• 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.

Summoners and Tamer's Issue

Status
Not open for further replies.
The nation getting its headquarter blown away is officially defeated at that point though. Cleaning up the leaderless army is a non concern.

And again, you are assuming that the trainer is killed out of necessity, not because, i dont know, its the easiest and most logical thing to do?
 
>Do you really not see how making Ash in a summon battle harder to kill than Kyousuke on the grounds of being way easier to kill in reality is blatant favouritism?

No because it's not favoritism. Defeat Ash by taking away his means of fighting. The pokemon who are actually being compared to the opponent.

>Summoners often being glass canons is their fault and I'm against giving them invincible rule shields to act like Ash survives the planet being nuked into oblivion.

Planet nuking is a false equivalance DontTalk. Because the opponent wouldnt be specifically targetting ash. If the environment gets nuked mid battle, Ash would most certainly be able to be targetted by it, and for obvious reasons. Ash would just happen to die, not because the opponent intended to do that.

What im saying im against is the opponent specifically targetting JUST ash/Yugi/Gingka/Tamer and avoidning the summons all together in order to win.

>A weak character fighting a glass canon can be a fair fight. Lu-Niang Lan is a very accomplished fighter in a verse swarming with summoners that summon beings far above her paygrade. Her fighting a summoner is a viable fight.

This isn't the issue im targetting here DontTalk. If the summoners themselves are fighting each other, thats completely fair. Like if Ash and Tai from Digimon went head to head without their summons. Thats fine.

Again, im talking about if an opponent completely ignores the summons and goes specifically JUST for the summoner in order to win.

>We have hundreds of glass canons on this page and this is no different. Heck, summoners are in a much better situation then most glass canons, since summoners can at least use their summons as shields.

It is different because in the case of those glass canons, they still have stats/abilities that are still considered that tier. For example, someone whos 2-A in AP but has Low 2-C durability. The AP still makes it fair for them to compare to another 2-A, so the match is fair.

In this case, we're talking about a summoner whos beyond a glass canon. They dont have any relevant stat in any way outside of what their summons have. Nothing they have, as individuals, compares to the opponent. So why make them involved as targets?

>Wrong. Remember what a shadow pokemon is? Literally designed to attack humans and does in fact also do so mid-battle.

Shadow Pokemon im not too heavily experienced with, which is why I wouldnt have remembered that. My overall point still stands tho. It's not a universal thing that happens in Pokemon in general.

>Expecting characters from other verses to use worse strategies than they usually do, just so that some summoners don't have to step out of their comfort zone is favouritism.

Again, we can apply this argument to characters purposely choosing to not use an ability that would save them all because of in-character morals. And it would be treated like crap if we did.

It's not favourtism, it's for the sake of a battle. And if they have to target the weak link at all, they were never good enough to face their summons in the first place.

>And we don't put morals higher than fighting for survival, we put realism higher than fighting for survival. We make characters act the way they realistically do in their own verse. So, for example Ash will not start attacking humans. Not because he has morals, but because he usually doesn't attack humans.

Which is, again, the characters morals of what they do from their respective universes. Hence why in-character is always automatically assumed first unless someone specifically makes a match bloodlusted. Ash for instance not attacking a human is a moral for him because its not in character for him to do that. So if realism as you say has higher priority, why wouldnt Ash do that if it means saving his life?

Same thing if, for instance, Katara deciding not to use Bloodbending to save her from dying in a match?

>That is giving them an invincible shield. Or how else do you plan the summoners not dying by the shockwave of the fights any much higher tiered fighter produces?

See my 2nd paragraph for this.
 
InfiniteSped said:
This is basically the same. You're killing them to not let them use their attacks at a certain tier. You wouldn't say "The 5-A just killed the glass cannon before they could use what makes them 5-A in the first place, which means he's admitting defeat". Summoners are basically glass cannons, or rather, people made of glass carrying cannons around.
Click to expand...
This is completely different. The 5-A killing the 5-A with 10-B dura is simply just killing them before they can do anything. Thats not admitting defeat. The latter is still a combatant, they just lack the durability to survive.

Going after a summoner specifically is admitting defeat because you are purposely avoiding the comparable summons and are specifically targetting someone who has no fighting capability. Your running away from other opponents and have to rely on killing a non-combatant to win.
 
Yeah. Defeating the opponent is... usually done in a way that takes their means of fighting further. This rule is just horrible for so many reasons that...

First of all, what about summoners that fight? Sung Jin-Woo is a main fighter in most of his keys, being able to solo his own summons by himself.

What level of glass canon do you have to be to be protected? Would a 7-A with Low 6-B summon be protected here? Does that apply even when the summoner can fight and negate durability at Low 6-B levels?

What if the opponent is weak too? Say, Ash vs a guy with a gun. Both are, effectively, glass cannons. Making one immune due to their higher tier attack having the extra step of having a sentient being do it is not really reasonable.


In the end, who cares that summoner's whole deal can get countered? We don't restrict regen negation against someone who relies on Regenerationn just because the opponent is side-step ping the enemy's main fighting method. If it's a stomp, the it's a stomp. But summoners being glass cannons is no worse than other weaknesses.
 
A sniper will not fight a martial artist head on, an invisible person would stab people in the back, a power nullification user would negate his enemies' main thing...

People fighting unfairly, and in underhanded techniques, is not something that should be restricted at all. If you want to see the character beat the summons, make a profile for the summon and have them fight that.
 
The summoner is a combatant, they're the one fighting in the first place (if anything, they're admitting they can't win by having others fight for them . . .). It's no different than to simply avoid taking the 5-A attack.

Abusing obvious weaknesses is not admitting defeat. No different than, say, throwing Kryptonite at Superman or using magnets against Wolverine. They basically have "shoot me" written all over their face, not targeting them is either being cocky or just an idiot, really.
 
SomebodyData said:
That's not admitting defeat, that's just doing the logical thing.
Click to expand...
In every case? Sure no. But It being logical doesnt stop it from being a purposeful tactic of running away in other cases.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
In every case? Sure no. But It being logical doesnt stop it from being a purposeful tactic of running away in other cases.
Click to expand...
So what... avoiding a difficult fight by abusing a weakness of a character is now not allowed? Should we make magneto fight wolverine and restrict his magnetic abilities because he is basically running from a head on battle?

Also, what about characters that have infinite summons?
 
>First of all, what about summoners that fight? Sung Jin-Woo is a main fighter in most of his keys, being able to solo his own summons by himself.

They're fine. Check what I said about Lucy Heartfilla at the top Risci.

"This was said before, and i'll repeat it again. Any character thats considered a tamer or summoner of some type shouldn't be targetted. And no, im not talking about very specific special cases where the summoner has actual stats of their own to fight with (so no, Lucy Heartfilla being a target is fair game). Im talking about the general typical summoner who 95% of the time lacks the suffcient stats to fight and needs to rely on a summon or creature to fight for them."

IF they can fight, then they'd count as a combatant.
 
Very specific special cases?

As far as I am a were, the main source of summoners is video games, and almost all of those are superhuman in some way.

Even Pokemon humans should have been upgraded to the blatantly superhuman feats they constantly pull off even without pokemon scaling.

And what? You want to apply such a rule to tier 10 alone? Why would that get extra care?
 
I disagree for all the reasons I've always disagreed with and don't talk. Will post in more detail later

As for now, there are some oddities that emerge. Take Glaistig Uaine she's 10-C or B with no shades summoned. With shades summoned, shades are impossible to directly damage unless you're like Scion, people need to go for her. This would make her totally invincible because summoner, which is just what
 
I mean, case by case basis's are a thing here you know. But nah, there are common summoners who aren't superhuman or have any stat/ability to fight on their own with. Bladers and Duelists, as mentioned here already, are a perfect example of characters who are entirely non-combatants.

And sure? I want to apply a rule to any summoner who cant fight for themselves. But any summoner who can fight in some manner shouldnt be included since they're not helpless.
 
Unless the character is immobile with N/A stats, they can fight. Effectively, probably not.

...Ignoring speed equalized making it so everyone can fight, of course.
 
And so? Why should they get preferential treatment? If you want the summon to fight a character, make a thread with the summon.

No character should get non-canon powers, especially invincibility and inability to be directly attacked, "to make things fair" or any of that.
 
Why shouldn't non combatants be targetable if they're helping? You become a legitimate target by offering such valuable things like aid and information according to irl conflict rules, and this gimps a lot pf people who actually abuse this in verse just because. Glaistig Uaine breaks ot again because she can do stuff directly whem empowered by her shades but without them really just has the power rip so she would just be in a constant state of flux.

Also, meet Khepri. She really can't fight on her own in that key, relying on the Doormaker+Clairvoyant combo to mind control and puppeteer thousands of capes. Otherwise, she's just a brain damaged one armed teenager who's original power was ruined. She'd be the sort of noncombatant here, but making her invincible just seems ridiculous. Why shouldn't thet be able to fight back against the source of their word? What is so wrong with cutting out the middleman, even if they can't fight on their own?
 
@Somebody

Well how would speed equal factor into non-combatant characters then? Would they perceive the opponent to, say, command their summon to defend them?

@Ricsi

Thats not what im arguing for Ricsi. Im pushing for the summoner to simply just not be targetted specifically.

And what if the summon has no page here but is included with their summoner?
 
Ye, otherwise they wouldn't be able to command them. Of course, that doesn't stop the fact that their summons may fail to actually protect them.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
Thats not what im arguing for Ricsi. Im pushing for the summoner to simply just not be targetted specifically.

And what if the summon has no page here but is included with their summoner?
Click to expand...
Yeah, and that is still not good. You shouldn't just make someone not be hit in their weakness if they have one for the sake of a battle.

And if you want a match for someone, but they don't have a profile, there is one way to get around the problem.
 
@Wokistan

Define "helping" in this case, because the summoner isn't having a direct hand in whats going on in the battle. They're just shouting commands or speaking, the summoners are the ones doing the actual actions. Why should someone who has no direct part in the battle...being directly targetted?

And whats wrong with it is that it's basically the same thing as if we pitted an 8-A against a High 6-A. Under normal circumstances, we'd never allow this because it's a stomp. Yet, if the 8-A has High 6-A summons but the opponent ignores the summons, it just ends up becoming the same as the former.
 
While people agreed above, let me just some up my opinion here.

-Should Summoners be free of attack.

No. The summoner being killed is their fault. It's not the fault of the person taking advantage of the weakness. This is not running away, it's being smart. While not 100% equivical, the logic is the same. Let's say Inferno from Soul Calibur fought Goku. Inferno decides to go, lolmindhax and ends the fight. Is this also running away? Not at all. The logic here is that the opponent found a way to defeat his opponent without having to deal with an onslaught of attacks that would obliterate them, or in this summoning case, deal with the various creatures trying to kill them. I repeat, it's not running away, it's being smart. Also, leaving summoners invulnerable opens up a can of worms of "what about those that infinitely spam summons?". Which won't end well.

-What about summoners who were killed?

I mean, once again, we shouldn't always assume that if the summoner is killed, the summons automatically stop fighting. I brought up both Pokemon and Digimon in this case above where the summons themselves are still more than capable of fighting and more than likely will continue fighting. In that case, defeating the summoner didn't have that much of an effect did it? Like, good for you buddy you killed me, but my 3 Dragons are still gonna try and kill ya. It depends on the mechanics of the summon and the summon itself. There is also the loyalty and revenge factors to think about. Sometimes killing the summoner is the worst thing an opponent can do as it would cause the now left alone summon to truly become a bloodlusted beast who uses it's best abilities immediately in revenge. Now in my Ikki Kurogane vs Jimmy KEN hypothetical above, I noted how if Ikki killed JK, but was killed by his Digimon, it would either count as a win or inconclusive match. We need to decide this.

-What about when a fight starts?

This discretion is up to the OP at the end of the day. Personally I would prefer the Tamer to at least have a summon out (in the amount they would use in character) to give them at least the illusion of a fighting chance. Although that is up to OP discretion unless people agree with that here.
 
Shouting commands is a pretty direct effect. They should be directly targeted because they're helping. Honestly thete doesn't even need to be a reason. Thwre are characters who heal off killing people who would be fine just nuking civilian populations for vitality, or getting mind control armies, stealing weapons, etc.

Also what would we do about game enemies and shit who just summon forever? Are they just unkilable? Pseudo tier 0 type 8 for summons,.
 
>And whats wrong with it is that it's basically the same thing as if we pitted an 8-A against a High 6-A. Under normal circumstances, we'd never allow this because it's a stomp. Yet, if the 8-A has High 6-A summons but the opponent ignores the summons, it just ends up becoming the same as the former.

If nothing else of mine gets addressed, could I at least get feedback on this point please? Because there is literally no difference between a High 6-A vs 8-A match being closed for a stomp, and a High 6-A vs a 8-A with High 6-A summons being closed for a stomp if the only thing considered High 6-A is ignored and the summoner is specifically targetted.
 
Sure there is. What if that 8-A has a High 6-A gun? That's a muvh closer equivalency. Also durability negation. I bet March could kill a few high 6-As. It's not like 8-A vs High 6-A is jusy inherently unfair if we can have a 9-C kill one fairly.
 
ProfessorKukui4Life said:
So basically if the summoner is killed and the summons are ignored, the fights an auto-stomp.
Click to expand...
If the summons go away then yes.

If the summons still fight and win, it's incon.
 
Wouldn't even say it's an auto stomp, just if the summoner's killed in a way that otherwise would be one. Swap out summons for a high tier weapon or durability negation with a wind up for judging. Like if Glaistig Uaine gets shot to death or something despite her shades, somehow, that wouldn't immediately be a stomp just because she is the one dying.
 
I mean sure, but im talking specifically about summons here.

Like for example, Hoopa is only 2-B by summoning the creation trio to fight on his behalf and nothing else. Now if Hoopa himself was pitted against a 2-B on his own, he obviously gets stomped. But if he brings the creation trio and the 2-B ignores them to attack Hoopa? It's effectively the same fight as before. Yet its considered fair?
 
Yeah, but, why was he killed before he could summon?


If a summoner could get his summons out right away but doesn't because he goes on a monologue or other character imposed weaknesses, that isn't meaning much.

If a fight leaves one of the fighters unable to win regardless of actions taken, it's a stomp. As simple as that.
 
Does he "obviously" get stomped though? He can still evade, get protected, etc. Isnt that the portal guy? Can't he just dip and have the summon take care of it? People are able to take actions to prevent their oen demise. If hoopa had a hypothetical 2-B gun, he could just shoot them. Woth the summon, he can block, force attention on the summon, etc.

So yeah, it can still be a fair match.
 
Your talking about someone with portal creation avoiding Multiversal destruction Woki. Hoopa on his own would never be able to avoid that. It'd be a stomp no matter what he did. But to try and get my point across, look at what Ionsinite replied with earlier:

" Gingka Hagane (Beyblade) is a perfect example of why I think this rule makes no sense. He's literally a 10-B with a Low 2-C toy, and he absolutely never fights because his toy makes all the fight for him. However, killing Gingka directly while ignoring Pegasus being considered a win-con is blaffing to me, simply because that's the equivalent of pitting a Low 2-C vs a haxless 10-B and saying the match is fair."

Basically, what difference is there to a regular stomp match and a match being a stomp because the summons are ignored and the summoner, who has no abilities, specifically is killed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

ArachDusa
Versus matches for weapons?
Replies
5
Views
733
XSOULOFCINDERX
XSOULOFCINDERX
Abstractly_a_Protagonist
Summoning another character in battle.
Replies
5
Views
719
ShionAH
ShionAH
Nierre
  • Locked
[BORUTO] Versus Momoshiki New Scaling (Part 4 of ?)
Replies
8
Views
714
Nierre
Nierre
Jozaysmith?
The Devil vs The Devil Hunter
Replies
3
Views
1K
CodeCCLL
CodeCCLL
Dragonite007
Summoners Wars Discussion Thread
Replies
0
Views
633
Dragonite007
Dragonite007
Back
Top