Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!milne
From: milne@uci-icse
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: lightsabres an "inferior" weapon?
Message-ID: <3534@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Thu, 5-Sep-85 06:20:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: topaz.3534
Posted: Thu Sep  5 06:20:48 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 6-Sep-85 03:21:07 EDT
Sender: daemon@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 24

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 Milne