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.
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.
Right, but again: Luke didn't so much as attempt to use the Force against the Rancor, even though we know he was capable of generating potent TK at the time(as seen in the scans I posted earlier, not to mention that he had already shaken a Star Destroyer by this point.)
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.
Of course it's all canon, but hopefully you still understand my point.
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.
Do we have any reason at all to believe that a saberless Vader wouldn't be completely helpless against RotJ Palpatine's lightning?
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.
Registered: May 2007
Location: Best company on the planet
If you have not figured out the hypocrisies of posters using whatever logic they can to promote their favorite characters then you might be one of them. I give Windu his due despite thinking he is a very uninteresting character. Maul bring my second favorite does not make me somehow try to prove he beats Windu. I also think Rey is lame but her power level as is Kylos is insane.
Maybe it’s similar to the Kylo-Rey dynamic: the light and dark balancing each other out. Snoke says that darkness rises and light to meet it. Could explain luke’s rapid power growth.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by Darthadi on Jun 18th, 2020 at 05:11 PM
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.
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.
__________________ "Commence primary ignition."
Last edited by Zenwolf on Jun 18th, 2020 at 05:39 PM
Jun 17th, 2020 08:01 AM
