Shii-Cho is good against multiple opponents, and Grievous's four separate blades attacking from separate angles imitated what a fight against multiple adversaries would be like. Savage has only two blades that are not separate, but are rather part of the same weapon. This does not really mimic multiple adversaries, so I don't see how Shii-Cho is a game-changer here.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Shii-Cho is good against multiple opponents, and Grievous's four separate blades attacking from separate angles imitated what a fight against multiple adversaries would be like. Savage has only two blades that are not separate, but are rather part of the same weapon. This does not really mimic multiple adversaries, so I don't see how Shii-Cho is a game-changer here.
Windu and Dooku would be fighting for a long time.
Kenobi loses to TCW Maul
and its a 50.50 for Savage to Fisto. I think Fisto would lose after a while, and or if he does hes ****ed against Maul.
Leaving Dooku and Maul against Mace which is 60-40 for team, unless Mace gets an amp from Maul. That is if Fisto doesn't kill Savage, in which case the team turns Mace into chop suey
Originally posted by Intrepid37
That doesn't matter.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yes it does. You're saying Fisto has an advantage because Shii-Cho is great for dealing with multiple angles of attack at once, which a saberstaff doesn't provide. In fact Shii-Cho is noted to not be very good for one on one combat, so I again don't see how Shii-Cho is a game-changer in Fisto's favor. As someone who has called Vaapad overrated before, I don't see how you could think that "Fisto beats people with more than one blade because Shii-Cho."