Get erased on conceptual & NEP type 2

[Lapsad]

Let me say

If charracter A are get erased by conceptual type 3 on conceptual level he would becoming NEP type 2 , B charracter are doing same but on conceptual type 2 level , this mean B character will have more impressive NEP type 2 ?

 

[Regidian]

Bump, I'm interested in this

 

[Rikimarox2]

Wasn't there a question like this before? iirc, no it isn't more impressive. In either of these cases, you don't have a concept regardless.

 

[Lapsad]

Bump, I'm interested in this

This more like necro

 

[Lapsad]

Wasn't there a question like this before? iirc, no it isn't more impressive. In either of these cases, you don't have a concept regardless.

I think it is because type is 3 still bound by reality , defferent between those two is difficult

 

[Regidian]

Wasn't there a question like this before? iirc, no it isn't more impressive. In either of these cases, you don't have a concept regardless.

I'm interested because i know a verse when person 1 is NEP 2 and is an void/nothingness (and was conceptualy erased), but character 2 is something called "" and something that character 1 was not being able to reach and alredy tell to be beyond in non existance and character 1 "exist" somewhat in character 2

 

[Rikimarox2]

You still don't have a concept, even if it was concept type 3.

If a character can affect a NEP2 being who was erased by type 3 concept manip, he can also affect another NEP2 being who was erased by Type 2 concept manip.

I'm interested because i know a verse when person 1 is NEP 2 and is an void/nothingness (and was conceptualy erased), but character 2 is something called "" and something that character 1 was not being able to reach and alredy tell to be beyond in non existance and character 1 "exist" somewhat in character 2

Not really sure, but isn't that just a deeper level of NEP2? I believe there was something like that.

 

[Lapsad]

You still don't have a concept, even if it was concept type 3.

If a character can affect a NEP2 being who was erased by type 3 concept manip, he can also affect another NEP2 being who was erased by Type 2 concept manip.


Not really sure, but isn't that just a deeper level of NEP2? I believe there was something like that.

I know both don't have concept , but different between type3 and 2 is more over transcendance , you reason might be mean you can touch conceptual embodiment type 3 and you can touch type 2 conceptual embodiment as well because both are concept

 

[Rikimarox2]

Unless I'm missing something, but iirc, that's not how it works. One embodies something, the other lacks it completely. Both characters are devoid of concepts to begin with.

Why would the transcendence even matter when in general you don't even have a concept? That's like saying a being with 4-D soul or mind manipulation can affect a 3-D being who lacks a soul/mind. Or if character A got his soul erased by 4-D being, while character B got his soul erased by 3-D being. Both of them don't have souls anymore, so neither of them are more impressive. A character that can affect soulless beings should be able to affect both of them (Probably a really shitty example, but eh)

 

[StrymULTRA]

In short words, yes.

Type 3 CM is effective against Type 1 NEP, but ineffective against Type 2 NEP got from a Conceptual Erasure of Type 3.

Like this, Type 2 CM is effective against Type 2 NEP got from a Concept EE type 3, but is ineffective against said Type 2 NEP got from the said EE but Type 2.

Why? As Type 3 Concept Erasure is infinitely more complex than "regular" EE, so it can surpass the "regular" EE limits, same is Type 2 Concept Erasure comparated to Type 3.

 

[Rikimarox2]

Can't that same argument be used for soul manip?

Character A got his soul removed by 3-D being, therefore he is soulless.

Character B has 4-D soul manip, which is infinitely superior to 3-D soul manip.

Would character B able to affect A or not? Or is this a false equivalence exchange?

 

[Regidian]

Can't that same argument be used for soul manip?

Character A got his soul removed by 3-D being, therefore he is soulless.

Character B has 4-D soul manip, which is infinitely superior to 3-D soul manip.

Would character B able to affect A or not? Or is this a false equivalence exchange?

I don't know it's why i'm interested, people tell me that concept type 2 or even type 1 can't affect NEP2 if not show so well...

 

[StrymULTRA]

Can't that same argument be used for soul manip?

Character A got his soul removed by 3-D being, therefore he is soulless.

Character B has 4-D soul manip, which is infinitely superior to 3-D soul manip.

Would character B able to affect A or not? Or is this a false equivalence exchange?

Definitely false equivalence since the 4D can't manipulate nothing to begin with, while Type 2 CM can still affect a Type 2 NEP got via Type 3 CM since it is still something for a Type 2 concept while for Type 3 not anymore.

 

[Lapsad]

First of all we need to clarify that how different between existence of type 3 and 2

 

[StrymULTRA]

Like, infinite, not in potency but in complexity, due of the superior type completely covering and countering anything the lower type can and could do.

Type 3 is limited to the reality, Type 2 extends even above that, so that's why Type 2 CM always stomps Type 3 unless there's a difference in Range worth to make that "not-so-much an issue".

Like, let's take Character A vs Character B, with both being just Low 2-C.

A has Type 2 and B has Type 3.

A will always win because their CM will always be superior in anything to B's, regardless of what B does.

However, there comes Character C, who has still Low 2-C stats and Type 3 CM, but requires 2-B range to kill them, an omnipresence ability similar to Junko's basically.

Character A now has an issue, unless they nuke all the multiverse, despite having an infinitely better ability due to complexity, they can't beat C. However, C can't beat B either, due to having their CM completely countered from B's.

 

[Ogbunabali]

It shouldn't be more impressive. Someone already gave the 4D/3D soul example. If someone has NEP for lacking a concept (type 3), but gets affected by type 2 conceptual manipulation, then you're implying that they have a concept type 2, in which case they shouldn't have NEP in the first place.

Also I really dislike how our NEP page is written. It could really use some work. Like in the first type it mentions "existing as an idea or other unconventional state" which is describing AE. And the second type's "nonexistence at a conceptual level" could definitely use some elaboration.

 

[StrymULTRA]

If someone has NEP for lacking a concept (type 3), but gets affected by type 2 conceptual manipulation, then you're implying that they have a concept type 2

I mean, like Type 1 NEP is still a concept for Type 3 CM, Type 2 NEP got from CM 3 Erasure is still a concept for Type 2 CM

 

[Ogbunabali]

I'm not even sure what you're trying to say with that.

 

[Rikimarox2]

Thanks for posting! Yeah, that's also what I thought. Btw, just a question that isn't that related to this thread, but if a character gets erased from the plot, and in turn erased from history, and still exists afterwards, would that grant NEP2 or...

 

[Ogbunabali]

Hmm. Probably not if it's not specified. Because while having your concept erased, would erase you from history retroactively, the reverse doesn't have to be true.

This is kinda the problem with the definitions as I said before, a type 3 concept is directly tied to the object so when you get erased your concept gets erased with you and vise versa. But because the definition has the added "existing as an idea or other unconventional state", it's vague enough that would allow for you to have a concept of "you" while being erased at the same time.

 

[Rikimarox2]

I'm asking because of this character, I already made a CRT for it, so that it can get accepted.

In general, I always thought Plot erasure is equal to concept erasure since in the regeneration page, a character can get high-godly if they regenerate from plot erasure, history erasure or having their concept erased. If we go by that logic, wouldn't that mean someone could potentially concept erase someone with a high-godly who regenerated from the plot?

 

[Regidian]

Hmm. Probably not if it's not specified. Because while having your concept erased, would erase you from history retroactively, the reverse doesn't have to be true.

This is kinda the problem with the definitions as I said before, a type 3 concept is directly tied to the object so when you get erased your concept gets erased with you and vise versa. But because the definition has the added "existing as an idea or other unconventional state", it's vague enough that would allow for you to have a concept of "you" while being erased at the same time.

I think like that too

 

[Ogbunabali]

The High-Godly definition has nothing to do with equating you being erased from history or whatever would mean your concept got erased or something like that. Those are just what the wiki considers to be the "be all end all" of how you can be erased. And you could just consider this to be a being shot in the head mid regen wouldn't necessarily be better than getting your head cut clean off mid regen type situation.