McCastle Vs Rigbo

Says Riggs.

But Han Solo also said that he made the Kessel Run in the time/distance that he did. But it doenst count as an onscreen feat, as the only onscreen feat was his chin flapping about it..

So fine. Onscreen feats apply.
Riggs, during this face off, can talk about sniping someone a mile off all he wants.

I see. So I guess the Force doesn't actually bind the universe together? I guess Agent 47 isn't an expert in all aspects of combat? Because these things were SAID, not SHOWN.

No... You guessed completely and utterly wrong.
The force thing was was shown on screen, as was evidenced by the fact the force users could manipulate it.

Nope, it was never shown "binding the universe together."

Riggs made the claim, it's a feat. You know the rules here.

But the universe wasn't shown falling apart at the subatomic level onscreen....ergo we take his word. Hence the massive hole in your argument.

So yeah, RigBo rapes. Between Rambo pwning the forest and Riggs making thousand yard shots in high wind, they'll be fine.

If thats what youre relying on, then its pretty much McCastle victory.

Those 2 against Rambo is more of a breeze.
So the only raping going on will be just directly after Riggs refuses to pretend to be a little asian boy for Rambo, Im afraid.

How you figure? They'll never see Rigbo as Rigbo snipes them from a thousand yards out.

Thats not a screen feat.

pm Impediment. If it is said/implied/shown, it's a screen feat. He'll acknowledge it.

After all, you argued that 47 was an expert in all forms of combat when it was merely said, not shown.

Very Well. McClane said he was the only one could do the job.

Ergo: Riggs couldn't.

McClanes screen feats still beat Riggs'.

RJ you're stretching pretty far with saying that as a feat. Which is fine if that's how you want to play it... I mean in some threads we could say some crazy shit that's been said in movies... and it will count as a feat. It should be on screen feats and you know it... cause if that's the case then... In that Blade vs Hit Girl thread... Blade wins easily in every scenario.. because of things that has been said about him and things he's said he's done.

Originally posted by Kaibs
RJ you're stretching pretty far with saying that as a feat. Which is fine if that's how you want to play it... I mean in some threads we could say some crazy shit that's been said in movies... and it will count as a feat. It should be on screen feats and you know it... cause if that's the case then... In that Blade vs Hit Girl thread... Blade wins easily in every scenario.. because of things that has been said about him and things he's said he's done.

✅

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi

After all, you argued that 47 was an expert in all forms of combat when it was merely said, not shown.

I brought that line about 47 in because your angle was that 47 couldn't make a 4km, despite actually making a 4km shot onscreen. This wa the argument that solidified the "seen on screen" rule.

So in the end, the "all forms of combat" didn't/doesn't hold in regards to 47, but he can out-snipe Swagger with his 4km shot, as shown.

Also, when did Riggs or Rambo use a sniper rifle in the films? Rambo 1, or are you adding weapons that are not in the OP.

going by screen feats McCastle wins here

✅ Harold and Kumar go to McCastle

Imp is a little busy with "REAL LIFE" right now. Can we get a little respect for our MIA brother? Let's try and resolve things without having to move into the "douche" territory. I think that's only mature, agreed?

Also, discretion has to be used for stated feats. Meaning, if the character is obviously capable of doing what someone stated they could do, then, yes, it's an "offscreen" feat that counts.

Otherwise, we have bullshit like Mace Windu not being able to use force push.

Riggs is obviously an "uber" military dude well versed in H2H, firearms, and so forth. A mile shot is easily done by most military snipers...much less some of their best. A mile long shot with wind is shit they train for. Why would an obviously "top-tier" soldier be any less? A mile long shot, with wind, is not really that big of a feat as it is far too "human". Who is his spotter, though? This is where we have to put into context such a feat: he obviously had a kick ass spotter in addition to a really friggin' steady arm. And so ends his feat: no awesome spotter present, no awesome shot.

To continue, I think Rambo solos...much less combined with Riggs. I do think that a solo Rambo would take a shot or two against Castle, but McClane really is the weakest here and is almost a non-factor.

As far as overall combat prowess, I rank them as follows:

Rambo - 9.5
Castle - 8.5
Riggs - 8
McClane - 7

Every point signifies a factor of 2.

Meaning, Rambo could take on two castles at once and it would be a tie.

Rambo could take on 5 McClanes and win but 6 would net him a loss.

This tiering is inexorable and cannot be argued with. 😐 (it's hard not to laugh at myself)

I would fit on that list as a 2 (Rambo could take on 362 of me, at once, and win). lol!

Originally posted by Robtard
I brought that line about 47 in because your angle was that 47 couldn't make a 4km, despite actually making a 4km shot onscreen. This wa the argument that solidified the "seen on screen" rule.

So in the end, the "all forms of combat" didn't/doesn't hold in regards to 47, but he can out-snipe Swagger with his 4km shot, as shown.

Also, when did Riggs or Rambo use a sniper rifle in the films? Rambo 1, or are you adding weapons that are not in the OP.

Rob, going with what is said/implied and shown is how we do shit here, WTF is wrong with you?

Riggs used a sniper rifle in LW1 from several hundred yards and was deadly with it. I'm talking about scenario 3 here:

Scenario 3: Forest fight. Guns, blades and explosives seen throughout the films. Be realistic, no one's carrying 4 RPGs and 6 machine-guns.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Very Well. McClane said he was the only one could do the job.

Ergo: Riggs couldn't.

McClanes screen feats still beat Riggs'.

Originally posted by Kaibs
RJ you're stretching pretty far with saying that as a feat. Which is fine if that's how you want to play it... I mean in some threads we could say some crazy shit that's been said in movies... and it will count as a feat. It should be on screen feats and you know it... cause if that's the case then... In that Blade vs Hit Girl thread... Blade wins easily in every scenario.. because of things that has been said about him and things he's said he's done.

If it is said and/or implied, it counts as a feat. Sadako knows this, he's just being an ass.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Rob, going with what is said/implied and shown is how we do shit here, WTF is wrong with you?

Riggs used a sniper rifle in LW1 from several hundred yards and was deadly with it. I'm talking about scenario 3 here:

Scenario 3: Forest fight. Guns, blades and explosives seen throughout the films. Be realistic, no one's carrying 4 RPGs and 6 machine-guns.

You know full well that if something is implied or said in a movie, it counts as a feat.

I'm fine with that and I argued for it, ie when something was implied and it was feasibly, it should count, but the bitching back and forth in the Swagger/47 thread is what killed it and the "seen on screen" rule was ratified in ****ing stone. You're the one that didn't want to accept the "master in all forms of combat", because it was spoken and not shown, remember.

Ah, that's fine then, didn't remember Riggs or Rambo using/having a sniper-rifle.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'm fine with that and I argued for it, ie when something was implied and it was feasibly, it should count, but the bitching back and forth in the Swagger/47 thread is what killed it and the "seen on screen" rule was ratified in ****ing stone. You're the one that didn't want to accept the "master in all forms of combat", because it was spoken and not shown, remember.

Ah, that's fine then, didn't remember Riggs or Rambo using/having a sniper-rifle.