- 10,884
- 12,300
I have seen in the recent time a few game character profiles that list moves as durability negating, because the in game description and function ignores the games durability stat or does damage independent of it, without knowing the mechanism behind it.
For example there was a recent thread, because Kellam's Luna was listed as durability negation and for Kangaskha Endeavor is listed as durability negation due to, from what I can see, its in game description and functionality of lowering the opponents HP to the ones of the users. (if there is a mechanism given for that just imagine a different example)
Here's the thing: I don't think such things should be considered durability negation for our purposes.
Why?
We recently had a thread about hax, where one point of debate was that durability negation only works up to the highest demonstrated durability level, because everything else is a NLF/Proof by example fallacy.
In that thread I defended the fact that it works against higher levels (if no resistances were shown yada yada yada).
The reason why it isn't a NLF is that for hax, like for example mind attacks or space cutting, we know the mechanism. We can then be sure that an attack with the known mechanism would still work against a higher level of durability than shown, because we know that the damage the mechanism does is independent of durability.
And in that reasoning you can see the problem I have with listing defense stat ignoring game moves as durability negation.
We don't know what mechanism they have (except they tell us, in that case there is no problem).
Since we don't know we can also not argue over the mechanism that it isn't a NLF to say that it works against higher levels than shown.
And exactly because we can't do that, this techniques would not necessarily fulfill the criteria of what is durability negation, which is "The ability that allows users to damage the target, regardless of its durability.".
It's essentially the same reason we wouldn't give someone that has a sword, that is reliably said to cut through everything, durability negation, unless we know how the sword is supposed to do that. (e.g. Angela's sword Tinkledeath isn't durability negating, even though it is said to cut through any not magically protected material)
So I think they should not be listed as durability negation. That doesn't mean those techniques should be taken as normal AP. In my opinion it should be listed as "[Highest Durability shown to be negated through the technique] with [Technique name]" in the AP section.
Opinions?
For example there was a recent thread, because Kellam's Luna was listed as durability negation and for Kangaskha Endeavor is listed as durability negation due to, from what I can see, its in game description and functionality of lowering the opponents HP to the ones of the users. (if there is a mechanism given for that just imagine a different example)
Here's the thing: I don't think such things should be considered durability negation for our purposes.
Why?
We recently had a thread about hax, where one point of debate was that durability negation only works up to the highest demonstrated durability level, because everything else is a NLF/Proof by example fallacy.
In that thread I defended the fact that it works against higher levels (if no resistances were shown yada yada yada).
The reason why it isn't a NLF is that for hax, like for example mind attacks or space cutting, we know the mechanism. We can then be sure that an attack with the known mechanism would still work against a higher level of durability than shown, because we know that the damage the mechanism does is independent of durability.
And in that reasoning you can see the problem I have with listing defense stat ignoring game moves as durability negation.
We don't know what mechanism they have (except they tell us, in that case there is no problem).
Since we don't know we can also not argue over the mechanism that it isn't a NLF to say that it works against higher levels than shown.
And exactly because we can't do that, this techniques would not necessarily fulfill the criteria of what is durability negation, which is "The ability that allows users to damage the target, regardless of its durability.".
It's essentially the same reason we wouldn't give someone that has a sword, that is reliably said to cut through everything, durability negation, unless we know how the sword is supposed to do that. (e.g. Angela's sword Tinkledeath isn't durability negating, even though it is said to cut through any not magically protected material)
So I think they should not be listed as durability negation. That doesn't mean those techniques should be taken as normal AP. In my opinion it should be listed as "[Highest Durability shown to be negated through the technique] with [Technique name]" in the AP section.
Opinions?