- 3,634
- 898
Are we really going to sit around and pretend the entire point of the creation of this thread wasn't because Anos lost his Acausality type 5?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally it was because no one fit the new standards but Anus stans were the angriest of them all so... Yeah.Are we really going to sit around and pretend the entire point of the creation of this thread wasn't because Anos lost his Acausality type 5?
You again with your hate for Anos supporters. Dude really? Don't think we forgot what you said in previous threads. Just keep your hate for yourself.Are we really going to sit around and pretend the entire point of the creation of this thread wasn't because Anos lost his Acausality type 5?
Yeah great another guy with nothing better to do. If you read the OP completely you would know why this thread is even made.Originally it was because no one fit the new standards but Anus stans were the angriest of them all so... Yeah.
Pointing out the obvious, that this thread was made with alterior motives=/=hate. If Anos stans where reasonable at all they would be talking about his Acausality type 5 in a completely separate CRT after the indicated changes are made but the moment anyone suggests anything we get 3-5 comments about how Acausality would apply to Anos again. Do it in a different thread.You again with your hate for Anos supporters. Dude really? Don't think we forgot what you said in previous threads. Just keep your hate for yourself.
Yeah great another guy with nothing better to do. If you read the OP completely you would know why this thread is even made.
Go report the thread in RVR if you think it's something wrong. Why are you complaining here. Also there are other verses brought up in here. Even Ultima was confused about new Acausality typ 5. Don't try to defend your wrong doings with your fantasies. When other staffs has no problem and working their ass off while you are here blabbering something which is not contributing a single thing to the CRT.Pointing out the obvious, that this thread was made with alterior motives=/=hate. If Anos stans where reasonable at all they would be talking about his Acausality type 5 in a completely separate CRT after the indicated changes are made but the moment anyone suggests anything we get 3-5 comments about how Acausality would apply to Anos again. Do it in a different thread.
Go report the thread in RVR if you think it's something wrong. Why are you complaining here. Also there are other verses brought up in here. Even Ultima was confused about new Acausality typ 5. Don't try to defend your wrong doings with your fantasies. When other staffs has no problem and working their ass off while you are here blabbering something which is not contributing a single thing to the CRT.
Also you keep calling Anos Stans this and that. I will report you in RVR to ban you from Anos thread. Its really irritating to deal with people like you.
You are acting like you own the wiki and we are wasting your time when this thread main purpose is clearing things out which are confusing to even staffs. Well not expecting much from you who only sees this thread based on your hate for Anos supporters. Again if you think the thread is not suitable for wiki standard go report the thread in RVR don't waste others time
Yeah nah, this thread was made 100% in bad faith even if the outcome is beneficial. Such an outcome would have come sooner if this thread wasn't being repeatedly derailed.Are we really going to sit around and pretend the entire point of the creation of this thread wasn't because Anos lost his Acausality type 5?
I suppose this is fine.@Antvasima the current type 5 redraft isn't feasible on the wiki as virtually no one in the site qualifies as they either lack the specific wording that Everything12 is looking for in the previous thread, or they lack any explanation at all, so we're redrafting it to something more reasonable. My proposal is to make it where you transcend cause and effect to the point you lack a true physical form, resulting in you being difficult to interact with. I haven't gotten much input on if people agree or propose a rewrite on my proposals.
I think that could be fine@Antvasima the current type 5 redraft isn't feasible on the wiki as virtually no one in the site qualifies as they either lack the specific wording that Everything12 is looking for in the previous thread, or they lack any explanation at all, so we're redrafting it to something more reasonable. My proposal is to make it where you transcend cause and effect to the point you lack a true physical form, resulting in you being difficult to interact with. I haven't gotten much input on if people agree or propose a rewrite on my proposals.
This is why ya'll haven't heard me bring up Warhammer again besides a literal note, it'd be ****** derailingOh my lord… This thread is not about if your character should keep their Type 5 or not, that was an entirely different thread. This is about revising the standard so Type 5 is actually usable. (Or gets deleted but that doesn’t seem to be happening.) Because at this current time NO ONE qualifies, for it. (at least from the looks of it.)
No wonder why this was made to a staff thread. (sorry for commenting again btw, I needed to get that out, just bugs me when stuff like this happens, there shouldn’t be any derailing beyond this point.)
Could you include the wording of the redraft please.All of you stop derailing the thread with Anos stuff, I swear to god if I see more derailment one more time I will be deleting comments and report if it gets out of hand again, stay on topic FFS.
@Vietthai96 Not really when in this context you'd need evidence that transcending cause and effect is what lets you lack a physical form to begin with, hence that extra evidence required for type 5 acausality being accepted onto the pages.
Anyways I'm going to keep a vote tally for the redraft on the type 5 I have, any and all comments would be appreciated for any rewording or tinkering.
Agree: 2 (DarkDragonMedeus, DaReaperMan)
Disagree:
Neutral: 1 (DontTalk)
Count me as agreeAll of you stop derailing the thread with Anos stuff, I swear to god if I see more derailment one more time I will be deleting comments and report if it gets out of hand again, stay on topic FFS.
@Vietthai96 Not really when in this context you'd need evidence that transcending cause and effect is what lets you lack a physical form to begin with, hence that extra evidence required for type 5 acausality being accepted onto the pages.
Anyways I'm going to keep a vote tally for the redraft on the type 5 I have, any and all comments would be appreciated for any rewording or tinkering.
Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing beyond/transcending causality to the point that they lack a true physical form, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.
Though the character is completely Independent of causality to the point of being unaffected by any outside change, this only extends to as far as evidence shows and not to things beyond it's feats.
Note: 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, same applies to characters who aren't elaborated to lack a physical form as a result of existing beyond causality, as it would at best be evidence for an irregular relationship with causality otherwise.
Agree: 2 (DarkDragonMedeus, DaReaperMan)
Disagree:
Neutral: 1 (DontTalk)
@AntvasimaAll of you stop derailing the thread with Anos stuff, I swear to god if I see more derailment one more time I will be deleting comments and report if it gets out of hand again, stay on topic FFS.
@Vietthai96 Not really when in this context you'd need evidence that transcending cause and effect is what lets you lack a physical form to begin with, hence that extra evidence required for type 5 acausality being accepted onto the pages.
Anyways I'm going to keep a vote tally for the redraft on the type 5 I have, any and all comments would be appreciated for any rewording or tinkering.
Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing beyond/transcending causality to the point that they lack a true physical form, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.
Though the character is completely Independent of causality to the point of being unaffected by any outside change, this only extends to as far as evidence shows and not to things beyond it's feats.
Note: 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, same applies to characters who aren't elaborated to lack a physical form as a result of existing beyond causality, as it would at best be evidence for an irregular relationship with causality otherwise.
Agree: 3 (DarkDragonMedeus, DaReaperMan, Catpija)
Disagree:
Neutral: 1 (DontTalk)
@DontTalkDTAll of you stop derailing the thread with Anos stuff, I swear to god if I see more derailment one more time I will be deleting comments and report if it gets out of hand again, stay on topic FFS.
@Vietthai96 Not really when in this context you'd need evidence that transcending cause and effect is what lets you lack a physical form to begin with, hence that extra evidence required for type 5 acausality being accepted onto the pages.
Anyways I'm going to keep a vote tally for the redraft on the type 5 I have, any and all comments would be appreciated for any rewording or tinkering.
Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing beyond/transcending causality to the point that they lack a true physical form, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.
Though the character is completely Independent of causality to the point of being unaffected by any outside change, this only extends to as far as evidence shows and not to things beyond it's feats.
Note: 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, same applies to characters who aren't elaborated to lack a physical form as a result of existing beyond causality, as it would at best be evidence for an irregular relationship with causality otherwise.
Agree: 3 (DarkDragonMedeus, DaReaperMan, Catpija)
Disagree:
Neutral: 1 (DontTalk)
Can somebody explain all the main sides of the arguments here in an easy to understand manner please? I can ask DontTalk to evaluate it afterwards.
Quoting my summary from before.Summary;Can somebody write an easy to understand explanation post of the relevant arguments here please?
I would also appreciate if somebody can list the staff and knowledgeable members who have commented here previously.
Inconclusion;@Ultima_Reality mentioned this
Personally, I'd say what counts as an anti-feat for Acausality Type 5 would largely be restricted to occasions where the alleged acausal character is interacted with by normal people, or more generally beings that have absolutely no precedent for being able to do that; in these cases, I'd be fine with just giving them resistance to Causality Manipulation, by virtue of those statements having demonstrable proof of not being fully literal, or at least, not literal enough to be taken to their logical conclusion. Pretty much what Agnaa said up there.
I don't think characters being shown to act at all would necessarily count as an anti-feat, though, particularly if those scenarios strictly involve the Acausal character in question and other entities participating in the same state of existence as them. Depending on the case, I believe it'd be fine to treat these occasions as narrative concessions, since art certainly has its limits and can't exactly depict a lot of other things as is.
@Agnaa Disagreed partially with what Ultima said by saying
I somewhat disagree with Ultima; I think receiving changes without there being a decent explanation should be an anti-feat, even if it's from a superhuman. I'm also not interested in the narrative license idea as a reason to not consider certain things anti-feats. Although, I only think interaction in relation to the lower form of causality they're meant to transcend should be an anti-feat. We don't consider these characters above all change, just above ordinary change in their verse, so them changing because of higher-order stuff isn't an anti-feat.
Agnaa had to clarify what he means for some of us
This was his response
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.
As I said above, I disagree with part of Ultima's suggestion there.
However, I'd be fine with adding my suggested standards for anti-feats to the Acausality page.
Type 5 is not beyond all forms of causality. We reworded the definition to remove that implication.
You cannot prove that a character is beyond all forms of causality, and so there's no reason to exclude a character from being in type 4.
Type 5 is, right now, is just "beyond a form of causality, making them immune to anything from that form of causality", Characters would still qualify even if they reside on a higher form of causality, or if there was a form of causality above them in their verse.
Still, that sort of stuff you point out is why we moved to this different definition. It'd suck if a character who was above 3 forms of causality, each unaffected by the last, didn't get type 5, while a character who was just above 1 did. So we changed the definition to one that wasn't based above transcending the verse's own cosmology.
(me asking this : )How is this different from Type 4 Acausality????
Agnaa: It provides invulnerability, instead of just resistance to causality manip/fate manip.
@Theglassman12 wrote this out
changing type 5 acausality to the characters lacking a true physical form as a result of being beyond cause and effect, rendering them difficult to affect a la NEP's new requirements? Because as of now with the new standards, we cannot find anyone to use as an example for type 5 acausality, which is rendering type 5 almost irrelevant to have on the site when no one even gets it with the standards.
essentially, they transcend cause and effect to the point that they don't really have a physical form as a result, which ties to the whole point of them being hard to interact with. Merely having no physical form in of itself, or just being a concept or nonexistent being wouldn't be enough for type 5 if they don't elaborate on them being beyond cause and effect as a result.
If im wrong under any assumptions here please correct me.
Agnaa is suggesting the new standard (The Current Standard) is proving a character is invulnerable because they transcends a single layer, or more, of causality. This does tie in just slightly with what TheGlassman suggested with his suggestion of a change in state of being to a state that "lacks a form." Invulnerability can be shown in many ways such as something like intangibility with lacking a form, or simply no damage is taken because of an unchanging nature. However it must be stated that said invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/ is because of transcending Causality.
However, this runs into an issue with the current definition in what is now becoming a debate of Type 4 vs Type 5. Agnaa suggest that Type 5 is still bound by higher forms of Causality. Which is the same thing definition as Type 4. The only true difference now between Type 4 and Type 5 is only Invulnerability for Type 5's. Above baseline Type 4 Acausality would then be greater than baseline Type 5, and if character can fate hax an above baseline Type 4 Acuasal character they can also fate hax a baseline Type 5 Acausal due to higher order Causality being manipulated.
Aside from that; the current standard was more fleshed out and described for us here. perhaps I'm oversimplifying it, or maybe I'm still misunderstanding it but what I gathered here from what was said is that the current standard is apparently something like this;
Current standards is; any character being proposed for Type 5 must have no anti-feats to their invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/etc/, and they must be stated to transcends (even/only) 1 layer of Causality at minimum as the explanation for their invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/etc/.
This is how I understood was said here.
If such a standard (the now current standard we have) is to stay then a rewording definitely needs to be done to make this more clear and less confusing to prevent any further misunderstandings from happening in the future.
Okay.Quoting my summary from before.
"Inconclusion;
If im wrong under any assumptions here please correct me.
Agnaa is suggesting the new standard (The Current Standard) is proving a character is invulnerable because they transcends a single layer, or more, of causality. This does tie in just slightly with what TheGlassman suggested with his suggestion of a change in state of being to a state that "lacks a form" as a result of transcending Causality. Invulnerability can be shown in many ways such as something like intangibility with lacking a form, or simply no damage is taken because of an unchanging nature. However it must be stated that said invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/ is because of transcending Causality.
However, this runs into an issue with the current definition in what is now becoming a debate of Type 4 vs Type 5. Agnaa said that Type 5 is still bound by higher forms of Causality. Which is the same thing definition as Type 4. The only true difference now between Type 4 and Type 5 is only Invulnerability for Type 5's. Above baseline Type 4 Acausality would then be greater than baseline Type 5, and if character can fate hax an above baseline Type 4 Acuasal character they can also fate hax a baseline Type 5 Acausal due to higher order Causality being manipulated.
Aside from that; the current standard was more fleshed out and described for us here. perhaps I'm oversimplifying it, or maybe I'm still misunderstanding it but what I gathered here from what was said is that the current standard is apparently something like this;
Current standards is; any character being proposed for Type 5 must have no anti-feats to their invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/etc/, and they must be stated to transcends (even/only) 1 layer of Causality at minimum as the explanation for their invulnerability/intangibility/state of being/lack of form/etc/.
This is how I understood was said here.
If such a standard (the now current standard we have) is to stay then a rewording definitely needs to be done to make this more clear and less confusing to prevent any further misunderstandings from happening in the future"
I believe @Theglassman12 suggestion is different from Agnaas in the sense that a character that who transcends causality is unaffected by all levels of causality, and all higher forms.
Staff that has appeared on this thread were
@Agnaa
@Ultima_Reality
@Theglassman12
@DarkDragonMedeus
@Elizhaa
@Dereck03
@DontTalkDT
@Sir_Ovens
This needs a whole rewording. And I want to start it sentence by sentence and want to show you that it is similar to the omnipotence concept.Type 5: Causality Transcendence: Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing outside causality. Characters of this nature require evidence of being unable to be changed by any effect that relies on a system of causality, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.
Though the character is completely Independent of causality to the point of being unaffected by any outside change, this only extends to as far as evidence shows and not to things beyond its feats.
This causes anti-feat because two characters (acausal type 5 users) in the same existence plane can't interact with each other regardless if they have NPI (non-physical interaction) or not. Also, this will stimulate another issue if we remove this line as it won't be longer acausality type 5.Characters with this type of Acausality are completely independent of cause and effect, existing beyond/transcending causality to the point that they lack a true physical form, meaning that interacting with them normally is impossible.
The wiki does not assume that a character with Aca 5 does an action = anti-feat, as it would not make sense to have the ability that way. Characters that share the same nature and explanations of interaction are not anti-feat.
In this significance, we will be doing the same as non-existent physiology since, in the humanistic discipline sense, this type of nature is impossible to prove, but fewer forms of the concept frequently materialize in fiction.Type 5 (Causality Transcendence): Characters with this type of Acausality transcend the normal boundaries of cause and effect, existing outside the causality of a system. Even interacting with them normally may prove virtually impossible.
While true acausality being unbounded completely and independently by cause and effect in the philosophical sense is impossible to prove, lesser forms of the idea appear often in fiction.
Note: 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.
Define anti-feats. Infact my rewording may sound as acc type 4 but their rewording is no different of mines. I have mentioned in my text for like 10 times, true acc type 5 is impossible to prove. Their rewording is not even acc type 5, it's still like acc type 4 but the difference is interaction. That's it. Better nuke it and replace it with higher degree acc type 4. At least this makes more senseYour rewording is simply glorified type 4 and actually still no different from type 4.
The other rewording is okay to me and there are characters who actually qualify for it with no anti-feat.
I mean God (unsong) is a perfect example.
And how can you interact them? In simple terms? The staff rewording is simple Acausality + Abstract Existence/NEP. And dats it. More like acc type 4 to me but higher degree since you are still bound by causality but with layers.And yes all abilities are bound by your level of reality. So it is not that you can't be affected by a higher D or a being with ontological difference, as you seem to think that's what happens with type 5.
Including restricting it to causality only on its plane of reality.Note: 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 am talking about anti-feats for a true acausality type 5 user, which is our current standard right now. Which is, logically, two characters with no cause and effect can't meet each other. Simple? Also, I was summarizing everything, so I included everything in this thread that has been discussed.@TheUnshakableOne I never once said that my proposal is making a type 5 immune to literally all levels of causality, including all higher forms, my proposal is still keeping what the verse has shown since that leads into NLF territory. The main difference between my version and the new one is that I'm arguing they should lack a physical form as a result of transcending cause and effect, while the latter wants specific statements
@Dread that's not really what an anti-feat is though, saying a character talking is an anti-feat on it being beyond cause and effect is never how we do things at all, by that logic nonexistent and abstract beings literally cannot happen on the wiki if they remotely have any form of dialogue, which is ludicrous beyond all reasoning and just devolves into cherry picking.
How is that an anti feat if both characters are type 5? Like seriously explain how both characters being type 5 and interacting with one another is an anti feat for them being type 5 in the first place, because nothing you said remotely explains how it's an anti feat in the first place.
That's not really what we're arguing in the type 5 acausality, there's a difference between "impossible to interact with" and "interacting with them normally can be impossible"
Also I'm legit lost on what you're trying to argue in this post, are you trying to argue for a proposal change with the quote? Because it looks exactly like what we currently have. If you have a proposal change or any suggestions on how my revision should be, I'd love to see it.
@DarkDragonMedeus I literally have a revised version right here.
@Antvasima call more staff please, we need more staff evaluation.
This suggestion is the same as Agnaa (I re-worded a little) since you and I know that true acausality type 5 does not exist in fiction.Type 5 (Causality Transcendence): Characters with this type of Acausality transcend the normal and irregular boundaries of cause and effect, existing outside the causality of a system. Even interacting with them normally may prove virtually impossible.
While true acausality being unbounded completely and independently by cause and effect in the philosophical sense is impossible to prove, lesser forms of the idea appear often in fiction.
Note: 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.
This is just bringing another impossibly strict requirement. What happens to characters who don't have a physical form in the first place? Why does becoming free of cause and effect have to mean lacking a physical form?The main difference between my version and the new one is that I'm arguing they should lack a physical form as a result of transcending cause and effect, while the latter wants specific statements
Just do what is suggested here but also add the restriction of HD beings are capable of bypassing it because, the only reason the first definition has to be reworded is as stated by dread alreadyType 5 (Causality Transcendence): Characters with this type of Acausality transcend the normal and irregular boundaries of cause and effect, existing outside the causality of a system. Even interacting with them normally may prove virtually impossible.
While true acausality being unbounded completely and independently by cause and effect in the philosophical sense is impossible to prove, lesser forms of the idea appear often in fiction.
Note: 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.
For clarities sake, in your suggest it holds that Type 5 Acausals are still bound by higher forms of causality? For example, 1 layer of transcendence over 3D Causality but not all layers of 3D Causality?@TheUnshakableOne I never once said that my proposal is making a type 5 immune to literally all levels of causality, including all higher forms, my proposal is still keeping what the verse has shown since that leads into NLF territory. The main difference between my version and the new one is that I'm arguing they should lack a physical form as a result of transcending cause and effect, while the latter wants specific statements