Suggested invulnerability changes

[BakiHanma18]

True, addressing each character's claim to invulnerability will be waaaay more posts than 500 if we do them all on one page

 

[Antvasima]

That is a good point. I would appreciate if somebody starts a thread for this though. Maybe we should remove the ability from all profiles that currently list it to get a clean start, as they almost always seem inaccurately applied by our current standards?

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

I can say for certain the BlazBlue characters have valid invulnerability.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[BakiHanma18]

If nobody minds, I can make a thread for Bleach's invulnerability and link this page as a preface. I can start it up in a couple of hours

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I might also make discussions for Invulnerability seen in Fire Emblem, there is lore about characters having the ability to nullify their enemy's attack powers in which only certain weapons have the ability to bypass them. But for another thread.

 

[BakiHanma18]

Bleach CRT

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/4016025

 

[Wokistan]

Could use this as a hub of sorts for the invulnerability changes. Take a verse, branch off from there. Lets me be notified since I started the thread and am the one who suggested criteria.

 

[BakiHanma18]

Need some staff input on the Bleach thread. We've whittled the "Invulnerability" list for Bleach down to one person, Sajin. I've listed more likely possibilities than invulnerability, namely a couple of different types of immortality.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

 

[Agnaa]

So of the verses we've gotten to so far:

• Remove from Sailor Moon
• Remove from Matrix
• Stat amp for Bayonetta (her file already says this)
• Stat amp for game sonic
• Comics sonic I have a question about
• Unknown for Slayers. This page doesn't list anyone and the OP of the page is long gone, so idk.
• Remove for TTGL
• Stat amp for Mario

Were these even implemented? I just checked Mario's page and it's still there; looks like it was never removed, TTGL still has it.

We shouldn't be leaving widely-accepted threads in incredibly unfinished states like this :v

It also seems like Promestein's rewrite of the page didn't clearly define the standards set out in the OP of this thread. There's nothing explicitly on the page about requiring a mechanism, it just sorta has to be inferred from a few sentences on it.

 

[Antvasima]

Can you remind us what we need to do here/the conclusions so far, please? It has been a long time, and most of us will likely have forgotten almost all of the relevant details by now.

Also, should we mention in our Invulnerability page that listing it as being limited is our standard approach when it is just invulnerability to certain things, not everything? The "Record of Ragnarok" deities are invulnerable to mortal weapons, for example.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Also, should we mention in our Invulnerability page that listing it as being limited is our standard approach when it is just invulnerability to certain things, not everything? The "Record of Ragnarok" deities are invulnerable to mortal weapons, for example.

I would agree. There would need to be more evidence against, say, Haxes, to qualify being invulnerable against all types of Damage.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes.

 

[Agnaa]

Can you remind us what we need to do here/the conclusions so far, please? It has been a long time, and most of us will likely have forgotten almost all of the relevant details by now.

Remove invulnerability from pages that do not establish a mechanism for their invulnerability; just saying "This ability makes them invulnerable" isn't enough. And the page should be altered to make this clear.

Also, should we mention in our Invulnerability page that listing it as being limited is our standard approach when it is just invulnerability to certain things, not everything? The "Record of Ragnarok" deities are invulnerable to mortal weapons, for example.

Sure, I don't see why not.

I would agree. There would need to be more evidence against, say, Haxes, to qualify being invulnerable against all types of Damage.

I disagree; it's mostly being seen as, like, "attach potency negation". They would not need to establish invulnerability against, say, mind manipulation to qualify for Invulnerability.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I disagree; it's mostly being seen as, like, "attach potency negation". They would not need to establish invulnerability against, say, mind manipulation to qualify for Invulnerability.

Well, mind manipulation is not a damage dealing hax. Not the general application.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, mind manipulation is not a damage dealing hax. Not the general application.

Yeah exactly. I don't fully understand what else would be meant. Could you be trying to say that they'd need to prove invulnerability against heat/cold/blunt/piercing separately?

 

[ElixirBlue]

Yeah exactly. I don't fully understand what else would be meant. Could you be trying to say that they'd need to prove invulnerability against heat/cold/blunt/piercing separately?

Well, Hax like matter manipulation, that can damage or alter the body, not mind manipulation.

 

[Agnaa]

Given that that's listed on the Durability Negation page, I'd assume that it's assumed to bypass durability (and thus, invulnerability) by default. If they end up not being susceptible to it, I'd consider that Resistance to Matter Manip.

 

[Blackcurrant91]

I honestly think we should just yeet invulnerability entirely. It's such a non specific power and usually only makes sense in the context of gameplay or in verse. Even stuff like 'invulnerable because they don't interact with physics' is just physics manip that makes it harder to interact with the target. It's not like they are getting hit with AP and just taking zero damage. It's literally just not affecting them at all.

Personally I would prefer something like 'physics manipulation : Immune to physical damage by manipulating the way physics interact with their body.'

 

[Antvasima]

Were these even implemented? I just checked Mario's page and it's still there; looks like it was never removed, TTGL still has it.

We shouldn't be leaving widely-accepted threads in incredibly unfinished states like this :v

It also seems like Promestein's rewrite of the page didn't clearly define the standards set out in the OP of this thread. There's nothing explicitly on the page about requiring a mechanism, it just sorta has to be inferred from a few sentences on it.

Can you remind us what we need to do here/the conclusions so far, please? It has been a long time, and most of us will likely have forgotten almost all of the relevant details by now.

Remove invulnerability from pages that do not establish a mechanism for their invulnerability; just saying "This ability makes them invulnerable" isn't enough. And the page should be altered to make this clear.

Also, should we mention in our Invulnerability page that listing it as being limited is our standard approach when it is just invulnerability to certain things, not everything? The "Record of Ragnarok" deities are invulnerable to mortal weapons, for example.

Sure, I don't see why not.

I would agree. There would need to be more evidence against, say, Haxes, to qualify being invulnerable against all types of Damage.

I disagree; it's mostly being seen as, like, "attach potency negation". They would not need to establish invulnerability against, say, mind manipulation to qualify for Invulnerability.

I honestly think we should just yeet invulnerability entirely. It's such a non specific power and usually only makes sense in the context of gameplay or in verse. Even stuff like 'invulnerable because they don't interact with physics' is just physics manip that makes it harder to interact with the target. It's not like they are getting hit with AP and just taking zero damage. It's literally just not affecting them at all.

Personally I would prefer something like 'physics manipulation : Immune to physical damage by manipulating the way physics interact with their body.'

@DontTalkDT @AKM sama

What do you think about this?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Personally, I think invulnerability as "AP negation" was more or less what we intended the last time we revised it. I think in that form the page can stay.
I'm fine with making the requirement of a hax mechanism more explicit, though.

 

[Agnaa]

I honestly think we should just yeet invulnerability entirely. It's such a non specific power and usually only makes sense in the context of gameplay or in verse. Even stuff like 'invulnerable because they don't interact with physics' is just physics manip that makes it harder to interact with the target. It's not like they are getting hit with AP and just taking zero damage. It's literally just not affecting them at all.

Personally I would prefer something like 'physics manipulation : Immune to physical damage by manipulating the way physics interact with their body.'

That's been considered and isn't super popular. I think it's useful, since there's a variety of different powers that can accomplish it, and they all share the quality of "You can't be damaged". It makes sense outside of verses, a lot of the time. And there are other cases where they are getting hit with AP without taking damage; Risuka Mizukura can't be wounded because her body can't change, since its time is stopped. I expect there to be more cases, but I'm not familiar with them.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Risuka Mizukura is a bit weird to use as an example for Invulnerability. Her Invulnerability isn't meant to negate all damage as the primary ability but its a sub application of her Time Manipulation that prevents her body from recording damage.

Regular Invulnerability users, like Flight users, wouldn't need necessarily need an additional ability to utilize Invulnerability.

A Flight user could use a Jet Pet, which would be a sub set of technology manipulation or equipment, or they are Superman-like character like Homelander, which they requires absolutely nothing at all to fly.

 

[Agnaa]

Alexandria (Worm) seems to have Invulnerability that works in a similar way, but without it being a sub-application of a wider ability. Rather, her Invulnerability leads to other abilities (not aging, not having her hair/fingernails grow, not being able to have her power disabled).

Thus, I still think the distinction's fine.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Alexandria (Worm) seems to have Invulnerability that works in a similar way

Huh, she doesn't appear to have anything recorded on her profile supporting it atm.

 

[Antvasima]

So what should we do here exactly?

 

[ElixirBlue]

I'm with DontTalkDT of making the requirements for Invulnerability against Haxes stricter.

This is a suggestion from me; perhaps we should create levels to Invulnerability.

Level/Type 1, would be Invulnerable to specific things, like the Record of Ragnarok's example of being invulnerable to mortal weapons.

Level/Type 2, would be against damage caused by any physical contact.
&
Level/Type 3, would be in addition against Haxes. For example, Archie Sonic referred to no selling an attack with Subjective Reality warping applications, by being Invulnerable.

This way, we can be a little more flexible with how we tackle Invulnerability related issues for indexing.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, I agree Invulnerability is restricted to characters who have specific lore based hax about it nullifying all attacks that either don't negate durability or meat some lore criteria or isn't the ability to null invulnerability. I have agreed with that long before and when it was first proposed but I do notice there has been a lack of following. Such as various platformer games treating some "Invincibility" power up as it as opposed to statistics amplification.

 

[Agnaa]

So what should we do here exactly?

These changes were already accepted, and seem to still be supported. My concern's with their implementation. Wokistan was going to go through each page 20 at a time, but stopped after the first batch. There was going to be a page rewrite, but Promestein did it herself without consulting the thread. Some users don't find her reword to clearly enough say "You actually need a mechanism explained in the lore to get this power".

 

[ElixirBlue]

These changes were already accepted, and seem to still be supported. My concern's with their implementation. Wokistan was going to go through each page 20 at a time, but stopped after the first batch. There was going to be a page rewrite, but Promestein did it herself without consulting the thread. Some users don't find her reword to clearly enough say "You actually need a mechanism explained in the lore to get this power".

I'm assuming you are referring to the Invulnerability thread to remove it from Game Sonic when mentioning some users.

What do you propose as an example for this "mechanism"? In that Invulnerability thread, you had referred Risuka Mizukura as an example for a mechanism, but her Invulnerability is a subset of Time Manipulation, like Flight can be a subset of Airbending.

What would you propose as an example for a "mechanism" of a pure Invulnerability ability?

 

[Agnaa]

As I said before...

I expect there to be more cases, but I'm not familiar with them.

Risuka's literally the only character I know with Invulnerability. If you want more examples, you'll have to wait for someone else.

You could also read earlier in the thread, I think people brought up Servants as having it, but I have absolutely zero familiarity with the series so I couldn't actually explain it to you.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Well, sure, but we need proper examples to justify making "mechanisms" mandatory for Invuln. users and see how widely we can apply them to all of Fiction. We obviously can't enforce "mechanisms" for all abilities, like Flight used by Superman-esque characters.

 

[Agnaa]

You could also read earlier in the thread, I think people brought up Servants as having it, but I have absolutely zero familiarity with the series so I couldn't actually explain it to you.

I don't have knowledge on every single verse on VSBW. I can't answer every question on my own. Please go look into it yourself, and ask people who are experts on these characters.

 

[Peter1129]

Would Greeza work? Its Invulnerability is thanks to it‘s Nonexistent Physiology which makes it so that convention attacks like physical and energy attacks can’t hurt it even if the characters are stronger than it like Delta Rise Claw Z. Only way to hurt it in series is through the Space Needle which is a weapon born from Greeza the void itself thus allowing the weapon to interact with and hurt Greeza.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I don't have knowledge on every single verse on VSBW. I can't answer every question on my own. Please go look into it yourself, and ask people who are experts on these characters.

Sure, but then lets put enforcing "mechanisms" as mandatory on hold until we are able to present sound and reasonable language for productive, indexing work.

Would Greeza work? Its Invulnerability is thanks to it‘s Nonexistent Physiology which makes it so that convention attacks like physical and energy attacks can’t hurt it even if the characters are stronger than it like Delta Rise Claw Z. Only way to hurt it in series is through the Space Needle which is a weapon born from Greeza the void itself thus allowing the weapon to interact with and hurt Greeza.

Thats Invulnerability as a subset of another ability. The idea is how to define Invulnerability without it being a subset of another ability.

 

[Peter1129]

Ahh I see natural invulnerability. Yeah than only one I can think off the top of my head would be the servants whom are invulnerable to modern weapons. Are there even any characters that are naturally invulnerable to AP without specific abilities? Don’t think I have ever seen any that are outright immune to AP without other abilities in play.

 

[Agnaa]

Sure, but then lets put enforcing "mechanisms" as mandatory on hold until we are able to present sound arguments for productive work.

Why should something agreed upon by half a dozen staff members be put on hold because one random user can't give you more than one example of invulnerability, despite other users giving other examples earlier in the thread?

I do not understand your thought process at all.

 

[ElixirBlue]

Ahh I see natural invulnerability. Yeah than only one I can think off the top of my head would be the servants whom are invulnerable to modern weapons. Are there even any characters that are naturally invulnerable to AP without specific abilities? Don’t think I have ever seen any that are outright immune to AP without other abilities in play.

I think Archie's Super Sonic as an example of Invulnerability being treated as natural without being a subset.

 

[Agnaa]

I think Archie's Super Sonic as an example of Invulnerability being treated as natural without being a subset.

What's their mechanism, then?