How is Blade EVER gonna win this?
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Wrong. As long as it's in accordance with MVF rules #2 it's fine.Bruce Hornsby sucks.
No it's not.
It says you can use Google and Wiki, not that everything contained therein is applicable.
If it's not a movie feat, it's not applicable.
-AC
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Funny, we've been doing it since day one and all has been well, you gonna try to change the rules here again? Good luck.Read the first paragraph of the link very carefully, it ties in directly with Yoda's teachings to Luke. It is an elaboration of a movie screen feat, more or less.
Does it happen in the movies? No. That's the answer, no matter how much waffling you wish to do.
Therefore, it doesn't work here. You wouldn't use an "elaboration" of what we know Hulk can do with his powers to argue his movie feats.
Either way, Obi Wan isn't going to lose this fight, so it's a moot point anyway. Nothing Blade can do will overcome him, I'm not disagreeing with you THERE.
I'm simply saying that if it doesn't occur in the movie, it's not applicable. You can use Google and Wiki to prove points, i.e; if you wanted to prove that someone did something in the movie, you could use them.
Doing "it" since day one doesn't make it right.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriIt does work here, deal with it. You dont like it? Ignore it. MVF rule #7 is the same, even after all your bitching and moaning, this rule will remain the same.
Does it happen in the movies? No. That's the answer, no matter how much waffling you wish to do.Therefore, it doesn't work here. You wouldn't use an "elaboration" of what we know Hulk can do with his powers to argue his movie feats.
Waffles suck.
Either way, Obi Wan isn't going to lose this fight, so it's a moot point anyway. Nothing Blade can do will overcome him, I'm not disagreeing with you THERE.I thought at first Blade might have a chance, but not now.
I'm simply saying that if it doesn't occur in the movie, it's not applicable. You can use Google and Wiki to prove points, i.e; if you wanted to prove that someone did something in the movie, you could use them.It's a bullshit thread about two characters duking it out, it's not like we are doing our taxes here. But hey, flex away, do your thing, you failed the first time, you'll go 0-2 here.Doing "it" since day one doesn't make it right.
-AC
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It does work here, deal with it. You dont like it? Ignore it. MVF rule #7 is the same, even after all your bitching and moaning, this rule will remain the same.Waffles suck.
I thought at first Blade might have a chance, but not now.
It's a bullshit thread about two characters duking it out, it's not like we are doing our taxes here. But hey, flex away, do your thing, you failed the first time, you'll go 0-2 here.
It's funny how you claim that this isn't "serious", but so seriously protect YOUR view of the rules of this forum that HAVE been altered by the mod himself. The funny thing is, you don't defend them because you feel they're right, you defend them because I oppose them.
Nothing I'm claiming can be denied, so you're doing it for no reason.
I didn't fail. You brought book characters before, I protested, now they're not allowed. You created gimp threads, I protested, now they're not allowed.
How am I failing? What I don't understand is; I'm just saying that it's a movie forum so movies only. That's not an outrageous or unreasonable suggestion, it's what the forum is for.
You never answered my question, and never will, but what the Hell:
Do those feats happen in the movie, yes or no?
You WON'T just answer "No", because you know what it means, but that's the truth.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's funny how you claim that this isn't "serious", but so seriously protect YOUR view of the rules of this forum that HAVE been altered by the mod himself. The funny thing is, you don't defend them because you feel they're right, you defend them because I oppose them.Nothing I'm claiming can be denied, so you're doing it for no reason.
I didn't fail. You brought book characters before, I protested, now they're not allowed. You created gimp threads, I protested, now they're not allowed.
How am I failing? What I don't understand is; I'm just saying that it's a movie forum so movies only. That's not an outrageous or unreasonable suggestion, it's what the forum is for.
You never answered my question, and never will, but what the Hell:
Do those feats happen in the movie, yes or no?
You WON'T just answer "No", because you know what it means, but that's the truth.
-AC
Looks the same to me, different words, same meaning:
7) When the thread starter makes a new thread, it is very important to cement the conditions of the scenario in the first few posts. This is to avoid cunfusion and frustration among the other posters. It will not be acceptable for the thread starter to randomly change the conditions of the thread at random intervals. Once the settings/weapons/gear/handicaps/abilities/etc have been cemented in the first few posts of the thread, that is how they will stay. Therefore, be very sure and for certain of how you want your thread to be constructed.
The option to handicap is still there, you changed nothing with your rant.
Not sure what you mean by book characters, every combatant I used here in the past has their own movie.
Also, I made one cluster**** of a thread, I owned up to that, so get off the "You create gimp threads" bullshit.
So yeah, you are still 0-2. Watch out for that breaking ball, you'll be 0-3.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Looks the same to me, different words, same meaning:7) When the thread starter makes a new thread, it is very important to cement the conditions of the scenario in the first few posts. This is to avoid cunfusion and frustration among the other posters. It will not be acceptable for the thread starter to randomly change the conditions of the thread at random intervals. Once the settings/weapons/gear/handicaps/abilities/etc have been cemented in the first few posts of the thread, that is how they will stay. Therefore, be very sure and for certain of how you want your thread to be constructed.
The option to handicap is still there, you changed nothing with your rant.
Not sure what you mean by book characters, every combatant I used here in the past has their own movie.
Also, I made one cluster**** of a thread, I owned up to that, so get off the "You create gimp threads" bullshit.
So yeah, you are still 0-2. Watch out for that breaking ball, you'll be 0-3.
You used a book version of Luke.
You don't have a reputation for gimping threads for no reason, RJ. Really.
There's no 2-0. Nice to know to catalogue and pay such close attention to these things, though. Flattering really, for someone who doesn't care. The rules haven't yet been edited, but you and I both know Imped said what he did about them. He has said he'll amend them. Why he hasn't, I don't know, but he's a busy dude.
He's agreed with me publically and privately about how they need reviewing and editing.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha CentauriThe confusion there started when you brought up the mayhem that ensues when Using Neo (You were 100% right about that, kudos), so NJO Luke was brought in, everyone was with it, it wasnt just me.
You used a book version of Luke.
You don't have a reputation for gimping threads for no reason, RJ. Really.The Hiller/Iceman was unintentional gimping, I learned my lesson. You talking about the Swagger/Batman thread?
There's no 2-0. Nice to know to catalogue and pay such close attention to these things, though. Flattering really, for someone who doesn't care. The rules haven't yet been edited, but you and I both know Imped said what he did about them. He has said he'll amend them. Why he hasn't, I don't know, but he's a busy dude.Not much to catalog, two bullshit arguments on your part, even a dumbass like myself can keep track of that.He's agreed with me publically and privately about how they need reviewing and editing.
-AC
He's not going to amend them, fact. Deal with it.
Okay. Here is my ruling:
When I said in MVF rule #2 that "Wiki and Google are your friends" I meant that you should use them to gather lush information about your thread so as not to make some monosyllabic OP saying "Who wins?", thus forcing me to close the thread.
Psychometry is not mentioned in any of the OT Star Wars films. It is an EU feat.
EU feats do not hold water in the MVF since we have to adhere to onscreen movie feats only.
As far as my amending the MVF rules, I want everyone interested in this topic to post in the MVF Social Thread and bring up the issue to me so I can make a fair ruling. I have been very, very busy as of late, since I am a beer vendor and Summer is talking quite a toll on my work. The "gimping" issue is till in the air, I admit, but I am not going to amend the rules until I have heard everyone's (who are interested) argument.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So wiki and google count, depending on the content? Good, that's all I was saying, that's what I was defending.
No it wasn't. You were defending a specific piece of information that you claimed was applicable to this debate. Turns out, low and behold, you were wrong. At least admit to it. You might actually salvage a morsel of respect from this thread if you did.
Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Afraid not, you implied that only movie feats were allowed, that wiki and google are bullshit, I was claiming otherwise, sorry if you misunderstood me.
Only movie feats are allowed.
Psychometry is not mentioned in any of the OT Star Wars films. It is an EU feat.EU feats do not hold water in the MVF since we have to adhere to onscreen movie feats only.
See.
I didn't imply anything of the sort with regards to wiki or google. At least not in this forum.
If you're trying to argue anything in a more advanced discussion that a movie vs forum then i'll hold you to a higher burden of proof as it's the only way to get real information.
Originally posted by jaden101OK, I took what you were saying as you saying that wiki and google are never creditable here, apologies if I assumed wrong.
Only movie feats are allowed.See.
I didn't imply anything of the sort with regards to wiki or google. At least not in this forum.
If you're trying to argue anything in a more advanced discussion that a movie vs forum then i'll hold you to a higher burden of proof as it's the only way to get real information.
I was defending the fact that I think they are valid as long as they relate to onscreen feat/fact/statement, that's all.
Example? Fiendfyre by Voldemort. He was shown using it onscreen, therefore any google or wiki link elaborating on fiendfyre or offering further explainations of it are valid.
IMO, the Psychomentry thing related loosely to Yoda's teachings to Luke.
Originally posted by Rogue JediExample? Fiendfyre by Voldemort. He was shown using it onscreen, therefore any google or wiki link elaborating on fiendfyre or offering further explainations of it are valid.
I'd question that, tbh.
I don't know anything about Harry Potter because I have no interest in them at all but for example. Say some form of offence was reliant on the surroundings for it to work properly.
For example, a fire based attack. You wouldn't say that simply because someone used a fire based attack onscreen in 1 location, that it'd, by default, work in all locations. It'd be a bit silly to presume a fire attack would work under water or in space. That kind of thing.
Not that these kinds of locations are brought up often in the vs forum though. But it's just an example of showing that simply because someone does happen onscreen that it isn't automatically allowed in all circumstances.