Conceptual Attacks/Hax

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Are hax that are considered conceptual in nature superior to regular hax? I've seen this brought up in VS matches on occasion, where an ability working on a conceptual level makes it more potent or whatever. Also, what kind of evidence is needed to say an ability is conceptual?

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

As far as I'm aware it's completely dependent on the verse. If they treat conceptual hax above normal hax then that should carry over to vs battles. If not then the person being attacked will just need conceptual resistance or else they are screwed.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

So in the latter case, a character needs to resist concept manipulation to resist ordinary hax from a character whose abilities are conceptual?

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

So in the latter case, a character needs to resist concept manipulation to resist ordinary hax from a character whose abilities are conceptual?

Only if it is done directly through a concept, like if I affect you directly with the Concept of Fire to set you on fire if you resist Conceptual Manipulation you don't need to resist Fire Manipulation cause the concept will never get to trigger its effect on you in the first place.

 

[Arkenis]

Yes. It's how we treat how soul hax > physical hax. The aspect of being on this other plane of existence or operating on a different plane is usually in most verse superior to the physical and that's simply due to how we view reality, it's why you see the phrase "knowing one's name gives you power over them" or how we use words to define everything around us.

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Only if it is done directly through a concept, like if I affect you directly with the Concept of Fire to set you on fire if you resist Conceptual Manipulation you don't need to resist Fire Manipulation cause the concept will never get to trigger its effect on you in the first place.

Hm, okay. So if an attack is created via conceptual manipulation (eg; I create a fireball using concept manipulation, and then shoot it at you), would the same logic still apply?

 

[Dienomite22]

Hm, okay. So if an attack is created via conceptual manipulation (eg; I create a fireball using concept manipulation, and then shoot it at you), would the same logic still apply?

no, unless the effect on the victim is conceptual but even then it needs an explanation as to what it does. For instance, let's say a fire attack is stated to "burn conceptually" and that is all that was stated about it, that attack isn't anything special unless we know what that entails in verse.

 

[azontr]

Hm, okay. So if an attack is created via conceptual manipulation (eg; I create a fireball using concept manipulation, and then shoot it at you), would the same logic still apply?

Again, it depends.

If the verse treats it as if you are literally summoning the concept of fire, then yes, you would need some sort of conceptual resistance to negate it, as it is not normal fire, but is the concept itself or at least spawned directly from it.

If instead, for example, the fireball is created through a Magic System that works through manipulating concepts (I.E. Aethyr Manipulation from Warhammer Fantasy), and instead of bringing the concept itself into reality, you are instead using that concept manipulation to create normal fire, it wouldn't require conceptual manipulation to resist, as in the end, you didn't summon the concept, you simply used something based in manipulating concepts to create something normal.

Did this help?

 

[Mad_Dog_of_Fujiwara]

Again, it depends.

If the verse treats it as if you are literally summoning the concept of fire, then yes, you would need some sort of conceptual resistance to negate it, as it is not normal fire, but is the concept itself or at least spawned directly from it.

If instead, for example, the fireball is created through a Magic System that works through manipulating concepts (I.E. Aethyr Manipulation from Warhammer Fantasy), and instead of bringing the concept itself into reality, you are instead using that concept manipulation to create normal fire, it wouldn't require conceptual manipulation to resist, as in the end, you didn't summon the concept, you simply used something based in manipulating concepts to create something normal.

Did this help?

Yeah, this helps a lot, thank you!

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

It depends on the outcome.

Someone manipulating the concept of time to stop time and someone manipulating time to stop time. The outcomes are the same and its silly to debate which is better.

 

[Arkenis]

It depends on the outcome.

Someone manipulating the concept of time to stop time and someone manipulating time to stop time. The outcomes are the same and its silly to debate which is better.

nah one is clearly superior. And the outcome is not the same, one can effect certain speed tiers while conceptual time stop would stop immeasurable speed as it stops the idea of time itself.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

nah one is clearly superior. And the outcome is not the same, one can effect certain speed tiers while conceptual time stop would stop immeasurable speed as it stops the idea of time itself.

That's an assumption that shouldn't be given to any ability unless it's shown to do so in text.

 

[Arkenis]

That's an assumption that shouldn't be given to any ability unless it's shown to do so in text.

I mean its generally that way unless not shown.

 

[Vietthai96]

nah one is clearly superior. And the outcome is not the same, one can effect certain speed tiers while conceptual time stop would stop immeasurable speed as it stops the idea of time itself.

No, conceptual timestop will not stop Immeasurable speed unless the feat demonstrate it, stop placing everything that is concept on the highest level

 

[Arkenis]

No, conceptual timestop will not stop Immeasurable speed unless the feat demonstrate it, stop placing everything that is concept on the highest level

But it is. Can you give me a reason why conceptual fire is not above regular fire?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

But it is. Can you give me a reason why conceptual fire is not above regular fire?

The outcome.

If conceptual fire burns a tree in the same way regular fire does, then there is nothing to say one is superior than the other. Conceptual fire is just fancy fire.

 

[Arkenis]

The outcome.

If conceptual fire burns a tree in the same way regular fire does, then there is nothing to say one is superior than the other. Conceptual fire is just fancy fire.

The effect is what matters which is that it burns on a conceptual level and not on a physical one alone. It's as simple as spiritual fire burning on a spiritual level.

 

[azontr]

The outcome.

If conceptual fire burns a tree in the same way regular fire does, then there is nothing to say one is superior than the other. Conceptual fire is just fancy fire.

The outcome and the production method are completely separate in this case.

Summoning the concept itself is controlling the universal idea/existence of it, not just the normal phenomena, inherently, if one summoned conceptual fire/the concept of fire you wouldn't be able to put it out with water or wind or anything that isn't also conceptual.

It's the same with the concept of time, manipulating the universal idea/concept of time is different from simply manipulating it directly in most situations.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

you wouldn't be able to put it out with water or wind or anything that isn't also conceptual.

Only if the source material depicts it that way.

I could very well have a character use a fire attack that can't be put out with water or wind either.

It's the same with the concept of time, manipulating the universal idea/concept of time is different from simply manipulating it directly in most situations.

How is it different?

 

[azontr]

Only if the source material depicts it that way.

I could very well have a character use a fire attack that can't be put out with water or wind either.

That has literally nothing to do with anything talked about here so uh, good for you for having characters that have awesome fire hax.

How is it different?

I explained how it's different.

Manipulating the concept/idea itself is in of itself different from simply manipulating the phenomena directly. It's the same thing with the fire example, just replacing fire with time.

 

[Vietthai96]

While conceptual do > most of thing due to it being fundamental component, everything still evaluated base on feat, the conceptual manipulation page also mentioned it, some is useless while other is outright powerful in combat, it is depend on the feat

 

[azontr]

I know it depends on verse portrayal, I'm simply talking about how it is typically portrayed in fiction.

 

[Arkenis]

Only if the source material depicts it that way.

I could very well have a character use a fire attack that can't be put out with water or wind either.

That wind and water would just be weak in comparison to the flame like IRL.

And source materials use conceptual hax to demostrate the overpoweredness of manipulating concepts. Why do you think conceptual hax in so many series show us this way? Ichibei from Bleach does this, All of Fate does this, Digimon does this, All of persona does this. You're blatantly ignoring the commonly shown power of conceptual hax and trying to bring up the source material as though it's common for them to demostrate concepts on a higher level.

 

[azontr]

this is just a QnA thread and I think the OP's question has been answered so we should probably stop arguing.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

The effect is what matters which is that it burns on a conceptual level and not on a physical one alone. It's as simple as spiritual fire burning on a spiritual level.

The effect has to be specifically shown. If the effects are the same, then there is no genuine reason to make the claim one is better than the other.

Manipulating the concept/idea itself is in of itself different from simply manipulating the phenomena directly. It's the same thing with the fire example, just replacing fire with time.

How is it different? You're just saying it's different. I'm saying the difference can only be measured by the outcome of the ability.

That wind and water would just be weak in comparison to the flame like IRL.

And source materials use conceptual hax to demostrate the overpoweredness of manipulating concepts. Why do you think conceptual hax in so many series show us this way? Ichibei from Bleach does this, All of Fate does this, Digimon does this, All of persona does this. You're blatantly ignoring the commonly shown power of conceptual hax and trying to bring up the source material as though it's common for them to demostrate concepts on a higher level.

Source materials that slap conceptual on things without doing the work of showing why said attack is superior to non-conceptual attacks, shouldn't be assumed to be better if the outcomes are just the same as non-conceptual attacks.

 

[Arkenis]

The effect has to be specifically shown. If the effects are the same, then there is no genuine reason to make the claim one is better than the other.

The statement is enough. Idk what u mean by effect but if u mean visuals then visuals are not always needed to grant conceptual manipulation

Source materials that slap conceptual on things without doing the work of showing why said attack is superior to non-conceptual attacks, shouldn't be assumed to be better if the outcomes are just the same as non-conceptual attacks.

doing the work? What does this mean? What verse does this?

 

[azontr]

How is it different? You're just saying it's different. I'm saying the difference can only be measured by the outcome of the ability.

I quite literally told you how it is different. It's the same as the fire example.

Manipulating the concept/universal idea of something is something non-physical, something universal, it isn't a normal physical phenomena like simply conjuring fire. It's manipulating the concept of fire, meaning fire across all of physical existence, and all of time, you would be manipulating the very existence of fire.

Effects can be the same but potency can be entirely different. So saying "the outcome is the same" means effectively nothing.

 

[azontr]

Though, this would depend entirely on the type of concept being manipulated.

Type 3 concepts don't naturally govern reality/exist universally while Type 2 and above do, so only those forms of concepts would inherently have some form of superiority over normal abilities.

 

[Maitreya12]

Conceptual manipulation simply put means manipulating or destroying the very embodiment of what that thing is. What that thing represents in its fundamental meaning.

Take fire force for example, which is a series essentially purely conceptually hax based.

In that series, all ideas, thoughts, imaginations and possibilities are brought together in a collective form of consciousness. Due to these attributes, characters from fire force are directly able to alter abstract concepts in a universal and meta way that fundamentally changes how that concept interacts with all aspects of the world and reality in it.

At the end of the series, the concept of life was lessened and the concept of death became a little closer. Due to that, the very nature of how ‘life’ and ‘death’ worked in that series was fundamentally altered. Everyone essentially had a form of ‘pseudo-immortality’ due to the fact that what they perceived to be ‘death’ was simply no more and was instead altered to be something different.

You’re not just manipulating the thing, you’re manipulating the very embodiment of what said thing entails in reality and other abstractions.

 

[azontr]

Conceptual manipulation simply put means manipulating or destroying the very embodiment of what that thing is. What that thing represents in its fundamental meaning.

Take fire force for example, which is a series essentially purely conceptually hax based.

In that series, all ideas, thoughts, imaginations and possibilities are brought together in a collective form of consciousness. Due to these attributes, characters from fire force are directly able to alter abstract concepts in a universal and meta way that fundamentally changes how that concept interacts with all aspects of the world and reality in it.

At the end of the series, the concept of life was lessened and the concept of death became a little closer. Due to that, the very nature of how ‘life’ and ‘death’ worked in that series was fundamentally altered. Everyone essentially had a form of ‘pseudo-immortality’ due to the fact that what they perceived to be ‘death’ was simply no more and was instead altered to be something different.

You’re not just manipulating the thing, you’re manipulating the very embodiment of what said thing entails in reality and other abstractions.

Basically what I said but a few paragraphs longer.

 

[Sniper670]

Since op question has been answered (and I don't want to make another thread asking a similar question), what makes Power Null conceptual?

 

[Arkenis]

Since op question has been answered (and I don't want to make another thread asking a similar question), what makes Power Null conceptual?

If it nulifies conceptual based things.

 

[Sniper670]

Okay. A little more questions

1. That means you need conceptual power null resistance to resist?
2. Conceptual Invulnerability will need Conceptual Invulnerability negation to resist?

 

[Arkenis]

Okay. A little more questions

1. That means you need conceptual power null resistance to resist?
2. Conceptual Invulnerability will need Conceptual Invulnerability negation to resist?

Yes.