DE Luke I would think. He should be logically more powerful than Vader at this point and if we compare AT-AT feats, Luke's is superior:
He also shields himself from its turbolasers with ease whereas Vader gets blown up:
Though granted Vader was pre-ESB/ROTJ.
Vader likely remains in possession of superior knowledge and experience, but seeing as his offensive abilities are largely limited to TK, I don't see it giving him much of an edge.
No double standards here. My point is that Luke can dispatch AT-ATs with speed and ease, Vader in a time-pressured situation (being imminent turbolaser fire) did not, ergo he cannot.
The fact he can't shield himself against AT-AT fire full stop is a separate point, but proves the same thing. DE Luke > Vader.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
No double standards here. My point is that Luke can dispatch AT-ATs with speed and ease, Vader in a time-pressured situation (being imminent turbolaser fire) did not, ergo he cannot.
Difference is though Luke wasn't trying to crush it as it began shooting at him.
Luke deflected the Fire Power back at it's source First and Then finished it off with a Force attack. I'd say that's the easier and more efficient way of defeating an AT-AT tbh.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
No double standards here. My point is that Luke can dispatch AT-ATs with speed and ease, Vader in a time-pressured situation (being imminent turbolaser fire) did not, ergo he cannot.The fact he can't shield himself against AT-AT fire full stop is a separate point, but proves the same thing. DE Luke > Vader.
Originally posted by Darth Thor1. He didn't crush it, he pulled it down, neutralising its guns wouldn't have made it any more vulnerable 2. Vader had ample time to down it as Luke did before it started shooting, which would have killed Leia, Han etc. and prevented it from firing at all.
Difference is though Luke wasn't trying to crush it as it began shooting at him.Luke deflected the Fire Power back at it's source First and Then finished it off with a Force attack. I'd say that's the easier and more efficient way of defeating an AT-AT tbh.
Originally posted by FreshestSliceWhat projectiles has Vader tanked that surpass a AT-AT barrage?
given Vader has tanked much worse with no ill effects in the slightest. It's plain stupid to using this feat to argue DE Luke being greater than Vader.
Vader's tanked AT-AT fire before and deflected cannonfire from turrets in Lords of the Sith.
The freighters opened fire, writing thick lines of plasma onto the air. The shots churned the ground, destroyed trees, heated the air of the clearing; one slammed into the chest of a Royal Guard and vaporized all of him save for his helmet.Lost in the Force, Vader anticipated the shots that would have hit him, saw the appropriate angles of impact and deflection, and used the rapid spinning of his lightsaber to turn first one, then a second, and then a third shot not into the tree line but back at the ships, the heat and energy of the blaster shots driving him backward, warming the hilt of his weapon, a heat he could feel even through his glove
-Lords of the Sith
He's also used barrier to withstand the explosion of one of the largest munitions factories in the galaxy in the Star Wars comic
Originally posted by FreshestSliceIts the difference between being hit with a sledgehammer and stabbed with sword, wider surface area to absorb the impact.
How does something being a projectile doesn't inherently make it stronger than say dozen or so explosions we've seen Vader tank?
@Carth can't see the image for the AT-AT, where is that from, LotS?
