This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

My Little Pony Friendship Is Magic

1255256258260261297

Comments

  • Twilight wore a saddle in winter wrap up.

    The saddle Arabians should have been camels.
  • Arabian horses are pretty well renowned.
  • Arabian horses are pretty well renowned.
    I am well aware. However, it would have been a more consistent story if Equestria were the land of all ponies and the other lands had non-ponies, like Zecora.
  • edited December 2012
    But Zebras are much closer related to horses than camels to horses. You know, Zebras being a number of species of (african) horse, whereas camels being in a completely different family on the taxonomic tree. All sentient creatures that aren't straight out of fantasy novels (like sea serpents, dragons and griffins) seem to be of the family equidae.

    That is not to say that sentient camels shouldn't be in the show, and maybe I missed some other creature that has already been on the show which would fall into the Camelid family, but it doesn't exactly surprise that they aren't camels and in all likelihood they shouldn't be camels.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • How non-pony like does an animal have to be before it needs Fluttershy to take care of it?
  • How non-pony like does an animal have to be before it needs Fluttershy to take care of it?
    If it isn't an Equidae or something you could find in a DND sourcebook it probably needs pony care.
  • edited December 2012
    Hmm, my understanding is that all ungulates are intelligent enough to talk, as we've seen both cows and sheep speak. Whether those species are capable of forming societies when they're away from ponies is an interesting question. It would be pretty messed up if that were the case and they're being kept as quasi-slaves in Ponyville.

    As for the Arabian horses instead of camels, I suspect it was a response to criticism over making the analogs to Africans and native Americans completely different species in S1.
    Post edited by Nissl on
  • edited December 2012
    image

    image
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • Hey, did you know that dentists have discovered that you don't need to floss all your teeth?

    It turns out, you only need to floss the ones you want to keep ;^)
  • Something I expect Sonic will appreciate:
  • I approve, yes.
  • I don't get it.
  • Expeliarmus is the spell in Harry Potter that disarms one's opponent. In Latin it means "we banish."
  • Expeliarmus is the spell in Harry Potter that disarms one's opponent. In Latin it means "we banish."
    If such a spell exists, and can not be countered, there's literally no point in bringing any weapons into any battle.

    Then again, if the spell only works on one weapon at a time, you should come into battle with a fist-full of weapons that you can use simultaneously knowing that all of them will work, but one. But if everyone has this same strategy...
  • Does that spell work against a gun?

    If so, what if I have two guns?

    What if I have one gun with two barrels?
  • Does that spell work against a gun?

    If so, what if I have two guns?

    What if I have one gun with two barrels?
    What if it was just one guy with six guns?
  • edited December 2012
    What if it was six Geodudes?
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
  • What if it was six Geodudes?
    Can't lose.
  • Also, was Twilight's telekinetic pet display entertainment, or showing off Celestia's new weapons of war to a foreign power?
  • What if I have one gun with two barrels?
    image

  • Does that spell work against a gun?

    If so, what if I have two guns?

    What if I have one gun with two barrels?
    It's been shown to work against traditional weapons, but guns specifically haven't been tested. Further questions should really be directed at someone more versed in Harry Potter than me. I grew out of them in 3d or 4th grade.
  • Does that spell work against a gun?

    If so, what if I have two guns?

    What if I have one gun with two barrels?
    It's been shown to work against traditional weapons, but guns specifically haven't been tested. Further questions should really be directed at someone more versed in Harry Potter than me. I grew out of them in 3d or 4th grade.
    It never really came up since wizards always used wands and we never saw any Muggle with a gun. I'd imagine it'd still disarm a double-barreled gun, though its up in the air about holding two guns.
  • I read through all of the books once, and I can say that Expeliarmus and Stupidify are all you need to fight and beat anyone. I mean, seriously, Harry defeats Voldemort with Expeliarmus :^P it's OP
  • edited December 2012
    It always seemed silly to me that Defense Against the Dark Arts was it's own course. Once you know Expeliarmus and Avada Cadavra, what more do you need? Stupidify is nice, but optional.
    Post edited by Greg on
  • Re: Harry Potter stuffs - its been a while since I read any of the books, so someone more knowledgeable (or if someone just happens to remember something contradictory) is welcome to correct me.

    -That disarming spell basically makes you let go of anything you're holding, and then puts a little bit of kinetic force into the object(s) you were holding so that they go zooming away. So, I would assume it would work on guns. You might have to put more juice into it, just because guns weigh more than twigs.

    -Its usefulness declines somewhat once you go outside of fighting magical teenagers. In addition to not being able to disarm, say, a gryphon, or a swarm of poisonous flesh-eating fairies, various adults in the series were able to conjure magic without a wand. It's harder, but doable.

    -IIRC, in book...3??? A dude dual-wielding wands gets them both disarmed with one shot of that spell.

    -Other offensive spells, besides the disarming and stunning ones, can be useful, just for doing other things. Snape, IIRC, had a cutting (as in gaping-chest-wound-opening) spell that didn't have a visual tell to it - no big shining dodge-able laser like most spells have. That seems like it could have some utility.

    -Defense Against The Dark Arts wasn't only about teaching you the spells to use in a fight. It was also training so that you'd keep your head under pressure, as well as teaching you the knowledge about how to identify and deal with all the horrible monsters, curses, and miscellaneous child-flaying doohickeys that happen to be lying around the Harry Potter universe (and Australia) for whatever reason.

    Some monsters, for example, seem to have one very specific weakness that, if you aren't aware of it, you just lose, because they're arbitrarily immune to everything else. Boggarts, for instance, which can apparently just randomly come into existence in anyone's house, if you leave a small, dark, enclosed space undisturbed for long enough, will just murder you unless you know the one specific laughter spell that hurts them. That's the kind of esoteric shit everyone needs to know.

    For a non-monster example, IIRC, in book...4??? The Dark Arts teacher held a series of classes about how to identify that you're under mind control, how to fight against its influence, and what to do if you suspect/discover that someone else is under such influence. The class we get to see specifically covers that one illegal mind-slave spell, but consider that this is a world where any random teenager can legally obtain the ingredients to a love potion, and drug you into being their willing servant. That's the kind of shit I'd want to know about ASAP.
Sign In or Register to comment.