Sauron vs Voldemort

[Ditto]

Deadmeat, that sarcasm was extremely illustrative and helpful. [/sarcasm]

Again, I did not say magic cannot be blocked. Look, I'll do it again. Here's Dehro's quote. (You didn't say it, WG, not pointing this at you. )

on the other side you have a demi-god who by constitution and definition is impervious to all of the magic that could be thrown at him by the HP universe...

Here's my response.

Certain creatures are immune to certain things; my statement was perhaps imprecise. There is no such thing as INHERENTLY, COMPLETELY immune to ALL magic in HP.

I did not say there is no way for Sauron to block magic fire or stunners or AK. I said there is no way that he is 'automatically untouchable by these magics, just because', which is what Dehro said. Does that track? Am I being egregiously vague when I say that there's no such thing as total magic immunity?

Transparency - Sauron can use all the will-based magic he wants. Since we have will-based magic within the HP folio, we have a means to compare those two.
-Since LOTR magic can be countered with force of will, Voldemort or whoever would have to counter-think at Sauron as he tried to materialize a lightning bolt. (That's probably going to end poorly for Voldemort.) Thankfully, losing that contest won't be an issue because Sauron won't have a target in place long enough to shoot.
-Since HP magic cannot be negated at onset - you cannot prevent a wand from 'firing' - you have to find another way to stop its nastiness from affecting you.
We see that Voldemort has effectively-no-way of countering Sauron's magic, and Sauron has no way of countering Voldemort's magic. I think that's fair, and fits the definitions of both systems.

The exact details are *terrifically* important, WG. What if Fred has a shield that absolutely blocks all magic attacks? You go behind him. Or a Shielding Helmet? You find a way to take it off of him. He resists spells through force of will? Use things that don't relate to will in any way - like, say, Wingardium Leviosa. Sauron stops magic from happening at its onset. That's how the battle of wills works. If I'm trying to make a fireball, boom, I've casted, but Sauron wants to counter me *now*, then that's not at all useful. Again, this counterspelling/resistance was always in a setting of direct conflict, where the opponent was forced to test himself/themselves against the will of Sauron. Not even close to the situation here.

And yes Rowan, I'll go ahead and say it anyway. AK, as a rule, *very explicitly* in its definition has no defense. The love shield, described as the most ancient and powerful kind of magic not available except in cases of true self-sacrifice and devotion, is the single huge exception to that rule. (The existance of an exception does not mean there's no such thing as the rule...) Further, hitting an invalid target (such as a rock or a Dementor) does not mean that the spell was blocked or has now found a defense against it. It means that when you have an AK bolt coming at you, there is no active defense that can prevent its effect from taking hold. You can try to avoid it, but you cannot stand there and take it.

I don't know why I never countercited this evidence that Sauron has a physical form as proof that he's mortal(-ish) like Gandalf:

'The form that he took was that of a man of more than human stature, but not gigantic.'

Unrefractive is a great word. Why d'you suppose everyone (this is my sources (Wikipedia, LOTR Wiki, Arda...) and common parlance) all say 'Gandalf died', instead of 'Gandalf was beaten to a pulp and revivified' or 'Gandalf was a shadow of his former self' or any of that?

Saying Sauron can 'block' rather than 'counterspell' effects may well be accurate, but he still has to do so in some tangible way - block implies a physical defense, as I read it.
Also - Sauron has shown that he is good at blocking magic directed at him. I still like burying him or scooping the ground out from under him or hitting him with swords or any of those things that do not use magic *at* Sauron.

Orcs are more experienced as a conventional army, yes. They're not fighting a conventional war, so that point counts for rather less. In the war that's being fought, wizards are far more effective combatants. A wizard will never have to outrun an orc or defeat him at arm-wrestling, so that's likewise immaterial - though he could, with a broom // an Engorgement Charm or a Strengthening Solution/Charm or...

Voldemort *did* remain at large for 30 years. He took 13 years to come back. He then effectively neutralized the country's government one year after his presence became known. I wouldn't call that 'rushing forward blindly', I'd call that 'efficient'.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that if the ants/orcs don't tie up and candy-coat the man/wizard, ants/orcs are still in a lot of trouble. I think I missed that metaphor.

'Rectal imagery' is also a wonderful phrase... I'm mounting it up there with 'Testicular fortitude'.
This has been steadily peeling the arguments away from 'Sauron obviously wins', then to 'Sauron wins', then to 'Sauron wins because his army is huge', to to to... and at this point, we're talking about 'Sauron wins because he, Sauron himself, can do XYZ'. Something is definitely moving in the debate...