Invulnerability: Let's talk about it.

[StretchSebe]

Statements are also bad

I mean, being told a character has invulnerability as an ability is the most straight forward way to determine a character has invulnerability, I'd think.

In the case of hyperbole (can be common like other, similar terms), that can be disproven through actual damage being done to a character (feats).

Even then, it's also uncommon to be ascribed flippantly (at least in the fictions I've consumed).

 

[Lou_change]

Invulnerability can also just mean high durability to the point nothing can realistically harm it in the setting.

 

[StretchSebe]

Invulnerability can also just mean high durability to the point nothing can realistically harm it in the setting.

Read the blog. This is addressed already in it.

 

[Lou_change]

You mean, Characters able to no-sell or tank hits from top-god tiers of their verse does not qualify them for this ability if there is no evidence they have nigh-invulnerability, or can eventually be physically harmed.

 

[Hypertornado099]

I'm considering making a CRT to delete invulnerability, this ability is fake as hell. Looking at the sandbox, I can't think of any characters that would count for it because the examples listed sound like durability (Ganondorf's for example, him being "invulnerable" is just durability)

 

[Maskofthedragon]

I'm considering making a CRT to delete invulnerability, this ability is fake as hell

In the context of this wiki, it just doesn't exist

 

[Lou_change]

Did anyone ever hear about the last crt for Invulnerability?

Suggested invulnerability changes

tldr wok is salty that he didn't get to delete this power last time and tries to neuter it agai I think we should better define Invulnerability. Given that we already have Durability Negation, I think it makes more sense to concretely define Invulnerability as Attack Potency Negation, more...

vsbattles.com

 

[StretchSebe]

Did anyone ever hear about the last crt for Invulnerability?

Suggested invulnerability changes

tldr wok is salty that he didn't get to delete this power last time and tries to neuter it agai I think we should better define Invulnerability. Given that we already have Durability Negation, I think it makes more sense to concretely define Invulnerability as Attack Potency Negation, more...

vsbattles.com

I hadn't, and I see why. It was three years ago lol

I'm considering making a CRT to delete invulnerability, this ability is fake as hell. Looking at the sandbox, I can't think of any characters that would count for it because the examples listed sound like durability (Ganondorf's for example, him being "invulnerable" is just durability)

In the context of this wiki, it just doesn't exist

Aku, Makuta, HIM, and various characters who can temporarily (Mario and Sonic chars with Super Star and Chaos Emeralds/Equivalents respectively), actively (Gideon Jura), or passively obtain it through external means (Ganondorf with his contentious Triforce of Power) just to name multiples.

This is a flimsy Black Swan fallacy.

 

[Lou_change]

I don't think half of those actually qualify

 

[StretchSebe]

I don't think half of those actually qualify

With regard to these latest comments:

This is an ability. A specific ability that has been termed, and has existed in fiction for thousands of years:

Dating back to the likes of The Nemean Lion that Heracles killed through strangulation (not physically harming its neck: Simply grappling it's neck shut and depriving it of oxygen for enough time to kill it), and the very famous Achilles nigh-invulnerability everywhere but his heel. These are already on the blog.

I'm pretty open minded, and am willing to make a lot of changes: I already have done so with the removal of types, reverting the image/gif to that of the original page, and rearranging/reworking important points across the blog (namely compiling them in the lengthy limitations section). Hell, I'm sorry if it's annoying I keep asking, but I really do want other examples, as it's undeniably common enough that I can be certain there are definitely fictions I don't even know about that have characters with this ability.

I'm also sorry if this is coming off as rude, but these don't meaningfully challenge the legitimacy or existence of this ability, let alone the fact that there are so many users in fiction that are recognized on this wiki (or were once, in the case of Ganon) as I've already mentioned and went into detail on in some cases (again Ganon lol).

It seems like more a pushback on the notion that as an ability it is 'too strong,' going back to the original page saying that it's too strong and users should be wary of it being 'no limits fallacy,' even though there are numerous limits/exploits that have been in the blog explaining what the ability cannot protect the user from: Limitations/work arounds that other characters of even equal tiering could exploit, and especially in the case of nigh-invulnerability, ways that even other verses could have their own ways of dealing with users of such nigh-invulnerability with similar enough reasoning (evil beings with nigh-invulnerability to everything but holy/sacred/blessed weapons/objects being something that could be easily equalized from one verse to another).

It seems that's the main concern, and the secondary concern is that the ability is 'too vague,' which is why I really thought this ability would benefit from types despite there being clear ways of determining characters having the ability. The easiest is having statements of having the ability, such as the classical cases of the Nemean Lion, or Achilles having nigh-invulnerability, having it everywhere but his heel. There are plenty of contemporary examples, like the various villains I mentioned. Again, they are often literally stated to have this ability (invuln or nigh) as a part of their abilities/powers within the context of their media. Less common, and admittedly not as helpful could also be that regardless of the circumstance, a character's body is unscathed by anything that would cause physical harm throughout their series (consistency and feats).

Equating invulnerability and/or nigh-invulnerability to 'durability,' calling it 'fake as hell,' and saying there are no examples of characters with this ability on this Wiki is unsound, and unproductive.

This CRT is about improving the state of the current Invulnerability page with the information and cases in fiction that do exist, not writing off this incredibly well documented ability as 'durability' or 'too specific/vague to consider.'

 

[Lou_change]

I am not trying to challenge the existence of the ability but the page says "It can be considered the defensive equivalent of Durability Negation, negating simple Attack Potency," that is what it is supposed to be on this site, the problem is that it is terribly worded and people didn't get rid of all the examples of characters that shouldn't have it so others kept putting it on pages that shouldn't have had it.

My problem with your changes that it seems to have been made without understanding of the standard. If the answer to how come they are invulnerable? Is we are told so that is not enough there has to be a reason, for example any damage they take is multiplied by zero or their physical condition can't be changed.

 

[StretchSebe]

I am not trying to challenge the existence of the ability but the page says "It can be considered the defensive equivalent of Durability Negation, negating simple Attack Potency," that is what it is supposed to be on this site, the problem is that it is terribly worded and people didn't get rid of all the examples of characters that shouldn't have it so others kept putting it on pages that shouldn't have had it.

My problem with your changes that it seems to have been made without understanding of the standard. If the answer to how come they are invulnerable? Is we are told so that is not enough there has to be a reason, for example any damage they take is multiplied by zero or their physical condition can't be changed.

Sorry, I meant with regard to the two other comments primarily in terms of the 'denial.'

Still though: Things can change. I don't believe that invulnerability has to be 'what it is supposed to be on this site.' It's why I'm proposing a content revision to being with.

As it was, it was a very barebones page, and one implying that it was some overpowered, borderline Hax ability that we should be conservative about 'giving' to characters. As I propose and try to explain in the revision blog (and here), there are many potential limits the original simply doesn't discuss, and it does not negate Attack potency. Striking strength, sure; but AP is a far broader scope with what 'attacks' it covers, and many characters have an 'up to Tier X with Y' key or distinction because of it.

All to say that the convention itself needs to change in my opinion. The idea invuln is an overpowered, and often unrecognizable ability is provably false. Presenting it as such is also a thought terminating cliché that prevents many meaningful discussions or vs battles for a lot of characters. Ironically, it also keeps some characters more 'overpowered' than they may actually be due to being unable to talk about ways those characters can be fought, or even have their invuln countered. To write off any and all characters who have it explicitly, or exhibit it consistently because it 'borders on NLF' or 'is too hard to determine' is not a healthy mindset/premise to keep up.

 

[Lou_change]

Still though: Things can change. I don't believe that invulnerability has to be 'what it is supposed to be on this site.' It's why I'm proposing a content revision to being with.

I see however I don't think it should change and yes it negates ap just because some forms of attack can get around it depending on the flaws established in the setting doesn't mean it explicit stops striking strength there is probably examples where striking strength is the only thing that works. Statements and feats aren't a good reason for Invulnerability statements can be wrong, or played up, the myth of the lion have pacing issues if they had to explain a super nova might work, but we don't really know. Feats because there is no highest end of AP.

 

[StretchSebe]

I see however I don't think it should change and yes it negates ap just because some forms of attack can get around it depending on the flaws established in the setting doesn't mean it explicit stops striking strength there is probably examples where striking strength is the only thing that works. Statements and feats aren't a good reason for Invulnerability statements can be wrong, or played up, the myth of the lion have pacing issues if they had to explain a super nova might work, but we don't really know. Feats because there is no highest end of AP.

I'm not sure I can convince you that a character stated to have invulnerability as an ability, or that a character displays an inability to take physical harm is a good reason, or that distinction between AP and striking strength, but I at least hope you can see that the way it is currently on the wiki does not enable healthy conversations about characters/vs battles, and inhibits a lot of such conversation about many characters vs others.

 

[Lou_change]

I mean super human durability is an ability, I think giving invulnerability without a cause would be like giving someone all types of immortality because it hasn’t been proven they don’t have immortality, I see no reason why we should only assume it effects striking strength, but yes the page as of current is not good

 

[StretchSebe]

Bump:

Made more changes (and rearranges) to the blog, taking the note for invulnerability through feats up to the initial summary, adding in the limitations that often characters can only have invulnerability for a limited duration, and/or through limited means, and adding more examples of characters in multiple places again throughout the blog.

 

[Dust_Collector]

why is Ganon still listed as an examp-

Updated blog looks better but I'm not a fan of just applying this to striking strength, often an invulnerable character (On the rare 0.001% chance they're actually invulnerable) is invulnerable to more than just physical strikes. 8 times outta 10 energy attacks aren't treated as different from physical attacks outside of having better range or packing more power than a punch. And I think it should be noted somewhere that being said to be invulnerable doesn't always mean it's legit. A lot of times it really does come down to just being absurdly durable or so powerful than almost everything in your own series that you seem invulnerable, wouldn't be confident in someone who is continent level being unarmed from punches from someone who's planet level just because they're called/considered invulnerable in a setting comprised of almost nothing but building level people or weapons or whatever.

 

[StretchSebe]

why is Ganon still listed as an examp-

On that: What are some examples people think I should add besides someone like Aku for examples of Invulnerability, Nigh-Invulnerability, and Limited Invulnerability? I have some ideas (largely among the examples from when the blog still had types), but I'm sure there could be better examples, or more recognizable examples for any or each of them.

Updated blog looks better but I'm not a fan of just applying this to striking strength, often an invulnerable character (On the rare 0.001% chance they're actually invulnerable) is invulnerable to more than just physical strikes. 8 times outta 10 energy attacks aren't treated as different from physical attacks outside of having better range or packing more power than a punch. And I think it should be noted somewhere that being said to be invulnerable doesn't always mean it's legit. A lot of times it really does come down to just being absurdly durable or so powerful than almost everything in your own series that you seem invulnerable, wouldn't be confident in someone who is continent level being unarmed from punches from someone who's planet level just because they're called/considered invulnerable in a setting comprised of almost nothing but building level people or weapons or whatever.

While often equated for tiering purposes, there is absolutely a difference between AP and striking strength.

Invulnerability applies only to physical harm. All of the many non-physical forms of AP so, so many characters are recognized and primarily tiered for exhibiting (Dragon Ball Ki, really any power/magic system) would work. Now, 'indestructibility' is a different story: That implies that even AP wouldn't work because, well, the character is indestructible, and would be immune to all harm. But we're not talking about being 'indestructible.' We're talking about being 'invulnerable.'

Invulnerability being about physical harm means that yes; striking strength would not work (unless you go into the physics stuff I explained in the thread and in the blog), and yes; Goku would still sub-atomize someone with this ability, and lower tiering with a single, basic ki blast, probably.

As for stated invulnerability: This only bolsters my opinion that the current state of the page doesn't promote healthy conversation about this ability, and the characters that have it. I keep repeating this like the AP/Striking Strength distinction, but it's more than just being said of a character: It is when they're stated to have it as an ability. Not just a comment on their durability, or other form of hyperbole, but confirmation from a reliable source that a character has the ability.

Epic Literature and Aku are shining examples where this it is stated explicitly within the text among other powers/abilities stated or displayed.

The incessant conflation of 'this character lhas this ability' with hyperbole just doesn't make sense to me. Broadening the scope to even information we can't get in the original series: Would we really throw out a statement from a databook confirming a character has invulnerability as an ability for these suggested reasons?

Why would the standard for confirming this ability be any different from others if it could literally just be confirmed by a scan?

 

[Lou_change]

Mean this seems entirely based on faulty logic yeah some characters are weak to energy systems but that's the exception not the rule.

 

[StretchSebe]

Mean this seems entirely based on faulty logic yeah some characters are weak to energy systems but that's the exception not the rule.

Please explain the faulty logic with an invulnerability user - someone unable to be physically harmed - being able to be harmed by non-physical means.

 

[Lou_change]

A Lazer is physical, using magic to create an explosion is physical, aura isn't even a type of attack it can be used with other abilities to be an attack but by itself no

 

[StretchSebe]

A Lazer is physical, using magic to create an explosion is physical, aura isn't even a type of attack it can be used with other abilities to be an attack but by itself no

Light and/or electromagnetic radiation are 'physical phenomena.' Physical phenomena relates to both matter and energy. Light is energy particles: Photons.

As for magic and aura: Sure, there are physical uses of magic, but there's plenty of uses of magic that are not physical as listed on its page. Likewise, on Aura's page: "The ability to have energy envelop the user. It can be used (consciously or subconsciously) for various purposes (such as intimidation). This covers supernatural abilities only, natural effects fall under Social Influencing." Attacks based in Aura necessarily rely on a users energy, whatever 'kind' that may be (from one verse to another). Aura itself isn't an attack, but neither is Magic. They form the basis of the attacks, and other uses that a user otherwise might not be able to do without them.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Ideally, invulnerability should be the same as any other superpower. If you have the feats it protects, if not it doesn't. But, it can be stretched. If a character states that another is invulnerable to their attacks with conviction I think that it's fair to conclude that they know what they are talking about. And in those cases, they could gain some invulnerabilities that they haven't put on display.

But if, for example, I see a character that is invulnerable to blows from martial arts in a franchise about fighting, it doesn't sound correct to also claim that energy blasts never seen in their franchise would also be ineffective.

 

[Dust_Collector]

The ability is meant to be the defensive version of durability negation, raw physical force up to High 3-A shouldn't harm someone who's 9-B with legit invulnerability and that means we need to be very strict about who actually gets the ability, statements and showings are nice but if the invulnerable person in question is from a series where the strongest dude is like city level then I can't buy into the idea they'd also be unharmed by a punch with enough force behind to blow up planets.

I know I've brought him up already but Ganon is a poster child for this kinda stuff, even ignoring the handful of times that actively go against him being invulnerable to any physical means besides holy attacks (And also ingnoring the fact that I don't think he's ever even been called outright invulnerable) the only non-holy weapons and attacks people have against him are, uh, building level bombs and sometimes characters whose power is the equivelent of a dying ant compared to him. Like yeah of course he's gonna seem invulverable to anything besides holy weapons when he's Frieza and everything else is Raditz.

 

[StretchSebe]

The ability is meant to be the defensive version of durability negation, raw physical force up to High 3-A shouldn't harm someone who's 9-B with legit invulnerability and that means we need to be very strict about who actually gets the ability, statements and showings are nice but if the invulnerable person in question is from a series where the strongest dude is like city level then I can't buy into the idea they'd also be unharmed by a punch with enough force behind to blow up planets.

As for the second point of 'star destroying force,' and as far as being 'unable to have any physical harm inflicted upon them goes,' yes. That does mean they do not take the physical harm. That said, if a 9-B user is being punched with the force to destroy a star, there's one of two things that'll probably kill that character:

1: Physics from such easily doing anything from launching them so deep into the ground or space they'd probably die from other means.
2: Said physics and/or also destroying whatever planet they're likely on.

They may be invulnerable, but they aren't an immovable object or immune to physics.

I know I've brought him up already but Ganon is a poster child for this kinda stuff, even ignoring the handful of times that actively go against him being invulnerable to any physical means besides holy attacks (And also ingnoring the fact that I don't think he's ever even been called outright invulnerable) the only non-holy weapons and attacks people have against him are, uh, building level bombs and sometimes characters whose power is the equivelent of a dying ant compared to him. Like yeah of course he's gonna seem invulverable to anything besides holy weapons when he's Frieza and everything else is Raditz.

Seriously though: The page could use some good examples, and variety in verses too! I'd be open to suggestions and all as I fix it further

I do appreciate your contributions and discussion in the thread, but please: I do not want to go in circles.

It's alright if you have concerns about arguments/points already made, or want further clarification on them. But we cannot keep repeating points or arguments by disregarding responses made to them. At least, I can't without feeling like I'm going crazy, and wasting time retreading old grounds that are just a few paces behind me.

Especially in the case of Ganon: I keep asking for other possible examples of an evil character/being with nigh-invulnerability to all but sacred/holy weapons. I understand you don't like it, and the wiki (?) probably doesn't either: Please provide me a better example then, as I keep asking for.

 

[StretchSebe]

On the note of invulnerability stated as an ability/power:

I recently picked up the Megamind novel to see what it had in common with the movie, and if there were any notable differences. Also because it was the Megamind novel.

Anyways though, in the opening of the movie, it's stated by Megamind, a character recognized as an Extraordinary Genius on the wiki and Metroman's arch-nemesis since almost literally birth, that that Metroman had 'the power of flight and invulnerability.' In the prologue of the novel, despite some minor differences up to that point and after, Megamind also stated on page 7 that 'He had the power of flight and invulnerability.' (Also in both 'and great hair,' but obviously this last one being a joke about unrealistic superhero good looks, but not detracting from the other, meaningful two powers/abilities Metroman actually has). Megamind is undoubtedly a reliable source.

The statement is nearly identical to the movie scene.

Again I ask: Why would the standard of evidence for this specific ability be so different from every other ability on the wiki?

 

[Qawsedf234]

On the note of invulnerability stated as an ability/power:

The wiki is using the idealized version of invulnerable. As in a cosmic sense the object can not be damaged by conventional means.

The common usage of the word how, is just "Resistance to harm" which can be accomplished by just being very durable.

 

[SeijiSetto]

The wiki is using the idealized version of invulnerable. As in a cosmic sense the object can not be damaged by conventional means.

The common usage of the word how, is just "Resistance to harm" which can be accomplished by just being very durable.

am i incorrect in summarizing how we treat invuln as
if there isn't an actual mechanic behind it (a la physics hax or other nonsense that actively prevents someone's force from doing anything to you) and it's just statements, it's just treated as far higher dura
"showings" by themselves don't really mean anything because being completely incapable of harming someone could just mean they're way tougher than you can hurt

 

[Qawsedf234]

am i incorrect in summarizing how we treat invuln as

Your summary is correct

 

[StretchSebe]

The wiki is using the idealized version of invulnerable. As in a cosmic sense the object can not be damaged by conventional means.

The common usage of the word how, is just "Resistance to harm" which can be accomplished by just being very durable.

Idealized version? Wouldn't it be better to revise this power/ability (it's page) to a practical version?

am i incorrect in summarizing how we treat invuln as
if there isn't an actual mechanic behind it (a la physics hax or other nonsense that actively prevents someone's force from doing anything to you) and it's just statements, it's just treated as far higher dura
"showings" by themselves don't really mean anything because being completely incapable of harming someone could just mean they're way tougher than you can hurt

Anyways though, in the opening of the movie, it's stated by Megamind, a character recognized as an Extraordinary Genius on the wiki and Metroman's arch-nemesis since almost literally birth, that that Metroman had 'the power of flight and invulnerability.' In the prologue of the novel, despite some minor differences up to that point and after, Megamind also stated on page 7 that 'He had the power of flight and invulnerability.' (Also in both 'and great hair,' but obviously this last one being a joke about unrealistic superhero good looks, but not detracting from the other, meaningful two powers/abilities Metroman actually has). Megamind is undoubtedly a reliable source.

So, unlike every other power/ability on the site, we don't accept a character having invulnerability even if they are stated to have it as a part of their powers/abilites?

It actually is treated different from every other power/ability like that?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Idealized version? Wouldn't it be better to revise this power/ability (it's page) to a practical version?

No, since being durable is just durability. Invulnerable as a power only works if durability was a power we listed.

invulnerability even if they are stated to have it as a part of their powers/abilites?

The usage of Invulnerable fits the word

1: incapable of being wounded, injured, or harmed


2 : immune to or proof against attack : IMPREGNABLE

It's why just being listed as invulnerable isn't enough. As just being durable isn't a qualifier, you have to be immune to harm. It's a higher barrier of entry.

 

[StretchSebe]

No, since being durable is just durability. Invulnerable as a power only works if durability was a power we listed.

The blog has since the start specified durability both isn't enough, and that the ability has nothing to do with a character's actual durability.

I don't know why this 'idealized durability' should take precedent over an actual, practical explanation for this power/ability that's been in fiction and has had common limitations since BCE times...

The usage of Invulnerable fits the word

It's why just being listed as invulnerable isn't enough. As just being durable isn't a qualifier, you have to be immune to harm. It's a higher barrier of entry.

Just repeating myself, but for this one power/ability, we throw it out when they do have it as a literal power/ability? When it is stated to be a power/ability of a character?

 

[Qawsedf234]

idealized durability' should take precedent over an actual, practical explanation for this power/

It's not. It's why I quoted the definition for invulnerability. You have to prove they're completely immune to harm rather than being just durable.

but for this one power/ability, we throw it out when they do have it as a literal power/ability

Because the definition we use is "incapable of being harmed / immune against attack". Which requires more than just being durable.

 

[PainKiller07]

How I separate Invulnerability and High Durability

• High Dura: For example, a 3A character would get nearly no damage from a 9B attack, though if the attacks are stacked up, they would still be harmed eventually. We saw this a lot in fictional battles where speedsters use tons of attacks to deal with a much stronger opponent.
• Invulnerability: A character with invul is literally immune to attacks of a certain threshold, so they simply won't get any damage no matter how many punches/attacks are stacked upon each other.

 

[SeijiSetto]

• High Dura: For example, a 3A character would get nearly no damage from a 9B attack, though if the attacks are stacked up, they would still be harmed eventually. We saw this a lot in fictional battles where speedsters use tons of attacks to deal with a much stronger opponent.

a 3-A character would take no damage from a 9-B attack. at all. no matter how many times you hit them in the same place.
unironically, you would take more damage from the kinetic energy of a singular proton crashing into you at the speed of sound than a 3-A would from a 9-B. the difference in power is on a complete other scale.

 

[FinePoint]

My opinion mostly mirrors what many have already said early in the thread- good on everything but the types.

How I separate Invulnerability and High Durability

• High Dura: For example, a 3A character would get nearly no damage from a 9B attack, though if the attacks are stacked up, they would still be harmed eventually. We saw this a lot in fictional battles where speedsters use tons of attacks to deal with a much stronger opponent.
• Invulnerability: A character with invul is literally immune to attacks of a certain threshold, so they simply won't get any damage no matter how many punches/attacks are stacked upon each other.

Realistically, and in a lot of fiction, simply being far more durable than an attack can still accomplish the latter.
The foundational principle is that the attack potency does not actually matter at all, within reason.
If we took an "invulnerable" character claim at face value, then a 3-A attack and a 9-B attack would be functional identical from their perspective.

 

[PainKiller07]

Well, it's all good to know.

a 3-A character would take no damage from a 9-B attack. at all. no matter how many times you hit them in the same place.

May I ask why specifically?

 

[SeijiSetto]

May I ask why specifically?

i just explained. not literally 0 damage, but the amount of "damage" it would inflict is less than the "damage" that air particles around us are hitting us with, they would barely even feel it.
you don't get bruises from being hit by air particles, even though they're doing it so often, because they're that much weaker than you. the damage would never accumulate.
if you CAN hit someone enough times in the same place and make them hurt, it means that - while you may be weaker - you're still somewhat comparable.

 

[StretchSebe]

It's not. It's why I quoted the definition for invulnerability. You have to prove they're completely immune to harm rather than being just durable.

... I find that incredibly strange we make an exception to the standard for all powers/abilities for this one power/ability specifically. Especially when this exception is to the most straight forward way of determining actual possession of the power/ability, like any other power/ability: Confirmation it is a power/ability that a character has.

Because the definition we use is "incapable of being harmed / immune against attack". Which requires more than just being durable.

That second definition could be indestructibility. Already went into that. It could also be attack negation, but we're getting into the weeds:

Invulnerability is the first, and the definition that has been used throughout the thread has been the first.

Just to clarify too for others recent comments: Invulnerability would effectively counter striking strength, not AP.

There's a lot (of non-physical attacks) within the broad brush of AP that could still affect users as I've gone into in this thread, and have within the limitations in the blog. Even with functional immunity to striking strength, with high enough striking strength, there are other ways to counter an invuln user that'd likely kill them: Like if the planet they were on was blown up from a planet buster, and they were subjected to the extremes of space (sustenance, non-physical harm in cosmic radiation).

 

[Qawsedf234]

find that incredibly strange we make an exception to the standard for all powers/abilities for this one power/ability specifically.

It's just how it is. Invulnerability means immunity to damage per the definition, which is what the power grants. Just being durable isn't enough, you have to prove that the character is immune to harm.

Invulnerability would effectively counter striking strength, not AP.

It would counter any form of AP that works on the physical scale. It would work on Goku but not necessarily Doctor Manhattan.

Like if the planet they were on was blown up from a planet buster, and they were subjected to the extremes of space (sustenance, non-physical harm in cosmic radiation).

Sure, but that aspect of the power was never in dispute.