• 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.

Type 4 Acausality: Too Much for Too Little

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bobsican said:
Such resistances in this case would be more of a matter of range than a resistance per-say.

And as said before, type 4 acausality is extremely variable, it shouldn't have the stuff of another type by default as its traits can vary depending on its reasoning and extent of details known.
Click to expand...
If being Beyond Time and Space doesn't even mean anything, might as well just nuke the entire Type 4 and make Type 5 the new Type 4.

Because I feel like that's basically what's happening here, since this CRT basically wants to make Type 4 a power with no powers.
 
I mean, that also happens to stuff like Elemental Manipulation and Status Effect Inducement, it's up to the users to list what in particular a given ability grants for stuff of this sort.
 
Bobsican said:
I mean, that also happens to stuff like Elemental Manipulation and Status Effect Inducement, it's up to the users to list what in particular a given ability grants for stuff of this sort.
Click to expand...
How about a list of potential powers/resistances, then?
 
The currently proposed rewrite of type 4 acausality here already covers the idea of mentioning some potential (not inherent) abilities that can be obtained from that type depending on the stuff known.
 
I seriously don't see any NLF on current Aca 4, operating on different cause and effect at least should make them immune to causality hax that work only on normal system of causality, i can understand if you want to remove resistance to Precognition, or at worst remove resistance to Fate hax. There are always default assumption for something, the way you trying to do is no different than a robot character with Inorganic Physiology Type 2 do not have immunity to soul hax cause they don't specific it in the verse,.......kinda you just force everything to be hyperspecific for the sake of it
 
Last edited:
@Bobsican yeah they're 99% normal in the sense you can harm them with conventional tools, the fact that they fundamentally work on different set of cause and effect rules means the causality hax needs to work on those alternate rules for them to affect you. I seriously don't see what you're trying to say here about the "vagueness" of these type 4 Acausality when "functioning or existing on completely different laws" is pretty straightforward to me, which just so happens to be the explanation for a lot of type 4 Acausal beings. This is no different than beings that are stated to be a singularity in time being type 2 since that's the textbook definition of type 2 acausality. Also you do know Fate by proxy works under a cause and effect system right? Deeming someone destined to lose because of a circumstance is basic understanding of cause and effect, being outside of fate means you're outside the normal cause and effect system.
 
Vietthai96 said:
I seriously don't see any NLF on current Aca 4, operating on different cause and effect at least should make them immune to causality hax that work only on normal system of causality, i can understand if you want to remove resistance to Precognition, or at worst remove resistance to Fate hax. There are always default assumption for something, the way you trying to do is no different than a robot character with Inorganic Physiology Type 2 do not have immunity to soul hax cause they don't specific it in the verse,.......kinda you just force everything to be hyperspecific for the sake of it
Click to expand...
Uh...

Gotta disagree. Operating on another system doesn't mean operating on a system that makes you immune to stuff.
It's like playing chess, but you use different rules than your opponent. You playing by different rules doesn't mean your pieces can't be captured. They could still be possible to capture, just that they are captured in accordance to your set of rules.
In fact, a system being different just means it being different in one aspect, not necessarily in all aspects. You could operate on an irregular system of causality which 99% of the time behaves exactly like regular causality.

Honestly, if you ask me we should rather remove some of the resistances Type 4 grants by default...
Click to expand...

It'd be assumptive to claim that the character behaves differently from normal causality to be "immune" to conventional causality manip to begin with, the burden of proof would require more information backing that sort of claim than a statement that merely confirms that the given character behaves differently causality-wise.

Robots and souls are a separate matter as souls are just a case of verse equalization whenever a verse brings it up when regarding a verse that never touches that subject (meaning that as most verses usually only depict souls on stuff that's technically alive, robots having one just happens to not be the case usually), as from there any semantics are developed, nothing is extrapolated based on higher-end takes.

Theglassman12 said:
@Bobsican yeah they're 99% normal in the sense you can harm them with conventional tools, the fact that they fundamentally work on different set of cause and effect rules means the causality hax needs to work on those alternate rules for them to affect you. I seriously don't see what you're trying to say here about the "vagueness" of these type 4 Acausality when "functioning or existing on completely different laws" is pretty straightforward to me, which just so happens to be the explanation for a lot of type 4 Acausal beings. This is no different than beings that are stated to be a singularity in time being type 2 since that's the textbook definition of type 2 acausality. Also you do know Fate by proxy works under a cause and effect system right? Deeming someone destined to lose because of a circumstance is basic understanding of cause and effect, being outside of fate means you're outside the normal cause and effect system.
Click to expand...

Thing is that how different those rules exactly are (and what those rules are at all) isn't usually elaborated on to begin with, which also clarifies on type 4's criteria being rather vague on its own to really give anything by default, other Acausality types don't have this issue as their criteria is far more concrete and with direct implications, and fate works under a cause and effect system as much basically anything bound to causality does, someone resisting causality manip doesn't inherently resists fate manip (which they'd do by that logic), nor vice-versa, in fact.
 
Why would those rules need to be elaborated? This is hardly any different than asking how long did it take for someone to traverse an infinite plane, regardless of which, they'd still be infinite speed for that feat alone, same with literally any and all statements of existing on different laws as that's what type 4 Acausality is. Again saying it's vague is not an argument when it's literally spelled out for us on what type 4 beings are. Coolio, you agree with me that Fate and causality are used interchangeably in this context, this doesn't really refute my point on it by default transferring over with resistances.
 
Theglassman12 said:
Why would those rules need to be elaborated?
Click to expand...
I'd rather avoid redundancy, so I'll just go point by point.

Theglassman12 said:
This is hardly any different than asking how long did it take for someone to traverse an infinite plane, regardless of which, they'd still be infinite speed for that feat alone, same with literally any and all statements of existing on different laws as that's what type 4 Acausality is.
Click to expand...
False Equivalency here TBH, not all type 4 characters get the same stuff, in fact we already require type 5s to specify what they've been "immune" to by it.

Theglassman12 said:
Again saying it's vague is not an argument when it's literally spelled out for us on what type 4 beings are.
Click to expand...
On every single verse? Again, the issue is on what capabilities they should inherently get from any description that'd fall under the current definition in the page for type 4.

Theglassman12 said:
Coolio, you agree with me that Fate and causality are used interchangeably in this context, this doesn't really refute my point on it by default transferring over with resistances.
Click to expand...
If you agree with what I just said you'd be deeming that anyone whatsoever with type 4 would be "immune" to anything bound to normal causality, which'd make it even better than our current type 5 (by being "immune" to virtually all atacks), which in turn clearly isn't the standard either.

Bobsican said:
Thing is that how different those rules exactly are (and what those rules are at all) isn't usually elaborated on to begin with, which also clarifies on type 4's criteria being rather vague on its own to really give anything by default, other Acausality types don't have this issue as their criteria is far more concrete and with direct implications, and fate works under a cause and effect system as much basically anything bound to causality does
Click to expand...

I even bring this whole point in the OP, so if anything it just seems you're advocating more to unecessary assumptions over the real minimal stuff, with the latter being usually how stuff is indexed for the sake of accuracy.
 
Except they do get the same stuff. When has a type 4 Acausal being not have the same thing? You’re not providing any examples to prove your point so I don’t really see why I should take this point seriously.

I’m talking about the page itself, you literally have the explanation spelled out for us on what grants type 4 Acausality, saying it’s vague is not an argument.

I really wanna know what makes you think type 5 Acausality, something that renders someone completely uninteractable against beings without feats of affecting said beings or very very very specific abilities, is in anyway shape or form inferior to type 4, which gives like 3-5 different resistances at best and is still interactable by any normal being.
 
Glass is making sense to me for now. The arguments against the default resistances seem to be; vagueness (which it isn't, the page is quite clear), being something that isn't showcased (yet no such examples seem to have been brought up), and the fact that it's superior to Type 5 (this is the most baffling part to me. In function, Type 5 is Type 4 + near-absolute invulnerability. How is it currently inferior?).

I'll wait for further arguments before deciding on any one side.
 
Theglassman12 said:
Except they do get the same stuff. When has a type 4 Acausal being not have the same thing? You’re not providing any examples to prove your point so I don’t really see why I should take this point seriously.
Click to expand...
I could bring up examples but then you'd just claim that the character in question can just somehow bypass a trait that is being assumed to be inherently given by type 4 to begin with.

Theglassman12 said:
I’m talking about the page itself, you literally have the explanation spelled out for us on what grants type 4 Acausality, saying it’s vague is not an argument.
Click to expand...
Vague regarding the pages justifying type 4, not on the criteria laid out in the Acausality page (currently), some characters characters have type 4 by statements regarding an unusual interaction with causality, time, laws, etc, that isn't touched on by the plot or anything in terms of implications (in the sense of being "immune" to stuff out of it) later on.

There's also cases where how exactly they're different from normal causality is elaborated on (in the first two cases, basically a "immunity" to Fate Manip and Precognition, with the last one only applying to causalities manipulated with their own Causality Manip to begin with), yet current standards give such characters way more than intended for no real reason (I'm aware that's the current standard, but that's also what's being disputed here for starters).

Indeed, merely having an ability does not mean having all possible applications by default in this case (some can be argued on a case-by-case basis), things aren't as simple as someone having normal causality or being on a different causality, gotta quote again what @DontTalkDT said on the matter as mentioned in the OP:

Gotta disagree. Operating on another system doesn't mean operating on a system that makes you immune to stuff.
It's like playing chess, but you use different rules than your opponent. You playing by different rules doesn't mean your pieces can't be captured. They could still be possible to capture, just that they are captured in accordance to your set of rules.
In fact, a system being different just means it being different in one aspect, not necessarily in all aspects. You could operate on an irregular system of causality which 99% of the time behaves exactly like regular causality.

Honestly, if you ask me we should rather remove some of the resistances Type 4 grants by default...
Click to expand...
If you want to refute this you'd have to change DT's opinion, especially as the above was accepted by multiple mods even (as seen in the link above that's sourcing the above quote), although if so I'd recommend to say so then wait until he has the spare time to evaluate this thread.

Theglassman12 said:
I really wanna know what makes you think type 5 Acausality, something that renders someone completely uninteractable against beings without feats of affecting said beings or very very very specific abilities, is in anyway shape or form inferior to type 4, which gives like 3-5 different resistances at best and is still interactable by any normal being.
Click to expand...
The fact we currently limit it to what it has displayed (rather than just extrapolating stuff from vague traits that can considerably vary, let alone not being actually inherently relevant for our purposes) to begin with for the sake of NLFs, that's also brought up in the OP.

Bobsican said:
See a problem? Right now, type 4 Acausality has the most lenient qualifying criteria to qualify for it compared to all other Acausality types, as merely being stated to have an unusual relationship between causality, time, laws, etc. without further context is sufficient for type 4, while all other types require more context, which raises questions with the overall site standard of higher claims requiring higher evidence.

Not only that, currently it inherently gives more stuff than even type 5 (namely unconventional resistances to several abilities as said there), as at the moment it's not limited to the feats it has displayed, unlike type 5.
Click to expand...
 
Saying I’d just refute it isn’t helping your case at all, in fact it only strengthens my case that whoever has type 4 Acausality would scale to the same thing.

Why would them being “immune” to stuff needs to be spelled out for us? That’s so arbitrary and doesn’t remotely help beyond just being strict for the sake of being strict. This is the same logic as saying characters with type 1 Acausality via being unaffected by changes in the timeline needs to show that they’re unfazed despite there being no contradiction to said statement.

yeah not seeing how them being elaborated on is remotely a problem. If anything you’re going against your own point by saying that they don’t remotely elaborate on the existence and claiming it to be vague.

Yeah and DT’s not paying attention to what’s actually being used for type 4 Acausality if them functioning 99% normal is somehow a refute when the whole point is the laws of the normal world don’t control you due to existing in different laws to begin with.

Wdym we limit it to what it’s displayed? The requirements to get type 5 is what changed. The nature of type 5 is still the same thing. Idk what you’re talking about so I’m assuming you didn’t pay attention to the changes.
 
There's also cases where how exactly they're different from normal causality is elaborated on (in the first two cases, basically a "immunity" to Fate Manip and Precognition, with the last one only applying to causalities manipulated with their own Causality Manip to begin with), yet current standards give such characters way more than intended for no real reason (I'm aware that's the current standard, but that's also what's being disputed here for starters).
Click to expand...

I can't fathom this part. How much do you think this power gives that isn't just a logical conclusion of what's showcased, in the literal case where Type 4 Acausality acts as advertised (people being outside fate being untouched by fate and having a different future i.e. result of causality)?

It seems to read less as being conservative and just overly nitpicky for the characters that do have proper showcase for their powers.
 
Theglassman12 said:
Saying I’d just refute it isn’t helping your case at all, in fact it only strengthens my case that whoever has type 4 Acausality would scale to the same thing.

Why would them being “immune” to stuff needs to be spelled out for us? That’s so arbitrary and doesn’t remotely help beyond just being strict for the sake of being strict. This is the same logic as saying characters with type 1 Acausality via being unaffected by changes in the timeline needs to show that they’re unfazed despite there being no contradiction to said statement.

yeah not seeing how them being elaborated on is remotely a problem. If anything you’re going against your own point by saying that they don’t remotely elaborate on the existence and claiming it to be vague.

Yeah and DT’s not paying attention to what’s actually being used for type 4 Acausality if them functioning 99% normal is somehow a refute when the whole point is the laws of the normal world don’t control you due to existing in different laws to begin with.

Wdym we limit it to what it’s displayed? The requirements to get type 5 is what changed. The nature of type 5 is still the same thing. Idk what you’re talking about so I’m assuming you didn’t pay attention to the changes.
Click to expand...
Planck69 said:
I can't fathom this part. How much do you think this power gives that isn't just a logical conclusion of what's showcased, in the literal case where Type 4 Acausality acts as advertised (people being outside fate being untouched by fate and having a different future i.e. result of causality)?

It seems to read less as being conservative and just overly nitpicky for the characters that do have proper showcase for their powers.
Click to expand...
@Bobsican
 
Theglassman12 said:
Saying I’d just refute it isn’t helping your case at all, in fact it only strengthens my case that whoever has type 4 Acausality would scale to the same thing.

Why would them being “immune” to stuff needs to be spelled out for us? That’s so arbitrary and doesn’t remotely help beyond just being strict for the sake of being strict. This is the same logic as saying characters with type 1 Acausality via being unaffected by changes in the timeline needs to show that they’re unfazed despite there being no contradiction to said statement.

yeah not seeing how them being elaborated on is remotely a problem. If anything you’re going against your own point by saying that they don’t remotely elaborate on the existence and claiming it to be vague.

Yeah and DT’s not paying attention to what’s actually being used for type 4 Acausality if them functioning 99% normal is somehow a refute when the whole point is the laws of the normal world don’t control you due to existing in different laws to begin with.

Wdym we limit it to what it’s displayed? The requirements to get type 5 is what changed. The nature of type 5 is still the same thing. Idk what you’re talking about so I’m assuming you didn’t pay attention to the changes.
Click to expand...
Planck69 said:
I can't fathom this part. How much do you think this power gives that isn't just a logical conclusion of what's showcased, in the literal case where Type 4 Acausality acts as advertised (people being outside fate being untouched by fate and having a different future i.e. result of causality)?

It seems to read less as being conservative and just overly nitpicky for the characters that do have proper showcase for their powers.
Click to expand...
@Bobsican
 
Antvasima said:
@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @DarkGrath

What do you think about this?

vsbattles.com

Type 4 Acausality: Too Much for Too Little

Okay, let's see how type 4 is described right now: Type 4: Irregular Causality: Characters with this type of Acausality operate on a different and irregular system of cause and effect than regular causality. This grants them resistance to abilities such as Causality Manipulation, Fate...
vsbattles.com vsbattles.com
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @DarkGrath
 
That’s not the issue, the fact is functioning on completely different laws is something that would grant resistances like fate, law and causality hax in general due to you not operating on the same laws as the normal world. The OP is making it arbitrarily strict for the sake of it.
 
We logically only give the ability if some evidence is provided, if someone suggested Acausality Type 4 for a character with statement that said "I function on a different system" with no context, we wouldn't give it to them because that's not defined. Characters that have this either have feat or a clear statement with no anti-feats, and if you see a character with no justification or terrible reasoning with nothing backing it up, then just make a thread about that character. I don't think a change is needed, just crack down on characters who have no solid reason or justification at all for this type of the ability.
 
Theglassman12 said:
That’s not the issue, the fact is functioning on completely different laws is something that would grant resistances like fate, law and causality hax in general due to you not operating on the same laws as the normal world. The OP is making it arbitrarily strict for the sake of it.
Click to expand...
CloverDragon03 said:
I share Glass's sentiments tbh, this seems needlessly strict and for a reason that I don't find to be particularly strong
Click to expand...
Planck69 said:
Yeah, Glass makes sense to me.
Click to expand...
Everything12 said:
I'm on the side of the people who really don't see why this needs to be a thing.
Click to expand...
LordGriffin1000 said:
We logically only give the ability if some evidence is provided, if someone suggested Acausality Type 4 for a character with statement that said "I function on a different system" with no context, we wouldn't give it to them because that's not defined. Characters that have this either have feat or a clear statement with no anti-feats, and if you see a character with no justification or terrible reasoning with nothing backing it up, then just make a thread about that character. I don't think a change is needed, just crack down on characters who have no solid reason or justification at all for this type of the ability.
Click to expand...
@Antvasima It seems like this has been rejected.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Quasar002
Acausality question
Replies
3
Views
660
GreatIskandar14045
GreatIskandar14045
CNBA3
Higher Causal System?
Replies
12
Views
1K
CNBA3
CNBA3
Arkenis
Type 4 Acau
Replies
6
Views
1K
Planck69
Planck69
RaveeCPN
  • Locked
Some Rewordings About Type 5 Acausality
3 4 5
Replies
178
Views
9K
Antvasima
Antvasima
CodeCCLL
  • Locked
Bill Cipher Acausality Revision
Replies
9
Views
1K
StrymULTRA
StrymULTRA
Back
Top