Comic Battle >> View Post
Post By
The Real Lance Eason

In Reply To
Volstagg jr

Subj: I assume that if Class 100 doesn't mean 100 tons, then "Class 95" doesn't mean 95 tons...
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 11:38:44 pm EST (Viewed 89 times)
Reply Subj: No Its Meaningless
Posted: Sun Feb 16, 2014 at 02:07:05 pm EST (Viewed 22 times)

Previous Post

The thing is class 100 characters have so many strength feats many times exceeding 100 tons, it makes it silly that a 95 tonner could even remotely touch these beings. It would be like a NFL lineman fighting a 1 year old baby. A few examples of this are:

When Gladiator lifts The Baxter Building

When Hulk holds up a mountain

When Sentry catches The SHIELD Hellicarrier

When Thor lifts The Midgard Serpent

When Hercules hauls the Island of Manhattan

When Hyperion stops two worlds from colliding.

When Namor flies carrying a battleship

It just means roughly 95% as strong as someone in the Class 100 range. Otherwise, as you say, it couldn't work.
I think, at heart, the system is flawed. I think the original handbooks used the tonnage rankings without really taking into account showings that clearly put characters' strength levels at way, way above 100 tons. The "Class 100" designation was already suitably vague (described as being "routinely able to lift (press) in excess of 100 tons") but kinda/sorta/not-quite-but-almost Class 100 guys like the Thing were listed as being able to lift a specific maximum weight which was always way too low. Because of how handy the ranking system seemed to be, people have kept the language and abandoned the literal interpretation. I see how we got where we are, and it's kind of been made to work, but we could stand to have something better.

Posted with Mozilla Firefox 27.0 on MacOS X
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software