Have a question about how the TVTropes wiki works? No one knows this community better than the people in it, so ask away! Ask the Tropers is the page you come to when you have a question burning in your brain and the support pages didn't help.
It's not for everything, though. For a list of all the resources for your questions, click here. You can also go to this Directory thread
for ongoing cleanup projects.
It is an edit war. While possibly an honest mistake it still is one. The definition of GlassCannon is a heavy hitter with a glass jaw more or less and considering the character in question can take a beating would not apply to them. That's my take anyhow.
Edited by TuvokPlease, enough with the strawmanning. Are you here to get to the bottom of the problem or to try and attack someone?
First off, I added a reason because I understood that to the Po V of someone who doesn't play the game, especially with how impenetrable fighting games tend to be to those who don't play them, the trope would look odd. It is only natural when someone is accused of something they didn't do they'd defend themselves. You claim I "attacked" you for pointing out your constant accusatory tone and even later attempts to intimidate me into silence by threatening to involve the admins. How you claim that to be attacking, but your actions to be in good faith, I have no clue.
Secondly, you call my addition of Long-Range Fighter "questionable" despite Abigail indeed having some of the longest ranged normals (non-special attacks) in the game, whose range is a core part of his playstyle. His ability to land attacks on the opponent while they cannot do so to him facilitates his offensive. Is this not the definition of a Long-Range Fighter?
On the Informed Ability, I will admit to sinkholing, as I was not aware of that particular rule, but I hold that while pedantic it is true that Necalli does not have visible claws, However that, and the above, are neither here, nor there.
Now, onto the meat of the argument, of whether or not Abigail classifies as a Glass Cannon, and why I believe the answer here is yes.
Simply put, Abigail has a strong offense and a weak defense. His health advantage of 75hp over a standard character like Ryu, is worth precisely one or two pokes, or not even worth a throw, and is of relatively low importance in comparison to what really defines a character. His moveset.
And in that, you can see a clear weakness, which is shown in Abigail's gameplay. His lack of answers to pressure, and especially wakeup pressure.
To explain, in "classic" 2d fighting games like Street Fighter, when you are knocked onto the ground, you are effectively invincible until you get back up to your feet, at which point you resume vulnerability and ability to act more or less simultaneously. As a result, your opponent, who is not impeded from acting during this time, generally throws an attack of some sort, so that it's intersecting with your character's hitbox as it re-enters play. This is known as a "Meaty".
No the terminology doesn't always have to make sense.
Now, how does this pertain to Abigail? Well, to put it simply, Abigail needs atleast 3 frames to wind up for his most basic defensive options, such as his first V-skill, a "parry" in which he thrusts his chest out. Note that this takes 3 whole frames, meaning that if you try it when first waking up, you'll just eat a punch to the face again and be put back into a bad spot.
In comparison, most other characters generally have a mix of either Invincible Attack options, like Ryu's Shoryuken or Guile's meter burn Flash Kick, that give them extra options, better options when put in a blockstring, or other such tools, like Zangief's Flex and SPD and Dhalsim's teleport. Just about every character has some kind of tools for this situation, excepting a few like Balrog and Abigail who lack it.
Beyond purely wakeup reverals, Abigail is also poor against pressure in general due to a range of factors, such as having poorer short range moves than most of his competitors. When his opponent is swinging at him, Abigail has less options than other characters to rectify this situation, and as a result must suffer it longer and likely take more damage.
While I readily admit no character wants to be in a disadvantageous position and put on the back foot, other characters recover from that more readily than Abigail, who has his vulnerability to pressure and lack of defensive tools as two of his principle weaknesses. As such, Abigail's character is one who has overwhelming offensive potential (which none of us are debating, the man's damage needs no introduction, although it bears in mind just how long his range is and his mixup ability with his dash also play into his offensive power), but severely lacks in defenses, with no good reversals (oddly enough, V-reverals in street fighter V, aren't technically reversals by common fighting game vernacular).
I would consider this to be a Glass Cannon, and I believe that anyone else who's played the game, and especially Abigail would agree, raw numerical health be damned.
EDIT: Just as a sidenote, who the hell remembers minor edits they've made three years ago to a game they don't even play as much as some others?
Edited by DarthWalrusI’m not sure what you claim I strawmanned here. If anything, I steelmanned your position and tried presenting it in the best possible light.
But to answer your question, this thread is as much about reporting your actions as it is “getting to the bottom of things”. Your responses have pretty much tied both issues together.
Not sure how to quote people but
@Tuvok. Admittedly, by the barest technicality, it was. Like I said, it's been three years. How am I supposed to remember every edit I've made in that timeframe? It's a bit hard to remain calm when I'm constantly being hounded, however.
@Nubian For one, claiming I "attacked you" when all I did was ask for you to stop attacking me? For two, ascrbing to me malintent repeatedly, for three, using outdated statistics and downplaying my points in favor of repeating that he has 1075 (not 1100) health? For four, what actions? Daring to argue my points? Noticing how you have, and remain, to that last post, constantly in an accusatory tone?
Edited by DarthWalrusWhile some leeway comes into play, I lean towards not a GlassCannon due being able to take damage, more then one would think a usual sample could take. Waiting for others to chime in regarding the if it is or is not one.
Edited by TuvokYeah, not an example. A Glass Cannon can't take a hit. The problem with Abigail is that he is vulnerable to hits.
Moreover, the entry is entirely predicated on the meta gameplay, something which is technically YMMV since it's a fan reaction. It's why things like Smogon are banned from Pokemon pages because they lead to unclear situations that likely weren't intended by the creators and definitely have nothing to do with storytelling, which is what this site focuses on.
EDIT in response to below: I don't think Nubian was harassive or accusatory and I think they did a good job of presenting as two-sided a narrative as one can when they have an opinion on the matter, which is admittedly never perfect. Calling them out for harassment in particular seems unfounded. While I sympathize with making an edit and not remembering it so I get that it's annoying to be accused of edit-warring even if it's technically true, unless there were P Ms I'm not privy to, "opening a thread for discussion and inviting you" sure as hell isn't harassing.
They're also entirely correct that the bullet you added on Informed Ability needs to either go or be completely rewritten since it breaks several site rules.
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Darth Walrus, you seem to think that me stating the fact that you Edit Warred (which, as has been established here, is a fact) as accusing instead of, you know, pointing out that you broke a rule. On top of that, I flat out stated here that while I personally thought you did it intentionally, that I still tried to open a dialogue on the Discussion page just in case it was an accident. Despite this, you have constantly shown pure contempt for the fact that I would even bother to bring up that what you did was against the rules even if intentionally. When I tried reasoning with you repeatedly and said that your attitude would require me to take this to ATT, your response was basically "How dare you try and threaten me? Fine bring this to the admins and see if I care!"
Every step of the way, I've tried to be civil and tell you why your examples are problematic and why the edits themselves were problematic and all you've done the ENTIRE time is claim that I'm bullying you by pointing these things out.
Edited by NubianSatyressAllow me to be blunt. I responded in hopes of an open discussion on the merits of a trope, whether or not it applied. What I was met with was a relentless attack on your part against me, in which you repeatedly attempted to pin malintent on what was, in all honesty, something that had never crossed my mind, and honestly, I find it rather strange you'd search for an edit that happened three years ago.
After I repeatedly attempted to bring this discussion back on course and all that managed was you escalating to even more provocative attempts at overt harassment and even intimidating, threatening to more or less "try and get me banned", you act as if you were innoncent in all of this?
Even now, all you do is try to paint me as some villain for daring to have the temerity to argue back and expect you not to try and tar and feather me at every turn.
Edited by DarthWalrusDW, with all do respect Nubian Satyress was correct and her tone was ( to me) non-confrontational in the discussion page. To be honest you could have reacted better. Your response seemed more of an attack then their original statement in the discussion page .
Edited by TuvokLets go over the following.
"this basically constitutes a 3-year-long Edit War."
Trying to paint it as something it most certainly is not, using words that bring to mind someone repeatedly attempting to revert a trope for three years straight, rather than what it was, a single edit that was pounced on immediately, and used as an attack vector.
"An edit war is an edit > revert > edit. And that's what you did. And it seems you even did it INTENTIONALLY, since you specifically added justification for re-adding it. You KNEW it had been removed and then put it back in."
Attempting to pin malintent on me.
"The ONLY reason I haven't brought this to the attention of the admin staff yet is because I can almost believe that you didn't really feel it would be a problem. But if you want to continue arguing this fact, then fine — if you refuse to let it go, I'll let them weigh in themselves. "
And what could this be except a blatant attempt at intimidation?
How?
It's inconcievable. I come in expecting a debate and get hit with accusation after attack after accusation right out of the gate for something that I can't even recall.
/takes a deep breath
Tuvok, I understand you're trying to play peacemaker here and I appreciate that, but you really don't seem to understand what it looks like when someone attacks you right out the gate with "Three year long edit war".
Framing is a thing and that was a malicious misframing if I ever seen one.
Edited by DarthWalrusYes I saw the discussion. NS started with a neutral edit, you responded with a somewhat neutral edit then added. P.S. You can drop the accusations, thanks. "Three year long edit war". It's one edit.
That's an escalation on your part leading to and escalation on NS part. They did not make the opening shot they responded to one and it unfortunately escalated from there.
Edited by TuvokIronically, it was the edit reason in the first place that tipped me off that there was probably an earlier edit and sure enough, when I Ctrl+F'ed "Glass Cannon", there it was.
Walrus doesn't seem to understand why I could possibly assume that there was ill-intent on their part based on that edit, but is more than willing to assume that everything I say and do is either malicious or "intimidation" instead of trying to warn them about the steps I would need to take to resolve questionable edits and an argument that is getting out of hand.
Edited by NubianSatyressNo stake in that game, but even if NS is being offensive, the level of defensiveness you've put forth at most steps that are visible to me has been disproportionate. But like I said. I get that it can be annoying to be accused of edit-warring for forgetting something, even if it's technically true. I can also find it annoying to find out someone's been edit-warring and suspecting that it was malicious. But my point is, I highly recommend we all take a step back.
We're in agreement on the example in question, we're all reasonable tropers, let's just let this discussion end, there's literally no positive outcome possible to continuing this.
Sound good?
Edited by Larkmarn Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.Bueno. Sleep well, friend.
Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.The main thing has been resolved regarding the GlassCannon bit. Anything else should be left as is because it only escalates things.
Edited by TuvokSo, speaking as the guy who removed the example. I must say that Darth Walrus did not make himself look sympathetic here. Regardless of whether he agrees or not, he is taking things too far and not exactly being reasonable with other people, NS in particular. I understand not agreeing with somebody on certain topics, but he is blowing things out of proportion.
On another note, others have already said it, but the reason I removed the example is because while Abigail doesn't have good defensive options, he still has an insane amount of HP and it takes forever to knock him out because of that. I figured that a character designed to take tons of punishment just didn't fit the trope.
I think what has blown this query up - accusations and defensiveness and discussions about edit-warring semantics - isn't going to go anywhere further. We can stop on that discussion.
DarthWalrus, you can take note of what others have said about steamrolling in, because multiple mods have seen this query, and agree you're overreacting.
If there is a general agreement to edit the example in question a certain way, go for it.
Also, Darth Walrus, you need to read over Conversation in the Main Page and Example Indentation in Trope Lists. There are many edits of yours that violate these rules.
Edited by SeptimusHeap "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

Yesterday, Tropers.Darth Walrus added Glass Cannon to Characters.Street Fighter V in relation to the character Abigail
. The problem is, this was his SECOND time adding said trope to the page; the first time was almost 3 years ago in August 2017
, which was then removed less than a month later
by Tropers.Red Rover Red Rover.
Red Rover's reason for removing it at the time was "This trope is about not being able to take many hits. Abigail can take plenty". When Darth Walrus readded it recently, his edit reason was "You can check up any guide that talks about Abigail's weaknesses, and all of them put his vulnerability to pressure and poor defensive options on the top of the list."
Based on Darth Walrus's edit reason, it seemed probable to me that he re-added the example deliberately, and thus ignited an Edit War albeit with a 3 year gap. I attempted to bring the matter to the Discussion page
in order to explain that this was Edit Warring and to argue why I agreed with Red Rover's position that the character did not count as a Glass Cannon (more on this later).
Darth Walrus's reaction, however, seemed to imply that he didn't remember the older edit (which conflicts with his reaction in the edit reason). In addition, he immediately became hostile and stated that pointing out that this was an Edit War was "accusing" him. Over the next several replies, I attempt to once again affirm that what he did was an Edit War (even if it wasn't intentional), and as I told him there, I am 90% certain that he knew he was Edit Warring based on his edit reason but decided to at least talk things out before I brought things here. Walrus, however, continued to attack me for calling what he did an Edit War and also accused me of not arguing in "good faith", despite my attempts to do just that before resorting to this very query.
P.S.: On top of that, Walrus also added a very questionable "Long-Range Fighter" example to the same page, and also added this
nattery and incorrectly-bulleted example to Informed Ability. Even in the example itself he admits that it's pedantic and sinkholes Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking.
Anyway, that leaves the site editing policy issues out of the way. Now to get down to the Glass Cannon debate itself.
In Street Fighter V, Abigail is the largest (over 8 feet tall) and most resilient character (1100 health, more the 1000 HP average) in the entire game. He also hits like a mac truck, destroying up to 80% of an opponent's health with one combo if he has the resources. His main weakness (as Walrus pointed out) is that if he's knocked down or cornered, Abigail has no Counter-Attack or reversal abilities. His only option is to sit back and block and hope that his opponent eventually makes a mistake. Walrus argues that this makes him a Glass Cannon. He has no Dragon Punch or invincible Spinning Piledriver to fight back if he's cornered.
As I pointed out, hoever, Abigail not having other options besides blocking only makes his defense bad relative to characters that have those abilities (and not everyone does). Sure, he might end up taking a lot of damage as he waits for the opponent to mess up, but that doesn't change the fact that he has more health than the other characters and that if they took the exact same hits, they would be even more damaged than he is.
I also pointed out that tanking damage to wait for his chance is specifically how Abigail's gameplay work. Abigail has Super Armor attacks that are intended to let him take damage while either getting closer or starting one of those INSANELY damaging combos I mentioned before. As Walrus says Abigail may not "want" to get hit, and he may not "want" to be on the defensive, but his entire gameplay rests upon waiting out an opponent while they damage him so that when he gets his hands on them, he can absolutely demolish them.
My apologies for the length of this query, but I wanted to bring everything to attention before anyone responded. I'm about to go to bed in a few moments, so if anyone needs me to chime in, I'll be back in a few hours.
Also, both Darth Walrus and Red Rover Red Rover have been invited to participate.
Thank you.
Edited by NubianSatyress