Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
i think if harry was hiding behind a wall of tissue paper the spell would be stopped by it. It targets things that are alive. If there is no living thing connected to what it hits, it's just energy that can explode bounce light whatever.
It's been shown that some spells (in the diner scene, looks sounds like it was a Petricifus Totalus spell) pass thru weaker solid objects (like glass) to hit its target. How is AK different from that curse?
Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
I'm not sure i understand your question. I made a remark about mobility in armor wouldn't be an issue cause they could teleport even without a wand. As far as I know, every death eater should have their wand in this fight.
You said
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.
Im trying to make sense of this post. Yes I would assume they have them in this fight. But the post you were responding to was calling into question Wandless magic. I was originally talking about your much earlier comment about not needing a wand. I have no doubt they have wands in this fight because it wont matter. Thor takes the win.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
It's been shown that some spells (in the diner scene, looks sounds like it was a Petricifus Totalus spell) pass thru weaker solid objects (like glass) to hit its target. How is AK different from that curse?
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
You saidIm trying to make sense of this post. Yes I would assume they have them in this fight. But the post you were responding to was calling into question Wandless magic. I was originally talking about your much earlier comment about not needing a wand. I have no doubt they have wands in this fight because it wont matter. Thor takes the win.
Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
yeah they all have wands.
But Thor is going down.
....i really don't see how. I feel Cap has a fighting chance because of his shield but overall dies after taking out maybe one but Thor has the power to strike them all down. Plus hes going to be able to use his hammer to block the spells. What are they going to do to block lighting from raining down on their heads?
Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
the spell broke the glass. AK left no mark, no scorch, not even an indent. The diner spell went through using force. The AK spell either seeped through or just wasn't effected by what she was whearing.
Yet it's been stopped by sufficiently solid spells before. You're not seeng my point.
You commented that spells bypass durability when in the item in question is contact with a live target. But it has been shown in the movies that such a rule doesn't apply for similar curses. Curses pass thru weak enough objects just fine to affect their targets. But when hitting solid objects, such as metal, the book specifically states that the spells gets deflected. It also didn't "seep through" anything. We just know that it didn't damage the clothing of its victims but break stone and deflect off metal (w/c would we explained would make sense in certain RL observable phenomena).
And seriously, we don't see enough of the clothing to prove that there was "never an indent". In fact, ppl tend to get tossed back when hit by AK save perhaps for the Sirius Black instance.
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
....i really don't see how. I feel Cap has a fighting chance because of his shield but overall dies after taking out maybe one but Thor has the power to strike them all down. Plus hes going to be able to use his hammer to block the spells. What are they going to do to block lighting from raining down on their heads?
I don't know about that. It looks like spells are highly aim/LOS dependent and that the AK spell needs to be aimed THEN spoken to be effective.
Do you know how hard it is to hit a moving target when you're using a wand to aim with one hand and need to utter an incantation to do so? Plus you're aiming against someone who has been shown to dodge automatic fire at close range (w/c is much much easier to hit with than a single shot incantation depemdent attack).
The AK isn't a normal curse. It not only kills but cracks your soul like a jigsaw puzzle. Comparying it to the jellylegs jynx just seems silly to me.
I have no doupt the hammer and the sheild would block AK. But that's what disarming spells are for. Followed by petrificus totalus and maybe a crucio for good measure aought to keep him down long enough for one of the deateaters to AK his godly rump.
Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
The AK isn't a normal curse. It not only kills but cracks your soul like a jigsaw puzzle. Comparying it to the jellylegs jynx just seems silly to me.I have no doupt the hammer and the sheild would block AK. But that's what disarming spells are for. Followed by petrificus totalus and maybe a crucio for good measure aought to keep him down long enough for one of the deateaters to AK his godly rump.
It's a curse that has a powerful effect when it hits you, but stating that it has "special rules" to how it strikes its target seems like something you need to prove especially since its shown some behaviors similar to other curses (breaking solid objects it strikes, needing to be aimed to hit the target, dodgeable).
Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
Has for thor and tony's speed. You remember that spell hermoine used in the scond movie to stop the flying smurfs. I'm sure one of the hundreds of death eaters is probably familiar with it.
Which instance is this?
Also, talking about cap dodging automatic fire in the avengers movie.
Also, bear in mind that Tony's armor isn't really in contact with his skin, it has an exoskeleton between him and the surface armor that protects him from outer impacts/heat as well as boost his strength.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
I don't know about that. It looks like spells are highly aim/LOS dependent and that the AK spell needs to be aimed THEN spoken to be effective.Do you know how hard it is to hit a moving target when you're using a wand to aim with one hand and need to utter an incantation to do so? Plus you're aiming against someone who has been shown to dodge automatic fire at close range (w/c is much much easier to hit with than a single shot incantation depemdent attack).
My assumption is that there are a good bit of death eaters. While hulk, IronMan, Black Widow, and Hawkeye are distractions my thought was cap would still take a hit from behind somewhere.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
It's a curse that has a powerful effect when it hits you, but stating that it has "special rules" to how it strikes its target seems like something you need to prove especially since its shown some behaviors similar to other curses (breaking solid objects it strikes, needing to be aimed to hit the target, dodgeable).
Originally posted by BlackZero30x
My assumption is that there are a good bit of death eaters. While hulk, IronMan, Black Widow, and Hawkeye are distractions my thought was cap would take a hit from behind somewhere.
They'll be assaulting from within Hogwarts, tho. Plenty of cover to be had and small spaces limit aiming line of fire for the death eaters as well as limits the numbers they can bring to bear.
Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
it gets stopped by solid objects but when it hit something connected to a living being it did it's job(love sheild doesn't count). I honestly can't see their armor being too much trouble. I'm sorry, but I'm really not following your argument.
When it hits a living being protected by just clothing it did its job.
We've never seen it go thru solid armor before.
It has been deflected by metal before (via the book). Thor's armor is made up of very durable metal (easily harder than the gold statue).
You state the rule that curses behave differently when objects are in contact with a living thing vs when it is NOT in contact with a living thing.
It has been shown that certain curses behaves just the same when not in contact with a living thing for as long as it can bresk thru it, disproving your argument above.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Which instance is this?Also, talking about cap dodging automatic fire in the avengers movie.
Also, bear in mind that Tony's armor isn't really in contact with his skin, it has an exoskeleton between him and the surface armor that protects him from outer impacts/heat as well as boost his strength.
And are you really pulling that nonsense.Really. Thats like saying if i got shot with that spell in the vest, it wouldn't count cause it was only touching my shirt. Despite all it's bells and whistles, the suit is one thing. We are not counting each individual screw as it's own little thing.
And it's not an exoskeleton... It's a high tech prothestic.
Originally posted by NotAllThatEvil
i think it happened during lockhart's first class.And are you really pulling that nonsense.Really. Thats like saying if i got shot with that spell in the vest, it wouldn't count cause it was only touching my shirt. Despite all it's bells and whistles, the suit is one thing. We are not counting each individual screw as it's own little thing.
And it's not an exoskellenton... It's a high tech prothestic.
/facepalm
High tech prosthetic and exoskeleton is not mutually exclusive.
One is a function, the other is a structural design....
And also, there is a CLEAR seasration/gap between Stark's skin and the external armor. Watch the movies pls.