Looking past whether or not Vader was at his peak when Luke beat him, and/or assuming that that moment was the highest that power level that Luke reached while "Rebel" under the loosest definition we can fit into the game, I think it's pretty difficult to accurately represent him without at least one of the following to capture Luke's characteristics at that time.

Savage
Impulsive Savagery
Indiscriminate Rage
Sith Rage
or
New ability along the same lines of going Apes***

Then Mace is a fool. Imagine you're in an argument with an angry young man with a deadly weapon who is shouting at you not to do what you're about to try. Do *you* pay attention to him? Keeping in mind you know his reaction speed is good enough to *parry gunfire*...

If you read the scene as Anakin being faster you get to keep a smart Mace at the expense of a Mace who is a better fighter than Anakin. Take a look at the following clip from 3:26 to 3:31.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoXmqIptjK0

Anakin shouts "I need him".
We get a shot of Mace starting his swing.
Anakin draws, ignites, swings, and maims Mace before his Mace completes his swing.

Anakin is *fast*. It's not a glorious death for Mace, but when you're fighting with lightsabers an opponent who is even slightly faster is going to maim you before you can block. Look at the three Jedi masters Palpatine drops in seconds at the start of the clip. Not every lightsaber fight takes much time, if you can't block the first blow it's over and you're a hand short.

The English lit points above about texts having multiple interpretations are spot on, I think the way to choose between them is whatever makes for the best story (which depends on personal tastes). I'd rather have a Star Wars universe where Mace is fast but Anakin is faster than a universe where Mace is faster but dumb. As with everything, tastes vary.

While they may be different unlying topics, they are related in that Luke was obviouslly *partially* chosen for fanboy reasons, and perhaps anti-fanboy reasons in the case of starkiller (who, whether you like the character or not, clearly demostrated epicness albeit ridiculously overexaggerated for the sake of additional fun factor).

Let's not forget that things that are influential are not always justifiably so from a standpoint of truth.

And this is my entire point in the thread; that a meaning placed upon something by perhaps even millions of people, although that meaning may lead to huge and far reaching consequences, is not the actual meaning if it is in conflict with the meaning that the author intended and created.

You make it sound like Barthes' Marxist leaning is one trivial little factoid, but when we look at the context of what and when he was writing, we see that his literary theories are very much in stride with his feeling the need to find meaning in literature outside of alleged "bourgeois" conventions. His concern is very dubiously about the truth of the nature of authorship; in reality, we are compelled to consider the distinct possibility that his writings were driven by a goal other than truth, in that he may have already accepted things to be true and then took those assumptions to a logical conclusion. It is CRITICAL to examine that his attack on literary conventions of Bourgeois might be tied more to the need to attack capitalism on any front. It's just silly to believe that anyone is above letting what they WANT to be the truth get in the way of examination of actual truth. We need to be careful.

Another issue here is that it seems you think that knowledge inherently progresses. Why is 20th century thought any more valid than 15th century or 14th, etc.? What if Barthes is arguing against the already established truth of authorship? What of human thought necessitates that more truth be uncovered as more effort is applied? At some point, if the truth is discovered about the nature of authorship, wouldn't anyone who argues against that truth be arguing for untruth? We have to consider that possibility here as well.

What's pointless is you coming on here and stating how one man can revolutionarily reveal some previously unheard holy truth about the nature of the authorship of anything created, but then with the same swipe of the hand you dismiss the idea that another man could have definite meaning and structure built into his creation of a film series.

It matters to you in a way that is different from what George intended. But to understand the nature of Star Wars we have to look at it as it came from Lucas, not through the lens of our own interpretations that we impose on it, just as to understand that items written claiming to express the truth may in fact have no interest in truth, just furthering a goal that has already been decided to be the truth, and anything supporting it is therefore also truth.

"What is Star Wars?" was the question that was brought up. You interpretation of it is that it is (at least the OT) the story of Luke. But that is not what was put in. You can look at a painting and interpret it however you want, but just because you have your own interpretation does not mean it is valid, especially if it is completely detached from the intent of the author. It reminds me in some ways of how some people have spelled their child's name DJFJSFDIA and then pronounce it sounding like "John". Maybe it's the failure of the author that you don;t get out what was put in, or maybe it's your own failure, or maybe both or neither.

Anyways, I thought my art show analogy could be helpful but it seems to have been ignored. I think that questions of whether Luke is epic or not and questioning what is Star Wars are at least mostly separate issues. However...

As it seems you mentioned, Luke's Epicness is not necessarily from his power relative to starkiller's but his importance to the plot. What annoys me, however, is that some are using the "reasoning" that because Starkiller (to them) shouldn't exist, he isn't Star Wars, and therefore cannot be chosen as Epic. It's actually a little humorous how some are insisting on having their own views of what Star Wars is to the point where they can dismiss characters they don't like. I suppose even I feel like it sometimes, where it annoys me that Boba Fett keeps popping up in the EU. But that doesn't mean I have any right to deny those things as being part of Star Wars. It's also annoying how the Star Wars of the past that some are clinging to isn't really in tune with what Star Wars actually is now. Unless there is some standard or consensus as to what counts as Star Wars (why is canon Star Wars such a bad standard for this?), it will be pretty difficult to create/advance a game based on it. Everything that has been put into Star Wars is Star Wars, and insisting on what we thought it might have been before SE and the prequels and the EU is only a disservice to a game that tries to capture Star Wars (This does not mean I disagree with the choice of Luke. There's more than pure in-uni considerations here)

Starkiller as a Rebel is absolutely no different than Maul as a Seperatist - both played a role in the formation of their respective faction, however both died before the faction actually came to be.

All this really boils down to is in the end that Luke was not the "obvious choice", but rather the choice that was easily made amongst the designers, beyond that only the release will determine just how well that choice was.

I agree with the first part. The second part I either don't understand or you are saying we took the "easy road". Which I totally disagree with if that's the case. And honestly, at this point, I'm so tired of arguing it, and having our hard work criticized before its even seen with silly threats like "only the release will determine" blah blah blah. Here's the preview of the release. Many people will like Luke. Some will love him. A small few will tell us how horrible he is and how we never should have made it and how we might as well never do this again. I don't really care, but at this point, I'm done with the argument. IT was an obvious choice, anyone arguing another side is simply being petty and I'd be willing to bet they darn well know it.

I have to agree with bill on this one. come on man, they put a lot of work into this stuff and you want to go on and ON about how Luke is a stupid choice and blah blah blah, but you are mistaken anyways. I mean come on what do you know about starkiller other then what the game portrays him as, which is a game, of course in a game they are going to make him be able to do all this epic stuff if not no one would buy it and play it. Luke is by far the best choice as the rebel representative for the epic set because he is the most important to the rebels and is the most critical to their cause.
So he deserves to be the first representative for the epic set, no reason why starkiller could not be released later as an epic if it takes off, but for a first, it had to be luke.

one last thing, of course it was the easiest choice for the designers, because it was the only logical first choice to be made, GREAT JOB DESIGNERS! and thank you for continuing the game.

One of the things I mentioned before is that since we haven't seen the stats, we don't really know if these point costs are even applicable to a normal format. I've never seen a 150 point character; most haven't. Outside of this Epic format, after hearing what Sithborg said about his Vader, I'm thinking these figures might be a huge waste of points if you wanted to include them in a 250 pt or less squad. It would be interesting to see what these characters would look like with their same abilities they have now but costed for the "regular" game. My guess is that there is no way that they would be worth their cost in say, a 200 point squad. It would be interesting to see if making them legal for normal play would give the person using an Epic even a close to good chance at winning

Having Luke in the set was an obvious choice. But Luke was not an obvious choice for rebels because he was the obvious choice for the New Republic, leaving someone else for the Rebels. It was stated earlier that these epic pieces were supposed represent major characters at the peak of their powers, and Luke's peak was not with the Rebels. I just find it odd to have a Rebel Luke at a higher cost that GMLS - that's all.

Yoda or Obi-Wan may have been older, but that doesn't mean they were weaker in the force so it could have been them.

Still, Luke's not a bad choice. But there's no reason for either side to make this less than civil. There is room for debate.