|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 16, 2011 12:19:37 GMT -5
Master Chief should be 6. He performed a nerve strike that snapped the spine of 2 armored elites. this feat isn't even 1 to warrant a 5 |
|
ronniebolt
Sidekick Ledger
Chicks dig ronnie
Posts: 86
|
Post by ronniebolt on Jun 16, 2011 12:55:12 GMT -5
Master Chief should be 6. He performed a nerve strike that snapped the spine of 2 armored elites. this feat isn't even 1 to warrant a 5 right, because how many people on the 5 list do you know that are capable of performing the same feat....without any physical enhancements? |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 16, 2011 12:56:32 GMT -5
When did this feat take place? Because John 117 does indeed have modifications to his body. However, at an extremely young age he was able to wreck skilled marines. So, that's worth noting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 16, 2011 12:57:22 GMT -5
Snapping someones spin is more strenght feat then anything. As for never strikes, I mean really? You really can't think of anyone that can perform them at level 5 of skill?
Perhaps you shouldn't be arguing for any rankings, no offense...
|
|
Silver
The Unstoppable Ledgernaut
The Fourth Precept
Posts: 4,654
|
Post by Silver on Jun 16, 2011 12:59:08 GMT -5
right, because how many people on the 5 list do you know that are capable of performing the same feat.... without any physical enhancements?You basically just acknowledged that this is a physical feat rather than a skill feat. Give any 5 the same physical stats, and they could do the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 16, 2011 12:59:58 GMT -5
Like Crom implied, nerve strikes aren't really something that render an automatic 6, imho. Otherwise, Moon Knight's display in Vengeance would bump him up to a 6  |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 16, 2011 13:06:35 GMT -5
Nerve strikes aren't that big a deal really as skill feats period.
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 16, 2011 13:08:15 GMT -5
That's the point. |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 16, 2011 13:08:58 GMT -5
That's the point. I was agreeing with you dude |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 16, 2011 13:09:54 GMT -5
I see we're striking the same point.
Eventually, this might strike a nerve.
BAZINGA!
|
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 16, 2011 13:12:19 GMT -5
I see we're striking the same point. Eventually, this might strike a nerve. BAZINGA!  |
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 16, 2011 13:13:34 GMT -5
Any amount of effort > always responding like a cynic  |
|
|
|
Post by Crom-Cruach on Jun 16, 2011 13:15:35 GMT -5
your point? |
|
Painkiller
Team Buster Ledger
?I?m sorry, did I ruin your concentration??
Posts: 2,407
|
Post by Painkiller on Jul 8, 2011 5:29:35 GMT -5
Why is Ra's Al Ghul so low? I'd put him above Jason Todd. He should at LEAST be a High 5.
|
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jul 8, 2011 5:47:01 GMT -5
Why is Ra's Al Ghul so low? I'd put him above Jason Todd. He should at LEAST be a High 5. Becausehe suffered h2h defeats from characters who skill level is below the level you suggest. Because all but a few of his truly credible h2h feats are straight after a dip in the Lazarus pit when he's enhanced Because in h2h he has lesser combatants like his Ubu's do the fighting for him on many many occasions ( if he was better than them he would hardly stand back and allow them to defend him from far better opponents Because everyone who thinks he's better is regarding his sword skill (now as a swodsman he would be way up) And because everyone who's thought he should be higher can't come up with a successful argument against my stance. Ra's is a great tactician, general, swordsman, but not much above elite military in h2h which is where he's ranked |
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on Jul 8, 2011 9:39:22 GMT -5
@beat: But some people are high based on their duelling skills, so why not Ra's?
|
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jul 8, 2011 9:44:04 GMT -5
@beat: But some people are high based on their duelling skills, so why not Ra's? I thought it was a pure h2h thread. I made my arguments and stated he'd be a 6 or 7 for dueling and he was adjusted accordingly. So maybe some of those who's ranks are high purely for dueling just haven't been challenged yet ( remember Erik adds them at nominated level and only changes them once a challenge has been made and debated. |
|
|
|
Post by Supreme Marvel on Jul 8, 2011 10:00:04 GMT -5
Well, the title says fighting skill. Duelling is a fighting skill. The other threads is a hand to hand combat thread. The Creator one.
|
|
Painkiller
Team Buster Ledger
?I?m sorry, did I ruin your concentration??
Posts: 2,407
|
Post by Painkiller on Jul 8, 2011 16:34:09 GMT -5
@beat: But some people are high based on their duelling skills, so why not Ra's? I thought it was a pure h2h thread. I made my arguments and stated he'd be a 6 or 7 for dueling and he was adjusted accordingly. So maybe some of those who's ranks are high purely for dueling just haven't been challenged yet ( remember Erik adds them at nominated level and only changes them once a challenge has been made and debated. Tim Drake is also a Low 5 and Ra's beat him within an inch of his life. |
|
Beatboks
Team Buster Ledger
Posts: 2,206
|
Post by Beatboks on Jul 8, 2011 16:42:46 GMT -5
And Ra's is a high 5 there are plenty of examples of people being on the same level and being vastly different
SM.
The title is what it is
It was stated early on (IIRC Ckal said this is all h2h k4tz agreed) and Creator asked people to rank weapon skill some time ago.
Like I said I challenged the 6 ranking in this basis andy challenge and debate was enough for Erik to change when later questioned he referred to my argument
|
|
