• 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.

Top 15 Strongest Non-Smurfs for Every Tier Continuation 4.0

??? I am 99% sure that is just false.

I am pretty sure what you are confusing it with is, how just due to a person having an aspect of NEp, doesn't make them Fully NEP. For example. Nep 1 aspect 2. This means his concept is nonexistent, but everything else is existent. So along as you aren't trying to interact with his nonexistent concept you are fine.
huh
i did not understand anything you said here

if i can interact with NEP type 2 already, why would i need to interact with aspect type 3
 
huh
i did not understand anything you said here

if i can interact with NEP type 2 already, why would i need to interact with aspect type 3
Aspect represents, what is currently affected by nature. For example, let's say someone's soul is none existent. and a character can interact with a non-existent concept. Can they automatically interact with the non-existent soul? The answer is no.

Just like how concept manipulating, doesn't affect soul manipulation.
 
Aspect represents, what is currently affected by nature. For example, let's say someone's soul is none existent. and a character can interact with a non-existent concept. Can they automatically interact with the non-existent soul? The answer is no.
this is not what i was talking about đź—ż

the person with nep interaction can interact with type 2 nep which means they can interact with all of this
"The character doesn't exist in a sense further beyond conventional nonexistence. In terms of binary, this would be something that is neither 1 nor 0, where 1 is existence and 0 is nonexistence. These characters often have some form of Nonduality due to their lack of binary existence. Characters of this type have to behave at least as nonexistent as those with Material Nonexistence, but might display even further showings such as preceding or opposing existence."

the person with nep type 2 already doesn't have a soul
 
Doesn't matter, they get erased conceptually, not having an narrative aspect doesn't save you from getting erased, just makes you resistant to the thing you lack, for obvious reasons.
We don't go around assuming narrative erasure can erase NEP2 things as well; heck, not even NEP1 things, unless shown otherwise.
 
Summary of what I saw so far

1. Characters from BlazBlue / Characters from What a Beautiful Series (Alva Avan Edison and M)
I don't know what will happen with BlazBlue vs Velda, that has yet to be decided.
As for What A Beautiful Series, that acausality 5 makes it impossible for Veldana to interact, but the question is, can they harm him?

I think this has many layers, you would have to ask a supporter, and it seems that he can interact with all aspects of NEP, so...

3. Characters from Slay The Princess (The Princess and The Hero)
Here again a problem of interactability.

i think veldanava stomps.
6. Characters from Wizard101
Transduality type 2, so Veldanava cannot interact with him, although I do not know how the former could harm Veldanava

Same as above.
 
I think this has many layers, you would have to ask a supporter, and it seems that he can interact with all aspects of NEP, so...
but essentially, the thing is size. Ozriel's range itself for all of his hax seems to be that of Low 1-C baseline[a single 5-dimensional construct], while Veldanava's nature encompasses countless such constructs
 
but essentially, the thing is size. Ozriel's range itself for all of his hax seems to be that of Low 1-C baseline[a single 5-dimensional construct], while Veldanava's nature encompasses countless such constructs
icl I don't think Veldanava being larger than Ozriel is that useful because it wouldn't prevent him from getting CM 1 haxed
 
icl I don't think Veldanava being larger than Ozriel is that useful because it wouldn't prevent him from getting CM 1 haxed
As I explained before in the thread itself, it seems their CM1 rating is prior to the tiering system revisions, so we'll need to see if their CM1 [or to be more specific, their type 1 concepts themselves] are just cosmology-scaled or Low 1-A/1-A[that which is the tier independent universal concepts should normally have if they are independent of their particulars[the entire cosmology]

And no, not all old type 1s would qualify for that, obviously.
 
Here again a problem of interactability.
PGJSHaS.png
 
As I explained before in the thread itself, it seems their CM1 rating is prior to the tiering system revisions, so we'll need to see if their CM1 [or to be more specific, their type 1 concepts themselves] are just cosmology-scaled or Low 1-A/1-A[that which is the tier independent universal concepts should normally have if they are independent of their particulars[the entire cosmology]
We are going by what the current profile states, whether the CM 1 qualifies for 1-A is not relevant to this fight at the moment
 
We are going by what the current profile states, whether the CM 1 qualifies for 1-A is not relevant to this fight at the moment
if we're going by the current profiles [which have ratings according to the previous standards], then we must also go with their previously accepted level of Cm1; which would be independent/outside of baseline 5D in this case for Ozriel, since it seems their cosmology itself is 5D [for "The Way"]
 
Here again a problem of interactability.
Yeah, for Slime, cause they do not have the NEP NPI to actually interact with TLQ before he just erases them beyond their capability to do anything. because his NEP is deeper than typical NEP 2 and he erases you to such a degree
 
Yeah, for Slime, cause they do not have the NEP NPI to actually interact with TLQ before he just erases them beyond their capability to do anything. because his NEP is deeper than typical NEP 2 and he erases you to such a degree
I actually said that because the characters from Slay the princess apparently have transduality type 2
 
but essentially, the thing is size. Ozriel's range itself for all of his hax seems to be that of Low 1-C baseline[a single 5-dimensional construct], while Veldanava's nature encompasses countless such constructs
Encompass more low 1-c structure doesn't make you larger than baseline low 1-c structure cause they are all beyond infinite now, more infinite is still infinite. Unless the verse itself specific that the character is larger because he encompassing more thing or it require more range to reach more, etc.......if not everything is the same baseline low 1-c, this has been the standard since 2-A
 
For 9-C
  • Tamamo doesnt have street level striking or dura so she should be removed
  • Nanno doesnt have striking (dont know if this is an error or not)
 
it doesn't even matter if veldanava is bigger than Ozriel because the fight distance is 4km
It's not Veldanava vs Ozriel, it's God vs Ozriel. The dude is Omnipresent...
Encompass more low 1-c structure doesn't make you larger than baseline low 1-c structure cause they are all beyond infinite now, more infinite is still infinite. Unless the verse itself specific that the character is larger because he encompassing more thing or it require more range to reach more, etc.......if not everything is the same baseline low 1-c, this has been the standard since 2-A
you do know that just because its infinite doesn't change the possibility of it stacking, right? This is not 2-A where the amount of infinities is just a matter or arrangement[infinite sets of infinite timelines], but something more then that; A Low 2-C construct [space-time/timeline] is below 2-C construct[more then 1 space-time/timeline], in the same sense, a single Low 1-C hyper-timeline is inferior, in the same way, to multiple Low 1-C hypertimelines.
Read the cosmology pages for Will verse to avoid DT mistakes.
I did read it, at least for the part that was linked to Ozriel's AP rating... and it seems the construct he was scaling to was baseline Low 1-C, unless I missed something.
 
you do know that just because its infinite doesn't change the possibility of it stacking, right? This is not 2-A where the amount of infinities is just a matter or arrangement[infinite sets of infinite timelines], but something more then that; A Low 2-C construct [space-time/timeline] is below 2-C construct[more then 1 space-time/timeline], in the same sense, a single Low 1-C hyper-timeline is inferior, in the same way, to multiple Low 1-C hypertimelines.
You no matter how much you stacking infinity it is all the same infinity, unless it is uncountable infinity or infinite^infinite or +1D or higher cardinality. No offense but go talk to the standard, this site do not run on your personal belief, if the verse do not specific it, then it is all baseline
 
You no matter how much you stacking infinity it is all the same infinity, unless it is uncountable infinity or infinite^infinite or +1D or higher cardinality. No offense but go talk to the standard, this site do not run on your personal belief, if the verse do not specific it, then it is all baseline
Did I ever say it was higher cardinality or +1D tho?
1-C is 5D only [6D is 1-C], something like "Layers into Low 1-C" will still be 5D regardless, but above baseline 5D.

I thought these standards were common knowledge since its literally the tiering system page; I highlighted to you the difference between Low 2-C[a single 4D construct] and 2-C[many 4D constructs], even just basic knowledge of the tiering system should be able to conclude the same applies to 5D constructs as well. It's not gonna get it to 6D, but it's not gonna be the same as baseline 5D either. -_-

This is not a 2-A analogy, but a Low 2-C -> 2-C analogy, except its Low 1-C to higher amounts of Low 1-C [since we don't have a different tier itself for more then one low 1-C construct]
 
Did I ever say it was higher cardinality or +1D tho?
1-C is 5D only [6D is 1-C], something like "Layers into Low 1-C" will still be 5D regardless, but above baseline 5D.

I thought these standards were common knowledge since its literally the tiering system page; I highlighted to you the difference between Low 2-C[a single 4D construct] and 2-C[many 4D constructs], even just basic knowledge of the tiering system should be able to conclude the same applies to 5D constructs as well. It's not gonna get it to 6D, but it's not gonna be the same as baseline 5D either. -_-
Tier 2 is outlier in the current system which is hard to address, but again starting from 2-A, unless the verse specific it, everything is baseline, you can have higher AP via scaling chain such as B stronger than A, C stronger than B, etc...but by default encompassing more low 1-c structure (or any higher structure) is the same as baseline, the verse need to specific that encompassing more structure mean you stronger or bigger or have more range, etc...... This is the standard
 
Back
Top