• 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.

Yeet type 5 Acausality or change it again

Status
Not open for further replies.
@Agnaa ehh… the BlazBlue characters got redrafted from type 1 Transduality to Nonexistent Physiology with the new rework on NEP.

@DontTalkDT incorporeality through being beyond cause and effect itself. It would still have the ability to go through abilities from characters not shown to affect them like how Abstract Existence and NEP has, but instead of there needing a statement that the characters are uninteractable because they’re beyond cause and effect, they just need evidence that through transcending cause and effect they lack a form.
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Agnaa ehh… the BlazBlue characters got redrafted from type 1 Transduality to Nonexistent Physiology with the new rework on NEP.

@DontTalkDT incorporeality through being beyond cause and effect itself. It would still have the ability to go through abilities from characters not shown to affect them like how Abstract Existence and NEP has, but instead of there needing a statement that the characters are uninteractable because they’re beyond cause and effect, they just need evidence that through transcending cause and effect they lack a form.
Click to expand...
i think it would be better phrased to "through transcending cause and effect they achieved a new/different state of being" putting less emphasis on "lacking a form" and more so on "state of being" that "mimics as if they lack a physical form."
 
Acausality in general is having a different state of being, so that explanation is very redundant as hell.
 
Honestly, the past standard of qualification wasn't high for me. Most of were given were based on valid statements or evidence. Now it seems most statements are disregarded even with no antifeats.
No one was giving characters type 5 acausality from being basically being stated to beyond acausality with no supporting context or with antifeats like in the case of Radukai's Blazer.
I mean, if taken at face value, at best, characters close to transduality type 2 would qualify or the extreme none since it seems like from what I read, even transdual characters were questioning to no problem qualify in the other thread. If transdual characters can't qualify for acausality type 5 despite basically being outside of all laws or concepts of their verse where they just argued as type 4 casual instead, then it seems like a major issue to me, leaving no character qualify.

I got to think about it; causality being near impossible by even thing concept manipulation type 1 seems a bit high to me since causality is not mostly special concept in many fictional series; though I get the point of NLF from the interaction.
Edit: I just saw the point of DontTalkDT post here, which is related to the point above, so I could get behind a similar text; though note, usually, these types of beings exist or are not interactable outside of most of these categories in their verse.

More on the case of revision, I would advocate for the note being removed as it seems too strict; as I said, valid statements seem they are more apt to be rejected, and it does seem case by a case basis could work:
  • Being completely independent of time or laws; or similar forces, does not make you completely independent of causality without the relationship between these forces and causality being clarified, with it only being considered as evidence for an irregular relationship with causality otherwise.
I could see Theglassman12's suggestion being doable if they were somewhat similar to past standards and addressed the points above.
I think the standards should be revised; though, if no changes were implemented, deletion is fine.
 
About your point with Transdual characters, as far as I understand the wiki don't relate Transdual to Causality unless Causality is clearly mentioned as a duality, it would be a case by case basis. That is why most characters with Transduality 2 do not have Aca 5, mainly because cause and effect is not a duality but they are the ones that should qualify the most, it could even be argued for characters with NEP Type 2 who have aspects related to Causality via valid statments of unbound/beyond or trascending.
 
Dereck03 said:
About your point with Transdual characters, as far as I understand the wiki don't relate Transdual to Causality unless Causality is clearly mentioned as a duality, it would be a case by case basis. That is why most characters with Transduality 2 do not have Aca 5, mainly because cause and effect is not a duality but they are the ones that should qualify the most, it could even be argued for characters with NEP Type 2 who have aspects related to Causality via valid statments of unbound/beyond or trascending.
Click to expand...
Trandsuality was always related to basically everything since its inception, except type 1 if a character is still bound by even one thing then they don't have transduality for those higher types.
 
Elizhaa said:
Trandsuality was always related to basically everything since its inception, except type 1 if a character is still bound by even one thing then they don't have transduality for those higher types.
Click to expand...
If what you say is true then such standards should be clarified and all characters with Type 2 Transduality should automatically get Type 5 Aca, even at that time there were many people who flatly rejected TD 2 giving Aca 5 interaction unless Causality was explicitly a duality.
 
@Elizhaa for the most part it should, it just has the NEP changes where you need more evidence than a random statement, albeit not as unreasonably strict as the current ones we got.
 
I think that if any characters qualify (it sounds like Warhammer might under a "possibly"), it should be kept.

DontTalk's last post was neutral on the suggestion of changing it to be "Incorporeality via Acausality".

I disagree with such a rewording; "Being so far outside of cause and effect that you have no physical form" makes no logical sense. If verses have that, it should just be Intangibility and Acausality, not a new version that's essentially another form of Abstract Existence/NEP which no characters who can affect AE/NEP characters can harm.

I also feel like that'd run into the issue that the current definition is. How do you expect to prove that they have no physical form because they're beyond cause of effect? It sounds like this is just going to give incorporeal characters who also happen to have vague statements of being "outside causality" immunity to most abilities for no good reason.
 
Okay. That seems to make sense to me.

What about certain Elder Scrolls characters? Do they qualify?
 
I'm not sure, I haven't seen them brought up.
 
Agnaa said:
I think that if any characters qualify (it sounds like Warhammer might under a "possibly"), it should be kept.

DontTalk's last post was neutral on the suggestion of changing it to be "Incorporeality via Acausality".

I disagree with such a rewording; "Being so far outside of cause and effect that you have no physical form" makes no logical sense. If verses have that, it should just be Intangibility and Acausality, not a new version that's essentially another form of Abstract Existence/NEP which no characters who can affect AE/NEP characters can harm.

I also feel like that'd run into the issue that the current definition is. How do you expect to prove that they have no physical form because they're beyond cause of effect? It sounds like this is just going to give incorporeal characters who also happen to have vague statements of being "outside causality" immunity to most abilities for no good reason.
Click to expand...
Antvasima said:
Okay. That seems to make sense to me.

What about certain Elder Scrolls characters? Do they qualify?
Click to expand...
Agnaa said:
I'm not sure, I haven't seen them brought up.
Click to expand...
Okay. Noted.

@Matthew_Schroeder @Ultima_Reality

What do you think?
 
Antvasima said:
Okay. That seems to make sense to me.

What about certain Elder Scrolls characters? Do they qualify?
Click to expand...
Nope, I have checked over 15-20 profiles who had acc type 5 based on old standards and none qualifies as far (for the new standards)
 
Matthew_Schroeder said:
I'm pretty sure the Elder Scrolls Et'Ada qualify.
Click to expand...
We talked about it earlier in that thread. None qualifies. If you want, you can check it out. I even dropped all the profiles and added my reasons there.
And all members who were online there agreed with my reasons. No characters qualify it for at least a solid rating.

You can check the thread link in my OP. Thanks for your input.
 
Dread said:
We talked about it earlier in that thread. None qualifies. If you want, you can check it out. I even dropped all the profiles and added my reasons there.
And all members who were online there agreed with my reasons. No characters qualify it for at least a solid rating.

You can check the thread link in my OP. Thanks for your input.
Click to expand...
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't base ourselves off of the profiles only, as the supporters may have additional info that may or may not qualify.
 
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless said:
Maybe, just maybe, we shouldn't base ourselves off of the profiles only, as the supporters may have additional info that may or may not qualify.
Click to expand...
Justifications or the reasons given in their profile were not qualified for our new standards. Ofc they got a chance to qualify how their nature works.
Even tho, this is literally how new standards work. Explicit statements. :(
 
@Oblivion_Of_The_Endless then can we actually see the full reasons from the supporters? Because any explicit examples of this current type 5 being viable for some characters would be great since we can't find a single example.
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Oblivion_Of_The_Endless then can we actually see the full reasons from the supporters? Because any explicit examples of this current type 5 being viable for some characters would be great since we can't find a single example.
Click to expand...
@Dereck03 dropped a whole reason for Anos/Graham, and it got rejected due to no explicit statement or connection, even though the plot clearly showed that. I have linked the thread in my OP; you can check it out. For these new standards, I doubt there is a character that qualifies for it for a solid rating.
 
Theglassman12 said:
@Oblivion_Of_The_Endless then can we actually see the full reasons from the supporters? Because any explicit examples of this current type 5 being viable for some characters would be great since we can't find a single example.
Click to expand...
Were the supporters from all the verses that contain (or contained) Type 5 acausal characters pinged to potentially present their evidence? Because, looking at this thread, I can tell there were verses whose some knowledgeable supporters were not contacted or did not appear (Twin Peaks, SMT, DC, Marvel, Dark Tower, DnD, etc)
 
Last edited:
By current (new) standards. It's so strict that any form of interaction is an antifeat thus not qualifying them for Type 5 Acausality. Regardless of reason for the interaction. That's why some very prominent character such as Anos/Graham, Aeceus, Modaka, etc were going to lose it.

In addition to that, we noticed most characters uninteracatnility came from another ability such as NEP, BDE, HDE, TD, AE type 1, or Incorporeality instead of their Acausality thus causing their type 5 to be downgraded or Acausality removed entirely. Anos, Arceus and modaka were good examples of this as proving the uniteractability stemmed from Acausality instead of something else was just nigh impossible without a statement that was "in your face."

Hence, why TES and other prominent verses were threatened with losing it or downgrading it.

Current standards is just so strict it's a nigh-impossible ability to prove without some form of avatar creation and the the true form never being touched, or the character chose to become interactable at will (which would need a direct statement just to prove.)

In conclusion,

any (literally any) NPI feat on a type 5 Acausal being regardless of reason is an anti-feat now that leads to a type 4 downgrade

If they have some other state of being listed. Acausality is basically removed entirely 7 out of 10 times. If it stays, it's defaulted to type 4 with thar remaining 30% chance.

This is just ridiculously strict to a point that literally no one qualifies
 
Last edited:
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless said:
Were the supporters from all the verses that contain (or contained) Type 5 acausal characters pinged to potentially present their evidence? Because, looking at this thread, I can tell there were verses whose some knowledgeable supporters were not contacted or did not appear (Twin Peaks, SMT, DC, Marvel, Dark Tower, DnD, etc)
Click to expand...
I shouldn't be commenting here but why do we need to call supporters? Are the profiles so terrible that they don't explain shit and we need the supporters to do so? Aren't the profiles supposed to contain all the evidence and/or link directly to it?
 
Tony_di_bugalu said:
I shouldn't be commenting here but why do we need to call supporters? Are the profiles so terrible that they don't explain shit and we need the supporters to do so? Aren't the profiles supposed to contain all the evidence and/or link directly to it?
Click to expand...
Some of those profiles indeed do not explain anything.
 
Last edited:
Tony_di_bugalu said:
I shouldn't be commenting here but why do we need to call supporters? Are the profiles so terrible that they don't explain shit and we need the supporters to do so? Aren't the profiles supposed to contain all the evidence and/or link directly to it?
Click to expand...
No, brother, next time don't comment here unless you got permission. The profiles are not outdated, this is the point of the thread, they are only qualified to old standards.
 
Theglassman12 said:
@DontTalkDT incorporeality through being beyond cause and effect itself. It would still have the ability to go through abilities from characters not shown to affect them like how Abstract Existence and NEP has, but instead of there needing a statement that the characters are uninteractable because they’re beyond cause and effect, they just need evidence that through transcending cause and effect they lack a form.
Click to expand...
That doesn't suffice as evidence to the claim IMO. Physical attacks aside there should be evidence that techniques they want to be immune to through that do not affect them due to the cause & effect thing.

What anti-feats is concerned: I'm generally of the opinion that if a verse delivers 0 explanation as to why some attack managed to harm a character supposedly outside of causality then that can be considered an anti-feat.

What the ability reformulation is concerned: We can lessen it like I mentioned, with restricting it to just physical attacks as baseline. I can see Agnaa's point that it's redundant, though.
Alternatively, we could delete it, but just if nobody has it. But if somebody has it, it might as well stay.
Only thing I'm generally opposed to is any suggestion that involves handing out immunities to abilities without clear statements of being unaffectable due to acausality.
 
DontTalkDT said:
That doesn't suffice as evidence to the claim IMO. Physical attacks aside there should be evidence that techniques they want to be immune to through that do not affect them due to the cause & effect thing.

What anti-feats is concerned: I'm generally of the opinion that if a verse delivers 0 explanation as to why some attack managed to harm a character supposedly outside of causality then that can be considered an anti-feat.

What the ability reformulation is concerned: We can lessen it like I mentioned, with restricting it to just physical attacks as baseline. I can see Agnaa's point that it's redundant, though.
Alternatively, we could delete it, but just if nobody has it. But if somebody has it, it might as well stay.
Only thing I'm generally opposed to is any suggestion that involves handing out immunities to abilities without clear statements of being unaffectable due to acausality.
Click to expand...
I need your opinion on this line:
  • We need more than 1 staff member willing to evaluate any Type 5 Acausality potential characters as it appears the 1 staff member who is being very helpful in reviewing the current Type 5 Accausals is overwhelmed with not just the thread but other ongoing things in their life as they take time to respond but then a long pause usually between post. This makes the process take longer and is unfair to him. Also, having 1 staff member doing it makes other wiki members feel a sense of pain. Some members can't help but feel a bit of neglect and feel he's been given a lot of power here or feels they're not knowledgeable. (not claiming anyone is feeling that way or accusing anyone, but from some comments I read, it was just a vague feeling that's what they were implying)
Click to expand...
 
@DontTalkDT Lessening the restrictions is fine by me so long as we have more examples to choose from that qualifies for the type 5. Like I said before my version can use some tweaking for the explanation but as of now the new version isn’t something I’d get behind.
 
TheUnshakableOne said:
By current (new) standards. It's so strict that any form of interaction is an antifeat thus not qualifying them for Type 5 Acausality. Regardless of reason for the interaction. That's why some very prominent character such as Anos/Graham, Aeceus, Modaka, etc were going to lose it.

In addition to that, we noticed most characters uninteracatnility came from another ability such as NEP, BDE, HDE, TD, AE type 1, or Incorporeality instead of their Acausality thus causing their type 5 to be downgraded or Acausality removed entirely. Anos, Arceus and modaka were good examples of this as proving the uniteractability stemmed from Acausality instead of something else was just nigh impossible without a statement that was "in your face."
Click to expand...
Arceus has actually zero anti feats for anything effecting it in its true form
Hell nothing even thinks of its true form in any way other then it is there and the only stuff which describes it in any way is by itself related to Arceus (technically saying Arceus here is wrong as the llama isn't what I am describing)
 
By current (new) standards. It's so strict that any form of interaction is an antifeat thus not qualifying them for Type 5 Acausality. Regardless of reason for the interaction. That's why some very prominent character such as Anos/Graham, Aeceus, Modaka, etc were going to lose it.

Not any form of interaction regardless of reason, but any unexplained form of interaction, yeah. Which is how it should be; if you're supposedly immune to everything because of being beyond causality, yet characters with no way to get around that can interact with you, that should be treated as an anti-feat.
 
Agnaa said:
Not any form of interaction regardless of reason, but any unexplained form of interaction, yeah. Which is how it should be; if you're supposedly immune to everything because of being beyond causality, yet characters with no way to get around that can interact with you, that should be treated as an anti-feat.
Click to expand...
I don't know if there is interaction without explanation in the case of Madoka or Arceus, but I can argue for Anos and Graham about the case of any possible interaction (The explanation will be a bit long but it won't be heavy to read).

The physical bodies of both only have Type 4 acausal, by exists outside the world's framework, order and reason altogether, order includes everything I already said here and reason is far beyond order, but that's all his physical body has so we won't take it into account.

Anos' source and Graham's true nature is where NEP Type 2, TD 2 (There is a CRT in progress for TD 3) and previously Aca 5. There is no one that has been able to interact with both, except Anos and Graham with themselves as they both share the same TD and Acausal nature, so that does not count as anti feat.

Venuzdonoa has been able to interact and destroy both NEP 2, TD 2 and Aca 5 and the reason is self evident, it is a weapon that is capable of destroying all things in creation no matter how tough, eternal or infinite it is, Venuzdonoa will destroy it alongside its reason. As I explained before reason is above order, therefore it is above Duality, Transduality and Acausality, Concepts, Law, Fate, etc. So it is not anti-feat besides it has the power of Anos' Eye which is also capable of destroying reason and it is the power of anos itself and the order of destruction. There is also the same Anos' Eyes that destroys reason.

Lay (His Sword was inside Anos' mother stomach which have given the power to Evansmana to interact with Anos source in other words, he was in contact with the destructive power of Anos lineage which is based on pure destruction without reason and was a weapon created specifically to permanently destroy Anos) Sasha (Has Anos' Eyes which destroys reason and can manipulate Venuzdonoa) and Eques (He is a chief god who has shown to be able to negate both the transdual and acausal nature of the misfits (Anos/Graham)),

TL.DR. There is nothing other than Anos power itself or reason that has been able to interact with Anos' source and Graham's true nature, therefore there is no anti-feat on the part of Anos or Graham.
 
Tatsumi504 said:
Yeah, I went through the thread. What was rejected was immortality type 7.

Others suggested type 5 for it (though no one tried to apply it). Null was against type 5 immortality (not heavily). His reason was it not being literal which I disagree with.

The scan literally says "gods are immortal and don't even live".
This isn't metaphorical in anyway especially when its from militia (literally the 1st god to exist alongside avernyu) and nousgalia (the HFG who governs order) literally no god will be more knowledgeable than them, what's more they say it the exact same way without using different words or expressions to describe it. It also attributes their immortality to the fact they don't live.

All this is further supported by the gods having only been killed with EE and CM
Click to expand...
Wrong thread dude.
 
theultimate5105 said:
Arceus has actually zero anti feats for anything effecting it in its true form
Hell nothing even thinks of its true form in any way other then it is there and the only stuff which describes it in any way is by itself related to Arceus (technically saying Arceus here is wrong as the llama isn't what I am describing)
Click to expand...
Tbh The Heart does not need Acausality Type 5 to be uninteractable. He's literally uniteractible in all states of being

From Abstracts, to Nonexistent beings to Data/Info entities, etc. He sees all things from all things but he remains unseen, unheard, uninteractable. He transcends the multiverse and in fact the logic/laws/rules of the multiverse is something he attributed to time and space. He remains unaffected by everything, although he sees everything. Both immanent, and transcendent. If higher dimensions are introduced, he'd be straight up 1A as the concept of space/dimension is merely a manifestation, a Lower thing, as compared to his being...........

As for Acausality Type 5 as a whole. Thinking about it, it's not so difficult to come to a decision..... Why don't we just go by actual feats shown? rather than one off statement.

Let's use Madoka, and assume Acausality Type 5 didn't exist at all on vsbw. It's useless. None of what she has will have any benefits at all if the damn Acausality Type 5 category didn't exist on wiki. In fact no one would've bat an eye to that statement.

Anos is a great example of an uninteractable being, and he's outside order, which has the order of causality, and he remains unaffected by it, unless with very specific weapons. Even if Acausality type 5 doesn't exist he'd still have something on his belt.

Now compare that to Madoka. Who just ascended into a higher dimensional plane, hence, her whole thing is she's not even in the multiverse itself.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Deagonx
  • Locked
Type 4 Acausality: Too Much For Too Little (2)
2
Replies
40
Views
6K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Eseseso
  • Locked
Revisions for Acausality Types 1 & 4
Replies
29
Views
4K
Antvasima
Antvasima
Protector_Hunk
A Question About Acausality Type 5
Replies
2
Views
467
Berga14
Berga14
Elyartaker
Acausality Type 5
Replies
8
Views
2K
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Acausality type 5 question
Replies
6
Views
1K
Grabbing_dragon
Grabbing_dragon
Back
Top