So much Starkiller hate. I know all the powers and things that happen in the game are ridiculous, but they are simply fun to do. It's a fun game to play. I kinda take it as a grain of salt though in reference to the overall story. I figure all the overblown powers are just Hyperbole of sorts for entertainments sake. But otherwise I see nothing actually wrong with the story of the game. Overall it hurts very little, unlike other insults in the EU, but thats for another time.

The second game however... was junk and unimaginative. Also very short and a money steal. (still fun to play at times.. but not comparable to the first at all, just tighter controls I guess) But I'll drop that now.

I would however like to see a new Starkiller piece with a crazy selection of powers for the minis game, something similar to GMLS, but less generic and with more thought put into it. Something that stands out better with a more untamed feel to it, not just the same powers and abilities everything else in the game has. New stuff. Somethign jsut fun to play because it would be more on the wacky side.

BTW, a lot of SW is pretty paper thin... the majority of prequel dialogue and characterization are all I really need to say in that department, and I recognize that it can be true for the classic trilogy as well, but not to the same degree of cardboard cut out cracker jack prizes...

oh and one last thing, George Lucas doesn't sign off on anything outside of the Movies and I'd suppose the live action show in development. I'd imagine Howard Roffman, or someone else in licensing does all this signing off stuff. George actually claims to not have read any of the books or comics and so on. Doesn't mean he doesn't flip through them, but he is basically the Movie guy and nothing else.

Keep in mind, these pieces were designed with the Epic Duo format in mind. So, Reinforcements/Reserves would be a wasted ability.

Sorry, but Star Wars is the story of Anakin Skywalker, while Luke is a secondary (but obviously still important) character. As Lucas himself tells it: "The Star Wars story is really the tragedy of Darth Vader. That is the story."

That aside, I still don't even come close to buying your explanation. I think the designers might have considered that a point cost for Luke based on his importance to the films as you see it rather than "powers and abilities" would have made a pretty darn useless piece, unless he would have something like "Importance to the Plot 6" where on a save of 6 after being defeated he instead remains in play with 10 HP. I guess that too is an ability though.

If his cost was upped 100 points just because of his screen time I will be a little annoyed.

Luke in this set will likely be far overblown from the heights he reached while still in Episode 6, at least relative to the other characters in the set and the levels they reached, but Luke is just plain popular and more well known. So what if he is way above than he ever was during the Rebellion era? It's pretty clear that this Epic format is supposed to be a silly (I don't mean that in a bad way), far-out gimmick format that will be just plain cool, as these cards are not made for standard skirmish format.

Let's not forget that another reason that Luke has to be this many points is that the Rebels don't have that many high-cost characters that are not Lukes. Perfect in-universe accuracy is sacrificed for gameplay, and I'm OK with that.

I don't think it's possible to have a 150 pt Luke that represents Luke at any point in the Original Trilogy assuming the cost scale for this stand-mostly-alone set is anywhere close to compatible with pieces already released. (Since I have seen no stats, I cannot say that it is, although I do guess that they are compatible) Using Bane as a starting point, is there really any justification for a Luke to be more than 82 points if it is a Luke from the Rebellion era? Maybe if it's a combo with Leia or something, sure.

Meh, I think it is fairly easy to make a justifiable 80+ pt Luke from the Rebellion era. I think the Sarlaac Pit provides plenty evidence of a beatstick Luke, not to mention where he sort of goes off on Vader. That and "Bane is the MOST UBER sith EVAHH" is kind of silly to me. Sure, I enjoyed the Bane books, but it didn't seem to prove that he was greater than Palpatine or Vader. Just my interpretation, however.

If Luke could go toe to toe with Vader, that sort of justifies a Luke in the same point costs that we have Vader. That said, I think some are overreacting to the power levels.

Looking at Luke's point cost in context of the format, I think there could be something to the fact that he was costed high enough that he can't be played with Kota, VAR, or General Longshot, but makes for very efficient use of points with Scoundrel or Obi Unleashed. Or to a lesser extent even Yoda of Dagobah.

I bet he's gonna be annoying, hehe.

Well, ESB was a primary source for my Vader. That is also not at his peak, and he wasn't trying to kill Luke. It is all about being able to interpret something at different levels. I can see a few different 80 pt Lukes in ROTJ. Granted, most I see would still me in the 70 pt range, but there is plenty of evidence that he is a good Jedi in ROTJ.

Don't let point cost get you down. I'm pretty certain most aren't going to like my piece for the points.

You can explain how you interpret an artist's art however you want, but as soon as the artist blatantly explains his/her art to you and what it is, it's time to give up the interpretations you previously held. Star Wars may have been one thing to you. We all know that one painting, for example, can mean many different things to many different people. Each comes up with there own view and explanation. Then the artist comes by and explains what he did, as he is the only person who can know for sure. Some people got very confident and comfortable with their explanations. But don't hold on to the meaning you think you got from it after the artist has told you that it is something different from what you thought it was or want it to be.

The OT is surely NOT the story of Luke. If an artist paints a picture and you say it's a dog and he says it's a cat, he's right, even if you are 100% convinced it is a dog. That's why, quite honestly, art sucks sometimes, because not everyone always gets out what the artist puts in.

I know it means a lot to you and a lot of people that Star Wars be what you always thought it was, and it's hard to give up what you thought it was, but that just comes with interpreting art.

Wrong again, but now we are moving into the philosophical question of the post-modern era, "What is a text" and the sub questions, "What is an author/audience?" and "Does the author even matter?". The result of which is that art is in fact a text, and a text does cannot have definite meaning, no matter what someone claims, even if that person were the author. Further, one of the most important essays of the 20th century by Roland Barthes, "Death of the Author" pretty much nailed the end of authorial intent having any real relevance to the meaning associated with a text. And this applies in the case where an author consistently maintains one interpretation of his/her work, but obviously also when that author changes their mind to publicize later works.

Just because George Lucas changed his mind and in 2005 claimed that Star Wars was always about "Anakin" does not mean he is right. And finally, here is a nice quote from a website called, http://savestarwars.com/

Lucas' refusal versus the demand of audiences has also sparked some debate about artistic merit and respect for the intentions of the artist. Indeed, it is not a comfortable answer to say that the artist should be forced to display a version of their work which they feel does not represent their wishes. However, most of this argument is based on revisionist fallacies. No filmmaker is ever satisfied with their finished work, which is part of the drive to work on a next one--Alfred Hitchcock is famous for having remarked when asked what his favorite film of his was: "the next one." The fact is that, regardless of whether Lucas likes it or not, STAR WARS was released as a finished product in 1977. It is 100% faithful to the shooting script, and on a technical level was the most advanced display of graphics ever made at that time. It was not "unfinished" in this sense, rather it simply was a product of the era that produced it.

Furthermore, the Special Edition has gone far beyond "completing" anything--his insertion of Jar Jar Binks and Hayden Christensen was obviously not in his mind when he made RETURN OF THE JEDI in 1983. Moreover, EMPIRE and JEDI were not even directed by him--while he is undoubtedly the mastermind behind the franchise, these films are not "his" in this kind of direct sense. EMPIRE director Irvin Kershner, for example, maintained when he was hired in 1977 that he must be able to have artistic control over the production: "It'll be your film," Lucas told him. Furthermore, JEDI director Richard Marquand has been dead for over twenty years. Lucas today represents a totally different person than the skinny 30-year old of 1977, and many of the changes are simply revisions, not completions.

Sure Vader beat Mace. Mace had Palpatine weaponless on the ground with a lightsaber inches from his face when Anakin showed up. Palpatine tried for some lightning but got fried by the reflection while Mace showed no injury at all. Only after Palpatine stopped fighting altogether did Anakin step in.

Anakin was fast enough to draw, ignite, and swing his saber all before Mace could react. If you can get that kind of drop on someone who a) is already armed and onguard and b) has ever reason not to trust you, you're a *lot* faster than them. He cut the guy's hand off. When you cut someone's hand off, the fight is over, you have won. Only after the loss of his hand and saber did Palpatine go back to zapping and fling the now helpless Mace out a window.

I can see the point about Obi Wan on the Death Star, I just read the scene differently. Obi Wan sacrifices his life to let Luke and company escape. Why do that if he thought he could win? You don't sacrifice your life if you think you're the better duelist, you kill Vader.

My main point was that he beats Vader, and Vader is no lightwieght. Vader has (appropriately) 70+ point versions of himself in mini form, there's nothing wrong with the guy who beat him having some too.

One thing to take away from all of this is that different audience members can have slightly or hugely different takes on the same material. Any particular mini only reflects one interpretation of a character, but with multiple versions of characters you can represent a range of views on what Luke (or anyone else) was capable of. The world is large enough for a 27pt RotJ Luke in Rebel Storm and a nasty Epic version as well. For a long time we haven't had a RotJ Luke who liked his chances against even the weakest of the Vaders, which (IMO) was a shame.

I love how before even the first paragraph is through so far in your posts, you have "objectively" stated what is "wrong". It's simply glorious how you state that Barthes and the ever-objective, always correct "savestarwars" that surely must have examined all of philosophy from Plato to Goethe to Foucault before stating its undeniable truths are the definitive authorities on not only film but the whole gamut of artistic creation. Instead of viewing Barthes as some sort of literary Messiah, we could instead examine him more reasonably as a man who,for his own reasons, very much disliked capitalism and needed to find significance in literature outside of bourgeois values. Wanting something to be true when searching for truth is very dangerous, which applies also in this case since you seem to have a lot at stake with your interpretation. Star Wars means a lot to you, me and other people, but I don't think it's healthy or reasonable to distort what it is because I really want it to be what I think it is.

Viewers do not always get out of art what the artist puts in. Sometimes the artist might put in things that people won't interpret even close to the same way as what the artist was thinking when he put it in, or things will be given great meaning that the artist thought was very minor, and vice-versa. Think of it as that game "Telephone" that kids play. One person starts with a statement, and as it goes down the line it gets distorted; things are changed, added, removed, and what ends up on the other end is seldom what the original author intended. However, that does not change what the intent was.

All, right, so you say that GL "changed" his mind about Anakin. It's funny how you cite Barthes on one hand but then completely slap his philosophy in the face with the other by stating that you know what Barthes claims is unknowable: the state of the author's mind. I sense that a theme here, if this continues, will be your insistence on what you WANT to be true clouding your mind in its efforts to objectively search for the truth. There's a difference between reading a statement and having that challenge your notion of the truth and having a notion of what you think the truth is and then searching only for "evidence" to support it. It's pretty obvious you're engaging in the latter.

Let's put it this way. The next time you pass by an art show, I'd like you to go into it. Bring some books and your laptop along if you want. Take a good look at an artist's display. Then go up to them and tell them what their art means. Then, if they tell you it means something different, start quoting a bunch of passages and state that because this person had a website or because that person with a clear agenda in their examinations of "truth" got published you can use their works as objective proof that the artist doesn't know what they are talking about. After you're done, move onto the next artist and repeat.