Originally posted by quanchi112
They don't fight based on their greatest feats only. Learn how to think.
Of course they do if their greatest feats have consistency. Otherwise we would have PIS and the feat is not usable. And Otherwise, what the hell what the full capacity rule mean then?
You use Thanos greatest feats in debating all the time. That's why he can beat everyone, including Galactus right? And you also use a D.C.s character's lowest feats as proof that Thanos or another Marvel character wins against them.
Originally posted by h1a8False. I use their average showings/current as a means and what they are likely to do in battle based on intelligence/the situation/what's in character. You just make things up or argue based off of one scan alone. That's not how we debate here.
Of course they do if their greatest feats have consistency. Otherwise we would have PIS and the feat is not usable. And Otherwise, what the hell what the full capacity rule mean then?You use Thanos greatest feats in debating all the time. That's why he can beat everyone, including Galactus right? And you also use a D.C.s character's lowest feats as proof that Thanos or another Marvel character wins against them.
Originally posted by h1a8
Of course they do if their greatest feats have consistency. Otherwise we would have PIS and the feat is not usable. And Otherwise, what the hell what the full capacity rule mean then?You use Thanos greatest feats in debating all the time. That's why he can beat everyone, including Galactus right? And you also use a D.C.s character's lowest feats as proof that Thanos or another Marvel character wins against them.
nobody's greatest feats are their consistent feats.
They wouldn't be their greatest feats otherwise.
Originally posted by -Pr-
nobody's greatest feats are their consistent feats.
I never said nor implied that. Consistent high feats is what I'm saying. I basically meant, high feats that are both in multiples and are close to being equivalent to each other.
Many (if not all) members here (Quanchi, Jake, etc.) use a character's consistent high feats (high feats that are consistent with each other) in gauging a fight. In all seriousness, an average COMIC Thor without Mjolnir would have serious problems fighting both wolverine and sabretooth at the same time. Yet when you imagine his high feats then you begin to see that there is no way he won't spite stomp them.
Originally posted by quanchi112You never use averages for the character you are arguing to win. It's always a high feat to prove why someone (especially Thanos) would win. You argue that Thanos can beat Galactus because of his highest feats. Otherwise you would be a straight fool to think he can win.
False. I use their average showings/current as a means and what they are likely to do in battle based on intelligence/the situation/what's in character. You just make things up or argue based off of one scan alone. That's not how we debate here.
Originally posted by h1a8
Many (if not all) members here (Quanchi, Jake, etc.) use a character's consistent high feats (high feats that are consistent with each other) in gauging a fight.
The hell I do.
I hardly ever bring up Thor's high end feats as the norm for what he does. Why?
Because it's stupid as hell and seeing as I know quite a bit about Thor and his capabilities, I'm not going to seriously argue Thor Godblasting or Anti-Forcing or summoning a thousand hurricanes in an average fight. But if someone wants to immediately highball one character with some implausible strategem while lowballing or being plain ignorant of Thor, well, I'll be there to correct them.
Originally posted by JakeTheBankyou have brought up godblast and hurricane on more than one occasion
The hell I do.I hardly ever bring up Thor's high end feats as the norm for what he does. Why?
Because it's stupid as hell and seeing as I know quite a bit about Thor and his capabilities, I'm not going to seriously argue Thor Godblasting or Anti-Forcing or summoning a thousand hurricanes in an average fight. But if someone wants to immediately highball one character with some implausible strategem while lowballing or being plain ignorant of Thor, well, I'll be there to correct them.
Originally posted by JakeTheBankYou brung up Thor affecting skyfathers as evidence that he will affect WBH. 🙄
The hell I do.I hardly ever bring up Thor's high end feats as the norm for what he does. Why?
Because it's stupid as hell and seeing as I know quite a bit about Thor and his capabilities, I'm not going to seriously argue Thor Godblasting or Anti-Forcing or summoning a thousand hurricanes in an average fight. But if someone wants to immediately highball one character with some implausible strategem while lowballing or being plain ignorant of Thor, well, I'll be there to correct them.
Originally posted by Starscream M
you have brought up godblast and hurricane on more than one occasion
I bring them up when the topic veers in that direction. I can count on one hand the number of times I've seriously discussed the Godblast as a means for Thor beating a character/entity. Now, if someone is discussing how powerful the Godblast is or whether or not a character would be effected by it, that's something else. But as far as me using the Godblast as a "go-to" strategy for Thor conventionally? Absolutely not.
As far as hurricanes go, Thor has different levels of storm attacks. A simple hurricane gale force is in character and is something he's done plenty of times. Planetary level hurricanes coming from thousands of worlds? No.
Originally posted by h1a8
You brung up Thor affecting skyfathers as evidence that he will affect WBH. 🙄
countless times you mentioned him doing other high level things in his career as well. Planetary storms anyone?
Um, yeah? You were the genius who claimed that nothing Thor could ever do would allow him to harm WBH, which includes his high end feats. You then outdid yourself with the classic statement of "Rune King Thor can't effect WBH directly" which still haunts me to this day.
In any case, both you and Starscream show a consistent display of ignorance regarding Thor's abilities, whether they be average scaled or high end.
Originally posted by h1a8
I never said nor implied that. Consistent high feats is what I'm saying. I basically meant, high feats that are both in multiples and are close to being equivalent to each other.Many (if not all) members here (Quanchi, Jake, etc.) use a character's consistent high feats (high feats that are consistent with each other) in gauging a fight. In all seriousness, an average COMIC Thor without Mjolnir would have serious problems fighting both wolverine and sabretooth at the same time. Yet when you imagine his high feats then you begin to see that there is no way he won't spite stomp them.
There's a difference between high feats and a character simply fighting at a reasonably decent level.
Originally posted by JakeTheBankNow you derail the argument. Again, you have plenty of times argued high feats for Thor even without instigation. You have plenty of times had Thor fight in ways he rarely does (less than 1% of the time).
I bring them up when the topic veers in that direction. I can count on one hand the number of times I've seriously discussed the Godblast as a means for Thor beating a character/entity. Now, if someone is discussing how powerful the Godblast is or whether or not a character would be effected by it, that's something else. But as far as me using the Godblast as a "go-to" strategy for Thor conventionally? Absolutely not.As far as hurricanes go, Thor has different levels of storm attacks. A simple hurricane gale force is in character and is something he's done plenty of times. Planetary level hurricanes coming from thousands of worlds? No.
Um, yeah? You were the genius who claimed that nothing Thor could ever do would allow him to harm WBH, which includes his high end feats. You then outdid yourself with the classic statement of "Rune King Thor can't effect WBH directly" which still haunts me to this day.
In any case, both you and Starscream show a consistent display of ignorance regarding Thor's abilities, whether they be average scaled or high end.
I never claim that RKT couldn't affect WBH. I listed the ways he could. RKT would beat WBH in a fight 10000/10. I said I don't believe he can directly (through physical attack) harm him sufficiently (or at all). I backed my reasons up with evidence and you ignored them and just thought my credibility was lost or diminished without even considering what I way saying. We never seen the limit to which WBH can be harmed by blunt force or blast energy. To assume this unseen limit is below a certain amount is speculation. And to assume it is based off Savage Hulk is totally faulty as WBH is a totally different being entirely. How do you know what limit Pak meant for WBH's durability? Pak showed that WBH can survived an attack over 1 million times greater than an attack that can disintegrate countless peers of Savage Hulk, including the formidable Mindless ones.
If RKT has a feat (even through Odin) that compares or exceeds that of the force WBH felt when colliding then it is highly possible for him to harm WBH (but still no guarantee). RKT can affect WBH many other ways though.
And lastly, my supposedly dumb statement WAS AFTER you claimed the logic that Thor can harm WBH since he has harmed skyfather level beings.
Originally posted by h1a8
Now you derail the argument. Again, you have plenty of times argued high feats for Thor even without instigation. You have plenty of times had Thor fight in ways he rarely does (less than 1% of the time).I never claim that RKT couldn't affect WBH. I listed the ways he could. RKT would beat WBH in a fight 10000/10. I said I don't believe he can directly (through physical attack) harm him sufficiently (or at all). I backed my reasons up with evidence and you ignored them and just thought my credibility was lost or diminished without even considering what I way saying. We never seen the limit to which WBH can be harmed by blunt force or blast energy. To assume this unseen limit is below a certain amount is speculation. And to assume it is based off Savage Hulk is totally faulty as WBH is a totally different being entirely. How do you know what limit Pak meant for WBH's durability? Pak showed that WBH can survived an attack over 1 million times greater than an attack that can disintegrate countless peers of Savage Hulk, including the formidable Mindless ones.
If RKT has a feat (even through Odin) that compares or exceeds that of the force WBH felt when colliding then it is highly possible for him to harm WBH (but still no guarantee). RKT can affect WBH many other ways though.
How I am derailing this argument? You directly accused me of trying to pass off Thor's high end feats as the norm - which isn't true - and I'm defending myself against your rather silly charges. How would you know what's average or the norm for Thor's entire history when you constantly display an ignorance of the character? Hell, you not knowing about Thor or what he can or does do doesn't bother me in of itself, but when you have the gall to tell me and others who do have a strong grasp on Thor's character and powers what he is or isn't capable of, well, yeah, we're going to have a problem.
You claimed RKT couldn't directly effect WBH, which is such an absurd statement on so many different levels.
Originally posted by JakeTheBank
How I am derailing this argument? You directly accused me of trying to pass off Thor's high end feats as the norm - which isn't true - and I'm defending myself against your rather silly charges. How would you know what's average or the norm for Thor's entire history when you constantly display an ignorance of the character? Hell, you not knowing about Thor or what he can or does do doesn't bother me in of itself, but when you have the gall to tell me and others who do have a strong grasp on Thor's character and powers what he is or isn't capable of, well, yeah, we're going to have a problem.
I've been reading Thor since a small kid. I have been through several differnt Thor's respect threads multiple times. Right now I own and have read over 10 physical paper comics of Thor (I used to have more). That's not much but I have read several other Thor comics online. If I had to guess then I probably read over 50 Thor comics in my life and seen many times his greatest feats through scans.
You should know I value speed over versatility. I even claimed a million times that if Thor had Superman's speed then he would beat Superman and any other herald level being 100000/10. I love Thor with the exception of his speed. Give him the speed and I will be the biggest Thor supporter at this forum I kid you not. So stop assuming I don't know about Thor. I know about his greatest feats and all the exotic things he has done to be able to discuss him.
If it is absurb then that means you know what limits WBH can resist forces and that RKT has showings or exerting forces beyond what WBH felt when colliding.You claimed RKT couldn't directly effect WBH, which is such an absurd statement on so many different levels.
Just because WBH was once Savage Hulk doesn't make their durability comparable at all. You basically thinking, "This fool think that RKT can harm Hulk (as in Savage Hulk) directly." That is why you keep typing 'Hulk' instead of WBH.
Originally posted by the DarkoneRKT can harm WBH, just probably not directly (blunt force and blasts). If it's beyond stupid then there exist one example to show the stupidity. Show it. Otherwise, you are trolling.
Too say RKT cant harm WBH physically is beyond f**king stupid, RKT, Odin, KT are on another level of power, too say other wise is banality ignorant and stupidity beyond comprehension!!
Originally posted by carver9Oh, you're back...
I never thought I would say this but H1 is making a good point. Looking at Thor higher end fts, then yes, of course Thor could probably rip through Heralds with his energy output. Looking at his average portrayal, not so much. Thor is still a beast though (with a glass jaw).