Originally posted by Starscream MI don't like this one bit! I blame Newjak and his damn hippie philosophy.
Another sign of apocalypse....me and capt (we're usually at each other's throats for those who don't know) are agreeing...he actually PMed me 4 times...complimenting my debate abilities...the world is ending soon guys 😱
If everyone starts getting along then where will I mod? madfist
biscuits
To put one of the matters to rest (the Digi Vs. Smurph; Soul issue):
"Souls" are a collection of information.
They are who you are/were, what you've done, what you feel/felt, what you've experienced.
All, simply, information.
I don't romanticize it.
"Soul" retention is legal. The assimilation of the souls of others, which is the assimilation of a person's knowledge, personality, experiences, etc, is legal.
Digi's plan is legal.
Whether it actually works, however, is up for interpretation.
I'm still thinking about the Cog thing.
Originally posted by illadelph12All, simply, information.
So, by your definition, if souls are simply information, then souls have no unique aspect to them?
Information can be copied and multiple copies can exist at the same time. By your definition of soul, a soul can be copied and multiple versions of the same soul can exist at once.
That strikes me as an illogical proposition.
Originally posted by Starscream M
So, by your definition, if souls are simply information, then souls have no unique aspect to them?Information can be copied and multiple copies can exist at the same time. By your definition of soul, a soul can be copied and multiple versions of the same soul can exist at once.
That strikes me as an illogical proposition.
Then you may need to think about what I'm saying a bit longer.
Originally posted by Starscream MIt's not only Delph's definition, it's also a secular definition.
So, by your definition, if souls are simply information, then souls have no unique aspect to them?Information can be copied and multiple copies can exist at the same time. By your definition of soul, a soul can be copied and multiple versions of the same soul can exist at once.
That strikes me as an illogical proposition.
Originally posted by Newjakuhuh
biscuits
Originally posted by Charlotte DeBel
For the second season...If a person has comics books appearances for less than quota (6 appearances), BUT originated from a video game and both comics and video game are canon for said person- would he\she be allowed into the tourney under "mixed genre" premice?
Yes, the character would be allowed. Some characters from other genres only have one film/game/novel's worth of character history to pull from. The Cloverfield Monster, for example, only has one film to it's credit. Under mixed Genre rules, it would be allowed (though what tier it would fall under would be up for dispute since my mixed genre project got shut down).
Originally posted by illadelph12
Yes, the character would be allowed. Some characters from other genres only have one film/game/novel's worth of character history to pull from. The Cloverfield Monster, for example, only has one film to it's credit. Under mixed Genre rules, it would be allowed (though what tier it would fall under would be up for dispute since my mixed genre project got shut down).
Basically, the question was asked about Freedom Force characters, that game franchise has 2 games and 6 issues mini published by Image. Both comics and game are considered part of Freedom Force canon.
Same thing with DMC, when you have 4 games, anime and comics series published by Dreamwave (only 4 issues of LS were released, though) in canon for one character (Dante). However, said lovely whitehaired halfdemon (provided I can't resist my fangirlish desires though overdose on whitehaireness for the sake of whitehaireness can ruin the team- your low meta tourney proved that for me) would be draftable under different "price tags"- pre-DMC2 chronologywise (basically what was shown in DMC4) would be 30pointer, DMC2 with high demonic\Sparda form moves the cost up to 40 points.
But that's poetics.
BTW, I've PMed some stuff to you concerning some strategy. Feel free to answer with your ruling whenever you wish.
Originally posted by id369prob not...that's like using ultimate wolverine feat for 616 wolverine, no?
I have a question. What a character, that originated from an anime. But also has manga counterpart. The problem is anime/manga do not coordinate with one another plot wise. Am I still allowed to use feats from both, genres?
Originally posted by id369
I have a question. What a character, that originated from an anime. But also has manga counterpart. The problem is anime/manga do not coordinate with one another plot wise. Am I still allowed to use feats from both, genres?
No. The stories and feats would still need to be canon for the character (for example, Tetsuo from the anime/cartoon movie Akira is different than the Tetsuo which appears in the Manga).
Originally posted by King Kandy
On the arrow: It's a one-time item that he didn't use before that appearance, nor did he use it afterwards, however, he does have access to it. It is not standard equipment.Let's change ONE word of that statement:
On the [B]crown
: It's a one-time item that he didn't use before that appearance, nor did he use it afterwards, however, he does have access to it. It is not standard equipment.Given how the situation is exactly the same in both of those statements, i would have to say it's the same: The crown is base equip, not standard. [/B]
I just wanted this to be seen, it just shows that the crown has been okayed based on the hulk-arrow precedent.
cept he's only made 2 brief appearances--not enough to safely say it was base-only. 😬
and once the arrow was used, he no longer HAS access to it--it was a one-time thing. the crown is still around and as i said in the thread, if he feels safe in his tower why would he wear it? be like stark hanging out at home wearing his armor. 😬
kings don't wander around with their crowns on their heads most of the time, but they COULD and they are still the POSSESSION (sole possession) of the king. again, how does a CROWN not equal standard gear for the KING who claims/possesses it. it is illogical.