Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Fantastic Four

Mr.Fantastic
Invisable Women
The Thing
Human Tourch

Vs.

Wolverine
Storm
Cyclops
Emma Frost

Bloodlust is turned on, Reed has enough time to pick up four gadgets.

Who wins?

And for those of you that say that it is unfair, mismatched, what have you go here:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=362830&from=thread&pagenumber=17#post4861584

To give everyone a taste of their own medicine:

Sue protects the team, Torch kills the rest with supernova.

Done. No reason why that cannot happen, at all. Factually.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
To give everyone a taste of their own medicine:

Sue protects the team, Torch kills the rest with supernova.

Done. No reason why that cannot happen, at all. Factually.

-AC Happy now?

No one can disagree with you and you are well within the rules.

Doesn't matter to me.

I've said the same in the other thread and it's as applicable because I realise the rules are stupid. NOT because it's the F4, overall.

-AC

hmm?

nevermind...

If you're admitting it's acceptable for what I just said, to occur.

Why isn't it the case in the other thread? That's what I mean about the rules being bullshit. We all know the F4 would cream the X-Men. They only reason they aren't being allowed to in the other thread is because of the restrictions of the over-generalising, unfair rules.

If you all admit that the way I just describe the fight, is accurate. Why are you debating against it in the other thread? The rules are why. So now you see why the rules are silly. Because you're saying "no bloodlust." Which is stupid, because it's a natural emotion in fighting.

-AC

Nono, its ALWAYS bloodlust friend.

Bloodlust is simply to the best of abilities, but within morals.

It has to be specified, same with spiderman vs trio, or I wouldn't have argued him a winning chance.

You cannot sanely claim to have bloodlust with morals.

It's a massive contradiction. Unbelievably stupid.

-AC

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Nono, its ALWAYS bloodlust friend.

Bloodlust is simply to the best of abilities, but within morals.

It has to be specified, same with spiderman vs trio, or I wouldn't have argued him a winning chance. I've always misunderstood that rule. . .

Well, I'm talking about the willing to kill bloodlust rahter than simply best of their abilities but within character.

I think therein lies one of the problems with the rules.

Without PIS, bloodlust would often mean a character would actually kill, even if they don't within the comics, thus making it seem like their particular moral stance.

IE- if the winner of every fight killed the loser, Marvel would have a pretty lethal character turnover rate.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I've always misunderstood that rule. . .


Please don't tell me you were just repeatedly replying to everything saying 'The rules', while misunderstanding them.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I think therein lies one of the problems with the rules.

Without PIS, bloodlust would often mean a character would actually kill, even if they don't within the comics, thus making it seem like their particular moral stance.

IE- if the winner of every fight killed the loser, Marvel would have a pretty lethal character turnover rate. Well. death is practically a joke in marvel. . . Wolverine's died three times. . .at least.

And then there was Jean grey. . .

Wait, let's not skip Victor's point.

You've been shouting out the rules like Moses, and you didn't even understand them?

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Please don't tell me you were just repeatedly replying to everything saying 'The rules', while misunderstanding them. No, that one only.

Because of the misleading name. I followed the rule, but assumed that there was another optional rule for bloodlust that meant an allowence for willingness to kill.

Default they still aren't allowed to willingly kill since it's in character to their personalities unless otherwise stated.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I followed the rule, but assumed that there was another optional rule for bloodlust that meant an allowence for willingness to kill.

Remember how, for the past 5 or more pages, I've been trying to show how everyone followed the stupid and wrong rules blindly? Yes?

Remember that? You've been doing that.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Default they still aren't allowed to willingly kill since it's in character to their personalities unless otherwise stated.

No, it's not. We've been over all that in character stuff. It has no place on a fantasy vs forum.

-AC

Originally posted by Creshosk

Default they still aren't allowed to willingly kill since it's in character to their personalities unless otherwise stated.

If we remove PIS (another rule), the characters might have no reason not to kill.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If we remove PIS (another rule), the characters might have no reason not to kill. We remove pis the uperhand most insane feats are allowed. . .

Wolverine would then become the most powerful character in existence. . .

Tell you what, let's leave PIS the PIS rule alone and in place, k?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You cannot sanely claim to have bloodlust with morals.

It's a massive contradiction. Unbelievably stupid.

-AC True, bloodlust definitely implies that if anything, that the character is beserk and willing to win at any costs.
It is a contradiction, then again tron said blood lust isn't default, but in this posts its considered to be so.

Bloodlust

It is assumed that each contestant will fight to his/her best ability, but still within the character's personality, unless specified otherwise. That means they will use any powers at their disposal. For example, even though The Flash doesn't clock each of his own opponents in the first picosecond in his own comic, it is assumed that is a viable tactic on this board since it is a proven fact that he possesses that level of speed.
It is also assumed that the characters fight at their optimum levels of ability - not explicitly weakened or unusually powered up for those who have variable power levels.

Yes, but that's still harping on that BS about character.

Like I said, I don't come here to discuss who would morally let the other live. I read comics for that.

It's not a fantasy forum if it's doing what the comics say, is it?

-AC

Originally posted by Creshosk
We remove pis the uperhand most insane feats are allowed. . .

Wolverine would then become the most powerful character in existence. . .

Tell you what, let's leave PIS the PIS rule alone and in place, k?

I'm not saying remove the rule.

If characters aren't restricted, then it alters the bloodlust rule.

The rules need to be streamlined and/or made more effective.

Honestly its not this rule that annoys me, as it can be specified, its the damned prep time rule.

You get stuff like "batman wins, because he's batman."

or, "How will I know what batman will do, he's smarter than me".

Drives me crazy.

IMO that rule is titled Bloodlust as it regards whether or not the characters are bloodlusted when it is not stipulated by the thread starter. I don't believe Tron thinks that the definition he's given is "bloodlust", it's more a description of the lack thereof when bloodlust is not stated as a condition of a particular thread.

Originally posted by Tha C-Master
Honestly its not this rule that annoys me, as it can be specified, its the damned prep time rule.

You get stuff like "batman wins, because he's batman."

or, "How will I know what batman will do, he's smarter than me".

Drives me crazy.

Yeah, that's irritating. In fact that's one of the reasons I stopped posting in this particular forum.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I'm not saying remove the rule.

If characters aren't restricted, then it alters the bloodlust rule.

The rules need to be streamlined and/or made more effective. No no, removing the PIS rule, or altering it to allow higher level feats powers wolverine up. Killing intent and prep don't effect him.

Why is it even an option though?

The purpose of a fantasy forum is to see who would win at any cost. Why is winning at any cost, an option?

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yeah, that's irritating. In fact that's one of the reasons I stopped posting in this particular forum. Well I sympathise with everyone then, I'm off...

Originally posted by Creshosk
No no, removing the PIS rule, or altering it to allow higher level feats powers wolverine up. Killing intent and prep don't effect him.

Shall we actually clarify what this rule means, because I'm sure everyone thinks it means something different.

I swear these rules have no value at all.


As far as I can see, PIS means that if Hulk is fighting Spider-Man in a comic, it will obviously last the whole comic, not two panels of destruction. This is plot induced stupidity. However, IN THESE FORUMS, we can then ignore the PIS, and say that Hulk can, as is within his power, complete a two panel destruction.

Therefore a Spider-Man fan can't use PIS to say 'Spider-Man fought Hulk for a whole issue'.

The CIS rule is character induced stupidity-ie it is an inherent part of the character, and thus usable in a debate. (IE Spider-Man fan saying Hulk is too dumb to catch Spider-Man, or suchlike.)

PIS is only there because the plot requires it, so it's not an issue ON THE BOARD. CIS is inherent, so it is relevant.

Therefore...

If a character is not bound by PIS- as they aren't on the boards- there is no reason that their 'bloodlust' should adhere to their PIS (not relevant) influenced morality.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Shall we actually clarify what this rule means, because I'm sure everyone thinks it means something different.

I swear these rules have no value at all.


As far as I can see, PIS means that if Hulk is fighting Spider-Man in a comic, it will obviously last the whole comic, not two panels of destruction. This is plot induced stupidity. However, IN THESE FORUMS, we can then ignore the PIS, and say that Hulk can, as is within his power, complete a two panel destruction.

Therefore a Spider-Man fan can't use PIS to say 'Spider-Man fought Hulk for a whole issue'.

The CIS rule is character induced stupidity-ie it is an inherent part of the character, and thus usable in a debate. (IE Spider-Man fan saying Hulk is too dumb to catch Spider-Man, or suchlike.)

PIS is only there because the plot requires it, so it's not an issue ON THE BOARD. CIS is inherent, so it is relevant.

Therefore...

If a character is not bound by PIS- as they aren't on the boards- there is no reason that their 'bloodlust' should adhere to their PIS (not relevant) influenced morality.
Character morality isn't always PIS for the most part it's CIS. E.g. Emma Frost is willing to kill, Wolverine is willing to kill, Kitty Pryde is reluctant to kill, Nightcrawler is reluctant to kill. These examples have nothing to do with plot and everything to do with character.

Yes, but we've established what character means and where it's relevant.

It's not relevant to a fantasy forum.

-AC

okay I get you now then, this thread is just fine then...

Had fun guys I really need to sleep.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Shall we actually clarify what this rule means, because I'm sure everyone thinks it means something different.

I swear these rules have no value at all.


As far as I can see, PIS means that if Hulk is fighting Spider-Man in a comic, it will obviously last the whole comic, not two panels of destruction. This is plot induced stupidity. However, IN THESE FORUMS, we can then ignore the PIS, and say that Hulk can, as is within his power, complete a two panel destruction.

Therefore a Spider-Man fan can't use PIS to say 'Spider-Man fought Hulk for a whole issue'.

The CIS rule is character induced stupidity-ie it is an inherent part of the character, and thus usable in a debate. (IE Spider-Man fan saying Hulk is too dumb to catch Spider-Man, or suchlike.)

PIS is only there because the plot requires it, so it's not an issue ON THE BOARD. CIS is inherent, so it is relevant.

Therefore...

If a character is not bound by PIS- as they aren't on the boards- there is no reason that their 'bloodlust' should adhere to their PIS (not relevant) influenced morality. So if it happened then it's allowable?

Wolverine kills the FF singlehandedly. I'm not kidding.

PIS Wolverine can take nukes, stab thanos(with bone claws no less), regenerate from a bloodcell, and cannot be budged with 100 class hits.

This guy will walk through your Nova flames, cut a hole through your forcefeild, and then proceed to remove the heads of each of the combatants. Including Reed Richards and thing.

No, we do not remove PIS or alter it when Wolverine is in play.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Character morality isn't always PIS for the most part it's CIS.


I don't disagree.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

E.g. Emma Frost is willing to kill, Wolverine is willing to kill, Kitty Pryde is reluctant to kill, Nightcrawler is reluctant to kill. These examples have nothing to do with plot and everything to do with character.

That's true, but it's not always the case. We could also reference hundreds of times when PIS has prevented such occurances.

If a character wouldn't kill in the comics, then obviously you wouldn't argue it on here.

This whole debate is a bit of a waste of time in any case because death needn't come into a victory.

I think the only thing that needs clarifying in each thread is location, and prep.

Originally posted by Creshosk


No, we do not remove PIS or alter it when Wolverine is in play.

What are you talking about? I'm not saying remove PIS.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So if it happened then it's allowable?

Wolverine kills the FF singlehandedly. I'm not kidding.

PIS Wolverine can take nukes, stab thanos(with bone claws no less), regenerate from a bloodcell, and cannot be budged with 100 class hits.

This guy will walk through your Nova flames, cut a hole through your forcefeild, and then proceed to remove the heads of each of the combatants. Including Reed Richards and thing.

That's not quite what it means though. The opposite in fact.

It means if a plot device has been put into place to balance a fight, while being clearly unrealistic, it's void. Wolverine doing such things is PIS.

The rules state that they wouldn't be recognisable.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I don't disagree.



That's true, but it's not always the case. We could also reference hundreds of times when PIS has prevented such occurances.

If a character wouldn't kill in the comics, then obviously you wouldn't argue it on here.

This whole debate is a bit of a waste of time in any case because death needn't come into a victory.

I think the only thing that needs clarifying in each thread is location, and prep. Yes...

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
What are you talking about? I'm not saying remove PIS.



That's not quite what it means though. The opposite in fact.

It means if a plot device has been put into place to balance a fight, while being clearly unrealistic, it's void. Wolverine doing such things is PIS.

The rules state that they wouldn't be recognisable. That's what the rule as it is now means.

No feats of PIS are useable.

We like this rule.

Yes, it prevents fanboyism.

You could argue though about just what is PIS and what isn't, and then you get debates that aren't even about the actual battle. That's a whole other can of worms though.

When people try to use those kind of examples, people will debate them down. It's all part of the fun. Just don't see the point of sterilising the debates with rules that aren't exactly foolproof in the first place.

Anyway, don't know why were still talking about this.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yes, it prevents fanboyism.Keeps it down at least.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
You could argue though about just what is PIS and what isn't, and then you get debates that aren't even about the actual battle. That's a whole other can of worms though. That actually happens.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
When people try to use those kind of examples, people will debate them down. It's all part of the fun. Just don't see the point of sterilising the debates with rules that aren't exactly foolproof in the first place. it keeps the fanboy's in check. . . otherwise they could turn this place into a no mans land.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Anyway, don't know why were still talking about this. Me either.

X-men, the FF are over-rated(either that or just plain dont like em) Emma would do dirt to them with he TP and that is enough to win, I also thing Wolverine can take thing if he plays smart.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's not relevant to a fantasy forum.
To you...
Repeating an opinion several times doesn't transmute it into fact.

this place IS run over by fanboys though...

It's actually the SvFL rule that stops outlandish feats.

I don't really see how those type of rules will actually prevent fanboy style arguments. If someone already thinks that something has happened in a comic, therefore the character can do it, then they won't accept that the feat is outlandish in any event.

All that happens is instead of logically debating the stupidity of such events, we (or some of us) end up saying 'The rules'-then they read them (5 pages of replies), then we have to discuss why they aren't logical character feats- thus returning to the default position of just using common sense.

Just adds a layer of aggravation. Go check the Wolverine vs Abomination thread for ultimate proof.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Just adds a layer of aggravation. Go check the Wolverine vs Abomination thread for ultimate proof.
Or pretty much any Wolverine thread for that matter...

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
It's actually the SvFL rule that stops outlandish feats.

I don't really see how those type of rules will actually prevent fanboy style arguments. If someone already thinks that something has happened in a comic, therefore the character can do it, then they won't accept that the feat is outlandish in any event.

All that happens is instead of logically debating the stupidity of such events, we (or some of us) end up saying 'The rules'-then they read them (5 pages of replies), then we have to discuss why they aren't logical character feats- thus returning to the default position of just using common sense.

Just adds a layer of aggravation. Go check the Wolverine vs Abomination thread for ultimate proof. I'm a fanboy slayer, don't get me started with wolverine fanboys lol.

sad things is guys like jinzin who read comics, ALWAYS supports wolverine...

Jinzin thought Godzilla Vs Hulk was a worth thread though.

Not all there sometimes, is our boy Jinzin.

-AC

Go check wolverine vs metallo, or wolverine vs carnage, watch him defend wolverine vs wonder woman.

A fanboy to the core, he just has a bunch of "backpatters" along the way with him...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Or pretty much any Wolverine thread for that matter...

Yep.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
To you...
Repeating an opinion several times doesn't transmute it into fact.

Wanna tell me where the "fantasy" is then? If of course you're just adhering to whatever can be read in a comic. Kinda removes from it being fantasy. It's more like a parallel comic simulator.

It's like flight simulators. If I want that level of realism, I'll become a pilot. I don't play video games to get further into reality, I play them for escapism. If I wanna see who will morally cave in or who will grant mercy, as I said, I'll read a comic. Surely you all come here to enjoy freedom from the freedom, as it were.

How is this a fantasy forum if you're continually choking the bouts with ridiculous rules and adhering to comics which use rules that are irrelevant to this forum?

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Yep. I actually find the quotes like "wolverine will be unphased by abom's punch" quite amusing.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wanna tell me where the "fantasy" is then? If of course you're just adhering to whatever can be read in a comic. Kinda removes from it being fantasy. It's more like a parallel comic simulator.

It's like flight simulators. If I want that level of realism, I'll become a pilot. I don't play video games to get further into reality, I play them for escapism. If I wanna see who will morally cave in or who will grant mercy, as I said, I'll read a comic. Surely you all come here to enjoy freedom from the freedom, as it were.

How is this a fantasy forum if you're continually choking the bouts with ridiculous rules and adhering to comics which use rules that are irrelevant to this forum?

-AC Yea, I agree this is for an escape, but a common ground must be made on these things.

Someone can come in and say the exact opposite, and have 100% loyalty to the rules of this forum.

Clearly still not getting my point, but whatever.

-AC

I've been up for 24 hours, but I see that restraints are stupid, and have no place in a forum like this.

I'm saying someone may see otherwise.

Its simple really.

Whats a Fanboy?

is it a bad thing?

Am I one?

I'm thinking of doing a thread on it, posting the rules and see who has a complaint on what, I'd start with bloodlust.