Speed will not likely be decisive, regardless of the versions we use.
My understanding is that Tyrant has been, like his master Galactus, at different power levels at different times, depending on circumstances I do not recall. Any elucidation as to why Tyrant has different power levels would be appreciated; or a correction, saying I'm wrong, would also be appreciated.
Any Tyrant portrayal where he is anywhere near Galactus's level of power is going to beat the crap out of almost all Superman portrayals. However, the sunamped Superman at the end of OWAW would probably beat Tyrant. Failing that, Supes is screwed unless Tyrant is severely depowered.
Originally posted by Pillow Biter
Speed will not likely be decisive, regardless of the versions we use.My understanding is that Tyrant has been, like his master Galactus, at different power levels at different times, depending on circumstances I do not recall. Any elucidation as to why Tyrant has different power levels would be appreciated; or a correction, saying I'm wrong, would also be appreciated.
Any Tyrant portrayal where he is anywhere near Galactus's level of power is going to beat the crap out of almost all Superman portrayals. However, the sunamped Superman at the end of OWAW would probably beat Tyrant. Failing that, Supes is screwed unless Tyrant is severely depowered.
Remember the diner scene with Flash and Superman?
Remember the time dilation scene with Hal, Deadman, and Clark?
Apply that here.
Originally posted by h1a8
Remember the diner scene with Flash and Superman?
Remember the time dilation scene with Hal, Deadman, and Clark?Apply that here.
How fast were they going in the diner scene? Just want to mention that the things around Flash and Superman were still moving. Slowly moving but it was moving.
Originally posted by h1a8
Remember the diner scene with Flash and Superman?
Remember the time dilation scene with Hal, Deadman, and Clark?Apply that here.
I believe we can try to rate fights as they tend to go in the comics; or we can try to rate them 'realistically'.
I choose the former, partially out of preference and partially because I don't think comics provide us with anything like the necessary data to do the latter.
And I cannot see any way to rate fights using any kind of arbitrary middle-ground between the two. This middle approach, which many on this board ascribes to, seems to suffer from all the deficiencies of the fully realistic approach and then compounds matters because it's unclear exactly what the rules are that delineate this 'middle' approach.
So in the comics, speed won't likely be decisive. Fully realistically, we have no idea what the real limits are of something like Tyrants theoretically omniversatile power set.
Originally posted by Pillow Biter
I believe we can try to rate fights as they tend to go in the comics; or we can try to rate them 'realistically'.I choose the former, partially out of preference and partially because I don't think comics provide us with anything like the necessary data to do the latter.
And I cannot see any way to rate fights using any kind of arbitrary middle-ground between the two. This middle approach, which many on this board ascribes to, seems to suffer from all the deficiencies of the fully realistic approach and then compounds matters because it's unclear exactly what the rules are that delineate this 'middle' approach.
So in the comics, speed won't likely be decisive. Fully realistically, we have no idea what the real limits are of something like Tyrants theoretically omniversatile power set.
Actually my statement is about what happened in a comic, not what will happen in real life.
If Superman applies that ability (from the diner scene) to his fight with Tyrant
Then Superman can win the fight.
Superman has the ability, all he has to do is decide to do it.
Originally posted by h1a8
Actually my statement is about what happened in a comic, not what will happen in real life.
If Superman applies that ability (from the diner scene) to his fight with Tyrant
Then Superman can win the fight.
Superman has the ability, all he has to do is decide to do it.
I disagree, and believe that your doubling down on this assertion reflects a widespread misunderstanding of comics that is especially prevalent on this board.
Comics are not real the way our world is. They are more like a dream in many ways. Just because Superman has done something in one scene doesn't mean he can or will do it in another. Cause and effect is not the same in comics. You can't extrapolate the same way you do in the real world.
Superman not speed blitzing all the time simply can't be explained by in-comics reasons. It is not as simple as him being stupid or not wanting to. The fact simply is that he rarely does. When rating fights, the best we can do is try to see the patterns in comics--logical or not--and extrapolate from them. Similarly, Surfer or Thor won't/can't use most of their exotic power stunts every time they fight.
The logic of thinking that a hero should be credited with the ability to do anything they been shown to do before doesn't wash if you take it to it's logical end. Why stop at super speed with Superman? What about Surfer transmuting elements or playing with time? Why wouldn't Superman be constantly sun amping? Why wouldn't every villain use fire against MM? Red solar rays against Superman? If we pursue this logic we have two problems. One, we'd end up creating a hierarchy of characters that in no way resembles that in the comics. What then is the point? How does this illuminate and elucidate our understanding of the source material? Two, this approach is seductive in that it appears at first glance to make it easier to rate fights objectively--to really prove who would win and decisively win an argument. However, this is just an illusion. As you take the logic to it's natural end, you will find that the power sets are not typically sufficiently defined to accomplish this, and the even the pieces of evidence where powers are defined to a high degree tend to be inconsistent and contradictory.
So go by the comics. How often is super speed used by Superman to decisively decide a battle, particularly against an opponent he'd otherwise have had a lot of trouble beating? Not often.
Originally posted by Pillow Biter
I disagree, and believe that your doubling down on this assertion reflects a widespread misunderstanding of comics that is especially prevalent on this board.Comics are not real the way our world is. They are more like a dream in many ways. Just because Superman has done something in one scene doesn't mean he can or will do it in another. Cause and effect is not the same in comics. You can't extrapolate the same way you do in the real world.
Superman not speed blitzing all the time simply can't be explained by in-comics reasons. It is not as simple as him being stupid or not wanting to. The fact simply is that he rarely does. When rating fights, the best we can do is try to see the patterns in comics--logical or not--and extrapolate from them. Similarly, Surfer or Thor won't/can't use most of their exotic power stunts every time they fight.
The logic of thinking that a hero should be credited with the ability to do anything they been shown to do before doesn't wash if you take it to it's logical end. Why stop at super speed with Superman? What about Surfer transmuting elements or playing with time? Why wouldn't Superman be constantly sun amping? Why wouldn't every villain use fire against MM? Red solar rays against Superman? If we pursue this logic we have two problems. One, we'd end up creating a hierarchy of characters that in no way resembles that in the comics. What then is the point? How does this illuminate and elucidate our understanding of the source material? Two, this approach is seductive in that it appears at first glance to make it easier to rate fights objectively--to really prove who would win and decisively win an argument. However, this is just an illusion. As you take the logic to it's natural end, you will find that the power sets are not typically sufficiently defined to accomplish this, and the even the pieces of evidence where powers are defined to a high degree tend to be inconsistent and contradictory.
So go by the comics. How often is super speed used by Superman to decisively decide a battle, particularly against an opponent he'd otherwise have had a lot of trouble beating? Not often.
Good shot 👆
I legit think that New 52 Superman is stronger than KC Superman, since the latter is only stronger than Post Crisis Superman who needs help moving moons and planets. New 52 Superman can effortlessly lift the earth's weight, so he's already on the same tier as KC, but then New 52 Supes moved Brainiac's mothership which is literally thousands of times the weight of the earth low estimate.
Originally posted by Pillow Biter
I disagree, and believe that your doubling down on this assertion reflects a widespread misunderstanding of comics that is especially prevalent on this board.Comics are not real the way our world is. They are more like a dream in many ways. Just because Superman has done something in one scene doesn't mean he can or will do it in another. Cause and effect is not the same in comics. You can't extrapolate the same way you do in the real world.
Superman not speed blitzing all the time simply can't be explained by in-comics reasons. It is not as simple as him being stupid or not wanting to. The fact simply is that he rarely does. When rating fights, the best we can do is try to see the patterns in comics--logical or not--and extrapolate from them. Similarly, Surfer or Thor won't/can't use most of their exotic power stunts every time they fight.
The logic of thinking that a hero should be credited with the ability to do anything they been shown to do before doesn't wash if you take it to it's logical end. Why stop at super speed with Superman? What about Surfer transmuting elements or playing with time? Why wouldn't Superman be constantly sun amping? Why wouldn't every villain use fire against MM? Red solar rays against Superman? If we pursue this logic we have two problems. One, we'd end up creating a hierarchy of characters that in no way resembles that in the comics. What then is the point? How does this illuminate and elucidate our understanding of the source material? Two, this approach is seductive in that it appears at first glance to make it easier to rate fights objectively--to really prove who would win and decisively win an argument. However, this is just an illusion. As you take the logic to it's natural end, you will find that the power sets are not typically sufficiently defined to accomplish this, and the even the pieces of evidence where powers are defined to a high degree tend to be inconsistent and contradictory.
So go by the comics. How often is super speed used by Superman to decisively decide a battle, particularly against an opponent he'd otherwise have had a lot of trouble beating? Not often.
There is a difference between choosing to do something and not being able to do something. Choice is governed by many factors, such as intelligence, mood, preference, creativity, etc.
If a character have done something several times then that should establish that they have the capability to do it in a forum. Now the argument of whether they will choose to do that something in the specific circumstance of the forum fight can be debated.
The logic of comics are based on the logic of reality. That means we can always apply basic logical principles (not always extravagant science theories). For example, if a character can move 10x faster than a bullet and a second character moves slower than a bullet then the first character would can move more than 10x faster than the second character. If, in a comic, this is contradicted then we simply call it PIS or say that the writer wrote the faster character without the ability in that particular scene. The rule of this forum is that a character will fight at the best of his ability as shown before. The key is “as shown before “.
Without logic, any form of debating is impossible. Nothing will make any sense.
That’s why we have PIS rules, fight to the best of ability, fighting in character, and use averages (some of us). This is to combat comic inconsistency.
Specifically, it’s stated in the rules that Flash will clock most combatants before they can react the moment the bell rings DESPITE it not happening in comics a lot. This example sets the precedent on how we treat characters in a forum fight.
Originally posted by h1a8
There is a difference between choosing to do something and not being able to do something. Choice is governed by many factors, such as intelligence, mood, preference, creativity, etc.If a character have done something several times then that should establish that they have the capability to do it in a forum. Now the argument of whether they will choose to do that something in the specific circumstance of the forum fight can be debated.
The logic of comics are based on the logic of reality. That means we can always apply basic logical principles (not always extravagant science theories). For example, if a character can move 10x faster than a bullet and a second character moves slower than a bullet then the first character would can move more than 10x faster than the second character. If, in a comic, this is contradicted then we simply call it PIS or say that the writer wrote the faster character without the ability in that particular scene. The rule of this forum is that a character will fight at the best of his ability as shown before. The key is “as shown before “.
Without logic, any form of debating is impossible. Nothing will make any sense.
That’s why we have PIS rules, fight to the best of ability, fighting in character, and use averages (some of us). This is to combat comic inconsistency.Specifically, it’s stated in the rules that Flash will clock most combatants before they can react the moment the bell rings DESPITE it not happening in comics a lot. This example sets the precedent on how we treat characters in a forum fight.
So you're saying that it was PIS that Gladiator lost to Tyrant, despite Tyrant's cosmic awareness, and other abilities that you may or may not be acknowledging?
Either way, the characters that are able to move super fast are hit all too often to discount for the fact that they do get hit regularly. Perhaps the idea of them being hit is due to the fact that they lack precognitive abilities. or some of the characters that hit them are fast enough or powerful enough to light up the entire area that they are in.
You ever think to consider that perhaps a character capable of putting out enough power to destroy large planets, may be able to make a direct hit without actually being all that close to the speedster in question?
Is it at all possible that you're only looking at one characters abilities while casting a blind eye to the others abilities?
Originally posted by carver9
Could've sworn me and you just had an argument over Hulk and Superman and you were saying that Superman was too fast for Hulk to hit. Sigh, just sigh.
Could've swore that Tyrant and the Hulk had totally different abilities. But then again you knew all about that right Carver? If so why bring it up? I believe that I also stated that the Hulk could not fly. Remember that? BFR?