Fantastic Four vs X-Men

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

Well its supposed to be within their characters.

For example spiderman "knocking off batman's head" is not a viable option in a thread, unless specified otherwise, so you have to argue that spiderman will incapacitate or ko' his opponent.

Which is QUITE a bit different than pis, that being flash ko'ing everybody in a picosecond, he could, but it would make the comics less interesting.

If Johnny went around killing people or had no qualms about it, like Sue or Logan, than it would be viable.

Its how the characters are characterized in the comics, to the best of their abilities, but also to make it as fair as possible.

Originally posted by Creshosk
No, that would be his in character morals that would hold Johnny back.

Says? This is a versus battle based on the characters, using the characters. The purpose of the battle is that they are in it to win it. So morals don't stand.

Either way, Jonny would kill someone to save the F4. We know this. The reason why people deny it is because they know he'd roast most of their favourites. And that is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Or can you really say that Johnny is a killer?

The man is a human sun. He's not exactly Barney the Dinosaur.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Savage Hulk doesn't hold back, he doesn't have the same moral problem.

Such a pretentious comment.

The purpose of a versus battle is that you're deciding who would win. Denying someone their power because it's "unfair" is dumb. Denying them their power because "Well I don't think this character (who I have no bearing on and have nothing to do with) would do that" is even worse.

-AC

Originally posted by Creshosk
That's why they have things they regularly have on them.

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.

So it's to remove deus ex machinas?

It's a bit unfair to apply that criteria to Reed, because he always has some kind of random gadget, much like Doom.

Seeing as that in itself is one of his character features, it doesn't seem to much of a stretch-no pu n intended- to at least countenance the idea that the man might have something with him/be able to access something and utilise it (Unless we are still assuming the fight is going to be over in milliseconds).

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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.

Spiderman could probably just put his fist right through Franks skull. But he's not a killer, so he would probably never do it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
When you're doing it so it works for you, yes.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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."?

Wolverine can't really beat the hulk without plot device. Collapsing a damn, or a cave. He's done it with plot device, but without I don't think he could beat the hulk.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
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 Alpha Centauri
Yes because it's irrelevant.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
That was Hyperion.

DBZ is full of posturing too. But we know alot of it is BS. . .

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You don't have the right not to accept it.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Especially since there's evidence to suggest she's being honest.

How do we know? because the next time they encountered each other what he said was tested, and failed.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Seeing as that in itself is one of his character features, it doesn't seem to much of a stretch-no pu n intended- to at least countenance the idea that the man might have something with him/be able to access something and utilise it (Unless we are still assuming the fight is going to be over in milliseconds).

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
According to Marvel - although it may now be outdated - Sue enacts her powers by exuding a force from herself. Thus it can by no means be instantaneous. Telepathy - at least as communication - from a capable telepath over vast distances would still enact as instantaneously after initiation as telepathy over short distance.

Agreement.

Same question. Disagreement. 🤨 Could you clarify?

It is indeed a factor I'd say. Emma has little or no compunctions about killing - that is a definite advantage.

I wasn't referring to the same thing, I was referring to time before the attack, then to time it takes to enact it.

Killing isn't an advantage if she's already been incapicitated. If I'm willing to kill someone rather than just hurt them, but they restrain me first, where's the advantage?

Haven't broken that into quotes, or replied more fully, because it's six-fifteen a.m. and I can't be bothered.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Says? This is a versus battle based on the characters, using the characters. The purpose of the battle is that they are in it to win it. So morals don't stand.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Either way, Jonny would kill someone to save the F4. We know this. The reason why people deny it is because they know he'd roast most of their favourites. And that is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The man is a human sun. He's not exactly Barney the Dinosaur.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Such a pretentious comment.

No seriously, Rage fueled "hulk smash!" is affraid of killing his opponents?

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
The purpose of a versus battle is that you're deciding who would win. Denying someone their power because it's "unfair" is dumb.

Some characters are known for holding back. Most of the good guys, save the some of the antiheros.

Wolverine isn't known for holding back, neither is the hulk.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Denying them their power because "Well I don't think this character (who I have no bearing on and have nothing to do with) would do that" is even worse.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
You're dealing in mights. Shuma Gorath might appear on the battlefield and eat them all.

The whole thing is a might though, isn't it?

Who is dealing in 'will's? It's a theoretical battle.

If there were definite happenings, there would be no discussion. It's just a theoretical encounter, not a scientific experiment.

Originally posted by Creshosk
As far as she knows. She could be wrong. I know of a time between Wolverine and Spiderman, Wolverine either lied or was mistaken about himself at the end of one of their fights.

How do we know? because the next time they encountered each other what he said was tested, and failed.

Plain and simple.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
So it's to remove deus ex machinas?

It's a bit unfair to apply that criteria to Reed, because he always has some kind of random gadget, much like Doom.

Seeing as that in itself is one of his character features, it doesn't seem to much of a stretch-no pu n intended- to at least countenance the idea that the man might have something with him/be able to access something and utilise it (Unless we are still assuming the fight is going to be over in milliseconds).

It's to remove circumstance.

Though I doubt this fight would be over in a millisecond really as I don't think the characters would start off with death blows since it's not blood lust.

OK going to bed. Good time was had by all.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I just don't think he'd do it in character.

Spiderman could probably just put his fist right through Franks skull. But he's not a killer, so he would probably never do it.

In the comics, no. Because there'd be no Punisher. This isn't the comics, just the same world and characters. So he would. He doesn't have to be bound by what would sell and what wouldn't. Plots or what not. He's fighting to win and if he has to kill, who are you to say he won't?

Originally posted by Creshosk
Right because something that happens the majority of the time is so circumstantial.

You're just denying and accepting what works for you. Not agreeing with things that are being proven right or wrong, regardless of if you agree or not.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Because there isn't always goign to be the same plot device.

Listen: The point of this forum is to take characters from that world and in the same world, have them fight. The reason they don't do these things in the comics is because there are stories and sales to consider. Here, there aren't. So you are restricting them for no reason.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Wolverine can't really beat the hulk without plot device. Collapsing a damn, or a cave. He's done it with plot device, but without I don't think he could beat the hulk.

He couldn't. Hence why no Wolverine Vs Hulk thread here is going to end with Wolverine winning. Because Hulk is free to kill. He wouldn't kill Wolverine in the comics because of sales. Like Torch would kill Spider-Man here, wouldn't he? Let's be real. So in this fight, there is no reason why, with Sue protecting herself and the other two, Jonny couldn't go nova and incinerate them all. No reason at all why not.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Well obviously not standing around yapping is something that could have helped her.

She didn't exactly have her back turned dealing with someone else did she? Besides, like I said. This fight doesn't have to be like that. You're using all that PIS and CIS that nobody should ever give a shit about. It's an internet forum free from the restraints of the comics. Of course they are relevant, but you cannot say (as I've proven) "He wouldn't do it in the comics so he wouldn't do it here." Because there are reasons for them not doing it in the comics.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Right my explination of what I was saying earlier is irrealivant. . .That's certianly objective reasoning there.

It is because it doesn't deal with the fight. We're discussing whether or not she was lying and situational evidence suggests she wasn't.

Originally posted by Creshosk
As far as she knows. She could be wrong. I know of a time between Wolverine and Spiderman, Wolverine either lied or was mistaken about himself at the end of one of their fights.

She could be wrong? Are you even listening to yourself? Do you even have any idea how ridiculous, presumptuous and pretentious that is?

You're applying boastful words to the situation in which Sue beat Emma and then told her why she beat her.

Originally posted by Creshosk
How do we know? because the next time they encountered each other what he said was tested, and failed.

So Wolverine boasted without proving it. Sue didn't. She walked it first, talked it after. It's not up for debate really.

-AC

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The whole thing is a might though, isn't it?

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
Who is dealing in 'will's? It's a theoretical battle.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If there were definite happenings, there would be no discussion. It's just a theoretical encounter, not a scientific experiment.

Really ANYTHING can happen. But it's really too random to declare a winner if you don't have this sturcture. All of the battles would be undebateable as there are too many variables to track.

The actual chance for a die to land on 1 is 1 in an infinite number. to say that it's one in 6 is to remove circumstance.

Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
The whole thing is a might though, isn't it?
Who is dealing in 'will's? It's a theoretical battle.
If there were definite happenings, there would be no discussion. It's just a theoretical encounter, not a scientific experiment.

Originally posted by Creshosk
But he "might not" as well.

It's to remove circumstance.

That's off logic though. Everyone 'might not' everything.

I can understand your point, in that there is no reason to assume someone would have something that there is no reason for them to have. I just think that is unfair in this case. At least to the extent that the man shouldn't be removed the luxury of trying to come up with something.

Now, actually going to bed.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
There's a difference between logical "mights" and pure supposition.

I don't disagree with that.

At least allow me the time to escape the site before replying so I can leave in peace. closedeyes

Originally posted by Creshosk
Actually. . . KMC rules blah blah blah. . .

Yes, they're shit.

Originally posted by Creshosk
Save them from simply losing or save them from dying?

Who cares? If you do Torch Vs Spidey. Torch would kill him. Simple. It doesn't mean you can't create another Spidey thread.

Originally posted by Creshosk
I'm not saying he couldn't. I'm saying he wouldn't.

And I'm saying you're wrong. In the comics he wouldn't. These aren't the comics. As I mentioned in my above post.

Originally posted by Creshosk
You think that Savage Hulk holds back? 😆

No seriously, Rage fueled "hulk smash!" is affraid of killing his opponents?

This has nothing to do with Hulk.

Originally posted by Creshosk
It's not because it's unfair. It's because it's against there character.

Some characters are known for holding back. Most of the good guys, save the some of the antiheros.

Wolverine isn't known for holding back, neither is the hulk.

It's also in the rules. Stupid rule it maybe, but unless stated as blood lust, characters that hold back, do. Because that is in character for them.

I've dealt with that whole BS, in-character nonsense in my above post.

-AC

Originally posted by Creshosk
Because he might not.

The rules.

But the circumstance is removed. Because while they're fighting someone else might show up and help one side or the other (not allowed as that's a rule against outside interference.)

Really ANYTHING can happen. But it's really too random to declare a winner if you don't have this sturcture. All of the battles would be undebateable as there are too many variables to track.

The actual chance for a die to land on 1 is 1 in an infinite number. to say that it's one in 6 is to remove circumstance.

See my other reply re: Reed.

"Character Induced Stupidity, or CIS, on the other hand, refers to any natural mental limitations that characters impose upon themselves and reduce their ability to use their own skills and powers effectively. Unlike PIS, CIS does not occur because the plot requires it, but because the character is genuinely that dumb. Examples of the CIS-afflicted include characters such as Rhino or Jar Jar Binks. Events of CIS are not exempt from debates."

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

Problem is, likewise the xmen and the ff have had their lives threatened, and haven't resorted to killing.

How many times has spiderman had his life threatened, and not resorted to killing.

Thats the rules, it sucks, but oh well.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
In the comics, no. Because there'd be no Punisher. This isn't the comics, just the same world and characters. So he would. He doesn't have to be bound by what would sell and what wouldn't. Plots or what not. He's fighting to win and if he has to kill, who are you to say he won't?

I'm serious it's in the rules.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're just denying and accepting what works for you. Not agreeing with things that are being proven right or wrong, regardless of if you agree or not.

So youd rather listen to something that happens the minority of the time because it favors you, rather than the majority of the time because it IS what happens the majority of the time?

Again, Wolverine stabbed and nearly killed the hulk.

But this has been so few times in happeneing that it'd be unrealistic to rely on this to say that Wolverine beat the hulk.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Listen: The point of this forum is to take characters from that world and in the same world, have them fight. The reason they don't do these things in the comics is because there are stories and sales to consider. Here, there aren't. So you are restricting them for no reason.

Forgive me for debating on a forum that hasd rules, and abiding by said rules.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
He couldn't. Hence why no Wolverine Vs Hulk thread here is going to end with Wolverine winning. Because Hulk is free to kill. He wouldn't kill Wolverine in the comics because of sales.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Like Torch would kill Spider-Man here, wouldn't he? Let's be real. So in this fight, there is no reason why, with Sue protecting herself and the other two, Jonny couldn't go nova and incinerate them all. No reason at all why not.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
She didn't exactly have her back turned dealing with someone else did she? Besides, like I said. This fight doesn't have to be like that. You're using all that PIS and CIS that nobody should ever give a shit about. It's an internet forum free from the restraints of the comics. Of course they are relevant, but you cannot say (as I've proven) "He wouldn't do it in the comics so he wouldn't do it here." Because there are reasons for them not doing it in the comics.

Seriously, it doesn't matter how stupid the rule is, a rule is a rule.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It is because it doesn't deal with the fight. We're discussing whether or not she was lying and situational evidence suggests she wasn't.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
She could be wrong? Are you even listening to yourself? Do you even have any idea how ridiculous, presumptuous and pretentious that is?

Sounds a bit naive don't you think?

I'm not presumptious, nor pretentious, I'm skeptical and cynnical. But I prefer the term realist.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You're applying boastful words to the situation in which Sue beat Emma and then told her why she beat her.

I don't buy Wolverine standing up to a blow from Namor, he should be sent flying. Yet since "it happened" it has to be accepted, doesn't it?

Even though it only happened once.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
So Wolverine boasted without proving it. Sue didn't. She walked it first, talked it after. It's not up for debate really.

-AC

I'm skeptical of anything any comic book character says in a fight, unless it's happened more often than not.