An itty bitty, teeny tiny thing revision (Of the John Carpenter variety)

[ApiesDeathbyLazors]

The Thing's durability needs to be altered a bit. Currently it says

• Varies from Below Average Human level to Building level (Survived the explosion of the whole base and managed to regenerate), Regeneration makes it incredibly hard to kill (If you don´t destroy every single cell it will regenerate)

The problem here is that justification. At 1:38 we see the explosion of the "whole base" is actually what killed it, so even if the explosion is 8-C (which I kinda doubt) the Thing didn't survive it so that justification goes the way of the dodo. The Thing's durability should just scale to it's AP giving it the following new rating

• Varies from Below Average Human level to Wall level, Regeneration makes it incredibly hard to kill (If you don´t destroy every single cell it will regenerate)

 

[XSOULOFCINDERX]

Makes sense to me.

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

Didn't John treat the entire "did the actually survive" as up in the air?

Also, I'm pretty sure survivng this could replace the feat regradless

 

[ApiesDeathbyLazors]

I forgot I made this, whoops.

That's a bit misleading there Stalker. The other pages you neglected to show make it clear that the Thing wasn't actually in that explosion. Mac was trying to blow up another ship that the Thing was building and the Thing popped up from under the ground after the explosion died down. The best we could probably get from the comics are high end 9-B, maybe baseline 9-A.

 

[ApiesDeathbyLazors]

Didn't John treat the entire "did the actually survive" as up in the air?

Yeah, ambiguity is that movie's bread and butter.

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

I forgot I made this, whoops.

That's a bit misleading there Stalker. The other pages you neglected to show make it clear that the Thing wasn't actually in that explosion. Mac was trying to blow up another ship that the Thing was building and the Thing popped up from under the ground after the explosion died down. The best we could probably get from the comics are high end 9-B, maybe baseline 9-A.

My apologies, I haven't read the comics the in awhile, I was just pulling whatever scans I had. Wonder if he can get a tier via how ******* big he is in the comics but that's a thread for a different time. Also if we don't know if he survived it, then I'm fine with likely 8-C at best

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

*possibly, not likely

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Didn't The Thing survive in the tie-in game? Actually, can we use the game for canon feats?

 

[ApiesDeathbyLazors]

I haven't played nor seen a full playthrough of the game, but from what I've read several aspects of it seem to contradict the movie so I'm loathe to use it as a source for feats.

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

I'm pretty sure the games are meant to be direct sequels or prequels to the films and I think they even reference the films

 

[Axxtentacle]

I'm pretty sure the games are meant to be direct sequels or prequels to the films and I think they even reference the films

If they're contradictory, how does that affect it?

 

[ApiesDeathbyLazors]

The comics are the same and the first two don't possess any contradictions.

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

If they're contradictory, how does that affect it?

I'm referring to what I have read, not what I have played since I don't own them yet

 

[Ican'tthinkof1goodname]

What about the prequel film?

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

The film is already considered canon iirc

 

[Qawsedf234]

If they're contradictory, how does that affect it?

The game and comics contradict each other, but not the movie as far as I know. Which means we either ignore one or assume both are equally valid and give them a possibly rating if needed.

As for the feat that's not a valid 8-C reasoning. Being gibbed/blasted to pieces by an explosion means you do not scale to it. It just means whatever was blasted to pieces has a decent healing factor or survivability factor.

EDIT: We should also mention that the Thing doesn't auto-regenerate. The cells can just consume and change other cells to it. Leave one alone in the middle of nowhere and it won't grow into a flesh blob by itself.

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

We don't even know what happened to him in the explosion though, we aren't even shown it. We just know he survived it because of the sequels

 

[Axxtentacle]

wouldn't being obliterated by the explosion and only surviving because of cellular-level regen not warrant the durability rating?

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

wouldn't being obliterated by the explosion and only surviving because of cellular-level regen not warrant the durability rating?

Read above

 

[Qawsedf234]

not warrant the durability rating?

No. Because being blasted to pieces means you explicitly do not scale to the thing that killed you.

We don't even know what happened to him in the explosion though, we aren't even shown it. We just know he survived it because of the sequels

Right after that scene a napalm carpet bomb destroyed the monster. However its sheer size would warrant a 9-A rating if nothing else.

 

[Axxtentacle]

Yeah I can agree to the size thing, but if an explosion that's like 8-C blew it up it definitely should NOT scale to that

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

What are you referring to? The comics or the movie clip? Because all we see is a explosion and that's it

 

[ApiesDeathbyLazors]

We don't even know what happened to him in the explosion though, we aren't even shown it. We just know he survived it because of the sequels

We do though. The Thing isn't seen inside the hanger before Mac blows it up and it's seen after digging up from under the ground.

 

[Ican'tthinkof1goodname]

Right after that scene a napalm carpet bomb destroyed the monster. However its sheer size would warrant a 9-A rating if nothing else.

We don't know the strength and power of that bomb

 

[ApiesDeathbyLazors]

We can make assumptions though based on real world napalm bombs.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Its napalm not a high explosive. What makes it dangerous is fire and heat not explosive power. Its not getting a 8-C rating due to that.

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

We do though. The Thing isn't seen inside the hanger before Mac blows it up and it's seen after digging up from under the ground.

I was referring to the base exploding

 

[Ican'tthinkof1goodname]

Its napalm not a high explosive. What makes it dangerous is fire and heat not explosive power. Its not getting a 8-C rating due to that.

The Thing has a exploitable weakness towards fire and heat meaning the bomb was just exploiting the weakness

 

[Qawsedf234]

Okay to speed this up

• The thing can keep its 8-C rating or at least have a 9-A rating with enough biomass due to this form. All we do is just change the reasonings.
• The Thing likely did not tank the hanger explosion, solely because its fire and it has never withstood or dealt with fire in any medium well
• The Thing was killed right after by a much small napalm explosion

Everyone good with the above?

 

[ApiesDeathbyLazors]

I was referring to the base exploding

I already debunked that in the OP.

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

Yes

 

[Axxtentacle]

I would say 9-A but put "higher with more biomass"

 

[Qawsedf234]

I already debunked that in the OP.

Different base explosion. Stalker is talking about the hanger explosion in the second comic series when it gets to South America.

 

[Sir_Ovens]

Do we have a valid way to calc the AP of it via size or are we leaving it as baseline 9-A?

 

[ApiesDeathbyLazors]

I'm fine with 9-A. 8-C just seems excessive.

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

Different base explosion. Stalker is talking about the hanger explosion in the second comic series when it gets to South America.

I'm not, I already admitted I was wrong on that. I was referring to the thing in the OP

 

[ApiesDeathbyLazors]

Different base explosion. Stalker is talking about the hanger explosion in the second comic series when it gets to South America.

I thought he literally just said he was talking about the movie.

 

[Stalker_Maggot]

Okay to remove the confusion, both feats are invalid and 9-A via size is okay

 

[Qawsedf234]

We have a way to calc it, but only for scaled up real forms. That version of the Thing isn't based on a real life creature so you would need to calc the mass, which I wouldn't know how to do. So the suggested rating

Attack Potency: Varies from Below Average Human level (Individual cells) to Wall level (A heavely deformed one punched down a door plus part of a wall . One while on fire and not as mutated broke down a wooden wall ) to at least Small Building level (Created a form that dwarfed a hanger and the surrounding forest), potentially higher via assimilation (Was going to separate itself into several microscopic beings and infect every living organism on earth if it managed to touch the sea), can bypass durability by assimilating other organisms (If it touches an organism, its cells will devour the cells of the victim and perfectly mimic them)

Speed: Varies from Below Average Human to Super Human, Potentially higher by assimilating animals

Lifting Strength: Varies from Below Average to Super Human, Potentially higher by assimilating animals

The one thing I'm unsure of is striking strength and durability and if it should be this

Striking Strength: Varies from Below Average Human Class to at least Small Building Class, Potentially higher by assimilating animals

Durability: Varies from Below Average Human level to Small Building level, Regeneration makes it incredibly hard to kill (If you don´t destroy every single cell it will regenerate)

Or this

Striking Strength: Varies from Below Average Human Class to at least Wall Class, Potentially higher by assimilating animals

Durability: Varies from Below Average Human level to at least Wall level, Regeneration makes it incredibly hard to kill (If you don´t destroy every single cell it will regenerate)

 

[Axxtentacle]

I would say 9-A but put "higher with more biomass"

Okay to remove the confusion, both feats are invalid and 9-A via size is okay

So would my suggestion be good?