• 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.

Removing Simon's type 4 Acausality

AloseVQ

AloseVQ

65
38
I'm going to get straight to the point and give you a brief summary of why Simon has Aca 4:

When Nia is trapped in the cycle of cause and effect, Simon breaks the cause and effect barrier to save her. And it is said that Simon transcends fate, cause and effect.
Click to expand...

But was that really what the statements were saying? Or should this grant type 4 Acausality?

No. That's not what the statements were saying. Although the profile says that Simon "transcends" them, it is never mentioned in the scans in the Imgur link linked in his profile. It only says that they broke through them and got out of that cause and effect barrier/circle. In fact, what is written in the profile and called "transcending" is indicated with "突破 (とっぱ)", which shows that what is happening there is not transcending, but breaking through.

Line where "突破" is used:

因果も運命も突破して、命の叫びが銀河に響く!
Click to expand...

Breaks through cause, effect and fate, the cry of life resounds in the galaxy yet, more. (translation from the Imgur link in the profile)
Click to expand...

And not only that. There are statements to support that this is not a "transcendence" but a feat of breaking

壁があったら殴って壊す、道がなければこの手で作る!
Click to expand...

If there's a wall, we'll hit and break it, if there's no way, we'll make it with our own hands! (translation from the Imgur link in the profile)
Click to expand...

それぞれの宇宙でそれぞれが抱えていた想いが、壁を突き破る形に、ドリルという形になって現れていた。
Click to expand...

The feelings that each of us had in our respective universes appeared in the form of a drill, breaking through the wall. (translation from the Imgur link in the profile)
Click to expand...

突破 meanings: 1. breaking through; breakthrough; penetration, 2. surmounting (a difficulty); overcoming; getting over; accomplishing (an aim); reaching (a goal), 3. exceeding; passing; rising above

壊す meanings: 1. to break; to destroy; to demolish, 2. to wreck; to ruin; to spoil; to damage, 3. to break (a bill, etc.)

突き破る meanings: 1. to break through; to penetrate; to pierce

Note: Even if the third meaning of "突破" can be translated as "exceed, rising above", as I explained previously, the context of the scene is that they break that barrier and if there is a wall in their way, they will break it too.

BTW, my point is not that this statement can never be type 4, but that without further context it can be in different stuffs such as resistance to fate and causality manipulation or nullification against fate and causality manipulation. These statements lack the "working with different causal systems" principle of this case.

Agree: ZetsuEarly0, Burkiqwe, Gasper, Larssx, Valeska24, Georredannea15, Theglassman12

Disagree: GreatIskandar14035, ProfectusInfinity, ImmortalDread, FoxySonicMaster108, BluudyManikin777

Neutral: KLOL506, DarkDragonMedeus
 
Last edited:
I would easily agree, if this were Type 5 Acausality, but since this is Type 4, I'll wait for some other responses, although as of right now I kinda disagree, "breaking" in this context looks like it implies the same thing. But I'll wait before I give my final thoughts.
 
I believe you might be overly focused on minor details, possibly. It's not necessary for us to have a particular statement that remains "transcendent." In fact,

In this context refers to the characters' recognition that they are part of a world where actions lead to consequences, creating a chain reaction of events. This phrase conveys the idea that in their universe, events are interconnected and driven by a cause-and-effect relationship. No action happens in isolation; every action they take has consequences that affect themselves and others.

However, the characters are asserting that even though they are bound by this cycle, they won't be passive victims of it. They refuse to be resigned to the idea that they are merely products of their circumstances. Instead, they believe that their emotions, determination, and choices can break free from this deterministic cycle. They are expressing their intent to transcend the limitations imposed by fate and circumstances and make their own mark on the world, regardless of the inevitable sequence of cause and effect.

The transcendence comes from the fact that the characters in the text are expressing their determination to transcend or break through the limitations imposed by the cycle of cause and effect. This is not just about understanding and navigating causal relationships, typically.

My stance:
I think you only focused on this part, while the context actually goes deeper than that. Therefore, this doesn't appear to be a measure of attack potency or any concrete ability, as some here mentioned.

I presume that the user who included acausality type 4 is conscious of their liberation from this system, yet I cannot discern any indication of this in the profile description.

Can we find any proof that they explicitly mentioned the results of the characters' attempts to surpass the confines of the cause-and-effect framework? If there is no evidence, I may lean to possibility acausality type 4, rather of removing it completely. Although, if they never success it, I think the removal is reasonable.

My two cents.
 
As a small note, "breaking through causality and fate" here does not refer to Simon's independence from causality. It directly refers to his breaking the barrier of causality where Nia is stuck and rescuing her. In other words, there is no independence by breaking the boundaries of causality, but only a feat in terms of damaging in a way that is equivalent to breaking down a wall.

So yeah, I definitely agree with OP's proposal
 
ImmortalDread said:
In this context refers to the characters' recognition that they are part of a world where actions lead to consequences, creating a chain reaction of events. This phrase conveys the idea that in their universe, events are interconnected and driven by a cause-and-effect relationship. No action happens in isolation; every action they take has consequences that affect themselves and others.

However, the characters are asserting that even though they are bound by this cycle, they won't be passive victims of it. They refuse to be resigned to the idea that they are merely products of their circumstances. Instead, they believe that their emotions, determination, and choices can break free from this deterministic cycle. They are expressing their intent to transcend the limitations imposed by fate and circumstances and make their own mark on the world, regardless of the inevitable sequence of cause and effect.

The transcendence comes from the fact that the characters in the text are expressing their determination to transcend or break through the limitations imposed by the cycle of cause and effect. This is not just about understanding and navigating causal relationships, typically.
Click to expand...
The part that the OP is focusing on is not just "no transcendence" or "it was an attack that they broke through", I'm not sure myself if it was an attack success as well, at least not fundamentally. That's why more context is needed. And what we were basically saying was that this feat could be a "resistance" rather than a logic of working in a different causal system. At the end of the day there is a point where we separate Acausality type 4 from resistance causality and fate manipulations.
 
Last edited:
ImmortalDread said:
You don't need independence of cause and effect system for acausality type 4.
Click to expand...
It doesn't directly need independence, yes. What I meant was an example. I don't see a point where what is indicated by those statements refers to working in a different causal system. It could just be a simple resistance.
 
Valeska24 said:
It doesn't directly need independence, yes. What I meant was an example. I don't see a point where what is indicated by those statements refers to working in a different causal system. It could just be a simple resistance.
Click to expand...
I believe it is improbable that your intention was to provide an illustrative instance, as your complete agreement appears to hinge upon this premise.

Valeska24 said:
The part that the OP is focusing on is not just "no transcendence" or "it was an attack that they broke through", I'm not sure myself if it was an attack success as well, at least not fundamentally. That's why more context is needed. And what we were basically saying was that this feat could be a "resistance" rather than a logic of working in a different causal system. At the end of the day there is a point where we separate Acausality type 4 from causality and fate manipulations.
Click to expand...
The entire focus of the OP, in fact, revolved around those two details. I am not attempting to contradict; I am merely stating what I am reading.

Regarding the statement "more context is needed," I believe it simply means that we need to know whether they succeeded in the end or not. Since the entire premise of the context is to surpass these restrictions, it's essential to determine if they managed to do so. Otherwise, I don't see any harm in considering the possibility of acausality type 4 or removal, although the story might become meaningless and boring if they indeed did not succeed. However, that's just my personal viewpoint.

In this context, resistance makes no sense, as the context itself provides more depth concerning their state of being bound by this cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, it seems to be a resistance against the manipulation of fate or causality.
 
ImmortalDread said:
I believe it is improbable that your intention was to provide an illustrative instance, as your complete agreement appears to hinge upon this premise.
Click to expand...
I didn't understand what you meant, I was just using "being independent of causality" as an example of having type 4 acausality (and it doesn't always have to be type 4. I was just giving an example and I apologize if I misunderstood) My main intention was that things that directly indicate type 4 in this case lack context.
ImmortalDread said:
The entire focus of the OP, in fact, revolved around those two details. I am not attempting to contradict; I am merely stating what I am reading.

Regarding the statement "more context is needed," I believe it simply means that we need to know whether they succeeded in the end or not. Since the entire premise of the context is to surpass these restrictions, it's essential to determine if they managed to do so. Otherwise, I don't see any harm in considering the possibility of acausality type 4 or removal, although the story might become meaningless and boring if they indeed did not succeed. However, that's just my personal viewpoint.
Click to expand...

First of all, no. The OP was first proposing that this feat is not a transcendence and that it is not certain that it is otherwise a feat in the sense of working in a different system of causality.
Secondly, for the part about needing more context, I would say both that we need to know whether they were successful in the end, as you say, and that the mere statement "breaking causality" (in the context you describe) is still insufficient on its own to give type 4 directly. I don't see why it can't just be resistance. What already separates type 4 Acausality from resisting manipulations of causality and fate is that type 4 Acausality requires working in a different causal system in the first place. In this case I don't see anything that shows that. Maybe it's just a difference in our perspectives.
ImmortalDread said:
In this context, resistance makes no sense, as the context itself provides more depth concerning their state of being bound by this cause-and-effect relationship. Instead, it seems to be a resistance against the manipulation of fate or causality.
Click to expand...
Again I don't understand what you mean. You say that it is not make sense for it to be a resistance, but at the end of the sentence you say that it seems to be a resistance.
 
Valeska24 said:
I didn't understand what you meant, I was just using "being independent of causality" as an example of having type 4 acausality (and it doesn't always have to be type 4. I was just giving an example and I apologize if I misunderstood) My main intention was that things that directly indicate type 4 in this case lack context.
Click to expand...
I hope so.
 
Acausality (Types 2 & 4. Merged every version of himself upon integrating the Multiverse as a part of him. Stated to have broken through cause, effect and fate. It is said, that even when trapped, their feelings open the gate, and they will decide their own fate)
Click to expand...
Agree with the downgrade. From what I’m getting, it sounds like they can willpower their way into “replicating” the benefits of type 4 acausality (they even have explicit feats of resisting fate manipulation), but type 4 should be an existential thing.

Disagree with the arguments for possible type 4 acausality; should be revised as resistance to causality manipulation and fate manipulation.
 
ImmortalDread said:
.
Click to expand...
Thank you for your input. Valeska24 has already said what I would say in generally, so I will not reply again and prolong the thread. So should I note you as neutral or disagree?


I would also like to point out that even if type 4 Acausality in Simon's "Post-Multiverse Labyrinth" key is not to be removed, we still need to remove the higher degree of type 4 in the "Post-Apotheosis" key. I don't know who added this, but using the same argument and the same scans, the type 4 that was already in the previous key was entered as higher degree of type 4 by using these scans again.
 
AloseVQ said:
Thank you for your input. Valeska24 has already said what I would say in generally, so I will not reply again and prolong the thread. So should I note you as neutral or disagree?
Click to expand...
Neutral since none here is the supporter of the verse and has answered my question
AloseVQ said:
I would also like to point out that even if type 4 Acausality in Simon's "Post-Multiverse Labyrinth" key is not to be removed, we still need to remove the higher degree of type 4 in the "Post-Apotheosis" key. I don't know who added this, but using the same argument and the same scans, the type 4 that was already in the previous key was entered as higher degree of type 4 by using these scans again.
Click to expand...
So the justification is simply the same but higher degree? I suppose it can be removed.
 
i somehow always interpreting those contexts as hypebole, because it sound like generic cringe speeh from protagonist state they gonna break through fate to destroy the villain and choose their own destity...lol
 
Your interpretation is somehow wrong, because the entire context is about to be free of consequences. Although, the question remains if they success it or not.

It is far from “vagueness”, he was literally deep about it. None of you really read the imgur context?
 
Last edited:
I’d rather get some more people that know Gurren Lagann to give their thoughts.
ImmortalDread said:
Your interpretation is somehow wrong, because the entire context is about to be free of consequences. Although, the question remains if they success it or not.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen Gurren Lagann and I’m pretty sure that they are successful.
 
Really? Then, I am against the removal of acausality type 4. People who are only focused on “breaking” rather reading the intention of the word in the original context needs to re-read it again.
 
Last edited:
Where is fate manipulation and causality manipulation resistance coming from? It is a place, a cycle. It is the regular setting in our world. It is not some character who is doing this.

Anyone who is freed from it is "acausality type 5" in contextual sense (but VSBW dislike it, and wants more evidence for it because reasons), so it should be acausality type 4 for less-assumed interpretations.
 
ImmortalDread said:
Your interpretation is somehow wrong, because the entire context is about to be free of consequences. Although, the question remains if they success it or not.

It is far from “vagueness”, he was literally deep about it. None of you really read the imgur context?
Click to expand...
Nah, i just joking
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Barbar01
TTGL Acausality type 5 and Imme atack speed revision
3 4 5
Replies
180
Views
8K
BluudyManikin777
BluudyManikin777
Mizuki67
  • Locked
Simple Addition for Rimuru
Replies
4
Views
2K
Excellence616
Excellence616
William_Joee
Doraemon 2-B Attack Potency Upgrade
Replies
37
Views
1K
William_Joee
William_Joee
PrinceStories
  • Locked
Problem Acausality type 4 Lucifer's
Replies
31
Views
2K
IdiosyncraticLawyer
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Rockysbalboa
Rick sanchez biggest upgrade for hax
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
Rockysbalboa
Rockysbalboa
Back
Top