• 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.
The things I personally have a problem with are:

1. This "3-D ~ 4-D Acausality" thing that, being frank, seems out of nowhere to me and should be discarded altogether...

2. And that we should have clear requirements defined for what qualifies a character for the power.

Separating TP Immunity altogether or listing it as a lower type of Acausality, I'm neutral in regards to that.
 
Unfortunately we've severely overcomplicated this, and I fully agree with Dragon and Matt, just like immeasurable speed.
 
How we should treat acausality according to its very definition:

"A state of existence in which the user lacks ties to causality." This means the user is practically immune to anything and everything that can be classified as a cause.

Cause: Hitting someone, Effect: Him taking damage

Cause: Warping time/space/reality around someone, Effect: Him getting affected in certain different ways

As you can see nearly everything we can even think of classifies as a cause.

How I feel most people here treat acausality now:

People who exist outside of time. People who didn't die when there past self died. People who resisted causality manipulation. etc.

Those things, exept the first one, are similar to acausality, for the sake of simplicity we could call them partial acausality. However putting actual acausality on the page of characters who did this is a massive mistake, as true acausality is an insanely powerful ability. I admit outside of 1-A there might only be a handful of characters qualifying for this if any, but we need to make this separation.

Also causality has nothing to do with dimensions altogether. I have no idea where this came from but it doesn't make sense and contradicts the very definition of it. We should get rid of this.
 
How many characters outside of tier 0 or High 1-A have you seen that nope all possible effects in existence passively?
 
I am aware of that fact (except 1-A and above, since those transcend the concept altogether), however that changes neither the original definition nor what this ability truely is.

EDIT: To answer FateAlbanes question. I wouldn't be able to come up with a single one and I would be totally fine with anly 1-As having it.
 
The thing is that the pages for the powers and abilities exist to classify things a character can do. Making a page for something that nobody has is, well, useless.

For the most part, I agree with Matt and Fate here.
 
@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.
 
I agree completely with DaFritzi, but i have a question: Could you replace the common notion of acausality on this site with 'Temporal acausality' or 'time paradox immunity' then?

EDIT: Wow page wasn't refreshed at the time of posting for a while.
 
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...
Alright, we need to rework it a little, then, and make things simpler.
 
Acausality: The ability to ignore one or more cause-effect relationships. This way, a character can be unaffected by having themselves killed in the past or can be born before their parents are born. Characters with this ability aren't neccessarily above causality but are fundamentally outside of an aspect of it.

How would this work.
 
What I disagree about here is using a term against its very definition. For the sake of reaching a conclusion I would be fine with calling it "Partial acausality" though.

PaChi2s definition would fit that quite well.

@Kaltias Look at superpowers wiki they have tons of purely theoretical abilities.
 
Superpower wiki is really not a viable comparison in this case. Even less so when the argument is "they have theoretical abilities".

This kind of unecessary overcomplication is the very reason why this thread even happened in the first place. Agreeing with Matt, Dragon and Repp here.
 
I don't see how using both "Partial acausality" and "Acausality" would make this unnecessary complicated. We would use "Acausality" for all characters who deserve it, namely 1-A and above (and anyone else should there be one) and "Partial acausality" for everything similar to it (see PaChis definition).

What confuses people is the mess we currently have with a single term that is used with lots of different meanings except the one you find in a dictionary.

Having two terms would entirely rid us of this whole problem, since we would have two terms which could be used accordingly to a meaningful definition.
 
Transduality already takes care of transcending cause and effect on every level tho. And that's what the actual acusals are
 
That definition of "Acausality" is borderline "Omnilock" which was banned because 1-As and only 1-As get it by default, while no one else does, so there isn't even any need to list it. There was a thread to remove that ability for this exact reason.

This is overcomplicating it unnecessarily, yes.
 
Instead of arguing over what is wrong with X deffinition, why dont we try to get a "good" deffinition?
 
In that case we shouldn't use the term "Acausality" anymore and only use "Partial acausality" since as you said actual "Acausality" IS borderline "Omnilock".

EDIT: @PaChi2 I think your definition is would fit "Partial acausality" quite well.
 
Or we could call it acausality, explaining in the page how we define it, and that's what we will follow. Try to browse the term "hyperverse" and you'll find a lot of stuff that has nothing to do with 13+Dimensional multiverses. Doesn't mean that we don't treat the word "hyperverse" the way we do
 
DaFritzi said:
snip
Click to expand...
1. While I'm definitely not using that... You mentioned SP wiki. Even SP wiki has limitations to the power and mentions immunity to external effects from Causality Related abilities.

2. No it isn't. Omnilock is existing outside of everything. And like both I and Dragon pointed above, not even 1-A characters are fitting this description of Acausality you're bringing up, since we do see them fighting each other at times and being affected. That's extrapolating Acausality a lot by looking too much at semantics.
 
@FateAlbane

I said it is borderline Omnilock, I very well know the definition of Omnilock. Also 1-A characters transcend the concept of causality altogether. Whether you are acausal or not matters little to someone beyond the concept.
 
No? Acausal vs Acausal by those terms on the same level would be an eternal stalemate for every 1-A in existence since both would transcend it altogether and be utterly immune to any kind of effect or analogue, no matter how transcendent. Hence why I said by that definition, only High 1-As and 0 would have the ability.
 
By this definitions only High 1-A's to Tier 0 characters would have it. We clearly see 1-A's get hurt and even die to one another.
 
DaFritzi said:
EDIT: To answer FateAlbanes question. I wouldn't be able to come up with a single one and I would be totally fine with anly 1-As having it.
Click to expand...
/\ I asked you this back then and not even you could think of one name with the ability as you are presenting it.
 
They can hurt each other precisely because they are above the concept of causality as a whole. Since they are beyond the concept they are not bound by it and can thus affect acausal beings.

@FateAlbane Which is, as I stated above, why I would agree to removing "Acausality" and replacing it with "Partial Acausality".
 
@DaFritzi What are you basing this claim on, though? They both transcend it altogether by your definition.

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.
 
You seem to forget that we are talking about 1-A characters, who are by their very definition beyond any physical definition, beyond concepts and beyond our complete understanding.
 
To give a way less extreme example, this is the exact reason why Lavos vs BB was an eternal stalemate.

BB couldn't get past Lavos' Acausality in any way whatsoever.

And Lavos couldn't get past BB's defensive Causal hax in any way whatsoever.
 
DaFritzi said:
You seem to forget that we are talking about 1-A characters, who are by their very definition beyond any physical definition, beyond concepts and beyond our complete understanding.
Click to expand...
The argument does not match, because they can still be affected by something going by their showings in their respective verses...
 
If they are affected by another 1-A character this doesn't violate any of my previous arguments. If they are affected by anything below 1-A they shouldn't be in a tier this high to begin with.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Quasar002
Acausality question
Replies
3
Views
777
GreatIskandar14045
GreatIskandar14045
Flashlight237
Dropkick on my Devil! CRT: Examining the Acausality of the Verse
Replies
9
Views
564
Flashlight237
Flashlight237
Shiraito983
Acausality 3 and 4 question
Replies
2
Views
549
Accelerated_Evolution
Accelerated_Evolution
Sonoftanavast9
Re:Zero Acausality Removal [Regulus] | The Rules are way to lax anyway
2 3
Replies
99
Views
8K
CodeCCLL
CodeCCLL
CodeCCLL
  • Locked
Bill Cipher Acausality Revision
Replies
9
Views
2K
StrymULTRA
StrymULTRA
Back
Top