it are just brushed off like nothing.
