Originally posted by Emperordmb
How does the episode guide disprove the notion of them being on par with each other?
By commenting that the weakest Jedi (Ezra) is paired with Maul and thus Maul is logically the strongest of the group? If Ahsoka was on par with Maul (and it wasn't absolutely necessary for Maul to be paired with Ezra) then I very much doubt Kanan would've let Ezra go with him. Then again there is nothing which points at parity in the first place, Ahsoka and Kanan couldn't press any advantage against the Inquisitors on two separate situations yet Maul comes into play and he's suddenly the decisive factor while their duel (Ahsoka-Maul) was to short to get any conclusive evidence out of it.
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
Even though StarWars.com (episode guide) says otherwise? No thank you.
If they're approx on par then it's not unreasonable to assume Maul has the edge over Ahsoka on Malachor.
Doesn't mean they're not approx on par both on and off Malachor.
Besides Maul's the one who says it's the logical choice IIRC. And pairing Ezra off with Ahsoka might have been just as logical (But probably not a wise choice because Maul would have killed Kanan).
Joker articulated it thoroughly in her smackdown on Unbowed:
Originally posted by |King Joker|
Maul was clearly the fighter most effective against the Inquisitors due to his ruthless and overwhelming fighting style and willingness to kill, but as it relates to who the overall superior combatant between Ahsoka and Maul are, I don't think how each of them fared against the Inquisitors matters too much. If you judged who's the best solely by Tano's and Maul's fights with the Inquisitors, you could come away with the conclusion that Maul is well above Tano, but that was proven to be false when they actually fought each other.
Originally posted by |King Joker|🙂 👆
@Unbowed: And what's your entire premise? That Maul is better than Ahsoka simply because he performed better against the Inquisitors? That sole reason as to justify why Maul is better than Ahsoka takes mental gymnastics. You've failed to realize a few things: 1. The darksiders were more powerful on Malachor because it is a dark side nexus, thus Maul is more powerful than standard, as well as the Inquisitors 2. Ahsoka had no intention on killing the Inquisitors, and thus would naturally be less effective against them, 3. Just because Maul can decimate the Inquisitors, it does not mean he is automatically superior to Ahsoka. Try to comprehend the circumstances a bit and apply some more nuanced thinking, my love.Filoni's quote itself already lends creadance to the idea that the only true superiors to Ahsoka at this time are Vader and Palpatine. Claiming the Ahsoka > Maul argument is solely because of Filoni's quote is ridic' though, seeing as how Ahsoka stalemated a nexus empowered Maul. Your flimsy argument relies on ABC logic with the Inquisitors and ignoring of circumstances.
Originally posted by Darth Thor
If they're approx on par then it's not unreasonable to assume Maul has the edge over Ahsoka on Malachor.Doesn't mean they're not approx on par both on and off Malachor.
Besides Maul's the one who says it's the logical choice IIRC. And pairing Ezra off with Ahsoka might have been just as logical (But probably not a wise choice because Maul would have killed Kanan).
Malachor is described as a Dark Side hotspot but it's nowhere said that it empowers Dark Side users and even if it did by how much (considering apparently the Light Side users didn't notice any disadvantageous I doubt the nexus was strong or even influential to begin with). Secondly, we know that Filoni didn't take into account the nexus on Dathomir when Ventress was fighting Grievous.
No, the episode guide says that it's the logical pairing, not Maul. If Ahsoka could be a perfect replacement for Maul in then the episode guide wouldn't refer to it as "the logical choice" which implies that there was only one option and I very much doubt Kanan would allow Ezra to go with Maul if it wasn't necessary.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Joker articulated it thoroughly in her smackdown on Unbowed:
🙂 👆
Maul was clearly the fighter most effective against the Inquisitors due to his ruthless and overwhelming fighting style and willingness to kill, but as it relates to who the overall superior combatant between Ahsoka and Maul are, I don't think how each of them fared against the Inquisitors matters too much.
First, there is no objective evidence that Maul's fighting style was the reason he performed better then Ahsoka & Kanan against the Inquisitors in Twilight of the Apprentice. Second, Ahsoka's fighting style is at least as aggressive and overwhelming as Maul's, looking at how she in Future of the Force was the aggressor when fighting two Inquisitors.
If you judged who's the best solely by Tano's and Maul's fights with the Inquisitors, you could come away with the conclusion that Maul is well above Tano, but that was proven to be false when they actually fought each other.
The fight between Maul and Ahsoka isn't long enough to be conclusive evidence, they fought for something around 20 seconds without any interruption while for example Darth Vader only began pushing any kind of advantage against Ahsoka after 20 seconds in their fight. Now before you're going to bring up the fight lasted another extra minute, we never see them starting to fight when the screen cuts to Ezra climbing the temple while when we get back to them (after the minute) they're standing in the exact same position as before with the only difference being that they are in a bladelock. This would indicate that they've only started to fight recently because when we look at the rest of the fight, both fighters are jumping all over the place (clearly showing that neither of them are stationary fighters) so we can accurately extrapolate that they haven't fought for long when we cut back to them after the 1 minute break. So Maul being significally above Ahsoka isn't contradicted, not even remotely.
And what's your entire premise? That Maul is better than Ahsoka simply because he performed better against the Inquisitors? That sole reason as to justify why Maul is better than Ahsoka takes mental gymnastics. You've failed to realize a few things: 1. The darksiders were more powerful on Malachor because it is a dark side nexus, thus Maul is more powerful than standard, as well as the Inquisitors 2. Ahsoka had no intention on killing the Inquisitors, and thus would naturally be less effective against them, 3. Just because Maul can decimate the Inquisitors, it does not mean he is automatically superior to Ahsoka. Try to comprehend the circumstances a bit and apply some more nuanced thinking, my love.
1. There is not conclusive evidence on that either, Gilroy commented during DragonCon that it was a "Dark Side hotspot" and it "allow the Inquisitors to fly" but he also added that he isn't the right person to ask that kind of questions to. We have no idea how the Inquisitors could fly in the first place, let alone that Malachor actively enhanced the lightsaber combat skill of Dark Side users while also taking into account that none of the Light Side users (Ahsoka, Ezra, Kanan) experienced any negative effects that should come along with the nexus.
2. She preferred not to kill the Inquisitors but she never said that she wouldn't do it when it was necessary, same kind of mentality most Jedi have. It also didn't stop her from incapacitating (and pushing advantages when she had the chance) the 5th Brother and 7th Sister in Future of the Force so I very much doubt it would hinder her more then any Jedi in the mythos.
3. Well it actually does, the entire context (where, how,...) is similar if not exactly the same in both situations (even their fighting style) so give me one good reason why a perfectly valid equation with the same reference point (Inquisitors, environment,...) shouldn't be correct?
Filoni's quote itself already lends creadance to the idea that the only true superiors to Ahsoka at this time are Vader and Palpatine. Claiming the Ahsoka > Maul argument is solely because of Filoni's quote is ridic' though, seeing as how Ahsoka stalemated a nexus empowered Maul. Your flimsy argument relies on ABC logic with the Inquisitors and ignoring of circumstances.
The thing is, Filoni's quote never implied that Ahsoka > Maul, you pulled that part of the interview completely out of it's context. He (Filoni) is talking why Ahsoka is absent for most of the rest of the season (=> rest of season 2 = context) and that the main reason is that there isn't the right opposition available at that time period (= context = rest of season 2), which is absolutely correct since Maul is trapped on Malachor and thus only the Emperor and Vader are possibly available to fight her. Quite the opposite is actually claimed on the episode guide of TotA where it confirms that Maul's the strongest member of the group (which included Ahsoka) and leaves out the possibility that they would be on par (since it refers to it as "THE logical choice"😉.
In the end all the evidence is pointing at Maul being superior, accolades (episode guide) & feats (Inquisitors). Everything you brought up is either reaching (e.g. Ahsoka not wanting to kill the Inquisitors, Maul's fighting style which would be better suited to counter the Inquisitors) or based on personal interpretation (e.g. Maul fighting with Ahsoka for the full minute offscreen).
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9
Malachor is described as a Dark Side hotspot but it's nowhere said that it empowers Dark Side users and even if it did by how much (considering apparently the Light Side users didn't notice any disadvantageous I doubt the nexus was strong or even influential to begin with). Secondly, we know that Filoni didn't take into account the nexus on Dathomir when Ventress was fighting Grievous.No, the episode guide says that it's the logical pairing, not Maul. If Ahsoka could be a perfect replacement for Maul in then the episode guide wouldn't refer to it as "the logical choice" which implies that there was only one option and I very much doubt Kanan would allow Ezra to go with Maul if it wasn't necessary.
I just said probably have him the "edge". I'm not buying this Huge Amp only available to Darksiders that Beni and Joker keep going on about, given we know Kanan received the biggest Amp of all when he beat Maul.
Maul says in the episode "it is the logical choice". The episode guide tells us what happened in the episode. So an argument could be made that the episode guide is explaining Maul's logic to us for pairing Maul with Ezra.
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9The thing is, Filoni's quote never implied that Ahsoka > Maul, you pulled that part of the interview completely out of it's context. He (Filoni) is talking why Ahsoka is absent for most of the rest of the season (=> rest of season 2 = context) and that the main reason is that there isn't the right opposition available at that time period (= context = rest of season 2), which is absolutely correct since Maul is trapped on Malachor and thus only the Emperor and Vader are possibly available to fight her.
I agree with this.
But as a general rule I wouldn't trust Filoni's ranking on Maul vs Ahsoka anyway. Because he's clearly more than a little biased.
Plus I'm pretty sure the proposed alternative was Maul and Ahsoka as one group and Kanan and Ezra as the other... in which case... yeah that is the logical choice.
Besides, Maul has other attributes that make him the most valuable group member, ie. his familiarity with Malachor, and the fact that he knows what to do with the holocron (you know... the thing Ezra has).
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9Juyo is the most aggressive (and unpredictable) of the fighting forms, far more so than whatever Ataru/Djem So hybrid Ahsoka might have been employing. So in terms of a rapidly overpowering offense, yes its going to be more effective, and for a bunch of lightsaber novices, its complex and unpredictable style would be even more devastating.
First, there is no objective evidence that Maul's fighting style was the reason he performed better then Ahsoka & Kanan against the Inquisitors in Twilight of the Apprentice. Second, Ahsoka's fighting style is at least as aggressive and overwhelming as Maul's, looking at how she in Future of the Force was the aggressor when fighting two Inquisitors.
The fight between Maul and Ahsoka isn't long enough to be conclusive evidence, they fought for something around 20 seconds without any interruption while for example Darth Vader only began pushing any kind of advantage against Ahsoka after 20 seconds in their fight. Now before you're going to bring up the fight lasted another extra minute, we never see them starting to fight when the screen cuts to Ezra climbing the temple while when we get back to them (after the minute) they're standing in the exact same position as before with the only difference being that they are in a bladelock. This would indicate that they've only started to fight recently because when we look at the rest of the fight, both fighters are jumping all over the place (clearly showing that neither of them are stationary fighters) so we can accurately extrapolate that they haven't fought for long when we cut back to them after the 1 minute break. So Maul being significally above Ahsoka isn't contradicted, not even remotely.You needn't reiterate your dumbass theory that Ahsoka and Maul stood and did nothing for 1:30, nobody is buying it.
Regardless, failing to overwhelm Ahsoka after 20 seconds of fighting, in any meaningful way, still doesn't accurately reflect Maul being significantly greater than when such a gap did exist between himself an Jinn, he had the latter rapidly backpedaling from the off.
1. There is not conclusive evidence on that either, Gilroy commented during DragonCon that it was a "Dark Side hotspot" and it "allow the Inquisitors to fly" but he also added that he isn't the right person to ask that kind of questions to. We have no idea how the Inquisitors could fly in the first place, let alone that Malachor actively enhanced the lightsaber combat skill of Dark Side users while also taking into account that none of the Light Side users (Ahsoka, Ezra, Kanan) experienced any negative effects that should come along with the nexus.Apply common sense and you'll find a dark side nexus is the most logical explanation, I'll wait.
As for none of the lightsiders displaying "any negative effects", wrong considering Ahsoka does not perform nearly as well against the Inquisitors as she did in Future of the Force, and Ezra performs much better when tapping in to the dark side.
2. She preferred not to kill the Inquisitors but she never said that she wouldn't do it when it was necessary, same kind of mentality most Jedi have. It also didn't stop her from incapacitating (and pushing advantages when she had the chance) the 5th Brother and 7th Sister in Future of the Force so I very much doubt it would hinder her more then any Jedi in the mythos.Remains an edge Maul has over her regardless.
3. Well it actually does, the entire context (where, how,...) is similar if not exactly the same in both situations (even their fighting style) so give me one good reason why a perfectly valid equation with the same reference point (Inquisitors, environment,...) shouldn't be correct?See above.
The thing is, Filoni's quote never implied that Ahsoka > Maul, you pulled that part of the interview completely out of it's context. He (Filoni) is talking why Ahsoka is absent for most of the rest of the season (=> rest of season 2 = context) and that the main reason is that there isn't the right opposition available at that time period (= context = rest of season 2), which is absolutely correct since Maul is trapped on Malachor and thus only the Emperor and Vader are possibly available to fight her. Quite the opposite is actually claimed on the episode guide of TotA where it confirms that Maul's the strongest member of the group (which included Ahsoka) and leaves out the possibility that they would be on par (since it refers to it as "THE logical choice"😉.Season 2 is not a time period, time period means era i.e. the OT era. And the Emperor is no less available to fight Ahsoka than Maul, in fact, even less so.
In the end all the evidence is pointing at Maul being superior, accolades (episode guide) & feats (Inquisitors). Everything you brought up is either reaching (e.g. Ahsoka not wanting to kill the Inquisitors, Maul's fighting style which would be better suited to counter the Inquisitors) or based on personal interpretation (e.g. Maul fighting with Ahsoka for the full minute offscreen).Ahsoka's performance against the Inquisitors in Future of the Force compares fairly well actually. She was able to KO the Fifth Brother twice telekinetically and with a physical attack, where Maul failed to do either to any of them. And was able to overwhelm the Seventh Sister in a matter of seconds with an offensive flurry that Maul only replicated with the aid of the Jedi. It is only on Malachor that Ahsoka's performance is no longer as impressive.
And my intepretation of Ahsoka's duel with Maul is far more logical and widely agreed upon than yours.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Plus I'm pretty sure the proposed alternative was Maul and Ahsoka as one group and Kanan and Ezra as the other... in which case... yeah that is the logical choice.Besides, Maul has other attributes that make him the most valuable group member, ie. his familiarity with Malachor, and the fact that he knows what to do with the holocron (you know... the thing Ezra has).
How sure? Evidence? It could as easily have been Maul - Kanan.
Yes but they use "Ezra's weakness" as a way to divide the groups, so I assume that's their criteria.
Originally posted by Darth ThorLike Joker says, it lends credence to the idea that only Vader and Palpatine are her true betters, not sure where you got the idea that it makes Ahsoka well above Maul though.
Maul was definitely more aggressive against the Inquisitors than Ahsoka.But Beni you really gonna take Filoni seriously and literally that "no one" being able to compete against her except Vader and Palpatine? I guess Ahsoka >> Maul confirmed😬
However I'm more interested in ensuring the statement is properly interpreted, if you don't want to take Filoni's word for it that's your business.
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Juyo is the most aggressive (and unpredictable) of the fighting forms, far more so than whatever Ataru/Djem So hybrid Ahsoka might have been employing. So in terms of a rapidly overpowering offense, yes its going to be more effective, and for a bunch of lightsaber novices, its complex and unpredictable style would be even more devastating.
Point still stands that in Future of the Force she had no problem being overwhelming and aggressive.
You needn't reiterate your dumbass theory that Ahsoka and Maul stood and did nothing for 1:30, nobody is buying it.
I provided evidence and you just called it "dumbass", I think it's pretty clear who has the better argument.
Regardless, failing to overwhelm Ahsoka after 20 seconds of fighting, in any meaningful way, still doesn't accurately reflect Maul being significantly greater than when such a gap did exist between himself an Jinn, he had the latter rapidly backpedaling from the off.
The gap between Jinn and Maul is obviously bigger then between Maul and Ahsoka.
Apply common sense and you'll find a dark side nexus is the most logical explanation, I'll wait.
A nexus you have no idea how powerful it is or how it even works considering Gilroy himself admitted he isn't the guy who's deciding about things like that.
As for none of the lightsiders displaying "any negative effects", wrong considering Ahsoka does not perform nearly as well against the Inquisitors as she did in Future of the Force, and Ezra performs much better when tapping in to the dark side.
There could be multiple explanations regarding Ahsoka performing worse then in Future of the Force, it's hardly conclusive evidence that they experienced negative effects from the nexus.
Remains an edge Maul has over her regardless.
The same edge every Sith has over a Jedi then.
Season 2 is not a time period, time period means era i.e. the OT era. And the Emperor is no less available to fight Ahsoka than Maul, in fact, even less so.
Anything can be a time period, it's "an amount of time". Context man, context. The Emperor is theoretically available since he isn't trapped on a planet.
Ahsoka's performance against the Inquisitors in Future of the Force compares fairly well actually. She was able to KO the Fifth Brother twice telekinetically and with a physical attack, where Maul failed to do either to any of them. And was able to overwhelm the Seventh Sister in a matter of seconds with an offensive flurry that Maul only replicated with the aid of the Jedi. It is only on Malachor that Ahsoka's performance is no longer as impressive.
Indeed, he just ragdolled the 7th sister when he got serious...
The 7th Sister lasted 50 seconds against Ahsoka in Future of the Force, that's hardly impressive for Ahsoka.
And my intepretation of Ahsoka's duel with Maul is far more logical and
widely agreed upon than yours.
"far more logical" without actual evidence? Good job
Originally posted by Beniboybling
Like Joker says, it lends credence to the idea that only Vader and Palpatine are her true betters, not sure where you got the idea that it makes Ahsoka well above Maul though.However I'm more interested in ensuring the statement is properly interpreted, if you don't want to take Filoni's word for it that's your business.
Well if you take his words literally then yeah it means Maul can't compete against Ahsoka.
Omg Filoni isn't the final say on Canon, and he's certainly not Objective when it comes to Ahsoka. Sure his commentary gives us insight to creator intentions. But it's still just commentary. Nothing more nothing less.
Originally posted by EmperordmbBesides, Maul has other attributes that make him the most valuable group member, ie. his familiarity with Malachor, and the fact that he knows what to do with the holocron (you know... the thing Ezra has).
... I've literally been saying this from day f*cking one and everybody disregards it but when you say it it's taken seriously?
What the actual f*ck?
( Not mad at you DMB. Just the nonsense that goes on here. )
Originally posted by DarthDuelist9And the point still stands that Maul's fighting style would have been more effective against them.
Point still stands that in Future of the Force she had no problem being overwhelming and aggressive.
I provided evidence and you just called it "dumbass", I think it's pretty clear who has the better argument.It's the general consensus yes, especially when in light of the glaring flaw in your argument your response was "who cares" or something along those lines. Either patch it up or concede the point.
The gap between Jinn and Maul is obviously bigger then between Maul and Ahsoka.A good start. The point stands.
A nexus you have no idea how powerful it is or how it even works considering Gilroy himself admitted he isn't the guy who's deciding about things like that.Which only makes taking Maul's feats on Malachor at face value more circumspect.
There could be multiple explanations regarding Ahsoka performing worse then in Future of the Force, it's hardly conclusive evidence that they experienced negative effects from the nexus.You won't have any trouble listing them then. I'll wait.
The same edge every Sith has over a Jedi then.Correct, dark siders tend to be better killers than light siders, that much should be obvious. That said when fighting Maul, I'm sure she'd have no qualms in cutting him down.
Anything can be a time period, it's "an amount of time". Context man, context. The Emperor is theoretically available since he isn't trapped on a planet.Common sense dear, common sense. A season is not an "amount of time" when referring to TV. An era is. More to the point the Emperor did not appear in Season 2 at all, and was never going to. So the idea that his statement encapsulates this one set of episodes (that Maul is nonetheless present in) become increasingly strained.
And actually he's busy running an Empire, regardless Filoni never says anything about "availability", only that nobody in the time frame could match Ashoka, that's another context you've shoehorned in to his statement.
Indeed, he just ragdolled the 7th sister when he got serious...In a non-combat situation. 😬The 7th Sister lasted 50 seconds against Ahsoka in Future of the Force, that's hardly impressive for Ahsoka.
And when Ahsoka went all-out, she last like 5.
"far more logical" without actual evidence? Good jobEvidence of what? Need I really explain why Maul and Ahsoka not fighting for 1:30 does not make a lick of sense?
Originally posted by Darth ThorIt means he can't match her blow for blow i.e. he can't equal her in combat, that doesn't preclude him holding his own.
Well if you take his words literally then yeah it means Maul can't compete against Ahsoka.Omg Filoni isn't the final say on Canon, and he's certainly not Objective when it comes to Ahsoka. Sure his commentary gives us insight to creator intentions. But it's still just commentary. Nothing more nothing less.
And I just said you are entitled to your opinion on the matter. 🙂