Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Is important the collateral damage to scale the feats?

I kinda look at collateral damage as something like bonus points. It can add to the impressiveness of a feat, but a lack of it almost never takes away from the impressiveness of a feat. Hulk pants and all that jazz...

Originally posted by deft
Is important the collateral damage to scale the feats?

Not really no. DIRECT damage is, however.

What is direct damage, and how does it differ from collateral? By definition, collateral is a side effect of the action.

Example. Hulk punches a forcefield that can withstand the force of 1000 atomic bombs.

Direct damage: he shatters it.
Collateral: Jarvis was standing next to it, and wasn't even ruffled.

If you have direct but no collateral, then the lack of collateral takes nothing away from it.

But if you can't even get direct damage (the forcefield was intact), then it's a non feat.

Collateral damage serves to prove that Lois is skyfather+

Originally posted by Galan007
Case in point: Owen hits Beyonder with a blast that could have destroyed "SEVERAL BILLION ENTIRE DIMENSIONS":

https://i.imgur.com/EhLajoj.jpg


...Yet a blast of that magnitude didn't even knock over the lap in Owen's studio apartment, or singe his couch. So does that mean the blast was really intended to be sub-apartment level? Of course not, lmao. It just confirms what anyone who isn't trying to be selectively ignorant already knows: that a lack of large-scale collateral damage doesn't mean a goddamn thing in many cases.

Depends if Superman did it or not

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
Depends if Superman did it or not yeah when Superman does it, people question the size, weight and even humidity level of a planet or crater size.

Superhuman's are often created out of collateral damage.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Not really no. DIRECT damage is, however.

What is direct damage, and how does it differ from collateral? By definition, collateral is a side effect of the action.

Example. Hulk punches a forcefield that can withstand the force of 1000 atomic bombs.

Direct damage: he shatters it.
Collateral: Jarvis was standing next to it, and wasn't even ruffled.

If you have direct but no collateral, then the lack of collateral takes nothing away from it.

But if you can't even get direct damage (the forcefield was intact), then it's a non feat.

I get what you're saying, even though direct damage and collateral damage are typically the same thing. You've just found a way of invalidating the one that writers aren't paying attention to. The only problem with that notion, or train of thought is that it doesn't invalidate the need to judge each specific damage feat. Crushing a car shows great strength, crushing a building shows even greater strength, crushing a mountain range... Etc.

Originally posted by deft
Is important the collateral damage to scale the feats?


This sentence structure is doing collateral damage to my brain.

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
This sentence structure is doing collateral damage to my brain.

C'mon, im learning english.

Originally posted by deft
C'mon, im learning english.


Are you? Well then my apologies.

Originally posted by Stoic
I get what you're saying, even though direct damage and collateral damage are typically the same thing. You've just found a way of invalidating the one that writers aren't paying attention to. The only problem with that notion, or train of thought is that it doesn't invalidate the need to judge each specific damage feat. Crushing a car shows great strength, crushing a building shows even greater strength, crushing a mountain range... Etc.

Well no....but that's where we can start to debate.

Depends. I kinda look at esoteric attacks with more scrutiny.

Originally posted by darthgoober
I kinda look at collateral damage as something like bonus points. It can add to the impressiveness of a feat, but a lack of it almost never takes away from the impressiveness of a feat. Hulk pants and all that jazz...

You need to tell Silent this. He thinks that the lack of collateral damage disproves the feat when there is other evidence to support the feat being impressive.

Originally posted by h1a8
You need to tell Silent this. He thinks that the lack of collateral damage disproves the feat when there is other evidence to support the feat being impressive.
"Thor's punch shattered the windows of the nearby skyscrapers, the punch that knocked out Supes didn't, those are the facts, deal with it."

As xJLxKing said, yes and no.

When Wolverine punches craters in the ground, it's clearly a nice strength feat, even though having him one-shotting someone like Crossbones is obviously better, being an actual combat feat.

It depends. Molecule Man packs a helluva power, yet he barely did any damage to Owen's apartment, as seen in Galan's scan. Same with DBZ characters, who at the end of the series should easily nuke entire planets if not more, yet they keep fighting on Earth.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Well no....but that's where we can start to debate.

It's kind of like the flak that the environment would take from an indrrect missile assault. Just because the art department isn't up to the task doesn't mean that it wouldn't happen under realistic conditions.

If I can blast with a force capable of moving several thousand tons, I don't expect anything incapable of weathering said force within the affected area to do any better than the terrain that's being displaced by said blast.

There are exceptions to this rule of course, but in those cases PIS is usually involved, followed by Character X commenting on being hit with the force of a large comet, while standing in a small apartment that suffers no damage. Is it laziness on their part? The editorial department? Lack of foresight? Not sure it matters because comics are comics.

IMO, each collateral damage scene should be judged separately to show how much might/power is being used in any given scene.

collateral damage=space cheese<<direct relative showings.

Originally posted by StiltmanFTW


It depends. Molecule Man packs a helluva power, yet he barely did any damage to Owen's apartment, as seen in Galan's scan. Same with DBZ characters, who at the end of the series should easily nuke entire planets if not more, yet they keep fighting on Earth.


This example is also using wildly powerful individuals who have such esoteric abilities. They r capable of so much more than your standard blast energy.
A standard nuke or physical attack hold more weight.

Does Cho Hulk's blow to the moon fall under this discussion?

Originally posted by panthergod
collateral damage=space cheese<<direct relative showings.

There are times that you're analogy is correct, while incorrect in others. This is why each destruction feat must be judged separately. Certain writers and artists want to show how much power is being displayed. It isn't just black or white. Unless PIS is involved.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Not really no. DIRECT damage is, however.

What is direct damage, and how does it differ from collateral? By definition, collateral is a side effect of the action.

Example. Hulk punches a forcefield that can withstand the force of 1000 atomic bombs.

Direct damage: he shatters it.
Collateral: Jarvis was standing next to it, and wasn't even ruffled.

If you have direct but no collateral, then the lack of collateral takes nothing away from it.

But if you can't even get direct damage (the forcefield was intact), then it's a non feat.


This right here sounds pretty legit to me. Simple, and without insane mental acrobatics.

Originally posted by TheHulkster
Does Cho Hulk's blow to the moon fall under this discussion?

The big bang punch? I don't know. He obviously didn't hit that hard but the narrative states it was so..

Another one would be when Galactus punched OKT with a million supernovas or whatever it was through the planet. But that one completely destroyed the moon after punching him through the earth

Originally posted by ShadowFyre
This right here sounds pretty legit to me. Simple, and without insane mental acrobatics.

But then there are times that Jarvis would be killed by the aftershock. It's simple, each scene should be judged separately, and based mostly on narration.

Much like PTSD such damage is not visible.

Originally posted by TheHulkster
Does Cho Hulk's blow to the moon fall under this discussion?

Depends what you class as the 'direct' and what is the 'collateral' damage.

Option 1
Registering the hit is the direct, and the Moon is collateral.

Option 2
The moon is direct, and the universe is collateral damage.

In option 1, it's a legit feat. Under 2, it's not really a feat. If legit, then:

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Beat me to it. I was just making this thread up in my head as well...

I would class them as:

1 Feats not depending on art - taken as gospel. Nobody here questions that Superman can fly, for example.

2. Feats depending on art - Drax's anti-Thanos aura, some depictions of speed fighting, and bullet-timing.

3. In-character narration. By this I mean, if Reed or Pym says that he's tested Cyclops' eye blasts, and they contain the equivalent of 1 million Newtons, we believe him. I won't believe Johnny Storm if he said this.

4. Comic Narration. This one is a bit iffy, particularly when we start looking at the Silver Age or pre-crisis comics.

5. Character narration. Spiderman telling the story of the Sentry stalemating Galactus.

I'd class it as a tier 3 feat, under my arbitrary classification. Panther and Blue Marvel are two of the top minds in Marvel, and their tech is stellar. I'm inclined to believe them, and so whilst it's not as impressive as, you know, actually shattering the Moon, it's still impressive.

Collateral damage is used as a bonus, as a positive feat for an xter, it however can't be used as a negative feat when there is no collateral.