Avengers vs Death Eaters

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
they did use armor... sort of. The halls of hogwarts have tons of statues and paintings of knights. The pieces of wizard chess whear armor. And i could have sworn some of the giants were whereing some sort of hide armor(or maybe that one is just me playing too much skyrim). Point is wizards know about armor alot more durable than a tombstone, yet don't even think about whearing it.

There are prolly spells that could disassemble/control/shrink armor if it connects. If I were a Wizard, I'd much rather keep my maneuverabilty so I could dodge/cast unhindered by the weight/clumsiness of armor. Makes sense.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
There are prolly spells that could disassemble/control/shrink armor if it connects. If I were a Wizard, I'd much rather keep my maneuverabilty so I could dodge/cast unhindered by the weight/clumsiness of armor. Makes sense.

Exactly, midevil armror weighs around 50 pounds, most wizards wouldn't be able to move very fast in that kind of armor, it would also slow down their casting.

They can turn themselve into smoke. An eleven year old was able to make a troll sized cub temporarily weightless. You don't even need to use your wand or say anything to aperate(I didn't spell that right, didI). I think weight isn't really their biggest concern. Also quidich players whear arm and shin gaurds and some where helmets. Making something light and durable, like goblin silver, shouldn't be to difficult for a decent wizard. Why wouldn't someone put some counter curse on it to prevent size reduction and try it out on a death eater if it was really that simple?

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
They can turn themselve into smoke. An eleven year old was able to make a troll sized cub temporarily weightless. You don't even need to use your wand or say anything to aperate(I didn't spell that right, didI). I think weight isn't really their biggest concern. Also quidich players whear arm and shin gaurds and some where helmets. Making something light and durable, like goblin silver, shouldn't be to difficult for a decent wizard. Why wouldn't someone put some counter curse on it to prevent size reduction and try it out on a death eater if it was really that simple?

Wingardium Leviosa is a Levitation spell, not a make things weightless spell...anyway at this point you're just speculating that armor wouldn't work, as the movies never showed or stated that armor is worthless in blocking spells.

The fact that several objects have blocked spells would seem to indicate that armor would be a viable option.

No. I'm saying that since you whear armor, it should be treated like any article of clothing. Cloth is obviously less durable than a tombstone. When voldemort shot lilly with the curse, was her shirt destroyed? Was it on fire? Did have any hint that it trief to stand up to the curse? No. It went through the shirt. It didn't blast through, but pass through. Why would whearing a thicker shirt change that?

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
They can turn themselve into smoke. An eleven year old was able to make a troll sized cub temporarily weightless. You don't even need to use your wand or say anything to aperate(I didn't spell that right, didI). I think weight isn't really their biggest concern. Also quidich players whear arm and shin gaurds and some where helmets. Making something light and durable, like goblin silver, shouldn't be to difficult for a decent wizard. Why wouldn't someone put some counter curse on it to prevent size reduction and try it out on a death eater if it was really that simple?

We don't know if the armor would turn to smoke with them or just fall off when they turn to smoke, especially if they put countercurses on them. Wizards don't need armor to be temporarily weightless, you need it weightless all the time. Not only that you'd need it to not hinder movement. Is quidich armor weightless/unburdensome? We don't know why Wizards even insist on wearing robes, best bet is they need something freeflowing that won't hinder their casting. I mean, in a combat situation, it wouldn't matter if armor wouldn't work on spells, you'd still need it to prevent injuries from indirect sources like flying/falling debris (at least a helmet) or from nonspell sources like claws/teeth/flying daggers yet you don't see wizards using armor at all.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
No. I'm saying that since you whear armor, it should be treated like any article of clothing. Cloth is obviously less durable than a tombstone. When voldemort shot lilly with the curse, was her shirt destroyed? Was it on fire? Did have any hint that it trief to stand up to the curse? No. It went through the shirt. It didn't blast through, but pass through. Why would whearing a thicker shirt change that?

You know what else could have gone through Lily's shirt without destroying it, water....are you now going to argue that water can go through armor regardless of it's durability?

Water would have left a wet spot from the bits of shirt that caught it. Are tou saying the armor has to be combletely airtigh to stand up to the curse?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You know what else could have gone through Lily's shirt without destroying it, water....are you now going to argue that water can go through armor regardless of it's durability?

You are pretty much asserting you know the exact nature of how the AK spell works. No credibility.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
Water would have left a wet spot from the bits of shirt that caught it. Are tou saying the armor has to be combletely airtigh to stand up to the curse?

You're the one trying to argue that passing through cloth is the same as passing through armor.

So, do you have any proof to back this up?

Originally posted by Placidity
You are pretty much asserting you know the exact nature of how the AK spell works. No credibility.

And the side claiming that armor can't stop it isn't?

I'm just saying that the spell it lilly's shirt. It killed her while the shirt looked fine. If it has something to do with the thickness or durability of the shirt, fine. Show me an example of something thicker on somebody's person that stopped it. (Since the tombstone had no direct contact with something living, it doesn't count)

Got this from a HP poster named potterwatch in the potterforums:

The 1st killing curse he blocked using the golden statue.
"But the headless golden statue of the wizard in the fountain had sprung alive, leaping from its plinth to land with a crash on the floor between Harry and Voldemort. The spell merely glanced off its chest as the statue flung out its arms to protect Harry."

The 2nd one he dogded
"Voldemort raised his wand and another jet of green light streaked at Dumbledore, who turned and was gone in a whirling of his cloak."
I wonder how he did this though. How he just vanished. Is this apparition or what?

The 3rd killing curse missed
"“By which time I shall be gone, and you will be dead!” spat Voldemort. He sent another killing curse at Dumbledore but missed, instead hitting the security guard’s desk, which burst into
flame."

The 4th he blocked again using more statues which he bewitched to spring to life beforehand.
"Another jet of green light flew from behind the silver shield. This time it was the one-armed centaur, galloping in front of Dumbledore, that took the blast and shattered into a hundred pieces"
We might notice that the statue shattered this time, maybe this is a more powerful killing curse or perhaps the statue is not made of gold like the first one.

The 5th he blocked again, this time using Fawkes
"Another jet of green light flew at Dumbledore from Voldemort’s wand
and the snake had struck. Fawkes swooped down in front of Dumbledore, opened his beak wide and swallowed the jet of green light whole: he burst into flame and fell to the floor, small, wrinkled and flightless."
We might notice that this time Voldemort didnt only shot a killing curse but also used a serpent as diversion. But still managed to block it brilliantly.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're the one trying to argue that passing through cloth is the same as passing through armor.

So, do you have any proof to back this up?

No, I posed that as a discussion point. I did not assert it would definitely not work.

Originally posted by Placidity
I'm all for Mjolnir being able to block, but I'm not sure the armor comes with the package deal. How do you explain AK killing it's targets even though it is really only hitting their clothes?

Is AK really a simple magic bolt, or does it "know" when it has hit it's target, including clothes/armor that form part of the person (screen feat/logic discussion)?

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
They can turn themselve into smoke. An eleven year old was able to make a troll sized cub temporarily weightless. You don't even need to use your wand or say anything to aperate(I didn't spell that right, didI). I think weight isn't really their biggest concern. Also quidich players whear arm and shin gaurds and some where helmets. Making something light and durable, like goblin silver, shouldn't be to difficult for a decent wizard. Why wouldn't someone put some counter curse on it to prevent size reduction and try it out on a death eater if it was really that simple?

In harry potter you have to use your wand. Voldy and Dumbledor were the only two depicted using wandless magic and it took them high amounts of concentration. In the books iirc no one could use wandless magic at all.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
I'm just saying that the spell it lilly's shirt. It killed her while the shirt looked fine. If it has something to do with the thickness or durability of the shirt, fine. Show me an example of something thicker on somebody's person that stopped it. (Since the tombstone had no direct contact with something living, it doesn't count)

We have seen durable objects block spells(including the AK), if you're going to argue that the act of wearing an object renders it's durability worthless, you have to provide proof.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
In harry potter you have to use your wand. Voldy and Dumbledor were the only two depicted using wandless magic and it took them high amounts of concentration. In the books iirc no one could use wandless magic at all.

Originally posted by Silent Master
We have seen durable objects block spells(including the AK), if you're going to argue that the act of wearing an object renders it's durability worthless, you have to provide proof.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
it hit her shirt, and the shirt was fine. If there was a scorch marck or a rip or some sort of sign that it put up even a hint of a defense, I would agree with you. However her shirt was indeed fine.

Again, We have seen durable objects block spells(including the AK), if you're going to argue that the act of wearing an object renders it's durability worthless, you have to provide proof.

My little brother can't rip a t-shirt. They're pretty durable to him. The spell had no effect on the shirt. I would like to give a better answer, but like I said, the harry potter movies are lacking in mech suits.
Also the sectum sempre curse(I hate spelling by the way) cut up malfoy bad, but his clothes were fine.