milne@uci-icse (09/05/85)
From: Alastair Milne <milne@uci-icse>
How can the lightsabre be considered an inferior weapon to the
blaster? It can cut just about anything that isn't well shielded
(in which case it plays old Harry with the shield itself) except
for another lightsabre, it can be used with surgical precision,
and, in the hands of trained Jedi, it will shield against all kinds
of attack. Blasters, on the other hand, well get through lots of
things eventually, but require some persistance for tougher things
(like the doors in the imperial battle stations); as for their
surgical accuracy -- well, look at Han's "surgery" on the green
bounty hunter in the Mos Eisely cantina -- a little messy; and they
won't shield against anything, unless you are really good at
shooting your enemy's bolts out of the air as they're coming at
you. In fact, given the consensus we seem to have on the quality
of imperial armour, it seems lightsabres even do a better defensive
job than it.
No, I think the Jedi choose their favourite weapon properly, and not just
to impress with what they could do against superior odds.
Alastair Milnenaiman@pegasus.UUCP (Ephrayim J. Naiman) (09/06/85)
<munch, munch> Quote follows at the end of the article. I also feel that the Jedi chose their weapon properly. To further support the below mentioned theories, I thought of another one. Blasters work for long range with the saber only able to defend against it. This also leads to the saber being used more for defensive purposes rather than offensive. > How can the lightsabre be considered an inferior weapon to the > blaster? It can cut just about anything that isn't well shielded > (in which case it plays old Harry with the shield itself) except > for another lightsabre, it can be used with surgical precision, > and, in the hands of trained Jedi, it will shield against all kinds > of attack. Blasters, on the other hand, well get through lots of > things eventually, but require some persistance for tougher things > (like the doors in the imperial battle stations); as for their > surgical accuracy -- well, look at Han's "surgery" on the green > bounty hunter in the Mos Eisely cantina -- a little messy; and they > won't shield against anything, unless you are really good at > shooting your enemy's bolts out of the air as they're coming at > you. In fact, given the consensus we seem to have on the quality > of imperial armour, it seems lightsabres even do a better defensive > job than it. > No, I think the Jedi choose their favourite weapon properly, and not just > to impress with what they could do against superior odds. > Alastair Milne -- ==> Ephrayim J. Naiman @ AT&T Information Systems Laboratories (201) 576-6259 Paths: [ihnp4, allegra, mtuxo, maxvax, cbosgd, lzmi, ...]!pegasus!naiman
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (09/19/85)
Another point about the superiority of lightsabres that I have not seen mentioned: Remeber the battle against the walkers on Hoth? There, Luke used his lightsabre to slice open the armor of a walker that the blaster bolts could not penetrate. This is direct evidence that the lightsabre force-blade is stronger than the bolts from even large "artillery-size" blasters. (You could justify this, probably, by citing the limited range of the force-blade, and saying it traded distance for power.) Will