- 16,927
- 4,844
Nevermind.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So basically, we could say that summoners/tamers aren't immune to being attacked, but that their summons can still fight after they die?Dragonmasterxyz said:My issue is that people assume that getting rid of the summoner always gets rid of the summon. This is not always the case. In Pokemon, the Pokemon themselves can still act and contrary to popular believe, Pokemon can still think for themselves just fine. If they wanna keep fighting, they'll keep fighting.
Digimon is the same way, well, general Digimon Tamers. They die, their Digimon can still act and as such, the battle is still on. And this case rings true even more for Digimon as Digimon are far more independent as entities.
Which isn't an argument to make here unless tamer/summoner vs battles should be nuked in general.Firephoenixearl said:Like if you don't want Pokemon trainers to fight just do "X pokemon vs Y character". There are profiles like Alakazam, a profile that just uses the pokemon, not the trainer too. If you don't want the trainers included do that.
No? Attacking the guy who is controlling a bunch of monsters is the logical assumption to deal with the problem and thats how you deal with most summoners in fiction. Its very common and shouldnt be disregarded. Its a wincon stillProfessorKukui4Life said:This is much more than the summons "needing" the summoner though. The whole point of the vs match is that the summons are what are being targetted because they're the only thing that are considered in tier for the opponent to face. Not the summoner.
If the opponent has to literally rely on killing a fodder in order to win, then your admitting defeat by being unable to get passed the summons.
No Kukui, that isn't the point of the match. If you wanted to do only the summons then why use the summoner profiles. The point is a fight between two characters (summons included.) You can't just restrict a weakness just because you don't like it. (Let's be honest that is your only reason for this.)ProfessorKukui4Life said:This is much more than the summons "needing" the summoner though. The whole point of the vs match is that the summons are what are being targetted because they're the only thing that are considered in tier for the opponent to face. Not the summoner.
If the opponent has to literally rely on killing a fodder in order to win, then your admitting defeat by being unable to get passed the summons.
This.Dragonmasterxyz said:At that point it simply becomes a weakness of the summoner.
Its called strategy to win the fightProfessorKukui4Life said:Anyway, it's also the logical conclusion that your admitting defeat by going after something far far weaker than you. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to do that to begin with.
It absolutely is the point of the match. Pitting a comparable character to another comparable character. And in the case of tamers, it's not the tamer whos being compared. It's what they tame that is.00potato said:No Kukui, that isn't the point of the match. If you wanted to do only the summons then why use the summoner profiles. The point is a fight between two characters (summons included.) You can't just restrict a weakness just because you don't like it. (Let's be honest that is your only reason for this.)
Doesn't matter. Your still admitting you cant beat their summons, the ones who are actually fighting. Running away from them and going after the weak link isn't a fight.Oblivion Of The Endless said:Its called strategy to win the fight
Ok? It doesnt count as a loss regardless, since its not a loss per SBA, and the guy is still not giving up of the fight since he is well...still fightingProfessorKukui4Life said:Doesn't matter. Your still admitting you cant beat their summons, the ones who are actually fighting. Running away from them and going after the weak link isn't a fight.Oblivion Of The Endless said:Its called strategy to win the fight
How is this a logical conclusion? Thats like saying that you have to destroy the enemy army to win a war, even if you could just nuke the political head quarter. I disagree with this thread tooProfessorKukui4Life said:Anyway, it's also the logical conclusion that your admitting defeat by going after something far far weaker than you. Otherwise, you wouldn't need to do that to begin with.
Because their creatures/summoners are what makes the tamer a certain tier, especially if the summons aren't like Pokemon & Digimon where they have their own pages. The tamer is who they are because of what they tame, it's their method of being able to fight.00potato said:Kukui,
If the tamer wasn't being compared, then why are you making a match with them?
It is nothing like a 7-C vs a 5-A. It is like two characters if comparable power, but one has a weak point (the tamer.) or is a glass cannon with something to balance it.
Do you really not see how making Ash in a summon battle harder to kill than Kyousuke on the grounds of being way easier to kill in reality is blatant favouritism?ProfessorKukui4Life said:Then thats the former's problem if they have to rely on taking out blatant fodder in order to win their match to begin with. The latter is a different story since they have something that can actually constitute being fair game in a match.
Because your avoiding the opponents that are actually in tier with you and are relying on defeating something far far far weaker in order to have any possibility to win. And avoiding opponents, = running away, meaning its a loss for you. To be more specific, it's like if a 5-B is facing a 10-A with 5-B summons. The former's only chance to win is avoid all of the 5-Bs and go after the 10-A. How is that a legitimate win?First Witch said:How is this a logical conclusion? Thats like saying that you have to destroy the enemy army to win a war, even if you could just nuke the political head quarter. I disagree with this thread too