Avengers vs Death Eaters

Originally posted by Robtard
No.

When Gary Oldman was zapped with an AK, you visibly saw his spirit/soul being pulled from his body and then he was all "ah, I'm dead Gary Oldman."

I could be thinking of the books when it comes to dragon lore, but I thought Potter tried to zap one once in the films.

That was due to that fruity arch he fell through, in the book at least.

Originally posted by FrothByte
Because there is also zero examples of the AK not working past any clothing that is worn on the body. All you have are examples of inanimate objects.

Also note that Thor's armor is not a full breast plate but is instead a combination of stiffened leather and metal bracings from the looks of it. I'm not saying that it will definitely work, but for you to assume that his armor will definitely protect him... well that is just plain nonsense.

Now on Ironman, I would agree that spells might have difficulty getting through his admittedly thicker armor.

Thor on the other hand has various parts of him unarmored. What happens if he gets hit in the legs?

Since when does stiffened leather stand up to machine gun fire, replusor blasts, kicks that cause trees to explode, energy blasts that can disintegrate Frost Giants and Bi-Frost explosions?

Originally posted by Silent Master
Since when does stiffened leather stand up to machine gun fire, replusor blasts, kicks that cause trees to explode, energy blasts that can disintegrate Frost Giants and Bi-Frost explosions?

Hmmm.... good point. I don't see the relevance of the kick, but at the very least the machine gun fire should have damaged the armor some.

But in any case,

Since when has machine gun fire, kicks, and energy blasts been comparable to magical spells? You're treating the spells as if they were simple bullets and projectiles.

Just because a man wearing bullet proof armor can survive a shot to the chest doesn't mean he's immune to tear gas.

Originally posted by FrothByte
''

Since when has machine gun fire, kicks, and energy blasts been comparable to magical spells? You're treating the spells as if they were simple bullets and projectiles.

You called his armor a combnation of stiffened leather and metal bracings. I'd like to see what proof you have of that.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Let's be honest here, Wizards are morons, they have access to time turners and never thought to use them to save attack victims or arrest those responsible.

Time turners don't work that way. You can't use them to change the past.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Armor is clunky and may also be manipulated by certain spells. It also can slow you down/force you to miscast your spells. Spells can be dodged, why wear armor that'd make it impossible to do so?

Plus wizards like their shiny dresses (see: the youtube vid I posted 😛).

If armor is able to block the AK as many of you suggest it would be well worth wearing. Certain enchantments can be used to make it less clunky etc...

So either armor can block spells and wizards are morons or it can't. I'd certainly side with the later simply because it involves less PIS.

Edit: And TBH, this appears to make more sense. Yes, AK can be blocked by objects but it does damage to them such as shattering them or even setting it on fire. However, when it hits clothes it doesn't burn a hole in it or something similar it just magically passes through it likely because a living being is right there. I'd assume it would do the same to armor.

Originally posted by ares834
Time turners don't work. You can't use them to change the past.

It worked just fine in the movie, otherwise Harry, Buckbeak and Sirius would be dead

If armor is able to block the AK as many of you suggest it would be well worth wearing. Certain enchantments can be used to make it less clunky etc...

So either armor can block spells and wizards are morons or it can't. I'd certainly side with the later simply because it involves less PIS.

Edit: And TBH, this appears to make more sense. Yes, AK can be blocked by objects but it does damage to them such as shattering them or even setting it on fire. However, when it hits clothes it doesn't burn a hole in it or something similar it just magically passes through it likely because a living being is right there. I'd assume it would do the same to armor.

All we know is that spells can be stopped if an object is solid enough and that the AK has never been used against armor

Originally posted by Silent Master
It worked just fine in the movie, otherwise Harry, Buckbeak and Sirius would be dead

No. Re-watch the film. Neither Buckbeak or Sirius were killed prior to going back. We also see the future Harry and Hermione interacting with them such as when Hermione throws the rock or when Harry does the wolf call. Both of these happen the first time around. Hence, the past can't be changed.

Originally posted by Silent Master
All we know is that spells can be stopped if an object is solid enough and that the AK has never been used against armor

We also know AK burst these solid objects and that when AK interacts with clothes it passes through without bursting or burning. This indicates something is different.

They weren't killed because Harry and Hermione went back in time and saved them.

Nothing you said changes the fact that spells can be stopped if an object is solid enough and that the AK has never been used against armor

Originally posted by Silent Master
They weren't killed because Harry and Hermione went back in time and saved them.

facepalm

Yes. And since the interactions of their future selves were there in the first place, one can not change the past!

Originally posted by Silent Master
Nothing you said changes the fact that spells can be stopped if an object is solid enough and that the AK has never been used against armor

Nothing you said changes the fact that spells are not stopped by clothing and that the AK has never been used against armor

Originally posted by ares834
facepalm

Yes. And since the interactions of their future selves were there in the first place, one can not change the past!

The movies never stated that you can't change the past, that's just your interpretation

Nothing you said changes the fact that spells are not stopped by clothing and that the AK has never been used against armor

Cloth not being able to stop the AK has no bearing on whether or not armor can.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You called his armor a combnation of stiffened leather and metal bracings. I'd like to see what proof you have of that.

That's because that's what it looks like. But I already conceded to your point, that since the armor wasn't damaged by machine gun fire or energy blasts then it must be made of something else.

So no, I don't need to show proof of that because I already agreed with you.

You, however, need to show me proof that magical spells are similar to machine gun bullets and energy blasts in how they affect humans... unless you agree that they are completely different and just because an armor can repel bullets doesn't mean it can repel magic spells.

And then I go back to my example: A bullet proof vest does not make the wearer immune to tear gas.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The movies never stated that you can't change the past, that's just your interpretation

facepalm

No, but once again we see the actions of future Hermione and Harry on the first time through such as when Harry saves them from the Dementors or when the rock Hermione throws breaks the pot... So clearly the future selves were there and did save Sirius and Buckbeak...

Originally posted by Silent Master
Cloth not being able to stop the AK has no bearing on whether or not armor can.

Once again, it doesn't cause any damage to clothing and just passes through. This is different from when it hits a solid object (such as a statue) which isn't covering a person and AK does cause damage. So when someone is coated in said object it works differently.

Actually there is no proof that AK would even be stopped by solid objects from the standpoint of the movie. See my video on the previous page. It never even hits anything but people in the movies. So this armor argument does not have a leg to stand on.

Doesn't it hit a statue in the graveyard scene in Goblet of Fire. It's when Voldemort shouts to Harry not to turn his back on Voldy.

The problem with that is he never said the spell when he did that. No way to say what spell it was. I had that discussion in this thread to lol. Godkiller wouldnt shutup about it.

Originally posted by ares834
If armor is able to block the AK as many of you suggest it would be well worth wearing. Certain enchantments can be used to make it less clunky etc...

So either armor can block spells and wizards are morons or it can't. I'd certainly side with the later simply because it involves less PIS.

Edit: And TBH, this appears to make more sense. Yes, AK can be blocked by objects but it does damage to them such as shattering them or even setting it on fire. However, when it hits clothes it doesn't burn a hole in it or something similar it just magically passes through it likely because a living being is right there. I'd assume it would do the same to armor.

This argument has been covered already. Pls reread my previous post to avoid double replies...

As a courtesy, I'll search for and repost my previous reply but just this once. 😛

Originally posted by Nibedicus
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.

As most materials blow up/catch fire when hit by a spell, would you really wanna be wearing armor that could hinder you or wouldn't you rather be dodging spells? Plus are there really enchantments that make armor/metal permanently weightless and flexible in the movie/book? Or are we just assuming thst there would be?

As for the catch on fire/burn/damage clothing reply:

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.

As for:

Originally posted by omgchos
Actually there is no proof that AK would even be stopped by solid objects from the standpoint of the movie. See my video on the previous page. It never even hits anything but people in the movies. So this armor argument does not have a leg to stand on.

You can ignore the books or state that it is inadmissable evidence (where the spells DID bounce off metal objects), but you have to admit that you have no proof either as the spell never met armor in the movies. So the "it passes thru armor" argument has no leg to stand on either (other than personal interpretations of what the SFX means). Thus, I return to my multi-scenario proposition in moving the debate forward.

Plus, I ask again, did the AK spell get blocked with a book at 0:53 of the video you just showed?

Originally posted by Robtard
You know what's better than making someone roll on the floor in pain in a fight to the death?

Making them dead via: Smashes, lighting, slaps, slams, blast, lasers missiles, bullets and arrows.

The ability to.....well, yeah, you get my drift.

Originally posted by omgchos
Actually there is no proof that AK would even be stopped by solid objects from the standpoint of the movie. See my video on the previous page. It never even hits anything but people in the movies. So this armor argument does not have a leg to stand on.

In the video you posted it does hit something other then a living creature. Somewhere between 0:46-0:56 it hits something and knocks it in the air. As for the Grave yard scene I won't use that as evidence but everyone here knows that is suppose to be the AK spell thats why it's green. Also iirc there is a scene in the great hall where it hits a table.

Originally posted by ares834
Once again, it doesn't cause any damage to clothing and just passes through. This is different from when it hits a solid object (such as a statue) which isn't covering a person and AK does cause damage. So when someone is coated in said object it works differently.

It working against cloth has no bearing on whether or not it work against armor.

Originally posted by NemeBro
That was due to that fruity arch he fell through, in the book at least.