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 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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
vsbattles.com
