Sauron vs Snape

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 [Numerian] 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.

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 =)

I accept for concession as well.

Originally posted by Nephthys
Oh of course, it was obviously a magical step. How silly of me.

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.

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.

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.

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.