1 hour ago, Radix2309 said:

And instead of actual reasons for why she is a bad character, urloony just says she is Agenda driven and that is it.

Kamala Khan is objectively a bad character because she's not a hero she's a villain. Some of her crimes include breaking and entering, theft, and assault on civilians. I'll happily break it down by issue and page number if you're interested in actually engaging in a discussion about it, but I assure you it's quite evident. I could also argue that Amanat and Wilson's writing tends to be racist.

7 minutes ago, urloony said:

Kamala Khan is objectively a bad character because she's not a hero she's a villain. Some of her crimes include breaking and entering, theft, and assault on civilians. I'll happily break it down by issue and page number if you're interested in actually engaging in a discussion about it, but I assure you it's quite evident. I could also argue that Amanat and Wilson's writing tends to be racist.

Anti-heroes are fun too though, her having some crimes isn't too bad. Unless they go full Daenerys Targaryen and write as if she's a hero.

Khamala's awesome! I was really looking forward to seeing her deck and since I'm into decks with interesting mechanics she looks like she won't disappoint. It's good that they're releasing some of the more popular current characters early instead of leaving them for later in the release schedule.

24 minutes ago, Supertoe said:

Anti-heroes are fun too though, her having some crimes isn't too bad. Unless they go full Daenerys Targaryen and write as if she's a hero.

Absolutely right. Deadpool is a prime example. Deadpool is designed and intended to be an anti-hero. The problem is that Kamala is not intended to be a villain or an anti-hero. She became a villain due to poor writing. They need Kamala to get construction plans, so she breaks in to an office and steals plans. When she is stopped by two apparent civilian workers because she broke into their building she beats the h ell out of them. We as the reader are suppose to assume that because Kamala's cause is "just," we should simply ignore her actions. She's also responsible for crippling her best friend who has to wear arm and leg braces as a result throughout the entirety of the series.

2 hours ago, Radix2309 said:

Well for one, they dont want to release all the popular characters right away. It lets them give draws later in the game's life.

As for comics, Kamala is actually pretty popular. Her floppies sell poor, but her fanbase consumes in other ways. TPBs and digital.

She isnt a terrible character. She is fresh and new in a way that few characters achieve. People like Boggs discover her and enjoy her.

And instead of actual reasons for why she is a bad character, urloony just says she is Agenda driven and that is it. You never see reasoning like that when they push Deadpool or Nova. But a female or minority character and suddenly there is an agenda. As opposed to just wanting to tell a story with a new character who has a different perspective from heroes we have seen dozens of times.

That's cool if you and others are into her, but for me with a limited budget I'm not really interested in getting into a game when the marvel characters I want to play aren't in the core or even first cycle so far.

Which I don't think is an unreasonable request, like seriously any of the X-Men, Blade, Punisher, more mainstream avengers. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Especially when there are tons of solid A characters they could call on. Just look at Marvel Legendary and it's first expansion for a solid well-rounded selection. And closer to home LOTR LCG had five major characters from the films and books and another few key ones from the books. Then four more major names in the first cycle alone.

Anyways if it's what people reading the new stuff are into and wanting these days that's fine but it doesn't really appeal to me and my era of comics.

I was super excited to learn Ms Marvel would be one of the first packs. No one is gonna be a 100% happy with the line up no matter what it is.

1 hour ago, General_Grievous said:

That's cool if you and others are into her, but for me with a limited budget I'm not really interested in getting into a game when the marvel characters I want to play aren't in the core or even first cycle so far.

Which I don't think is an unreasonable request, like seriously any of the X-Men, Blade, Punisher, more mainstream avengers. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. Especially when there are tons of solid A characters they could call on. Just look at Marvel Legendary and it's first expansion for a solid well-rounded selection. And closer to home LOTR LCG had five major characters from the films and books and another few key ones from the books. Then four more major names in the first cycle alone.

Anyways if it's what people reading the new stuff are into and wanting these days that's fine but it doesn't really appeal to me and my era of comics.

They habe Cap, Thor, and Iron Man right away. Plus Spidey and Black Panther. That is most of the big name Avengers. Now let other fans have their hero.

She's relatively new, but to be fair she's been around for 6 years now. She's not exactly hot off the presses. She has a TV show coming up. She sells well for Marvel. She's been in many of the newer cartoon series. She's likely to become a bigger presence in the MCU since they've mentioned those TV shows will feature prominently in the continuity. So this feels like a pretty strategic move. She the first hero deck to be introduced that isn't a legacy character that's been around for decades. It's not like the game is saturated with new obscure characters, and Kamala will appeal to a different audience than say Steve Rogers or Thor so it feels to me like a good pick. You want to pick heroes that will appeal to different audiences to widen the appeal of the game.

2 hours ago, Supertoe said:

Anti-heroes are fun too though, her having some crimes isn't too bad. Unless they go full Daenerys Targaryen and write as if she's a hero.

To be fair if you read the books with an eye for it Daenerys isn't really written as a hero. She's written sympathetically, but when you view her objectively she's a conqueror who enforces her will with brutal violence. The TV show was much more black and white in it's portrayals which makes it more misleading. Tyrion as well is written as a sympathetic, but kinda horrible guy. In the TV show he's way more of a white hat.

3 hours ago, urloony said:

Absolutely right. Deadpool is a prime example. Deadpool is designed and intended to be an anti-hero. The problem is that Kamala is not intended to be a villain or an anti-hero. She became a villain due to poor writing. They need Kamala to get construction plans, so she breaks in to an office and steals plans. When she is stopped by two apparent civilian workers because she broke into their building she beats the h ell out of them. We as the reader are suppose to assume that because Kamala's cause is "just," we should simply ignore her actions. She's also responsible for crippling her best friend who has to wear arm and leg braces as a result throughout the entirety of the series.

If you are referring to her post-Secret Wars series, you are grossly mischaracterizing things.

She snuck into a construction company because they blowed over a local business. It was a front for Hydra that was brainwashing the neighborhood to build the army. They were also using her image without permission. Superheroes do stuff like that all the time.

She wasnt stopped by 2 civilian workers. She noticed 2 security guards being aggressive with the guy whose property they ploughed over and gave pennies to. They then attacked her with state of the art weapons. It isnt confirmed, but they were likely Hydra agents considering they were working for the Hydra front and were outfitted with unusual advanced technology. She and that shopowner were then attacked by robot bees.

How was Bruno's injuries her fault? He was the one who planted the bomb that blew up in his face. She tried to stop him from doing it, and visited his bedside.

Superheroes have been replaced all the time. No one complained about Bucky or Thunderstrike.

And the characters you described arent mary sues. They have flaws. They arent universally beloved or held in awe by previous characters. You are a few steps from outright lying about Ms Marvel to suit your agenda.

2 hours ago, phillos said:

To be fair if you read the books with an eye for it Daenerys isn't really written as a hero. She's written sympathetically, but when you view her objectively she's a conqueror who enforces her will with brutal violence. The TV show was much more black and white in it's portrayals which makes it more misleading. Tyrion as well is written as a sympathetic, but kinda horrible guy. In the TV show he's way more of a white hat.

Yeah, in the books it's a lot more objective. It's the fans of the show really who acted like she was perfection itself.

anyways wrong setting continuing arguing about agendas everyone 😂

46 minutes ago, Radix2309 said:

She snuck into a construction company because they blowed over a local business. It was a front for Hydra that was brainwashing the neighborhood to build the army. They were also using her image without permission. Superheroes do stuff like that all the time.

This was unknown to her at the time. It wasn't until AFTER she broke in that the pieces started to get put together (ends justifies the means). Using her image without permission is not a reason to break in, commit theft yourself, or beat up two guys.

48 minutes ago, Radix2309 said:

She wasnt stopped by 2 civilian workers. She noticed 2 security guards being aggressive with the guy whose property they ploughed over and gave pennies to.

Again, they aren't revealed to Kamala or the reader as "bad guys" until she threatens them. Them telling the former property owner to move along is rude, but not grounds for Kamala to take them out.

50 minutes ago, Radix2309 said:

They then attacked her with state of the art weapons.

No. You need to look at p. 17 panels 1 and 2 (my pages are digital, your's might be different). She threatens, she attacks first, they defend with their batons. For the story line, the guards are certainly our "bad guys," I'm not trying to defend them in terms of story. However, the way Wilson writes Kamala she is typically the aggressor and instigator.

58 minutes ago, Radix2309 said:

How was Bruno's injuries her fault? He was the one who planted the bomb that blew up in his face. She tried to stop him from doing it, and visited his bedside.

Here's why. Kamala is one of the primary reasons that innocent people are being held in the warehouse. #9 p. 15 "Ms. Marvel and unknown associates are holding as many as a dozen people without formal charges." Bruno tries to convince Kamala to let them out and she says no. Bruno then plants the bomb trying to free his unlawfully held friends that Kamala COULD have freed and as a result gets injured. Were it not for Kamala's illegal actions no one would have been injured. But I see. She went to his bedside, so she's not really a villain. The Civil War II storyline did not help Kamala or Captain Marvel for that matter, in terms of building their "hero" status.

1 hour ago, Radix2309 said:

And the characters you described arent mary sues. They have flaws. They arent universally beloved or held in awe by previous characters.

They absolutely are. Squirrel Girl and Ms. Marvel are loved and constantly being emotionally validated by all of the Avengers. Captain Marvel is the QUEEN of Mary Sues. Did you watch the movie? AI Tony Stark can't say enough good things about Riri Williams.

1 hour ago, Radix2309 said:

You are a few steps from outright lying about Ms Marvel to suit your agenda.

Nope. You just need to read critically.

It's not uncommon for someone to be more sensitive to depictions of women in a particular way that they aren't as sensitive to depictions of men. The most common examples are the proportions of crowds in films (men will often feel that there are too many women in a crowd once one third of the crowd are women) or women speaking in a conversation with men (men often feel like they are being talked over and dominated in a conversation when a women approaches 30% or so of the speaking time/words in a conversation).

But since people aren't often aware of these biases, they get really upset and defensive when characters in fiction who aren't straight white men start gaining prominence. And that's okay. It's just room for growth and improvement. Once something like this is pointed out, it's perfectly fine to pause, reflect, and take it as an opportunity to grow.

We don't have to stay at earlier stages of development. We can all grow throughout our lives.

8 hours ago, urloony said:

Kamala is objectively a terrible character, I'm sorry to say. She's not alone, there is a plethora of terrible Marvel characters. Squirrel Girl is another prime example, although worse than Kamala. I'll be surprised if Squirrel girl isn't next on the "hero" list for us. Please defend squirrel girl next as the bestest ever.

That's not how any of this works.

Let people enjoy things.

7 hours ago, General_Grievous said:

Ok clearly they must be basing this off of new comics I haven't read. I have no idea who this is or why she is coming out before much more well known characters like Storm, Jean Grey, Gamora, etc...

She is a new character, but she's also one of the most popular new characters of the past decade, and also has a tv show coming out.
X-Men characters are not likely immediately, because Marvel had been deliberately pushing other characters such as the Inhumans for a while instead. But that seems to be changing now.

7 hours ago, urloony said:

That IS the question, isn't it? Marvel has decided to push agenda driven characters on their fans, effectively helping these new characters jump the line in front of far more established and well-known characters most people would rather see. Marvel is also well aware that most normies have never heard of Kamala Khan, so to help fight their apparent ignorance, they insist that you need to get on the band-wagon because everyone loves Kamala Khan and she's extremely popular and you should love her too! Her mag gets heavily pushed by Marvel, even though it doesn't sell, and now a new TV show. To the handful of Kamala fans out there, they will point to this as evidence of her popularity. Batwoman anyone? Kamala is a character no one asked for and no one wants. (Talk to you after my ban, which will probably be a week for my unpopular comments.)

What is with this "normie" stuff you keep spewing? For someone who is ostensibly a fan of superheroes, you sound more like an X--Men villain. You do know that the sentinels, church of humanity, etc. are the bad guys , right?

I asked for and wanted Kamala, so you are objectively wrong on saying that no one did. That's how objectivity works, by the way.

6 hours ago, urloony said:

The agenda is pretty straightforward to replace traditional, typically male characters, with Mary Sue female or minority characters.

Obvious examples include:

• Thor: Don Blake->Thor: Jane Foster
• Steve Rogers ->Sam Wilson
• Tony Stark -> Riri Williams
• Miss America ->America Chavez.

In the MCU you have:

• Mar-Vell (Male) -> Mar-Vell (female)
• Captain Marvel (Male -> Captain marvel (female)
• Alicia Masters (white) ->Alicia Masters (black).
• Heimdall (white) -> Heimdall (black)
• MJ (white -> MJ (Latina)

(There are many more)

Marvel could have promoted historically female or minority characters in their own books like Monica Rambau, Storm, Scarlet Witch, or Rogue. However, Iron Man, Captain America and others are far more popular books. So instead of taking historic characters or even creating new characters and making them a success on their own, they instead hijack established characters and convince fans that if they don't like their change they must be a bigot. Black Panther is an amazing example of how Marvel could have gone a different direction with all of these character changes. Black Panther has always been a great character and Marvel developed a great movie for it. I just wish they could have done the same for others.

I notice you don't have any complaints about the times these characters have been replaced by other white guys. No complaints about Eric Masterson or Volstagg taking the mantle of Thor, but Jane Foster is a problem? No issues with John Walker or Bucky Barnes as Captain America, but Sam Wilson is a problem?

So, let's be honest here. You don't seem care about characters being "hijacked." It seems you care about their replacements not being more white guys.

5 hours ago, urloony said:

Kamala Khan is objectively a bad character because she's not a hero she's a villain. Some of her crimes include breaking and entering, theft, and assault on civilians.

All of those crimes have also been committed by Spider-Man. Same with Batman. Same with the mast majority of superheroes. But you only care when certain characters do it, not others.

1 minute ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

That's not how any of this works.

Let people enjoy things.

She is a new character, but she's also one of the most popular new characters of the past decade, and also has a tv show coming out.
X-Men characters are not likely immediately, because Marvel had been deliberately pushing other characters such as the Inhumans for a while instead. But that seems to be changing now.

What is with this "normie" stuff you keep spewing? For someone who is ostensibly a fan of superheroes, you sound more like an X--Men villain. You do know that the sentinels, church of humanity, etc. are the bad guys , right?

I asked for and wanted Kamala, so you are objectively wrong on saying that no one did. That's how objectivity works, by the way.

I notice you don't have any complaints about the times these characters have been replaced by other white guys. No complaints about Eric Masterson or Volstagg taking the mantle of Thor, but Jane Foster is a problem? No issues with John Walker or Bucky Barnes as Captain America, but Sam Wilson is a problem?

So, let's be honest here. You don't seem care about characters being "hijacked." It seems you care about their replacements not being more white guys.

All of those crimes have also been committed by Spider-Man. Same with Batman. Same with the mast majority of superheroes. But you only care when certain characters do it, not others.

Now I’m imagining a 4th wall breakers box:

Squirrel Girl, Dead Pool, etc

16 minutes ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

I notice you don't have any complaints about the times these characters have been replaced by other white guys. No complaints about Eric Masterson or Volstagg taking the mantle of Thor, but Jane Foster is a problem? No issues with John Walker or Bucky Barnes as Captain America, but Sam Wilson is a problem?

So, let's be honest here. You don't seem care about characters being "hijacked." It seems you care about their replacements not being more white guys.

Of course, in present day, criticism = bigotry. Sam Wilson is a great as the Falcon. Why does he need to be Captain America? I've never liked character changes, and fortunately, they are all usually short lived. When a whole slew of mainline characters all change at once however, that's when questions should be asked. What happens if we make Black Panther a white guy from New Jersey? Doesn't that fundamentally change who Black Panther is? Or are you content to simply say "oh Black Panther is just a title, anyone can be Black Panther?" I doubt it. Make Kamala Khan and Riri Williams and Miles Morales characters, but make them new and original characters. Don't tokenize and demean them by shoehorning them into preexistent heroes. It undermines them and suggests to your readers that they are not strong enough to stand on their own as minority characters, instead they must stand on the shoulders of already established and successful heroes.

21 minutes ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

All of those crimes have also been committed by Spider-Man. Same with Batman. Same with the mast majority of superheroes. But you only care when certain characters do it, not others.

You need to establish this claim. Batman can also be considered an anti-hero, so it's more plausible. Kamala is not an anti-hero.

28 minutes ago, Vlad3theImpaler said:

What is with this "normie" stuff you keep spewing?

Normie is not a derogatory term. It's a reference to non-comic readers who are familiar with mainline characters and the MCU, the Muggles of the comic world.

1 hour ago, Derrault said:

Now I’m imagining a 4th wall breakers box:

Squirrel Girl, Dead Pool, etc

Too bad they already did Shulk.

27 minutes ago, Radix2309 said:

Too bad they already did Shulk.

True, but there’s no reason they couldn’t do Gwenpool instead

1 hour ago, urloony said:

You need to establish this claim. Batman can also be considered an anti-hero, so it's more plausible. Kamala is not an anti-hero.

Not really. Anti-hero is a specific term to reference protagonists who aren’t heroic in the sense that they eschew normative morality.

Aka, the Punisher.

Batman is, if anything, holding an even higher standard of hero, what with his rejection of lethal violence.

20 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Batman is, if anything, holding an even higher standard of hero, what with his rejection of lethal violence.

I disagree. While lethal violence might be typical of anti-heroes it is not requisite in defining an anti-hero. Gotham is such a deplorable place, that any semblance of law and order that follows a code of objective morality is nowhere to be found. Batman defines his own brand of justice, his own relative morality. Ultimately, he is a vigilante in a lawless world who is willing to do what it takes including torture and risk of death (while not actually killing), to get the information he needs. Classically, Batman was not always an anti-hero to be sure. In his modern rendering he most definitely fits the bill.

20 minutes ago, urloony said:

I disagree. While lethal violence might be typical of anti-heroes it is not requisite in defining an anti-hero. Gotham is such a deplorable place, that any semblance of law and order that follows a code of objective morality is nowhere to be found. Batman defines his own brand of justice, his own relative morality. Ultimately, he is a vigilante in a lawless world who is willing to do what it takes including torture and risk of death (while not actually killing), to get the information he needs. Classically, Batman was not always an anti-hero to be sure. In his modern rendering he most definitely fits the bill.

Sorry what? That’s not Batman.

4 minutes ago, Derrault said:

Sorry what? That’s not Batman.

Sure it is. Do you view him as a classical hero? If so, explain.

I have no stake in this discussion but I really can't believe that batman violent actions have never killed anyone.

Seriously why Ms Marvel? she s at best a D-lister. With all the characters they have in the roster, they re gonna waste a pack on Kamala Khan? Whats next, Gwenpool? Squirel Girl?