Summoning Rules

[OzzyReborn]

The summoner rule doesn't apply to fights where the summoner is on the same level as their summon in AP and thus can fight & and it never has. I've made it very clear which types of summoners I'm talking about.

And, as an example, no tier 6 summoner is ever going to try and brawl a tier 5 in a VS match. They won't be fighting people on the level of their summons just because they can fight other, weaker people who are also tier 6.

 

[SomebodyData]

"It should be noted that Tamers are generally not treated as targets or fighters during the matches their team is in. The Trainer/Tamer/etc loses once all their available team members are defeated. A trainer can only use the amount of team members as allowed in their respective universes. As such Pokemon will only allow 6 members and at most 3 Pokemon at a time. In the terms of Digimon, depending on the series it's either 6 or 11 total. Once again only 3 at a time. The OP can also limit the number of creatures a trainer/tamer/etc can use per battle in order to make a fight more fair. However, the tamer should be allowed to have at least 2 of their representative team members in a battle."

Actually the rule never said anything about tiers. @Ozzy so that point doesn't even work.

 

[OzzyReborn]

And....?

 

[Wokistan]

Nahiri is weaker than Emrakul, yet has abilities Emrakul does not. In character she was also there trying to kill Sorin. Those MTG characters also have hax and stuff to kill higher tiers just fine.

 

[OzzyReborn]

> Not sure you noticed, but summoners have often entered battles themselves.

Superhuman summoners who can fight, sure. Dudes who are weaklings are obviously not entering the battle. WIS and PIS aren't a thing in a VS match.

> Just because you don't want to go in the route of what the rule means once someone thinks about it, doesn't mean everyone else hasn't.

I digress and think it's more like you are forgetting that a weak and frail summoner isn't fighting alongside their summon and trying to make the "invulnerability" thing seem far more extreme than it ever will be.

> What?

That was me spoofing your random "you can't seem to fall to accept" line.

 

[SomebodyData]

"The summoner rule doesn't apply to fights where the summoner is on the same level as their summon in AP and thus can fight & and it never has. I've made it very clear which types of summoners I'm talking about.

And, as an example, no tier 6 summoner is ever going to try and brawl a tier 5 in a VS match. They won't be fighting people on the level of their summons just because they can fight other, weaker people who are also tier 6."

^Then this entire thing is false.

 

[OzzyReborn]

> Then this entire thing is false.

Please elaborate further.

 

[SomebodyData]

The rule doesn't specify it applies or not to summoners on the same level as their summon, its literally just "trainers/tamers/etc"

 

[Wokistan]

WIS?

If that's related to CIS, that's very much a thing in non bloodlusted matches.

 

[OzzyReborn]

The rule, however, specifically mentions cases like Pokémon to make an example and it has never applied to stuff like Bayonetta, where the summons are more versatile versions of the summoner as opposed to immensely stronger. So it's semantics.

 

[OzzyReborn]

WIS is Writer Induced Stupidity.

Also, I've already made it clear that I'm against this removal applying to situations like Pokémon and To Aru only

 

[SomebodyData]

Semantics, yes-ish, but that still means your point is inheritly innaccurate.

Oh, and just a reminder that in Pokemon, there have been cases of the trainer interfering and helping the pokemon in the fight, so yes, the rule is an extreme (responce to this: "I digress and think it's more like you are forgetting that a weak and frail summoner isn't fighting alongside their summon and trying to make the "invulnerability" thing seem far more extreme than it ever will be.")

 

[Wokistan]

There's even examples in pokemon where villains have threatened to straight up kill the trainers.

 

[Wokistan]

Also isn't to aru pretty haxxed? Fighting against higher tiers isn't inconceivable with that.

 

[OzzyReborn]

> Semantics, yes, but that still means your point is inheritly innaccurate.

Telling me I'm wrong isn't an argument

And, for Pokémon, it depends if you're using the version where the trainers are superhuman machines stronger than their own Pokémon or assuming they simply won't intervene.

 

[OzzyReborn]

I've already made my point and going in circles with you all is futile, so I'll be leaving. Do as you might.

 

[SomebodyData]

Correct, and neither is "So it's schematics", which I'm pointing out.

What are you on about?

 

[SomebodyData]

Okay? It wasn't just me who was pointing out your argument was weak, but I guess wasting time is probably not good for everyone involved.