|
|
Post by Doctor Bong Crosby on Apr 11, 2015 16:31:00 GMT -5
It´s a generally accepted fact that the Batman is the greatest tactician of the DCU. But I´m not sure if there is someone at the MU who is so generally regarded as # 1. I guess we should allow one from the heroes side and one from the villains´.
|
|
|
|
Post by humanbelly on Apr 11, 2015 16:58:32 GMT -5
It´s a generally accepted fact that the Batman is the greatest tactician of the DCU. But I´m not sure if there is someone at the MU who is so generally regarded as # 1. I guess we should allow one from the heroes side and one from the villains´. Surely it would be Nick Fury, yes? Heh-- and depending on one's opinion of him and just exactly how he's being written at the time, you might even make a case for him representing both sides--! But I can't think of anyone more adept at playing the long game and keeping track of all of the pieces on his game board. While keeping all of the juggled chainsaws in the air at once. I do seem to remember Cap being described as a master tactician a number of times-- but that's never been exactly a natural aspect of his skill set, to my mind. He's great at being a field-general and all-- but he's not by nature an "intrigue" sort of guy. Another runner-up might be Cyclops-- but again, that seems to have been a quality imposed upon him by writers rather than one we've directly seen. Wasn't it around X-MEN #150 that they'd all been de-powered on Magneto's island, and had to rely on their innate "human" skills to save the day? And Scott's big thing was that he was a brilliant strategist-? (I rather enjoyed that arc-- part of Cockrum's 2nd run, I believe). But again, like Cap, he's more of a field leader, rather than a long-game planner, yeah? The Villains? Geeze, ALL of 'em! It seems to be, like, a union-mandated skills test, or something. I'd. . . probably go with Kang in the long run, simply because he's supposedly conquered "a thousand thousand worlds" or something. . . and there's no getting around that he has to have some serious tactical aptitude to make that happen. . . HB |
|
|
|
Post by Marvel Boy on Apr 19, 2015 9:41:57 GMT -5
Well HB, to me, you seem to be describing more of a manipulator rather than a tactician. Kang and Fury both have the capability of manipulating events and people to their own ends, qualities that I think have overshadowed their innate talents on the battlefield. Kang is an excellent warrior and general and lest we forget Nick's leading of the Howling Commandos.
But to me, a tactician implies someone who is able to lead their forces effectively in a battle. Cap certainly fills this bill, from his time in WW II to his leading the Avengers. Cyclops also fits this bill, although this has been brought more sharply into focus in recent years with his leading the remaining mutants on Utopia. Though Claremont had already highlighted this quality in Scott over the years.
Actually, I would pick Scott over Steve now that I think about it. If we are considering the qualifications of Batman, one of those has to be knowing the weaknesses of your foes and taking advantage of them. Scott is more than capable of this, a perfect example being Uncanny X-Men #175, wherein Scott is forced into combat against the team and he systemically takes them all down, on his own, by exploiting their weaknesses. Most impressive.
Although if we also consider Batman's ability to anticipate every single type of contingency for an event and plan accordingly, I think Tony would qualify as well. It's very hard to out-think Tony.
|
|
