Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

I'm afraid that the heroes can't take too many more of those 'victories' if they lose dozens of casualties each time.

 

And yet the world didn't become open for conquest after, so one wonders how true you saying that is.

 

Especially if a lot of those casualties are not people of vast importance, who are replaced over time by other starting heroes.

 

Efforts like Destroyer's, you forget, require themselves time and effort to do and to have gained the resource for. In that time, more heroes rise up, people rebuild things, and so forth.

 

Beyond that, once again, the world not falling into total chaos seems to imply those casualties can in fact be handled.

 

Or, to be /completely insane/ and use the comics which Champs are based on as an analogy, when a bunch of hero teams vanished to the heroes reborn verse post Onslaught, a bunch of other heroes picked up their slack. And Marvel Earth didn't immediately cease to exist the next time someone powerful sneezed at it hard.

 

(sure, one of them was secretly a team of supervillains who decided they liked being heroes so much that they became actual heroes, but that's a side thing).

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

And yet the world didn't become open for conquest after, so one wonders how true you saying that is.

 

Especially if a lot of those casualties are not people of vast importance, who are replaced over time by other starting heroes.

 

Efforts like Destroyer's, you forget, require themselves time and effort to do and to have gained the resource for. In that time, more heroes rise up, people rebuild things, and so forth.

 

Beyond that, once again, the world not falling into total chaos seems to imply those casualties can in fact be handled.

 

Or, to be /completely insane/ and use the comics which Champs are based on as an analogy, when a bunch of hero teams vanished to the heroes reborn verse post Onslaught, a bunch of other heroes picked up their slack. And Marvel Earth didn't immediately cease to exist the next time someone powerful sneezed at it hard.

 

(sure, one of them was secretly a team of supervillains who decided they liked being heroes so much that they became actual heroes, but that's a side thing).

 

 

It's the Plot Induced Stupidity thing. If certain Master Villains picked that time to attack, the Marvel Universe would've ceased to exist and the artists and writers would all be out of jobs. So they simply ignored anything that they didn't want to deal with.

 

The same with the CU. Do you think every single hero on the planet combined could deal with 125 800 pt Undead from Takofanes? I don't. Especially since he can simply keep resummoning them as they get destroyed. At least the CU does have an explanation in that Dark Seraph and Dr Yin Wu secretly help the Heroes whenever possible in dealing with Takofanes. But that leads to the premise of this thread, that it's the MVs who put a check on each other.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Yeah, killing dozens of heroes as part of a deliberate plot to come back as a 2500+ pt monster qualifies as a 'defeat' in your book. At a time when he was personally much weaker.

 

And who the heck cares about 'personally rampaging'? Last I heard, minions, bases, and weapons all add to your power and all are legitimate tools to attack heroes with. Or are you not going to count Takofanes's 125 800 pt minions as part of his power?

 

Of course you count them. However, given they're supposed to be 800pt _NPC_ _undead_, they should not be as formidable as you might make them. (Honestly, between all the immunities and overexpensive power builds that powerful undead need to actually work like an undead monster rather than a thin supermage/brick/whatever, they shouldn't be more than a match for two starting supers built by players....).

[Enforcer84]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Piss Gripe Moan RANT RANT

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Given that the CU itself stated that the MVs were keeping each other in check (Dark Seraph and Dr Yin Wu helping against Takofanes' date=' Menton plotting against Destroyer, Destroyer vs Viper, etc) it seems as if the heroes by themselves wouldn't stand a chance based on descriptions on what actually happened.[/quote']

 

Well, there's only been a few massive hero die backs in the current CU. There'd probably be a lot more casualties without the added support, but it's hard to prove that the results would be reversed.

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Of course you count them. However' date=' given they're supposed to be 800pt _NPC_ _undead_, they should not be as formidable as you might make them. (Honestly, between all the immunities and overexpensive power builds that powerful undead need to actually work like an undead monster rather than a thin supermage/brick/whatever, they shouldn't be more than a match for two starting supers built by players....).[/quote']

 

 

Intelligent Powerful Undead such as Liches and Death Knights need 50 pts of Life Support and a bunch of exotic defenses and maybe regeneration. That's not that big a bite out of 800 pts and you're still left with an incredibly powerful opponent.

 

Weaker unintelligent undead such as zombies and skeletons need 110 pts for Takes No Stun and Full Life Support. That's a huge chunk of points out of a smaller point base, so what you're left with is cannon fodder.

 

Medium range undead such as ghosts need 50 pts Life Support. However, they're still rather dangerous since it's hard for most PCs to hit them in the first place.

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

The same with the CU. Do you think every single hero on the planet combined could deal with 125 800 pt Undead from Takofanes? I don't. Especially since he can simply keep resummoning them as they get destroyed. At least the CU does have an explanation in that Dark Seraph and Dr Yin Wu secretly help the Heroes whenever possible in dealing with Takofanes. But that leads to the premise of this thread, that it's the MVs who put a check on each other.

 

Have you even looked at some of the sample high end heroes? That there are implied multiples like them, behind whom the other heroes can rally, and with whom the forces of things like UNTIL and PRIMUS can rally, yeah, I do.

 

Whether reassembling the Mandragore, to people combining their own cosmic power pools for something demented, I make the crazy assumption that in fact the heroes from the CU can do what the heroes from the comics do.

 

I mean hell, the basic premise of the various Infinity Sagas was that basically ominpotent beings can be challenged by heroes completely beneath them and beaten because of dedicated planning and valiant effort.

 

It's the Plot Induced Stupidity thing. If certain Master Villains picked that time to attack, the Marvel Universe would've ceased to exist and the artists and writers would all be out of jobs. So they simply ignored anything that they didn't want to deal with.

 

Or the Silver Surfer and Doctor Strange would have eaten them alive.

 

Or the Eternals could have been called on.

 

Or the fact that one of the replacement teams had multiple supergeniuses could have come to the fore.

 

Or that one of the still existing teams had a guy that knocked Gladiator around could come into play.

 

Or Nate Grey, having learned a sense of responsiblity beyond himself because of what happened in the Onslaught mess, would have reality warped them into chutney.

 

Or in desperation, someone could activate Franklin Richard's powers, and he'd /decidedly/ warp things into chutney.

 

Or Nathaniel Richards could bebop through time and assemble a group of champions to sort the issue.

 

Or...

 

The rallying cry of "PIS!" goes both ways.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Intelligent Powerful Undead such as Liches and Death Knights need 50 pts of Life Support and a bunch of exotic defenses and maybe regeneration. That's not that big a bite out of 800 pts and you're still left with an incredibly powerful opponent.

 

Weaker unintelligent undead such as zombies and skeletons need 110 pts for Takes No Stun and Full Life Support. That's a huge chunk of points out of a smaller point base, so what you're left with is cannon fodder.

 

Medium range undead such as ghosts need 50 pts Life Support. However, they're still rather dangerous since it's hard for most PCs to hit them in the first place.

 

NPC's don't generally use efficient builds, and undead are much cooler with damage shields, scary area effect attacks and the like (which nonetheless end up not helping in most Hero vs Villain fights, because they're more showy than effective).

 

A few hundred into attacks that no player would even think twice about taking goes a long way into stamping something as an NPC.

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

Have you even looked at some of the sample high end heroes? That there are implied multiples like them, behind whom the other heroes can rally, and with whom the forces of things like UNTIL and PRIMUS can rally, yeah, I do.

 

Whether reassembling the Mandragore, to people combining their own cosmic power pools for something demented, I make the crazy assumption that in fact the heroes from the CU can do what the heroes from the comics do.

 

I mean hell, the basic premise of the various Infinity Sagas was that basically ominpotent beings can be challenged by heroes completely beneath them and beaten because of dedicated planning and valiant effort.

 

 

How many high end heroes? Maybe a couple of dozen if we're being generous? Won't go that far against 125 undead who are at or near their point totals. Especially undead that can be replaced as quickly as they're killed off.

 

And the various Infinity Sagas showed that it took stupidity or inexperience by the villains possessing omnipotent power to lead to their defeat. Or lazy writing. Thanos leaving his body behind and letting Nebula grab the Infinity Gauntlet? PIS in action.

 

 

 

Or the Silver Surfer and Doctor Strange would have eaten them alive.

 

Or the Eternals could have been called on.

 

Or the fact that one of the replacement teams had multiple supergeniuses could have come to the fore.

 

Or that one of the still existing teams had a guy that knocked Gladiator around could come into play.

 

Or Nate Grey, having learned a sense of responsiblity beyond himself because of what happened in the Onslaught mess, would have reality warped them into chutney.

 

Or in desperation, someone could activate Franklin Richard's powers, and he'd /decidedly/ warp things into chutney.

 

Or...

 

The rallying cry of "PIS!" goes both ways.

 

 

All the ones you mentioned are built on the same point totals and have the same or greater effectiveness as the Master Villains. Not like the case in CU where there is nobody on the same level as the MVs. Heck, the CU doesn't even have an Archmage at the moment.

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

NPC's don't generally use efficient builds, and undead are much cooler with damage shields, scary area effect attacks and the like (which nonetheless end up not helping in most Hero vs Villain fights, because they're more showy than effective).

 

A few hundred into attacks that no player would even think twice about taking goes a long way into stamping something as an NPC.

 

 

I think we have different definitions of NPC. The NPCs in CKC, while generally weaker than equivalent point heroes, aren't that much weaker. And some of them are built relatively efficiently.

 

What you're describing is cannon fodder, not NPC. And while low end undead should be cannon fodder, high end shouldn't. They should be credible opponents in their own right.

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

How many high end heroes? Maybe a couple of dozen if we're being generous? Won't go that far against 125 undead who are at or near their point totals. Especially undead that can be replaced as quickly as they're killed off.

 

 

This is just as a question, but I'm mildly curious, how many times exactly in comics do the heroes do something big and one off to deal with wild, out there threats?

 

When Reed Richards threatened Galactus with the Ultimate Nullifier to save the Earth, did Galactus in response whip out the Marvel RPG book and whine "you can't do that! Your point totals are nowhere near mine! PIS! PIS!"? Did he ask if Reed had paid for the Ultimate Nullifier as a weapon?

 

When the only way Hal Jordan could defeat something was to do some babbly randomness with the Central Battery, did the Guardians scream that that's not kosher, because he should have to face every single actually stated creature one on one?

 

Powerful heroes get together and do something crazy and unexpected that hoses enemies who for all the heroes own power, are still completely stupid beyond said heroes.

 

I'd dread you as a GM

 

You: "Takofanes is attacking earth"

 

Players: "alright, he has the big undead horde, so while Earth's special forces keep it occupied, we'll come up with some wacky unorthodox plan"

 

You: "Denied!"

 

I mean Great Darkness Saga Darkseid was mauling the Pre Crisis Superboy backed Legion like they were jokes, and yet they both somehow prevailed, and that story is regarded as a classic.

 

Master Villains are designed for uses like that, that would be the point.

 

You'd violently disagree that the assembled Earth forces couldn't even keep Takofanes /busy/ while whoever group is the main focus of the series does the thing that takes him down?

 

This board makes me boggle sometimes at why people both keep buying Champions products/read comics/run comic book rpgs, if so greatly do they loathe the conventions thereof.

 

And to note, considering the undead horde is unlikely to have things like connections to the gods, a crap ton of cosmic pools across multiple people, conncections to intergalactic police forces, connections to secret cities chock full of superhumans and the like, I'd say yes, they might have problems.

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

This is just as a question, but I'm mildly curious, how many times exactly in comics do the heroes do something big and one off to deal with wild, out there threats?

 

When Reed Richards threatened Galactus with the Ultimate Nullifier to save the Earth, did Galactus in response whip out the Marvel RPG book and whine "you can't do that! Your point totals are nowhere near mine! PIS! PIS!"? Did he ask if Reed had paid for the Ultimate Nullifier as a weapon?

 

When the only way Hal Jordan could defeat something was to do some babbly randomness with the Central Battery, did the Guardians ***** that that's not kosher, because he should have to face every single actually stated creature one on one?

 

Powerful heroes get together and do something crazy and unexpected that hoses enemies who for all the heroes own power, are still completely stupid beyond said heroes.

 

I'd dread you as a GM

 

You: "Takofanes is attacking earth"

 

Players: "alright, he has the big undead horde, so while Earth's special forces keep it occupied, we'll come up with some wacky unorthodox plan"

 

You: "Denied!"

 

I mean Great Darkness Saga Darkseid was mauling the Pre Crisis Superboy backed Legion like they were jokes, and yet they both somehow prevailed, and that story is regarded as a classic.

 

 

If I were GM, I wouldn't use Takofanes as currently written unless I was starting the campaign at a much higher point level. Or I would have at least 1-2 heroes on the planet built on the same power level with 150 pt VPPs who are assumed to be fending him off. I certainly wouldn't send him directly against the PCs. Maybe a few of his servants, but not Takofanes himself.

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

If I were GM, I wouldn't use Takofanes as currently written unless I was starting the campaign at a much higher point level. Or I would have at least 1-2 heroes on the planet built on the same power level with 150 pt VPPs who are assumed to be fending him off. I certainly wouldn't send him directly against the PCs. Maybe a few of his servants, but not Takofanes himself.

 

You completely missed what I said, I see.

 

Takofanes is just fine to be used as Darkseid to the Legion of Superheroes. Where if this were a re-enactment of the Great Darkness saga, I'd expect that in a direct confrontation he'd curbstomp his opposition whoever they were, but that his opposition would be allowed to gather for effort and actions that will let them carry the day anyway.

 

Seriously, when you read the Great Darkness Saga, did you immediately burn it in derision?

 

The initial Galactus arc in Fantastic Four?

 

I still see nothing that doesn't allow for the assembled hero forces and the connections they can draw on to do the big futile stand against the master villain while someone or someones come up with the big brilliant thing that lets them carry the day.

 

There are enough powerful heroes hinted at, and statted to allow for that, to allow for even the ocassional big rally that simply beats the master villain, depending on said master villain, and so forth. There seem to be implied scads at the 600-700 level, healthy numbers of 8s and near 8s, and ontop of them a collection of 900+ to 1000+

 

And when said people can be backed by whole armies, secret superhuman cities, magical civilizations, and the gods on high, all justified from their own backgrounds, no, I see no problems.

 

Or put differently, when Aquaman rallied the entire Atlantean civilization to overtake the world to browbeat them into not giving into Maggeddon, I'd say that 125 undead of no more than 800 points would have problems with crap like that as far as it occupying them for a goodly while, respawning or not.

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

You completely missed what I said, I see.

 

Takofanes is just fine to be used as Darkseid to the Legion of Superheroes. Where if this were a re-enactment of the Great Darkness saga, I'd expect that in a direct confrontation he'd curbstomp his opposition whoever they were, but that his opposition would be allowed to gather for effort and actions that will let them carry the day anyway.

 

Seriously, when you read the Great Darkness Saga, did you immediately burn it in derision?

 

The initial Galactus arc in Fantastic Four?

 

I still see nothing that doesn't allow for the assembled hero forces and the connections they can draw on to do the big futile stand against the master villain while someone or someones come up with the big brilliant thing that lets them carry the day.

 

There are enough powerful heroes hinted at, and statted to allow for that, to allow for even the ocassional big rally that simply beats the master villain, depending on said master villain, and so forth. There seem to be implied scads at the 600-700 level, healthy numbers of 8s and near 8s, and ontop of them a collection of 900+ to 1000+

 

And when said people can be backed by whole armies, secret superhuman cities, magical civilizations, and the gods on high, all justified from their own backgrounds, no, I see no problems.

 

Or put differently, when Aquaman rallied the entire Atlantean civilization to overtake the world to browbeat them into not giving into Maggeddon, I'd say that 125 undead of no more than 800 points would have problems with crap like that as far as it occupying them for a goodly while, respawning or not.

 

 

If there were 'scads' of 600-700 and 'healthy' numbers of 800's in the CU, then Eurostar would be a complete joke (all but 1 of them are less than 600 and most are below 500) rather than being regarded as the most dangerous Supervillain team in Europe and possibly the world. So I believe you're greatly exaggerating the numbers of powerful heroes on the planet.

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

And kudos on ignoring what I always find an interesting point about discussions on this board, what goes on in comics versus what people complain about in comic book rpg games. Which are, in crazy theory, designed to let people rp in what feels like comics.

 

If there were 'scads' of 600-700 and 'healthy' numbers of 800's in the CU, then Eurostar would be a complete joke (all but 1 of them are less than 600 and most are below 500) rather than being regarded as the most dangerous Supervillain team in Europe and possibly the world. So I believe you're greatly exaggerating the numbers of powerful heroes on the planet.

 

How many of them read as free to deal with threats like Eurostar? Archon has to be near constantly ready for crazy crap from Lemuria, now that they're keen on being active. The various demigods and mages that skew over 600 points all have specific concerns that keep them, depending on the person, direly occupied on the matters at hand. Those simply go flying to hell out the window when say, Darkseid the Lich is going to kill planet Earth.

 

Plenty of "deadliest threats evar" in the Marvel Universe would be eaten alive if they caught Gilgamesh on a day when he wasn't running to and fro on Eternal business. Or a whole bunch of the Eternals. Of whom? Enough to go to war with the Olympian pantheon with said pantheon having more forces beyond just their big names.

 

The Wrecker just brutalized the New Avengers in a long, long fight before they could take him down.

 

Various heroes not the New Avengers would find the Wrecker a priceless joke.

 

And yet the Wrecker is indeed regarded as a dire and vicious threat to be feared.

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

At that, I think your requirement for what you consider to be healthy is greatly exaggerated

 

What would be healthy to you? 50? 100? 125 so that they can meet Takofanes' undead on the battlefield in a toe to toe fight where planning is irrelevant because everyone's stats are balanced out wargame style?

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

And kudos on ignoring what I always find an interesting point about discussions on this board, what goes on in comics versus what people complain about in comic book rpg games. Which are, in crazy theory, designed to let people rp in what feels like comics.

 

 

 

How many of them read as free to deal with threats like Eurostar? Archon has to be near constantly ready for crazy crap from Lemuria, now that they're keen on being active. The various demigods and mages that skew over 600 points all have specific concerns that keep them, depending on the person, direly occupied on the matters at hand. Those simply go flying to hell out the window when say, Darkseid the Lich is going to kill planet Earth.

 

Plenty of "deadliest threats evar" in the Marvel Universe would be eaten alive if they caught Gilgamesh on a day when he wasn't running to and fro on Eternal business. Or a whole bunch of the Eternals. Of whom? Enough to go to war with the Olympian pantheon.

 

The Wrecker just brutalized the New Avengers in a long, long fight before they could take him down.

 

Various heroes not the New Avengers would find the Wrecker a priceless joke.

 

And yet the Wrecker is indeed regarded as a dire and vicious threat to be feared.

 

 

Please refer me to anywhere in the Marvel Universe where the Wrecker is considered 'the most dangerous supervillain in the world'. I can show you chapter and verse where Eurostar is considered the most dangerous in the world in the CU. So IOW, your comparison is way off.

 

Eurostar has been known to steal billions of dollars, destroy entire city blocks, and kill hundreds if not thousands of people. They've destroyed entire military formations. And yet according to you, not a single one of the 'scads' and 'healthy numbers' of greater heroes can be bothered to deal with them.

 

You're really making a case for PIS. Better than I can.

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

At that' date=' I think your requirement for what you consider to be healthy is [b']greatly exaggerated[/b]

 

What would be healthy to you? 50? 100? 125 so that they can meet Takofanes' undead on the battlefield in a toe to toe fight where planning is irrelevant because everyone's stats are balanced out wargame style?

 

You're the one who used the word 'healthy'. If you don't want to even bother defining a term you threw out, you shouldn't complain to me about it.

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

You're the one who used the word 'healthy'. If you don't want to even bother defining a term you threw out, you shouldn't complain to me about it.

 

So, you're not going to answer the question then?

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

So' date=' you're not going to answer the question then?[/quote']

 

 

I see you're not willing to define a term you threw out.

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

By the way, since your requirement for Eurostar as the most dangerous team in the world has them as most being below 500, and only 1 over 600, I'll go and count how many heroes hidden or open are on 450 or more points and get back to you on the numbers.

 

I mean, there can't /possibly/ be that many.

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

I see you're not willing to define a term you threw out.

 

.. or I'm just suprised that the response to being asked a question is "I don't want to answer until you do, nyah nyah". And I guess I could childishly rejoinder back that I asked you first, and it looks pretty pathetic to be insecure enough in your opinions to not want to answer until you get a number from me you can riff off of.. well, no, I will openly say that.

 

Healthy? To me? If there were 20-25 around 800 point heroes in the world, I'd consider that /exceptionally/ healthy. Note the emphasis.

 

10-15, would be healthy. And if every notable country has a figure like Vedun from Russia, and I'd find it odd if they wouldn't, since he was a respected adjunct to the Russian national superteam, I'd expect that there are that many. Vedun not being noted as "the most powerful dude ever evar"

 

Answering yet?

 

This by the way does not include things like Empyreans who would only act in the name of a crisis, and similar "only if crisis" figures. Who I would expect there would be more of.

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

By the way, since your requirement for Eurostar as the most dangerous team in the world has them as most being below 500, and only 1 over 600, I'll go and count how many heroes hidden or open are on 450 or more points and get back to you on the numbers.

 

I mean, there can't /possibly/ be that many.

 

 

It's the CU that says Eurostar is the most dangerous in Europe and possibly the world. CKC page 66 and CU page 110.

 

If you don't like it, argue with Steve Long and Darren Watts.

[Pendaran]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

So what would it mean if the numbers of things that if they could have the time and oppourtunity and inclincation to get together to kick their *** around their point level or more is decently sizable? We need another Crisis of Infinite Stats?

[Gary]

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive?

 

.. or I'm just suprised that the response to being asked a question is "I don't want to answer until you do, nyah nyah". And I guess I could childishly rejoinder back that I asked you first, and it looks pretty pathetic to be insecure enough in your opinions to not want to answer until you get a number from me you can riff off of.. well, no, I will openly say that.

 

Healthy? To me? If there were 20-25 around 800 point heroes in the world, I'd consider that /exceptionally/ healthy. Note the emphasis.

 

Answering yet?

 

This by the way does not include things like Empyreans who would only act in the name of a crisis, and similar "only if crisis" figures. Who I would expect there would be more of.

 

 

That would be an exceptionally 'healthy' number of 800 pt heroes. Especially since there seems to be no indication that there is close to this many.

 

According to CU, there are maybe 6000 total people on the planet with any sort of powers at all. And 2400 powerful enough to don a costume. And 60% of those are villains. So 960 heroes and 1440 villains on the entire planet. The vast majority of them should be 350 or fewer points.