Xilizhra wrote...
Okay, I looked at the Codex I was paraphrasing. It says nothing about whether or not a typical abomination is more like the mindless brutes that don't even merit having their names in yellow, or more like Uldred or Connor. All it says is that they're responsible for some of the worst cataclysms in history, one will attempt to create more, and entire squads have been known to fall to them. It doesn't say which of us is closer to correct about how strong they are on average, though since my point was that even one abomination is potentially incredibly dangerous, I think it backs up my point pretty well.
The codex doesn't have to tell you, you can see it with your own eyes.
Actually, you can't. The fluff makes clear that abominations are, on average, much more powerful than the ones the Wardens face. My speculation was on how much more on average.
Powerful abominations are quite rare. And even Connor wasn't all that powerful in person, he could just conjure a lot of skeletons.
Because he created more possessed creatures. That
is one of the dangers I mentioned. Besides, Connor was still ridiculously broken compared to, say Ser Perth. The Redcliffe thing would have ended even worse if the Warden wasn't there.
One abomination is potentially incredibly dangerous, but only in the same way that a nuclear reactor could explode at any time: it seems intuitively likely and is technically possible, but actual disasters are very rare.
Nuclear explosions are rare because we know how to prevent them. Abominations are the same way.
Modifié par Riverdaleswhiteflash, 30 octobre 2012 - 02:43 .