Originally posted by deathslash
and how exactly does it factor into a saber duel? Has ahsoka diplayed the ability to withstand anything on that level?
For sabers, Ahsoka is authoritatively above maul who's pre-prime incarnations happen to be tier 8's and a tier above combatants who represent the peak of lightsaber combat in the mythos and are among the best in history
Originally posted by RockydonovangI'm still waiting for you to prove that she has tk anywhere near that level.
It's not about the saber duel, it about telekinetic prowess.For sabers, Ahsoka is authoritatively above maul who's pre-prime incarnations happen to be tier 8's and a tier above combatants who represent the peak of lightsaber combat in the mythos and are among the best in history
Originally posted by thesithmaster👆
*Ahsoka is below all versions of Maul especially his Rebels version which is a pathetic shadow of his former self.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
I have.If you're going to attack me instead of my arguments though, I suggest you take a break
Where, you never responded to my arguments over on the Ahsoka vs Revan thread. I countered everything you threw at. And you just ignored evidence that literally shits on your feats.
Canon disagrees with me? More like, a twisted quote. Maul and Kenobi had "growth" and a short fight because: they knew each other's moves inside out due to fighting multiple prolonged fights before. And Maul's showings are much lower compared to his SOD version.
And Filoni's statement about Ahsoka>Maul isn't about Tano>Maul at all. The quote's context is:
Back in TCW, they couldn't put Yoda in a story against the Separatists because he'd kick every single oppponent's ass easily, from B1 Battle Droids to Ventress/Grievous/Dooku, making the good guys win far too easily. Now, they kinda have the same problem with Ahsoka. She can kick the asses of everyone in the opposition, the GALACTIC EMPIRE. In the GALACTIC EMPIRE, only Vader and Sidious can match her. The Inquisitors, Stormtroopers, Death troopers etc. all lose. Is Maul an Imperial? Nope. The quote doesn't apply to him.
And Maul has a quote OUTRIGHT putting him as superior to Tano. It was on Malachor, yeah, but Malachor only "potentially" amped the Dark Siders. And Maul has better feats. Tano required forty seconds to land a hit on Seventh Sister and two on Fifth Brother who attacked separately- Maul landed two hits on Fifth Brother, one on Seventh Sister and another one on Eighth Brother while they were attacking him in a 3v1 all at the same time. In twenty seconds.
Maul>Ahsoka even as of Rebels. Actual feats >>>> twisted quotes, and feats prove SOD Maul>>Rebels Maul.
Originally posted by thesithmasterMaul obviously didn't have the same opportunities to accomplish the same level of feats he accomplished in TCW in Rebels, so comparing Maul's feats in Rebels to his feats in TCW without any consideration of that fact is ridiculous and disingenuous. There's no Sidious in Rebels for Maul to hold his own against, so obviously a straight comparison would make TCW Maul look superior, but that isn't how debating this thing works. Prove that Rebels Maul is a "pathetic shadow of his former self", plz.
And Maul's showings are much lower compared to his SOD version.
Originally posted by thesithmasterNo, he doesn't. Maul being the logical choice to pair Ezra with does not in the slightest outright prove his superiority to Ahsoka. Let's outline a couple very important factors that people like you love to forget.
And Maul has a quote OUTRIGHT putting him as superior to Tano.
First and foremost, character #1 being more effective than character #2 against similar opposition doesn't mean character #1 > character #2 -- that's called ABC logic and is retarded. In some scenarios, a comparison between two character's fights between the same opponents can be a good barometer to measure how they stack up against each other, but it is ultimately a moot point if the two characters fight later on and there's no distinct advantage the other way. That's what happened with Maul and Ahsoka. You've been claiming that Maul's performances against the Inquisitors are far superior to Ahsoka's, so I wonder why Maul's supposedly obvious superior abilities didn't garner him much of an edge when he actually came into conflict with Ahsoka. mmm Care to explain?
Secondly, Maul had every intent and desire to kill all of the Inquisitors, while Ahsoka did not. Ahsoka expressed her reluctance to use lethal force against the Inquisitors in a previous episode, citing that if she and the Jedi killed the Inquisitors, more would come, like what happened after the Grand Inquisitor died. The reluctance would, and did, manifest in a passing up of opportunities and an overall lack of aggressiveness. She'd obviously be less effective against the Inquisitors than Maul.
Originally posted by thesithmasterUm... what's your definition of hit? Because Ahsoka smashed the Seventh Sister in the face with her lightsaber hilt in the first five seconds. 😬
And Maul has better feats. Tano required forty seconds to land a hit on Seventh Sister and two on Fifth Brother who attacked separately- Maul landed two hits on Fifth Brother, one on Seventh Sister and another one on Eighth Brother while they were attacking him in a 3v1 all at the same time. In twenty seconds.
Originally posted by thesithmasterMaul had ample time to prove that and failed, sorry. I also love how you say you're prioritizing "actual feats" over "twisted quotes" when your "actual feats" consists of ABC logic and your quote that supposedly proves Maul > Ahsoka is being hilariously misconstrued as factual evidence that Maul is better than Ahsoka.
Maul>Ahsoka even as of Rebels.
Sorry for lack of formatting, but on mobile ATM.
Maul still had much better feats as of SOD. Yeah, he didn't have some of the opportunities, but from what we saw, his feats are just... better. Much better. He stomped four MagnaGuards, wrecked GG with the Force (canon GG still beat mid TCW Kenobi) wrecked Savage, pulled down a shuttle while grievously injured, and wrecked late TCW Kenobi with the Force. Those feats are much better than anything Rebels Maul brings to the table.
And the crew is about to fight enemies. Maul is the logical choice to pair up with Ezra. To fight. Given Ezra is the weakest, and they're about to fight, then the fairest team is... the strongest with the weakest. And given the quote is talking about fighting, it is putting Maul above Ahsoka.
And how can it be ABC Logic when Ahsoka fought two Inqusitors and Maul fought THREE? It's not the exact same opposition. Ahsoka beat two Inquisitors in forty seconds. Maul was wrecking those two PLUS another Inquisitor in half the amount of the time. Maul did not gain a distinct advantage in an inconclusive fight in which Ahsoka ran away. The fight was inconclusive, thus a victor can not be determined from that. One of Ahsoka's styles is also Djem So- Djem So is very good at counterattakcing and specializes in it:
"Djem So follows the same philosophy of turning an enemy's attack back on him or her, it is optimized for lightsaber to lightsaber combat. Its signature move is fluid riposte, which deflects a forceful enemy attack and immediately counter attacks."
The Jedi Path: A Manual for Students of the Force
Which gives her an inherent advantage over Juyo, that leaves openings and thus is vulnerable to counterattack.
"While its attacks can eviscerate defenses- even the blocks of a Form III master- Form VII leaves its practitioner vulnerable to counter attack."
The Jedi Path: A Manual for Students of the Force
Ahsoka, with a style advantage, had no disadvantage or advantage against Maul in a brief duel. Obviously Maul can't beat Ahsoka quickly, but he can beat her in a protracted duel. Especially when he wrecking THREE Inquisitors harder than Ahsoka wrecked TWO, meaning it's not ABC Logic.
Also, why did Ahsoka hold back? She had no problem in going full out to defeat them. Not fighting to kill =/= not fighting to your full potential. And LOL at her not using the Force. She outright Force Pushed Fifth Brother.
Didn't remember the hilt smack, so conceded on that matter. Still, it's not as good as kicking them around in a 3v1 then smacking one in a 1v1. Yes, 1v1. Fifth Brother wasn't attacking in that instance.
And Maul proved that he was >Ahsoka by wrecking three Inquisitors harder than she wrecked two. Maul's team was superior. It's not ABC Logic, given the team's were not the same. The team Maul fought had one more member. And my quote proves Maul>Ahsoka because they were teaming up to fight. If they were teaming up to prove who is the better dancer, than that would mean nothing, but given its context is about fighting, it applies perfectly fine.
Maul>Ahsoka.
Originally posted by Haschwalth
Where, you never responded to my arguments over on the Ahsoka vs Revan thread. I countered everything you threw at. And you just ignored evidence that literally shits on your feats.
Originally posted by DarthAnt66
Joker arguing Tano > SoD Maul is pretty cringe-worthy, tbh.
Or am I mistaken for questioning the canonocity of polls?
Originally posted by thesithmasterI don't think you understand the point. Comparing Maul's feats from TCW and Rebels is pointless because Maul had far more opportunities to showcase his abilities against other opponents in TCW and far fewer opportunities in Rebels. You can't draw the conclusion that TCW Maul > Rebels Maul based on feats that Rebels Maul didn't have the chance to replicate. That's common sense.
Maul still had much better feats as of SOD. Yeah, he didn't have some of the opportunities, but from what we saw, his feats are just... better. Much better. He stomped four MagnaGuards, wrecked GG with the Force (canon GG still beat mid TCW Kenobi) wrecked Savage, pulled down a shuttle while grievously injured, and wrecked late TCW Kenobi with the Force. Those feats are much better than anything Rebels Maul brings to the table.
Originally posted by thesithmasterHow did you manage to so completely and utterly miss the point? Let me try to be more clear...
And the crew is about to fight enemies. Maul is the logical choice to pair up with Ezra. To fight. Given Ezra is the weakest, and they're about to fight, then the fairest team is... the strongest with the weakest. And given the quote is talking about fighting, it is putting Maul above Ahsoka.
Darth Maul
Is More Effective
Effective: adjective
1.
successful in producing a desired or intended result.
Against the Inquisitors
Because of the Circumstances (see my previous post)
That Favored Maul And Did Not Favor Ahsoka
Therefore IN A FIGHT
Maul would be the LOGICAL Choice
Do you know what that means? It means Maul can fight better against the Inquisitors and provide a more suitable defense of Ezra because he has a more brutal fighting style and he actually wants the Inquisitors dead.
Also, seeing as how Maul has lived on Malachor for presumably years now, he would actually know the layout of the temple intimately and have knowledge of the terrain and would, therefore, be more capable of defending Ezra. Pairing Ezra with Ahsoka, who is clueless with the layout of the area, would be pretty retarded as she wouldn't have any knowledge of safe areas to go to or advantages to exploit against the Inquisitors.
Originally posted by thesithmasterUm, because your entire argument is: Maul >> Inquisitors, Ahsoka > Inquisitors, therefore Maul > Ahsoka. That's ABC logic. Oh, and just to make sure, you do know that Maul didn't actually beat all three Inquisitors at the same time, right?
And how can it be ABC Logic when Ahsoka fought two Inqusitors and Maul fought THREE?
Originally posted by thesithmasterwhat
It's not the exact same opposition.
Originally posted by thesithmasterAnd I'm sure Ahsoka could have beaten them much faster if she was so inclined, but what was evident during that fight was that Ahsoka was hardly taking them that seriously since she paused her assault for conversation and later on deactivated and martially stomped the Seventh Sister barehanded. What becmes apparent later on is that Ahsoka had no intention on killing the Inquisitors, which obviously means that she would have been passing up openings and would have an overall less vicious offensive. This conversation is overall pretty pointless, since I laid out the reasons why Maul being more effective against the Inqusitors does not mean he is overall superior to Ahsoka.
Ahsoka beat two Inquisitors in forty seconds. Maul was wrecking those two PLUS another Inquisitor in half the amount of the time.
Originally posted by thesithmasterSo, the guy who is the clear superior to Ahsoka made absolutely no headway in a fight that was a minute and forty seconds in total length? I find that to be odd. And the reason why Ahsoka ran away is that Ezra was activating a superweapon, not because of Maul's prowess.
Maul did not gain a distinct advantage in an inconclusive fight in which Ahsoka ran away.
Originally posted by thesithmasterAhsoka's primary forms are Jar'Kai, Ataru and Shien, with Djem So taking a backseat, so I find it highly unlikely that Ahsoka could have exploited that supposed disadvantage in Maul's Juyo with her Djem So, which in terms of technical skill, I have no doubt is inferior to Maul's Juyo. Funnily enough, Maul actually mastered her primary form -- Jar'Kai -- which garnered praise from Darth Plagueis; so if anyone was in a position to exploit certain forms, I'm sure it would be Maul. Maul also mastered Niman which is a jack-of-all-trades form so he likely worked that into his style to cover any weak spots. Do you any other excuses as to why Maul was stonewalled?
Ahsoka, with a style advantage, had no disadvantage or advantage against Maul in a brief duel.
Originally posted by thesithmasterA protracted duel happened and Maul made no gains.
Obviously Maul can't beat Ahsoka quickly, but he can beat her in a protracted duel.
Originally posted by thesithmasteri told you why, please pay attention.
Also, why did Ahsoka hold back?
Originally posted by thesithmasterWho will be the more effective fighter, the one who is trying to kill you or the one that is only trying to disarm/subdue you? It's the former.
She had no problem in going full out to defeat them. Not fighting to kill =/= not fighting to your full potential.
Originally posted by thesithmasterThe **** are you talking about?
And LOL at her not using the Force. She outright Force Pushed Fifth Brother.
Originally posted by thesithmasterHe was like two feet away from Ahsoka which is why she Force pushed him away literally one second later. And the vast majority of the time Maul kicked the Inquisitors, the other two weren't attacking either, lmao.
Didn't remember the hilt smack, so conceded on that matter. Still, it's not as good as kicking them around in a 3v1 then smacking one in a 1v1. Yes, 1v1. Fifth Brother wasn't attacking in that instance.
Originally posted by thesithmaster
And Maul proved that he was >Ahsoka by wrecking three Inquisitors harder than she wrecked two. Maul's team was superior. It's not ABC Logic, given the team's were not the same. The team Maul fought had one more member. And my quote proves Maul>Ahsoka because they were teaming up to fight. If they were teaming up to prove who is the better dancer, than that would mean nothing, but given its context is about fighting, it applies perfectly fine.
Maul>Ahsoka.
this has all been addressed so i won't waste my time with it. hopefully you've seen the light by the end of this post.
Rebels maul is canonically "very good" compared to his TCW self. Period.
As it is, Rebels Maul's in the general range of a force user in Vader who's demonstrated vastly superior power to sod maul and who scales of Maul's superior in Kenobi.
It should be painfully obvious rebels maul is better.
Whether or not Maul is better on malachor(which he isn't) doesn't dismiss that authority puts Ahsoka above maul on even ground
Rebels Recon is canon, but Maul was never stated to be in prime there. Nice try though.
And my fanon? Maul has much better feats yet it's still my fanon? Perfect reasoning.
And I love the argument that you can't put a character far above the other even if said character demonstrated much better feats. If Rebels Maul never demonstrated such feats, we can only speculate. And by actual feats, SOD Maul>>SWR Maul.
Vader as of Rebels being much more powerful than SOD Maul is funny. He's done nothing to suggest that apart from getting super injured by an explosion which apparently disintegrated ships, but we need to believe that even though it isn't proven.
Originally posted by ares834
mmmOne does admirably against Vader. The other gets stomped by Ben in three moves.