Ahsoka Tano (Rebels) vs. ROTJ Luke Skywalker

Round 1: Lightsabers only

Round 2: All out fight

--Bonus: Legends Luke vs. Ahsoka

vs.

@shootingnova@thevivas@i_like_swords@wollfmyth209@emperordmb@juiceboks@themuser@zapan871@silver2467 @

@georgewbush:

I'm going with Luke. The guy beat Vader.

Luke no contest.

Yeah Luke wins

Round 1: Pretty close, considering Ahsoka did almost as well against Vader as Luke. And, if the idea that Luke was in a Force Rage pertains to Disney Luke as well as Legends, then it could be said that he and Ahsoka are about even as duelists.

Round 2: Ahsoka. More and better Force feats than Disney Luke

Round 3: Legends Luke speed-blitzes.

Luke.

It's still Luke.

Luke

Luke.

Luke.

Luke, obviously. For those saying she fought evenly with Maul, she didn't. They briefly fought and then she retreated.

LOL at all out. Some sources say Vader is in his prime in Revels and FU timelines, older sources say RotJ. I Feel either way Luke won against a holding back Vader who saved Luke when push came to shove. Luke been not that good as a duelist through the whole time limes of ANH through ESB. His Dueling in RotJ is soley base off a possible out of prime Vader, and holding back Vader. Even the current canon shows Luke as meh with the one canon comic that takes place before Movie 7.

Ahsoka as a damn padawan was beating 3 Magna Gaurds with handicap, holding her own against Grievous, out doing Pre Vizla, and keeping herself being subdued by holding back Anakin/Obi Wan. That was as a padawan. As a adult, she made the Inquisitors look stupid, dueled with Maul briefly fine, and now did as well as Luke against a not holding back Vader who may or may not be in prime.

That is just dueling wise. Lets compare force feats, oh wait, RotJ Luke really has none! Ahsoka TK feats are better use, and more useful.

So Round 1, I lean on Ahsoka, but I can see where people and hardcore "Purist" fans lean to Canon Luke.

Round 2 is all Ahsoka. Force Superiority and equal duelist to Canon Luke.

Round 3, Legends Luke? Like Dark Empire and shit? Thats dumb but ok.

Luke still ftw.

Yeah I love to see canon Luke force feats vs Ahsoka round 2. Oh wait...

Better yet I love to see Canon Luke mess up Vader without Force Rage... oh wait...

@sirfizzwhizz: The guy who won, versus, the tano who lost by all appearance.

oh wait. This is a cannon fight?

@themuser said:

@sirfizzwhizz: The guy who won, versus, the tano who lost by all appearance.

oh wait. This is a cannon fight?

LMAO

Backing Skywalker still. Though it's closer.

Luke.

Vader is factually at his best in Legends. With Disney, it's ambiguous. As to Vader's "holding back", that is false. He was willing to kill Luke per multiple sources, and besides that, what makes you think the guy who was trying to reason with his father repeatedly and outright said: "I can't kill my own father" wasn't holding back too? They were both holding back, and Vader was still willing to kill Luke. Luke's showing against Vader is perfectly valid, and it's the only feat he needs. Vader was not holding back anymore than Luke was, and he was not past his prime, at least not if we're going off of Legends. But even with the Disney version, it's ambiguous.

1. Because Maganaguards are inconsistent canon-fodder

2. The Grievous fight was PIS. If CW Obi-Wan and Anakin can individually keep back attacks from a bloodlusted Ahsoka when not wanting to fight her, then she has no business holding her own against Grievous. Especially since she also lost to Barriss, who is not on GG's level.

3. Pre Vizsla lost to a Darth Maul holding back. Losing to Ahsoka speaks to how poor a duelist he is, not to how good Ahsoka is. He's not impressive.

4. Again, they kept back her attacks individually when not even wanting to fight her, and that was when she was bloodlusted. She also lost to someone Anakin beat, and it took Luminara Unduli helping her to do as well against Ventress as either Anakin or Obi-Wan have done solo. She's obviously inferior to Anakin and Obi-Wan.

5. Yeah, the Inquisitors who get stalemated by Kanan and Ezra, who the guy Luke fought evenly with beat easily

6. No, they fought very briefly and she retreated. Not enough there to go off of.

7. Again, Luke was holding back against Vader even more than the opposite is true. Luke still did better against Vader than Ahsoka.

Luke still wins a duel. Force-fight, yes, Ahsoka is better than Disney Luke as of RotJ, but dueling-wise she is not. It's not going to be an easy win for him, but he does win. At worst, he should be able to hold his own.

@darkdefender: Only if it's strictly a duel with Disney Luke. Legends Luke speed-blitzes, and if it's Disney Luke but force powers are allowed, then Ahsoka has a serious edge over him just owing to Disney Luke's hitherto lack of power feats.

@shroudofsorrow:

Vader is factually at his best in Legends.

Yes, this is a canon fight I am discussing, not the Bonus.

With Disney, it's ambiguous. As to Vader's "holding back", that is false. He was willing to kill Luke per multiple sources, and besides that, what makes you think the guy who was trying to reason with his father repeatedly and outright said: "I can't kill my own father" wasn't holding back too? They were both holding back, and Vader was still willing to kill Luke. Luke's showing against Vader is perfectly valid, and it's the only feat he needs. Vader was not holding back anymore than Luke was, and he was not past his prime, at least not if we're going off of Legends. But even with the Disney version, it's ambiguous.

This is false. Vader was conflicted. Hesitating. Hell in ESB he was on purpose not trying at all to kill Luke but Capture him. In RotJ both held back, and Vader was the clear superior still till Pot Device Force Rage came into play.

1. Because Maganaguards are inconsistent canon-fodder

Bullshit, and bad counter on your part. Magnaguards have only been dealt with Jedi Masters in the canon. That is also 1 or 2 at a time. Not 3 at a time, with the handicap of protecting the Hutt they were targeting.

Do not even go there.

2. The Grievous fight was PIS. If CW Obi-Wan and Anakin can individually keep back attacks from a bloodlusted Ahsoka when not wanting to fight her, then she has no business holding her own against Grievous. Especially since she also lost to Barriss, who is not on GG's level.

PIS? Oh freaking please. I guess any good feat she has must be PIS since you do not like her. Hard to accept that her consistent skills feats totally align with Grievous unable to easy kill her. She did not win the fight, and chose to run away. She still held her own, and to say it is PIS is BS on your part. Bias too.

3. Pre Vizsla lost to a Darth Maul holding back. Losing to Ahsoka speaks to how poor a duelist he is, not to how good Ahsoka is. He's not impressive.

Darth Maul took forever to kill him, which was the goal, to prove to the Mandolorians he was superior as a leader. Maul had no reason to hold back or toy around. Obi Wan also was unable to one shot the man. Ahsoka did well.

4. Again, they kept back her attacks individually when not even wanting to fight her, and that was when she was bloodlusted.

Your point? They were unable to disarm her or subdue her. After all Anakin subdue Barriss in a fight, and other force users like ventress too. Not Ahsoka.

She also lost to someone Anakin beat, and it took Luminara Unduli helping her to do as well against Ventress as either Anakin or Obi-Wan have done solo. She's obviously inferior to Anakin and Obi-Wan.

No one is saying Padawan is on their level mate. WTH are you reading? All I said was she is very skilled as a padawan, and became more skilled in Rebels. Seriously, if your going to argue points with me, get the shit I was arguing right.

5. Yeah, the Inquisitors who get stalemated by Kanan and Ezra, who the guy Luke fought evenly with beat easily

What are you on about here?

6. No, they fought very briefly and she retreated. Not enough there to go off of.

Ahsoka did not retreated. They clash, and Ahsoka was the superior. Forcing Maul back fine in the brief clash. She then let the blind Kanakn due his Force amp BS to beat the arrogant Maul.

7. Again, Luke was holding back against Vader even more than the opposite is true. Luke still did better against Vader than Ahsoka.

How so? Luke only beat Vader with a force amp, and Luke has NO, I repeat, NO other dueling feats to judge from mate. Show me one other dueling feat of Canon luke other than the shit feat from ROTJ where both parties had held back, and Luke was amped in the end.

How the fudge can you judge anything base on those facts? Ahsoka's feat is better, last longer, Vader was in prime, and there was no muddled context. Deal with it.

Luke still wins a duel. Force-fight, yes, Ahsoka is better than Disney Luke as of RotJ, but dueling-wise she is not. It's not going to be an easy win for him, but he does win. At worst, he should be able to hold his own.

She shits on canon version of ROTJ Luke. You cannot prove how good he is as a duelist. His first dueling feat is Vader owning him. The Second is too heavy on context to judge how well they are. All you can do is make Bias assumptions on how good Luke would have done if he tried and Vader tried. That is a piss poor proof of anything.

Except I don't think it was ever confirmed that Luke was in a Force Rage in the Disney version. That's emphasized in Legends, but I do not believe it to be so in the Disney continuity. And Vader was not the "clear superior"; they were fighting evenly. Luke even kicked Vader backwards down a flight of stairs at one point. Nothing to indicate Vader was the "clear superior".

Let's see...rude, crass, profane, and incorrect. Nadhar Vehb (not a master), beat several Magnaguards easily. Maul and Anakin have done the exact same thing, and neither of them are masters. As if rank means anything anyway.

And yes, I will "go there". They're inconsistent. In an unfinished but canon episode of TCW, two of them give a better fight to inferior versions of Anakin and Obi-Wan then the RotS versions. That's inconsistency. Four of them get easily trashed by Nadhar, but the same number gives Anakin a challenge. That's inconsistency. They're inconsistent. Plain and simple.

No, because I explained why it isn't consistent. If Anakin by himself can keep back a bloodlusted Ahsoka when not wanting to fight her, then she's not in Grievous' skill range. I actually gave a reason. Hatefully accusing me of dismissing it because I don't like it looks pretty bad when I actually explained my reasoning for it. It's not "bias" at all, a label I can easily apply to you, especially with all of the completely unwarranted venom you're slinging my way.

What part of "was holding back" was unclear? He was holding back, for the sake of putting on a show. So between losing to a Maul who was slumming it, and losing to Ahsoka...he's not good. Her beating him's nothing to boast about.

Again, they were holding back. As to the rest, in citing Ahsoka's fight with Obi-Wan and Anakin, you suggested she was on their level. I set out to prove/explain why that was incorrect. Once again, the venom and profanity you're displaying here is unwarranted, and frankly, I'm going to flag you, because I've had enough.

I should think it's obvious; the Inquisitors we know to be about even with Kanan and Ezra based on their fighting evenly with them. Vader humiliated Kanan and Ezara, and Luke fought evenly with Vader.

This isn't difficult.

The rest frankly isn't worth responding to at all. Suffice to say, this reminds me why I went on hiatus from these forums. I can do without responses like yours.

@darkdefender: May I see a scan of that? It's a nice showing it it's true, though I'd probably say Ahsoka's blasting back the Inquisitors is better.

@darkdefender: Very nice. Loving the art there, too. But yes, Legends Luke wins soundly, and Disney Luke wins/holds his own in a lightsaber duel. Force fight still goes to Ahsoka, but as you've just proven, it's not a cakewalk for her.

@shroudofsorrow:

Except I don't think it was ever confirmed that Luke was in a Force Rage in the Disney version. That's emphasized in Legends, but I do not believe it to be so in the Disney continuity. And Vader was not the "clear superior"; they were fighting evenly. Luke even kicked Vader backwards down a flight of stairs at one point. Nothing to indicate Vader was the "clear superior".

Fair enough point. I will give you that one.

Let's see...rude, crass, profane, and incorrect.

Meh, if it gets too hot int he kitchen...

Nadhar Vehb (not a master), beat several Magnaguards easily.

In canon? I never seen this in Clone Wars. Source?

Maul and Anakin have done the exact same thing, and neither of them are masters. As if rank means anything anyway.

Rank tends to be a good source of capability. Thats why it exists.

And yes, I will "go there". They're inconsistent. In an unfinished but canon episode of TCW, two of them give a better fight to inferior versions of Anakin and Obi-Wan then the RotS versions. That's inconsistency. Four of them get easily trashed by Nadhar, but the same number gives Anakin a challenge. That's inconsistency. They're inconsistent. Plain and simple.

They give good fights regardless of the numbers. Its consistent. Sorry you dont like that.

No, because I explained why it isn't consistent. If Anakin by himself can keep back a bloodlusted Ahsoka when not wanting to fight her, then she's not in Grievous' skill range. I actually gave a reason. Hatefully accusing me of dismissing it because I don't like it looks pretty bad when I actually explained my reasoning for it. It's not "bias" at all, a label I can easily apply to you, especially with all of the completely unwarranted venom you're slinging my way.

I have feats and consistent feats at that on my side. Your being bias, and I dont have time for that crap anymore. The Ahsoka hate is getting dumb.

What part of "was holding back" was unclear? He was holding back, for the sake of putting on a show. So between losing to a Maul who was slumming it, and losing to Ahsoka...he's not good. Her beating him's nothing to boast about.

Show me where it is stated he held back? Again, from my view he was proving himself superior. no need for a show, beat him as fast as possible to show how badass you are. So unless you have some inside source, please tell me why you know it was a show? Please post that specific proof.

Again, they were holding back. As to the rest, in citing Ahsoka's fight with Obi-Wan and Anakin, you suggested she was on their level. I set out to prove/explain why that was incorrect. Once again, the venom and profanity you're displaying here is unwarranted, and frankly, I'm going to flag you, because I've had enough.

Wow, epic fail. I NEVER said she was on their level. i said she was good enough to not be subdued by them. if they wanted to kill her, or maim her, they could have easy. But to subdue her like Anakin did Barris or Ventress, did not happen. You are upset at my aggressiveness, then stop twisting my words to suit your BS counters.

I should think it's obvious; the Inquisitors we know to be about even with Kanan and Ezra based on their fighting evenly with them. Vader humiliated Kanan and Ezara, and Luke fought evenly with Vader.

This isn't difficult.

What does this have to do with anything? Ahsoka also manhandle two Inquistiors fine as well. Beating the most competent one with no Lightsaber. To the point where she was quoted as never in real danger by the Rebels director. So why bring them up? Luke also never fought evenly with a serious, un conflicted Vader.

The rest frankly isn't worth responding to at all. Suffice to say, this reminds me why I went on hiatus from these forums. I can do without responses like yours.

Same here. All you did was make strawman arguments, and twist my words with your Ahsoka dislike.

@sirfizzwhizz:

Don't recall the magnaguard feat. Does she best them with her lightsaber? Or another weapon (huge difference)

she let kanan beat him, maul would lose to ashoka as he stands no chance against vader

rotj luke edges

@sirfizzwhizz: Nahdar Vebb destroys 4 magnadroids. I've had this discussion before they have never been shown to beat anyone and are basically fodder.

@americanspeeddemon: Yet they give Anakin and Obi Wan hell consistently.

Gallery

This is PIS. So is Nahdar Vebb. Post me another example anything like that. Please do.

In fact, i wonder what @wolfrazer has to say about Magnagaurds as easy fodder.

Now see, this is a much better way to respond to someone.

...and this isn't. I don't debate with people who respond to something they don't want to hear with profanity and unwarranted insults. Let's keep it civil. Especially considering what it is we're debating about.

Star Wars: TCW is canon with both continuities. And it's made pretty clear that Nadhar is a Knight, not a master. Kit says he's happy that Nadhar has passed the trials (meaning he's just become a knight), and Dooku does not describe him as a master when speaking of him. He was not a master.

No it isn't. Going off that logic, Commander Cody would be equal to Padawan Anakin, because they're both commanders. Or, Admiral Piett could curbstomp Padawan Anakin and Ahsoka, but he's an Admiral to their commanders. Same goes for General Veers. Then there's the fact that Knight Anakin has way better feats than several Jedi masters (Coleman Trebor and Cin Drallig spring to mind). Rank means nothing. Feats and accolades are what matters.

Not a question of like or dislike. I've explained why they are inconsistent; they do well against CW Anakin one moment, and get shredded by Nadhar Vehb the next. That sounds rather inconsistent to me. Albeit, they did worse against Maul then they did against Ahsoka, which makes a certain amount of sense. Still, their lackluster performance against Nadhar when they did well against Anakin is hard to ignore, as is how two did well against Anakin and Obi-Wan in one on ones, but (again) four got easily shredded by Darth Maul, who is even with CW Obi-Wan based on their multiple duels. I'm still seeing inconsistency here.

And actually, saying they give a good fight regardless of numbers would not prove consistency; if four do just as well as say, one, that would make them more inconsistent, not less.

I'm sorry, but when I did even remotely insinuate that I hated Ahsoka? Oh wait, that's right, never. I never said a single bad thing about Ahsoka as a character. I simply believe her to be inferior to Luke and Grievous based on showings. Saying you have "consistent feats on your side" is a rather unwarranted boast, as I've explained why they're NOT consistent. And again, accusing me of bias doesn't work, because as I've already said, I can very, very easily apply that label to you. That's the problem with name-calling; it's almost always reversible.

So no, it's a PIS showing. A person who can't beat Obi-Wan or an Anakin whose holding back while bloodlusted is not on Grievous' level, or anywhere close to it. The person who lost to Barriss is not on GG's level. The showing is PIS. It's not hatred, it's a conclusion I come to based on what I've seen of her other showings.

Filoni's statements, if I'm remembering it right. Will try and find it if I can.

So, let me make sure I'm understanding this right; you just admitted that if they wanted to kill her or maim her, they could have done so easily. Hm. So then, the logical conclusion there, is that they were holding back, and so bringing it up as proof of Ahsoka's skill doesn't actually work very well.

Not twisting your words at all. And accusing me of "BS counters" is more of that kind of venom that's doing little to sway me to your side. And also what prompted me to flag you.

...yeah, he did. Vader was serious. He was willing to kill Luke. And Luke was holding back too, which evens out that particular disadvantage. If Luke is about even with/better than Vader, then it stands to reason he's better than the people Vader has humiliated...the same people who are even with the people Ahsoka's humiliated.

Not sure how many other ways I can word it. Point is, Ahsoka's beating the Inquisitors doesn't prove superiority over Luke.

Hm. So, the guy accusing me of "disliking Ahsoka" despite having never once said or insinuated that...is accusing ME of strawman arguments? Wow.

I'm done.

@sirfizzwhizz:

That is impressive. I suppose taking this feat into account (and looking at things with less bias) she could very well beat Luke in both rounds. My reasoning would be that she A) Has more tangible feats (Luke pretty much has only one), B) Her dual fighting style (IIRC) is something Luke has never had to deal with before, and C) Her force powers could bridge any gap that she may have (only applies to round 2).

I'll probably have to watch her Vader fight, and have a look for quotes (so I know where he is power wise) but this is definitly a better fight than I gave credit.

@serpinethegreen: Except the one feat is all Luke needs. You are correct that dual lightsabers are something Luke has never dealt with before, but I don't think he would be totally incapable of adapating.

Also, for additional info, proof that Maul was slumming it against Vizsla, thus making Ahsoka's victory over him less impressive:

This sword fight - that's a whole act, practically. To do it right, to make it exciting - that's a whole act, because the fans of Pre Vizsla, are gonna mob me at Celebration in the future if, if Vizsla goes down too easily. This is not going to be a Boba Fett into the Sarlacc pit.

Taken from the "Shades of Reason" Featurette.

@shroudofsorrow:

I didn't mention Pre Vizsla (still not sold on that as a name) I'm more impressed by her magnadroid victory, and fight with Vader.

Luke wins.

One losing fight against Rebels Vader isn't enough to say Ahsoka can win.

@shroudofsorrow:

...and this isn't. I don't debate with people who respond to something they don't want to hear with profanity and unwarranted insults. Let's keep it civil. Especially considering what it is we're debating about.

Have not insulted you at all mate. I can damn well swear all I want though without the f bomb. If your too timid by my nature, then dont debate me.

Star Wars: TCW is canon with both continuities. And it's made pretty clear that Nadhar is a Knight, not a master. Kit says he's happy that Nadhar has passed the trials (meaning he's just become a knight), and Dooku does not describe him as a master when speaking of him. He was not a master.

OK I remeber this feat. This same character died horribly and was one talented Jedi Knight. Maybe good enough to spar with Anakin and Obi. Fact is he is a special case, or it was PIS. Take your pick. Either way, he died. Lowballing Magnaguards to be bias against Ahsoka is not the way to show your street cred mate.

No it isn't. Going off that logic, Commander Cody would be equal to Padawan Anakin, because they're both commanders. Or, Admiral Piett could curbstomp Padawan Anakin and Ahsoka, but he's an Admiral to their commanders. Same goes for General Veers. Then there's the fact that Knight Anakin has way better feats than several Jedi masters (Coleman Trebor and Cin Drallig spring to mind). Rank means nothing. Feats and accolades are what matters.

Your whole logic fails here. Jedi are ALL above rank of any clone. This is stated. Guess who would kick whose ass and guess who is overall in command of decisions?

Also I am not saying anything that all masters are superior to certain knights. Rank and the title of Master does carry some weight to it. you cannot be fodder and hold such titles. Your being ignorant and obnoxious with common sense. Get some and we can continue. I mean, how old are you to make these 5th grade level crazy counter arguments? Sweet lord.....

Not a question of like or dislike. I've explained why they are inconsistent; they do well against CW Anakin one moment, and get shredded by Nadhar Vehb the next. That sounds rather inconsistent to me.

You showed one example. One exapmle is not inconsistent. Its a fluke, a special case, or PIS. Nothing shows it inconsistent. Nice try though.

Albeit, they did worse against Maul then they did against Ahsoka, which makes a certain amount of sense. Still, their lackluster performance against Nadhar when they did well against Anakin is hard to ignore, as is how two did well against Anakin and Obi-Wan in one on ones, but (again) four got easily shredded by Darth Maul, who is even with CW Obi-Wan based on their multiple duels. I'm still seeing inconsistency here.

And actually, saying they give a good fight regardless of numbers would not prove consistency; if four do just as well as say, one, that would make them more inconsistent, not less.

All you proven is that you are willing to low ball Magnaguards to try and make a case to lowball Ahsoka. Good job.

I'm sorry, but when I did even remotely insinuate that I hated Ahsoka? Oh wait, that's right, never.

You are hating Ahsoka by sheer virtue of lowballing every feat she has. Dont play ignorant. You are taking the time to lowball her, and anyone she is facing to make a case against her skill as a padawan.

I never said a single bad thing about Ahsoka as a character. I simply believe her to be inferior to Luke and Grievous based on showings. Saying you have "consistent feats on your side" is a rather unwarranted boast, as I've explained why they're NOT consistent. And again, accusing me of bias doesn't work, because as I've already said, I can very, very easily apply that label to you. That's the problem with name-calling; it's almost always reversible.

Uh huh. According to you Pre Vizla is garbage, Magnagaurds are Storm trooper fodder, and Clones hold the same ability as Jedi because you falsely think they are equals in rank somehow. Fail.

So no, it's a PIS showing. A person who can't beat Obi-Wan or an Anakin whose holding back while bloodlusted is not on Grievous' level, or anywhere close to it. The person who lost to Barriss is not on GG's level. The showing is PIS. It's not hatred, it's a conclusion I come to based on what I've seen of her other showings.

All this to low ball Ahsoka showing against Grievous as PIS because you dont like it. Kid, I hope you you grow up to work for a politician, you be awesome at smear campaigns lol.

So, let me make sure I'm understanding this right; you just admitted that if they wanted to kill her or maim her, they could have done so easily. Hm. So then, the logical conclusion there, is that they were holding back, and so bringing it up as proof of Ahsoka's skill doesn't actually work very well.

More lowballing ignorance. Sigh. We can gauge skill by the level of holding back. Vader Skill was so superior to Luke in ESB, he manage to disarm Luke. Twice in one fight. Ahsoka was never fully disarm, retrieving her saber in mid air, and never subdued against the more talented Anakin who already shown skill to subdued Ventress and Barris. This provides some framework to judge skill. A good feat for Padawan Ahsoka. You want to low ball it too, or dismiss, it. Go ahead. Your ignorance and bias so far shows no bounds.

Not twisting your words at all. And accusing me of "BS counters" is more of that kind of venom that's doing little to sway me to your side. And also what prompted me to flag you.

In turn I will flag you. I am within all the rules. I can swear and use words like piss, and shit, and I can call out your BS arguments as they are. No way have I directly insult you. You dont like my aggressive debate style, then dont engage me with ignorance. Next time you flag me, I will get mods on your misuse of the system mate.

...yeah, he did. Vader was serious. He was willing to kill Luke. And Luke was holding back too, which evens out that particular disadvantage. If Luke is about even with/better than Vader, then it stands to reason he's better than the people Vader has humiliated...the same people who are even with the people Ahsoka's humiliated.

Not sure how many other ways I can word it. Point is, Ahsoka's beating the Inquisitors doesn't prove superiority over Luke.

Hm. So, the guy accusing me of "disliking Ahsoka" despite having never once said or insinuated that...is accusing ME of strawman arguments? Wow.

I'm done.

This has nothing to do with Maul. This is the director stating he had to make a decent fight scene out of it for the fans. Nothing story wise that Maul was doing the act. Nice try.

Pffft, put your money where your mouth is. Show me Luke force feats surpassing her own in a fight. You cant. Show me Luke having one context free fight vs Vader. You cannot. Show me how well Luke did against other duelist? You cant.

Dont be a sheep.

Vader v Ahsoka wasn't all that great.. lol

@sirfizzwhizz:

Show me Luke force feats surpassing her own in a fight. You cant.

Don't need to.

Show me Luke having one context free fight vs Vader. You cannot.

I'm guessing you haven't seen ROTJ. Either that, or you're making up context for that fight.

Show me how well Luke did against other duelist? You cant.

Don't need to.

Dont be a sheep.

And I'd tell you not to be biased, but that ship's already sailed.

@thevivas:

Don't need to.

You cant. So its ok.

I'm guessing you haven't seen ROTJ. Either that, or you're making up context for that fight.

• Vader was conflicted.
• Luke held back.
• Vader was possibly out of prime.
• Possible force amp only way to win for Luke.

As far as canon is concern there is lot of context mate. Ignore it I guess.

Don't need to.

You cannot establish consistency. I know, its alright.

And I'd tell you not to be biased, but that ship's already sailed.

Your siding with Luke base on nothing, and Im the bias one? Riiiight.

@sirfizzwhizz:

You cant. So its ok.

That's because I don't need to. Thinking Ahsoka is going to win via the Force is plain silly.

• Vader was conflicted.

No he was willing to kill Luke.

• Luke held back.

Even better for him.

Vader was possibly out of prime.

Possible force amp only way to win for Luke.

So I'm supposed to buy your "opinion" of the circumstances as fact? Lol no.

Not to mention neither of those are true, besides Luke winning via Force Rage, which is already a moot point since he could defend himself more than well enough while holding back.

As far as canon is concern there is lot of context mate. Ignore it I guess.

No there's not. You just keep making context up.

You cannot establish consistency. I know, its alright.

Oh this is rich, considering your earlier discussion with shrouds.

Luke beat a more experienced and overall Better Vader, Ahsoka lost to an inferior version.

It hurts, but it's the truth.

Your siding with Luke base on nothing, and Im the bias one? Riiiight.

Nope I just gave you the reasoning above. I'm also using a little thing called "common sense". You should try it.

And yes, calling other people "Ahsoka haters" because they don't agree with where you personally place her is called a biased.

@thevivas:

That's because I don't need to. Thinking Ahsoka is going to win via the Force is plain silly.

Her force is better, and she uses it in fights. It will matter.

No he was willing to kill Luke.

Yes, Vader says this, and so what? He was still conflicted, and the more Luke talk to him, the more he got to him. Add to this if Vader was so willing to kill him, then why did he save Luke and killed himself when it mattered most? he couldn't, when it mattered, Vader did the opposite what he said he could do.

Facts. Lots of context, Vader was Conflicted.

Even better for him.

Not really, you cannot judge what a not holding back Luke would do, other than ESB. He is featless in what he is capable not holding back.

So I'm supposed to buy your "opinion" of the circumstances as fact? Lol no.

s. So their is sources that show this. Not to mention Vader was 45 when he died. Thats far from someones prime which is early 30s. What proof do you have of the opposite other than one quote from a now non canon novel? None.

Not to mention neither of those are true, besides Luke winning via Force Rage, which is already a moot point since he could defend himself more than well enough while holding back.

Ahsoka defended her self in a longer fight, against a non conflicted, and in prime Vader. After fighting Inquisitors, and quick clash with Maul before all that. Better IMO.

No there's not. You just keep making context up.

I made up nothing. This is stated and sourced already by those making the new canon lore.

"This is Vader in his prime.You got to remember how far we come from the character when he was Anakin. He has so buried the good person that he was. There is no reason for that to come out yet, till he gets expose to Luke." - Pablo, Rebels Recon

Im just saying what canon source we have.

Oh this is rich, considering your earlier discussion with shrouds.

You mean the guy who think Vizsla and Magnaguards are low caliber fodder? The guy who felt Ahsoka fighting Grievous was PIS becuase he did not like it? That joke discussion? Siding with the clearly wrong camp there mate.

Luke beat a more experienced and overall Better Vader, Ahsoka lost to an inferior version.

You yet to prove this.

It hurts, but it's the truth.

So you have no proof of anything then? Vivas...... ugh

Nope I just gave you the reasoning above. I'm also using a little thing called "common sense". You should try it.

If by common sense I should side with Luke because so many fanboys do, then that not common sense mate. The feats man, feats, you been in this game long enough.

And yes, calling other people "Ahsoka haters" because they don't agree with where you personally place her is called a biased.

Meh, Im calling Shroud what he is. He ignores all arguments for Ahsoka, and lowballs the rest. He is a hater. You yourself I expected better. You tend to make good arguments. Where is that?

@sirfizzwhizz: This is false. Vader was conflicted. Hesitating. Hell in ESB he was on purpose not trying at all to kill Luke but Capture him. In RotJ both held back, and Vader was the clear superior still till Pot Device Force Rage came into play.

Don't know if someone already responded to this or not, but it looked to me (in the movie) that Luke clearly was at the very least a match for if not the superior duelist to Vader throughout the entire fight. Never in that fight did it look like Luke was struggling, nor did it look like he was ever the one not in control of the fight.

This is where I feel like the novels (if that's where all of this Vader was holding back and Vader is still superior stuff is coming from) are not accurately portraying what happened in the movies.

Fair enough.