Avengers vs Death Eaters

Originally posted by Placidity
That's not AK. You would have a point if you argue that all projectile spells behave the same way, and have the same effect on impact.

But we've proven that sufficiently strong inanimate objects can deflect AK and also proven that spells CAN pass thru sufficiently weak objects to affect its target, contact with the target and object is not necessary with certain spells.

AK could be different. But it could also not be. If it's not, then armor becomes a viable choice. Also, i need ppl to answer my query:

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Spells in the HP universe also look like they tend to be aim/LOS and tagetting dependent and not auto-hitting or tracking in nature. Such as the spell fight between Potter and random bad guys in the diner wherethey were using cover and missing a lot at short range. Can anyone confirm/disprove this?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Good for them, but you said regardless of durability.

Do you have any proof that the AK would go through armor?

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
look dude.
Solid stone. Blew up
women's clothing. Not a scratch.
Why would a spell that could crush stone not even fray the fabric of her shirt.

A thrown hammer to the stomach would crush your insides without damaging your clothing but would also crush rock and bounce off metal. 🙂

Edit. For that matter, a thrown hammer it would also shatter glass and KO you on the other side, too. Hmmmmm.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A thrown hammer to the stomach would crush your insides without damaging your clothing but would also crush rock and bounce off metal. 🙂

Did the golden statue blow up when the AK hit it?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
But we've proven that sufficiently strong inanimate objects can deflect AK and also proven that spells CAN pass thru sufficiently weak objects to affect its target, contact with the target and object is not necessary with certain spells.

AK could be different. But it could also not be. If it's not, then armor becomes a viable choice. Also, i need ppl to answer my query:

Originally posted by Silent Master
Did the golden statue blow up when the AK hit it?

AK bounced off it.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
the spell probably wasn't that specific. Do you remember which one it was. It could be either the first thing the spell hits or the first living thing it hits. Either way, it seems to me that AK seems uneffected by what the target is whearing.

Does the AK seem unaffected by sufficiently durable objects?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
A thrown hammer to the stomach would crush your insides without damaging your clothing but would also crush rock and bounce off metal. 🙂

Edit. For that matter, a thrown hammer it would also shatter glass and KO you on the other side, too. Hmmmmm.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
AK bounced off it.

Thought so, IIRC gold is much less durable than steel so we should have a good indication of the durability needed to stop the AK without much if any damage.

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
...did all the death eaters loose their wands? The can teleport and perform minor charms whithout their wands, but I'm pretty sure they braught them to the castle with them.

You still haven't answered my question...

Originally posted by Silent Master
Does the AK seem unaffected by sufficiently durable objects?

Also, was the gold statue scene you guys keep brining up in the movie, or only in the book?

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
give me one example where the clothing was even ruffled a bit by the spell.

Also, was the gold statue scene you guys keep brining up in the movie, or only in the book?

Does the AK seem unaffected by sufficiently durable objects?

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
You still haven't answered my question...

Originally posted by Silent Master
Does the AK seem unaffected by sufficiently durable objects?

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
Does the AK seem effected by what someone is whearing in anyway?

The AK seems un-effected by cloth.

Now, Does the AK seem unaffected by sufficiently durable objects?

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
the spell probably wasn't that specific. Do you remember which one it was. It could be either the first thing the spell hits or the first living thing it hits. Either way, it seems to me that AK seems uneffected by what the target is whearing.

Here's the diner scene:

YouTube video

Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
give me one example where the clothing was even ruffled a bit by the spell.

Also, was the gold statue scene you guys keep brining up in the movie, or only in the book?

Not implying that spells behave like blunt objects, just stating thst objects don't have to blow up softer objects in order to affect more solid ones and that certain effects that are on observable in RL actually do behave in such a way.

Like I said, the golden statue instance is in the book but it's the closest thing we got to seeing AK's behavior outside of the VERY limited "showings" it has vs. inanimate objects in the movie. Closest thing we got outside of just making assumptions, anyway.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Good for them, but you said regardless of durability.

Do you have any proof that the AK would go through armor?

Goes both ways mate. You don't have proof that armor can stop the spells either. You have to remember that armor is something physical, whereas the spells are magical.

At this point, the burden falls to you to prove that armor can indeed block spells.

Every single time someone has been hit by a spell, they have been affected regardless of clothing worn. Therefore you're the one who needs to provide proof that tougher clothing can stop a spell. Emphasis on "tougher clothing", not inanimate objects like rocks or statues or what not.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The AK seems un-effected by cloth.

Now, Does the AK seem unaffected by sufficiently durable objects?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Goes both ways mate. You don't have proof that armor can stop the spells either. You have to remember that armor is something physical, whereas the spells are magical.

At this point, the burden falls to you to prove that armor can indeed block spells.

Every single time someone has been hit by a spell, they have been affected regardless of clothing worn. Therefore you're the one who needs to provide proof that tougher clothing can stop a spell. Emphasis on "tougher clothing", not inanimate objects like rocks or statues or what not.

Burden goes both ways, I think. Books state that metals deflect AK. Why would wearing it suddenly change the spell's behavior against metal?

Originally posted by FrothByte
Goes both ways mate. You don't have proof that armor can stop the spells either. You have to remember that armor is something physical, whereas the spells are magical.

At this point, the burden falls to you to prove that armor can indeed block spells.

Every single time someone has been hit by a spell, they have been affected regardless of clothing worn. Therefore you're the one who needs to provide proof that tougher clothing can stop a spell.

We have proof that sufficiently durable objects can stop spells.