So how much more durable are you claiming his new armor is. 5%, 50%, 100%, 1000%, 10000%?
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
I have no idea exactly how much more durable it is. But one got damaged being knocked around by a large turbine while the other one took a city level explosion. It's safe to say that the one is significantly more durable than the other. And this is Tony from AoU. So again, how about instead of trying to deflect things back on me, you actually back up your own claims with feats. So how about you provide a feat of Thor one-shotting someone who can tank a city sized explosion (Tony in his AoU armour, the one most relevant to this thread), and do so in a shorter span of time than their fight in Avengers lasted, or concede the point. If you do not actually provide said feat, and continue with your deflections, I will take it as a concession and that you're trolling. So your choice.
Oh, and it is not allowed to be a charged strike either, considering you said a regular full strength one would be enough.
__________________ Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
Last edited by TheVaultDweller on Nov 26th, 2015 at 04:14 PM
So you're basically arguing that Thor can't damage the armor, if that is going to be your stance then what is the point of continuing?
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
Just want to say that tanking an explosion would be somewhat different from tanking the turbine blades. An explosion is a single blast whereas the turbine blades were continuously hitting Tony.
Exactly, given their size they had to weigh at least several tons and were moving very fast, so considering how long he was trapped in the turbine. It's safe to say he was hit a lot. And those were direct hits vs just getting hit with the shockwave of an explosion.
__________________ posted by Badabing
I don't know why some of you are going on about being right and winning. Rob and Impediment were in on this gag because I PMed them. Silent and Rao PMed me and figured I changed the post. I highly doubt anybody thought Quan made the post, but simply played along just for the lulz.
More deflection tactics eh? Exactly where did I say that Thor can not damage the armour? Please quote me saying so. In fact, I have said on MULTIPLE occasions that Thor would eventually beat Tony. My stance is that, based on the level of durability Tony's armour displayed in AoU, the armour he is wearing for this match, Thor couldn't quickly one-shot him, especially if Tony is actively fighting back and using all his capabilities.
All you have done is dance around the topic, try to deflect, avoid backing your claims, and try to accuse me of taking a stance I did not. So concession accepted.
__________________ Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
The city explosion was still a lot better IMO. He wasn't even in the turbines for a full 10 seconds, and he was actually under them, so they were clipping him and knocking him around as opposed to hitting him full on. In comparison, he cut a hole in that metal foundation under the city and had his chest piece pressed right up to it, directly exposed to the core on the inside, as it detonated. And then he was tossed like a ragdoll and still hit with large pieces of rock and debris. Yet he regained control within seconds and zipped off. After he came out of the turbine his armour was screaming warning signals.
__________________ Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
I would like to point out that Tony was using the Vibranium Core to create a heat shield so the attack would reflect back in on itself. So we are not sure exactly how much of the blast Tony actually took from Thor's attack.
Basically I wouldn't use that feat as a pure indicator of Tony's upgraded armor's durability.
Tony didn't get hit by Thor's attack. Thor targeted the core itself. The whole point of Tony's actions was to amplify the effect of Thor's strike against the core itself. As Friday mentioned, alone it would crack the core, but would not be enough damage to stop the impact. So Tony did what he did to make the whole thing go critical, despite Friday saying it could "vaporise the whole city and everything on it". And we literally see the bottom of the whole thing blow out, just like the rest of the city, when the core blows. He didn't tank Thor's attack. He and Thor both took the after effects of their combined attack on the vibranium core i.e. it going critical and blasting that whole thing to bits with both of them on either sides of ground zero.
__________________ Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
He didn't amplify Thor's attack. He is literally creating a heat shield using the vibranium core so the attack would reflect back on itself. This is how it was described.
Tony did not combine his attack with Thor's. He did not survive Thor's attack. He did not survive a city explosion. Or to state better. We do not know how much of the attack of the city destruction Tony took. He took a blast but how much of it had been reflected is unknown.
You can not logically say Tony took the entirety of that attack when his whole plan was to use the vibranium core to create a shield that bounces the attack back. Thus you can not know for certain what level of power Tony endured. Thus trying to use that feat to say Tony has city busting durability is incorrect. It didn't show he could take it.
Yes, he capped off the one end so that the atomic energy inside would double back on itself, resulting in a blast that would, according to Friday, potentially "vaporise the city and everything on it". Because Thor's hit alone would not have been enough to do significant damage to the core. And he knew both he and Thor would actually be at very real risk, as he comments to Thor that if it actually works, neither of them might actually make it out alive. Then we literally see him right under the city as the whole thing blows up. We see enough energy released to blow that entire thing to bits, including blowing the bottom out, where Tony is. You say Tony didn't survive an explosion that destroyed a city, yet we see him right there when it happens. Of course he didn't take all the energy of the blast himself. The blast went in all directions once the core blew out. But the damage it caused to that entire chunk of rock was blatantly clear.
And they literally did combine efforts. We see Tony unleashing with his chest reactor right before he tells Thor to hit the core at the top. We can clearly see a massive amount of energy, heat and rubble released by the blast, in all directions, despite the heat cap. We also see him get hit by the blast wave and tossed like a ragdoll. Based on what I saw, he clearly took a huge blast quite directly, and was then still caught in the other rubble as he was tumbling through the air a bit. Whether the heat cap did anything or not, it is still the biggest direct hit we have seem him take in any film and just basically have him shrug it off. We just have to look at what happens to the whole rock, as well as the area Tony had been positioned, to see the damage caused.
But of course, this all hedges on whether someone believes Thor's attack was responsible for all the damage (I know some used this feat to try and call Thor a city buster), or whether they believe it was the unstable vibranium core blowing up that vaporised the rock. I believe it to be the latter, triggered by the former's attack being bounced back on itself. And if we disagree there, this conversation is probably not going to go anywhere.
But anyway...
There is enough evidence there to suggest to me that his new armour is tougher than the armour he wore in Avengers. Even without the explosion, based on the fact that we have seen a steady progression of armours throughout his career, and we know he has made several other advances, it stands to reason it would have been enhanced in terms of durability too. And then we also have the fight between Tony and Ultron, where Ultron could barely manage to scratch the paint on Tony's armour. Other than the Hulk, we don't see anything really do much notable damage to any of his AoU armours.
So the point was that there is enough evidence, I feel, in AoU to suggest that Tony's suit has been enhanced from Avengers, in terms of durability. So trying to use just their semi-serious fight from Avengers as evidence of Thor one-shotting Tony under different conditions, in a newer armour, doesn't really work. As I have pointed out, Tony would still lose because his suit can't take Thor's blows forever, and I don't see anything in Tony's standard gear bugging Thor for long. But if he utilises his flight speed, agility, all his intelligence, and all his weaponry, he could frustrate Thor and drag the fight out a bit, before Thor finally puts him down.
__________________ Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
It is a fair statement to say that Tony's armor is probably more durable than Avengers 1 maybe. That is not the same statement as his armor can now tank city destroying blasts though which is what you stated. He took a good sized blast but once again we don't know exactly the force of the impact.
You're also not fully accurate in your statement. All Tony did and as stated by Friday was creating a heat shield for Thor's attack to reflect on. Otherwise Thor's attack as stated by Friday would have only cracked through the island but the pieces would have still been too big.
There is no mention of him ever saying he is combining his attack with Thor's to generate more power. once again all that is ever mentioned is that Tony is creating a heat for Thor's attack to bounce back in on itself so the island gets vaporized instead of it remaining in multiple deadly large pieces.
Also another mistake on your part is the Vibranium core was not vaporized with the blast as you clearly see it fall into water afterwards.
Once again Tony created a heat shield using the vibranium core for Thor's attack unto itself.
So how much of the blast force did Tony take? Considering he had a vibranium core and heat shield between him and it? The answer is unknown. Obviously he took some of the blast and it was powerful. The stretch and illogical conclusion you are jumping to is that his armor can now take city destroying blasts. You can not prove it based on this feat.
If all Tony said he was doing was combing his power with Thor's to create the explosion necessary I would say you had a better case. As it stands that is not what he did.
I never said it did vaporise the core. I said Friday said it could potentially vaporise the whole thing, which she did say.
See, the way it sounded to me in that scene was like they were referring to the core itself. And I didn't actually say it created more power. I mean amped in the sense that the actual effect of the attack would be magnified, which bouncing it back on itself would do. So the attack's effect was magnified via Tony's actions, or amped up. And we see Tony do just that with his arc reactor. So they worked in tandem to achieve the feat.
But as I said, if you believe the explosion was all Thor then we are just going to go in circles here, because I believe it was a case of Thor's hit and Tony bouncing it back onto itself causing the core to go unstable and detonate. And if watching the movie 3 times hasn't changed my mind, no one here will.
Maybe my wording was maybe a bit off in the beginning, but I actually meant he tanked being on ground zero of an explosion great enough to destroy a city (I specifically stated he tanked being by an explosion that destroyed an actual city, multiple times, not that he took a city buster directly). It is clearly obvious that he didn't take all the energy. The energy wasn't focused enough. But the energy released was massive.
Point is that up until this point, his armour has not withstood any blast close to what we see in the end there (nor handled it anywhere near as well). Hell, the blast hit Thor hard enough that he landed in the ocean before he could even start to recover. So clearly it packed a wallop.
Everything I saw in AoU told me that Tony's armour is significantly improved over his his Avengers 1 armour. From the explosion, to his fight with Ultron etc. Which is why I don't feel their semi-serious fight in Avengers is a good indication as proof for the claim Silent Master originally made.
But yeah, we disagree on a fundamental element of the explosion (how much of it did Thor cause), so this is not going to go anywhere. Might as well agree to disagree, or we could be stuck in circular arguments for the next 10 pages.
__________________ Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
Last edited by TheVaultDweller on Dec 2nd, 2015 at 04:03 PM
I've only come up with one potential scenario where another Avenger has a realistic chance of taking him out if he is at full power. And that involves not directly fighting him at all really. Best option is to pull like 50 Jericho missiles out of Stark's storage, find a remote location, try and lure him there and tie him up in a fight long enough to launch all 50 of those at the spot at once (maybe attack him with the entire Iron Legion and all other Tony's suits remotely. It won't beat him, but it will keep him busy for a bit).
I have a feeling 50 of these at once will ruin even Thor's day, assuming they actually end up finding their mark:
But anyway, those kinds of stips aren't in this OP, so kind of a moot point.
As others have stated, Thor tips all these matches in his team's favour.
__________________ Never take life seriously. Nobody gets out alive anyway.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 26th, 2015 03:23 PM
