Conflicting Opinions as to a Win Condition

[WeeklyBattles]

So this has come up in numerous threads, most recently this one, and ive received a lot of conflicting answers. In a match between two characters, if one character has Regenerationn that allows them to regenerate from any damage the other character deals, but cannot harm the other character:

Does repeatedly destroying the opponent only for them to regenerate and get destroyed again, and doing so for 24 hours straight, count as an incapacitation?

 

[GyroNutz]

If done actively (e.g. Vegeta punching Chowder for 24 hours) then no

If done passively (e.g. Golden King 'glaring' at Chowder for 24 hours) then yes

 

[Wokistan]

This isn't the most accurate depiction of the wincon being argued, weekly. Besides his passive shit, eventually he can adapt to a level past 682, and just won't be damaged at all. He can deal damage to 682, just not permenantly, whereas 682 would just bounce off or some shit. As per the Standard Battle Assumptions,

Victory Conditions: Killing the opponent, removing the opponent from the battlefield for at least one week (BFR), knocking the opponent out for at least one hour, or incapacitating the opponent by putting him in a state in which he can not harm the other fighter(s) for over a day, are to be assumed as victory conditions.

It's less that he can constantly kill (though with it being done passively, i'm fairly sure that's an incap either way) and more that eventually 682 just becomes totally unable to harm him.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Gyro The former is what i keep getting conflicted opinions on, some people have said yes and some people have said no

 

[Hellbeast1]

^^^

 

[Wokistan]

I'd be fine with the former being accepted as a wincon, but that wasn't what I was arguing in that thread.

 

[Assaltwaffle]

It's a win con so long as he has the stamina to do so.

 

[GyroNutz]

Incapacitation here is when you put someone in a state where they're unable to take any meaningful action for 24 hours. If you kill someone and they regenerate within the 24 hours and you kill them again, you've effectively reset the timer, so it wouldn't be a wincon since the cycle would just repeat forever.

That's my take on it at least

 

[Wokistan]

If they just get instantly killed again they don't exactly get a chance to make any meaningful actions though.

 

[Hellbeast1]

(Btw I was agreeing with Wok but I got Ninja'd)

 

[Agnaa]

I'm neutral on this issue.

 

[Andytrenom]

If you are actively keeping someone incaped then that won't count as a win via incap. If you just incap him in a way that you don't have to worry about doing anything more fir the next 24 hours, then that counts as a win.

It's pretty straightforward so I don't think the OP example can count as a victory.

 

[Agnaa]

If you are actively keeping someone incaped then that won't count as a win via incap. If you just incap him in a way that you don't have to worry about doing anything more fir the next 24 hours, then that counts as a win.

It's pretty straightforward so I don't think the OP example can count as a victory.

So if someone has to channel an ability, such as mind manipulation, does it not count as incap?

 

[Wokistan]

I disagree with this. Note how in actual fighting institutions, locks, pins, etc are accepted as victory conditions. Unless you feel like breaking your opponent's bones or something, those are things you need to actively maintain, and yet people accept these as wincons for real fights because one opponent has blatantly asserted their dominance over the other.

I feel like in setting wincons, looking to wincons that real people believe in with real life fights is fine, where applicable.

 

[Ogbunabali]

Well usually with mind manip you don't channel it. But even if you do, since you are manipulating their mind, you can make them do what ever. BFR them, make them kill themselves, etc.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

@Wok A Lock/Pin isnt the same as just punching your opponent into brief incap only for them to get back up and be just fine a few seconds/minutes later and get knocked down again ad infinitum

 

[Wokistan]

I think characters generally hit the other person before they're done regenerating. Either way, it works off the same principle of the one opponent having demonstrated clear superiority to the point where they can render the other one powerless to act against them, so i'd be fine with it.

 

[WeeklyBattles]

Except that one character being stupidly stronger means nothing when theyre unable to actually kill or incapacitate the opponent

 

[Wokistan]

But by definition, they are able to incapacitate their opponent with constant killing. What I am arguing is that the fact that they do it themselves shouldn't really be important to that.

 

[Schnee_One]

There's also people who say that the character doesn't have a win condition just because they can't viably do it.

IE being able to Soul Hax Luke with a word but he mindhaxes before that's possible.

 

[Agnaa]

Well usually with mind manip you don't channel it. But even if you do, since you are manipulating their mind, you can make them do what ever. BFR them, make them kill themselves, etc.

Usually not with mind manip, but could you just answer the question anyway about channeling an incap?

 

[Ogbunabali]

Well depending on the ability.

But that's kinda being discussed here, if you have to, let's say, channel Heat Vision to keep killing/make them unable to do anything, according to Andy it's not a win con, but according to Wok it is.

 

[Agnaa]

If you had to channel something that didn't deal damage but still incapacitated, such as a sleep spell?

 

[Ogbunabali]

I'm pretty sure that would fall under the conclusion of this thread.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Agnaa I don't think just mind control should count as a victory. If you can make someone a slave permanently after the initial mind hax or make someone kill/bfr/completely incap themeselves while under the influence of mindhax or just straight up destroy their mind then that can be taken as a victory

@Wok I'm not opposed to counting situations like those as a win con, I just don't think it's what our current standards are.

 

[Wokistan]

Yeah I'm not arguing what the current standard is, I'm arguing what I think it should be.

 

[Jasonsith]

So according to Wok, actively pinning an opponent for 24 hours is a winning condition for a character (e.g. Thor keeps hammering Loki while Loki can do nothing but to defend), while Andy believes the current system says there should be an once-only action that lasts for some time (e.g. Thor places a Mjolnir on Loki and Loki is unable to move).

Am I right? (Beside the concurrence of the example itself)

 

[Migue79]

Sorry for the necro, but in matches where characters are kept in-character; are win-cons that are considered OOC valid?

 

[Agnaa]

Sorry for the necro, but in matches where characters are kept in-character; are win-cons that are considered OOC valid?

That's unrelated to the topic of this thread, and has been the subject of heated debate in past threads, iirc without a clear consensus being reached.

EDIT: Here's the last thread where it was discussed.