Sonic Super Forms Invulnerability Removal

[Jinsye]

Note 2: The topic of Invulnerability for Super Forms within the Games' setting has been discussed and considered valid within this thread. As such, you should read this thread before making any Content Revision Thread on the matter.

Lol

Anyways, Super forms should not have Invulnerability. It does not qualify under our standards as set by this thread. Under our standards, simply being called 'invulnerable', 'indestructible', or 'unkillable' is not enough to qualify under invulnerability. That would just signify high durability. Super forms don't have a mechanism that necessitate them specifically negating damage.

Going through each scan on the Invulnerability section.

1. Statement of invulnerability, worthless.
2. Statement of invulnerability, worthless.
3. Statement of indestructibility, worthless.
4. Statement of invincibility, worthless.
5. Statement of invulnerability, worthless.

Due to the fact that all of the scans on the page are worthless in that they don't prove a mechanism for the negation of damage, Invulnerability should be removed from the page as it doesn't conform to our standards.

 

[Paul_Frank]

True!

 

[Agnaa]

This seems to make sense.

It sounds like people were also arguing that the Chaos Emeralds being the only thing that bypasses it makes Invulnerability more likely which is nonsensical. That is equally possible with the forms just being higher dura, and so it is not actually evidence.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

yes

 

[Zencha9]

makes no sense since all info it sites has no actual mechanics

 

[ElixirBlue]

Whats the argument against invulnerability? OP is simply calling things as worthless, which is easy to do.

Mostly following, but does the OP have arguments against the examples used, such as Perfect Chaos, Time Eater, Ultimate Gemerl, etc.?

 

[Agnaa]

Because our standards for Invulnerability require a method of action to be accepted. This has been the case since this thread in 2020, where these Super Sonic forms were explicitly called out and universally agreed to not be acceptable. The thread to re-add it after it was removed there didn't actually provide that higher level of evidence, so it should never have been accepted, imo.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Because our standards for Invulnerability require a method to be accepted. This has been the case since this thread in 2020, where these Super Sonic forms were explicitly called out and universally agreed to not be acceptable.

That thread was made before the new thread was made and discussed, accepting Super Forms having invulnerability in 2021.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/super-sonic-ability-re-addition-crt.123973/

The OP is missing talking points to address arguments made in the previous thread.

 

[Agnaa]

That thread was made before the new thread was made and discussed, accepting Super Forms having invulnerability in 2021.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/super-sonic-ability-re-addition-crt.123973/

And the evidence provided in that thread is bunk, so it should be undone. Consistently taking no damage from opponents with comparable AP does not prove that you're invulnerable, it proves that you have higher dura.

 

[Paul_Frank]

That new thread ignores the fact it still doesn't meet the requirements and simply goes

"Okay so they are called indestructible and thus invulnerability is fine moving on"

 

[Agnaa]

Also, I expect that with Invuln getting removed, Invulnerability Negation may need a second-look as well.

 

[Jinsye]

That thread was made before the new thread was made and discussed, accepting Super Forms having invulnerability in 2021.

https://vsbattles.com/threads/super-sonic-ability-re-addition-crt.123973/

The OP is missing talking points to address arguments made in the previous thread.

To make a point that I read the thread, I even posted the excerpt on the verse page that links to it. So the answer is that I don't agree with the thread, the evidence is not sufficient.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I am not well verse with the arguments for Super Forms having invulnerability but will follow.

Super forms don't have a mechanism that necessitate them specifically negating damage.

Rings that power Super Forms do as a mechanic lol

 

[Jinsye]

As far as I know, Rings are the mechanic that lets them maintain their Super forms, not what grants them invulnerability. If you're arguing that then you might as well argue base Sonic has invulnerability as long as he has a ring because thats how the game works.

 

[Saikou_The_Lewd_King]

"Mechanic" is "what ability makes them invulnerable in-verse"

Like if a much stronger character punched realistically what would stop them from hurting the character? If the answer is just "they're too durable", it's not invulnerability.

 

[Agnaa]

Yeah a mechanic is something like "They can selectively make themselves not affected by forces", "Their body's time is frozen, so no changes can be made to it, including damage".

 

[ElixirBlue]

"Mechanic" is "what ability makes them invulnerable in-verse"

In that sense, the "Mechanic" would be the Super Forms themselves. Chaos Energy is "Turning thoughts into Power". Examples would be the Super Forms and Chaos Control.

 

[Agnaa]

It's more the explanation for why it occurs. We need a good reason that would apply to attacks of any strength. "This ability makes them invulnerable" does not tell us the way it makes them invulnerable, and so our default assumption is that they just have high durability.

Refer to my last post for a few examples.

 

[ElixirBlue]

"Their body's time is frozen, so no changes can be made to it, including damage".

Right, you bring this one up but I guess you aren't gonna accept Super Forms fit this cause they have never shown damage during or users displaying none after the fights are over, as passible.

Hmmm... I would like to note majority of Sonic's Lore have been detailed in Sonic's Manuals, like Christmas Island being Sonic's birth place.

Again, I'll try to be quiet for others more knowledgable than I to comment.

 

[Agnaa]

Right, you bring this one up but I guess you aren't gonna accept Super Forms fit this cause they have never shown damage during or users displaying none after the fights are over, as passible.

It's more because there's (seemingly) no explanation like that provided. Those sorts of things require explanations, otherwise we just treat it as dura based on feats.

 

[ElixirBlue]

It's more because there's (seemingly) no explanation like that provided. Those sorts of things require explanations, otherwise we just treat it as dura based on feats.

I mean, there is multiple manual scans blatantly stating whats happening when characters reach a super form.

For other abilities, there is also no explanation how Sonic could use the fake chaos emerald or how he and Shadow learned chaos control, but we accept they are able to do those abilities without explanations.

 

[Agnaa]

I mean, there is multiple manual scans blatantly stating whats happening when characters reach a super form.

What explanations do they give for how their invulnerability functions?

For other abilities, there is also no explanation how Sonic could use the fake chaos emerald or how he and Shadow learned chaos control, but we accept they are able to do those abilities without explanations.

Yeah, and if all the text says is "They are invulnerable", with no elaboration, we tier them by what that's shown to mean (higher dura than whoever attacks them), rather than giving the NLF-y interpretation of them being able to stop 3-A attacks.

If you disagree with these standards you could make a thread trying to overturn them, but I just want these pages to be in-line with our rules.

 

[Jinsye]

I mean, there is multiple manual scans blatantly stating whats happening when characters reach a super form.

It states that they become invulnerable with no explanation. It does not explain how they negate AP.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Does the OP have any arguments besides calling some scans worthless? Maybe try to explain why they're that?

It states that they become invulnerable with no explanation. It does not explain how they negate AP.

Nowhere in the page it is said that it is required to explain how it negates damage for it to count. Your only argument is just sayong stuff and hoping people just take your word without you explaining anything

 

[Agnaa]

@Gilad_Hyperstar Please turn your gaze towards this thread.

And the page does currently say

Only characters whose invulnerability is clearly more than simply being exceptionally durable for the verse's setting qualify.

That has not been established within Sonic.

 

[Paul_Frank]

Does the OP have any arguments besides calling some scans worthless? Maybe try to explain why they're that?

Nowhere in the page it is said that it is required to explain how it negates damage for it to count. Your only argument is just sayong stuff and hoping people just take your word without you explaining anything

That's quite literally what the linked thread from Wokistan concluded

If it merely says they're invulnerable or indestructible without a mechanism that causes force to be completely useless against them, it's just higher dura at best. And that's what the sonic evidence is

Op doesn't have to disprove the scans, the scans simply don't meet the standards

 

[ElixirBlue]

@Gilad_Hyperstar Please turn your gaze towards this thread.

Quite honestly, you shouldn't be linking an old thread. You should link to whats been accepted on the Invulnerability page we have on the Wiki. Its what people mainly sees.

 

[Agnaa]

Quite honestly, you shouldn't be linking an old thread. You should link whats been accepted on the Invulnerability page we have on the Wiki.

There has been no thread to change the standards since then. That thread led to Promestein rewriting the page into what it currently is. Her posts in the thread indicate that she agrees with the OP.

The only changes since then have been moving one sentence to its own paragraph, adding an example, and correcting for the Fallacies page being renamed.

 

[ElixirBlue]

There has been no thread to change the standards since then. That thread is the thread where the current wording for the Invulnerability page was accepted.

The Thread may have been accepted there but only the language from the thread accepted made it onto the page, is our main priority.

Its not wise hold standards for abilities from a thread not widely accessible as the Wiki page we promote.

 

[Jinsye]

The Thread may have been accepted there but only the language from the thread accepted made it onto the page is our main priority.

So basically you're ignoring the page that defined the standards because the page itself wasn't written clearly?

 

[Agnaa]

The Thread may have been accepted there but only the language from the thread accepted made it onto the page, is our main priority.

Its not wise hold standards for abilities from a thread not widely accessible as the Wiki page we promote.

I think that has happened, albeit subtly, with this wording from the page:

Only characters whose invulnerability is clearly more than simply being exceptionally durable for the verse's setting qualify.

Just being called "invulnerable" does not demonstrate that their "invulnerability" is anything more than being exceptionally durable.

If you've got any other changes you think should be made to the page to better reflect the thread, let me know, and I can try to get them added.

 

[ElixirBlue]

So basically you're ignoring the page that defined the standards because the page itself wasn't written clearly?

Btw, quick mention, I do disagree with this thread. 1 Staff agreeing is not enough nor is this thread a "straightforward change".

Pretty sneaky doing this thread as people are going to sleep.

 

[Zencha9]

secret downgrade

 

[Jinsye]

Pretty sneaky doing this thread as people are going to sleep.

It wasn't my intention to hit it with a secret downgrade, no. I just was awake at the time and felt like I needed to make the thread.

 

[Agnaa]

Btw, quick mention, I do disagree with this thread. 1 Staff agreeing is not enough nor is this thread a "straightforward change".

Pretty sneaky doing this thread as people are going to sleep.

What are you trying to say here? I don't think anyone was trying to apply it just yet.

And this thread was probably just posted when the issue came to the OP's mind. Obviously we're going to wait for people from the original thread to respond; I have personally contacted multiple of them.

Also, this thread's change is really straightforward. The justification doesn't meet our standards, so a few abilities need to be removed. The changes on the pages aren't complex, and it doesn't require a great deal of verse knowledge.

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

Maybe we should wait until the supporters that were on the previous thread will arrive too?

Trying to pass it as quickly as possible without acknowleding the supporters sure looks sus to me

 

[Agnaa]

Maybe we should wait until the supporters that were on the previous thread will arrive too?

Trying to pass it as quickly as possible without acknowleding the supporters sure looks sus to me

?????

We are waiting for them. We're not trying to imply that it should be changed immediately.

We have acknowledged the supporters. I have messaged four of them.

Where the hell are y'all pulling these accusations from?

 

[Gilad_Hyperstar]

?????

We are waiting for them. We're not trying to imply that it should be changed immediately.

We have acknowledged the supporters. I have messaged four of them.

Alright, then we should just wait

Where the hell are y'all pulling these accusations from?

It did seemed like people came quickly, and I saw the opponents gathering before the supporters had time to respond back.

I am just saying we should wait for them

 

[Agnaa]

Alright, then we should just wait

Sounds good to me.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Let's continue this later. There's no rush until the supporters (with more knowledge) have a chance to speak.

I do agree with more in-depth language and examples, so we can minimize the chances of this topic coming up later.