1-lotro 2-eve online 3-guild wars 4-warhammer 5-swtor. rated on quality of content for the duration of my gameplay.

everything about this thread is bad and aurbere should be sanctioned for obvious baiting tbh.

uhuh, if you say so. i am from a highland clan of scotland, it does not mean i know any more about which end of a claymore to use than you do.

they are all rediculously terrible ways to fight someone using a sword, so i would go spend a year on fencing or kendo. even after such a short time i would be a better swordfighter than any jedi or sith using these styles.

what i was moving towards with my previous post (simply dont have the energfy to be as comprehensive now) is not that EU stuff be ignored entirely, but only (in this instance) related to vaders ability as a fencer. for instance; if in the EU (i wouldnt know) vader is shown to be able to move a star destroyer with the force (something that starkiller character can do), this is not contradicted by the movies, it is simply unshown. however, if an eu book were to present vader as capable of the highly acobatic combat style we see yoda use in AOTC and ROTS, then that would be wrong, going by what vader is shown to be capable of in ANH, ESB and ROTJ, where he uses a much more conservative style that relies on dominating "the center" (a hold over of the combat in the kurosawa epics star wars is influenced by) and overwhelming the opponent with strong but basic assaults. whether vader chooses not or cannot use that acrobatic style is irrelevant, all that is relevant for my argument is that he does not. unless lucas himself states otherwise (iirc he has explicitly stated all these lightsaber form business is claptrap yes?) this position should be pretty valid imo. this is what i was intending to say at least. back to bed now

while it is debatable whether or not he was holding back against obi wan (the appearance of a relative lack of action compared to other fights does not mean effort and intent are not there-indeed the calmness of it hints that the fight is in fact "for keeps"), ANH is also the only instance where we see anyone, at all, using something resembling actual sword fighting technique, rather than flashy choreography. in that instance we see vader using a proper guard stance and probing for opportunity, and trying to unseat his opponent spiritually without opening himself up to serious threat of attack. this shows to me the reason to believe him a competent swordsman. no competent swordsman toys with their opponent; they go for the kill, whether literally or simply in terms of achieving victory. whilst one could say definitely that vader is toying with luke in ESB, vader had won the second he appeared before luke, without any doubt whatsoever. he probably didnt even have to turn on his lightsaber to make a point of this. (gonna have to leave this post here for now; i will come back to it later and get round to making my point then...currently very ill )

this, so very this. no i mean the movies are the only thing that is truly, incontrovertably and utterly canon. they are the canon. anything that contradicts that, whether implicit or explicit, in spirit or actuality, in implication or act or inaction of character, is not canon in that instance. no matter what position is held in this lovely tier system of canonicity has been invented for EU fans to squabble over.

no i didnt. the movies are higher canon. even if they are within the same canon "bracket" (G canon) the movies are absolute canon. the books are not. my apologies, i didnt not mean that as a conditional; local language form creeping into my writing style i am afraid; as it is i am accepting as writ that anikin/vader is the strongest jedi simply because that is the implicit message of the movies (though i do not consider it particularly well expressed) whether or not "x is stronger than y" is even a valid way to understand things is what i consider the more interesting question, because whilst the movies make it clear that simply force-sensitivity/power is not the sole determinator of victory in star wars, the fandom as a whole is very poor at understanding that.

no. i would penalise the EU characters by saying they are noncanon. pretty obvious response really, considering the only completely incontrovertible canon is the movies. ofcourse i actually already said this at the end of my post....

actually, common sense dictates that any prophecies be irrelevant when positing a versus match like this. for example: if i where to say "who would win between palpatine and the witch king of angmar", the fact that palpatine is manifestly the greater power (and we are talking by a huge margin here, according to evidenced abilities) would be entirely irrelevant, because angmar cannot be killed by a man according to prophecy. therefor the witch king would win. get where i am coming from? and as to vaders abilities, i would put it to you that the fact he does not do certain things, or express anywhere near the capability to do certain things, in the movies, means that lesser sources that say he can do them are contradicting the movies. G-canon vader post mustafar is not shown to be an exceptional duellist or anywhere near it; he defeats opponents who either let him win or are untrained, and he does so through brute force, not skill (though i admit that in ANH he at least maintained a guard and probed for opportunity against obi-wan). luke defeats him in ROTJ without any formal practical training in sword forms simply by getting angry, which is in point of fact counter-productive against a competent swordsman. at the same time i would say that if the movies state vader is a superlative swordsman, that by star-wars standards he is, and would likely be an equal or better to malgus in terms of raw swordsmanship.

well-i dont remember any mention of the empire struggling to mobilise firstly. secondly, you are assuming one side would decide not to mobilise to 100% capacity whilst the other would, without providing any reason whatsoever for it. thirdly, the battle of endor is a fight they cannot run from solely because they got stupid and fell into a really obvious trap. you dont deserve the chance to run away when you go with the assumption that the emperor visiting his superweapon isnt going to be escorted by a whole lot of reasons not to go on with your attack. as you say plot armour wins the day. fourthly, "the usa" (i assume you mean the coalition of allied forces lead by the usa, but i wouldnt be entirely surprised if you forgot the us has gotten help for all such actions since vietnam) didnt win afghanistan. it decided it had won and then packed up before the fighting was finished (it is still ongoing). in addition to this afghanistan has something of a history of leaving superpowers battered and bloodied and running for the door. the us is only the latest in a line that runs for thousands of years. as to vietnam, your comment smells of trying to find an excuse for losing that doesnt sound like "we lost the will to fight and there-for lost". as to imperial tactics-air superiority is great, but the only instance of a straight up fight in the star wars movies is hoth-where the empire cannot use its air forces against the rebels due to the shield, and the rebels air-units are already under that umbrella. use of autocannons cannot be a war crime because they do not exist. and we have, in this very game, instances of biological warfare and the use of fire as a weapon of war. so what is your point? and as to strawmen, an analogy regarding stones and glass houses springs to mind. but, to humour you, imperial (40k) capital ships are typically rated as capable of dishing out the equivalent of tens to hundreds of gigatons (i use tonnage because it tends to make more sense to people generally, thanks to the description of nuclear weaponry in tnt-equivalence) of explosive force per salvo, almost entirely in broadsides to port and starboard, with a fraction being forward facing. sw turbolaser blasts (individual ones) can from the movies be calculated to have the explosive force of roughly 60 megatons, based on how quickly asteroids of a certain size are vaporised in esb. warships in star wars carry a hell of a lot of these, and they are not the primary ship to ship armament. we see these turbolasers firing roughly once every second in anh for point defence (which the rebels explicitly indicate they are not good for) and once every few seconds in esb, which provides a lower cumulative effect of 1800mtons or a higher of 3600mtons per minute per turbolaser, if we assume a standardised weapon platform. this translates to between 1.7 and 3.6 gigatons per minute cumulative explosive force per turbolaser. these numbers, compared to the 40k numbers are certainly comparable for raw firepower, though as you have pointed out range is a big factor. however, as i said in my previous post the nature of hyperdrive allows for a capable sw commander to jump his squadron at close range to the 40k forces, unlease a salvo fully capable of damaging the imperial ships and then cutting and running, using the momentum from the hyper-jump to pull out of the 40k capital ships firing arc before jumping back into hyperspace before significant retaliation from the 40k force. or they could, again assuming they have reasonable knowledge of the 40k fleets dispositions (no sane military commander would attack an enemy if they do not know the enemy's strengths and weaknesses) they may be able to jump behind/past the 40k ships, thus either ignoring them or opening up an opportunity to rake the enemies very vulnerable engines.

the webway is very specific in where you can go with it. if you want to go somewhere new you need to use the warp normally, then set up a portal. the tau ftl is exceedingly slow-as i understand it they make very, very short jumps and it takes them quite a while. being able to run at will did the rebel alliance fine. irl it worked fine for the vietnamese and afghans quite recently too.

aside from the fact that how similar one thing may be to another when they are not the same thing, they are not very similar at all. your quote says the hyperdrive causes a space time ripple effect, with the ship riding that effect to its destination, using a shield technology to remain attached to the ripple for as long as needed. travelling through the warp is rather different-it is infact far more comparable to sailing ships travelling across earths oceans, with the caveat that every fish in the sea, the air and the sea itself are actively trying to kill you and make your soul its plaything. the warp is an entirely seperate dimension that you have to enter and traverse at your own peril. hyperdrive is something you can make your course calculations on before you start, and be quite sure you will get there at a certain time in a certain way. as fox points out, sw weaponry is comparatively short ranged, and in sublight terms not any faster than imperial ships: the point i was making in this regard is that the speed advantage of hyperdrive allows sw forces to engage at will. they can use the (compared to 40kftl) highly exact nature of hyperdrive to their considerable advantage, assuming they have prior knowledge of the location and disposition of 40k assets. failing that they can run with impunity.

no it isnt, because the sw side can move troops and resources with, for the most part, impunity. travel speed isnt only important in naval terms; logistics and transport capacity are exceptionally important. we can assume sw ftl doesnt use the warp because there is no indication whatsoever that it uses the warp, it is as simple as that, and whilst the imperial navy has millions of ships, the vast majority are not capital ships, but smaller destroyers, frigates and transports. now-with the slower travel and highly visible nature of warp/realspace transition, it provides ample room for commerce raiders to ply their trade, which is one that relies on speed and application of firepower to do as much damage as possible and disengage in short order. this would be easier for star wars ships than 40k type ships (with the exception of the necrons). this same advantage gives the sw ships a decent chance at running imperial blockades, as they are able to use hyperdrive to reach deep into individual solar systems-such as the millenium falcon exiting hyperspace above what was once alderaan. imperial ships typically cannot achieve this accuracy, and would not anticipate a foe that could in the beginning.

inquisitor eisenhorn at one point had a power weapon without a physical blade-literally a lightsaber in all but name. these are however exceptionally rare versions. that said, ibram gaunt can and has used his power weapon (the sword of sondar) to deflect las rounds and similar stuff before, which implies that similar weaponry can be used in this fashion, and he has also used it to break various stealth and force fields, which implies that similar quality weapons may be able to do the same. this implies that the lightsabers blade could be destroyed by a power weapon of sufficient provenance. jedi, by the by, are not close combat experts at all. they are good at a highly stylised form of martial art which, with the exception of the elite amongst the jedi, is shown to be rather ineffective in battle situations where they are caught off guard or in a bad position. the space marines, by contrast, are most definitely expert in combat in most forms of combat relevant to their setting. as to choosing the "sword" over the blaster-space marines are often equipped with chainsaw swords. in a setting where the average humans laser rifle (habitually mocked as a "flashlight" by the fanbase for its ineffectiveness) kicks out enough megajoules to flash fry the soft tissue of anything it hits, aside from the hole made in the thing... now, space marines dont block these kinds of attacks. they completely ignore them. as to speed-they are both capable of superhuman agility, but for space marines this is the norm, for the jedi it requires effort. and i honestly dont see how lacking any armour whatsoever would mean anything other than a massive, glaring and overwhelming disadvantage for the jedi. because power armour augments the space marines ability's. cloth doesnt do the same for the jedi. *edit* actually setting versus setting the star wars franchise would come out on top easily. whilst 40k forces would have an immense ground superiority in per capita combat strength, they would be as massively outnumbered versus, for example, the galactic empire as they themselves would outnumber the federation of star trek. in space their ships (taking into account the extended universe canon) would have rough parity against each other in fire power, but star wars space travel is massively, horrendously faster. it is like comparing eusain (sp?) bolt to a slug. seriously.