- 3,321
- 1,833
So, I've been informed a long time ago that we don't take anchoring for granted as a necessary power for super strength, particularly Lifting Strength.
What I mean by this is that, if we follow the laws of physics as in real life, it is essentially impossible for someone to, for example, lift a building with sheer strength, even if we assumed that they had the required raw strength and durability. The reason is that you might have the strength to raise the building, yes... but does the ground have the strength to support you? The answer is no, you would just get pulled down into the ground. The same concept applies to a LOT of other things. Another example that would be more relevant to the point I'm making is the impossibility of stopping something like a charging train with sheer LS; you might have the strength to stop it, but the ground doesn't, so you'd be either smashed through the train or being dragged by the train because the ground you stood on couldn't handle the sheer force.
Thus, it is generally said in any meta-fictional analysis circle that I am aware of is that, with some exceptions, super anchoring is a required secondary power to super strength. Of course, that isn't an absolute, many fictions still apply the concept ocasionally or in specific situations, but in general, anchoring does seem necessary.
In any case, coming back to what I was saying, apparently, this isn't the case with the wiki. I've been informed that we can create a power for Anchoring, and use that for characters that have explicitly shown such capacities, like Robocop, who can drive nails from his feet to the ground in order to better stabilise himself and increase the strength of his anchor to the ground.
My problem with this is that, if we truly follow that logic of anchoring not being assumed as the standard, even if only the "fictional" variant of allowing super strength to operate, things just do not make sense. Or, at least, we need to invalidate a good 90% of most lifting feats I've seen as being nonapplicable by contradicting the wiki's standards, or giving anchoring, if only implied, to practically everyone in the wiki.
Feats like Superman pulling a lot of planets in a chain would immediately imply that Supes has anchoring, because in truth, assuming that the chain didn't collapse into a cosmic structure or severely damage to planets, would be simply pulled through the planets as they wouldn't be able to take in the immense amounnt of force Superman would be putting on them. Supes is a bad example because, knowing how large DC is, he probably does have an issue somewhere that clearly states that he has some form of super anchoring, or at least adressing the issue. And, for most examples, we would need to actually calculate the amount of force that is put to make any feat, and how much force every component of these feats would be actually able to take, and taking account things like friction and adherence to see if the characters would be able to even stand on the ground.
Point is that, as a basis for fiction, it should be made clear that anchoring is an implied necessary power, at least in regards to the usage of super strength by a character, and that not being applicable is either an exception or a case that the character's own strength isn't relevant. I'm still fine with a specific power for Anchoring for characters that have methods of specifically increasing their anchor to the ground, but the idea of anchoring should be made standard.
In any case, that's my opinion, not the wiki standard, so it doesn't matter. My question is: Is anchoring considered an implied power to anyone with super strength, or not?
What I mean by this is that, if we follow the laws of physics as in real life, it is essentially impossible for someone to, for example, lift a building with sheer strength, even if we assumed that they had the required raw strength and durability. The reason is that you might have the strength to raise the building, yes... but does the ground have the strength to support you? The answer is no, you would just get pulled down into the ground. The same concept applies to a LOT of other things. Another example that would be more relevant to the point I'm making is the impossibility of stopping something like a charging train with sheer LS; you might have the strength to stop it, but the ground doesn't, so you'd be either smashed through the train or being dragged by the train because the ground you stood on couldn't handle the sheer force.
Thus, it is generally said in any meta-fictional analysis circle that I am aware of is that, with some exceptions, super anchoring is a required secondary power to super strength. Of course, that isn't an absolute, many fictions still apply the concept ocasionally or in specific situations, but in general, anchoring does seem necessary.
In any case, coming back to what I was saying, apparently, this isn't the case with the wiki. I've been informed that we can create a power for Anchoring, and use that for characters that have explicitly shown such capacities, like Robocop, who can drive nails from his feet to the ground in order to better stabilise himself and increase the strength of his anchor to the ground.
My problem with this is that, if we truly follow that logic of anchoring not being assumed as the standard, even if only the "fictional" variant of allowing super strength to operate, things just do not make sense. Or, at least, we need to invalidate a good 90% of most lifting feats I've seen as being nonapplicable by contradicting the wiki's standards, or giving anchoring, if only implied, to practically everyone in the wiki.
Feats like Superman pulling a lot of planets in a chain would immediately imply that Supes has anchoring, because in truth, assuming that the chain didn't collapse into a cosmic structure or severely damage to planets, would be simply pulled through the planets as they wouldn't be able to take in the immense amounnt of force Superman would be putting on them. Supes is a bad example because, knowing how large DC is, he probably does have an issue somewhere that clearly states that he has some form of super anchoring, or at least adressing the issue. And, for most examples, we would need to actually calculate the amount of force that is put to make any feat, and how much force every component of these feats would be actually able to take, and taking account things like friction and adherence to see if the characters would be able to even stand on the ground.
Point is that, as a basis for fiction, it should be made clear that anchoring is an implied necessary power, at least in regards to the usage of super strength by a character, and that not being applicable is either an exception or a case that the character's own strength isn't relevant. I'm still fine with a specific power for Anchoring for characters that have methods of specifically increasing their anchor to the ground, but the idea of anchoring should be made standard.
In any case, that's my opinion, not the wiki standard, so it doesn't matter. My question is: Is anchoring considered an implied power to anyone with super strength, or not?
