Why does Voldemort (Novel) have 8-A?

[Phsccarvalho]

So... isn't this force field thing just in the movies? Like, from what I've heard, this force field protecting Hogwarts doesn't exist in the books.

So why does he have 8-A? Or am I wrong and it does exist in the books?

Voldemort

Tom Marvolo Riddle, better known as Voldemort, You-Know-Who, or He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, is the leader of the Death Eaters and considered by many to be the greatest Dark Wizard of all time. Born through a Love Potion and descended from Salazar Slytherin, Voldemort used his immense power and...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Fantastic Beasts series are actually part of the primary canon unfortunately.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Fantastic Beasts series are actually part of the primary canon unfortunately.

But what does this have to do with it? Isn't this feat done in the Deathly Hallows movie?

 

[Random-Helper323]

It seems strange to have separate profiles for Novel and Film when both use the same feats and Tiers.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

But what does this have to do with it? Isn't this feat done in the Deathly Hallows movie?

Nvm then, not even sure unless it was something about "Movie being used for secondary canon purposes."

It seems strange to have separate profiles for Novel and Film when both use the same feats and Tiers.

That's a fair point considering while the films are different canon, they tend to be quite similar feat wise and there is slightly different story details and what not.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

Nvm then, not even sure unless it was something about "Movie being used for secondary canon purposes."

But aren't the Harry Potter films (not Fantastic Beasts) very different from the books in several ways?

Like the Death Eaters flying without using broomsticks in the films (something that doesn't happen in the book, as far as I know), and that huge force field, which, as far as I know, doesn't exist in the books. Plus other minor things like Harry destroying the Elder Wand in the films, while that doesn't happen in the film.

Why are the HP movies used as secondary canon when several things contradict what happened in the books?

I'm not talking about the Fantastic Beasts films, but HP.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

But aren't the Harry Potter films (not Fantastic Beasts) very different from the books in several ways?

Like the Death Eaters flying without using broomsticks in the films (something that doesn't happen in the book, as far as I know), and that huge force field, which, as far as I know, doesn't exist in the books. Plus other minor things like Harry destroying the Elder Wand in the films, while that doesn't happen in the film.

Why are the HP movies used as secondary canon when several things contradict what happened in the books?

I'm not talking about the Fantastic Beasts films, but HP.

It is vastly different yes, and feats exclusive to the films that simply never happened in the book will indeed NOT apply to Book characters. But it's similar to how we treat Anime adaptations of manga verses, where feats that happened in the OG manga that the Anime adds flavor/context to can have side things such as cinematic time frames used and what not. We can do the same here, if a feat happens in the book, but the film assists with things like cinematic timeframes or volume/area of what was effected, they could be used.

I believe that was more or less the overall conclusion.

 

[Phsccarvalho]

It is vastly different yes, and feats exclusive to the films that simply never happened in the book will indeed NOT apply to Book characters. But it's similar to how we treat Anime adaptations of manga verses, where feats that happened in the OG manga that the Anime adds flavor/context to can have side things such as cinematic time frames used and what not. We can do the same here, if a feat happens in the book, but the film assists with things like cinematic timeframes or volume/area of what was effected, they could be used.

I believe that was more or less the overall conclusion.

But that's what I'm talking about.

up to Multi-City Block level with more powerful spells (Destroyed Hogwarts' forcefield with a wand that rejected him and after having most of his Horcruxes destroyed, though the effort exhausted him), several of his spells ignore conventional durability

The novel Voldemort has this as 8-A, which is him destroying the Hogwarts force field.

But from what I know (I could be wrong if someone points it out) this simply doesn't exist in the books. So why is a feat exclusive to the movie being used in the book's profile?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, not even sure why it's even used. And someone else made a content revision for Dumbledore, it was being questioned if his magic even got weaker than his younger self; only physical strength. And the proposal was just for book Voldemort to be scaled to the Low 7-C+ feat that happened in the Fantastic Beasts films instead of the 8-A feat if that one was film exclusive.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Voldemort should downscale from Dumbledore. Also, didn't Voldemort have some fog feat or something?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Voldemort should downscale from Dumbledore. Also, didn't Voldemort have some fog feat or something?

That was Dumbledore who did the feat and was equal with Grindelwald. But Voldemort is stated to be even more power than Grindelwald, and there were disagreements about Dumbledore being "Weaker" than he was in his youth. While his physical strength depleting due to old age sounds reasonable, there was no evidence his magic got weaker; and if anything, the opposite was true. I believe it was this thread was where it was all discussed.

 

[Random-Helper323]

That was Dumbledore who did the feat and was equal with Grindelwald. But Voldemort is stated to be even more power than Grindelwald, and there were disagreements about Dumbledore being "Weaker" than he was in his youth. While his physical strength depleting due to old age sounds reasonable, there was no evidence his magic got weaker; and if anything, the opposite was true. I believe it was this thread was where it was all discussed.

If Voldemort was stronger than Grindelwald, then I guess we have to look at how much Dumbledore struggled against Grindelwald. I can't claim to have seen the Beasts movies, so I don't know. To be honest, I don't want to see them.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

If Voldemort was stronger than Grindelwald, then I guess we have to look at how much Dumbledore struggled against Grindelwald. I can't claim to have seen the Beasts movies, so I don't know. To be honest, I don't want to see them.

Tbh, I think both movies are terrible. But it's important to note Grindelwald had the Elder Wand and Dumbledore did not. But despite that, their powers where equal. But Dumbledore did have the better mind, and taking the Elder Wand as a result of his victory did make him grow even more powerful.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Tbh, I think both movies are terrible.

I thought there were three. Some unimportant dude lets his animals loose and has to catch them before PETA catches him, some stuff about Dumbledore or whatever, then Grindelwald gets fired and some crappy movie gets made.

But it's important to note Grindelwald had the Elder Wand and Dumbledore did not. But despite that, their powers where equal. But Dumbledore did have the better mind, and taking the Elder Wand as a result of his victory did make him grow even more powerful.

Yes, it seems to me that the Elder Wand is overrated. It's obviously an AP boost, but it seems it adds rather than multiplies power, and the power it brings is inferior to Dumbledore and Voldemort. Weapons like that are pretty common; they seem powerful when the weapon is stronger than or comparable to the wielder, but when the wielder is stronger by far the weapon becomes a drop in the bucket.

Honestly, even if Dumbledore is weaker later, if his younger self had trouble against Grindelwald and Voldemort was stronger, and meanwhile Grindelwald had always been wielding the Elder Wand, Voldemort likely downscales from Dumbledore.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Never said it was overwhelmingly stronger, but it's the strongest wand none of the less. But I think we're more or less on the same page when it comes to the three of them being on the same ballpark.

 

[Random-Helper323]

Never said it was overwhelmingly stronger, but it's the strongest wand none of the less.

Strongest wand, yes, but characters keep acting as if just using it makes you invincible, when that is demonstrably not the case. It's a boost that is still manageable in-universe, not an instant win.

But I think we're more or less on the same page when it comes to the three of them being on the same ballpark.

I think Dumbledore is definitely the best. Where's the statement about Voldemort being better than Grindelwald though? Different statements disagree on which is stronger.