Starmantle Cloak interaction

[Shnigda]

Hey guys,
While reading another forum post, someone brought up that while inside a Persistent Selective AMF (created by yourself) and wearing a Starmantle Cloak, if you are attacked by a weapon that would normally be magical (but isn't currently due to the AMF), that weapon would be destroyed.
However, I am not sure that I completely agree with this. Surely the weapon is still inherently magical and therefore would not break (though would have no effect while attacking the Starmantle Cloak due to the magics being temporarily disabled).
What are your thoughts? Would the weapon break, would the weapon do have no effect but remain intact, or something else entirely?

EDIT: Question clarification due to idiocy

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

The post in question (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?410245-How-can-they-nerf-you-Can-we-count-the-ways#5).

Antimagic Field (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/antimagicField.htm): "An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it."

Rules Compendium, page 11:

A magic weapon used to attack from inside an anti magic
area, or one used to attack a creature inside an antimagic
area, gains none of the benefits of its magic properties. Those
properties are suppressed because of the weapon’s interaction
with the antimagic area. If neither the attacker nor the
target is inside the antimagic area, the attack resolves normally
with reference to the weapon’s
magic properties.

My take on it is that if the caster of the Selective Antimagic Field has DR/Magic, and is struck by a magical weapon that's within the AMF, that weapon will not be considered a magical weapon and will not overcome your DR. Regardless of whether or not its bonuses or special properties apply, it's simply not magical when within the AMF, since being a magical weapon is one of the properties that's suppressed by the AMF.

[Shnigda]

That is all well and good, but supress is not the same as dispel. This means that the weapon is still inherently magical (even though it has none of its magical effects active), no?
This would mean that the weapon would not break upon striking the Starmantle Cloak?
Or am I completely wrong? :P

[Werephilosopher]

That is all well and good, but supreme is not the same as dispel. This means that the weapon is still inherently magical (even though it has none of its magical effects active), no?
This would mean that the weapon would not break upon striking the Starmantle Cloak?
Or am I completely wrong? :P

It's still inherently magical, but from the text Biffoniacus_Furiou quoted, it "gains none of the benefits of its magic properties," presumably including the benefit of 'not breaking when striking someone wearing a Starmantle Cloak.'