Rule Amendments & Clarifications Discussion

Originally posted by Raoul
if he's forced in to using it as his only option, a last resort if you will, then yes he would, otherwise no.

This is basically my issue right here. I agree Thor wouldn't start out using the God Blast but he would if he realized it was the only way.

Since these fights are not just random brawls but are presumed to be for all the marbles, everything is at stake, every character would use everything they could to win. They might not kill unless there was no other way. Some of them might not kill, period. But within character, knowing the stakes, they'd use everything they've got. Whether its Superman or Wonder Woman or the Flash, they would use use every ounce of speed they've got. Now, the super strong characters might not punch as hard as they could at first. I'll definitely say that.

But it seems to me that some of our biggest arguments in threads isn't necessarily a matter of wanting people to fight out of character. Its more when people want to discount one character's high end feats and its usually pretty clear they prefer to believe that character would lose.

"this isn't about making everyone uber, its about making sure that people stop underselling characters, which happens just as much if not moreso than people bumping their favourite characters."

That's pretty much my point. Thank you.

Originally posted by Original Smurph
I don't really care because I rarely post here anymore, but if I were to offer my two cents...

This is a horrible set of rules.

All that it does is encourage people to argue power sets instead of characters. It takes the emphasis off of how a character is likely to fight, and puts the emphasis on the most ZOMG feats that are ages old and/or never repeated.

I realize that the inclusion of CIS should help define how characters fight, but it's far too vague.

The majority of problems that people have with trolls stems from the fact that they argue powersets over characters.

It's a step in the wrong direction.

Originally posted by SupremeMan
This is basically my issue right here. I agree Thor wouldn't start out using the God Blast but he would if he realized it was the only way.

Originally posted by Draco69
Superman would have a general idea that Juggernaut is really strong, really invulnerable and apt causing public destruction.

He wouldn't know the full extent of his powers, i.e. his mystical connection to a higher power or the true extent of his durability.

Originally posted by Draco69
Enemies try to pick up Thor's hammer even with the knowledge that it can only be picked up by someone 'worthy' because they either don't believe it or they're misinformed about the hammer's abilities.

If you saw Thor's hammer lying around, wouldn't you try to lift it?

It's similar to Diana's lasso. Many people may know about it but they don't necessarily believe in it. "Truth" and "worthy" are so subjective.

Originally posted by Draco69
And I think foes underestimate Sue time and again due to sexism and the less 'pizzaz' of her usual role in the Fantastic Four. She's doesn't stand out like the Human Torch or the Thing who are continually the front line attackers. Sue is almost always first and foremost defense.

Originally posted by Badabing
Didn't I state there was a separate thread for this discussion? By your implication that makes any hero who killed in the same ilk as Black Adam, Joker, etc. Lord was using his position and powers to manipulate Superman to carry assaults on Bats and WW. That isn't even close to being a stone cold killer. Yes, WW's rep did suffer but she's still in the JLA and portrayed a hero. And by your definition cops, Cap, Superman, are all killers since they've have killed. WW wouldn't kill anyone of the FF unless there were circumstances. Sue wouldn't kill with a force bubble, let alone another hero. So nether side kills heroes. Any more comments about perceived personalities, characterizations, etc can be made in the thread that's open for this discussion.

What that tells me, is that a first-time randomly encountered foe in the DC Universe would not be confident that Batman wouldn't kill. If they knew Batman wouldn't kill, you could argue that they'd be looser and take more chances in a fight. Or vice-versa, if they thought Batman could kill, you could argue that they'd be more serious from the outset and apply their powers/abilities/skills to the max.

Does that make sense in terms of first-time randomy encountered DC foes? If so, why should a first-time randomly encountered foe like Captain America be conifdent that Batman wouldn't kill? Why wouldn't Cap have the same doubts as to how psychotic Batman could be or whether he had crossed the line? If your interpretation of the rule undoes what would normally occur for a DC character, I believe that is faulty. And the way the current construction of the common knowledge rule does not go down that road. It's perfect as it is for simulating a first-time random encounter as they normally happen in comics. There's the chance for misunderstanding, for under/overestimation, for aces up the sleeve... much in the same way normal comic book fights occur. I find that more interesting.

And this isn't a restrictive interpretation either. Because a thread-starter could simply open with a stipulation like bloodlust or that Character A and Character B know each other historically.

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
That might be your opinion, but the way the rule is constructed strains this interpretation because the common knowledge rule depends in large part, on the general population's knowledge of the character. We all know and nearly all DC heroes know that Batman doesn't kill. Even some DC villains know that. But the general population of DC Earth is scared sh1tless of him and considers him to be a psycho. How many times are people willing to believe that Batman is guilty of murder when he's accused? How many times does Batman scare someone into thinking he would actually kill them if they don't give up information when he plays bad cop?

What that tells me, is that a first-time randomly encountered foe in the DC Universe would not be confident that Batman wouldn't kill. If they knew Batman wouldn't kill, you could argue that they'd be looser and take more chances in a fight. Or vice-versa, if they thought Batman could kill, you could argue that they'd be more serious from the outset and apply their powers/abilities/skills to the max.

Does that make sense in terms of first-time randomy encountered DC foes? If so, why should a first-time randomly encountered foe like Captain America be conifdent that Batman wouldn't kill? Why wouldn't Cap have the same doubts as to how psychotic Batman could be or whether he had crossed the line? If your interpretation of the rule undoes what would normally occur for a DC character, I believe that is faulty. And the way the current construction of the common knowledge rule does not go down that road. It's perfect as it is for simulating a first-time random encounter as they normally happen in comics. There's the chance for misunderstanding, for under/overestimation, for aces up the sleeve... much in the same way normal comic book fights occur. I find that more interesting.

And this isn't a restrictive interpretation either. Because a thread-starter could simply open with a stipulation like bloodlust or that Character A and Character B know each other historically.

batman is an exception, he's not the rule. look at superman. nobody would ever believe he'd kill, and yet he has.

diana is loved by a large amont of the populace. sue might know that diana had killed lord, but she'd get conflicting information that diana is seen as a hero to many, especially women, for all the good she'd done. they'd know she's part of the justice league. also, pretty much every gossip magazine in dc believes superman is dating wonder woman. by extension, people know superman wouldn't be with someone evil. sue is a hero, and would want to find out for herself if diana is truly a killer.

wait, what am i doing in this thread... 🤨

Originally posted by Raoul
batman is an exception, he's not the rule. look at superman. nobody would ever believe he'd kill, and yet he has.

diana is loved by a large amont of the populace. sue might know that diana had killed lord, but she'd get conflicting information that diana is seen as a hero to many, especially women, for all the good she'd done. they'd know she's part of the justice league. also, pretty much every gossip magazine in dc believes superman is dating wonder woman. by extension, people know superman wouldn't be with someone evil. sue is a hero, and would want to find out for herself if diana is truly a killer.

wait, what am i doing in this thread... 🤨

Providing a breath of logic. And basic info is ambiguous for non-earth characters. How do we gauge what basic knowledge is for someone like Silver Surfer, or the Watcher? Or Darkseid or Green Lantern? Or Shadow King or Henshaw, etc?

If we're using earth population knowledge, then there are huge numbers of unknowns. And even if we use alien civilizations, there is gaps in the knowledge.

if it is people like that, then, i'd assume we'd have a basic format. name, powerset, tier, and whether they're a hero or villain.

edit: when i say powerset, i mean in the vaguest terms possible.

like, if superman was fighting norrin, superman would know: norrin has the power cosmic which gives him a vast array of abilities. he wouldn't know what they are, but he'd know that norrin is somewhat powerful. he'd know norrin can fly.

when its people who don't spend a lot of their time in front of the public, i think its best to assume that their opponent knows what would be known if that person was in fact a public figure...

^ When Thor first met Surfer, neither of the characters knew what the hell was going on with each other. Hell, current Nova still doesn't understand current Surfer's scope of power until he gets speedblitzed by him, lectured by Worldmind and witnesses his feats. So now Superman is more informed and gets more knowledge than both situations? If the rules are meant to be this way, than draft the common knowledge rule clearly: "Even though intercompany characters have never met each other, consider them to be better informed than a first-time encounter would allow. In fact, consider them to be better informed than a character whose recent career involves being surrounded by the other character's supporting cast."

This may seem like a facetious characterization, but it's not. That's EXACTLY the result where this type of reasoning is headed. Superman would use all-out speedblitz on Silver Surfer at opening of battle because he knows how powerful he is. Did current Nova use the full Nova-force against Surfer at openign of battle? Or did he open with a half-decent shot to see how it would work and then get spanked? And even after getting spanked and lectured by Worldmind, Rider still was left gawking at Surfer's later feats. Current Nova had access to the Worldmind. He had just spent an entire event immersing himself in Silver Surfer's gallery. He didn't open with the full Nova-force in his encounter with Surfer. And now, Superman, whose never encountered Surfer... hasn't immersed himself in Surfer's gallery knows that he has to go all-out speedblitz at the start? Inane result. This applies exactly in the reverse too.

And what's most revealing to me is that this is ONLY argued for in intercompany battles. Were someone to make a current Silver Surfer vs Sentry thread or a current Starman vs Sinestro thread or an Iron Fist vs Daken thread or Cassie vs Azrael thread, I doubt any of this nonsense would be debated like this. The characters don't know each other and never met. But it's cool to think of what would happen if they did. And that's why we talk about it and why a majority of these threads are made in the first place. But apparently such discussion has to be boiled down to: (i) assume they fight their very best, IN SPITE of what their personality, history and career would suggest; and (ii) assume that characters know each other better in intercompany battles. Inane result.

Ok, maybe i wasn't as clear as i should have beem

Originally posted by OneDumbG0
^ When Thor first met Surfer, neither of the characters knew what the hell was going on with each other. Hell, current Nova still doesn't understand current Surfer's scope of power until he gets speedblitzed by him, lectured by Worldmind and witnesses his feats. So now Superman is more informed and gets more knowledge than both situations? If the rules are meant to be this way, than draft the common knowledge rule clearly: "Even though intercompany characters have never met each other, consider them to be better informed than a first-time encounter would allow. In fact, consider them to be better informed than a character whose recent career involves being surrounded by the other character's supporting cast."

my explanation was that at the very most, characters had that much information. no more than that, but up to and including that, based on who it is. Thor would know more about hulk than superman would, but captain marvel would know more about black adam than beta ray bill would.

This may seem like a facetious characterization, but it's not. That's EXACTLY the result where this type of reasoning is headed. Superman would use all-out speedblitz on Silver Surfer at opening of battle because he knows how powerful he is.

nothing i said should give that impression.

And what's most revealing to me is that this is ONLY argued for in intercompany battles. Were someone to make a current Silver Surfer vs Sentry thread or a current Starman vs Sinestro thread or an Iron Fist vs Daken thread or Cassie vs Azrael thread, I doubt any of this nonsense would be debated like this. The characters don't know each other and never met. But it's cool to think of what would happen if they did. And that's why we talk about it and why a majority of these threads are made in the first place. But apparently such discussion has to be boiled down to: (i) assume they fight their very best, IN SPITE of what their personality, history and career would suggest; and (ii) assume that characters know each other better in intercompany battles. Inane result.

Dude, did you even read what we wrote? Seriously? The whole point of these rules is that a character can fight at their best, as long as it DOESN'T contradict their established character, unless stated in the OP. The whole point of these clarifications is to eliminate the lowest of showings and stop people trying to use the armbars and the gas stations of the world as evidence in debates.

I seriously don't know how you got the impression you did from what i wrote...

Not only that,but Cassie did meet Azrael.

Thus his entire post is void.

Originally posted by Martian_mind
Not only that,but Cassie did meet Azrael.

Thus his entire post is void.

😂

I kinda like the rules and see what you guys are trying to do but I really kinda don't like them as well. All this is going to turn into is... well it's life or death and thus said character is going to use an attack right from the start that they rarely ever use and their opponent is going to do the same. So, it's my best least used attack first basically all the time when really that contradicts their usual tactics. You say well they have to fight in character but then say it's a forum battle and it's basically life or death. So, then really in every fight all characters do their best attack regardless being that it's life or death and that to me is kinda pointless. As i said I like the idea of what your trying to do and understand that. I just think it opens the door to all the threads starting out with uber attacks right away that are rarely used and that doesn't make for much fun debating. I thought the fights were supposed to be about how a fight would go between characters basing it on what we've seen in comics. We don't see Thor God blasting right from the start.. just like we don't see SS opening a black hole right from the start yet those are the first attacks under these new rules that everybody would say. So, who wins... a God blast right away or a blackhole/plant busting blast from SS... Hard to argue that kinda situation

Originally posted by fangirl101
The only people who won't like this, are the people who are trolls.

Screw these rules!

So, again we really wants the vs. forum to turn into your best little used attack right away against somebody else best? That doesn't seem like it would make for the best no a logical debate.

Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
So, again we really wants the vs. forum to turn into your best little used attack right away against somebody else best? That doesn't seem like it would make for the best no a logical debate.

Originally posted by Raoul
Ok, maybe i wasn't as clear as i should have beem

my explanation was that at the very most, characters had that much information. no more than that, but up to and including that, based on who it is. Thor would know more about hulk than superman would, but captain marvel would know more about black adam than beta ray bill would.

nothing i said should give that impression.

Dude, did you even read what we wrote? Seriously? The whole point of these rules is that a character can fight at their best, as long as it DOESN'T contradict their established character, unless stated in the OP. The whole point of these clarifications is to eliminate the lowest of showings and stop people trying to use the armbars and the gas stations of the world as evidence in debates.

I seriously don't know how you got the impression you did from what i wrote...

Turn it around. In my estimation, even with this artificial common knowledge rule, Superman would not even have anywhere close to this info+. Therefore, he has a much more inferior ability to gauge how much power he needs to fight with. As such, since Clark's personality directs him to always hold back unless absolutely necessary and since he holds a high regard for life, it is my view that Superman would give him a good punch at the start, maybe use some speed. But he wouldn't outright speedblitz him like he did to Amazo or Wonderwoman (in Sacrifice). Does this sound familiar? Indeed, Superman has never overestimated an opponent's power and accidentally punched someone too hard right at the start. He tests them out, sees how much it would take and that's much to his own detriment. But he does so because he's scared of crippling/killing someone. He can take the pain, therefore he'll take the chances. That's Superman. In much the same way, Thor, Surfer, Wonderwoman, Captain Marvel, they all do the same thing. It's the Mangogs, Doomsdays, Black Adams, Morgs who don't share this trait.

If that makes sense, then why is it that in so many recent threads across the board, are Mods encouraging posters to think in such a way that Superman, without even current Nova's level of info+, would go all out with a speed-blitz to start a fight against Surfer? He wouldn't do that against a relatively unknown foe in his own comics. So what are we inserting into the equation that is foreign and distorting our simulations of comic fights?

For me, the answer is obvious. We are inserting self-serving logic when it suits us. That in itself, can't be blamed. We're human. If it was consistent across the board, it'd be fine. But there's a glaring problem. The results are inconsistent, between intracompany and intercompany vs. battles. Example: Iron Fist vs. Daken. Daken is good enough to beat Wolverine and such an opponent cannot be taken lightly. His speed, skills and claws can kill you instantly by inflicting certain wounds. Would any of you really argue that Iron Fist, because of a common knowledge rule, would actually bust out some train-stopping punch the first chance he gets in order to make sure he doesn't get mortally wounded? I hope not. Because that would be stupid.

Iron Fist never met him. He's met plenty of people around him. He's probably heard rumors. But he is not well-informed enough about Daken's lethality that he'd completely preempt his lethality upon meeting him the first time. Iron Fist isn't even that vicious or coldly-calculating to begin with. Make sense? Ask yourself this: "Why does this concept make more sense to you personally, when it's intracompany battles as opposed to intercompany battles?" Because Wonderwoman speedblitzing the sh1t out of Invisible Woman in the first picosecond when fighting the entire Fantastic Four, makes as much sense as the Iron Fist vs Daken scenario.

Originally posted by Martian_mind
Not only that,but Cassie did meet Azrael.

Thus his entire post is void.

KuRuPT Thanosi said:

I kinda like the rules and see what you guys are trying to do but I really kinda don't like them as well. All this is going to turn into is... well it's life or death and thus said character is going to use an attack right from the start that they rarely ever use and their opponent is going to do the same. So, it's my best least used attack first basically all the time when really that contradicts their usual tactics. You say well they have to fight in character but then say it's a forum battle and it's basically life or death. So, then really in every fight all characters do their best attack regardless being that it's life or death and that to me is kinda pointless. As i said I like the idea of what your trying to do and understand that. I just think it opens the door to all the threads starting out with uber attacks right away that are rarely used and that doesn't make for much fun debating. I thought the fights were supposed to be about how a fight would go between characters basing it on what we've seen in comics. We don't see Thor God blasting right from the start.. just like we don't see SS opening a black hole right from the start yet those are the first attacks under these new rules that everybody would say. So, who wins... a God blast right away or a blackhole/plant busting blast from SS... Hard to argue that kinda situation

OneDumbGo said:

For me, the answer is obvious. We are inserting self-serving logic when it suits us. That in itself, can't be blamed. We're human. If it was consistent across the board, it'd be fine. But there's a glaring problem. The results are inconsistent, between intracompany and intercompany vs. battles.

I kind of agree with both of you guys. To some degree, everybody does this. As you said, OneDumbGo, its human nature. One cannot possibly be 100% unbiased. I would not even necessarily say its only when its inter-company fights either though that may be the majority.

I started running scenarios in my mind and I saw the problem.

Wonder Woman versus the Invisible Woman Come on, we all know that's a hot one right now.

Wonder Woman: "Okay, I know she can turn invisible. She can create force fields and move things with some sort of force power."

[I know you want to debate that but just work with me here].

Invisible Woman: "Okay I know she's super strong, super durable and really fast. She has a lasso and I'm told she has a tiara she can throw and some bracelets she blocks with."

[ I picture it as if the opponents are given cards listing each others basic abilities but not the levels or the nuances].

Now here's what happens in character.

Wonder Woman: "I don't know how powerful those force fields are. How much can they take? How much can she take if I hit her before the fields are up? I can hit her with everything I've got before she can react but what if it kills her? She's not a monster, not even a human monster. I can't kill her. I can't hit her with more than what I'm sure a normal human could survive until I test out how tough she is. Even though I can rocket in and get in the first hit, it has to be something I'm sure a normal human could take. I'll go for the lasso or a strike that would stun a tough human."

Invisible Woman: I know she's super strong but how strong? My first action has to be to get the force field on. But what about attacking? How durable is she? Superhuman but by how much and in what ways? Force bubble in the brain. No way. I am not killing a human being or damaging her brain. I'm just going to hope I can get the field up fast enough and that it can take her shots long enough that I can encase her in multiple field layers and win by immobilizing her or suffocating her but only just enough that she's out or slam her around with my force power building up the impacts as I see how much she can take."

The problem as I see it is that most people don't try to think it out. Most people on both sides are more like:

"Okay I hate Wonder Woman. How can I justify her losing? Oh who needs justification? She loses because I say so. I'll come up with something."

"Okay I love Wonder Woman. She hits hard enough to take out IW without killing her. She knows exactly how hard to hit with no testing because I say so."

"Okay so basically you are ignoring WW's powers and invoking story considerations so she'll lose."

"Okay so basically you are throwing character out the window to make sure she wins."

I'm just saying I don't think we can have a perfect world here. Being more character based is all well and good but with so many people just basing their opinions on preference and knee-jerk reaction, I don't see that it makes much difference.

^ Except the inflation of knowledge bases and the stripping of personalities are only affecting how intercompany people fight. That's the problem. We don't artificially inflate Iron Fist's knowledge or turn him into cold, calculating killer when we throw him up against Daken. Why would we inflate Wonderwoman's knowledge and turn her into a cold, calculating killer when we throw her up against Invisible Woman?

Most people have no problems with personalities and limited knowledge bases when it's intracompany. Not many Marvel characters know Daredevil is actually blind and heavily relies on radar sense? Not many DC characters know that Deathstroke can lose his temper and forego his calculative abilities if you piss him off enough? But as soon as you start crossing companies, all that characterization and knowledge deficiency needs to be thrown out the door. That's self-serving.

There are a few people who always apply lack of knowledge and personalities in fights. There are a few people who never apply lack of knowledge or personalities in fights. That's fine. It's when the vast majority only applies lack of knowledge and personalities in intracompany fights, yet refuse to apply lack of knowledge and personalities in intercompany fights. That's not how it should work, but there is a new focus on trying to make it work this way without seeing that clear flaw.

It seems that there are posters who don't understand the rules or try to twist the rules in order to make things easier for the character they're debating for or against. Raoul and I have made every attempt to clarify things but there's a core of posters who still disregard rules and our posts. So let's just clear things up so the bias and trolling can be averted. I'll be using Superman and Silver Surfer as examples.

Concerning the Battlefield
Unless otherwise stated by the thread originator, the standard distance between combatants will be .5 kilometers in line of sight at the onset of battle, and there will be an implied "buzz" to signify the onset of battle. It will be assumed combatants are primed to go at the gun.

Also, all characters, regardless of where the fight takes place, or what universe/medium they are native to, will have full access to their abilities at optimum efficiency as they are depicted in their native universes. It will be assumed that each character fights as they are normally presented regardless of battle locale. This means that, for example, Flash will in fact have SpeedForce abilities if the battle took place in Marvel Manhattan. Battles will always take place on an assumed equal playing field.

If nothing is stated for location, then the battlefield is an arena setting in a neutral universe.

PIS
Plot Induced Stupidity, or PIS, is when characters don't use their abilities or skills to the fullest extent as shown before, even within their personality ranges, for the sake of the story plotline. It makes lesser powered characters an actual challenge against higher powered characters in the comics. Examples of PIS include Flash stories lasting longer than three panels, or Toy Man as a threat to Superman.

Superman and Silver Surfer usually think of the safety of civilians and buildings first. Rarely do we see them go full on at the get go, due to their concerns. It's even been stated in comics. The VS Forum is an entirely different set up. No people, no buildings and the characters get general knowledge of their opponents. Superman and Silver Surfer wouldn't start a match with their strongest attack against Cyclops or Batman because they would kill them instantly. But it's plausible that they would go all out against each other since they have common knowledge and know it probably wouldn't result in an "insta-kill".

What I've explained isn't CIS......

CIS
Character Induced Stupidity, or CIS, on the other hand, refers to any natural mental limitations that characters impose upon themselves and reduce their ability to use their own skills and powers effectively. Unlike PIS, CIS does not occur because the plot requires it, but because the character is genuinely that dumb. Examples of the CIS-afflicted include characters such as Rhino or Jar Jar Binks. Events of CIS are not exempt from debates.

.....It's a self imposed limitation in certain circumstances which there is concern for civilians and buildings for the most part. It's not stupidity, it's a limitation set until the threat exceeds a certain threshold.

To be clear, characters like Superman, Silver Surfer, Wonder Woman, Sentry, Captain Marvel (DC), Thor, etc. can and will use all their attributes when the situation allows or is needed. This is still within their personalities since we've seen instances several times. This doesn't mean it's strictly power sets. The feats have to be supported by comic showings.

Originally posted by Mekrob
I mean, these are pretty easy rules to understand.

Apparently not.

The modifications are easy to follow and basically clarify the settings and rules for the Vs Forum. Raoul will be posting the enhanced rules sometime this weekend or earlier. We're not using power sets like some suggested. We're simply making the rules very clear.

I've re-posted the OP to highlight things about battle settings, personalities and self imposed limitations. Added guidelines for personalities will also be covered. Many GL's have killed but that does not mean a GL would try to kill Silver Surfer or Thor. Wonder Women has killed, but that does not mean she'd kill Invisible Woman and in turn Sue would be open to killing Diana. In fact, there aren't many characters who would kill in the Vs Forum setting. The thread starter still has the option to set their own battle stipulations.

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.

It has been argued that the populace wouldn't know some character's powers. That may be true, but for the sake of keeping things simple, both sides know each other's powers.

It's debatable that basic knowledge would include Superman's "weakness" to red sun radiation. I'm leaning towards "no" on that being known. The same way I'd say "no" to Storm's claustrophobia being basic knowledge. That's just my opinion and it's not set in stone.