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

Setting: Yavin IV

Tell me who you think wins. I'm leaning towards Luke.

Originally posted by DarthDaniel1001
Setting: Yavin IV

Tell me who you think wins. I'm leaning towards Luke. Tano, I don't think Luke would last long if put into the fights shes been in.

The little b*tch, definitely.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
The little b*tch, definitely. Which one?

yes, Tano wins this one. Luke has had about 1 day of training. He left Hoth, and went to find Yoda. Leia and Han left Hoth and went to Bespin. Vader was waiting for Leia and Han at Bespin. Luke sensed the capture of his friends, and immediately went to save them.
There really wasn't too much of a gap for any training.

Luke defenitly trained for more than a day. However it could be anywhere from a couple of days to close to a month. Regardless Star Wars Adventures: Luke Skywalker and the Treasure of the Dragonsnakes implies his training was quite extensive. It says
"The movie The Empire Strikes Back shows us only a small portion of Luke Skywalker's Jedi training under the tutelage of Master Yoda. In this story, witness a never-before-seen part of that training as Luke is given the task of finding-and retrieving-an object guarded by the deadliest creatures on the swamp world of Dagobah: the monstrous dragonsnakes!

This is the most harrowing, dangerous, and muddiest mission that Luke has ever faced!"

Also Luke as of ESB did manage to get a glancing blow on the V man which is quite impressive.

ares: plothole then?

It is worth mentioning that Luke held his ground against Vader for a good long while. The best Ahsoka did (by herself anyway) was hold her ground against Grievous for a short while. She also managed to beat the crap out of Cad Bane but still lost. Oh, and she beat some alien posing as Jocasta Nu, but dose that really account for anything?

I'm pretty sure that Vader is far superior to everyone I listed. The fact that Luke was able to hold his ground against him for a while, even after Vader stopped toying with him, whereas Ahsoka has done poorly to mildly well against people that are far inferior to Vader seems to suggest, at least to me, that Luke is the better fighter here.

Originally posted by DarthDaniel1001
It is worth mentioning that Luke held his ground against Vader for a good long while. The best Ahsoka did (by herself anyway) was hold her ground against Grievous for a short while. She also managed to beat the crap out of Cad Bane but still lost. Oh, and she beat some alien posing as Jocasta Nu, but dose that really account for anything?

I'm pretty sure that Vader is far superior to everyone I listed. The fact that Luke was able to hold his ground against him for a while, even after Vader stopped toying with him, whereas Ahsoka has done poorly to mildly well against people that are far inferior to Vader seems to suggest, at least to me, that Luke is the better fighter here.

Grievous > Darth Vader (suited) in sabers - much faster, more agile, and 4 sabers at once striking up to 20 times per second.

Except Vader has force tk and in the old movies their slowness was due to the actual weight of the lightsaber.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Grievous > Darth Vader (suited) in sabers - much faster, more agile, and 4 sabers at once striking up to 20 times per second.

Originally posted by Samurai100
Except Vader has force tk and in the old movies their slowness was due to the actual weight of the lightsaber.
AND that Grievous was *not* fighting her with four sabers, let alone twenty strikes per second.

Applying Clone Wars logic: If ESB Luke were to be portrayed in a CGI environment like Tano is, the powers he'd have would shame his NJO self. Seriously, anyone else think that Lucas would actually allow that?

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Applying Clone Wars logic: If ESB Luke were to be portrayed in a CGI environment like Tano is, the powers he'd have would shame his NJO self. Seriously, anyone else think that Lucas would actually allow that?

Yes, I do.

I have no faith in Lucas.

Originally posted by DarthDaniel1001
It is worth mentioning that Luke held his ground against Vader for a good long while. The best Ahsoka did (by herself anyway) was hold her ground against Grievous for a short while. She also managed to beat the crap out of Cad Bane but still lost. Oh, and she beat some alien posing as Jocasta Nu, but dose that really account for anything?

I'm pretty sure that Vader is far superior to everyone I listed. The fact that Luke was able to hold his ground against him for a while, even after Vader stopped toying with him, whereas Ahsoka has done poorly to mildly well against people that are far inferior to Vader seems to suggest, at least to me, that Luke is the better fighter here. Vader held back in TESB... if he really wanted to tool luke in sabers he would have.

Originally posted by Samurai100
Except Vader has force tk and in the old movies their slowness was due to the actual weight of the lightsaber.

Exactly why I said Grievous > Darth Vader (suited) in sabers. fish

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
AND that Grievous was *not* fighting her with four sabers, let alone twenty strikes per second.

Yes Red, I know. I was addressing the comment; "Vader is far superior" to General Grievous. My point is that Vader IS NOT far superior to GG (superior? maybe/probably. Far superior? Not at all). Also, Yes Vader's a beast no doubt, but as it was pointed out, he definitely appeared to be pulling back in his duel w/ Luke, thereby weakening that particular aspect of DarthDaniels argument/stand. Apologies to all for not being more clear. wallbash

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Yes Red, I know. I was addressing the comment; "Vader is far superior" to General Grievous. My point is that Vader IS NOT far superior to GG (superior? maybe/probably. Far superior? Not at all). Also, Yes Vader's a beast no doubt, but as it was pointed out, he definitely appeared to be pulling back in his duel w/ Luke, thereby weakening that particular aspect of DarthDaniels argument/stand. Apologies to all for not being more clear. wallbash

And why not far superior if we bring in the force? GG can't even use the force so how can vader not be far superior to him in that aspect?

Originally posted by BoratBorat
And why not far superior if we bring in the force? GG can't even use the force so how can vader not be far superior to him in that aspect?

ki-Adi-Mundi used the force against GG to no avail. As did Shaak Ti, and others he's killed and/or dueled (including Asajj Ventress). While Vader is very powerful, that aspect alone does not equate to him being "far superior"

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
ki-Adi-Mundi used the force against GG to no avail. As did Shaak Ti, and others he's killed and/or dueled (including Asajj Ventress). While Vader is very powerful, that aspect alone does not equate to him being "far superior"

Vader is far superior to the Jedi you've mentioned.

*sigh*

Once again:

X < Y
X < Z
Y ? Z

So if Grievous is better than those Jedi, but so is Vader, the comparison is meaningless. What is important is that we have an incredibly powerful Force user squared up against someone that has no access to that arena, someone whose defense is certifiable only against combatants weaker than Vader's.

Qualitative data is useless here; both sides must provide some sort of argument (as opposed to glib tossaway comments) or concede the point.

I, of course, have expressed no opinion on the outcome and so am free of the burden of proof. I have merely pointed out that the reasoning that you've provided is insufficient to suitably convince me (and likely anyone else) that Tano's feats are unquestionably superior to Luke's. (This is not to say that such a task is impossible, just that you have not done so yet.)

Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Vader is far superior to the Jedi you've mentioned.

*sigh*

Once again:

X < Y
X < Z
Y ? Z

So if Grievous is better than those Jedi, but so is Vader, the comparison is meaningless. What is important is that we have an incredibly powerful Force user squared up against someone that has no access to that arena, someone whose defense is certifiable only against combatants weaker than Vader's.

Qualitative data is useless here; both sides must provide some sort of argument (as opposed to glib tossaway comments) or concede the point.

I, of course, have expressed no opinion on the outcome and so am free of the burden of proof. I have merely pointed out that the reasoning that you've provided is insufficient to suitably convince me (and likely anyone else) that Tano's feats are unquestionably superior to Luke's. (This is not to say that such a task is impossible, just that you have not done so yet.)

Let me make this clear. I DID NOT state that Tano > Luke. Moreover, I DID NOT state that Luke > Tano. I offered a rebuttal to the comment (by DarthDaniel) where it is assumed that Vader is "FAR" superior to Grievous. I also posted a counter to BoratBorat's comment where he stated that having the force automatically makes one superior to a non-force user (I pointed out that having that particular aspect alone at ones disposal doesn't automatically grant one a position of being far superior). Therefore you are attacking a position that I have not established, or intend to as of yet. Please drop the straw man argument.

What we have here... is a failure to communicate.

"What we have here... is a failure to communicate."

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
ki-Adi-Mundi used the force against GG to no avail. As did Shaak Ti, and others he's killed and/or dueled (including Asajj Ventress). While Vader is very powerful, that aspect alone does not equate to him being "far superior" One question, does ki-adi-mundi happen to be as powerful as vader or even half as powerful?

Really, don't use try to argue that vader isn't far superior to GG in the force(lulz GG can't even use the force) just because an inferior jedi to vader couldn't hurt GG to begin with and that means it was a terrible comparison.

Originally posted by BoratBorat
One question, does ki-adi-mundi happen to be as powerful as vader or even half as powerful?

Really, don't use try to argue that vader isn't far superior to GG in the force(lulz GG can't even use the force) just because an inferior jedi to vader couldn't hurt GG to begin with and that means it was a terrible comparison.

Are you really this f**king dense in the real world??? Seriously dude. Did I argue that Vader wasn't superior to GG - force wise? NO, not once - and for obvious reasons!!! Examine the post. YOU, friendo, attacked a position that I didn't establish (straw man argument -which seems to be an ongoing theme around here right now).

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
What we have here... is a failure to communicate.


Some men you just can't reach, which is the way he wants it, well he gets it; I don't like it, any more than you men.

Just had to finish it.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Are you really this f**king dense in the real world??? Seriously dude. Did I argue that Vader wasn't superior to GG - force wise? NO, not once - and for obvious reasons!!! Examine the post. YOU, friendo, attacked a position that I didn't establish (straw man argument -which seems to be an ongoing theme around here right now).

you cant out-aggro borat, no one can. so just... dont try it.

Originally posted by Ms.Marvel
you cant out-aggro borat, no one can. so just... dont try it.

QFT.

Nor can you out-pretentious me.


You can, however, be correct.

The closest you've come to a position on the thread (which is what I asked you to substantiate) is this:



That is not a comment on Tano, so my line accusing you of failure to prove that "Tano's feats are unquestionably superior to Luke's" is meaningless, given that you never took on that burden. I apologize and retract that condemnation. I will not, however, back down from the assertion that your Grievous/Vader comparison fails; you h ave not supported the idea that "Vader is not "far" beyond Grievous" sufficiently.

The method you've chosen to undermine 's argument (ironically) undermines your own; just as he has not proven the Vader/Grievous relationship, neither have you. Furthermore, you've made the mistake of taking a position on the matter ("My point is that Vader IS NOT far superior to GG" that can be and is being challenged.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Are you really this f**king dense in the real world??? Seriously dude. Did I argue that Vader wasn't superior to GG - force wise? NO, not once - and for obvious reasons!!! Examine the post. YOU, friendo, attacked a position that I didn't establish (straw man argument -which seems to be an ongoing theme around here right now). I'm not.... I'm just pointing out that your comparison was horrible.

Originally posted by BoratBorat
I'm not.... I'm just pointing out that your comparison was horrible.

What comparison? The one you attacked? That of course would be the one I DIDN'T make. Which makes your argument fall under the category of the straw man variety. Which makes you out to look like a fool. Seriously, drop it. As for Red Nemesis, I understand what you're saying, and I will address that (at least as well as I can) when I get some more time. Thanks for pointing that out though.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
What comparison? The one you attacked? That of course would be the one I DIDN'T make. Which makes your argument fall under the category of the straw man variety. Which makes you out to look like a fool. How am i a fool when i pointed out your stupid and ridiculous comparison?

You know the one where you tried to convince me that just because ki adi mundi(an inferior to vader) couldn't affect GG with the force, it means that vader(a vastly superior individual) can't as well.Lulz but how i forgot you didn't make this comparison.

So who is the fool here? Or do you want me to start attacking you?


You lose.

Originally posted by BoratBorat
How am i a fool when i pointed out your stupid and ridiculous comparison?

You know the one where you tried to convince me that just because ki adi mundi(an inferior to vader) couldn't affect GG with the force, it means that vader(a vastly superior individual) can't as well.Lulz but how i forgot you didn't make this comparison.

So who is the fool here? Or do you want me to start attacking you?


You lose.

Oh no... please don't ATTACK ME... holy f**cking shit I'm terrified!!! Uh yeah dipshit, do what you want. As I posted before, go back and read what I typed - in response to what you typed. If you're too ****ing obtuse to understand it (which apparently you are), well... then that's a personal problem I guess.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Oh no... please don't ATTACK ME... holy f**cking shit I'm terrified!!! Uh yeah dipshit, do what you want. As I posted before, go back and read what I typed - in response to what you typed. If you're too ****ing obtuse to understand it (which apparently you are), well... then that's a personal problem I guess. Typical. I did read, and i did give you a proper response. But you obviously misread it and don't want to admit to your mistake.

Funny how i remained so calm yet i can imagine your blood boiling and steam shooting out your ears.


I simply pointed out the flaw of your comparison and you didn't even know which comparison i was talking about and outright deny that you made the comparison. You lose again.

Originally posted by BoratBorat
Typical. I did read, and i did give you a proper response. But you obviously misread it and don't want to admit to your mistake.

Funny how i remained so calm yet i can imagine your blood boiling and steam shooting out your ears.


I simply pointed out the flaw of your comparison and you didn't even know which comparison i was talking about and outright deny that you made the comparison. You lose again.

So... genius... when did I propose that Vader couldn't "couldn't affect GG with the force"? Hmmm... tell me. Be careful now... We wouldn't want for you to look like more of an ass.

Ok.



Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
ki-Adi-Mundi used the force against GG to no avail. As did Shaak Ti, and others he's killed and/or dueled (including Asajj Ventress).


^ You implied it. Just read your own post.

You are basically saying, "oh shits, adi mundi used teh force to no avail on GG so it means vater c@nt u$3 j@ck sH1T!!"


Then i point out this comparison as turd because ki adi mundi is far weaker than vader and you are using it to prove vader isn't "far superior" to GG. Do you get it?

however, Mace, Fisto, and Kenobi all used the force against Grievous, and he had no defense against it.

ding ding, we have a winner!

Really, this guys comparison was absolute turd and he denys making any comparison at all accusing me of attacking a position he didnt take.

Originally posted by BoratBorat
Ok.






^ You implied it. Just read your own post.

You are basically saying, "oh shits, adi mundi used teh force to no avail on GG so it means vater c@nt u$3 j@ck sH1T!!"


Then i point out this comparison as turd because ki adi mundi is far weaker than vader and you are using it to prove vader isn't "far superior" to GG. Do you get it?

Fist things first. When you quote me, quote my entire comment. What did you fail to leave out of said comment? Oh yeah... While Vader is very powerful, that aspect alone does not equate to him being "far superior." And, utilizing context, what was that quote in direct reply to? Hmmm?

So... you implied that having the force alone makes Vader FAR SUPERIOR to Grievous. Meanwhile, I pointed out instances where having the force did little good against Grievous (never once arguing that Vader wasn't superior in that lone aspect). Therefore it is to be understood (by those of reasonable intelligence) that I hold the view that - yes, Vader is Vastly more powerful than Ki-Adi-Mundi - but that (force use) doesn't grant him an automatic standing of being vastly superior to Grievous.

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Fist things first. When you quote me, quote my entire comment. What did you fail to leave out of said comment? Oh yeah... While Vader is very powerful, that aspect alone does not equate to him being "far superior." And, utilizing context, what was that quote in direct reply to? Hmmm? To my response of course.


Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai

So... you implied that having the force alone makes Vader FAR SUPERIOR to Grievous.
Learn to read. See below.

Originally posted by BoratBorat
And why not far superior if we bring in the force? GG can't even use the force so how can vader not be far superior to him in that aspect?



^ There you go, i simply stated vader IS far superior to GG in the force category. But you obviously didn't read it did you? Admit it.
Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai

Meanwhile, I pointed out instances where having the force did little good against Grievous (never once arguing that Vader wasn't superior in that lone aspect). Yes - Vader is Vastly more powerful than Ki-Adi-Mundi - but that (force use) doesn't grant him an automatic standing of being vastly superior to Grievous. Yet you used a vastly inferior jedi for that comparison.

The problem is you were using an inferior jedi to point out the force did little to GG, had you brought up like lets say... "oh yoda did little to grievous with the force" then that would had been a much better comparison and far more reasonable.

You can't simply use an inferior jedi's inability to affect grievous to dispute that a far more powerful sith lord can't as well..

I'm sorry but it seems that comparison is still an utter failure seeing how obi wan and mace windu dominated grievous with the force with a simple telekinetic move which vader happens to be a great master off.

So yes, vader is far more "powerful" than grievous in the force.

why not?

Why not wut?

Wrong!!! English dictates that by saying "And why not far superior if we bring in the force?" You are implying that Vader is "far superior" because of THAT aspect, not in THAT aspect,,, but because of it. That's what your comment implied. I simply offered evidence that the force alone does not equate to automatic superiority. You apparently don't even understand your own comment.

Here... let me just say this (because this is getting old and is like arguing w/ a bag of hammers). I think we both have misunderstood each others position on the matter at hand. I definitely agree that Vader IS SUPERIOR to Grievous. That's not even a question in my mind. I however, find the evidence lacking that he is FAR SUPERIOR... let me say this again - FAR SUPERIOR - to Grievous. However, that is a relative term. Far superior might mean one thing to you, and something else to me. So that kind of makes it a moot point.

In the end, we have a misunderstanding. And with that, I apologize for getting bent out of shape (frustration). And I respectfully move to end this conflict.

Aww!! group

Okay, I'll stop abusing the smilies... for now.

Originally posted by Slash_KMC
Aww!! group

Okay, I'll stop abusing the smilies... for now.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0055.gif

Jinsoku: Here is a piece of evidence to support that ability to use the force is often a dealbreaker:

Jedi Twilight: Coruscant Knights: Pg. 314

Originally posted by truejedi
Jinsoku: Here is a piece of evidence to support that ability to use the force is often a dealbreaker:

Jedi Twilight: Coruscant Knights: Pg. 314

General Grievous was by no means an "ordinary humanoid". Therefore that source quote is invalid in this context.

And I've already provided evidence that using the force isn't ALWAYS a dealbreaker.

You just can't not be hostile, can you?

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
Wrong!!! English dictates that by saying "And why not far superior if we bring in the force?" You are implying that Vader is "far superior" because of THAT aspect, not in THAT aspect,,, but because of it. That's what your comment implied. I simply offered evidence that the force alone does not equate to automatic superiority. You apparently don't even understand your own comment.

Here... let me just say this (because this is getting old and is like arguing w/ a bag of hammers). I think we both have misunderstood each others position on the matter at hand. I definitely agree that Vader IS SUPERIOR to Grievous. That's not even a question in my mind. I however, find the evidence lacking that he is FAR SUPERIOR... let me say this again - FAR SUPERIOR - to Grievous. However, that is a relative term. Far superior might mean one thing to you, and something else to me. So that kind of makes it a moot point.

In the end, we have a misunderstanding. And with that, I apologize for getting bent out of shape (frustration). And I respectfully move to end this conflict. Apology accepted. Now where is my kiss?

Vader is FAR superior than Grievous. The force alone is what makes Vader far superior.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Vader is FAR superior than Grievous. The force alone is what makes Vader far superior.








































chair

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
chair You said the evidence of Vader being FAR SUPERIOR to Grievous is lacking, and you are wrong. The evidence is Vader's power in the force and feats he has shown.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
You said the evidence of Vader being FAR SUPERIOR to Grievous is lacking, and you are wrong. The evidence is Vader's power in the force and feats he has shown.

chair

Originally posted by Jinsoku Takai
chair Nice.

Originally posted by SIDIOUS 66
Nice.


chair

You're a weird little person.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
You're a weird little person.


chair

i liked the smiley at first. now i don't.

Originally posted by truejedi
i liked the smiley at first. now i don't.


chair

Ok... no more smiley abuse...


...4 now.

MOAR MOAR!!