• 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.

Our rules on Acausality

Status
Not open for further replies.
FateAlbane said:
Acausality is a defensive ability. It doesn't automatically make one able to hit/affect/kill another one who is as transcendent as they are. Again, they would be eternally stalemated because both transcend any notion of being affected by anything whatsoever.

You having no examples to give further solidifies this notion.
Click to expand...
^
 
1-A characters can still be comprehended tho. They are just dimensionless. If you want more details, read here, because I don't have the time to explain all of it again.

And acausality doesn't mean that you can get past someone else's acausality, the same way you can have a character able to soulscrew planets, without being soul resistant itself
 
Since when do we view them as entirely comprehendable? Our definition of 1-A: "beyond scientific definition, completely abstract and transcendental, beyond concepts". We can try to compare them if the people debating have enough knowledge on them, at least we think so. But can we truely comprehend their true nature? Hardly, we can define them by being beyond definition and we can compare their feats with those of others on their level, but not much more.

@Fate

I never once said acausality lets you bypass another ones acausality. I said a 1-A character can bypass what we define as acausality.

Acausality the way we define it doesn't exist to 1-A and above characters. By the virtue of being above the concept of causality they will not be hindered by an opponents acausality. Should a 1-A character demonstrate an ability similar to acausality working on another 1-A then it must have been an entirely different ability working by whatever mechanics apply to them.

To get back to your example neither BB nor Lavos transcend the concept of causality as a whole, so it's only natural it became a stalemate.
 
I see a circular pattern in this discussion, so, seeing how mostly everyone in the thread so far disagrees to this notion you're presenting (and since after all this, I'm positive nothing I say will convince you otherwise), I'll disagree with it as well based on everything that was previously stated.

Agreeing with Dragon, Reppu, Matthew, Kaltias and most people on the thread.
 
We can totally comprehend them, since we have, you know, created them.

If 1-As are acausal only for beings bounded by dimensions, that's not even acausality, it's basic transcendence. Just like 4D beings are completely impossible to affect for 3D beings.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
I agree that our current rules and standards for Acausality are a mess and extremely overcomplicated, and this started with splitting Acausality and Time Paradox Immunity into two things.
Click to expand...
It was a mess well before that thank you very much. I was trying to fix it.The main problem with the original acausality, and the reason I did a CRT for it, was that it is absolutely inane and ridiculous that someone surviving their past self being killed, or even just maintaining memories of a previous timeline, somehow gives a person immunity to causality manipulation, time manipulation, and makes them only killable via high level reality warping, which is what the acausality page was saying.

That is stupid. There is no way in hell that staying around after your past self dies somehow means that you can resist causality manipulation nulling your powers or straight up erasing you.

All I did was take the definition of acausality as we had it at the time to its logical conclusion that everyone else seemed all to willing to ignore, despite that being exactly what was being written in the acausality definition page.

Seriously, it is not hard. If you are acausal, it means you are free from cause and effect, which means nothing working by your system of cause and effect can affect you. So you can only be harmed by a higher level system of cause and effect, e.g. cause and effect working on higher dimensional time. It is a broken power, and far too many characters had it added merely for the feat of living after their past self died.

From what I see here, people are far too interested in simplicity, and not nearly interested enough in accuracy.
 
@Monarch Surviving their past self being killed literally equals noping the causality of space-time correcting itself and erasing you accordingly. It's one very solid resistance feat. Though like I said, I don't mind a separation of these two.

As for the second definition, that's extrapolating Acausality to the point where nobody will have the ability if it means "nothing ever works". Unless you mean offensive Causality related powers, in which case, yes.
 
Sorry. I just woke up and was presented with a thread that appeared to be trying to undo a very large revision that I strongly believed in. I'll be civil

Surviving their past self dying is barely ever treated as "noping the causality of space-time and it erasing you accordingly" though (except in rare cases like that Athena's Saint). Most of the time its just treated like "oh hey, they're still around somehow", and it seems stupid to me to say that makes them immune to offensive causality manipulation.
 
I have to agree, this discussion will lead to nothing. A few statements from my side before we end this.

Using a term contradictorily to its commonly accepted dictionary definition is unprofessional and will keep confusing people.

It seems that all of us have different interpretations of 1-A and it seems that even if I go strictly by the definition we use for our tiering system my arguments get rejected. I am at a loss which definition to use as a basis for argumentation if not even the one on our own page gets accepted for it.

Apologies if that sounded rude.
 
The thing is that it isn't treated this way but, it is "negating causality erasing you accordingly".

Just because it is or isn't treated as something impressive, doesn't mean much. Fiction treats surviving the core of the Sun as an unbelievable feat that only obscenely powerful characters can do, and it's like, MCB. If that's what the feat logically implies, that's what we should follow. Not what the author thought.
 
@Monarch I see where you're coming from with the TP part, hence why I said that I can go with that. In fact, I could go with either side in regards to this one, myself (not sure if I pointed this above but I'm mostly neutral in regards to the TP Immunity thing).
 
"Most of the time its just treated like "oh hey, they're still around somehow", and it seems stupid to me to say that makes them immune to offensive causality manipulation."

Not really. The only example I can think where that happens is movies like Back to the Future. In most every example where that happens the context is that the character has powers. For instance, Castiel from Supernatural is immune to the Timeline being rewritten by Balthazar changing the past because he's an Angel, while Sam and Dean get affected completely.
 
Also, Monarch and DaFritzi, I mean no disrespect, but I think that you are thinking rather Suggs-like here. You are interpreting the idea of Acausality to its most illogical extreme and stating that everything that doesn't meet this impossible standard isn't Acausality.

This is exactly the same thing as thinking that Immortality means that you are a Tier 0 who can never die ever period.
 
I'd say what I'm interpreting it to is its logical extreme.

Immortality has different types, even without the system here. Age without youth, eternal youth, soul jar based immortality, etc. Immortality in no way makes someone tier 0

Acausality on the other hand is by its definition, existing outside of causality. Would we say someone transcendent to concepts can be affected by them? Or a 1-A being transcendent to dimensions can be affected by them?
 
But even 1-As punch each other in the face all the time. Does that mean that they don't have Acausality?

Saint Seiya Gods who are also blatantly Acausal punch each other.

SMT Gods like Lucifer who exist outside the laws of physics, and are unbound by the time of the multiverse while also existing eternally across time also punch people in the face.

People in fiction who are Acausal clearly can be affected by physical and direct means.

The extreme interpretation of the old definition of Acausality we had does not reflect fiction in the slightest, and that's why it's wrong.
 
Here's what I think:

Acausality should stay as an immunity to Casuality Manipulation by only to anyone with an equal and/or a lower tier than you. Anyone who is a higher tier than you that can manipulate Causality can still affect you & no, there is truly no immunity to this superpower at all unless you have omnipotence (which is technically the only exception to that).

http://powerlisting.wikia.com/wiki/Causality_Immunity

Here are the only known abilities that would be considered as Resistance to Causality Manipulation.

 
That is also leaning too much to NLF on the other side, in this case thinking that simply being stronger means their hax will bypass your resistance to said hax.

Case by Case Analysis is besto, like always.
 
That's against what acausality actually is, but ok I get what you are saying. Fiction works differently.

But I still think that surving a past self dying doesn't mean complete immunity to offensive causality manipulation. Plus there are some cases where the power is just "can't be killed by killing their past self" like the Independent Manifestation skill in Nasuverse. It doesn't mean they are immune to all causality manipulation, like destroying causality to erase them or causing a break down of causality to ignore all defenses
 
The Everlasting said:
>Trying to use Superpower wiki abilities AGAIN
Please stop.
Click to expand...
> Not realizing that almost all of these abilities are also used on VSBW

Well? Do you have any better suggestions @The Everlasting?
 
Monarch Laciel said:
The main problem with the original acausality, and the reason I did a CRT for it, was that it is absolutely inane and ridiculous that someone surviving their past self being killed, or even just maintaining memories of a previous timeline, somehow gives a person immunity to causality manipulation, time manipulation, and makes them only killable via high level reality warping, which is what the acausality page was saying.

That is stupid. There is no way in hell that staying around after your past self dies somehow means that you can resist causality manipulation nulling your powers or straight up erasing you.

All I did was take the definition of acausality as we had it at the time to its logical conclusion that everyone else seemed all to willing to ignore, despite that being exactly what was being written in the acausality definition page.

Seriously, it is not hard. If you are acausal, it means you are free from cause and effect, which means nothing working by your system of cause and effect can affect you. So you can only be harmed by a higher level system of cause and effect, e.g. cause and effect working on higher dimensional time. It is a broken power, and far too many characters had it added merely for the feat of living after their past self died.

From what I see here, people are far too interested in simplicity, and not nearly interested enough in accuracy.
Click to expand...
I agree with Monarch Laciel. Acausality has much wider implications than time paradox immunity/being immune to being killed in the past, and as such it would cause confusion among people reading the profiles, and add unnecessary work to our busy schedules to merge together the powers again, and modify all of the profiles listing it.
 
I'm sorry, Antvasima, but I completely disagree, and Monarch Laciel's points are based on an extremely high-end interpretation of Acausality which does not reflect how fiction actually portrays it. It is basically pushing the notion to it's biggest extreme.

It only makes things far more overcomplicated than they were.

And as Everlasting pointed out, nobody is saying what he says we are saying in his post.
 
FateAlbane said:
As for the second definition, that's extrapolating Acausality to the point where nobody will have the ability if it means "nothing ever works". Unless you mean offensive Causality related powers, in which case, yes.
Click to expand...
/\ Again, literally 0 people will qualify if that definition gets through.

As for TP immunity being separated, I'm neutral in regards to that, like I already said.

If this definition becomes the standard, be ready to delete Acausality from any and everyone below High 1-A.
 
Perhaps we should return to the original topic of the thread, and focus on the following sentence:

"Often, even if an acausal being is killed in the present, it can still survive by appearing from another timeline."

Perhaps this part should simply be removed from the acausality description? Other than that, it does not seem too hard to comprehend.
 
Also, being killed in the past and still being alive in the present should technically also entail that dying in the present would mean you still exist in the future.
 
The thing is that our current Acausality definition, coupled with the splitting of an application of Acausality into a different power, is causing major issues and needs a severe revision. Reppuzan already suggested a new definition that is much easier to comprehend.

Basically, things need improvements, our current Acausality description is an NLF.
 
Reppuzan said:
@Matt
I honestly don't care if we remove Time Paradox Immunity or not.

But if we do, I'd like to revise our current definition of Acausality.

Acausality is the ability to be unaffected by attacks reliant on cause and effect or changes to the past. For example, being killed or having one's history changed a significant amount of time in the past will not affect an Acausal character in the present or future. However, these characters are not immortal and are often vulnerable to attacks and thus being killed in the present.
This clears up any confusion about being unhinged from the laws of cause and effect when compared to our current definition.
Click to expand...
/\ This suggestion was the most generally accepted to my understanding. Then, we work from here.
 
@Matthew

Well, I have a serious problem listing, for example, The Doctor (Doctor Who) with full acausality, simply because he is resistant to changes in his past timeline. Separating the abilities is far less confusing to casual visitors, as they will know exactly which ability that the characters have demonstrated.

We will gain nothing, and make the wiki more confusing with more NLF interpretations, if we start an unnecessary revision project for this, when we are already planning a few far more relevant ones.
 
Reppuzan said:
@Matt
I honestly don't care if we remove Time Paradox Immunity or not.

But if we do, I'd like to revise our current definition of Acausality.

Acausality is the ability to be unaffected by attacks reliant on cause and effect or changes to the past. For example, being killed or having one's history changed a significant amount of time in the past will not affect an Acausal character in the present or future. However, these characters are not immortal and are often vulnerable to attacks and thus being killed in the present.
This clears up any confusion about being unhinged from the laws of cause and effect when compared to our current definition.
Click to expand...
Except "attacks reliant on cause and effect" is literally all attacks ever. Cause = you attack. Effect = target gets hurt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Quasar002
Acausality question
Replies
3
Views
860
GreatIskandar14045
GreatIskandar14045
Flashlight237
Dropkick on my Devil! CRT: Examining the Acausality of the Verse
Replies
9
Views
682
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Shiraito983
Acausality 3 and 4 question
Replies
2
Views
558
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
Sonoftanavast9
Re:Zero Acausality Removal [Regulus] | The Rules are way to lax anyway
2 3
Replies
100
Views
9K
Phsccarvalho
Phsccarvalho
CodeCCLL
  • Locked
Bill Cipher Acausality Revision
Replies
9
Views
2K
StrymULTRA
StrymULTRA
Back
Top