Invulnerability revision

[Sniper670]

I don't have much to say overall, but this part bothers me

It can be considered the defensive equivalent of Durability Negation, negating simple Attack Potency, though one should be careful not to apply No Limits Fallacy.

It's vague. I mean, where should we draw the line between when it's nlf and when it's not. Personally I feel It's limits should be clearly defined on the page to avoid any misuse/confusion of Invulnerability

 

[Arkenis]

Yeah so I think invulnerability that targets physical attacks should be limited to the scope of said attack, if someone’s physically 4d then they should be capable of bypassing that invulnerability since it’s only limited to a 3d potency.


The entire thing about it being only for attacks should be removed and reworded to include a broad scope. So essentially it should be “Characters that are immune to certain abilities through a special mechanism within the verse or otherwise. This can include characters that are invulnerable to fire due to being made from special material or because they have some special magic which makes fire ineffective” stuff like this I think fits invulnerability and also doesn’t clash with powernull.

 

[Sniper670]

I agree with you.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Yeah so I think invulnerability that targets physical attacks should be limited to the scope of said attack, if someone’s physically 4d then they should be capable of bypassing that invulnerability since it’s only limited to a 3d potency.


The entire thing about it being only for attacks should be removed and reworded to include a broad scope. So essentially it should be “Characters that are immune to certain abilities through a special mechanism within the verse or otherwise. This can include characters that are invulnerable to fire due to being made from special material or because they have some special magic which makes fire ineffective” stuff like this I think fits invulnerability and also doesn’t clash with powernull.

I think this rewording is fine

 

[Sniper670]

BUMP

 

[Antvasima]

What have our staff members decided here?

 

[Sniper670]

Unclear. DT has not responded yet

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will ask him about it.

 

[YungManzi]

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

I know. That’s why I said “Traditional Invulnerability” and not all invulnerability.

If it’s through a mechanism it should be labeled as Invulnerability and have its mechanism explained on the page, however stuff like Superman and his clones invulnerability, or just someone being stated to be invulnerable with little to no explanation, those instances SHOULD JUST BE DAMAGE REDUCTION.

 

[XXKINGXX69]

Okay. I will ask him about it.

The description on the invulnerability page should be changed to something like:

The entire thing about it being only for attacks should be removed and reworded to include a broad scope. So essentially it should be “Characters that are immune to certain abilities through a special mechanism within the verse or otherwise. This can include characters that are invulnerable to fire due to being made from special material or because they have some special magic which makes fire ineffective” stuff like this I think fits invulnerability and also doesn’t clash with powernull.

 

[Sniper670]

BUMP

 

[Bobsican]

Bump.

 

[Sniper670]

Anyway.

If you have something to add, maybe an example, that'll help

King has been banished to the shadow realm, as you are aware

 

[Antvasima]

@DarkDragonMedeus

Should we close this thread? Meaning, have the suggestions here been rejected so far?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I kind of forgot about this thread, but the OP is banned and I think our Invulnerability page is fine to my knowledge only that perhaps various verse specifics might have characters with Invulnerability for unjustified reasons that could be debated individually.

I suppose this thread can be closed for the best.

 

[Bobsican]

The description on the invulnerability page should be changed to something like:

The entire thing about it being only for attacks should be removed and reworded to include a broad scope. So essentially it should be “Characters that are immune to certain abilities through a special mechanism within the verse or otherwise. This can include characters that are invulnerable to fire due to being made from special material or because they have some special magic which makes fire ineffective” stuff like this I think fits invulnerability and also doesn’t clash with powernull.

It seems this was pending staff evaluation, now if it's declined it's another thing, however.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will close this thread then. Thank you to everybody who helped out here.