Actually, Aero, it wouldn't negate the momentum of the demon, but the demon wouldn't just glance off either.

It's more likely that the shield will pierce the demon, the demon will keep travelling forward, and Konrad and the demon will both end up dead. Konrad from massive demon corpse impacting him, and the demon from a chunk of rock tearing through its vitals.

It doesn't even have to hit the center of gravity. Just so long as it hits somewhere that isn't the edge of the demon's body. And even then, as that the demon isn't an immovable or indestructable object, it would probably tear up its flesh pretty good.

well yea, when part of an object decellerates rapidly then that would happen. Depends on how sturdy the demon is, how much is impacted, ect. I'm just saying its not like if its big toe hits the whole demon stops like PF seemed to be implying

You're a massive object hitting a degreeless object far smaller than yourself at speed.

You.

Will.

Die.

If I was running top speed at a pen, and the pen was not capable of moving (or being deformed), it would be like stabbing me with a pen going as fast as I was running. Only the pen would actually give in that situation, so the wounding effect would actually be greater as it isn't giving, nor deforming.

I wouldn't glance the pen if it were moving 360rad/sec to block my approach.

That said, I don't want to turn this into an argument over the immovable objects, but I'm not wrong, Aero.

PS: The Exalted comment was a response to Naquel's assertation that defense wins, not a representative sample of my opinion.

not if it hits like, your foot. Why would that kill you? Yes it would hurt, yes it would be nasty, and if moving fast enough it would even maim you. But its hardly fatal. Unless you deal with blood loss, but there are ways around that, like demons that dont bleed

Then I'd lose my foot. Or slew 360 degrees as my body tumbles from suddenly shifting cohesion of momentum. Most likely, I wouldn't be charging to hit someone with an extremity, unless it were a kick, in which case I would be directing force down the kick with intent to kill, and it would not glance.

Because let's face it, when you're charging at someone, you do NOT mean to glance. (Nor can you really graze something moving 360rad/sec. >_>)

well if you understand that then why say
you were the one that said motion would be entirely negated

Assuming the shield hits a non-glance surface and the target is sufficiently tough to avoid being grievously maimed, it *would* stop instantaneously.

That said, this wasn't meant to become an argument, Aerozord, so I'm ending it here.

((Edit, Down: Don't be absurd, Aerozord. In a direct kinetic attack agaisnt a shield maneuvering to perfect stop, you don't mean to glance. Any *realistic* surface of attack, if you must.))

ok, but you didn't say any part, which would include glancing. I was merely pointing out that the statement was incorrect when applied to non-direct hits. If you agree with me I dont see why its an arguement

Aero: Non-direct hits would not exist in this situation.

The shield moves at high speed to intercept any attack directly.

There's no such thing as a non-direct hit in such a situation, therefore there was absolutely no point in accounting for it.

ok, understandable. I was not aware it was assumed, my mistake