ROTJ Luke vs. ROTS Yoda

Originally posted by Galan007
Now if RotJ-era Luke actually HAD a bunch of canon showings that still didn't put him on par with Vader(or even a couple quantifiable contradictory showings/statements), then I could see your point... But the Rancor showings alone certainly do not disprove anything, for reasons I mentioned above.

I feel that is a contradictory feat though. I mean how can it not be?

They both went up against a Rancor, one struggled physically and ran and had to kill it with the gate. The other just force owned an enhanced rancor. And again, did the writer of that comic not know about the ROTJ scene?

We can talk movie feats are not as good all we want, but they are canon. And with Vader in the movie, they were very careful not to put limitations on his force abilities.

On the sail barge Luke used his Saber against Jabbas goons. But That doesnt contradict the idea that he could use the force. He does when he is attacking without his lightsaber against the Gamorrean guards.

Originally posted by Galan007

The quote differentiates between lightsaber skill and power in the Force. They were stated to be equal in both areas.

It says skill with a lightsaber then power in the force.

Pre-Vizsla has mad skillz with a lightsaber. But without power in the force he couldnt possibly be Mauls equal in Sabers.

So I feel both parts of that quote could be referring to their (Luke and Vaders) Saber fight.

I mean unless you think an unarmed Vader would be just as helpless against Palpatines FL as Luke was, then they clearly were not equals in every aspect of the Force.

I mean damage wise yeah Vader seems to be as helpless. He's just more tolerant to pain.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I feel that is a contradictory feat though. I mean how can it not be?

They both went up against a Rancor, one struggled physically and ran and had to kill it with the gate. The other just force owned an enhanced rancor. And again, did the writer of that comic not know about the ROTJ scene?

Personally, I've always chalked it up to a case of CIS. There was literally no logical reason for Luke to not use any Force powers whatsoever against the Rancor, when it was in his ability to do so. Now, if Luke had tried, and failed, to affect the Rancor with the Force, you'd be onto something... But since he didn't even try to use the Force, it just screams of illogical CIS to me. /shrug

So again, their respective Rancor showings alone certainly do not prove that Vader's power in the Force was above Luke's.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
We can talk movie feats are not as good all we want, but they are canon. And with Vader in the movie, they were very careful not to put limitations on his force abilities.

In terms of overall impressiveness, scope, scale, etc., supplementary feats have been >>>> OT movie feats. Current writers are doing things with Force users that GL never even dreamed of back in the 70s/80s when the films were originally released(I'm sure we can both agree there.) That said, Vader has a plethora of supplementary feats in canon, while RotJ Luke pretty much ONLY has his movie feats... So I still see it as a faulty comparison.

We cannot lowball/downplay Luke just because he doesn't have the amount of supplementary appearances Vader does... Especially when a canon quote explicitly states they were equals during RotJ. It's an "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" sort of thing, imo.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
So I feel both parts of that quote could be referring to their (Luke and Vaders) Saber fight.

I mean unless you think an unarmed Vader would be just as helpless against Palpatines FL as Luke was, then they clearly were not equals in every aspect of the Force.

I think the problem most people have with Luke=Vader in ROTJ is how could Luke become so powerful so fast and with so little training especially in canon where Vader is above Anakin in power.
Like, maybe in legends or Lucas's version of star wars where Vader was suposed to be kind of weak (relative to other characters) it made sense, but in canon is mind blowing how can Luke can catch up with Vader so fast. And if you think Vader didn't lost any potential after Mustafar is even more weird.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Point still stands. If we use that list then should use it consistently.

But yes im fine with it being Kylo as of TFA. (The book was one of the Journey to TFA series and the list had a picture of Kylo in the background).

Originally posted by Darthadi
I think the problem most people have with Luke=Vader in ROTJ is how could Luke become so powerful so fast and with so little training especially in canon where Vader is above Anakin in power.
Like, maybe in legends or Lucas's version of star wars where Vader was suposed to be kind of weak (relative to other characters) it made sense, but in canon is mind blowing how can Luke can catch up with Vader so fast. And if you think Vader didn't lost any potential after Mustafar is even more weird.

At least with Rey there is that weird dyad related thing in TFA where she downloads his training. As stupid as it sounds there is at least an explanation.

It has always been odd to me that a kid with only a few years of training could even approach Vader's level... Skywalker blood or not. /shrug

Curious to see how the comics flesh out this era of Luke's history, because even as of ESB he was still absolutely no match for Vader... So he now has just 1 year to get to that level. It could be somewhat believable(I guess), depending on how they go about it(ie. the types of training Luke undergoes over that time.)

srug

There is just one year between ESB and ROTJ iirc. And Vader is vastly more powerful than Dooku in canon. Luke's growth is absurd if he's Vader level in ROTJ.

Not to mention that if Vader didn't lost any potential his growth would be even bigger than Luke's during this time period (greater potential, better training, better knowledge). We will have to wait for the comics i guess.

I honestly wonder if Vader's potential is actually greater than Luke's in canon..? If it is, I doubt it's by much, tbh.

He is the chosen one. It will be kind of lore breaking if his potential is not the biggest.

Luke's potential being on par with(or very close to) Vader's wouldn't alter his destiny as the Chosen One.

It has always been pretty telling that Palpatine believed Luke had the potential to destroy he and Vader after first sensing him. /shrug

That was because in the old canon the idea was that Vader lost most of his potential. This is why Palpatine wanted to replace him with Luke.
In general, the idea that of any other force user having Anakin level potential seems lore breaking to me. It also cheapens the idea that only Anakin could replace the Father if any of his children (and grandchildren?) could eventually do that.

Originally posted by Darthadi
That was because in the old canon the idea was that Vader lost most of his potential. This is why Palpatine wanted to replace him with Luke.
In general, the idea that of any other force user having Anakin level potential seems lore breaking to me. It also cheapens the idea that only Anakin could replace the Father if any of his children (and grandchildren?) could eventually do that.

I mean that's still true in a sense, they can't change what the movies say unless they redo them.

Right, but the films are still canon. And as of ESB, Palpatine still asserts that Luke has the potential to destroy he and Vader.

Vader's potential could have still been superior, but given everything we know so far(ie. Luke's growth over the films), it seem likely that Luke's potential was really close to his.

Actually. If Luke with only a few years of training could be at the same level as Vader who had 20+ years of training (not to mention his training and knowledge of the force were better than Luke's) wouldn't this be the proof that either Vader lost potential after Mustafar (either because of injuries or, more likely, psychological reasons) or that for some reason he was not at his best during ROTJ?
I'm really curious if they would give as some form of explanation in the comics. Who knows, maybe it will be something similar to Rey downloading knowledge from Kylo, lol.

Originally posted by Darthadi
Actually. If Luke with only a few years of training could be at the same level as Vader who had 20+ years of training (not to mention his training and knowledge of the force were better than Luke's) wouldn't this be the proof that either Vader lost potential after Mustafar (either because of injuries or, more likely, psychological reasons) or that for some reason he was not at his best during ROTJ?
I'm really curious if they would give as some form of explanation in the comics. Who knows, maybe it will be something similar to Rey downloading knowledge from Kylo, lol.

Yeah, Vader still lost his potential due to his injuries...I mean if you wanna say temporarily because if he didn't, I'm sure by the time of ANH/ESB/ROTJ he would have been at his peak or moreso.

So yeah, Vader still lost potential and would never reach that cause well...he died. So he did or at best temporarily did, the potential was never gonna be reached anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Like, why would Palpatine want to replace Vader with Luke if Vader's potential is bigger/equal but unlike Luke, Vader is also already a sith so he doesn't need to be converted? It is as if I would want to replace my laptop with a new one that is not better then the old one and possibly is even worse.

Originally posted by Darthadi
Like, why would Palpatine want to replace Vader with Luke if Vader's potential is bigger/equal but unlike Luke, Vader is also already a sith so he doesn't need to be converted? It is as if I would want to replace my laptop with a new one that is not better then the old one and possibly is even worse.

Well as far as I recall, Palps wasn't gonna be replaced anyway and he wanted to takeover Luke's body which isn't full of mechanical stuffs, according to the new Canon info...or was that just implied? Either way. Why would he wanna have a crippled body or an apprentice?

Really though this is just another one of those many new Canon issues. It would easily be done with if they said that Vader's potential was lost because...it honestly doesn't change much of anything actual power wise that Vader has shown thus far, because his potential was never gonna be reached anyway.

I mean his potential could be 10 or 100 of Palpatine, but how does anyone really gauge that with the actual power shown? It's pointless. 10 could be lifting an ISD, 100 could be lifting an ISD who cares.

Though it would help with the story and the reasoning of ESB/ROTJ dialogue. It'll probably come up at some point, just as it's noted that Ben Kenobi did grow weaker.