Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

ROTS Obi Wan Kenobi versus Blade, with a twist

Blade has only his sword. Obi Wan is armed with a phrik amphistaff, taken from one of Grievous's droid guards.

They are on Mustafar, and Obi Wan can use only his precog and force acrobatics, No offensive force powers (Force pull, force leap, etc.


To the death

Obi-Wan easy..... He has the high ground.

haermm I dont think it's that easy. Truth be told, I am sitting on the fence on this one right now.

Good thinking giving him the staff. If you gave him the saber it would go through Blades sword.

Making them think you are.. ahh

Well Blade is REALLY good with a sword but.. the force is a powerful think O.O If Kenobi has Precog I think he would win but just... Even with the Force acrobatics they only make him level if not a bit more then Blades own agility.

Did I mention that they can go h2h too?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Did I mention that they can go h2h too?
I dont remember Kenobi ever going H2H. but if that happens it would go to Blades favor a bit more. Im sure Blade is a better H2H fighter.

I wonder what effect the phrik staff would have on Blade if Obi Wan connects with it?

Probably like a Force Pike, just an electric shock, plus you're getting popped with a pink staff, so it hurts your pride and your body.

So would it be an incapacitating blow?

To your pride, yes.

To your body, it'll be like getting hit with a taser, enough to cause you to stop fighting, not in a jedi or Blade's case.

Damn, I made a pretty good thread haermm

Indeed. I'd have to say Blade takes it for two reasons.

He was shown fighting faster, and Obi-Wan has no skill with a staff, only a saber. Although, if he could switch his Soresu to the staff, Blade couldn't really touch him.

I would think that Obi Wan is well trained enough so that he could fight proficiently with a staff.

Yeah, true enough.

ill give it to blade because obiwan would be completely unfamiliar with the staff... he spent the majority of his jedi life training with a lightsaber and soresu... giving him a staff would be like giving an experienced fencer a battle axe.

Blade ftw

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
ill give it to blade because obiwan would be completely unfamiliar with the staff... he spent the majority of his jedi life training with a lightsaber and soresu... giving him a staff would be like giving an experienced fencer a battle axe.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I would think that Obi Wan is well trained enough so that he could fight proficiently with a staff.

i would disagree. theres a large difference between fighting with a sword and a staff. why would he train to fight with a staff when staffs make up an incredibly small amount of weapons used in the universe... itd make more sense for him to be good at using a gun as that is what he'll encounter the most in his life.

Obi Wan used a blaster and hit Grievous dead center with it, it's obvious he is trained enough to fight with a staff.

wut.

how are the two even connected?

Because Obi Wan used the blaster like an accomplished marksman.

yeah but i mean how does using a gun well translate into using a staff well?

Dude, it means he is well trained in use of any and all weaponry in the SW universe. Most, anyway.

how does having some training with the most common and widely used weapon in the entire universe mean hes trained in using a weapon that isnt nearly as common and used by almost no one?

A battle staff is used by almost no one?

how many people are seen using battle staffs in the movies compared to people using guns?

Not many, but I dont think thats relevant.

... why dont you think thats relevant?

I dunno...

ya got meh!

I just think, ya know, he's a Jedi and stuff.

yeah... im pretty sure thats what hayden christianson says when he begs directors for a role...

Indeed.

Didn't Obi-Wan use a staff in Ep. II at Geonosis?

Yeah haermm

I recall him using one of Grievous's body guards staffs as well but not sure.

Originally posted by snoopdogg
I recall him using one of Grievous's body guards staffs as well but not sure.

I'm pretty sure he did while he and Grievous was fighting in ep III.

There are enemy battle droids who use the staff as we have all seen. It would make sense that Jedi are trained in all kinds of weapons, not just the sword, in order to better understand and predict the next attack of said weapon.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi

Blade wins. Would have been more sensible to give Obi a sword and his Force powers.

I give it to Blade because his fights were shown to be faster than those of Star Wars.

The Mustafar duel was pretty fast paced.

Indeed, but the Blade/Frost fight, and the Drake/Blade fights wer elike blurs.

As was Grievous with four sabers.

Indeed, I forgot about that, Grievous awesome level went down after the cartoon when Windu crushed his lungs. Before that he was a beast.

Obi Wan made that shit look easy as pie. I was like wuuuuuuuuuuut?

Well he is the undisputed master of the most defensive of forms.

Mhm, which is why I think he wins this fight. Not easily, but that, and his sense of precog pwn in the end.

You have a point good sir.

It happens sometimes haermm

If it went hand to hand then Blade would win. His strength is far greater than Obi-wan's.

As for the weapons...Obi-wan does use one of the magna-guard's staffs briefly against Grievous but he doesn't seem particularly skilled with it. He just swings it like anyone else would.

Hard to say on h2h, Blade has incredible power, but Obi Wan has precog.

Weapons, Obi Wan hands down. You gotta remember, Blade's sword has been broken before.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Hard to say on h2h, Blade has incredible power, but Obi Wan has precog.

Weapons, Obi Wan hands down. You gotta remember, Blade's sword has been broken before.

He still got his several times by Grievous who doesn't have precog. Thus it doesn't prevent him from being hit. It just allows him to react faster than someone without a connection to the force.

So what if Blade's sword has been broken. That's completely irrelevant...The on-screen evidence shows him to be vastly more skilled with a sword than Obi-wan is with a staff.

Originally posted by jaden101
He still got his several times by Grievous who doesn't have precog. Thus it doesn't prevent him from being hit. It just allows him to react faster than someone without a connection to the force.

So what if Blade's sword has been broken. That's completely irrelevant...The on-screen evidence shows him to be vastly more skilled with a sword than Obi-wan is with a staff.

I was speaking of Obi Wan going against Grievous when Grievous had four sabers, how would Blade have fared there?

Obi Wan is a Jedi, surely he is trained well enough that fighting with a staff is no problem. Phrik metal pwns Blades sword, Blades sword shatters, Obi Wan seizes the advantage.

Well Phrik will defend against the sword easily enough, but it's not the hardness of the metal that allows it to counteract sabers. Phrik itself doesn't even have cutting capabilities, it's just it's energy frequencies block saber blades. Now if you made a phrik sword, then you've got something, and it probably would cut through Blade's sword.

Is Blade's sword solid silver, or just silver plated?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I was speaking of Obi Wan going against Grievous when Grievous had four sabers, how would Blade have fared there?

Obi Wan is a Jedi, surely he is trained well enough that fighting with a staff is no problem. Phrik metal pwns Blades sword, Blades sword shatters, Obi Wan seizes the advantage.

1: We're not speaking about Blade fighting Grievous.

2: Just because A beats B...B may beat C....doesn't mean that A automatically would beat C

3: You have absolutely no factual basis for saying that phrik metal is stronger or more durable than Blade's sword.

4: You can only go by what you see in the films...The proof is right there...Obi-wan doesn't look skilled with a staff.

Originally posted by jaden101
1: We're not speaking about Blade fighting Grievous.

2: Just because A beats B...B may beat C....doesn't mean that A automatically would beat C

3: You have absolutely no factual basis for saying that phrik metal is stronger or more durable than Blade's sword.

4: You can only go by what you see in the films...The proof is right there...Obi-wan doesn't look skilled with a staff.

I was using Blade against Grievous as an example, Obi Wan went against him and won, Blade would get pwned. Yes, I know just because Obi Wan beat him doesnt mean he would beat Blade.

Dude, Phrik metal is lightsaber resistant, Blade sword was broken twice. Do the math.

In the Genosis battle, Obi Wan picked up a spear and used it proficiently, even threw it several feet into that beats chest. The point is he is a Jedi, and to think he is trained to fight only with a saber is just stupid. He also force pulled ablaster and used it like Han Solo and shit. Logic points towards him being trained to use a wide array of weaponry.

And your point was initially that in hand to hand, Obi wan has precog an...insd Blade does not..insinuating that it'd allow him to win. Despite the fact that him having precog didn't stop him getting the shit kicked out of him by grievous when they went hand to hand and Grievous doesn't have precog.



It's not lightsabre resistant because it's a tough metal though is it? It's resistant because of the way it disipates electrical energy from the sabre. So that had absolutely no bearing on how it would react to hitting or being hit by another metal.



I'm not assuming anything. The evidence is shown on the screen. He swings the staff like any other untrained person would. So applying logic to what you think he might or might not be trained in is unneccesary.

Originally posted by jaden101
And your point was initially that in hand to hand, Obi wan has precog an...insd Blade does not..insinuating that it'd allow him to win. Despite the fact that him having precog didn't stop him getting the shit kicked out of him by grievous when they went hand to hand and Grievous doesn't have precog.



It's not lightsabre resistant because it's a tough metal though is it? It's resistant because of the way it disipates electrical energy from the sabre. So that had absolutely no bearing on how it would react to hitting or being hit by another metal.



I'm not assuming anything. The evidence is shown on the screen. He swings the staff like any other untrained person would. So applying logic to what you think he might or might not be trained in is unneccesary.

Dude, Grievous was made of metal, BAD example.

I'm not gonna get into the semantics of phrik, you wanna debate that, pm Dadudemon.

Obi Wan swung the staff while holding onto Grievous's speeder thingie, AND while dodging blasterfire. focus on the spear and the blaster. He picked them up and used them like a pro. Think about this: What if I said "Riddick pwns with knives, but he is shit woth a sword, because we never SEE him with a sword." How stupid would that be?

He fought using the the staff not only on the speeder after grabbing it from Grievous but also on the platform towards the end of the fight.

Your analogy is shit because you do actually see Obi wan use a staff...and he's not good with it.



How is it a bad example. The only time him being made of metal came into play was when Obi wan kicked him and injured himself. The point is OBI WAN WAS BEING HIT...MEANING HIS PRECOG DID JACK SHIT TO PREVENT THAT...MEANING BLADE (BEING FASTER THAN GRIEVOUS) WOULD EASILY BE ABLE TO HIT HIM.

If you're insinuating that because Grievous is made of metal, that force precog wouldn't work as he wouldn't have any midichlorians for Obi wan's force ability to read then you're surely aware that Grievous is only a metal skeleton over an organic body?

Speed kills and i believe Obi Wan has the speed advantage here

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Speed kills and i believe Obi Wan has the speed advantage here

Not with a staff he doesn't.

Originally posted by jaden101
He fought using the the staff not only on the speeder after grabbing it from Grievous but also on the platform towards the end of the fight.

Your analogy is shit because you do actually see Obi wan use a staff...and he's not good with it.



How is it a bad example. The only time him being made of metal came into play was when Obi wan kicked him and injured himself. The point is OBI WAN WAS BEING HIT...MEANING HIS PRECOG DID JACK SHIT TO PREVENT THAT...MEANING BLADE (BEING FASTER THAN GRIEVOUS) WOULD EASILY BE ABLE TO HIT HIM.

If you're insinuating that because Grievous is made of metal, that force precog wouldn't work as he wouldn't have any midichlorians for Obi wan's force ability to read then you're surely aware that Grievous is only a metal skeleton over an organic body?

I'll watch the scene later, to be honest it's been a while.

I am insinuating that Grievous's hits were almost impossible to block, and any hit Obi wan lands on him is gonna do shit. I know how force precog works, sir, calm down.

No. You were insinuating the Obi wan's precog would prevent him from getting hit from Blade...It didn't against another non-force opponent...It won't against Blade.

Blade connects...Obi wan loses.

Originally posted by jaden101
Not with a staff he doesn't.

Why not? He has bested some of the greatest swordsman in space. I'm sure he can dodge Blades attacks long enough until he finds an opening or disarms him and uses Blades Katana against him.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Why not? He has bested some of the greatest swordsman in space. I'm sure he can dodge Blades attacks long enough until he finds an opening or disarms him and uses Blades Katana against him.

Clearly not been reading the rest of the thread then?

He didn't dodge Grievous when he had no lightsabre and it was hand to hand

I think you're also forgetting something about Blade's sword.

Didn't Obi Wan kick Grievous' ass? I remember that Grievous couldn't down Obi Wan with four light sabers. Also, doesn't Grievous' staff have lasers and shit on the tip?

I'm sure Obi Wan would sense Blades Katana trap. Either way, i think Obi Wan is to fast for Blade.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Didn't Obi Wan kick Grievous' ass? I remember that Grievous couldn't down Obi Wan with four light sabers. Also, doesn't Grievous' staff have lasers and shit on the tip?

I'm sure Obi Wan would sense Blades Katana trap. Either way, i think Obi Wan is to fast for Blade.

Cheap shot to the heart doesn't equate to kicking ass. But if it works, it works.

Grievous couldn't down Obi wan when Obi wan had a sabre...In this fight, he doesn't have a sabre. When it went down to h2h, Grievous did kick Obi wans ass. Even when Obi wan has a staff.

And no...They don't have lasers...They have electrical charges.

Regardless of whether or not Kenobi could sense the weapon's trap (although quite how you go about "sensing" an inanimate object with the force is beyond me) your point was that he could use the sword against Blade...Fact is he couldn't because he wouldn't be able to pick it up without setting off the trap.

Obi Wan tore Grievous' chest apart and was then kicked over a ledge. There were many things Obi Wan could have done when Grievous was marching towards him but the blaster just happened to be the quickest and smartest move. Grievous was nothing but a little sissy. The only thing he did in that movie was run away and get killed. He had nothing on Obi Wan. Cheap shot to the heart...,please lol

Whether or not Obi Wan can use Blades Katana is besides the point to me. I don't see Blade getting a killing blow on Obi Wan. This fight will go on until Blade gets angry and we all know what happens to Obi Wans Enemies when they get angry and embrace the dark side of the force lol

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
Obi Wan tore Grievous' chest apart and was then kicked over a ledge. There were many things Obi Wan could have done when Grievous was marching towards him but the blaster just happened to be the quickest and smartest move. Grievous was nothing but a little sissy. The only thing he did in that movie was run away and get killed. He had nothing on Obi Wan. Cheap shot to the heart...,please lol

Whether or not Obi Wan can use Blades Katana is besides the point to me. I don't see Blade getting a killing blow on Obi Wan. This fight will go on until Blade gets angry and we all know what happens to Obi Wans Enemies when they get angry and embrace the dark side of the force lol

So what else could he have done?...He tried using the staff and got beaten...He tried h2h and got beaten...He practically even admits it was a cheap shot by his "So uncivilised" comment about his use of the blaster.

Blade is easily fast enough to get blows on Kenobi...If Grievous was then Blade is by far.

why are we assuming greivous is slower then blade?

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
why are we assuming greivous is slower then blade?

We're not assuming anything...The proof is on screen in front of your eyes.

could you show it to me, please?

Go watch the fights...They're hardly difficult to find. I'm not going to spoon fight you like you're some slobbering retard.

it was kind of a subtle way of saying that nothing in the blade movies point to him being faster then greivous.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
it was kind of a subtle way of saying that nothing in the blade movies point to him being faster then greivous.

Exept for, of course, EVERY ONE OF HIS FIGHT SCENES.

i disagree. in fact i think his fight scenes show the opposite.

you can try to prove otherwise though if you want.

I don't have to. I'm right.

Originally posted by jaden101
No. You were insinuating the Obi wan's precog would prevent him from getting hit from Blade...It didn't against another non-force opponent...It won't against Blade.

Blade connects...Obi wan loses. I am insinuating that precog will go a long way helping Obi Wan avoid getting hit, not avoid altogether.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I am insinuating that precog will go a long way helping Obi Wan avoid getting hit, not avoid altogether.

Didn't really work all that well against Grievous did it?

Originally posted by jaden101
I don't have to. I'm right.

but youre not right.

though if you feel that youre unable to support your stance or at the least dont want to then feel free to stop replying to my posts, as all youre doing is trolling since you dont want to debate.

Originally posted by jaden101
Didn't really work all that well against Grievous did it? Lets see, who won that battle?

Yeah, we know. Did he win it by avoiding getting hit? No.

Do you really have some bizarre need to bring up pointless information throughout every single one of your "debates".

You're wrong...again....For once, save both of us the bother of having to post anymore and let your pride take a dent. Otherwise it'll end up like another one of your Bob Lee Swagger fellatio threads. (It already has ended up like that...i.e...with you losing...badly)

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
but youre not right.

though if you feel that youre unable to support your stance or at the least dont want to then feel free to stop replying to my posts, as all youre doing is trolling since you dont want to debate.

Might want to read back through the thread and see who's posted the most facts....Here's a clue...It's not you...and it is me.

Originally posted by jaden101
Yeah, we know. Did he win it by avoiding getting hit? No.

Do you really have some bizarre need to bring up pointless information throughout every single one of your "debates".

You're wrong...again....For once, save both of us the bother of having to post anymore and let your pride take a dent. Otherwise it'll end up like another one of your Bob Lee Swagger fellatio threads. (It already has ended up like that...i.e...with you losing...badly) Tell me, O Kilted one, how did Obi Wan avoid being hit by the four sabers?

Originally posted by jaden101
Might want to read back through the thread and see who's posted the most facts....Here's a clue...It's not you...and it is me.

none of those facts contradict my opinion except for grievous being slower then blade, which is something that you havent proved by any means. so feel free to do so. otherwise i dont see why you keep posting in here. saying im wrong over and over but not providing any support to that statement is trolling.

Well here it is peeps:

3XqKvKUTElA

From :45 to 1:18, Obi Wan shows his precog by avong Grievous's FOUR blindingly fast blades, lopping two of them off.

From 2:56 to 3:12, he DISARMS Grievous and uses the electrostaff against him.

From 3:29 to 3:40, he wields the electrostaff with the same efficiency as the Magna guards did.

Then at 4:23, five well placed blaster shots, all center mass.

Yeah, Obi Wan is good ONLY with a saber

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
none of those facts contradict my opinion except for grievous being slower then blade, which is something that you havent proved by any means. so feel free to do so. otherwise i dont see why you keep posting in here. saying im wrong over and over but not providing any support to that statement is trolling.

The fights in the films prove it. I don't see what other evidence you could possible need.

He was fast enough to stop someone hitting with a sword by trapping it between his palms. Strong enough to punch and kick people and vampires across the room. Fast enough to go blade to blade with a suped up Frost and still cut his arm off and then in half (regardless of his ability to regenerate). He is good enough to beat Drake. An version of Dracula...The most powerful Vampire to have existed in any vampire fiction.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Well here it is peeps:

3XqKvKUTElA

From :45 to 1:18, Obi Wan shows his precog by avong Grievous's FOUR blindingly fast blades, lopping two of them off.

From 2:56 to 3:12, he DISARMS Grievous and uses the electrostaff against him.

From 3:29 to 3:40, he wields the electrostaff with the same efficiency as the Magna guards did.

Then at 4:23, five well placed blaster shots, all center mass.

Yeah, Obi Wan is good ONLY with a saber

1: We're not talking about him using a sabre though are we? I mean seriously...This is your thread...I shouldn't even have to explain that to you.

2: On the back of a vehicle. Not in the middle of a h2h fight.

3: I think you really need to watch the part with the magnaguards again because if you think his few slow swings of the staff are as efficient as them then you're clearly deluded.

4: From about 10 feet away. Hardly an exceptional feat. Even original trilogy stormtroopers could manage that.

Um....When Drake transformed, Blade didnt have a chance.

Originally posted by jaden101
The fights in the films prove it. I don't see what other evidence you could possible need.

He was fast enough to stop someone hitting with a sword by trapping it between his palms. Strong enough to punch and kick people and vampires across the room. Fast enough to go blade to blade with a suped up Frost and still cut his arm off and then in half (regardless of his ability to regenerate). He is good enough to beat Drake. An version of Dracula...The most powerful Vampire to have existed in any vampire fiction.

i think greivous could do all those things.

when they fought i didnt see either of them moving faster then greivous with their swords.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i think greivous could do all those things.

when they fought i didnt see either of them moving faster then greivous with their swords.

Didn't see Deacon Frost moving faster than Grievous?

Clearly weren't watching then.

i think youre letting bias warp your sense of reality.

EDIT- hang on. i think im getting the bad guys confused.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Um....When Drake transformed, Blade didnt have a chance.

Except for the fact that he still won. If you're arguing for the way that Obi wan beat Grievous was skilled then the way Blade beat Drake and Frost was more so. And both of them were more powerful than Grievous.

You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
i think youre letting bias warp your sense of reality.

Bias in what way? I actually prefer the SW saga over the Blade trilogy. So i'm clearly being objective.

edited.

EDIT-

youre talking about this fight right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhZcPMdVKmc

the only time i see frost moving faster then greivous is that one burst of speed where he becomes invisible for a second.

are you thinking of another time with him?

Originally posted by jaden101
Except for the fact that he still won. If you're arguing for the way that Obi wan beat Grievous was skilled then the way Blade beat Drake and Frost was more so. And both of them were more powerful than Grievous.

You can't have it both ways. Blade pwning Frost was kinda cool, Blade pwning Drake was LAME.

Originally posted by jaden101
Regardless of whether or not Kenobi could sense the weapon's trap (although quite how you go about "sensing" an inanimate object with the force is beyond me)

It's quite simple. The sword is Blade's. He handles it frequently so he leaves a psychic imprint on it. This imprint is what a Jedi would sense.

Originally posted by jaden101
your point was that he could use the sword against Blade...Fact is he couldn't because he wouldn't be able to pick it up without setting off the trap.

Actually he could. The Force would show him the 'correct' way to hold the grip so as not to trigger the trap.

Originally posted by jaden101
I dont remember Kenobi ever going H2H.

He fought H2H against Jango Fett in AotC and did so briefly against Anakin in RotS.

Originally posted by chilled monkey
It's quite simple. The sword is Blade's. He handles it frequently so he leaves a psychic imprint on it. This imprint is what a Jedi would sense.



Actually he could. The Force would show him the 'correct' way to hold the grip so as not to trigger the trap. Aha Good stuff.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Blade pwning Frost was kinda cool, Blade pwning Drake was LAME.

And Obi wan beating Grievous was....???

A cheap shot...Or as you would put it..."lame"




Where exactly is your evidence for that?



And where exactly is your evidence for that too?

Talk about clutching at straws to make an argument...

Originally posted by jaden101

Where exactly is your evidence for that?



And where exactly is your evidence for that too?

Ask and ye shall receive:-

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Psychometry

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Aha Good stuff.

Thanks.

thats a non movie force power. N/A.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
thats a non movie force power. N/A.

Star War is more than just the movies. Besides, there's nothing in the movies to contradict it.

Originally posted by Jaden101
Except for the fact that he still won

True, but only due to Abigail's aid.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
thats a non movie force power. N/A. It's a SW wiki link, completely valid here.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It's a SW wiki link, completely valid here.

Nope...Movie feats only.

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f102/t478590.html


MVF rules #2.

The link is valid.

FogAqAzGlF0

So long as it list it under movie powers and abilities it's fine.

You should've used Bruce Hornsby.

Wrong. As long as it's in accordance with MVF rules #2 it's fine.

Bruce Hornsby sucks.

Tupac sucks more...

Matter of opinion.

True...2 infact...The right opinion (mine) and the wrong opinion (anyone who doesn't agree with my opinion).

Sup Rob? Sadako, is that you?

Originally posted by jaden101
So what else could he have done?...He tried using the staff and got beaten...He tried h2h and got beaten...He practically even admits it was a cheap shot by his "So uncivilised" comment about his use of the blaster.

Blade is easily fast enough to get blows on Kenobi...If Grievous was then Blade is by far.


Of course Grievous is going to have the advantage in H2H...,he is made out of steel. However, with that said, Obi Wan was still able to tear his chest apart. Using the fight against Grievous to display Obi Wans H2H skills is not a fair example. Of course Obi-Wan isn't going to be able to beat a steel machine with his bare fists or a crappy staff, it's just physically impossible. Grievous NEVER showed that he was, in ANY way a better fighter or even in the same class as Obi-Wan. He only proved that his body makes bare fists useless. Using a blaster was not a cheap shot, sir. He still had to tear his chest open with his bare hands. If anything, Using four lightsabers was cheap.

Obi-Wans choices and fighting skills were incredibly limited due to Grievous' body.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Sup Rob? Sadako, is that you?

Now now, Elizabeth.... Your jibe/stab is as hypocritical as it is inaccurate.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Now now, Elizabeth.... Your jibe/stab is as hypocritical as it is inaccurate. All in good fun, Holly

I know it is, Pippi.

Longstocking? haermm

The very same.

How is Blade EVER gonna win this?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Wrong. As long as it's in accordance with MVF rules #2 it's fine.

Bruce Hornsby sucks.

No it's not.

It says you can use Google and Wiki, not that everything contained therein is applicable.

If it's not a movie feat, it's not applicable.

-AC

Funny, we've been doing it since day one and all has been well, you gonna try to change the rules here again? Good luck.

Read the first paragraph of the link very carefully, it ties in directly with Yoda's teachings to Luke. It is an elaboration of a movie screen feat, more or less.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Funny, we've been doing it since day one and all has been well, you gonna try to change the rules here again? Good luck.

Read the first paragraph of the link very carefully, it ties in directly with Yoda's teachings to Luke. It is an elaboration of a movie screen feat, more or less.

Does it happen in the movies? No. That's the answer, no matter how much waffling you wish to do.

Therefore, it doesn't work here. You wouldn't use an "elaboration" of what we know Hulk can do with his powers to argue his movie feats.

Either way, Obi Wan isn't going to lose this fight, so it's a moot point anyway. Nothing Blade can do will overcome him, I'm not disagreeing with you THERE.

I'm simply saying that if it doesn't occur in the movie, it's not applicable. You can use Google and Wiki to prove points, i.e; if you wanted to prove that someone did something in the movie, you could use them.

Doing "it" since day one doesn't make it right.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Does it happen in the movies? No. That's the answer, no matter how much waffling you wish to do.

Therefore, it doesn't work here. You wouldn't use an "elaboration" of what we know Hulk can do with his powers to argue his movie feats. It does work here, deal with it. You dont like it? Ignore it. MVF rule #7 is the same, even after all your bitching and moaning, this rule will remain the same.

Waffles suck.

I thought at first Blade might have a chance, but not now.

It's a bullshit thread about two characters duking it out, it's not like we are doing our taxes here. But hey, flex away, do your thing, you failed the first time, you'll go 0-2 here.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
It does work here, deal with it. You dont like it? Ignore it. MVF rule #7 is the same, even after all your bitching and moaning, this rule will remain the same.

Waffles suck.

I thought at first Blade might have a chance, but not now.

It's a bullshit thread about two characters duking it out, it's not like we are doing our taxes here. But hey, flex away, do your thing, you failed the first time, you'll go 0-2 here.

It's funny how you claim that this isn't "serious", but so seriously protect YOUR view of the rules of this forum that HAVE been altered by the mod himself. The funny thing is, you don't defend them because you feel they're right, you defend them because I oppose them.

Nothing I'm claiming can be denied, so you're doing it for no reason.

I didn't fail. You brought book characters before, I protested, now they're not allowed. You created gimp threads, I protested, now they're not allowed.

How am I failing? What I don't understand is; I'm just saying that it's a movie forum so movies only. That's not an outrageous or unreasonable suggestion, it's what the forum is for.

You never answered my question, and never will, but what the Hell:

Do those feats happen in the movie, yes or no?

You WON'T just answer "No", because you know what it means, but that's the truth.

-AC

I thought only feats and articles of feats from movies were applicable.

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
It's funny how you claim that this isn't "serious", but so seriously protect YOUR view of the rules of this forum that HAVE been altered by the mod himself. The funny thing is, you don't defend them because you feel they're right, you defend them because I oppose them.

Nothing I'm claiming can be denied, so you're doing it for no reason.

I didn't fail. You brought book characters before, I protested, now they're not allowed. You created gimp threads, I protested, now they're not allowed.

How am I failing? What I don't understand is; I'm just saying that it's a movie forum so movies only. That's not an outrageous or unreasonable suggestion, it's what the forum is for.

You never answered my question, and never will, but what the Hell:

Do those feats happen in the movie, yes or no?

You WON'T just answer "No", because you know what it means, but that's the truth.

-AC

Looks the same to me, different words, same meaning:

7) When the thread starter makes a new thread, it is very important to cement the conditions of the scenario in the first few posts. This is to avoid cunfusion and frustration among the other posters. It will not be acceptable for the thread starter to randomly change the conditions of the thread at random intervals. Once the settings/weapons/gear/handicaps/abilities/etc have been cemented in the first few posts of the thread, that is how they will stay. Therefore, be very sure and for certain of how you want your thread to be constructed.

The option to handicap is still there, you changed nothing with your rant.



Not sure what you mean by book characters, every combatant I used here in the past has their own movie.

Also, I made one cluster**** of a thread, I owned up to that, so get off the "You create gimp threads" bullshit.


So yeah, you are still 0-2. Watch out for that breaking ball, you'll be 0-3.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Looks the same to me, different words, same meaning:

7) When the thread starter makes a new thread, it is very important to cement the conditions of the scenario in the first few posts. This is to avoid cunfusion and frustration among the other posters. It will not be acceptable for the thread starter to randomly change the conditions of the thread at random intervals. Once the settings/weapons/gear/handicaps/abilities/etc have been cemented in the first few posts of the thread, that is how they will stay. Therefore, be very sure and for certain of how you want your thread to be constructed.

The option to handicap is still there, you changed nothing with your rant.



Not sure what you mean by book characters, every combatant I used here in the past has their own movie.

Also, I made one cluster**** of a thread, I owned up to that, so get off the "You create gimp threads" bullshit.


So yeah, you are still 0-2. Watch out for that breaking ball, you'll be 0-3.

You used a book version of Luke.

You don't have a reputation for gimping threads for no reason, RJ. Really.

There's no 2-0. Nice to know to catalogue and pay such close attention to these things, though. Flattering really, for someone who doesn't care. The rules haven't yet been edited, but you and I both know Imped said what he did about them. He has said he'll amend them. Why he hasn't, I don't know, but he's a busy dude.

He's agreed with me publically and privately about how they need reviewing and editing.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
You used a book version of Luke. The confusion there started when you brought up the mayhem that ensues when Using Neo (You were 100% right about that, kudos), so NJO Luke was brought in, everyone was with it, it wasnt just me.

The Hiller/Iceman was unintentional gimping, I learned my lesson. You talking about the Swagger/Batman thread?

Not much to catalog, two bullshit arguments on your part, even a dumbass like myself can keep track of that.

He's not going to amend them, fact. Deal with it.

:eyes: Obi Wan has super human reflexes on a level Blade doesn't have.

Precog, dude, Precog

Okay. Here is my ruling:

When I said in MVF rule #2 that "Wiki and Google are your friends" I meant that you should use them to gather lush information about your thread so as not to make some monosyllabic OP saying "Who wins?", thus forcing me to close the thread.

Psychometry is not mentioned in any of the OT Star Wars films. It is an EU feat.

EU feats do not hold water in the MVF since we have to adhere to onscreen movie feats only.




As far as my amending the MVF rules, I want everyone interested in this topic to post in the MVF Social Thread and bring up the issue to me so I can make a fair ruling. I have been very, very busy as of late, since I am a beer vendor and Summer is talking quite a toll on my work. The "gimping" issue is till in the air, I admit, but I am not going to amend the rules until I have heard everyone's (who are interested) argument.

So wiki and google count, depending on the content? Good, that's all I was saying, that's what I was defending.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So wiki and google count, depending on the content? Good, that's all I was saying, that's what I was defending.

No it wasn't. You were defending a specific piece of information that you claimed was applicable to this debate. Turns out, low and behold, you were wrong. At least admit to it. You might actually salvage a morsel of respect from this thread if you did.

Afraid not, you implied that only movie feats were allowed, that wiki and google are bullshit, I was claiming otherwise, sorry if you misunderstood me.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Afraid not, you implied that only movie feats were allowed, that wiki and google are bullshit, I was claiming otherwise, sorry if you misunderstood me.

Only movie feats are allowed.



See.

I didn't imply anything of the sort with regards to wiki or google. At least not in this forum.

If you're trying to argue anything in a more advanced discussion that a movie vs forum then i'll hold you to a higher burden of proof as it's the only way to get real information.

Originally posted by jaden101
Only movie feats are allowed.



See.

I didn't imply anything of the sort with regards to wiki or google. At least not in this forum.

If you're trying to argue anything in a more advanced discussion that a movie vs forum then i'll hold you to a higher burden of proof as it's the only way to get real information. OK, I took what you were saying as you saying that wiki and google are never creditable here, apologies if I assumed wrong.

I was defending the fact that I think they are valid as long as they relate to onscreen feat/fact/statement, that's all.

Example? Fiendfyre by Voldemort. He was shown using it onscreen, therefore any google or wiki link elaborating on fiendfyre or offering further explainations of it are valid.

IMO, the Psychomentry thing related loosely to Yoda's teachings to Luke.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi


Example? Fiendfyre by Voldemort. He was shown using it onscreen, therefore any google or wiki link elaborating on fiendfyre or offering further explainations of it are valid.


I'd question that, tbh.

I don't know anything about Harry Potter because I have no interest in them at all but for example. Say some form of offence was reliant on the surroundings for it to work properly.

For example, a fire based attack. You wouldn't say that simply because someone used a fire based attack onscreen in 1 location, that it'd, by default, work in all locations. It'd be a bit silly to presume a fire attack would work under water or in space. That kind of thing.

Not that these kinds of locations are brought up often in the vs forum though. But it's just an example of showing that simply because someone does happen onscreen that it isn't automatically allowed in all circumstances.

It was just an example, man.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
So wiki and google count, depending on the content? Good, that's all I was saying, that's what I was defending.

I never challenged this.

Infact, it's what I said in my first post. Read next time, save me and you the time.

-AC

Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
I never challenged this.

Infact, it's what I said in my first post. Read next time, save me and you the time.

-AC Like I said, misunderstanding. Apologies.