Vader vs. Maul

Originally posted by Rebel95
There isn't any what? You don't make any sense haha. I just said you can't compare the speed of a character in a movie from the 80's to one's in a more modern animation, or in TPM. And like I said before, speed is nothing when compared to strength and force ability. Vader wrecks maul.

Speed is a huge factor in any fight. If a Jedi is slow they get killed rather easily.

Vader.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, he does with his own tk.

Maul's TK is nothing next to Vader's. Nothing at all.

Originally posted by quanchi112
So destroying an at at somehow means what to Maul ?

It will crush Maul.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Look at his Maul's feat while being fired at from multiple angles and directions in clone wars.

All Maul did was push a shuttle. Do you even know what an AT-AT is? About it's sheer size or how indestructible they are? Of course not. No of course you don't Noob.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Much quicker while under duress. Vader wasn't under the same duress and we see many words spoken showing it took a while. Maul's feat was amazing while under the duress of combat.

Maul had Savage carrying him.

Vader has crushed X-Wings while being fired up on.

This is not even a comparison to make.

Vader will crush Maul as easily as Sidious did. End of.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Yes, you can and someone already said Luke is faster in the 80's. He made the comparison but incorrectly did so.

Luke was faster in ESB than Maul was in TPM. I already posted the evidence.

Vader crushes Maul. Honestly it's not even a contest.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
All Maul did was push a shuttle. Do you even know what an AT-AT is? About it's sheer size or how indestructible they are? Of course not. No of course you don't Noob.

Do you have any canon quote on AT-ATs' durability? And to be fair, Maul performed his own feat under negative circumstances.

Originally posted by Nargaroth
Do you have any canon quote on AT-ATs' durability? And to be fair, Maul performed his own feat under negative circumstances.

ESB "That armor's too strong for blasters" or something to that effect.

That only proves he was desperate. Whilst Vader performed his feat casually. Doesn't matter anyway as the feat isn't even remotely comparable.

Now in "Vader Down" we will see what Vader is capable of when he is desperate. Maul's TK is honestly not comparable at all. Vader would dismiss TCW Maul as easily as Dooku flicked Kenobi away. Perhaps even more easily than that.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Maul's TK is nothing next to Vader's. Nothing at all.

It will crush Maul.

All Maul did was push a shuttle. Do you even know what an AT-AT is? About it's sheer size or how indestructible they are? Of course not. No of course you don't Noob.

Maul had Savage carrying him.

Vader has crushed X-Wings while being fired up on.

This is not even a comparison to make.

Vader will crush Maul as easily as Sidious did. End of.

It took Vader a long time based off the dialogue during the feat and has never been done to a person. What's maul going to just stand there ? 😂

Maul was being fired upon and under the duress of combat. The size of it was huge and Yoda struggled with all his concentration in esb. At At's are not indestructible and get destroyed all the time.

Sidious is quicker than Maul and more powerful. Vader isn't capable of such feats because he never matched up to Sheev. We don't see the time it takes for him to achieve the feat and again Maul can use his own force powers to hurt him as well. It isn't a valid comparison. When has Vader just raped someone with force powers with tk ? An untrained Luke in esb and it wasn't impressive nor quick.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Luke was faster in ESB than Maul was in TPM. I already posted the evidence.

Vader crushes Maul. Honestly it's not even a contest.

Based off what ? You're saying Luke is faster in combat because he leapt while Vader wasn't even attacking him.

Originally posted by Nargaroth
Do you have any canon quote on AT-ATs' durability? And to be fair, Maul performed his own feat under negative circumstances.

😂

Originally posted by quanchi112
An At At was destroyed by tree stump traps used by the ewoks. They decimated the At Ats and not even moving fast in rotj. Someone callings them indestructible obviously hasn't seen the film ROTJ.

😂

http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/AT-AT_89d0105f.jpeg?region=214%2C19%2C1270%2C716&width=768

^What Vader crushed.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/0/0b/AT-ST_TCG_by_Adam_Lane.JPG/revision/latest?cb=20130606152950

^What the Ewoks fought.

Originally posted by Aurbere
http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/AT-AT_89d0105f.jpeg?region=214%2C19%2C1270%2C716&width=768

^What Vader crushed.

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/0/0b/AT-ST_TCG_by_Adam_Lane.JPG/revision/latest?cb=20130606152950

^What the Ewoks fought.

Originally posted by quanchi112
The scout walkers were decimated though with primitive weapons rather easily.

Which has no relevance to the AT-AT. I thought that would be obvious.

Originally posted by Aurbere
Which has no relevance to the AT-AT. I thought that would be obvious.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Why wouldn't it ? Do the At At's have any impressive durability feats because some of the empire's best were shown up by primitive teddy bears with spears and primitive weapons.

Being impervious to blaster fire while the AT-ST is not, maybe? 😬

Originally posted by Aurbere
Being impervious to blaster fire while the AT-ST is not, maybe? 😬

Two tree stumps obviously are greater than blaster power in this regard.

Originally posted by quanchi112
Blaster fire isn't that powerful. I've seen over a dozen shots hit a Jedi and the body wasn't torn apart or even mutilated. I hope the episode seven changes their blaster fire into something respectably powerful.

Two tree stumps obviously are greater than blaster power in this regard.

The point flew over your head. It was a method of comparison. The AT-AT is invulnerable to something the AT-ST is not, thereby showing greater durability. Anyway, Ultimate Star Wars makes note that the AT-ST possesses very weak defenses, while also mentioning that the AT-AT is nearly unstoppable because of its defenses.

There's no comparable 'feat' of durability for the AT-AT because it's never been put in that same position. Fact is that it is canonically (USW is canon) more durable than the AT-ST, which is the main thrust of my argument.

Originally posted by Aurbere
The point flew over your head. It was a method of comparison. The AT-AT is invulnerable to something the AT-ST is not, thereby showing greater durability. Anyway, Ultimate Star Wars makes note that the AT-ST possesses very weak defenses, while also mentioning that the AT-AT is nearly unstoppable because of its defenses.

There's no comparable 'feat' of durability for the AT-AT because it's never been put in that same position. Fact is that it is canonically (USW is canon) more durable than the AT-ST, which is the main thrust of my argument.

Originally posted by quanchi112
An At At was destroyed by tree stump traps used by the ewoks.

That wasn't an AT-AT you NOOB.

Go back to your NUTrek 😂

Originally posted by Darth Thor
That wasn't an AT-AT you NOOB.

Go back to your NUTrek 😂

Originally posted by quanchi112
The point has been made. Primitive ewoks destroy empire tech with tree stumps. Of course the force can outdo tree stump power. 😂

More Star Wars hate.What a surprise.

And you still don't know the difference between an AT-AT and a Chicken Walker. Such a Noob, such a TFA Hater 😆

Go back to your beloved NUTrek 😂