Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This is Sauron in physical form and is wearing the One Ring. The fight takes place in the courtyard of Hogwarts Academy. Who wins the fight?

RJ seyz:

"Cornholio! Acupuncture! Abra Cadaver! Do not DARE disagree with me!"

You forgot: "u mad! lolz lolz lolz magic spells wizards pwn lolz lolz." *post internet meme*

Snape does win though.

The Witch King explodes his wand.

Sauron wins.

Petrificus Totalus.

Snape

Sauron

How does the Witch King explode his wand?

Christ, I am totally going to come off like RJ, but.....

Snape wins. Accio Ring, Petrify spell, immobilize, and then the death spell.

Bewbz.

I'm pretty sure 'Accio ring' won't work for two reasons.

1. I'm pretty sure it doesn't work on powerful magical items. Don't they trying to accio the Horcrux at Gringotts?

2. I can't recall anyone every successfully using that spell when the item it bound to the person. Say on his finger, when he's clutching a mace for example.


And I second Impediments question. Witch King isn't even in the fight....

I think it was a joke.......

I'm new....?

That's a totally valid excuse I think, right? =)

No.

I will now commence judging you.



crackers

i am judging you so hard right now

Sauron? Weren't his feats just swinging his mace and dying?

Originally posted by Psychotron
Sauron? Weren't his feats just swinging his mace and dying?

Depends how you choose to look at it.

You could say Saurons feats were swinging his mace and dying.

The same light says Snapes feats were fighting children, killing an unarmed old man, and dying to a snake.



If you use feats alone, and only feats, then Yes, Snape's are better. If you choose to use all evidence from showings, words of others, and implications, Sauron is far stronger.

The whole of Middle Earth saw Saurons return as an Auto-Lose. There are reasons for this.

That's very circumstantial, though. Sauron was a threat he because he had huge, powerful armies, and was a skilled manipulator. There's nothing within the movies that imply that he himself, alone, could solo the world.

So really yes, his feats in combat are the only ones that matter. In that, it takes a sword across the finger to kill him. He did not show the ability to fly, teleport, shoot fireballs out of his ass, etc. Therefore none of those implications and word of mouth would help him in the slightest in a straight up fight.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's very circumstantial, though. Sauron was a threat he because he had huge, powerful armies, and was a skilled manipulator. There's nothing within the movies that imply that he himself, alone, could solo the world.

So really yes, his feats in combat are the only ones that matter. In that, it takes a sword across the finger to kill him. He did not show the ability to fly, teleport, shoot fireballs out of his ass, etc. Therefore none of those implications and word of mouth would help him in the slightest in a straight up fight.

It's a point of view. If you choose to downplay it that's how it is when you do it to Snape.

And it's not as you say it is. Throughout the entire first movie it was heavily emphasized that if Sauron got the ring back it is essentially game over. That is significantly different from dark days ahead to certain defeat. It's not that he can solo the world, but that his army is defeat-able, with him, that looks not to be the case.


No, but he was known to be far more powerful than Gandalf or the Witch King. It's really unlikely to my mind that most any wizard could defeat Sauron. Wasn't he called The Great Necromancer in the hobbit?

Suit yourself though. If you can't convinced and you think Snape can beat the guy most all 'Dark Lords' are based on, on your own head =3

Originally posted by EvilAngel
It's a point of view. If you choose to downplay it that's how it is when you do it to Snape. Downplaying is looking at something someone's done and making excuses for why its not impressive. I haven't done any such thing.

I'll explain why that is below:



You have it backwards. According to what the movies themselves show us, Sauron's army is undefeatable. Even after narrowly routing Saruman's army at Helms Deep, even after narrowly routing Sauron's army at Minas Tirith, Sauron's army still had a nigh infinite number of troops, whereas the men of the west had been decimated. Simply put, there was no way to permanently put his army down. It didn't matter how many fights the humans won, Sauron always had more orcs and more trolls to keep up the pressure. Hence, destroying the ring was the only possible way to put him down for good. That's why not letting him get the ring was so important. It wasn't a matter so much of him becoming a demi-god if he got it. It was a matter of humanity not having any other way of killing him, if he got the ring. They didn't have the man power to replicate another battle of the Last Alliance.


That's 'cause you're a fangirl who likes to use circumstantial evidence... which isn't really evidence at all. uhuh



I want you to convince.

It's just... I want you to do it using facts, not hearsay that have no objective interpretations.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Downplaying is looking at something someone's done and making excuses for why its not impressive. I haven't done any such thing.

No, you haven't, but the line i quoted is an example of downplay.

'swinging his mace' - when yes this is true but it fails to mention it is down with enough force to send a half dozen men flying with each 'swing'

It also ignores anything Sauron did before the events of the movies. He was fighting and conquoring long before That last alliance came together. He was also called Sauron the Deceiver, presumably for a reason...



Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
You have it backwards. According to what the movies themselves show us, Sauron's army is undefeatable. Even after narrowly routing Saruman's army at Helms Deep, even after narrowly routing Sauron's army at Minas Tirith, Sauron's army still had a nigh infinite number of troops, whereas the men of the west had been decimated. Simply put, there was no way to permanently put his army down. It didn't matter how many fights the humans won, Sauron always had more orcs and more trolls to keep up the pressure. Hence, destroying the ring was the only possible way to put him down for good. That's why not letting him get the ring was so important. It wasn't a matter so much of him becoming a demi-god if he got it. It was a matter of humanity not having any other way of killing him, if he got the ring. They didn't have the man power to replicate another battle of the Last Alliance.

If that's the case then the ring is inconsequential in the grand scheme of things* and there's no way they would have summoned all the lords of all the peoples of middle earth, who used they're very best men on what was a Suicide mission to destroy it.

If that is the case then Aragorn would never have lead the survivors of the horrors of war on yet another suicide mission just to buy Frodo time. He liked Frodo that's true, but there's nothing supporting the theory he weighed Frodo's life over all those he lead to the Black Gate.

I see your reasoning but you must realize how much you are ignoring for what you're trying to claim to make sense.


*Assuming they didn't actually realise it would destroy mordor entirely.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
That's 'cause you're a fangirl who likes to use circumstantial evidence... which isn't really evidence at all. uhuh I have a weakness for implied stuff this is true... but so's your face! (?)

Eh, the focus of the films is about destroying the ring to prevent Saurons return. Apparently that's pretty important if it's the focus of 3 books, and the best selling novel of all time dude ;p

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I want you to convince.

It's just... I want you to do it using facts, not hearsay that have no objective interpretations.

Most people i find have already made up their minds about such topics the moment they read the title. Even circumstances seldom changes an opinion. But I'll play along for awhile. If only due to the sheer insult to Sauron that Snape could kill him...

Originally posted by Psychotron
Sauron? Weren't his feats just swinging his mace and dying? That's why going based off of feats alone is never the entire picture of debating.

Shut up, Quan.


Originally posted by EvilAngel
No, you haven't, but the line i quoted is an example of downplay.Whoops, my mistake.


Why do you think they wouldn't know that? Gandalf especially?




So you think Aragorn led them on a suicide mission because... ?




All women have a weakness for my face. It is rather lovable.



The Bible is the best selling book of all time. 313


Just admit it. You love talking to me.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Why do you think they wouldn't know that? Gandalf especially? Why do you think they do?

I see it from the point of veiw that something like; Oh but if we destroy this ring we don't need to worry about morder anymore, would be something that would have been mentioned....

It's pretty silly to think they knew it, and never mentioned it, not even once, or even Hinted at it. Not a zip.


No sir, they didn't know. And if you insist they did I would have to ask for justifyable reasoning, because sweets, I just don't see it.




Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
So you think Aragorn led them on a suicide mission because... ?

Because he saw it as the chance to do what his ancestor Isildur could not. Destroy the ring, Destroy Sauron. With him out of the picture, the Orcs are leaderless, and become far less of a threat.

In short, the ends justify the means.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
All women have a weakness for my face. It is rather lovable.



The Bible is the best selling book of all time. 313


Just admit it. You love talking to me.

Weakness as in makes me reach for a paper bag? I would not disagree =3


The bible isn't a novel =p Besides, I'm not that into that kind of Fiction awesome


While I admit watching your list of reasoning crumble to nothingness has been amusing, I would not go so far to say as I love it vin

Originally posted by EvilAngel
Why do you think they do?

I see it from the point of veiw that something like; Oh but if we destroy this ring we don't need to worry about morder anymore, would be something that would have been mentioned....

It's pretty silly to think they knew it, and never mentioned it, not even once, or even Hinted at it. Not a zip.



Well, the difference between our thought processes on this is that I don't think the majority of the characters are morons. I don't think Aragorn would be stupid enough to think that he, with only 300 guys, could storm Mordor, slaughter Sauron's entire army, and throw the ring into Mount Doom. I think both he and Gandalf are smart enough to realize that humanity doesn't have the manpower to fight Saurons army and destroy it, ergo their only chance for survival is to toss the ring into the fire.

I really have to question what makes you think that all the sacrifices people made in the trilogy, in so far as to allow to Frodo to destroy the ring, were done out of the belief that destroying the ring would destroy only Sauron. If they believed that that they could deal with Sauron's army, and destroying him and only him was the only outcome of destroying the ring, then why destroy the ring at all? Sauron was just an eye. He didn't have any magical powers, he couldn't even move. He was stuck on a tower looking at people. If the humans could handle Sauron's army then all they would have had to do was hide the ring or keep it in their strongholds and destroy his army.

Or, there's my theory, which is that the wiser individuals such as Gandalf set this huge plan into motion to distract Sauron's gaze long enough for Frodo to destroy the ring, because he knew that Sauron's army would eventually overwhelm the free peoples, and that destroying the ring was the only way to defeat Mordor once and for all. Going by Occam's Razor, and Blaxican's Law, my theory is the better one.

That being said, I can't help but lol @ this here:



If only because your entire argument for Sauron beating Snape hinges upon Sauron possessing powers that he's never ever shown in the movies nor been stated to have. I thought hearsay and theory crafting was what you enjoyed? 313



I know you don't, sugerbooger, that's why I wear the pants in the family. 131


Whaaaaaat? I respect your desire to not disappoint me by comparing your face to mine, but really, there's no need to hide your face in a bag. It's more than acceptable.



YOUR MOM IS A NOVEL.


http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f122/blaxican_templar/211qff5.gif

Well..

Sauron had control over the orcs and other forces under his command...on a magical level.

So he did have magic. He also had his super eye thingie...that was also magic.


So we have a massive, but diluted, form of mind control coming from the ghostly version of Sauron...in addition to what appears to be remote viewing.


And I still don't buy that it is logical that destroying the ring would net the "good guys" a win.

There's actually no logical reason to conclude that the good guys would win if they destroyed the ring. What's missing? Oh...the fact that Sauron exerted a form of mind control over his massive forces. So, yeah...destroying the win would net the good guys a win.

Your post confused me. I feel like you contradicted yourself, there.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Your post confused me. I feel like you contradicted yourself, there.

I didn't. I asked the question that had been covered from a "logical" perspective...from not my end.

However, the "supernatural" is not logical and because of his supernatural control over his armies, we don't have a logical explanation for his control over his armies: it was magic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And I still don't buy that it is logical that destroying the ring would net the "good guys" a win.


Cos the orcs and trolls are an evil cowardly rabble; without leaders to whip them into a fighting force, they're not much of a threat to the kingdoms of men. But yes, Sauron alone wasn't much of a threat to the realms, it's his ability to force the rabble into an army.

They went back to fighting amongst each other like the poor people in the ghettos do once their leaders were destroyed. Sauron, Sarumon and the Nazgul.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
And if you think

"His gaze pierces cloud, shadow, earth, and flesh. You know of what I speak, Gandalf: a great Eye, lidless, wreathed in flame."

Is not a HUGE advantage in war, you're just a complete imbecile. No offense. Knowledge wins and loses wars. This is indisputable


Just to nitpick, but considering that 2 out of 3 major battles (Helms Deep and Minas Tirith, though you could probably count the one at the Black Gate too) were won by surprise flanking from the rear, I'd say he didn't really use this advantage that well.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Just to nitpick, but considering that 2 out of 3 major battles (Helms Deep and Minas Tirith, though you could probably count the one at the Black Gate too) were won by surprise flanking from the rear, I'd say he didn't really use this advantage that well.

This is true, there's also a scene in the Return of the King where the light from the eye is looking right at Frodo/Sam who fell behind some rocks so.... well it seems contradictory at times...

Maybe he just didn't think they were worth getting bothered over/ was more interested in something else.

'Oh look some hobbits going to Mount Doom. Well I know that the ring bearer is a hobbit and the only way to destroy the Ring is to chuck it in the volcano and, hey, where is that Ring now that you mention it? Waaaaait, maybe those hobbits wereOH GOD ARAGORNS DOING SOMETHING HIS HAIRS SO DREAMY!'


He seemed like a glorified lighthouse in that scene.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
Uh-huh... Did you actually watch that movie at all?

Which one? There's three movies, dork.



And the reason they put such a huge importance on Frodo destroying the ring was because they knew that if Sauron went his armies would go with him. Permanently.

If you agreed with me from the get go, why not just say so? "Hey Blax, you're absolutely right and amazing in bed." See, it's not that hard.




Really? That's why he lost almost every battle his forces were engaged in throughout the movies and failed to catch Frodo and Sam wandering through his own home town?


He wasn't too powerful of an enemy to avoid getting his hand cut off by a guy with a broken sword. awesome

Get that munny gurl.




Don't make fun of me. The diapers are just a precaution.


Hold me close and never let go.

Originally posted by Robtard
Cos the orcs and trolls are an evil cowardly rabble; without leaders to whip them into a fighting force, they're not much of a threat to the kingdoms of men. But yes, Sauron alone wasn't much of a threat to the realms, it's his ability to force the rabble into an army.

They went back to fighting amongst each other like the poor people in the ghettos do once their leaders were destroyed. Sauron, Sarumon and the Nazgul.

Close, but quite directly, Sauron exerted a form of mind control over the weaker minds.

Was it stated anywhere that the orcs functioned specifically under some kind of mass mind control that Sauron possessed?

Not that I actually disagree with you, just curious.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Was it stated anywhere that the orcs functioned specifically under some kind of mass mind control that Sauron possessed?

Not that I actually disagree with you, just curious.

It's hard for me to separate the books from the movies because the movies did so well in their adaptation.


But I remember Gandalf saying something about them breaking up when Sauron falls.




Anyone up for watching the extended cut of Return of the King? awesome

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Shut up, Quan.





Don't address your lord and master in this tone, boy.

Originally posted by quanchi112
That's why going based off of feats alone is never the entire picture of debating.

The fact is that's all he did. Yes, he had super-strength and I'm sure he could do a lot of neat tricks with the ring, but in the end he wasn't that powerful. The other posters saying he was dangerous because of his armies are right.

Originally posted by Psychotron
The fact is that's all he did. Yes, he had super-strength and I'm sure he could do a lot of neat tricks with the ring, but in the end he wasn't that powerful. The other posters saying he was dangerous because of his armies are right. I disagree he was extremely powerful and his involvement on the battle field clearly illustrated as much. Despite Gandalf having more feats than Sauron that doesn't mean he's more formidable based off of portrayal.

His involvement on the battlefield involved sending multiple flying with his mace, lumbering around, and getting his finger chopped off.

So I guess that as long as Snape stays out of range of that mace, he'll win for sure with his laundry list of magical spells.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
His involvement on the battlefield involved sending multiple flying with his mace, lumbering around, and getting his finger chopped off.

So I guess that as long as Snape stays out of range of that mace, he'll win for sure with his laundry list of magical spells. Sauron lowered his guard and came in with his hands due to the fact he just destroyed most of the guy's sword. Snape isn't powerful enough imo to hurt or kill him.

If a broken regular old sword can pierce his armor and remove his hand, a spell will slice him in half.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
If a broken regular old sword can pierce his armor and remove his hand, a spell will slice him in half. It won't be as easy when he is actively fighting not reaching for his prey.

Snape can teleport out of range easily and then attack with ranged spells. I don't see him being an idiot who will try to fight an armoured giant armed with a wrecking ball face to face.

Snape can attack Sauron without actually being arm's length away.

I'm just saying.

Originally posted by Robtard
Snape can teleport out of range easily and then attack with ranged spells. I don't see him being an idiot who will try to fight an armoured giant armed with a wrecking ball face to face. Sauron just has to swing in his general direction and close the gap.

Snape can teleport at the drop of a hat, levitate, and launch his spells from 50 feet away.

What will swinging at him do? That won't stop the spells from hitting him.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Sauron just has to swing in his general direction and close the gap.

Snape just need teleport 50+ feet away and start casting. Sauron was slow and lumbering, he's not closing "the gap" with any sort of quickness. He'd be destroyed long before he took two steps.

That reducto spell explodes inanimate objects, like Sauron's armor.

Edit: Or what that cat above me said.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Snape can teleport at the drop of a hat, levitate, and launch his spells from 50 feet away.

What will swinging at him do? That won't stop the spells from hitting him. This isn't cbr to where you jump into Snape and control his actions. Snape will fight like he does in the movies and stand there and cast spells. Sauron kills him the moment his mace makes contact near his body.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This isn't cbr to where you jump into Snape and control his actions. Snape will fight like he does in the movies and stand there and cast spells. Sauron kills him the moment his mace makes contact near his body.

So Snape's an idiot who will stand in front of an armoured giant with a massive mace? No, he's not.

Listen, I don't like HP either, but it is what it is.

Originally posted by Robtard
So Snape's an idiot who will stand in front of an armoured giant with a massive mace? No, he's not.

Listen, I don't like HP either, but it is what it is. Snape will cast spells in the meantime and then die. The guy was a colossal idiot for standing there while Voldemort killed him. You couldn't get much dumber than that.

Originally posted by quanchi112
This isn't cbr to where you jump into Snape and control his actions. Snape will fight like he does in the movies and stand there and cast spells. Sauron kills him the moment his mace makes contact near his body. Standard Movie vs. rules state that unless specified, CIS is off.

So no, Snape won't stand there like a dumbass and allow Sauron to travel 50 feet and hit him with a giant mace.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Snape will cast spells in the meantime and then die. The guy was a colossal idiot for standing there while Voldemort killed him. You couldn't get much dumber than that.

Snape need only cast reducto and Suaron is done, which he can do faster than Sauron can walk within striking range and swing. One spell.

But no, Snape's not an idiot the majority of the time, so majority wins out over CIS.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Standard Movie vs. rules state that unless specified, CIS is off.

So no, Snape won't stand there like a dumbass and allow Sauron to travel 50 feet and hit him with a giant mace. I don't think Snape will just stand there but like the movies he will cast spells in an offensive he doesn't get to do exactly what you want him to without doing so in the movie first. What I've stated is much more likely. This isn't powerset debating it's character debating.

Originally posted by Robtard
Snape need only cast reducto and Suaron is done, which he can do faster than Sauron can walk within striking range and swing. One spell.

But no, Snape's not an idiot the majority of the time, so majority wins out over CIS. I don't see these spells being powerful enough over his ring. Sauron is tough to gauge I guess you have to either believe it or not. His feats/screen time was like 2 minutes or even less. You believe it work I don't.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I don't think Snape will just stand there but like the movies he will cast spells in an offensive he doesn't get to do exactly what you want him to without doing so in the movie first. What I've stated is much more likely. This isn't powerset debating it's character debating. Snape has been shown in the movies defending himself from attacks using his spells.

His teleportation ability is a spell, and Sauron's mace attacks are attacks. Snape will definitely defend himself from Sauron's attack. That's common ****ing sense Quan. Like seriously, what do you think he's going to do when Sauron slowly shambles toward him?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Snape has been shown in the movies defending himself from attacks using his spells.

His teleportation ability is a spell, and Sauron's mace attacks are attacks. Snape will definitely defend himself from Sauron's attack. That's common ****ing sense Quan. Like seriously, what do you think he's going to do when Sauron slowly shambles toward him? Yes, he has. Not saying he hasn't but he does sit there and stand still while firing attacks.


I don't think so. Sauron's attack doesn't have to strike him and he will ward off due to the power of the ring Snape's spells imo. Snape will keep firing while he's coming at him.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I don't see these spells being powerful enough over his ring. Sauron is tough to gauge I guess you have to either believe it or not. His feats/screen time was like 2 minutes or even less. You believe it work I don't.

Sauron's armor was cut by a human with a broken sword, so he's not wearing adamantium; Reducto is designed to destroy solid objects, Snape's not going to attack an armoured gigantic figure with a spell designed to cut flesh.

In the MVF we go by screen feats, not what you really want. Condolences. Sauron is little more than a hulking brute with a super-strong swing.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sauron's armor was cut by a human with a broken sword, so he's not wearing adamantium.

In the MVF we go by screen feats, not what you really want. Condolences. Yes, and he won't just put his arm forward due to the fact he dropped his guard because he just broke most of his sword. Sauron was wrecking shop prior to and turned the tide of a battle that would make Snape poop his wizard drawers.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, and he won't just put his arm forward due to the fact he dropped his guard because he just broke most of his sword. Sauron was wrecking shop prior to and turned the tide of a battle that would make Snape poop his wizard drawers.

What you said doesn't counter Snape being able to attack Sauron from much farther away with spells.

Basically a guy with a gun Vs a guy with a bat.

Snape could have soloed Sauron's entire Orc army.

Seriously.

Any Wizard that can half-apparate would be unable to be killed by an Orc.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Snape could have soloed Sauron's entire Orc army.

Seriously.

Any Wizard that can half-apparate would be unable to be killed by an Orc.

RJ, is that you?

Originally posted by NemeBro
Snape could have soloed Sauron's entire Orc army.

Seriously.

Any Wizard that can half-apparate would be unable to be killed by an Orc.



Let's not get carried away. Furthermore, "half-apparating" wizards are not intangible.

He's right, though.

It would take time, a very very long time. But, if all orcs have at their disposal are swords and bows, then yes any decent wizard can kill an infinite number of them, so long as they don't tag him/her when he/she is sleeping, eating etc.

I'm doubtful. Maybe if the wizard preformed flawlessly and fought the way RJ argued they were able they could potentially kill thousands of orcs. But one mistake and the wizard would end as a pin cushion.

Unless I've forgotten something, half-apparated Wizards are intangible, are they not?

Nope. Voldemort was smashing into shit in the final movie (although one could argue that was Harry but Voldy looked to be in immense pain as well) and Snape broke through a window after his fight with McGonagall IIRC.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
And the reason they put such a huge importance on Frodo destroying the ring was because they knew that if Sauron went his armies would go with him. Permanently.

If you agreed with me from the get go, why not just say so? "Hey Blax, you're absolutely right and amazing in bed." See, it's not that hard.

There's no evidence to support that Blax. Saurons power is a constantly feared thing, his presence in the movies and the characters reaction to him is all the proof required to support the theory.

There is none of this. Provide some, or give it up =\


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
If a broken regular old sword can pierce his armor and remove his hand, a spell will slice him in half.

Regular old sword...

You really didn't watch the movies at all.

Maybe you should listen to the dialogue as opposed to watching the movies muted and touching yourself whenever gollum is on screen

"The skill of the elves can reforge the sword of kings but only you have the power to wield it" - Elrond
"I do not want that power, I have never wanted it" - Aragorn

If you think it's a 'regular old sword' that come on. Tell me how exactly such a mundane blade was able to deflect the sword of the dead.

Anyone who actually has read the books knows the reason Sauron stepped on the blade. It wasn't a 'give up' gesture, it was because Narsil is a very special sword. If I recall they even had to enchant a shealth just for it. The only problem is the movies do not portray the swords full power.


Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Snape has been shown in the movies defending himself from attacks using his spells.

His teleportation ability is a spell, and Sauron's mace attacks are attacks. Snape will definitely defend himself from Sauron's attack. That's common ****ing sense Quan. Like seriously, what do you think he's going to do when Sauron slowly shambles toward him?

Lol, i'm sorry but what's the proof you have Sauron is slow. His only showing was walking to the front line, then striding through the enemy as he decimated them.

Or is it, Show running or he can't!

And if as you say CIS is automatically turned off, forget him exposing the ring so easily. As clearly that is the greatest moment of CIS in the whole of the LoTR trilogy

Originally posted by NemeBro
Snape could have soloed Sauron's entire Orc army.

Seriously.

Any Wizard that can half-apparate would be unable to be killed by an Orc.

And that's ridiculous. Snape lacks feats for the reactive speed and swiftness to deal with mass people charging while being shot at. Even if orcs are a crap shot, there's nothing backing up that he'd spot and be able to react to it all.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Unless I've forgotten something, half-apparated Wizards are intangible, are they not?

No..... prat


I also love how it's assumed that Snapes spells can bring down Sauron when... if memory serves well Hagrid, who is just a half giant, is resistant to magic. So all of a sudden the conclusion is reached than a Maiar would not be? An essentially Angel-like being.

Oh right, my mistake, feats. Well let's think, Sauron is far and away the most powerful Maiar, and Gandalf (who is also a Maiar) has achieved the following;
- Held back a Balrog (A Force resisted Far more powerful than ANYTHING in Snapes arsenal)
- Completely unaffected by a fireball from Saruman
- Shattered Gimli's Axe, Deflected Legolas's arrow, and burnt Aragorns sword in the space of about 2 seconds.

The Witch King, who is Sauron's minion made Gandalf look like a punk. So the assumption Snape wins bacause of his leet magics is pretty incredible. So come on Snape supporters. Give some sort of a reason why anyone should take the notion Snape could even hurt Sauron seriously. Does he actually have any feats on magically powerful or resistant enemies?

Last I checked he got b***h-slapped by McGonigal, which save lockheart is the only fight I recall him having in the movies. Not exactly golden proof that he would totally pew pew on The Real Dark Lord.

Vader is the real Dark Lord.


And Petrificus Totalus. Snape wins.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Vader is the real Dark Lord.


And Petrificus Totalus. Snape wins.

Trolling at it's finest.

Vader's awesome, but he's not the real Dark Lord

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
He's right, though.

It would take time, a very very long time. But, if all orcs have at their disposal are swords and bows, then yes any decent wizard can kill an infinite number of them, so long as they don't tag him/her when he/she is sleeping, eating etc. No, he's dead wrong. We see the wizards miss left and right against each other. This video game sense mentality of soloing armies is without merit or anything even close to a small army on screen. Arrows would mow him down and quite easily.

Originally posted by Robtard
What you said doesn't counter Snape being able to attack Sauron from much farther away with spells.

Basically a guy with a gun Vs a guy with a bat. Yes, he can but it won't fatally destroy him whereas he needs one attack to do so. The ring amps him to weather the storm.Originally posted by NemeBro
Snape could have soloed Sauron's entire Orc army.

Seriously.

Any Wizard that can half-apparate would be unable to be killed by an Orc. Yeah, because so many wizards were portrayed in hp as soloing armies.

So yeah... throwing this one out there, but er. What stops Sauron destroying Snape's Wand?

Witch King got his power from Sauron essentially, and he blew up Gandalfs staff.

Or if you don't like that Gandalf super heated Aragorns sword which would very likely destroy a wand.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, he can but it won't fatally destroy him whereas he needs one attack to do so. Th


Good, glad we agree on that, Snape's faster and has the much better range. But it will destroy Sauron's armor; parts like his fingers and thereby release Sauron's hold on the one ring; that will send Sauron back into spirit form and the fights over.

Snape wins the fight and Sauron goes back to being a bodiless all-seeing eye. Glad we agree.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good, glad we agree on that, Snape's faster and has the much better range. But it will destroy Sauron's armor; parts like his fingers and thereby release Sauron's hold on the one ring; that will send Sauron back into spirit form and the fights over.

Snape wins the fight and Sauron goes back to being a bodiless all-seeing eye. Glad we agree. I put yes to agree to it's a guy with a bat vs. a guy with a gun I didn't concede Sauron loses only that the guy with the bat in this instance still wins. hat's why they play the games. I don't see his spells as destroying his armor he'd need to sever the ring and I don't see him doing so before Sauron oneshots him.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I put yes to agree to it's a guy with a bat vs. a guy with a gun I didn't concede Sauron loses only that the guy with the bat in this instance still wins. hat's why they play the games. I don't see his spells as destroying his armor he'd need to sever the ring and I don't see him doing so before Sauron oneshots him.

So spells that can cause solid objects to explode and such won't affect armor that can be cut with a sword? You're wrong, Sauron loses. I don't like HP either, but I've learned to deal with it.

Originally posted by Robtard
So spells that can cause solid objects to explode and such won't affect armor that can be cut with a sword? You're wrong, Sauron loses. I don't like HP either, but I've learned to deal with it. I don't see a spell making Sauron exploding due to his powers/especially the ring. I am going by implied power not feats alone.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
Regular old sword...

You really didn't watch the movies at all.

Maybe you should listen to the dialogue as opposed to watching the movies muted and touching yourself whenever gollum is on screen

"The skill of the elves can reforge the sword of kings but only you have the power to wield it" - Elrond
"I do not want that power, I have never wanted it" - Aragorn

If you think it's a 'regular old sword' that come on. Tell me how exactly such a mundane blade was able to deflect the sword of the dead.

Anyone who actually has read the books knows the reason Sauron stepped on the blade. It wasn't a 'give up' gesture, it was because Narsil is a very special sword. If I recall they even had to enchant a shealth just for it. The only problem is the movies do not portray the swords full power.

Right. And yet this Super Magic Sword was broken by being casually stepped on.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Right. And yet this Super Magic Sword was broken by being casually stepped on. That shows you how powerful Sauron is. The guy really didn't have a lot of screen time you know.

Oh of course, it was obviously a magical step. How silly of me.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I don't see a spell making Sauron exploding due to his powers/especially the ring. I am going by implied power not feats alone.

LoL, purposely changing what I am saying over and over? Not Sauron, his armor; his armoured gauntlet, which the ring is around, that will explode along with his easily cut fingers.

Screen feats > your wishes and there was nothing implied about Sauron's armor being anything but metal. Just going to have to accept it and deal.

Sauron would win over advenge magic.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Right. And yet this Super Magic Sword was broken by being casually stepped on.

Casually stepped on, maybe maybe not.

Since all you see is a big metal boot come down and a loud snap I find it hard to distinguish and prove either way if it's a casual step or a stomp or any other degree of effort put into it.

Good luck trying to prove it though =)


And since no one seems actually capable of refuting anything I said, and is instead focusing on "The deliberate move to break the sword was a casual step. Obviously all references of the swords power are here-say or conjecture"

I accept for concession, thank you =)

Unless the argument is that Sauron is going to stomp on Snape with his foot, I don't see the point and I don't think anyone is arguing that Sauron doesn't have super-strength.

By all account in the film, Narsil is just as sharp and durable as any other well-forged sword and swords can break when hit on the side with enough force.

In the books, Narsil broke because a large human fell against it.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
So yeah... throwing this one out there, but er. What stops Sauron destroying Snape's Wand?

Witch King got his power from Sauron essentially, and he blew up Gandalfs staff.

Or if you don't like that Gandalf super heated Aragorns sword which would very likely destroy a wand.

Your answer: Movie Feats.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Right. And yet this Super Magic Sword was broken by being casually stepped on.

So? I didn't realize magical items were unable to be broken by mundane means... (Looks at wands)

If it has the same physical properties as a regular sword then why distinquish it from a regular one? The only magical properties it displays in the movies is not blunting and being able to interact with the Deads weapons. Its never shown to be super sharp to my knowledge or display anything else that would make its feat of cutting off Saurons finger unreplicatible.




I accept for concession as well.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Oh of course, it was obviously a magical step. How silly of me. It wasn't magical or at least you can't prove it but one thing is for certain Sauron's power was pretty much rammed home.

Originally posted by Robtard
LoL, purposely changing what I am saying over and over? Not Sauron, his armor; his armoured gauntlet, which the ring is around, that will explode along with his easily cut fingers.

Screen feats > your wishes and there was nothing implied about Sauron's armor being anything but metal. Just going to have to accept it and deal. Sauron won't have it right out in the open and will be attacking not pressing an opponent he just mistakenly thought he disarmed.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Sauron won't have it right out in the open and will be attacking not pressing an opponent he just mistakenly thought he disarmed.

Sauron's armor which includes his gauntlets are out in the open.

Originally posted by Robtard
Sauron's armor which includes his gauntlets are out in the open. The force from Snape's wand won't be enough to do so.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The force from Snape's wand won't be enough to do so.

You have nothing to base that on, Snape's spells can make objects explode and Sauron's armor is just armor.

Originally posted by Robtard
You have nothing to base that on, Snape's spells can make objects explode and Sauron's armor is just armor. Sauron also is magically based and is fueled by the power of the ring which amps him. Gandalf can also cause objects to break and burn that doesn't mean it's easier to affect Sauron's armor.

Originally posted by Robtard
Your answer: Movie Feats.

Not really an adequate response if you're insinuating that Sauron didn't perform said things.

Snape's lsit of displayed spells are small too. The same logic dictates he can't use spells any lesser witch/wizards have used before he lacks the feats.]

Originally posted by Nephthys
If it has the same physical properties as a regular sword then why distinquish it from a regular one? The only magical properties it displays in the movies is not blunting and being able to interact with the Deads weapons. Its never shown to be super sharp to my knowledge or display anything else that would make its feat of cutting off Saurons finger unreplicatible.




I accept for concession as well.

You usually can pose more of a challenge if you actually watch the movies =3

I'm joking, sorry ^^'

But you want proof it's not a normal sword? Okay, that's fair enough

How about the fact it's still sharp enough for Boromir to slice his finger on it after oooo..... 3-4 thousand years?

You know any metals that can last that long? I'm pretty sure even gold wouldn't last that long untarnished.

It's 'not blunting' is precisely such an instance where it's unnatural qualities can be clearly distinguished.

To ask the question, were it a normal sword what you do think of Elronds statement that only Aragorn had the power to wield it?

It's a big sword, it was crafted for a near 8ft giant of a man, but is that really the reason?

I don't think so. The movies lack feats.... well no sh*t. Any book to movie adaption I can think of ends up skipping many details. They aren't going to spend much time on a legendary sword's power when all they need to use it for is a plot device for Aragorn to attain the army of the dead's oath.

Also that was a type error, I meant to say 'I accept your concession'. Which you must be nearing if you are trying to attack Narsil when Snape carries no cutting tool for any of this to be relevant. Even supposing Narsil really was just a regular old sword, Snape carries no blade. Simply put it would seem as though Snape's supporters are grasping at straws here. There are arguments for him that have been untouched that I can think of. But that's not what you're doing... So get a real point or just give it up =p

Originally posted by quanchi112
Sauron also is magically based and is fueled by the power of the ring which amps him. Gandalf can also cause objects to break and burn that doesn't mean it's easier to affect Sauron's armor.

Not his armor by any accounts of the film and his fingers get cut off just as easily as human fingers. So everything you said about Sauron doesn't matter.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
Not really an adequate response if you're insinuating that Sauron didn't perform said things.

Snape's lsit of displayed spells are small too. The same logic dictates he can't use spells any lesser witch/wizards have used before he lacks the feats.]


It's an adequate response according to the MVF rules.

The difference there is that we're comparing a wizard to a wizard. Sauron is not 'like the same' to the Witch King. Apples to oranges.

Originally posted by Robtard
It's an adequate response according to the MVF rules.

The difference there is that we're comparing a wizard to a wizard. Sauron is not 'like the same' to the Witch King. Apples to oranges.

He is the same to Gandalf.

So he sets the Wand on Fire in the same manner Gandalf seared Aragorns sword.

Your retort?

Originally posted by EvilAngel
He is the same to Gandalf.

So he sets the Wand on Fire in the same manner Gandalf seared Aragorns sword.

Your retort?

Easy. A magical wand is not even remotely similar to a regular metal sword.

So if Sauron had this "heat metal" power, it's all but useless against Snape.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
You usually can pose more of a challenge if you actually watch the movies =3

I'm joking, sorry ^^'

You should be sorry.

my poor feelings.....

Originally posted by EvilAngel
But you want proof it's not a normal sword? Okay, that's fair enough

How about the fact it's still sharp enough for Boromir to slice his finger on it after oooo..... 3-4 thousand years?

You know any metals that can last that long? I'm pretty sure even gold wouldn't last that long untarnished.

It's 'not blunting' is precisely such an instance where it's unnatural qualities can be clearly distinguished.

I know its a normal sword. But I don't see how the above helped it to cut off Saurons fingers. Being able to stay sharp for a really long time isn't important in that respect.

If I'm not mistaken, you're asserting that its only because of its magical properties that it was able to cut off Saurons fingers, so Snapes magic won't be up to the task (lolwut). I however see nothing about the sword that leads me to think that a non-magical one would have been unable to cut his fingers off just the same. If you do think so, please provide proof for that line of reasoning.

Plus the sword was snapped by Sauron stomping on it. Meh.


Originally posted by EvilAngel
To ask the question, were it a normal sword what you do think of Elronds statement that only Aragorn had the power to wield it?

It's a big sword, it was crafted for a near 8ft giant of a man, but is that really the reason?

Actually I think it was because only Isildur's Heir could use that sword to command the Armies of the Dead. It would have been pointless to give it to, say, Theoden. He couldn't have used it to do what Aragorn did with it.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
I don't think so. The movies lack feats.... well no sh*t. Any book to movie adaption I can think of ends up skipping many details. They aren't going to spend much time on a legendary sword's power when all they need to use it for is a plot device for Aragorn to attain the army of the dead's oath.

Can I take this as a concession that you lack the feats required to continue your assertion? Because I agree. Narsil properties were not expanded upon adequetely for that.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
Also that was a type error, I meant to say 'I accept your concession'. Which you must be nearing if you are trying to attack Narsil when Snape carries no cutting tool for any of this to be relevant. Even supposing Narsil really was just a regular old sword, Snape carries no blade. Simply put it would seem as though Snape's supporters are grasping at straws here. There are arguments for him that have been untouched that I can think of. But that's not what you're doing... So get a real point or just give it up =p


Snape has 'Sectumsempra', a spell that slashes the enemy like a blade. Only Snape can use it for 50 feet away.

Originally posted by Robtard
Easy. A magical wand is not even remotely similar to a regular metal sword.

So if Sauron had this "heat metal" power, it's all but useless against Snape.

You have nothing supoorting the theory he can only use it on metal

Saruman did cast a fireball
And Gandalf did say he was a wielder of the Flame of Anor

So there are reasons to believe that their fire or heat magic is not limited to metal.

Try again.

Originally posted by Nephthys

Snape has 'Sectumsempra', a spell that slashes the enemy like a blade. Only Snape can use it for 50 feet away.



Years of destroying RJ's HP-fanboy points in here have netted me enough knowledge to know that spell is only useful against flesh.

Sauron did have his eyes exposed though, iirc.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
He is the same to Gandalf.

So he sets the Wand on Fire in the same manner Gandalf seared Aragorns sword.

Your retort?


That they are the same race does not mean they have the same abilities. Sauron is no wizard in the same vein as Gandalf, Radagast or Saruman were. The Balrog was a Maiar but I don't think anyone would argue that it could do all the shit Gandalf could with his wizardly powers.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
You have nothing supoorting the theory he can only use it on metal

Saruman did cast a fireball
And Gandalf did say he was a wielder of the Flame of Anor

So there are reasons to believe that their fire or heat magic is not limited to metal.

Try again.

Except that is was only used against a metal sword. You're doing a No Limit Fallacy now. Might has well say Sauron could have melted every Numerian and Elf in the battle of the Last Alliance had he wished.

Casting a fireball is not the same as causing metal (or an object) to heat up. Apples to oranges.

That was just a title by all accounts in the film and in the books it's just as vague. Could be that he had one of the rings of the elves and was implying this.

No, there isn't, you're doing a No Limit Fallacy, as noted. You're also giving Sauron powers he never used or were even implied.

Originally posted by Robtard
Years of destroying RJ's HP-fanboy points in here have netted me enough knowledge to know that spell is only useful against flesh.

Sauron did have his eyes exposed though, iirc.


You are quite correct. In fact, if we watch the scene:

EIeXwY8fmgk

We can see that the spell bypasses Malfoys shirt completely. Therefore I think its likely that Snape could similarly bypass Saurons armor, cutting Saurons fingers off rather easily.

Originally posted by Nephthys
You should be sorry.

my poor feelings.....



I know its a normal sword. But I don't see how the above helped it to cut off Saurons fingers. Being able to stay sharp for a really long time isn't important in that respect.

If I'm not mistaken, you're asserting that its only because of its magical properties that it was able to cut off Saurons fingers, so Snapes magic won't be up to the task (lolwut). I however see nothing about the sword that leads me to think that a non-magical one would have been unable to cut his fingers off just the same. If you do think so, please provide proof for that line of reasoning.

Plus the sword was snapped by Sauron stomping on it. Meh.




Actually I think it was because only Isildur's Heir could use that sword to command the Armies of the Dead. It would have been pointless to give it to, say, Theoden. He couldn't have used it to do what Aragorn did with it.



Can I take this as a concession that you lack the feats required to continue your assertion? Because I agree. Narsil properties were not expanded upon adequetely for that.




Snape has 'Sectumsempra', a spell that slashes the enemy like a blade. Only Snape can use it for 50 feet away.



I'm sorreh! D=


Eh, i'm trying to...convey that the reason Sauron stepped on it was because it was one of the few things that could harm him so easily. Not that was capable. For example, do i think if someone shot him with an arrow he's be as hurt (size ratio wise) as anyone else? No, I really don't.


I just can't follow the line of reasoning.

Sauron deliberately steps on it
The Elven Lord regards it very highly
It's edge has not dulled in thousands of years
Aragorn refuses it's 'power'

I cannot follow any logic that would call it the same as the sword he was using previously save for the deal with the dead. It's just foreign to me.


Snape was never shown to use that ability
And in the instance Harry used it he was about... what... 20 feet away. Where did 50 come from?

Originally posted by Robtard
Not his armor by any accounts of the film and his fingers get cut off just as easily as human fingers. So everything you said about Sauron doesn't matter. He let his guard down like I've said a thousand times and won't be leaning forward with his hand in this fashion. I don't recall either the ring amping him at this moment like when he was physically assaulting the army.

Originally posted by Robtard
Except that is was only used against a metal sword. You're doing a No Limit Fallacy now. Might has well say Sauron could have melted every Numerian and Elf in the battle of the Last Alliance had he wished.

Casting a fireball is not the same as causing metal (or an object) to heat up. Apples to oranges.

That was just a title by all accounts in the film and in the books it's just as vague. Could be that he had one of the rings of the elves and was implying this.

No, there isn't, you're doing a No Limit Fallacy, as noted. You're also giving Sauron powers he never used or were even implied.

There's no such argument being made

Using a super heat spell on wood as opposed to metal is a 'no limit fallacy' ...? That's just ridiculous =p

Your words 'causing an object to heat up'

If that object is Snapes wand, he's f**ked. Can you refute it or are you just going to spout more nonsense?


And your words again 'Sauron is not 'like the same' to the Witch King'. He IS the same as Gandalf only a much more powerful Maiar. So grow up. I'm playing by your rules no matter how much I disagree with the reasoning Sauron is nothing like WK I am disregarding WK feats.

Stop throwing the toys out of the pram please. It's not pleasant to have to respond to.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
I'm sorreh! D=


Eh, i'm trying to...convey that the reason Sauron stepped on it was because it was one of the few things that could harm him so easily. Not that was capable. For example, do i think if someone shot him with an arrow he's be as hurt (size ratio wise) as anyone else? No, I really don't.

I think it he stepped on it because the dude was going for a sword. If he was actually worried about it and it was 'one of the few things that could harm him' then he wouldn't have reached for Isildur when he was still clutching teh broken part of it.


Originally posted by EvilAngel
I just can't follow the line of reasoning.

Sauron deliberately steps on it
The Elven Lord regards it very highly
It's edge has not dulled in thousands of years
Aragorn refuses it's 'power'

I cannot follow any logic that would call it the same as the sword he was using previously save for the deal with the dead. It's just foreign to me.

Sauron stepping on it doesn't prove much of anything.

The Elven Lords regard it highly because it was the weapon that defeated Sauron.

So?

Aragorn schtick is that he doesn't want to become King. The refusal is just another part of that. The sword doesn't display any 'power' that Aragon could refuse other than being Isildur's sword.What is he refusing here in your mind?

Originally posted by EvilAngel
Snape was never shown to use that ability
And in the instance Harry used it he was about... what... 20 feet away. Where did 50 come from?

He invented the spell.

Harry uses it later on Snape when he's much farther away than Draco was in teh bathroom.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He let his guard down like I've said a thousand times and won't be leaning forward with his hand in this fashion. I don't recall either the ring amping him at this moment like when he was physically assaulting the army.

Unless Sauron hides his hand up his ass, it will be an easy target, it's a giant humaniod hand clad in plate-armour.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
There's no such argument being made

Using a super heat spell on wood as opposed to metal is a 'no limit fallacy' ...? That's just ridiculous =p

Your words 'causing an object to heat up'

If that object is Snapes wand, he's f**ked. Can you refute it or are you just going to spout more nonsense?


And your words again 'Sauron is not 'like the same' to the Witch King'. He IS the same as Gandalf only a much more powerful Maiar. So grow up. I'm playing by your rules no matter how much I disagree with the reasoning Sauron is nothing like WK I am disregarding WK feats.

Stop throwing the toys out of the pram please. It's not pleasant to have to respond to.

It was to illustrate your use of a no limit fallacy and where those can lead, obviously.

It's a magical wand, not some common twig.

Can you post without using logical fallacies and giving powers to Sauron that were not shown/implied or are you just going to continue fangirling?

As someone pointed out, they're the same race, doesn't mean they all have the same powers. Yeah, the fangirl telling someone else they need to grow up cos their favorite can't win. Classic move.

Originally posted by Nephthys
I think it he stepped on it because the dude was going for a sword. If he was actually worried about it and it was 'one of the few things that could harm him' then he wouldn't have reached for Isildur when he was still clutching teh broken part of it.




Sauron stepping on it doesn't prove much of anything.

The Elven Lords regard it highly because it was the weapon that defeated Sauron.

So?

Aragorn schtick is that he doesn't want to become King. The refusal is just another part of that. The sword doesn't display any 'power' that Aragon could refuse other than being Isildur's sword.What is he refusing here in your mind?



He invented the spell.

Harry uses it later on Snape when he's much farther away than Draco was in teh bathroom.

I can only summarize we cannot see eye to eye when it comes to Narsil. Plus I find it difficult to think of how I might go about trying to compare a cutting spell to that of a Sword....

I propose we agree to disagree on this subject given it's lack of relevance


Yeah, but he wasn't shown to actually use it.... apparently that's a big deal in this thread (joke)

I don't recall that second instance though..... not clearly enough for it to be 50ft away. I only remember Snape brushing off a spell then basically laughing at Harry for still having to speak the spells name.

Agreed to disagree.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes, you are.

It's a magical wand, not some common twig.

Can you post without using logical fallacies and giving powers to Sauron that were not shown/implied or are you just going to continue fangirling?

As someone pointed out, they're the same race, doesn't mean they all have the same powers. Yeah, the fangirl telling someone else they need to grow up cos their favorite can't win. Classic move.

When has a wand ever shown much greater durability than what a none-magical wand of the same size would. If I recall correctly Ron snaps his in the second movie. And it wasn't some special occurrence either....

Harrys broom, which is also magical therefore one assumes the same rules applies was decimated by the Whomping Willow

I'm sorry, I mistook a Necromancer for someone who was proficient with magic... And I forgot that not all the Maiar in Lord of the Rings are magical...

Oh wait

And Harry must be INSANELY STRONG. He snapped that Elder wand, you know, the greatest wand ever, like it was a shoddy made wooden ruler. Dude's the new hulk fo sure

Originally posted by Robtard
It's a magical wand, not some common twig.

So why can't Sauron just blow it up like the Witch-King did to Gandalf?

Originally posted by ares834
So why can't Sauron just blow it up like the Witch-King did to Gandalf?

Cos Sauron isn't the Witch King.

Obviously the Witch King is more magically powerful than his master Sauron.... you didn't know that?

Originally posted by Robtard
Cos Sauron isn't the Witch King.

Yep, the Witch King just derives his powers from Sauron...

Originally posted by EvilAngel
When has a wand ever shown much greater durability than what a none-magical wand of the same size would. If I recall correctly Ron snaps his in the second movie. And it wasn't some special occurrence either....

Harrys broom, which is also magical therefore one assumes the same rules applies was decimated by the Whomping Willow

I'm sorry, I mistook a Necromancer for someone who was proficient with magic... And I forgot that not all the Maiar in Lord of the Rings are magical...

Oh wait

And Harry must be INSANELY STRONG. He snapped that Eldar wand, you know, the greatest wand ever, like it was a shoddy made wooden ruler. Dude's the new hulk fo sure

We're talking about casting spells on said wand that thus far were only used to heat up a metal sword. Your argument is apples to oranges.

Same as above.

I'm sorry, so all Mair have the same abilities and powers?? All Elves? All Humans? Yes?

Oh wait indeed.

Again, apples to oranges. Now if you want to argue that Sauron could stomp Snapes wand and crush it like he did Narsil, I agree, he could do that.

Originally posted by ares834
Yep, the Witch King just derives his powers from Sauron...
Originally posted by EvilAngel
Obviously the Witch King is more magically powerful than his master Sauron.... you didn't know that?


Just because an underling is weaker, doesn't mean the master can perform the exact same powers and abilities.

Evil Angel, can you at least try to debate using the MVF rules even mildly? I know you can.

Originally posted by Robtard
We're talking about casting spells on said wand that thus far were only used to heat up a metal sword. Your argument is apples to oranges.

Same as above.

I'm sorry, so all Mair have the same abilities and powers? All wizards are the same? All Elves? All Humans? Yes.

Oh wait indeed.

Again, applies to oranges. Now if you want to argue that Sauron cound stomp Snapes want and crush it like he did Narsil, I agree, he could do that.

Why on earth would he not be able to use it on wood? You think the spell requires a magnetic lock on or something I think you need to provide a reason why it can't if an ability is otherwise been shown to be used.

That's more like an elf having a mortal life span, or a jedi who is not force sensitive. Nonsense in other words.

Originally posted by Robtard
Just because an underling is weaker, doesn't mean the master can perform the exact same powers and abilities.

The Witch-king is not just weaker than Sauron, he gets his powers from Sauron.

Originally posted by Robtard
Unless Sauron hides his hand up his ass, it will be an easy target, it's a giant humaniod hand clad in plate-armour. He wasn't an easy target prior to destroying the sword and he won't be an easy target here unless he reaches forward like he did against Isildur.Originally posted by ares834
Yep, the Witch King just derives his powers from Sauron...

Originally posted by ares834
Yep, the Witch King just derives his powers from Sauron...

Actually I think he derives it from Minas Morgul. Isn't that what the giant **** off Green Shit was?

Originally posted by EvilAngel
Why on earth would he not be able to use it on wood? You think the spell requires a magnetic lock on or something I think you need to provide a reason why it can't if an ability is otherwise been shown to be used.

That's more like an elf having a mortal life span, or a jedi who is not force sensitive. Nonsense in other words.

Here's three:
1) Sauron didn't do it, it was Gandalf the white.
2) He used it against a non magical metal sword. Snapes wand is the apple to your orange.
3) You're using a no limit fallacy, might as well say Sauron could have heated ever human and elf to death at the battle of the Last Alliance using that "Gandalf did it to a sword" logic.

No, not all Mair are the same and have the same powers/abilities. For that matter not all Sith can use force-lighting; not all Jedi can tap into the Darkside like Mace. So in other words, you have no retort.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
That's more like an elf having a mortal life span, or a jedi who is not force sensitive. Nonsense in other words.

No, its like a wizard not being able to use Avada Kadava, or a Jedi not being able to use Force Lightning. Just because he was a Maiar doesn't mean he can use all of Gandalfs spells, nor because he was called a Necromance in the books mean that he can either.

Could the Balrog use this spell? No. Not all Maiar are the same.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He wasn't an easy target prior to destroying the sword and he won't be an easy target here unless he reaches forward like he did against Isildur.

He's a hulking giant so he's an easy target and unless his hand is up his ass, it's a easy target too.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Actually I think he derives it from Minas Morgul. Isn't that what the
giant **** off Green Shit was?

IIRC, Morgul was enchanted by the Ringwraiths.

Originally posted by Robtard
He's a hulking giant so he's an easy target and unless his hand is up his ass, it's a easy target too. He was only an easy target when he leaned forward with his hand exposed. If you feel in combat I am just as easy to have my finger caught off when I lean in with my hands as I do while attacking swinging my mace then you have no understanding of combat.

Originally posted by ares834
IIRC, Morgul was enchanted by the Ringwraiths.

We should ask Nemebro. He's a big ol' LOTR nerd.

Originally posted by quanchi112
He was only an easy target when he leaned forward with his hand exposed. If you feel in combat I am just as easy to have my finger caught off when I lean in with my hands as I do while attacking swinging my mace then you have no understanding of combat.

Expect Snape's not attacking with something like a sword, he's casting spells that can't miss, cos they're magical and stuff. He need only see Sauron to target. No one here said he's using the killing curse, which can miss/be blocked.

Thought this would have been obvious to a combat master such as yourself.

Originally posted by Robtard
Expect Snape's not attacking with something like a sword, he's casting spells that can't miss, cos they're magical and stuff. He need only see Sauron to target. No one here said he's using the killing curse, which can miss/be blocked.

Thought this would have been obvious to a combat master such as yourself.

What spell? Sectumsempra seems to be a magic "missile" and therefore dodgeable. Also I doubt it would cut deep enough to remove an entire figure.

Originally posted by Robtard
Here's three:
1) Sauron didn't do it, it was Gandalf the white.
2) He used it against a non magical metal sword. Snapes wand is the apple to your orange.
3) You're using a no limit fallacy, might as well say Sauron could have heated ever human and elf to death at the battle of the Last Alliance using that "Gandalf did it to a sword" logic.

No, not all Mair are the same and have the same powers/abilities. For that matter not all Sith can use force-lighting; not all Jedi can tap into the Darkside like Mace. So in other words, you have no retort.

2) Which has shown no resistances to magical spells in the movies or to physical damage. Your are creating a difference which does not exist
3) I am not saying that because A human/elf would clearly by a more difficult task if nothing else due to size. But let's actually look at what I am saying

I am saying the same spell would be capable of burning something;
Smaller
No more resistant
More vulnerable

And that's a no limit fallacy?

Originally posted by Nephthys
No, its like a wizard not being able to use Avada Kadava, or a Jedi not being able to use Force Lightning. Just because he was a Maiar doesn't mean he can use all of Gandalfs spells, nor because he was called a Necromance in the books mean that he can either.

Could the Balrog use this spell? No. Not all Maiar are the same.

Actually if you know what a Maiar is, you would understand this to be the truth.

I brought up Necromancer as a reminder than things are not limited to their showings. He wasn't Shown to even be capable of a spell... does that mean he cannot? Well they do call him the Necromancer so what do you think?

And Balrogs are corrupted by the power of Melkor. And of a much Much lesser power than Gandalf, Saruman or Sauron. Barlogs are capable of spells/magic through very clearly this is true, from the showing of wielding fire, and conjuring flame weaponry.

The point of such references is simple. Gandalf was capable of such. Sauron is far greater.


But frankly I grow bored of this.

Here's how you're playing it.

- Sauron cannot do anything he was not shown to have done, despite the fact he has about 20 seconds of screen time.
- Anything implied is redundant.
- Anything lesser beings of his race can do, he cannot
- Anything a minion of his does, he can not despite the fact they draw their power from him.

- Snape is assumed to know every spell all hogwarts students have been shown to use
- Snape is assumed to be able to use disapparate without limit
- Snape's wand is assumed to be immune to any LotR spell regardless of any showing of wands vulnerability.


To call that bias is a short version of the truth. Calling it as I see it, I would actually say you are baiting Quan. This entire thread is such, and you are contributors. If these are seriously legitimate rules, then this is obviously a spite thread.

So here's the deal. I'm out. It's one rule for Sauron, and another rule for Snape, and I'm not interested in playing a rigged game.

Later, but hopefully not.

Originally posted by ares834
What spell? Sectumsempra seems to be a magic "missile" and therefore dodgeable. Also I doubt it would cut deep enough to remove an entire figure.

He has the petrification spell. The Spell that obliterates solid objects. Those don't miss like the killing curse while fires a bolt-like projectile. He could also shrink Sauron's armor. Snape has multiple options.

Sectumsempra does seem to rely on making sword-like movements with the wand, but as I pointed out, it attacks flesh and Sauron is in armorur.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
2) Which has shown no resistances to magical spells in the movies or to physical damage. Your are creating a difference which does not exist
3) I am not saying that because A human/elf would clearly by a more difficult task if nothing else due to size. But let's actually look at what I am saying

I am saying the same spell would be capable of burning something;
Smaller
No more resistant
More vulnerable

And that's a no limit fallacy?


Considering a magical wand is utterly different than a regular sword, yes. Might as well argue that the Witch King could explode anything he wished.

Anyhow, try to use the forum rules, it helps.

Originally posted by Robtard
Considering a magical wand is utterly different than a regular sword, yes. Might as well argue that the Witch King could explode anything he wished.

Anyhow, try to use the forum rules, it helps.

The MVF Golden Rule:
What is seen on screen is canon in these forums. If your character you wish to use has feats/actions/handicaps that contradict what that character did on screen (movie canon), then it is a violation and is illegal. MOVIE FEATS ONLY!

20 seconds of screen time.

During those 20 seconds annihilating them with his mace was the most effective form attack.

contradict
1. to assert the contrary or opposite of; deny directly and categorically.
2. to speak contrary to the assertions of: to contradict oneself.
3. (of an action or event) to imply a denial of: His way of life contradicts his stated principles.
4. Obsolete . to speak or declare against; oppose.

By definition not using a spell when it would not have been the most optimal move is not a contradiction.

In anycase, I resign from this pointless and futile effort of a thread.

Originally posted by Robtard
Expect Snape's not attacking with something like a sword, he's casting spells that can't miss, cos they're magical and stuff. He need only see Sauron to target. No one here said he's using the killing curse, which can miss/be blocked.

Thought this would have been obvious to a combat master such as yourself. Spells that can't miss ? LOL. Did you happen to catch the HPotter flicks ? They missed all the time. Acting as if Snape can't miss is laughable.

Well unlike you I do know that say for instance if a warrior is sleeping and someone cuts his throat his throat is still just as easily cut but won't be in that defenseless of a position while your stance is omg his throat got slit, so it gets slit again. Screw the circumstances he cuts his girlie throat like butter. Do you see my point ?

Originally posted by EvilAngel
The MVF Golden Rule:
What is seen on screen is canon in these forums. If your character you wish to use has feats/actions/handicaps that contradict what that character did on screen (movie canon), then it is a violation and is illegal. MOVIE FEATS ONLY!

20 seconds of screen time.

During those 20 seconds annihilating them with his mace was the most effective form attack.

contradict
1. to assert the contrary or opposite of; deny directly and categorically.
2. to speak contrary to the assertions of: to contradict oneself.
3. (of an action or event) to imply a denial of: His way of life contradicts his stated principles.
4. Obsolete . to speak or declare against; oppose.

By definition not using a spell when it would not have been the most optimal move is not a contradiction.

In anycase, I resign from this pointless and futile effort of a thread.

EMPHASIS!!!!!

Originally posted by EvilAngel
The MVF Golden Rule:
What is seen on screen is canon in these forums. If your character you wish to use has feats/actions/handicaps that contradict what that character did on screen (movie canon), then it is a violation and is illegal. MOVIE FEATS ONLY!

20 seconds of screen time.

During those 20 seconds annihilating them with his mace was the most effective form attack.

contradict
1. to assert the contrary or opposite of; deny directly and categorically.
2. to speak contrary to the assertions of: to contradict oneself.
3. (of an action or event) to imply a denial of: His way of life contradicts his stated principles.
4. Obsolete . to speak or declare against; oppose.

By definition not using a spell when it would not have been the most optimal move is not a contradiction.

In anycase, I resign from this pointless and futile effort of a thread.

Case in point: "MOVIE FEATS ONLY!"

Concession accepted; thanks for playing.

By said point of fact then Snape has what... 5 spells?

Originally posted by EvilAngel
By said point of fact then Snape has what... 5 spells? Yes, because despite us knowing better if Snape doesn't do so in the movies we can't allow it despite common sense and portrayal smacking us right in the head.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
By said point of fact then Snape has what... 5 spells?

Snape being a wizard-instructor means he has the spells needed.

You said you were done; I accepted your concession, why continue?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, because despite us knowing better if Snape doesn't do so in the movies we can't allow it despite common sense and portrayal smacking us right in the head.

Incorrect, Snape has enough in the films to indicate he can.

Sauron has 20-30 seconds of swinging a mace and getting his fingers chopped.

Originally posted by Robtard
Snape being a wizard-instructor means he has the spells needed.

You said you were done; I accepted your concession, why continue? So Snape can do spells we haven't seen him do but LOTR characters need Peter Jackson himself stating their abilities because common sense only applies to Harry Potter.

Originally posted by Robtard
Snape being a wizard-instructor means he has the spells needed.

I accepted your concession.

No no

The rules are clear. Not done in the movie, it's a no go.

So Snape doesn't know Accio, He doesn't know the shrinking spell or whatever it was you were going to destroy Sauron's armor with.

He's got;
A counter curse
Death Curse
Disarm spell
De-Summon spell

I forget if he has anything else...

And I didn't concede, I said i would not continue to debate against you.


Originally posted by Robtard
Incorrect, Snape has enough in the films to indicate he can.


You are so full of s**t, it's actually amusing.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
No no

The rules are clear. Not done in the movie, it's a no go.

So Snape doesn't know Accio, He doesn't know the shrinking spell or whatever it was you were going to destroy Sauron's armor with.

He's got;
A counter curse
Death Curse
Disarm spell
De-Summon spell

I forget if he has anything else...

And I didn't concede, I said i would not continue to debate against you.

You are so full of s**t, it's actually amusing.

"In anycase, I resign from this pointless and futile effort of a thread." - You, circa Page 7

Now you're just being bitter cos your favorite couldn't win by following the MVF rules. No reason to get mad, dude. Snape also has more than that, but you conceded, so no need to rub salt into open wounds, I'm kind if I'm anything.

Originally posted by Robtard
"In anycase, I resign from this pointless and futile effort of a thread." - You

Now you're just being bitter cos your favorite couldn't win by following the MVF rules. No reason to get mad, dude.

To give up a futile effort of a thread is not the same as to give up my opinion. It means I'm no longer prepared to exert the effort to try to prove you're incorrect. Fact is I've come to the conclusion you honestly don't care one way or another. You just get a kick out of arguing and antagonizing others.

My favorite isn't Sauron by a long shot. I'm posting in here because I disagreed with the popular opinion. Or is that unusual?

Originally posted by EvilAngel
To give up a futile effort of a thread is not the same as to give up my opinion. It means I'm no longer prepared to exert the effort to try to prove you're incorrect. Fact is I've come to the conclusion you honestly don't care one way or another. You just get a kick out of arguing and antagonizing others.

My favorite isn't Sauron by a long shot. I'm posting in here because I disagreed with the popular opinion. Or is that unusual?

Fair enough, but that's just mean spirited.

So question.

When Sauron attacks Pippins mind via the plantiar?

Is that a feat?

Yes.



...if Snape has a Plantiar and tries to use it. ;P

Originally posted by Nephthys
Yes.



...if Snape has a Plantiar and tries to use it. ;P

I know, but I was genuinely curious about it.

But no, i mean if Sauron was in Physical form, would it be wrong to assume he could do the same thing as what he did when he was merely an eye.

Meh, I don't see anything wrong with that.

Originally posted by EvilAngel
I know, but I was genuinely curious about it.

But no, i mean if Sauron was in Physical form, would it be wrong to assume he could do the same thing as what he did when he was merely an eye.

He has a physical body when Aragorn confronts him a second time in RotK. We can breifly see it in the palantir.

Originally posted by ares834
He has a physical body when Aragorn confronts him a second time in RotK. We can breifly see it in the palantir.

In the movies?

I recall seeing concept art of this, but I thought it was ultimately replaced by the Troll?