• 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.

One Hit Kill and Invulnerability

Status
Not open for further replies.
Invulnerability is NLF for the most part, yes. One Hit Kill is also really redundent

to be entirely honest, actual invulnerability is really rare and often due to mechanics of certain things. For example, all Fate Servants are immune to modern and non-magical stuff.

Removing it entirely is something i'm against, but it is far rarer than it's treated as
 
Warren Valion said:
TheC2 said:
Therefore, we need to redefine what Invulerability is, not get rid of it.
Click to expand...
But isn't that just a weakness for the character instead of a "hax" ability?
Click to expand...
I don't see why two can't go hand in hand. Just because hax may a weakness, doesn't stop it from being hax.
 
Dark649 said:
Sorry Howard. I'm fine with removing them mainly including Invulnerability as i will explain:
- Char. is stated to be invulnerable but is just boosting / arrogance and/or will he/she harmed later on.

- Gameplay only mechanic boost where anything can't harm the char. or dura increase that allows you to tank attacks or project an aura that easily defeats those around the char.

- No one is truly invulnerable / invincible as a much higher tier or tier 1 attack will defeat him/her. [For a char. stated to invulnerable to all or a certain type of attack/element will have it negated by a higher tier version of the same type / attack, especially tier 1].
Click to expand...
I think this is a good point. Honestly, those with the Invulnerability are not truly invulnerable, just something like Non-Corporeal in most case. They can pretty much be affected by those comparable to them. 675 Characters

 
TheC2 said:
I don't see why two can't go hand in hand. Just because hax may a weakness, doesn't stop it from being hax.
Click to expand...
Because nothing proves it is hax?

The point being made is that invulnerability is just someone having great durability - possibly greater than their AP.
 
Isn't the point of Achilles that his heel is his only weakness because it was the only part of himself not bathed in the River Styx - thus not making it as durable as the rest of his body that was bathed in the River.


Aren't giant weakness called "Achilles' Heel" for that reason?

Except I'm not talking about myth Achilles who you could make that argument about.

I'm talking about Fate Achilles who, apart from his heel, can only be harmed by divine attacks everywhere else
 
Monarch Laciel said:
Except I'm not talking about myth Achilles who you could make that argument about.

I'm talking about Fate Achilles who, apart from his heel, can only be harmed by divine attacks everywhere else
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't his blessing, that boosts his durability in every place but his heel, justs be considered to have a weakness to divinity or holiness?
 
The invulnerability thing was debated before, as others said.

Whether or not the power is meaningful for vs-thread use is secondary (without known mechanism it indeed isn't, in my opinon). What matters is that there is few reason to not list an official ability of a character as such.
 
Warren Valion said:
Why wouldn't his blessing, that boosts his durability in every place but his heel, justs be considered to have a weakness to divinity or holiness?
Click to expand...
Your're looking at it wrong. His blessing doesn't boost his durability. He can't revcieve damage from attacks coming from someone who doesn't have any divinity, unless it's to his heel.

Achilles fought Saber of Black (Siegfried), another servant whose in the same tier has Achilles (7-A). Siegfried was completely unable to damage Achilles no matter what he did because he lacks any divinity. Achilles was taking hits but didn't even have a scratch on him from the assualt.
 
@Monarch Why would that not be a weakness to divinity and attacks on the heel, similar to how its a lot easier to hurt Superman with magic than with other attacks of the same power?

@Don'tTalk The issue is less that the power isn't helpful and more that it's extraneous when characters who have very high durability exist, as well as having resistances to things.
 
Seriously, this is how we define Invulerability on the page:

Invulnerability is the ability to be able to be immune to harm to an 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.
 
The issue is, when not tying it to durability it ends up getting NLFed and shit. Unless they're intangible to non divines or something (which just isn't invulnerability in the first place), Achilles shouldn't be tanking say a 6-C non divine without showings on that level. Since it must be tied to durability in the first place, or risk running afoul of extrapolation, it makes more sense to just consider the ability to take an attack unharmed as some sort of dramatically elevated durability vs non divines.
 
Except how could NLF something that has conditions that define it's use or weaknesses? Sticking with Achilles let's count the ways his ability can be bypassed:

1. Have Divinity or something akin to it, which will allow you to bypass his Invulnability and actually damage him.

2. Achilles' Invulerability doesn't protect him from acts of friendship. EX: A vampire's bite, which isn't meant to kill Achilles but make him an ally.

3. His heel. If damaged, he loses his Invulernability altogether.

4. Something that negates things like blessings from the gods. Achilles, actually, possesses such a thing and will use it if he's given a good enough opponent, just so he can enjoy the fight.

Achilles' Blessing/Invulnerability isn't absolute nor should it be treated as such. Also, any ability can be NLF-ed and just because someone could try and abuse it, isn't enough of a reason to get rid of it. And Invulnerability can be bypassed anyway. Suffocate them, BFR them, Seal them, put them to sleep, etc. Whenever you make a match, the conditions of someone's Invulnerability should be considered quite heavily. If the Invulnerability user's opponent has no way of doing anything like that, then it's a bad matchup or stomp, plain and simple.

Next, you say that Invulnerability has to be tied to durbaility but we have characters that have attacks that aren't tied to an AP value due to their nature. Vergil from Devil May Cry is a Tier 7-8 character with durability ignoring attacks that would allow him to kill characters outside of his Tier should he land any hits. So why can't we character who have defenses that allow them to take attacks way outside their tier?
 
My opinion is the same as most others

Fine with removing OHK, Not so fine with removing invulnerability.
 
I gotta sleep soon, so I'll respond to C2's long post tomorrow.

So far it seems like deleting OHK is pretty unanimous. Invulnerability still quite contentious.

Idk if this needs a highlight, but if someone else thinks it does go for it.
 
The thing is that usually invulnerability's a special power outside of conventional durability, so it can feel weird to put it under durability.
 
If we are going to get rid of OHK, we will need help from Promestein's bot account to update all of the pages that link to it.
 
Shouldn't a precision like "A case of invulnerability only is legit if it's said and prove to be an actual power" be good enough?

Like, Superman's "invulnerability" was always him being strong, while they are characters who have explications like "100/100 reduced damage from physical attacks".
 
@YuriAkuto

I would say so. You should only have Invulnerability if it goes beyond normal durability.

@Ant

I believe that we've done a good job of describing what Invulernability is and have given good examples of characters on the page. What has gone wrong is that we've been lax in our standards of who gets it.

We haven't enforced what we put on the page.
 
@TheC2

Okay. Noted.

Can somebody inform Promestein and Darkanine about this thread? They use a script that can update the pages that link to OHK.
 
That doesn't seem like a useful page either.
 
Is somebody willing to ask them to participate in this thread?
 
I'm late to the conversation but there's a character that's described as being completely invulnerable for 60 seconds (an attack to the head caused the weapon used in the attack to be repelled back).

Is it NLF for drastically higher AP? Maybe but for all intents and purposes that within the tier they are in they should be considered invulnerable to attack at least.
 
As for smite there's are verses where smite is the literal power they use. For Supernatural that is the main attack used by Angels for example. Perhaps smite could be used as a subset from holy manipulation but as durability negation instead since I remember the page being quite nlf iirc.
 
Antvasima said:
Is somebody willing to ask them to participate in this thread?
Click to expand...
I've asked Promestein.
 
Nico-v11 said:
As for smite there's are verses where smite is the literal power they use. For Supernatural that is the main attack used by Angels for example. Perhaps smite could be used as a subset from holy manipulation but as durability negation instead since I remember the page being quite nlf iirc.
Click to expand...
In supernatural it's the name of a specific technique, but it can fall under just matter / death hax. "Smiting" isn't really a unique power
 
@Monarch do you mean unique in that it's not consistent with showings of it which means we can't gauge it properly?
 
Smiting isn't a power on its own.

It might be death hax, it might be matter hax, it might be soul hax, depending on its mechanics, but "smiting" is nothing on its own.
 
Nico-v11 said:
@Monarch do you mean unique in that it's not consistent with showings of it which means we can't gauge it properly?
Click to expand...
I think he means something like "It's not very different from other things in fiction, it fits under the matter/death hax pages fine, it doesn't deserve its own page"
 
I suppose that makes sense but it's usually tied with with a deity or being of such nature which could be above other beings which allow them to "smite" lower beings (in title not stats).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Makai641001
Invulnerability negation for 4kota
Replies
12
Views
644
Damage3245
Damage3245
Maverick_Zero_X
  • Locked
Shadow Queen Invulnerability removal
Replies
6
Views
467
ZespeonGalaxy
ZespeonGalaxy
Just_Butchering
Invulnerability in The Boys
Replies
27
Views
2K
Just_Butchering
Just_Butchering
  • Locked
Invulnerability: Let's talk about it.
2 3
Replies
94
Views
7K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
azontr
Mori Dan additions (Skill/Technique Revision)
Replies
17
Views
1K
azontr
azontr
Back
Top