hmmmmmmm while i have played mass effect i have yet to finish it, so i dont know about sarens fighting ability, can anyone help me out with some information about it?

Looks like another win for Boba Fett

Does Saren have any biotic or tech abilities that he could use? I never got round to completing Mass Effect so I don’t know exactly how powerful Saren is.

“I always found have the ability to call in your own spaceship to bombard your opponent quite useful. Wish I had my own Slave I spaceship……”

For once, i’d leave the Slave 1 out of this. Because Saren has the same ability, only with Sovereign, the AI controlled superdestroyer ship of the old ones… Mind control, guns that tear through any other ships in the galaxy without even slowing, shields capable of taking two armada’s worth of shipfire for a good half hour (estimated)…

Saren himself is an elite agent of the Council, has access to the best equipment in the galaxy. Plus, his death is only the beginning. Sovereign has thrown that much tech into him that he’s essentially Grievous with a layer of flesh over the to by the end. Only with more guns.

@L-W

What are the spects of Saren’s Dreadnought. I am not physicist (I was generally more interested in the humanities than science). I was wondering if you would be able to compare the two vehicles for those not blessed with a nack for engineering/science. Thanks.

- the pondering fool

If the ships are excluded then Boba is going to rofl stomp Saren. Mass Effect hand guns aren’t insainly far removed from halo weapons in terms of raw bullet damage (although add ons and modifiers cause the Mass Effect weapons to shoot nasty stuff like acid or rockets instead of just plain bullets). Honestly I think a Soldier class character, like Ashley Williams, would be a match for Master Chief is she didn’t have any modifiers to her guns. Star Wars tech, and especially Boba Fett are just too far removed in a technological stand point.

@ L-W

Out of curiosity LW how powerful is the Super MAC gun in Halo?

“If the ships are excluded then Boba is going to rofl stomp Saren. Mass Effect hand guns aren’t insainly far removed from halo weapons in terms of raw bullet damage ”

Lets clear something up here. the guns from Mass Effect use minute particles of metal and fire them at near infinite velocity due to the friction defying Element zero.

Lets grab a few quotes

On weaponry

“Mass Effect infantry weapons use mass accelerator technology. The guns shave a bullet the size of a grain of sand off a dense block of metal stored in the gun, increase its mass with a mass effect field, and fire the projectile at hypersonic velocities”

On the Kinetic shields

“Objects traveling above a certain speed will trigger the barrier’s reflex system and be deflected, provided there is enough energy left in the shield’s power cell.”

On damage potential

“If accelerated to a high enough velocity, a simple paint chip can impact with the same destructive force as a nuclear weapon”

Mass effect weaponry is highly powerful, and if not for the damage limitation the kinetic shields provide, the “bullets” would tear through suit, flesh, bone and the preceding armored hull of every ship in the path of the bullet. Without the kinetic fields, mass effect wepaonry is going to pounch through damn near any other tech, star wars universe or not.

On a side note, star wars tech is designed to deflect laser fire is it not? What are its defensive capabilities solid fire?

I’d imagine if fist sized rocks can impair a stormtrooper enough to knock him down if thrown by an ewok, then something traveling at FTL can do substantial damage.

Just a thought.

@Jwlynas

The weapon’s damage is NOT FTL as FTL velocity is impossible much less near infinite. That’s quite the exageration. L-W showed that even with the accelerators, the energy in Mass Effect weapons are still less than that of Star Wars weapons. Also, solid weapons are encountered all the time in Star Wars, from slugthrowers to vibro weapons, to Flechette guns.

“On a side note, star wars tech is designed to deflect laser fire is it not? What are its defensive capabilities solid fire?”

Im guessing not that good. In ESB, a Star Destroyer didn’t hold up too well when an asteroid completely obliterated the command tower.

“On a side note, star wars tech is designed to deflect laser fire is it not? What are its defensive capabilities solid fire?”

Particle shields and incredibly tough armour.

During the TESB novelization, the Star Destroyer “Avenger” plows into the violent Hoth asteroid field without shields (Needa was pretty hardcore before having his windpipe crushed) in pursuit of the Falcon, pulverizing hundred meter wide asteroids in violent megaton explosions against the bow armour whilst traveling at low relativistic velocities.

The funny part is that you repeated the exact same argument as Frieza, an argument that I refuted and he has yet to return to nonetheless (although the shame may be the cause of that):

1) You can’t see anything past the cloud because dense shrouds of pulverized debris generally don’t allow for a clear resolution of outlined imagery; either way we only see damage characteristic with the destruction of the upper portion of the bridge tower, which would once again be in line with secondary and heavy aesthetic damage. Nobody is saying that the bridge tower survived unharmed (quite the contrary, it was probably battered to an extreme severity), but what we are seeing is not characteristic of total obliteration.

2) The The Empire Strikes Back bridge tower asteroid was stopped cold, which means that the bridge tower’s superstructure was able to generate enough reaction force to deal with 100% of its momentum. Anyone who knows anything about physics knows that conservation of momentum doesn’t allow this to happen unless the bridge tower is capable of countering with momentum (otherwise the asteroid would continue to plow into the bridge itself).

The ISD’s bridge superstructure was damaged, but not destroyed by the impact. If it was completely destroyed, then why was its captain still standing seconds later recoiling from the presumably secondary effects of the impact? Just watch the scene again, a 70 meter diameter asteroid impacts the unshielded hull of the bridge tower, did you see the asteroid plunging deep into the ISD’s bridge tower, or did you see it completely pulverize on impact?

You’re demonstrating the same ignorance that Frieza oh so willfully blinded himself with, that is where you fail to ask yourself how a million tons of metal suddenly just dissipates into oblivion. Do they now have teleporters that I’m not aware of?

3) We see none of the bridge tower sheer away from the detonation (there would be a shit ton of metal accelerating outwards at 2-4 km/s), we see none of it pulverize on impact and we see no sign of any kind that the bridge tower is taken apart or penetrated (which by token of conservation – would generate a far brighter blast just from the contact speed generated by metal upon metal with a massive debris cloud as a result – friction 101). Instead we see the bridge tower getting hit by a million ton (presumably nickel-iron) asteroid and as a result the impact pulverizes the asteroid as a million ton cloud.

This is just another case of you failing to understand basic conservation of momentum – again.

4) We see the Captain mere seconds after the impact, recoiling seconds after the asteroid impact itself. Nothing suggests a possible time lapse and if the bridge tower was really sheared apart as a result, the Captain would be doing far less than recoiling in horror, he would vaporized by the sudden depressurization and explosion.

5) If the bridge tower has been knocked clean off, the resultant reaction would have resulted in millions of tons of metal contacting at velocities of at least 1km/s, the sheer level of friction alone (never mind the fact that you’ve knocked off half of the electronics throughout the ship, thus exposing the surrounding environment to literal petawatts of power as a result – imagine a lightening storm in space) would have been far more visible than the pulverization of the asteroid in question, generating miniature flash fires brighter than a kiloton level explosion. The reason that we don’t see the tower in question is due to the fact that a million tons of rock have just pulverized against the hull, which has an obvious tendency to disperse violently when contacting against a metal more than seven thousand times the mechanical strength of titanium.

Kind of obvious really.

Still, considering that the ISD remained in axis without so much as a single degree of rotation (despite being impacted at her weakest axis) suggests that both the hull and the emergency thrusters altered the course with equivalent velocity of at least 1 km/s.

6) “Yea, more debris and atmosphere shooting out would’ve made it realistic”

That’s a pretty half-hearted and half-arsed rationalization. On screen events have to be taken as literal evidence unless stated otherwise by canon authority, such is the nature of debates. You cannot abuse the feigned fallacy of believing that this and that WOULD have made it look more realistic when the production of visual events have gone to creating the imagery in which we base our interpretation and analysis of these events.

So, when faced with a scene whose producers have deliberately made it look a certain way, you propose we throw that out in favour of your desired interpretation of the scene despite sharing none of the characteristics of a vessel that has just had a million cubic meter area destroyed by a violent impact?

Awww I came here to try and maybe refute any arguments against Boba but it seems L-W already has already arrived on the scene…

Isn’t the stormtrooper armor because the plastic accidentally broke during the acting…thus it would be non-canon?

This is why I don’t like over analyzing sci-fi movies in this manner, especially ones with lower budgets and older technology. It’s hard to determine whether something was a “mistake” or deliberate.

However in the stormtrooper example, one has to consider consistency. How often has the armor cracked from such events? Once? There’s a higher chance it is a mistake if it’s a low number, especially considering stormtroopers get pushed around and beaten on a lot, I find it hard to believe that it breaking was intentional.

I don’t recall multiple events of SDs getting physically nailed by asteroids (although I haven’t watched these movies in years; don’t go by my memory) so with one occurrence it’s difficult to determine.

“Isn’t the stormtrooper armor because the plastic accidentally broke during the acting…thus it would be non-canon?”

I’m sure they didn’t plan for the armor to crack. But like LW said, we have to take it as literal evidence. Especially when they’re top canon films like Star Wars.

1) “’m sure they didn’t plan for the armor to crack. But like LW said, we have to take it as literal evidence. Especially when they’re top canon films like Star Wars.”

Agreed, but we must only accept it as a literal outlier to a myriad of novelized and filmed events in which Stormtrooper armour has undergone far more traumatic incidences of material fatigue and remain relatively unscathed. Either the circumstances for this individual Trooper are different to every other poor schmuck who took a 30lb rock to the helmet and are therefore not representative of the total summation of Galactic Empire material design, or we have to attempt an unattainable rationalization to justify the existence of this one event that casually exists despite a literal mountain of contradictory evidence.

Does a human landing on his pauldron (possibly breaking his neck in the process) into a mossy clearing really strike you as more of an absolute limit for material tensile strength than a megajoule explosion?

2) “Thats not “Occam’s Razor” L-W, the simplest answer of all is “Stuff happened in the movie”

Look up parsimony Jwlynas, the above definition is precisely NOT what Occam’s Razor means.

(at the risk of condescension, I must point out that the following is much easier to understand if you have a basic grasp of high school-level mathematics)

Occam’s Razor is a philosophical principle which is also part of the scientific method. The original principle comes from a theologian named William of Ockham, who lived nearly a thousand years ago and devised it as a proof that the existence of God is not logical. That may seem contradictory for a theologian, but he was trying to show that you need pure faith to believe in God, and that logic will not help you. The principle he used was the concept of logical parsimony, which says that we should not multiply entities unnecessarily. This somewhat cryptic principle makes more sense when you think of it in terms of equations.

Some people misinterpret Occam’s Razor as “the simplest theory wins”. If we accept that, then the shortest resolution is clearly the winner. One small problem: the shortest equations are usually impossible to evaluate. How do you calculate “X = Y” when you don’t know what Y is? How do you even know if there is a formula for X at all, or whether there is any such thing as X? An equation which gives no results is useless. You see, “the simplest theory wins” is (ironically enough) an oversimplification of the principle of parsimony, so if we were to rephrase the aforementioned version properly, we would say that “the simplest workable, accurate theory wins” (a couple of extra words can make a big difference).

So how does Occam’s Razor apply to this? Well, it’s obvious how it applies when you remember to express the competing explanations in the form of theories:

Theory #1: “The tower is gone. The creators did not animate the characteristics necessary to demonstrate the disappearance.”

Theory #2: “It can be explained as events which can be physically rationalized by real world principles, calculated with real world equations, disproven through canon details.”

At first glance, theory #1 actually seems simpler and more straightforward. But appearances can be deceiving, so let’s try expressing the two theories in equation form. If P = so-called “Tower impact”, then:

Equation 1: P = A + B

Where A is unknown and B equal authorial intent.

Equation 2: P = R + C + S

Where R = events which can be rationalized,
C = calculations can be analyzed
S = Star Wars canon

Equation 1 does look simpler, but A is unknown, therefore it is impossible to evaluate, and if you recall, an equation which you cannot evaluate is useless. “Ah, but this is different. This is not a mathematical equation; it’s science fiction story!” you say. Well, that’s where you’d be forgetting that science is actually the exercise of modeling real-life or fictional events as equations. We don’t need to know everything about the Imperial armoury to use them in a useful theory, but we need to know something, and we know nothing. Nothing at all. We know nothing about their technologies, capabilities, limitations (or for that matter, even their very existence), so they are a complete unknown. If they are a complete unknown, then the first equation actually doesn’t explain a damned thing, does it? Therefore, while the first theory seems simpler on the surface, Occam’s Razor actually slices it away because it’s useless. Or, to put it another way, “authorial intent” does not explain why we don’t see any metallic debris, vaporized metal or several million tons of rushing atmosphere any better than “Yoda did it”.

The second theory, on the other hand, uses only terms which are known to exist, and which can therefore be evaluated. We know that many events in the film can be rationalized. We know that C canon is a reliable source. And we know that based on their on screen properties that their effects can be calculated with relative accuracy. We can also test these terms to see if they measure up, we can look at the known capabilities of human technology and the limitations of physics to see if these events can be rationalized.

3) “Stuff happened in the movie and, when the popularity increased there were many fans trying to explain away what were obvious prop malfunctions and oversights on SFX technicians, because thats what fans do”

That kind of answer can only warrant a “what the hell are you doing here in the first place?” response.

This discussion employs real science wherever possible, along with the scientific method. Of course, there is no such thing as warp drive, or hyperdrive, or Death Stars. But the site is based on suspension of disbelief, which presumes that the canon events seen in the films and shows actually happened.

Suppose we saw a Death Star in real life, and suppose we watched it blow Mars apart the way it blew Alderaan apart? We would not have the option of saying that it didn’t happen, because we saw it. We would not have the option of saying that it’s impossible, because it happened. Therefore, we would have to accept that it is possible, and try to rationalize it with our existing knowledge of science. We would not discard all of science because of this strange observation, nor would we ignore the observation because it doesn’t fit our theories.

That is what suspension of disbelief means, and that is how it applies to science. Unless we apply a real point of reference to these events, then the discussion has zero value since neither party wishes to agree on equatable terms for a concession.

For example, party A and B could be discussing the polarity of weak ionic bonds when party C bursts into the debate and vehemently declares that all electromagnetism is in fact armies of really tiny strong men holding the universe together with their incredible muscular strength. Parties A and B could possibly come to a concession alone, but party C would forever remain immune to concession simply because they refuse to treat the rules of parsimony.

4) “When it comes to canon sources, it goes Book, Movie, spin off novels/movies/games.”

All G and C canon is equal (some prefer to rank G as the absolute untouchable pinnacle) unless C contradicts G, then C is only invalidated once (which can be hastily rationalized and disposed of). G has higher authority, but the existence of G alone does not devalue C, merely juxtaposes it against a valuable backdrop in which we can determine the accuracy of certain events.

5) “Movies have limitations in technology”

Authorial intent does not negate what we’ve seen in the films, neither does it negate the fact that the SFX necessary to demonstrate an accurately exploding bridge tower has existed since “A New Hope”.

6) “in acting ability, in physical prowess. Or else Jedi masters are no better at fighting styles than stage actors”

Which could be easily augmented and rationalized during the pre-CGI era with the use of stage hands, stunt doubles, miniatures and various wire effects and camera techniques; that is unless you believe that Mark Hamill actually did leap over twelve feet into a vent shaft with his own superhuman leg strength?

Authorial intent is limited by technological functions,certainly, but does not hold a paradigm over all other rationalizations. Yoda is depicted as an old hermit bordering on death, yet he remains so strong with the force that he can lift an X-Wing with little trouble. Vader may seem like an aging decrepit cyborg wrapped in a futuristic “Iron Lung” , but his mercilessness debuts in the form of the fear he generates in those around him. Palpatine never once took up a lightsaber in the original trilogy, so he fired lightning from his finger tips.

Technological limitations aren’t the be all and end all in storytelling, neither should they hold absolute sway over debate and parsimony.

“what sort of velocity would be needed to propel a paint chip with enough force to equal that of a nuclear blast upon impact?”

Define nuclear blast. The Davy Crocket nuclear rifle has a yield of only 20 tons of TNT (excessively far less than the first tested and deployed nuclear devices), yet it is still classified as a tactical fission warhead by all accounts.

But by launching a one gram paint chip at 0.9c, one could generate an 8 kiloton detonation upon impact, which would be a horribly unlikely candidate for assault rifle design since the first person to fire at such a yield would vaporize the entire battlefield.

“and what type of shell would be needed, at that speed, to penetrate Slave 1’s hull?”

Unknown, since we cannot really compare Slave-1′s energy transmission capabilities with that of her kinetic energy barriers; although if we assume that they are at least somewhat equal, you would need to launch something along the lines of a 600 ton shell at 0.5c (again, I must stress that I have no way of knowing how Slave-1 handles momentum other than her ability to accelerate to 0.5c without inertial dampeners).

No-one? it’d be a shame to let this die…

Come on, Boba and his weapons, armour and jetpack verse Saren, his Biotics, his weapons and armour and his hoverboard thing.

Saren was a Biotic, according to the Mass Effect Wiki anyway.

if only the reapers could make elevators that moved faster

Anything to help my case, or at least feel justice has been done.

“http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Mass_Effect_Wiki”

“Anything to help my case, or at least feel justice has been done.”

From what I was able to read, I think Saren will be a great match for Fett… That is if Fett deceides not to pull out some of his ‘insta-pwn’ weapons to begin with…

But anyway, how does Saren Typicly deal with particle beam weapons that travel at light speeds that punch ‘grape fruit’ sized holes into durasteel walls(I know I sound like a broken record.)? This question is essential, considering that I’m talking about Fett’s most standard weapons other than his non-vibro-blades…

“Depends on how Molecular destabilization is dealt with via the shields. Generally those shields stop any and all projectiles travelling over a certain speed dead in their tracks. Now, the shiled isn’t molecular, so theoretically the gun would have no effect at all. Of course, it does bring up the issue of whether or not the shield would register the blast. I’ve no idea”

Interesting… I’ve no clue either. Though it should be brought up that Fett’s modified DXR-6 (as with most disruptors) tends to ignore energy shielding all together… In terms of firepower, well, this weapon is supposed to rip through warship plating with ease.

At standard setting, it delivers the punch of an overcharged E-11 blaster bolt, which can vaporize roughly two meters of durasteel (durasteel having 100 times the tensile strength of titanium, which might have been retconed as being more along the lines of 300,000 times stronger than steel. Well, so says Wookiepedia anyway…). A single standard disrupor beam that directly strikes a target makes the target… Go away. An overcharged disruptor blast… is far more powerful. Nuff said.

Still, “it does bring up the issue of whether or not the shield would register the blast” raises some questions…

“The shielding afforded by kinetic barriers does not protect against extremes of temperature, toxins, or radiation.”

The wikia isn’t crashing on me at the moment… Anyway, would this mean that Fett’s acids, which are designed to eat through tank armor like there’s no tomorrow, would be effective against Saren? Just wondering…

“I believe so. As said elsewhere, the Guns are essentially Rail Cannons, and Sarens weapon would be the best of the best in terms of power and functionality, plus it’d be upgraded by the Reaper ship. It killed one Spectre agent (Elite of the elite) in a single shot, blasting through shields and armour like they were nothing.”

That’s pretty impressive… Personal Shielding in SW is pretty rare, but Mandos are pretty big on them. During the Mando Civil War, Jango was big on using his Mando battle-rifle, which I can’t imagine being any more powerful than Boba’s EE-3.

It was shown blasting straight through Death Watch armor with ease. Micro-energy fielding, durasteel/plast plating, ceramic armor mesh, all of it in one shot at point-blank. Even at a range of 300 meters, Boba’s EE-3 is able to effectively blast through stormtrooper armor and blast through several inches (grapefruit sized) of the reinforced duarasteel walls on Cloud City, all at standard setting.

One of Boba Fett’s pistols was shown blowing apart an entire Imperial speeder in one shot (Though it was in the Holiday special), and was later shown blowing in half armored bikers and dismembering pirates in “Bounty on Bar Kooda.” But these are Fett’s basic sidearms. Still, Saren’s upgraded arsenal sounds pretty lethal.

Now, Boba’s armor is made of Mandalorian iron, which is supposed to have a tensile strength many times greater than that of durasteel. The stuff is nearly indestructible, even against anti-infantry rockets, lightsabers, direct blaster bolts, etc. I’m inclined to say that Fett should be able to take a few direct hits…

“As the Spectre agent, its pretty impressive, but not enough to avoid gunfire. as his undead zombie cyborg mode on the other hand, he’s faster than”

I’m going to assume that the “undead zombie cyborg Saren” is the current form of Saren… Making this fight that much harder for Fett. Altough, Fett has dodged plenty of blaster bolts in his day. Considering they travel at lightspeed, that’s kind of impressive. Though his sensors help out I imagine…

“Green, like Boba’s armour?”

A WITCH! YOUR A WITCH!!! WWAAAAAAAAGGGGHHH!!!!!!

“Far, far greater.”

Hmm… ‘strokes beard and chomps down on pipe’

This is far more interesting than I thought…

“Glad to have you aboard Who..”

Glad to be on board.

“Thats all i ask, people looking at this and actually considering things rather than throwing out baseless “boba rules” comments.”

The whole “Boba winz becuzz he foughts Darth Vaderz” argument does get rather old…

well without the ships definately Boba but how quickly Saren gets owned depends if hes normal or in the sovriegn controlled zombie thing at the end

if in normal mode he would be owned in 0.24756913 of a second

i always get him to commit suicide before zombie mode
saren is so stupid when it comes to talking

i though after finishing mass effect saren was a really easy oppenent to beat at the end. even when he was upgraded. but boba has more skill, firepower and can fly. boba wins.

@MrSmiley69gtfo

‘saren has the hover board thing that is a much more stable platform than a jet pack’

so if the hover board moves mentaly to the left, saren would just stay in the middle without even flinching? he would fall off if you want the answer.

‘sarens fire power is better due to reaper technology’

star wars tec is more advanced than mass effects

‘saren as a spectre has more skill in the matter’

Boba Fett is ‘the best bounty hunter in the galaxy’
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Boba_fett

‘your assumption is nie alfieboi13′
no, YOUR assumption is nie MrSmiley69gtfo

Chuckforest are by any chance Chuck inglish?

“Who blaster bolts dont travel at the speed of light”

Well, according to the AOTC:ICS, you are wro-ong Chuck.

“Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at light speed. The visible “bolt” is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than light speed. Therefore targets can actually explode before the beam arrives.”

Also I find this stement:

“The best in the galaxy is opinion”

and this:

“also in the end of the game saren is a monster who takes about a bajillion bullets to kill and essentially spews rockets while hopping everywhere like robo-spiderman.”

Are a bit ironic when put together… no offense.

@Chuck

I see where you’re coming at, but let me put it to you this way…

“they are visible”

Yes, there is a visible section.

“deflectable and dodgeble”

By the Jedi, who have limited precog abilities, meaning they know the exact projectory of the shot before it’s even fired. There is no instance of anyone dodging a direct blaster bolt in the movies. Dodging blaster fire is one thing, a precise bolt lined up to a target is an other…

“does it make sense that people fall and then get hit by it???”

Not possible… the invisible portion of the bolt is moving around the speed of light, something you won’t even react to much in the moments before the sublight visible portion makes contact.

“There is no sure answer in terms of real life science; so far we can only place constraints on the nature of the beam by making careful observations about the filmed behaviour. The shots create light which is emitted sideways, otherwise the bolts would not be seen. The visible bolts appear to travel at various velocities, which usually appear to be slower than the speed of light. However there is an invisible component of the beam which often propagates far ahead of the visible bolt. The invisible forerunner is probably an aspect of the fundamental beam itself, and the luminosity of the bolt is a side-effect. The forerunner beam is known to damage targets before the visible bolts arrive, and this component of the shot may actually propagate at lightspeed.”

Dr. Curtis Saxton

Hope this helps a little Chuck If not, I’m sure L-W can explain this FAR better than me.

@ZomBninjasamurai

I thought that had already benn decied.

“For his sake it better not get to that point.”

everyone deserves a L-W lecture

“Pfft, we all know that saren can beat the pussy, that is boba fett ”

I am torn between beating you to death with your pelvis, or kindly asking if you were being sarcastic?

DO U C HOW BORING U ALL TALK!!!!!!!!! I JUST PROVED IT BY TKING LIKE ALL OF U. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

we’ve gotta start ignoring “halo owns”

CAPS this and CAPS that…have you any clue on the concept of taking your god dam hand off the shift key/pressing the caps lock in the off position?

Why have we got to inore him. He’s funny and making Halo look even worse!

@Neutrality

We should tell him about fight halo would never win and see what he says.

while I think that Boba is the bigger badass I think every one is getting a little carried away with fanboyism (boba wins cause he is awesome) however I would like to stay anally intact and avoid an L-W lecture curious if u r out there L-W what does L-W stand for. And maybe I just don’t understand the light speed part as if a gun that is fully automatic sprays lightspeed rounds the jedi even with precog would still have to think and react at lightspeed.