Originally posted by xJLxKing
As long as people use recent feats I will change my view. I hate it when someone uses feats from 30 years ago to prove their point. That wont change my view
👆
Worse still. People use very old feats, while the current incarnation hasn't show them and appears more "realistic" and less powerful, while ignoring recent high end feats of the opposed char and coming up with low feats from ages past.
Originally posted by xJLxKing
As long as people use recent feats I will change my view. I hate it when someone uses feats from 30 years ago to prove their point. That wont change my view
What's the problem with using feats from 30 years ago?
Unless it's been retconed, the character has lost the ability to do said feat, or gotten noticeably weaker since that time, then the feat is valid, and you would have absolutely no basis or grounds to dismiss said feat.
Take Thor for example. You won't see me using his ability to manipulate time which was clearly lost in a debate. But if I need to, you best believe I will use the example of him shooting lightning out of his hands as say an example of using his god of thunder powers or an example of versatility which happened in 1960.
Another example is Odin. Clearly he isn't on Galaxy busting level currently so you won't ever see me using examples of Odin wiping out Galaxies casually currently. I will however use it as an example if I make sure to note that I am referring to Odin at his older more powerful levels or say at the height of his power.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
What's the problem with using feats from 30 years ago?Unless it's been retconed, the character has lost the ability to do said feat, or gotten noticeably weaker since that time, then the feat is valid, and you would have absolutely no basis or grounds to dismiss said feat.
Take Thor for example. You won't see me using his ability to manipulate time which was clearly lost in a debate. But if I need to, you best believe I will use the example of him shooting lightning out of his hands which happened in 1960.
Another example is Odin. Clearly he isn't on Galaxy busting level currently so you won't ever see me using examples of Odin wiping out Galaxies casually currently. I will however use it as an example if I make sure to note that I am referring to Odin at his older more powerful levels or say at the height of his power.
I don't if it wasn't stated that someone got depowered, or retconned. If Thor shots lighting that destroyed mountains in the 60's and then he shoots lighting and only destroys buildings in the 2005, you bet your ass I would see that as a invalid feats
Originally posted by xJLxKing
In my opinion, I don't care if a character has feats from the 50's 60's 70's, but WHEN ALL HIS Feats for debating comes from 20+ years ago, there is something wrong.
Originally posted by Kris Blaze
Especially if said character only has like 100 ish comics from recent age, and like 500 from way back when. Then it makes super-no sense! right? RIGHT?!
Originally posted by xJLxKing
In my opinion, I don't care if a character has feats from the 50's 60's 70's, but WHEN ALL HIS Feats for debating comes from 20+ years ago, there is something wrong.I don't if it wasn't stated that someone got depowered, or retconned. If Thor shots lighting that destroyed mountains in the 60's and then he shoots lighting and only destroys buildings in the 2005, you bet your ass I would see that as a invalid feats
Fortunately, someone like say Thor has feats from modern times. Arguably Thor's greatest strength feat, and a great deal of his feats of versatility without Mjolnir come from modern times. And it doesn't matter if I decide to use feats for a Thor debate from only the 60's and 70's and nothing else. Unless it was explicitly shown that he has lost said power or ability, gotten weaker, it was retconed, then you would have no basis to have any problem with said feats.
Or maybe Thor wasn't exerting as much power in the second instance. If you see Thor destroying mountains in the 60's, and then you see him destroying buildings say last year, that in no way indicates that he cannot destroy mountains with said lightning, unless in both instances he was stated to be using all of his power, and he accomplished noticeably less damage. Which has never happened by the way.
And of course Thor would have more feats back then than he has in say the last two decades. Him being dead, having much less appearances etc. impact his number of feats.
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Fortunately, someone like say Thor has feats from modern times. Arguably Thor's greatest strength feat, and a great deal of his feats of versatility without Mjolnir come from modern times. And it doesn't matter if I decide to use feats for a Thor debate from only the 60's and 70's. Unless it was explicitly shown that he has lost said power or ability, gotten weaker, it was retconed, then you would have no basis to have any problem with said feats.Or maybe Thor wasn't exerting as much power in the second instance. If you see Thor destroying mountains in the 60's, and then you see him destroying buildings say last year, that in no way indicates that he cannot destroy mountains with said lightning, unless in both instances he was stated to be using all of his power, and he accomplished noticeably less damage. Which has never happened by the way.
Originally posted by Galan007
i always get the short end of the mod-stick... even when i didn't do a thing. disgust😛
Originally posted by Rage.Of.Olympus
Bada is nothing more than a tyrant who abuses his power.Well, Batman sucks, so yea, that shows him.
Originally posted by Batman-PrimeI just gave you all 3 warnings each!!!!111 ohno
cry Batman is ultracool!Just because Bada is a tyrant with an "short" mod-stick does not give you the right to insult the BatMan!
batman
durfist
Originally posted by Starscream M
you're trolling kris...so you deserve to be warned
Originally posted by Starscream MAnd you just got 4 warnings! evillaugh
you're kinda dense