LostHalo

You are correct, Bruise only applies once at a time on a target.

Or he could have dictated it. I don't think it'd be too much of a speculative leap to assume that there are some DE capable of the task. You see the minion and lieutenant mobs planting and tending small trees and plants in-game, even, so it's not like they don't have the manual dexterity.

You have this backwards. -Regen is the exception, not the norm.

I believe every Stalker primary can take down a boss critter (ignoring resistance) within one BU cycle, except maybe Spines (and even so, it would be asininely close, along with killing most of the minions/what-not in the group). Bosses at level 50 have roughly 2500 health and usually each set has the capability to deal 2000 or more damage of that total through BU+AS+Placate+[crit heavy hitter].

Hmm. I wonder if that toggle-less concept Invuln Tank my SG got the MoSTF badge would be considered better or worse than a Fire Tank.

Because it should be extolled further: Glorious.

Just out of curiosity, from the people that actually know, is Lanaru in the CoP truly "broken" on a gameplay level, or is he broken as in "We can't beat Hero 1! BAWWWW!" broken?

Increase the ambient lighting in the room when you play.

Force Bubble offers a unique tool that can be absurdly useful when used correctly.

If you want to get rid of dead weight, kill off Repulsion Field.

And yet, somehow, people will still manage to fail at the high end's available tasks, then proceed to cry about it being too hard.

Technically-speaking, but it also depends on the definition of "immortal" that you're working with at any one time. Statesman seems to fall more into the "immortal because his body is indestructible"-line of thought. If the cells no longer die/reproduce (due to whatever MacGuffin you're working with--in his case, the power of Zeus), the statistical probability of cancer appearing disappears along with the biological imperative for it to develop.

Granted, we don't really have an existing example of biology showing indestructible and immortal traits (although there are examples that get extremely close to their respective targets on either side, moreso the latter, however), so we're kind of left with wild speculation. I mean, how exactly do you describe the intricate biology of a living thing that survives the physical effects of a nuclear explosion (see 1976 on the history page)? There's resistance to radiation and heat and pressure...but the silliness of the sheer forces involved in that type of explosion paint the discussion in an interesting light.

Well, you have to think about it. If someone claimed to you that they're immortal, how would they prove it?

The whole notion of immortality as a character trait is that by itself, it has no value. While it can help designate the way a character can initially be seen, it doesn't go much beyond that--it's an alternative form of describing a person's age. Its value is summed up by its ability to act as a framing device for the character's other traits.

The truly interesting immortal characters, in my opinion, are the ones that have lived for significantly longer than the "normal" immortal (assuming they're written well--of course, that assumption should be expected). I'm not talking the random Viking vampire that shows up in fiction, I mean one that participated in the sack of Babylon-kind of old--or even older. It's generally fairly rare that characters that old are written well, though, so it's probably a good thing characters of that type rarely show up as is.

I'm reminded of the scene in Mallrats where (I forget the names, so I might not say the right one here) Brodie and Stan Lee discuss superhero genitalia.

That all said, I offer this:


That should solve the problem for you.

::

Specifically, I seem to recall that it's only her original body that doesn't age when she's "mind riding" or whatever they called it (the Aurora Borealis thingamajig).

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pedantic#Synonyms

They aren't exact copies but the negative connotations the majority of those words convey justify your critics' complaint. There isn't a real discussion to be had when the apparent major substance of your position is boiled down to the response: "Because, that's why. I just don't like it." (At least in their eyes; you're justified to your opinion all you want, I don't really care.) Notice that the medium of discussion is an Internet forum and it's no surprise you get people pouncing on it. If you really don't care, just don't acknowledge it.

Saw that, too. Granted, with the way the CoH2 trademark was reported by word-of-mouth, I can't really blame them for being on the tale end of the chain and getting it wrong. I mean, come on, you expect journalists and editors to do a 5 minute fact check on an easily-accessed government website? That's just silly.

I shudder to think about running the newer Windows and keeping them updated on 56k. 50-100 MB every week or two? Eesh.

What, you don't have three other people with you to raid the Mothership? It's easy and scares the hell out of people in the zone when your raid ends.

"Hey guys, I just wanted to let you all know I turned off ratings because I'm above it all! Hey guys! Guys! My rep is turned off! Don't pay attention to it at all! I shut it off! My rep, that's what is off. Hey, did you know my rep is off? Yeah, that's 'cause I shut it off, because I'm so above it! I'm making sure you all know this, so every time someone starts a discussion about said rep system, I make sure to point that fact out. That fact being that my rep is shut off. I'm hip and edgy, right? Yeah, I totally am, and that's because, just so you know, I turned off my rep."

Not singling you out but your post's essence is repeated in every thread discussing rep.

Still waiting for the "inevitable", as one person called it, nerf to Venom Grenade on VEAT-heavy teams.