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

What is the exact definition and qualifiers for this term and its use?

Logan. Wolverine. James Howlett.

Originally posted by Mr.Mxyzptlk
exact definition

lul @ exact anything in comics. Didn't know any definition existed of this existed, let alone a definitive one.

Originally posted by Digi
lul @ exact anything in comics. Didn't know any definition existed of this existed, let alone a definitive one.

Well, when terms such as "Brick" or "Speedster" or "Street Level" or what have you have at least some general "exact" definition...

Yeah.

Edit:

Since Bentley mentioned what I was thinking, are there any other characters who fit the criteria (which I don't know and thus why I made the thread) of being called "Anti-Brick"s other than Wolverine? Because he's the only one I've ever seen the term applied to.

Originally posted by Mr.Mxyzptlk
What is the exact definition and qualifiers for this term and its use? This is the I Ching of comic book questions:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j241/Badabing_2006/kmcprofile/batman-vs-thanos-vs-brainac-vs-reed-vs-doom-vs-darkseid-4956.jpg


The Wolverine fans dubbed Wolverine an anti-brick. I've never seen it used anywhere else...in my life.

Surfer runs through bricks

Captain America/Batman the same... even ones that are a couple million tons above him

EDIT: Also what Bada said

Wolverine is a good anti-brick,

almost any character who has a power set that lets them not be touched by the Brick is generally going to be a good anti-brick character. Vision, Martian Manhunter, Superan, GL, Silver Surfer.

Newjack's got it. A character with an ability that inherently nullifies a brick's powers (ergo, intelligence and prep doesn't count. sorry Batman), would be the anti-thesis of a brick, I.E. Shadowcat.

I actually would claim that Wolverine isn't an anti-brick for that reason. His powers don't nullify bricks, it just makes him extremely resistant to them. As showings like his fight with Hulk in WWH show, Logan's regen can be taxed into remission by pure brute force. No character can do shit to someone like Martian Manhunter or Kitty with brute strength, though.

To be fair, a lot of the characters Newjak named destroy any brick in raw power too. They don't need to nullify or avoid anything.

But to disagree with Blax a bit, it probably shouldn't matter if it's just a good matchup (Wolverine) or someone who can nullify the power (Kitty). Either way, it presents a tough matchup for a brick, and it allows someone like Wolverine to fight "outside their weight class" so to speak.

Ah, So "Anti-Brick" is more like "Street Level" than it is like "Brick"; it doesn't specifically detail a specific kind of power set but more of a wide variety of power sets that cover the same end goal for their definition.

Thanks!

Problem with that line of thinking is that Wolverine's powerset does not "present a tough match-up for a brick". It presents a tough match-up for SOME bricks. Luke Cage would have a tough match up against Logan. The Hulk would defeat him effortlessly, like he did in WWH. Superman or Thor would knock Logan out with a punch or two to the face. Any class-100 brick can effortlessly BFR Logan (despite what comic PIS tries to tell you). So how does Logan's powerset present a challenge to people like them? It doesn't, really. Ergo he really doesn't count as an "anti-brick", imo.

Superman and Thor aren't strictly bricks, and one-shotting Wolverine isn't likely even for them. Hulk's healing factor separates him from the usual idea of "brick" in this type of thread. In a way, Hulk's healing factor is an "anti-anti-brick."

Also, this thread has the potential to get hilarious considering the vague definitions of the things in question.

None of that stuff actually matters though, because even if those abilities don't make them strictly bricks, they don't NEED to use those abilities to beat Wolverine, which was the point that I was making. Hulk would annihilate Logan using nothing but his pure strength, even if he had no HF. Superman would one-shot Logan using purely his strength, even if that was the only superpower he had. Thor would one-shot Logan using just brute strength, even if that was the only power he had. Their other abilities are irrelevant.

Point being, if your powers weakness is "brute strength", which is the #1 weakness of Logan's HF besides plot devices, then that disqualifies the ability from being "anti-brick".

It's like having a suit that I call "fire-proof" even though it instantly melts when coming into contact with fire hotter than 1000 degrees (for example). Is it really fire "proof"? No. There's an obvious distinction between fire "resistant" and fire "proof".

That stuff does actually matter though. If all they had was super strength, they would lose pretty badly to Wolverine. Not only is a one-shot unlikely, but they'd lack the speed, durability, or healing factor to deal with Wolverine gutting them. Thor fighting as a brick will spawn pages of debate by itself, and it's not like the Wolverine side is completely without merit there. Same with Hulk sans healing factor.

It seems your definition of "anti-brick" is "functionally immune to bricks." You're welcome to use that definition of course; however, the concept refers to something slightly less concrete in typical forum use.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Problem with that line of thinking is that Wolverine's powerset does not "present a tough match-up for a brick".
Yes it does. He beats most pure bricks and gives other hell.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It presents a tough match-up for SOME bricks. Luke Cage would have a tough match up against Logan. The Hulk would defeat him effortlessly, like he did in WWH.

Hulk is a god awful example. For starters Hulk not a simply a brick he also has insane level of healing. He also beat entire teams of avengers and x-men during WWH. Wolverine gave him one of the biggest fight. he also foughten Hulk more then any other character......not sure how that proves your side of the argument at all.







Originally posted by RE: Blaxican

Superman or Thor would knock Logan out with a punch or two to the face.
Really because Thor failed to when Wolverine fought him. Wolverine did quite alright in melee as well. Superman nor thor are brick anyways. Your arguments are rather ridiculous. All the characters you said were actual "anti bricks" have and or would loses to Hulk, Superman or Thor. So your arguement seem kinda iffy to be honest.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican

Any class-100 brick can effortlessly BFR Logan (despite what comic PIS tries to tell you).

Wolverine would not bee Koed by BFR. And by such logic any Heavy hitter who hit another heavy hitter first would win the fight. Sorry but real world logic is not comic logic.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
So how does Logan's powerset present a challenge to people like them? It doesn't, really. Ergo he really doesn't count as an "anti-brick", imo.

No he does count as an anti brick, you just have no grasp on what a brick is. It super strong character with super human durbaility. SUperman and Thor are much more then simple bricks. Hell so the Hulk.

Wolverine an anti-brick because he significantly faster, can take there punches and has claws which bypass there durability. Which makes him a bad match up for typical bricks like Thing, luke cage ect.

An anti-brick is a fast moving or intangible character that can get through powerful physical defenses without much trouble. Pretty much you have to nullify the durability and the strength, which are the main concepts behind basic bricks.

Superman and Hulk happen to have extra powers that makes them slightly more than "just bricks", a real example of a brick would be Colossus or Thing when not tapping into the Heart-force.

Originally posted by Digi
To be fair, a lot of the characters Newjak named destroy any brick in raw power too. They don't need to nullify or avoid anything.

But to disagree with Blax a bit, it probably shouldn't matter if it's just a good matchup (Wolverine) or someone who can nullify the power (Kitty). Either way, it presents a tough matchup for a brick, and it allows someone like Wolverine to fight "outside their weight class" so to speak. True

And of course people should also take into account weight class.

Against some characters Spider-man would be a good anti-brick due to his strength, speed, pre-cog, and wall crawling ability.

But once he hits a certain weight class of brick it becomes moot.

Wolverine's the way. The difference though that due to his healing and adamantium claws I say he can go further away from his weight class then say Spider-man can.

Also the further up you go the harder it is to find a pure brick who doesn't have some other ability like a healing factor.

But in general I think a good definition for an anti brick is someone who possesses the ability to dodge a brick's punch's and other limited attacks (agility, speed, quickness, flight, intangibility, teleportation) and possess some way to put a brick down quickly due to some good attack (telepathy, very sharp powerful weapons, soul steal, super-powered energy attack, intangibility again, bfring power).

Of course a character's ability to be an anti-brick can also very based on weight class.

And I wouldn't classify Thor and Superman as bricks

Superman is a brawling type character in imo. He is the arch type for a brawler to me.

Thor's a mixture just about any type you can think of. He's a good brawler, a very versatile powerset.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Problem with that line of thinking is that Wolverine's powerset does not "present a tough match-up for a brick". It presents a tough match-up for SOME bricks. Luke Cage would have a tough match up against Logan. The Hulk would defeat him effortlessly, like he did in WWH. Superman or Thor would knock Logan out with a punch or two to the face. Any class-100 brick can effortlessly BFR Logan (despite what comic PIS tries to tell you). So how does Logan's powerset present a challenge to people like them? It doesn't, really. Ergo he really doesn't count as an "anti-brick", imo.

Superman and Thor are no brick at all. In fact, Thor isn't as versatile as the Heralds of Galactus, but he's not that far behind.
As for Superman, he got himself other powers that just "being strong".

Bricks would be Hulk, Thing, Colossus, Luke Cage...

And in that list, only Hulk can deafeat soundly Wolverine. The others are in huge risk of being gut.

Originally posted by Bentley
An anti-brick is a fast moving or intangible character that can get through powerful physical defenses without much trouble. Pretty much you have to nullify the durability and the strength, which are the main concepts behind basic bricks.

Superman and Hulk happen to have extra powers that makes them slightly more than "just bricks", a real example of a brick would be Colossus or Thing when not tapping into the Heart-force.

thing is a brick.

i see what you did there....

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Problem with that line of thinking is that Wolverine's powerset does not "present a tough match-up for a brick". It presents a tough match-up for SOME bricks. Luke Cage would have a tough match up against Logan. The Hulk would defeat him effortlessly, like he did in WWH. Superman or Thor would knock Logan out with a punch or two to the face. Any class-100 brick can effortlessly BFR Logan (despite what comic PIS tries to tell you). So how does Logan's powerset present a challenge to people like them? It doesn't, really. Ergo he really doesn't count as an "anti-brick", imo.

Uh no... Wolverine represents a tough-matchup for MOST bricks...

The only reason why Hulk is able to take the edge over Logan in their fights is because of his absurd healing factor which runs on infinity. If it wasn't for that, he would have bled to death during the WWH fight, and Lulz @ you using WWH to try and discredit Logan. Maybe you didn't notice but that version of Hulk was one and three shotting other bricks of high calibur left and right. Wolverine actually took way more punishment than a number of them.

Thor's already hit Wolverine with his hammer, he didn't knock Wolverine out. Thor's punched Wolverine in the face during the reigning, it didn't knock Wolverine out. So yeah, you're wrong there too.

Thing is, comics have shown us that Wolverine DOES present a challenge to bricks 95% of the time he fights them. He can take their punishment on a level that is either equal to their damage soak or better and can bypass their durability because he has a broken offensive weapon for melee.
Wolverine's fought the Hulk more times than he's fought Captain America, Deadpool, and Spiderman combined and Marvel typically tells us it isn't an easy fight for Hulk.

Originally posted by jinzin
Uh no... Wolverine represents a tough-matchup for MOST bricks...

The only reason why Hulk is able to take the edge over Logan in their fights is because of his absurd healing factor which runs on infinity. If it wasn't for that, he would have bled to death during the WWH fight, and Lulz @ you using WWH to try and discredit Logan. Maybe you didn't notice but that version of Hulk was one and three shotting other bricks of high calibur left and right. Wolverine actually took way more punishment than a number of them.

Thor's already hit Wolverine with his hammer, he didn't knock Wolverine out. Thor's punched Wolverine in the face during the reigning, it didn't knock Wolverine out. So yeah, you're wrong there too.

Thing is, comics have shown us that Wolverine DOES present a challenge to bricks 95% of the time he fights them. He can take their punishment on a level that is either equal to their damage soak or better and can bypass their durability because he has a broken offensive weapon for melee.
Wolverine's fought the Hulk more times than he's fought Captain America, Deadpool, and Spiderman combined and Marvel typically tells us it isn't an easy fight for Hulk. mmm


durverine

Wow, you people are horrible, horrible individuals. You probably sacrifice small children to Slaanesh on the weekends with this level of horribleness you possess. I mean collectively, you've all missed the point entirely, and stuff. Jerks.

I never, in any of my posts, stated nor implied that Thor or Superman are bricks. Why you're crying about them not being bricks, I dunno. They don't need to be bricks to support my point, tis not why I mentioned them. All this stuff about Logan only losing to the Hulk because of X or Y, is also completely irrelevant.

The point is that if you hit Logan hard enough, he'll drop, and that'll be the end of the fight. If you throw him into another state, that'll be the end of the fight.

Therefore, on that notion alone, he does not nullify bricks. His speed and regen make him highly resistant to them, but he does not completely nullify them. An example of someone who nullifies bricks would be someone like Shadowcat, who by sheer virtue of her powers can just stand there and giggle while the strongest brick in the collective comic book universe swings at her as hard as he can and achieves zero affect. <-- That's an anti-brick. Martian Manhunter <--- Anti-brick. Telekinesis characters would logically be anti-bricks, etc etc. Simply being able to resist strong attacks or dance around a slow brick does not make you an "anti-brick".

To which one might say, "but Blax! That's not how the forum defines an anti-brick!", and to which I would say that if the only criteria for being an anti-brick is "giving a brick a challenge", then damn near every character in Marvel/DC count as "anti-bricks" since the any given sunday clause has allowed pretty much every character who's popular to beat down bricks on a fairly consistent basis. I guess Batman is an "anti-brick" because he pwn's the likes of Solomon Grundy on a daily basis.

TL;DR: No.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I never, in any of my posts, stated nor implied that Thor or Superman are bricks. Why you're crying about them not being bricks, I dunno. They don't need to be bricks to support my point, tis not why I mentioned them. All this stuff about Logan only losing to the Hulk because of X or Y, is also completely irrelevant.

The point is that if you hit Logan hard enough, he'll drop, and that'll be the end of the fight. If you throw him into another state, that'll be the end of the fight.

anti-brick!", and to which I would say that if the only criteria for being an anti-brick is "giving a brick a challenge", then damn near every character in Marvel/DC count as "anti-bricks" since the any given sunday clause has allowed pretty much every character who's popular to beat down bricks on a fairly consistent basis. I guess Batman is an "anti-brick" because he pwn's the likes of Solomon Grundy on a daily basis.

We addressed Thor/Hulk because you originally said Wolverine's powerset doesn't present a challenge to them fighting as bricks. You even said that they'd beat Wolverine with only super strength, when the comics completely disagree with you.

No. If you hit Logan enough times that you overload his healing factor that allows him to take multiple, hard hits without being KO'd, he will go down. This "one-shot" idea doesn't have much merit.

You're oversimplifying things here. There is a pretty clear difference between a powerset well-suited to fighting bricks(Wolverine), and beating bricks in spite of your disadvantages(Captain America).

I'm not sure why this is even an issue. We appear to be on the same page. You seem to accept that Wolverine does have an advantage against most bricks. If you don't want to extend the definition of anti-brick beyond "complete nullification of brick abilities", that is fine. I think everyone understands your reasoning there.

Shut up, Slaaneshi cultist. It's too late for that now.

Besides, I really don't see the point in trying to contain this to comic book logic. Comic book logic in itself is a paradox.

I laughed at the general feel of the joke, but I honestly have no idea who Slaaneshi is.

Also, I want you to understand that we get your point. Your stance is a reasonable one, minus stuff like the one-shotting Wolverine thing.

It's just too strict a definition for most of us.

I guess if you're going to define an anti-brick, you should first define a brick, so:

Bricks are typically characterized by super strength and durability. Sometimes they demonstrate fighting skills or agility, often they don't, and rarely do they possess much in the way of long-distance attacks.

Bricks usually stand out as being the strongest/most durable (or at least among the strongest/most durable) in their weight class.

Thing is a high meta because he is very strong and very durable.

Wolverine represents a good example of an anti-brick because, despite Thing holding a severe advantage over most low-metas, he doesn't hold such an obvious one over Wolverine due to the nature of Wolverine's powers: his healing factor allows for tanking even class 100 blows and his claws allow him to pierce high levels of durability. While they don't nullify Thing's ability to do damage to him, they do nullify the severe advantage, and so, despite being in way different weight classes, Wolverine can hold his own against Ben.

Other examples: Loa, any proficient telepath, most people with powerful long range attacks (Cyclops strikes me as a good example), Nocturne, etc. People whose attacks ignore or overcome extraordinary durability, and who can either avoid or handle getting in close combat with somebody with far superior strength.

Flash is probably a good example of an anti-brick that operates on a higher level, but it gets trickier to define up there and there aren't a lot of bricks that would be ranked as being more powerful than Wally/Barry/Bart, so it's hard to gauge.

Originally posted by StyleTime
I laughed at the general feel of the joke, but I honestly have no idea who Slaaneshi is.

Also, I want you to understand that we get your point. Your stance is a reasonable one, minus stuff like the one-shotting Wolverine thing.

It's just too strict a definition for most of us. It's a warhammer 40k thing. Only a level 35+ nerd would get it.

And yes, that's why your cultist heathens.
"Too strict". uhuh

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
It's a warhammer 40k thing. Only a level 35+ nerd would get it.

And yes, that's why your cultist heathens.
"Too strict". uhuh

Chill out. I mean, remember, Slaanesh is also the God/Goddess of Love. So feel the Love for your fellow comic book fans!

And then have your soul devoured by the screaming horror that is The Warp!

Good point.

John Constantine. It's all about smarts with him.

Originally posted by Existere
I guess if you're going to define an anti-brick, you should first define a brick, so:

Bricks are typically characterized by super strength and durability. Sometimes they demonstrate fighting skills or agility, often they don't, and rarely do they possess much in the way of long-distance attacks.

Bricks usually stand out as being the strongest/most durable (or at least among the strongest/most durable) in their weight class.

Thing is a high meta because he is very strong and very durable.

Wolverine represents a good example of an anti-brick because, despite Thing holding a severe advantage over most low-metas, he doesn't hold such an obvious one over Wolverine due to the nature of Wolverine's powers: his healing factor allows for tanking even class 100 blows and his claws allow him to pierce high levels of durability. While they don't nullify Thing's ability to do damage to him, they do nullify the severe advantage, and so, despite being in way different weight classes, Wolverine can hold his own against Ben.

Other examples: Loa, any proficient telepath, most people with powerful long range attacks (Cyclops strikes me as a good example), Nocturne, etc. People whose attacks ignore or overcome extraordinary durability, and who can either avoid or handle getting in close combat with somebody with far superior strength.

Flash is probably a good example of an anti-brick that operates on a higher level, but it gets trickier to define up there and there aren't a lot of bricks that would be ranked as being more powerful than Wally/Barry/Bart, so it's hard to gauge. This I feel is a good definition, I would also say Bricks are also defined but what they generally lack.

Mostly when it comes to speed and movement capabilities, ie flight, and also like you said .

I think a good anti-brick shows certain characteristics then, for one they have a powerset that takes advantage of their weaknesses, speed, flight, teleportation, etc

They also have the ability to nullify their strength, ie healing factors, intangibility, etc

And they have an attack that renders their durability moot, Wolverine's claws, telepathy, high powered blast.

I actually think the last one is really important because I don't think someone can consider themselves a true 'Anti-Brick' if they do not have the ability to put the brick down quickly or quick enough.