Your opinions: Minimum phaser setting to affect a stormtrooper?

[Esquire]

So I did. Plus who knows how many TV episodes.

[Elheru Aran]

Amusingly, it should be noted that Memory Alpha (which is decently authoritative given that Paramount has little to no canon policy outside of "only the movies and shows are canon" and I'm not even sure that's a thing now given the Kelvin-verse) has this position:

Anatomically, a significant percentage of those lifeforms were outwardly indistinguishable from Humans, right down to such morphological minutiae as the same racial phenotypes, hair distribution patterns, fingernails, and cartilaginous folds of the nose and ears. The reason they were so astonishingly similar to the Human race was because the "Human form" represents the basic way that evolution most likely takes for the dominant mammalian race on an average class M planet under the influence of the genetic codes and the other humanoid races (for example Klingons, Cardassians, Vulcans) developed under very specific and usually unique environmental conditions.

So in other words, Memory Alpha endorses the 'convergent evolution' theory for why there are humans all over the place in Trek

That said: the entire variety of 'humanoid' races across the galaxy, considering how many damn hybrids have turned up, should perhaps be considered one single race, given that apparently almost all of them can produce children with each other. Romulans and Klingons, Cardassians and Bajorans, Klingons and Humans, etc... we have an Earth parallel in Canis familiaris.

[Khaat]

The ST:TNG episode The Chase actually states that the Progenitors did some magic and ... presto! humanoid life everywhere! ... In total ignorance of how evolution actually functions: if there were a way to "hard-code" genetics to a "goal form", humanoid life would be all over the biologic record of each world, multiple times, instead of just a relatively recent thing.

I think I prefer the Larry Niven form of this: life of such-and-such age simply arose from food-yeast seeded to grow on suitable planets by the Slavers, to feed their livestock. No plan, no tinkering required; weeds taking over the garden through natural process.

[Borgholio]

There are countless episodes of all series involving wormholes, engine tests gone wrong, and time travel. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that a colony ship accidentally entered a wormhole and found themselves in a time long ago, in a galaxy far, far away.

[darthy2]

The ST:TNG episode The Chase actually states that the Progenitors did some magic and ... presto! humanoid life everywhere! ... In total ignorance of how evolution actually functions: if there were a way to "hard-code" genetics to a "goal form", humanoid life would be all over the biologic record of each world, multiple times, instead of just a relatively recent thing.

I think I prefer the Larry Niven form of this: life of such-and-such age simply arose from food-yeast seeded to grow on suitable planets by the Slavers, to feed their livestock. No plan, no tinkering required; weeds taking over the garden through natural process.

http://memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/Humanoid

Yeah I thought of episode "chase" right away when proof was requested that all humanoids in star trek were related but decided not to mention it since the point was mentioned by someone on my side of the argument.

SPOCK: Yes. The obelisk is a marker, just as I thought. It was left by a super-race known as the Preservers. They passed through the galaxy rescuing primitive cultures which were in danger of extinction and seeding them, so to speak, where they could live and grow.
MCCOY: I've always wondered why there were so many humanoids scattered through the galaxy.
SPOCK: So have I. Apparently the Preservers account for a number of them.
MCCOY: That's probably how the planet has survived all these centuries. The Preservers put an asteroid deflector on the planet.

HUMANOID: You're wondering who we are, why we have done this, how it has come that I stand before you, the image of a being from so long ago. Life evolved on my planet before all others in this part of the galaxy. We left our world, explored the stars, and found none like ourselves. Our civilisation thrived for ages, but what is the life of one race, compared to the vast stretches of cosmic time? We knew that one day we would be gone, that nothing of us would survive. So, we left you. Our scientists seeded the primordial oceans of many worlds, where life was in its infancy. The seed codes directed your evolution toward a physical form resembling ours. This body you see before you, which is, of course, shaped as yours is shaped, for you are the end result. The seed codes also contained this message, which we scattered in fragments on many different worlds. It was our hope that you would have to come together in fellowship and companionship to hear this message. And if you can see and hear me, our hope has been fulfilled. You are a monument, not to our greatness, but to our existence. That was our wish, that you too would know life, and would keep alive our memory. There is something of us in each of you, and so, something of you in each other. Remember us.

Or maybe this...

CHAKOTAY: I'm showing a large build-up of baryonic particles.
QUINN: Perfectly normal.
TUVOK: Captain, based on our readings, it appears we've been transported back in time to the birth of the universe.
QUINN: Very old hiding place.
Q: Oh, I know all the hiding places, Q. I hid here from the Continuum myself once.
TORRES: This ship will not survive the formation of the cosmos.
Q: Yes, but just think of the honour of having your DNA spread from one corner of the universe to the other. Why, you could be the origin of the humanoid form.
JANEWAY: Q, either Q, get us out of here.

The problem here is that it's still all speculation. Even if all humanoid life were distantly related, it still does not prove that humans here can accurately be compared to humans in the star wars galaxy.

Using this logic, you can accurately compare these snakes as being equally comparable against their enemies in combat.



one is harmful while the others are not.

[Batman]

And once more, all you have to do is to show the differences between Wars and Trek humans.
Also, unless there's a significant difference in their resilience to shotgun blasts, spades, explosives or DEW I fail to see how the fact that one of them is poisonous is relevant.

[darthy2]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGuafWvi8NY <-- 1:27 "this armor doesn't protect you from anything"
Rex and Kanan get knocked out from a weapon set on stun. I think that should pretty much settle it.

[Batman]

It does not unless you give the Starfleet guys WARS guns (specifically, copies of the kid's weird sabre pistol). Evidence that phasers work on the same principle is for YOU to provide. Besides, whatever happened to 'Even if all humanoid life were distantly related, it still does not prove that humans here can accurately be compared to humans in the star wars galaxy'? For all we know, humans in the Star Wars galaxy are 19 billion times more resistant to stun than Star Trek ones

[darthy2]

It does not unless you give the Starfleet guys WARS guns (specifically, copies of the kid's weird sabre pistol). Evidence that phasers work on the same principle is for YOU to provide. Besides, whatever happened to 'Even if all humanoid life were distantly related, it still does not prove that humans here can accurately be compared to humans in the star wars galaxy'? For all we know, humans in the Star Wars galaxy are 19 billion times more resistant to stun than Star Trek ones

"this armor doesn't protect you from anything"

It's over

[Batman]

It indeed is as you've just proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that you're a complete moron. (Not that there was much doubt about this since you brought up the 'no lasers' idiocy, which everybody with two brain cells to rub together knows is garbage)
That's dialogue, from a character who given the situation is likely to be a bit unhappy with stormtrooper armour.
But let's list the things the armour inevitably WILL protect you from even if it's useless against blasters...
-insects in your face
-sunburn
-rain
-sand blown by the wind
-thrown fruit
-US shitheads badmouthing you for not being not white enough
So even IF that statement were meant literally (which everybody with an IQ above negative infinite knows it was not), it's FACTUALLY WRONG and thus irrelevant.

[Borgholio]

The problem here is that it's still all speculation. Even if all humanoid life were distantly related, it still does not prove that humans here can accurately be compared to humans in the star wars galaxy.

Using this logic, you can accurately compare these snakes as being equally comparable against their enemies in combat.



one is harmful while the others are not.

Actually it's quite simple. As the old rhyme goes:

Red and Yellow, kill a fellow. Red and Black, venom lack.

My point is that under careful observation, it is possible to identify differences. One snake has red bands next to yellow, the others have red bands next to black. The Coral snake is a totally different species of snake compared to the other two, which are so identical to each other that they are both identified as King snakes. Comparing humans of Trek to humans of Wars, there are no identifiable differences whatsoever. One group is not generally taller, shorter, heavier, lighter, whiter, darker, hairier, stronger, weaker, or anything of that nature compared to the other. Based on every observable trait, they are the same species. Just like the Florida Kingsnake vs the Scarlet Kingsnake, they are completely identical except for where they are located. One group is located in the Milky Way, the other is in a galaxy far, far away. The only way for certain to prove that they are different species is by comparing their genetic codes. Since that's not possible, the default argument of "They are the same species" remains the valid one.

[darthy2]

It indeed is as you've just proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that you're a complete moron. (Not that there was much doubt about this since you brought up the 'no lasers' idiocy, which everybody with two brain cells to rub together knows is garbage)
That's dialogue, from a character who given the situation is likely to be a bit unhappy with stormtrooper armour.
But let's list the things the armour inevitably WILL protect you from even if it's useless against blasters...
-insects in your face
-sunburn
-rain
-sand blown by the wind
-thrown fruit
-US shitheads badmouthing you for not being not white enough
So even IF that statement were meant literally (which everybody with an IQ above negative infinite knows it was not), it's FACTUALLY WRONG and thus irrelevant.

na it's over... for all we know the armor doesn't protect them even from all those things too. Can you prove it does?

[darthy2]

Yup this one's done. Better rubber stamp it.

[Lord Revan]

Stormtrooper armor is fully enclosed so unless you can prove it's transparent to UV rays it does protect you from Sunburns, we also know that First Order Stormtrooper armor protects a person from being burned even without the helmet (Finn stood in the fire when checking the crashed TIE in TFA). Your evidence is as Batman pointed out a peice of dialoge from a person who just got shot, which means he's nowhere close to being an unbiased source on the matter.

[Batman]

Yup, it IS all over. You lost. With this post you cemented everybody's suspicion that you wouldn't recognize rational debating if it bit your head off and shat down your throat into certainty.

[darthy2]

Knocked out from a weapon set on stun too. No armor penetration. Burn.

[Batman]

By a WARS stun weapon. Proof phasers can do the same. Also, they were out for what, 2 minutes tops? PROOF PHASERS CAN DO IT SHITHEAD.

[Lord Revan]

Knocked out from a weapon set on stun too. No armor penetration. Burn.

Actually neither of the men was stunned dazed sure but clearly still awake. if I hit a soldier wearing a helmet with baseball bat on the head he'll probably be knock on his ass and dazed but that doesn't mean the helmet is useless.

Yes not even the eldery trooper (Cody) was stunned just dazed.

[Lord Revan]

By a WARS stun weapon. Proof phasers can do the same. Also, they were out for what, 2 minutes tops? PROOF PHASERS CAN DO IT SHITHEAD.

consider that TFA Stormtrooper armor is just as effective against blasters as the OT one, yet Finn could stand in the fire in front of the crashed TIE for signifigant period of time, this means either that stormtrooper protects against somethings and Kainan wasn't speaking literally, or SW humans are signifigantly stronger heat or pain resistance then ST humans thus making them signifigantly more resistant to phasers (being full adrenal can turn a normal human immune to phaser stun setting after all that's in canon Star Trek as can being more pain resistant then normal).

[Eternal_Freedom]

Also in TFA, stormtrooper armour is specifically stated to filter out smoke, so it does at least protect wearers from smoke inhalation in burning areas.

[Lord Revan]

Also in TFA, stormtrooper armour is specifically stated to filter out smoke, so it does at least protect wearers from smoke inhalation in burning areas.

True but it stated so only about the TFA armor not the OT one (even though we've seen both Clonetroopers and Stormtroopers in hard vacuum with just their armor as protective gear (though in case of the Stormtroopers they did have additional air supply)).

[WATCH-MAN]

It does not unless you give the Starfleet guys WARS guns (specifically, copies of the kid's weird sabre pistol). Evidence that phasers work on the same principle is for YOU to provide. Besides, whatever happened to 'Even if all humanoid life were distantly related, it still does not prove that humans here can accurately be compared to humans in the star wars galaxy'? For all we know, humans in the Star Wars galaxy are 19 billion times more resistant to stun than Star Trek ones

Oh that's so funny.

All the time I argue that we do not know that the species in Star Wars that looks like homo sapiens sapiens are homo sapiens sapiens - that they may not be related - that there may be differences between both species.

This started where Esquire claimed that they are the same and have same properties.

• • • • What justifies comparing humans here to humans there? They're in another galaxy long long ago far far away.

        The claim that human-species depiction A and human-species depiction B are not interchangeable is a positive one; demonstrate that Star Trek and Star Wars humans aren't the same species or shut up.

        Only because the species in a galaxy far, far away a long time ago looks superficially like humans from today from Earth - we can not assume that they are like humans from Earth. Homo sapiens sapiens that evolved on Earth, appeared round about 200.000 years ago and hasn't developed the means for intergalactic travel yet. Insofar it seems not plausible to assume that the species in a galaxy far, far away a long time ago, that looks superficially like humans from today from Earth, is related in any way with the homo sapiens sapiens. It seems more plausible to assume a convergent evolution that resulted in a at least superficial similar appearance. If you want to claim, that the species in a galaxy far, far away a long time ago, that looks superficially like humans from today from Earth are the same species, demonstrate it or shut up.

        later
        

        Esquire claims that the species seen in Star Wars, that looks superficially like the homo sapiens sapiens - that developed on Earth round about 200.000 years ago and has not developed the means for interstellar travel yet - are the same - without providing a theory how homo sapiens sapiens could have reached a galaxy far far away a long time ago.
        
        Of course: You could argue that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.
        
        But that puts into question if there are other possibilities.
        
        And I have argued that there are other possibilities, e.g. convergent evolution. That does not mean, that it has to be convergent evolution. But the fact that it could be convergent evolution shows that there are other possibilities and that the claim that the species seen in Star Wars are the same as the homo sapiens sapiens from Earth, is not the only possible explanation.
        
        Do demand that I disprove the claim of Esquire is insane.

        He doesn't NEED to. All available evidence shows that however it happened, it happened. HOW humans in Wars came to be essentially exactly the same as humans in Trek is irrelevant. Time travel shenanigans, act of Q, Transwarp experiment gone wrong, Trek and Wars humans are essentially identical and can be treated as such until and unless you can show significant differences between the two. Can you?

        And now:
        

        For all we know, humans in the Star Wars galaxy are 19 billion times more resistant to stun than Star Trek ones

That confirms the impression I got from you.

You are contradicting only to contradict and your standard for burden of proof changes arbitrary - however you need it at the moment.

I say: Evidence that the Star Wars species that looks similar to homo sapiens sapiens have the same properties as homo sapiens sapiens is for YOU to provide. But that should be difficult if you are arguing at the same time, that for all we know, humans in the Star Wars galaxy are 19 billion times more resistant to stun than Star Trek ones.

I say: darthy2 doesn't need to show that phasers work on the same principle as blasters. All available evidence shows that however they work they work. You fire them and the target you hit is stunned. How is irrelevant. If the Star Wars species that looks similar to homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens have the same properties, we can infer that a Star Wars blaster would work as well on a homo sapiens sapiens and a Star Trek phaser would work as well on the Star Wars species that looks similar to homo sapiens sapiens. Evidence that there are significant differences is for YOU to provide.

[I know that this doesn't really makes sense. But what you said makes just as little sense.]

[Adam Reynolds]

I say: darthy2 doesn't need to show that phasers work on the same principle as blasters. All available evidence shows that however they work they work. You fire them and the target you hit is stunned. How is irrelevant. If the Star Wars species that looks similar to homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens have the same properties, we can infer that a Star Wars blaster would work as well on a homo sapiens sapiens and a Star Trek phaser would work as well on the Star Wars species that looks similar to homo sapiens sapiens. Evidence that there are significant differences is for YOU to provide.

Guess you don't understand sarcasm, dumbass.

The fact is that Star Wars blasters and Star Trek phasers have wildly different operating principles and corresponding effects on targets. The fact that one accomplishes something doesn't mean the other gets to as well. Do blasters have widebeam stun?


Anyway, I love how the automatic assumption was that stormtrooper armor is weak, rather than the possibility that Star Wars weapons are powerful. Though that leads me to an interesting question: How powerful is Ezra's blaster?

Given that it is integrated with a lightsaber, which seem to have somewhat higher power output than blasters, it could be slightly more powerful than most equivalent blasters, especially for its size. It is also notable that it fires a different sort of stun blasts than standard blasters, firing a bolt rather than the ring of standard stun weapons. In the Clone Wars episode Death Trap, Boba Fett knocks aside a trooper's helmet before firing a stun blast. And in what I believe was the same episode as the Ezra scene, Rex similarly loses his helmet before getting hit by a stun blast.

As a general point, that is a rather cool design. Shows what happens when you make a lightsaber without the ideology of the Jedi. It also as the advantage that it doesn't obviously appear to be a lightsaber when hanging on a belt to the same degree as a standard lightsaber. Though I wonder if it would be slightly less effective in a duel as a result of the design making it somewhat unwieldy relative to a standard lightsaber.

[darthy2]

I say: darthy2 doesn't need to show that phasers work on the same principle as blasters. All available evidence shows that however they work they work. You fire them and the target you hit is stunned. How is irrelevant. If the Star Wars species that looks similar to homo sapiens sapiens and homo sapiens sapiens have the same properties, we can infer that a Star Wars blaster would work as well on a homo sapiens sapiens and a Star Trek phaser would work as well on the Star Wars species that looks similar to homo sapiens sapiens. Evidence that there are significant differences is for YOU to provide.

Guess you don't understand sarcasm, dumbass.

The fact is that Star Wars blasters and Star Trek phasers have wildly different operating principles and corresponding effects on targets. The fact that one accomplishes something doesn't mean the other gets to as well. Do blasters have widebeam stun?


Anyway, I love how the automatic assumption was that stormtrooper armor is weak, rather than the possibility that Star Wars weapons are powerful. Though that leads me to an interesting question: How powerful is Ezra's blaster?

Given that it is integrated with a lightsaber, which seem to have somewhat higher power output than blasters, it could be slightly more powerful than most equivalent blasters, especially for its size. It is also notable that it fires a different sort of stun blasts than standard blasters, firing a bolt rather than the ring of standard stun weapons. In the Clone Wars episode Death Trap, Boba Fett knocks aside a trooper's helmet before firing a stun blast. And in what I believe was the same episode as the Ezra scene, Rex similarly loses his helmet before getting hit by a stun blast.

As a general point, that is a rather cool design. Shows what happens when you make a lightsaber without the ideology of the Jedi. It also as the advantage that it doesn't obviously appear to be a lightsaber when hanging on a belt to the same degree as a standard lightsaber. Though I wonder if it would be slightly less effective in a duel as a result of the design making it somewhat unwieldy relative to a standard lightsaber.

The most important and largest determining factor on whether a stun setting can affect a stormtrooper is money. If a movie were made involving a cross-over between star trek and star wars a stun setting should knock out a stormtrooper. If the writers of that movie decided to make stormtroopers invincible to phaser fire based off of calculations of some scaled down version of the deathstar's superlaser or calculations of vaporization in star trek's cgi scenes, it would impact the potential revenue of the movie by alienating star trek fans from attending that movie. It would be a boring movie too. Just like if a star destroyer could not penetrate the navigation sheids of starfleet ships. CBS and Paramount would never agree to make a cross-over movie that would be one-sided. For entertainment and money reasons, a phaser setting set on stun should knock out a stormtrooper.

[Borgholio]

From a VS standpoint, I would have no problem with a phaser on Max stun being able to (at least momentarily) knock down a Stormtrooper, but even in Trek there have been beings whose armor blocked stun blasts entirely - the DS9 episode with Tosk is one example. So I don't think it would be unrealistic to assume that the armor provides protection against at least low-level stun blasts.