• 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.

Question regarding Type 5 Acausality

Yemma670 said:
But you're the confused one tho?

It's your own fault if you don't understand how it works. What's been put there is the right thing
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t. We just redefined it from the staff discussion/CRT for it.

You are arguing this is the one true interpretation and no, it is not my fault of my own
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
No, it isn’t. We just redefined it from the staff discussion/CRT for it.

You are arguing this is the one true interpretation and no, it is not my fault of my own
Click to expand...
Yes. DT looked at it and it was fine. Other staff looked at it, fine

So what's your issue here?
 
Yemma670 said:
Alright. Explain the difference between beyond causality and transcends causality


You never answered that iirc
Click to expand...
I just literally just did multiple times and you refused to even refute it properly.

Yemma670 said:
Yes. DT looked at it and it was fine. Other staff looked at it, fine

So what's your issue here?
Click to expand...
The issue is the wording in Type 5 casuality. Also DT isn’t the end all debates as that CRT will mean we have to clarify on Type 4 causality as well.
 
In the end, I think context is the most important thing, it doesn't matter if it's beyond or transcends, if they have enough anti feats both get bunked down and if they have enough supporting evidence both get bumped up.

If a character is truly Acausality Type 5 then they shouldn't only rely on two words to get that status.
 
Okay. So basically it's you who has an issue, not staff. Nice.

OP question has been answered. Take it to crt if you want your issue to be looked at
 
ActuallySpaceMan said:
In the end, I think context is the most important thing, it doesn't matter if it's beyond or transcends, if they have enough anti feats both get bunked down and if they have enough supporting evidence both get bumped up.

If a character is truly Acausality Type 5 then they shouldn't only rely on two words to get that status.
Click to expand...
Exactly
 
Yemma670 said:
Okay. So basically it's you who has an issue, not staff. Nice.

OP question has been answered. Take it to crt if you want your issue to be looked at
Click to expand...
DT did have a issue with the definition of Acausality Type 5 specifically at the time, but again, you have to directly consult with @Everything12 as it was his proposal for the change and if he thinks the issue is valid in the wording, then that is ultimately something have to been dealt with.
 
Yemma670 said:
Okay. So basically it's you who has an issue, not staff. Nice.

OP question has been answered. Take it to crt if you want your issue to be looked at
Click to expand...
No, you actually answered it wrong. His question is
Quite frankly, I just want to ask (As someone who largely didn't participate in the thread): Why is that, exactly? Cause and effect, by definition, are just the principle of "An event is dependent on (Caused by) another," so why does existing beyond that not qualify for Type 5, on its own?
Click to expand...
And the real answer is context!!!!!!!!! Since it can either qualify for acc type 4 or acc type 5. And if it is one statement, then it would only qualify for acc type 4.
 
Dread said:
No, you actually answered it wrong. His question is

And the real answer is context!!!!!!!!! Since it can either qualify for acc type 4 or acc type 5. And if it is one statement, then it would only qualify for acc type 4.
Click to expand...
We should just get @Everything12 ‘ s opinion on the matter as Ultima was confused about it.
 
Dread said:
No, you actually answered it wrong. His question is

And the real answer is context!!!!!!!!! Since it can either qualify for acc type 4 or acc type 5. And if it is one statement, then it would only qualify for acc type 4.
Click to expand...
Just ignore him as ultimately the one who can directly answer this question is @Everything12 .
 
Yemma670 said:
Same as Transcendence.


In other words water is wet and the sky is blue
Click to expand...
You are being ignorant ngl. I said beyond Causality or transcending it won't grant him Acc type 5 without any statement that proves that. At best, acc type 4. No, you answered his question wrong, and let's not derail till Staff comes and explains us better.
 
Dread said:
You are being ignorant ngl. I said beyond Causality or transcending it won't grant him Acc type 5 without any statement that proves that. At best, acc type 4. No, you answered his question wrong, and let's not derail till Staff comes and explains us better.
Click to expand...
I said beyond causality is the same as transcendence

OP was worried there's a difference, of which there is not
 
Yemma670 said:
I said beyond causality is the same as transcendence
Click to expand...
Quite frankly, I just want to ask (As someone who largely didn't participate in the thread): Why is that, exactly? Cause and effect, by definition, are just the principle of "An event is dependent on (Caused by) another," so why does existing beyond that not qualify for Type 5, on its own?
Click to expand...
I bolded the question for you, so you can read.
 
Yemma670 said:
Yes? So what?

It's already answered. If he can't be interacted with then it's type 5
Click to expand...
Yemma670 said:
Beyond causality
This statement can be interpreted in one way and one way alone. Qualitative Superiority over causality.
Click to expand...
Yemma670 said:
You don't understand then. If you're beyond causality it's type 5.

Most of type 4 are there simply because of anti feats.

In fact the only reason why Slime for example, doesn't qualify for type 5 is because even though they exist beyond the laws of their world(causal laws are one of them in verse) , they can still be interacted with
Click to expand...
Yemma, let's stop arguing. I am tired of this. The question is if it qualifies for type 5. And I said it is not. It can qualify for type 4 or type 5 (if it has more context).
About interacting, it is self-explanatory.
 
Yes it does

Look no further than Acausality type 5 description.

And yes, it will require more context. Transcendence also won't get you anything without context
 
Yemma670 said:
Yes it does

Look no further than Acausality type 5 description.

And yes, it will require more context. Transcendence also won't get you anything without context
Click to expand...
It would qualify for type 4 if there is no context. (my last message till staff came and comment on it)
 
Dread said:
And the real answer is context!!!!!!!!! Since it can either qualify for acc type 4 or acc type 5. And if it is one statement, then it would only qualify for acc type 4.
Click to expand...
That answer misses the point by a mile. The point of the example was to make an hypothetical case where a character does, in fact, transcend causality in the most literal, legitimate way possible, and then ask why that wouldn't qualify for Type 5. Your answer makes it sound like it does, in principle, qualify, but that you'd have to prove it is actually the case for the character in question, which would make that addendum to the power's description frankly pretty useless.
 
Ultima_Reality said:
That answer misses the point by a mile. The point of the example was to make an hypothetical case where a character does, in fact, transcend causality in the most literal, legitimate way possible, and then ask why that wouldn't qualify for Type 5. Your answer makes it sound like it does, in principle, qualify, but that you'd have to prove it is actually the case for the character in question, which would make that addendum to the power's description frankly pretty useless.
Click to expand...
I believe it had to do with antifeats as in they actually can been interact with normal means and might actually act as a disqualification if the antifeats are pretty consistent. There is also the fact if it truly qualifies for it being Acausality Type 5 or not.
 
Last edited:
Ultima_Reality said:
That answer misses the point by a mile. The point of the example was to make a hypothetical case where a character does transcend causality in the most literal, legitimate way possible, and then ask why that wouldn't qualify for Type 5. Your answer makes it sound like it does, in principle, qualify, but that you'd have to prove it is the case for the character in question, which would make that addendum to the power's description frankly pretty useless.
Click to expand...
My point is that even if they are impossible to interact with, it just means they have a different causality system. It is not always necessary to believe that when someone says “I am beyond the causality” or “I transcend the causality” directly, he is above all. It can also mean, he is on different causality which is higher/different in-laws. This is my point. The context is key, but one statement like “beyond causality” = Acc type 5 is invalid (at least for me). We need more context for that. Someone who is on system A can never interact with someone who is in a different system (system B) since their cause and effect is different to others.
 
Dread said:
My point is that even if they are impossible to interact with, it just means they have a different causality system. It is not always necessary to believe that when someone says “I am beyond the causality” or “I transcend the causality” directly, he is above all. It can also mean, he is on different causality which is higher/different in-laws. This is my point. The context is key, but one statement like “beyond causality” = Acc type 5 is invalid (at least for me). We need more context for that. Someone who is on system A can never interact with someone who is in a different system (system B) since their cause and effect is different to others.
Click to expand...
But by those principles... not a single character who is currently Type 5 actually qualifies for such a level.
  • We would not have sufficient evidence if they really are above any and all systems of causality or if there is actually a (higher or different) system of causality they would be subjected to, we just do not know it.
  • Even if they are impossible to interact with due to existing past causality, there still would not be enough proof that they exist above causality, they just exist in an irregular system of causality we don't understand. In a sense, they would not have Type 5, just Type 4+ or whatever.
  • A character who can interact with a being who is "perfectly acausal" is automatically an anti-feat no matter how you slice it. A character with Acausality 5 is supposed to be a being who exists beyond the principles of cause and effect; they'd probably be free from any sort of change whatsoever. They are unchangeable and ineffable, thus are impossible to interact with. If there happens to be a character who can effect them despite their claims, that automatically means they didn't have Type 5 Acausality in the first place and simply operated under a different or higher system entirely.
  • Even if a character claims to be perfectly acausal, proves it as such and seems to follow logic and principles which align it, we'd still have room to doubt if it's genuine because there's a possibility that there is a system of causality they are subjected to (ie. the plot or the story itself) that even they don't know about.
I don't really know all too much about acausality (nowhere near as much as Ultima and others) and I could be wrong here and there, but I feel that the explanation offered by the new definition is a little bit sus for my sensibilities.
 
Last edited:
You make great point. And Tbh it's not strict.....

Dread and Hammwestrike make it seem so


All you need to show is that you can't be interacted with because you exist beyond the principles of causality in your verse. That is all you need, to get Type 5
 
Yemma670 said:
You make great point. And Tbh it's not strict.....

Dread and Hammwestrike make it seem so


All you need to show is that you can't be interacted with because you exist beyond the principles of causality in your verse. That is all you need, to get Type 5
Click to expand...
It kinda is because the requirement is literally involved burden of proof plus any other context.
 
Madoka

"........... With no cause or effect to this world......... "

Everything : "This qualifies."


Just one statement. Reading the context, it was just abstract existence. But oh well, I'm not staff
 
ÆONS said:
But by those principles... not a single character who is currently Type 5 actually qualifies for such a level.
  • We would not have sufficient evidence if they really are above any and all systems of causality or if there is actually a (higher or different) system of causality they would be subjected to, we just do not know it.
  • Even if they are impossible to interact with due to existing past causality, there still would not be enough proof that they exist above causality, they just exist in an irregular system of causality we don't understand. In a sense, they would not have Type 5, just Type 4+ or whatever.
  • A character who can interact with a being who is "perfectly acausal" is automatically an anti-feat no matter how you slice it. A character with Acausality 5 is supposed to be a being who exists beyond the principles of cause and effect; they'd probably be free from any sort of change whatsoever. They are unchangeable and ineffable, thus are impossible to interact with. If there happens to be a character who can effect them despite their claims, that automatically means they didn't have Type 5 Acausality in the first place and simply operated under a different or higher system entirely.
  • Even if a character claims to be perfectly acausal, proves it as such and seems to follow logic and principles which align it, we'd still have room to doubt if it's genuine because there's a possibility that there is a system of causality they are subjected to (ie. the plot or the story itself) that even they don't know about.
I don't really know all too much about acausality (nowhere near as much as Ultima and others) and I could be wrong here and there, but I feel that the explanation offered by the new definition is a little bit sus for my sensibilities.
Click to expand...
This is why I think personally that acc type 5 is high and not easy to reach that level. (1A- the requirement was actually not a bad idea).
But you got my point. That high level of Acausality is not easy to reach. You need evidence to support it. Just claiming that you can't be interacted with is not enough evidence to qualify it. Literally, as I explained above, you still can type 4 acc for that. It requires more context and clear evidence. Beyond causality can also mean he is in a different one which is higher than the current one.
 
Yemma670 said:
Madoka

"........... With no cause or effect to this world......... "

Everything : "This qualifies."


Just one statement. Reading the context, it was just abstract existence. But oh well, I'm not staff
Click to expand...
For which type you are referring for? (I hope you aren't talking about my statement)
 
Acausality type 5 is now restricted to dimensionality.

4D acausality type 5 will be useless against a 5D being and so on
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Quasar002
Acausality question
Replies
3
Views
827
GreatIskandar14045
GreatIskandar14045
Brogeefrong
Can Type 5 Acausal's be affected by aspects they dont have?
Replies
3
Views
233
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
CNBA3
Higher Causal System?
Replies
12
Views
1K
CNBA3
CNBA3
Ackerman
Acausality type 5 question
Replies
2
Views
922
Blackdragonq1
Blackdragonq1
Furudo_Erika
Can there be multiple degrees of Type 5 Acausality?
Replies
24
Views
2K
KLOL506
KLOL506
Back
Top