- 168,521
- 77,242
Most of our staff are not knowledgeable about this kind of issue, but I could try to be selective if you wish.
Would it be sufficient to cite the following post to keep them informed?
-
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
Would it be sufficient to cite the following post to keep them informed?
- 20,105
- 10,899
@Dread Except that the whole "lacking a true physical form" ties with the entire distinction of what type 5 has compared to 4, where the former is hard to interact with and the former just functions differently while still being easily interactable. Also I never said mine is invulnerability, otherwise I would've specified it to be that way. Except that there are several characters right off the bat that would qualify for my rewording, if you wanna push for your own version then we're gonna need some input on this.
@Tatsumi504 it's not impossibly strict when we have actual examples of those that would qualify, so you're just misinterpreting my argument.
@TheUnshakableOne if the type 5 is only show to be at best up to 4-D levels or even 3-D levels of cause and effect, then anything higher dimensional would be able to affect it easily, it's no different to how we treat any other ability that can be NLF'd out the ass in this site.
@Tatsumi504 it's not impossibly strict when we have actual examples of those that would qualify, so you're just misinterpreting my argument.
@TheUnshakableOne if the type 5 is only show to be at best up to 4-D levels or even 3-D levels of cause and effect, then anything higher dimensional would be able to affect it easily, it's no different to how we treat any other ability that can be NLF'd out the ass in this site.
- 6,489
- 1,704
So lets say we have 2 characters.
Character A is Type 5 Acausal but is baseline
Character B is Type 4 Acausality but he can interact with and nullify layered Type 4 Acausality
They are both of the same existential state with Third-Dimensionality
Character B would be able to interact with and nullify Character A's Type 5 Acausality due to higher order causality being manipulated.
would this still be a thing with your suggestion?
- 20,105
- 10,899
That wouldn't really be comparable given they're different structures of acausality entirely, especially when type 4 is functioning on a different form of causality, and type 5 is existing beyond it. It's comparable to having a virus in a computer (type 4) compared to the person using the computer (type 5).
- 11,387
- 19,977
We will still have characters who lacks any kind of physical form and are beyond/unbound or transcends all system of causality showed by they in their verse as just Higher Degree of Type 4. But anyway, i'm hinting towards your proposal.
Or maybe that would change if the characters are re-evaluated if we got a new standards.
Last edited:
- 6,489
- 1,704
Okay so in your suggestion; a character would be beyond all levels of causality for their reality (that has been shown).
im not sure how to phrase that properly.
FoxySonicMaster108
He/Him- 2,103
- 765
what about characters who are beyond causality, but just have a physical form? Would they just obtain Type 4 instead or something?
- 5,091
- 2,917
Its still just as strict. You're basically saying if they don't loose their physical form, then its not type 5, you still didn't reply to my question of how characters who have no physical form to begin with will be treated when they transcend causality in their plane of existence
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #329
I am not against “lacking physical form”, heck, this is not really the issue of this game since I know many characters will qualify this.
I am more against that you need to beyond all forms of cause and effect, I have been repeatedly explained that something like this is impossible. That is why I want to add the second paragraph to the new standards.
Again, I am seeing nothing here solved.- You added something new to the text and did not remove anything.
Heck, somehow my suggestion solved almost all of the issues here. Pardon me.
- 20,105
- 10,899
@FoxySonicMaster108 it would just be type 4 at best.
@Dereck03 the difference is if them lacking a physical form is because of transcending cause and effect, without the elaboration on that being the case it would just be type 4, either way I'll add your vote to the proposals.
@Tatsumi504 If they don't elaborate on them lacking a physical form as a result of transcending cause and effect then it won't be type 5. Also false it's not just as strict cause we already have a few characters who qualify, that's already a lot better than the new one we currently have. I already answered it, if them lacking a physical form has no elaboration on it being a result of transcending cause and effect it would just be type 4 acausality at best.
@Dread so you just want that extra line to be added into the explanation on the type 5 rework is that correct?
@Dereck03 the difference is if them lacking a physical form is because of transcending cause and effect, without the elaboration on that being the case it would just be type 4, either way I'll add your vote to the proposals.
@Tatsumi504 If they don't elaborate on them lacking a physical form as a result of transcending cause and effect then it won't be type 5. Also false it's not just as strict cause we already have a few characters who qualify, that's already a lot better than the new one we currently have. I already answered it, if them lacking a physical form has no elaboration on it being a result of transcending cause and effect it would just be type 4 acausality at best.
@Dread so you just want that extra line to be added into the explanation on the type 5 rework is that correct?
- 5,387
- 4,297
That sounds even worse than what we have now. Instead of having "You must prove you can't be touched cause you transcend cause and effect" it's "You must prove you have no form because you transcend cause and effect" nobody qualifies for either.
- 11,387
- 19,977
Was about to poin the same. There are characters that have no physical form, or are abstract, etc. that have statments of being beyond/unbound or transcend cause and effect, but it is not elaborated that this is the cause of them having that form. And they still meet the requirement but would not get type 5.
- 5,387
- 4,297
The requirements for Aca are also overlapping too much with other states of being and those states of being are taking president. Your untouchable and transcend causality? Too bad you have Omnipresence or Abstract Existence or NEP or Incorporeality.
- 20,105
- 10,899
Madoka literally qualifies as her transcending the law of cycle results in her lacking a physical form, and the law of cycle includes transcending causality itself so that's not remotely true on no one qualifying.
- 11,387
- 19,977
If you have Omnipresence, AE, NEP or TD then forget about getting Aca 5, cos the feats of the untouchable will go fot those abilities and not for Aca, and if you have all of them at once then even more.
- 5,387
- 4,297
What about characters that already lack physical form in a previous key, and then transcend causality in the next key? They can't lack physical form two times in a row, and now they can't prove it cause they used up their "I don't have a Physical Form because of {Ability Name Here }" slot.
- 11,387
- 19,977
According to glassman's standards, the lack of physical form should be stated by transcending cause and effect, you can have no physical form and have proof and statments transcending cause and effect or as the causality system is portrayed in your verse, but if it is not elaborated that it is because of that transcendence over cause and effect then you can't have Aca 5, it is the same as the current standards (Everything12 standards), you can have proof of transcending cause and effect, you can have proof that no one can interact with you and you are untouchable, but if it does not relate to causality then you do not qualify and if you have any other abilies such as NEP, TD or AE then the merit will go to those abilities.
TL; DR, things still the same.
- 5,091
- 2,917
It seems you're not getting the point.
Imagine an incorporeal being who already lacks a physical form, is then said to be outside, transcend, unbound from causality. There's nothing to elaborate on them lacking a physical form because they never had one in the first place.
You're basically saying characters that fit the scenario above, those who aren't said to lack a physical form due to transcending causality, those who are straight up invulnerable as a result of transcending causality are automatically disqualified which doesn't make sense.
In the first place, there's no way to determine the nature of something that's completely outside causality so why attach this requirement in the first place? It's less strict than what everything12 suggested but it unjustly disqualifies a lot of characters all the same. You basically just removed the "no statement/ feat of lacking interaction due to being outside causality= no type 5" and replaced it with "no statement/ feat of lacking physical form due to being outside causality= no type 5".
- 168,521
- 77,242
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #340
Yap, and this line is very important and it is not even new, we used it in NEP to clear confusions tho
- 20,105
- 10,899
@ActuallySpaceMan it's just gonna be type 4 if there's no elaboration on the incorporeal state.
@Tatsumi504 not really, one of the qualifications for Nonexistent physiology is you flat out need to lack a physical form, and just having a statement of not existing but still having a physical form wouldn't really count for NEP. Same applies here as you don't have any elaboration on the process of being beyond cause and effect as the entire point of type 5 is you're very hard to interact with, it's what differs it from type 4 as everything type 1-4 related is still affectable by normal means.
@Antvasima use this post since it has the reworded proposal.
@Dread Added it.
@Tatsumi504 not really, one of the qualifications for Nonexistent physiology is you flat out need to lack a physical form, and just having a statement of not existing but still having a physical form wouldn't really count for NEP. Same applies here as you don't have any elaboration on the process of being beyond cause and effect as the entire point of type 5 is you're very hard to interact with, it's what differs it from type 4 as everything type 1-4 related is still affectable by normal means.
@Antvasima use this post since it has the reworded proposal.
@Dread Added it.
- 168,521
- 77,242
@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @First_Witch @Elizhaa @KingPin0422 @Qawsedf234 @Pain_to12 @Agnaa
Would you be willing to help evaluate this please?
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #343
Thanks for understanding me and cooperation, I appreciate it!
- 5,387
- 4,297
This is ridiculous.
God Character: I transcend causality, no action against me results in a reaction, I do not change nor do my actions have an impact through time, therefore I am immune to everything. I am a formless being, I am everywhere and nowhere.
Wiki: But you don't have an elaboration that you have no physical form cause of that causality stuff so... Type 4 bye.
- 168,521
- 77,242
Is this the word by word definition of a character, and if so, which one are you referring to?
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,100
- 6,037
Agreed
Also I don't know how it can be reworded but hope the standard here is not them lacking a physical body because they transcend causality.
As physical and non-physical has no relation with acausality
- 11,387
- 19,977
Told ya.
- 5,387
- 4,297
No, but the fact a character could have this definition and still not qualify for Type 5 proves a point. If we're going to reword an ability it needs to be broad enough to fit all kinds of evidence for Acausality Type 5, not stone walling everything that doesn't adhere to a single arbitrary requirement.
- 168,521
- 77,242
Hmm.
I hope that the members that I called for earlier take this into account then.
- 20,105
- 10,899
@ActuallySpaceMan your last two points literally just sound like omnipresence, nothing to do with type 5. If you disagree with my proposals then by all means give an alternative version and if the staff agrees with your take then alright, if not then whatever.
- 5,387
- 4,297
That's not the point at all, you are proposing we switch "Untouchable" to having "No Physical Form" as a requirement for Acausaity Type 5. However, the fact we are able to switch them out willy nilly proves that there are multiple things that can act as proof of hitting the Acausality Type 5 requirement.
Instead of having 1 Stone Walling requirement, it would be best to have multiple varying yet legitimate requirements to cover all potential basis, characters, and writing when it comes to lacking causality. That way a character only needs to have one of those varying requirements instead of being lucky enough that the author mentioned a singular obscure requirement.
- 18,393
- 14,323
- Thread starter
- #352
Omnipresence? You mean omnipotence tho, I assume
- 10,939
- 12,428
Personally I remain neutral regarding Theglassman12's linked definition.
We can use that, keep the current or just delete it. What I can say is that I consider the formulation sufficiently clear and that I think it wouldn't hand out abilities disproportionate to the evidence, which is good.
- 168,521
- 77,242
Okay. I would much prefer if you find the time to write a suggestion of your own that you find preferable though. I am not comfortable with applying important standard suggestions of this nature that do not have your support.
Last edited:
- 6,213
- 16,618
I think it's pretty superfluous, overall. Type 5 Acausality should be strictly focused around existing outside of the process of "X happens, and that causes Y." Whether or not the character in question is incorporeal has no relation to this definition. It's a complete non-sequitur and shouldn't be made into a requirement, in my opinion.
- 20,105
- 10,899
@Dread
@ActuallySpaceMan If you think my proposal is in anyway shape or form stonewalling then you haven't seen the previous thread on type 5 cause that's peak definition of stonewalling. Again if you think my proposal is bad then by all means you can make your own redraft of the acausality type 5 and ask for input.
@Ultima_Reality counting your vote.
this stuff to be exact just sounds like omnipresence.
@ActuallySpaceMan If you think my proposal is in anyway shape or form stonewalling then you haven't seen the previous thread on type 5 cause that's peak definition of stonewalling. Again if you think my proposal is bad then by all means you can make your own redraft of the acausality type 5 and ask for input.
@Ultima_Reality counting your vote.
- 5,387
- 4,297
Once again you are taking the wrong parts away from my message, I never said you specifically are stonewalling, I said the requirements we are setting, in general, are too singular resulting in stonewalling of various current and future characters regardless of their Acausaulity Evidence.
I don't know why you keep thinking I'm attacking your proposal, I am simply offering a more open-ended solution that should be taken into consideration.
Last edited:
- 5,091
- 2,917
This is the only thing that actually needs to be done. The need to reword the previous definition was simply because of what's said in the "Note". There's no need to attach any other unnecessary, high-end requirements which we can't even say for sure is an effect of transcending causality
Last edited:
- 168,521
- 77,242
- Status
