Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
snape performed a counter curse on harry's broom in the first movie without a wand. The two faced squirrel was able to perform a curse without a wand in that same scene.
I can give you that because I honestly forgot about that scene. Though the majority of the movie flys right in the face of that. We see in dumby and voldys fight they use some very obvious wandless magic. Aside from that the movies practically dictate the wand is the wizards way of channeling their power. For instance when Rons wand breaks his spells "break" as well. A small few instances do not make up for a majority. At best I will say they can do it but only with small spells. Nothing powerful enough to really do any damage.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
So cloth, cloth and leather doesn't stop spells? However:Golden statue deflects AK spell. Conjured silver shield by Voldy deflects DD's spell.
Well I think it's accepted by all that durable objects that aren't worn by the targets can block spells. Like statues, rocks, walls, etc.
The problem here is, we have no one in HP who has ever worn armor and that's what we're trying to prove if it's effective or not.
We know that clothing doesn't stop spells. I'm pretty sure wearing jewelry doesn't stop them either.
So I believe this discussion is pretty useless. No one in HP ever wore anything close to armor and the spells have never been tried against such.
Stating that spells don't work on statues and rocks doesn't weigh in much since these things are not WORN by the human target.
The spells can probably be blocked by Cap's shield and Mjolnir. But whether they can be blocked by Thor's breastplate (which looks like stiffened leather with metal bracing)... well we'll never know.
Pretty sure he's not wearing armor on his legs and face though.
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
I can give you that because I honestly forgot about that scene. Though the majority of the movie flys right in the face of that. We see in dumby and voldys fight them using some very obvious wandless magic. Aside from that the movies practically dictate the wand is the wizards way of channeling their power. For instance when Rons wand breaks his spells "break" as well. A small few instances do not make up for a majority. At best I will say they can do it but only with small spells. Nothing as powerful enough to really do any damage.
Originally posted by FrothByte
Well I think it's accepted by all that durable objects that aren't worn by the targets can block spells. Like statues, rocks, walls, etc.The problem here is, we have no one in HP who has ever worn armor and that's what we're trying to prove if it's effective or not.
We know that clothing doesn't stop spells. I'm pretty sure wearing jewelry doesn't stop them either.
So I believe this discussion is pretty useless. No one in HP ever wore anything close to armor and the spells have never been tried against such.
Stating that spells don't work on statues and rocks doesn't weigh in much since these things are not WORN by the human target.
The spells can probably be blocked by Cap's shield and Mjolnir. But whether they can be blocked by Thor's leather breastplate... well we'll never know. Has spells been ever blocked by stiffened leather?
But why would wearing something change the nature of how the spell behaves when coming into contact with an durablr inanimate object? Just can't accept the "it's magic thus it will behave the way that will help my argument the mosy" replies, I guess.
Originally posted by Placidity
Any object, not worn, yes. Doesn't have to be "sufficiently durable", unless you can show otherwise.I asked you if AK would pass through a paper screen, still waiting.
Originally posted by Silent Master
That is what we are trying to determine with these questions.Now, Do you admit that sufficiently durable objects have stopped spells?