User blog comment:Leolab/Retroactive Unfair Battle Enforcement/@comment-4484220-20130114200429

Dare I speak?

I know a lot of people like the fact that Darth Vader vs. Master Chief exists, as it gives Master Chief his one and only defeat on this wiki, but honestly I think it's unfair. I am not a believer at all in giving a warrior a defeat just for the sake of having that warrior's battle status have a defeat on it. When MC is unbanned, I forsee him no longer winning by bias, because this wiki is so much firmer in giving competent votes than it was last time a Chief battle took place. Just look at how many supporters there are for a rematch of his battle vs. Samus Aran. Therefore, I believe that we will soon see a legitimate defeat on the Chief's battle status other than Darth Vader soon.

Now, why is this battle unfair? For one, Darth Vader has the force. If the Chief tries to shoot at Vader, he can just use his force absorb on the bullets from his guns like he did the blast from Han Solo's laser in the Empire Strikes back. And before you try to say the Chief could do it by surprise, the force enables users to predict their opponent's moves, so Vader would be prepared. Furthermore, the Chief would not be able to snipe him, because force users can sense the presence of others, and Vader would therefore be able to know an enemy is near. In addition, Vader has armor. Do we even know if Chief's weapons would even be able to break through Vader's armor?

So now that we've seen the Chief has nothing that can damage Vader, let's see what Vader has at his disposal to instantly do away with the Spartan. He could easily slice him up with a lightsaber, force- choke/grab him, or use his telekninesis to crush him with debris. This is just not fair at all.

Who else thinks this is unfair?