- 3,693
- 2,060
Yeah you know, that what i says and give the scan for arnos and graham but still not qualify
-
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
- Thread starter ImmortalDread
- Start date
-
- Tags
- acausality
- Status
- 11,284
- 19,786
His source is not outside, it lacks and it's unbound all order in which is the order of casuality. So practically a character that is transdual even to Acausality does not count? Right.
I will post the latter and leave it to the discretion of the reader.
To give context, Anos was fighting against a Chief God like Eques (Chief Gods are above all possible order and are the will of the world) by manipulating the order of causality this one was manipulating cause and effect but as Anos said all he could do was leave a claw mark on his body and not even cut the resistance of his source (Let it be clear that all sources have a special resistance that makes only orders or conceptual abilities can interact with them, which is not the case with Anos' source or Graham's true nature which lack all order and reason and are the opposite of them). Let it be clear that the most the causality order could do to Anos was nothing, the claw mark on his body was because the attack and not because the order of causality and he would not even be able to do anything against his source, even if it was a chief god who was using the causality order against Anos.
I will post the latter and leave it to the discretion of the reader.
「城という性質上、お前にできるのは自らが口にした通り、因果を崩すか積み上げるかだ。原因を崩し、結果だけを押しつけたとて、切り崩せる原因には限界がある。爪を振るう動作と俺の体に当てるという原因を無視できたとして、せいぜい爪痕を刻むという結果が精一杯。俺の根源の抵抗までは切り崩せぬ」
As he said, "Due to the nature of the castle, all you can do is either destroy or build up the causes and effects. Even if you destroy the cause and impose only the result, there is a limit to the cause that can be destroyed. Even if you could ignore the cause of the swinging of the claw and its hitting my body, the best you could do would be to carve a claw mark. It cannot even cut down the resistance of my source."
As he said, "Due to the nature of the castle, all you can do is either destroy or build up the causes and effects. Even if you destroy the cause and impose only the result, there is a limit to the cause that can be destroyed. Even if you could ignore the cause of the swinging of the claw and its hitting my body, the best you could do would be to carve a claw mark. It cannot even cut down the resistance of my source."
- 15,548
- 13,806
Dereck: "lacks and is unbound all..." does not matter much more than "outside". You've repeated this sort of thing multiple times and it does not matter. If you post another quote or paragraph of reasoning that does not qualify, I will stop reading your quotes and paragraphs of reasoning.
Fixxed: That quote you link to is not sufficient. If you link another quote that does not qualify, I will stop reading your quotes, because I do not want to be stuck here for days reading page after page of nonsense that doesn't qualify.
Fixxed: That quote you link to is not sufficient. If you link another quote that does not qualify, I will stop reading your quotes, because I do not want to be stuck here for days reading page after page of nonsense that doesn't qualify.
- 11,284
- 19,786
Do what you want, because lacks and unbound are not the same as outside I don't know where you compare them, outside of causality means that you don't follow a regular causality system but an irregular one but you keep following it, while lack and unbound means that you don't follow any, neither a regular one nor an irregular one nor anything else. Cya.
- 3,693
- 2,060
Bruh just explain why it is not qualify, because it is explicit says the attack does not reach the head, because the result in the head is already not exist. It is explicit says not being interacted because of lacking causality
- 15,548
- 13,806
I know that they're not the same, but when the criteria to qualify is "Be unable to be changed because you're outside of causality" or "Be unable to be interact with because you're outside of causality" it does not matter if you say "He's not just outside of causality, he's unbound by it!"
Bruh just explain why it is not qualify, because it is explicit says the attack does not reach the head, because the result in the head is already not exist. It is explicit says not being interacted because of lacking causality
Destroying the result of an attack =/= being unable to be changed/being uninteractible.
Really, it just seems like causality manip, to destroy the effects of an attack.
Bruh just explain why it is not qualify, because it is explicit says the attack does not reach the head, because the result in the head is already not exist. It is explicit says not being interacted because of lacking causality
Destroying the result of an attack =/= being unable to be changed/being uninteractible.
Really, it just seems like causality manip, to destroy the effects of an attack.
- 8,792
- 2,855
Guys, guys, stop bringing up anos.
This is a thread to see if the current type 5 needs a rework or to be yeeted, after that you can continue rambling about him in the other thread.
This is a thread to see if the current type 5 needs a rework or to be yeeted, after that you can continue rambling about him in the other thread.
EldemadeDityjon
He/Him- 16,904
- 12,579
Sorry I know it's staff thread. But Graham's nothingness is unchangeable it's still exists inside the Anos source. Both of them co exist and neither of them unchangeable.
Here Nothingness refers to Graham's nothingness which was absorbed by Anos but both his source and Graham's nothingness coexist without undergoing any changes. Its even described as Anos Source is even deeper than Nothingness.
- 3,693
- 2,060
No bruh, he is not destroy the result. I think you misunderstand because my translation is not correct. Yeah i translated it again
What i mean here lacking causality/result in this verse is mean you will not be uninteracable by attack, thats my point
刃は届いていない。
どれだけ押し込もうと、刃は頭に到達せぬ。
奴の頭に突き刺さるという結果が、崩されたかのように。
The blade has not arrived.
No matter how hard I push, the blade does not reach the head.
The result of stabbing him in the head, has been broken.
(Another translation: As if the result of piercing his head had been destroyed.)
どれだけ押し込もうと、刃は頭に到達せぬ。
奴の頭に突き刺さるという結果が、崩されたかのように。
The blade has not arrived.
No matter how hard I push, the blade does not reach the head.
The result of stabbing him in the head, has been broken.
(Another translation: As if the result of piercing his head had been destroyed.)
Forget about MGF, even madoka that have explicit statement that she cant be interact with people because ascend to higher plane that beyond causality, doesn't qualify
EldemadeDityjon
He/Him- 16,904
- 12,579
Graham's nothingness is stated be not having the reason itself where Reason > order in the verse. Order keeps the Casualty as a Subset
Also Anos Absorbed Graham's nothingness but neither of their states changed Graham's nothingness can turn anything in the verse into nothing no matter what but it couldn't do anything to Anos source and Anos source destroys anything in the verse but it couldn't destroy Graham's true form both co exists without undergoing Changes as you can see
Here another example of both co existing without undergoing Changes and Here Anos even absorbed a Multiversal Destroying+99 layers of hax negating spell into his own source where spell got absorbed while not affecting neither of the sources which backs up they are not affected to changes
@Agnaa
As I said here Graham's nothingness is stated to be nothing infront of Anos source. Well both are not changed even based on anything in the verse.
- 4,981
- 1,742
This is a discussion concerning Acausality 5 but why are a large portion of posts here about Anos?? Like, he isn't the only one concerned here, we should be discussing Acausality itself instead of pointlessly debating our favorite characters specifically because we're scared they'll lose one superpower
- 5,264
- 4,157
Please chill with the Anos stuff, this thread is about Acausality Type 5 in general, not just him. Let's focus on the task at hand.
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #173
We actually involved other characters as well. No need to judge you can check the whole thread. Again, get staff permission and send something useful
- 15,548
- 13,806
Sorry I know it's staff thread. But Graham's nothingness is unchangeable it's still exists inside the Anos source. Both of them co exist and neither of them unchangeable.
There is nothing there about it being unchanging. I will not read any further quotes from you.
No bruh, he is not destroy the result. I think you misunderstand because my translation is not correct. Yeah i translated it again
Your new translation changes nothing. I will not read any further quotes from you.
There is nothing there about it being unchanging. I will not read any further quotes from you.
No bruh, he is not destroy the result. I think you misunderstand because my translation is not correct. Yeah i translated it again
Your new translation changes nothing. I will not read any further quotes from you.
- 4,981
- 1,742
We must have different eyes given what I'm seeing is actual characters being used for reference for good standards of Acausality 5 and then rows and rows of Anos fans arguing with consultants about Anos' Acausality (and I did say large portion). Contrary to what you may think, getting this thread back on track from the Anos wave is rather useful given we should actually discuss the thread topic that was hopefully prompted by good faith.We actually involved other characters as well. No need to judge you can check the whole thread. Again, get staff permission and send something useful
Last edited:
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #176
Again, you can check the thread once again and we involved many different characters.
Don't derail the thread right now. Thank you for your input.
- 16,034
- 9,281
Yeah I think I agree with Agnaa. If I understand him correctly, if you are above the sum totality of causality within your verse, whilst being a perfect singularity; unable to be changed in any form (temporally, physically, spiritually, etc.), you qualify for type 5.
Characters within causality that can interact with such characters present themselves as an anti-feat, unless specifically being able to interact with them through some mechanic or plot based happenstance.
Characters within causality that can interact with such characters present themselves as an anti-feat, unless specifically being able to interact with them through some mechanic or plot based happenstance.
- 16,034
- 9,281
Well to illustrate:
Imagine causality as a line. Anything above it is type 5 and anything below it isn't.
If you're above it, I (a being within causaliy) could punch you yesterday, tomorrow, or next week, and it wouldn't affect you at all at anywhen. I could also move you from point A to point B but you never moved.
An antifeat would be me having punched you yesterday and still having a bruise today (obviously), or me moving you from point A to point B and you actually moved.
Take my words with a grain of salt, I'm simply trying to interpret this myself. Of course equivalent feats should apply. In the case of being non-physical, I think being "unmoving" in the case I brought up above would also apply.
Imagine causality as a line. Anything above it is type 5 and anything below it isn't.
If you're above it, I (a being within causaliy) could punch you yesterday, tomorrow, or next week, and it wouldn't affect you at all at anywhen. I could also move you from point A to point B but you never moved.
An antifeat would be me having punched you yesterday and still having a bruise today (obviously), or me moving you from point A to point B and you actually moved.
Take my words with a grain of salt, I'm simply trying to interpret this myself. Of course equivalent feats should apply. In the case of being non-physical, I think being "unmoving" in the case I brought up above would also apply.
Sniper670
He/Him- 6,409
- 1,365
Well, then you're referring to an Unmoved Mover entity.
Then to qualify you'd have to not go through any change at all
That's what a true Acausality type 5 is irl, but this is fiction.....
Ehh... Do you know any qualifiers?
- 42,712
- 36,951
Warhammer Warp Beings. Slaanesh is a prime example cause she was active before her birth. Only reason it's a "possibly" is because the statement for granting immunity due to being outside Causality is vague with multiple outcomes
- 42,712
- 36,951
You do realize that Slaanesh is a chaos god who controls the Realm of Chaos yes? You do realize that anything "naturally" happening in the Warp is literally made of Warp stuff yes? You see how this would apply to these beings in the warp yes?
- 15,548
- 13,806
To steelman, maybe the argument is that it would only apply in the Realm of Chaos, and if they get put in, say, NYC because of SBA, that wouldn't apply?
Seems a bit silly, since following that logic any characters based on reality-fiction differences would become ordinary humans in every SBA fight.
- 42,712
- 36,951
It's closer to by SBA the place would probably implode or if they're an actual daemon and not a god they'd just automatically go into their Materium key
- 167,763
- 76,388
@Ultima_Reality @Agnaa @Sir_Ovens @DontTalkDT
Thank you all for helping out. Can you try to reach an agreement regarding if and how our current Acausality Type 5 definitions need to be better clarified in order to avoid further misunderstandings please?
Thank you all for helping out. Can you try to reach an agreement regarding if and how our current Acausality Type 5 definitions need to be better clarified in order to avoid further misunderstandings please?
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #188
It would not affect you because you are no longer bound by causality. This is only the reason.
Also, you explained it quickly. Yes, cool. And you also included if the verse does not show any anti-feats, so basically, it is qualified as acc type 5
Alright, cool no one disagrees and this is exactly how I understand it, but new standards do not work like that. They need explicit mention of none-interaction statements (feats), which the reason is also bound to be “beyond causality.”
- 20,074
- 10,858
@Sir_Ovens again, there lies the issue that type 5 acausality has an unnecessarily strict requirement where you have to get a specific wording on "You need to have a statement that because you're beyond causality you're uninteractable" that's rendering every single type 5 obsolete. We're trying to change that to something more reasonable, and my proposition is on the lines of "they would lose a true physical form thanks to transcending cause and effect".
Also as for everyone else, stop derailing the thread to talk about Anos specifically, we're talking about type 5 acausality in general, once we get across the standards then we can focus on the specific verses.
Also as for everyone else, stop derailing the thread to talk about Anos specifically, we're talking about type 5 acausality in general, once we get across the standards then we can focus on the specific verses.
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #190
Agreed, my whole point, actually. I am trying to bring this to light. Thanks for understanding, and thank you again for your input.
It is just there were also other characters involved (for example, Elder). But agreed, let's not bring any topic further.
- 2,083
- 1,143
Wouldn't this imply that type 5 can get mind/soul haxed?
- 6,442
- 1,665
That leads to different levels of type 5 Acausality. Also some characters have it for "laws of causality" being transcended or just plain old ordinary "all systems of causality" with no elaboration on weather it's Conceptual (Types 1 or 2) or laws (or some other fundamental ability equivalent.)
Last edited:
- 3,607
- 878
Demons are made out of the substance of the warp and the Chaos Gods literally are the Warp itself. It is their body essentially.
Last edited:
- 15,548
- 13,806
Alright, cool no one disagrees and this is exactly how I understand it, but new standards do not work like that. They need explicit mention of none-interaction statements (feats), which the reason is also bound to be “beyond causality.”
Yeah, and that can be done by being stated to be unable to change due to being outside of causality. It's pretty difficult to interact with something that can't change, y'know.
again, there lies the issue that type 5 acausality has an unnecessarily strict requirement where you have to get a specific wording on "You need to have a statement that because you're beyond causality you're uninteractable" that's rendering every single type 5 obsolete. We're trying to change that to something more reasonable, and my proposition is on the lines of "they would lose a true physical form thanks to transcending cause and effect".
That's not what the page says; it says you need evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality. A statement of being unable to be changed because they lack causality would of course qualify, it's almost exactly the wording on the page.
I think simply put, if you're beyond causality as a whole, conceptually, physically, and whatnot, you should just automatically get type 5?
What it gives you would be completely subjective to the material.
I disagree.
Being beyond "causality as a whole" is an NLF. If we don't NLF it, it's exactly the same as type 4. That's why we had a revision to change the definition in the first place.
Thank you all for helping out. Can you try to reach an agreement regarding if and how our current Acausality Type 5 definitions need to be better clarified in order to avoid further misunderstandings please?
It seems like the issue has just been with having a weird interpretation of the wording. I think it's fine as-is. If people don't understand that "Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect" means that characters with statements like "I am unable to be changed as I am outside of causality" qualify, I don't know what we could change to alleviate that.
Yeah, and that can be done by being stated to be unable to change due to being outside of causality. It's pretty difficult to interact with something that can't change, y'know.
again, there lies the issue that type 5 acausality has an unnecessarily strict requirement where you have to get a specific wording on "You need to have a statement that because you're beyond causality you're uninteractable" that's rendering every single type 5 obsolete. We're trying to change that to something more reasonable, and my proposition is on the lines of "they would lose a true physical form thanks to transcending cause and effect".
That's not what the page says; it says you need evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality. A statement of being unable to be changed because they lack causality would of course qualify, it's almost exactly the wording on the page.
I think simply put, if you're beyond causality as a whole, conceptually, physically, and whatnot, you should just automatically get type 5?
What it gives you would be completely subjective to the material.
I disagree.
Being beyond "causality as a whole" is an NLF. If we don't NLF it, it's exactly the same as type 4. That's why we had a revision to change the definition in the first place.
Thank you all for helping out. Can you try to reach an agreement regarding if and how our current Acausality Type 5 definitions need to be better clarified in order to avoid further misunderstandings please?
It seems like the issue has just been with having a weird interpretation of the wording. I think it's fine as-is. If people don't understand that "Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect" means that characters with statements like "I am unable to be changed as I am outside of causality" qualify, I don't know what we could change to alleviate that.
- 20,074
- 10,858
- 15,548
- 13,806
I didn't. But in this thread, Ultima brought up multiple examples that seem to qualify, and DaReaperMan/Blackcurrant brought up an example that may qualify under a "possibly". So the idea that no characters can qualify seems false.
However, the characters that seemed like they got of a lot of discussion still seem to not qualify.
However, the characters that seemed like they got of a lot of discussion still seem to not qualify.
- 4,981
- 1,742
I think the standard is fine as is simply because it fulfills its purpose of preventing the absurdity of what being outside causality entailed without the need for further evidence or implications of what this means. Acausality Type 5 is essentially the limit for what the site allows for specially acausal beings, and should not be given out so recklessly. Though I'm more personally partial to evidence that is implied or derived from interpretations of multiple sources, I think the new change is a good way to curb the ease and access of a power that's been heavily wanked beyond the context of the character's feats and what's normally logical. Ultima already stated examples that work and qualify, and I think that eliminates any doubts over whether these changes are helpful.
- 6,442
- 1,665
problem is. the new standard just confused the entire wiki userbase and sent people in an uproar because of the misunderstanding created by the wording that is currently being used on the acausality page. I think Ultima might have accidnetally mentioned how to possibly solve this conundrum as well.
He said this
finding a way to reword this and fit thsi into the note on acausality type 5 would help clear a lot of confusing and misunderstanding up
Last edited:
- 4,981
- 1,742
I'm not opposed to a simple wording change, but I also believe that the standards should just be stricter by default, and people who argue the latter could simply just argue the former in bad faith. That's why I said I support the changes but also more scrutiny towards Acausality Type 5, and the wording of the new standard should be just to make that scrutiny and standard communicated more effectively.
- Status
