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

All-Out War Between the Three Civilizations, Asgard and the Dark Elves are Working Together.

Which civilization gets destroyed, and which would come out the Least Scathed?

Asgard gets its artifacts, (captured from the other MCU realms like Jotenheimr.)

Krypton: Almost Complete Control Over Matter- ability for Liquids and Solids to interchange, near-indestructible armor, gravity manipulation, metal that can Shift and "flow" into the air seeking targets faster than Superman can Fly, after which it solidifies.

Cybertron:Machine Consciousness that is intangible, able to connect with buildings, shifting forms, armor, and weapons.

Asgard/Svartalfheim: Powerful artifacts, knowledge of energy manipulation, magical barriers and black hole grenades, invisibility, etc.

Where are you getting that Krypton should have complete control over matter? I don't recall them showing such powers in the movies.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Where are you getting that Krypton should have complete control over matter? I don't recall them showing such powers in the movies.

the OP could be H1

Originally posted by FrothByte
Where are you getting that Krypton should have complete control over matter? I don't recall them showing such powers in the movies.

I'm sorry if it was misunderstood. I put "almost" in there. Of course we are going by movie feats, but we can't deliberately forget knowledge from others sources, right?

Even in the movies it shows their ships, weapons, and armor as made out of a material that can change properties...remember they are thousands of years ahead of earth, and they can manipulate matter as such.

But lets not go into this, okay? You know what I'm talking about. Again, sorry if the wording's not good. I can't edit.

A planet full of Kryptonians would probably be pretty hard to beat.

Originally posted by Robtard
A planet full of Kryptonians would probably be pretty hard to beat.

Nah, the Asgardians just unleash their Bifrost portal on Krypton and destroy it. Only Asgard has a planet destroying weapon on hand. Or the Asgardians just teleport themselves on Krypton and slaughter the Kryptonians, considering that the Kryptonians aren't superpowered on their own planet.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Nah, the Asgardians just unleash their Bifrost portal on Krypton and destroy it. Only Asgard has a planet destroying weapon on hand. Or the Asgardians just teleport themselves on Krypton and slaughter the Kryptonians, considering that the Kryptonians aren't superpowered on their own planet.

I'm sure you know more about this than me, but what about the suits they wear? Aren't those super durable and have their own power sources independent from the actual being inside them?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Nah, the Asgardians just unleash their Bifrost portal on Krypton and destroy it. Only Asgard has a planet destroying weapon on hand. Or the Asgardians just teleport themselves on Krypton and slaughter the Kryptonians, considering that the Kryptonians aren't superpowered on their own planet.

I'm assuming they're leaving Krypton on ships. Otherwise they can't really wage a war.

Originally posted by Viritrilbia
I'm sure you know more about this than me, but what about the suits they wear? Aren't those super durable and have their own power sources independent from the actual being inside them?

Yes they're very durable but unless the Kryptonians get their yellow sun-triggered superpowers they'll be nowhere near strong enough to contend with the Asgardians. Plus I don't think those suits are impervious to Asgardian weapons. Now if you were to make a stipulation that the kryptonians were all based on Earth and had superpowers, then that would be different.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm assuming they're leaving Krypton on ships. Otherwise they can't really wage a war.

Which brings up the question where is the battle field for this war? The Asgardians still have their bifrost which can destroy planets, but I don't think the Asgardians have spaceships. They'll need to hitch with the elves. So this might end up being a space battle

Originally posted by FrothByte
Yes they're very durable but unless the Kryptonians get their yellow sun-triggered superpowers they'll be nowhere near strong enough to contend with the Asgardians. Plus I don't think those suits are impervious to Asgardian weapons. Now if you were to make a stipulation that the kryptonians were all based on Earth and had superpowers, then that would be different.

Well, that stipulation would turn the fight boring, IMO. What would happen is Krypton's armies (think: entire race of supermen) would utterly wipe out Asgard's armies, and then Asgard would have to resort to something like Frozen Bifrost or Aether. That's boring IMO.

What I'm interested in is an actual fight between the armies. Now Kryptonians, even without superpowers, have a whole lot of technology and vehicles. I'm sure their suits are able to independently move and they look pretty damn durable to me. :P

How about we give a select few their superpowers, like Asgard has Thor. How about Zod, Superman, Faora, and the others on that ship get sun-induced powers?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Which brings up the question where is the battle field for this war? The Asgardians still have their bifrost which can destroy planets, but I don't think the Asgardians have spaceships. They'll need to hitch with the elves. So this might end up being a space battle

It might well.

Asgardians do have spaceships, BTW. But we don't have a lot of feats for the respective fleets of spaceships.
What I'm wondering is if it's more fair to give all the Kryptonians sun-based powers or only a few? Maybe they get them on Asgard but not on Cybertron or while defending their own planet due to the different suns?

Have you all forgotten about Cybertron?

Originally posted by Viritrilbia
It might well.

Asgardians do have spaceships, BTW. But we don't have a lot of feats for the respective fleets of spaceships.
What I'm wondering is if it's more fair to give all the Kryptonians sun-based powers or only a few? Maybe they get them on Asgard but not on Cybertron or while defending their own planet due to the different suns?

Have you all forgotten about Cybertron?

It ends up being a lopsided fight either way. If the Kryptonians get their powers then they'll demolish both Asgardians and Transformers. If they don't get their powers then they get demolished despite their advanced weaponry. They're just too squishy. Now transformers vs. Asgardians... that would be interesting.

But if it was a planet vs. planet thing, Asgard has the advantage because their bifrost portal can destroy another planet. Plus they don't need to worry about space travel since they can just teleport.

Originally posted by FrothByte
It ends up being a lopsided fight either way. If the Kryptonians get their powers then they'll demolish both Asgardians and Transformers. If they don't get their powers then they get demolished despite their advanced weaponry. They're just too squishy. Now transformers vs. Asgardians... that would be interesting.

But if it was a planet vs. planet thing, Asgard has the advantage because their bifrost portal can destroy another planet. Plus they don't need to worry about space travel since they can just teleport.

It seems that the way they do it (teleport) is rather inefficient. They have one guy (heimdall) controlling one passage which can only go to one area at a time.

Also, are you sure the Kryptonians or Transformers wouldn't be able to destroy the portal room?

What we really need is more feats on the durability and power of the Kryptonian suits. According to canon they don't get super-powered quickly from Earth's sun like it happens in the movie. So I am of the opinion that a lot of that comes from the suit itself, which is why only Zod takes it off at the end, after some time to absorb "sunergy".

Originally posted by Robtard
A planet full of Kryptonians would probably be pretty hard to beat.

Kryptonians are toast because they don't have Superman powers under their red sun; no amount of tech will save them from Asgard or Cybertron at that point, place em under a yellow sun however and all other contenders are done for

The assumption was that the Krptonians would be off world and powered, in order to wage war on the others. Otherwise we're pitting beings with superpowers and giant warbots against what amounts to human-level beings with tech that can't probably do a whole lot against the others.

Can we then agree to make the Kryptonians around Namek and Faora level? Meaning they still need their suits, they can get overwhelmed by senses if their masks break, they can't fly or use heat vision but they have the super strength, durability and speed as displayed in MOS.

It seems to me this would make the most fair contest... somewhat. I still think they're OP, but at least not as much as if they were all Superman level.

Originally posted by Robtard
The assumption was that the Krptonians would be off world and powered, in order to wage war on the others. Otherwise we're pitting beings with superpowers and giant warbots against what amounts to human-level beings with tech that can't probably do a whole lot against the others.

oh... well in that case Cybertron and Asgard are royally phucked

Originally posted by FrothByte
Can we then agree to make the Kryptonians around Namek and Faora level? Meaning they still need their suits, they can get overwhelmed by senses if their masks break, they can't fly or use heat vision but they have the super strength, durability and speed as displayed in MOS.

It seems to me this would make the most fair contest... somewhat. I still think they're OP, but at least not as much as if they were all Superman level.

Them it becomes unfair in their favor

Originally posted by FrothByte
Where are you getting that Krypton should have complete control over matter? I don't recall them showing such powers in the movies.

Dude if they have the ability to throw Saran Wrap in the shape of an "S" at you, they can do ANYTHING.

Unless it's a planet of Kryptonians on a planet that's near a yellow Sun then it's Asgard all day here.

We saw Thor run from a Vulcan cannon. Every Transformer's gun is at least that caliber.

And you've got jet's and helicopters and giant dinosaurs running around.

Transformers I think are getting underestimated.

Originally posted by KingD19
We saw Thor run from a Vulcan cannon. Every Transformer's gun is at least that caliber.

To be fair, he still knew virtually nothing about Earth at that point. He'd previously been there while depowered, so didn't really know how Earth weapons stacked up to Asgard. Case in point, just a few hours earlier he'd tried to squash Cap. Also, he got caught in Ultron's fire, during the QS death scene in AoU, without being hurt (if you look carefully at the 0:05 - 0:06 mark, it looks like at least one round hits him in the left shoulder):

ORCKfVZ6ekw

True. But he had his armor on. And Loki as well as Sif have shown that Asgardian armor is bullet proof. And a split second where we kinda see it isn't really all that definitive. We've seen Thor run from a gun, and that's about it. And even though he was new to Earth, he knew enough to jump out of the way despite never seeing one before.

Transformers also have things like rust cannons, plasma cannons, orbital strikes(courtesy of Soundwave), etc...

But the most important thing is that Thor is on a much higher class than pretty much everyone else except Odin. We can't give regular soldiers(who went down to swords and energy blasts) his feats.

Originally posted by KingD19
True. But he had his armor on. And Loki as well as Sif have shown that Asgardian armor is bullet proof. And a split second where we kinda see it isn't really all that definitive. We've seen Thor run from a gun, and that's about it. And even though he was new to Earth, he knew enough to jump out of the way despite never seeing one before.

His armour doesn't cover all of him, and Ultron peppered the spot he was standing. Also, why would you not avoid something that might very well hurt you? It's not like he is new to projectile weapons in general. Asgard has laser cannons. Either way, we have no solid idea of whether a Vulcan cannon could in fact seriously hurt him. Iron Man got hit by similar fire, from a jet, (and even got hit by a tank shell) in IM1. And without sustaining anything more than superficial damage, but I highly doubt the Mark 3 is more durable than Thor is.

Originally posted by KingD19
True. But he had his armor on. And Loki as well as Sif have shown that Asgardian armor is bullet proof. And a split second where we kinda see it isn't really all that definitive. We've seen Thor run from a gun, and that's about it. And even though he was new to Earth, he knew enough to jump out of the way despite never seeing one before.

Transformers also have things like rust cannons, plasma cannons, orbital strikes(courtesy of Soundwave), etc...

But the most important thing is that Thor is on a much higher class than pretty much everyone else except Odin. We can't give regular soldiers(who went down to swords and energy blasts) his feats.

Loki also got shot in the face and didn't even get a scratch.

Besides, humans take cover from rain all the time. Doesn't mean rain can injure us.

Loki is a Frost Giant. Can't give Asgardians his feats. The only Asgardians on screen to be shot or shot at, have never been hit. Only dodged or had it deflected by their armor.

Originally posted by KingD19
Loki is a Frost Giant. Can't give Asgardians his feats. The only Asgardians on screen to be shot or shot at, have never been hit. Only dodged or had it deflected by their armor.

If Loki had been more durable than a regular Asgardian, I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed in the millennia he's lived with them.

Fact is no human weapon, gun or otherwise has ever hurt an Asgardian.

Is there any actual proof that Thor can be seriously injured by bullets or is this just H1 level speculation?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Is there any actual proof that Thor can be seriously injured by bullets or is this just H1 level speculation?

We're friends, Silent. But if you ever compare me to H1 again, we probably won't be. That's like, really disrespectful.

I'm just pointing out that Transformer bullets are pretty huge on average. Like bigger than 50 cal even judging by some of the bullet shells they've dropped. And they've got stuff like Megatron's pulse cannon which sent Optimus flying with a single blast. Or Sentinel Prime's rust gun which turned Ironhide to scrap in less than a minute.

And Thor has only on screen dodged bullets, while Sif has been hit in her armor or used her shield, and Loki took a few rifle shots to the armor and face.

So my point is, Thor has never been seen being immune to bullets, especially bullets which are bigger than he is. I just don't want people to think Thor can fly through everything the TF's throw at him.

Also Froth, Cybertronians are not human. Pistols from them are larger calibers than most heavy duty weaponry.

His lightning and Mjolnir will cause trouble though.

Actually, Asgard gets all it's artifacts. That should win it for them. Casket of Ancient Winters. Destroyer Armor(and no way to bounce it's beam back). Bitfrost. Reality Stone and Space Stone.

You're right, that H1 comment was out of line. I apologize.

Originally posted by KingD19


Also Froth, Cybertronians are not human. Pistols from them are larger calibers than most heavy duty weaponry.



Correct. So why are you comparing human made weapons to them? *shrugs*

I never doubted that Cybertronian weapons will hurt the Asgardians, I'm just reacting to you mentioning how Thor dove for cover from gunfire and assumed that's because he can get injured by it.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Nah, the Asgardians just unleash their Bifrost portal on Krypton and destroy it. Only Asgard has a planet destroying weapon on hand. Or the Asgardians just teleport themselves on Krypton and slaughter the Kryptonians, considering that the Kryptonians aren't superpowered on their own planet.

Proof that they have a weapon to destroy planets and proof that it is in their character (Odin) to use it? And why would the kryptonians fight on their planet when raging a war against another world?

If the war is near a yellow sun then the krptonians win, otherwise the asgardians.

Originally posted by h1a8
Proof that they have a weapon to destroy planets and proof that it is in their character (Odin) to use it? And why would the kryptonians fight on their planet when raging a war against another world?

Watch the first Thor movie. The world-destroying weapon is the entire focus of the third act.

I like how h1 just proved that he hasn't watched the movies.

Originally posted by Silent Master
I like how h1 just proved that he hasn't watched the movies.

I'm almost convinced that he just watches trailers and reads plot summaries online. Because he knows enough about the movie to know the general plot but is ignorant on so many details.

Yeah, I really don't see how the "I don't remember small details" argument can hold up here. There is no way that anyone who actually watched Thor could forget a key part of the plot (Loki's plan), that took place during the climax of the film. Well, unless they have some memory disability.

The Asgardians would tear through the Transformers like butter

Originally posted by FrothByte
Watch the first Thor movie. The world-destroying weapon is the entire focus of the third act. with seen them all. I don't recall any of that.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Yeah, I really don't see how the "I don't remember small details" argument can hold up here. There is no way that anyone who actually watched Thor could forget a key part of the plot (Loki's plan), that took place during the climax of the film. Well, unless they have some memory disability. I don't recall at all. Anyway, you guys are trolling because my second statement made this irrelevant. Prove that it is in their character to use.

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't recall at all. Anyway, you guys are trolling because my second statement made this irrelevant. Prove that it is in their character to use.

You don't recall Loki's plan of using the Bi-Frost to destroy the Frost Giants planet?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You don't recall Loki's plan of using the Bi-Frost to destroy the Frost Giants planet? No

Originally posted by h1a8
No

Then you didn't watch the movie.

Of course I did. I saw it opening day

No, you didn't.

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't recall at all. Anyway, you guys are trolling because my second statement made this irrelevant. Prove that it is in their character to use.

Loki trying to destroy the frost giant's home planet was a major plot point in Thor. It was pretty much the end goal of Loki. If you do not recall something this major happening in a movie then how can you expect us to ever take your opinion seriously on any of these movie debates?

Also, OP states this is all out war. The Asgardians are warriors. If world annihilation is a threat then they won't hesitate to act first. Odin certainly had no second thoughts in erradicating the dark elves.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Loki trying to destroy the frost giant's home planet was a major plot point in Thor. It was pretty much the end goal of Loki. If you do not recall something this major happening in a movie then how can you expect us to ever take your opinion seriously on any of these movie debates?

Also, OP states this is all out war. The Asgardians are warriors. If world annihilation is a threat then they won't hesitate to act first. Odin certainly had no second thoughts in erradicating the dark elves. Odin was at war in Thor the movie. He refused to use such a weapon. Otherwise he would have.
It's against Odins character to destroy ANYONE'S planet.

Originally posted by h1a8
Odin was at war in Thor the movie. He refused to use such a weapon. Otherwise he would have.
It's against Odins character to destroy ANYONE'S planet.

How do you not know that Odin was indisposed(Odinsleep) and Loki was in charge and it was Loki that was trying to destroy the Frost Giant's planet?

Originally posted by h1a8
I don't recall at all. Anyway, you guys are trolling because my second statement made this irrelevant. Prove that it is in their character to use.

LMAO... So, people correcting you on things that were clearly shown in the film is now "trolling". My ability to take you seriously lessens every time you post.

Originally posted by h1a8
Odin was at war in Thor the movie. He refused to use such a weapon. Otherwise he would have.
It's against Odins character to destroy ANYONE'S planet.

OMG. You really did not watch the movie did you? Odin had a peace truce with the frost giants. A truce that Thor broke. He was most definitely not at war.

Originally posted by Silent Master
How do you not know that Odin was indisposed(Odinsleep) and Loki was in charge and it was Loki that was trying to destroy the Frost Giant's planet?

Never mind the fact that Odin took the main source of their power, when he originally went to war with the Frost Giants. So, they no longer provided a big enough threat to warrant more extreme tactics.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Where are you getting that Krypton should have complete control over matter? I don't recall them showing such powers in the movies. He's referring to their technology.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Nah, the Asgardians just unleash their Bifrost portal on Krypton and destroy it. Only Asgard has a planet destroying weapon on hand. Or the Asgardians just teleport themselves on Krypton and slaughter the Kryptonians, considering that the Kryptonians aren't superpowered on their own planet. When did the bifrost destroy a planet? IIRC it was only destroying the surface of a planet.

Originally posted by NemeBro
When did the bifrost destroy a planet? IIRC it was only destroying the surface of a planet.

It was destroying the planet. Had they left it on it would have continued destroying it.

Originally posted by NemeBro
He's referring to their technology.

And their technology was never shown to do that.

Originally posted by FrothByte
It was destroying the planet. Had they left it on it would have continued destroying it.

It wasn't destroying the planet at all, Only the surface of the planet.

Ah, bayformers.... I am a Transformers fan, but Bay's movies are so poorly told, and the lore so horribly mangled that I couldn't make a decent argument for it to begin with.

If this was say, Prime, or G1, or even the Unicron Trilogy, I could make some decent arguments, but Bayformers would get mangled, at least by the Asgardians.

So it comes down to the Kryptonians vs the Asgardians, and a lot of the Krytonian's victory conditions hinge on A: the planet orbiting a yellow or blue star instead of it's natural red one, which torpedoes the credibility of their success. Their tech is advanced, but not as advanced as the Asgardians. The powers, and superior tech of Asgard wins the day for them. Only via act of OP and having a day or so to soak up some Yellow or Blue solar radiation could this situation be flipped.

Originally posted by Kazenji
It wasn't destroying the planet at all, Only the surface of the planet.

And do you have proof of this or speculation on your part?

Originally posted by FrothByte
And do you have proof of this or speculation on your part?

Froth, you know that's not how proof works right?

The planet destruction part is the higher feat. To assert that this is what Bi-Frost does is the part that requires evidence. To simply assume that it does is the speculation since it was never shown in the movies to actually do this.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Ah, bayformers.... I am a Transformers fan, but Bay's movies are so poorly told, and the lore so horribly mangled that I couldn't make a decent argument for it to begin with.

If this was say, Prime, or G1, or even the Unicron Trilogy, I could make some decent arguments, but Bayformers would get mangled, at least by the Asgardians.

So it comes down to the Kryptonians vs the Asgardians, and a lot of the Krytonian's victory conditions hinge on A: the planet orbiting a yellow or blue star instead of it's natural red one, which torpedoes the credibility of their success. Their tech is advanced, but not as advanced as the Asgardians. The powers, and superior tech of Asgard wins the day for them. Only via act of OP and having a day or so to soak up some Yellow or Blue solar radiation could this situation be flipped.

OP says that the Kryptonians all have yellow sun abilities

Kryptonians extinguish both races under these stips.

Originally posted by relentless1
OP says that the Kryptonians all have yellow sun abilities

Krytonians then.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Krytonians then.

Only, the Op never actually said that.

.........

SM is right, and relentless lied to me.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Froth, you know that's not how proof works right?

The planet destruction part is the higher feat. To assert that this is what Bi-Frost does is the part that requires evidence. To simply assume that it does is the speculation since it was never shown in the movies to actually do this.

No, the way proof works is that you need to post proof if you want to claim something different from what was shown in the movie. Since Heimdall, Thor and Loki specifically say that the Bifrost will destroy a world if left unchecked, you'll need to provide proof if you want to claim that it was only destroying the surface.

Unless I'm mistemembering this and you can show that they specifically said only the surface.

Well, Loki said, "The Bifrost will build until it rips Jotunheim apart." Make of that what you will.

Kryptonians without yellow sun = Asgardians win in the end.

Originally posted by Silent Master
How do you not know that Odin was indisposed(Odinsleep) and Loki was in charge and it was Loki that was trying to destroy the Frost Giant's planet? Odin isn't in Odinsleep in this thread. Also destroying someone's planet isn't going to win. No one is fighting from their planet.

What Odin is doing is irrelevant, seeing as Loki was on the throne at the end of Thor: The Dark World.

Originally posted by h1a8
Odin isn't in Odinsleep in this thread. Also destroying someone's planet isn't going to win. No one is fighting from their planet.

They need to launch their ships from somewhere no? And while the e Kryptonians are busy preparing their ships Asgard can just blast them with the bifrost.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
What Odin is doing is irrelevant, seeing as Loki was on the throne at the end of Thor: The Dark World. No he wasn't. Odin had awakened.
Even if he was then Odin would still be in the battle for this fight. It's even against Thor's character as well. You are truly insane.

Originally posted by FrothByte
They need to launch their ships from somewhere no? And while the e Kryptonians are busy preparing their ships Asgard can just blast them with the bifrost.

Thread doesn't say War starts at eachs planet. We assume they meet on a particular battlefield and fight.

Regardless, it's not in either Odin or Thor's character to do such things. They would rather destroy the bridge than to do that.

The OP says it's all out war, didn't you read it?

Originally posted by FrothByte
No, the way proof works is that you need to post proof if you want to claim something different from what was shown in the movie. Since Heimdall, Thor and Loki specifically say that the Bifrost will destroy a world if left unchecked, you'll need to provide proof if you want to claim that it was only destroying the surface.

Unless I'm mistemembering this and you can show that they specifically said only the surface.

No, we only see the surface of it actually being affected. Visuals take precedence over character statements. Unlike say the Death Star for example, In Rogue One we only see high nuclear explosion levels of destruction. If it were not for ANH or ROTJ we could only assume that this is all the station is capable of. However, we know the Death Star is planetary in destructive capacity thanks to ANH's Alderaan destruction.

Unfortunately We have no scene of Bifrost ripping a world up in the same way.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
No, we only see the surface of it actually being affected. Visuals take precedence over character statements. Unlike say the Death Star for example, In Rogue One we only see high nuclear explosion levels of destruction. If it were not for ANH or ROTJ we could only assume that this is all the station is capable of. However, we know the Death Star is planetary in destructive capacity thanks to ANH's Alderaan destruction.

Unfortunately We have no scene of Bifrost ripping a world up in the same way.

That's like saying a candle flame can't burn you because you put your finger above it for 1 millisecond and didn't get burned.

Or getting stabbed by an icepick and telling the doctor it is only a flesh wound because you only see a tiny wound on the surface. Because apparently visuals are more important than statements from people who actually know what they're talking about.

You do realize that the bifrost wasn't going to destroy that world with just one hit right?

If this is how your logic works then we might as well say the world engine is not capable of terraforming Earth in MOS, Galactus can't actually destroy Earth or that Hulk can't actually kill Black Widow in a fight because he wasn't shown to do so.

Originally posted by FrothByte
That's like saying a candle flame can't burn you because you put your finger above it for 1 millisecond and didn't get burned.

Or getting stabbed by an icepick and telling the doctor it is only a flesh wound because you only see a tiny wound on the surface. Because apparently visuals are more important than statements from people who actually know what they're talking about.

Now don't be stupid. That's not even remotely close to assuming a weapon can do something completely an order of magnitude higher than what we actually saw it do.

If you want to run with the statement rather than what we saw happen, that's still on you to demonstrably prove that the higher feat is possible. People shouldn't have to prove that the lesser feat is the norm, thats not how establishing high end feats ever worked.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Now don't be stupid. That's not even remotely close to assuming a weapon can do something completely an order of magnitude higher than what we actually saw it do.

If you want to run with the statement rather than what we saw happen, that's still on you to demonstrably prove that the higher feat is possible. People shouldn't have to prove that the lesser feat is the norm, thats not how establishing high end feats ever worked.

You'd have had a point if Heimdall, Thor and Loki didn't explicitly say that it would destroy the Frost Giant world. You only saw the surface getting destroyed because that was what was visible. What wete you expecting, an X-ray snapshot of how deep the bifrost was cutting through their world? Their world didn't get destroyed because Thor stopped the bifrost before it could cause too much damage.

Let me try this from a different angle: Do you believe that had Thor not stopped the Bifrost, then it would have completely annihilated the Frost Giants?

Originally posted by Silent Master
The OP says it's all out war, didn't you read it? Doesn't change character, and neither does that effect what the battlefield is.

Originally posted by FrothByte
You'd have had a point if Heimdall, Thor and Loki didn't explicitly say that it would destroy the Frost Giant world. You only saw the surface getting destroyed because that was what was visible. What wete you expecting, an X-ray snapshot of how deep the bifrost was cutting through their world? Their world didn't get destroyed because Thor stopped the bifrost before it could cause too much damage.

Let me try this from a different angle: Do you believe that had Thor not stopped the Bifrost, then it would have completely annihilated the Frost Giants?

Oh..... Yep, so we are still entering speculative territory because of character statement. Look, you cannot prove either way that it would have destroyed the planet.

Destroying the Frost giants doesn't mean that it destroys their planet ala Unicron or the Death Star. Skinning the planet accomplishes the same thing, without ramping the magnitude up to 11 needlessly without sufficient evidence.

Allow ME to put it another way. You cannot quantify how Bifrost would theoretically destroy a world, because we do not see it done. We've seen the small scale that Thor stopped. You can try and scale up from that, but in the end that is still speculative. Now, you can stop dickwaving "Planet Killing Bifrost" around, because unless you can quantify that, it is meaningless.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Oh..... Yep, so we are still entering speculative territory because of character statement. Look, you cannot prove either way that it would have destroyed the planet.

Destroying the Frost giants doesn't mean that it destroys their planet ala Unicron or the Death Star. Skinning the planet accomplishes the same thing, without ramping the magnitude up to 11 needlessly without sufficient evidence.

Allow ME to put it another way. You cannot quantify how Bifrost would theoretically destroy a world, because we do not see it done. We've seen the small scale that Thor stopped. You can try and scale up from that, but in the end that is still speculative. Now, you can stop dickwaving "Planet Killing Bifrost" around, because unless you can quantify that, it is meaningless.

So do you or do you not believe that the bifrost would have killed all the frost giants if Thor had not stopped it?

Second question: Does that mean you don't believe that the world engine in MOS could actually terraform the Earth? After all, it was never shown to do so.

Originally posted by FrothByte
So do you or do you not believe that the bifrost would have killed all the frost giants if Thor had not stopped it?

Second question: Does that mean you don't believe that the world engine in MOS could actually terraform the Earth? After all, it was never shown to do so.

#1: This proves that you dont read. go back and reread my previous post

#2: Irrelevant, but no. We know it alters gravity, we saw that. But we do not know what else was involved with the proccess.

Tbf the world engine was explained in detail as opposed to the vague statements about the bifrost.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
#1: This proves that you dont read. go back and reread my previous post

#2: Irrelevant, but no. We know it alters gravity, we saw that. But we do not know what else was involved with the proccess.

#1: You were unclear with your answer and non committal. I'm just trying to clarify if you believe it would have annihilated the frost giants. Because of you say yes, then at least we can agree that the bifrost can annihilate the Kryptonians on their home world.

#2: So you don't believe the world engine could actually have done what it was supposed to do. Gotcha. Do you also not think that Galactus could have fed off the Earth in Rise of the surfer?

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Tbf the world engine was explained in detail as opposed to the vague statements about the bifrost.

They talked about it more and it was allowed to run longer but in the end nothing was said about it that would make us trust what it does more than the bifrost. I mean, could you tell me how exactly it was supposed to terraform the Earth?

Originally posted by FrothByte
#1: You were unclear with your answer and non committal. I'm just trying to clarify if you believe it would have annihilated the frost giants. Because of you say yes, then at least we can agree that the bifrost can annihilate the Kryptonians on their home world.

Are you f@cking serious here Froth? Look:

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Destroying the Frost Giants doesn't mean that it destroys their planet ala Unicron or the Death Star. Skinning the planet accomplishes the same thing, without ramping the magnitude up to 11 needlessly without sufficient evidence.

This is an EXACTING answer to what you asked. Don't even tell me you read it and did not damn well just repeat yourself just to annoy me.

Originally posted by FrothByte
#2: So you don't believe the world engine could actually have done what it was supposed to do. Gotcha. Do you also not think that Galactus could have fed off the Earth in Rise of the surfer?

Enough. You are reaching deep now, and you are stretched thin as it is. You already screwed up one point, don't overplay and start the bullsh!t train now

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Are you f@cking serious here Froth? Look:



This is an EXACTING answer to what you asked. Don't even tell me you read it and did not damn well just repeat yourself just to annoy me.



Enough. You are reaching deep now, and you are stretched thin as it is. You already screwed up one point, don't overplay and start the bullsh!t train now

All i'm doing is applying your logic.If you feel like it's "reaching deep" that's because your logic is also reaching. Trying to make some distinction between destroying the surface of a planet vs destroying the planet seems very strawmanny to me and adds nothing to the discussion here.

It seems you keep avoiding the question. I mean, you have the patience to write "Are you f@cking serious" yet somehow you can't simply answer with a yes or no. Let me make it simpler for you:

Do you believe that the Bifrost can annihilate the Kryptonians?

Originally posted by h1a8
No he wasn't. Odin had awakened.
Even if he was then Odin would still be in the battle for this fight. It's even against Thor's character as well. You are truly insane.

You clearly don't have a very good grasp of these movies, do you? The ending of Thor: The Dark World:

Z-K7ICwIBkc

LOL at calling me "insane" because you can't remember stuff from the movies.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The OP says it's all out war, didn't you read it?

It seems that he hasn't watched the 2nd Thor film either, because he didn't even know that Loki had secretly taken the thrown at the end.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
You clearly don't have a very good grasp of these movies, do you? The ending of Thor: The Dark World:

Z-K7ICwIBkc

LOL at calling me "insane" because you can't remember stuff from the movies.

To be fair, you can't expect him to remember things from a movie he's never seen.

oops, my bad that was rob that said that to me, thus I return to my previous statement that the asgardians own this fight

Originally posted by Silent Master
To be fair, you can't expect him to remember things from a movie he's never seen.

Yeah, that's the thing. There is an occasional slip-up or two, and then there is constantly getting things wrong about the films in question. It's hard to believe his claims about having seen all these films when he repeatedly has to be corrected. I haven't actually watched the 2nd Thor film since right after it came out, yet I could remember that ending very clearly.

Originally posted by FrothByte
All i'm doing is applying your logic.If you feel like it's "reaching deep" that's because your logic is also reaching. Trying to make some distinction between destroying the surface of a planet vs destroying the planet seems very strawmanny to me and adds nothing to the discussion here.

It seems you keep avoiding the question. I mean, you have the patience to write "Are you f@cking serious" yet somehow you can't simply answer with a yes or no. Let me make it simpler for you:

Do you believe that the Bifrost can annihilate the Kryptonians?

Wrong. Both the examples you've used have had extensive explanation on how it works.in the case of Galactus, we have the background. And if it sounds like a Strawman, then why do people claim "Planet busta" immediately? Thats immediately going for the high speculation rather than the reasonable mid level.

I never avoided it. I answered it directly and even requoted it. It's not my fault you refuse to read and I'm not repeating myself just to satisfy your ego.

I believe it can churn up the surface of krypton, and yes that will result in the deaths of the vast majority of the population, but those who get off the surface will wreck havoc. Considering the Kryptonians are now fully sun powered, this is a non issue.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Wrong. Both the examples you've used have had extensive explanation on how it works.in the case of Galactus, we have the background. And if it sounds like a Strawman, then why do people claim "Planet busta" immediately? Thats immediately going for the high speculation rather than the reasonable mid level.

I never avoided it. I answered it directly and even requoted it. It's not my fault you refuse to read and I'm not repeating myself just to satisfy your ego.

I believe it can churn up the surface of krypton, and yes that will result in the deaths of the vast majority of the population, but those who get off the surface will wreck havoc. Considering the Kryptonians are now fully sun powered, this is a non issue.

Wait, how are they sun powered?

Am I missing something?

Sorry skipped halfway thru the thread.

Originally posted by FrothByte
It was destroying the planet. Had they left it on it would have continued destroying it. In what sense? In the sense that it would be left a barren wasteland? Because IIRC we didn't see it do anything to indicate it would have completely destroyed the planet until there was no planet left.

Originally posted by FrothByte
And do you have proof of this or speculation on your part? It's the other way around friend. You're the one asserting it was destroying the entire planet when, as far as I'm aware, there is no indication that this is the case.

Originally posted by FrothByte
And their technology was never shown to do that. Their technology terraformed planets, which does in fact require doing that.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Wait, how are they sun powered?

Am I missing something?

Sorry skipped halfway thru the thread.

The OP and the thread author wanted them solar powered, apparently.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
The OP and the thread author wanted them solar powered, apparently.

Pls quote where he said that, tho. I can't find it anywhere. Granted I may have missed it.

I may be wrong actually.

It may have been a false statement from someone else.

Seek clarification from the OP. It's the only way to be sure.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I may be wrong actually.

It may have been a false statement from someone else.

Seek clarification from the OP. It's the only way to be sure.

As per rules, at this point however, he can only base his stips on what was written. Not to add more stips to the thread now that arguments have been put forth.

Thus this is what the Kryptonians get:

Originally posted by Viritrilbia
Krypton: Almost Complete Control Over Matter- ability for Liquids and Solids to interchange, near-indestructible armor, gravity manipulation, metal that can Shift and "flow" into the air seeking targets faster than Superman can Fly, after which it solidifies.

Which looks like basically their tech.

Adding yellow sun would DEF be an added stip.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Wrong. Both the examples you've used have had extensive explanation on how it works.in the case of Galactus, we have the background. And if it sounds like a Strawman, then why do people claim "Planet busta" immediately? Thats immediately going for the high speculation rather than the reasonable mid level.

I never avoided it. I answered it directly and even requoted it. It's not my fault you refuse to read and I'm not repeating myself just to satisfy your ego.

I believe it can churn up the surface of krypton, and yes that will result in the deaths of the vast majority of the population, but those who get off the surface will wreck havoc. Considering the Kryptonians are now fully sun powered, this is a non issue.

Didn't you just say that whatever is shown on screen trumps whatever explanation the characters may have said? But it seems to me you're willing to give Galactus and the World Engine a pass but not the Bifrost. Your bias is clearly showing.

Anyway, you can turn a blind eye to the bifrost's planet destroying capabilities. Me, I'd rather take the word of the Asgardians who were using it (and by extension the writer's and director's intent) over some random guy on the net who's insisting he knows more about the movie mechanics than the characters in the movie itself.

In any case it won't matter how you define planet destruction. Bottom line is the Asgardians can decimate the Kryptonian and Cybertron armies before they've even left their planet.

I already clarified if Kryptonians get yellow sun or not. This was the OP's response when I asked if yellow sun was allowed.

Originally posted by Viritrilbia
Well, that stipulation would turn the fight boring, IMO. What would happen is Krypton's armies (think: entire race of supermen) would utterly wipe out Asgard's armies, and then Asgard would have to resort to something like Frozen Bifrost or Aether. That's boring IMO.

What I'm interested in is an actual fight between the armies. Now Kryptonians, even without superpowers, have a whole lot of technology and vehicles. I'm sure their suits are able to independently move and they look pretty damn durable to me. :P

How about we give a select few their superpowers, like Asgard has Thor. How about Zod, Superman, Faora, and the others on that ship get sun-induced powers?

Originally posted by FrothByte
I already clarified if Kryptonians get yellow sun or not. This was the OP's response when I asked if yellow sun was allowed.

His response more like a question to try and determine "fair grounds" than an actual stip addition to me. And sounded kinda vague.

Hard to debate when we don't have exact details.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Didn't you just say that whatever is shown on screen trumps whatever explanation the characters may have said? But it seems to me you're willing to give Galactus and the World Engine a pass but not the Bifrost. Your bias is clearly showing.

Anyway, you can turn a blind eye to the bifrost's planet destroying capabilities. Me, I'd rather take the word of the Asgardians who were using it (and by extension the writer's and director's intent) over some random guy on the net who's insisting he knows more about the movie mechanics than the characters in the movie itself.

In any case it won't matter how you define planet destruction. Bottom line is the Asgardians can decimate the Kryptonian and Cybertron armies before they've even left their planet.

Jeezus f@cking christ....

http://shewhowritesmonsters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Dr.-Cox-headdesk.gif

Not only do you not read, you don't even get the LITERAL meaning of words correct.

Screw it, talking with you has given me an even worse terminal illness than the one I already have. Put words in my mouth and claim I said things I never actually said.... This bullshit is why I go on VERY long hiatus' often.

Originally posted by h1a8
Odin was at war in Thor the movie. He refused to use such a weapon. Otherwise he would have.
It's against Odins character to destroy ANYONE'S planet.

Is it really that out of character? In Thor: The Dark World Odin showed us how much of a dick he truly is. In the first movie he seemed more honorable, then it's like he suddenly flipped. He has a very "might makes right" attitude in TDW.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
What Odin is doing is irrelevant, seeing as Loki was on the throne at the end of Thor: The Dark World.

True, but in the post credits scene for Doctor Strange we learn Thor and Loki are searching for Odin.

Originally posted by Surtur
True, but in the post credits scene for Doctor Strange we learn Thor and Loki are searching for Odin.

Yeah, but as things stand, his whereabouts are still unknown.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Jeezus f@cking christ....

http://shewhowritesmonsters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Dr.-Cox-headdesk.gif

Not only do you not read, you don't even get the LITERAL meaning of words correct.

Screw it, talking with you has given me an even worse terminal illness than the one I already have. Put words in my mouth and claim I said things I never actually said.... This bullshit is why I go on VERY long hiatus' often.

So you're denying you ever said this?

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Visuals take precedence over character statements.

Apparently, your response to being shown a contradiction in your statements is to throw a tantrum. How bout be a man about it and just admit you were mistaken and then clarify your stance.

Originally posted by FrothByte
So you're denying you ever said this?

Not in the context you are using no.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Apparently, your response to being shown a contradiction in your statements is to throw a tantrum. How bout be a man about it and just admit you were mistaken and then clarify your stance.

Hows about you not apply a context to a line of text that it was not intended for? Because you have, several times, applied that line to a context it was not intended for, and then you ask me to clarify a statement I made perfectly clear by repeating the same thing, and THEN asserting I said the opposite of what I said. That is bad faith debating and it's dishonest.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Not in the context you are using no.



Hows about you not apply a context to a line of text that it was not intended for? Because you have, several times, applied that line to a context it was not intended for, and then you ask me to clarify a statement I made perfectly clear by repeating the same thing, and THEN asserting I said the opposite of what I said. That is bad faith debating and it's dishonest.

Well then maybe you want to clarify what exactly you mean by

"Visuals take precedence over character statements"

Because it seems you only want to apply it to the bifrost and then completely ignore it for others. Makes you a hypocrite.

Also, when have I ever been dishonest with you? All I've been doing is showing you how you contradict yourself. You might want to work on your sentence construction, help avoid misunderstandings.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Well then maybe you want to clarify what exactly you mean by

"Visuals take precedence over character statements"

Because it seems you only want to apply it to the bifrost and then completely ignore it for others. Makes you a hypocrite.

Also, when have I ever been dishonest with you? All I've been doing is showing you how you contradict yourself. You might want to work on your sentence construction, help avoid misunderstandings.

Once again, you put words and meanings into my mouth outside of my intended message, which remains clear. I even requoted it to you.

The only way to misconstrue what I actually said is by being dishonest. You even stated I said something completely the opposite of what I actually said to satisfy yourself. That is the very definition of dishonest. because of this, and you continuing to try and portray me as either a hypocrite or an idiot, we are done. I'm not going to play this game with you. I have better things to do that entertain you.

Originally posted by TheVaultDweller
Yeah, but as things stand, his whereabouts are still unknown.

True, but Loki obviously isn't on the throne anymore.

As for the planet destruction device, it sure did look like it was in the process of destroying the planet and that had Loki's plan been allowed to run its full course it would have done exactly that.

Originally posted by Surtur
True, but Loki obviously isn't on the throne anymore.

I was just pointing out he was there last, in response to the Odin comments. Bottom line is, Odin himself is not currently in the picture. Based on the set photos from Thor: Ragnarok, he's running around on Earth as a crazy homeless man. Though, that does beg the question, if Loki and Thor is off looking for Homeless Odin, who is currently ruling? Thor's mom is dead, so that's not an option.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
Once again, you put words and meanings into my mouth outside of my intended message, which remains clear. I even requoted it to you.

The only way to misconstrue what I actually said is by being dishonest. You even stated I said something completely the opposite of what I actually said to satisfy yourself. That is the very definition of dishonest. because of this, and you continuing to try and portray me as either a hypocrite or an idiot, we are done. I'm not going to play this game with you. I have better things to do that entertain you.

How can I understand what your intended meaning is supposed to be when you never actually explain them? Everytime I ask for you to clarify or explain something all you do is reply with an angry convoluted paragraph.

Just like now. I've asked you to explain your stance once more and clarify what you meant by "Visuals take precedence over character statements" so I can understand why you want to apply it to the Birfrost scenario and not to any other villains' plots. All you did was just reply with another angry sentence instead of actually explaining your side. You know, like how an actual debate should work?

Seems to me like I caught you contradicting yourself and you're trying to weasel out if it by hiding behind an angry wall of text.

Originally posted by Surtur
As for the planet destruction device, it sure did look like it was in the process of destroying the planet and that had Loki's plan been allowed to run its full course it would have done exactly that.

Thank you. Finally someone with common sense

Originally posted by FrothByte
How can I understand what your intended meaning is supposed to be when you never actually explain them? Everytime I ask for you to clarify or explain something all you do is reply with an angry convoluted paragraph.

I did explain them. You asked me if the Bifrost could wipe out the Kryptonians, to which I responded in the positive. I even quoted it. You then went ahead and claimed I said no, and ran with it. That is how you twisted my words to suit yourself. Killing Kryptonians by churning the surface of Krypton is a far cry from destroying a planetary mass entirely. If you cannot see the difference between the two, that's not my problem.

What is my problem is that you misconstrue what I said so badly as to mean something entirely the opposite. How the hell do you do that?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Just like now. I've asked you to explain your stance once more and clarify what you meant by "Visuals take precedence over character statements" so I can understand why you want to apply it to the Birfrost scenario and not to any other villains' plots. All you did was just reply with another angry sentence instead of actually explaining your side. You know, like how an actual debate should work?

Because you are taking things off topic by doing that. But I answered you regarding the World Engine. Again, you didn't read.

What makes me angry is that you THINK you can pull the hypocrite card as a means to disregard what I actually said. Galactus has nothing to do with this thread, but the World Engine may. The World engine is explained in detail as to what it is, and what it does. We SEE what it does do onscreen, in that it at least alters the planetary gravitational pull. Wether or not it on it's own actually completes the terraforming process by altering the atmosphere of Earth to match Krypton, or make our Sun into a Red Star to complete the process is completely unknown.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Seems to me like I caught you contradicting yourself and you're trying to weasel out if it by hiding behind an angry wall of text.

No, you pissed me off by throwing meanings at me until you could stick something of only because I disagreed with you. I said visuals take precedence over dialogue, I didn't say disregard dialogue. Look, until you can show people HOW Bifrost destroys a planet, you don't know how, nor does anyone else. How long does it take? Is it survivable by a person or people with sufficient power? Is it escapable? Can it be stopped by a person/people besides the Asgardians?

Too many vague parts to simply say "World Killer I Win Button!" the way you threw it out there like it's supposed to mean something.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
I did explain them. You asked me if the Bifrost could wipe out the Kryptonians, to which I responded in the positive. I even quoted it. You then went ahead and claimed I said no, and ran with it. That is how you twisted my words to suit yourself. Killing Kryptonians by churning the surface of Krypton is a far cry from destroying a planetary mass entirely. If you cannot see the difference between the two, that's not my problem.

What is my problem is that you misconstrue what I said so badly as to mean something entirely the opposite. How the hell do you do that?



Because you are taking things off topic by doing that. But I answered you regarding the World Engine. Again, you didn't read.

What makes me angry is that you THINK you can pull the hypocrite card as a means to disregard what I actually said. Galactus has nothing to do with this thread, but the World Engine may. The World engine is explained in detail as to what it is, and what it does. We SEE what it does do onscreen, in that it at least alters the planetary gravitational pull. Wether or not it on it's own actually completes the terraforming process by altering the atmosphere of Earth to match Krypton, or make our Sun into a Red Star to complete the process is completely unknown.



No, you pissed me off by throwing meanings at me until you could stick something of only because I disagreed with you. I said visuals take precedence over dialogue, I didn't say disregard dialogue. Look, until you can show people HOW Bifrost destroys a planet, you don't know how, nor does anyone else. How long does it take? Is it survivable by a person or people with sufficient power? Is it escapable? Can it be stopped by a person/people besides the Asgardians?

Too many vague parts to simply say "World Killer I Win Button!" the way you threw it out there like it's supposed to mean something.


Asking you to clarify whether you thought the Kryptonians could be killed by the Bifrost or not is not "putting words into your mouth" nor is it misconstruing anything. It is asking for clarification. I was asking you to give a definitive answer instead of beating around the bush.

And it is not even the main thing I've been asking you in these last dozen posts, which leads me to believe you have not actually been reading my posts.

My question was how can you apply your logic of "visuals take precedence over character statements" in the Bifrost scene and then completely ignore it for Galactus' world eating feat and don't even want to stand by it with the World engine feat? I mean, we see that it destroys a few blocks of buildings and cars but using your logic, that's not enough to consider it a world ending threat yes? Or maybe you're saying that Ronan with the Infinity stone couldn't actually destroy Xandar because it was never shown? According to you, it doesn't matter how much explanation was mentioned by characters on the show, as long as it wasn't shown then we can't believe what they said because "visuals take precedence over character statements" is what you said.

Now quite your whining and debate like an actual adult.

It took you an entire week to come back with nothing but rehash? Damn dude,leave it be if you really can't be bothered reading then simply recycling old shit.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Asking you to clarify whether you thought the Kryptonians could be killed by the Bifrost or not is not "putting words into your mouth" nor is it misconstruing anything. It is asking for clarification. I was asking you to give a definitive answer instead of beating around the bush.

I made perfectly clear the first time what I thought. The fact is, you don't read, and then try to piss on me by trying to force me to repeat myself ad nauseum. I'm not in the business of rehashing and repeating like a tape recorder for your amusement. Thats not asking for clarification, thats bad faith debating.

Originally posted by FrothByte
And it is not even the main thing I've been asking you in these last dozen posts, which leads me to believe you have not actually been reading my posts.

Frankly, at this stage, after simply driving a plethora of assumptions, then bad faith debate tactics while trying to "catch me out" by repeatedly asking me to repeat a perfectly clear argument is bullshit, and I believe you should retract and apologize for trying to f@ck me over.

Originally posted by FrothByte
My question was how can you apply your logic of "visuals take precedence over character statements" in the Bifrost scene and then completely ignore it for Galactus' world eating feat and don't even want to stand by it with the World engine feat? I mean, we see that it destroys a few blocks of buildings and cars but using your logic, that's not enough to consider it a world ending threat yes? Or maybe you're saying that Ronan with the Infinity stone couldn't actually destroy Xandar because it was never shown? According to you, it doesn't matter how much explanation was mentioned by characters on the show, as long as it wasn't shown then we can't believe what they said because "visuals take precedence over character statements" is what you said.

This entire diatribe proves 2 things. #1: you either have the reading comprehension of a carrot, or you deliberately are not reading anything I say. #2: Once again, you are applying out of context situations that are completely different to what I am actually saying. I already spoke regarding the World Engine. The rest is completely irrelevant to this debate. If I went by pure character statement like you, I could pull so much shit out of transformers lore to squash the other two forces combined.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Now quite your whining and debate like an actual adult.

Ironic coming from someone who went wild for 2 pages because I said visuals take precedence over character statement. Are you saying that characters within the narrative, who are fallible BTW, are actually a better source than what we see on screen with our own eyes?

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/52055981.jpg

Here's the situation you face right now Froth. You claim that bifrost destroys planets entirely based on one liner statements from Thor and Loki, right? They are experts in the subject field apparently right? Ok.... The thing is, this would actually hold more weight IF and only IF they actually explained one prior time that bifrost has done this.

The World Engine, even though I never SAID it would complete the terraforming on it's own (Once again, you put words in my mouth) We get an explanation that the Kryptonians have completed Terraforming projects before, hence why they had colonies. So we know they CAN do it, just not HOW they did it.

And even though this is off topic, Galactus has a history of planetary consumption, as explained by Surfer. This is more than simple character statement and a one line effect, because Surfer explains the history in detail. Thats much more powerful evidence than a four word tagline. We get a sense of scale and measure through the details.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
It took you an entire week to come back with nothing but rehash? Damn dude,leave it be if you really can't be bothered reading then simply recycling old shit.



I made perfectly clear the first time what I thought. The fact is, you don't read, and then try to piss on me by trying to force me to repeat myself ad nauseum. I'm not in the business of rehashing and repeating like a tape recorder for your amusement. Thats not asking for clarification, thats bad faith debating.



Frankly, at this stage, after simply driving a plethora of assumptions, then bad faith debate tactics while trying to "catch me out" by repeatedly asking me to repeat a perfectly clear argument is bullshit, and I believe you should retract and apologize for trying to f@ck me over.



This entire diatribe proves 2 things. #1: you either have the reading comprehension of a carrot, or you deliberately are not reading anything I say. #2: Once again, you are applying out of context situations that are completely different to what I am actually saying. I already spoke regarding the World Engine. The rest is completely irrelevant to this debate. If I went by pure character statement like you, I could pull so much shit out of transformers lore to squash the other two forces combined.



Ironic coming from someone who went wild for 2 pages because I said visuals take precedence over character statement. Are you saying that characters within the narrative, who are fallible BTW, are actually a better source than what we see on screen with our own eyes?

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/52055981.jpg

Here's the situation you face right now Froth. You claim that bifrost destroys planets entirely based on one liner statements from Thor and Loki, right? They are experts in the subject field apparently right? Ok.... The thing is, this would actually hold more weight IF and only IF they actually explained one prior time that bifrost has done this.

The World Engine, even though I never SAID it would complete the terraforming on it's own (Once again, you put words in my mouth) We get an explanation that the Kryptonians have completed Terraforming projects before, hence why they had colonies. So we know they CAN do it, just not HOW they did it.

And even though this is off topic, Galactus has a history of planetary consumption, as explained by Surfer. This is more than simple character statement and a one line effect, because Surfer explains the history in detail. Thats much more powerful evidence than a four word tagline. We get a sense of scale and measure through the details.

Wow, all that blurb of text and you still can't give a straight answer. But then what did I expect from a guy who keeps saying he's done yet somehow continues to reply?

Basically at the end of it all, what you're saying is that visuals only take precedence over character statements if they're one liners. However if there are 2 or more lines to explain it then it doesn't apply.

Lol. What silly logic. Just because someone doesn't give a detailed explanation of a fact doesn't change it being a fact. Loki, Thor and Heimdall are some of the highest ranking Asgardians yet you seem to think they don't know what they're talking about. Heck, Heimdall is the bifrost keeper yet you seem to think he doesn't know what he's saying when he says the bifrost when left uncheck will destroy a world.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Wow, all that blurb of text and you still can't give a straight answer. But then what did I expect from a guy who keeps saying he's done yet somehow continues to reply?

How many straight answers do you f@cking want? Seriously?! How is this NOT Clear to you?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Basically at the end of it all, what you're saying is that visuals only take precedence over character statements if they're one liners. However if there are 2 or more lines to explain it then it doesn't apply.

I'm saying that without at least detailed explanation as to HOW it works, why should a singlar one liner take presedence over what we see? I want you to EXPLAIN that $h!t to me immediately. Why should we take thor and Loki's word as gospel truth of a high ended feat without so much as an indication as to how or why? Without that, the best you can hope for is inconclusive negative evidence. And without that, there is no way to say wether or not the Kryptonians would survive or not. Basically put, Bifrost is a non-argumentative point, and it's use as an "I-Win" button by yourself is hilarious.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Lol. What silly logic. Just because someone doesn't give a detailed explanation of a fact doesn't change it being a fact. Loki, Thor and Heimdall are some of the highest ranking Asgardians yet you seem to think they don't know what they're talking about. Heck, Heimdall is the bifrost keeper yet you seem to think he doesn't know what he's saying when he says the bifrost when left uncheck will destroy a world.

So, rank determines expertise on WMDs? Excellent. Lets call up Trump and see if he knows how to build a nuclear bomb himself then.

The point, as has so gloriously sailed over your head, is that you cannot explain HOW Bifrost works, since the Asgardians themselves DIDN'T explain it, your use of it is a non-point. Congratulations, you argued yourself into a hole.

Originally posted by Darkstorm Zero
How many straight answers do you f@cking want? Seriously?! How is this NOT Clear to you?



I'm saying that without at least detailed explanation as to HOW it works, why should a singlar one liner take presedence over what we see? I want you to EXPLAIN that $h!t to me immediately. Why should we take thor and Loki's word as gospel truth of a high ended feat without so much as an indication as to how or why? Without that, the best you can hope for is inconclusive negative evidence. And without that, there is no way to say wether or not the Kryptonians would survive or not. Basically put, Bifrost is a non-argumentative point, and it's use as an "I-Win" button by yourself is hilarious.



So, rank determines expertise on WMDs? Excellent. Lets call up Trump and see if he knows how to build a nuclear bomb himself then.

The point, as has so gloriously sailed over your head, is that you cannot explain HOW Bifrost works, since the Asgardians themselves DIDN'T explain it, your use of it is a non-point. Congratulations, you argued yourself into a hole.

I love how you keep ignoring that Heimdall, the actual operator and guardian of the Bifrost, explained that the Bifrost will destroy a world if left uncheck.

I also love how you're basically saying that you know more about how the bifrost works than the characters in a show (and by extension the writers and director).

I see through what you're trying to do. Basically, the Asgardians have a ridiculously powerful weapon that gives them a massive upperhand against the other armies and you don't like that. So you try to undermine it.

Because yes, the bifrost IS a 1-click win device. If the armies start their war from their worlds then Asgard can simply blast them from the safety of Asgard. Don't care if you think it only destroys the surface of a planet (something which you have zero proof of btw) it still boils down Asgard having a long distance weapon the others do not.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I love how you keep ignoring that Heimdall, the actual operator and guardian of the Bifrost, explained that the Bifrost will destroy a world if left uncheck.

Did he? Where? All he said was that it would, not how it would do so.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I also love how you're basically saying that you know more about how the bifrost works than the characters in a show (and by extension the writers and director).

I did? Where? I said nobody here knows how it works because it was never shown or explained. Once again, you go for the classic of putting words in people's mouths. Stop doing that.

Originally posted by FrothByte
I see through what you're trying to do. Basically, the Asgardians have a ridiculously powerful weapon that gives them a massive upperhand against the other armies and you don't like that. So you try to undermine it.

Nope. Personally I don't care who wins the debate. what I do hate is running on assumption and speculative inconclusive non-evidence. As I said, I could pull so much Deus Ex Machina out of Transformers lore to utterly smash both the other contestants, but you notice I'm not doing that?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Because yes, the bifrost IS a 1-click win device. If the armies start their war from their worlds then Asgard can simply blast them from the safety of Asgard. Don't care if you think it only destroys the surface of a planet (something which you have zero proof of btw) it still boils down Asgard having a long distance weapon the others do not.

Ahahahahahaaaa! 0% proof eh? Even though this is LITERALLY all we bore witness to Bifrost actually do? Thats a hoot. I don't need to disprove Bifrost being able to destroy a planet, you need to prove it can, beyond a 4 word sentence. Otherwise all you can do is speculate that it can do so EFFECTIVELY. I mean Krypton has space travel, if Bifrost is not an insta planet pop like the Death Star, then explain to me how long it takes to mulch a planet. Both Krypton and Cybertron can evacuate and continue the war without much trouble or loss of population.

That is the problem with making an assumption about how Bifrost works - you DO NOT KNOW AND CANNOT PROVE that it will do more than slowly mulch 2 abandoned planets surfaces. Because this is all we've ever seen of it, and if it takes as long as we saw it do, then planetary evacuations are not only possible, but assured. So much for your "I Win" clause, because once again, you talk yourself into holes.