Re: Ahsoka vs Mauls

April 25th 2020, 6:18 pm

Ahsoka solos the SW verse.

April 25th 2020, 7:13 pm

BoD wrote:TCW Maul or ROTS Maul solo with high difficulty if TCW Maul doesn't have his chicken legs. For the bonus, Maul and Savage still win.

ROTS Ashoka was able to duel pretty well against S7 Maul.

S7 Maul>S5 Maul>TPM Maul>S4 TCW Maul.

Rebels Ashoka is at least 14 years more experienced, and more powerful.

April 25th 2020, 7:18 pm

> Korriban wrote:

King Joker wrote:Ahsoka beats any Maul, lol.

Beats? Pardon me but I thought rebels Maul and Ahsoka were even at best

Rebels is Ahsoka's prime.

ROTS Ahsoka was able to duel and beat ROTS Maul...an argument to be made that Mauls head wasn't in the game but at the same time Ahsoka out dueled him while 14 years pre-prime.

That is a massive difference.

April 25th 2020, 8:53 pm

Eh tbh I think some people are trying hard to cling onto a reason as to why Maul is superior to Ahsoka because we wanted him to win the duel so badly.
I'm sorry but I can't see an argument for S7 Maul>S7 Ahsoka after seeing that (perhaps equals). I know, I wanted Maul to win as well but oh well...

April 27th 2020, 6:05 am

SithSauce wrote:Eh tbh I think some people are trying hard to cling onto a reason as to why Maul is superior to Ahsoka because we wanted him to win the duel so badly.
I'm sorry but I can't see an argument for S7 Maul>S7 Ahsoka after seeing that (perhaps equals). I know, I wanted Maul to win as well but oh well...

A few arguments you could observe/utilise:

A. Maul was psychologically affected by circumstance thus harming his overall performance
B. Maul noting that his intention was to teach Ahsoka a lesson
C. Maul wanting Ahsoka to join him, thus killing her wasn't an option on the table
D. At the end of the fight, he had Ahsoka merciless and didn't go for a killing move of any sort. These could have included:

-using a lightsaber to cut the area Ahsoka was standing on, making her fall to her death
-throwing his saber and killing her instantly
-stabbing/slicing her with his saber seeing as she had no defence
-force pushing her off as he did with TPM Kenobi

April 27th 2020, 11:55 am

Trayus Marauder wrote:

SithSauce wrote:Eh tbh I think some people are trying hard to cling onto a reason as to why Maul is superior to Ahsoka because we wanted him to win the duel so badly.
I'm sorry but I can't see an argument for S7 Maul>S7 Ahsoka after seeing that (perhaps equals). I know, I wanted Maul to win as well but oh well...

A few arguments you could observe/utilise:

A. Maul was psychologically affected by circumstance thus harming his overall performance
B. Maul noting that his intention was to teach Ahsoka a lesson
C. Maul wanting Ahsoka to join him, thus killing her wasn't an option on the table
D. At the end of the fight, he had Ahsoka merciless and didn't go for a killing move of any sort. These could have included:

-using a lightsaber to cut the area Ahsoka was standing on, making her fall to her death
-throwing his saber and killing her instantly
-stabbing/slicing her with his saber seeing as she had no defence
-force pushing her off as he did with TPM Kenobi

Physological weakening is baseless. And D is only the case because of the environment they were fighting in. We saw ahsoka retrieve her lightsaber repeatedly after disarment. You can probably use ahsoka's echaustion after kicking maul to argue he could have tired her out and there are arguments to be made that he could have beat her for a majority. Arguing he'd beat rebels ahsoka though is ridiculous. At best you can be unsure of how that would go. Otherwise, all evidence we have indicates her superiority.

April 27th 2020, 7:21 pm

freethedevil wrote:

Trayus Marauder wrote:

SithSauce wrote:Eh tbh I think some people are trying hard to cling onto a reason as to why Maul is superior to Ahsoka because we wanted him to win the duel so badly.
I'm sorry but I can't see an argument for S7 Maul>S7 Ahsoka after seeing that (perhaps equals). I know, I wanted Maul to win as well but oh well...

A few arguments you could observe/utilise:

A. Maul was psychologically affected by circumstance thus harming his overall performance
B. Maul noting that his intention was to teach Ahsoka a lesson
C. Maul wanting Ahsoka to join him, thus killing her wasn't an option on the table
D. At the end of the fight, he had Ahsoka merciless and didn't go for a killing move of any sort. These could have included:

-using a lightsaber to cut the area Ahsoka was standing on, making her fall to her death
-throwing his saber and killing her instantly
-stabbing/slicing her with his saber seeing as she had no defence
-force pushing her off as he did with TPM Kenobi

Physological weakening is baseless. And D is only the case because of the environment they were fighting in. We saw ahsoka retrieve her lightsaber repeatedly after disarment. You can probably use ahsoka's echaustion after kicking maul to argue he could have tired her out and there are arguments to be made that he could have beat her for a majority. Arguing he'd beat rebels ahsoka though is ridiculous. At best you can be unsure of how that would go. Otherwise, all evidence we have indicates her superiority.

I'd hardly say it's baseless given Almec's testimony earlier in the episode and given how psychological hindrances can impact fighting capability (PSV and TFA Kylo as prime examples), I'd say the conclusion is warranted. Given Ahsoka's exhaustion as you so kindly noted, having some sort of variation of argument D would be viable. Also, B and C also indicate that Ahsoka was tiring despite not facing Maul at 100%

As for the subject of Rebels Ahsoka, what evidence would you present to justify the idea of her losing as "ridiculous"

April 29th 2020, 6:51 am

freethedevil wrote:Rebels Ahsoka vs TCW Maul, ROTS Maul and TPM Maul

Bonus: Rebels Ahsoka gets ROTS Ahsoka, Mauls get oppress

I've changed my mind; all 3 Mauls get rag dolled continuously.

April 29th 2020, 1:59 pm

MyGod000 wrote:

BoD wrote:TCW Maul or ROTS Maul solo with high difficulty if TCW Maul doesn't have his chicken legs. For the bonus, Maul and Savage still win.

ROTS Ashoka was able to duel pretty well against S7 Maul.

S7 Maul>S5 Maul>TPM Maul>S4 TCW Maul.

Rebels Ashoka is at least 14 years more experienced, and more powerful.

I have TPM Maul = S4 Maul. I also have S7 Maul and Rebels Maul > Dooku

Anyway, Ahsoka wins every round

April 29th 2020, 5:31 pm

Trayus Marauder wrote:

freethedevil wrote:

Trayus Marauder wrote:

SithSauce wrote:Eh tbh I think some people are trying hard to cling onto a reason as to why Maul is superior to Ahsoka because we wanted him to win the duel so badly.
I'm sorry but I can't see an argument for S7 Maul>S7 Ahsoka after seeing that (perhaps equals). I know, I wanted Maul to win as well but oh well...

A few arguments you could observe/utilise:

A. Maul was psychologically affected by circumstance thus harming his overall performance
B. Maul noting that his intention was to teach Ahsoka a lesson
C. Maul wanting Ahsoka to join him, thus killing her wasn't an option on the table
D. At the end of the fight, he had Ahsoka merciless and didn't go for a killing move of any sort. These could have included:

-using a lightsaber to cut the area Ahsoka was standing on, making her fall to her death
-throwing his saber and killing her instantly
-stabbing/slicing her with his saber seeing as she had no defence
-force pushing her off as he did with TPM Kenobi

Physological weakening is baseless. And D is only the case because of the environment they were fighting in. We saw ahsoka retrieve her lightsaber repeatedly after disarment. You can probably use ahsoka's echaustion after kicking maul to argue he could have tired her out and there are arguments to be made that he could have beat her for a majority. Arguing he'd beat rebels ahsoka though is ridiculous. At best you can be unsure of how that would go. Otherwise, all evidence we have indicates her superiority.

I'd hardly say it's baseless given Almec's testimony earlier in the episode and given how psychological hindrances can impact fighting capability (PSV and TFA Kylo as prime examples), I'd say the conclusion is warranted. Given Ahsoka's exhaustion as you so kindly noted, having some sort of variation of argument D would be viable. Also, B and C also indicate that Ahsoka was tiring despite not facing Maul at 100%

As for the subject of Rebels Ahsoka, what evidence would you present to justify the idea of her losing as "ridiculous"

A. Almec's testimony never indicated maul was weak. You're starting off with an assumption, "maul was psychologically hindered" and trying to base your argument round that.

As for D, that's cherrypicking. Yes, it's possible maul would have evntually worn her down. It's also very possible that catapulting him a dozen feets ends the fight in a variety of circumstances, or that Ahsoka could take maul's lightsaber rending the fight. What is not at sensible is using "maul had ahsoka at his mercy" when that was only a result of a unique enviroment.

As for rebels ahsoka? It's ridiculous to argue she would lose because there is zero evidence for maul here. Their fight in rebels had ahsoka driving maul back, and staggering him with one arm on a nexus. In TCW Ahsoka 15 years prior to his prime goes toe to toe and then we have ahsoka contending with vader(a character whose feats 10 years prior outstrip mauls) and we have the matter of ahsoka reristing parts of sidious's force attcks(something well beyond what maul can do). All evidence points to ahsoka and zero evidence points to maul. There is --no-- argument for maul over ahsoka. The best you can argue is that its unclear.

April 30th 2020, 4:54 am

freethedevil wrote:

Trayus Marauder wrote:

freethedevil wrote:

Trayus Marauder wrote:

SithSauce wrote:Eh tbh I think some people are trying hard to cling onto a reason as to why Maul is superior to Ahsoka because we wanted him to win the duel so badly.
I'm sorry but I can't see an argument for S7 Maul>S7 Ahsoka after seeing that (perhaps equals). I know, I wanted Maul to win as well but oh well...

A few arguments you could observe/utilise:

A. Maul was psychologically affected by circumstance thus harming his overall performance
B. Maul noting that his intention was to teach Ahsoka a lesson
C. Maul wanting Ahsoka to join him, thus killing her wasn't an option on the table
D. At the end of the fight, he had Ahsoka merciless and didn't go for a killing move of any sort. These could have included:

-using a lightsaber to cut the area Ahsoka was standing on, making her fall to her death
-throwing his saber and killing her instantly
-stabbing/slicing her with his saber seeing as she had no defence
-force pushing her off as he did with TPM Kenobi

Physological weakening is baseless. And D is only the case because of the environment they were fighting in. We saw ahsoka retrieve her lightsaber repeatedly after disarment. You can probably use ahsoka's echaustion after kicking maul to argue he could have tired her out and there are arguments to be made that he could have beat her for a majority. Arguing he'd beat rebels ahsoka though is ridiculous. At best you can be unsure of how that would go. Otherwise, all evidence we have indicates her superiority.

I'd hardly say it's baseless given Almec's testimony earlier in the episode and given how psychological hindrances can impact fighting capability (PSV and TFA Kylo as prime examples), I'd say the conclusion is warranted. Given Ahsoka's exhaustion as you so kindly noted, having some sort of variation of argument D would be viable. Also, B and C also indicate that Ahsoka was tiring despite not facing Maul at 100%

As for the subject of Rebels Ahsoka, what evidence would you present to justify the idea of her losing as "ridiculous"

A. Almec's testimony never indicated maul was weak. You're starting off with an assumption, "maul was psychologically hindered" and trying to base your argument round that.

As for D, that's cherrypicking. Yes, it's possible maul would have evntually worn her down. It's also very possible that catapulting him a dozen feets ends the fight in a variety of circumstances, or that Ahsoka could take maul's lightsaber rending the fight. What is not at sensible is using "maul had ahsoka at his mercy" when that was only a result of a unique enviroment.

As for rebels ahsoka? It's ridiculous to argue she would lose because there is zero evidence for maul here. Their fight in rebels had ahsoka driving maul back, and staggering him with one arm on a nexus. In TCW Ahsoka 15 years prior to his prime goes toe to toe and then we have ahsoka contending with vader(a character whose feats 10 years prior outstrip mauls) and we have the matter of ahsoka reristing parts of sidious's force attcks(something well beyond what maul can do). All evidence points to ahsoka and zero evidence points to maul. There is --no-- argument for maul over ahsoka. The best you can argue is that its unclear.

My argument isn't built around the first point at all. I was simply offering 4 potential arguments that could be used. Whether you use one or multiple is up to you but all 4 avenues are worthy of exploration when it comes to arguing in favour of Maul.

Note that in the late stages of the fight, Maul used his superior augmentation to push Ahsoka's lightsaber out of her hand. That's not exactly a terrain specific move so this idea that the setting made a difference is a reach.

Rebels Ahsoka>Rebels Maul is certainly a strong argument never denied that. What is questionable is Rebels Ahsoka>better versions of Maul like SoD. Ahsoka "contending" with Vader is a bit of a stretch given that Vader was dominating for most of the fight. We also have prior context going towards the fight where Vader wanted her alive thus he wouldn't be going all out.

May 2nd 2020, 3:43 pm

Trayus Marauder wrote:

freethedevil wrote:

Trayus Marauder wrote:

freethedevil wrote:

Trayus Marauder wrote:

SithSauce wrote:Eh tbh I think some people are trying hard to cling onto a reason as to why Maul is superior to Ahsoka because we wanted him to win the duel so badly.
I'm sorry but I can't see an argument for S7 Maul>S7 Ahsoka after seeing that (perhaps equals). I know, I wanted Maul to win as well but oh well...

A few arguments you could observe/utilise:

A. Maul was psychologically affected by circumstance thus harming his overall performance
B. Maul noting that his intention was to teach Ahsoka a lesson
C. Maul wanting Ahsoka to join him, thus killing her wasn't an option on the table
D. At the end of the fight, he had Ahsoka merciless and didn't go for a killing move of any sort. These could have included:

-using a lightsaber to cut the area Ahsoka was standing on, making her fall to her death
-throwing his saber and killing her instantly
-stabbing/slicing her with his saber seeing as she had no defence
-force pushing her off as he did with TPM Kenobi

Physological weakening is baseless. And D is only the case because of the environment they were fighting in. We saw ahsoka retrieve her lightsaber repeatedly after disarment. You can probably use ahsoka's echaustion after kicking maul to argue he could have tired her out and there are arguments to be made that he could have beat her for a majority. Arguing he'd beat rebels ahsoka though is ridiculous. At best you can be unsure of how that would go. Otherwise, all evidence we have indicates her superiority.

I'd hardly say it's baseless given Almec's testimony earlier in the episode and given how psychological hindrances can impact fighting capability (PSV and TFA Kylo as prime examples), I'd say the conclusion is warranted. Given Ahsoka's exhaustion as you so kindly noted, having some sort of variation of argument D would be viable. Also, B and C also indicate that Ahsoka was tiring despite not facing Maul at 100%

As for the subject of Rebels Ahsoka, what evidence would you present to justify the idea of her losing as "ridiculous"

A. Almec's testimony never indicated maul was weak. You're starting off with an assumption, "maul was psychologically hindered" and trying to base your argument round that.

As for D, that's cherrypicking. Yes, it's possible maul would have evntually worn her down. It's also very possible that catapulting him a dozen feets ends the fight in a variety of circumstances, or that Ahsoka could take maul's lightsaber rending the fight. What is not at sensible is using "maul had ahsoka at his mercy" when that was only a result of a unique enviroment.

As for rebels ahsoka? It's ridiculous to argue she would lose because there is zero evidence for maul here. Their fight in rebels had ahsoka driving maul back, and staggering him with one arm on a nexus. In TCW Ahsoka 15 years prior to his prime goes toe to toe and then we have ahsoka contending with vader(a character whose feats 10 years prior outstrip mauls) and we have the matter of ahsoka reristing parts of sidious's force attcks(something well beyond what maul can do). All evidence points to ahsoka and zero evidence points to maul. There is --no-- argument for maul over ahsoka. The best you can argue is that its unclear.

My argument isn't built around the first point at all. I was simply offering 4 potential arguments that could be used. Whether you use one or multiple is up to you but all 4 avenues are worthy of exploration when it comes to arguing in favour of Maul.

Note that in the late stages of the fight, Maul used his superior augmentation to push Ahsoka's lightsaber out of her hand. That's not exactly a terrain specific move so this idea that the setting made a difference is a reach.

Rebels Ahsoka>Rebels Maul is certainly a strong argument never denied that. What is questionable is Rebels Ahsoka>better versions of Maul like SoD. Ahsoka "contending" with Vader is a bit of a stretch given that Vader was dominating for most of the fight. We also have prior context going towards the fight where Vader wanted her alive thus he wouldn't be going all out.

1. B and C are fine. A and D use necessitate the use of a conclusion for their basis and thus aren't.

2. Maul also was able to take Ahsoka's lightsabers out of her hand in the throne room, in which case ahsoka simply got them back. The terrian specific thing was ahsoka not being able to simply retrieve her sabers. Given her repeatedly demonstrating her capacity to hold off maul without lightsabers, its reasonable to think she would have just used the force to call them back.

3. "Most of the fight" occurs off screen and after it cuts back we see that vader's barely made up any ground from the section of the fight where they were fighting evenly(not to mention ahsoka had the upper hand at the start). Ahsoka doesn't cede any sort of ground for 20 more seconds before vader finally is able to drive her back.

IOW, We have a minuite plus of even fighting and then vader finally taking an upperhand before a cricumstantial bfr. There's really no way to argue it wasn't "contending", unless we just cherrypick a small portion of the fight. (not to mention the nexus)

Filoni explicitly states vader is trying to kill ahsoka, there's no prior context. Finally, you might note, I was also drawing comparisons to past versions of maul. Vader's feats 10 years before his rebels prime vastly outstrip maul's as of sod. Also, from what I've heard, Vader apparently scales over dooku and anakin(who its clear would have smashed maul), And then there's the matter of not getting instastomped by sidious and off course TCW Ahsoka 15 years before her peak contending with maul in the throne room.

We both agree ahsoka's exhaustion indicates maul could conceivably outlast ahsoka as of rots, but rebels Ahsoka is able to fight maul, multiple inqusitors and Vader for about 4 minuites collectively before finally showing exhaustion. What way does Maul have to win here?

May 3rd 2020, 5:24 am

freethedevil wrote:

Trayus Marauder wrote:

freethedevil wrote:

Trayus Marauder wrote:

freethedevil wrote:

Trayus Marauder wrote:

SithSauce wrote:Eh tbh I think some people are trying hard to cling onto a reason as to why Maul is superior to Ahsoka because we wanted him to win the duel so badly.
I'm sorry but I can't see an argument for S7 Maul>S7 Ahsoka after seeing that (perhaps equals). I know, I wanted Maul to win as well but oh well...

A few arguments you could observe/utilise:

A. Maul was psychologically affected by circumstance thus harming his overall performance
B. Maul noting that his intention was to teach Ahsoka a lesson
C. Maul wanting Ahsoka to join him, thus killing her wasn't an option on the table
D. At the end of the fight, he had Ahsoka merciless and didn't go for a killing move of any sort. These could have included:

-using a lightsaber to cut the area Ahsoka was standing on, making her fall to her death
-throwing his saber and killing her instantly
-stabbing/slicing her with his saber seeing as she had no defence
-force pushing her off as he did with TPM Kenobi

Physological weakening is baseless. And D is only the case because of the environment they were fighting in. We saw ahsoka retrieve her lightsaber repeatedly after disarment. You can probably use ahsoka's echaustion after kicking maul to argue he could have tired her out and there are arguments to be made that he could have beat her for a majority. Arguing he'd beat rebels ahsoka though is ridiculous. At best you can be unsure of how that would go. Otherwise, all evidence we have indicates her superiority.

I'd hardly say it's baseless given Almec's testimony earlier in the episode and given how psychological hindrances can impact fighting capability (PSV and TFA Kylo as prime examples), I'd say the conclusion is warranted. Given Ahsoka's exhaustion as you so kindly noted, having some sort of variation of argument D would be viable. Also, B and C also indicate that Ahsoka was tiring despite not facing Maul at 100%

As for the subject of Rebels Ahsoka, what evidence would you present to justify the idea of her losing as "ridiculous"

A. Almec's testimony never indicated maul was weak. You're starting off with an assumption, "maul was psychologically hindered" and trying to base your argument round that.

As for D, that's cherrypicking. Yes, it's possible maul would have evntually worn her down. It's also very possible that catapulting him a dozen feets ends the fight in a variety of circumstances, or that Ahsoka could take maul's lightsaber rending the fight. What is not at sensible is using "maul had ahsoka at his mercy" when that was only a result of a unique enviroment.

As for rebels ahsoka? It's ridiculous to argue she would lose because there is zero evidence for maul here. Their fight in rebels had ahsoka driving maul back, and staggering him with one arm on a nexus. In TCW Ahsoka 15 years prior to his prime goes toe to toe and then we have ahsoka contending with vader(a character whose feats 10 years prior outstrip mauls) and we have the matter of ahsoka reristing parts of sidious's force attcks(something well beyond what maul can do). All evidence points to ahsoka and zero evidence points to maul. There is --no-- argument for maul over ahsoka. The best you can argue is that its unclear.

My argument isn't built around the first point at all. I was simply offering 4 potential arguments that could be used. Whether you use one or multiple is up to you but all 4 avenues are worthy of exploration when it comes to arguing in favour of Maul.

Note that in the late stages of the fight, Maul used his superior augmentation to push Ahsoka's lightsaber out of her hand. That's not exactly a terrain specific move so this idea that the setting made a difference is a reach.

Rebels Ahsoka>Rebels Maul is certainly a strong argument never denied that. What is questionable is Rebels Ahsoka>better versions of Maul like SoD. Ahsoka "contending" with Vader is a bit of a stretch given that Vader was dominating for most of the fight. We also have prior context going towards the fight where Vader wanted her alive thus he wouldn't be going all out.

1. B and C are fine. A and D use necessitate the use of a conclusion for their basis and thus aren't.

2. Maul also was able to take Ahsoka's lightsabers out of her hand in the throne room, in which case ahsoka simply got them back. The terrian specific thing was ahsoka not being able to simply retrieve her sabers. Given her repeatedly demonstrating her capacity to hold off maul without lightsabers, its reasonable to think she would have just used the force to call them back.

3. "Most of the fight" occurs off screen and after it cuts back we see that vader's barely made up any ground from the section of the fight where they were fighting evenly(not to mention ahsoka had the upper hand at the start). Ahsoka doesn't cede any sort of ground for 20 more seconds before vader finally is able to drive her back.

IOW, We have a minuite plus of even fighting and then vader finally taking an upperhand before a cricumstantial bfr. There's really no way to argue it wasn't "contending", unless we just cherrypick a small portion of the fight. (not to mention the nexus)

Filoni explicitly states vader is trying to kill ahsoka, there's no prior context. Finally, you might note, I was also drawing comparisons to past versions of maul. Vader's feats 10 years before his rebels prime vastly outstrip maul's as of sod. Also, from what I've heard, Vader apparently scales over dooku and anakin(who its clear would have smashed maul), And then there's the matter of not getting instastomped by sidious and off course TCW Ahsoka 15 years before her peak contending with maul in the throne room.

We both agree ahsoka's exhaustion indicates maul could conceivably outlast ahsoka as of rots, but rebels Ahsoka is able to fight maul, multiple inqusitors and Vader for about 4 minuites collectively before finally showing exhaustion. What way does Maul have to win here?

1. For A, Witwer confirms that Maul is not at his best so it is a conclusion that is proven to be logical (skip to 4:20):

https://twitter.com/starwars/status/1255119576804790272?s=20&fbclid=IwAR1H7gomMgYd9MkYUH5yPUTDyTssnncR0QaD3NceyQ6izCtNompTYbCmx88

As for D, you haven't given anything to debunk this point so disregarding it doesn't do you any favours.

2. This argument doesn't really line up as typically, those who are disarmed can't just casually get back their sabers when being pressed by an opponent. Also, considering B and C which you agreed with, Maul could just press Ahsoka further whenever he needed to. Given her overall exhaustion and how easily she was disarmed, terrain exclusive events isn't an argument that logically stands.

3. To justify the lack of contention argument, let's highlight some key points within the fight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr7ufR7utEo

2:13- Vader blocks Ahsoka's full momentum and force with one hand displaying an augmentation disparity
2:15-from here we see that Vader essentially controls the pacing of the fight. Ahsoka constantly gets driven back while Vader doesn't concede any form of position
2:50- Ahsoka struggles to maintain a blade lock again showing the aug gap
2:55- Vader ragdolls Ahsoka

So if you're arguing for her contending, it would be about the same degree of contention that ESB Luke gave Vader overall. Neither get stomped right out of the gate but neither are capable of gaining genuine advantage.

As for the nexus, do you have a source that can quantify the advantage/disadvantage offered?

Got the quote for Filoni saying Vader was trying to kill Ahsoka?

What feats from Vader would you use to justify his superiority over Maul?

Also, justification for the proposed Anakin/Dooku scaling?

May 3rd 2020, 9:19 am

For fuck's sake, can you both not continually quote every one of your previous posts, and just limit yourself to quoting to the post you're actually addressing? What you're doing currently just serves to clog up the thread.

May 3rd 2020, 9:25 am

A. Almec's testimony never indicated maul was weak. You're starting off with an assumption, "maul was psychologically hindered" and trying to base your argument round that.

As for D, that's cherrypicking. Yes, it's possible maul would have evntually worn her down. It's also very possible that catapulting him a dozen feets ends the fight in a variety of circumstances, or that Ahsoka could take maul's lightsaber rending the fight. What is not at sensible is using "maul had ahsoka at his mercy" when that was only a result of a unique enviroment.

As for rebels ahsoka? It's ridiculous to argue she would lose because there is zero evidence for maul here. Their fight in rebels had ahsoka driving maul back, and staggering him with one arm on a nexus. In TCW Ahsoka 15 years prior to his prime goes toe to toe and then we have ahsoka contending with vader(a character whose feats 10 years prior outstrip mauls) and we have the matter of ahsoka reristing parts of sidious's force attcks(something well beyond what maul can do). All evidence points to ahsoka and zero evidence points to maul. There is --no-- argument for maul over ahsoka. The best you can argue is that its unclear.

My argument isn't built around the first point at all. I was simply offering 4 potential arguments that could be used. Whether you use one or multiple is up to you but all 4 avenues are worthy of exploration when it comes to arguing in favour of Maul.

Note that in the late stages of the fight, Maul used his superior augmentation to push Ahsoka's lightsaber out of her hand. That's not exactly a terrain specific move so this idea that the setting made a difference is a reach.

Rebels Ahsoka>Rebels Maul is certainly a strong argument never denied that. What is questionable is Rebels Ahsoka>better versions of Maul like SoD. Ahsoka "contending" with Vader is a bit of a stretch given that Vader was dominating for most of the fight. We also have prior context going towards the fight where Vader wanted her alive thus he wouldn't be going all out.

May 3rd 2020, 9:27 am

NotAA3 wrote:For fuck's sake, can you both not continually quote every one of your previous posts, and just limit yourself to quoting to the post you're actually addressing? What you're doing currently just serves to clog up the thread.

Mind going through how I can properly edit/delete stuff to reduce space taken up. As I'm sure you can see by my prior attempt, didn't quite work.

May 3rd 2020, 9:59 am Message reputation : 100% (3 votes)

@Trayus Marauder

1. Don't use the circled button (which is what I presume you've been doing):

2. Instead, go to the text box at the bottom of the page, copy whichever point from his post you want to address, write [quote*], paste it, and then write [*/quote] after it.

3. Don't include the stars in the quote boxes, they're to make sure my post didn't put the words in between the "quote" and "/quote" in quote formatting.

4. Write your reply underneath it.

---

Follow these steps and the end result should look something like this:

---

5. Rinse and repeat for every other point in his post.

May 3rd 2020, 10:56 am Message reputation : 100% (3 votes)

The Malachor was a nexus argument is so baseless. Nowhere has Filoni ever mentioned that Malachor is this super dupa darkside planet that amplifies darkside users to level 1000, and I highly doubt he intended this for the story he was telling. It's really just a useless argument used to highball Ahsoka. Nothing more.

May 3rd 2020, 1:18 pm

SithSauce wrote:The Malachor was a nexus argument is so baseless. Nowhere has Filoni ever mentioned that Malachor is this super dupa darkside planet that amplifies darkside users to level 1000, and I highly doubt he intended this for the story he was telling. It's really just a useless argument used to highball Ahsoka. Nothing more.

Malachor is a Dark Side Nexus in some shape or form, but nexuses vary in personality IIRC, the notion that Malachor being a typical Dark Side Nexus empowering Dark Siders like in Legends is dubious. The source that is used is a basis for this is Henry Gilroy's remarks, but all he really says is that the planet's history of being the home of the Sith enabled the inquisitors to use their lightsabers to fly, which is hardly an amp (especially when Maul doesn't use his own saberstaff for flight?). When Pablo Hidalgo was asked about it, he said he was hesitant to make it a "simple game-type buff" even though it is a nexus.

May 3rd 2020, 9:44 pm

SithSauce wrote:The Malachor was a nexus argument is so baseless.

https://comicvine.gamespot.com/forums/gen-discussion-1/do-nexuses-exist-in-canon-1908650/

May 5th 2020, 8:14 pm

Trayus Marauder wrote:

freethedevil wrote:

Trayus Marauder wrote:

freethedevil wrote:

Trayus Marauder wrote:

freethedevil wrote:

Trayus Marauder wrote:

SithSauce wrote:Eh tbh I think some people are trying hard to cling onto a reason as to why Maul is superior to Ahsoka because we wanted him to win the duel so badly.
I'm sorry but I can't see an argument for S7 Maul>S7 Ahsoka after seeing that (perhaps equals). I know, I wanted Maul to win as well but oh well...

A few arguments you could observe/utilise:

A. Maul was psychologically affected by circumstance thus harming his overall performance
B. Maul noting that his intention was to teach Ahsoka a lesson
C. Maul wanting Ahsoka to join him, thus killing her wasn't an option on the table
D. At the end of the fight, he had Ahsoka merciless and didn't go for a killing move of any sort. These could have included:

-using a lightsaber to cut the area Ahsoka was standing on, making her fall to her death
-throwing his saber and killing her instantly
-stabbing/slicing her with his saber seeing as she had no defence
-force pushing her off as he did with TPM Kenobi

Physological weakening is baseless. And D is only the case because of the environment they were fighting in. We saw ahsoka retrieve her lightsaber repeatedly after disarment. You can probably use ahsoka's echaustion after kicking maul to argue he could have tired her out and there are arguments to be made that he could have beat her for a majority. Arguing he'd beat rebels ahsoka though is ridiculous. At best you can be unsure of how that would go. Otherwise, all evidence we have indicates her superiority.

I'd hardly say it's baseless given Almec's testimony earlier in the episode and given how psychological hindrances can impact fighting capability (PSV and TFA Kylo as prime examples), I'd say the conclusion is warranted. Given Ahsoka's exhaustion as you so kindly noted, having some sort of variation of argument D would be viable. Also, B and C also indicate that Ahsoka was tiring despite not facing Maul at 100%

As for the subject of Rebels Ahsoka, what evidence would you present to justify the idea of her losing as "ridiculous"

A. Almec's testimony never indicated maul was weak. You're starting off with an assumption, "maul was psychologically hindered" and trying to base your argument round that.

As for D, that's cherrypicking. Yes, it's possible maul would have evntually worn her down. It's also very possible that catapulting him a dozen feets ends the fight in a variety of circumstances, or that Ahsoka could take maul's lightsaber rending the fight. What is not at sensible is using "maul had ahsoka at his mercy" when that was only a result of a unique enviroment.

As for rebels ahsoka? It's ridiculous to argue she would lose because there is zero evidence for maul here. Their fight in rebels had ahsoka driving maul back, and staggering him with one arm on a nexus. In TCW Ahsoka 15 years prior to his prime goes toe to toe and then we have ahsoka contending with vader(a character whose feats 10 years prior outstrip mauls) and we have the matter of ahsoka reristing parts of sidious's force attcks(something well beyond what maul can do). All evidence points to ahsoka and zero evidence points to maul. There is --no-- argument for maul over ahsoka. The best you can argue is that its unclear.

My argument isn't built around the first point at all. I was simply offering 4 potential arguments that could be used. Whether you use one or multiple is up to you but all 4 avenues are worthy of exploration when it comes to arguing in favour of Maul.

Note that in the late stages of the fight, Maul used his superior augmentation to push Ahsoka's lightsaber out of her hand. That's not exactly a terrain specific move so this idea that the setting made a difference is a reach.

Rebels Ahsoka>Rebels Maul is certainly a strong argument never denied that. What is questionable is Rebels Ahsoka>better versions of Maul like SoD. Ahsoka "contending" with Vader is a bit of a stretch given that Vader was dominating for most of the fight. We also have prior context going towards the fight where Vader wanted her alive thus he wouldn't be going all out.

1. B and C are fine. A and D use necessitate the use of a conclusion for their basis and thus aren't.

2. Maul also was able to take Ahsoka's lightsabers out of her hand in the throne room, in which case ahsoka simply got them back. The terrian specific thing was ahsoka not being able to simply retrieve her sabers. Given her repeatedly demonstrating her capacity to hold off maul without lightsabers, its reasonable to think she would have just used the force to call them back.

3. "Most of the fight" occurs off screen and after it cuts back we see that vader's barely made up any ground from the section of the fight where they were fighting evenly(not to mention ahsoka had the upper hand at the start). Ahsoka doesn't cede any sort of ground for 20 more seconds before vader finally is able to drive her back.

IOW, We have a minuite plus of even fighting and then vader finally taking an upperhand before a cricumstantial bfr. There's really no way to argue it wasn't "contending", unless we just cherrypick a small portion of the fight. (not to mention the nexus)

Filoni explicitly states vader is trying to kill ahsoka, there's no prior context. Finally, you might note, I was also drawing comparisons to past versions of maul. Vader's feats 10 years before his rebels prime vastly outstrip maul's as of sod. Also, from what I've heard, Vader apparently scales over dooku and anakin(who its clear would have smashed maul), And then there's the matter of not getting instastomped by sidious and off course TCW Ahsoka 15 years before her peak contending with maul in the throne room.

We both agree ahsoka's exhaustion indicates maul could conceivably outlast ahsoka as of rots, but rebels Ahsoka is able to fight maul, multiple inqusitors and Vader for about 4 minuites collectively before finally showing exhaustion. What way does Maul have to win here?

1. For A, Witwer confirms that Maul is not at his best so it is a conclusion that is proven to be logical (skip to 4:20):

https://twitter.com/starwars/status/1255119576804790272?s=20&fbclid=IwAR1H7gomMgYd9MkYUH5yPUTDyTssnncR0QaD3NceyQ6izCtNompTYbCmx88

As for D, you haven't given anything to debunk this point so disregarding it doesn't do you any favours.

2. This argument doesn't really line up as typically, those who are disarmed can't just casually get back their sabers when being pressed by an opponent. Also, considering B and C which you agreed with, Maul could just press Ahsoka further whenever he needed to. Given her overall exhaustion and how easily she was disarmed, terrain exclusive events isn't an argument that logically stands.

3. To justify the lack of contention argument, let's highlight some key points within the fight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nr7ufR7utEo

2:13- Vader blocks Ahsoka's full momentum and force with one hand displaying an augmentation disparity
2:15-from here we see that Vader essentially controls the pacing of the fight. Ahsoka constantly gets driven back while Vader doesn't concede any form of position
2:50- Ahsoka struggles to maintain a blade lock again showing the aug gap
2:55- Vader ragdolls Ahsoka

So if you're arguing for her contending, it would be about the same degree of contention that ESB Luke gave Vader overall. Neither get stomped right out of the gate but neither are capable of gaining genuine advantage.

As for the nexus, do you have a source that can quantify the advantage/disadvantage offered?

Got the quote for Filoni saying Vader was trying to kill Ahsoka?

What feats from Vader would you use to justify his superiority over Maul?

Also, justification for the proposed Anakin/Dooku scaling?

1. Voice actor opinions aren't canon. There's nothing there. You're the one making the claim, I am under no burden to disprove it anymore than you would be to disprove "ahsoka was conflicted because she was scared of what sidious might be doing for anakin".

2. The argument lines up with what we actually saw from the fight where ahsoka repeatedly retrieved her lightsabers with the force. Furthermore, as established if maul tries to press her, she has a viable counter in grabbing his lightsaber or dodging his swings. If maul tries to push her away in normal circumstances you just give her space and time to retrieve her light sabers.

3. You picked highlights from the last 50 seconds of a fight that lasted over two minuites. That's a pretty solid indication that "ahsoka didn't contend" isn't really defensible when looking at the totality of the duel.

At the beginning ahsoka landed a force push(well actually per your reasoning, she 'ragdolled him'), and a kick to the head while out manuvering him. Then we cut with ahsoka hopping around vader and vader moving forward. So, at the start ahsoka has an upperhand and then it evens out with vader doing wants to do(driving forward) and ahsoka doing what she wants to do(dancing around him).

Over another 50 seconds vader gains a slight bit of ground, again, this doesn't really fit "ahsoka can't contend."

2:13-> Yeah, vader's stronger than ahsoka. But by this same rationale, ahsoka showed a "aumentation disparity" when dancing around him with her superior agility.

2:50 -> it shows the disparity in augmented strength. Likewise there's also a disparity in agiity which you're ignoring because it destroys this silly "augmentation->power" scaling you're attempting here.

(worth noting that by this type of scaling ahsoka is >>>maul)

2:55 -> ragdolls? He pushes her while she's in no position to defend her self telekenetically. That's no more ragdolling than ahsoka pushing vader(something she doesn't need the aid of gravity to do).

Actually, forget vader, why don't we use this rationale on the topic at hand:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE_CVWMWK74

Now, see that's proper ragdolling. Maul wants to die, but I guess he just can't contend with ROTS Ahsoka Ahsoka vs Mauls - Page 2 1648373583

Its like esb vader

Is it tho?:
https://youtu.be/rgyitSlMtMY?t=57

0:57, Luke literally loses his balance and falls over the second time they clash blades. I could keep going, but I think you'd be best serving rewatching it yourself. In over 2 minuites of fighting, Ahsoka, never loses her balance(bar being pushed off the edge of something), and she never falls over. You trying to compare ahsoka vs vader with luke vs vader is utterly ridiculous. Vader shows he's a vastly better fighter within seconds of the fight starting. vs Ahsoka, vader finally gets an upperhand nearly two minuites through. Even if we take the last 30 seconds you cherrypicked, ahsoka does far better than a fresh luke.

There's no comparison here.

A far more reasonable comparison can be found in maul's fight with kenobi on florrum:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE_CVWMWK74

Maul is driven back, and his defenses physically breached multiple times in about 50 seconds with kenobi fighting aggressively.

TCW Kenobi is able to do far more to maul in a minute on florrum(while dealing with oppress) than vader manages to do against ahsoka in 2. If ahsoka can't contend with vader, than maul in his prime can't contend with pre-prime kenobi. Ahsoka vs Mauls - Page 2 1935072468

As for the nexus, do you have a source that can quantify the advantage/disadvantage offered?

You can refer to the link I gave.

Got the quote for Filoni saying Vader was trying to kill Ahsoka?

It was hidalgo irrc on the rebels recap they do after each episode. He says something like "vader is trying to destroy any semblance of anakin...vader is in his prime", ect.

What feats from Vader would you use to justify his superiority over Maul?

10 Years prior to rebels(when he's supposedly in his prime) and when he's still struggling with life in the suit he's able to gradually float down a freighter roughly 5/3rds as big as the one maul exerted all his energy dragging a few feet off a cliff. As far as feats are concerned vader's>>>>tcw maul.

Also, justification for the proposed Anakin/Dooku scaling?

Galan should have it.

May 5th 2020, 8:18 pm

Stop quoting each other's entire posts, it makes the thread a pain in the ass to read through Ahsoka vs Mauls - Page 2 2265358366

May 6th 2020, 8:24 am

@freethedevil here is my response, a little late but I'm sure you can forgive.

In an effort to avoid a metaphorical firing squad, I'll condense this argument down to what I feel is the essentials.

1. You say Witwer doesn't have the power to influence canon but I'm unconvinced that Filoni can either. Though if we were to award Filoni the power of god then, by all means, let's enjoy these pieces of Filoni gold:

What Vader represents to me in Rebels is the ultimate manifestation of your fear, and of your inability to move forward. They are not going to be able to defeat Darth Vader. This is an immovable object. The easiest way to explain it is, our heroes are like level five characters and Vader’s level 50. [Laughs] It’s not going to take much for him to do them in.

-- http://www.starwars.com/news/interview-dave-filoni-on-star-wars-rebels-part-3

I don’t think our Rebels are a match for him, on any level. Our guys are like level three, maybe they got to level four this season. What’s Vader, like level 80?

(...)

So it’s a challenge to write believable scenes, mainly from our heroes’ side, that you believe they could have any success in this next season because there are some very heavy hitters that have been brought in to deal with them.

-- http://screenrant.com/star-wars-rebels-season-2-darth-vader-ahsoka/

Given that Ahsoka can certainly be classed as one of the rebels and as one of the heroes, both of these quotes apply to her. And as we can see, they establish that Ahsoka is nowhere near Vader.

2. So... she just loses and grabs her sabers in an infinite cycle? Given how early she tired, this isn't a pattern that could logically occur.

3. Several mistakes/reaches you made in your assessment:

-you didn't quite pick up on what "ragdoll" means. Ahsoka got tossed like a ragdoll thus the term. Vader simply got pushed backwards and note the lack of distance she pushed him
-ahsoka dancing around and Vader not mimicking does not indicate an augmentation disparity, just shows how little movement he needs to keep up with her
-vader didn't need gravity to ragdoll ahsoka. He ragdolled and gravity ran its natural course as she fell. The push was not gravity dependent whatsoever

Now onto other points you made:

For for your ESB assessment, I find it lacking overall. Yes, Luke lost balance. So did ahsoka when she got ragdolled. Note Vader's force attacks were restricted to objects being thrown during the ESB fight rather than direct force attacks as seen in Rebels? Also, towards the end of the fight, Luke actually landed a hit on Vader and unlike Ahsoka, Luke didn't need Vader to be distracted beforehand.

For your attempted Florrum dissection, note that Maul didn't lose any substantial positioning advantage. Also, note that later in the fight, Maul ragdolled Kenobi. This fight can't possibly be compared to the Rebels fight due to the fact that Maul/Kenobi/Savage were all playing to kill while Vader was not as we can see in this clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPzV9gwByYk

This combined with the Filoni quotes I provided shows that Vader doesn't have the motive to go all out. Vader going all out wouldn't have resulted in the fight we saw given the vast disparity between the two as shown in Filoni's crude leveling system.

The link involving the nexus doesn't really quantify advantage/disadvantage, simply that the concept of a force nexus applies in canon which I never disputed to begin with.

May 6th 2020, 9:42 am

You classifying ahsoka as one of the heroes when she shows up for a fraction of screentime doesn't make her beholden to your quote.

I never actually cited filoni here, but if you want to use his quotes, do be consistent. Filoni indicated maul and kenobi grew as duelists post rebels, and the context there is vastly more clear-cut then you trying to classify ahsoka as kanan level despite the drastic disparity in how they fared vs vader.

2. So... she just loses and grabs her sabers in an infinite cycle? Given how early she tired, this isn't a pattern that could logically occur.

Which is why I said maul could conceivably outlast her which again, doesnt put her out of maul's league.

3. Several mistakes/reaches you made in your assessment:

Which you ignored the vast majority of for some reason. Ahsoka vs Mauls - Page 2 1220391476

I'll repeat again, Vader only gets an upperhand after a minuite and a half of fighting. You can keep trying to act like that minute and a half didn't happen, but it very clearly did. Luke is floored a few seconds into his engagement in vader, and this is with the ot fights being far slower than animated ones. Ahsoka contends, luke does not, this isn't that hard.

-you didn't quite pick up on what "ragdoll" means. Ahsoka got tossed like a ragdoll thus the term.

And you didn't pick up on my point. Ahsoka wasn't even looking at vader when he pushed her. Quite literally all the increased distance indicates is that ahsoka is lighter than vader is.

If that's a valid showing of superiority, so is this:
https://youtu.be/rgyitSlMtMY?t=57

Maul actually has an oppurtunity to try and break out of ahsoka's grip(something we've seen force users do in canon), Ahsoka has no such opportunity to defend herself against vader because again, she wasn't even looking at him.

Either you concede that your example of "ragdolling" is meaningless, or we end this debate right now because if rots ahsoka can suspend maul in the air for half a dozen seconds, then there is absolutely nothing stopping rebels ahsoka from dismissing this version of maul with the force.

vader wasn't trying to kill her

You're missing a step in between. Before the fight, vader offers her "the emperor's mercy" if she helps him find other jedi. Ahsoka rejects this offer, and if you're really having doubts about this, we have pablo hiladgo, the head of star wars canon, telling us outright that Vader is trying to kill her in the rebels recon for that episode.

strength

Ahsoka is able to move quicker than vader and is able to utilize that advantage to the point that he
A. gets kicked directly in the head
B. gets pushed
C. Is unable to gain significant ground for a minuite and a half

If you're going to cherrypick bladelocks, then you can't ignore ahsoka hopping around. Either way, they're peers.

maul doesn't lost his positional footing

Yes he does. In fact he loses it far quicker than ahsoka does:
https://youtu.be/aE_CVWMWK74?t=218

https://youtu.be/aE_CVWMWK74?t=228

Kenobi doesn't press the advantage because he's also fighting oppress, but that is a vastly quicker loss of ground than anything we see from vader vs ahsoka, even if we cherrypick the last 30 seconds after ahsoka had been contending with vader for a minuite and a half. It doesn't really matter what measuring stick you choose, Maul's 'contention' with kenobi is far more dubious than ahsoka's with vader. And given that, this is his only notable feat in canon, you either need to change your definition of "contend" or accept maul as fodder.

Vader needs more than a minuite to display a noticeable advantage over ahsoka. Kenobi has maul dead to rights within 40 seconds of their first tcw fight despite oppress and maul beating him senseless before hand, and then has maul leaping backwards to avoid getting diced while dealing with oppress on the opposite side of him.

If Ahsoka can't contend with vader, tcw maul is bantha fodder.

May 7th 2020, 6:25 am

@freethedevil

You say you've never cited Filoni but below we have confirmation that is a lie given how you literally tried to use Filoni to back a stance of yours. The quote being:

"Filoni explicitly states vader is trying to kill ahsoka, there's no prior context."

As for Ahsoka's classification, how does she not rank as a hero? This idea of less screentime equaling non-hero status makes no sense at all.

ESB/Rebels comparison/discussion:

You keep referencing how Luke lost balance once and use that as your only justification to shut down Luke's performance despite the fact that Luke managed to use a smoke nozzle on Vader despite his guard being up, managed to knock Vader to a lower section of where they were fighting and most notably, landed a genuine hit on Vader's shoulder. Luke's stumble doesn't negate the various points where Luke got an edge on Vader and most certainly justified himself as a contender. As for Ahsoka, as I've noted via Filoni evidence (which is a path you took us down btw) Ahsoka isn't even close and your flimsy attempt to disassociate Ahsoka from those quotes doesn't really stand.

So now you're referencing Hidalgo (who also does not dictate canon) and not even providing a source. Not really convincing.

Maul's florrum duel:

Try rewatching the fight and note the little ground Kenobi gains against Maul. Also note that Maul managed to ragdoll Kenobi twice later on and does it again on a different occasion, establishing a consistent Maul>Kenobi narrative:

https://comicvine1.cbsistatic.com/uploads/scale_super/11113/111137054/4253755-forcechokeobi-wan.jpg