The One Above All is Tier 0 Because...

[Antvasima]

Well, The Beyonders also affected the entire Omniverse, so I dunno .

Guidebook still has Megaversal The Living Tribunal . For what that's worth.

Al Ewing tends to use omniverse and multiverse as synonyms of each other though, including in that very page. He simply seems to use the term because it sounds cool, without understanding its full implications.

Also, in the actual "Time Runs Out" Avengers storyline by Jonathan Hickman, the Beyonders were clearly shown as unable to simply destroy the entire multiverse all at once. They had to do so gradually, and were wiped out by an explosion sufficient to destroy thousands of universes.

As for the Tribunal. Isn't that a comparatively old handbook entry? I think that it came out several years before the latest Secret Wars.

 

[Azathoth_the_Abyssal_Idiot]

Omniversal Feats: REALLY depends on a case by case analaysis as this is where it truly gets contradictory, but the Highest-End Interpretations would be 1-A, as the High-End interpretation of the Omniverse is absolutely everything ever regardless of scale, reason, logic, concepts, etc.

It is no different than the C.Mythos' Outer Gods who exist outside of everything.

Isn't being beyond scale/reason/logic/concepts/etc. the base requirement for being 1-A? Even the strongest of these guys fit that bill. The Outer Gods are a bit different because they're probably not actually "distincy entities" as we would consider them, since they are able to look at things from beyond the boundaries of perspective, which includes the perspective of "self" even many beyond-dimensional entities can be confined to in some form. While lesser beings can perceive fractional interpretations of them, the Outer Gods themselves only "experience" everything as it truly is without any perspective, which is an unchanging whole that "occurs" at once.

DeMatteis' versions of the Abstracts still seemed to be 1-A if all the statements and their transcendent nature are to be believed, but they were still subject to things such as "destruction" and "causality", iirc. Obviously these things were beyond any logical structure we could possibly propose and were on a far more transcendent level than these ideas are normally confined to, but I remember them being there, regardless.

Not really all that important, as it would still be 1-A, but I figured that might be notable in some kind of discussion somewhere. Though Ant's issue with that seems to be how insanely different it is to pretty much every other interpretation of the characters, which as much as I love Marvel's cosmic stuff, I can't really deny.

This isn't really related to TOAA, so I'll just go sit in my corner, now.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

@Azathoth

Yes, I think that High-End Omniversal feats would be 1-A sincei t's meant to embody all universes, multiverses, realms, dimensions, concepts, layers and planes of existence, spatial-temporal dimentsions, so on and so on.

I don't think Universal Abstracts should be Universal+. They are at best Multiversal+, and maybe at that.

I am proposing 1-A Omniversal characters, of which there are few and far between.

 

[Antvasima]

Yeah, and DeMatteis description is even completely inconsistent with the Defenders series that it was taken from. Dormammu, and Umar were all shown as vulnerable to damage within the realms of time and space, and Eternity was composed of it. Combined with everything else, it does not make any sense whatsoever.

Given how frequently this particular scan tends to pop up, perhaps we should write a siscussion rule about forbidding the subject? I am getting tired of having to talk about it every few weeks.

Also, given that it is built on irrational Suggsverse-style conceit, in claiming that a Marvel Comics character created all of fiction and reality, should we remove the OAA's pre-retcon tier 0 rating?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I still think OAA is Tier 0, since Omniversal feats are still established to be nothing compared to him.

 

[Antvasima]

I definitely think that we should ignore all "omniverse" mentions, unless the storyline clearly explains what it means in the current context. For example, rating the Beyonders as 1-A would be ridiculous, given their actual feats, and displayed limitations.

And characters that are limited to embodying the concepts of single universes, should logically scale from that. Our profile pages would become filled with irrational speculative nonsense othervise. We do, however, have special ratings for their multiversal versions.

I am almost starting to think that Marvel is so insanely irrational and inconsistent that we should just delete all of the profiles, and forbid them from ever being featured in this wiki, but that would likely cause us to lose a large part of our audience.

 

[Antvasima]

And any claims of creating "all of fiction and reality combined" clearly violates our Reality - Fiction Interaction regulations, on top of not making any sense whatsoever, and being Suggsverse-level conceited and delusional.

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

How has TOAA gone so long without a good explanation for his tier?

 

[Antvasima]

Because we have been worried about the backlash if we entirely remove the tier 0 rating.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

Because we have been worried about the backlash if we entirely remove the tier 0 rating.

well hes still supose to have made everthing in maravl with the pre retcone and to well be onmitent

saying it dosn't make seans is a littel unfair it dose becuse the OAA is suppose to reprsent the talinted peapal who make storys which is where that he made all fiction comes from i know it vielats the reality fiction interaction stuff but that no rasin to say it dosnt make seans

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Deleting all of Marvel is extreme and ridiculous. And I do think you overrate how inconsistent Marvel is. EndlessMike, who has read every single Fantastic Four issue and is doing the same to all Avengers issues, and is likely the most knowledgeable debater on Marvel, doesn't think they are as bad as you do.

I don't get why using the author / guidebooks definitions of Omniverse is wrong,specially since marvel profiles here are putting guidebooks over feats.

With my own experienced with DC Comics, I've had a very easy time ranking and analyzing characters by reading the issues and searching for consistent feats. Dc uses almost the same system as Marvel and and a lot of the same writers, and I don't think there's anything magical about Dc Comics that makes it supposedly less inconsistent.

TOAA itself is no more vague than Kami Tenchi, and both are defined as boundless and Omnipotent even to those who transcend all definitions of everything. It even directly stated that, when it said that Thanos having Omni-Reality existence was a fraction of him.

By ignoring all Megaversal and Omniversal feats, we ignore Marvel as a whole. We ignore their own cosmology. If being beyond Multiversal structures was defined as 16-D, we can use that. If the Omniverse has been defined as a High 1-B structures in multiple guidebooks and Comics, we can use that too. No Writer has any obligation to define all the cosmology and concepts in every new storyline, because they have been defined before. And I don't get why we are só easily rejecting High end feats yet low-end feats are being used to downgrade characters.

I understand that Marvel frustrated and tires you, and that you went from a long time fan to practically hating it...but do we really need to be this restrictive, biased and hold such little faith in the writers? Demanding that every single storyline gives the characters consistent High End feats would destroy any franchise, even those maintained by a single Writer. Marvel is very loose in terms of power and canonicity, só shouldn't we reflect it's nature?

I'm starting to consider reading every issue with The Living Tribunal and Eternity in them, and making a Respect Thread to discuss ratings.

 

[VenomElite]

Let's take the time to think about this. What Matthew said is true. We cannot ignore the term Omniverse if it no longer means "all of reality and fiction". It may very well just mean "absolutely everything" which from what I've heard, seems High 1-B. Deleting Marvel profiles will only cause severe backlash and we have enough of that as is no?

I propose we continue to look at everything with careful consideration. Especially for Marvel. We need to see how these terms such as "Megaverse" and "Omniverse" relate to our tiering system just like we do for Umineko and Demonbane, or Tenchi Muyo. Even Suggsverse, despite all its ridiculous claims, would only be High 1-B at best given our definitions. As long as we stay faithful to the tiering system. Terms don't matter. Context does.

 

[Antvasima]

I have read most of the Marvel issues published since the mid 1980s. I do not remember nearly all of them, but I remember enough to give me migraines trying to sort out the complete mess of contradictions.

Claiming that a Marvel character created all of fiction and reality combined is absolutely ridiculous, and in addition Marvel has handled the term extremely inconsistently. Sometimes it is simply an infinite number of multiverses, or currently seemingly far less, as it is used interchangeably with multiverse, and it is comparatively easy to travel outside of it.

 

[Antvasima]

Tom Brevoort has stated that Marvel: The End/the Heart of the Universe is not a part of continuity, and "omni-reality" is a vague term to start with.

I do not hate Marvel. I really like several of the characters. I just dislike how the current management and writers are using it for regressive propaganda, and find the inconsistency absolutely frustrating, due to spending so much time managing this site, and having to discuss it over and over and over.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

I have read most of the Marvel issues published since the mid 1980s. I do not remember nearly all of them, but I remember enough to give me migraines trying to sort out the complete mess of contradictions.

Claiming that a Marvel character created all of fiction and reality combined is absolutely ridiculous, and in addition Marvel has handled the term extremely inconsistently. Sometimes it is simply an infinite number of multiverses, or currently seemingly far less, as it is used interchangeably with multiverse, and it is comparatively easy to travel outside of it.

well read riecher is the one who went out of it? isnt he suppose to be the smartes marval charater?

 

[Antvasima]

I would much prefer if you do not try to extremely upgrade all of the Marvel cosmic entities, especially not when I am on a vacation on a tropical island with extremely bad and sporadic internet connection.

 

[Antvasima]

I do however, have a major issue with the term "Omniverse" due to its inconsistency, and given that nobody seems to follow a single definition. It is an inherent massive hyperbole term, especially when used in conjunction of an event in which a multiverse had to be gradually destroyed, universe by universe.

 

[Darkmon_cns]

and again the reasin that statment is there is becuase he is suppose to reprsent all the talinted peaple who make the storys.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

It is inconsistent, but we can't simply use the inconsistency to ignore all possible definitions. The current, most recent definition of Omniverse in the Handbook is "All universes, multiverses, realms, dimensions, etc. Absolutely everything is within the Omniverse".

Imagine if we ignored The Hyperdimension from Tenchi Muyo, or Taikyouku from Masadaverse, or Umineko, or anything else for being "unclear or confusing"

Until another definition is given and placed in the newer Handbook, this is what we should use.

Context matters, no one here is upgrading Galactus or Post-Retcon Molecule Man to High 1-B. God no.

But ignoring it altogether? No. Certain characters have Omniversal feats without being vastly inconsistent, as they don't scale to anyone but themselves and TOAA. The Living Tribunal at his highest displayed power. The Beyonders, despite inconsistencies, they are supposed to exist beyond the Omniverse. HOTU Thanos who held a fraction of TOAA's power and existed in a Omni-Reality level, HoM Scarlet Witch who could warp the whole Omniverse... And that's basically it.

If you get migraines thinking of Marvel Rankings, can't you leave it to other users who'd be more interested in analyzing and quantifying the Verse?

I'd be wiling to attempt reading all or most of The Living Tribunal, Eternity and Infinity's appearances.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Tom Brevoort has stated that Marvel: The End/the Heart of the Universe is not a part of continuity, and "omni-reality" is a vague term to start with.
I do not hate Marvel. I really like several of the characters. I just dislike how the current management and writers are using it for regressive propaganda, and find the inconsistency absolutely frustrating, due to spending so much time managing this site, and having to discuss it over and over and over.

Okay, I get it. But it was stated as having happened in Thanos: The Infinity Finale, and Tom Brevoort is extremely unreliable, stating that Quicksilver was never FTL, or that a character is "Omnipotent, but not Omniscient".

Perhaps it would be best to postone this discussion, close this thread and come back to it when you are better?

 

[Antvasima]

@VenomElite I am fine with Megaverse as a collection of multiverses. It is just that virtually all Marvel writers constantly contradict each other in terms of character power levels, and that Omniverse has been used in 3 ways by Marvel that I know of: All of fiction and reality combined; infinite multiverses; and currently interchangeably with multiverse. It seems completely unreliable.

 

[Antvasima]

Anyway, internet access is very bad here, my tablet battery is almost dead, and I have to go to bed soon.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Have a good night. Can I close this thread since it effectively went nowhere?

 

[Hellspawn_Barbarian]

Ant, shouldn't we take omniverse term seriously now? I mean we already know that it includes all space, dimension, absolute everything ect. ect..

We can just ignore that it includes all verse (DC, Doctor Who, and out own reality ect..since its is like wank and even some comic fans I have seen on other site agrees with it, that Marvel omniverse doesn't really have control over other verse and all)

So idk what to really rate omniverse, 1-B, High 1-B or 1-A if possible?

 

[Antvasima]

The difference is that your other examples have not had hundreds of different writers managing it, most of whom constantly completely ignore the handbooks. Also, the old "everything is in the omniverse" handbook definition included descriptions of different fictional franchises and our own world.

 

[Antvasima]

But it is better to handle this when I have come back home.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Okay. Let's postpone this discussion.