• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

A 5-B fights an almost haxless 8-C

The point is: Metal Man has no effective means to kill Gibril, while Gibril just touches and Metal Man is dead.

Stomp in favour for Gibril and someone should close this.
 
A stomp isn't for "No effective means", it's for "No means". Metal Man could punch and kill Gibril, but Gibril would hax that attack before it happens. Since this is conscious and not passive, it's not a stomp.
 
Agnaa, I highly disagree.

And the whole thread abouzt stomps we just had also seems to do so.


If you need to punch the enemy to win, but the enemy kills you before you can in any way lay hand on them, it's not quiet fair. If you physically can't achieve your win-con before dying, it's not a win-con.
 
Then a bunch of decisive wins are now stomps. Has that thread organized a huge revision to remove all those threads that are now stomps?
 
Pretty sure that was left for everyone to do on their own, but the idea of you needing to, say, punch someone why they need to think shpuld have been obviously a stomp from the beginning.

There is also the fact that the versus thread removal is pretty dead.
 
So what's the new requirement for it not being a stomp?

If you punch me and I take some damage, then I death manip and instakill, is that a stomp? I'd always use death manip before I die but I'd take some damage before then, so I'd still win 100% of the time.
 
Kf you win 100% of the time, it's as tomp by default. This is pretty much like when the regen was argued. If I put a guy with mid regen against a normal dude, and the dude can't win through incap, it's a stomp no matter how long it takes.
 
A stomp is where you can't win pretty much. There was some disagreemet on ooc stuff, but majority seemed alright witht he win-con being ooc as long as it's a resonable action.
 
Well with that second post now we're back to how it was before.

Metal Man has a wincon but wouldn't get it off, because Gibril would in character end up transmuting that attack before it hits.

Also I am going to need to remove a LOT of battles from every character I know if this was actually changed.
 
He could get it off before he gets killed if Gibril acted out of character, but that wouldn't happen.
 
Then what was the change to the stomp rules?
 
That it doesn't neewd to be through a passive ability to stomp, just that it needs to be one that makes the enemy unable to win. (On tought hax, ridicolously good immortalities, etc. Just imagine a fight with 682, you can slow it down, but you can rarely win or even incap.)
 
It was already not needed to be a passive to stomp. That's why 2 of the 3 examples on the stomp page weren't passives.
 
Exept getting an ability that wins you faster the fight than the enemy can is also a stomp. See the win on tought part. Or a hand-wave vs charging at an oponent and going in melee from several dozen meters away
 
Is there a dedicated thread where I can ask whether certain fights are stomps are not?

Since I legit have over two dozen fights I need to question now.
 
Back
Top