Who can lift Mjlonir?

Started by Silent Master19 pages
Originally posted by h1a8
If you want to say that Mjolnir>Nul's hammer in durability then you must provide proof.
BTW, your speculation isn't proof.

You're the one making the claim, that means the burden is on you.

Is Mjolnir more durable than any old uru-made weaponry? So for example, if Tony Stark made some uru armour (with NO enchantments), it would be just as durable?

If Mjolnir is more durable than random uru, why is it? If it is because of the enchantments, surely the more powerful the enchant...er, the more powerful the weapon?

Originally posted by Silent Master
You're the one making the claim, that means the burden is on you.
Follower of Jake, don't you know your leader implied that Mjolnir>Nul's hammer in durability. That's how this discussion started. We drew first blood with his statement. You should always be aware of what you leader is doing grasshopper.

Standard uru is not > Mjolnir that's for sure. Thor was grinding Uru to dust back in the day. I hardly see why a more powerful enchantment wouldn't produce a more powerful weapon but H1 disagrees I guess.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Is Mjolnir more durable than any old uru-made weaponry? So for example, if Tony Stark made some uru armour (with NO enchantments), it would be just as durable?

If Mjolnir is more durable than random uru, why is it? If it is because of the enchantments, surely the more powerful the enchant...er, the more powerful the weapon?

Thor carved regular old Uru into a makeshift hammer to retardedly swing at minions, like he's known to do.

And we all know what a pussy Thor is.

So enchantment.

So if Odin is more powerful than the Serpent, would that not make his blessings more....potent?

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Is Mjolnir more durable than any old uru-made weaponry? So for example, if Tony Stark made some uru armour (with NO enchantments), it would be just as durable?

If Mjolnir is more durable than random uru, why is it? If it is because of the enchantments, surely the more powerful the enchant...er, the more powerful the weapon?

But who's to say which enchantment gives the greater durability? Mjolnir's enchantment is mostly for it's other powers (like storms, and other funky stuff).
Also, weaker beings have created stronger weapons than more powerful beings in comics. The writer didn't show or hint to Mjolnir>Nul's hammer in durability.

Which weaker beings have done so? Especially in the realm of magic, not tech.

Originally posted by h1a8
Follower of Jake, don't you know your leader implied that Mjolnir>Nul's hammer in durability. That's how this discussion started. We drew first blood with his statement. You should always be aware of what you leader is doing grasshopper.

Jake disagreed with someone trying to use the Nul example as proof regarding Mjolnir, you then claimed the Nul example proved he could break Mjolnir.

Originally posted by h1a8
I say it does mean he can break Mjolnir though.

So start providing proof.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So if Odin is more powerful than the Serpent, would that not make his blessings more....potent?
Along with all the crafting and care that went into it, yes.

That is, if you don't have a peanut shell lodged in your brain

Unless proven otherwise, Mjolnir sets the standard for durability.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
So if Odin is more powerful than the Serpent, would that not make his blessings more....potent?

No, I can think of countless reasons why not.
I'll name some
1. Odin divides the enchantment power for other purposes.
2. The enchantment of both hammers come from the same source
3. Odin doesn't want the hammer to be truly indestructible (that's why it has broken so many times, even under Thor's own force).
4. Weaker in power characters have created more durable items than more power characters in comics.

Originally posted by h1a8
No, I can think of countless reasons why not.
I'll name some
1. Odin divides the enchantment power for other purposes.
2. The enchantment of both hammers come from the same source
3. Odin doesn't want the hammer to be truly indestructible (that's why it has broken so many times, even under Thor's own force).
4. Weaker in power characters have created more durable items than more power characters in comics.
Originally posted by -Pr-
Unless proven otherwise, Mjolnir sets the standard for durability.
Originally posted by -Pr-
Unless proven otherwise, Mjolnir sets the standard for durability.

Set's what standard?

Originally posted by h1a8
Set's what standard?

As in, if you want to prove a hammer is more durable than or as durable as Mjolnir, provide proof.

Both being made of uru isn't proof.

Originally posted by -Pr-
As in, if you want to prove a hammer is more durable than or as durable as Mjolnir, provide proof.

Both being made of uru isn't proof.

Confusing words you used then.
No one is claiming Nul's hammer is more durable. Jake is claiming Mjolnir is more durable.

Which magic characters have made more durable items when weaker?

Tech, I can see. But as crafting magical items is meant to be a manifestation of their power, a weaker magical character shouldn't be crafting more durable items than a more powerful magic user.

Originally posted by h1a8
Confusing words you used then.
No one is claiming Nul's hammer is more durable. Jake is claiming Mjolnir is more durable.

No, Jake was disagreeing with someone who used Nul's hammer as proof in regards to Mjolnir....you then claimed what happened to Nul's hammer was proof that he could break Mjolnir.

The burden is on you.

Originally posted by DarkSaint85
Which magic characters have made more durable items when weaker?

Tech, I can see. But as crafting magical items is meant to be a manifestation of their power, a weaker magical character shouldn't be crafting more durable items than a more powerful magic user.

Odin didn't craft Mjolnir. He only enchanted it.

Originally posted by h1a8
I say it does mean he can break Mjolnir though.

Where is your proof?