Originally posted by The_Tempest
Yep. Just like how Plagueis, who atomizes Maladians, probably won't replicate that with Kun. What works against Massassi and Maladians isn't guaranteed or even likely imho to work against a Sith Lord the caliber of Dooku.
First off, you comparison is flawed, given that all of the Massassi are dark side users, and one should assume that they are capable of mustering at least some force defense.
Second thing is: Even if Dooku had some nice force defence (and being capable to deflect lightning, even if its just his own, shows at much), where is his expertise in countering Sith magic attacks? And why would he be capable of defending against the mere amount of power unleashed by those amulets?
Not to mention that those feats occurred within the Massassi temple and the text notes that "tremendous energies" are focused within the ruin.
I'm not sure what text you are referring to. The narration in the comics makes pretty clear where the power of that blasts comes from:
"Exar Kun feels his rage multiply a thousand times...then a hundred thousand times...What Exar Kun understands is that the dark rage that fills his own heart can be focused in this amulet, unleashing tremendous energies.[...]With every pulse of his anger, the amulet doubles the power of its discharge."
I don't see any mentioning of the temple energies used here. And while I'm already at that: I think you give far to much credit to dark side / force nexus spots, considering their actual relevance to the power of individuals acting at such places.
I don't consider Keto the equal or peer of Dooku.
In overall ability? Certainly not. But summoning Sith magic that is capable of turning people into charred skeletons in an instant is nothing to sneer at.
Where has the sever Force thing ever been successfully used in combat?
Since the narrator makes sure of noticing, that Odan-Urr had utilized the technique when fighting the remaining Sith of the Ancient Sith Empire, and Odan-Urr pretty much says the same when teaching Nomi, I would suggest that he did employ that technique successfully in combat. Hell. Why else would he even attempt to do that?
Well, I didn't say he would. I said he'd make it a tough fight; an assessment which I stand beside.
An assessment that I can't agree with, when it comes to a force contest.
Apparently somebody else wasn't reading: I said Starkiller "decimates" Kun in feats but that I'd give the fight to the former after a "tough" fight with the latter. Clearly I'm not basing my decision on feats alone.
Mea culpa.
No.The encyclopedia and Fact File entries are both written past-tense. The fact file suggests Kun still possesses the title of strongest Sith whereas the more recently-released source says the title is one he used to possess but no longer does. Probably in light of the more recent (in and out of universe) sources that confer that title to Sidious.
My dear Tempest.
First: The basic assumption you are making is already flawed. There is no "title" for the "most powerful and dangerous" Sith Lord. Not a podestal to place a single figure on. In fact, the commentary of LFL officials I've brought to the table multiple times now flat out deny such a clear cut position to exist.
Second: Your interpretation is correct insofar, as the "once" suggests that Kun was - without question - the most powerful and dangerous Sith Lord at a time, where the Fact File doesn't make such destinction. Yet, and this is a little problem - the "once" refers to something in the past as does the past-tense. Meaning: If you want to interprete it the way you like, you can't say when Kun lost this title and to whom, without presenting any evidence from the very same source labeling a new person on that supposted "position", with that supposed "title".
So, as I see it, this was a correct of a non-ambigous statement in order to create one more in line with the LFL policy on such questions: an ambigious one. Because, you see, that statement with the "once" doesn't just mean, that Kun was not superior to all Sith Lords who came after him. It also opens the possibility that he wasn't superior to the ones who came before, if one suggests that the "once" does refer precisely to the time of his rule.