PDA

View Full Version : Round 1: Link vs. King Arthur


The Doctor
09-08-2012, 11:59 AM
Round One

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj156/The-Freaking-Doctor/Battle%20Arena%20Tourney/Battle%20Zone%202012/link-vs-arthur.png

In this exciting first round matchup, the winner of last year's Humans Bracket goes toe-to-toe with a legend of yore. Can Link dig into his bag of tricks and take out the King? Will Arthur's ability prove to be too much for the Hero of Time? Who would win in a sword fight? It's time to find out!

FIGHT!

aza1294
09-08-2012, 06:32 PM
Link is pretty much an upgraded version of King Arthur,with alot more weapons and alot more techniques. Easy win

Justin Michaels
09-08-2012, 08:47 PM
Got to give this one to Link. The legendary hero of time has way more power and weapons than King Arthur.

Max Headroom
09-09-2012, 05:51 AM
Link wins this one by doing this one thing: Distance himself, light up a flaming arrow, right through Arthur's heart it goes.

Gelgarin
09-09-2012, 05:32 PM
King Arthur has a magic scabbard that makes him completely immune to all conventional weapons and makes his wounds fail to bleed and immediately close themselves up. Link fights almost exclusively with conventional weapons and requires multiple blows to put down any foe more threatening than a hedge.

King Arthur is chosen and protected by almighty God. Link is chosen and protected by a bunch of almost totally useless faeries.

If you voted Link then you are a deluded fanboy and probably a holocaust denier.

kcoe24
09-09-2012, 11:13 PM
Links attack's don't deal out the damage they should it usally takes a good 3 sword chops to even take down a lowly goblin. However link does get to take alot of damage before dying to. But i'm going to give a slight edge to king Arthur

And one of links big advantages is his helper (which ever one it is) but they only seem to help after link's already died once, and there is no second life in this tournament.

Shotaro
09-10-2012, 02:55 AM
King Arthur has a magic scabbard that makes him completely immune to all conventional weapons and makes his wounds fail to bleed and immediately close themselves up. Link fights almost exclusively with conventional weapons and requires multiple blows to put down any foe more threatening than a hedge.

King Arthur is chosen and protected by almighty God. Link is chosen and protected by a bunch of almost totally useless faeries.

If you voted Link then you are a deluded fanboy and probably a holocaust denier.

Link was chosen by the gods of his world also so that's that argument right out of the window, combined with the fact that Link has always been able to carry four potions of health or carrying fairies in those bottles which can heal him back to full strength immediately upon death. Link also has a magic sword and carries a small armies worth of munitions including but not limited to
Bow and Arrow
Boomerang *
Bombs
Slingshot
The Ocarina of Time (with songs that allow him to travel in time, change from day to night, call rain and lots of other things)
Masks that protect him from Fire, allow him to breathe underwater and again many others
The Mirror Shield which is powerful enough to reflect magicOh yeah as well as ALL of that he also has the Master Sword, which is pretty much the same as Excalibur and you end up with a parallel of King Arthur himself with a far more intricate and complex arsenal of weaponry.


Also Link can do magic, how does Arthur defend himself against an arrow of pure light? How about fire arrows or ice arrows?


Call me a holocaust denier all you want but it won't change the fact that Link vs King Arthur is as one sided as a fight between a guy with a rocket launcher and a comatose quadriplegic.

Барбоса
09-10-2012, 04:56 AM
This should be a hell of a lot closer than it is for the reasons that Gelgarin pointed out. Despite recent attempts to cut through the embellished stories surrounding him, if it is assumed that we are dealing with the mythical Arthur, the man who was ordained by the Almighty to not only receive Excalibur and protect England but to also conquer virtually all of Europe, then we are dealing with an extremely powerful individual.

On the other hand, while there are plenty of fanboys who will vote for the likes of Link without thinking, the entity that repeatedly manifests itself as the Hero of Time has not only a magic satchel of almost endless weaponry but also a scary array of divinely inspired powers of healing, attack, transformation and even time manipulation.

A close contest.

Shotaro
09-10-2012, 05:06 AM
This should be a hell of a lot closer than it is for the reasons that Gelgarin pointed out. Despite recent attempts to cut through the embellished stories surrounding him, if it is assumed that we are dealing with the mythical Arthur, the man who was ordained by the Almighty to not only receive Excalibur and protect England but to also conquer virtually all of Europe, then we are dealing with an extremely powerful individual.

On the other hand, while there are plenty of fanboys who will vote for the likes of Link without thinking, the entity that repeatedly manifests itself as the Hero of Time has not only a magic satchel of almost endless weaponry but also a scary array of divinely inspired powers of healing, attack, transformation and even time manipulation.

A close contest.

Indeed, in a straight up sword fight, I'd say Link wouldn't stand a chance. But once you add in all of the rest of Link's abilities and tools and compare them to King Arthur's it gives Link a considerable edge, in this context that is the difference maker.

Gelgarin
09-10-2012, 09:08 AM
King. Arthur's. Scabbard. Protected. Him. From. All. Harm.

He literally could not be wounded when it was in his possession, and as the resting place for Excalibur it was unable to be damaged, preventing all of those disarmament theories that you'll try and spit out to justify your fanboyism.

My argument is that Arthur wins because stabbing him repeatedly in the chest wouldn't work. Your counter argument: "but Link has a bow and arrow, a slightshot and a fucking boomerang." Do I actually have to explain why that is ridiculous? As for arrows made of pure light; if they are made of pure light then they are not going to do anything since that's not how light works.

King Arthur is the closest thing to an indestructible character this tournament has. The only reason the character of myth died was because he took it upon himself to fuck his own sister (thus losing his scabbard, angering God and setting into motion the events leading to the rise of Mordred). Unless Link's menagerie of tools includes Morgan le Fey then he has no prospect of victory.

Sadly Arthur wasn't the star of a video game and will therefor lose out on the blind fanboy vote.

Shotaro
09-10-2012, 09:18 AM
King. Arthur's. Scabbard. Protected. Him. From. All. Harm.

He literally could not be wounded when it was in his possession, and as the resting place for Excalibur it was unable to be damaged, preventing all of those disarmament theories that you'll try and spit out to justify your fanboyism.

My argument is that Arthur wins because stabbing him repeatedly in the chest wouldn't work. Your counter argument: "but Link has a bow and arrow, a slightshot and a fucking boomerang." Do I actually have to explain why that is ridiculous? As for arrows made of pure light; if they are made of pure light then they are not going to do anything since that's not how light works.

King Arthur is the closest thing to an indestructible character this tournament has. The only reason the character of myth died was because he took it upon himself to fuck his own sister (thus losing his scabbard, angering God and setting into motion the events leading to the rise of Mordred). Unless Link's menagerie of tools includes Morgan le Fey then he has no prospect of victory.

Sadly Arthur wasn't the star of a video game and will therefor lose out on the blind fanboy vote.

Some cursory research tells me that he could be wounded but he either a) couldn't die of blood loss or b) can't bleed - unless there is another form of his scabbard that I can't find so easily?

(I admit to using Wikipedia as a source here hence why I am asking but for fictional characters it's usually correct - I wouldn't research maths or science on there but for stuff like this I'd say it was fine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excalibur#Attributes)

That's very different to being immune to all types of damage, Link has Bombs, which I notice you excluded, Bomb's rarely kill people in the blast radius from blood loss unless it's a very small bomb, Links can blow holes in rock walls.

I understand your argument, I really do, and in a straight up swordfight as I've already said Link is a kebab. This isn't a straight forward sword fight and Link can use everything in his arsenal against King Arthur, Link could blow King Arthur up, or use his hookshot(s) to move effortlessly away until Arthur tires and Link can roll in behind and decapitate him. The light arrows may not do anything but what of Fire and Ice arrows? Arthur wears faceless armour in a lot of depictions I have seen, Link is not a slouch with a bow, an Arrow to the eye has killed before and has bugger all to do with loss of blood. Also remember incapacitation is all that's needed, Link doesn't need to kill Arthur to defeat him, even if he cannot be harmed Link could use the hookshots to immobilise him or blow a big ass hole in the ground that Arthur cannot climb out of.

One Punch Doug Crashin
09-10-2012, 09:58 AM
King. Arthur's. Scabbard. Protected. Him. From. All. Harm.

He literally could not be wounded when it was in his possession, and as the resting place for Excalibur it was unable to be damaged, preventing all of those disarmament theories that you'll try and spit out to justify your fanboyism.

My argument is that Arthur wins because stabbing him repeatedly in the chest wouldn't work. Your counter argument: "but Link has a bow and arrow, a slightshot and a fucking boomerang." Do I actually have to explain why that is ridiculous? As for arrows made of pure light; if they are made of pure light then they are not going to do anything since that's not how light works.

King Arthur is the closest thing to an indestructible character this tournament has. The only reason the character of myth died was because he took it upon himself to fuck his own sister (thus losing his scabbard, angering God and setting into motion the events leading to the rise of Mordred). Unless Link's menagerie of tools includes Morgan le Fey then he has no prospect of victory.

Sadly Arthur wasn't the star of a video game and will therefor lose out on the blind fanboy vote.



I agree with all of this. Especially the blind fanboy part. Really? King Arthur will destroy Link. Why? one word. Scabbard. If you fanboys can just get off your fanboy high horse and THINK for a minute, you would realize that Link is no match for Arthur.

Барбоса
09-10-2012, 11:11 AM
Even if Arthur's weapons make him invulnerable, in terms of physical strength, he is still a man and because of that I think that Link still has a chance at an incapacitating victory.

The numerous types of bombs that Link has could bury Arthur in rubble that he would be unable to escape from. I also think that Link is capable of disarming Arthur with any number of his tools - hookshot/clawshot, boomerang, bombs, Beetle, whip. Relieved of Excalibur, Carnwennan and Rhongomyniad, Arthur's chances of victory decrease.

Even armed with Excalibur, I would not discount the power of the Master Sword, although I do agree that Arthur would be much the better duellist given tha he is an experienced fighter whilst in almost every instance the Hero of Time is an inexperienced, if overly resourceful, child/teen and perhaps it is this experience edge that gives the King victory.

Gelgarin
09-10-2012, 11:57 AM
I'm drawing from the Post-Vulgate cycle which simply states that the scabbard renders Arthur invincible and Excalibur capable of cutting through anything (an accolade never visited upon the master sword, so in a clash of blades Arthur wins). Since the arguments for Link seem predicated on the fact that you can pick and chose abilities from about fifteen different and canonically separate characters, I could equally claim the sword has the ability to blind foes with the light of God, parry any attack and protect Arthur from sorcerers considerably more accomplished than Link.

Can I also point out that, across almost every Zelda game, Link's bombs have never failed to suck ass. They have an almost non-existent explosive force, being just about capable of taking out pots and sandstone and very little else.

They don't bring down buildings, they don't bring down ceilings and they don't incapacitate people. They're typically displayed as having insufficient explosive force to cripple a Moblin, let alone an effective immortal.

In addition; most iterations of Link have little to no experience engaging against fellow human foes whilst Arthur's expertise are almost universally tailored towards slaughtering his fellow man. In the Zelda games where human enemies have been a major component (and I can think of Link to the Past and Minish Cap off the top of my head) Link has shown no propensity for dealing with his adversaries in any of the ways you've listed, instead just jabbing at them with his sword. You're trying to force skills and proficiencys on him that he doesn't display in the games, as well as knowledge that there's no reason for him to have.

Also; 'just a man' or not (and the answer is quite emphatically not), Arthur was quite capable of killing an armed giant bare handed, so the idea that Link wins by dues-ex-machinaing his sword away doesn't hold up the scrutiny.

The best argument presented for Link is that Doug Crashin is voting against him, but the law of large numbers suggests that he had to be right sooner or later.

Барбоса
09-10-2012, 01:13 PM
There are plenty of examples of Link using the hookshot/clawshot, boomerang, Beetle or other tools in ways that would make them capable of disarming Arthur, whether it be removing Morpha's nucleus or pulling the Flare Dancer's core to you in Ocarina of Time or lifting random items from a distance in most of the games in the series after and including Link to the Past. I understand that these examples do not equate to a divinely-inspired, seasoned campaigner like Arthur but they suggest that Link is capable of disarming attacks.

However, I would point out that any of the tools/weaponry that Link has that could potentially disarm Arthur would take far too long for the Hero of Time to aim properly on a moving target, especially without the likes of Fi, Navi or Midna, who would in all likelihood be banned from taking part in the fight, to provide Z-targeting for him. Therefore, while Link was aiming the hookshot or directing Beetle to Arthur's sword arm, Arthur will have faded inside Link's guard and disembowelled the poor boy. I would also accept the criticism that Link's bombs are highly selective on what they destroy, peculiarly so.

The different incarnations of both Link and Arthur also bring up numerous problems. Depending on the retelling, Arthur can be imbued with what is essentially god-like invulnerability but then so can Link with his ultimate deus ex machina in the Fierce Deity Mask. Perhaps only in that situation could I see Link overpowering Arthur.

Silly Willy Nilly Vanilly in the Milly
09-10-2012, 02:40 PM
In a battle of swords, Arthur would take this easily. When it comes to magic, Link has the edge. Arthur's scabbard really gives him an edge, but he's still just a man, no?
I'll need more convincing for either side.