[HPforGrownups] Re: Dual-core wands? (was Elder Wand ownership (was Dual-core wands?))

[Lee Kaiwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 181574

CJ:
> wand strength seems to be cumulative...

Colleen:

> I still think that somehow there is a relationship between the
> strength of the wizard and the strength of the wand. Otherwise, those
> that were the most wealthy could buy the most powerful wands

Or, presuming dueling skill is recognized as a form of strength, the 
best dueler would end up both owning and mastering a boatload of magic 
sticks.

Which brings up another point. Clearly, there *is* a distinction between 
owning and mastering wands. Ollivander owns a lot of wands and everyone 
goes to him to buy theirs. But Ollivander is not the master of those 
wands, merely the owner.

Is there a mechanism in wizarding law that recognizes transfer of 
(legal) ownership as a function of mastering? Otherwise, though Harry is 
the new master of Draco's wand, Draco is still its owner and would, 
presumably, have the legal right to demand it back.

 > or as you mentioned, Hagrid could hold 20 wands and give LV a
 > run for his money.

Yet, even though wands do not work optimally for other than their 
masters, they still work. It would still seem that 20 
non-optimally-performing wands would outperform (at least brute 
force-wise) a wizard's own wand alone, as suggested by zgirnius:

zgirnius:
 > the common sense type answer that suggests itself to me is
 > loss of control.

Which suggests a both-and scenario. For brute force -- say, blasting 
through a door -- numbers matter more than affinity. For precision 
magical work, one requires one's own wand.  So carry your own wand, but 
make sure you always have two or three extra in your pocket for those 
more brutish needs.

Pippin:
 > People have to be measured carefully for their wands and
 > previously unowned wands may not readily respond to a
 > prospective owner. ... I can see wands being competitive
 > with each other and not wanting to work together

While it's true that the wand chooses the wizard, it's obviously not a 
monogamous relationship. We know, for example, at the end of DH that 
Harry was master of both the Elder Wand and his own.

Or imagine the Battle of Hogwarts under such circumstances: every time a 
wizard offs a DE, the wand in his hand suddenly stops working and he's 
forced to scramble for the wand of his vanquished foe.

So if, as it apparently is, it's possible for a wizard to be both owner 
*and* master of multiple wands simultaneously, then why not just march 
on down to Ollivander's and try every wand in the store until you've 
accumulated a pocketful of wands, all of which have chosen you?

And that brings me back to my original question: since wand strength 
seems to be cumulative, numbers (at least at times) trump affinity. 
However, what if the wizard is holding multiple wands all of which 
recognize him as master? With both strength and affinity backing him, 
such a wizard would seem unbeatable.

Carol:
 > Ron had already Disarmed and (effectively) defeated the
 > now-dead wormtail

Just one nit to pick: Ron simply disarmed, not Disarmed, Wormtail by 
grabbing the wand out of Wormtail's hand. Nevertheless, I think we must 
conclude that Wormtail's wand now recognized Ron as its new master, at 
least up until he was forced to relinquish it by Bellatrix.

And that leaves me with yet another question: what if a wizard is 
defeated while using a stolen or borrowed wand? Does the wand transfer 
allegiance anyway?

Oh, what a tangled web JKR weaves.

sister magpie:

 > do we know Draco was forced to specifically cast
 > Crucio? Because we've got this information that you
 > have to enjoy causing the person pain to do it

And what of Krum Cruciating Diggory in GoF while under the Imperius? Can 
you Imperius someone into enjoying causing pain?

CJ