Originally posted by quanchi112"Feats" ... is not the end all be all.
You need to look at the entire picture.
The Abraxas arc (amongst others) is a perfect example.
Now, don't get me wrong, I do want to see feats, and I better see feats,
but feats can be performed 'off-panel'
so long as the story/character power-set unquestionably supports the action via dialogue.
(writer's column preferably or an entity of grandiose status)
In Marvel, these 'off-panel' feats can be further strengthened by Handbook corroboration.
There are also other methods to gauge a characters power.
I personally don't support feats that have been stated indirectly
but never happened on panel,
especially if the character has never done anything else
to suggest the capability of said stated feat.
This is where the term "hyperbole" comes in.
There has to be some indication (via indirect feats) that supports a
character's potential as being more than a verbal glamorization.
Protege, never destroyed a universe, does this mean he's incapable of it?
Originally posted by Mr Master
👆The Abraxas arc (amongst others) is a perfect example.
Now, don't get me wrong, I do want to see feats, and I better see feats,
but feats can be performed 'off-panel'
so long as the story/character power-set unquestionably supports the action via dialogue.
(writer's column preferably or an entity of grandiose status)In Marvel, these 'off-panel' feats can be further strengthened by Handbook corroboration.
There are also other methods to gauge a characters power.
I personally don't support feats that have been stated indirectly
but never happened on panel,
especially if the character has never done anything else
to suggest the capability of said stated feat.This is where the term "hyperbole" comes in.
There has to be some indication (via indirect feats) that supports a
character's potential as being more than a verbal glamorization.
But these are feats nonetheless . What quanchi is trying to imply is that character portrayal also matters as much as feats . Which isn't the case . Otherwise Scathan should be well below Eternity , just based on the fact that he's a Celestial .
Originally posted by TheGodKillercharacter portrayal also matters as much as feats .
Which isn't the case .
Otherwise Scathan should be well below Eternity ,
just based on the fact that he's a Celestial .
Let's not forget, anomalies greater than Eternity have come up before.
That aside, considering the power Protege had,
imo, Scathan must've been an agent of Gallagher's (TOAA) in that story,
cause what Scathan did effortlessly was incredible.
That aside ...
I wasn't saying what you posted.
Like I said, feats are the only full-proof variable we have in which to gauge a character's powerset. I never said personal interpretation/opinion regarding said character's powerset is entirely irrelevant--but it simply isn't as accurate of a gauge.
If we use personal interpretation in lieu of feats, then Superman Prime (golden) could very well be the most powerful character ever seen in DC. He had next-to-no impressive on panel feats, but his implied power was HUGE. See what I'm saying?
facepalm at some of you.
Here are the rules:
Originally posted by Digi
Debating Format[b]Standard Equipment
Each side starts out with the equipment that they normally and have been shown to consistently carry on them. For example, Daredevil would have his billy-club, but Reed Richards would not have the Ultimate Nullifier.
In a scenario fight, the contestants in whose city/reality the fight takes place are allowed access to any material resources they usually have there or of any team they're active members of, as long as they can reasonably get to them. For example, in a scenario set in the DCU, Green Lantern would have access to equipment in the JLA Watchtower, but not the Titans headquarters.
Beta Ray Bill would not have Scuttlebutt and Batman would not have the Batmobile, unless otherwise noted in the open post.Basic Knowledge
Each side receives basic knowledge of the other. A good measure of this would be what the general population of the character's homeworld knows. For example, that Superman has a weakness to Kryptonite is general knowledge, but that he's Clark Kent is not.Full Capacity
It is assumed that each contestant will fight to his/her best ability, but still within the character's personality, unless specified otherwise. That means they will use any powers at their disposal. For example, even though The Flash doesn't clock each of his own opponents in the first millisecond in his own comic, it is assumed that is a viable tactic on this board since it is a proven fact that he possesses that level of speed.
It is also assumed that the characters fight at their optimum levels of ability - not explicitly weakened or unusually powered up for those who have variable power levels.No Non-canon Sources
Non-canon sources are invalid for evidence. With rare exceptions, comics not in continuity such as Elseworlds, What Ifs, or alternate universes are not used for evidence in debates of a particular mainstream character.A canon source is one that is regarded as being 'in continuity'. In the example of Star Trek; instances from the series and movies can be used, but books are definitely out. Comic book crossovers are usually unusable as they ignore common sense most of the time (DC vs. Marvel is certainly unusable in some cases in our debates!).
This includes JLA/Avengers. Canon or not, people just aren't going to agree on it in most cases. Besides, there should be plenty of other comics with which to make your point.
Comics released strictly online or on web sites will not be considered proof in the Comic Book Versus Forum.
An obscure interview given by someone involved in a story arc is not proof to refute feats. There have been too many of these so called interviews which go against what's shown on panel. Especially when there is no dialogue to refute what's happening on panel. Most writers are clear with the intentions of the plot and story arc.
This principle extends to characters with multiple versions, alternate timelines, etc. Unless specified by the thread starter, only current-version canon feats are allowed. [/B]
Sometimes you all make things more complicated than they need to be.
If there has been no retcon, and an interview goes against what's shown on panel, it's not proof. As long as continuity is intact, the comics trump all.
Some characters have few or no feats. Characters like The Presence, TOAA, Golden Superman, Marvel Celestials, etc. With those characters, we are left with nothing but off panels feats, implied powers or hyperbole. In which case that's what we use, along with any character bios.
I'm also thinking of making a 10-20 year cutoff for feats regardless of continuity concerning mainstream characters. There have been too many reports and arguments about the validity of such feats. Exceptions would be characters who don't appear regularly such as Darkseid, Thanos and some of the DC/Marvel pantheon gods.
I know there are other forums which do things different if people can't abide with KMC CB Vs Forum rules.
In the vs forum, fights take precedence.
Especially fights wheras the two being pitted against each other have a common advarsary or have had an encounter with the same being. It can then be decided who was more powerful. Of course context should be noted.
In the absence of fights, feats/handbook verification should be noted. For those with feats but no fights, implied power should be taken into consideration.
In any case, a reasonable medium can still be reached regarding what the said being is capable of.
👆
Originally posted by Galan007Like I said, feats are the only full-proof variable we have in
which to gauge a character's powerset. I never said personal
interpretation/opinion regarding said character's powerset is entirely
irrelevant--but it simply isn't as accurate of a gauge.
Originally posted by Galan007If we use personal interpretation in lieu of feats, then Superman
Prime (golden) could very well be the most powerful character ever
seen in DC. He had next-to-no impressive on panel feats, but his
implied power was HUGE. See what I'm saying?
Example:
Protege never destroyed a Universe.
If we pin him against a Universal buster, or multi-universal buster
does this make him > Protege?
Or do you consider the fact that Protege was about to erase the Cosmics
before Scathan interrupted
& the LT had to augment his power to judge Protege a feat in
Protege's favor that supersedes Universe-busting?
This isn't a joke, I'm truly interested in this what is a "feat" type discussion.
Originally posted by Mr MasterA feat, imo, is any action a character preforms in a comic book. That's why there are various types of feats: ie. strength, speed, intelligence, durability, stamina, energy projection, fighting skill, etc.
This isn't a joke, I'm truly interested in this what is a "feat" type discussion.
Originally posted by Badabing
facepalm at some of you.Here are the rules:
Sometimes you all make things more complicated than they need to be.
If there has been no retcon, and an interview goes against what's shown on panel, it's not proof. As long as continuity is intact, the comics trump all.
Some characters have few or no feats. Characters like The Presence, TOAA, Golden Superman, Marvel Celestials, etc. With those characters, we are left with nothing but off panels feats, implied powers or hyperbole. In which case that's what we use, along with any character bios.
I'm also thinking of making a 10-20 year cutoff for feats regardless of continuity concerning mainstream characters. There have been too many reports and arguments about the validity of such feats. Exceptions would be characters who don't appear regularly such as Darkseid, Thanos and some of the DC/Marvel pantheon gods.
I know there are other forums which do things different if people can't abide with KMC CB Vs Forum rules.
If character A has the same powers as character B, and only the same powers -- i.e. no additional powers --, but character B is more powerful, then A's feats should fall under B's feats as indirect feats.
The argument would go along the lines of: A is more powerful than B, who in turn preformed this feat.
It's far more efficient to generalize the rules than to systematically pick out exceptions.
Originally posted by Mr Master
Well, he's a Celestial from the 31st Century,
and we know he's no ordinary Celestial since he's referenced in the LT's
and Celestial Handbook bios as saving the day against Protege.Let's not forget, anomalies greater than Eternity have come up before.
That aside, considering the power Protege had,
imo, Scathan must've been an agent of Gallagher's (TOAA) in that story,
cause what Scathan did effortlessly was incredible.That aside ...
I wasn't saying what you posted.
And that is exactly why character portrayal isn't enough . Feats are a sure shot way of knowing what the character is capable of . Else Odin should be omnipotent . Otherwise , Phoenix should be ToAA , based upon what on-panel narration SOMETIMES implies her/it to be . Yet we know that's not the case , considering how Thor has one-shotted an INEXPERIENCED host of the PF before , and how in the most recent issues of AvX , he was able to hold his own against a RILED PF itself .
And why would I post what you said ? Your point was to agree with quan's claim that feats aren't the be all and end all in response to Galan's statement that they were . My point was to agree with what Galan said . One of these is not like the other .
Also , I forgive thee for committing the unforgivable crime thou hath committed , of getting mine thread locked . 😎
Originally posted by TheGodKillerAnd that is exactly why character portrayal isn't enough . Feats are
a sure shot way of knowing what the character is capable of . Else
Odin should be omnipotent . Otherwise , Phoenix should be ToAA ,
based upon what on-panel narration SOMETIMES implies her/it to be .
Yet we know that's not the case , considering how Thor has one-
shotted an INEXPERIENCED host of the PF before , and how in the
most recent issues of AvX , he was able to hold his own against a
RILED PF itself .
I see what you're sayin, but I don't see how it relates to Scathan.
Also, "Phoenix should be TOAA" is a thought that never crossed my mind,
no matter how much bullshit hype revolves around Phoenix.
This is because Phoenix has never done anything to suggest
it being even a multi-universal entity, so a comment or two without justification is hyperbole.
If it had other feats like,
defeating a significant power that had universal or multiversal influence,
it would give us substance & perspective with which to categorize its power.
----------------------------------
Unlike Phoenix non-action and pure hyperbolic statements about it,
Scathan stomped On Panel the combined powers of
the LT/Protege/Eternity/Hawkgod/Beyonder/Mephisto/Malevolence and GOTG.
Originally posted by TheGodKillerAnd why would I post what you said ? Your point was to agree
with quan's claim that feats aren't the be all and end all in response
to Galan's statement that they were . My point was to agree with
what Galan said . One of these is not like the other .
Originally posted by TheGodKillerAlso , I forgive thee for committing the unforgivable crime thou hath committed ,
of getting mine thread locked .
Funniest hypocrisy is, the person attacking/insulting is the one doing the 'reporting.'
Yea, it's like,
if your interpretation differs from my god-like understanding of these things,
you'll be reported for "trolling" cause it's unacceptable to not swallow what I post,
and although you have On Panel scans as well to defend your case,
with the addition of the writer's support,
it makes no difference, cause I ... am ... uhh, No One really.
(but to an individual or two with some power at kmc, I'm cool)
So my reporting will get the mods to reprimand you publicly based on my fallacious accusation
therefore by default making it seem as though I'm right.
durlaugh
So, now that you understand how that went friend,
back on topic cause this isn't the place.
Originally posted by Mr Master
uhh, ... o .. k.I see what you're sayin, but I don't see how it relates to Scathan.
Also, "Phoenix should be TOAA" is a thought that never crossed my mind,
no matter how much bullshit hype revolves around Phoenix.
This is because Phoenix has never done anything to suggest
it being even a multi-universal entity, so a comment or two without justification is hyperbole.If it had other feats like,
defeating a significant power that had universal or multiversal influence,
it would give us substance & perspective with which to categorize its power.----------------------------------
Unlike Phoenix non-action and pure hyperbolic statements about it,
Scathan stomped On Panel the combined powers of
the LT/Protege/Eternity/Hawkgod/Beyonder/Mephisto/Malevolence and GOTG.
And that is exactly why feats , imo , are more important that on-panel narration and/or portrayal . Tell me
this :
If you were to choose purely between feats and character portrayal , which would you choose ?
Originally posted by Mr Master
Not my fault some members run to mods with their tails up their ass,
when they're backed up against a corner.Funniest hypocrisy is, the person attacking/insulting is the one doing the 'reporting.'
Yea, it's like,
if your interpretation differs from my god-like understanding of these things,
you'll be reported for "trolling" cause it's unacceptable to not swallow what I post,
and although you have On Panel scans as well to defend your case,
with the addition of the writer's support,
it makes no difference, cause I ... am ... uhh, No One really.
(but to an individual or two with some power at kmc, I'm cool)
So my reporting will get the mods to reprimand you publicly based on my fallacious accusation
therefore by default making it seem as though I'm right.durlaugh
So, now that you understand how that went friend,
back on topic cause this isn't the place.
Alright .
Originally posted by TheGodKillerAnd that is exactly why feats , imo ,
are more important that on-panel narration and/or portrayal .
Although, I'm not sure if you're referring to Scathan, because ...
Scathan has an uber feat under his belt though, let's just be clear.
Originally posted by TheGodKillerIf you were to choose purely between feats
and character portrayal , which would you choose ?
.
Character portrayals are only significant in the ultra cosmic level,
although,
even then there has to be some sort of justification for the "portrayal" to rank them high.
Originally posted by Mr Master
👆Although, I'm not sure if you're referring to Scathan, because ...
Scathan has an uber feat under his belt though, let's just be clear.
I originally gave Scathan's example to show that feats are more relevant than character portrayal . Although I'll admit that sometimes my posts can be confusingly worded and cause the reader to understand quite the opposite of what they imply .
Originally posted by Mr Master
Feats, of course.Character portrayals are only significant in the ultra cosmic level,
although,
even then there has to be some sort of justification for the "portrayal" to rank them high.