*Tries to drown out the argument by imagining "Do you want to build a snowman" being sung in the voice of Palpatine*

O_o

Do you want to build a Sith Lord? C'mon let's go and slay!

-EF

*to anakin*

Do you want to be the newest Sithlord? Come on let us go out there and slay! All the children in the temple they are waiting... Dont let them all just sit there one more day.

*Tries to drown out the argument by imagining "Do you want to build a snowman" being sung in the voice of Palpatine*

O_o

Do you want to build a Sith Lord? C'mon let's go and slay!

-EF

"Is it the clumpy way he walks?

Or the raspy way he talks?"

*Tries to drown out the argument by imagining "Do you want to build a snowman" being sung in the voice of Palpatine*

O_o

Hmmm... I like it, but who would Palpatine be singing it to ? He doesn't seem to have any friends or siblings. (Poor Palpatine).

Though I do love the idea that he secretly has an older sister. What a terrifying thought! Would be a great twist for Episode VII.

EDIT: Han singing "Wookies are better than people..." perhaps? "Chewie don't you think that's true?"

HEY! Wookiees are people, too.

Returning to the lovely Sariss, the motion of her cloak suggests to me that she's mid-spin, prior to delivering a vicious backhander - and probably looking her next target in the eye beforehand as if to say, "Watch what's about to happen to your buddy, because you're next, motherhubbard."

Returning to the lovely Sariss, the motion of her cloak suggests to me that she's mid-spin, prior to delivering a vicious backhander - and probably looking her next target in the eye beforehand as if to say, "Watch what's about to happen to your buddy, because you're next, motherhubbard."

No, she clearly has a force die committed to the Cloakswirl power, which upgrades Coercion and Leadership skill checks.

Not the silliest stance we've seen in Star Wars.

Obi-Wan in RotS does a ready stance where the blade isn't that far from his face, and he actually passes the blade pretty close to the fingers of his off-hand as he adopts that stance.

Let's not forget how he extends two fingers, for no discernible reason other than to let his opponent cut them off.

It's actually a Tai qi stance. The reason having something to do with Qi Flow. So while it looks weird to our eyes, it is a legitimate swordsmanship stance. You'll see the same thing a lot in Wuxia and various Chinese historical movies.

Exactly... so many people think the stances they see in the movies and pictures are silly. They are only silly because because people are ignorant of the subtleties of sword fighting. All of the stances I have seen have been ones i use all the time when sword fighting.

As they say if it is stupid but works it is not stupid.

Not the silliest stance we've seen in Star Wars.

Obi-Wan in RotS does a ready stance where the blade isn't that far from his face, and he actually passes the blade pretty close to the fingers of his off-hand as he adopts that stance.

Let's not forget how he extends two fingers, for no discernible reason other than to let his opponent cut them off.

It's actually a Tai qi stance. The reason having something to do with Qi Flow. So while it looks weird to our eyes, it is a legitimate swordsmanship stance. You'll see the same thing a lot in Wuxia and various Chinese historical movies.

A tai-chi sword has a flat blade. A lightsabre is 360 degrees of edge.

EDIT: You may be talking about sticking two fingers up at your opponent, rather than the picture. I'm not sure.

yes. But that is true of all swords. the techniques still work with a lightsaber. and one might say they work better.

Lightsabers are supposed to be overpowered in the right hands with the right training. Can they be overcome? Potentially, depending on the knowledge, training, and skill of those going against them. I love what they've done with the lightsabers in Force and Destiny. I hope they keep up the good work and keep the positive changes coming.

Overcome? Not super difficult. 3 Advantage or Triumph. definitely 1, possibly 2 or more options (depending on GM)

3 advantage/1 Triumph = Disable 1 piece of opponents gear instead of inflicting damage

3 advantage/1 Triumph = Deny opponent defensive bonuses till the end of the current round (this depends on the GM and if he considers Parry/Reflect a defensive bonus or only the bonus setback dice from Defense)

requires 2 triumphs to use on a lightsaber.

Man, she is going to cut her own arm off, standing like that!

Having much personal experience with swords. She is in no danger. Trained people tend to have good proprioception.(your internal knowledge of where your body parts are. It is what allows you to touch your own face in complete darkness.) So she is in no danger because she is fully aware of where both arms and the lightsaber is.

Uh, no. I don't know where you got your "much personal experience with swords" but the stance she is holding is very foolhardy and inappropriate for that type of sword. The question is not whether she might get confused about where her forearm is whilst just standing there. If she's in a combat stance presumably she is in combat, or training for when she is. Firstly, you are not solely in control of your sword when fighting. What she accomplishes by holding her forearm under the blade is to ensure that if her enemy forces the blade down at all with any kind of downward strike, it will cut it off with her own weapon. And the length of the blade extended forward from her body simply means her opponent can accomplish this without even having to close as much or use much force (as holding a long object perpendicular with just elbow and wrist strength against an external pressure is really hard. The only reason your arm there would help would be when you have a FLAT blade and could use your second arm for support; and as I pointed out in my first post, this is the very opposite of a flat blade.

Secondly she leaves her entire lower body open. By placing her own arm below the blade like that she makes it impossible for her to parry anything below her upper chest. I.e. 4/5ths of her body is unprotected. The only regard in which this stance provides defensive benefit is in so far as the forward extending length of the blade gives you threat range to keep the enemy at bay. But this is deceptive as she has next to know horizontal strength behind the sword in that stance. Try it - hold any long object with your elbow out 90° from your body. The slightest pressure from side to side on that object and it will move, yu wont have the strength to push back because the angle of your muscles is all wrong. Meaning anyone can sweep that blade to the side with just the quickest and lightest if strikes and the circle sweep down to the unprotected lower 4/5ths of her body. And heaven forbid that she come up against one of the dual-weapon styles so popular in the PT/TCW because the an opponent could use the shorter blade to completely control her restricted sword positioning whilst striking at her vulnerable lower body.

The stance she is holding is a stabbing stance. You would use it for weapons where you want to punch forward, e.g, a gladius which I mentioned in my first post. You would use it in a scenario where you had a shield, and if you imagine a round shield on her spare arm the stance suddenly makes sense. You might also use it in a "brawl" style scenario where you were expecting your opponent to grapple you or you were fighting in a very enclosed space. It's a tavern / forest / tunnel fighting stance, maybe, where there can't be wide swings. And its good for protecting against disarms - the grappling opponent scenario I mentioned. But not with a weapon that long with a 360° edge and with no shield and without exceptional restrictions to your manoeuvrability.

EDIT: Given the way she is combining this stance with a side-on position, she's also ensuring she has no guard whatsoever for the entire left side of her body and back, which she is exposing. Meaning pretty much the only strategy she has available to her with this stance is to step back. Really her only hopes of victory are if any of the following are true:

1. Her opponent is unarmed.
2. Her opponent does nit know she is there.
3. Her opponent feels bad about picking on someone who has no combat experience and leaves.

Spoken like someone who has no experience with swordfighting.

1. without knowing where her opponent is or where their blade is. Also I put my sword out of position ALL the time as a trap. Look I am open go ahead and strike at this opening right..oh you lost your head...

As to the not being able to parry lower attacks... why are you assuming her arm cannot move? Why are you assuming she cannot move?

3. presenting a side on presents a smaller target. So again your lack of swordfighting experience is showing.

4. Why do people seem to assume you cannot stab with a lightsaber? We see maul do it. We see yoda do it.

I wonder what the artist would think about (presumably - I don't know how old everyone here is) grown-ups arguing about this lovely illustration of Sariss and the rationale behind depicting her holding a saber in this way. Particularly when words like "stupid" and "ignorant" are being left lying around.

I wonder what the artist would think about (presumably - I don't know how old everyone here is) grown-ups arguing about this lovely illustration of Sariss and the rationale behind depicting her holding a saber in this way. Particularly when words like "stupid" and "ignorant" are being left lying around.

Probably wouldn't say anything and just have the same look as in the picture.

A tai-chi sword has a flat blade. A lightsabre is 360 degrees of edge.

EDIT: You may be talking about sticking two fingers up at your opponent, rather than the picture. I'm not sure.

yes. But that is true of all swords. the techniques still work with a lightsaber. and one might say they work better.

It is not true of all swords that they are 360° of edge. Most swords have a flat and those few that don't have much of one are stabbing weapons. A lightsabre is pretty much unique in that every point of its surface is cutting. One can rest a gladius on one's forearm or a shield (more commonly), a lightsabre is not something you want to risk coming into contact from any angle.

Man, she is going to cut her own arm off, standing like that!

Having much personal experience with swords. She is in no danger. Trained people tend to have good proprioception.(your internal knowledge of where your body parts are. It is what allows you to touch your own face in complete darkness.) So she is in no danger because she is fully aware of where both arms and the lightsaber is.

Uh, no. I don't know where you got your "much personal experience with swords" but the stance she is holding is very foolhardy and inappropriate for that type of sword. The question is not whether she might get confused about where her forearm is whilst just standing there. If she's in a combat stance presumably she is in combat, or training for when she is. Firstly, you are not solely in control of your sword when fighting. What she accomplishes by holding her forearm under the blade is to ensure that if her enemy forces the blade down at all with any kind of downward strike, it will cut it off with her own weapon. And the length of the blade extended forward from her body simply means her opponent can accomplish this without even having to close as much or use much force (as holding a long object perpendicular with just elbow and wrist strength against an external pressure is really hard. The only reason your arm there would help would be when you have a FLAT blade and could use your second arm for support; and as I pointed out in my first post, this is the very opposite of a flat blade.

Secondly she leaves her entire lower body open. By placing her own arm below the blade like that she makes it impossible for her to parry anything below her upper chest. I.e. 4/5ths of her body is unprotected. The only regard in which this stance provides defensive benefit is in so far as the forward extending length of the blade gives you threat range to keep the enemy at bay. But this is deceptive as she has next to know horizontal strength behind the sword in that stance. Try it - hold any long object with your elbow out 90° from your body. The slightest pressure from side to side on that object and it will move, yu wont have the strength to push back because the angle of your muscles is all wrong. Meaning anyone can sweep that blade to the side with just the quickest and lightest if strikes and the circle sweep down to the unprotected lower 4/5ths of her body. And heaven forbid that she come up against one of the dual-weapon styles so popular in the PT/TCW because the an opponent could use the shorter blade to completely control her restricted sword positioning whilst striking at her vulnerable lower body.

The stance she is holding is a stabbing stance. You would use it for weapons where you want to punch forward, e.g, a gladius which I mentioned in my first post. You would use it in a scenario where you had a shield, and if you imagine a round shield on her spare arm the stance suddenly makes sense. You might also use it in a "brawl" style scenario where you were expecting your opponent to grapple you or you were fighting in a very enclosed space. It's a tavern / forest / tunnel fighting stance, maybe, where there can't be wide swings. And its good for protecting against disarms - the grappling opponent scenario I mentioned. But not with a weapon that long with a 360° edge and with no shield and without exceptional restrictions to your manoeuvrability.

EDIT: Given the way she is combining this stance with a side-on position, she's also ensuring she has no guard whatsoever for the entire left side of her body and back, which she is exposing. Meaning pretty much the only strategy she has available to her with this stance is to step back. Really her only hopes of victory are if any of the following are true:

• Her opponent is unarmed.
• Her opponent does nit know she is there.
• Her opponent feels bad about picking on someone who has no combat experience and leaves.

Spoken like someone who has no experience with swordfighting.

So first you tell me I'm wrong because you have "much personal experience with swords", aka just saying I'm wrong because you know more (despite knowing me not at all). Then your second response is an ad hominem - 'you're wrong because you have no experience with sword-fighting'. Both are fallacies. And whilst I could adopt your arguing style of 'no, I have more experience so you're wrong', that would be useless. Actual reasoned argument is the only useful form of debate and that's what my post was unlike yours which was just claiming better knowledge than other people (and now asserting that they have none).

1. without knowing where her opponent is or where their blade is. Also I put my sword out of position ALL the time as a trap. Look I am open go ahead and strike at this opening right..oh you lost your head...

So now you agree with me that it is a weak stance, you're just claiming that it's deliberate in order to lull the opponent into thinking she doesn't know what she's doing.

As to the not being able to parry lower attacks... why are you assuming her arm cannot move? Why are you assuming she cannot move?

Nowhere have I suggested she can't move, I've merely assumed that all else being equal having to move your arm out of the way first is considerably slower than not having to do so - especially in the case of have to react to an opponent's strike where you are not in control of the timing of it and have to move instantly. Not only does she slow her own defence enormously by blocking any downward movement with her sabre so long as she holds her arm in the way, she also tells her opponent very clearly so long as she has it there, that she is only striking his upper body which makes it considerably easier for him to manager her. A very important part of sword-fighting is not telegraphing your moves to your opponent and if she has to move her arm out of the way to strike anything below his chest, that's pretty extraordinary clue-giving there.

3. presenting a side on presents a smaller target. So again your lack of swordfighting experience is showing.

You present the leading side of your body so that your profile is narrow and you have a guard over the exposed areas. With your leading side presented (the half with the sword), you have a narrower profile, can block either side, step backwards and forwards rapidly (meaning you don't have to shift to strike thus telegraphing your attack to your opponent) and your strike and defensive range are both longer because you are leading with your weapon (which is a much better idea in a sword-fight than leading with your shoulder. What you don't unless you're using a short, stabbing weapon like a gladius, is present your OFF-side to your opponent. In this case your target area is narrower but all of the other advantages are lost and in fact you create major disadvantages for yourself. You can now block only to the front and your sword-side, leaving your entire back undefended save for stepping back (the universal defence). And that's a Bad Thing. You decrease your striking range by the entire width of your body because all that extra distance must be made up, you decrease your defensive range enormously because the weapon you would parry with is not starting a foot behind your rear shoulder rather than a foot in front of your body. And it becomes monstrously harder to parry any strikes to your off-side and back. Unlike yourself, I'm not going to declare that this is so because of my presumed greater experience than anyone else, nor am I going to say it's so because those who disagree with me have no experience sword-fighting. I'm just going to leave it there as logical argument and if anyone is particularly curious, they can take a sword or walking stick or similar, adopt the stance in the picture and try to block some imaginary strikes to their midsection, legs, outer shoulder and back. They'll be able to step back, but not block.

You'll never see a fencer use a stance like this - for very good reasons. It's extremely rare in sword-fighting, again for good reasons. The only time you'd see this normally would be with a sword and shield style. Namely something along the roman pattern where you have a leading shield and a short stabbing sword (gladius) over the top with which to attack. It works in that because you rely on the shield to let you get right close to the opponent, rather than any defensive ability of the sword which in that position is minimal. Rather obviously, she doesn't have a shield in that picture. Other than that, there is something that shares some properties with it it in Medieval sword-fighting stances:

Note the Inside Right / Inside Left and Hanging Right / Hanging Left stances. Both of these are leading with the off-side but that's about it. The hanging stances are not at all the same as they're leading with the sword ready to defend, rather than leading with the body and intending to stab. The Inside Right / Inside Left stances are superficially similar but note that they are appropriate for a two-handed weapon where the rear hand provides extra power and control. They're good defensively because even though having a reversed position, the sword is still starting from the hip, not a foot behind the swordperson's own head! Additionally it's good for a rapid cut from behind - which you cannot do if your other arm is forcing the sword to be held up at head height. You'll see some similar stances in Kendo where the same objections will apply (two-handed, range not restricted by randomly placing your forearm in the potential path of the blade. Really the only exact parallel is with a shield which she doesn't have and which I pointed out in my first post.

Also, aren't you kind of arguing against your own first point with all this? Firstly you say that she's deliberately adopting a weak stance in order to lull people into a false sense of confidence, and then you start trying to argue point by point that it's not a weak stance. This is Kettle Logic.

4. Why do people seem to assume you cannot stab with a lightsaber? We see maul do it. We see yoda do it.

You can stab with a lightsabre, just like you can stab with a rapier or actual fencing sabre. But no fencer stands like that for all the reasons given. I mean a foil is used ONLY for stabbing and you would never see a practitioner attempt to do some from such a stance. Holding such a stance with a sabre-style weapon which can score with both point and blade is doubly-nonsense.

I wonder what the artist would think about (presumably - I don't know how old everyone here is) grown-ups arguing about this lovely illustration of Sariss and the rationale behind depicting her holding a saber in this way. Particularly when words like "stupid" and "ignorant" are being left lying around.

Who knows, but one is perfectly entitled to criticize a piece of art. We'd be in a mess if work couldn't have flaws pointed out. Anyway, I've used neither of these words anywhere in my posts on this subject so I'm not sure who the quote marks are for. My original post was actually just as follows:

I understand that fighting stance when you're using a stabbing sword, like a Gladius. I'm not sure it's quite as wise when holding the snooker cue of death.

Man, she is going to cut her own arm off, standing like that!

All the rest of it just follows from people determined to tell us we're wrong (because they have more sword-fighting experience than other people so far as I can work out) or that real-world knowledge of sword-fighting should be dispensed with because it's "magical force-wizards".

I wonder what the artist would think about (presumably - I don't know how old everyone here is) grown-ups arguing about this lovely illustration of Sariss and the rationale behind depicting her holding a saber in this way. Particularly when words like "stupid" and "ignorant" are being left lying around.

Who knows, but one is perfectly entitled to criticize a piece of art. We'd be in a mess if work couldn't have flaws pointed out. Anyway, I've used neither of these words anywhere in my posts on this subject so I'm not sure who the quote marks are for. My original post was actually just as follows:

I understand that fighting stance when you're using a stabbing sword, like a Gladius. I'm not sure it's quite as wise when holding the snooker cue of death.

And Desslock wrote:

Man, she is going to cut her own arm off, standing like that!

All the rest of it just follows from people determined to tell us we're wrong (because they have more sword-fighting experience than other people so far as I can work out) or that real-world knowledge of sword-fighting should be dispensed with because it's "magical force-wizards".

I was quoting Daeglan at the top. As for the importance of criticising art, you have to consider the function of the art and whether it is worth criticising, or to be more relevant to this instance; worth getting one's knickers in a twist over. This is an illustration of an imaginary franchise character holding an imaginary weapon. Not exactly Hieronymus Bosch, is it?

I wonder what the artist would think about (presumably - I don't know how old everyone here is) grown-ups arguing about this lovely illustration of Sariss and the rationale behind depicting her holding a saber in this way. Particularly when words like "stupid" and "ignorant" are being left lying around.

Who knows, but one is perfectly entitled to criticize a piece of art. We'd be in a mess if work couldn't have flaws pointed out. Anyway, I've used neither of these words anywhere in my posts on this subject so I'm not sure who the quote marks are for. My original post was actually just as follows:

I understand that fighting stance when you're using a stabbing sword, like a Gladius. I'm not sure it's quite as wise when holding the snooker cue of death.

And Desslock wrote:

Man, she is going to cut her own arm off, standing like that!

All the rest of it just follows from people determined to tell us we're wrong (because they have more sword-fighting experience than other people so far as I can work out) or that real-world knowledge of sword-fighting should be dispensed with because it's "magical force-wizards".

I was quoting Daeglan at the top. As for the importance of criticising art, you have to consider the function of the art and whether it is worth criticising, or to be more relevant to this instance; worth getting one's knickers in a twist over. This is an illustration of an imaginary franchise character holding an imaginary weapon. Not exactly Hieronymus Bosch, is it?

One would think, and yet I am still having to defend my original one line comment that the stance is more appropriate to a gladius than a lightsabre and every time I do so, I get two more posts determined to prove me wrong or make some personal attacks. So clearly they do think it worth that for some unfathomable reason. Or people posting about it to say how it's not worth posting about, which is a little odd to me.

EDIT: BTW, whilst I can't speak for Daeglan, your post about "wondering what the artist would think with words like Stupid and Ignorant being left around" kind of implies that someone called the artist stupid, which I don't believe Daeglan did. Looking at their post what they actually wrote was "NOT stupid", which is a pretty different implication to your quoting the word by itself.

I think everyone here could do with some ice-cream and a hug.

I think everyone here could do with some ice-cream and a hug.

Photo of storm-troopers buying ice-cream ice-cream seller in the Phillopines

I think everyone here could do with some ice-cream and a hug.

One would think, and yet I am still having to defend my original one line comment that the stance is more appropriate to a gladius than a lightsabre and every time I do so, I get two more posts determined to prove me wrong or make some personal attacks. So clearly they do think it worth that for some unfathomable reason. Or people posting about it to say how it's not worth posting about, which is a little odd to me.

EDIT: BTW, whilst I can't speak for Daeglan, your post about "wondering what the artist would think with words like Stupid and Ignorant being left around" kind of implies that someone called the artist stupid, which I don't believe Daeglan did. Looking at their post what they actually wrote was "NOT stupid", which is a pretty different implication to your quoting the word by itself.

You're blending separate quotes together there, which changes what I wrote, but yeah, I can see why my comment might be misconstrued. What I'm getting at is that this whole aspect of the conversation seems a little daft given how little the subject matter really, well, matters. It's an evocative, dramatic image. It might or might not fit in with good sword-fighting practice. The artist may or may not have done their homework. I'd save all the "grrrr!" for something that's worth the contention. And I certainly don't mean to offend anyone here - I've seen a lot of posts by Daeglan and KnasserII during the time I've been intermittently posting, and have been amused (in a good way), intrigued and engaged by their contributions. I extend my gentleman's hand.

To me it just looks like she is trying to keep her cloak from getting burned by the blade.

Or maybe her ARM ITSELF IS CORTOSIS!!!!!! *cue dramatic music and dancing ewoks*

To me it just looks like she is trying to keep her cloak from getting burned by the blade.

Brilliant and this makes sense. Also, given that she looks to be a Jedi, she could be using Force move to do so which in canon media Jedi nearly always seem to do by extending a hand in the direction they wish to push. Which would explain why there's no visible contact between her hand and the cloak if this is what she's trying to do.

Of course that raises the question of whether cloaks make a suitable garment for the lightsabre-wielding Jedi in realistic terms... Anyone up for a discussion?

I think everyone here could do with some ice-cream and a hug.

Is this a real thing, or are you just taunting me with Photoshop???

I think everyone here could do with some ice-cream and a hug.

Is this a real thing, or are you just taunting me with Photoshop???

Picture of Cthulhu-branded ice-cream called "Ftagn-Das"

To me it just looks like she is trying to keep her cloak from getting burned by the blade.

Brilliant and this makes sense. Also, given that she looks to be a Jedi, she could be using Force move to do so which in canon media Jedi nearly always seem to do by extending a hand in the direction they wish to push. Which would explain why there's no visible contact between her hand and the cloak if this is what she's trying to do.Of course that raises the question of whether cloaks make a suitable garment for the lightsabre-wielding Jedi in realistic terms... Anyone up for a discussion?

As for whether a cloak is ideal clothing for a saber user, I think one of Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan's few common sense moments was when they took theirs off prior to their throwdown with Maul. That said, perhaps a style could be developed where the wielder uses their cloak to obfuscate their attacks?

Edit: wording change