Responding via Xbox 360 is hard so I'm gonna do it short: In lightsaber combat, Maul has been hyped far higher than Revan; accolades such as being among the deadliest Sith in history and being a "high-end master of multiple forms", not to mention his showings of killing Qui-Gon Jinn, defeating Opress and defeating Kenobi. Combine that with being physically stronger and faster and mastering martial arts, Maul undoubtedly wins. In a force contest, Maul has collapsed caves and manhandled Kenobi's ship while evading blasterfire not to mention numerous ragdollings of Kenobi who himself has force pushed Durge's starfighter and rather stalemated Pre-Suit Vader in a contest of force power; Pre-Suit Vader was able to easily levitate a big statue in the Jedi Temple and then blasted a door open with it. In an all-out fight, Revan's chances are small. Maul is more skilled, stronger and faster and should he get up close, which is likely, he should have little trouble dealing a deadly blow. Revan's best chance would be to exploit Maul's lack of knowledge in the force in comparison to his, but with Maul's own feats and with a lightsaber in his hands, everything point toward a victory for Maul.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Those were proper cybernetc legs though, that were likely actually attached to nerves etc. Maul had robot legs attached by magic.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Thanks for your input. This solves it.
Not really. He's just pointed out that Maul's legs were attached in a different manner. He hasn't proven at all that Maul had no feeling in those legs.
Since the rule in SW is that people do have feeling in their cybernetic limbs, someone needs to prove Maul had no feeling in his, otherwise the point is moot.
Originally posted by Nephthys
Lol. If you actually watch the episode in which he gets them, you'll see that his legs are attached by frickin' metal cables. Now I'm not big city doctor, but I doubt metal can substitute for nerves very well.
They were attached magically, so you can't equate logic to it.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
And a big lol @ dismissing Maul's ragdolling of the executive shuttle, but Revan is the stronger Force user just cuz.
As far as Revan is concerned, he is calculative about his actions. We do not have a single example of him going all-out with his TK abilities; we don't know his limit. However, given his repute and all the praise, he certainly wouldn't disappoint in a contest of Force powers.
If we only apply feats based logic in debates then Marek should waste Sidious (Pre-DE period) with his Force powers. Lesson is that feats are good to put on the table but evaluation process of a character's relative strength and capabilities doesn't rests upon this single factor/consideration. Feats are just part of the equation.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
As far as Revan is concerned, he is calculative about his actions. We do not have a single example of him going all-out with his TK abilities; we don't know his limit. However, given his repute and all the praise, he certainly wouldn't disappoint in a contest of Force powers.
Yet you favorably consider repute only when it involves a character from an era you like.
We should accept as the gospel the idea Revan is the Jedi order's "most powerful champion" but someone counters with the fact that Maul is one of the most highly trained Sith in history and you have a goddamn allergic reaction.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
If we only apply feats based logic in debates then Marek should waste Sidious (Pre-DE period) with his Force powers.
No, because we have a source that flat out confirms Marek is inferior to Sidious.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Lesson is that feats are good to put on the table but evaluation process of a character's relative strength and capabilities doesn't rests upon this single factor/consideration. Feats are just part of the equation.
This is great on paper. But your execution of it has been wretched from the get-go.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
In lightsaber combat, Maul has been hyped far higher than Revan; accolades such as being among the deadliest Sith in history and being a "high-end master of multiple forms", not to mention his showings of killing Qui-Gon Jinn, defeating Opress and defeating Kenobi. Combine that with being physically stronger and faster and mastering martial arts, Maul undoubtedly wins.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
In a force contest, Maul has collapsed caves and manhandled Kenobi's ship while evading blasterfire not to mention numerous ragdollings of Kenobi who himself has force pushed Durge's starfighter and rather stalemated Pre-Suit Vader in a contest of force power; Pre-Suit Vader was able to easily levitate a big statue in the Jedi Temple and then blasted a door open with it.
Originally posted by Intrepid37
In an all-out fight, Revan's chances are small. Maul is more skilled, stronger and faster and should he get up close, which is likely, he should have little trouble dealing a deadly blow. Revan's best chance would be to exploit Maul's lack of knowledge in the force in comparison to his, but with Maul's own feats and with a lightsaber in his hands, everything point toward a victory for Maul.
Neph, use your +3 critical analysis instead of +9 lie your ass off plz.
In the case where feats are being used to determine relative placement, we clearly lack narration or confirmation of that placement. Otherwise we wouldn't use feats at all. SWL is trying to use that particular example to get me to concede the point, I was simply explaining that that example is not one that need be determined at all by feats because we have direct confirmation.
Savvy? 👆
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Yet you favorably consider repute only when it involves a character from an era you like.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
We should accept as the gospel the idea Revan is the Jedi order's "most powerful champion" but someone counters with the fact that Maul is one of the most highly trained Sith in history and you have a goddamn allergic reaction.
And "Maul being most highly trained Sith in history" based assertion has been ret-conned lately; I suppose you have read the Plagueis novel and you are in touch with all the latest developments in the mythos?
Originally posted by The_Tempest
No, because we have a source that flat out confirms Marek is inferior to Sidious.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
This is great on paper. But your execution of it has been wretched from the get-go.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
Neph, use your +3 critical analysis instead of +9 lie your ass off plz.In the case where feats are being used to determine relative placement, we clearly lack narration or confirmation of that placement. Otherwise we wouldn't use feats at all. SWL is trying to use that particular example to get me to concede the point, I was simply explaining that that example is not one that need be determined at all by feats because we have direct confirmation.
Savvy? 👆
Careful, your high horse is in heat. T'would be a terrible shame if you fell off it and broke your spine as it humps a nearby arse.
I know, its just that you didn't seem to be making that point in that response. It looked like you'd just missed his point and were obliviously responding to his literal suggestion that Galen > Sidious.