Why do people still take Maul seriously?

Started by Rockydonovang4 pages

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Except you have to prove the force augmentation of an older, lost and broken Maul increased. Which so far you've failed to do.

actually, I don't, because we have a canonical statement saying kenobi and maul became better duelists

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Except there's been no such statements. And statements only back up canonical feats and evidences. They don't replace them LMAO

no, canonical statements supersede your interpretation of feats. And yes there is such a statement

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Force augmentation can counteract that.

Which can only go so far.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
You're suggesting Rebels Maul could have improved to beyond Dooku level, and then suggesting Kenobi 3 shotting him should be all credited to Kenobi.

Given Yoda never 3 shot Dooku, you're argument clearly is suggesting Kenobi is now around Yoda level.

No it's you ignoring the detailed explanation given by Filoni. That Kenobi beat Maul so quickly because Maul at this stage simply can not compete with this incarnation of Kenobi.


1. I never suggested that Kenobi could three shot maul outside of the samurai style fight this was. You've been ignoring the given explanation because you don't like it. Kenobi beating maul should be credited to kenobi, not Kenobi three-shotting maul which happenend because they had fought each other multiple times before and this fight was styled after the much shorter samurai fights.

2. No, because yoda never fought dooku in the same circumstances kenobi fought maul

3. Stop cherrypicking which statements you accept and ignore.

The quote says that every time maul parries a strike from kenobi, its like saying he's "as good" as kenobi. So in the context of the very short samurai duel, all thats saying is kenobi is>maul.

And unfortuantely, the quote doesn't remotly indicate maul declined. It says Kenobi surpassed Maul because he never took the path of the lightside, somethign which applies to all of maul's incarnations.

Rebels Maul is> tcw maul.

Originally posted by Zenwolf
Which can only go so far.

Well it clearly went far enough because rebels maul IS >tcw maul as a duelist. If you want to argue that specific aspects of maul's ability as a duelist delcined, go ahead, but overall maul indeed did grow from his previous versions as a duelist. If any rebels characters have favoruable performances vs him, that raises said rebels characters.

If you actually want to take an amped kanan beating maul as more than pis, then all you've proven is that an amped kanan is >rebels maul and via powerscaling is also>tcw maul.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Well it clearly went far enough because rebels maul IS >tcw maul as a duelist. If you want to argue that specific aspects of maul's ability as a duelist delcined, go ahead, but overall maul indeed did grow from his previous versions as a duelist. If any rebels characters have favoruable performances vs him, that raises said rebels characters.

If you actually want to take an amped kanan beating maul as more than pis, then all you've proven is that an amped kanan is >rebels maul and via powerscaling is also>tcw maul.

But what proves Rebels Maul is > TCW Maul as a duelist? What did Rebels Maul shown that TCW Maul couldn't do?

Originally posted by Zenwolf
But what proves Rebels Maul is > TCW Maul as a duelist? What did Rebels Maul shown that TCW Maul couldn't do?

What proves it is the explanation given by authority on a part of the new star wars canon, in other words, a canonical statement.

Given the statement, we can assume that tcw maul wouldn't have been capable of fighting as evenly vs ahsoka. or he wouldn't fared as well vs the three inqusitors simultaneously.

Also while we're at it can anyone explain why inqusitors are viewed so lowly here? We've seen two of them pull a freighter through the air with the engine on from the vaccum of space, they've ragdolled kanan who was capable of blasting and throwing around asteroids. Additionally they're stated to be better than most post-rots jedi. Said jedi would likely be well above the average jedi given their ability to survive order 66. Why are performances vs them seen as bad showings?

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
What proves it is the explanation given by authority on a part of the new star wars canon, in other words, a canonical statement.

Given the statement, we can assume that tcw maul wouldn't have been capable of fighting as evenly vs ahsoka. or he wouldn't fared as well vs the three inqusitors simultaneously.

Also while we're at it can anyone explain why inqusitors are viewed so lowly here? We've seen two of them pull a freighter through the air with the engine on from the vaccum of space, they've ragdolled kanan who was capable of blasting and throwing around asteroids. Additionally they're stated to be better than most post-rots jedi. Said jedi would likely be well above the average jedi given their ability to survive order 66. Why are performances vs them seen as bad showings?

The explanation being what? Far as I recall, you guys being said it was about Force which ok fine, that's not the issue.

But I'm not seeing any real reason why TCW wouldn't be able to fight Ahsoka or the 3 Inquisitors either.

As far as the Inquisitors, they are fine Force wise, I just find them too factory set/generic for my taste. There's no real versatility with them, if a Jedi kills one for example, then another will show up and it'll be the exact same skill set so it's not like there wouldn't be any surprises. Plus the spinny lightsaber thing, is just the dumbest thing ever.

Originally posted by Zenwolf
The explanation being what? Far as I recall, you guys being said it was about Force which ok fine, that's not the issue.

But I'm not seeing any real reason why TCW wouldn't be able to fight Ahsoka or the 3 Inquisitors either.

As far as the Inquisitors, they are fine Force wise, I just find them too factory set/generic for my taste. There's no real versatility with them, if a Jedi kills one for example, then another will show up and it'll be the exact same skill set so it's not like there wouldn't be any surprises. Plus the spinny lightsaber thing, is just the dumbest thing ever.


1. I misunderstood what you were asking for. For an explanation, their increased power in the force and hence augmentation could eclipse their physical degradement. For maul at least there's no reason he should have some massive physical decline in his 40's/50's when we have force users like dooku staying incredibly fit even in their 80's. Is not like maul wasn't active. More experience maybe. For Kenobi better mental control?

2. Well he likely can't fight them as well as rebels maul did due to being a worse swordsman.

3. I was talking comabtively, they're trash charcters

Originally posted by Zenwolf
But what proves Rebels Maul is > TCW Maul as a duelist? What did Rebels Maul shown that TCW Maul couldn't do?

Exactly. Rebels Maul has shown nothing to put him above Darth Maul. This is what Rocky doesn't get.

Rocky is clinging to a very vague sentence by Filoni where he justifies the short fight saying something like "if their fights were the same that's assume there's no growth in the characters".

That's not even a statement, and

1) Could just be referring to Kenobi growing in power (especially given Maul reverts back to using his TPM killing move which doesn't suggest growth at all)

2) Is just talking about the way characters have changed in the way that they fight. That doesn't necessarily mean they're both in their prime as duellists now Lol.

So he's clinging to a vague sentence that could be interpreted in several different ways, and on top acting like any word that comes out of Filoni's mouth is Canon Lol

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. I misunderstood what you were asking for. For an explanation, their increased power in the force and hence augmentation could eclipse their physical degradement. For maul at least there's no reason he should have some massive physical decline in his 40's/50's when we have force users like dooku staying incredibly fit even in their 80's. Is not like maul wasn't active. More experience maybe. For Kenobi better mental control?

2. Well he likely can't fight them as well as rebels maul did due to being a worse swordsman.

3. I was talking comabtively, they're trash charcters

I mean yeah, old Force Users can keep going with Force augmentation, but it's not like they would be able to do so indefinitely as eventually they'd run out of gas, compared to a younger body which can also draw on Force augmentation as well and having better stamina.

They're also pretty trash too characterization wise tbh, minus the GI I suppose.

^ Force users don't necessarily just grow over time regardless of what they're doing.

A Sith needs a Master or Apprentice, and tons of Focused Rage to grow. Of course studying Sith relics, holocrons and writings of Sith past, helps as well.

A Jedi needs his Jedi brotherhood to grow.

But have them both fail in life and put them both in isolation, I would expect the Jedi to do better as he'll spend his time reflecting on his errors, whereas the Sith will just grow more bitter and not let go of the past.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Force users don't necessarily just grow over time regardless of what they're doing.

A Sith needs a Master or Apprentice, and tons of Focused Rage to grow. Of course studying Sith relics, holocrons and writings of Sith past, helps as well.

A Jedi needs his Jedi brotherhood to grow.

But have them both fail in life and put them both in isolation, I would expect the Jedi to do better as he'll spend his time reflecting on his errors, whereas the Sith will just grow more bitter and not let go of the past.

Well that too, since Jedi are all about peace, centering ones self with The Force and so on. Sith are the opposite of all that, so yeah.

Originally posted by Zenwolf
I mean yeah, old Force Users can keep going with Force augmentation, but it's not like they would be able to do so indefinitely as eventually they'd run out of gas, compared to a younger body which can also draw on Force augmentation as well and having better stamina.

They're also pretty trash too characterization wise tbh, minus the GI I suppose.


1. Even younger force users can't fight on indefinitely. But more powerful force users have bigger force reserves which would allow them to fight longer than their less powerful counterparts.
2. GI was nice

Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Force users don't necessarily just grow over time regardless of what they're doing.

A Sith needs a Master or Apprentice, and tons of Focused Rage to grow. Of course studying Sith relics, holocrons and writings of Sith past, helps as well.

A Jedi needs his Jedi brotherhood to grow.

.


You just made those rules up out of absolutely nothing. Why can't force users grow without an order or brotherhood? Maul was troubling the empire, collecting artifacts, and searching for holocrons. Growing bitter and clinging to vengance makes sith stronger.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
1. Even younger force users can't fight on indefinitely. But more powerful force users have bigger force reserves which would allow them to fight longer than their less powerful counterparts.
2. GI was nice

Well not saying they can, I'm just saying they'd be able to fight longer, especially if the fighting is intense as duels normally are. I mean Qui-Gon was old and while he was able to engage Maul for a period, he was eventually taxed by his stamina. Compared to a younger Maul who wasn't any worse for wear.

Also yeah he was, the other 3 were like cardboard though.

Originally posted by Zenwolf
Well not saying they can, I'm just saying they'd be able to fight longer, especially if the fighting is intense as duels normally are. I mean Qui-Gon was old and while he was able to engage Maul for a period, he was eventually taxed by his stamina. Compared to a younger Maul who wasn't any worse for wear.

Also yeah he was, the other 3 were like cardboard though.


The problem with your example is that maul was more powerful than qui gon.

I'm saying that being younger Doesn't necesarily mean you can fight longer if you're less powerful because you would have smaller force reserves

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
The problem with your example is that maul was more powerful than qui gon.

I'm saying that being younger Doesn't necesarily mean you can fight longer if you're less powerful because you would have smaller force reserves

But that would be made up for natural stamina/fitter body. One wouldn't need to draw on big force reserves and could focus on other things during a duel.

Plus old age clearly affects a Force User to a degree, one could look at Canon Ben in the SW comic series, he notes as such and he wasn't nearly as old as we later see him in Rebels.

Originally posted by Zenwolf
But that would be made up for natural stamina/fitter body. One wouldn't need to draw on big force reserves and could focus on other things during a duel.

You're still drawing on your force reserves regardless of whether they're big or small, the question is to at what rate you're doing it. its perfectly plausible for a more powerful force user to fight longer than a weaker one, just as its plausible for the reverse. It depends on how much physical degradment and how much power growth.

Originally posted by Rockydonovang
You're still drawing on your force reserves regardless of whether they're big or small, the question is to at what rate you're doing it. its perfectly plausible for a more powerful force user to fight longer than a weaker one, just as its plausible for the reverse. It depends on how much physical degradment and how much power growth.

Right.

Although it's not like younger guys can't have high force reserves and older having lower either, so really depends on who is fighting who in this case.