As for in character narration, I actually wouldn't believe a claim by any character, no matter how reliable, unless backed up by feats. Not that I would think someone like Reed is lying, but if he says "I calculate this person has power equivalent to a single nuke" well, that is a fine thing to say, but the person would still need feats showing power on the level of a nuke. Doesn't mean Reed is wrong, it just means you have to prove he isn't wrong via feats.
I look at it like this: if they don't have the feats for something then it shouldn't matter what people have claimed about them..and if they do have the feats then they don't require the claims to be used as "evidence" anyways.
Originally posted by Surtur
As for in character narration, I actually wouldn't believe a claim by any character, no matter how reliable, unless backed up by feats. Not that I would think someone like Reed is lying, but if he says "I calculate this person has power equivalent to a single nuke" well, that is a fine thing to say, but the person would still need feats showing power on the level of a nuke. Doesn't mean Reed is wrong, it just means you have to prove he isn't wrong via feats.I look at it like this: if they don't have the feats for something then it shouldn't matter what people have claimed about them..and if they do have the feats then they don't require the claims to be used as "evidence" anyways.
👆 otherwise, Sentry has stalemated Galactus. Actual feats always trump statements/narration.
Originally posted by Surtur
As for in character narration, I actually wouldn't believe a claim by any character, no matter how reliable, unless backed up by feats. Not that I would think someone like Reed is lying, but if he says "I calculate this person has power equivalent to a single nuke" well, that is a fine thing to say, but the person would still need feats showing power on the level of a nuke. Doesn't mean Reed is wrong, it just means you have to prove he isn't wrong via feats.I look at it like this: if they don't have the feats for something then it shouldn't matter what people have claimed about them..and if they do have the feats then they don't require the claims to be used as "evidence" anyways.
So if Reed was able to calculate someone power and was able to find that persons maximum but he does the same for another character and that character power is off the charts, that doesn't tell you anything?
Originally posted by carver9
So if Reed was able to calculate someone power and was able to find that persons maximum but he does the same for another character and that character power is off the charts, that doesn't tell you anything?
If the character has nothing to go on but Reeds words? It tells us nothing, at least not for a debate.
Originally posted by carver9
So if Reed was able to calculate someone power and was able to find that persons maximum but he does the same for another character and that character power is off the charts, that doesn't tell you anything?
That he should get better equipment?
My scales can measure my body weight. But if an elephant were to stand on it, does that mean that the elephant is the heaviest thing in existence? Because the elephant's weight is 'off the charts'?
Originally posted by Surtur
If the character has nothing to go on but Reeds words? It tells us nothing.
What you are basically saying is 'Reed isn't reliable'. If Reed has read the power level of one character and another character power level is too big for him to read, something should click in our heads.
Originally posted by carver9
What you are basically saying is 'Reed isn't reliable'. If Redd has read the power level of one character and another character power level is too big for him to read, something should click in our heads.
No, what I'm saying is if a character has no feats and only claims then that is that. It doesn't matter how reliable the person is. You can't debate based solely on a calculation made by Reed Richards.
Originally posted by Surtur
No, what I'm saying is if a character has no feats and only claims then that is that. It doesn't matter how reliable the person is. You can't debate based solely on a calculation made by Reed Richards.
With that said Galactus is stronger/more powerful than LT and Eternity. None of them have comparable showings and LT is solely based off of hyperbole so with that said...
Originally posted by carver9
In a fight (anyone can answer this) wasn't it said that a fight Galactus was in was threatening all of reality or the Multiverse?
So back to statements vs actual feats of the LT?
But you are digressing.
OP asked, who in their respective universes is closer to living up to their tag - the Flash or the Hulk.
The Flash has maybe the Zooms, maybe Death.
The Hulk has.....an entire race (at least), not to mention all the other abstracts etc.
Who wins, Carver? Who is closer to living it up?
Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So back to statements vs actual feats of the LT?But you are digressing.
OP asked, who in their respective universes is closer to living up to their tag - the Flash or the Hulk.
The Flash has maybe the Zooms, maybe Death.
The Hulk has.....an entire race (at least), not to mention all the other abstracts etc.
Who wins, Carver? Who is closer to living it up?
I'm not even discussing that topic anymore but...are you implying that Flash is faster than abstracts as well?