Rebels Maul's Growth

An issue of contention recently has been about how rebels Maul compares to his TCW incarnation which many assume is inferior. IMO, Rebels Maul is the superior version combatively

Growth as a Duelist

First off let's establish that rebels Maul is canonically more skilled thanks to Feloni's(someone with authority over sw rebels as the head of all animation) statements on Rebels Recon which is Officially released Star Wars material that is published on starwars.com episode guides and hence is Canon:

https://youtu.be/8eIZsJsck7A?t=7m31s

The reasons for the short depiction of maul's duel with Kenobi were

A. for storytelling purposes it was supposed to be symbolic of their respective growth as characters

B. Because maul and Kenobi and Maul had fought each other multiple times

C. Given the more realistic kind of fighting they styled this after, the shorter fight was chosen partially because the duo improved as duelists and in real life, very good fighters have short fights:

"The actual duel is very short, how did you come to the conclusion it had to come this way?...(feloni) If you talk to a lot of people who sword fight, they'll tell you people who are very good don't have long fights. So that scene, its a homage to the 7th samurai. I think on one level people would be excited to see another prolonged lightsaber fight. But I just never really saw the confrontation that way because to do that is to say the characters don't have growth "

Even if you want to interpret growth to not refer to Maul's skill as duelist(even though the context is clearly about his ability as a combatant), Him being "very good" swordsman as a reason for the shorter fight compared to his and Kenobi's longer "prolonged" fights in TCW clearly indicates growth.

To demonstrate what I mean:

"The actual duel is very short, how did you come to the conclusion it had to come this way?...(feloni) If you talk to a lot of people who sword fight, they'll tell you people who are very good don't have long fights. So that scene, its a homage to the 7th samurai. I think on one level people would be excited to see another prolonged lightsaber fight."

In addition to making clear what "growth" refers to, this alone indicates that Maul grew as a duelist back from when they had "prolonged lightsaber duels". So there's no getting around this, Maul, like Kenobi, is a better swordsman than he was during TCW/SOD.

Many have argued that Maul could have grown in some ways while declining as a duelist overall. However, Maul being a "very good" swordsman compared to his TCW counterpart indicates overall improvement. And as physical ability is a factor in sword fighting, this would also be considered for in the quote.

Maul is canonically a better duelist as of Rebels than TCW.

Growth as a Force User

While there is nothing explicitly stating maul grew more powerful(disregarding sw.com blogs of questionable continuity), we can logically infer this.

For one thing, force users grow over time, and Maul had 15 years to grow. Additionally, Maul was active during this time period.

Maul

A. collected artifacts:

https://youtu.be/35haUY0WrM0?t=1m46s

"I have gathered many things...these are artifacts from my past, from a time when my power was almost absolute"

Now many have taken "my power was almost absolute" to indicate Maul was more powerful back during his TCW days. But this is completely ignoring the context of the quote. Maul's power being "almost absolute" would be referring to his rule of Mandalore and his challenging of the cis and the republic for almost absolute power

B. Was looking for holocrons(the whole reason he came to malachor in the first place)

C. Was menacing the empire, hence why he was referred to as a "shadow" and inspired fear in the inquisitors:

https://youtu.be/17cWICANUBg?t=7s

Additionally during Star Wars celebration, when talking about Maul's personal growth, feloni said the following:

"Maul hasn't experienced any personal growth, he hasn't gotten over anything. He hasn't grown, except in his anger and his need for revenge."

This is relevant because Darksiders combatively grow stronger when they more heavily draw on anger and hate. And this was a source of TCW Maul's growth from his TPM incarnation:

Jedi Salmara : ''Darth Maul is being consumed by hatred. I imagine this hatred-- This rage-- Fueled him and kept him alive. Coming back from near death may have made the Sith Lord stronger, and even more dangerous.''

Source : Darth Maul: Death Sentence #01 (2012)

Anger sustained Maul during TCW:

So Vader holds on to life at the edge of the lava flow, because he is such a condemned for Obi-Wan, such an anger for whose happens in his life. And that same type of focus, hatred what sustains Maul.''

Source : Star Wars Celebration Clone Wars Season Five Premiere

If anger and hatred are sustaining and making maul stronger than logically maul's anger and the need for growing for revenge would only serve as sources of combative strength.

And of course there's Maul showcasing new abilities he's never shown before, like

-creating visions of himself from across the galaxy(or from across a planet) for other force users:

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

https://youtu.be/4wOjbF6b1CY?t=2m39s

So given Maul improved as a duelist, has had 15 years to grow in power, has been collecting knowledge and holocrons, has been active, and has learned new abilities, and has more of the emotions that have driven his past versions and drive Darksiders in general. I think it's fair to say that Rebels maul is prime maul.

Misconceptions

There've been misconceptions brought from quotes that have been taken out of context. For example:

Dave Filoni : “I felt strongly Obi-Wan, if he could help it, would really rather not kill Darth Maul. Obi-Wan is at a point, in my mind, where he’s become rather enlightened. He’s been in the desert discovering who he is, really evolving as a character. He’s not that young brash kid that went into a fight with Maul out of anger for the fact his master was killed. It can’t be that same situation this is so many years later. Maul, for his part, is pretty much hung up on that exact moment. That’s where his life went wrong. He can’t let it go.”

Filoni hopes the duel, and the moments after, are the perfect representation of one of the most important conflicts in all of Star Wars.

“It really is to express the difference between the Jedi and the Sith. Which is the Jedi become selfless and the Sith remain selfish. When pressed, because Obi-Wan is protecting someone else in the end, he does fight. But because he is so true and knows who he is in that moment, you can’t defeat that. So Obi-Wan is going to strike down Maul because Maul is such a broken and lost person, which I think is why in the end you see Maul being cradled by Obi-Wan.''

Yes, Maul was broken and lost...

As a character/"person"

the quote is talking about light vs dark side and how Kenobi as a lightsider as a representation of the lightside being the better path. This would also apply to TCW/TPM Maul.

For another example:

Witwer: He has this ambition that still exists inside him and that ambition is eating him up –especially now that he’s past his prime and his glory years. Yeah, he’s a sadder character than we perhaps remember in Clone Wars.

yet again, context. Maul is past his prime and his "glory years" and is a "sadder character". This isn't talking about maul's combative abilities.

Conclusion

Regardless. Even if people want to say, "we don't know, not enough info", fine. But arguing or acting as of TCW maul is superior or lowering characters who get scaling off of rebels maul(Ahsoka/Kenobi etc.) on the basis of rebels maul being post prime when all the evidence points to the opposite is completely illogical and is only diminishing a great character.

Rebels Maul is prime Maul

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Mbld0O1Dj_g/maxresdefault.jpg

Thx.

Yep I tend to agree Rebels Maul the strongest version, though I do think his physical strength probably dropped a bit. People underestimate him because of how he lost to Obi-wan, but tbh if even someone as strong as Vader fought Obi-wan while he was protecting Luke, they could very well lose.

I never got that either, how is losing to Obi-Wan a bad feat? He's among the greatests duelists of his time.

@kbroskywalker: Very nicely done. Though I'll admit you were the person that I least expected to make a thread about Maul.

So does Maul have a penis or not?

Great post! There still seems to be a lot of confusion over just what happened in 'Twin Suns', and I think this post addresses those issues very well.

THIS is actually well made- I'm surprised- but sorry, Rebels Maul is NOT in his prime. He's considerably past it. Witwer clearly states that Maul is past his prime AND glory years. He's talking about two things. I mean, Rebels Maul has admitted that he cannot beat the crappiest iteration of Vader ever to be seen. And Maul's physicals atrophied- therefore, his strength and speed, which are important to Juyo, his style, also decreased, meaning his dueling ability would go a bit down. Add to the fact he practiced NOTHING for SIXTEEN years (not fifteen, and in one year your ability can seriously change) and he was living in bad conditions in a junkyard.

Also, SWR Maul didn't become stronger because of what Salmara said in the Clone Wars. During the Clone Wars era, Maul didn't come back from the brink of death. That's what made him stronger, and his survival was sustained by hatred. Given that did not happen, Maul would not get an auto boost.

Searching for artifacts would only increase his KNOWLEDGE of the Force, like lore and philosophy, not power. That place was just an old battlefield, and what Maul REALLY wanted was the Holocron, which contained the key to your question, not new powers. TCW Maul also has much better feats with the Force.

It stands like this:

TCW Maul>TPM Maul>SWR Maul.

@frankenmidget:

Nah, it aligns with his motives.

He's also of the opinion that Ben is Kenobi's prime. Proving that Maul saw improvement over the years in canon aids this outlook.

Honestly, I believe Canon is having everyone (Vader, Maul, Kenobi) get stronger between trilogies, rather than become a shell of their former selves as Lucas once envisioned.

I agree. It strikes me that way as well. Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if they make Vader in his prime Yoda-tier.

This isn't an opinion, its fact, regardless of where you view maul's place Kenobi has a canonical statement stating he strengthened his connection and a canonical statement saying he improved as a swordsman and additional statements of authority saying kenobi progressed.

That being said, yea, it does serve my purposes. Because we know Rebels Kenobi>Rebels Maul by virtue of

a. beating him

b. statements of authority saying that

Additionally it can be used for Ahsoka who stalemated him and while being implied to be less powerful by starwars.com, is also implied to be a superior duelist by feloni

And finally off course it can be used for vader who by virtue of beating ben kenobi and ahsoka is forever more skillled than a prime version of one of the msot skilled siht lords in history.

Thanks

I may be making a rebels maul respect thread in the future...

Thanks

Considering that Anakin as of ROTS was supposed to be edging his way into their tier and Vader is currently being displayed as > Anakin, I wouldn't be suprised if Vader will be considered a solid '9'.

We've already had this conversation about Maul.
I feel the same way as you Kbro, but Ben being his prime isn't a 'fact', it's a logical inference based on the knowledge that he's progressed in certain areas (swordsmanship and likely the force).
Remember what we talked about.

S:^)

@kbroskywalker: concede Kbro!

@thesithmaster:

THIS is actually well made-

Thanks.

I'm surprised- but sorry, Rebels Maul is NOT in his prime. He's considerably past it. Witwer clearly states that Maul is past his prime AND glory years. He's talking about two things.

"Prime" doesn't have to refer specifically to combatively power. What prime is referring to can only be looked at through the context of the quote:

Witwer: He has this ambition that still exists inside him and that ambition is eating him up –especially now that he’s past his prime and his glory years. Yeah, he’s a sadder character than we perhaps remember in Clone Wars.

Note the underlined portions

Nowhere is combative power mentioned, so there's no reason to assume combative power is whats being referred to. Rather its talking about maul's ambition and state as a character. Which makes sense because back in tcw maul ruled a planet and challenged sids for galactic supremacy

I mean, Rebels Maul has admitted that he cannot beat the crappiest iteration of Vader ever to be seen.

Now please give me a statement or authoritative quote saying tcw maul can beat this "crappy" version of vader, or your point is completely moot.

And Maul's physicals atrophied- therefore, his strength and speed, which are important to Juyo, his style, also decreased, meaning his dueling ability would go a bit down.

Force augmentation from being more powerful can easily supersede that. But this aside, it doesn't matter talking about maul overall as a duielist because maul is canonically very good comapred to his tcw incarnation

and he was living in bad conditions in a junkyard.

No he wasn't. Read the first part of the force section.

Also, SWR Maul didn't become stronger because of what Salmara said in the Clone Wars. During the Clone Wars era, Maul didn't come back from the brink of death. That's what made him stronger, and his survival was sustained by hatred. Given that did not happen, Maul would not get an auto boost.

The point is that his hatred and anger have been shown as sources of strength which is why Maul was able to get stronger from almost dying.

Searching for artifacts would only increase his KNOWLEDGE of the Force, like lore and philosophy, not power. That place was just an old battlefield, and what Maul REALLY wanted was the Holocron, which contained the key to your question, not new powers.

Knowledge correlates with growth. And Maul has showcased new powers. But the general point was that Maul was active during his 15 years and thus would be growing in power.

TCW Maul also has much better feats with the Force.

Rebels Maul has had 15 years to grow in power from his TCW conterpart and hence can replicate any of cw maul's showings.

It stands like this:

TCW Maul>TPM Maul>SWR Maul.

Rebels Maul is canonically a better duelist and is logically more powerful.

Your opinion is noted, but nah

Make me

Yes I remember,

Maul isn't canonically more powerful than his prior self force wise. But Kenobi is:

https://youtu.be/8eIZsJsck7A?t=6m23s

edit: rebels recon says he's :"very likely' deepening himself so if someone was desperate enough they could try and argue its not definiive

@kbroskywalker:

rebels recon says he's :"very likely' deepening himself so if someone was desperate enough they could try and argue its not definiive

Your trying to spin that claiming this isn't definitive evidence that he is stated to be in his prime would be desperate?

Come on, your better than trying to demean the opposition, especially when trying to spin that statement as stating him to be in his prime is very questionable.

Yeah he's definitely deepened his connection in the force. There are multiple things suggesting so as well, (including at the end of the Ahsoka Novel, Ben is meditating and hears Qui-Gon tell him to 'let go').

However, there is no statement of Rebels being his canonical prime.

All the evidence points to it, and I can say with confidence that it is his prime, but I just take issue with claiming it as factual.

---

Again, I agree with you. I just don't agree with giving Ben's position as his prime more factual credence than it actually has.

So....

Vader>Valk

@kbroskywalker:

I don't really have a solid opinion of Valk, so I can't argue with you on that subject.

@kbroskywalker: oh I'll make you *wink*

@emperor339:

Your trying to spin that claiming this isn't definitive evidence that he is stated to be in his prime would be desperate?

To clarify, I'm saying that if someone is using that "Likely" qualifier to argue kenobi isn't in his prime in light of all the evidence we've been given as a whole then yes its pretty damn desperate.

However, there is no statement of Rebels being his canonical prime.

All the evidence points to it, and I can say with confidence that it is his prime, but I just take issue with claiming it as factual.

Its basically is fact at this point. Otherwise we can't take basic things like "ROTS Anakin is prime Anakin" or "Sids is the best sith lord of history combatively" as fact if we're going to use the term "factual" so strictly. Because technically speaking their are avenues of reasoning(incredibly far fetched ones) you could make circumventing all the statements that apply to those characters as well.

@kbroskywalker:

To clarify, I'm saying that if someone is using that "Likely" qualifier to argue kenobi isn't in his prime in light of all the evidence we've been given as a whole then yes its pretty damn desperate.

Fair enough.

I thought you were saying trying to argue it isn't a canonical statement of his prime would be desperate, which is silly.

Its basically is fact at this point. Otherwise we can't take basic things like "ROTS Anakin is prime Anakin" or "Sids is the best sith lord of history combatively" as fact if we're going to use the term "factual" so strictly. Because technically speaking their are avenues of reasoning(incredibly far fetched ones) you could make circumventing all the statements that apply to those characters as well.

Fair enough, though Sidious actually has statements literally defining him as the most powerful Sith Lord ever and Anakin does have statements directly stating that he has never been so powerful as in ROTS, after which of course he stops being Anakin.

If Ben had a statement like that I'd back off, but until then we can only glean that he's in his prime from what evidence we have of his growth in certain areas (Lightsaber swordsmanship and Connection to the force/Spirituality).

---

And besides, I'm not trying to circumvent the notion that he's in his prime. I'm just trying to seperate logical inferences from evidence.

@emperor339:

Fair enough, though Sidious actually has statements literally defining him as the most powerful Sith Lord ever and Anakin does have statements directly stating that he has never been so powerful as in ROTS

"But but, what if, just what if Anakin was more powerful but less skilled than he was a month from rots? Sids can be more powerful but he can also be a terrible duelist! Maybe Kun's more skilled. Maybe power is talking about him ruling the galaxy, not actual combative power!"

If someone's desperate enough they can circumvent just about anything with speculative, baseless, and farfetched reasoning

If Ben had a statement like that I'd back off, but until then we can only glean that he's in his prime from what evidence we have of his growth in certain areas (Lightsaber swordsmanship and Connection to the force/Spirituality).

About this "certain areas" point. Combatively for a force user, your ability as a duelist and your connection to the force are pretty much it. Physical ability, tk use, tp ect. are just aspects of those two factors.

And besides, I'm not trying to circumvent the notion that he's in his prime. I'm just trying to seperate logical inferences from evidence.

I know.

We're more or less in agreement here semantic differences aside

You can't make me wink bruh, I make myself wink

@kbroskywalker:

I think you might be exaggerating how much of a danger people are that would try and circumvent the facts so.

It's not we can't then fight them with 'logic', which is the whole point of my argument.

But yeah, we are in agreement on the situation.

@kbroskywalker:

bout this "certain areas" point. Combatively for a force user, your ability as a duelist and your connection to the force are pretty much it. Physical ability, tk use, tp ect. are just aspects of those two factors.

True, but all we know is that his connection has deepened in some way based on Qui-Gon's teachings and meditating in the desert.

At best it confirms that he's closer to the force and not weaker than ROTS Kenobi. We just don't know how that fits in combatively.

Honestly, IMO I think the majority of his growth in the force was spiritual, which makes sense and it's what everything seems to point to.

--

Also physical ability isn't purely via force augmentation, though that is a massive factor.

Mace noted that Yoda was getting slower over the years, and that's certainly not due to a decrease in power/connection to the force.

@emperor339:

Nah, there's still a ton of viners/kmcers who actually try to dispute rots sids being the most powerful sith all time, and several who use near replicas of the arguments I posted to argue that crap.

Off course those people are unlikely to budge anyway regardless

@emperor339:

Off couse it isn't purely force aug, but physical abilities are an aspect of how good you are as a swordsman. regardless of how much force aug or age factor in

@kbroskywalker:

Yeah they factor in, but they aren't everything.

Regardless, in regards to other aspects, I've been given no reason to believe that Canon Ben has atrophied at all, wheras the areas we know about he's improved in.

@emperor339: I think you're missing my point. If physical abilities are an aspect of how good kenobi is as a swordsman, then if kenobi is a very good swordman in comparison to his tcw self(which is a reason for why the fight was shorter), that would factor in and account for any possible physical degradement kenobi may or may not have had.

@kbroskywalker:

The problem is that's essentially trying to fill in the blanks.

Eventually we will get more information, I'm sure and I'd like to wait on that before making estimates.

It's because he lost in 3 seconds, but that happened because the writers wanted to make it a samurai fight for some reason.

Shit thread tbh

@kbroskywalker said:

Nowhere is combative power mentioned, so there's no reason to assume combative power is whats being referred to.

Fair enough.

Now please give me a statement or authoritative quote saying tcw maul can beat this "crappy" version of vader,

I don't need to. There is NO "statement or authoriatative quote" stating that Obi-Wan can beat Ki-Adi-Mundi; this does not debunk the fact that Obi-Wan can beat Mundi. TCW Maul has better feats as a combatant- he wins. There is no statement that says otherwise.

Also, you put too much weight in statements. Actual feats/the actual comic or novel or movie or episode are at least as canonical as statements.

or your point is completely moot.

No it's not; or else we would need a ton of statements. By your logic, without a statement that Anakin can beat Adi Gallia or that Kit Fisto can beat Ezra Bridger, we cannot be sure.

Force augmentation from being more powerful

It's not a fact that Rebels Maul is more powerful; he has less feats- and the feats he has aren't as good as the ones from TCW/SoD. Also, if there is anything Rebels Maul atrophied in, it's physicals; not overpowering Ahsoka Tano is kinda meh compared to his TCW version, that has physcially wrecked Kenobi in battle.

But this aside, it doesn't matter talking about maul overall as a duielist

YES IT DOES. So, now you're saying "doesn't matter comparing them as duelists?" That seems like an automatic concession to me. As I've explained, Juyo is a style that relies on strength and speed; if your physicals go down, so will your prowess in a duel- I'm not speaking about techincal skill- I'm speaking on how Maul would perform in a combative situation. And that's basically what we are discussing here- who is a better combatant.

because maul is canonically very good comapred to his tcw incarnation

How is Maul "canonically good compared to his TCW iteration"? Because of the Filoni statement? Let's debunk that:

• It says "people who are really good don't have long fights." Yoda and Sidious, two excellent fighters and the best of their day, had a very long fight. So Maul+Kenobi>>Yoda and Sidious, right? No. Filoni is just destroying continuity and lowballing the best fighters when comparing them to other top tier fighters that are below them- so that doesn't work. ROTS>>>Filoni in canonicity.
• That comes from Filoni, someone who is a Maul hater, and has stated that Ahsoka can be somehow superior to him- which is flat out false, according to feats and a website much less biased than Filoni. The Ahsoka statement by Filoni also painted Ahsoka as superior to Yoda and Prime Kenobi, and a considerably pre prime Vader as superior to Yoda.

Now that your main asset is out of the way...

No he wasn't.

How is this so? He was in the lower levels of a rocky temple deserted for millenia, with no way to get out, scarce supplies of food, drink, and no way to protect himself from winds/storms and no way to heal illnesses. Harsh conditions affect Old Maul, as seen in 'Twin Suns.'

The point is that his hatred and anger have been shown as sources of strength which is why Maul was able to get stronger from almost dying.

Hate+anger have only boosted Maul right after TPM- when he was brutally maimed and nearly dying. Right after 'The Lawless' and SoD, he didn't suffer such terrible injuries, so he wouldn't draw from that source to boost him.

Knowledge correlates with growth.

In the Force, perhaps. But Maul has no new powers that can be or he has applied in combat- he has not showcased better feats- and he has shown MUCH LESS of a willigness to use the Force than he did back in the days of the Clone War, like TPM Maul. SWR Maul is a discount TPM Maul when it comes to battle- little use of the Force in combat, double-bladed saber. Except for talking- he does it a lot mid-fight in Rebels, but never did it in TPM.

And Maul has showcased new powers.

Holocron things from the Nightsisters or Jedi/Sith really don't count as a combative power; the illusions he planted in Ezra's mind were also easier to make due to the mental connection between Maul/Ezra after the severed Holocron connection. But anyway, this was not done in a combative situation. Maul showcased Push, Grip, and Choke in TCW. As for Lightsaber Throw, Maul has done it in the CW era.

Any other combative power Maul showcased in Rebels that he didn't in TCW?

Rebels Maul has had 15 years to grow in power from his TCW conterpart and hence can replicate any of cw maul's showings.

What is the basis for this? Logic? Please. He has not matched his good feats in TCW- and feats matters MUCH more than your "logic" in combat. Anyway, even if he is more powerful, he uses it much less- and what's the purpose/advantage of having a tool if you really don't use it?

Rebels Maul is canonically a better duelist

According to a quote from a Maul hater that is known to say stupid lies such as Ahsoka Tano>Yoda. This quote also implies SWR Maul and Kenobi are out of Yoda and ROTS Sidious's league.

Nice try though.

and is logically more powerful.

Your "logic" won't help you when we're discussing who's better as a combatant, sorry to tell you the cold truth.

Your opinion is noted,

It isn't just "my opinion"; it's the truth. You should stick it in your mind, once and for all, and put an end to your quest of spreading lies about Maul.

but nah

"Nah" to what? TCW Maul>Rebels Maul? It is like this: TCW Maul>TPM Maul>Rebels Maul. TCW Maul>>Rebels Maul.

@thesithmaster:

I don't need to. There is NO "statement or authoriatative quote" stating that Obi-Wan can beat Ki-Adi-Mundi; this does not debunk the fact that Obi-Wan can beat Mundi. TCW Maul has better feats as a combatant- he wins. There is no statement that says otherwise.

Also, you put too much weight in statements.

Except there is a statement saying otherwise.

Actual feats/the actual comic or novel or movie or episode are at least as canonical as statements.

Totally irrelevant because we don't have tcw maul beating vader so its just your opinion. And a subjective user's comparisons of feats is not "at least equal" tostatements of authority let alone canonical statements on offical sw material(rebels recon). Ultimately whether you consider tcw maul's feats better than vader's is just an opinion. And an opinion doesn't supersede and gets overuled by cnaonical statements and statements of authority. Source material can be canon, your own interpretation of source material isn't.

You thinking vader is compartively crappy to maul because you find his feats to be less impressive is just an opinion. When authority on canon says otherwise, that overules your opinion.

It says "people who are really good don't have long fights." Yoda and Sidious, two excellent fighters and the best of their day, had a very long fight. So Maul+Kenobi>>Yoda and Sidious, right? No. Filoni is just destroying continuity and lowballing the best fighters when comparing them to other top tier fighters that are below them- so that doesn't work. ROTS>>>Filoni in canonicity

its too bad neither yoda nor sidious were mentioned here. The quote clearly was talking about Kenobi and Maul not Yoda and Sidious. Yoda and Sidious did not have a fight based on samurai style fighting. Sidious and Yoda did not have multiple fights with each other before this. Yoda and Sidious have nothing to do with this statement.

That comes from Filoni, someone who is a Maul hater, and has stated that Ahsoka can be somehow superior to him- which is flat out false, according to feats and a website much less biased than Filoni. The Ahsoka statement by Filoni also painted Ahsoka as superior to Yoda and Prime Kenobi, and a considerably pre prime Vader as superior to Yoda.

it comes from authority on canon material. That's what matters here. Additionally, something is not "flat out false" because you don't like a statement. And starwars.com and fleoni's statements are not contradictory. maul can be a better force user while Tano a better duelist.

Furthermore, the context of Feloni's statement about potential enimies for ahsoka. Is Yoda or Ben Kenobi a potential enemy for Ahsoka? If not you're attacking a strawman. And as has already been established, Yoda was on his death bed. Yoda was three years off from only being able to stay alive via force use.

This is an appeal to incredulity that has absolutely nothing to do with the statement in question here.

How is this so? He was in the lower levels of a rocky temple deserted for millenia, with no way to get out, scarce supplies of food, drink, and no way to protect himself from winds/storms and no way to heal illnesses. Harsh conditions affect Old Maul, as seen in 'Twin Suns.'

Both of your assertions are speulative, the first one is "flat out false". Maul not spend his exile on Malachor.

Hate+anger have only boosted Maul right after TPM- when he was brutally maimed and nearly dying. Right after 'The Lawless' and SoD, he didn't suffer such terrible injuries, so he wouldn't draw from that source to boost him.

What? You have a quote for this? Maul only gets boosts when he's weak/dying?

In the Force, perhaps. But Maul has no new powers that can be or he has applied in combat- he has not showcased better feats- and he has shown MUCH LESS of a willigness to use the Force than he did back in the days of the Clone War, like TPM Maul. SWR Maul is a discount TPM Maul when it comes to battle- little use of the Force in combat, double-bladed saber. Except for talking- he does it a lot mid-fight in Rebels, but never did it in TPM.

He doesn't have to showcase better feats. He was TCW maul in his past and so he had all the power TCW Maul had. Its up to you to prove he lost that power. And Maul has been perfectly willing to use the force as he did vs the seventh sister.This

Him not having the opportunity to showcase his upper limit tk wise doesn't prove anything.

Any other combative power Maul showcased in Rebels that he didn't in TCW?

Being able to decieve other force users with visions of yourself is a combative power as it can be used in combat. Him learning new techniques means his mastery of the force is growing. And the more mastery you acheive, the better you can apply your powers.

What is the basis for this? Logic? Please. He has not matched his good feats in TCW- and feats matters MUCH more than your "logic" in combat. Anyway, even if he is more powerful, he uses it much less- and what's the purpose/advantage of having a tool if you really don't use it?

Maul uses it much less because we see him less. Absence of evidence=/Evidence of absence. Maul not having an opportunity to pull a freighter doesn't mean he can't do it.

According to a quote from a Maul hater that is known to say stupid lies such as Ahsoka Tano>Yoda. This quote also implies SWR Maul and Kenobi are out of Yoda and ROTS Sidious's league.

Nice try though.

Addressed already.

Also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

It isn't just "my opinion"; it's the truth. You should stick it in your mind, once and for all, and put an end to your quest of spreading lies about Maul.

Your opinion is not truth

ah" to what? TCW Maul>Rebels Maul? It is like this: TCW Maul>TPM Maul>Rebels Maul. TCW Maul>>Rebels Maul.

Nah to your belief that what you consider more impressive trumps canonical authority you don't like

would love to hear why

Nope. Nope. Nope. That's a big, fat NO.

.

Ignore him tbh. He also thinks AOTC Anakin > Arcann and AOTC Anakin > ROTJ Luke and won't explain why.

@kbroskywalker said:

Except there is a statement saying otherwise.

Saying otherwise to what? That Obi-Wan wouldn't beat Ki-Adi-Mundi? Or that TCW Maul would beat Rebels Vader?

Totally irrelevant because we don't have tcw maul beating vader

What? So, just because two characters never fought each other, doesn't mean one of them will win for sure? By your logic, have an example: we don't know for sure who's going to win in a fight between Darth Sidious and Plo Koon. I say Sidious, someone disagrees. Why? Because they have never fought each other, and there isn't a statement from the god Dave Filoni to confirm that Sidious would beat Plo. Pathetic logic. Maul has achieved greater things as a combatant (beating Savage Opress in five seconds, ragdolling Obi-Wan Kenobi, beating Grievous on one occasion) than Rebels Vader has (defeating Ahsoka Tano, someone who has been confirmed to be a slight inferior of a considerably post prime Maul.)

so its just your opinion.

By that logic, Vader>Luminara Unduli or Ahsoka>Grand Inquisitor is just an opinion. You don't need a quote for everything, except if you can't make logical, educated guesses/assumptions/think for yourself.

And a subjective user's comparisons of feats is not "at least equal" tostatements of authority

It's not "a user's comparison of feats," it's feats in general, or at least what is depicted in the story (events, fights). Source material>your beloved god and master Dave Filoni. Period.

let alone canonical statements on offical sw material(rebels recon).

"Canonical" statements from a person biased against Maul (given how he's written the poor character, a punching bag for a warrior inferior to him) that conflict with a Star Wars movie, that's miles above said person's words in canonicity?

Ultimately whether you consider tcw maul's feats better than vader's is just an opinion.

No, TCW Maul has defeated better combatants than the one Rebels Vader has. By your one-sided logic, everything is an opinion. Even Filoni's statements. Him writing the things does not equate to him being the "Word of God". The source material, that is also written by and created by other human beings with feelings and thoughts, overrides Filoni's opinion, which is basically the only thing you're using against me.

And an opinion doesn't supersede and gets overuled by cnaonical statements and statements of authority.

I'm really getting the feeling you can't think for yourself or make logical assumptions/educated guesses- for you, every single detail of information has to be spoon fed by a Lucasfilm worker.

Source material can be canon, your own interpretation of source material isn't.

Source material IS canon- much more canon than Filoni, who is a person that is perfectly able to lie- and why are you bashing MY interpretation of source material, which happens to be much less biased and one-sided than yours, which by the way, also isn't Canon? If you can't interpret stuff, you can't have opinions, and then you can't even make a guess or assumption- or figure out a fact.

You thinking vader is compartively crappy to maul because you find his feats to be less impressive is just an opinion.

Your beloved Vader's feats, as of Rebels, are below Maul's- whether YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. Maul has defeated MORE ACCOMPLISHED FOES than Vader- they have more feats- and better feats. Unless you think defeating Asajj Ventress (Kenobi, Savage) or defeating Plo Koon (Savage) or defeating Eeth Koth, Kenobi (Grievous), which are main feats of the people Maul has defeated, are better than the only worthy name Rebels Vader has defeated (Ahsoka's) feats, which are beating two Inquisitors, and being forced to flee by a considerably post prime Maul, who has been confirmed by an UNBIASED source to be superior to Tano. Obi-Wan Kenobi and General Grievous have more accomplishments in combat than Ahsoka- and they are better- therefore, they're superior to her. Difficult? And Maul has defeated them, while Vader only defeated Tano. TCW Maul>>Rebels Vader. At this point I'm repeating myself just for you to actually open your brain to new knowledge.

When authority on canon says otherwise,

When has "canonical authority" contradicted TCW Maul>>Rebels Vader, which can be proven if you have just a bit of brain mass after learning all the pair's feats? Also, things "canonical authority" might say could be stupid. If one of your "gods" says Eeth Koth or Adi Gallia can beat Sidious, that's false.

its too bad neither yoda nor sidious were mentioned here.

It talks about "very good people", as in duelists. Yoda and Sidious aren't very good? They're, like, good or average? OK. Also, sorry for teaching you, people don't have to be mentioned DIRECTLY to be mentioned. You only see things that are two centimeters away from your eyes; you can't see more than that. You only see things in plain sight. If you want to have success in life, please extend your vision.

The quote clearly was talking about Kenobi and Maul not Yoda and Sidious.

Kenobi and Maul definitely were under the spotlight here- but there is more aside from the spotlight. Even relatively dumb people know this.

Yoda and Sidious did not have a fight based on samurai style fighting.

They had a fight in the same goddamn universe- if they're very good, according to your beloved canonical god- they should have a short fight, like in seconds. But they fought, for 4 minutes and a half on panel or something. And that's longer than average- if you compare it to other SW duels on-panel. They fought off-panel for a while, because it cut to Anakin vs Obi-Wan once or twice.

Sidious and Yoda did not have multiple fights with each other before this.

What does this matter? If Samurai fights are so short and deadly, surely Samurai don't fight six times before the final match- one of them dies in the first match, given how deadly and quick they are. There is no time for an escape- and it would be against a Samurai's code of honor to flee.

it comes from authority on canon material. That's what matters here.

You speak as if Dave Filoni- a sentient human being, that happens to be the one spreading these cursed, wicked, and treacherous statements that are labeled as lies to anyone with proper eyesight- is incapable of lying. No. Every human is capable of lying. Filoni disguises it even better using his position of power.

Additionally, something is not "flat out false" because you don't like a statement.

No, it's flat out false because that goddamn statement which you put your faith in contradicts other source material that currently stands in a tier of canonicity leagues above Filoni's one-sided, biased, and Maul-hating words.

And starwars.com and fleoni's statements are not contradictory.

They actually are. Filoni says that as of SWR S2, only Vader and Sidious can match Ahsoka blow for blow. Starwars.com says that Kanan agreed to split up the group (WHICH IS TRUE, BTW), with the logical choice being pairing Maul with the weakest of the Jedi [Ezra]. If you don't understand what this logic means, I'll explain it to you: if you have a group of say, four, and you're making teams, the most fair way to do the teams is pair the best one with the worst one, and the two in between. So that the best one has the weakest one, as to make things fair. And, (perhaps) the big reveal...

Filoni's statement about Ahsoka is not canon. HOW? You might ask. I'll explain it to you, in case you haven't seen it- I'm not putting ignoring the obvious truth to suit your own agenda beyond you. Filoni posted the "we all felt that only Vader and Emperor could match Ahsoka as of now (3 BBY). Firstly, it says we all felt- that's just a feeling. Feelings are even less true than opinions. And, it was posted in the News+Blog section, which Leland Chee, a member of the Lucasfilm story group, has said is non-canon:

Leland Chee: The Story Group does not review the content of the blogs.

Leland Chee: Generally, news and blogs themselves do not generate new fictional content. Story looks at Ep Guides and Databank.

You can check it out in Chee's Twitter page, or the Darth Vader vs Ahsoka Tano Circumstances blog.

Now that I've proven that what your dearest and most adored god doesn't HAVE to be canon, and hasn't been on one occasion, we'll move on.

maul can be a better force user while Tano a better duelist.

Maul's better than Tano in both categories- given he has better accomplishments as a combatant, and much better+longer training.

A fight between Ahsoka Tano and Maul would go down to this:

That should be... quite enough.

Furthermore, the context of Feloni's statement about potential enimies for ahsoka.

OK, but Rebels is about the crew of the Ghost and their fight against THE EMPIRE- while Vader and Sidious are Ahsoka's enemies, Maul is neither a friend or foe of the Rebellion- as of S2, he is a friend of Ezra. Maul's a secondary antagonist, not really involved in the big scale of things, so he's not a real enemy for Ahsoka- if this really is only talking about potential enemies. Maul is kinda neutral in his own weird way- he seeks revenge against the Empire, but also attacks the Rebels to some extent.

And as has already been established, Yoda was on his death bed.

• Who established this? You?
• Also, if he REALLY was on his deathbed, he wouldn't be able to survive seven years, and six years after S2 of Rebels train Luke very proficiently in saber combat, spar with Luke, or even lift an X-wing.

Yoda was three years off from only being able to stay alive via force use.

He survived seven more years- and in the sixth year, he lifted an X-wing. And sparred with Luke. Secondly, wise guy, how do you think Jedi live much longer than the average lifespan of a non-Force sensitive of their species? BECAUSE THEY USE THE FORCE. How do you think Yoda survived 877 years up until ROTS? Not just because of his species, also because of the Force. And before you attack me with apparent lack of quotes- I'm thinking for myself and figuring things out by analyzing them, a basic skill. Speaking of basic skills- Yoda using the Force to keep himself alive is one of them. Not seeing how using the Force to stay alive would seriously hinder him- given he was doing in ROTS, and still was able to fight Sidious for a good while.

Both of your assertions are speulative,

The second one definitely isn't, given how spending days and days on the desert made Maul lose chunks of his legs, feel hunger and thirst, and even led him to the thought that he could die there. So the second one is not speculative. The first one? Do you have a better way of describing the place in which Maul was until he met Ezra, who was vital to getting Maul out of there?

Maul not spend his exile on Malachor.

Where did Maul spend his exile, then? His ship crashed on Malachor; he was stranded. Unless Maul is a powerful sorcerer capable of conjuring ships and/or teleportation. If the latter, he'd simply find out Sidious's location, teleport there, stab the Dark Lord through the back, then leave. If Maul had a ship on Malachor, he'd definitely use it- not leave in a TIE Fighter, that has a tracking beacon and can be easily tracked down by the Empire.

What? You have a quote for this?

Is a quote really your only means of getting information? If true, that is rather sad.

Maul only gets boosts when he's weak/dying?

Well, the quote you talked about said: The Sith Lord drew on his hatred and rage to survive... and somehow, being so close to death made the Sith Lord stronger. Or something like that. I also saw his rage and hate fueled him and kept him alive. But the rage+hate only kept him alive, and the survival of such an event was what strengthened him. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger", as they say.

He doesn't have to showcase better feats.

If he wants to be superior as a combatant, yes he does. Feats>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your logic.

He was TCW maul in his past and so he had all the power TCW Maul had.

*Sigh* BUT HE DID NOT PRACTICE. For example, I'm excellent at a sport. I play it every day, all the time. But then, for a period of sixteen years, I only play that sport, like, six times every year, with a gap of two months in between them. Naturally, my skills will drop.

And Maul has been perfectly willing to use the force as he did vs the seventh sister.

He used it ONCE... wow. I mean, TPM Maul refrains from the Force most of the time, but he used it to dispose of TPM Kenobi. TPM/SWR Maul only dispatch their opponents with the Force if their opponents are much weaker than them and are pretty Jedi Knight-like level (TPM Kenobi, SS.)

Him not having the opportunity

Maul didn't have the opportunity? Let's see who Maul fought in Rebels: The Fifth Brother, The Seventh Sister, The Eighth Brother, Ahsoka Tano, Kanan Jarrus (twice) and Obi-Wan Kenobi. Let's see who Maul fought in TCW/SoD: Asajj Ventress, Obi-Wan Kenobi (three times), Savage Opress, Pre Vizsla, Darth Sidious and General Grievous (twice). He faced more Force wielders in TCW, but he had restrictions: he wasn't using the Force against Vizsla to gain the Mandalorians's trust, he could not touch Sidious with the Force (basically no one except for Yoda and the Ones could). In Rebels, he can do it... but he only used it against Eighth Brother as a last resort manuever to save Ezra from having his hand chopped out and thrown off the Temple, and against Seventh Sister to make it possible for Ezra to murder the woman and come closer to the DS.

to showcase his upper limit tk wise

He faced two challenging opponents in Ahsoka and Obi-Wan. He had a chance to "showcase his upper limit TK-wise."

Being able to decieve other force users with visions of yourself is a combative power as it can be used in combat.

He never did it in DIRECT COMBAT, though.

Him learning new techniques means his mastery of the force is growing. And the more mastery you acheive, the better you can apply your powers.

Knowledge =/= power. You can design an OK plan to infiltrate a military base and have the budget, crew and other necessary means to execute it: you can design an excellent plan to infiltrate a military base, but not have the budget, crew and other necessary means to execute it, thus making it impossible to follow that plan. SWR Maul is ahead of TCW Maul in the knowledge/idea part, but TCW Maul is ahead of his SWR counterpart in executing his knowledge+plans, and in combat, execution is what ultimately matters- and TCW Maul is ahead of SWR Maul in execution, thus making him more viable in a combative sense.

Maul uses it much less because we see him less.

We see him in less episodes but in roughly the same amount of fights, or at least the chance to fight.

Also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Against me, you've always found yourself desperate and in lack of a better argument, so you spammed insults against me... but now, you're attacking MY ARGUMENTS instead of ME, but in a much more elaborate way... I feel like I need to congratulate you on your creativity, but instead I will laugh on how you devoted some of your time to finding Wikipedia pages on fallacious arguments and actually posting them, as an elaborate yet time-consuming and unnecessary way of getting at me.

Your opinion is not truth

No, but the things I'm stating are true. So that's not gonna dismantle my arguments.

Nah to your belief that what you consider more impressive trumps canonical authority you don't like

I consider TCW Maul and TPM Maul as more impressive than their Rebels counterpart because THAT IS THE TRUTH. I ACCEPT TRUTHS, UNLIKE YOU. You're only defending Rebels Maul because you can say that your beloved Ahsoka gave him a good fight, that your beloved Kenobi roflstomped him, and that the worst version of your beloved Vader is superior to Maul due to Maul and Ahsoka being near equals and Vader beating Ahsoka solidly. I can see through you perfectly. Please drop the obvious bias, and don't lowball characters. It will really help you gain a respectable reputation on the Vine, which is exactly the contrary to which you have now.

*Sigh... More verbal beatings for me to put up with. I'm just going to ignore this topic and let other users manage it.

This was a solid post; nice job!

Maul is trash! Embrace it!

jk ^_^

"Verbal beatings"? Hyperbole much?

@thesithmaster:

I don't have time to address everything(for now at least) but I feel this needs to be addressed

Filoni's statement about Ahsoka is not canon. HOW? You might ask. I'll explain it to you, in case you haven't seen it- I'm not putting ignoring the obvious truth to suit your own agenda beyond you. Filoni posted the "we all felt that only Vader and Emperor could match Ahsoka as of now (3 BBY). Firstly, it says we all felt- that's just a feeling. Feelings are even less true than opinions. And, it was posted in the News+Blog section, which Leland Chee, a member of the Lucasfilm story group, has said is non-canon:

Leland Chee: The Story Group does not review the content of the blogs.

Leland Chee: Generally, news and blogs themselves do not generate new fictional content. Story looks at Ep Guides and Databank.

You can check it out in Chee's Twitter page, or the Darth Vader vs Ahsoka Tano Circumstances blog.

Neither quote says anything about stuff being non-canon, and the first one has nothing to do with feloni's statement that didn't happen in a blog.

Why does the creator, head of all animation products and(at the time) executive producer of rebels need to have his word reviewed by the star wars story group when he's talking about the show that he is the creator of, is an executive producer of, and produces for?

Now that I've proven that what your dearest and most adored god doesn't HAVE to be canon, and hasn't been on one occasion, we'll move on.

1, Bruh. The statement in my blog isn't canon because it was said by feloni, Its canon because it happens in Rebels Recon which is offically released star wars material that is actually published in the episode guide and its hwole premise is interviewing the Star Wars Story Group for information about Star Wars Rebels. It coming from a dude who has authority over Rebels is just the cherry on top

Against me, you've always found yourself desperate and in lack of a better argument,

so you spammed insults against me... but now, you're attacking MY ARGUMENTS instead of ME, but in a much more elaborate way... I feel like I need to congratulate you on your creativity, but instead I will laugh on how you devoted some of your time to finding Wikipedia pages on fallacious arguments and actually posting them, as an elaborate yet time-consuming and unnecessary way of getting at me.

Those weren't insults. I posted those links so you would understand at was wrong with your arguments as wikipedia can explain those terms way better then me. And no it wasn't time consuming, it took a single google search and a single copy and paste.

But let me try and explain this to you. Your attempt to discredit feloni's word is by definition an ad hominem. Instead of countering the validity of the quote(which happens to be on canonical material), you're trying to discredit Feloni. And

And the use of yoda and sidious, people who were not being discussed in the statement is definition by a strawman. You're trying to an apply an explanation for the reasoning behind why kenobi and maul fight was shown in a different way from the conventional sw duel to a fight between two users who were not involved in that style of fighting. Just because Yoda and Sidious are good duelists as well doesn't mean the statement also applies to them as their fight wasn't based on the more realistic samurai style of fighting. You're assuming that kenobi and maul being better are the only factors behind the shortness of the duel which(if you watched the link or just read the opening part of my blog) you would realize simply isn't true. If the context of the statement was referring to all force users/duelists or all very good duelists, you might have a point. But unfortuantley the statement is specifically an explanation for kenobi and maul.

Other things you should consider reading

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

Also

Your beloved Vader's feats, as of Rebels, are below Maul's

I don't ned to entertain this thanks to vader's superiority to ben kenobi but

no. TCW Maul's best feat is dragging a freighter under both positive and negative circumstances. vader's best feat is tanking being right in the middle of the explosion of a superweapon, A kind of explosion capable of bustingmultiple ships having just been injured via cheap shot by tano. Vader's feat is vastly better.

TCW Maul's best feat as a duelist are fighing evenly with grevious and struggling under favorable circumstances vs tcw kenobi and not getting stomped by a pre-prime windu in about 20 seconds. At this point Mace was per yoda dark rendevous only an equal to dooku. Rebels Vader's feats include beating ANH Kenobi who we now know has deepened his connection to the force and improved as a duelist for 15 years since TCW/SOD, Beating Ahsoka, someone who has fought evenly with an extended period of time with a canonically more skilled version of maul, beating a physically more advanced version of grevious in carbin. Vader's feats in canon are better.

Vader most importantly has canonical powerscaling over any version of maul by virtue of beating ben kenobi, has way better force feats, and has better performances vs better versions of the opponents maul as a duelist has matched/lost to.

This isn't hard, Rebels Vader is> any version of maul be it by statements or feats.

deal with it

Vader is>Dooku who was comparable to Yoda who is=RotS Sidious ;)