- 242
- 63
He's got intangibilty, should be added to his profile.
-
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.
Pre-Crisis Superman Revisions
- Thread starter Mr._Redic
- Start date
- 242
- 63
- Thread starter
- #4
Think there's more from his respect thread, should probably be looked over.
- 1,161
- 880
I think Superman's intagibility also worksby phasing through time , like he did to Satanis.
And like i said before, i was hoping to get some upgrades for Superman to be at least 2-C based on his Jaxon feat.
And like i said before, i was hoping to get some upgrades for Superman to be at least 2-C based on his Jaxon feat.
- 165,237
- 72,272
Well, fighting a 2-A character like the Anti-Monitor is a typical superhero comicbook versus matchups inconsistency, and I think that the clash with Jaxon was considered as too far above all the other raw power feats that Superman has performed.
- 1,161
- 880
... so we can't use the Anti-Monitor feat because it's too inconsistent, even though it was a major plot point in COIE, and because it's out of Supes power range, even though the Jaxon feat would support it, but we can't use that because it's out of Superman's power range, even though with the Anti-Monitor feat would be supported.
... I mean, that seems a bit unfair, if he's got two solid at least 2-C feats, shouldn't that be enough to not just dismiss it as an outlier?
... I mean, that seems a bit unfair, if he's got two solid at least 2-C feats, shouldn't that be enough to not just dismiss it as an outlier?
- 21,354
- 2,971
Being a major plot point doesn't necessarily mean that it's not an outlier.
- 1,161
- 880
I get that, but if another feat can help support it and even then the showing itself was the character going beyond their normal power for a last stand... isn't at least worth discussing? I'm fine with not outright making PC Supes 2-A at the drop of a hat, but I don't think it should just be ignored when we've upgraded characters for less.
- 21,354
- 2,971
The thing with comic book characters is that they have several decades of feats. So to upgrade one of them, you need many feats of that level since they've had so many lower ones.
- 1,161
- 880
... like, I kinda get that, but that seems like a weird arbitrary rule to place on specifically comic book heroes when we upgrade other characters who are just as old as Silver Age Supes based on a few feats. Like what's the number of feats we set as bare minimum? Do we have a fear/year calculation to make sure? Like for every 8-10 years of continuity you need 1 feat to upgrade?
How many 2-C/2-A feats would he need to upgrade then? If two are not enough, even if they're pretty sound, what more do we need?
How many 2-C/2-A feats would he need to upgrade then? If two are not enough, even if they're pretty sound, what more do we need?
- 21,354
- 2,971
I don't think there are any specifics on numbers for comic book heros, comic book heros just generally have lots of feats to sort through due to their age. Maybe 5-7?That's what I heard last time, but I'm not the expert on this.
- 165,237
- 72,272
There are only two feats of this scale for him, one of which is just plot convenience.
There is also an infinite difference between 2-C and 2-A. I could buy the former for Pre-Crisis Superman, but not the latter.
In any case, Matthew is opposed to placing Superman above Low 2-C, so you will have to ask him about it.
There is also an infinite difference between 2-C and 2-A. I could buy the former for Pre-Crisis Superman, but not the latter.
In any case, Matthew is opposed to placing Superman above Low 2-C, so you will have to ask him about it.
- 1,161
- 880
I have to ask which is plot convenience? Supergirl literally died to just hurt the anti-monitor, who was stated multiple times to be at least 2-A in base form. The Jaxon feat was also clearly spelt out to at the very least be 2-C in extreme detail, with no mistake it was Superman and Jaxons combined power to rewrite multiple timelines, which we've given 2-C ratings without fail to characters who have done the same.
And there's also been characters on this very site we give 2-C or 2-B ratings for knocking 2-B characters out for a few panels... but Supergirls feat is just dismissed despite doing measurable damage? Like if I'm misinterpreting the feat and he was like 4-B when it happened I'll deal with it, or there's something in the Jaxon issue to dismiss the feat, I'm fine, but i just ask we be consistent.
And there's also been characters on this very site we give 2-C or 2-B ratings for knocking 2-B characters out for a few panels... but Supergirls feat is just dismissed despite doing measurable damage? Like if I'm misinterpreting the feat and he was like 4-B when it happened I'll deal with it, or there's something in the Jaxon issue to dismiss the feat, I'm fine, but i just ask we be consistent.
- 165,237
- 72,272
Given how extremely inconsistent that superhero comicbook matchups usually are, we would need to be shown that Superman has matched at least several beings of a 2-A level to even consider it as not being an outlier. This is not negotiable or up for discussion. Sorry. We even have a page for this: Power-scaling Rules for Marvel and DC Comics
That said, I personally don't mind the 2-C feat, as it is far more explicit, but you would need to convince Matthew about it.
That said, I personally don't mind the 2-C feat, as it is far more explicit, but you would need to convince Matthew about it.
- 1,161
- 880
I understand that comics are inconsistent, especially Pre-Crisis, but i once again have to question why theres so much resistance to these two feats. They don't even neccesarily contradict the rules.
We can still use power-scaling for Marvel and DC, if a certain character is explicitly shown at a certain degree of power within a story, and another character legitimately matches that power.
In COIE, the Anti-Monitor was stated to be equal to the Monitor, who even in his base form was Multiverse+. While the Monitor did get severely weakened over time, it's still implied that all the Anti-Monitor did was get stronger. Even then, the confrontation between Supergirl and the Anti-Monitor was when the Anti-Monitor was in his base form, and Supergirl was only able to gravely injure the AM, while he was still able to kill her with a really good blast. This doesn't contradict the rest of the story, as the Spectre had to get the powers of several other sorcerers to match a AM that was way stronger than the one Supergirl fought, and he's consistently put between Low 2-C and 2-C, along with the other sorcerers.
Even that is used as an example on the official page.
For example, the Anti-Monitor at the peak of his power was matched by the Spectre (with a boost from the other DC heroes). This is fairly reasonable. However, the Spectre almost matching Michael Demiurgos, over a decade earlier than when Michael was established as a beyond-dimensional entity, seems far less reliable. There was no indication that Michael had anywhere near that level of power within the story that their fight took place.
AM was considered Multiverse+ even in base in this story, and unless i'm wrong and in that period he was considered infinitely weaker during that one fight with Supergirl, than the power scaling still fits the story. Again, maybe there is a part of the story i misremembered where the base AM was also downgraded an infinite number of times. I'll double check the issue.
The rules also mention having consistent feats to measure up with it, which is what the Jaxon feat does (or at least shows it being 2-C at bare minimum as well) so it's not like its a one time dud. The rules don't mention that you need like 4-5 feats to upgrade a certain character from Pre-Crisis continuity, or that we ignore feats from comics because we just don't like them, even if they are fairly straight forward and explained in detail.
Listen, i'm fine with just the Jaxon feat being used to upgrade to him to 2-C, with the Anti-Monitor feat just being used as proof that him being beyond Universe+ level, or hell just being ignored. I guess i'll ask Matthew, see if i can at least convince him of the 2-C rating.
EDIT: I looked into the issue, and i just realized, Supergirl fought the Anti-Monitor in LITERALLY the same issue that the AM was given his origin, and AM was said to be infinite in his base form. They definitely follows the "similar time period" of the Marvel and DC rules.
We can still use power-scaling for Marvel and DC, if a certain character is explicitly shown at a certain degree of power within a story, and another character legitimately matches that power.
In COIE, the Anti-Monitor was stated to be equal to the Monitor, who even in his base form was Multiverse+. While the Monitor did get severely weakened over time, it's still implied that all the Anti-Monitor did was get stronger. Even then, the confrontation between Supergirl and the Anti-Monitor was when the Anti-Monitor was in his base form, and Supergirl was only able to gravely injure the AM, while he was still able to kill her with a really good blast. This doesn't contradict the rest of the story, as the Spectre had to get the powers of several other sorcerers to match a AM that was way stronger than the one Supergirl fought, and he's consistently put between Low 2-C and 2-C, along with the other sorcerers.
Even that is used as an example on the official page.
For example, the Anti-Monitor at the peak of his power was matched by the Spectre (with a boost from the other DC heroes). This is fairly reasonable. However, the Spectre almost matching Michael Demiurgos, over a decade earlier than when Michael was established as a beyond-dimensional entity, seems far less reliable. There was no indication that Michael had anywhere near that level of power within the story that their fight took place.
AM was considered Multiverse+ even in base in this story, and unless i'm wrong and in that period he was considered infinitely weaker during that one fight with Supergirl, than the power scaling still fits the story. Again, maybe there is a part of the story i misremembered where the base AM was also downgraded an infinite number of times. I'll double check the issue.
The rules also mention having consistent feats to measure up with it, which is what the Jaxon feat does (or at least shows it being 2-C at bare minimum as well) so it's not like its a one time dud. The rules don't mention that you need like 4-5 feats to upgrade a certain character from Pre-Crisis continuity, or that we ignore feats from comics because we just don't like them, even if they are fairly straight forward and explained in detail.
Listen, i'm fine with just the Jaxon feat being used to upgrade to him to 2-C, with the Anti-Monitor feat just being used as proof that him being beyond Universe+ level, or hell just being ignored. I guess i'll ask Matthew, see if i can at least convince him of the 2-C rating.
EDIT: I looked into the issue, and i just realized, Supergirl fought the Anti-Monitor in LITERALLY the same issue that the AM was given his origin, and AM was said to be infinite in his base form. They definitely follows the "similar time period" of the Marvel and DC rules.
- 165,237
- 72,272
Again, Superman and Supergirl only fought a single enemy at this level, and that is the Anti-Monitor.
Given that this feat is literally infinitely above everything else that they have done, combined with the long history of extremely mismatched battles in western superhero comicbooks, due to standard Plot-Induced Stupidity, we are never going to accept Pre-Crisis Superman as 2-A, no matter how much you continue to bother me about it.
I am extremely busy, and do not have the time to continue arguing with you about his. I have already said that I am not necessarily opposed to using the 2-C Jaxon feat, but that it is up to Matthew to decide.
Given that this feat is literally infinitely above everything else that they have done, combined with the long history of extremely mismatched battles in western superhero comicbooks, due to standard Plot-Induced Stupidity, we are never going to accept Pre-Crisis Superman as 2-A, no matter how much you continue to bother me about it.
I am extremely busy, and do not have the time to continue arguing with you about his. I have already said that I am not necessarily opposed to using the 2-C Jaxon feat, but that it is up to Matthew to decide.
- 1,161
- 880
But the whole point of that fight was that it was their greatest threat, and that Supergirl and Superman were going all out in the story anyway. You aren't even arguing agains the fact that, by our own rules, AM was considered Multiverse+ in the story, to a point that the VERY ISSUE in which the fight happens clearly states that he is at least Multiverse+ in his base form, so it doesn't disregard your own rules about power-scaling, and the fact the Jaxon feat even states that Superman reversed the power that destroyed ALL of Earths possible timelines, which is arguably at least at 2-B feat, if not an outright 2-A feat. That's why i mention them together.
So you're saying that even if i got multiple 2-A feats from other sources, and could prove without a shadow of a doubt that him being 2-A is not outlandish at the very least it worth looking into, you wouldn't even give me the time of day because you will never upgrade him to 2-A? What logic is that? Why is Pre-Crisis Supes such a sacred cow that we can't even dare question his upgrades because... we don't feel like it? The whole point of this wiki is to catalog characters by using feats and calcs, and if a character has the feats and calcs to back up their 2-A position... couldn't it at least be debated whether or not the feats hold up, instead of dismissing it outright. Why is this the one character that is a no-go from us?
And man, no offense, but i'm not trying to bother you, i'm debating you about Superman statistics on a Superman revision board. That is literally the point of this thread, i'm not emailing you about it, i'm not going to your page and pestering you with questions, i'm just debating, and pointing out that by your own rules about power-scaling. If the feats are wrong, then i concede, but it seems to me the only argument you have against he feats is "i don't like them, so they don't count." If i am wrong, and AM was not considered 2-A in the story, or the Jaxon feat is not considered legit because of some other story that retcons it, then i concede. I'm not even really arguing 2-A Superman, more just pointing out how hypocritical it is to dismiss those feats as nothing, but allow other characters on this site to get upgrades for doing far less, with way shittier power scaling.
So fine, i will ask Matthew if we can at least get a 2-C rating, if that isn't too much to ask.
So you're saying that even if i got multiple 2-A feats from other sources, and could prove without a shadow of a doubt that him being 2-A is not outlandish at the very least it worth looking into, you wouldn't even give me the time of day because you will never upgrade him to 2-A? What logic is that? Why is Pre-Crisis Supes such a sacred cow that we can't even dare question his upgrades because... we don't feel like it? The whole point of this wiki is to catalog characters by using feats and calcs, and if a character has the feats and calcs to back up their 2-A position... couldn't it at least be debated whether or not the feats hold up, instead of dismissing it outright. Why is this the one character that is a no-go from us?
And man, no offense, but i'm not trying to bother you, i'm debating you about Superman statistics on a Superman revision board. That is literally the point of this thread, i'm not emailing you about it, i'm not going to your page and pestering you with questions, i'm just debating, and pointing out that by your own rules about power-scaling. If the feats are wrong, then i concede, but it seems to me the only argument you have against he feats is "i don't like them, so they don't count." If i am wrong, and AM was not considered 2-A in the story, or the Jaxon feat is not considered legit because of some other story that retcons it, then i concede. I'm not even really arguing 2-A Superman, more just pointing out how hypocritical it is to dismiss those feats as nothing, but allow other characters on this site to get upgrades for doing far less, with way shittier power scaling.
So fine, i will ask Matthew if we can at least get a 2-C rating, if that isn't too much to ask.
- 165,237
- 72,272
I have tried to explain to you over and over that we cannot scale from a single outlier inconsistency that is literally an infinite number of times above everything else that the Kryptonians have done.
If you do not wish to accept it, fine, but it is not going to make any difference if you continue to argue about it. It will simply waste time that I do not have available.
If you do not wish to accept it, fine, but it is not going to make any difference if you continue to argue about it. It will simply waste time that I do not have available.
- 12,552
- 2,508
I have little interest in Superman, but I want to debate this point in particular.Jared1111 said:
Just because other profiles have less stuff putting them at 2-A (I can't think of any examples, but assuming there are) does not mean that there is an argument for 2-A Superman. Furthermore, I guarantee that none of those 'other characters' have had half the runtime that Superman's had, or are nearly as controversial of a character as Superman, or come from a series with as many inconsistencies as Superman's. From my experience, most 2-A rankings on this site are reviewed pretty thoroughly. If there's nothing else putting Superman at 2-A (infinitely above any of his current feats) then 2-A Superman is an outlier I'm afraid.
- 1,161
- 880
I probably just worded that wrong but i'm not arguing against characters being 2-A on other profiles just because they less feats, i'm arguing against characters who also have no other 2-A feats and are consistently shown as weaker throughout their series that get bumped up to 2-C or 2-A with less hassle. I'm fine if they are reviewed thoroughly, i even said so in my post, my problem is Ant dismissing the entire concept of Superman ever being 2-A, no matter what i show or say. That's flat out saying that won't do it no matter what.GyroNutz said:
And like i said before, i'm not just doing it based on one random feat, i'm asking why it doesn't count when the entire fight takes place in a story that goes out if its way to say that AM is 2-A, and then having Supergirl beat him should at least be discussed, and it could be taken with Superman's other arguable 2-C/2-A feat of overriding ALL of Earth's possible timelines under his own power. Which can range in the high end from countless 2-B to 2-A depending on interpretation. Yeah, if it was just he AM feat i'd deal with it, but it's the rejection of the very IDEA that Superman can NEVER be 2-A that i question.
Also to Ant
I have tried to explain to you over and over that we cannot scale from a single outlier inconsistency that is literally an infinite number of times above everything else that the Kryptonians have done.
Fine, but if that's the case, then why did you readily accept this Lucario being 2-B, despite also mentioning that the feat was an outlier for the series (from what i've seen of this manga, the Lucario didn't do anything else in the series to warrant 2-B), used power scaling from outside the specific series (which is something you hold against both Marvel and DC) is absurdly higher than anything any Lucario has done in any other series, had help from other characters to do, barely managed to hurt said Darkrai (as opposed to Supergirl massively injuring the AM, to the point of him fleeing to recover), excuse the feat as being ok because it was an "end of series" feat (even though you could argue the same thing for Supergirl, as this is literally where she died off.) and say that it's ok to use because its not apart of the running series (even though by that logic, you can't judge the Darkrai in comparison to his other counterparts, and he would need to use feats to be on their level, which as far as am i aware, he didn't ) Even if the excuse that it was outside the series and the lucario is on his own is perfectly acceptable, the rest of the manga doesn't show him being anywhere near 2-B, and the 2-B itself is questionable anyway.
If Superman can't be 2-A, then fine, i only ask we don't throw out feats for one character, while using weaker feats for other characters because they're "controversial". Pokemon is controversial, has a long inconsistent history of feats, and yet it's allowed to roam free with scaling. I only ask for consistency
- 165,237
- 72,272
I had nothing to do with Lucario scaling, but western superhero comicbook fights are notorious for their ridiculous degrees of inconsistency. If we took them entirely literally in terms of scaling we would, among other things, end up with a High 1-B Black Panther.
Stan Lee even admitted outright that the tradition during superhero fights is that the outcome is not remotely decided by logic, just the whims and preferences of each writer.
As such, we need a greater measure of consistency for superhero fights before scaling from them.
Please read the Power-scaling Rules for Marvel and DC Comics page several times until you properly understand and accept our standards.
However, again, you have to convince Matthew if you want Superman upgraded, not me.
Stan Lee even admitted outright that the tradition during superhero fights is that the outcome is not remotely decided by logic, just the whims and preferences of each writer.
As such, we need a greater measure of consistency for superhero fights before scaling from them.
Please read the Power-scaling Rules for Marvel and DC Comics page several times until you properly understand and accept our standards.
However, again, you have to convince Matthew if you want Superman upgraded, not me.
- 63,487
- 8,486
By the way, why is SoS Superman unknown?
Sword of Superman was going to be one with the universe, blatantly Low 2C
Sword of Superman was going to be one with the universe, blatantly Low 2C
- 165,237
- 72,272
Because he said that he was unfathomably more powerful than previously, and we already rate him as Low 2-C. It is a standard superhero comicbook inconsistency, but still doesn't work for our indexing purposes.
- 21,354
- 2,971
Infinity GauntletHuesito88 said:
- 63,487
- 8,486
That's 2A
- 21,354
- 2,971
''shrugs in confusion''
- 1,161
- 880
Ok
1.) I get that theres of course inconsistency. But you're being a bit disingenous if you think making a character who is consistently 8-A to be High 1-B because of an out of context feat against a being that wasn't even shown to be High 1-B in the story, is comparable to a character being 2-A when they have a plethera of Low 2-C feats, to other 2-A feats being compared to a character that was literally stated to be 2-A like 8 pages before she kicked his ass. It's obviously not the same tier of power scaling.
2.) Stan Lee was an amazing man, but you could argue that about any character ever, and by that logic we shouldn't use power scaling ever.
3.) Fine, but why is the consistency of a couple of feats completely ignored, and you admitting that you never want to upgrade Superman to 2-A no matter what i say being about "consistency". You saying if Pre-Crisis Superman shows up again and kills Barbatos in one shot, you'd still never upgrade him to 2-A?
4.) I've literally read the rules back to you, and pointed out how even by your own standards the feats should at least be acknowledged to see if they hold up, not completely dismissed. It's not a total outlier since theres at least two possible feats of 2-A power, the power scaling is mentioned in the same story so it doesn't go against the "different story, timeline, different powers" that go against Spectre vs Michael, and it's well explained in the plot without being vague. Tell me what rule am i breaking outside of "we don't like it".
Listen, if you'll only accept 2-C no matter what, then fine. I'll drop it for the time being and ask Sandman and Matthew about it later. I'd rather get the 2-C feat anyway since i can argue for it better.
1.) I get that theres of course inconsistency. But you're being a bit disingenous if you think making a character who is consistently 8-A to be High 1-B because of an out of context feat against a being that wasn't even shown to be High 1-B in the story, is comparable to a character being 2-A when they have a plethera of Low 2-C feats, to other 2-A feats being compared to a character that was literally stated to be 2-A like 8 pages before she kicked his ass. It's obviously not the same tier of power scaling.
2.) Stan Lee was an amazing man, but you could argue that about any character ever, and by that logic we shouldn't use power scaling ever.
3.) Fine, but why is the consistency of a couple of feats completely ignored, and you admitting that you never want to upgrade Superman to 2-A no matter what i say being about "consistency". You saying if Pre-Crisis Superman shows up again and kills Barbatos in one shot, you'd still never upgrade him to 2-A?
4.) I've literally read the rules back to you, and pointed out how even by your own standards the feats should at least be acknowledged to see if they hold up, not completely dismissed. It's not a total outlier since theres at least two possible feats of 2-A power, the power scaling is mentioned in the same story so it doesn't go against the "different story, timeline, different powers" that go against Spectre vs Michael, and it's well explained in the plot without being vague. Tell me what rule am i breaking outside of "we don't like it".
Listen, if you'll only accept 2-C no matter what, then fine. I'll drop it for the time being and ask Sandman and Matthew about it later. I'd rather get the 2-C feat anyway since i can argue for it better.
- 165,237
- 72,272
1) You are arguing for an infinite upgrade based on a single fight, with just a few Low 2-C feats to start with. That is not reasonable.
2) Stan Lee was a showman (There is a reason why Jack Kirby's Funky Flashman was based on him), but his analysis fits perfectly with the superhero comicbook tradition, which he knew inside-and-out.
3) I am saying that we need some manner of consistency, not a single fight that has to be written in a way that the protagonists of the story are not too ridiculously outmatched.
4) All that we have proof of with the Jaxon feat is that he restored 2 future timelines, that of Jaxon and that of the Legion of Superheroes. There likely were more of them, but an infinite number was never remotely mentioned.
And our standards for Marvel and DC are mostly about outliers and consistency, particularly for character fights with each other, or virtually every single character would end up at High 1-B or higher.
Anyway, I am getting tired of repeating myself, and would appreciate if you drop this issue permanently, not just for the time being.
2) Stan Lee was a showman (There is a reason why Jack Kirby's Funky Flashman was based on him), but his analysis fits perfectly with the superhero comicbook tradition, which he knew inside-and-out.
3) I am saying that we need some manner of consistency, not a single fight that has to be written in a way that the protagonists of the story are not too ridiculously outmatched.
4) All that we have proof of with the Jaxon feat is that he restored 2 future timelines, that of Jaxon and that of the Legion of Superheroes. There likely were more of them, but an infinite number was never remotely mentioned.
And our standards for Marvel and DC are mostly about outliers and consistency, particularly for character fights with each other, or virtually every single character would end up at High 1-B or higher.
Anyway, I am getting tired of repeating myself, and would appreciate if you drop this issue permanently, not just for the time being.
Similar threads
