Sauron vs Snape

Started by Robtard14 pages

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 [b]in the books mean that he can either.

Could the Balrog use this spell? No. Not all Maiar are the same. [/B]

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.