Drake vs Nomak

Originally posted by Robtard
OS has a point, if Blade was able to land hits on Drake, why can't Nomak?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Actually I was referring to comparing bullet tanking to bullet dodging.

Ah, that was nonsense.

drake would need to dodge a bullet to avoid the damage
nomak would just stand there seeing as he can heal

Originally posted by Robtard
Ah, that was nonsense.

Originally posted by Robtard
That poison was specifically engineered.

Not sure why Drake would die from a bite from Nomak; it'd likely turn him though, making Drake Nomak's *****.

he turns then has his head torn off

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Which part?

The bullet dodging and tanking comparison.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
did i say the poison wasn't engineered?

he turns then has his head torn off

You implied that Nomak's bite would have the same affect as that engineered drug.

Possible.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
drake would need to dodge a bullet to avoid the damage
nomak would just stand there seeing as he can heal

Some random vampire in the first movie healed from having his hand cut off. 😐

Blade could physically contend with Nomak, as he could with Drake. But when Drake transformed, Blade stood nothing vaguely resembling a chance, his blows literally could not hurt him. Then there is the fact that with a body slam, while in base, he caused a small crater using Blade's body. Drake is much stronger and faster than Nomak.

As for Nomak's bite, I highly, highly doubt it will work on Dracula. It worked on "normal" vampires, Drake was stated to be the original, and possessing none of their weaknesses, I would assume the bite of Nomak counts towards this.

You Nomak supporters are arguing entirely the wrong way.

Question: Nomak, Drake, the Reapers and the little puppy all had one thing in common, their mouths opened like a Predator. Sup with that?

I am guessing Nomak and the other Reapers were enhanced to the point where they became closer to the original vampire, Drake.

Why couldn't the movie just call him Dracula throughout the movie? Just saying, kinda bothers me.

But how does that explain the dog?

......... It was a Reaper dog?

Dracula bit it?

Well, as I said, the Nomak crowd is arguing for him the wrong way. They need to counter "Drake is the original, the source", with "Nomak is a completely different species of vampire."

The difference in him and other vampires in the Blade movies is incredible.

And the difference between Drake and the other vampires is incredible.

Dracula could shapeshift to an extent, was much stronger, had none of their weaknesses, and had an even stronger form that was kinda like Nomak's, only much more powerful.

Nomak dies. i thought this was decided already. sneer

Originally posted by Robtard
You implied that Nomak's bite would have the same affect as that engineered drug.

Possible.

don't be so overly analytical

Originally posted by NemeBro
Blade could physically contend with Nomak, as he could with Drake. But when Drake transformed, Blade stood nothing vaguely resembling a chance, his blows literally could not hurt him. Then there is the fact that with a body slam, while in base, he caused a small crater using Blade's body. Drake is much stronger and faster than Nomak.

As for Nomak's bite, I highly, highly doubt it will work on Dracula. It worked on "normal" vampires, Drake was stated to be the original, and possessing none of their weaknesses, I would assume the bite of Nomak counts towards this.

nomaks bite could & probably would work
seeing as nomaks toxin was developed & is not among vampires natural weaknesses.
just like the poison that killed drake

Well, way I see it, Blade had the shit kicked outta him by Nomak and Drake. Difference is, Drake had armor and a sword. Nomak was unarmed.

Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
nomaks bite could & probably would work
seeing as nomaks toxin was developed & is not among vampires natural weaknesses.
just like the poison that killed drake