harry potter - What are the rules and limits of Accio spell? - Science . . . I mentioned in my answer regarding Hermione and Accio that the first instance of Accio that I could find is Mrs Weasley stripping the twins of their WWW products (in this case, ton-tongue toffees) She doesn't specify what she's Accio-ing but just says "Accio! Accio! Accio!" and confiscates the twins' items (Goblet of Fire - The Portkey)
Why didnt Hermione use Accio spell to get the correct key in . . . ‘Accio’ only works on inanimate objects While people or creatures may be indirectly moved by ‘Accio-ing’ objects that they are wearing or holding, this carries all kinds of risks because of the likelihood of injury to the person or beast attached to an object travelling at close to the speed of light J K Rowling's new website - FAQ
harry potter - How quickly do objects summoned by Accio fly? - Science . . . Accio can’t possibly Summon objects at close to the speed of light, despite JKR’s statement that they do For it to be true, objects Summoned by Accio would be traveling at a lethally dangerous speed m as well as invisible to the human eye, which clearly isn’t the case
Why couldnt Harry use Accio on the Golden Egg in Goblet of Fire? Accio'ing the Golden Egg just between the Dragon's legs would have been risky, as the Dragon would then be able to respond once it sees it going through their legs, or feels it moving, and react If it destroys the egg, you have no chance to complete the task, and if it destroys you, then there's nowhere for the Golden Egg to be Accio'd to
harry potter - How is Accio a safe spell? - Science Fiction Fantasy . . . Objects summoned by Accio don’t move anywhere near light speed, despite JKR’s statement They visibly move towards whoever Summoned them Objects traveling at light speed wouldn’t be visible to the human eye, so therefore, objects summoned by Accio cannot be moving near light speed
harry potter - Is there a reverse-Accio spell? - Science Fiction . . . furthermore, a counter-charm is specifically designed to undo or prevent the effects of an another spell Depulso may counter the effects of Accio by repelling the object, but doesn't necessarily put it back where it was –
harry potter - How can Newt cast Accio on a Niffler when it is only . . . Additionally, there are examples in the books of people using Accio on living things, such as Harry Accio'ing the toad he was practicing the silencing charm on As late as book 7, "Accio salmon" is successfully used, however, as the intent was to eat the salmon, there was no concern about killing the salmon with sudden g-forces
Can this inconsistency in the ability of the Summoning Charm (Accio) to . . . Accio is proven as working on creatures Though it’s true that there’s an inconsistency in that JKR said that creatures can’t be summoned by Accio, instances of it happening are clearly seen in both the books and the Fantastic Beasts movies, which JKR’s statement was referring to
harry potter - Why does Newt Scamander use Accio instead of . . . Accio makes sure that Newt gets the wand Expelliarmus is the Disarming spell It doesn't mean that you will automatically get your opponent's wand, it just means that they'll lose it, such as the wand flying out of their hand, and after that they can easily just regain it, as @R Skeeter said is the comments
Can a wizard Accio (Summoning Charm) the Elder Wand? “Accio wand!’ cried Hermione Harry’s wand flew from a dark corner into her hand and she threw it to him ” - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Chapter 35 (Beyond the Veil) However, items can be enchanted to prevent Accio from working on them “Oh, it could still be here, but under counter-enchantments,’ said Hermione