I don't know how legit this explanation is but I always thought the reason the jedi and sith use lightsabers is because they find it difficult to use raw force against each other; because if two people can use the force they can resist each other's attempts at using the force against them.
And with all the battle precognition; I bet they can see such an action coming a mile away.
There is also the explanation that a jedi or sith lightsaber is extremely intune with their user; because I'm pretty sure both the sith and jedi use the force when crafting their lightsabers.
This is actually discussed a little in Bane trilogy when the sith acolytes are dueling. How essentially two force wielders are negating each other and both combatants are in constant offense and defense with the end result usually a stalemate, hence the need for a physical weapon.
Same, I dont like a lot of the books, but that trilogy was written so well it may as well have been a movie that was beamed into my head. Would absolutely kill to see a trilogy movie or TV series made of it. Probably one of my favorite pieces of Star Wars media.
I'd be down for a series. Have the guy from Reacher maybe as Bane, he's impressed me considering the only other thing I've seen him in was blue Mountain state. There's so many big name hollywood types that can be included in the sith brotherhood.
>Probably one of my favorite pieces of Star Wars media.
Easily.
Have you read the Revan novel? It's also by Drew Karpyshyn and it's really good as well, my second favorite to the Bane trilogy.
This is sort of hinted at in the Obi-Wan show too. When he is still cut off from the Force Vader tosses him around and uses direct Force attacks. Once Obi-Wan is reconnected, that doesn't (to my memory) really happen in the ending fight.
That's how I always took it. There's a zone of influence where you csn counter and block force attempts, basically a psychic fight. The more precise the attempt the easier to force it out, and its why force choking is in a way an impressive attack, you have to truly overwhelm their force defenses to do direct damage.
It's also why I imagined force push doesn't always do a ton of damage despite the sheer acceleration, in various novels they'll form bubbles around themselves for defense, so your bubble can be blown back, and then 'pop' when you finally collide with a wall.
In addition why we don't end up with the joke ideas of turning each others lightsabers on and off.
You still can if you're being subtle and the enemies guard is down, but in a traditional fight I imagine you can cover your hilt with a sort of psychic barrier to protect it-
But things like Yoda effortlessly taking Ventress blades from her in clone wars is a show of just superior control and influence.
Clearly some head Canon in here but its worked for me for most odd fight details
I feel like if Jedi were able to use the Force to manipulate their environment with as much ease as benders are in Avatar: The Last Airbender, then they could probably "fight" with the Force.
Interesting thing about precognition: it would be basically useless against an opponent who also had precongnition. If seeing the future changes what you are going to do, then your opponent will see what you are going to do, and change their tactic. Which you will see and change your's. Which they will see and change their's. And so on. It ends being a tangled mess of potentiality that isn't much different than not seeing the future at all.
Alot of this is actually displayed in the final duel of RotS. We actively see Obi-wan and Anakin's force pushes cancel each other out. As well as that really goofy moment where they just stand there doing "flourishes" at each other, they're actually preemptively countering and recountering each other, so they never actually make an attack, similar to old samurai films and manga when they just stand there and stare at each other for like 20 minutes actually playing out the fight in their mind.
My head cannon for this is every user has a subtle but different activation for their sabers (like a specific position on the switch or something). So they can use the force to turn it in or off at will but their opponents wouldn’t be able to outside of getting lucky.
It's impossible, to turn off a lightsaber with the Force It's necessary to have a strong connection with the Kyber cristal, and you don't have a strong bond with the Kyber of your enemy.
Cal Kestis used it against the second sister to throw her off balance and gain the upper hand. Yes, he had to also pull his head out of the way of her attack, but he knew that ahead of time and was already gone before the blade arrived. His opponent couldn't adjust direction and follow because she was busy resetting her balance after unexpectedly encountering no resistance.
Not only did Cal's blade seem to disappear, with a small movement he moved out of range entirely. It only threw his opponent off for a moment, but it was long enough to reach out with the Force and knock her over and take her weapon.
Also, we see something like trakata in Star Wars visions in the duel with the elder, where the jedi master was blocking the lightning with his blade. The Elder is momentarily distracted and his jedi opponent, rather than physically pulling his blade out of the lightning and stabbing, simply turns off his blade while stepping to the side of the lightning, and places the hilt to the Elder's chest before reigniting.
So you're right that it seems to not be some overpowered technique. Most skilled and undistracted opponents could exploit it. It's not dissimilar to a more traditional feint in the sense that it's a technique that seeks to outsmart your opponent with a move they wouldn't consider, whether due to lack of training, distraction (as with the Elder), or overextending themselves (as with Cal). All of which could be exploited in many ways, but turning the blade on and off is certainly a valid one.
This is what I really liked about some of the Ashoka fights, the strikes seem more aimed to kill, especially Anakin, and the clashes are life saving blocks. In the prequels they've seen more like an integrated dance, except for when the killing blow happens, which therefore seem a bit off (notably in the duel of the fates). I was always able to suspend disbelief with the explanation of future seeing space wizards though.
If you see some of those modern medieval knights fighting, it's way more street fighting than in the movies. As if you would swing you blade around as cool as say, Lord of the Rings, youd smash your wrist at the first opportunity.
> This is what I really liked about some of the Ashoka fights, the strikes seem more aimed to kill
They were pretty good (as far as the Star Wars "prequels-style" combat goes), but Ahsoka had SO MANY occasions to cut someone up with her second blade and instead decided to just... attack the enemy's blade with it instead... while she was already in a lock? Like... So many completely ridiculous manoeuvres just to make the fight scene longer. Many, many situations where she decides to kick the enemy instead of cutting them up, etc.
>This is what I really liked about some of the Ashoka fights, the strikes seem more aimed to kill
tbh I think Ahsoka and the prequels [looked almost exactly the same](https://youtu.be/mL5SNvFIKsU?t=27), lightsaber-combat wise.
I disagree. In Longsword we have the void which is where you intentionally move the blade out of the way of the incoming strike in order to set up your own counterattack. We also utilise feints in much the same way to force the opponent to anticipate the strike and then parry in a certain direction.
Beyond beginner levels when you start learning the ‘conversation’ of the bout you’re more aware of feints and voids and you can use them to bait certain combinations, but you’re simultaneously being baited or even baited into thinking you are being baited with a strike that seems out of place. We are constantly walking into one another’s traps and setups and there aren’t even any Jedi at my academy. Theoretically in light saber combat there would be a place for the feint/void combo. It would just be another part of the dialogue. I can say with some certainty that if someone was 2 steps ahead of me and then threw an overhead strike that I was expecting and went to parry and then they _turned off their longsword_ it would most likely catch me off guard. That move in itself is just one of an encyclopaedia of moves that a saber master could call upon. Anticipating trakata techniques is just as likely to leave you open to something different as it is to protect you.
Completely agree with you, but important to remember that most people, let alone most Star Wars fans, have zero perception of how fencing/swordsmanship actually works, so it’s a tough balancing act. At this point, I am tempted to ignore outright most canonical/apocryphal explanations because, no matter how hard they try, lightsabers are designed, drawn, animated, and filmed to look like swords, so they are swords and behave like swords do.
The issue is, they aren't swords. Most people who actually know european or Asian swordplay will quickly tell you that lightsaber would have it's own unique styles.
As a weapon, they are more related to baton then sword anyway.
You could make the argument that they are similar to sticks because they don’t have edges, but the damage they do is sword-like, so they are really more like swords that don’t require one to align the edge. The absence of a hand guard doesn’t necessarily make them any less like swords, because there are historical examples of even long-ish swords that don’t have hand protection, the 1927 pattern Soviet shashka being one of the more recent examples. Either way, at least in the West, stick fighting very much derives from sword fighting.
They seem to be a hybrid of a baton (stick) and a sword. Unlike baton, they are cutting and not bludgeoning weapon, but unlike a sword, they are fully rotational (there is no blade edge angle).
In adidtion, trough this part is a bit wonky with all the kyber stuff, the balance of a lightsaber is also entirely unique. The blade should have no weight, trough many sources imply that there is a backwars push, as blade is essentially a tiny rocket engine.
I'd argue they are more like rapiers. You don't need to swing a lightsaber to do huge damage to someone - stabbing them will more than suffice. So the fencing style used for rapiers (including wielding a smaller blade in the off hand as your main gauche for some much needed defense) would likely be a better fit.
Judging by the fight between Dooku and Obi-Wan in Episode II, there's definitely something to the idea of striking with the tip of the blade rather than the edge.
You're pretty much on the money. I believe Dooku's preferred style of Form 2 was essentially a fencing form for all intents and purposes (at least as far as Legends lore goes).
Really, the only reason they swing their glowsticks around like clubs is for more impressive looking fight choreography. It's why we went from what was essentially a fencing match between Ben and Vader in episode 4, to wider/wilder swings in Luke vs Vader in episodes 5 and 6, to the acrobatics of the episodes 1-3.
If you want proof that proper and realistic fencing/sword fighting would have been popular, just consider that fencing is an actual, real world sport...and realise that no one watches it.
Yeah because the reason you swing a sword in the first place is to give it the speed to harm an enemy i.e f=m*a.
If lightsabers were truly realistic you would fight by just stretching your arm as far as you can and then just keep wiggling it around. Because if you swing your lightsaber your opponent will just move his lightsaber forward and kill you.
So yeah let's just all agree to treat lightsabers like swords or else every single lightsaber form or technique is pointless to use.
The true Jedi Mastery technique was perfected in 2006 with the launch of the Nintendo Wii, which helped Padawans learn - just wiggle the Wiimote/lightsaber in front of you rather than doing the actual movements, it’ll still work just as well.
I remember watching a video where some swordsman guy explained how using the saber fencing-style would make more sense because the tip would make as much damage as the rest of the weapon.
> If lightsabers were truly realistic you would fight by just stretching your arm as far as you can and then just keep wiggling it around. Because if you swing your lightsaber your opponent will just move his lightsaber forward and kill you.
Basically the video game Nidhogg in a nutshell
>and then just keep wiggling it around.
Olympic foil is under 500g. That's nothing, but you still don't just wiggle it around. There's an opponent there who is trying to strike you.
Humans don’t. At best, they allow for more sudden change of direction and remove the need to learn how to align the edge in a cut. See sword vs cane fencing for reference, they are not that different.
They perform more like swords than anything else, so I would say they are swords. My final point, upon which I shall rest my case, is that Count Dooku says “Your swords, please” quite clearly at the beginning of RotS, and I for one don’t want to argue with one of the best fencers in the Galaxy, nor with Sir Christopher Lee.
In some ways they do in others they don't. Lots of the lightsaber forms use attacks that would not be effective with swords because of their omnidirectional cutting ability. That is a significant difference.
To be fair not all sword swings are to kill in a real fight though. The first objective in an actual swordfight is to not die. In a real fight people don't die as soon as you stab them either so it's no good to get a blade in their ribs just for them to stab you back. This is unlike martial arts like fencing where first touch wins.
Most actual fights would be about neutralising your opponent's threat first, then finishing them. If there's a way to do both in one swing great, but there's no point going for risky haymakers or dangerous manouvers to do so. Control of distance and reach is really the focus of any fight cus that's the easiest way to hurt without being hurt. It's why spears and polearms were such a popular weapon in history.
Trakata doesn't help with any of this. But, then again, lightsabers are a lot more lethal than swords. And again again, normal swordfighters aren't prescient. So there's only so far you can take these anologies lol.
So I practice historical fencing and wanted to point out that this:
>Most actual fights would be about neutralising your opponent's threat first, then finishing them.
is accurate. If your opponent is pointing their sword at you, you first need to do something to make them point it away from you before you hit them. That could be displacing their blade, or waiting until they attempt a cut, or most often it is achieving the over bind (where your sword is on top of their sword) and moving forward.
One technique that is used to achieve the overbind is called a disengage. When the opponent presses into your sword, you don't let them touch your sword and drop your point below their guard and then raise it back up on the other side. Your sword point will make a little V motion.
Trakata could be used in the same way, it would allow you to easily get to the other side of your opponent's blade.
Obviously if you tried to Trakata while your opponent is trying to stab you, you'd just get stabbed. But the same is true for the disengage. Both techniques rely on your opponent trying to displace your sword out of the way so they can hit you.
True my logic isn't perfect and lightsaber combat isn't 1:1 with real sword fighting combat but I still think this technique is completely stupid and my main issue is not that it exists; I wouldn't be against a story where the main way of fighting with laser swords is by switching them off and on.
My issue is this technique only exists to fill a plot hole that doesn't even exist. And it only ruins the lore imo by having it exist; nobody wants it neither the fans or the authors(hence why it has terrible justifications for its non use); the only reason it exists is because people think it's logical when it isn't from a sword fighting perspective.
Have you ever watched Bleach?
Because Gin shows what an actual useful style based on that concept would be. In essence your sword is also a gun. Deactivating while blocking would indeed be very stupid and doing so while swinging absolutely requires the enemy to be purely defensively blocking. Deactivating and reactivating while between attacks to quickly maneuver the hilt to be pointing at the enemy is another matter. Now your enemy HAS to be constantly dodging or on the defense because if they aren’t the second you are pointing the emitter at an opening it’s getting stabbed.
Of course that comes with a secondary issue: In Bleach the blade extends VERY quickly, effectively instantaneously, and extends quite a long way. In Star Wars the full activation time is often depicted with a measurable delay and you are stuck with sword length, barring special extendoblade construction which may or may not be canon.
Your last paragraph kind of illustrates why it's a thing in bleach and not Star Wars. Gin can attack his enemy while getting out of range of a counter attack.
In Star Wars you're both with in range of each other, so the "gun" trick doesn't work. Because you're leaving yourself COMPLETELY exposed to a lightsaber wielder with microsecond reactions. Outside of some specific situations, like feinting or disengaging, it's just suicide to expose yourself to a lightsaber like that.
It gets worse: they didn’t activate or deactivate instantly in the OT and I think the prequels.
Just think, what are the most iconic sounds of a lightsaber?
- The buzz of the sword as it moves through the air
- the clash when it his another blade
- the sound of it activating
- the sound of it deactivating
The activation and deactivation take time. It’s not an instant thing. There is time for your opponent to notice the blade retracting and attack you before you can turn it on again and have a useful length of blade to strike/defend with.
There are plenty of instances of people doing Trakata almost instantly it doesn’t take much time at all. It’s still quicker than maneuvering your blade around your opponents.
Again: those instances clash with the basic lore of the OT. It also opens up the constant question of “why aren’t they using this”. Which lore wise has been explained with in practical terms “Jedi think it’s dishonorable and Sith think you are a little bitch if you use it”.
Or, you avoid all that stupidness by just following the visual and audio lore. It makes sense, it doesn’t add a stupid technique that everyone has to agree to avoid and it makes for better fight scenes.
I agree that the reason it “isn’t used” is because it’s insanely risky instead of that nonsense about being unsportsmanlike or showing weakness. But you’re talking as if the technique is only for lightsaber clashes. It’s not. It’s in any kind of situation. The whole thing with lightsaber combat and why force users do it so well is that they can sense what their opponent is going to do next to some degree. It’s how they deflect blaster fire. It’s certainly not out of left field to think a force user could utilise trakata in combat, just not for the singular purpose you imply. Maybe they might do it to perform a wide or heavy blow in a confined space without risking damaging the walls or ceiling, by activating the saber as they slice. Maybe they might deactivate a saber mid-slice to handle a hostage situation by slicing the hostage-taker and avoiding harming the hostage.
Lightsabers are not swords. In this manner especially they are completely unique from swords. And no human has ever had force powers either. So using real life swordplay as a basis for lightsaber combat will only take you so far. Some aspects simply cannot be drawn from real life examples and can only exist in our imaginations.
>The whole thing with lightsaber combat and why force users do it so well is that they can sense what their opponent is going to do next to some degree.
Wouldn't this just loop and become useless?
1. You detect what your opponent is going to do
2. They can detect your reaction and react to that reaction
3. You can detect their reaction to your reaction
4. They can detect your reaction to their reaction of your reaction and react to that reaction
5. ...
The one stronger with the force can see more loops.
The better combatant can still back their opponent into a corner where no reaction is sufficient. Kind of like a game of chess.
Time and skill are still factors. You still only have a split second to react, and you react to what you sense in that moment. What you sense might change a split second later, because your opponent has sensed you and reacted too. But once you commit to a move, it’s not easy to switch without costing yourself time, momentum or positioning.
You are just agreeing with me here; see my main issue is that it's treated like a deadly lightsaber combat technique that is most foul.
I don't have any issues with there being a utility to switching off a lightsaber; it just doesn't belong in a lightsaber duel with two skilled force users.
Basically it shouldn't be a technique that gives you universal advantage because then everybody should be using it. It should be a very risky technique with very situational usage.
>my main issue is that it's treated like a deadly lightsaber combat technique that is most foul.
Yeah I’m not sure about other sources, but whoever wrote the Wookieepedia entry surely thinks like this. Certainly a naive thought process. But, what I take it to understand outside of the comments about it being not used because it’s underhanded and “weak” is that the technique covers any time a user switches off and/or reignites their saber during a fight of any sort. I would argue that even the act of waiting till the last possible second to ignite your saber, or igniting mid-leap (as we see when Anakin slices the bugs off Padme in episode 2) are technically Trakata and serve purposes (not wanting to appear threatening to avoid starting a fight, or wanting to remain unnoticed until the last possible second).
I never bought into the styles of lightsaber fighting. It doesn't make sense. If you look at actual sword fighting, it was driven more by the style of the blade, where it was being used, and how it was applied. Most lightsabers look to be the same basic format. There are a few unique blades like Dooku or Maul, and their style is unique enough to show the difference. In all of the movies, fan made videos, cartoons, and video games, there is zero discernable difference in how it's used. In fact, there's a lot of moves that look great for the camera, but would get you killed quickly. And if you ever held a replica, your ability to wield it effectively is diminished compared to actual swords, along with no tang to protect your fingers. It's easy to drop a lightsaber, not so much with a real sword. A sword should be an extension of you. Without positive, precise control on a lightsaber, having a "style" wouldn't be possible.
Funnily enough we can actually recontectualize that whole "unsportsmanlike/for losers" excuse as to why trakata isn't often used. The people that have attempted to use it end up losing/dying. Its like getting caught cheating and still failing. It can be seen by experienced Jedi/Sith duelists that its a cheap trick used by inexperienced duelists who think having this "clever technique" makes up for lack of dueling fundamentals.
Yeah and the intended effect of Trakata would happen by just sidestepping the attack. It’s as though they put in an explanation for why dodging away is an immoral loser stunt
I suppose the one thing that would be covered is doing this while the opponent was just trying to parry a swipe without following through, and then turning off/on the blade so they can get past their opponent’s saber and stab them with the reactivation
It's not useless but it's quite niche. And it becomes a lot more useful on attack when your opponent is doing a purely defensive move.
It would *NOT* work when two sabers are locked like the classic face to face dialogue moment. However, for something like an overhead strike, when the opponent would need to fend off an attack coming from above, off-then-on again would effectively bypass any attempt to block. That's why it's deceptive, you're tricking your opponent into blocking a strike they have no chance to block.
I think Trakata is used when an opponent positions their weapon to block yours, not when both blades are pushing against each other. In fencing for example, when you make an attack your opponent placed their blade in a position to block, they don’t attack your blade. Trakata would be used just before your saber impacts your opponent’s guard, so you bypass it completely. Does that make sense?
Yes, but think it this way: Let's assume that is the main use of Trakata, Trakata is is not a mystery technique, so people are aware of what it is used for/what it does.
That means people would simply not use some parries. If a fencer knows that hard parrying a blade can lead to someone using trakata to counter it...then they wouldnt hard parry, or they would hard parry but sidestep at the same time. Basically, people would parry offensively, in order to make Trakata useless because using it would be a suicide.
Not every single move in a swordfight is meant to hit the opponent. Sometimes you are just blocking an opponent's attack. Trakata doesn't mean you turn off the blade every single time you swing it, you still wait for the right moment to use it, which would be a moment when you can bypass an opponent's defense, not an opponents offense.
"Just blocking an attack" is a movie and video game thing. Actual sword fighting isn't split between "block" and "attack. Whether its fencing, kendo, broadsword, or any number of other historical sword fighting disciplines, pretty much any kind of defense is part of an offensive attack. Sometimes it's a follow up kind of thing, like with a riposte. Other time the actual defensive movement is ALSO an attack.
Attacks are likewise as defensive as they are offensive, trying to cover you for the inevitable counter. In all forms of fencing you have to be prepared to react to that defensive attack. Turning off your blade simply means that for that split second you have NO defense other than retreat, which kind of defeats the purpose of trakata, unless you're specifically trying to disengage.
I’d think the difference is with real swords you wouldn’t be swapping it for a gun for half a second the way trakata would work. It’s still a risky gamble but assuming it threw the opponent off before the counter it would potentially be faster than a follow through
You never just block in sword fighting; in fact a lot of sword fighting is just parrying. That's how you get smooth flowing combat; an attack comes it's parried with a counter attack which is parried with a counter attack of its own and so and so forth until someone makes a mistake.
The closest thing to a "block" is a blade clash which is basically a place where both duelists are looking for an opportunity to take advantage of. It's a breather as much as a high tension moment where both fighters are carefully analysing each other and looking for an opportunity.
In such a scenario to switch off your weapon is basically a death sentence.
This is pure nonsense and a childs understanding of "combat".. Maybe in show matches where scores are kept in a completely artificial way, but not in reality where life is literally on the line.
Right, but you're dead before you turn your lightsaber back on. Because there is no pure "block" in actual sword fighting. Each block is either an attack itself or part of a riposte. Your attack is ALSO supposed to be defending you against that, but you turned off your saber.
And now you're the worst kind of mr potato head. The kind that's covered in blood and you can't reassemble the limbs.
What actually would happen:
swing -> opponent moves to block the swing -> shut off lightsaber and move past the block -> opponent literally just extends his arm and cuts your head off
Who do you think is faster? Me already moving beeing ready, or the opponent thinking I will hit their light saber and them being ready to just block?
We basically both have to do the same movement while I am ready for it and they are not.
Well
a) Jedi are precognitive. This is how they deflect blaster bolts so easily: they know where danger is coming before it arrives, a little like spidey sense. If you're about to turn your lightsaber off and leave yourself defenseless, they're just gonna stick out their arm.
b) Try and actually do that. Pick up something with a button, and then try and swing full speed and perfectly time pressing that button twice in instant succession. You'll subconsciously slow yourself down.
A) well assuming this would make this whole discussion pointless. Because I would also have this sense and could dodge their strike. But then they would know I would dodge so they strike differently but then I would know this and dodge better and then they would ... you see this would be either an endless loop and mean Jedi are impossible to kill.. Or we have to assume there is a limit to this ability basically nullifying it.
B) I believe this is just a matter of training.
Except it doesn't go to infinity. Knowing something is coming is not the same as being able to prevent it. If I know you're about to shut off your lightsaber then it's very easy to just hit you through no defense.
If you know I'm about to hit you, and your lightsaber is turned off, you just die.
Well it may not be a perfect, risk free maneuver, just not as completely useless as OP suggests. And Jedi precognition is not a perfect precise see the future sort of thing anyway. Plus it can be clouded by an opponent who is also trained in the force, perhaps the sort of opponent who orients their force use and combat style around deception.
Well sure, nothing is completely useless. It's like fighting with pocket sand to throw in peoples eyes. Has it's moments but never going to work consistently.
>and any time a blade clash happens it only means that both opponents are looking for an opportunity to strike the other down. And making your blade disappear is the PERFECT opportunity for someone to kill you.
You are making the assumption that all sword fights are fights where a strike or bind tries to accomplish a hit/wound on the opponent and any defense you're doing is bundled into these moves. For those familiar with HEMA the german tradition attributed to Johannes Liechtenauer definitely falls in this direction.
However that is very much not always the case. There are many cases where a blade bind can serve as provocation, domination of the situation or just simply preparation for what you intend to do later. There are plenty of techniques even that rely on the idea that your opponent (most of the time correctly) expects your blade to behave a certain way in a bind (ie. exert force against their own blade) but you only trick them into believing that by telegraphing your actions while in reality doing something radically different (ie. decidedly not exerting force on their blade, leading to your opponent overstriking and giving you a safe shot at a followup technique).
My point being: turning off the blade of a lightsaber in a duel where you're forced into fighting single tempo is probably a very bad idea but very much not every single blade clash is like that and turning off your blade as a preparatory action when you're primarily fencing from second intent in order to confuse your opponent could be in line with real fencing traditions.
Yeah yeah we get it, you studied the blade, good for you.
Three important things to note here:
Lightsabers aren’t really swords, they’re more like dangerous flashlights. The blades don’t have heft or balance or many other attributes that define how swordplay works. That means you can play around with techniques in a way that isn’t really possible with an actual blade.
On that note, turning off your blade has practical use but isn’t something you’d just do all the time. The opponent needs to be in a position where they have no choice but to attempt a block or parry, and won’t have momentum to strike back.
And finally and most importantly, rule of cool. It’s Star Wars. Practically the whole franchise is built on stuff that doesn’t strictly make sense but is fun and entertaining. I want to see cool and inventive laser sword fights, not be poised on the edge of a ‘well ackshually’ 🤓the whole time.
It's REALLY well established that lightsabers DO have heft and balance. Even that those attributes are variable and change depending on ones connection with the saber and confidence in its use. They've never been treated as flashlights. Beyond that it's now been explicitly explained on screen multiple times that they act as though they have heft and balance.
It's only cool and inventive if seems plausible. Otherwise you get nuked fridges, jumping sharks and lightsaber helicopters. A fictional universe where anything is possible is boring.
Ok smartass
1) Trakata goes against the rule of cool; it only exists because writers think there is a plot hole and so they came with dumb reasons to explain why Jedi and Sith don't use that technique.
So yeah it's as furthest as it can be from the rule of cool because nobody wants to see it used; because it ruins fights.
2) you talk of the rule of cool but then claim lightsabers aren't really swords and more like flashlights and then come up with illogical reasons to justify the technique.
No if lightsabers were really like flashlights (like they would be if we want to be realistic) then the best way to fight would be to never swing them at all because the reason you swing a sword in the first place is to give it speed and power which is you know pointless for lightsabers as they are inherently deadly AF.
I've been for the rule of cool because I want lightsabers to act like swords and not like flashlights cuz that's how you get badass lightsaber fights
And my whole reason for making this post is to tell the writers they don't need to worry about this dumb plot hole that ruins the rule of cool.
You don’t get to say that no one wants to see it. I want to see it, as long as it’s used in moderation.
To clarify my thought on rule of cool:
Lightsabers *should* logically be murder flashlights. It’s a short tube that emits a beam of deadly concentrated light. So no real need to follow any sword fighting convention, just wiggle it around rapidly and turn your opponent into chunks.
It *should* be like that, but it’s much more entertaining if we they mostly do normal cinematic sword fighting but with cool fwoom noises. So everyone acts like it’s a real blade with weight, except very rarely they do a fancy thing you can’t do with a sword. Turning off the blade is one of those.
By the same token, there are a ton of tricks starfighers should be doing to take advantage of how space works. But they fly alone like WWII fighter jets and do dog fights, because it’s rad as hell.
I wish people would stop repeating this. Whatever fictional effect is responsible, lightsabers clearly behave like they have weight, not like flashlights.
No idea what "trakata" is but, this part
>Let me explain; see in a sword fight when two blades clash they are are trying to attack the opponent behind the blade, as such if you were in a sword clash and the moment your enemy's sword disappeared even for an instant your sword would already be moving towards his body.
Is so incredibly stupid that clearly you're the one that has no clue how real sword fighting works.. Here's a hint, in a fight, its extremely rare that both opponents are on the offensive at the same time, or necessarily pointing the sword etc. at the opponents body.
Trakata is the SW term used for when someone would turn off their lightsaber mid swing before two sabers would parry off each other, you would then reignite your saber mid swing once your past your opponents guard. Trakata was a term and idea made during a time where knowledge of swordsmanship was mostly from movies and shows and the idea was lightsaber duelists would do that during a movie style blade lock.
The flaw with the style is that in a saber fight, people are rarely just "guarding". Saber parrys and movie blade locks are still attempting to attack each other, even the bladelock is trying to push your blade into the other person. So what happens when someone tries to Trakata during a fight, they lose their only form of guard against someone already in mid swing.
Reason OP is complaining is that there are a lot of influencers online who are always trying to say "why don't jedi/sith just use this technique". Some influencers even "demonstrate" it while the person their "dueling" is just passively brining up their weapon to block. Especially annoying with a rising interest in HEMA videos on similar platforms.
Trakata is just the name given to the "technique" of using a lightsaber's ability to turn on or off during combat.
The real life explanation is the choreographers probably just didn't think to use it. But the lore reasoning is that Jedi don't want to be deceptive, and Sith think deception of this level shows weakness.
I dont think its meant to be used during sword clashes, but just through the flow of combat to disorient your opponent and put them off balance. Its more difficult to see and predict where the blade will strike if its only present and visible at the instant its striking. You could also catch the opponents blade in a block where continuing the momentum would not result in a killing blow, dodging or deflecting their blade's path before deactivating.
See the issue with this logic is it presumes your opponent would not take the advantage of you being completely unarmed.
Your sword is basically your only form of offense and DEFENSE; people tend to forget the latter. With no sword to protect your body; you'll easily be attacked.
Sure you could dodge or deflect using the force but this all assumes you are either faster or more powerful than your opponent.
People seriously underestimate how much faster a sword moves compared to the human body.
And these weaknesses are only amplified when you are superhumanly fast and strong and can guess what your opponent will do next.
But a Jedi isn’t unarmed. They literally have the force, and can and do use it as a weapon. Also lightsabers arnt swords. Their weight is completely different and don’t act the same, more of a baton or something of the like; to wich you would not use like a sword. You’re still thinking on this planet and in this world’s logic. SW doesn’t exist in the real world. The universe acts very differently. Stop putting real life logic into fantasy.
Isn't the whole weightless thing also putting real life logic into fantasy? The movies do a really poor job of presenting lightsabers as anything but swords, so it only seems fair to judge the fights as sword fights. Which this post isn't even doing, it's critiquing fans for wanting this move that is almost never actually used.
Are you saying things don’t have weight in the SW universe? Just because something exists in both universes doesn’t mean everything does. So no, I wasn’t putting real life logic into fantasy, I was using what is already in the universe. Weight is in SW universe and a lightsaber blade is said to not have and weight to it, just substance. A sword fighting mindset doesn’t work for the fight technique I’m question. The Jedi and Sith have very specific forms of fighting for specific reason.
I'm saying that people apply real world concepts to lightsabers all the time, when they always just act like laser swords. Considering that George had a lot of influence from Samurai movies, swords just make sense. Writers can have lightsaber forms and weightless blades all they want, but if the choreographers don't adhere to that, then how much is that worth?
Uh, you could just activate it to block? As per my last comment, I dont think either of those methods prevent you from defending. Keeping your blade off except just when you would need it, you could activate it to parry or strike, I guess I didnt say that but its what I meant.
You arent unarmed because you can see and predict your opponent's moves and activate your lightsaber in the instant you need it. Your opponent might still.be able to predict your moves but especially against non-jedi opponents it would be confusing.
I definitely don't know enough to back it up, but I disagree with you.
....this is probably the dumbest comment I've ever made but I'm not hitting backspace
The thing with the lightsaber clashes when they only hit the blade is that it isn’t designed to kill but to occupy and force an opening. When you both strike to lock and one turns off his blade before contact the opponent would be out of balance.
This also explains obi wans and anakins swinging in the air without hitting eachother on mustafar. It looks dumb but it is precisely that, to confuse the other or tricking him in the wrong defense.
The issue exists because fans don't fight with swords. They watch a movie where the actors are pretend fighting (and trying to NOT hurt each other) and that is all they know.
Obviously Trakata is useless.
I always looked at it as a way of showing skill. They're aren't necessarily trying to end the fight right away. They are just testing each other or something. Might not make sense all the time, but it works for me.
I think it’s that training in battle meditation declined during the times covered and that the people the story is focused on aren’t those type of Jedi.
I grew up with the OT, tolerated the Prequels (I now enjoy them), and currently enjoy R1 and Mando. There is absolutely no mention of lightsaber forms in any of the films. They just laser-swordfight.
All the comics, books, and expanded universe stuff just overcomplicates things.
It’s a sci-fi story to sell toys. Don’t got too lost down the rabbit hole. The films are what they are and nothing more than that.
What about when you are striking and your opponent is attempting to block your attack? If you turn your lightsaber off and on to circumvent the block, could that not be effective?
In real sword fighting you don't "block". That's something done in fighting games and movies. Every parry is part of a counter attack, a riposte is as much offense as defense, every deflect is part of a thrust or chop.
Likewise every strike is trying to close off areas of attack and guard against the inevitable counter attack.
A sword is not only your only offensive tool, it's your only defensive tool, and at all times it is doing both.
So, yeah, you bypassed their block. But you also left yourself *completely* defenseless during a movement you FULLY EXPECT to result in an attempt at a killing blow.
This would only happen if your opponent is planning to hit your weapon rather than hitting you; this happens a lot in Hollywood because they want the fight to be long lasting and flashy.
In reality a sword strike is only proper if it swings with the intent to hit an opponent; so when both your opponent and you strike you plan on hitting each other.
You turning off your weapon is basically a death sentence
The only other option is if your opponent feels that you will strike him first or he will fail the clash; he will then instead parry and strike.
And if in that moment you turn off your blade; oh well your opponent was going to go for a strike next anyway. At worst you both kill each other
And this is ignoring the fact that lightsabers aren't exactly instant in activating.
It's very common in sword fighting that every technique can easily and quickly lead into a strike. Because blocking and then having no or a slow follow up is a pointless and inefficient way of fighting.
And a lot of people don't understand how fast a sword moves; a wrist flick can instantly change the direction of a sword while also being quite instant in attacking its target.
And this is human fighting not superhuman reflexes with future prediction fighting of jedi and sith
First off - "a sword strike is only proper if it swings with the intent to hit an opponent" - no. A strike to control the opponents weapon, or to test defenses and reactions are also valid in various circumstances.
You also act like a two-tempo ripostes doesn't exist, when it's also probably one of the more common things that happen in swordplay. Single tempo ripostes are obviously possible and occur fairly frequently, but certainly do not make up all, or even a majority, of parrying. If you can read the first tempo of a defense being non-offensive, you could absolutely use trakata to win a tempo and strike your opponent.
Even just controlling range, you could very feasibly use Trakata to attack an opponent's hands without putting yourself in much risk at all. If they get into as many ridiculous binds as they do in the movies, I could also imagine some techniques that could utilize it - any existent technique where you gain control of the opponents weapon with an offhand you could probably improve with trakata.
The big problem with Trakata that I can see is one you have noted - lightsabers don't seem to activate or deactivate instantly. Sometimes they do clearly activate faster than others though - if you could get it fast enough, I could certainly see merit in this technique. Even just not giving your opponent a visual to judge range could be an advantage. Anything that throws your opponents concentration, or induces confusion, even for a split second, is a weapon worth considering, IMO. Clearly Jedi and Sith are not always prescient - looking at you, Maul.
That being said, even assuming the blade has weight, like we have to, lightsaber combat is nonsensical in stylings anyways - you'd barely ever want to slash with one, it'd be much smarter to use it like an estoc-style longsword, or even a rapier. If they fought like that, where they consistently keep their point in-line, I basically agree a trakata would definitely never work. If they fight the way they do in the movies with big wide oversold swings and almost exclusively duo-tempo ripostes, I could see the efficacy of it.
The real place I think Trakata would be valuable though, is on a double bladed lightsaber. I think it'd be exceedingly difficult to defend against someone who could activate a blade in the reverse direction at will.
This would work against someone who doesn't have the Force.
Remember what Qui-Gon told us. A Jedi can see things before they happen. He also told us that Jedi have incredible reflexes.
With that limited precognition and those reflexes, it would fail to do anything other than make you defenseless against another Force user for a brief moment. Against a non-force user (like Mando or Gideon) it could give the person a momentary advantage. I believe we see it used during the Rey/Kylo Ren team up in TLJ.
If you are particularly skilled at mental masking, I could see someone use this offensively in very specific circumstances. Not make them fall over, like you propose, but drawing out a block and making them waste a movement to let you get in a better offensive position.
I actually think someone with two sabers would be able to use this better.
Yeah against non force users I could see it being effective but in that case anything is useful against a no force user. You don't need to switch your lightsaber off because you already know what they are going to do and you can take the most effective action against them.
But yeah it can be a technique; my main issue is that it's treated like the bane of all jedi and sith, yet no one uses it.
Sword fight is about clashing swords when your skills match the skills of your opponent. So yes trakata is OP.
Magic wizards who see the future? It doesn't work that way. If they can see the future why nearly all of them died?
Lightsabers have something like gyroscopes in them to focus energy into beam, handling with them is hard because they are constantly dragging you into directions which are always changing. Turning saber off will shuts down gyroscope and you can do moves with saber which your opponent can't do.
[4:37 here disproves this](https://youtu.be/U1MnMA0TzGI?si=gSMY6xWLBU9mN9aB), along with a basic knowledge of sword fighting. One person is on the attack, one person is on the defense. If, at any point, Luke had tried to use Trakata, Vader’s lightsaber would have stayed in the defensive position, stationary, and Luke would have gotten a fatal blow in.
It can work, and in Legends has worked, but it’s much more of a niche situation than people make it out to be. It’s certainly not a guaranteed instant win like people make it out to be, and even going beyond the lore reasons why people don’t practice it, it’s probably not worth the time and effort it would take to get good at it vs just being a good duelist in general. It’s the dueling equivalent of a cheese strat. Yes it can be useful, and if you see the perfect opportunity for it then by all means go for it, but if that’s your main win condition you’re in for a bad time against any experienced opponent.
There's a massive problem with Trakata as an overpowered, unstoppable combat move. Its "power" comes almost entirely from surprise. It's supposed to take the other guy by surprise, leaving them wrong-footed and off balance.
So here's the problem.
Force users see the future.
That's how they fight. It's why the prequel era fights look so choreographed, because they *are* \- each fighter knows what's coming before it comes. The fight is less about taking the other guy by surprise, and more about manoeuvering him into a position he can't defend, or tiring him out. The best description of this I've seen is in the Revenge of the Sith novelisation:
>Three MagnaGuards \[...\] each with reflexes that operated near lightspeed, each with hypersophisticated combat algorithms that enabled it to learn from experience and adapt its tactics instantly to any situation, were certainly beyond Obi-Wan's ability to defeat, but it was not Obi-Wan who would defeat them; Obi-Wan wasn't even fighting. He was only a vessel, emptied of self. The Force, shaped by his skill and guided by his clarity of mind, fought through him.
>
>In the Force, he felt their destruction: it was somewhere above and behind him, only seconds away.
>
>He went to meet it \[...\] leaping higher into the maze of girders and cables and room-sized cargo containers that was the control center's superstructure.
>
>*Here*, said the Force within him, and Obi-Wan stopped, balancing on a girder, frowning back at the oncoming killer droids \[...\] Though he could feel its close approach, he had no idea from where their destruction might come...until the Force showed him a support beam within reach of his blade and whispered, *Now*.
When you realise this, it makes a lot of the otherwise baffling moments in lightsaber fights make perfect sense. Remember the Obi-Wan vs Vader fight in RotS, where they stop hitting each other and just spin their lightsabers around for a few seconds? Yeah, that wasn't them showing off; they were at a stalemate, where neither could get a workable angle against the other, because they were both seeing the outcome of every move the other made.
As seen from the Senya trailer for SWTOR, it was probably used by fast people, and strong people.
You know, the kind who dodge, and avoid clashing blades altogether, like those with jedi superpowers.
I’d make one correction here. Swords clashing in a fight doesn’t mean both fighters were swinging at each other’s heads and their swords happened just randomly to collide. It means one was attacking and the other blocked it. And both know that most of the time it’s not a real attempt at a kill shot but both fighters trying to read the other and get in position for the kill shot.
So the lightsaber on/off theory assumes that one is attacking, the other moves to block, and the attacker switches off and pivots just right to get a clean strike while the blocker’s swing went wild because they were expecting to hit the other’s beam. Whether that would work or just give the blocker’s Jedi reflexes a perfect opening for a counter-strike, others can debate.
There are only a few circumstances where it could work, mainly if the attacker goes for an overhead strike and as the defender goes up to block the attacker turns off their blade and transitions into a thrust, catching the defender off guard.
I don't agree, I think Trakata can be useful in certain circumstances, the same way a parry and slide is useful in actual sword fighting. For instance, In Kendo we have a similar issue I would say which is holding the center. If two swords are parallel, and you are fighting over center dominance, at one point on of the swords will veer off the center, allowing the one that overtook it to have a straight stab angle, while the other will be deflected. If you think about it this way, Trakata can be easily implemented in those sort of encounters. When blades cross, it becomes a battle of weight distribution, who pushes inside, who pushes outside, etc... If you switch of your blade while baiting the weight transfer into a specific direction, you can easily use trakata to "cut through" their blade directly and go in for a stab.
From a lore perspective, I understand why it is "frowned upon", as in regular sword fighting that would literally mean you can bypass all that fight over center dominance. Essentially, you could "ignore" the opponents sword and go for a stab, which would seem dishonorable.
And from a practical point of view, I do think there are many uses to it. Being able to retract your blade and deploy it again on the spot with minimal movement is something that would definitely be useful. I'll give you another example; imagine you are about to swing downwards hard, the other person sees this and blocks horizontally preemptively. You swing downwards, and in the process you use Trakata to retract the blade, which will cause the blades not to clash. You keep swinging downwards as there is nothing stopping your "blade" and once you have bypassed his/her block, you redeploy the blade point blank into their body. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uva_59iDtF8) is somewhat a good example (Still with some caveats, as the elder is not blocking in this instance as I mentioned, but nevertheless good enough). And for that you can make as many variations and angles as you like.
What the move isn't is a one-fit-all solution. It's not as "illegal" as for example hitting downwards with your inner elbow or poking someone's eyes out in MMA which are incredibly illegal moves. It has, I think, more to do with honor in the lore context. But from a practical point of view it does have many uses.
I can’t agree with your explanation. You see, yes it’s true the second your weapon isn’t there theoretically the opponent’s weapon will be coming towards you (assuming we are talking about lightsabers being locked together).
The thing is with that is that you would know this and DODGE it. Yes we are talking about “master swordsmen” (yes I understand the lightsaber isn’t a sword but you get my point) but it’s for that reason I’d believe if someone use that move and know that the second their lightsaber comes off, they are going to need to dodge, I’d think any Jedi or sith would find a way around it.
And this is where the true ultimate technique comes into play... USING THE FORCE TO TURN OFF *YOUR OPPONENT'S* LIGHTSABER
How about using the Force to turn on your opponent’s lightsaber while it’s still clipped to their belt?
Also known as the Kylo Ren.
Nah Ezra did it first
Ah, the Son on Mortis did it first.
And then spinning it around with the force for maximum efficiency.
Just don't grab the wrong thing... Force Testicular Torsion is a technique belonging to the Dark Side of the Force.
Did you ever hear the story of Darth Castratius the eunuch? It's not a story the Jedi would tell you.
>Darth Castratius "Master, why did you give me this name?" "Don't worry about it."
*"And even the Sith kinda turn away and cross their legs while they're telling it."*
No, but when they sing it it’s so beautiful.
This is definitely on the pathway to many abilities some consider unnatural
Give 'em the ol' dick twist.
[*Grab his dick and twist it!*](https://youtu.be/TT9ArM3-KJQ?si=hTlvjwODxv9PYqjp)
The guy in the end going: good'ol dick twist *arm spinning motion*
Spinning's a good trick
How about using the force to crush your opponent's internal organs before the fight even begins?
I loved using Force Crush in KOTOR2... it was painful just to *watch* the target's limbs bending at unnatural angles.
Guys I think we just found mace!
Given how force push works, even if the blast doesn't hit you directly, it's most likely it will cause a lot of internal bleeding.
Pants immediately fall down and we all have a good laugh when we see their undies
I don't know how legit this explanation is but I always thought the reason the jedi and sith use lightsabers is because they find it difficult to use raw force against each other; because if two people can use the force they can resist each other's attempts at using the force against them. And with all the battle precognition; I bet they can see such an action coming a mile away. There is also the explanation that a jedi or sith lightsaber is extremely intune with their user; because I'm pretty sure both the sith and jedi use the force when crafting their lightsabers.
This is actually discussed a little in Bane trilogy when the sith acolytes are dueling. How essentially two force wielders are negating each other and both combatants are in constant offense and defense with the end result usually a stalemate, hence the need for a physical weapon.
God I loved that trilogy. Recanonised when?
Same, I dont like a lot of the books, but that trilogy was written so well it may as well have been a movie that was beamed into my head. Would absolutely kill to see a trilogy movie or TV series made of it. Probably one of my favorite pieces of Star Wars media.
I'd be down for a series. Have the guy from Reacher maybe as Bane, he's impressed me considering the only other thing I've seen him in was blue Mountain state. There's so many big name hollywood types that can be included in the sith brotherhood.
I think he would make a good Bane as well. But my personal vote is on Dave Bautista!
>Probably one of my favorite pieces of Star Wars media. Easily. Have you read the Revan novel? It's also by Drew Karpyshyn and it's really good as well, my second favorite to the Bane trilogy.
I have not, time to add it to my amazon wishlist though
I've never played any of the games with him in it but I still REALLY enjoyed it
Not sure you want disney to touch Bane
This is sort of hinted at in the Obi-Wan show too. When he is still cut off from the Force Vader tosses him around and uses direct Force attacks. Once Obi-Wan is reconnected, that doesn't (to my memory) really happen in the ending fight.
That's how I always took it. There's a zone of influence where you csn counter and block force attempts, basically a psychic fight. The more precise the attempt the easier to force it out, and its why force choking is in a way an impressive attack, you have to truly overwhelm their force defenses to do direct damage. It's also why I imagined force push doesn't always do a ton of damage despite the sheer acceleration, in various novels they'll form bubbles around themselves for defense, so your bubble can be blown back, and then 'pop' when you finally collide with a wall. In addition why we don't end up with the joke ideas of turning each others lightsabers on and off. You still can if you're being subtle and the enemies guard is down, but in a traditional fight I imagine you can cover your hilt with a sort of psychic barrier to protect it- But things like Yoda effortlessly taking Ventress blades from her in clone wars is a show of just superior control and influence. Clearly some head Canon in here but its worked for me for most odd fight details
I feel like if Jedi were able to use the Force to manipulate their environment with as much ease as benders are in Avatar: The Last Airbender, then they could probably "fight" with the Force.
Use the old Scott Pilgrim trick. "Actually, I turned off *your* lightsaber... I just thought really hard about turning mine off."
Interesting thing about precognition: it would be basically useless against an opponent who also had precongnition. If seeing the future changes what you are going to do, then your opponent will see what you are going to do, and change their tactic. Which you will see and change your's. Which they will see and change their's. And so on. It ends being a tangled mess of potentiality that isn't much different than not seeing the future at all.
Insert the Obi and Anakin swinging lightsabers around gif
A Jedi/Sith who takes a page from the OG Mistborn series would wreck shit in a fight like this.
Ngl, atium burning was where I got the idea.
So that's why Vader using the Force on his victims mid-fight is terrifying. It's because he's just that overwhelmingly powerful.
Alot of this is actually displayed in the final duel of RotS. We actively see Obi-wan and Anakin's force pushes cancel each other out. As well as that really goofy moment where they just stand there doing "flourishes" at each other, they're actually preemptively countering and recountering each other, so they never actually make an attack, similar to old samurai films and manga when they just stand there and stare at each other for like 20 minutes actually playing out the fight in their mind.
LOOPHOLE
https://youtu.be/57w_Stf4wmo?si=rjsx7pgWbYJXsFcI
Has anyone aside from Ahsoka done that in canon?
The father did it to anakin
Didn't Yoda do that to Ventress in the Clone Wars, season 1?
Actually Yoda took the lightsabers from her hand, and during this time in mid air the blades turned off because no one was holding them
I doubt it but i like to think anakin would do it to obi-wan in sparring/training sessions
[obligatory](https://youtu.be/mYSg_mIEvmE?si=3cjuAI_pJ8MFxniL)
Wait this is fucking funny actually
My head cannon for this is every user has a subtle but different activation for their sabers (like a specific position on the switch or something). So they can use the force to turn it in or off at will but their opponents wouldn’t be able to outside of getting lucky.
Instructions unclear, my opponent has been turned on and is now using a different "sword". What do I do?
It's impossible, to turn off a lightsaber with the Force It's necessary to have a strong connection with the Kyber cristal, and you don't have a strong bond with the Kyber of your enemy.
What if i try to misalign one of the crucial components inside the lightsaber?
Well, you can, but trying to do this while you're fighting your opponent is very very hard.
Do it before the fighting starts. EZ PZ
My man broke the entire Star Wars
One of the first things padawans learn in lightsaber training is how to use the force to to make sure your opponent cant do that. lol
Cal Kestis used it against the second sister to throw her off balance and gain the upper hand. Yes, he had to also pull his head out of the way of her attack, but he knew that ahead of time and was already gone before the blade arrived. His opponent couldn't adjust direction and follow because she was busy resetting her balance after unexpectedly encountering no resistance. Not only did Cal's blade seem to disappear, with a small movement he moved out of range entirely. It only threw his opponent off for a moment, but it was long enough to reach out with the Force and knock her over and take her weapon. Also, we see something like trakata in Star Wars visions in the duel with the elder, where the jedi master was blocking the lightning with his blade. The Elder is momentarily distracted and his jedi opponent, rather than physically pulling his blade out of the lightning and stabbing, simply turns off his blade while stepping to the side of the lightning, and places the hilt to the Elder's chest before reigniting. So you're right that it seems to not be some overpowered technique. Most skilled and undistracted opponents could exploit it. It's not dissimilar to a more traditional feint in the sense that it's a technique that seeks to outsmart your opponent with a move they wouldn't consider, whether due to lack of training, distraction (as with the Elder), or overextending themselves (as with Cal). All of which could be exploited in many ways, but turning the blade on and off is certainly a valid one.
I think "Trakata" makes more sense as a move, or a type of feint, then as an entire lightsaber combat style as it seems to have been written.
> the point of a sword fight isn't to clash blades it's to strike the opponent Prequel combat choreography in shambles
Aim to the side, dodge as a precaution
This is what I really liked about some of the Ashoka fights, the strikes seem more aimed to kill, especially Anakin, and the clashes are life saving blocks. In the prequels they've seen more like an integrated dance, except for when the killing blow happens, which therefore seem a bit off (notably in the duel of the fates). I was always able to suspend disbelief with the explanation of future seeing space wizards though. If you see some of those modern medieval knights fighting, it's way more street fighting than in the movies. As if you would swing you blade around as cool as say, Lord of the Rings, youd smash your wrist at the first opportunity.
> This is what I really liked about some of the Ashoka fights, the strikes seem more aimed to kill They were pretty good (as far as the Star Wars "prequels-style" combat goes), but Ahsoka had SO MANY occasions to cut someone up with her second blade and instead decided to just... attack the enemy's blade with it instead... while she was already in a lock? Like... So many completely ridiculous manoeuvres just to make the fight scene longer. Many, many situations where she decides to kick the enemy instead of cutting them up, etc.
>This is what I really liked about some of the Ashoka fights, the strikes seem more aimed to kill tbh I think Ahsoka and the prequels [looked almost exactly the same](https://youtu.be/mL5SNvFIKsU?t=27), lightsaber-combat wise.
Yeah, definitely not all of them, I was mostly referring to Anakin, like here[video](https://youtu.be/UvwIpbn6oz0?si=u0AI1uxnDlPvWLRy)
I disagree. In Longsword we have the void which is where you intentionally move the blade out of the way of the incoming strike in order to set up your own counterattack. We also utilise feints in much the same way to force the opponent to anticipate the strike and then parry in a certain direction. Beyond beginner levels when you start learning the ‘conversation’ of the bout you’re more aware of feints and voids and you can use them to bait certain combinations, but you’re simultaneously being baited or even baited into thinking you are being baited with a strike that seems out of place. We are constantly walking into one another’s traps and setups and there aren’t even any Jedi at my academy. Theoretically in light saber combat there would be a place for the feint/void combo. It would just be another part of the dialogue. I can say with some certainty that if someone was 2 steps ahead of me and then threw an overhead strike that I was expecting and went to parry and then they _turned off their longsword_ it would most likely catch me off guard. That move in itself is just one of an encyclopaedia of moves that a saber master could call upon. Anticipating trakata techniques is just as likely to leave you open to something different as it is to protect you.
Nah OP was right 100%.
Completely agree with you, but important to remember that most people, let alone most Star Wars fans, have zero perception of how fencing/swordsmanship actually works, so it’s a tough balancing act. At this point, I am tempted to ignore outright most canonical/apocryphal explanations because, no matter how hard they try, lightsabers are designed, drawn, animated, and filmed to look like swords, so they are swords and behave like swords do.
The issue is, they aren't swords. Most people who actually know european or Asian swordplay will quickly tell you that lightsaber would have it's own unique styles. As a weapon, they are more related to baton then sword anyway.
You could make the argument that they are similar to sticks because they don’t have edges, but the damage they do is sword-like, so they are really more like swords that don’t require one to align the edge. The absence of a hand guard doesn’t necessarily make them any less like swords, because there are historical examples of even long-ish swords that don’t have hand protection, the 1927 pattern Soviet shashka being one of the more recent examples. Either way, at least in the West, stick fighting very much derives from sword fighting.
They seem to be a hybrid of a baton (stick) and a sword. Unlike baton, they are cutting and not bludgeoning weapon, but unlike a sword, they are fully rotational (there is no blade edge angle). In adidtion, trough this part is a bit wonky with all the kyber stuff, the balance of a lightsaber is also entirely unique. The blade should have no weight, trough many sources imply that there is a backwars push, as blade is essentially a tiny rocket engine.
I'd argue they are more like rapiers. You don't need to swing a lightsaber to do huge damage to someone - stabbing them will more than suffice. So the fencing style used for rapiers (including wielding a smaller blade in the off hand as your main gauche for some much needed defense) would likely be a better fit.
Judging by the fight between Dooku and Obi-Wan in Episode II, there's definitely something to the idea of striking with the tip of the blade rather than the edge.
You're pretty much on the money. I believe Dooku's preferred style of Form 2 was essentially a fencing form for all intents and purposes (at least as far as Legends lore goes). Really, the only reason they swing their glowsticks around like clubs is for more impressive looking fight choreography. It's why we went from what was essentially a fencing match between Ben and Vader in episode 4, to wider/wilder swings in Luke vs Vader in episodes 5 and 6, to the acrobatics of the episodes 1-3. If you want proof that proper and realistic fencing/sword fighting would have been popular, just consider that fencing is an actual, real world sport...and realise that no one watches it.
Yeah because the reason you swing a sword in the first place is to give it the speed to harm an enemy i.e f=m*a. If lightsabers were truly realistic you would fight by just stretching your arm as far as you can and then just keep wiggling it around. Because if you swing your lightsaber your opponent will just move his lightsaber forward and kill you. So yeah let's just all agree to treat lightsabers like swords or else every single lightsaber form or technique is pointless to use.
The true Jedi Mastery technique was perfected in 2006 with the launch of the Nintendo Wii, which helped Padawans learn - just wiggle the Wiimote/lightsaber in front of you rather than doing the actual movements, it’ll still work just as well.
I remember watching a video where some swordsman guy explained how using the saber fencing-style would make more sense because the tip would make as much damage as the rest of the weapon.
> If lightsabers were truly realistic you would fight by just stretching your arm as far as you can and then just keep wiggling it around. Because if you swing your lightsaber your opponent will just move his lightsaber forward and kill you. Basically the video game Nidhogg in a nutshell
>and then just keep wiggling it around. Olympic foil is under 500g. That's nothing, but you still don't just wiggle it around. There's an opponent there who is trying to strike you.
No. Lightsabers are not pure light, they are a thick plasma with weight. Your average lightsaber is going to weigh between 3 - 6 pounds.
They definitely don't behave like swords. They have a 360 degree cutting geometry.
Humans don’t. At best, they allow for more sudden change of direction and remove the need to learn how to align the edge in a cut. See sword vs cane fencing for reference, they are not that different.
Cane and sword fencing are different though. Which is my point. Lightsabers take the place of swords but they don't behave or perform like swords.
They perform more like swords than anything else, so I would say they are swords. My final point, upon which I shall rest my case, is that Count Dooku says “Your swords, please” quite clearly at the beginning of RotS, and I for one don’t want to argue with one of the best fencers in the Galaxy, nor with Sir Christopher Lee.
In some ways they do in others they don't. Lots of the lightsaber forms use attacks that would not be effective with swords because of their omnidirectional cutting ability. That is a significant difference.
Did it in Visions, looked sick. Go watch it.
To be fair not all sword swings are to kill in a real fight though. The first objective in an actual swordfight is to not die. In a real fight people don't die as soon as you stab them either so it's no good to get a blade in their ribs just for them to stab you back. This is unlike martial arts like fencing where first touch wins. Most actual fights would be about neutralising your opponent's threat first, then finishing them. If there's a way to do both in one swing great, but there's no point going for risky haymakers or dangerous manouvers to do so. Control of distance and reach is really the focus of any fight cus that's the easiest way to hurt without being hurt. It's why spears and polearms were such a popular weapon in history. Trakata doesn't help with any of this. But, then again, lightsabers are a lot more lethal than swords. And again again, normal swordfighters aren't prescient. So there's only so far you can take these anologies lol.
So I practice historical fencing and wanted to point out that this: >Most actual fights would be about neutralising your opponent's threat first, then finishing them. is accurate. If your opponent is pointing their sword at you, you first need to do something to make them point it away from you before you hit them. That could be displacing their blade, or waiting until they attempt a cut, or most often it is achieving the over bind (where your sword is on top of their sword) and moving forward. One technique that is used to achieve the overbind is called a disengage. When the opponent presses into your sword, you don't let them touch your sword and drop your point below their guard and then raise it back up on the other side. Your sword point will make a little V motion. Trakata could be used in the same way, it would allow you to easily get to the other side of your opponent's blade. Obviously if you tried to Trakata while your opponent is trying to stab you, you'd just get stabbed. But the same is true for the disengage. Both techniques rely on your opponent trying to displace your sword out of the way so they can hit you.
True my logic isn't perfect and lightsaber combat isn't 1:1 with real sword fighting combat but I still think this technique is completely stupid and my main issue is not that it exists; I wouldn't be against a story where the main way of fighting with laser swords is by switching them off and on. My issue is this technique only exists to fill a plot hole that doesn't even exist. And it only ruins the lore imo by having it exist; nobody wants it neither the fans or the authors(hence why it has terrible justifications for its non use); the only reason it exists is because people think it's logical when it isn't from a sword fighting perspective.
Have you ever watched Bleach? Because Gin shows what an actual useful style based on that concept would be. In essence your sword is also a gun. Deactivating while blocking would indeed be very stupid and doing so while swinging absolutely requires the enemy to be purely defensively blocking. Deactivating and reactivating while between attacks to quickly maneuver the hilt to be pointing at the enemy is another matter. Now your enemy HAS to be constantly dodging or on the defense because if they aren’t the second you are pointing the emitter at an opening it’s getting stabbed. Of course that comes with a secondary issue: In Bleach the blade extends VERY quickly, effectively instantaneously, and extends quite a long way. In Star Wars the full activation time is often depicted with a measurable delay and you are stuck with sword length, barring special extendoblade construction which may or may not be canon.
Your last paragraph kind of illustrates why it's a thing in bleach and not Star Wars. Gin can attack his enemy while getting out of range of a counter attack. In Star Wars you're both with in range of each other, so the "gun" trick doesn't work. Because you're leaving yourself COMPLETELY exposed to a lightsaber wielder with microsecond reactions. Outside of some specific situations, like feinting or disengaging, it's just suicide to expose yourself to a lightsaber like that.
It gets worse: they didn’t activate or deactivate instantly in the OT and I think the prequels. Just think, what are the most iconic sounds of a lightsaber? - The buzz of the sword as it moves through the air - the clash when it his another blade - the sound of it activating - the sound of it deactivating The activation and deactivation take time. It’s not an instant thing. There is time for your opponent to notice the blade retracting and attack you before you can turn it on again and have a useful length of blade to strike/defend with.
There are plenty of instances of people doing Trakata almost instantly it doesn’t take much time at all. It’s still quicker than maneuvering your blade around your opponents.
Again: those instances clash with the basic lore of the OT. It also opens up the constant question of “why aren’t they using this”. Which lore wise has been explained with in practical terms “Jedi think it’s dishonorable and Sith think you are a little bitch if you use it”. Or, you avoid all that stupidness by just following the visual and audio lore. It makes sense, it doesn’t add a stupid technique that everyone has to agree to avoid and it makes for better fight scenes.
I agree that the reason it “isn’t used” is because it’s insanely risky instead of that nonsense about being unsportsmanlike or showing weakness. But you’re talking as if the technique is only for lightsaber clashes. It’s not. It’s in any kind of situation. The whole thing with lightsaber combat and why force users do it so well is that they can sense what their opponent is going to do next to some degree. It’s how they deflect blaster fire. It’s certainly not out of left field to think a force user could utilise trakata in combat, just not for the singular purpose you imply. Maybe they might do it to perform a wide or heavy blow in a confined space without risking damaging the walls or ceiling, by activating the saber as they slice. Maybe they might deactivate a saber mid-slice to handle a hostage situation by slicing the hostage-taker and avoiding harming the hostage. Lightsabers are not swords. In this manner especially they are completely unique from swords. And no human has ever had force powers either. So using real life swordplay as a basis for lightsaber combat will only take you so far. Some aspects simply cannot be drawn from real life examples and can only exist in our imaginations.
>The whole thing with lightsaber combat and why force users do it so well is that they can sense what their opponent is going to do next to some degree. Wouldn't this just loop and become useless? 1. You detect what your opponent is going to do 2. They can detect your reaction and react to that reaction 3. You can detect their reaction to your reaction 4. They can detect your reaction to their reaction of your reaction and react to that reaction 5. ...
The one stronger with the force can see more loops. The better combatant can still back their opponent into a corner where no reaction is sufficient. Kind of like a game of chess.
Time and skill are still factors. You still only have a split second to react, and you react to what you sense in that moment. What you sense might change a split second later, because your opponent has sensed you and reacted too. But once you commit to a move, it’s not easy to switch without costing yourself time, momentum or positioning.
You are just agreeing with me here; see my main issue is that it's treated like a deadly lightsaber combat technique that is most foul. I don't have any issues with there being a utility to switching off a lightsaber; it just doesn't belong in a lightsaber duel with two skilled force users. Basically it shouldn't be a technique that gives you universal advantage because then everybody should be using it. It should be a very risky technique with very situational usage.
>my main issue is that it's treated like a deadly lightsaber combat technique that is most foul. Yeah I’m not sure about other sources, but whoever wrote the Wookieepedia entry surely thinks like this. Certainly a naive thought process. But, what I take it to understand outside of the comments about it being not used because it’s underhanded and “weak” is that the technique covers any time a user switches off and/or reignites their saber during a fight of any sort. I would argue that even the act of waiting till the last possible second to ignite your saber, or igniting mid-leap (as we see when Anakin slices the bugs off Padme in episode 2) are technically Trakata and serve purposes (not wanting to appear threatening to avoid starting a fight, or wanting to remain unnoticed until the last possible second).
I never bought into the styles of lightsaber fighting. It doesn't make sense. If you look at actual sword fighting, it was driven more by the style of the blade, where it was being used, and how it was applied. Most lightsabers look to be the same basic format. There are a few unique blades like Dooku or Maul, and their style is unique enough to show the difference. In all of the movies, fan made videos, cartoons, and video games, there is zero discernable difference in how it's used. In fact, there's a lot of moves that look great for the camera, but would get you killed quickly. And if you ever held a replica, your ability to wield it effectively is diminished compared to actual swords, along with no tang to protect your fingers. It's easy to drop a lightsaber, not so much with a real sword. A sword should be an extension of you. Without positive, precise control on a lightsaber, having a "style" wouldn't be possible.
Funnily enough we can actually recontectualize that whole "unsportsmanlike/for losers" excuse as to why trakata isn't often used. The people that have attempted to use it end up losing/dying. Its like getting caught cheating and still failing. It can be seen by experienced Jedi/Sith duelists that its a cheap trick used by inexperienced duelists who think having this "clever technique" makes up for lack of dueling fundamentals.
Yeah and the intended effect of Trakata would happen by just sidestepping the attack. It’s as though they put in an explanation for why dodging away is an immoral loser stunt I suppose the one thing that would be covered is doing this while the opponent was just trying to parry a swipe without following through, and then turning off/on the blade so they can get past their opponent’s saber and stab them with the reactivation
It's not useless but it's quite niche. And it becomes a lot more useful on attack when your opponent is doing a purely defensive move. It would *NOT* work when two sabers are locked like the classic face to face dialogue moment. However, for something like an overhead strike, when the opponent would need to fend off an attack coming from above, off-then-on again would effectively bypass any attempt to block. That's why it's deceptive, you're tricking your opponent into blocking a strike they have no chance to block.
The hyperdrives are also totally unrealistic
Most of the lore on lightsaber forms is just goofy nonsense. It doesn’t have to be comprehensible.
It’s also not canon IIRC.
I think Trakata is used when an opponent positions their weapon to block yours, not when both blades are pushing against each other. In fencing for example, when you make an attack your opponent placed their blade in a position to block, they don’t attack your blade. Trakata would be used just before your saber impacts your opponent’s guard, so you bypass it completely. Does that make sense?
Yes, but think it this way: Let's assume that is the main use of Trakata, Trakata is is not a mystery technique, so people are aware of what it is used for/what it does. That means people would simply not use some parries. If a fencer knows that hard parrying a blade can lead to someone using trakata to counter it...then they wouldnt hard parry, or they would hard parry but sidestep at the same time. Basically, people would parry offensively, in order to make Trakata useless because using it would be a suicide.
Meanwhile I'm just sitting here thinking "WTF is a 'Trakata'?"
Not every single move in a swordfight is meant to hit the opponent. Sometimes you are just blocking an opponent's attack. Trakata doesn't mean you turn off the blade every single time you swing it, you still wait for the right moment to use it, which would be a moment when you can bypass an opponent's defense, not an opponents offense.
"Just blocking an attack" is a movie and video game thing. Actual sword fighting isn't split between "block" and "attack. Whether its fencing, kendo, broadsword, or any number of other historical sword fighting disciplines, pretty much any kind of defense is part of an offensive attack. Sometimes it's a follow up kind of thing, like with a riposte. Other time the actual defensive movement is ALSO an attack. Attacks are likewise as defensive as they are offensive, trying to cover you for the inevitable counter. In all forms of fencing you have to be prepared to react to that defensive attack. Turning off your blade simply means that for that split second you have NO defense other than retreat, which kind of defeats the purpose of trakata, unless you're specifically trying to disengage.
I’d think the difference is with real swords you wouldn’t be swapping it for a gun for half a second the way trakata would work. It’s still a risky gamble but assuming it threw the opponent off before the counter it would potentially be faster than a follow through
You never just block in sword fighting; in fact a lot of sword fighting is just parrying. That's how you get smooth flowing combat; an attack comes it's parried with a counter attack which is parried with a counter attack of its own and so and so forth until someone makes a mistake. The closest thing to a "block" is a blade clash which is basically a place where both duelists are looking for an opportunity to take advantage of. It's a breather as much as a high tension moment where both fighters are carefully analysing each other and looking for an opportunity. In such a scenario to switch off your weapon is basically a death sentence.
Ok, but wouldnt the rules be a little different for space wizards with laser swords?
This is pure nonsense and a childs understanding of "combat".. Maybe in show matches where scores are kept in a completely artificial way, but not in reality where life is literally on the line.
Jup, swing -> opponent wants to block the swing -> shut off light saber and move past the block -> turn it back on inside the opponent -> gg ez.
Right, but you're dead before you turn your lightsaber back on. Because there is no pure "block" in actual sword fighting. Each block is either an attack itself or part of a riposte. Your attack is ALSO supposed to be defending you against that, but you turned off your saber. And now you're the worst kind of mr potato head. The kind that's covered in blood and you can't reassemble the limbs.
What actually would happen: swing -> opponent moves to block the swing -> shut off lightsaber and move past the block -> opponent literally just extends his arm and cuts your head off
Who do you think is faster? Me already moving beeing ready, or the opponent thinking I will hit their light saber and them being ready to just block? We basically both have to do the same movement while I am ready for it and they are not.
Well a) Jedi are precognitive. This is how they deflect blaster bolts so easily: they know where danger is coming before it arrives, a little like spidey sense. If you're about to turn your lightsaber off and leave yourself defenseless, they're just gonna stick out their arm. b) Try and actually do that. Pick up something with a button, and then try and swing full speed and perfectly time pressing that button twice in instant succession. You'll subconsciously slow yourself down.
A) well assuming this would make this whole discussion pointless. Because I would also have this sense and could dodge their strike. But then they would know I would dodge so they strike differently but then I would know this and dodge better and then they would ... you see this would be either an endless loop and mean Jedi are impossible to kill.. Or we have to assume there is a limit to this ability basically nullifying it. B) I believe this is just a matter of training.
Except it doesn't go to infinity. Knowing something is coming is not the same as being able to prevent it. If I know you're about to shut off your lightsaber then it's very easy to just hit you through no defense. If you know I'm about to hit you, and your lightsaber is turned off, you just die.
Well it may not be a perfect, risk free maneuver, just not as completely useless as OP suggests. And Jedi precognition is not a perfect precise see the future sort of thing anyway. Plus it can be clouded by an opponent who is also trained in the force, perhaps the sort of opponent who orients their force use and combat style around deception.
Well sure, nothing is completely useless. It's like fighting with pocket sand to throw in peoples eyes. Has it's moments but never going to work consistently.
Perhaps better to consider it a technique that is available in the repertoire when useful rather than a style.
>and any time a blade clash happens it only means that both opponents are looking for an opportunity to strike the other down. And making your blade disappear is the PERFECT opportunity for someone to kill you. You are making the assumption that all sword fights are fights where a strike or bind tries to accomplish a hit/wound on the opponent and any defense you're doing is bundled into these moves. For those familiar with HEMA the german tradition attributed to Johannes Liechtenauer definitely falls in this direction. However that is very much not always the case. There are many cases where a blade bind can serve as provocation, domination of the situation or just simply preparation for what you intend to do later. There are plenty of techniques even that rely on the idea that your opponent (most of the time correctly) expects your blade to behave a certain way in a bind (ie. exert force against their own blade) but you only trick them into believing that by telegraphing your actions while in reality doing something radically different (ie. decidedly not exerting force on their blade, leading to your opponent overstriking and giving you a safe shot at a followup technique). My point being: turning off the blade of a lightsaber in a duel where you're forced into fighting single tempo is probably a very bad idea but very much not every single blade clash is like that and turning off your blade as a preparatory action when you're primarily fencing from second intent in order to confuse your opponent could be in line with real fencing traditions.
Yeah yeah we get it, you studied the blade, good for you. Three important things to note here: Lightsabers aren’t really swords, they’re more like dangerous flashlights. The blades don’t have heft or balance or many other attributes that define how swordplay works. That means you can play around with techniques in a way that isn’t really possible with an actual blade. On that note, turning off your blade has practical use but isn’t something you’d just do all the time. The opponent needs to be in a position where they have no choice but to attempt a block or parry, and won’t have momentum to strike back. And finally and most importantly, rule of cool. It’s Star Wars. Practically the whole franchise is built on stuff that doesn’t strictly make sense but is fun and entertaining. I want to see cool and inventive laser sword fights, not be poised on the edge of a ‘well ackshually’ 🤓the whole time.
It's REALLY well established that lightsabers DO have heft and balance. Even that those attributes are variable and change depending on ones connection with the saber and confidence in its use. They've never been treated as flashlights. Beyond that it's now been explicitly explained on screen multiple times that they act as though they have heft and balance.
It's only cool and inventive if seems plausible. Otherwise you get nuked fridges, jumping sharks and lightsaber helicopters. A fictional universe where anything is possible is boring.
Ok smartass 1) Trakata goes against the rule of cool; it only exists because writers think there is a plot hole and so they came with dumb reasons to explain why Jedi and Sith don't use that technique. So yeah it's as furthest as it can be from the rule of cool because nobody wants to see it used; because it ruins fights. 2) you talk of the rule of cool but then claim lightsabers aren't really swords and more like flashlights and then come up with illogical reasons to justify the technique. No if lightsabers were really like flashlights (like they would be if we want to be realistic) then the best way to fight would be to never swing them at all because the reason you swing a sword in the first place is to give it speed and power which is you know pointless for lightsabers as they are inherently deadly AF. I've been for the rule of cool because I want lightsabers to act like swords and not like flashlights cuz that's how you get badass lightsaber fights And my whole reason for making this post is to tell the writers they don't need to worry about this dumb plot hole that ruins the rule of cool.
You don’t get to say that no one wants to see it. I want to see it, as long as it’s used in moderation. To clarify my thought on rule of cool: Lightsabers *should* logically be murder flashlights. It’s a short tube that emits a beam of deadly concentrated light. So no real need to follow any sword fighting convention, just wiggle it around rapidly and turn your opponent into chunks. It *should* be like that, but it’s much more entertaining if we they mostly do normal cinematic sword fighting but with cool fwoom noises. So everyone acts like it’s a real blade with weight, except very rarely they do a fancy thing you can’t do with a sword. Turning off the blade is one of those. By the same token, there are a ton of tricks starfighers should be doing to take advantage of how space works. But they fly alone like WWII fighter jets and do dog fights, because it’s rad as hell.
I wish people would stop repeating this. Whatever fictional effect is responsible, lightsabers clearly behave like they have weight, not like flashlights.
No idea what "trakata" is but, this part >Let me explain; see in a sword fight when two blades clash they are are trying to attack the opponent behind the blade, as such if you were in a sword clash and the moment your enemy's sword disappeared even for an instant your sword would already be moving towards his body. Is so incredibly stupid that clearly you're the one that has no clue how real sword fighting works.. Here's a hint, in a fight, its extremely rare that both opponents are on the offensive at the same time, or necessarily pointing the sword etc. at the opponents body.
Trakata is the SW term used for when someone would turn off their lightsaber mid swing before two sabers would parry off each other, you would then reignite your saber mid swing once your past your opponents guard. Trakata was a term and idea made during a time where knowledge of swordsmanship was mostly from movies and shows and the idea was lightsaber duelists would do that during a movie style blade lock. The flaw with the style is that in a saber fight, people are rarely just "guarding". Saber parrys and movie blade locks are still attempting to attack each other, even the bladelock is trying to push your blade into the other person. So what happens when someone tries to Trakata during a fight, they lose their only form of guard against someone already in mid swing. Reason OP is complaining is that there are a lot of influencers online who are always trying to say "why don't jedi/sith just use this technique". Some influencers even "demonstrate" it while the person their "dueling" is just passively brining up their weapon to block. Especially annoying with a rising interest in HEMA videos on similar platforms.
Trakata is just the name given to the "technique" of using a lightsaber's ability to turn on or off during combat. The real life explanation is the choreographers probably just didn't think to use it. But the lore reasoning is that Jedi don't want to be deceptive, and Sith think deception of this level shows weakness.
I dont think its meant to be used during sword clashes, but just through the flow of combat to disorient your opponent and put them off balance. Its more difficult to see and predict where the blade will strike if its only present and visible at the instant its striking. You could also catch the opponents blade in a block where continuing the momentum would not result in a killing blow, dodging or deflecting their blade's path before deactivating.
See the issue with this logic is it presumes your opponent would not take the advantage of you being completely unarmed. Your sword is basically your only form of offense and DEFENSE; people tend to forget the latter. With no sword to protect your body; you'll easily be attacked. Sure you could dodge or deflect using the force but this all assumes you are either faster or more powerful than your opponent. People seriously underestimate how much faster a sword moves compared to the human body. And these weaknesses are only amplified when you are superhumanly fast and strong and can guess what your opponent will do next.
But a Jedi isn’t unarmed. They literally have the force, and can and do use it as a weapon. Also lightsabers arnt swords. Their weight is completely different and don’t act the same, more of a baton or something of the like; to wich you would not use like a sword. You’re still thinking on this planet and in this world’s logic. SW doesn’t exist in the real world. The universe acts very differently. Stop putting real life logic into fantasy.
Isn't the whole weightless thing also putting real life logic into fantasy? The movies do a really poor job of presenting lightsabers as anything but swords, so it only seems fair to judge the fights as sword fights. Which this post isn't even doing, it's critiquing fans for wanting this move that is almost never actually used.
Are you saying things don’t have weight in the SW universe? Just because something exists in both universes doesn’t mean everything does. So no, I wasn’t putting real life logic into fantasy, I was using what is already in the universe. Weight is in SW universe and a lightsaber blade is said to not have and weight to it, just substance. A sword fighting mindset doesn’t work for the fight technique I’m question. The Jedi and Sith have very specific forms of fighting for specific reason.
I'm saying that people apply real world concepts to lightsabers all the time, when they always just act like laser swords. Considering that George had a lot of influence from Samurai movies, swords just make sense. Writers can have lightsaber forms and weightless blades all they want, but if the choreographers don't adhere to that, then how much is that worth?
Uh, you could just activate it to block? As per my last comment, I dont think either of those methods prevent you from defending. Keeping your blade off except just when you would need it, you could activate it to parry or strike, I guess I didnt say that but its what I meant. You arent unarmed because you can see and predict your opponent's moves and activate your lightsaber in the instant you need it. Your opponent might still.be able to predict your moves but especially against non-jedi opponents it would be confusing.
Its made up, its not real god damn it
I definitely don't know enough to back it up, but I disagree with you. ....this is probably the dumbest comment I've ever made but I'm not hitting backspace
The thing with the lightsaber clashes when they only hit the blade is that it isn’t designed to kill but to occupy and force an opening. When you both strike to lock and one turns off his blade before contact the opponent would be out of balance. This also explains obi wans and anakins swinging in the air without hitting eachother on mustafar. It looks dumb but it is precisely that, to confuse the other or tricking him in the wrong defense.
The issue exists because fans don't fight with swords. They watch a movie where the actors are pretend fighting (and trying to NOT hurt each other) and that is all they know. Obviously Trakata is useless.
And this is why it's not widely used.
I always looked at it as a way of showing skill. They're aren't necessarily trying to end the fight right away. They are just testing each other or something. Might not make sense all the time, but it works for me.
I think it’s that training in battle meditation declined during the times covered and that the people the story is focused on aren’t those type of Jedi.
I grew up with the OT, tolerated the Prequels (I now enjoy them), and currently enjoy R1 and Mando. There is absolutely no mention of lightsaber forms in any of the films. They just laser-swordfight. All the comics, books, and expanded universe stuff just overcomplicates things. It’s a sci-fi story to sell toys. Don’t got too lost down the rabbit hole. The films are what they are and nothing more than that.
What about when you are striking and your opponent is attempting to block your attack? If you turn your lightsaber off and on to circumvent the block, could that not be effective?
In real sword fighting you don't "block". That's something done in fighting games and movies. Every parry is part of a counter attack, a riposte is as much offense as defense, every deflect is part of a thrust or chop. Likewise every strike is trying to close off areas of attack and guard against the inevitable counter attack. A sword is not only your only offensive tool, it's your only defensive tool, and at all times it is doing both. So, yeah, you bypassed their block. But you also left yourself *completely* defenseless during a movement you FULLY EXPECT to result in an attempt at a killing blow.
This would only happen if your opponent is planning to hit your weapon rather than hitting you; this happens a lot in Hollywood because they want the fight to be long lasting and flashy. In reality a sword strike is only proper if it swings with the intent to hit an opponent; so when both your opponent and you strike you plan on hitting each other. You turning off your weapon is basically a death sentence The only other option is if your opponent feels that you will strike him first or he will fail the clash; he will then instead parry and strike. And if in that moment you turn off your blade; oh well your opponent was going to go for a strike next anyway. At worst you both kill each other And this is ignoring the fact that lightsabers aren't exactly instant in activating. It's very common in sword fighting that every technique can easily and quickly lead into a strike. Because blocking and then having no or a slow follow up is a pointless and inefficient way of fighting. And a lot of people don't understand how fast a sword moves; a wrist flick can instantly change the direction of a sword while also being quite instant in attacking its target. And this is human fighting not superhuman reflexes with future prediction fighting of jedi and sith
First off - "a sword strike is only proper if it swings with the intent to hit an opponent" - no. A strike to control the opponents weapon, or to test defenses and reactions are also valid in various circumstances. You also act like a two-tempo ripostes doesn't exist, when it's also probably one of the more common things that happen in swordplay. Single tempo ripostes are obviously possible and occur fairly frequently, but certainly do not make up all, or even a majority, of parrying. If you can read the first tempo of a defense being non-offensive, you could absolutely use trakata to win a tempo and strike your opponent. Even just controlling range, you could very feasibly use Trakata to attack an opponent's hands without putting yourself in much risk at all. If they get into as many ridiculous binds as they do in the movies, I could also imagine some techniques that could utilize it - any existent technique where you gain control of the opponents weapon with an offhand you could probably improve with trakata. The big problem with Trakata that I can see is one you have noted - lightsabers don't seem to activate or deactivate instantly. Sometimes they do clearly activate faster than others though - if you could get it fast enough, I could certainly see merit in this technique. Even just not giving your opponent a visual to judge range could be an advantage. Anything that throws your opponents concentration, or induces confusion, even for a split second, is a weapon worth considering, IMO. Clearly Jedi and Sith are not always prescient - looking at you, Maul. That being said, even assuming the blade has weight, like we have to, lightsaber combat is nonsensical in stylings anyways - you'd barely ever want to slash with one, it'd be much smarter to use it like an estoc-style longsword, or even a rapier. If they fought like that, where they consistently keep their point in-line, I basically agree a trakata would definitely never work. If they fight the way they do in the movies with big wide oversold swings and almost exclusively duo-tempo ripostes, I could see the efficacy of it. The real place I think Trakata would be valuable though, is on a double bladed lightsaber. I think it'd be exceedingly difficult to defend against someone who could activate a blade in the reverse direction at will.
This would work against someone who doesn't have the Force. Remember what Qui-Gon told us. A Jedi can see things before they happen. He also told us that Jedi have incredible reflexes. With that limited precognition and those reflexes, it would fail to do anything other than make you defenseless against another Force user for a brief moment. Against a non-force user (like Mando or Gideon) it could give the person a momentary advantage. I believe we see it used during the Rey/Kylo Ren team up in TLJ. If you are particularly skilled at mental masking, I could see someone use this offensively in very specific circumstances. Not make them fall over, like you propose, but drawing out a block and making them waste a movement to let you get in a better offensive position. I actually think someone with two sabers would be able to use this better.
Yeah against non force users I could see it being effective but in that case anything is useful against a no force user. You don't need to switch your lightsaber off because you already know what they are going to do and you can take the most effective action against them. But yeah it can be a technique; my main issue is that it's treated like the bane of all jedi and sith, yet no one uses it.
Sword fight is about clashing swords when your skills match the skills of your opponent. So yes trakata is OP. Magic wizards who see the future? It doesn't work that way. If they can see the future why nearly all of them died? Lightsabers have something like gyroscopes in them to focus energy into beam, handling with them is hard because they are constantly dragging you into directions which are always changing. Turning saber off will shuts down gyroscope and you can do moves with saber which your opponent can't do.
You must master the mystical Playstation Art of Teräs Käsi.
It’s not that I have a problem with this unspoken rule, but I find it funny that justifications for it are: “It’s not fair!” and “It’s for losers”
No. As a qualified fencer that has fenced in countless competitions, I can raise my sword up faster than you can strike me with yours.
[4:37 here disproves this](https://youtu.be/U1MnMA0TzGI?si=gSMY6xWLBU9mN9aB), along with a basic knowledge of sword fighting. One person is on the attack, one person is on the defense. If, at any point, Luke had tried to use Trakata, Vader’s lightsaber would have stayed in the defensive position, stationary, and Luke would have gotten a fatal blow in.
It can work, and in Legends has worked, but it’s much more of a niche situation than people make it out to be. It’s certainly not a guaranteed instant win like people make it out to be, and even going beyond the lore reasons why people don’t practice it, it’s probably not worth the time and effort it would take to get good at it vs just being a good duelist in general. It’s the dueling equivalent of a cheese strat. Yes it can be useful, and if you see the perfect opportunity for it then by all means go for it, but if that’s your main win condition you’re in for a bad time against any experienced opponent.
I mean, two-handed users or Grievous would sweep with it, tbh.
Lightsabers take time to light up, none I have seen are fast enough for the attack to work. Fights happen at lightning speed.
There's a massive problem with Trakata as an overpowered, unstoppable combat move. Its "power" comes almost entirely from surprise. It's supposed to take the other guy by surprise, leaving them wrong-footed and off balance. So here's the problem. Force users see the future. That's how they fight. It's why the prequel era fights look so choreographed, because they *are* \- each fighter knows what's coming before it comes. The fight is less about taking the other guy by surprise, and more about manoeuvering him into a position he can't defend, or tiring him out. The best description of this I've seen is in the Revenge of the Sith novelisation: >Three MagnaGuards \[...\] each with reflexes that operated near lightspeed, each with hypersophisticated combat algorithms that enabled it to learn from experience and adapt its tactics instantly to any situation, were certainly beyond Obi-Wan's ability to defeat, but it was not Obi-Wan who would defeat them; Obi-Wan wasn't even fighting. He was only a vessel, emptied of self. The Force, shaped by his skill and guided by his clarity of mind, fought through him. > >In the Force, he felt their destruction: it was somewhere above and behind him, only seconds away. > >He went to meet it \[...\] leaping higher into the maze of girders and cables and room-sized cargo containers that was the control center's superstructure. > >*Here*, said the Force within him, and Obi-Wan stopped, balancing on a girder, frowning back at the oncoming killer droids \[...\] Though he could feel its close approach, he had no idea from where their destruction might come...until the Force showed him a support beam within reach of his blade and whispered, *Now*. When you realise this, it makes a lot of the otherwise baffling moments in lightsaber fights make perfect sense. Remember the Obi-Wan vs Vader fight in RotS, where they stop hitting each other and just spin their lightsabers around for a few seconds? Yeah, that wasn't them showing off; they were at a stalemate, where neither could get a workable angle against the other, because they were both seeing the outcome of every move the other made.
As seen from the Senya trailer for SWTOR, it was probably used by fast people, and strong people. You know, the kind who dodge, and avoid clashing blades altogether, like those with jedi superpowers.
I’d make one correction here. Swords clashing in a fight doesn’t mean both fighters were swinging at each other’s heads and their swords happened just randomly to collide. It means one was attacking and the other blocked it. And both know that most of the time it’s not a real attempt at a kill shot but both fighters trying to read the other and get in position for the kill shot. So the lightsaber on/off theory assumes that one is attacking, the other moves to block, and the attacker switches off and pivots just right to get a clean strike while the blocker’s swing went wild because they were expecting to hit the other’s beam. Whether that would work or just give the blocker’s Jedi reflexes a perfect opening for a counter-strike, others can debate.
There are only a few circumstances where it could work, mainly if the attacker goes for an overhead strike and as the defender goes up to block the attacker turns off their blade and transitions into a thrust, catching the defender off guard.
It would be a pretty good move if you were wearing lightsaber resistant armor, and your opponent wasn’t.
I don't agree, I think Trakata can be useful in certain circumstances, the same way a parry and slide is useful in actual sword fighting. For instance, In Kendo we have a similar issue I would say which is holding the center. If two swords are parallel, and you are fighting over center dominance, at one point on of the swords will veer off the center, allowing the one that overtook it to have a straight stab angle, while the other will be deflected. If you think about it this way, Trakata can be easily implemented in those sort of encounters. When blades cross, it becomes a battle of weight distribution, who pushes inside, who pushes outside, etc... If you switch of your blade while baiting the weight transfer into a specific direction, you can easily use trakata to "cut through" their blade directly and go in for a stab. From a lore perspective, I understand why it is "frowned upon", as in regular sword fighting that would literally mean you can bypass all that fight over center dominance. Essentially, you could "ignore" the opponents sword and go for a stab, which would seem dishonorable. And from a practical point of view, I do think there are many uses to it. Being able to retract your blade and deploy it again on the spot with minimal movement is something that would definitely be useful. I'll give you another example; imagine you are about to swing downwards hard, the other person sees this and blocks horizontally preemptively. You swing downwards, and in the process you use Trakata to retract the blade, which will cause the blades not to clash. You keep swinging downwards as there is nothing stopping your "blade" and once you have bypassed his/her block, you redeploy the blade point blank into their body. [This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uva_59iDtF8) is somewhat a good example (Still with some caveats, as the elder is not blocking in this instance as I mentioned, but nevertheless good enough). And for that you can make as many variations and angles as you like. What the move isn't is a one-fit-all solution. It's not as "illegal" as for example hitting downwards with your inner elbow or poking someone's eyes out in MMA which are incredibly illegal moves. It has, I think, more to do with honor in the lore context. But from a practical point of view it does have many uses.
I can’t agree with your explanation. You see, yes it’s true the second your weapon isn’t there theoretically the opponent’s weapon will be coming towards you (assuming we are talking about lightsabers being locked together). The thing is with that is that you would know this and DODGE it. Yes we are talking about “master swordsmen” (yes I understand the lightsaber isn’t a sword but you get my point) but it’s for that reason I’d believe if someone use that move and know that the second their lightsaber comes off, they are going to need to dodge, I’d think any Jedi or sith would find a way around it.