Suggested invulnerability changes

[ElixirBlue]

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.

I mean, likewise. Why are we enforcing "mechanisms" as mandatory for Invulnerability? Where does it come from? What series established it as necessary for all of Fiction to follow?

 

[Agnaa]

I mean, likewise. Why are we enforcing "mechanisms" as mandatory for Invulnerability? Where does it come from? Why series established it as necessarily for all of Fiction to follow?

This post explains why, in great detail. It was agreed to by half a dozen staff members, and people from earlier still seem to agree to it:

tldr wok is salty that he didn't get to delete this power last time and tries to neuter it agai

I think we should better define Invulnerability. Given that we already have Durability Negation, I think it makes more sense to concretely define Invulnerability as Attack Potency Negation, more strictly establishing it as abilities that render offensive force irrelevant. An example would be The Siberia, who's invincible due to physics manip that means she can just not be affected by physical properties like force if she doesn't want to be.

Why did I make a thread for this when the page for Invulnerability already says it should be "beyond normal durability"? Because it isn't being applied that way in practice and there's been confusion about it. For example:

• Doomguy has invulnerability listed with the Invulnerability Sphere. It does make him immune to everything within the context of his fighting, but there's no evidence or mechanic that would make it sidestep AP entirely.
• Sonic the Hedgehog (Game Character) has been having arguments over this recently. His super form usually doesn't take damage and has been called invincible, but again there's not evidence that this bypasses AP.
• Bernadine (Khimera) is listed as having invulnerability negation for being able to damage the protag while she's in a state of enhanced durability. Chelshia's own file doesn't even call it invulnerable.
• Starfire (Teen Titans) is listed as invulnerable just because, i guess.

It should be put under the same standards as Durability Negation is. We should require evidence of a mechanic that works outside the bounds of normal AP, and not just give it out for being called indestructible or invulnerable or whatever the same way we wouldn't give out dura neg for random statement of "this gun can pierce anything" or whatever. From a quick look on the what links here page, a lot of people would probably lose the ability.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I was not there to question why the example provided was Invulnerability as a subset of another ability.

I do agree with DDM:

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.

but this doesn't require "mechanisms" to be mandatory.

 

[Agnaa]

I think you're seriously misunderstanding what DDM means by "lore based hax about it nullifying all attacks" if you think "The chaos emeralds make them invulnerable!" is sufficient.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I have not mentioned them. Invulnerability is a power, like any other power, extends far further than my scope and I don't subscribe to rules without reasonable applications. If the (Game) Chaos Emeralds don't meet a reasonable standard, they don't meet a reasonable standard.

"Mechanisms" based on an example of Invulnerability as a subset to another power, doesn't sound reasonable to the power itself. What if a Superhero only had the power of Invulnerability but had the same reasonings of having it as another Superhero with the power of Flight?

 

[Agnaa]

I have not mentioned them. Invulnerability is a power, like any other power, extends far further than my scope and I don't subscribe to rules without reasonable applications. If the (Game) Chaos Emeralds don't meet a reasonable standard, they don't meet a reasonable standard.

I was assuming that Archie's Super Sonic (which you mentioned) would've come from something similar, given that they're both called "Super Sonic", and that earlier in this thread, the only evidence people provided for a mechanism was "They tanked powerful attacks".

"Mechanisms" based on an example of Invulnerability as a subset to another power, doesn't sound reasonable to the power itself.

I don't think mechanisms require another power, they just very commonly are. Like technically, "No changes can be made to my body" would be a mechanism for Invulnerability without another ability. It's just that fiction often says "That's because I'm the Concept of America and my body can only be damaged if the Concept of America is damaged" or "I used my time powers to make my body that way".

 

[Wokistan]

I mean, likewise. Why are we enforcing "mechanisms" as mandatory for Invulnerability? Where does it come from? What series established it as necessary for all of Fiction to follow?

Because we list powers because they're useful for categorization and invulnerability without this is identical to durability. There is no separation between unspecified invulnerability and durability. It wasn't useful to have it exist that way before, so I changed it to be a mirror of durability negation. And just like with durability negation, to actually prove such a claim, you're going to need to explain how it works. WIthout some explanation that would allow us to extrapolate further, it wouldn't really make sense to just randomly assume it applies to things we haven't seen it apply to. If you have some guy who has some claim that he can destroy anything but doesn't have the feats to back it up, he doesn't get indexed at high 3-A or whatever. Why should that apply here with durability just because sonic said the magic I word while also not being this website and having no proof of using it in the same way as we are?

"Mechanisms" based on an example of Invulnerability as a subset to another power, doesn't sound reasonable to the power itself. What if a Superhero only had the power of Invulnerability but had the same reasonings of having it as another Superhero with the power of Flight?

He'd have whatever durability his feats support, just like the flight guy would have whatever quality of flight his flight feats support. It's not like every single website is going to use a common word to mean the exact same thing we use it as. This applies to every power on the website. Comics will flat out give people the power of omnipotence and such, but it's not like we automatically default to assuming that means the exact same thing within the context of the comic as it does on the wiki.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I was assuming that Archie's Super Sonic (which you mentioned) would've come from something similar, given that they're both called "Super Sonic", and that earlier in this thread, the only evidence people provided for a mechanism was "They tanked powerful attacks".

Archie Sonic went crazy earlier on and were creating their own lore, same with Sonic the Comic. The Games, for example, have only slightly focused on the Emeralds to be Reality Warpers (Space/Time warpers at the minimum) but Archie, STC, and now Paramount, have made their versions of the Emeralds being Reality Warpers blatant. But thats a separate topic.

STC(Sonic the Comic) had made no inclination or allusion of Super Sonic being Invulnerable beyond stat increases (as far as I'm aware), so we had to remove it for him. Same with Paramount, so we've done nothing on that front.

I don't think mechanisms require another power, they just very commonly are. Like technically, "No changes can be made to my body" would be a mechanism for Invulnerability without another ability. It's just that fiction often says "That's because I'm the Concept of America and my body can only be damaged if the Concept of America is damaged" or "I used my time powers to make my body that way".

Hmmm... I guess worded like that, it has more reasonable reasoning behind the restriction. So basically "As long as this is happening or this is existing, I'm Invulnerable", I take it?

 

[Agnaa]

So basically "As long as this is happening or this is existing, I'm Invulnerable", I take it?

Not just "I'm invulnerable" (as that could simply mean higher durability), and not just "I can't die" (as that could simply be immortality type 8). The mechanism there is "I'm invulnerable because no changes can be made to my body"; the "Concept of America" stuff is the flavour given to back that up, and "The Concept of America being damaged hurts me" is a weakness/limitation. We don't give invuln for "This makes them invulnerable to attacks for 5 seconds".

It's all about the explanation. The comparison to Durability Negation is useful; we don't give dura neg for "This sword can cut through anything", but we do for "This sword can cut through anything because it shears through objects on a molecular level".

 

[ElixirBlue]

There is no separation between unspecified invulnerability and durability. It wasn't useful to have it exist that way before, so I changed it to be a mirror of durability negation. And just like with durability negation, to actually prove such a claim, you're going to need to explain how it works.

He'd have whatever durability his feats support, just like the flight guy would have whatever quality of flight his flight feats support. It's not like every single website is going to use a common word to mean the exact same thing we use it as. This applies to every power on the website. Comics will flat out give people the power of omnipotence and such, but it's not like we automatically default to assuming that means the exact same thing within the context of the comic as it does on the wiki.

I understand that and agree. A standard needs to be followed. I guess the topic we are on is what are the qualifies to line up with the ability's function.

Not just "I'm invulnerable" (as that could simply mean higher durability), and not just "I can't die" (as that could simply be immortality type 8). The mechanism there is "I'm invulnerable because no changes can be made to my body"; the "Concept of America" stuff is the flavour given to back that up, and "The Concept of America being damaged hurts me" is a weakness/limitation. We don't give invuln for "This makes them invulnerable to attacks for 5 seconds".

It's all about the explanation. The comparison to Durability Negation is useful; we don't give dura neg for "This sword can cut through anything", but we do for "This sword can cut through anything because it shears through objects on a molecular level".

A function. What the Author thinks about how this power works and if the author's understanding of the ability lines up with negating the concept of damage, right?

Does the qualifiers need to be in writing, by showing or either or?

 

[Agnaa]

Does the qualifiers need to be in writing, by showing or either or?

I imagine it would be very, very difficult to establish that sort of thing through showing. Frankly, I can't imagine a way it could happen without at least some writing, maybe with some very good pictograms that communicate a mechanism without technically using any words? While I don't want to rule it out, I don't think it's very plausible.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I imagine it would be very, very difficult to establish that sort of thing through showing. Frankly, I can't imagine a way it could happen without at least some writing, maybe with some very good pictograms that communicate a mechanism without technically using any words? While I don't want to rule it out, I don't think it's very plausible.

I'm open to debate Invulnerability with you later with Archie Super Sonic when it comes to "showings", if you ever feel like it. There are things in the comic Super Sonic survives that could not be explained with "Higher durability" substituting Invulnerability. But I'm mentioning that here now only for considerations that "showings" is possible.

Moving this thread along, what is missing, or rather, how would you suggest altering/updating the Invulnerability page to be more accessible for causal Wiki users to understand the requirements?

 

[Agnaa]

I'm open to debate Invulnerability with you later with Archie Super Sonic when it comes to "showings", if you ever feel like it. There are things in the comic Super Sonic survives that could not be explained with "Higher durability" substituting Invulnerability.

I guess I'll ask you on your wall then.

EDIT: We talked about it, I think it can be explained with high durability and hax resist. Even if we gave invulnerability, we would also need to give hax resist.

Moving this thread along, what is missing, or rather, how would you suggest altering/updating the Invulnerability page to be more accessible for causal Wiki users to understand the requirements?

I'm not completely sure. Multiple people have said "The page doesn't say it needs an explanation", but when I've asked what it could say to get that across, they haven't responded to me. My first guess is to change "whose invulnerability is clearly more than" to "whose invulnerability is explained as clearly more than".

 

[Antvasima]

I think we should better define Invulnerability. Given that we already have Durability Negation, I think it makes more sense to concretely define Invulnerability as Attack Potency Negation, more strictly establishing it as abilities that render offensive force irrelevant. An example would be The Siberia, who's invincible due to physics manip that means she can just not be affected by physical properties like force if she doesn't want to be.

Why did I make a thread for this when the page for Invulnerability already says it should be "beyond normal durability"? Because it isn't being applied that way in practice and there's been confusion about it. For example:

• Doomguy has invulnerability listed with the Invulnerability Sphere. It does make him immune to everything within the context of his fighting, but there's no evidence or mechanic that would make it sidestep AP entirely.
• Sonic the Hedgehog (Game Character) has been having arguments over this recently. His super form usually doesn't take damage and has been called invincible, but again there's not evidence that this bypasses AP.
• Bernadine (Khimera) is listed as having invulnerability negation for being able to damage the protag while she's in a state of enhanced durability. Chelshia's own file doesn't even call it invulnerable.
• Starfire (Teen Titans) is listed as invulnerable just because, i guess.

It should be put under the same standards as Durability Negation is. We should require evidence of a mechanic that works outside the bounds of normal AP, and not just give it out for being called indestructible or invulnerable or whatever the same way we wouldn't give out dura neg for random statement of "this gun can pierce anything" or whatever. From a quick look on the what links here page, a lot of people would probably lose the ability.

To me this seems fine. Is somebody here willing to apply what has been accepted here please?

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.

I also think that it seems like a good idea to add the three different types listed above. What do the rest of you think about this?

 

[Agnaa]

I also think that it seems like a good idea to add the three different types listed above. What do the rest of you think about this?

I think it's better to just have Type 1 as a limitation/weakness, and Type 3 as additional Resistances on the page. Since there'd only be one type left after that, there wouldn't really be a need for it.

but lets not clog it here

As long as it doesn't become a topic of further discussion, I won't.

 

[ElixirBlue]

I deleted my comment quickly because my brain made a logical oopsie. I was the one clogging the thread by continuing the discussion here.

 

[Antvasima]

I think it's better to just have Type 1 as a limitation/weakness, and Type 3 as additional Resistances on the page. Since there'd only be one type left after that, there wouldn't really be a need for it.

Okay. That is probably fine.