-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Invulnerability Revision
- Thread starter Dark649
- Start date
-
- Tags
- invulnerability
- Status
- 11,133
- 14,106
I had a discussion about it some days ago. And I agree.
Only conditional invulnerability makes sense and as suggested above, it should always be specified, what to or not.
The current definition of invulnerability in the page is basically another way of defining durability.
Only conditional invulnerability makes sense and as suggested above, it should always be specified, what to or not.
The current definition of invulnerability in the page is basically another way of defining durability.
- 758
- 93
i agree, it is redundant to add in profiles if it is not absolute...without being absolute invulnerable, you just got a higher durability for some things that is all...
- 758
- 93
what i meant is, if nobody is absolutely invulnerable, then thing which the character is invulnerable to, should be mentioned in the profile otherwise it will be nlf'd to all things...
like some character could only be invulnerable to bullets, so "invulnerability to bullets" should be added. otherwise if a character is said to be invulnerable to all things, which would be nlf, then his/her invulnerability should be removed because that is same as having higher durability against all damage... in that case only durability should be upgraded
like some character could only be invulnerable to bullets, so "invulnerability to bullets" should be added. otherwise if a character is said to be invulnerable to all things, which would be nlf, then his/her invulnerability should be removed because that is same as having higher durability against all damage... in that case only durability should be upgraded
- 480
- 156
Is there a situation that matches the example given, however? And if there is, is such a situation natural invulnerability, or invulnerability via an item? For example, let's say that the example of city block level Character A and B is to do with Mario characters. And character A is invulnerable, as per orginial example, but only with the Starman.
The way I see the Starman, and thus similar items that grant invulnerability from all over fiction, is that it does so by increasing statistics to the point where you are invincible, but in the more classic definition (that being that they have not been beaten), as in you are now at a level where those formerly able to combat you are no longer able to do so. I know using the Mario series may not be the best example, given the gap in power, but it's that kind of idea. [EDIT: to elaborate on this, I mean the user of the Starman has been ampted to the points where enemies can now be one-shot, when they were previously able to somewhat harm you.] Thus, I see the example given as unrealistic. The durability of someone who is invulnerable should not be equal to that of those formerly on their level, thus saying they have equal defence despite one being invulnerable either means Character B is from a much strong franchise, or that this is an unrealistic example and the durability is likely tied due to the invulnerability being unquanitfiable or not listed within the durability. I feel this same issue [as in the whole "either not same franchise, or invulnerability not taken into account"] would apply if the invulnerability was natural as well, but would just be a little different.
Thus, I'm not sure if we should make such a big change based on, what to me at least, seems like an unrealistic example. But... I'd like some views of others on what I've been saying so I can work with the view of other people, I guess, so... hopefully this gets noticed.
The way I see the Starman, and thus similar items that grant invulnerability from all over fiction, is that it does so by increasing statistics to the point where you are invincible, but in the more classic definition (that being that they have not been beaten), as in you are now at a level where those formerly able to combat you are no longer able to do so. I know using the Mario series may not be the best example, given the gap in power, but it's that kind of idea. [EDIT: to elaborate on this, I mean the user of the Starman has been ampted to the points where enemies can now be one-shot, when they were previously able to somewhat harm you.] Thus, I see the example given as unrealistic. The durability of someone who is invulnerable should not be equal to that of those formerly on their level, thus saying they have equal defence despite one being invulnerable either means Character B is from a much strong franchise, or that this is an unrealistic example and the durability is likely tied due to the invulnerability being unquanitfiable or not listed within the durability. I feel this same issue [as in the whole "either not same franchise, or invulnerability not taken into account"] would apply if the invulnerability was natural as well, but would just be a little different.
Thus, I'm not sure if we should make such a big change based on, what to me at least, seems like an unrealistic example. But... I'd like some views of others on what I've been saying so I can work with the view of other people, I guess, so... hopefully this gets noticed.
- 480
- 156
Is head canon the example we're using or mine? If mine, I was gonna apologise if it came off as such (I just forgot because I wrote so much), but... I more meant like... to use it to explain my point more than to say headcanon. As for avoiding NLF, of course, that's why I brought up the durability not accomodating for invulnerability because it's unquanitfiable. I guess I used a bad example to try to say another example isn't realistic, which may not have been my best choice (although if you state my entire point is bad because of that example, I believe that would fall under Hanson's Razor [which would be that I've given poor evidence, but you think that's all you need to say my consluion is wrong, when it may be correct], so consider the rest~), but my main point was:
"I see the example given as unrealistic. The durability of someone who is invulnerable [via an item or a boost or the like] should not be equal to that of those formerly on their level, thus saying they have equal defence despite one being invulnerable either means Character B is from a stronger franchise, or that this is an unrealistic example and the durability is likely tied due to the invulnerability being unquanitfiable [hence why no NLF] or not listed within the durability." and that "I feel this same issue would apply if the invulnerability was natural as well, but would just be a little different."
The example was just to get people on the same page, but I realise it could come off as a little heacanon-y.
"I see the example given as unrealistic. The durability of someone who is invulnerable [via an item or a boost or the like] should not be equal to that of those formerly on their level, thus saying they have equal defence despite one being invulnerable either means Character B is from a stronger franchise, or that this is an unrealistic example and the durability is likely tied due to the invulnerability being unquanitfiable [hence why no NLF] or not listed within the durability." and that "I feel this same issue would apply if the invulnerability was natural as well, but would just be a little different."
The example was just to get people on the same page, but I realise it could come off as a little heacanon-y.
- 480
- 156
Reppunzan kinda missed the main point of it though, and I cleared up everything they said...
- 19
- 0
I agree with Kukui.
Stpp wanking
Stpp wanking
- 11,444
- 1,997
@AKM
That's how it should always be. If you don't explain how the invulnerability works it will always be NLF. Hence why it should be explained on the profile.
But we don't need to make every character "nigh-invulnerable" if their invulnerability isn't absolute.
That's how it should always be. If you don't explain how the invulnerability works it will always be NLF. Hence why it should be explained on the profile.
But we don't need to make every character "nigh-invulnerable" if their invulnerability isn't absolute.
- 16,953
- 4,848
I agree 100% with AKM.
Specifying specifically what the character is invulnerable to will solve alot of problems. That way, characters who are "invulnerable to attack damage" won't suddenly be wanked to saying they can be invulnerable to hax abilities.
Specifying specifically what the character is invulnerable to will solve alot of problems. That way, characters who are "invulnerable to attack damage" won't suddenly be wanked to saying they can be invulnerable to hax abilities.
- 7,867
- 2,803
Agree with Kukui
- 16,953
- 4,848
Exactly. At least specifying what the hax no-sells can make things much more clearer for everyone.
- 480
- 156
I also agree with AKM and ProfessorKukui. I believe it makes was more sense to do it that way.
- 167,335
- 75,837
- 11,444
- 1,997
@Ant
I'm supposed to rewrite all of the pages anyway, so here's what I'm putting on the page:
I'm supposed to rewrite all of the pages anyway, so here's what I'm putting on the page:
Invulnerability is the ability to be able to withstand damage to extent outside of the realm of conventional durability. Invulnerable characters can completely avoid taking damage at all from certain attacks, making them much more difficult to harm and defeat. Frequently this invulnerability comes with a set of conditions for use or weaknesses that can be exploited and only omnipotent characters can be considered completely invulnerable. Many works of fiction consider extremely durable characters invulnerable, but this ability is only to be added onto a page if the character is truly invulnerable to harm within the context of this wiki. In addition, the nature and specifics of the character's invulnerability must be mentioned to provide context and avoid the No Limits Fallacy. It should also be noted that invulnerability will not defend a character against someone who is infinitely stronger than them, as is the case with dimensional tier jumps. |
- 7,867
- 2,803
I agree
- 16,953
- 4,848
Perfect.
Agreeing with Reps suggestion completely to a T.
Agreeing with Reps suggestion completely to a T.
- 10,770
- 12,099
I disagree on the "It should also be noted that invulnerability will not defend a character against someone who is infinitely stronger than them, as is the case with dimensional tier jumps. "
While that is true, I think it should be "It should also be noted that invulnerability will not defend a character against someone who is vastly stronger than the strongest thing they were showcased to withstand, is known to be able to withstand due to setting or mechanism or is reliable stated to be able to withstand."
Why? Essentially because what stands on the statements page: We run into NLF even if the gap is not infinite. Invulnerable in a wall level verse is possible without withstanding galaxies being destroyed.
Edit: What specifically does "in the context of this wiki" mean here btw.?
While that is true, I think it should be "It should also be noted that invulnerability will not defend a character against someone who is vastly stronger than the strongest thing they were showcased to withstand, is known to be able to withstand due to setting or mechanism or is reliable stated to be able to withstand."
Why? Essentially because what stands on the statements page: We run into NLF even if the gap is not infinite. Invulnerable in a wall level verse is possible without withstanding galaxies being destroyed.
Edit: What specifically does "in the context of this wiki" mean here btw.?
- 11,444
- 1,997
@DontTalk
That's not always true.
Achilles' invulnerability is explicitly stated to work regardless of force.
That's why explicitly stated that the mechanics must be mentioned so we can get context on it and determine if it's actually going to work or not.
Within the context of the wiki means that while the character may be considered "invulnerable" in their verse like Superman, they're still susceptible to taking actual damage. Hence it's not true invulnerability and should not be placed pn the page.
That's not always true.
Achilles' invulnerability is explicitly stated to work regardless of force.
That's why explicitly stated that the mechanics must be mentioned so we can get context on it and determine if it's actually going to work or not.
Within the context of the wiki means that while the character may be considered "invulnerable" in their verse like Superman, they're still susceptible to taking actual damage. Hence it's not true invulnerability and should not be placed pn the page.
- 10,770
- 12,099
The problem with "regardless of force" is the same as with things that are said to kill anyone regardless how tough, but have not explained how they do that. (Actually saying that attacks "always stronger than those of the opponents" actually work up to an infinte power gap is basically the offensive counterpart to invulnerable up to infinite gap)
I remind of the "does hax work on vastly more powerful characters"-debate.
Without known mechanism extrapolating to levels far beyond what is plausible for the setting is a NLF. It is no different from saying that there is an indestructible forcefield around you, that has as much power as necessary to withstand any attack thrown against it.
I mean, which reason do you use for stopping at infinite power gap? Why should they not also be able to tank attacks with normal brute force when there is an infinite gap?
Isn't the reason in the end that one can not show that the one who made that statements was considering these realms of power? In my opinion that is the reason (which is the reason give in regards to the NLF) and the same reason is the problem for large finite gaps.
If it is actually reliably said to work against even infinitely stronger stuff (or I suppose "any amount of finite power") that is a different issue.
So "Within the context of the wiki" means reliably explained and not contradicted?
I remind of the "does hax work on vastly more powerful characters"-debate.
Without known mechanism extrapolating to levels far beyond what is plausible for the setting is a NLF. It is no different from saying that there is an indestructible forcefield around you, that has as much power as necessary to withstand any attack thrown against it.
I mean, which reason do you use for stopping at infinite power gap? Why should they not also be able to tank attacks with normal brute force when there is an infinite gap?
Isn't the reason in the end that one can not show that the one who made that statements was considering these realms of power? In my opinion that is the reason (which is the reason give in regards to the NLF) and the same reason is the problem for large finite gaps.
If it is actually reliably said to work against even infinitely stronger stuff (or I suppose "any amount of finite power") that is a different issue.
So "Within the context of the wiki" means reliably explained and not contradicted?
- 11,444
- 1,997
@DontTalk
We know the mechanism of Achilles' invulnerability. It's explicitly stated to be a divine blessing that averts all harm for as long as the source of the attack isn't a divine itself and has ill intent behind it.
"As a result, no form of attack would have any effect on Achilles, but… that special characteristic of his had two pitfalls. First, he could be wounded by those with the blood of the gods like himself. And second, when faced not with an attack, but instead— …Against an act that displays friendship, my invincibility does not apply."
The exact same argument you're could be made for intangibility. If an intangible 9-C character were to go against Saitama, would their intangibility be bypassed? Of course not.
But dimensional tiering still applies to invincible characters. It doesn't matter how immune they are to damage. If someone is an entire dimensional tier up, they can just crumple up the paper and throw it away.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant by "within the context of the wiki."
We know the mechanism of Achilles' invulnerability. It's explicitly stated to be a divine blessing that averts all harm for as long as the source of the attack isn't a divine itself and has ill intent behind it.
"As a result, no form of attack would have any effect on Achilles, but… that special characteristic of his had two pitfalls. First, he could be wounded by those with the blood of the gods like himself. And second, when faced not with an attack, but instead— …Against an act that displays friendship, my invincibility does not apply."
The exact same argument you're could be made for intangibility. If an intangible 9-C character were to go against Saitama, would their intangibility be bypassed? Of course not.
But dimensional tiering still applies to invincible characters. It doesn't matter how immune they are to damage. If someone is an entire dimensional tier up, they can just crumple up the paper and throw it away.
Yes, that's exactly what I meant by "within the context of the wiki."
- 10,770
- 12,099
That is more or less a mechanism, but not one that allows to conclude much higher power than plausible, as it doesn't explain how it stops the damage.
Actually it sets a pretty reasonable limit: If it is a divine blessing than it will probably at most hold up to the powerlevel of the divine entity that made the blessing. At least unless some specific higher level is mentioned.
So you can probably argue that it holds up to whatever that god (or other divine being) is ranked as, but anything higher is a NLF.
Intangibility is absolutely different in that regards.
That much can already be seen in the fact that intangibility would be treated as protecting irregardless of power, no matter wether or not it was explained to do that.
That is, because based from the mechanism we know that there is no connection between the amount of power and the character, as the power simply goes right through the character. The work the ability does is the same irregardless of power.
On the other hand when it comes to invulnerability there are various ways that can work.
The most common kind is something like Jack Elva. It is said to work, but how it archieves the result is unknown. In that case we might as well treat it as a forcefield that blocks all damage for the character (like immunities in Kumo desu ga work for example). In this case we run into a NLF because there might be an upper limit to the power of the forcefield.
Different Mechanisms behind invulnerability can make the ability work, if we just know that it is meant to work that way. For example I recently had a case were a character was immune to blades worse than his own, because he was in a pocket dimensions where he altered the concepts and through them the laws of nature to make it work that way. Given that one can not plausibly break the laws of nature or change concepts through power alone in this case the mechanism does allow to extrapolate for it to work on higher levels.
Point is: You first need to now how it stops the damage. Once you do you can see if the ability might have to invest more effort if the attack is stronger or not. If not, then it is fine to extrapolate and say it works up to what the mechanism implies it should. But if it might has to put in more effort than it doesn't suggest to block against more than the highest showing/statement/plausible implication.
And in regards to the infinity you are actually saying that it works against infinitely more powerful opponents then? Like, High 3-A's and the equivalent for other dimensions?
In regards to the "context of the wiki" thing I would suggest to formulate it a bit different then, in order to clarify it further. Maybe something in the direction of:
Many works of fiction consider extremely durable characters invulnerable, but this ability is only to be added onto a page if it is made clear that to be more than simply high durability and is not contradicted.
Actually it sets a pretty reasonable limit: If it is a divine blessing than it will probably at most hold up to the powerlevel of the divine entity that made the blessing. At least unless some specific higher level is mentioned.
So you can probably argue that it holds up to whatever that god (or other divine being) is ranked as, but anything higher is a NLF.
Intangibility is absolutely different in that regards.
That much can already be seen in the fact that intangibility would be treated as protecting irregardless of power, no matter wether or not it was explained to do that.
That is, because based from the mechanism we know that there is no connection between the amount of power and the character, as the power simply goes right through the character. The work the ability does is the same irregardless of power.
On the other hand when it comes to invulnerability there are various ways that can work.
The most common kind is something like Jack Elva. It is said to work, but how it archieves the result is unknown. In that case we might as well treat it as a forcefield that blocks all damage for the character (like immunities in Kumo desu ga work for example). In this case we run into a NLF because there might be an upper limit to the power of the forcefield.
Different Mechanisms behind invulnerability can make the ability work, if we just know that it is meant to work that way. For example I recently had a case were a character was immune to blades worse than his own, because he was in a pocket dimensions where he altered the concepts and through them the laws of nature to make it work that way. Given that one can not plausibly break the laws of nature or change concepts through power alone in this case the mechanism does allow to extrapolate for it to work on higher levels.
Point is: You first need to now how it stops the damage. Once you do you can see if the ability might have to invest more effort if the attack is stronger or not. If not, then it is fine to extrapolate and say it works up to what the mechanism implies it should. But if it might has to put in more effort than it doesn't suggest to block against more than the highest showing/statement/plausible implication.
And in regards to the infinity you are actually saying that it works against infinitely more powerful opponents then? Like, High 3-A's and the equivalent for other dimensions?
In regards to the "context of the wiki" thing I would suggest to formulate it a bit different then, in order to clarify it further. Maybe something in the direction of:
Many works of fiction consider extremely durable characters invulnerable, but this ability is only to be added onto a page if it is made clear that to be more than simply high durability and is not contradicted.
- 16,606
- 1,791
Iirc the issue the achilles and the nasuverse in general is that abilities can be far higher than their creator. like, some beings just built six dimensional defensive hax when they don't even pass into 4D. So scaling the beings to the tier of the Gods in the Nasuverse don't work in this case
- 11,444
- 1,997
@DontTalk
Which is exactly why I stated that context must be given on every profile with invulnerability to describe the mechanism.
If we're going to restrain invulnerability to it's "highest showing" in-verse, then that's the same as treating it as durability.
Which is exactly why I stated that context must be given on every profile with invulnerability to describe the mechanism.
If we're going to restrain invulnerability to it's "highest showing" in-verse, then that's the same as treating it as durability.
- 16,606
- 1,791
^ Especially in something like the nasuverse that don't work consistently
- 167,335
- 75,837
I am personally fine with DontTalk's suggestion of:
"Many works of fiction consider extremely durable characters invulnerable, but this ability is only to be added onto a page if it is made clear that to be more than simply high durability and is not contradicted."
"Many works of fiction consider extremely durable characters invulnerable, but this ability is only to be added onto a page if it is made clear that to be more than simply high durability and is not contradicted."
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
