Fantastic Four vs X-Men

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I take it you have some kind of graph showing the time of her attacks?

Latency time against type of attack? Must have some kind of proof since you couch it in quasi-scientific terms.

Anyway I mean if she projects force daggers (as someone suggested earlier) then the latency time is the velocity of projection x the distance, if she expands or contracts a force bubble in/on someone the latency time is the rate of expansion multiplied by the extent of expansion etc.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Calling something a fact oesn't make it that way.

Funny how you can call me baised but you aren't baised. . .

I'm not baised it's a fact.

If he doesn't regularly carry it he doesn't get it in Vs Board fights.

So they don't get what they don't normally carry. Thats one of the KMC rules, that you are STILL trying to bend.

Because he doesn't normally carry things that would help him deal with this situation. If he were paranoid like batman, who carries kryptonite on him, then I could see it. But he's not paranoid like the master of the plot device.

And it would be foolish to disagree with your speculation?

KMC Rules, he doesn't.

But you are still trying to bend the rules.

They don't have anything they don't regularly carry.

How about he doesn't have anything he doesn't normally carry?

It was an example.

the KMC Rules. . .

You sure did with the whole Torch thing.

Random means they just happen to encouter each other and a fight breaks out. Which is why, if they don't normally carry it, they don't have it.

I already know you're trying to bend the rules in the FF's favor. I see through your attempts.

That's what you're saying, not in those words, but basically what your're saying.

It's in the rules. Doesn't regularly carry it? It's not there.

But I do, I read the comics.

Because I have to ignore the possibilty that he might just happen to this one special occasion, because it's in the rules. If I allow the possability then the rule is bent, inthe FF's favor. And I'm not stupid nor ignorant for trying to abide by the rules.

But you are. You aren't saying it directly, but you are trying to allow Reed gadgets that he doesn't normally have. It's in the rules.

Which is probably why Emma wouldn't underestimate Sue again.

But it's not like Reed lugs his Lab around with him all the time.

According to you and your interpritation of the events. Which are your assumptions and opinions. Not facts.

Are you British or something?

How is it not? Increasing your own moral is the same thing as decreaseing your opponents abiility to psyche you out, is it not?

No, you've stated your interpritation of events. Shared your assumptions. And showed off your opinion. Nothing is proven thus far.

Because you say so?

Claiming something is true doesn't make it that way. Your interpretations and assumptions and opinions are not facts.

B) It's true.

-AC

Me: Its hot outside.

You: Its not hot, I find it pleasant.

Me: Well I just find it hot outside.

You: Just because you say something doesn't make it so.

Me: It does for me.

You: so now opinon is more than truth?

Me: You're taking this out of context.

You: I'm just doing what you are guilty of doing.

Me: Well I'm feeling cool outside.

You: I thought it was hot, so now its cold, well now I SAY ITS HOT!

tsktsk.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I sense a snide intonation...

Anyway I mean if she projects force daggers (as someone suggested earlier) then the latency time is the velocity of projection x the distance, if she expands or contracts a force bubble in/on someone the latency time is the rate of expansion multiplied by the extent of expansion etc.

Well if we are going to bring it down to milliseconds in that sense, based upon a theory that may or may not be true -since these things don't actually exist and thus have no reason to adhere to scientific rules-, we need to consider the delay before initiating the attack.

In any case, a telepathic attack, even if it has a latency time of zero, doesn't have a completion time of zero: it just begins at that point. Telepathic attacks are often protracted.

Gonna shorten this to relevancy as the off-topic discussion of "You're biased" is pointless. Because I'm not, I know I'm not. So I think my factual over your opinion.......of me, packs more punch.

Originally posted by Creshosk
If he doesn't regularly carry it he doesn't get it in Vs Board fights.

Fair play. Nothing that he doesn't regularly carry. Gotcha.

Originally posted by Creshosk
So they don't get what they don't normally carry. Thats one of the KMC rules, that you are STILL trying to bend.

Not trying to bend it. Trying to understand it. It's a shit rule and it's dumb to have such restrictive rules on ANY FIGHT, regardless of character. It's a comic vs forum. Either way, those are the rules, fine.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Because he doesn't normally carry things that would help him deal with this situation. If he were paranoid like batman, who carries kryptonite on him, then I could see it. But he's not paranoid like the master of the plot device.

My point was ONLY this: Neither of us have the power to know what he does or does not regularly carry, so we shouldn't give nor take away weaponry without proof.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And it would be foolish to disagree with your speculation?

Nope, it was speculation. Disagree all you want.

Originally posted by Creshosk
KMC Rules, he doesn't.

Like I said, fine. I just read the rules and they're overly tight and niggly for a COMIC versus forum. Trying to sanction a fight so specifically across worlds of different characters is rather stupid but nonetheless. They're there.

Originally posted by Creshosk
But you are still trying to bend the rules.

I never tried to bend the rules nor did I want to. Stop claiming it.

Originally posted by Creshosk
You sure did with the whole Torch thing.

I didn't. End. Stop claiming I did. If you want to, fine. I didn't.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Random means they just happen to encouter each other and a fight breaks out. Which is why, if they don't normally carry it, they don't have it.

Strange (and wrong) interpretation of "random" on these boards.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I already know you're trying to bend the rules in the FF's favor. I see through your attempts.

You don't, because I'm not. Let's drop this.

Originally posted by Creshosk
That's what you're saying, not in those words, but basically what your're saying.

So you can't prove me saying it, but you're gonna assume I'm saying it? Despite me not saying it and saying that it's not what I meant? Idiotic.

Originally posted by Creshosk
But I do, I read the comics.

I thought you said the comics weren't relevant here? (Which they are). What a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Because I have to ignore the possibilty that he might just happen to this one special occasion, because it's in the rules. If I allow the possability then the rule is bent, inthe FF's favor. And I'm not stupid nor ignorant for trying to abide by the rules.

I was only trying to understand this forums confusing and altogether unrealistic rules for an unrealistic world. I understand having base criteria but those rules are ridiculous.

Originally posted by Creshosk
But you are. You aren't saying it directly, but you are trying to allow Reed gadgets that he doesn't normally have. It's in the rules.

For crying out loud. You're unbelievably dense. I'm not allowing him anything you moron.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Which is probably why Emma wouldn't underestimate Sue again.

Wouldn't matter if she did or not, if Sue is faster, she's faster.

Originally posted by Creshosk
According to you and your interpritation of the events. Which are your assumptions and opinions. Not facts.

Considering I'm going by the event in the comics, it's fact.

Originally posted by Creshosk
How is it not? Increasing your own moral is the same thing as decreaseing your opponents abiility to psyche you out, is it not?

No, because you're doing it independantly with no effect to the opponent. Your morale effects you only. Unless directed otherwise.

Originally posted by Creshosk
No, you've stated your interpritation of events. Shared your assumptions. And showed off your opinion. Nothing is proven thus far.

Denying it doesn't mean it isn't there.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Because you say so?

No. Because as I said, definition. Unless the dictionary is wrong.

-AC

which X-men can survive Nova from fireboy?

Originally posted by kgkg
which X-men can survive Nova from fireboy?

A fatal blast or mind bubble is a cis nono. ❌

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Well if we are going to bring it down to milliseconds in that sense, based upon a theory that may or may not be true -since these things don't actually exist and thus have no reason to adhere to scientific rules-, we need to consider the delay before initiating the attack.

In any case, a telepathic attack, even if it has a latency time of zero, doesn't have a completion time of zero: it just begins at that point. Telepathic attacks are often protracted.

Yes telepathic assault is often protracted (although do you accept that to enact it is faster?) in which case we can now argue whether Sue can resist telepathic assault while trying to enact an attack or defence.

Oh and before I forget - I think it's safe to say that Emma is more ruthless than Sue and would have little compunction about killing if the need arose.

I tend to rationalise everything because I dislike intangibles.
BTW Your sig is very interesting.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I was only trying to understand this forums confusing and altogether unrealistic rules for an unrealistic world. I understand having base criteria but those rules are ridiculous.

Wolverine just happened to have some anti superman perephenilia with him when Superman showed up and a fight broke out.

So since Superman's attacks are instantly neutralized nothing he throws will hit, and he's weakened down to a 3 year old. Wolverine wins.

Absolutly ridiculous, but due to chaos theory it is a possibility, even if it's 1/10^10^10^10 etc. . .

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I thought you said the comics weren't relevant here? (Which they are). What a hypocrite.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Wouldn't matter if she did or not, if Sue is faster, she's faster.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Considering I'm going by the event in the comics, it's fact.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
No, because you're doing it independantly with no effect to the opponent. Your morale effects you only. Unless directed otherwise.

They have a morale attack of 6, meaning they do 6 points of morale damage.

if your morale drops to zero you have no morale left, right? so then you'd probably "lose it" or get psyched out.

Say that you have 4 points of morale. the attack is going to psuche you out, right?

Now if you've boosted your own morale then it's harder to be psyched out.

Wouldn't this be the same thing as decreasing your opponents ability to psyche you out?

Raising your moral by 3 would be the same thing as lowering their attack by three?

Originally posted by kgkg
which X-men can survive Nova from fireboy?

IF he is taken out BEFORE he goes nova, OR before he reaches nova level, ANY of the X-men that are still standing, BECAUSE he didn't get a chance to go nova.

Likewise with any of the combatants that are really dangerous.

Dungeons and Dragons, love it...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well distance has been shown to have no bearing over latency of telepathy for a capable telepath.

Nor has it with Sue's attacks as of yet though (unless I missed something).

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

If we consider delay to initiation for both to be equal then overall latency to enact telepathic assault is less than latency for whatever Sue decided to do.

If we consider that, yes. Sue is a much more experienced fighter though, we could decide that she'd react quicker to the threat. No-one knows for sure.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

Yes telepathic assault is often protracted

Yep.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

(although do you accept that to enact it is faster?)

Nope. Not until it's factually shown to be.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

in which case we can now argue whether Sue can resist telepathic assault while trying to enact an attack or defence.

She has been successful against such people in the past- has been discussed above I believe, won't go back into it.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

Oh and before I forget - I think it's safe to say that Emma is more ruthless than Sue and would have little compunction about killing if the need arose.

Mayhap. Shouldn't be a factor though if Sue gets the attack in first.

I'm still at a loss as to why we've decided this is precisely how the fight will go, but never mind.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot

BTW Your sig is very interesting.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I think they're to make them fair. Otherwise either side could just happen to have the opponents weakness with them.

Wolverine just happened to have some anti superman perephenilia with him when Superman showed up and a fight broke out.

So since Superman's attacks are instantly neutralized nothing he throws will hit, and he's weakened down to a 3 year old. Wolverine wins.

Absolutly ridiculous, but due to chaos theory it is a possibility, even if it's 1/10^10^10^10 etc. . .

Yes but all these technicalities such as, ooh I dunno, not allowing Torch to go nova, is stupid. People can say "Well what's the point? He could just kill most people." Yeah? That's his power. You have no right taking away his ability so you can have an internet debate.

Originally posted by Creshosk
There's a big difference between a majority of the time and once.

That's worse then.

Originally posted by Creshosk
If she is she is, if she's not she's not.

She is, so situational evidence would suggest. As would the 1-0 that Sue is up against Emma.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Your interpritation of the event.

Sue beat Emma by being better, smarter and faster. No more interpretation needed. That's factually what happened.

Originally posted by Creshosk
look at it this way:

They have a morale attack of 6, meaning they do 6 points of morale damage.

if your morale drops to zero you have no morale left, right? so then you'd probably "lose it" or get psyched out.

Where are you going now? Are you playing Top Trumps or something?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Say that you have 4 points of morale. the attack is going to psuche you out, right?

Now if you've boosted your own morale then it's harder to be psyched out.

Wouldn't this be the same thing as decreasing your opponents ability to psyche you out?

Raising your moral by 3 would be the same thing as lowering their attack by three?

Dude, seriously.

Is any of this relevant? No. Sue made the claim after the act. Psychologically that would suggest gloating and rubbing salt in the wounds of Emma. As she said "You're not the only one who's powers work at the speed of thought". So more likely than not, they do. Sue knows more about her powers than me.

-AC

Originally posted by Creshosk
I think they're to make them fair. Otherwise either side could just happen to have the opponents weakness with them.

I would have thought that if one side has something that weakens the other, making it fair by removing that is a bit odd.

Like disabling a faster runner to make the race fair.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Well distance has been shown to have no bearing over latency of telepathy for a capable telepath.
If we consider delay to initiation for both to be equal then overall latency to enact telepathic assault is less than latency for whatever Sue decided to do.

Yes telepathic assault is often protracted (although do you accept that to enact it is faster?) in which case we can now argue whether Sue can resist telepathic assault while trying to enact an attack or defence.

Oh and before I forget - I think it's safe to say that Emma is more ruthless than Sue and would have little compunction about killing if the need arose.

I tend to rationalise everything because I dislike intangibles.
BTW Your sig is very interesting.

Yes but all that is BS isn't it?

Disallowing Jonny's Nova Blast because he'd kill the opponent is a bit stupid.

It's like saying Hulk isn't allowed to become Hulk.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes but all these technicalities such as, ooh I dunno, not allowing Torch to go nova, is stupid. People can say "Well what's the point? He could just kill most people." Yeah? That's his power. You have no right taking away his ability so you can have an internet debate.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That's worse then.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
She is, so situational evidence would suggest. As would the 1-0 that Sue is up against Emma.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Sue beat Emma by being better, smarter and faster. No more interpretation needed. That's factually what happened.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Where are you going now? Are you playing Top Trumps or something?

Dude, seriously.

Is any of this relevant? No.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Sue made the claim after the act. Psychologically that would suggest gloating and rubbing salt in the wounds of Emma. As she said "You're not the only one who's powers work at the speed of thought". So more likely than not, they do. Sue knows more about her powers than me.

-AC

Not that it matters as I said before due to circumstance I can't just accept her statement. I'm initially skeptical of anything the characters say in battle situations. Because I know alot of it is just posturing.

Same with any comic book hype "indestructable" "invulnerable". . I don't buy those things either.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
I would have thought that if one side has something that weakens the other, making it fair by removing that is a bit odd.

Like disabling a faster runner to make the race fair.

Wolverine has his claws, Reed his stretching ability etc. . .

if the faster runner almost always or always has something then they have it.

It's to eliminate one time things and things that could, but have never happened.

Wolverine could have kryptonite, and something that makes superman fight close enough for it to take effect, a device of some sort.

Under certain circumstances Wolverine could win. But we know that Wolverine beating Superman is absolutly ridiculous.

So we attempt to remove circumstance and circumstancial evidence as much as possible.

Originally posted by Creshosk
the only problem I see is doing it right away. . . I mean he'd be putting his pal's at risk for one thing, and it takes time to get up that high. . .

No offence but I don't care. It's in Jonny's power. Saying he can't do it because you find it to be a bit unfair is stupid. No other way about it. It's like saying "I don't think it's fair if Spidey webs Punisher up right away". He could do it, so he probably would. Stop denying the people their powers.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Why because I can agree with things that happen alot, but disagree with something that seems out of place and has only happened once?

When you're doing it so it works for you, yes.

Originally posted by Creshosk
But there was a plot device in operation. If Emma had been attacking and Sue did that I'd beleive it more. But since it was circumstantial I can't just accept it.

It's a f*cking comic, of course there was a plot device. Where do you get the right to say "Nah, she can't do that. Doesn't count."?

Originally posted by Creshosk
But Emma might have learned from that experience, so it might not happen again. We can't say if she did or if she didn't since it hasn't happened again.

I can fight Bruce Lee, get whooped, go away and train then come back. If he's better than me for reasons other than training or for reason that training cannot surpass, it doesn't matter what I learn does it? Same with Sue and Emma.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I was assigning numbers to something that doesn't have numbers assigned to it to illistrate my trian of thought. Did you just discard what I was saying?

Yes because it's irrelevant.

Originally posted by Creshosk
And Hyperion knows more about his powers than me. But he still made a claim that he couldn't back up.

That was Hyperion.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Not that it matters as I said before due to circumstance I can't just accept her statement. I'm initially skeptical of anything the characters say in battle situations. Because I know alot of it is just posturing.

Same with any comic book hype "indestructable" "invulnerable". . I don't buy those things either.

You don't have the right not to accept it. Especially since there's evidence to suggest she's being honest.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Yes but all that is BS isn't it?

Disallowing Jonny's Nova Blast because he'd kill the opponent is a bit stupid.

It's like saying Hulk isn't allowed to become Hulk.

-AC

Or can you really say that Johnny is a killer?

Savage Hulk doesn't hold back, he doesn't have the same moral problem.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Nor has it with Sue's attacks as of yet though (unless I missed something).

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If we consider delay to initiation for both to be equal then overall latency to enact telepathic assault is less than latency for whatever Sue decided to do.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If we consider that, yes.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
although do you accept that to enact it is faster?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Nope. Not until it's factually shown to be.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Mayhap. Shouldn't be a factor though if Sue gets the attack in first.