- 9,982
- 10,821
You yet didn't got why I explicitly mentioned "it is impossible to bring them back through Past", do you?How would it still be HGR? They aren't regenerating their past, so what fundamental aspect are they regenerating?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You yet didn't got why I explicitly mentioned "it is impossible to bring them back through Past", do you?How would it still be HGR? They aren't regenerating their past, so what fundamental aspect are they regenerating?
No, glass, on the other hand, their history must have a role in regenerating them in the present to claim that not getting destroyed in the past holds any weight in their present regen, if not, then past either exist or not, doesn't matter, that's why I explicitly mentioned fuji that they cannot be brought back through history and she agreed and repeated me.If there's no feats of regenerating from being erased across history is this topic remotely needed to discuss? Because the only thing we have for Anos is concept.
I agree with this.Which it would be. If you're concept is erased coming back from it is always going to be HGR unless the concept is shown to be easily restored first.
They're regenerating despite being destroyed in all possible futures.
YesIirc, It is confirmed in the verse that regen from source destruction is way harder than regen from just body and soul destruction in MGK??
Yeah, source is most fundamental than body, mind and soul. It was stated by Anos when he said even using ingel (soul restoring magic) is useless for misha if her source would be gone, they will not be able to brought back. Source literally defines the person, who they're, unconsciously in all of their incarnations.Iirc, It is confirmed in the verse that regen from source destruction is way harder than regen from just body and soul destruction in MGK??
Qaws, what do you think the following line in the regen page means?Type 3 just means the concept in question is limited in some capacity. But if the concept of your person is destroyed and you come back, that is treated the same as coming back from Type 1 or Type 2 CM. Which is why it's still noted that it's a valid path. The times Type 3 wouldn't give you HGR is when the Type 3 concept has nothing to do with the person in question or if it's shown to have some glaring flaw.
I mean, I asked why Type 3 will not qualify in this case when source is proved to be more fundamental than soul? Why would it be inferior to Type 2 concept regen? When both are high godly by definition.Qaws, what do you think the following line in the regen page means?
"...but only very rarely 3, if there is strong evidence of being similar to the former types in terms of how hard it is to regenerate from them"
Reiner please stop commenting if you aren't going to actually read what I post, thanks.I mean, I asked why Type 3 will not qualify in this case when source is proved to be more fundamental than soul? Why would it be inferior to Type 2 concept regen? When both are high godly by definition.
I mean....As far as I can remember, there isn't a single instance in Maou Gakuin where a character's soul is destroyed but their source isn't. The source is said to be "deeper than the soul", but its mostly treated like a soul. Characters in MG have only either had their body killed or their source destroyed (including soul), but never had their soul itself destroyed.
The definition for HGR isn't just "more fundamental aspect of existence than body, mind, and soul". Under normal circumstances, a Type 3 concept doesn't qualify for HGR as per the definition. You have to prove that source destruction (Type 3) is as hard to regenerate from as the destruction of a Type 1 or Type 2 concept. Until there is proof of that, regeneration from source destruction doesn't qualify for HGR, because merely being "a more fundamental aspect" isn't good enough.I mean, I asked why Type 3 will not qualify in this case when source is proved to be more fundamental than soul? Why would it be inferior to Type 2 concept regen? When both are high godly by definition.
What was going to be happened with misha then? Her soul could be restored but yet, it was impossible to brought her back without source.As far as I can remember, there isn't a single instance in Maou Gakuin where a character's soul is destroyed but their source isn't. The source is said to be "deeper than the soul", but its mostly treated like a soul. Characters in MG have only either had their body killed or their source destroyed (including soul), but never had their soul itself destroyed.
Lmao, under normal circumstances? They would be in all cases, you're using an example as if it's contradicting the definition, I don't even need to tell what you have got wrong. Examples can never contradict a definition. Type 3 concepts that stands up on definition would be treated same as all high godly regen, including type 2 concept regen unless proven otherwise, so kindly prove that Source regen is inferior to Type 2 concept regen when both are high godly by definition.The definition for HGR isn't just "more fundamental aspect of existence than body, mind, and soul". Under normal circumstances, a Type 3 concept doesn't qualify for HGR as per the definition. You have to prove that source destruction (Type 3) is as hard to regenerate from as the destruction of a Type 1 or Type 2 concept. Until there is proof of that, regeneration from source destruction doesn't qualify for HGR, because merely being "a more fundamental aspect" isn't good enough.
The definition specifies what qualifies as a "more fundamental aspect of existence" and Type 3 concepts rarely qualify.Lmao, under normal circumstances? They would be in all cases, you're using an example as if it's contradicting the definition, I don't even need to tell what you have got wrong. Examples can never contradict a definition. Type 3 concepts that stands up on definition would be treated same as all high godly regen, including type 2 concept regen unless proven otherwise, so kindly prove that Source regen is inferior to Type 2 concept regen when both are high godly by definition.
Read the page, they're just examples for already provided definition unless ofc, you refuse to read about which I care less.The definition specifies what qualifies as a "more fundamental aspect of existence" and Type 3 concepts rarely qualify.
The examples are part of the definition, not separate from it.Read the page, they're just examples for already provided definition unless ofc, you refuse to read about which I care less.
Examples are parts of explaination not definition, you're claiming that second part is contradicting first part which itself makes your case weak and on my take, it's all following the definition as well as examples because all of them high godly by definition and so all are same lvl, source has proof of being deeper than soul. Good luck trying to contradict definition.The examples are part of the definition, not separate from it.
The second part doesn't contradict the first part, it adds onto it. The second part explains what qualifies as a "more fundamental aspect of existence than body, mind, and soul" as per the definition of HGR, and sources don't inherently qualify. The only way you can claim that regeneration from source destruction counts as HGR is by completely ignoring the second part of the definition, which is what you're currently doing.Examples are parts of explaination not definition, you're claiming that second part is contradicting first part which itself makes your case weak and on my take, it's all following the definition as well as examples because all of them high godly by definition and so all are same lvl, source has proof of being deeper than soul. Good luck trying to contradict definition.
Definition itself clears that out,more fundamental than soul, verses without concept, info or history erasure stuff will get high godly regen only if they can regenerate from smth more fundamental than soul. It's contradicting to say that something more fundamental than soul is not fundamental than soul. Duh.The second part doesn't contradict the first part, it adds onto it. The second part explains what qualifies as a "more fundamental aspect of existence than body, mind, and soul" as per the definition of HGR, and sources don't inherently qualify. The only way you can claim that regeneration from source destruction counts as HGR is by completely ignoring the second part of the definition, which is what you're currently doing.
The standards for HGR don't say "harder to regenerate than the soul", they say "as hard to regenerate as type 1/2 concepts". What aren't you getting about this?I mean, the source exist even deeper than the soul, and the verse itself proved numerous times that regen from source destruction is far harder than soul destruction, thus it qualify for HGR.
Fuji he disagrees. Count his vote.I'm not sure if Qawsedf even understands the basis of the downgrade? I legitimately don't know where evidence of history erasure was brought up.
This is what the whole time in the first second and third page was trying to explain. Thank youType 3 just means the concept in question is limited in some capacity. But if the concept of your person is destroyed and you come back, that is treated the same as coming back from Type 1 or Type 2 CM. Which is why it's still noted that it's a valid path. The times Type 3 wouldn't give you HGR is when the Type 3 concept has nothing to do with the person in question or if it's shown to have some glaring flaw.
The thing is, this is pretty much sematic argument, how are you going to exactly measure something is "as hard as type 1 or 2 concepts", without authors copypaste the entire definition from the Regeneration page into their verses, even if you can find such a verse, that verse is 99,99% is created entirely for battleboarding purpose. Source currently is type 3 which is even less than type 2, the destruction of the object that type 3 govern over will lead to the destruction of type 3 itself, yet source remain even when the person is destroyed competely from body to soul, and confirmed numerous time to be way harder to regen if the source is destroyed. So that mean in term of regeneration/immortality, Source behave exactly like at least type 2 conceptThe standards for HGR don't say "harder to regenerate than the soul", they say "as hard to regenerate as type 1/2 concepts". What aren't you getting about this?
Resurrection? It specifically states the spell regenerates the source in the future after it has been destroyed.Oh, well if that's the case then yeah, it wouldn't be HGR but some spell based resurrection.
Exactly. I already made it clear in my first commentAnyway i suppose Regeneration from type 3 concept destruction need a throughout revision after this thread is finish, the term is extremely confuse and vague and we don't even have example or a proper discussion when the feat qualify as HGR or when it is MGR, which i should have thought about when discussing with @DontTalkDT , we was too rush to apply the result without a second thought
.On the topic of why type 3 concepts shouldn't be HGR, my understanding of it is because of type 3 concepts whose nature isn't elaborated upon. What i mean by this is type 3 concepts that are affected by the alteration of their object an example being destruction of the object destroying the concept too or objects that can't be altered by the alteration of it's concept, in other words the object defining the concept an example being concepts based on perception.
In this case though, the source cannot be affected by any alteration to it's object be it the body, mind or soul and is described as being a fundamental aspect of existence that makes people what they are
The thing is, DT is right about Concept type 3 being actually "rare" because a concept type 3 in terms of regeneration, let's say X that governs tree will definitely bring no benefits to character A.Anyway i suppose Regeneration from type 3 concept destruction need a throughout revision after this thread is finish, the term is extremely confuse and vague and we don't even have example or a proper discussion when the feat qualify as HGR or when it is MGR, which i should have thought about when discussing with @DontTalkDT , we was too rush to apply the result without a second thought
Actually, regen-based resurrection is a thing so.....Resurrection? It specifically states the spell regenerates the source in the future after it has been destroyed.
The thing is, as i look back, we need a better way to say about this on the regeneration page, because as i said on my previous comment, vaguely saying "as hard as type 2 or 1 concept" isn't the best way to describe, at least we should have a better definitionThe thing is, DT is right about Concept type 3 being actually "rare" because a concept type 3, let's say X that governs tree will definitely bring no benefits to character A.
While the cases like Concept type 3 (instance, Y) that governs individual in fundamental level, gives benefits such as info type 1/type 2, immortality, abilities and acts as fundamental aspect (or described as one) and character A regenerated after Y destruction, this would qualify as HGR.
Character A regenerated from mind, body, soul and concept Y (type 3) is HGR since this concept acts and works (its functionality) works as CM type 2 or type 1.
I remember a time i was pushing that all forms of godly regen is also resurrection by default and I got hounded and shot down. Where were you? I could've used some helpActually, regen-based resurrection is a thing so.....
I remember a time i was pushing that all forms of godly regen is also resurrection by default and I got hounded and shot down. Where were you? I could've used some help
What the........., that fast.
Why? It is based on a vaguely made line, and OP does not recognize it.What the........., that fast.
Should let this thread finish first
MUAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHA HAHAHA HAHAHAUMWhat the........., that fast.
Should let this thread finish first
Nope, Reiners's CRT seems pretty much accepted. You still can't apply the changesIf you can't beat them, change the standards I guess. Wouldn't be the first time I've seen this happen.
Anyways, as of right now we do have enough support to apply the downgrade barring further input (2-1, or 3-1 if Glass agrees [which he seems to? idk]), but if that thread gets applied I have no issue with reverting the regen to high-godly. Of course, I'll have to start looking into individual cases of regen if that's the caseon top of everything else I have planned...