Pendaran

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive? You're the one insisting everyone meet each other in a confined space to mass rush each other in numbers, but good job on devolving to a level of personal insult of repeatedly telling me I have a fetish instead of addressing points, that speaks volumes. But this has been a thread of you not addressing points on several ocassions, so hey. I mean, it's far easier to do that than actually give responses, apparently. You're the one cursing everything you don't like as PIS, ragging on what are classic storylines in comics, and simply /not even responding/ to repeated points. So what else can I compare your statements to? Actual comic books? That seems to be beneath you to try and run a comic book superhero game like.

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive? I mean, certainly in the Great Darkness saga, once they realized what they were facing, they didn't mad scramble to find what allies and supplementary plans they could, and go so far as to get powered up by Highfather of all people. Oh, wait, they did.. No, they lined up in neat little rows and waited for Darkseid to pick an empty block of space for everyone to rush at each other in.

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive? Perhaps, like other posts of mine you haven't quite addressed the points of, you're just not getting the question. You. What number do you think there should be of people at that point total in the Champs U before you agreed it was healthy enough to face the threats before it. That has been the repeated question, and you have refused to answer it over and over, as though perhaps incapable. There isn't any point to this discussion if you won't give direct answers to question given, but pretend that you do anyway. How many times do I have to ask this question before you will answer it?

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive? How odd then that Vedun is referred to only as one of Russia's most effective defender's and not the world's. And they would have no supplemental help from armies, no PRIMUS or UNTIL backing, no chance to gain help from their backers if mystical, contact Arcadia if connected to it, Atlantis if connected to it, Gods if connected to them, Alien allies should they have them, make any kind of plans to face them, no, they would just Warhammer style face them arranged into neat little units to face the other guy's neat little units because THAT is of course how it always goes in comics. Everyone would arrange to meet in the same tidy battlefield and advance one click at a time.

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive? So, basically, you can't give me firm, consistent agreement from the source material at that. By the way are you going to answer yet? Given the villain stats and so forth of the CU, what /to you/ as a concrete number would be a healthy number of 800 point heroes, and an exceptionally healthy number?

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive? To restate: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, but not, say, leader of or greatest hero of all time from, the Russian national superteam, I'd expect that there are that many. Vedun not being noted as "the most powerful dude ever evar" Vedun is in fact referred to as "one of Russia's most effective defenders" Note the /one of/. And also /Russia/ not /the world/

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive? We're only at possibly the world now? I thought they were definitely the most dangerous in the world. Are we doing semantic backtracking now? Because if we're doing that, Batman called the Ten Eyed Man the most dangerous man of all time.

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?

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. 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.

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.

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive? So, you're not going to answer the question then?

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?

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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. 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.

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).

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive? See, the funny thing is, since they kept the event in 5e, that seems to read that it happened with 5e stats, since there was not some Crisis of Infinite Stats where the Anti Stat Monitor changed everyone's stats as a specific plot point. And in English, since Destroyer lost and ran away, yes, that counts as a defeat. Thanks for the condescending though. Destroyer also for it had to gather support villains, and bring outside forces to himself with him, he didn't just personally rampage. He also had to follow long term planning to make it happen. Your gripe is like complaining that the big summer multi title crossover event had some death. They have those, now and then. And to note, yes, I know it's all part of a larger plan, but when that plan requires making sure everyone thinks yer dead so that you can lie in wait for years and years while you build resources, that also notes how seriously Destroyer takes the idea of people gathering to beat him down. And at that, people have started to know he's still alive anywho, so that aspect of his plan? Kinda failed.

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive? And Worldwide allows for the possibility of multiple 900+ to 1000+ heroes running around, so I don't find it so bleak personally. Beyond that are things like CU noting that Destroyer in game, y'know, loses to heroes making the big gathered effort against him, when he himself is making the big gathered effort.

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive? I'd think that the lot of them group together with some supplementary help and thoughtful planning would in fact be able to pull something out, especially if a bunch of them are coming in at 900+ points. You know, like how heroes in the comics beat the big worldsmashing villains.

Re: Captain Atom? He can do light molecular manipulation. Well, not light, he did change Maul back into Jeremy when he fought the Wildcats. He can also manipulate existing energy, he can fly, and his blasts have been powerful enough to knock out a GL, which considering it was Hal, not a small thing.

Re: Is defeating a Master Villain sometimes counterproductive? It's alternatively worth noting there are in fact guys like Tetsuronin and Rashindar floating around, and a lot of other people with unspecified point values who do things like fight Firewing off on their lonesome (like the English guy, Hyperion or something). If you're running some street level based campaign, it's really not hard to note that such things are being handled by those types as far as things going on in the background. *shrug* It seems to me that the Champs U in fact assumes there are actual high point heroes floating around that can band together and face the Master Villains, and that eventually your characters can be one of them, but that in the interim, you don't need to spaz about the world ending every other week.

Re: [interest in an online game?] Avengers: Generation 3 Hellicarrier could be interesting, though potentially complicating if bristling with armaments (though pretty easy to say it aint). If not that, then the island. Also, are we getting those communicator card thingers?

Re: [interest in an online game?] Avengers: Generation 3 I find it kinda funny I have the only mage so far, I'm pondering rejigging points to buff that some more or maybe just channel xp that way when it comes in.

Re: [interest in an online game?] Avengers: Generation 3 Actually no, Thor comes to Midgard because Odin feels it both teaches him humility, and will refine him to be the one to break the cycle of Ragnarok. At that, Thor has been exiled to Midgard after Odin makes decrees of never touching it again, for what Odin has felt at the time of Thor caring more about it than Asgard. Most of the time, Asgard does not in fact work like Planescape. And at this point I'm feeling at bit preached at and spoken down to as far as character design, with justifications that don't even have much to do with, say, Asgard. Fandral the Dashing's outfit was basically green clothes. Hogun the Grim wore leggings, a shirt, and basically had a Mongol helmet as far as the main thing that set it apart. As far as Asgardians. Hank Pym at various times in his career basically wore clothes when he bopped around with the Avengers. Thor's costume was, at one point, black tights. By that I mean nothing more than that. Dude otherwise went around bare chested and helmet free. An outfit that looks largely like, say Thunderstrike's, is far more costumish than all of those except for Hogun's, due to the helmet. Black Widow wore a leather jacket with an A on the sleeve over a bodystocking, as far as one of her's, at that. But thanks for the lecture complete with bolded commentary.