Revan vs Ulic Qel-Droma (Sabers only)

Originally posted by Jmanghan
Where was Bastila compared to Exar Kun or Maul?

Note that even the likes of Grievous isn't listed as tier three.

It's exclusive among Maul, Kun, and Shan, from what I've seen.

And regarding where I have Revan in sabers, I have him as generally on par with Exar Kun, Darth Krayt, Darth Vader, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Dooku, etc.

The only duelists I can really see taking a clean majority against him are Palpatine, Yoda, Luke Skywalker, Darth Caedus, and Anakin Skywalker.

Possibly also Mace Windu, but it depends on your interpretation of the text.

^ Is that just in technical skill? I hope it is.

Overall combative ability, but Kenobi and Dooku aren't *exactly* on the same level as Kun, Krayt, and Vader due to their weaker connection to the Force.

I was generally speaking, of course.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
She's listed as a tier three double-bladed duelist in KotORCG.

Note that even the likes of Grievous isn't listed as tier three.

It's exclusive among Maul, Kun, and Shan, from what I've seen.

Whats KotORCG?

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
And regarding where I have Revan in sabers, I have him as generally on par with Exar Kun, Darth Krayt, Darth Vader, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Dooku, etc.

The only duelists I can really see taking a clean majority against him are Palpatine, Yoda, Luke Skywalker, Darth Caedus, and Anakin Skywalker.

Possibly also Mace Windu, but it depends on your interpretation of the text.

So you have Anakin superior to Vader ?

Knights of the Old Republic Campaign Guide.

Originally posted by TheKnight
So you have Anakin superior to Vader ?

Especially in lightsaber combat.

In Force it's closer, but Skywalker still triumphs.

Sources that list Bastilla within Dooku's tier alongside Kenobi ( when it's clear Dooku is his superior due to Kenobi getting trashed by Dooku every single time they've ever fought ) or equal to Grievous in sabers are blatantly incorrect. Ant hasn't learned his lesson yet on using unsupported sh!tty quotes though it appears.

Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
Sources that list Bastilla within Dooku's tier alongside Kenobi ( when it's clear Dooku is his superior due to him getting trashed by Dooku every single time they've ever fought ) or equal to Grievous in sabers are blatantly incorrect. Ant hasn't learned his lesson yet on using unsupported sh!tty quotes though it appears.

No one wants to hear you cry though, so go find someplace private.

Unfortunately for you Bastilla is and will always be sh!t and everybody knows it. None of your shitty Wizards of the Coast or KotORCG guide quotes will change that.

Unless of course you want to accept SK oneshotted an ISD with force energies as is confirmed in the TFUIICG. 🙂

If not, fugg off.

This nitpicking of quote relevance is disturbing. People picking and choosing which quotes are relevant to support their case is ****ed. All are fine (as long as there is no contradiction)

@UCSMN:

Considering it doesn't seem you even know what the difference is between a CG and a PG, I recommend stop talking because you're embarrassing yourself.

Again.

I really look forward to applying these standards to some of your other arguments. It wouldwill be a thrill.

Originally posted by chingchangwalla
This is nitpicking of quote relevance is disturbing. People picking and choosing which quotes are relevant to support their case is ****ed. All are fine (as long as there is no contradiction)

Except there is contradiction. We know that the Wizards of the Coast ROLEPLAYING guide is notorious for putting up quotes that are crazy inaccurate on the basis of showings.

The CG ( Campaign Guides ) for games have generic tier rankings for dueling and other categories that put characters who shouldn't even be near each other on the same level. What's disturbing is Ant trying to pass those things off as evidence to support his case.

What's disturbing is you ignoring it specifically because you don't like what it says.

Like, that's literally your argument - that it so differs from your placement of characters that it can't possibly be true.

It's amusing though, so let's all watch and see what bullshit excuse you can post next.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
@UCSMN:

Considering it doesn't seem you even know what the difference is between a CG and a PG, I recommend stop talking because you're embarrassing yourself.

Again.

I really look forward to applying these standards to some of your other arguments. It wouldwill be a thrill.

You called it the KotORCG.

I assume you're referring to the KOTOR campaign guide which is essentially directions for the game that you use to justify events that were not confirmed in any other source and is basically only confirmed there because it's an actual instruction guide for the game. Lmao.

Originally posted by UCanShootMyNova
You called it the KotORCG.

I assume you're referring to the KOTOR campaign guide which is essentially directions for the game that you use to justify events that were not confirmed in any other source and is basically only confirmed there because it's an actual instruction guide for the game. Lmao.

That's the KotORPG (the prima guide). Not the KotORCG (the campaign guide).

😂

This is too much fun.

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
What's disturbing is you're ignoring it specifically because you don't like what it says.

Like, that's literally your argument - that it so differs from your placement of characters that it can't possibly be true.

It's amusing though, so let's all watch and see what bullshit excuse you can post next.

I'm ignoring it because based off the multitude of quotes from it we know it to be inaccurate based upon showings from far more legitimate sources. Such as the RotS novel for example.

Probably won't be nearly as wide or deep as yours tbh.

Yeah, you basically said that already three times.

We laughed at you all three times.

Care to say it a fourth?

Originally posted by DarthAnt66
That's the KotORPG (the prima guide). Not the KotORCG (the campaign guide).

😂

This is too much fun.

And? What does that have to do with the dubious quality of the existing quotes you try to tout? It doesn't matter where they come from if they contradict shown events.