Regarding Star Wars striking strength

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Jedi and Sith do have durability that drops exponentially when they are asleep for example. That would explain the blasters argument. But when 100% focused, they can easily repel all those blasters; and even giant blasters can be easily deflected. And I agree with closing the thread since we're pretty much arguing in circles.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

The moment there's that scene of Luke legit being shot with an AT-AT and not tanking any damage, without having to push his arms forward to block or dissipate the attack, should tell you all you need.

 

[ShieldsPlus]

The moment there's that scene of Luke legit being shot with an AT-AT and not tanking any damage, without having to push his arms forward to block or dissipate the attack, should tell you all you need.

If this scene is from the comics version, mind posting the exact panel/scene please?

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

I legit posted it above my dude

 

[ShieldsPlus]

That's because Luke deflected the laser back at the AT-AT. He didn't just up outright tanked it.

He didn't take nothing from blaster bolts if that's what you mean.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's still a striking strength feat, and newton's third law would also still scale that to his durability.

 

[Dark649]

This thread should be closed as DarkDragon suggested.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

What's the conclusion? Star Wars striking strength stays as what it is?

 

[Dark649]

Yes.

 

[Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan]

Ok close this thread then