They really don't, once they get to the levels of Yoda, Sidious, Mace, pretty much any of the High Council members. That's why Yoda and Sidious don't use them in the OT. Sidious practically looks at it as if it's a child's toy. I believe in the ROTS novelization, Sidious kills the Jedi with a saber mainly as a show of power and mockery. The Prequels had to have a bunch of saber fights to appease the crowds that just want to see high octane action, flashes and explosions. The fact that we just had to get Yoda whip out a child sized lightsaber in AOTC and ROTS just completely defeats the mysticism of the force that we got in the OT. But not all Jedi are on that level so they supplement it with some martial combat skills. But if they ever truly wanted to be combat effective, there's no reason not to have both lightsaber and blaster. They already have some other utility gear like zip lines and oxygen masks. Nah the John Wagner one. Enemy of The Empire.

Depending on how skilled the non force user is in hand2hand combat and their gear, they could come out on top. Cortosis blades can turn off lightsabers, for one. In Legends, Boba Fett actually gets into an intense close quarters fight with Vader, nearly killing him but deciding not to because he knew that the Empire would hunt him down. It just varies on the user. Boba Fett is one of the greatest Bounty Hunters after all.

I don't think there's any evidence to support this. At this point, he knows virtually nothing about Vader except some of the back story that Obi Wan told him. He doesn't know his strengths, his weaknesses, what he can do with the Force. He's never seen him, for all he knows, he might not even use a lightsaber. Rewatching the scene, Luke doesn't even put his blaster away until he sees Vader ignite his and only after goading him and taunting him about not being a Jedi yet. Considering Luke is on the path to becoming a Jedi, a tradition, class, and belief system that's all but considered outdated and a relic, it's not a stretch to say that he put away his blaster to honor this age old tradition. And regardless, you're going to tell me that at this point he thinks he'll be more advantageous using a weapon he has barely any training with vs using a weapon that he's been using for years? That he's comfortable with? That sounds far fetched to me.

Indeed, not impossible and perhaps I was too overzealous in my previous statement of it never happening against the fool I was talking to.

I wouldn't say he knew it would be useless. I don't think he knew much of anything, rushing headlong into Vader like that. I'd attribute it more to honoring an ancient tradition. Doing what just felt right, meeting Vader with a blade instead of a blaster. But this is more speculation. To your first part; that's why I enjoy Kylo's lightsaber so much. It has practical use. Although apparently it's not actually serving as a crossguard, seems to do much the same. What you said would be reason to believe saber vs saber would be more effective, which I can understand, but doesn't really touch on saber vs blaster in regards to a force user fighting a variety of blaster wielding troops. But some of the greatest force users of all time used them effectively, with or without a lightsaber at their side. Luke, Kyle Katarn, Revan etc. I'd even go as far as to say that lightsabers are not a battlefield weapon, which would be in line with Jedi philosophy, but more of an honor-bound, tradition following duel. With a lightsaber, you typically have too tackle enemies one at a time. With a blaster, especially if it's heavy, you can find an advantageous position, maximum cover minimum exposure with a good line of sight, and hose down the enemy.

Ironically enough, when that stormtrooper says it, the others do nothing. Doesn't invalidate the quote, just somewhat comedic. I did say that blasters in the EU do use charge packs, but as for canon material, nothing is specific. There's not even anything on the wiki page. In regards to the tank, he didn't cut it in half. He cut it at the bottom which made it blow up. The cartoon is canon, but using that as source is a bit dodgy. Cartoons are usually inconsistent fluff material made to wow, and the 'other' Star Wars material is likely not canon. But that is a fair point. Only thing is I'm not sure the average Jedi can do the same as the greatest Jedi in the order. Yoda is small and fast which lent to his advantage.

"Simple mind"? That's rich, coming from someone who can barely type a coherent paragraph, but nice ad hominem nonetheless. I know it will be a waste of time trying to make someone as thick headed as you understand, but why not waste some time? 1. That's why soldiers break up into teams with different specializations. Each one carries gear that is mission specific. Oh but that's only some thing all the advanced militaries in the world for the past... hundred or so years have done. But what do they know? Clearly you know more. The rest of your point is just barely coherent rambling. Jedi cannot "enhance" their lightsabers with the force. There's no material that has ever stated that, in both canon or Legends. None that shows Jedi destroying tanks with their lightsabers either. But you can keep imagining things in that delusional head of yours all you'd like. What you may not do is call me "dear". It's creepy. I'm not your friend, I'm certainly not your "dear" either. 2. Pretty sure Ki Adi Mundi was shot in the front, not the back. And let me reiterate, if for some reason it wasn't clear the first time. This is a High Council member we're talking about. The best of the best. Killed by a handful of clones with, oh look at that, blasters! And you can't say without a doubt that every single Jedi was shot in the back. Bottom line is, there's proof that when facing stacked numbers, lightsabers are not a good defensive tool. Tangible cover is. I guess if that's "simple" thinking, every single soldier in the world with tactical military training is "simple" then by your standard? Or perhaps you're the simple one? Who knows. 3. There's no canon source that states blasters use bullets or even any ammo. As far as the canon we have, blasters use infinite amount of projectiles. Legends states they use gas cartridges that could last for hundreds of rounds before needing to be switched out, so ammo count won't likely be an issue. Your last point was already refuted by Dutchman. Limiting yourself to a single piece of gear is gimping yourself beyond any sensible thought. In Legends, there are cortosis blades that turn off a lightsaber when hitting the blade. There goes nearly your entire arsenal if you're a Jedi. You have no sensible counters, which is why you retorted with ad hominem. Your replies makes me believe you might be a bit young, too delusional with a fantastical world to be able to think about how sensible or practical a weapon usage could actually be. I won't waste my time, just hit you with an ignore so I don't have too read it, clogging up the thread. I'd rather discuss with those that are, at least, somewhat sensible. I don't think you quite fit in there.

1. That's what explosives are for. Last I checked, there's more evidence of that being effective against blast doors than lightsabers. A lightsaber can destroy a tank? Don't think so. Maybe if they slipped inside. But it'd be much easier and effective to use Anti-Tank rockets and explosives. And there is shielding, armor, even vibroblades that are resistant and can even turn off lightsabers. 2. Can't become a shield? And a lightsaber can? Clearly not, as there's evidence of saber wielders being overwhelmed by blaster fire IE: Ki Adi Mundi(a High Jedi Council member, one of the best) in ROTS along with.... the entirety of the Jedi Order. I mean seriously, there's more evidence of bad performance on the side of lightsaber wielders against blaster wielding opponents than vice versa. Again, armies of blaster wielders have overwhelmed and hunted down Jedi to extinction. A blaster wielder doesn't need to "move around" to dodge projectiles. Just get behind a good piece of cover, which, clearly by the example listed above, would be better at protecting the person than a lightsaber would. Lightsabers are good defending against a small handful of opponents with blasters but when the numbers start stacking, standing out in the open with a glowstick doesn't remain viable. 3. Blasters don't use bullets and even if they did, there's alternative weapons. Do you have anymore? And please, try to make sense with them. Also, your 'evidence' had no correlation to what I said. I said there's no evidence that a Jedi would perform worse with a blaster along with a lightsaber. You started listing some randomness about lightsabers being better than blasters.

Who's 'everyone'? There's really no evidence that a Jedi would perform worse with a blaster, considering the Jedi poster boy, Luke, also used one. Quite the contrary, Jedi have been led to extinction by blaster wielding armies. Lightsabers really aren't as tactically advantageous as you may think.

Indeed, there's a lot of technique that's involved with precise shooting and even on-the-fly math when you get to far off distances. From big things like stance, proper placement of stock or applying pressure in the right areas so that you can control the weapon, to smaller things like sight picture and remembering where you set your face and eyes on a stock so that your eyes are perfectly aligned with the sight. Much different than hosing a crowd with a pistol or shotgun. In regards to a lightsaber serving as both melee weapon and a deflector for blaster bolts, that is true. But IIRC, being able to deflect a bolt back at the shooter requires additional motions than just deflecting the bolt whichever way. Motions that the Jedi or Sith may not have enough time to commit to, being swamped by blaster bolts. But then again, in that case I think it may just be better for the Jedi or Sith in question to just seek cover rather than try to reflect the bolts back or in our hypothetical situation, defend from the bolts and shoot with the blaster simultaneously.

Sounds like another person that likes to romanticize swords a bit too much. I wonder if you associate it with being "honorable" as well... Ah yes, a gun is just oh so easy to use... if the target is 50 meters or less away from you. I wonder how you'd fare being put on a range and told to shoot a 300+ meter target? Under unfavorable conditions such as wind or rain? A target so far that anything short of a 2x optic magnification, you'd have a hard time just being able to see? And speaking of optics and targets, would you know how to zero a rifle? Do you even know what that term means? You think you can do the math in your head to be able to land a perfect shot with all the above mentioned conditions? Doubtful. You probably shouldn't romanticize and simultaneously put down something else just due to your infatuation with a work of fiction or romanticized history and your inexperience with the latter. Anyone can wield a sword as well, it's not that hard hacking someone to pieces. To be learned with a sword is a different question, same as a gun. And I'm sure if it came down to it and you had to pick one or the other in a life or death situation, you'd take that "weapon for the dumb" over a sword in a heart beat. This isn't to attack you, only to try and bring into perspective that they're different skills and being truly capable at either takes work and that using a gun isn't as simple as you made it out to be. What you were truly right in was stating Lucas' inspiration for the Jedi, and that using a sword, or lightsaber in this case, distinguishes the person from the rest. The Jedi needed a form of uniqueness. But it still doesn't make it practical or as combat effective as they could be. If they wanted to be truly effective in combat, they'd use both lightsaber and blaster, similar to a Space Marine in Warhammer 40k. This actually makes a good deal of sense, being in line with the Jedi's "pacifistic" nature, so that they never get too comfortable with killing.

A few things you need to realize, number 1 being don't assume. You make an *** out of yourself. I don't hate the Prequels either, but can agree that as films, they universally failed. I mean, it's been analyzed front to back by actual film critics, people that have studied film and cinematography for years. And while I don't always put much stock into critics, as their reviews are just glorified opinions, when they're in near total agreement of a subject, there's probably merit to their belief. I used to enjoy the prequels as well... till I turned 13. In regards to Thrawn, that's easy. It wouldn't have fit with the rest of the story as it's not a Skywalker focused story. I don't think you realize that when I say Star Wars has always been about the Skywalkers, it quite literally means that, and that's what Lucas always wanted to focus on. You dared, and I took the dare. Make them a little harder next time is all I ask. I dare you to try to fit in a Thrawn story and somehow make it relevant to anything that happened regarding Anakin or Luke. And to the rest of the EU? Please, a dozen good EU stories? Not likely. The thing with EU fans is they like to act as if the EU was bigger than it actually was. It was never integral to the story, never made much money or else LucasArts would've actually pursued it for more content. The EU just turned into DBZ-lite. Over the top ridiculousness. And this is coming from someone who's favorite Star Wars piece(Kotor 2) came from the EU. It had it's moments, but other than that it was a stagnant beast with nothing else really going for it that deserved a reboot. 2. Again, your voice is not a universal law. You simply do not get to state something as objectively better or worse simply because of what you feel personally. When you can factually tell me that TFA is just such a terrible film, according to you, then maybe there will be merit to what you say. Until then, you'll just be an anti-hype, closeted Prequel fanboy who, after years of having your favorite Star Wars film of all time scrutinized, finally got something you thought would give you the ability to divert the hate from your favorite film and unto another. That clearly didn't work, did it? Considering critics and audience alike have praised the film. 3. Nice ad hominem. You raised points, primarily strawman but points nonetheless. I countered them with my own. So your immediate response is to describe them in broad stroke terms like "flimsy," saying "oh I don't understand that!" and discarding them instead of touching on any of them? Getting upset over an anonymous Internet figure's differing opinion? Don't go out much, you might be debilitating to your environment with that attitude. You might *gasp* come across someone with a different opinion! Your "points" amount to millennial drivel, something I expect from my peers. "darker, better action, better lightsaber fights!!!11!11!" seriously? I wonder if you think the Transformers films were quality films as well. Anyway, have a day. I don't much care if it's good or not. It's good that you don't post here again, you might waste more of my time devolving debates into petty, high school arguments.

He is most certainly a kid as evidenced by.... being called a kid, being established as young. The actor's age=/=the character's age. He had partial training, that much is true, which is why I wish they had fought to a stalemate instead of Rey beating him, but Rey had training as well, in a way. Or more so experience. A friend of mine, who had over 10 years of experience in mixed martial arts(Tae Kwon Do, Jiu Jitsu, Boxing and Muay Thai combined), who had an amateur fighting career alongside being in numerous street fights, had gotten into a particular "arranged backyard" fight where he fought someone who seemingly had no formal training. Yet he was able to grapple with him and manage to submit him effectively, something that left my friend pretty baffled. During my MMA training, I've encountered kids that simply have the instinct of a fighter, the moves come easy to them, they can react well under pressure. Maybe that's why to me, it's not that implausible to think Rey could certainly have beaten Kylo. That and the fact that he was gravely injured, emotionally conflicted, and holding back, trying to capture Rey rather then kill her. And that she's most likely a Skywalker herself. Calling it "****" doesn't make it so just because you said it. Only means you didn't like it, and everyone has an opinion on something that they're free to express. But don't try stating that subjective opinion as an objective, universal fact.

That's, again, the point. Kylo is NOT a Darth. He's not a Sith Lord. He's a kid with a barely functioning lightsaber, still grasping and trying to comprehend exactly what he's getting in to. He's not the main villain and probably won't ever be, although he'll most likely come out swinging in 8, following the trope of the second film in a trilogy typically being the darkest. And if you liked Finn, he's also most likely going to make a comeback in 8, as the actor, John Boyega, is bulking up and training hard to reprise his role.

I can agree on some points like 1. and 5. in particular the factions being as odd as they are. (I don't get why there's even a resistance, why the New Republic apparently dismantled the majority of it's military etc. It just seemed like a forceful way of trying to make the good guys the underdogs without any rational reason) but I'll offer some counters to your other points. 2. Like many others, I believe you missed the point of his character. He was supposed to mirror Luke except more unstable. A Luke that turned. He was never supposed to be Vader 2.0, a ****** Sith right from the start etc. He is just another character that will grow along with the main cast but from a different side of the spectrum. He's still leagues ahead of Anakin's writing, I'd take his tantrums over Anakin's any day. You see, Kylo gets mad because his henchmen failed to capture an untrained girl or some defenseless droids, Anakin gets mad because Obi Wan is a meanie head. 3. Rey is a bit more controversial. On one side, yes she was a bit overpowered in regards to the force, and I can con the film for that, and no, she's not confirmed to NOT be a Skywalker. I know the exact source you're most likely basing this from, but JJ went back on his original statement. “What I meant was that she doesn’t discover them in Episode VII. Not that they may not already be in her world” directly from him. Which I can source; http://www.ew.com/article/2016/04/15/star-wars-force-awakens-jj-abrams-rey-parents If she is indeed a Skywalker, I can let her OPness in the force somewhat slide, as Luke advanced incredibly fast as well. But in regards to Rey's other abilities, do we really need to see her also becoming a great pilot? Mechanic? We know that she lived from her early years as a scavenger, working with tech all her life. This is called character establishment. The same happened with Luke and that was never complained about. We never see him become a great pilot or mechanic, he just is. She beat a severely wounded Kylo, she's already been established as a brawler, having to fight for herself from an early age(something Luke never really had to do). Beating Kylo isn't as implausible as you might think.(I still wish they fought to a stalemate instead though, would've made a bit more sense). 4. You chose such an insignificant plot "error" to complain about. Yes there are certainly others you could've chosen(seriously, why the **** is there a resistance????), that should not have been one of them. Rey and Finn didn't gas the ship, they hesitated before doing so. Hell, you watched it more than me, I would've thought you'd remember this. 6. His son murdered a whole school of other force sensitive students. Until the rebellion, Han had been running all his life, it was his profession. It's not that implausible that he would emotionally regress so far back. It's not about courage or putting his life on the line, it's about feeling as if he failed as a father, and not wanting to feel responsible for creating Vader 2.0, so he did what he had already been doing for most of his life, ran. He was never a family man. He was a charismatic womanizer and a criminal. 7. He's a supporting character and part of what makes great supporting characters is that they don't get over-saturated with appearances in scenes. The story of Star Wars has been and always will be about Skywalkers. 9. A lot of technological improvements could be made to the fighters in the 10-20 years after ROTJ, when the film takes place. X-wings could be outfitted with more Air-to-Ground capabilities. The original Death Star was destroyed by an X-wing. This just seems like nitpicking. 10. Was just mainly rambling. Prequels failed as films, the EU was over-bloated and practically collapsing in on itself so not like we lost much.