Thread:CSaPForumWall ~ Staff Discussions/@comment-33067344-20180831044214

This has a loooong time coming. Allow me to explain why this fallacy is straight up wrong to have.

>"This is when a user claims that simply because a character has a certain ability (usually Mind Control or a similar power), they win by default."

Wowzers. Anyway, not only is not enough substantiation to have, but it is wrong as well. If they have a power X character has no resistance towards--and said power is deadly enough to win the match--it is correct to use as an argument.

>''"Example: "A has the ability of mind control, which B shows no immunity to. A therefore wins."''

This is a valid example, however. Mind control bypasses durability unless you have resistance to it; so if a character has said power--he should be able to win the match by using said power. Moving on....

>"The person in this example assume that A will instantly think of using their trump card from the start of the fight. Not only is that a bad assumption, but it is not possible to decide matches purely based off one power"

Standard Battle Assumptions, mi amigo. Allow me to quote:

"State of mind: In character, but willing to kill. 'The characters will employ their usual battle strategies, including flaws such as being casual, however, must be willing to kill the opponent even if they usually won't."

So, if it is in character for the user of the power to, well, use that power--then it is valid to assume they'll do it straight off the bat. Examples such as Cthulhu; who literally stares at you to make you go insane are present to make this argument valid.

Second point; already gave substantiation on why it is possible to decide matches based off one power.

TL;DR: The Superpower Fallacy doesn't have a reason to exist. Nor does it make sense to, frankly. 