Freedon Nadd vs. Count Dooku and Mace Windu

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Darth Kal-El
No Force abilities. Just a plain lightsaber battle. Who takes it? Battle's on Drongar.

Fishy
How should we know? We have never even seen Nadd use a lightsaber.

Lörd Sorgo
Originally posted by Fishy
How should we know? We have never even seen Nadd use a lightsaber.

tdtd
You could still make a logical assumption from this. In KOTOR II you get Freedon Nadd's short lightsaber, which is said to be more powerful than a normal light saber.. This really has nothing to do with anything but I just wanted to point it out. We also knew that Nadd was uber powerful and might have been more powerful than Kun. Even if he wasn't more powerful than Kun(which I still maintain he was), he would still be able to take down Dooku and Mace.

Revolver Ocelot
Yeah, but we don't know how good he was with a saber...

Fishy
And this is after all a lightsaber fight so how good he was with the force hardly matters...

tdtd
Good enough to take Onderon with his kickass orangy red saber.

Fishy
Oh yeah, do you have any specific information about how he took Onderon? How many people he fought?

zod360
The KOTOR ere was the golden age of saber dueling. Count Dooku and Mace were both in the top 4 in that era. They easily take this.

tdtd
Ok Numan at least I was joking and being illogical on purpose, what you just said makes no sense..

No Fishy I don't but his lightsaber is cool.

Fishy
Originally posted by zod360
The KOTOR ere was the golden age of saber dueling. Count Dooku and Mace were both in the top 4 in that era. They easily take this.

So the Kotor Era was the golden age and that would make dooku and Mace win.

Okay, i'm just going to assume you mean the PT era...

In which that was said in reference to the OT not like ever. So that statement means jack shit.

zod360
lol yeah I meant PT era. And the statement was not compared to the OT era. It was simply the golden age of saber dueling.

Fishy
Originally posted by zod360
lol yeah I meant PT era. And the statement was not compared to the OT era. It was simply the golden age of saber dueling.

Provide the quote then...

tdtd
Yes, please Numan.

Lörd Sorgo
Arguing that Nadd would lose because the two were in a time of your self proclaimed "Golden Age" Of Jedi is a ridiculous and unfounded Assumption.


We do not know how powerful Nadd was. We don't know if he'd either crack those two in half or whether he would get a spanking from the two.


This thread is useless.

tdtd
Yep, we know nothing about his saber combat abilities. At least make this a force involved thread in which case Nadd would WTFpwn them both.

zod360
Originally posted by tdtd
Yep, we know nothing about his saber combat abilities. At least make this a force involved thread in which case Nadd would WTFpwn them both.

Do you have any proof for that?

tdtd
Yes, we have proof of him knocking down Vodo as a spirit, causing a cave in on Kun as a spirit, healing Kun as a spirit, and all of this as a spirit. And as we know the spirit's power is only a fraction of when he was a body. I think Dooku and Mace would have enough trouble with his spirit.. Unfortunately we know very little about him as a man, except for the fact that Naga Sadow taught him himself, which says more than Kun learning from Sadow's teachings. I'd say only the Ancient Sith in the Golden Age are more powerful than Nadd, and maybe DN luke.

Revolver Ocelot
EDIT: NVM

Darth Traya
Nadd should WTFpwn them.

IKC
Originally posted by tdtd
Unfortunately we know very little about him as a man, except for the fact that Naga Sadow taught him himself, which says more than Kun learning from Sadow's teachings.

I take issue with this bullshit. Naga Sadow certainly did not teach Nadd everything, and it can be argued that Kun learned more of Sadow's arts than Nadd did.

Why do I say this?

Because it is apparent in DLotS that he didn't. Observe: http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/1204/naddbigsurprise8wb.th.jpg

Why would Nadd want to get right to work on reviving what he referred to as "lost arts" if he had already learned it? Because Sadow apparently kept a hell of a lot of knowledge hidden from him. However, after Kun killed the guardian wyrm, that knowledge was available to him (it was underneath the pit that the wyrm occupied).

That and the Massassi no longer wanted to kill him, so whatever was in the other temples was also freely available to Kun. In contrast, only whatever Sadow allowed Nadd to see was available to him.

Given this, it's very much proper to assume that Kun learned more than Nadd.

tdtd
Didn't Kun release Sadow from suspended animation and learn from Sadow himself? And what you just still isn't evidence enough that Kun learned more than Nadd did. Even if they had the same access to the same knowledge, if i'm correct learning from the actual person is more effective than reading it in a sith scroll.

Fishy
Originally posted by tdtd
Didn't Kun release Sadow from suspended animation and learn from Sadow himself? And what you just still isn't evidence enough that Kun learned more than Nadd did. Even if they had the same access to the same knowledge, if i'm correct learning from the actual person is more effective than reading it in a sith scroll.

Kun did not learn from Sadow just from his teachings.

And whether Nadd learned as much or more then Kun is open to debate and very hard to say. Sadow couldn't have had all he knew down there, but perhaps he did tell Nadd all he knew. Or perhaps not, this is an impossible guess really.

tdtd
Yea that's what I was saying but I was asking, didn't Nadd learn from Sadow himself since he found Sadow in suspended animation and released him?

Illustrious
Originally posted by IKC
I take issue with this bullshit. Naga Sadow certainly did not teach Nadd everything, and it can be argued that Kun learned more of Sadow's arts than Nadd did.

Why do I say this?

Because it is apparent in DLotS that he didn't. Observe: http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/1204/naddbigsurprise8wb.th.jpg

Why would Nadd want to get right to work on reviving what he referred to as "lost arts" if he had already learned it? Because Sadow apparently kept a hell of a lot of knowledge hidden from him. However, after Kun killed the guardian wyrm, that knowledge was available to him (it was underneath the pit that the wyrm occupied).

That and the Massassi no longer wanted to kill him, so whatever was in the other temples was also freely available to Kun. In contrast, only whatever Sadow allowed Nadd to see was available to him.

Given this, it's very much proper to assume that Kun learned more than Nadd.

No, he needed a body. He can't create a body unless some underling comes along and uses sith magic to reanimate him. He never states that he himself doesn't know it, it's simply that he himself can not do it from his spirit form. No Sith has done it, but it does not indicate that no sith can.

Now obviously Exar wasn't compliant, but that scan does not indicate he is superior in Naga Sadow's knowledge, particularly since just a few pages earlier in that same comic, he is surprised by some massassi who floors him.

Originally posted by zod360
Do you have any proof for that?

LMFAO.

We ask little Numan to provide proof of his bold statement that "the PT era was the best era evar!11" And instead of doing that, he turns around and begs others for proof. Good job.

Look, Lucas himself says he doesn't concern himself with EU. He even says that it's an alternate universe, so why would we apply his quote to EU if he markedly doesn't give a damn and doesn't understand it? Logical fallacy.

tdtd
Illustrious, did Nadd learn from Sadow himself?

Fishy
Yes

tdtd
So I'm inclined to say that learning from the teacher himself is more effective than learning from the teacher's scrolls. Obviously we don't know who learned more of Sadow's knowledge but it is very illogical to speculate Kun learned more than Nadd did, when Nadd learned from the Sith himself.

PurpleSaber
Originally posted by Illustrious
Logical fallacy.
Haha, I really don't have a say on this thread, but how can something be a LOGICAL fallacy?

Illustrious
Originally posted by PurpleSaber
Haha, I really don't have a say on this thread, but how can something be a LOGICAL fallacy?

It's a fallacy in logic, hence logical fallacy.

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.