Tulak Hord vs Exar Kun (Sabers Only)

Originally posted by Ascendancy
She was by all accounts the greatest saber duelist of the Bane Era Sith War. Never lost a duel in any of the battles she faced during the years and years the war dragged on. I'm not sure exactly what he was implying with her except that maybe because of how the description was written of her in the novel and the poor fleshing out of details you could choose to infer certain things about her ability if you were so inclined. Personally from what's written of her she is one of the greatest duelist to ever wreck face and in the thread asking for the greatest not shown in any of the films I put her up there, but that trilogy really lacks in some ways.

Anyway, the problem with Hord is the same as with Kas'im and Lsu: in the end there's not enough detailed context given for his actual prowess. There's no concrete description of any of what he did, only bullet points of it. Maybe one day we'll get some canon novels or new legends that gives a better account.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
So wouldn't Yoda do the same?

No, because Yoda isn't anywhere near as shook as Luke is from the dark side of the Force. The latter is especially extra precautions, because of his father being Darth Vader, and him falling to the dark side of in Dark Empire.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Khem Val fought Hord and lost, and saw what he had done first hand.

I agree that what is given suggests that he was a brutally competent duelist and practitioner of the dark side and have said so when speaking about what Kreia references with him, but I also had to admit that it's not the most solid place to argue from.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Which is again paltry compared to what we actually get to see of Revan, Vitiate, HoT, Darth Nox, etc, not to mention Kun both as described in codices and novels featuring him, and furthermore is still only exactly what I said, bullet points of his abilities. Hord's feats are never showcased in a way that gives them the context that they need to argue in a valid way that he could be a match for Kun.

I agree that what is given suggests that he was a brutally competent duelist and practitioner of the dark side and have said so when speaking about what Kreia references with him, but I also had to admit that it's not the most solid place to argue from.

Eyewitness accounts should be good enough.

When you watch someone perform a feat irl, you see that happening.

Khem Val SAW Tulak Hord do these things with his own two eyes and recounts those events to Darth Nox.

He saw him take down 1,000 Jedi.

He was beaten by Hord, he DID see Hord pull an Endar Spire-sized ship out of the sky.

There is no reason we shouldn't believe him, and his accolades match up just fine with Kreia's claims.

We have no reason not to believe either of them, or even assume they're exaggerating the feats.

Again, I didn't say that what is spoken by Val is fictitious in any way, I said that because we have only those brief descriptions there isn't good context from which to work in giving merit one way or another as to how Hord would fare against any other top duelist/Force practitioner. Your argument has nothing to do with what I stated.

This would be a great battle to debate if one side didn't have to base its position on a few blurbs. There's just not enough clear description of the circumstances in which Hord did the things he did, nor of the events themselves. We have no context for his speed with the saber, for the kinds of direct attacks he could withstand, how many combatants he could directly face at once, etc. In theory he should be one of the best duelists ever, but the actual evidence of what he could do is beyond poor.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Again, I didn't say that what is spoken by Val is fictitious in any way, I said that because we have only those brief descriptions there isn't good context from which to work in giving merit one way or another as to how Hord would fare against any other top duelist/Force practitioner. Your argument has nothing to do with what I stated.

This would be a great battle to debate if one side didn't have to base its position on a few blurbs. There's just not enough clear description of the circumstances in which Hord did the things he did, nor of the events themselves. We have no context for his speed with the saber, for the kinds of direct attacks he could withstand, how many combatants he could directly face at once, etc. In theory he should be one of the best duelists ever, but the actual evidence of what he could do is beyond poor.

Hord being the best of the Ancient Sith doesn't make him the best ever, or better than Kun. And taking the quote at face value to begin with is being generous to the most Ancient-wanky source of all time.

Originally posted by SunRazer
Hord being the best of the Ancient Sith doesn't make him the best ever, or better than Kun. And taking the quote at face value to begin with is being generous to the most Ancient-wanky source of all time.

Originally posted by SunRazer
Hord being the best of the Ancient Sith doesn't make him the best ever, or better than Kun. And taking the quote at face value to begin with is being generous to the most Ancient-wanky source of all time.

However, better then Kun in pure sabers is definitely a possibility.

People who need clarification from quotes by using feats, are not worth debating against.

You don't NEED feats for an argument, and even if we do, Tulak Hord has feats in the way of eyewitness accounts.

He beat Khem Val, beat 1000 Jedi, and pulled an Endar Spire-sized ship from the sky.

You, or anyone else, has no reason not to believe those feats.

Hord did not take down 1,000 Jedi alone, he had an entire army supporting him.

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Hord did not take down 1,000 Jedi alone, he had an entire army supporting him.

Among Hord's greatest triumphs were the battles of Yn and Chabosh. With an army of dark side warriors and his faithful Dashade assassin at his side, he annihilated the rebels who defied the expansion of the Sith Empire and went on to conquer the Dromund system-setting the stage for Dromund Kaas to eventually become capital of the Empire.

http://www.swtor-spy.com/codex/tomb-of-tulak-hord/1408/

And Khem only says he broke the Yn siege single-handedly, not the Battle of Chabosh, which involved the army of 1,000 Jedi.

👆

It's only really verifiable that he took part in a large battle and kicked ass, and was renowned as a warrior.

I must say, I do enjoy the double standards on the part of the TOR camp; were a movie era character given this much leniency the debater in question would be hung, drawn and quartered.

👆

Tbh if we take Hord's hype at face value it pretty much puts him in the top 5 duelist's ever

Originally posted by Tondemonai
Tbh if we take Hord's hype at face value it pretty much puts him in the top 5 duelist's ever

Actually, people have come up with very good reasons as to why they don't believe any of the hype.

Those reasons are:

Originally posted by Beniboybling
Among Hord's greatest triumphs were the battles of Yn and Chabosh. With an army of dark side warriors and his faithful Dashade assassin at his side, he annihilated the rebels who defied the expansion of the Sith Empire and went on to conquer the Dromund system-setting the stage for Dromund Kaas to eventually become capital of the Empire.

http://www.swtor-spy.com/codex/tomb-of-tulak-hord/1408/

And Khem only says he broke the Yn siege single-handedly, not the Battle of Chabosh, which involved the army of 1,000 Jedi.

Chabosh was a battle with an army, Yn was done by him single-handedly. Nobody suggested otherwise. That quote doesn't change that.

Originally posted by Jmanghan
We have no reason to not believe them.

Actually, people have come up with very good reasons as to why they don't believe any of the hype.

Those reasons are:

The reasons are that you can't support anything with a bunch of bullet points. Let's look at how reasonable debates go on here when they're actually debates.

Poster A makes points. Poster B makes points. Poster A or B takes the time to reply to submissions of the other poster and expounds upon them. Poster A or B also then solidify their stance by giving additional details of the event in question by presenting more information from the reading, episode, film, etc. For Hord, we have no additional evidence to make a worthwhile debate, therefore making him a horrid subject to debate on.

As I've already said in this thread, it's the very reason that arguing for Kas'im's overall ability in the mythos is somewhat difficult, because he is said to likely be greater than Hord, but we have zero detailed descriptions of Hord in actual combat. All we have are suggestions from Kreia about his ability and excerpts from Khem Val. There is no solid foundation from which to discuss what Hord was or was not capable of in the Force, and there is no context from which to draw a conclusion about his peak combat prowess. Bane disintegrated people with the Force; Sidious created massive Force Storms, Nihilus sucked planets dry; Vitiate yadda yadda yadda'd; Tulak Hord killed a lot of Jedi in vague circumstances in which there are almost no details given, and unlike Kun, we have no expansive first-hand descriptions of the events as they occurred.

For Kun, anyone citing his abilities can quote page after page after page detailing his skills at peak; for Hord, no such luck. I've explained this multiple times in the thread in an entirely objective way, so if you choose to ignore the facts as they are I guess what's already been posted will have to suffice.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
The reasons are that you can't support anything with a bunch of bullet points. Let's look at how reasonable debates go on here when they're actually debates.

Poster A makes points. Poster B makes points. Poster A or B takes the time to reply to submissions of the other poster and expounds upon them. Poster A or B also then solidify their stance by giving additional details of the event in question by presenting more information from the reading, episode, film, etc. For Hord, we have no additional evidence to make a worthwhile debate, therefore making him a horrid subject to debate on.

As I've already said in this thread, it's the very reason that arguing for Kas'im's overall ability in the mythos is somewhat difficult, because he is said to likely be greater than Hord, but we have zero detailed descriptions of Hord in actual combat. All we have are suggestions from Kreia about his ability and excerpts from Khem Val. There is no solid foundation from which to discuss what Hord was or was not capable of in the Force, and there is no context from which to draw a conclusion about his peak combat prowess. Bane disintegrated people with the Force; Sidious created massive Force Storms, Nihilus sucked planets dry; Vitiate yadda yadda yadda'd; Tulak Hord killed a lot of Jedi in vague circumstances in which there are almost no details given, and unlike Kun, we have no expansive first-hand descriptions of the events as they occurred.

For Kun, anyone citing his abilities can quote page after page after page detailing his skills at peak; for Hord, no such luck. I've explained this multiple times in the thread in an entirely objective way, so if you choose to ignore the facts as they are I guess what's already been posted will have to suffice.

Wtf...

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Why shouldn't we take them at face value?

Well, Hord's supremacy among the Ancient Sith is relative, so I suppose that's worth taking into account. The rest of it from KotOR II, not so much, since the Ancients' powers are rather exaggerated there.