Potential Upgrade to Arceus' Power Null (Or a mountain of new resistances)

[Antvasima]

So what is left to do here?

Also, we preferably need more staff input. You can check the Pokémo verse page and the Knowledgeable Members List to see if any are listed there that you can ask.

 

[Zeifyl]

What's left is to find out if it not affecting passive effects is a game mechanic or not, and to get more staff input.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Feel free to look for knowledgeable staff members, and ask them to comment here via their message walls.

 

[Zeifyl]

I did, thanks.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Seems fine at a glance. What are the arguments against it though?

 

[Zeifyl]

Seems fine at a glance. What are the arguments against it though?

None against all of it, now that it has been demonstrated that both the TCG is as canon as the Anime and Adventures, and that everything on the cards is canon.

Against most of it, that Arceus is 4-D, narrowing it down to First Law nulling the following abilities: Mind Manipulation, Sleep, Confusion, Paralysis, Durability Negation, Memory Manipulation, Paralysis Inducement, Negation, Energy Projection, Spatial Manipulation, likely Time Manipulation, BFR, Power Nullification, and OHK

Furthermore, it needs to be decided if it's a game mechanic or not, that First Law does not work on abilities.

 

[GyroNutz]

Prevention of movement is Paralysis Inducement, prevention of Energy Projection is probably Negation

 

[Zeifyl]

Thanks. Updating.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

I agree with the revisions. I am not too knowledgeable about game verses though, so I am uncertain what should be regarded as a game mechanic.

 

[Dino_Ranger_Black]

Are abilities related to TCG considered canon or at least acceptable? If so, then I personally have no issue with the implementation.

 

[Xerkser500]

Yes

This is a long thread but many comments above have brought explanation and evidence to support the TCG being very canon and acceptable for the Pokemon pages.

 

[Dino_Ranger_Black]

In that case then, I don't oppose to the suggestions.

 

[Shadowbokunohero]

This seems fine

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

It should be noted that some of the stuff posted here explicitly would not be resisted.

Something like Darkrai's Dark Cleave does not interact with Arceus' First Law, as it is not something "done to this pokemon". It's just that the attack "ignores resistances".

It would also not stop Palkia's healing, as this is something done to Palkia, not Arceus.

Even taking this ability at face value, a lot of these powers aren't actually stopped.

To my understanding, the ability must explicitly be tied to an attack and the effect must be something that says it is done to Arceus ("the defending pokemon").

 

[Wokistan]

So it functions like Progenitus' "Immunity to everything" where it doesn't resist stuff that doesn't specifically target it?

 

[Everything12]

We don't have actually have it ignore Palkia's healing, and now that I think about the resistance ignoring effect might be nulled, it might fall under the whole not negating damage thing, it would useful if someone could actually test the cards effect online because then we would by able to find out how it works in these cases.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

So it functions like Progenitus' "Immunity to everything" where it doesn't resist stuff that doesn't specifically target it?

Yes, it's kind of like a worse version of that.

We should apply resistance to everything to Progenitus' page.

 

[Kepekley23]

To my understanding, the ability must explicitly be tied to an attack and the effect must be something that says it is done to Arceus ("the defending pokemon").

I agree. I was wondering about something like this too.

 

[Everything12]

Yep, we've talked about this and any effect that effects; the player, the deck, the beched Pokémon, the Pokémon who is attacking, or the prize cards, aren't nulled by Arceus and we've created a list of effect that don't fall under that list or is covered by Arceus' higher dimensional existence. Though their is still a bit of confusion if stuff like resistance negation and passivies are effected, considering it only effects attacks and not abilities, I personally belive passivies aren't nulled.

 

[Xerkser500]

It should be noted that some of the stuff posted here explicitly would not be resisted.

Something like Darkrai's Dark Cleave does not interact with Arceus' First Law, as it is not something "done to this pokemon". It's just that the attack "ignores resistances".

It would also not stop Palkia's healing, as this is something done to Palkia, not Arceus.

Even taking this ability at face value, a lot of these powers aren't actually stopped.

To my understanding, the ability must explicitly be tied to an attack and the effect must be something that says it is done to Arceus ("the defending pokemon").

This was already addressed me thinks.

However, I disagree on the part with Darkrai's Dark Cleave because it actually is interacting with the defending Pokemon (Arceus)

The move description explicity says that "This attacks damage isnt effected by resistance". That means that when the attack lands, the resistance of the defending pokemon isnt factored in. So in this sense, the defending pokemon is being interacted with Dark Cleave because its resistance is being bypassed. The move is interacting with their resistance.

Replace "defending pokemon" with Arceus. All First Law is unable to do is nullify damage. That doesnt mean First Law cant negate the "bypassing resistance" component of the move. First Law would make it so that Arceus's resistance is factored in.

He would still take damage but first law would make it so his resistance lessens the intial amount.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

The move description explicity says that "This attacks damage isnt effected by resistance". That means that when the attack lands, the resistance of the defending pokemon isnt factored in. So in this sense, the defending pokemon is being interacted with Dark Cleave because its resistance is being bypassed. The move is interacting with their resistance.

I haven't played the Pokemon TCG in years, but I'm almost certain this isn't how it works. The effect specifically has to target Arceus and be tied to an attack.

Every successful TCG tries to make their wording as literal and clear cut as possible so that people don't stop a game to argue about it for half an hour, especially not during potential tournaments.

Dark Cleave is an attack that makes no mention whatsoever of the defending pokemon, or any pokemon for that matter. Its exact wording is "This attack's damage isn't affected by Resistance", thus there is no interaction with First Law. If it was instead something like "Negate the defending pokemon's Resistance when using this attack", you could make the argument. The overall effect would be the same in most cases, but the exact wording, and thus interaction with this ability, would not. This doesn't even really matter in this case, as this Arceus card resists absolutely nothing due to being normal type, but still.

This is also part of the danger of trying to apply a game mechanic card effect 100% literally to Arceus in any other actual setting, as the power itself isn't explained and doesn't make a lot of sense from a logical perspective, as it is designed to work from a gameplay one.

 

[Zeifyl]

Removed Res Neg.

 

[Xerkser500]

Except it does make mention of a defending pokemon. Through their resistance.

Dark Cleaves attack damage isnt effected by resistance. That means the moment it hits the target, their resistance is being ignored, which at that point means its making interaction with them because its bypassing their resistance.

You cant effect someone's resistance without effecting the invidivual in question. The resistance is apart of them.

 

[Wokistan]

What he is saying is that "resistance" does not cover First Law, because it refers to resistance as a game mechanic. TCGs are written super specifically on purpose. For an example from another game, this is Dismiss into Dream. It means that any creatures your opponents control that get targeted by something get Sac'ed. Now, this is Goblin Diplomat. It's ability would appear to target every enemy creature at once, right? That's certainly how it could easily be interpreted under normal English and how I thought it worked when I was younger. So this means I can combo these two cards together to constantly board wipe right? Well, no. Since Diplomats didn't say "target creature", the opponents shit isn't becoming a target at any point so this combo doesn't work. A similar example is how things like Damnatio can kill stuff like Emrakul and Progenitus despite their incredibly broad immunities, card games just are that pedantic. I know that those were MTG examples and this is Pokémon, but the point is that this type of specificity is par for the course in trading card games, which Azathoth was trying to say.

Since First Law is not called a resistance, for the purposes of game text it just isn't. Therefore Dark Cleave doesn't bypass it and Darkrai should not have that degree of resistance negation listed. If you're gonna use game text for stuff you have to play by the rules of game text.

 

[Xerkser500]

First of all, im pretty sure the "game mechanics" argument doesnt even apply to Pokemons TCG because, as I shown before above, the card game effects are blatantly real in the TCG manga. So im not even sure how game mechanics actually factor into this as much as your side is saying it does.

Second, when im talking about "resistance" im not talking about First Law. Im talking about Arceus specifically. If Arceus were to be hit by Darkrai's Dark Cleave, Dark Cleave's attack damage would, by it's mechanics, ignore Arceus's resistances and do damage that isn't surpressed or anything as such. But First Law should negate the "bypassing resistance" aspect and actually factor in Arceus's resistances, therefore changing the initial amount of damage Arceus would be given.

I don't know what the "First Law isnt called a resistance" part has anything to do with this because I never said First Law was a resistance.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

First of all, im pretty sure the "game mechanics" argument doesnt even apply to Pokemons TCG because, as I shown before above, the card game effects are blatantly real in the TCG manga. So im not even sure how game mechanics actually factor into this as much as your side is saying it does.

This is the same case for M:tG, where the cards act as representations of things the characters can actually do.

We still have to think about it logically and consider when something is a game mechanic.

Progenitus in lore should not have immunity/extreme resistance to literally everything ever, except for when that thing doesn't directly affect him and is instead an AOE. It's very clearly a game mechanic, and at most expresses that he's resistant to much or all of the powers of his home plane/those used against him.

There being a manga does not suddenly make every game mechanic a completely legit translation of every Pokemon's ability.

 

[Xerkser500]

Of course not, that's not what I'm saying here at all Azzy.

What I am saying is that because the card effects are proven to be real, I'm not seeing how game mechanics apply to this topic as much as your arguing it does.

"Everything not being a game mechanic" is not something I ever said or agree with.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Except, again, the issue is that this ability has nothing but a game mechanic to be defined by. There is no lore behind it, and all we know is that going by an old manga, it's "based on a real thing". We have no idea how it actually works in lore, what it is, or why the restrictions are so specific, though for the last one, I'd argue it's for very clear game balance reasons.

 

[Elizhaa]

Honestly, by Occam's Razors, it is likely Game Mechanics like Azathoth said.

 

[Xerkser500]

Eevee, Dark Charmander, and several other pokemon with card abilities don't have lore behind them anymore than First Law does. Doesnt mean they arent actual real moves when they're proven to be such.

Again, im not saying "everything isnt game mechanics" but for this case I feel we are being overly too restrictive. We know what "resistance" in this context is referring to (Arceus) and as I pointed out, you cannot bypass someones resistance without your hax, attack, technique, etc. interact with that individual.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Dark Charmander is a simple Pokemon (and also a member of an entire species) with a power that amounts to "can siphon fire from its surroundings and allies".

This is the verse's uncontested god tier, with a vague ability written in a way leaning almost completely towards game mechanics. Trying to then take that and add a bunch of resistances that Arceus has never demonstrated anywhere is...odd, to say the least. It's also something that is extremely hard to actually back up with one sentence of rules from a single trading card.

 

[Xerkser500]

I don't know what the "bunch of resistances" is supposed to clarify but it was pretty well agreed above that First Law would only give Arceus resistances from the moves of Pokemon that aren't infinitely insignificant to him in every possible way. Which is like only 8.

And him being resistant to pokemon he himself created, that are parts of himself, and pokemon comparable to those creations is not out of left field in the slightest to me.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

This is even more arbitrary then, because we are using a TCG effect to scale him to a specific set of TCG cards due to an unexplained ability.

It's not even accurate on his page, as it says First Law negates Resistance Negation, which is false, since there is no interaction. This is part of the problem of trying to scale a lore character to something that exists as nothing beyond game mechanics.

 

[Wokistan]

WHat I was saying about using game mechanics is that if we are to use something that is purely a game mechanic like this we need to consider it by the rules ''established by that game mechanic.'' This means we wouldn't scale it out to Darkrai's thing because the two mechanics never interact.

 

[Xerkser500]

Its not arbitrary as it was already proven above that Pokemon can and have used moves that aren't listed on a specific card for them (and it would be game mechanics in itself anyway, unless you want to think a Pokemon only knows 2 or 3 moves at the most). Plus, why would First Law be limited in what cards its ability is useful against anyway? Theres nothing that even implies this and to suggest so requires blatant evidence. Otherwise, occams razor dictates all Pokemon TC's fall under it.

The "negates Resistance Negation" part either comes from Darkrais Dark Cleave (which we're discussing right now) or another mon whos attack does interact with Arceus.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Okay, but again, none of this is remotely based on the lore. It's not even based on descriptions from the TCG. It's entirely based on stuff that exists purely as game mechanics, and because of that, even taking all of this at face value, none of these are resisted unless added on to another attack.

Similarly, again going back to Progenitus, if we take his card at face value, he is immune to literally everything that can conceivably be done directly to him, but is vulnerable to said things if he is affected without them targeting him. Does this make sense in the lore? No, because it's designed to only be a card effect that acts as a vague representation of Progenitus, not some infallible power that WotC's writing team intended to work a certain way in canon.

This is a ridiculous way of gathering powers for something without anything in the lore to actually back it up, and should not be applied to Arceus just because some manga says that what's on its card is based on something, without us knowing exactly what that something is and how it works.

 

[Wokistan]

http://i.tcgplayer.com/28587_200w.jpg

This is Progenitus' card, if you're unaware of what he's referring to. Yes it is real.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Imagine thinking that the game mechanics rules for a freaking trading card game is valid lore to give overpowered power nuliffication for Arceus.

This is so wrong I can't even begin.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Honestly, a lot of the Pokemon TCG abilities are extremely poorly integrated into the profiles. Giratina's profile gives him Power Nullification based on the TCG, and the reasoning is awful.

"Shadow Force in the TCG has a 50% chance of making the opponent's next attack completely useless, damage, hax, and all."

This is bullshit. We know what the attack is based on (Shadow Force), and the reason nothing affects Giratina when he does this is because he straight up vanishes. You can see this happen in the games.

"The Devour Light ability prevents other abilities from activating as long as Giratina is out."

Also bullshit. This only affects BREAK Pokemon.

"The Renegade Pulse ability negates the effects of attacks, including damage, that hit it"

Once again, lying by omission. Renegade Pulse only affects Megas.


It's not even like this is taken care of through verse equalization, as it's flat out restricted to certain groups of Pokemon. A lot of this honestly just seems to be done for the sake of making the god tiers more powerful while willfully ignoring the blatant game mechanic restrictions that are there because these aren't fleshed out lore abilities, but powers designed to work in a game with no in-universe description. I should have addressed this, a while ago.