• 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.

Suggested invulnerability changes

Wokistan

Wokistan

Bioluminescent African American Working At The CIA
VS Battles
Administrator
Calculation Group
16,919
7,368
tldr wok is salty that he didn't get to delete this power last time and tries to neuter it agai

I think we should better define Invulnerability. Given that we already have Durability Negation, I think it makes more sense to concretely define Invulnerability as Attack Potency Negation, more strictly establishing it as abilities that render offensive force irrelevant. An example would be The Siberia, who's invincible due to physics manip that means she can just not be affected by physical properties like force if she doesn't want to be.

Why did I make a thread for this when the page for Invulnerability already says it should be "beyond normal durability"? Because it isn't being applied that way in practice and there's been confusion about it. For example:

  • Doomguy has invulnerability listed with the Invulnerability Sphere. It does make him immune to everything within the context of his fighting, but there's no evidence or mechanic that would make it sidestep AP entirely.
  • Sonic the Hedgehog (Game Character) has been having arguments over this recently. His super form usually doesn't take damage and has been called invincible, but again there's not evidence that this bypasses AP.
  • Bernadine (Khimera) is listed as having invulnerability negation for being able to damage the protag while she's in a state of enhanced durability. Chelshia's own file doesn't even call it invulnerable.
  • Starfire (Teen Titans) is listed as invulnerable just because, i guess.
It should be put under the same standards as Durability Negation is. We should require evidence of a mechanic that works outside the bounds of normal AP, and not just give it out for being called indestructible or invulnerable or whatever the same way we wouldn't give out dura neg for random statement of "this gun can pierce anything" or whatever. From a quick look on the what links here page, a lot of people would probably lose the ability.
 
Tbf the profile doesn't call it invulnerability because I haven't made the CRT yet. I do call it invulnerability
 
That doesn't change that there's not proof of that ability bypassing AP entirely, which is what the page seems to imply it should, and what I want to firmly establish
 
From what I recall, many people seem to feel that people who take no damage from comparable or even superior opponents (like Super Sonic) should be stone walls and stuff. I'm assuming a fair amount of people in similar cases would be stone walls as well?
 
Yeah, probably most of the people with this listed tbh. That, or rarely fighting people at their level.
 
Although, since we define Attack Potency as the capability to produce energy, Attack Potency Negation wouid be some kind of energy negation/inhibition, that technically is not the standard meaning of Invulnerability (that is immunity to any/all form of physical damage). Despite calling it Durability Negation, half of the time is more Durability Bypassing.
 
Well yeah negation in this context is bypassing since it's more akin to negating the importance of the stat. Stuff like Siberian's physics manip definitely fits the meaning of immunity to physical damage and it definitely trivializes AP.
 
How would this be reworded for pages like those with Servant Physiology, as their invulnerability is specified?

Would it need to be specified under the durability section similar to how Alexandria (Worm) has it written, if we are treating it the same way as durability negation?
 
Don't the servants have it due to a concept manip thing? That actually works out for the "mechanic".

Dura neg usually isn't explained that much in the AP section besides what abilities let them have it, but there should be an explanation for why it's nvulnerable somewhere, be it in P&A, notable abilities and techniques, or even a reference, I'd think.
 
Invulnerability has always been an ability that's often added without realizing how prone to NLF it truly is. And we has multiple discussions regarding what it is based mainly on how Reppuzan defined it a while back, but we never really got around to removing it from a bunch of profiles.
 
Other option, you qualify Invulnerability as Indefinite/Infinite [Physical] Durability, and make the power called Damage Negation. Otherwise, you just got character with Durability above its damage output (defnied as Stone Walls) or got stuff as Dermal Armor (that generally makes you not vunerable to cutting/piercing damage).
 
What's wrong with people being more durable than their AP though

Also I don't think your armor has to be made of skin to protect against sharp edges
 
Nothing, it was actually supporting your argument, guess its was not worded good enough.

Ehh, Dermar Armor is just having skin pretty resistent, for all purpose, is considered not vulnerable to cutting/piercong attacks from beings of the same tier (when generally those attacks oneshot with direct attacks).
 
Invulnerability should just apply to "Attack Potency Negation" or hax durability or whatever you're gonna call it. Doomguy and Sonic are just Statistics Amplification, I guess.
 
I'd like to point out there is a difference between characters like Sonic and stone walls, I think the former are immune to chip damage, while the latter are not.
 
The first post seems to make sense to me.
 
Chip damage isn't really a thing in a lot of cases
 
I'm saying if character X's AP is say 1 megaton of TNT and their durability is 10 megatons of TNT, they are a stone wall but can still be taken out by enough 9 megaton punches.

Now character Y's AP is also 1 megaton of TNT and they are "invulnerable" up until 10 megatons of TNT, they could be considered a stone wall but they can not be taken out by 9 megaton punches, even if you threw a million 9 megaton punches at them.
 
It generally goes this way: someone is [in contrast] invulnerable if hasn't been damaged by anything (only damaging, invulnerable beings may not be immune to pain), if damaged, naturally by definition it stop being invulnerable, and instead it has Enhanced/Supernatural Durability, Damage Reduction or Damage Negation (depending of how it works).
 
That's not enough to qualify for a stone wall? A stone wall is like Crawler, a 9-A with Low 7-C durability.

That's just durability being treated differently anyways. We're getting off topic.
 
Lets say a character didn't abide by the laws of physics we know of.

The matter Nyx was composed of existed under physical laws which defy those of earth.
~ Persona 3 Club Book​
Would that be invulnerability, for the same reasons as The Siberian?
 
Only if it translates to that in canon. Can't just slap it on something that abides by different physics by default. If there's no indication it does, no Invulnerability.

That being said, Nyx would probably resist Matter Manipulation because of that.
 
Again, if there's no indication that it can't be hurt normally because of it, it doesn't matter.
 
Yeah, that statement do not make mention of durability/invulnerability, so further abilities/powers can't be assumed from that piece of text alone.
 
Okay, but I'm saying because it works under different laws of physics, isn't it similar to the type that The Siberian follows? It doesn't abide by different physics, it defies them. My apologies.
 
Siberian explicitly cannot be harmed because of it.
 
I feel like there should be types to invulnerability. Like "Type 1, physical invulnerability, type 2, metaphysical invulnerability, type 3, conceptual invulnerability"
 
Servants are a similar case to that, Milly, and it should probably fall under Invulnerability.

Making types for Invulnerability is a bad idea. Too varied.
 
Yeah, stone walls simply mean they have durability higher than their AP; Crawler being one example of that. Invulnerability is basically hax that makes characters immune to conventional attacks which we only give to certain characters such as the Servants from Nasuverse. We don't take, "Invulnerable" statements or portrayals literally and just treated as either durability amplification or high durability.

Also, chip damaging is typically something not part of our system and often ignored in a lot of cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Makai641001
Invulnerability negation for 4kota
Replies
12
Views
712
Damage3245
Damage3245
Maverick_Zero_X
  • Locked
Shadow Queen Invulnerability removal
Replies
6
Views
528
ZespeonGalaxy
ZespeonGalaxy
XSOULOFCINDERX
  • Locked
Gravity Beetle (Mega Man X) addition
Replies
8
Views
528
UchihaSlayer96
UchihaSlayer96
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
Another Castlevania Thing
Replies
11
Views
2K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
  • Locked
Invulnerability: Let's talk about it.
2 3
Replies
94
Views
7K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Back
Top