Madness Combat -- No more Attack Reflection

[Randomuser3412]

It was brought to my attention that several Madness Combat characters are currently given Attack Reflection for merely causing bullets to ricochet off weapons or shields.
The problem lies in the fact that the Attack Reflection page makes it clear that it requires a mechanism different from a simple barrier that causes projectiles to bounce off to qualify for the ability.
Thus, the reasoning provided for Attack Reflection is invalid. On top of that, none of the scans even show the projectiles hitting the one that fired them. This is not an ability, it's merely a side effect of durability (of the weapon/tool) and speed.

Spoiler: Pages affected

Hank J. Wimbleton (pre and post Apotheosis)
Jesus
A.T.P. Soldat

Agree: @Homie890 @AstraphelNoctis4

Disagree: @Comiphorous (agrees with removing it from the A.T.P. Soldats) @DaReaperMan @Follow_Doctor_Freeman (neutral on A.T.P. Soldat's Attack Reflection removal) @XxZetsuxX

Neutral: @azontr @AthelChan (both think it should be changed to Limited Attack Reflection)

 

[Homie890]

Seems logical.

 

[Follow_Doctor_Freeman]

If distinguishing like this is really worth the fuss -- is it? -- then the thing to do would be to have, like, "Attack Reflection Type 1: Uno Reverse Card no-u everything magic" ability & "Attack Reflection Type 2: parrying this & that kind of projectile" ability, and then keep making a whole bunch more subtypes after that. Discounting bullet-parrying as purely a byproduct of superhumanism is dubious because not every faster-than-a-speeding-bullet character with a sword can or demonstrates the ability to reflect bullets and the like, like how not every superhuman has acrobatics. That's why the ones who have such feats tend to have Attack Reflection on their pages.

Or! We could just proceed as normal & note the ability's nature and limits on a case-by-case basis, just like for everything else.

Am I really gonna have to watch the whole series again just to find clips of reflected bullets hitting the shooter? I do remember this off the top of my head even if it doesn't go straight back at the shooter, and Jebediah obviously ticks all the boxes (1, 2, 3, probably would have also caught that rocket at the end had he not been debilitated by Auditor-AIDs & been beaten up and shot multiple times besides). And didn't the games have stuff? Geez, more on my plate, huh. It isn't even as if who-would-win threads were arguing offense specifically, more the defense angle. And not even beyond bullets, it's not as if people were saying "Hank deflects Darkseid's Omega Beams" or whatever. Making a thread on this is jumping the gun tbh, but I'll see about adding even more scans-n-links after some bigger deals are addressed.

 

[Randomuser3412]

If distinguishing like this is really worth the fuss -- is it? -- then the thing to do would be to have, like, "Attack Reflection Type 1: Uno Reverse Card no-u everything magic" ability & "Attack Reflection Type 2: parrying this & that kind of projectile" ability, and then keep making a whole bunch more subtypes after that. Discounting bullet-parrying as purely a byproduct of superhumanism is dubious because not every faster-than-a-speeding-bullet character with a sword can or demonstrates the ability to reflect bullets and the like, like how not every superhuman has acrobatics. That's why the ones who have such feats tend to have Attack Reflection on their pages.

Or! We could just proceed as normal & note the ability's nature and limits on a case-by-case basis, just like for everything else.

Am I really gonna have to watch the whole series again just to find clips of reflected bullets hitting the shooter? I do remember this off the top of my head even if it doesn't go straight back at the shooter, and Jebediah obviously ticks all the boxes (1, 2, 3, probably would have also caught that rocket at the end had he not been debilitated by Auditor-AIDs & been beaten up and shot multiple times besides). And didn't the games have stuff? Geez, more on my plate, huh. It isn't even as if who-would-win threads were arguing offense specifically, more the defense angle. And not even beyond bullets, it's not as if people were saying "Hank deflects Darkseid's Omega Beams" or whatever. Making a thread on this is jumping the gun tbh, but I'll see about adding even more scans-n-links after some bigger deals are addressed.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the Attack Reflection page specifically denounces any examples of using objects or telekinesis to ricochet/reflect projectiles as being Attack Reflection. None of this changes that.

 

[Follow_Doctor_Freeman]

Yeah, and that's a dubious distinction for the page to have. Even for bullets alone; not every object used as a shielding technique, quickly deployed such as a sword parry or just held statically, can ricochet bullets even if the durability is higher, and not everybody wielding it may be able to perform it in such a way even if they have such and such stats. If people really want to make a whole entire new category for bullet reflection specifically, that's their workload. But methinks things are fine as they are, at most snipping out the segment in the Attack Reflection page that's fueling nitpicks.

 

[Randomuser3412]

Yeah, and that's a dubious distinction for the page to have. Even for bullets alone; not every object used as a shielding technique, quickly deployed such as a sword parry or just held statically, can ricochet bullets even if the durability is higher, and not everybody wielding it may be able to perform it in such a way even if they have such and such stats. If people really want to make a whole entire new category for bullet reflection specifically, that's their workload. But methinks things are fine as they are, at most snipping out the segment in the Attack Reflection page that's fueling nitpicks.

I think this is a fine distinction to make. Clearly the intention of Attack Reflection was for it to have a mechanism beyond just hitting something away.
If you think differently, make a staff thread to change it. But, as it stands, if the page explicitly says "Characters who do this thing do not qualify for the ability" then they shouldn't have it.
I know a lot of profiles do this, but it doesn't make it any better. An example is how often Fear Manipulation gets conflated with Social Influencing. Those pages should be changed accordingly as well.
As it stands, this is a Weapon Mastery/skill feat as well as speed and the durability of the weapon.

 

[AstraphelNoctis4]

Seems reasonable

 

[Follow_Doctor_Freeman]

"Clearly the intention of Attack Reflection was for it to have a mechanism beyond just hitting something away." That is pretty much the same thing. The means and degrees can be different, which is not news. Pit's means and degrees are different than Wobbuffet's means and degrees are different than etc. We could even nitpick there, too -- "Pit's attack reflection is also a Forcefield which means it should be only a Forcefield, and the attack doesn't always go directly back at the opponent, and those attacks he reflects aren't the same as the properties of what this other guy reflects, so each of them should get a new type/category!" -- and get into durability and such on all those again, too. But making a different category for each and every individuated variation when the details should be present on the profiles anyway is unproductively obsessive imo.

And I could drag this out further by making yet another thread, but I think it would be more respectful of staff time to just address the "to consider reflecting attacks by bullets with a sword (when other characters of similar stats, equipment, and even skill may not be able to) as Attack Reflection of bullets or not to" here in the thread splitting hairs about it (if address it at all).

 

[Randomuser3412]

But making a different category for each and every individuated variation when the details should be present on the profiles anyway is unproductively obsessive imo.

This isn't what I suggested. And I'm not a fan of the whataboutism.

 

[Comiphorous]

"Note: Attack Reflection as an ability must refer to a power in which a major or direct aspect is dedicated to reflecting or deflecting some form of action. Reflection/deflection as a secondary power, such as using Telekinesis to redirect something, Elemental Control to redirect its respective element, or using a barrier that happens to cause ricochet on projectiles, would not be considered as Attack Reflection, as those aspects are secondary effects of a primary power."

The note specifies something shouldn't get the ability if it's a byproduct of a character using another ability/something else they did, and should only get it if it's an intentional effect of the character doing it, not that anyone who uses weapons.

How you are interpreting the rule would mean anyone who uses anything but their physical body to deflect attacks don't qualify for the ability despite the fact the literal examples for the gif on the page and on the bottom of the page don't qualify for the ability they're examples for. (For christ almighty, the gif is literally someone reflecting an attack with a sword)

As it stands, Madness characters do qualify for the ability, as they're intentionally reflecting the bullets. I am fine removing it from A.T.P.s with their shields though, as that is unintentional reflection and would fall under a byproduct and not them doing it intentionally.

 

[Follow_Doctor_Freeman]

This isn't what I suggested. And I'm not a fan of the whataboutism.

You can be at ease, I'm not attacking your personal character here. Neither was Comi when he was doubtful about your "speed equalized down to a character who can't dodge bullets means bullet-dodgers can't dodge bullets" claim.

But yes, you are proposing rather minute splits in categorization. There is indeed more than one way to perform Attack Reflection, and parrying is different than a Forcefield (is different from Vector Manipulation is different from a more metaphysical Damage Transferal is different from...) but there are so many different ways of performing Attack Reflection (even more subvariants than Immortality & such) that it's more productive for the profiles to just give an example of each case (same with everything else) than be too nitpicky about it.

 

[Randomuser3412]

The note specifies something shouldn't get the ability if it's a byproduct of a character using another ability/something else they did

It's a byproduct of them using an ordinary object to block the projectile. Like the note says doesn't count.

and should only get it if it's an intentional effect of the character doing it.

Nope. The note heavily, heavily, heavily implies that it means a character intentionally doing it as a byproduct of something not explicitly tailored to reflect attacks.

You're suggesting that anyone who uses anything but their physical body to deflect attacks don't qualify

That's not what I'm suggesting.

the fact the literal examples for the gif on the page and on the bottom of the page don't qualify for the ability they're examples for. (For christ almighty, the gif is literally someone reflecting an attack with a sword)

Which is not a byproduct of literally just smacking it.

 

[Randomuser3412]

You can be at ease, I'm not attacking your personal character here. Neither was Comi when he was doubtful about your "speed equalized down to a character who can't dodge bullets means bullet-dodgers can't dodge bullets" claim.

But yes, you are proposing rather minute splits in categorization. There is indeed more than one way to perform Attack Reflection, and parrying is different than a Forcefield (is different from Vector Manipulation is different from a more metaphysical Damage Transferal is different from...) but there are so many different ways of performing Attack Reflection (even more subvariants than Immortality & such) that it's more productive for the profiles to just give an example of each case (same with everything else) than be too nitpicky about it.

I'm suggesting the Madness Combat characters that currently have it on their profiles have it removed. I'm not suggesting splitting it up in any way.

 

[Follow_Doctor_Freeman]

I'm suggesting the Madness Combat characters that currently have it on their profiles have it removed. I'm not suggesting splitting it up in any way.

And I'm suggesting to instead improve the Attack Reflection page to include the ability to reflect attacks.

Anyway, that's the short and long of it, not much else to do but see if and how staff care.

 

[Randomuser3412]

And I'm suggesting to instead improve the Attack Reflection page to include the ability to reflect attacks.

If that's how things go, fine. The only issue here is that the page explicitly says what the characters are doing here doesn't count. I'd actually be in favor of it being changed, though

 

[Comiphorous]

It's a byproduct of them using an ordinary object to block the projectile. Like the note says doesn't count.

They're intentionally using it to do that though. It would be different if Hank was unintentionally doing that, but if he's intentionally using the tool in that way he qualifies for the ability. What you're suggesting would mean that anyone who uses a weapon to deflect something wouldn't qualify for the ability, as it would be a "byproduct of the object", not them doing it themselves.

Nope. The note heavily, heavily, heavily implies that it means a character intentionally doing it as a byproduct of something not explicitly tailored to reflect attacks.

No, it says if it's a secondary power to whatever OTHER power is being used to achieve the ability it doesn't qualify. Doesn't mention anything else.

That's not what I'm suggesting.

If it's not what your suggesting it's what your accidentally putting on the table. Someone can just say "Well they did it through a weapon meaning it was a byproduct of the weapon's attributes, not the character actually deflecting" and have it removed. which is what you're doing.

Which is not a byproduct of literally just smacking it.

He used a sword there, so by your own logic he'd have to get it removed since it'd just be a side effect of the weapon.

 

[Randomuser3412]

What you're suggesting would mean that anyone who uses a weapon to deflect something wouldn't qualify for the ability, as it would be a "byproduct of the object", not them doing it themselves.

Yeah. That's kinda the whole point.

No, it says if it's a secondary power to whatever OTHER power is being used to achieve the ability it doesn't qualify.

Yeah. It also says using a barrier that isn't tailored to reflect projectiles and just happens to do that (like, say, a sword) does not count

So a secondary effect of him smacking it? See by your own logic it'd disqualify him from having it.

Calling an ability specifically meant to reflect and amplify multiple different kinds of magic and non-magic attacks "smacking it" seems a bit simplified

 

[Comiphorous]

Yeah. That's kinda the whole point.

So basically nobody under the entire fictional umbrella would have the ability unless they reflect it specifically with their hands or something. Which isn't the point of the ability as obviously shown IN THE EXAMPLES!

Yeah. It also says using a barrier that isn't tailored to reflect projectiles and just happens to do that (like, say, a sword) does not count

the note says that the effect can't be UNINTENTIONAL, not that something can't reflect things based off it's properties, as to get the ability the character would need the property to deflect something in the first place. Your interpretation would literally make the ability unusable.

Calling an ability specifically meant to reflect and amplify multiple different kinds of magic and non-magic attacks "smacking it" seems a bit simplified

I based it off your words not mine.

 

[Randomuser3412]

the note says that the effect can't be UNINTENTIONAL, not that something can't reflect things based off it's properties.

"Happens to" is referring to the barrier in question not having a specific (supernatural) effect of reflecting attacks that come in contact with and instead just doing that because of how it was hit or something.

So basically nobody under the entire fictional umbrella would have the ability unless they reflect it specifically with their hands or something. Which isn't the point of the ability as obviously shown IN THE EXAMPLES!

If they reflect it with their hands by slapping it away with no further context it also wouldn't be Attack Reflection. You're focusing on the weapon part too much here.

 

[Comiphorous]

"Happens to" is referring to the barrier in question not having a specific (supernatural) effect of reflecting attacks that come in contact with and instead just doing that because of how it was hit or something.

Prove that's what the note is supposed to say. As far as i can tell it makes no specification that you are referring to.

If they reflect it with their hands by slapping it away with no further context it also wouldn't be Attack Reflection. You're focusing on the weapon part too much here.

I'm focusing on it because you seem clueless on what you're implying with this CRT. A character intentionally using a tool to reflect bullets is attack reflection by definition, because they're using the attributes of the weapon to do that. You trying to remove it because the weapon has the attribute to reflect bullets makes the ability completely worthless.

This CRT just seems spiteful based on a vsthread, which is simply immature.

 

[Follow_Doctor_Freeman]

No offense to either of you, and personally I do like this kind of point-by-point debate, but what matters practically is that staff have an idea of what's going on here & they're gonna prefer a time-saving recap like this over rigorous detail or motivation.

 

[DaReaperMan]

What the ****-**** is going on here?

 

[Comiphorous]

No offense to either of you, and personally I do like this kind of point-by-point debate, but what matters practically is that staff have an idea of what's going on here & they're gonna prefer a time-saving recap like this over rigorous detail or motivation.

Ykw fair enough. I think both myself and OP have said what we want.

What the - is going on here?

Attack reflection assassination.

 

[Randomuser3412]

Prove that's what the note is supposed to say. As far as i can tell it makes no specification that you are referring to.

I believe you're confusing the term "happens to" with the term "just so happens to"

You trying to remove it because the weapon has the attribute to reflect bullets is completely worthless.

It ain't because it's from the weapon. Characters obviously have the abilities of their weapons. It just isn't Attack Reflection, the ability.

 

[Follow_Doctor_Freeman]

You other two take a sec, I'll recap to DaReaperMan in a sec & you can correct me if I get anything wrong, ok?

 

[DaReaperMan]

I believe you're confusing the term "happens to" with the term "just so happens to"

It ain't because it's from the weapon. Characters obviously have the abilities of their weapons. It just isn't Attack Reflection, the ability.

Hi, Mr. 51,000 posts here, yeah it is.

 

[Randomuser3412]

Hi, Mr. 51,000 posts here, yeah it is.

Go change the page. It says it isn't.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Go change the page. It says it isn't.

What you've misinterpreted it says it isn't. But that's a misinterpretation. Comi is 100% correct.

 

[Randomuser3412]

What you've misinterpreted it says it isn't. But that's a misinterpretation.

Thanks for the amazing argument

 

[DaReaperMan]

Thanks for the amazing argument

Thanks for wasting my time reading a hare-brained thread that could have been answered by just asking an experienced staff member if it qualified or something.

 

[Randomuser3412]

Thanks for wasting my time reading a hare-brained thread that could have been answered by just asking an experienced staff member if it qualified or something.

If you've got nothing to say other than insults, maybe don't say it here.

 

[Follow_Doctor_Freeman]

What the - is going on here?

"Ya, it's recap time." -- Will Smith

Backstory is that the matter of if a who-would-win match equalising speed between a character who can't dodge bullets vs a character who can dodge+deflect bullets resulted in asking if the dodge/reflecter would then be unable to dodge/reflect bullets.

That resulted in this thread. OP posits that Madness Combat characters, who can reflect bullet attacks with sword-parrying, should have Attack Reflection removed from their pages because it's them using equipment well -- and the page as it is seems to disqualify equipment being used to reflect attacks as Attack Reflection if the equipment that actually literally did the thing as used by the character wasn't created for that express purpose in an instruction-manual sense.

I & Comi maintain that reflecting attacks counts as Attack Reflection whatever the means and limits, especially since stats and even skill don't always result in a character being able to perform Attack Reflection that way if they don't have demonstrations of such. So we (and even OP) would prefer the Attack Reflection page allow for that means of reflecting attacks & just continue to have that ability on pages with citations for context instead of splitting hairs with categorization.

Edit with a bit I posted later, added here for the sake of the recap:

A lot of the stuff Dead Rising characters use as weapons are household objects like mops and whatever weren't designed to be weapons, but they are used as weapons to weapon-use-like effect and therefore are essentially weapons. Same principle. I don't see the need to get more database-brained than this.

Madness Combat characters use swords to reflect attacks. That is Attack Reflection, whether the swords come with an enclosed instruction book saying to use them for that purpose -- and they might in the games! -- or not. If the Attack Reflection page has an issue with this, then the Attack Reflection page is what should be fixed.

Another edit, much much later, but I don't want to necro the thread. Multiple examples of Hank not only reflecting but also doing so with intentional offensive aim. Here and here.

 

[Randomuser3412]

because it's them using equipment well -- and the page as it is seems to disqualify equipment use as Attack Reflection.

Nope. It's because it doesn't have a unique mechanism that's tailored to reflecting attacks.

 

[Follow_Doctor_Freeman]

Nope. It's because it doesn't have a unique mechanism that's tailored to reflecting attacks.

Ok, I will edit my recap post to represent that better. Even if the motivation behind making an object doesn't necessarily limit what it can do and has done.

 

[DaReaperMan]

If you've got nothing to say other than insults, maybe don't say it here.

I'm not insulting you. I'm wondering why you didn't ask around before jumping the gun. What the note actually says, is that it cannot be a secondary effect of an already existing ability.

Moving a sword and accurately richocheting shit is something that's basically word for word non-supernatural attack reflection, as specified in the very note you call from

Note: Attack Reflection as an ability must refer to a power in which a major or direct aspect is dedicated to reflecting or deflecting some form of action.

See the bolded part. This falls under that.

 

[Randomuser3412]

Moving a sword and accurately richocheting shit is something that's basically word for word non-supernatural attack reflection, as specified in the very note you call from

Sighhhh.... I'm not gonna bother making a new response to this. It's so tired. You said I wasted your time making you read the thread when you clearly didn't.

 

[azontr]

Thanks for wasting my time reading a hare-brained thread that could have been answered by just asking an experienced staff member if it qualified or something.

Can you genuinely stop being an ass for once, man? You immediately came into this thread extremely condescending for no good reason and acting like you wasted your time on a thread you made the decision to read despite having no evaluation rights and no obligation to comment. As a friend, please make an effort to get your act together, it's legitimately annoying.

I, for one, partially agree and disagree with this thread. I would personally list this as Limited Attack Reflection rather than full-on due to the technique-based nature of the feats.

 

[DaReaperMan]

Sighhhh.... I'm not gonna bother making a new response to this. It's so tired. You said I wasted your time making you read the thread when you clearly didn't.

I said you were misinterpreting it for a reason. If that's a problem, oh well I guess. Consider this my vote against the thread.

 

[Follow_Doctor_Freeman]

A lot of the stuff Dead Rising characters use as weapons are household objects like mops and whatever weren't designed to be weapons, but they are used as weapons to weapon-use-like effect and therefore are essentially weapons. Same principle. I don't see the need to get more database-brained than this.

Madness Combat characters use swords to reflect attacks. That is Attack Reflection, whether the swords come with an enclosed instruction book saying to use them for that purpose -- and they might in the games! -- or not. If the Attack Reflection page has an issue with this, then the Attack Reflection page is what should be fixed.

 

[Randomuser3412]

I said you were misinterpreting it for a reason. If that's a problem, oh well I guess. Consider this my vote against the thread.

See the bolded part. This falls under that.

I'm not sure if you think that means "deflecting with some form of an action," but it doesn't support what you're saying.