Originally posted by UtrigitaIn the books which I didn't read since the movies really don't cover him enough to accurately say. I'd say based off the fight V vs. A had Voldemort looked far more impressive than Dumbledore. Voldemort had a short window to kill him and didn't do so and left after his backup arrived.
Based on what?the movies? Impossible to make a qualified guess.
the books? I would put at around Voldemorts level, perhaps a bit below but not by a huge margin.
Originally posted by quanchi112
In the books which I didn't read since the movies really don't cover him enough to accurately say. I'd say based off the fight V vs. A had Voldemort looked far more impressive than Dumbledore. Voldemort had a short window to kill him and didn't do so and left after his backup arrived.
Well the books again from my perspecitve places Grindelwald around or a bit below Voldemorts level.
I disagree, but really there is no point in arguing personal perspectives concerning the on screen footage, atleast not imo.
Oh and btw read the books.
Originally posted by UtrigitaOk, fair enough but don't you think if you take away the elder wand then the advantage is clearly in Voldemort's favor since he was able to stalemate Dumbledore while in possession of it.
Well the books again from my perspecitve places Grindelwald around or a bit below Voldemorts level.I disagree, but really there is no point in arguing personal perspectives concerning the on screen footage, atleast not imo.
Oh and btw read the books.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Ok, fair enough but don't you think if you take away the elder wand then the advantage is clearly in Voldemort's favor since he was able to stalemate Dumbledore while in possession of it.
Unless you can somehow prove that it was only because of the Elder Wand Dumbledore in your opinion stalemated Voldemort, I see no reason to speculate on the subject.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Ok, fair enough but don't you think if you take away the elder wand then the advantage is clearly in Voldemort's favor since he was able to stalemate Dumbledore while in possession of it.
so you acknowledge then that it was a stalemate? good...
however, if you read the books, it has been said on more than one occasion that Voldemort is afraid of Dumbledore, and that Albus died undefeated...
it is safe then to assume that in a one on one battle, with nothing to distract Dumbledore, who is out to kill, and who is also in possession of the elder wand, that Albus would open a can of whoop a$$ on little Tom Riddle so hard he'll start loving muggles...
Originally posted by UtrigitaThere's nothing to speculate about Dumbledore had the most powerful wand in existence. That's a movie fact so him being able to stalemate him with the most powerful wand is an advantage and yet he still was on his ass at the end of Voldy's onslaught.
Unless you can somehow prove that it was only because of the Elder Wand Dumbledore in your opinion stalemated Voldemort, I see no reason to speculate on the subject.
Originally posted by draxx_tOfUVoldemort was winning but didn't kill him so yes it ended in a stalemate.
so you acknowledge then that it was a stalemate? good...however, if you read the books, it has been said on more than one occasion that Voldemort is afraid of Dumbledore, and that Albus died undefeated...
it is safe then to assume that in a one on one battle, with nothing to distract Dumbledore, who is out to kill, and who is also in possession of the elder wand, that Albus would open a can of whoop a$$ on little Tom Riddle so hard he'll start loving muggles...
The movies are different than the books and you can still fear an opponent and win. Fear is good sometimes but in the movie Voldemort didn't seem scared he seemed sure of himself he could kill him in the limited amount of time he had before the orders showed up.
Originally posted by quanchi112
There's nothing to speculate about Dumbledore had the most powerful wand in existence. That's a movie fact so him being able to stalemate him with the most powerful wand is an advantage and yet he still was on his ass at the end of Voldy's onslaught.
So a Wizard is only defined by the wand in his or her possession?
Originally posted by Utrigita
So a Wizard is only defined by the wand in his or her possession?
Obviously not, but I don't get what you're trying to say.
Lets say we both have a race on a racetrack:
- You get a top of the range sports car
- I get a family sedan
- We finish at the same time/tie
Who is the better driver?
Originally posted by Placidity
Obviously not, but I don't get what you're trying to say.Lets say we both have a race on a racetrack:
- You get a top of the range sports car
- I get a family sedan
- We finish at the same time/tieWho is the better driver?
I'm merely questioning if it's the Wand that defines the Wizard or the Wizard that defines the wand. Give the Elder wand to Harry and do a single one believes that the wand would magically help Harry win against Voldemort?
Originally posted by draxx_tOfU
however, if you read the books, it has been said on more than one occasion that Voldemort is afraid of Dumbledore, and that Albus died undefeated...
Big deal. Just because you are afraid of someone does not make you inferior.
it is safe then to assume that in a one on one battle, with nothing to distract Dumbledore, who is out to kill, and who is also in possession of the elder wand, that Albus would open a can of whoop a$$ on little Tom Riddle so hard he'll start loving muggles...
It's not safe to say that at all. Sure, Dumebledore may win. But it will be a damn hard fight for him.
Originally posted by ares834
Big deal. Just because you are afraid of someone does not make you inferior.
That's the implied, actually. Well, it was not actually implied: it was later explained why he WAS inferior in the last book: the Elder Wand. Voldemort had a very good reason to fear it.
Originally posted by ares834
It's not safe to say that at all. Sure, Dumebledore may win. But it will be a damn hard fight for him.
Actually, I'd say that is pretty safe to say. Not even safe to say, but a fact.
Dumbledore would win if you remove distractions and CIS/PIS: he has the Elder Wand. I have no idea how Albus won the duel against Grindelwald. It makes no sense. Something isn't right. Someone needs to ask Rowling: "If two "aware" wizards start a duel, one with the Elderwand, then how in the world can the one with the Elderwand lose when its purpose for existing is to never lose a duel?" I understand Rowling's protrayal of it as being a "bloody" wand...sons killing fathers, killing people in their sleep, killing chilren, and so forth. That makes sense: you defeat the person when they are unaware or through trickery. But if they are aware, how in the world can you beat them in a straight up duel?
It should not happen. What does Albus know that we the reader do not?
Surely this was asked of Rowling?
Harry Potter knew that he was the master of the Wand because he had to decide to die by it. When he returned, he was still the master of the wand and when Voldemort tried torturing his body...it didn't hurt...and Harry Potter was like, "WTF? lol!". So we know the wand cannot harm its master if you are not the master of it.
Albus, imo, incorrectly states that it had been defeated hundreds of times. However, that's not true: it had only been defeated twice via duel. All other times, it was through shady means. Egbert and Albus know something the rest do not know about the Elderwand...
Originally posted by dadudemon
That's the implied, actually. Well, it was not actually implied: it was later explained why he WAS inferior in the last book: the Elder Wand. Voldemort had a very good reason to fear it.
I admitted he was inferior. But simply being afraid does not mean he is.
Actually, I'd say that is pretty safe to say. Not even safe to say, but a fact.
Nah. He will win but it's not going to be some amazing ass kicking considering their duel in the Ministry of Magic.
Dumbledore would win if you remove distractions and CIS/PIS: he has the Elder Wand. I have no idea how Albus won the duel against Grindelwald. It makes no sense. Something isn't right. Someone needs to ask Rowling: "If two "aware" wizards start a duel, one with the Elderwand, then how in the world can the one with the Elderwand lose when its purpose for existing is to never lose a duel?" I understand Rowling's protrayal of it as being a "bloody" wand...sons killing fathers, killing people in their sleep, killing chilren, and so forth. That makes sense: you defeat the person when they are unaware or through trickery. But if they are aware, how in the world can you beat them in a straight up duel?It should not happen. What does Albus know that we the reader do not?
Simple. The Elder Wand is not undefeatable. That's just a legend like it being fashined by Death himself. In The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Dumbledore says something similar to this claiming that the wand is not undefeatable but rather capable of more powerful magic than typical wands.
Harry Potter knew that he was the master of the Wand because he had to decide to die by it. When he returned, he was still the master of the wand and when Voldemort tried torturing his body...it didn't hurt...and Harry Potter was like, "WTF? lol!". So we know the wand cannot harm its master if you are not the master of it.
Debatable. It could have been simply the protection he created for the defenders of Hogwarts by sacraficing himself. Afterall, the wand was capable of knocking him out.
Edit:
Originally posted by dadudemon
Albus, imo, incorrectly states that it had been defeated hundreds of times. However, that's not true: it had only been defeated twice via duel. All other times, it was through shady means. Egbert and Albus know something the rest do not know about the Elderwand...
Maybe that is where he says it. Still he specifcally mentions that it is not undeatable and, considering he did beat Grindelwald, I'd be inclined to agree.
Originally posted by ares834
I admitted he was inferior. But simply being afraid does not mean he is.
And I explained his reasons for the fear which was due to his inferiority. To Sum: Your point, while quite a good one in general, is irrelevant to this particular example.
Originally posted by ares834
Nah. He will win but it's not going to be some amazing ass kicking considering their duel in the Ministry of Magic.
I disagree, obviously, because he really was distracted by Harry Potter and had no interest in killing Voldemort. iirc, Dumbledore vowed to never kill with the Elderwand or something. He's a hippy or something. (Explains the beard and hair 😆 )
Originally posted by ares834
Simple. The Elder Wand is not undefeatable. That's just a legend like it being fashined by Death himself. In The Tales of Beedle the Bard, Dumbledore says something similar to this claiming that the wand is not undefeatable but rather capable of more powerful magic than typical wands.
That's simple to you but I see a conflict in Rowlings works. I also disagree that it is beatable. I think Rowling intended something else with the wand. All other ways except for two duels, were completed by trickery. I also think that trickery played a role in Albus and Egbert's victories.
Originally posted by ares834
Debatable. It could have been simply the protection he created for the defenders of Hogwarts by sacraficing himself. Afterall, the wand was capable of knocking him out.
Actually, it is not debateable. What I said is fact.
If you give yourself up willingly to be killed, then the Elderwand will not change posession to the person that kills you. That was Albus' original intent with Snape. Draco ruined everything with his disarming spell. lol But seriously, yes...Harry Potter was doing quite the awesome task:
Protection through the "old school" protection magic via love.
Preventing Voldemort from mastering the Elderwand which they knew, at that point, that Harry was the master of. If Harry did not give himself up willingly to be killed, the wand would have failed to kill him and the entire plan would have unraveled.
Originally posted by ares834
Edit:Maybe that is where he says it. Still he specifcally mentions that it is not undeatable and, considering he did beat Grindelwald, I'd be inclined to agree.
I'm inclined to believe you can defeat it with trickery, as well. But I do not think a straigh-up duel can result in a victory against it because it exists to not be beaten.
For example...you could rig the "arena" with traps BEFORE the duel. Then it is not a straight up duel...and you could still win. Seems like a plausible way to beat the unbeatable wand.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I disagree, obviously, because he really was distracted by Harry Potter and had no interest in killing Voldemort. iirc, Dumbledore vowed to never kill with the Elderwand or something. He's a hippy or something. (Explains the beard and hair 😆 )
Well, only, sorta. I assumed Siriuswriter was using the book in which case the two looked quite equal and Dumbeldore didn't really worry about Harry. In fact, Fawkes saved Dumbeldore at one point.
As for the movie, Voldemort seemed to have the upperhand at the end of the fight. Furthermore, Dumbledore only protected Harry twice that I can recal. Once, when his wand connected with Voldemort's and Voldemort was trying to get they stray bolts to hit Harry. And the second time, when Voldemort is in the sphere of water and Dumbledore pushes him away. Really, they seemed quite equal.
Actually, it is not debateable. What I said is fact.
What? You were correct in saying Potter was and still is the master of the Elderwand. However, it appears that the Elderwand can in fact hurt it's master. We see this when Voldemort knocks out Potter with the Elderwand.
Preventing Voldemort from mastering the Elderwand which they knew, at that point, that Harry was the master of.
Who knew this?
I'm inclined to believe you can defeat it with trickery, as well. But I do not think a straigh-up duel can result in a victory against it because it exists to not be beaten.For example...you could rig the "arena" with traps BEFORE the duel. Then it is not a straight up duel...and you could still win. Seems like a plausible way to beat the unbeatable wand.
I still see absolutely no reason to believe it is unbeatable. The only thing that claims that it is is a wizard legend which claims Death created it. Meanwhile, we have Dumbeldore say it is, in fact, beatable and we have wizard doing so in duels.
Originally posted by quanchi112
Voldemort was winning but didn't kill him so yes it ended in a stalemate.The movies are different than the books and you can still fear an opponent and win. Fear is good sometimes but in the movie Voldemort didn't seem scared he seemed sure of himself he could kill him in the limited amount of time he had before the orders showed up.
No one was winning which is why it was a stalemate. A deadlock, an impasse, no one was progressing against the other, that is a stalemate by definition, which you acknowledged, so all is good...
I agree, the books are different from the movies, I also agree that you can fear someone and still beat them, it's just not applicable to Voldy and Dumbly though...
Dumbly is simply superior to Voldy. Dumbly, at the height of his power, defeated Grindelwald who had an unbeatable wand, making him the master of the wand. Harry disarmed Voldy with a basic disarming spell. Voldy is the only wizard whose killing curse failed. Come on man, don't make me say Dumbly beats Voldy by invoking the ancient magic of love...
Originally posted by ares834
Well, only, sorta. I assumed Siriuswriter was using the book in which case the two looked quite equal and Dumbeldore didn't really worry about Harry. In fact, Fawkes saved Dumbeldore at one point.As for the movie, Voldemort seemed to have the upperhand at the end of the fight. Furthermore, Dumbledore only protected Harry twice that I can recal. Once, when his wand connected with Voldemort's and Voldemort was trying to get they stray bolts to hit Harry. And the second time, when Voldemort is in the sphere of water and Dumbledore pushes him away. Really, they seemed quite equal.
Do you remember in the movie...where....Dumbledore consistantly stood between Voldemort and Harry Potter?
Regardless, "protecting Harry twice" is still "protecting Harry" and, despite your dismissive position, it was signficant to the point of holding Dumbledore back.
Originally posted by ares834
What? You were correct in saying Potter was and still is the master of the Elderwand. However, it appears that the Elderwand can in fact hurt it's master. We see this when Voldemort knocks out Potter with the Elderwand.
What...are you talking about?
I don't remember it knocking out Potter. Unless you're talking about what I think you are...in which case, I would have already disagreed.
Originally posted by ares834
Who knew this?
Yes.
Originally posted by ares834
I still see absolutely no reason to believe it is unbeatable. The only thing that claims that it is is a wizard legend which claims Death created it. Meanwhile, we have Dumbeldore say it is, in fact, beatable and we have wizard doing so in duels.
I still see absolutely no reason to believe it is beatable. The only thing tha claims it is beatable is Albus and Egbert who probably used subversive means to net their victories. Meanwhile, we have literally hundreds of cases of sneaky victories over the owner rather than a straight up fair duel taking place. Fact is, it is not beatable in a straight up duel and tricks must be used.
Originally posted by Mindsetyes.
Is Voldemort able to die for this thread?
Originally posted by draxx_tOfUVoldemort was in control so he was winning though he didn't kill Albus yet.
No one was winning which is why it was a stalemate. A deadlock, an impasse, no one was progressing against the other, that is a stalemate by definition, which you acknowledged, so all is good...I agree, the books are different from the movies, I also agree that you can fear someone and still beat them, it's just not applicable to Voldy and Dumbly though...
Dumbly is simply superior to Voldy. Dumbly, at the height of his power, defeated Grindelwald who had an unbeatable wand, making him the master of the wand. Harry disarmed Voldy with a basic disarming spell. Voldy is the only wizard whose killing curse failed. Come on man, don't make me say Dumbly beats Voldy by invoking the ancient magic of love...
You're bringing in books stuff which has no bearing on Voldemort vs. Dumbledore.
The wand never made anyone unbeatable. With all the deathly hallows one is only master of death as well. That unbeatable thing is a myth.
Voldemort wasn't the rightful owner of the elder wand and Draco disarmed Dumbedore. Harry was disarmed by Voldemort in ootp.
Dumbledore needs someone to sacrifice themselves for him to beat the killing curse.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Regardless, "protecting Harry twice" is still "protecting Harry" and, despite your dismissive position, it was signficant to the point of holding Dumbledore back.
Sure, which is why I would give Dumbles the victory. But it won't me a major ass kicking.
What...are you talking about?I don't remember it knocking out Potter. Unless you're talking about what I think you are...in which case, I would have already disagreed.
In the forest, yes. But it shows that the wand can in fact injure it's owner.
Yes.
Um, what? That doesn't answer my question at all.
I still see absolutely no reason to believe it is beatable. The only thing tha claims it is beatable is Albus and Egbert who probably used subversive means to net their victories.
Not sure why you would say this. Dumbledore's duel with Grindelwald seems to have been just a straight-up duel, an extraordinary one though, that lasted for hours.
Meanwhile, we have literally hundreds of cases of sneaky victories over the owner rather than a straight up fair duel taking place.
Doesn't mean much. This is just simply the easiest way to defeat the owner as it is a veyr powerful wand. BTW, can I have the quote that says it had been defeated hundreds of times through sneaky methods. IIRC, Dumbledore only says that it has been beaten hundreds of times and seems to be counting both defeating it in a duel and sneakin methods.
Fact is, it is not beatable in a straight up duel and tricks must be used.
Considering we have two examples which have the owner being defeated in a straight up duel I would say nah. Really, the only source claiming it is undefeatable is a source that also claims it was crafted by Death.