Invulnerability revision

[Purgy]

Do you think souls can no sell 3-B attacks?

Sure as that's literally what invulnerability is, they're not taking damage from anything that doesn't work on a spiritual level.

I'd say the same thing about durability negation as well, a 10-C with durability negation is harming a 3-A character.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Name some characters who can become immune to attacks no matter how strong they are

Youkai from The Zashiki Warashi of Intellectual Village, because they are beings that disobey the laws of nature and can hence, due to law manipulation reasons, not be harmed by non-supernatural means. Raw power doesn't matter, since you need to overcome the laws of nature to harm them.

The idea for Invulnerability to not be a NLF is to have a mechanism like that. I.e. to have hax that prevents damage.

 

[Omegabronic]

what about cases where the mechanism is not stated, but just being high durability makes contradictions?

 

[Bobsican]

Mind bringing an example?

 

[Omegabronic]

like, imagine that there is a character A, and then imagine that character A gets a hold of an magical power source, that source makes him transform, the said transformation is said to be invulnerable, in all fights that this character is in with that form he cannot be damaged, now imagine villain character B, imagine that he is using the exact same power source as character A, but doesn't gain the same transformation, they both fight and character A can damage B, but B can't damage A, even when they have the same power source and should have the same boost, and more so, a villain harms character A, but only with a specific attack, but latter on a canonically stronger villain can't harm character A at all, would this qualify as invulnerability?

 

[Sniper670]

The mechanism behind it should be established

"I'm Invulnerable" is just, eh, no

 

[Omegabronic]

but like, what if it is established not only by characters, but by official statements, and with situations that with just high durability would not make sense

 

[Sniper670]

It was accepted here you need a mechanic behind your Invulnerability to qualify

Here's a thread that exists based in that premise

 

[PhantomØ4]

Isn’t invulnerability just the other side of the same coin of Durability Negation?

 

[Omegabronic]

It was accepted here you need a mechanic behind your Invulnerability to qualify

Here's a thread that exists based in that premise

ok, i know of those, but how does that correlate to the points i presented? what happens when just high durability generates contradictions?

 

[DontTalkDT]

ok, i know of those, but how does that correlate to the points i presented? what happens when just high durability generates contradictions?

Doesn't really create contradictions. In the example you gave the character could be 1000x more durable in his transformation and it would seem like invulnerability and, for the purpose of the verse, be that too. Would still not qualify as invulnerability for us, 'cause it has no mechanism and without that extrapolation beyond feats runs into the NLF.

 

[Omegabronic]

but in the example, both characters are powered up by the same power source, and thus should have the same boost, and also in the example i presented a situation where a weaker character can harm the said invulnerable, but a stronger character can't

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I do agree that Invulnerability should only be given to those with fullproof evidence and that game mechanics and NLFs are not evidence.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Sure as that's literally what invulnerability is, they're not taking damage from anything that doesn't work on a spiritual level.

I'd say the same thing about durability negation as well, a 10-C with durability negation is harming a 3-A character.

You wouldnt be able to prove that souls would take no damage from something that strong

 

[XXKINGXX69]

And yeah I think there needs to be more evidence than "im invulnerable"

 

[Sniper670]

I think we should modify that page a bit by adding the need for a mechanism behind why they're supposedly Invulnerable.

That should be top priority when it comes to what wiki can and cannot accept as Invulnerability.

The second part is the traditional "negates physical attacks". I'm not sure what we should do with that.
I can't say for sure whether that is a mechanism or not. And if it's under power null, then it will be tied to this note

It is to be assumed that any negation power has its limitations based on the strongest thing it has nullified

Which makes it not Invulnerability anymore

 

[XXKINGXX69]

I think we should modify that page a bit by adding the need for a mechanism behind why they're supposedly Invulnerable.

That should be top priority when it comes to what wiki can and cannot accept as Invulnerability.

The second part is the traditional "negates physical attacks". I'm not sure what we should do with that.
I can't say for sure whether that is a mechanism or not. And if it's under power null, then it will be tied to this note

Which makes it not Invulnerability anymore

Agree. So I think if the invulnerability works more like power null, it would be power null, but if the invulnerability is through some other means, it stays as invulnerability

 

[Sniper670]

I think yes. Although as DDM said, Invulnerability at its core is this

Invulnerability is a passive attack potency nullification that makes someone basically immune to all traditional attacks

So.... I dunno. Staff decide.

 

[Purgy]

You wouldnt be able to prove that souls would take no damage from something that strong

I don't need to, the same way I don't need to prove a character with 3-A AP can't bypass intangibility because "muh stronger!"

If they don't have a way of getting around the mechanic, e.g, targeting the soul, it's not doing anything.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

I don't need to, the same way I don't need to prove a character with 3-A AP can't bypass NPI because "muh stronger!"

If they don't have a way of getting around the mechanic, e.g, targeting the soul, it's not doing anything.

This is different from NPI so not a good comparison. How do you know its not durability? Attacks not working on you is no different from durability

 

[Purgy]

This is different from NPI so not a good comparison. How do you know its not durability? Attacks not working on you is no different from durability

"How do you know it's not?".

Greatest argument ever, you're just trying to extrapolate way more than is necessary or implied, which you can do to virtually any ability, durability isn't mentioned anywhere for this example, the strong implication is that "souls need to be hit on a spiritual level to be harmed", not "souls need to be hit with a really strong attack to be harmed."

Also, I agree with a mechanic needing to be clarified for it to be valid, simple statements of a character being invulnerable with no explanation aren't acceptable imo, which is already accepted anyway I believe.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

"How do you know it's not?".

Greatest argument ever, you're just trying to extrapolate way more than is necessary or implied, which you can do to virtually any ability, durability isn't mentioned anywhere for this example, the strong implication is that "souls need to be hit on a spiritual level to be harmed", not "souls need to be hit with a really strong attack to be harmed."

Also, I agree with a mechanic needing to be clarified for it to be valid, simple statements of a character being invulnerable with no explanation aren't acceptable imo, which is already accepted anyway I believe.

"attacks not working" is durability

the strong implication is that "souls need to be hit on a spiritual level to be harmed"

Sure, but how can you prove that they will be invulnerable to physical attacks no matter what? That's an NLF. Can they tank high 1-A attacks then?

 

[Purgy]

"attacks not working" is durability

Sure, but how can you prove that they will be invulnerable to physical attacks no matter what? That's an NLF. Can they tank high 1-A attacks then?

Needing to use a specific type of attack to cause damage and anything else not working is called invulnerability.

It's not a NLF because it has a limitation, that being soul based attacks, anyway, I don't even see how that means invulnerability can't exist when durability negation does and is the exact same thing in reverse.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Needing to use a specific type of attack to cause damage and anything else not working is called invulnerability.

It's not a NLF because it has a limitation, that being soul based attacks, anyway, I don't even see how that means invulnerability can't exist when durability negation does and is the exact same thing in reverse.

It could also be that their durability against spiritual attacks is lower

It's not a NLF because it has a limitation, that being soul based attacks

If you assume no physical attack, even from the strongest Tier 0 characters can harm it, that would be NLF

I don't even see how that means invulnerability can't exist when durability negation does and is the exact same thing in reverse.

There are many different forms of durability negation, so its not even an actual opposite

 

[Purgy]

It could also be that their durability against spiritual attacks is lower

It "could be" many things, which applies to anything, that's why we go with what's most likely to be the case based on the evidence presented, and nowhere in the evidence presented is it implied that it's a durability thing, it's blatantly invulnerability.

If you assume no physical attack, even from the strongest Tier 0 characters can harm it, that would be NLF

If I assumed no attack whatsoever could harm them then that would be NLF, however, again, it has a clearly defined limitation.

There are many different forms of durability negation, so its not even an actual opposite

There are many different forms of invulnerability too so I'm not sure how you think that makes them different, invulnerability and durability negation are essentially just as NLF as each other.

Regardless, the problem fundamentally is that you're just looking at invulnerability as if it's durability, when in reality you should be looking at it like you would intangibility or abstract existence as for those abilities there's a specific reason for why the character can't be harmed regardless of attack potency, the same is true for invulnerability.

 

[YungManzi]

I say merge traditional invulnerability with Damage Reduction because invulnerability by itself is pure NLF.

Edit: wait this is a staff thread? My b.

 

[Arkenis]

really seems to complicate invulnerability.

The problem is that for most legitimate examples of invulnerability, its almost no different from power nullification. So why is invulnerability even a thing if its literally just passive power null?

It's not "passive power null" it's a specific invulnerability to a certain type of ability but the ability itself is not being nullified, it just can't affect the target, completely different.

The second issue is for platformer characters with invulnerability powerups and forms. A lot of them get invulnerability simply because they're stated to be invulnerable. The problem with this is that there is no difference between being invulnerable to an attack and taking no damage from an attack because you're durable. If you tank a nuke with 0 damage, that's also being invulnerable to the nuke.

Example for what you mean by this, I'm not too firmly with platformer mechanics.

2) Keep the two abilities separate, but they would still be the same thing, similar to how heat manipulation and lava manipulation are pretty much the same thing, but how the ability is done is different. The only difference between invulnerability and power null is that the former is this passive thing and attacks are negated by the body of the user, not like using a move to seal an enemy's abilities

Uh what? Heat is thermal energy being transferred, not lava, that's why we have a separate page called Magma Manipulation. Heat may come off from that lava but lava in itself is not Heat Manipulation.


Edit: I wanted to add also that having certain special energies specific to a verse can grant invul as well from physical attacks, that is not at all just powernull, it is a fundamental difference in the way one is able to be harmed and thus other forms of attack are ineffective towards such characters.

 

[Sniper670]

I say merge traditional invulnerability with Damage Reduction because invulnerability by itself is pure NLF.

Some characters really do have mechanisms that sidesteps AP entirely. EG. The Siberian. This is not damage reduction

 

[Antvasima]

So is there anything left to do here, or should we close this thread?

 

[Mr._Undetected]

They still want to argue, but I think the conclusion is clear, it's better to close

 

[Lou_change]

If we are treating it as if it is ignoring damage or something similar it would logically be treated similar to durability Negation and involve another ability or at least an explanation but that leads to the question what is not invulnerability if someone that can't be hit shouldn't be invulnerable but there's cases where a character with causality manipulation passively making it impossible to harm them by altering the event and it is portrayed as them dodging the attack instead.

 

[Omegabronic]

If we are treating it as if it is ignoring damage or something similar it would logically be treated similar to durability Negation and involve another ability or at least an explanation but that leads to the question what is not invulnerability if someone that can't be hit shouldn't be invulnerable but there's cases where a character with causality manipulation passively making it impossible to harm them by altering the event and it is portrayed as them dodging the attack instead.

what?

 

[Arkenis]

I can not understand how ya are comparing invulnerability to dura neg or power null or anything else.

If we are treating it as if it is ignoring damage or something similar it would logically be treated similar to durability Negation and involve another ability or at least an explanation but that leads to the question what is not invulnerability if someone that can't be hit shouldn't be invulnerable but there's cases where a character with causality manipulation passively making it impossible to harm them by altering the event and it is portrayed as them dodging the attack instead.

At that point it just isn't invulnerability, we'd have at least some explanation since u mention it being causality manip so we wouldnt go with invul

 

[Lou_change]

I can not understand how ya are comparing invulnerability to dura neg or power null or anything else.


At that point it just isn't invulnerability, we'd have at least some explanation since u mention it being causality manip so we wouldnt go with invul

So someone using causality manipulation to cause being attacked to result in no changes to their state would not have invulnerability because causality manipulation was involved?

 

[Arkenis]

So someone using causality manipulation to cause being attacked to result in no changes to their state would not have invulnerability because causality manipulation was involved?

Yes, causality would be the main hax there, it would appear like invulnerability but given the established causality hax being why this is done it'd be that instead. Invulnerability also is more along the lines of targeting certain other abilities while causality itself is the control of cause and effect.

 

[Arkenis]

Another ability that could also replicate this invul effect would be physics manip where a character can take away one's kinetic energy, or someone who's so cold to the touch that any impact against them becomes frozen or "nullified" due to freezing the attack's force

 

[Lou_change]

The ability is currently defined as the power to be immune to conventional harm not powers in particular. Other abilities can cause this and should still be included due to meeting the definition

 

[Arkenis]

The ability is currently defined as the power to be immune to conventional harm not powers in particular. Other abilities can cause this and should still be included due to meeting the definition

Should be changed to be immune to certain harms then.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

So is there anything left to do here, or should we close this thread?

Nah there's still the matter of rewording the invulnerability page a little

 

[Antvasima]

Nah there's still the matter of rewording the invulnerability page a little

Please be more specific.