Smurf hax: Either defining or killing it

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

Smurf hax will still be a thing, but it just would no longer be any better than normal hax for bypassing resistances and the like, bar cases like straight up deleting a cosmology. In any case, we're starting to go in circles here, so maybe it'd be best to just wait for @DontTalkDT to comment on the previous questions and concerns.

That's literally not even smurf hax at that point that's just normal hax and AP/Range for the deleting cosmology part.

Anyways yeah let's just wait for DT and maybe a few other staff if they show up.

 

[Bobsican]

The definition of smurf hax formally speaking is in fact characters that can affect qualitative superiorities or infinities above their physical self.
This may have to be changed a bit depending on how this thread goes, however.

 

[deonment]

So essentially hax potency is irrelevant with these changes, its just range and layers

I feel as though people are misunderstanding this to a degree
This thread only impacts things that are higher-tiered based on simply just being bigger, such as additional axi
Stuff that is based upon ontology such as R>Fs however are not affected at all, as affecting them is not just a simple matter of affecting something with a greater size
If you affect or are based on the former, it is simply just range
If you affect or are based the latter, it is still smurf as we currently have it

 

[Bobsican]

I feel as though people are misunderstanding this to a degree
This thread only impacts things that are higher-tiered based on simply just being bigger, such as additional axi
Stuff that is based upon ontology such as R>Fs however are not affected at all, as affecting them is not just a simple matter of affecting something with a greater size
If you affect or are based on the former, it is simply just range
If you affect or are based the latter, it is still smurf as we currently have it

Eh? Ontology was never brought up in this thread, was this something from the other thread DT did? Currently the proposal of this thread applies to any sort of smurf hax, not only those that don't involve Reality to Fiction stuff.

 

[deonment]

Eh? Ontology was never brought up in this thread, was this something from the other thread DT did? Currently the proposal of this thread applies to any sort of smurf hax, not only those that don't involve Reality to Fiction stuff.

bob what

This entire thread seems fine in the context of something being physically larger or the sort, and in that scenario, I am fine with this being applied.
In the case of ontology, however, this is certifiably false, as characters whose ontology is greater are not just simply larger in scope, but instead, fundamentally exceed all qualities which can be expressed within places with ontology lower than them, that is not just a simple matter of them simply just being larger, as the quality of being larger is one of the many qualities which they fundamentally exceed relative to the plane below them.
This exceeding of qualities would extend to things such as the mind, soul, etc, and affecting qualities that belong to a being who is ontologically greater than them would necessitate said hax to also function on such a level and thereby exceed the quality of resistance that another 3D character can express.

As Deon said, I'm fine with ontology granting some sort of immunity. I wouldn't expect a character who sees a timeline as fiction to be affected by abilities from within that timeline, unless those abilities have shown the capability to bypass such R>F barriers.

For the second question: If you mean with being who are ontologically above lower realities something like being with a R>F difference, then I would again handle them differently. However, that as well depends on what makes sense. I brought up the idea of mind manipulation via subliminal messages affecting them. A feat like that I would then not consider to bypass regular resistances. However, most feats of affecting a character with R>F where the character should technically be unaffected would likely show that the ability bypasses regular resistances. Like, if a character can EE a storyteller, then it could also EE the script in which their reality exists. I think EE at such a level would not be covered by regular resistance, just like EE form the storyteller itself would not be covered. Like, the feat of affecting a character with R>F above you, basically proves that your technique in itself has R>F transcendence over the world.

And interaction of such different kinds of smurf hax is of course difficult to tell in general. I think one can compare it to the question "if a character with R>F over 3D space fights a 4D character, how do they interact?" Technically neither should be able to touch the other, despite being the same tier, but historically we have used verse equalization to say that they can fight. So, I suppose following the same reasoning, a smurf 5D hax via large size (that is smurf in potency not just range) and a smurf 5D level hax via R>F would be considered "equally strong" and hence balance each other or something. Ultimately, case-by-case comparison is the best answer. One has to see what makes sense.

 

[Ikelaggan]

Smurf hax will still be a thing, but it just would no longer be any better than normal hax for bypassing resistances and the like, bar cases like straight up deleting a cosmology. In any case, we're starting to go in circles here, so maybe it'd be best to just wait for @DontTalkDT to comment on the previous questions and concerns.

By that logic you can body most of megaten with above baseline haxes and pull a layers check. Lol

 

[Rikimarox2]

DnD might become the strongest/one of the strongest verses with their infinite layered hax shit.

 

[Ikelaggan]

DnD might become the strongest/one of the strongest verses with their infinite layered hax shit.

Who needs to be teir 0 when you have infinite layers.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

What is the status of this debate? I'll update my write-up whenever you're ready.

 

[Lou_change]

So would hax effecting a three dimensional being with complete ontological superiority to other 3 dimensional had be able to effect a 4d being?

 

[Bobsican]

bob what

Oh, thanks for the reminder.

Agnaa only appears to agree on a character that's qualitatively superior via Reality to Fiction stuff being naturally immune to lower-d hax, except that's unrelated to the premise of qualitatively superior abilities from R>F stuff ignoring any amount of layers relative to lower dimensional resistances and the like.
Currently it's already agreed on that characters that are qualitatively superior by any means valid in the tiering system are immune to lower-d abilities, but that's more out of a lack of range than potency, again, we also currently accept that range doesn't correlate to potency, let alone such potency then to layers.

Erasing the script in which a setting takes place for our purposes would be a raw AP feat, even if smurfy in nature, rather than proper hax, so that may not have been the best example. For now I'd have to disagree on the claim that qualitatively superior hax by R>F would still get classic treatment, especially as it's also noted we treat "normal" qualitative superiorities and R>F ones the same, so it'd quickly raise even more inconsistencies if we went that way.

Case by case arguments can be made, but they'd be more on what kind of hax abilities can work independently of the size of the ability (or more specifically if it can affect a character regardless of HDE), such as the example DT brought up of Mind Manipulation with subliminal messages.

What is the status of this debate? I'll update my write-up whenever you're ready.

Currently:

- It seems Resistance Negation is limited up to the amount of layers it has displayed to invalidate, basically acting as an alternative to layers with a similar practicality.

- It seems generally agreed on that Existence Erasure is the exception in a way out of falling as AP and other semantics already laid out at the end of your current version, and is inherently non-resisted for qualitatively inferior stuff without feats, so long their cosmology as a whole is targeted over merely a finite section (such as their being most of the time).

- There's still a debate on if hax abilities involving qualitative superiorities from R>F cases should also be the exception, although in my opinion I disagree as that respectively raises inconsistencies with other standards so far.

- There's also a debate on if hax abilities that can directly overwhelm a target that is qualitatively superior (such as poisoning) can affect a lower dimensional being with an actual resistance or the like, which I disagree on per the reasonings I've said here:

I'd support a note on that as well, but I'm a bit unsure on how to write it as there's also the matter of not all of a qualitatively superior substance touching a lower-d character out of the higher-D axises being beyond their existence, as much a character that resists disease manip wouldn't be bothered if all the universe was filled with a disease out of their being not taking all of it at once (let alone that being difficult to correlate to layers), with higher dimensions just also having the disease in question.

AFAIK the focus is usually more on the amount of displayed layers for something like EE than the amount of stuff involved, as much it was agreed on the previous hax thread I did that the amount of people and hax potency (then potency to layers) don't correlate.

 

[deonment]

Erasing the script in which a setting takes place for our purposes would be a raw AP feat, even if smurfy in nature, rather than proper hax, so that may not have been the best example. For now I'd have to disagree on the claim that qualitatively superior hax by R>F would still get classic treatment, especially as it's also noted we treat "normal" qualitative superiorities and R>F ones the same, so it'd quickly raise even more inconsistencies if we went that way.

The two function on different mechanics, we only equalize them in regards to the tiering system, not in all regards as extending over additional axi is not the same as by necessity exceeding all possible qualities which can be expressed in a lower plane.
To quote myself

In the case of ontology, however, this is certifiably false, as characters whose ontology is greater are not just simply larger in scope, but instead, fundamentally exceed all qualities which can be expressed within places with ontology lower than them, that is not just a simple matter of them simply just being larger, as the quality of being larger is one of the many qualities which they fundamentally exceed relative to the plane below them.
This exceeding of qualities would extend to things such as the mind, soul, etc, and affecting qualities that belong to a being who is ontologically greater than them would necessitate said hax to also function on such a level and thereby exceed the quality of resistance that another 3D character can express.

 

[Moritzva]

Smurf hax will still be a thing, but it just would no longer be any better than normal hax for bypassing resistances and the like, bar cases like straight up deleting a cosmology. In any case, we're starting to go in circles here, so maybe it'd be best to just wait for @DontTalkDT to comment on the previous questions and concerns.

This is a really stupid conclusion.

I really don't know how else to stay it. Removing all smurf hax, just, as a concept, is a pretty ridiculous idea and a big overreaction to some people labeling smurf hax wrongly or using the term a bit too freely. If you are a character who has hax effective on a completely higher level of existence, I don't see how that is "normal hax" by any definition of the word. Hell, you say it will still be a thing, then proceed to describe it no longer being a thing.

If you have a problem with people labeling abilities wrong, or incorrectly dealing with subjects of range, or any other case-specific matter, just deal with that instead. Just because you had a bad burger once doesn't mean you should ban burgers from ever being made again. You're just describing a bunch of specific problems and deciding to axe the concept of being better than something else because of it. That's ridiculous.

This is a completely inane thread with a completely inane conclusion and I am utterly baffled by it in every regard. I disagree strongly.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Bobsican You do realize you just shot your argument in the foot right? You said that it’s still gonna be a thing, but it can’t bypass normal resistances, which is the entire point of smurf hax. Pick a side, as for this whole thread I disagree with the proposition

 

[Moritzva]

In fact this is such a ridiculous thread to me that I have to comment again to further express my disbelief. A smurf is a lower dimensional character with higher dimensional hax (paraphrased). Bob's suggesting that it isn't treated as any stronger than lower-dimensional hax anymore, to which I have to ask, the **** does that mean? Does higher-dimensional hax just no longer exist anymore? Characters who aren't smurfs also use higher-dimensional hax, that's the entire reason they aren't a smurf. By this logic, do they just not have good hax anymore? Can Umineko characters be mind controlled by ******* Hitoshi Shinso as long as they are in the same room? What?

Seriously, what the hell am I looking at.

 

[DaReaperMan]

In fact this is such a ridiculous thread to me that I have to comment again to further express my disbelief. A smurf is a lower dimensional character with higher dimensional hax (paraphrased). Bob's suggesting that it isn't treated as any stronger than lower-dimensional hax anymore, to which I have to ask, the **** does that mean? Does higher-dimensional hax just no longer exist anymore? Characters who aren't smurfs also use higher-dimensional hax, that's the entire reason they aren't a smurf. By this logic, do they just not have good hax anymore? Can Umineko characters be mind controlled by ******* Hitoshi Shinso as long as they are in the same room? What?

Seriously, what the hell am I looking at.

An uncommon Bobiscan W and L at the same time

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Seriously, what the hell am I looking at.

I hope they delete hax layering in next thread after this.

 

[AbaddonTheDisappointment]

I hope they delete hax layering in next thread after this.

Then they'll delete hax and it'll be a contest of who punches other people harder

 

[Bobsican]

@Bobsican You do realize you just shot your argument in the foot right? You said that it’s still gonna be a thing, but it can’t bypass normal resistances, which is the entire point of smurf hax. Pick a side, as for this whole thread I disagree with the proposition

Well, the thing is that smurf hax never had potency as its definition, that's just a main trait everyone focuses on whenever it's brought up, which is where I'm basing on my claim of smurf hax still remaining even if this passes, even if basically considerably nerfed. You're the one with the misconception as far the site's standards are on the term's current definition if anything.

This is a really stupid conclusion.

I really don't know how else to stay it. Removing all smurf hax, just, as a concept, is a pretty ridiculous idea and a big overreaction to some people labeling smurf hax wrongly or using the term a bit too freely. If you are a character who has hax effective on a completely higher level of existence, I don't see how that is "normal hax" by any definition of the word. Hell, you say it will still be a thing, then proceed to describe it no longer being a thing.

If you have a problem with people labeling abilities wrong, or incorrectly dealing with subjects of range, or any other case-specific matter, just deal with that instead. Just because you had a bad burger once doesn't mean you should ban burgers from ever being made again. You're just describing a bunch of specific problems and deciding to axe the concept of being better than something else because of it. That's ridiculous.

This is a completely inane thread with a completely inane conclusion and I am utterly baffled by it in every regard. I disagree strongly.

Stuff being labeled as "smurf" incorrectly was never a reasoning brought up to redefine smurf hax (and as said above, strictly speaking it's not being removed as a whole), instead multiple concerns regarding the topic came up and so this thread was eventually made to redefine both the criteria and its practical usage.

The issue with smurf hax potency ignoring any sort of "normal" resistances is that this all relies currently on correlating the range of the smurf ability to potency, then to layers, and as mentioned in the OP, this is overly assumptive and is even accepted on the site, thus making smurf hax the exception for outdated invalid reasons.

In fact this is such a ridiculous thread to me that I have to comment again to further express my disbelief. A smurf is a lower dimensional character with higher dimensional hax (paraphrased). Bob's suggesting that it isn't treated as any stronger than lower-dimensional hax anymore, to which I have to ask, the **** does that mean?

Basically that even a tier 0 with baseline mindhax on a tier 0 scale wouldn't be able to bypass a baseline resistance of a 11-C without actual feats of bypassing a resistance of this kind or similar, like normal hax.

Does higher-dimensional hax just no longer exist anymore?

It still would exist, but would be mostly relegated into a way to consistently affect characters with Higher Dimensional Existence or similar (as there's also some discussion on some abilities working independently of HDE or not, such as inflicting Mind Manip with subliminal messages as DT exampled),

Characters who aren't smurfs also use higher-dimensional hax, that's the entire reason they aren't a smurf. By this logic, do they just not have good hax anymore?

Going by the current definition of a smurf on the site, they don't work like that, so that's not a concern to begin with. But yes, they'd basically end up with normal baseline hax most of the time, but this isn't the first time changes of this kind have happened. Anyone remembers how Star Wars became fodder out of this site-wide CRT regarding hax? Yeah.

Can Umineko characters be mind controlled by ******* Hitoshi Shinso as long as they are in the same room? What?

If the minds of both are in the same qualitative dimensional level and overall range, yes, in fact there was a whole discussion here overall accepting that being physically tier 2 or above but otherwise bound to a 3D body still leaves them as vulnerable to 3D hax as a normal 3D character (beyond stuff like hitting weak points), after all, most hax by definition downright ignores physical stats, being infinitely sturdy and whatever is irrelevant to, say, being erased from existence.

Seriously, what the hell am I looking at.

Also, most of your argument basically boils down to a blatant Argument from Incredulity fallacy, please actually tackle the brought up points over basically trying your best to express shock as the outlandish claim on paper this thread proposes.

 

[Bobsican]

Sorry for the double post, but I forgot this:

The two function on different mechanics, we only equalize them in regards to the tiering system, not in all regards as extending over additional axi is not the same as by necessity exceeding all possible qualities which can be expressed in a lower plane.
To quote myself

Okay, I'm a bit neutral on this, but we'd need staff input on this bit.

 

[Moritzva]

Also, most of your argument basically boils down to a blatant Argument from Incredulity fallacy, please actually tackle the brought up points over basically trying your best to express shock as the outlandish claim on paper this thread proposes.

No it does not, you quite literally confirmed everything I said. Just because you're making an absolutely absurd point doesn't mean it is a fallacy to point out that it is absurd. Screw off with the "please actually tackle my points, thank you!" shit, Bob, I'm not going to tolerate that.

First off, if you are saying that tier 0 mindhax is no longer tier 0 mindhax, this is not a thread about smurfs anymore. This should be renamed and done in a different thread, because the title and OP is extremely misleading with that in mind. You are suggesting something far, far more impactful to the wiki as a whole that expands well beyond smurfhood in all regards.

Second off, you have not made a distinction between hax. Even if you can make a really solid argument for, say, mindhax, you are using this point to universally purge the idea from all hax whatsoever. As Ultima pointed out, this is not the case with ideas like spatial hax and the like, and you have made no clear formal separation between the two. You're just getting rid of "smurf hax" altogether, and by association, removing the entire of higher-dimensional hax.

To put it bluntly, this thread is a mismanaged travesty. A thread of this heavy implication should not be obfuscated by a misleading title and original post, and proposals of this magnitude require significantly more input as a whole. Even assuming that you are correct, your way of going about it is so heavy-handed that it is inevitably striking the wrong targets anyways.

Also, yes, smurfs do work like that. For someone who literally cited the definition of a smurf (characters that have abilities (notably Hax) that are of a higher dimensional and/or infinite scale than their physical bodies), you really could've checked the definition before saying that they don't work by having higher-dimensional abilities. For someone bold enough to say I am making an argument from incredulity, you really do like getting your facts wrong.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

Like I said, nothing comes out of this thread

 

[Greatsage13th]

Moritzva.has a point.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

In short, this thread is saying no such thing as smurf hax, and it's all just range and ap.

I also see the assertion that affecting a higher D being is no different from a lower D, which i have to disagree there.

World Creators like Shallow Vernal aren't just infinitely large, their existence itself is on a higher level, to the point if one of their creations takes in their power their existence will be erased.

There is stated to be a clear and cruel difference in rank that exists between a world’s creator and her creations, which encompasses everything from planets to the universe itself, so even if you could resist hax used by another creation, you wouldn't be able to resist the hax used by your creator, it's a fundamental difference in existence.

 

[Moritzva]

In short, this thread is no such thing as smurf hax, and it's all just range and ap.

I also see the assertion that affecting a higher D being is no different from a lower D, which i have to disagree there.

World Creators like Shallow Vernal aren't just infinitely large, their existence itself is on a higher level, to the point if one of their creations takes in their power their existence itself will be erased. There is stated to be a clear and cruel difference in rank that exists between a world’s creator and her creations, so even if you could resist hax used by another creation, you wouldn't be able to resist the hax used by your creator, it's a fundamental difference in existence.

This has become apparent, though "smurf hax" is little more than higher-dimensional hax on a lower-dimensional character. To be more succinct, this thread is "there is no such thing as higher-dimensional hax, and it's all just range and ap."

Which is just, not what Bob's original post was insinuating at all and even if I agreed with him — which I don't — it is a really bad idea to put a change of that magnitude behind a thread with a name and opening post completely divorced from the actual goal of it.

 

[Celestial_Pegasus]

It could be a debate when talking about spatial/geometric dimensions, you can say they are just big, there isn't anything special to their existence, so you just need range to affect them, which I think is what was being argued before, no expert on that topic.

But when you're talking about a being like Shallow Vernal where you can't resist her hax cause her existence is fundamentally different, of a higher rank, range alone can't explain haxing such a being.

 

[Bobsican]

No it does not, you quite literally confirmed everything I said. Just because you're making an absolutely absurd point doesn't mean it is a fallacy to point out that it is absurd. Screw off with the "please actually tackle my points, thank you!" shit, Bob, I'm not going to tolerate that.

Well, then please speak in a more neutral tone over unecessarily focusing over how you personally feel on the idea, that'd be appreciated.

First off, if you are saying that tier 0 mindhax is no longer tier 0 mindhax, this is not a thread about smurfs anymore. This should be renamed and done in a different thread, because the title and OP is extremely misleading with that in mind. You are suggesting something far, far more impactful to the wiki as a whole that expands well beyond smurfhood in all regards.

"Killing smurf hax", as the OP's title basically partially claims, in itself heavily implies the thread would cover a topic regarding "removing" smurfness from the site or similar, the OP was also made more in focus to invite discussion on other topics regarding smurf hax, it was never only about this, now if you think this deserves its own thread, that's another thing. While we're at it, may you suggest a more appropiate title for this topic then? I may keep this topic later on if you fear it'd be inappropiate in the way it's currently proposed, there's other concerns as Agnaa has expressed multiple times in the thread, and the Hax page being updated accordingly to minimize misconceptions.

Second off, you have not made a distinction between hax. Even if you can make a really solid argument for, say, mindhax, you are using this point to universally purge the idea from all hax whatsoever. As Ultima pointed out, this is not the case with ideas like spatial hax and the like, and you have made no clear formal separation between the two. You're just getting rid of "smurf hax" altogether, and by association, removing the entire of higher-dimensional hax.


Also, yes, smurfs do work like that. For someone who literally cited the definition of a smurf (characters that have abilities (notably Hax) that are of a higher dimensional and/or infinite scale than their physical bodies), you really could've checked the definition before saying that they don't work by having higher-dimensional abilities. For someone bold enough to say I am making an argument from incredulity, you really do like getting your facts wrong.

It's really simple, it's just range, and beyond that, given how abilities can wildly vary on practical usage with how fiction is, it'd be easier to just define criteria than limiting stuff to some specific Powers and Abilities on the site. You keep acting like the only trait of smurf hax is potency, which isn't correct as...

Something being higher-dimensional, and something ignoring any sort of lower-dimensional resistances and the like are two different descriptive criterias, one can totally have one without the other.

To put it bluntly, this thread is a mismanaged travesty. A thread of this heavy implication should not be obfuscated by a misleading title and original post, and proposals of this magnitude require significantly more input as a whole. Even assuming that you are correct, your way of going about it is so heavy-handed that it is inevitably striking the wrong targets anyways.

Okay, I'd be fine with keeping this topic for later then, we can then focus on just defining our current interactions with smurf hax and other discussed semantics on the Hax page, which was the main focus of the thread.

 

[Theglassman12]

@Bobsican Yeah no the page literally says this for smurf hax

In this community it refers to characters that have abilities (notably Hax) that are of a higher dimensional and/or infinite scale than their physical bodies.

Being of infinite scale than their physical bodies implies potency, plus that's what everyone on this site universally agrees smurf hax to be, higher potency on a bigger scale than just normal layers, so if anyone has misconceptions on how smurf hax is used, it's you.

 

[Bobsican]

Something being implied and something being actually stated are two different things, as an implication isn't necessarily part of a meaning compared to an actual claim, but this is just nitpicking mostly unrelated to the concerns at hand anyways.

 

[Theglassman12]

Except when everyone on the site has agreed that's to be the case (ask literally anyone who's used a smurf character in a versus thread), then it's part of the meaning, you're not really debunking my claim here beyond just nitpicking.

 

[Bobsican]

I'm focusing on the current definition on the site, this is like comparing what people on the street describe something as compared to a proper dictionary, I wouldn't be opposed on redefining how the VS Battles Glossary defines the term if anything.

 

[Planck69]

Can someone just like, tally the votes so far?

 

[Moritzva]

I'm focusing on the current definition on the site, this is like comparing what people on the street describe something as compared to a proper dictionary, I wouldn't be opposed on redefining how the VS Battles Glossary defines the term if anything.

The current definition is also how it is used.

Can someone just like, tally the votes so far?

Not possible, as it isn’t even entirely clear what is being voted on.

 

[Ikelaggan]

I'm focusing on the current definition on the site, this is like comparing what people on the street describe something as compared to a proper dictionary, I wouldn't be opposed on redefining how the VS Battles Glossary defines the term if anything.

You can't really use that anology since glass already showed the proper definition on site that most of everyone agrees with so you can't just say it's just people on the streets giving a misunderstood version of the definition.

 

[Bobsican]

You can't really use that anology since glass already showed the proper definition on site that most of everyone agrees with so you can't just say it's just people on the streets giving a misunderstood version of the definition.

Eh? That page doesn't even define smurf hax right now, and this is like saying unwritten rules have more priority than written ones, which is a no, that's not to say I'd be unwilling to a change for consistency's sake as said before, however.

 

[Moritzva]

Eh? That page doesn't even define smurf hax right now, and this is like saying unwritten rules have more priority than written ones, which is a no, that's not to say I'd be unwilling to a change for consistency's sake as said before, however.

We have a definition that does describe it. The definition describes it, everyone knows what it is describing. You are the only person I know who has ever seen it any other way, and given you insist on your interpretation despite the entire site and the definition itself disagreeing with you, I genuinely do not know what to tell you.

 

[DaReaperMan]

We have a definition that does describe it. The definition describes it, everyone knows what it is describing. You are the only person I know who has ever seen it any other way, and given you insist on your interpretation despite the entire site and the definition itself disagreeing with you, I genuinely do not know what to tell you.

He means that smurf hax users must be blue, obviously

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I agree with Moritz and agree more with Celestial's argument.

Although in terms of tier, AP and level of existence we equate these geometrical/mathematical dimension to R>F ladders,
Both are 2 distinct things.
R>F tackles more on being real while geometrical ones tackles more on sizes and extra axis giving larger sizes

I wholeheartedly agree that R>F should be Potency and less more of range.
In a way if we have 2 entities
One is HDE 5D while the other is 5D in R>F
Both in this case should be capable of affecting each other.
My reasoning would be
R>F although has not showcased range of affecting geometrical dimension the potency of its hax or powers would still be something on that level. Both being infinitely far stronger than 4D and have qualitative superiority on said 4D.
The same way that we can argue for the HDE in 5D and capable of using powers in such level of dimension and since the difference is still of "Qualitative superiority" over 4D. Thus even if R>F has no feat of range to affect geometrical dimension. The potency is still infinite in terms of qualitative superiority that even if it i diluted it will still be potent to affect the being in the first place. The only time it will not be potent is if the higher dimensional being is far larger. For example
5D r>F would be potent enough to affect even 5D HDE but not potent enough against a 6D HDE as it is far larger than the potency that it would be dilluted to affect it

Now the case of smurf hax is different but it should be noted on how said smurf hax functions. If it is due to inheriting or gaining blessing from a Higher dimensional power the argument of it having the potency is very much logical so does range depending on the context.

Now the other case is said smurf hax is done by a 3D being without gaining anything or using methods or power from a higher dimension but rather due to how said smurf managed to extend his power to affect someone on a higher dimension then this is pretty much a feat of range and not of potency thus we simply cannot assume that this power would be able to affect someone who are instead of Higher dimensional, they are With R>F transcendence. Because R>F do not follow the idea of geometrical sizes or range and having feat on geometrical sizes by range doesn't equate to having feat of potency on higher reality in the sense of reality fiction difference.

Now as a final example a 3D being with smurf hax that affect someone in a higher reality. Now this is less of range and more of potency as the 3D being hax is so potent that it has become much more real than fiction and thus affecting the being with R>F difference to the smurf. Now if we follow the potency argument and how even if dilluted if it is potent enough to that level the being would still be affected so this smurf hax even without feat if range would be able to affect a higher dimensional being by potency and not by range the same way it affect someone who has R>F over himself.

Now this argument doesn't really tackle ontological difference or transcendence as a whole and solely more on R>F and HDE(geometrical and mathematical dimension).

 

[KLOL506]

I am unfortnately forced to agree with Moritzva and Celestial Pegasus after reading their argumentations.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

So what should I revise my writeup to?