"Flak Bursts" vs. Shields in the movies...

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2004-04-05 12:04pm

I'm curious as to what the current concensus is on this.

I remember thinking "shields" when I saw shots impacting a short distance from flying LAATs (and appearing to "jostle" them a bit) and other instances.

I could be wrong, but I almost swear something similar happens to the Snowspeeders on Hoth.

Now according to the official literature I think Snowspeeders are not supposed to have shields, but I'm not sure about the LAATs.

Anyway, I never even considered "flak bursts" until I read these forums a couple of years ago.

What are the arguments in favor/against? Thanks.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-04-05 02:55pm

They're not flak-bursts; they're shield interactions.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-04-05 05:20pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:They're not flak-bursts; they're shield interactions.

Thank you George Lucas. I mean, you would have to be George Lucas to state such a thing as if it were absolute fact, without giving a source or reason. (*hint* give source or reason *hint*)

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-04-05 05:29pm

It's a topic that's been discussed here continuously since the beginning, so many of the veteran members are quite intimate with the subject, and many also consider a tired argument.

So basically, sources and evidence will probably be provided eventually after it is dug up.

General Zod · Post by **General Zod** » 2004-04-05 05:53pm

didn't someone also bring it up on here not too long ago? i seem to recall seeing a thread on the exact same subject not a month ago. . .

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-04-05 05:54pm

It's one of those topics that come up every so often, either by a n00b or someone with a bone to pick/agenda to subvert.

McC · Post by **McC** » 2004-04-05 06:04pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:It's one of those topics that come up every so often, either by a n00b or someone with a bone to pick/agenda to subvert.

Well, speaking as one of said-n00bs, I think it comes up so often because the current explanation is so counter-intuitive and as a result just about everyone is initially inclined to argue it (regarding the explanation of blasters/lasers, which ties into the flak bursts/shield interactions). This is why I argued/argue about it, at least (although I promised not to actually enter into any further debate on the topic until I came back with my analysis of the footage).

Kurgan wrote:What are the arguments in favor/against? Thanks.

Basically, as far as I understand it, the current idea is that since blasters/lasers are energy beam weapons and not particle weapons of any kind, there's nothing to 'flak,' and as such the 'sparking' we see as a result of energy weapons must be some kind of shielding interaction.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2004-04-05 06:14pm

Maybe someone should start cataloguing community decisions?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-04-05 06:27pm

Super-Gagme wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote:They're not flak-bursts; they're shield interactions.
Thank you George Lucas. I mean, you would have to be George Lucas to state such a thing as if it were absolute fact, without giving a source or reason. (*hint* give source or reason *hint*)

Use the fucking search button, fuckmook. I don't remember seeing you argue this subject before, so you can check your attitude at the door.

Super-Gagme wrote:Maybe someone should start cataloguing community decisions?

Read Your Stickies, Fuckmook.

I never thought there were flakbursts; how can an energy beam magically and arbitrarily "decide" to flakburst, and only sometimes (some bolts just fly by or vanish), and when its worth kilotons or more in energy, in a small poof of an explosion? Its stupid.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2004-04-05 07:00pm

Well I definately fall into the "n00b" category. I'm really not that into the "vs." scene at all, just started visiting this site a few years ago and eventually read a bit of the forums, and from time to time post, but I miss a lot of stuff.

That's where I picked up something about flak bursts (can't even remember the discussion it was in), but I was just curious what most of the people thought.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-04-05 07:57pm

"fuckmook" - now there is an adjetive I've never heard before. I prefer "cocknazi" myself.

Anyways, the chief problems with flakbursting is that they violate CoE and there is no mechanism for it.

One explanation now is that it is a different weapon system, a kind of grenade launcher/point defense missile that, like most other projectiles (the missile in AOTC being the exception) are coated in a plasma (ref TPMICS) hence the glow and explode near target. This would mean that the AT-ATs have a grenade launcher onboard, and the ISDs in ESB are firing missiles.

Depending on what blasters are, it may also be some derivitive of that (if Bob Brown was right, but that model has some errors as well)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-04-05 11:47pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote: Use the fucking search button, fuckmook. I don't remember seeing you argue this subject before, so you can check your attitude at the door.

Lighten up. Its not exactly like you're one to be talking about attitude.

Read Your Stickies, Fuckmook.

I never thought there were flakbursts; how can an energy beam magically and arbitrarily "decide" to flakburst, and only sometimes (some bolts just fly by or vanish), and when its worth kilotons or more in energy, in a small poof of an explosion? Its stupid.

Very nice. Now do you remember that there ARE projectile-type blaster weapons as well, don't you? An energy beam could not possibly flak burst, but nothing says a projectile-type "bolt" could not. (This helps to explain a number of awkward instancecs in the novelizations, especially.)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-04-06 01:57am

Ender wrote: One explanation now is that it is a different weapon system, a kind of grenade launcher/point defense missile that, like most other projectiles (the missile in AOTC being the exception) are coated in a plasma (ref TPMICS) hence the glow and explode near target. This would mean that the AT-ATs have a grenade launcher onboard, and the ISDs in ESB are firing missiles.

The problem here is that while we know of missile weapons that look like blaster bolts, most people will arggue that such vehicles do not normally mount such weapons (for example, AT-ATs don't really mount missiles) Nice speculation that works as speculation or if one can argue there is absolutely no answer, but lousy for debates (I've tried mentioning the possibility myself.)

Depending on what blasters are, it may also be some derivitive of that (if Bob Brown was right, but that model has some errors as well)

It helps that there is actual evidence (both in terms of direct quotes from canon/official sources and indirect visual cues) that hint at projectile-like blaster weapons existing (makes some sense from a tactical perspective - such weapons might be more effective against parrticle shielding than an energy beam.)

PainRack · Post by **PainRack** » 2004-04-06 09:47am

We have even more weird behaviours for turbolasers. Didn't HDS and Mad show the turbolaser bolt in TESb actually changing its trajectory?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-04-06 04:43pm

Connor MacLeod wrote:Very nice. Now do you remember that there ARE projectile-type blaster weapons as well, don't you? An energy beam could not possibly flak burst, but nothing says a projectile-type "bolt" could not. (This helps to explain a number of awkward instancecs in the novelizations, especially.)

I do remember, but this doesn't work particularly with turbolaser weapons and AA bolts against the LAAT/i (which have been observed to continue going through the flakbursts). I agree some must be treated as projectiles, but as a general rule I try to limit those that are, to limit the exceptions to canon (AOTC ICS).