Originally posted by h1a8
Also you know that showings>>>statements.
Originally posted by h1a8
but look at the other possibilities.
Enchantment power being divided up for various purposes, not just durability.
Enchantment power coming from the same source (Serpent and Odin enchantment from same source).
Taking away the enchanter's choice of how durable he/she want's an item to be, for various reasons.
Originally posted by cdtm
How do you figure?
Adamantium has showings where it seems more durable than the shield. But I'm saying that prehaps both durabilities are so close that it doesn't matter. It isn't like the shield is significantly more durable anyway. No one could have know which is more durable since neither is breakable by Earth standards.
Originally posted by h1a8
Adamantium has showings where it seems more durable than the shield. But I'm saying that prehaps both durabilities are so close that it doesn't matter. It isn't like the shield is significantly more durable anyway. No one could have know which is more durable since neither is breakable by Earth standards.
What showings?
Originally posted by h1a8
Adamantium has showings where it seems more durable than the shield. But I'm saying that prehaps both durabilities are so close that it doesn't matter. It isn't like the shield is significantly more durable anyway. No one could have know which is more durable since neither is breakable by Earth standards.
What showing does Admantium have that are above Cap's shield?
So you don't have any proof then, that a weaker magic user can create more powerful enchantments than a more powerful magic user.
And your usage of Nul is....sketchy. I could turn around and say he broke secondary adamantium. What is my proof that its secondary, you may ask. Well, the fact that he broke it!
Circular logic.
Originally posted by Branlor SwiftNo he didn't. He destroyed Cap's shield far more than Wolverine's claws (which he slightly warped).
King Thor destroyed both easily, therefore one is weaker than the other.I guess we know for sure Wolverine's hair and snazzy jacket are more durable than Adamantium and Cap's shield though.
Originally posted by Branlor Swiftlol writer was intending to show the power capable of even warping adamantium. yet you focus on the jackets. It didn't seem as if adamantium was weaker than Cap's shield though is what I'm saying. IMO they are equals or near equals.
WHAT ARE THE X-MEN CRAFTING THEIR TEAM JACKETS OUT OF?!?!?Amirite h1 you tip tickler?
Originally posted by h1a8Considering King Thor just started blasting Wolves... hell, if we use this logic, Cap's skull is also more durable than his shield.
No he didn't. He destroyed Cap's shield far more than Wolverine's claws (which he slightly warped).
And he destroyed Wolverine's claws far more easily than he did his hair or his team jacket.
Must have been that old hair gel that crusts into an unbreakable mold of grease and yuck. The jacket must have been crafted from a weak magic user though. Since they are experts in creating beast objects.
Originally posted by Branlor SwiftIf we go by that then most comic character's costume's are more durable than them, including Hulk's pants.
Considering King Thor just started blasting Wolves... hell, if we use this logic, Cap's skull is also more durable than his shield.
And it was with the Odin Power turned off anyway.And he destroyed Wolverine's claws far more easily than he did his hair or his team jacket.
Must have been that old hair gel that crusts into an unbreakable mold of grease and yuck. The jacket must have been crafted from a weak magic user though. Since they are experts in creating beast objects.
Originally posted by h1a8So why does this not hold true for "while blasting him" Wolverine?
If we go by that then most comic character's costume's are more durable than them, including Hulk's pants.
We give costumes the benefit of the doubt but not Wolvskeleton who is pretty factly less durable than Cap's shield?
While ignoring that Thor had a pretty necklace that ****ing depowered him, that got taken off right before he blasted Cap?
Or that all we seen of Wolverine was while he was getting blasted to start, while we only got a view of Cap's skull during the blast.
Or you're trolling, but you know that already.
Originally posted by h1a8
In general no, but in this case yes.
Especially when it concern's things in the very same comic. Otherwise you can't prove anything. Even Jake and some other's here is providing ABC proof as to why Mjolnir should be more durable. If a character is shown lifting a tank in a comic then of course he/she can lift a car in the same comic.
No.
Originally posted by Branlor Swift
Pr needs to make the Mayan Prophecy true for H1's account IMO.Tomorrow Paul. Do the right thing
mmm