Offensive hax vs Defensive hax: double standards?

[PaChi2]

When we discuss offensive abilities like Mind Manipulation we apply that unless you have resistance to it, or are a dimensional level above the user, you get haxed (unless there is some special condition like Abstract Existence that prevents being mindhaxed normally). For example, nobody would argue that Saiyan Saga Goku would resist Charles Xavier's hax right?

However, when regarding defensive abilities such as Accelerator's vector manipulation (which is only related to vectors he can calculate, the strength of the attack is not related), these haxes need to prove they work on every level of existence. Gagamaru Chougasaki has a similar problem.

And yes, my issue is that defensive haxes have the NLF rule applied really throughly while offensive haxes get almost a freepass. Oddly enough, this applies to Accelerator in a strange way: you'd argue he can use matter manipulation on people far beyond his AP but when it comes to his defensive shield he gets slapped with a NLF and that's it... And we are talking about the same ability.

I just wanted to voice my opinion.

Thank you.

 

[Andytrenom]

I've been wondering about this too. In my opinion, if abilities that ignore durability can be said to work at levels far beyond what was seen in the series itself. The same should apply for abilities that ignore AP.

 

[Homu_Sweet_Homu]

(Cough) Thunder Mcqueen (Cough)

 

[PaChi2]

(Cough) Thunder Mcqueen (Cough)

That's an offensive ability, though?

 

[Antvasima]

I am not experienced regarding versus threads, so I am of no help here. Sorry.

 

[PaChi2]

I am not experienced regarding versus threads, so I am of no help here. Sorry.

Thanks for participating.

I really want input on this subject.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay.

 

[Elizhaa]

Accelerator's hax that you describe come from the fact he was able to capable of manipulating 11-dimensional vectors originally from this thread

To prevent confusion and NLF, it might be safe to upgrade him as High 1-C via hax in a new key.

 

[Elizhaa]

Gagamaru Chougasaki's hax won't work a character that has a higher dimension tier as he got no feats of doing so like Accelerator .

 

[DontTalkDT]

There is not really a double standard here.

We basically had a thread regarding hax and whether it is NLF to say it works against stronger characters if it has no showings in that regards.

What that debate came down to is: If an ability has a known mechanism than you can extrapolate based on the mechanism whether or not pure higher Durability/AP will make a difference in the outcome.

To name 2 examples:

If you have mind hax, then it is clear that a stronger body would not matter, since the attack doesn't affect your body, but your mind.

And if you use portals as shields (or wear an armor made of portals) then the power of energy beams shot at you will not matter, since you are not trying to endure the effects or stop the energy beams, but instead only affect the space the energy beams pass through by nature and that way redirect them away.


So, it's really the same thing for both.

Now how is it for Accelerator and Gagamaru?

Well, in essence both of the explanations regarding their abilities mechanisms are just not clear enough to say that they are independent of the amount of power.

In Accels case it depends on whether or not him inverting a vector is really just inverting the direction (as a vector that doesn't include the force, velocity or momentum vectors at all) or if he inverts the force/velocity/momentum vector to archieve this effect, in which case the vector actually includes some description of the objects power meaning a too large power could affect the workings of the ability.


In Gagamarus case we have statements on what the ability does (pushes away all damage), but we have no description on HOW the ability does what it does. That means we lack any understanding of its mechanism and hence can not extrapolate into areas of which we don't have showings.

 

[PaChi2]

Small bumping this:

Power Nullification is a big NLF.

Like, you are nullifying power righr? You must prove that you can null X level of power, right? Why is usually used as in "it works on everyone even people stronger than what it has shown the ability to work on unless you resist it"?

 

[Wokistan]

Power null can work in the sense of not allowing people to activate their abilities, cutting off their connection, powers just not working in their presence, it's not like you use your own AP to jam theirs.

 

[PaChi2]

Power null can work in the sense of not allowing people to activate their abilities, cutting off their connection, powers just not working in their presence, it's not like you use your own AP to jam theirs.

You still need feats of nulling something way above your league or else its NLF to say so. Not allowing people to use their abilities if done by something like "lol now you cant use magic", is really NLF incarnate.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

imo what Wokistan said makes sense. The method you use to nullify the power isn't based on your own strength, it is just a power that turns off other powers.

 

[Wokistan]

Not really. We treat it as any hax, bound to dimensional scale if no other limits are shown. Doesn't really take much power to cut someone off from the source of theirs, compared to trying to overpower theirs. If the power null specifically relies on that then yes, but most of them don't.

 

[Sigurd_Snake_in_The_Eye]

Power Nullification has nothing to do with AP unless shown, I believe this why we have resistances and natural resistance to things via dimensonal scaling.

 

[Wokistan]

For example, Celexus assassin's are magical dead zones. Powers can't activate in their presence, and stuff just stops working in their presence even if someone tries to magically snipe them or whatever. This is due to their nature as blanks. Even if they didn't have feats of working on stuff like daemons in the eye of terror and explicitly working better the stronger the opponent is, there's no reason they should have to out AP someone to cut off their connection from the warp.

 

[PaChi2]

Not really. We treat it as any hax, bound to dimensional scale if no other limits are shown. Doesn't really take much power to cut someone off from the source of theirs, compared to trying to overpower theirs. If the power null specifically relies on that then yes, but most of them don't.

"Invulnerability", should we treat invulnerability as any other hax, bound only by dimensional level? No, right?

Then why PNull, which is basically nulling stuff like Invulnerability does (albeit more defensively oriented) gets the free pass?

 

[PaChi2]

Why cant I say that Zelgius and his blessed armor can nope everything unless its from divine procedence? Why do I have to cap the hax at High 6-A just because the one the blessing is from is a High 6-A.

But then I can say that Yhwach can null 3-A Goku?

It makes zero sense to me.

 

[Wokistan]

Not really. We treat it as any hax, bound to dimensional scale if no other limits are shown. Doesn't really take much power to cut someone off from the source of theirs, compared to trying to overpower theirs. If the power null specifically relies on that then yes, but most of them don't.

"Invulnerability", should we treat invulnerability as any other hax, bound only by dimensional level? No, right?

Then why PNull, which is basically nulling stuff like Invulnerability does (albeit more defensively oriented) gets the free pass?

My phone keeps trying to forcibly quote this, so I guess it will be.

Invulnerability works on AP. Power null works on hax. As such, they work on the respective scales of the types of ability they counter. As had scales to dimension, so would power null. Hax abilities don't have AP, unless they are explicitly so. There is no reason to try to make power null work like that. Now, demanding feats of working on acausals, abstracts, omnipresent, etc? That's all well and good. What doesn't make sense is demanding power null to work on, say, 4-A hax, because 4-A hax is not a thing. That would be 3D.

 

[Sigurd_Snake_in_The_Eye]

Why cant I say that Zelgius and his blessed armor can nope everything unless its from divine procedence? Why do I have to cap the hax at High 6-A just because the one the blessing is from is a High 6-A.
But then I can say that Yhwach can null 3-A Goku?

It makes zero sense to me.

Unless Goku has 4-D power or something I don't see why it wouldn't work seeing as he has no resistance.

 

[PaChi2]

"invulnerability works on AP", "P Null works on hax", see, thats my issue. Both are haxes. Both are abilities that nope stuff. But the defensive one gets shafted and the offensive one is unbound.

 

[Wokistan]

Depends on how his stat reduction works. If his stat reduction reduces someone to a set amount, regardless of their power, it works fine. If it reduces someone by a set amount, probably won't work so well on a 3-A bwcause of their advantage in stats, unless they just have a ridiculous stat reduction.

 

[Wokistan]

Hax is an incredibly broad term. It is not going to be 100% consistent. Power null is a generally defensive thing in the first place, as you still have to fight and it doesn't cause a win on its own. Invulnerability is explicitly an ability that scales to stuff in the same manner as AP, because AP is what it concerns. There's nothing wrong with that. Why should power null scale with AP when what it affects does not scale that way? What's the problem with different abilities scaling to different things?

 

[PaChi2]

Maybe is because Im thinking on the lines of nulling magic, but say, if a tier 7 magician nulled tier 7 magic users. I would mever say he can null anything beyond tier 7 magic because that's what he has shown to null. Simple as that.

 

[DontTalkDT]

PaChi makes a lot of sense, in my opinion. At least when it comes to the most common type of power nullification.

The most common type being just that we know it negates the ability.

There are plently examples of these failing against higher powers, due to the fact hat the mechanism of these often is that the skills energy (in whichever form) erases the energy of the techniques the opponent wants to use. If you invest more power than the nullification user into the technique some of your power will not be negated in time, meaning you can still use your techniques.

Another common mechanism is jamming of the opponents power. That means the nullification user uses his power to disassemble the structure of the opponents technique, by that disabling him from properly controlling what his power does making it useless. This kind of nullification does not have such a direct reliance of power, but in case of a large gap the jamming would be like trying to disrupt the function of a rocket by throwing a pebble. The difference it makes wouldn't be large enough.

Of course there are also nullification powers that work without trouble. If you have the power to demutate genes, then nullfying the powers of mutants is not an issue of power. Same goes for more or less any other nullification type that permanently removes an ability.

Nullification that prevents the activation by ways other than disrupting the opponents power flow, like for exapmle a mind related things, interference with the skill system or changing of certain laws would also work.


All in all defaulting to the assumption that a type of power nullification works regardless of power is a NLF. The nullification in question has to explain how it works, so that we can judge wether it is amongst the types that do work regardless of power or not.

 

[PaChi2]

Of course there are exceptions to what I was saying. I didnt mean that all of the P Null had to be bound by tier.

 

[DragonEmperor23]

That makes sense.

 

[Wokistan]

Oh, so you meant counterspells and the like, or nulling powers through kinda jamming them with your own? Yeah, that probably would scale to AP, if that's shown to be the mechanic. The power null i was thinking of was more along the lines of "these abilities just aren't things you can do anymore" or similarly cutting off their access. Its lile attack reflection, in that it depends on the method. If you reflected attacks by hitting them you'd scale to AP, if you reflected them with portals or something you'd probably just scale to what fits in thst portal.

 

[Wokistan]

If the type you're describing is more prevalent in anime and stuff, that would explain it, as thats jot a medium I'm familiar with. I can't personally think of a time when power power null was ever beat out through AP.

 

[YungManzi]

It becomes a slipery slope.

If we allow invulnerability, there is no reason why we shouldn't allow absolute attack; and allow for statements like "This attack can bypass any defense" as long as it doesn't have any contradictions.....see what I mean?...We don't allow for things like that, so why should absolute invulnerability not limited by tiers be an accepted thing?

It's completely different if there is a mechanism behind the attack or defense which allows for it to null tiers.

Other than that, I agree with Wokistan completely.

Edit: When it comes to power null, I completely disagree with everything above.

 

[MeleeniumRXJ]

I don't see the double standard. Defensive haxes like intangibility or Regenerationn can enable a character to "tank" attacks that are above their normal durability. It is the attacker that has to prove they can harm intangibles, or negate Regenerationn or something like that. Another example might be energy absorption.

 

[Antvasima]

So what are the TLDR conclusions here?

 

[Wokistan]

Not really done yet.

 

[YungManzi]

A good question would be if we allow characters who absorb energy based attacks to absorb energy based attacks above their tier.


I know we don't allow it if it's stated that they can't do it in canon, but honestly I have no idea how it should be treated otherwise....I want to say that tiers matter when it comes to this....but by its very nature...absorption isn't something bound by tiers; life absorption and soul absorption to name examples.

 

[Antvasima]

@Wokistan

Okay.

 

[fandom_22Easy]

bump

EDIT: While I'm here, I'd like to provide another example.

For instance, a Tier 7 could Mind hax ToP Goku fairly easily, since Mindhax obviously isn't bound by tier.

But, someone shown with Invulernability suddenly has this hax bound by tier.

For instance, someone would say something like "Well, this invulnerability has only been shown up to be effective to tier x", but with mindhax, they'd say "Goku gets mindhax'd", despite the massive tier difference.

I agree with PaChi2. There is a blatant double standard. My only problem is that this could lead to defensive haxes being NLF'd.

 

[DontTalkDT]

A good question would be if we allow characters who absorb energy based attacks to absorb energy based attacks above their tier.


I know we don't allow it if it's stated that they can't do it in canon, but honestly I have no idea how it should be treated otherwise....I want to say that tiers matter when it comes to this....but by its very nature...absorption isn't something bound by tiers; life absorption and soul absorption to name examples.

Life absorption and Soul Absorption are hax, because they can absorb stuff the opponent needs to stay alive, without having to interact with its physical durability (well, unless you need to first stab the opponent to make it happen or stuff). It is also not the case that the amount of life energy or souls would increase for a stronger character.

Energy absorption on the other hand is clearly bound to the amount of energy they are trying to absorb. If they absorb it into their body, they require the capacities to contain that much energy. Otherwise it is essentially overloading a battery, so that it gets destroyed.

Other restriction is how much energy they can absorb over time. It is not like energy absorbing characters can absorb infinite energy in an instant. If a character can only absorb mountain level energy per second, an island level attack will remain 99% unabsorbed at the point it hits them.

bump

EDIT: While I'm here, I'd like to provide another example.

For instance, a Tier 7 could Mind hax ToP Goku fairly easily, since Mindhax obviously isn't bound by tier.

But, someone shown with Invulernability suddenly has this hax bound by tier.

For instance, someone would say something like "Well, this invulnerability has only been shown up to be effective to tier x", but with mindhax, they'd say "Goku gets mindhax'd", despite the massive.

I agree with PaChi2. There is a blatant double standard. My only problem is that this could lead to defensive haxes being NLF'd.

As I said above, the mechanism makes the difference.

Mind hax bypasses the need to interact with the opponents durability completely, since you don't have to put even a scratch on it for the mind hax to work.

For Invulnerability we don't know without further information how it works.

Quite possibly a character that is invulnerable just has durability above everything their verse could shoot at him, making it impossible to harm him. But what is impossible to harm for one verse, is easily killed for another, so generalizing it to work when interacting with other verses is nonsense.

Here as well, if the mechanism is explained and it is a mechanism of the kind that doesn't care about the energy it can be said to be hax, but only then. If, for example, a character manipulates the laws of physics to make it so that it can not be harmed by attacks anymore, then "Invulnerability against attacks working based on the laws of physics" is a perfectly viable hax.


Let me say it boldly: There is no such thing as hax with unknown mechanism.

 

[Monarch_Laciel]

Let me say it boldly: There is no such thing as hax with unknown mechanism.

In Gagamarus case we have statements on what the ability does (pushes away all damage), but we have no description on HOW the ability does what it does. That means we lack any understanding of its mechanism and hence can not extrapolate into areas of which we don't have showings.

Wait what?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Wait what?

What about it? If we define hax as "an ability that ignores one of the stats of the opponent", then Encounter is currently not a hax, even if it is a very powerful ability.

Without the explained mechanism we can not know if it works independent of the attacks power and speed, meaning we can not reliably assume that the statistics are ignored.