Thor wins.
1) Iron man, even amped by 400%, was losing to Thor and Thor wasn't even remotely damaged.
2) Hulkbuster was down to it's last pieces, because Hulk had ripped the shit out of it. The only reason IM won is because MCU Hulk has a weakness to falling apparently (both Avengers movies). That and RDJ starpower...
3) Thor wins. Again, MCU Thor's feats are the most impressive if any of the Avengers. He's still top dog, for now anyway.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTWIf Thor really wanted to kill Iron Man or BFR him, he'd have just pulled a Thor 1 destroyer feat on him. It's not an excuse, it's the truth. Btw, You could easily be called a Thor hater just as much as you and the other haters can call us fans/fanboys. You're the first to jump to insults, as usual.
Agreed.It's Thor fans' standard excuse, the holding back thing.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTWYour point? It happened. It's a legitimate feat for Thor. You can't not use it as a feat just because you hate on Thor and don't want him to have it. You can't dismiss it.
Calling someone a fan is not an insult.Destroyer-busting tornado happened only once...
Thor, whether you like it or not, has the best feats in the MCU.
Originally posted by CPT Space Bomb
Your point? It happened. It's a legitimate feat for Thor. You can't not use it as a feat just because you hate on Thor and don't want him to have it. You can't dismiss it.Thor, whether you like it or not, has the best feats in the MCU.
Yes, it happened and it's legit - but just because he hasn't used it against Tony, doesn't mean he was holding back.
That'd mean he was holding back in all fights but the Destroyer fight -- I think you realize just how stupid that sounds.
Originally posted by StiltmanFTWNo, it doesn't sound stupid.
Yes, it happened and it's legit - but just because he hasn't used it against Tony, doesn't mean he was holding back.That'd mean he was holding back in all fights but the Destroyer fight -- I think you realize just how stupid that sounds.
1) He was holding back against Iron Man, but not alot. He was completely undamaged by an amped 400% Iron Man, and was getting ready to take it up a notch when cap stepped in.
2) He was OBVIOUSLY holding back against Hulk in the Hellicarrier. It's not even a debate. He literally says "HUlk, we are not your enemy" while just trying to restrain him. He at one point jumps behind Hulk and tries to choke him out with submission....he was holding back and it's blatantly obvious.
3) Against Kurse, he got legitimately whooped. Kurse is above Thor and pretty much anyone else.
4) Thor's fight against Ultron is just meh. He wasn't winning, but it was a scene they wanted to legitimize Ultron as a threat, so they had Thor Job. Then again, it took the combined might of Thor, Vision's infinity stone, and full power IM energy to take him down, so it wasn't a terrible loss anyway.
Originally posted by quanchi112Keep attacking those strawmen, silly DD.
It obviously packed more power but I didn't say it was more powerful. It could reform. The sheer illogical stance that tony stark would bring a weaker suit against Hulk considering his power and the various statements regarding the Hulk from tony stark himself. You're an idiot.So now Thor hitting means not trying. 😂
#youarenothing
Hulkbuster was more powerful no doubt, but how much? Is really that much more durable than Tony's normal armor? Then why rely so much on the auto-reparation system?
Ok ok, I may have exaggerated. Maybe Thor wasn't holding back so much but he still dominated that fight. And He wasn't going all out either.
Originally posted by Time-ImmemorialI agree, but point stills. He has to prove Hulkbuster is much more durable/powerful than the IM Thor faced.
I don't believe his durability was improved at 400%.Most likely his repulsor where stronger and possibly his strength.
If the suit is designed to operate at 100% we can't say 100% sure that much was amped more then his power reserves.
Plus, as Quanchi has already conceded by not answering the question, Hulk wouldn't have the advantage of absorbing the lightning.
Originally posted by Adam GrimesYour arguments are flat out moronic.
Keep attacking those strawmen, silly DD.Hulkbuster was more powerful no doubt, but how much? Is really that much more durable than Tony's normal armor? Then why rely so much on the auto-reparation system?
Ok ok, I may have exaggerated. Maybe Thor wasn't holding back so much but he still dominated that fight. And He wasn't going all out either.
Hulkbuster was a lot more powerful hence why I mocked you for saying to prove the obvious. You concede the point like you've conceded point after point the moment you faked your way through this debate.
Same approach as he had against Hulk. Hulk looked better than he did.
Originally posted by quanchi112I already said Hulkbuster was more powerful sport, but can you prove it's more than 4 times more powerful than normal IM? Proof it's more durable?
Your arguments are flat out moronic.Hulkbuster was a lot more powerful hence why I mocked you for saying to prove the obvious. You concede the point like you've conceded point after point the moment you faked your way through this debate.
Same approach as he had against Hulk. Hulk looked better than he did.
Hardly the same approach, DD.
Originally posted by Adam GrimesYou already agreed it was an upgrade so why wouldn't he upgrade the durability considering this is for the Hulk and his strength.
I already said Hulkbuster was more powerful sport, but can you prove it's more than 4 times more powerful than normal IM? Proof it's more durable?Hardly the same approach, DD.
You concede at every turn, dummy.
Originally posted by Adam GrimesSo you believe he'd downgrade in durability and that Tony stark wouldn't account for Hulk's strength. You're simply stupid.
So you can't prove it. lolYour attempts of side stepping and red herrings get sillier by the second.
My logic is sound yours is all over the map. You're an idiot.