Emperor Palpatine, Darth Vader, & Yoda Vs. Saruman, Sauron, & Witch King

Originally posted by quanchi112
[B]Don't lose yourself into name calling, sport. Palpatine did have lower level blasts until he admitted Luke was going to die and still had Luke under fire for an ample amount of time which did really nothing he didn't hop right back up and walk away from. Weak sauce.

In which he was still not pouring in all of his juice. When he shocks Mace Windu with full power his skeleton is illuminated briefly (like Vader's). Thus, Luke was obviously not taking a full blast.

Vader's suit is obviously more durable but a fireball would also fry his circuits just like the lightning did which really only hit him indirectly. Luke took much more punishment than Vader so yes Vader's suit failed him and was easily short circuited.

Fire doesn't cause short circuits... facepalm

Yes, lightsabers are hot but unlike torches they don't set things on fire which was my entire point. At least understand my points before declaring a victory you will never have.

Lightsaber are far hotter than torches...

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Fixing...

There. The iconic end piece to many a KotOR conversation.

Originally posted by dadudemon
More powerful than a regular staff? Sure. Explodable like a regular staff? Possibly so or possibly not. A regular staff would not experience a "battle of magical wills" because magic would not be channeled through it to exert that battle of wills. So we could assume that a regular staff would not be exploded because it could not be used in a battle of wills.

Just because someone doesn't use a certain ability during a fight, doesn't mean they possess the ability to do so.

Since it wasn't seen onscreen, they really can't do it. That's the golden rule. His staff exploding power is limited to only exploding magical staffs when two powerful magical beings are exerting their wills against each other. In the context of the movie and in ability, that is the most correct interpretation.

That's a feat for Gandalf, not the Witch King. You are breaking the MVF golden rule if you want to give that ability to the Witch King.

It's not like the Jedi Academy where all Jedi are required to obtain a certain level of ability before obtaining an apprenticeship. What does that mean? It means you cannot give all maiar the same exact powerset because they all didn't go to the same "academy". In fact, we know from the books that they had their own valor and those Valor taught them in their own ways. The Witch King is an off-shoot of Sauron. Sauron is an offshoot of Melkor. Melkor and Nienna (and partially Manwë) are two different Ainu and had different abilities and persuits. To equate Gandalf's "magic" to Sauron's (via the Witch King) shows a fundemental lack of understanding on your part, concerning the Tolkien universe.

1. Not a mage, a wizard.
2. See the above explanation for why it is ridiculous to give them the same powers.
3. The golden rule: you can't give powers and abilities to characters they are not seen or implied to use.

I've already countered this line of reasoning multiple times.

To assume the Witch King can do something he did not do is what is actually asinine. Not only is that illogical, it's against the MVF rules.

Gandalf affected a nonmagical object so why can't Witch King ? are you saying this magical tactic only works on magical items despite seeing Gandalf affect a nonmagical item all the same ? This is preposterous.

Witch King broke the staff and so did Gandalf. There's never been anything suggesting their magic can only affect magical items. So to suggest it can't affect regular wooden sticks is just silly.

I am not giving him a feat he didn't have I am simply saying by way of common sense their magic can affect nonmagical items. You have no proof this was a battle of wills so you concede the point. You're making a claim you cannot back up.

1. Mage or wizard you catch my drift don't waste my time with the semantics of the wordplay used here.
2.You made the claim so it's up to you to prove it.
3.The witch King destroyed an object I never said he can cause a blade to burn even though whoops he did so to his own blade. Whoops.

The Witch King broke a staff backed my magic. Game over.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Just admit defeat and all will be forgiven.

I didn't know that I'd even joined the debate.

Originally posted by ares834
In which he was still not pouring in all of his juice. When he shocks Mace Windu with full power his skeleton is illuminated briefly (like Vader's). Thus, Luke was obviously not taking a full blast.

Fire doesn't cause short circuits... facepalm

Lightsaber are far hotter than torches...

Fire would damage his suit beyond repair and thus kill him.

Yes, they are but when you're cut by one they won't set you on fire like a torch.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Just admit defeat and all will be forgiven.

Except that it was directly seen on screen that it was a battle of wills. Ignoring what is seen on screen does not make you right.

Originally posted by quanchi112
There is no proof whatsoever it's a battle of wills. None all we know is they have the power to destroy an object. That's it.

Ah. I understand you're game, now: ignore what was seen on screen so you can support your position.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Gandalf affected a nonmagical object so why can't Witch King ? are you saying this magical tactic only works on magical items despite seeing Gandalf affect a nonmagical item all the same ? This is preposterous.

I have already explained why despite your strawman.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Witch King broke the staff and so did Gandalf. There's never been anything suggesting their magic can only affect magical items. So to suggest it can't affect regular wooden sticks is just silly.

This is another strawman on your part. You're not even responding to what I said, at this point.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I am not giving him a feat he didn't have I am simply saying by way of common sense their magic can affect nonmagical items. You have no proof this was a battle of wills so you concede the point. You're making a claim you cannot back up.

Except that it was a battle wills quite clearly seen on screen and Gandalf lost.

And the burden of proof is on you to support that the Witch King can explode non-magical items. You still haven't provided anything.

Originally posted by quanchi112
1. Mage or wizard you catch my drift don't waste my time with the semantics of the wordplay used here.

Sure, but as something as serious as LotR, you should probably shy away from incorrect name labels or people will nerd rage on you.

Originally posted by quanchi112
2.You made the claim so it's up to you to prove it.

No, I claim a lack of evidence and support my position with the golden rule. You're making the actually claim of a feat from the Witch King that is simply not there.

Originally posted by quanchi112
3.The witch King destroyed an object I never said he can cause a blade to burn even though whoops he did so to his own blade. Whoops.

There's so much wrong with what you're trying to do here. I mean, really? 😬

1. Nonmagical blade.
2. Magical blade.

Figure it out.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The Witch King broke a staff backed my magic. Game over.

I know: you should have conceded this point long ago. Now that you have, we can move on.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Except that it was directly seen on screen that it was a battle of wills. Ignoring what is seen on screen does not make you right.

We're still talking about that?

Quan, if it wasn't a battle of wills then what was it? Did Harry magically overpower Voldemort? Did he click his heels together 3 times and wish for it?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Except that it was directly seen on screen that it was a battle of wills. Ignoring what is seen on screen does not make you right.

Ah. I understand you're game, now: ignore what was seen on screen so you can support your position.

I have already explained why despite your strawman.

This is another strawman on your part. You're not even responding to what I said, at this point.

Except that it was a battle wills quite clearly seen on screen and Gandalf lost.

And the burden of proof is on you to support that the Witch King can explode non-magical items. You still haven't provided anything.

Sure, but as something as serious as LotR, you should probably shy away from incorrect name labels or people will nerd rage on you.

No, I claim a lack of evidence and support my position with the golden rule. You're making the actually claim of a feat from the Witch King that is simply not there.

There's so much wrong with what you're trying to do here. I mean, really? 😬

1. Nonmagical blade.
2. Magical blade.

Figure it out.

I know: you should have conceded this point long ago. Now that you have, we can move on.

I am not ignoring anything you are acting as if your theory holds weight when it doesn't while ignoring magical powers affecting non magical items.

I am repeating myself at this point as neither side is budging.

I don't care if people nerd rage on me I will smite them as I smite any who stand in my way.

Witch King destroyed an item thus he can destroy items with his powers.

1.Magical powers can affect nonmagical things/beings
2.Magical powers can affect magical things/beings

Unless you have proof to suggest otherwise.

It's up to you to prove your claim. I don't have to prove your negative wrong you have to prove your theory is correct.

Originally posted by Nephthys
We're still talking about that?

Quan, if it wasn't a battle of wills then what was it? Did Harry magically overpower Voldemort? Did he click his heels together 3 times and wish for it?

Originally posted by quanchi112
I am not talking about Harry and Voldemort I am referring to LOTR.

Thanks.....for clearing that up?

Originally posted by quanchi112
I am not ignoring anything you are acting as if your theory holds weight when it doesn't while ignoring magical powers affecting non magical items.

Covered this already. No circles.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I am repeating myself at this point as neither side is budging.

You have yet to counter (you cant'😉. So don't try and pretend that "one side or another" is or is not budging.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I don't care if people nerd rage on me I will smite them as I smite any who stand in my way.

Fail.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Witch King destroyed an item thus he can destroy items with his powers.

1.Magical powers can affect nonmagical things/beings
2.Magical powers can affect magical things/beings

Unless you have proof to suggest otherwise.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you and I've explained why. I cannot assert a negative. You must prove that he can destroy non-magical items that are not undergoing a battle of wills.

Originally posted by quanchi112
It's up to you to prove your claim. I don't have to prove your negative wrong you have to prove your theory is correct.

I already did prove my point: he can't destroy anything that is:

1. non-magical.
2. Is not undergoing a battle of wills between a sufficiently powerful wizard and himself.
3. It's against the MVF Golden Rule to give him abilities he wasn't seen on screen.

You must prove that he can destroy non-magical items that are not undergoing a battle of wills between a sufficiently powerful wizard and himself. I've already provided proof that he can't because he didn't to save his own life.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Wrong movie, sport.

And his point went right over your head.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks.....for clearing that up?

Covered this already. No circles.

You have yet to counter (you cant'😉. So don't try and pretend that "one side or another" is or is not budging.

Fail.

Actually, the burden of proof is on you and I've explained why. I cannot assert a negative. You must prove that he can destroy non-magical items that are not undergoing a battle of wills.

I already did prove my point: he can't destroy anything that is:

1. non-magical.
2. Is not undergoing a battle of wills between a sufficiently powerful wizard and himself.
3. It's against the MVF Golden Rule to give him abilities he wasn't seen on screen.

You must prove that he can destroy non-magical items that are not undergoing a battle of wills between a sufficiently powerful wizard and himself. I've already provided proof that he can't because he didn't to save his own life.

And his point went right over your head.

Your theory hasn't been proven though it's just a theory until you prove it.

You haven't backed your claim yet this is a battle of wills so you must concede the point.

I've shown other magic wielders affect non magical items who also destroyed a staff so it's already been shown in the LOTR it's possible.

1.You haven't proven that. He didn't destroy anything nonmagical which is different than he can't.
2.You can't prove this so it's just a theory of yours.
3.It's an ability he was seen using. Not making feats up.

That's false. Characters do lots of things otherwise and Gandalf didn't destroy Saruman's staff the first time they fought and he was defeated so there goes your whole explanation. The Witch King was winning and was cheapshotted. She posed no threat under her own abilities and he was caught off guard by the treacherous hobbit.

No, it didn't.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Wrong movie, sport.

Answer the question. If Harry didn't overpower him based on Will then what did he overpower him based on?

I don't care if you're currently talking about a different movie, answer this question or conceed that Harry overpowered Voldemort through Will.

Originally posted by quanchi112
[B]He was hitting Luke with his full blast he says he will die now. Just because we don't see his skeleton flash that isn't proof of anything.

And just because he says "you will die" doesn't mean he is using full power... It just means he is going to kill him, but he could do so slowly. Heck look what happend to Palpatine when he takes a strong continuous blast... Luke was neither illumintaed or badly disfigured... It seems that Luke clearly wasn't tanking Palps full powered lightning.

Fire would damage his suit beyond repair and thus kill him.

So don't say short curcuit. And considering a Lightsaber has trouble melting his suit it's doubtful fire will do a lot of damage.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Your theory hasn't been proven though it's just a theory until you prove it.

My theory is proven and it's fact because it can't be disproven.

Again, circles.

Originally posted by quanchi112
You haven't backed your claim yet this is a battle of wills so you must concede the point.

I have because ...watch the scene again. Again, you're talking in circles.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I've shown other magic wielders affect non magical items who also destroyed a staff so it's already been shown in the LOTR it's possible.

I've countered this point already. You're talking in circles.

Originally posted by quanchi112
1.You haven't proven that. He didn't destroy anything nonmagical which is different than he can't.
2.You can't prove this so it's just a theory of yours.
3.It's an ability he was seen using. Not making feats up.

1. I have. You have yet to prove otherwise.
2. I did.
3. He hasn't.

And I have covered the whys with evidence for points 1-3, as well. Again, circles.

Originally posted by quanchi112
That's false.

It's true. No what? More circles?

Originally posted by quanchi112
Characters do lots of things otherwise and Gandalf didn't destroy Saruman's staff the first time they fought and he was defeated so there goes your whole explanation.

Incorrect: Gandalf and Saruman are around the same magical level. The Witch King also comes from a different magical stock than either of those two: I've covered this point already.

Lastly, this does not even come close to addressing my "explanation": that's non sequitur of you.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The Witch King was winning and was cheapshotted.

How can you say cheap shot when he had many seconds to explode some things before getting the death blow? You know...the point I made already that you're overlooking yet again?

Originally posted by quanchi112
She posed no threat under her own abilities and he was caught off guard by the treacherous hobbit.

"How can you say cheap shot when he had many seconds to explode some things before getting the death blow? You know...the point I made already that you're overlooking yet again?"

Originally posted by quanchi112
No, it didn't.

It did because your post showed a direct lack of understanding his point.

Originally posted by ares834
So don't say short curcuit. And considering a Lightsaber has trouble melting his suit it's doubtful fire will do a lot of damage.

Touché. I forgot about Luke's lightsaber pretty much bouncing off of Vader's shoulder in ESB. A similar strike against an unarmored bar patron, from Obi Wan, took that fella's arm right off. That should clearly display that Vader has quite the durable armor.

We only need to look at episode 1 to see how easily lightsabers cut through the metal droids.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Answer the question. If Harry didn't overpower him based on Will then what did he overpower him based on?

I don't care if you're currently talking about a different movie, answer this question or conceed that Harry overpowered Voldemort through Will.

Originally posted by ares834
And just because he says "you will die" doesn't mean he is using full power... It just means he is going to kill him, but he could do so slowly. Heck look what happend to Palpatine when he takes a strong continuous blast... Luke was neither illumintaed or badly disfigured... It seems that Luke clearly wasn't tanking Palps full powered lightning.

So don't say short curcuit. And considering a Lightsaber has trouble melting his suit it's doubtful fire will do a lot of damage.

The only one who was scarred was Palpatine who got it redirected right back into his face. I feel if he just focused on Luke's face with the same blasts he hit his body with the same thing would have happened.

A brief lightning blast short circuited it so it's obviously not as uber as you claim.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My theory is proven and it's fact because it can't be disproven.

Again, circles.

I have because ...watch the scene again. Again, you're talking in circles.

I've countered this point already. You're talking in circles.

1. I have. You have yet to prove otherwise.
2. I did.
3. He hasn't.

And I have covered the whys with evidence for points 1-3, as well. Again, circles.

It's true. No what? More circles?

Incorrect: Gandalf and Saruman are around the same magical level. The Witch King also comes from a different magical stock than either of those two: I've covered this point already.

Lastly, this does not even come close to addressing my "explanation": that's non sequitur of you.

How can you say cheap shot when he had many seconds to explode some things before getting the death blow? You know...the point I made already that you're overlooking yet again?

"How can you say cheap shot when he had many seconds to explode some things before getting the death blow? You know...the point I made already that you're overlooking yet again?"

It did because your post showed a direct lack of understanding his point.

Touché. I forgot about Luke's lightsaber pretty much bouncing off of Vader's shoulder in ESB. A similar strike against an unarmored bar patron, from Obi Wan, took that fella's arm right off. That should clearly display that Vader has quite the durable armor.

We only need to look at episode 1 to see how easily lightsabers cut through the metal droids.

This isn't Harry Potter. There is no need to watch the scene again.

No, you didn't counter it. Based on how you argue gandalf can do so but the Witch King can't. If you don't see something then you don't believe it's possible even though we did see the feat.

You have to prove it's different. All of these characters possessed magical abilities and we see less of the Witch King than Saruman or Gandalf so we see less feats. It's simple.

He was stabbed in the back so that takes a little of your concentration away. I mean Saruman was stabbed in the back and he wasn't all over the place either.

No, it really didn't.

Originally posted by quanchi112
I said in that instance Harry did overcome him through willpower based on what occurred previously to give him the inner strength

Harry forced his spell back before his parents arrived. In fact by the looks of it forcing the bead of light to touch Voldemorts wand is what causes them to manifest.

Originally posted by Nephthys
YouTube video

3.30. Harry forces Voldemorts spell back into his wand.

4.05 the light touches Voldemorts wand.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Harry forced his spell back before his parents arrived. In fact by the looks of it forcing the bead of light to touch Voldemorts wand is what causes them to manifest.

4.05 the light touches Voldemorts wand.

You said it was because of what had previously occured. Clearly this is untrue unless Harry gets inner strength from being tortured and watching Cedric snuff it.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Post a link where peter jackson states it as a fact and I will concede otherwise you have to concede.

This isn't Harry Potter. There is no need to watch the scene again.

No, you didn't counter it. Based on how you argue gandalf can do so but the Witch King can't. If you don't see something then you don't believe it's possible even though we did see the feat.

You have to prove it's different. All of these characters possessed magical abilities and we see less of the Witch King than Saruman or Gandalf so we see less feats. It's simple.

He was stabbed in the back so that takes a little of your concentration away. I mean Saruman was stabbed in the back and he wasn't all over the place either.

No, it really didn't.

YouTube video

STFU and deal with that. awesome

Why Peter Jackson cut that scene out from the theatrical I'll never know, it's a great scene, especially the face Gandalf makes when his staff explodes.

It's probably because it never happened in the book and Gandalf was supposed to be more powerful than an underling of a fellow Maia.