TIEs have shields

[Illuminatus Primus]

It's nothing new for TIE's to have shields. Vader's TIE Advanced had them, as does the TIE Defender. The Defender has the same basic pod structure as a normal TIE Fighter, so it probably has the same power plant.

No, the TIE Defender has a triangular prism stardrive section as long as the figher cockpit coming out of the rear of the ball cockpit housing power generators and all of the drives.

[Ender]

It's nothing new for TIE's to have shields. Vader's TIE Advanced had them, as does the TIE Defender. The Defender has the same basic pod structure as a normal TIE Fighter, so it probably has the same power plant.

No, the TIE Defender has a triangular prism stardrive section as long as the figher cockpit coming out of the rear of the ball cockpit housing power generators and all of the drives.

The engine housing was nowhere near as long. It was large, but the cockpit is about twice it's size.

[Illuminatus Primus]

It's nothing new for TIE's to have shields. Vader's TIE Advanced had them, as does the TIE Defender. The Defender has the same basic pod structure as a normal TIE Fighter, so it probably has the same power plant.

No, the TIE Defender has a triangular prism stardrive section as long as the figher cockpit coming out of the rear of the ball cockpit housing power generators and all of the drives.

The engine housing was nowhere near as long. It was large, but the cockpit is about twice it's size.

It was at least 2/3s as long as 1/3 the diameter, IIRC.

And judging by the length of the ordinary TIE/ln's engines, that stardrive section could also have contained a hyperdrive or a larger reactor.

[Setesh]

Its possible that TIE's are just highly modular so they can be easily altered for mission specific needs. The EU specs are the 'baseline', the way the fatory makes them. They can be modified for special conditions and missions but it changes it in other ways. ie. adding sheilds makes them slow, adding better fire control reduces ROF, ect.

Of course it could be that the TIEs aren't the same at production, the Star Destroyers show a great deal of variation, the TIEs might as well.

[Durandal]

It's nothing new for TIE's to have shields. Vader's TIE Advanced had them, as does the TIE Defender. The Defender has the same basic pod structure as a normal TIE Fighter, so it probably has the same power plant.

No, the TIE Defender has a triangular prism stardrive section as long as the figher cockpit coming out of the rear of the ball cockpit housing power generators and all of the drives.

The EGVV shows the section to be more or less cylindrical. However, the ball cockpit is exactly the same. The TIE's power generator has to be somewhere in that little sphere. The cylinder on the back of the Defender is probably the hyperdrive and a convenient attachment place for all the wing pylons.

[His Divine Shadow]

I have provided a canon source that demonstrates shields on two different TIE fighters. All "Official" sources must bow down to it. And it doesn't matter how many there are.

1) *nitpick*You have not demonstrated shields beyond all reason of a doubt, you have demonstrated that it's very likely these TIE's have shields though.

2) Official sources already address this with the mention that TIE's can be modified to add hyperdrives and shields.

3) Given the abundance of visual material that would disagree with a 2All ties have shields" conclusion and the official material already has an explanation that satisfies all parties(with the possible exception of irrational individuals who would want to remove official material, or put in a bad light, but such people are removed from here).

[Brian Young]

How many "Official" sources claim that turbolasres are plasma guns, lasers, etc.? They even conflict with each other.

Actually, the EU is pretty consistent in calling them lasers, or coherent light.

How many claim that lightsabres emit laser beams that are folded in on themselves?

None that I can recall, they say it's plasma that arcs back in Shadow hunter and some others

How many "Official" sources claim that a ship traveling through hyperspace is in another dimension? In reality, Hyperspace is the way the universe appears to an observer who is traveling faster than lightspeed.

While I think Saxton has done some excellent work, if official information says it's one thing, he theories are null and void.

How many "Official" sources claim that the Millennium Falcon's top speed is 1.5c?

Not a single one. They say it has a 1.5 hyperdrive rating, but all say it does not go 1.5 c

How many "Official" sources claim that Executor is 5 miles long?

Just about all of them.

Umm, dude. I'm not restricting to novels. "Official" involves all of those tech guides and things.
TEGWT page 88 describes the laser's interaction with the blaster gas, for example.
BTW, your reference to Curtis' book is a bit off. You do realize that his ICS book is official, and carries the same weight as any other "Official" source, don't you?

[Brian Young]

1) *nitpick*You have not demonstrated shields beyond all reason of a doubt, you have demonstrated that it's very likely these TIE's have shields though.

Nitpick, huh? That is interesting, I thought it was *direct evidence from the most canon of all sources* and demonstrated with a video clip. If you think that is a nitpick, you should look up the word in the dictionary.

2) Official sources already address this with the mention that TIE's can be modified to add hyperdrives and shields.

Now that really is a nitpick. Who says TIEs have to be modified to have shields in canon? Who says these TIEs were modified? They were sentry ships. They were on routine patrol. And don't start that crap about being shielded because Alderran just blew up several hours ago. The debris was far gone by then. And there were no other bases around, because Luke said so. Thus, no reason for these TIEs to be special.

3) Given the abundance of visual material that would disagree with a 2All ties have shields" conclusion and the official material already has an explanation that satisfies all parties(with the possible exception of irrational individuals who would want to remove official material, or put in a bad light, but such people are removed from here).

Is that a threat? If so, I dare you.

You see, the scientific method works like this: when new information arises, your theories change. You don't pooch your lips out and stomp around like a child. You accept it and change your theory.
*These TIEs have shields. If you don't like it, that is tough.
*I see no reason for these TIEs to be special. They are sentry ships, thus on standard hum-drum patrol duty, not expecting a thing to happen.
*Are you so certain that all other scenes show no evidence of shields? Have you checked them all? I bet two days ago, you *knew* that even this scene didn't demonstrate shields.

Does this conclusively prove that all TIEs have shields? No. Does this evidence possibly imply that they do? Yes. Can "Official" evidence be used to refute this? No.

Other TIEs were destroyed easily by either heavy weapons, or more than one barrel firing at once. In these scenes, each quadgun barrel is firing independently - a rapid-fire mode. So, these TIEs have shields that can defend against one barrel at the time.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Nitpick, huh? That is interesting, I thought it was *direct evidence from the most canon of all sources* and demonstrated with a video clip. If you think that is a nitpick, you should look up the word in the dictionary.

And I saw none of the shield flashes between the beam and the body of the fighter, just near misses splashing. These could be minor bleed off from invisible bolts proved by screen captures of AOTC.

Now that really is a nitpick. Who says TIEs have to be modified to have shields in canon?

You don't get it do you? If it is concievable there was no contradiction, there is no contradiction. If it said in canon "all TIEs come equipped with shields" than you'd have a leg to stand on. You cannot invent contradictions than demand evidence in the canon to say they were modified.

They were sentry ships. They were on routine patrol. And don't start that crap about being shielded because Alderran just blew up several hours ago. The debris was far gone by then.

Bullshit. We're talking a planetary mass here. And some of that was probably gravitationally captured by the Death Star, or slammed into its shields and was vaporized into cluttering dust.

Other TIEs were destroyed easily by either heavy weapons, or more than one barrel firing at once. In these scenes, each quadgun barrel is firing independently - a rapid-fire mode. So, these TIEs have shields that can defend against one barrel at the time.

Prove they're protective shields and not navigational [volumetric] shielding simply bleeding of visable light bursts from the invisible energy beams. I don't recall ANY of those beams creating a flash in front of the TIE's body.

Combined with evidence of volumetric shields triggering energy bursts from near misses where the bolt keeps going afterward from AOTC, and the fact that your supposed TIE shields supposedly deflected six or seven blasts yet two hits kills the last TIE in this scene, I see that the most likely explanation is that they are volumetric navigation shielding triggering light bursts from near misses just like near misses on LAAT/i's in AOTC. If the shields supposedly can block half a dozen hits, why does two kill the last TIE?

Have you checked them all? I bet two days ago, you *knew* that even this scene didn't demonstrate shields.

Confusing Burden of Proof.

You want to prove non-DS I and all OT TIEs have shields, you show the evidence. Especially since you clearly have means. Please cut the confrontational attitude.

3) Given the abundance of visual material that would disagree with a 2All ties have shields" conclusion and the official material already has an explanation that satisfies all parties(with the possible exception of irrational individuals who would want to remove official material, or put in a bad light, but such people are removed from here).

Is that a threat? If so, I dare you.

You denying it? You came with an agenda and are trying to create contradictions where they need not exist to justify said agenda.

ICS book is official, and carries the same weight as any other "Official" source, don't you?

It's extrapolated from the movies, thus closer to the movies, and by Cerasi's quote that makes it higher than novels and pure EU tech books/sourcebooks.

The movies are true Star Wars, but the books still count as a secondary source, whenever they are not directly contradicted by the movies (and contradictions can be harder to prove than you think; what seems like an irreconcilable contradiction to you might be solved in an eyeblink by somebody else, so don't get cocky). Note that this is Lucasfilms Licensing's official position, and I have personally adopted it for that reason.

In the PSW policy, on the viewpoints of SW Continuity.

To Lord Wong, you listen.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

IP, there was at least one flash on the wing pylon.

[Illuminatus Primus]

You sure? All I saw was just below the right pylon.

[Brian Young]

Burden of Proof fallacy? It does appear like it could be at first glance, but it isn't. I was debating the comment that there are so many other scenes that contradict this one. If that is so, show them, by all means!

You claim that there are no direct hits in the two videos that I slowed down very carefully for you to see?
http://www.babtech-onthe.net/starwars/smartass1.jpg
http://www.babtech-onthe.net/starwars/smartass2.jpg
These look a lot alike, but each came from a separate video.

You want another? Okay, http://www.babtech-onthe.net/starwars/tieshields3.avi
It appears that in this video, this damaged TIE takes three more hits before it is destroyed.

I have gone through ANH and ROTJ, and I've seen nothing that indicates any major differences in the defenses of TIEs and X-Wings.

[Brian Young]

It has always been my experience that when someone posts some real, hard evidence that some troll doesn't like, that troll always claims that the first person has "an agenda."
What exactly does this mean?
Does this mean that this troll believes that I posted this real, actual, tangible, hard evidence from a canon source, because I intend to create another problem for Trekkies or something?
This is what has happened:
*I posted actual evidence that at least some TIEs have shields in the actual canon movies.
*Someone said that these must be special, because "official" sources say normal TIEs don't have shields.
*I pointed out several, out of countless, problems with "official" sources.
*Someone said that Curtis' book takes a backseat to official sources.
*I pointed out that Curtis' book is official too.
*Some troll claims that I have "an agenda," flames me, and when I flamed back, tells me to drop the confrontational attitude.
*Same troll makes false statements about the videos that you all saw.
*I have now posted images taken from these videos, for the visually impaired troll.

I guess I have "an agenda" to find new information and allow you guys to know it. The Trekkie troll just doesn't want TIEs to have shields in canon. Too bad, so sad.

I am sure that you all know that this "agenda" fallacy is a simple Ad Hominem. He doesn't like the video that demonstrates TIE shields, so he calls me names.

These may be special TIEs. But I really see nothing in canon that indicates so. BTW, these are the first TIEs we see in action. Ever.

BTW troll, you asked if I "deny it" when I said "Is that a threat? If so, I dare you." Deny what??? I was simply challenging you to carry out your threat.

[Spanky The Dolphin]

This is turning into to much of a pissing match/angagonism thing for my tastses.

And both parties are guilty.

Mr. Young: Early on you did almost sound like a Canon purist, and maybe became a little too agressive. Putting Official in quotations is quite irksome to some, as it looks like you don't believe it's of any value: like a Canon purist.

IP: Like often, you're being too confrontational. Back the fuck off.

That's just an observation, and I'm a little tired. And if anyone what's to bitch, don't bother. You probably won't see me here again.

[Robert Treder]

OK. This is what I gather:

Brian has shown that it is certainly not uncommon for TIEs to be shielded. This of course does not contradict the EUs stance that it is not uncommon for TIEs to be unshielded (though it would refute any EU source that denied the existence of shielded TIEs). The situation is not black/white.

Both sides of this discussion so far have at points misinterpreted one another, leading to undue hostility. I think both parties should restate their positions, so that it's clear what is and what isn't being contested.

<Judge Mills Lane> I want a good, clean fight. Let's get it on! </Judge Mills Lane>

[Robert Treder]

About the Saxton argument going around, that's a misunderstanding...it seems like Ender forgot that Curtis mentions hyperspace being a POV aspect of realspace in the ICS; I think he was criticizing the Tech. Commentaries. IP has no problem with the ICS, I'm sure.

And flaming's all right, but for the record, IP isn't a Trekkie.

I don't want to sound like Mother Fucking Teresa arbiting this or anything. I don't have any problem with arguing or fighting, I just like to see the arguments remain relevant.

[vakundok]

Well:
1: Were these fighters already out on patrol duty or just had been sent after the Falcon (just to be sacrificied)? Which direction did they come from ?
2: Did any other Tie show evidence of shielding (especially the more modern Interceptors)?
3: Can blaster bolts explode by themselves?
4: Did the Falcon hit Vader's second wingman or that Tie only tried to dodge?
5: Could the quad-guns of the Falcon be upgraded between ANH and TESB?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I know in at least some of the computer games, as a matter of informational note, that both TIE Fighters and TIE Interceptors operate with shields, albeit relatively weak, pre-Endor. I'm not sure if these are from the games that are accompanied by the chronicles (and the chronicles would probably provide an official support for that).

[His Divine Shadow]

Nitpick, huh? That is interesting, I thought it was *direct evidence from the most canon of all sources* and demonstrated with a video clip. If you think that is a nitpick, you should look up the word in the dictionary

I said I was nitpicking, not you.

Now that really is a nitpick. Who says TIEs have to be modified to have shields in canon? Who says these TIEs were modified? They were sentry ships. They were on routine patrol.

Nobody has to say that, it's said in official and is silent in canon.

Nor where they on routine patroll from my POV, they where sent after the Falcon, doesn't sound very routine to me.
EDIT:
Ignore above, Conceeded

But really, the reasons here are only speculation on both sides and as such couldn't stand up to the weakest comic evidence.

And don't start that crap about being shielded because Alderran just blew up several hours ago. The debris was far gone by then. And there were no other bases around, because Luke said so. Thus, no reason for these TIEs to be special

I find them being sent after the falcon to be a special reason,(conceeded) I don't see why there can't always be say a few modified TIE's with shields and/or hyperdrives lying around on most ships and stations, maybe for their best pilots or something.

Is that a threat? If so, I dare you

Threat? WTF?

You see, the scientific method works like this: when new information arises, your theories change. You don't pooch your lips out and stomp around like a child. You accept it and change your theory

Well then it'd be nice if you'd point out where I have disobeyed the scientific method, this is the sequence of events as I see them:
-You show evidence that indicates that the TIE's had shields
-It is pointed out that official evidence agrees with this, that TIE's can be added with shields and/or hyperdrive.

Wherever the problem is now, I dunno, it seems extremely clear to me, follows all established evidence and maintains internal continuity.

*These TIEs have shields. If you don't like it, that is tough.

I agree that these TIE's very likely have shields.

*I see no reason for these TIEs to be special. They are sentry ships, thus on standard hum-drum patrol duty, not expecting a thing to happen

So? You don't see a reason, does that mean there isn't one?

Secondly, you are wrong about these being standard hum-drum patroll ships I'd say, or atleast it's nothing more than assumptions and speculations though, these TIE's wheren't on patroll as far as I have seen, they where assembled to intercept the escaping falcon, does not sound like standard patroll duties to me.
EDIT:
Ignore above, Conceeded

*Are you so certain that all other scenes show no evidence of shields? Have you checked them all? I bet two days ago, you *knew* that even this scene didn't demonstrate shields.

Two days ago I had never noticed this, two days ago is rather irrelevant to the now and here anyway, but official evidence has apparently always known about this.

Does this conclusively prove that all TIEs have shields? No. Does this evidence possibly imply that they do? Yes. Can "Official" evidence be used to refute this? No

No, but it can further on what see, and what it does say is that TIE's can be modified with hyperdrives and shields if so needed, how hard it would be to do such a thing or special a circumstance that would be is unknown.
EDIT:
Though, your evidence would seem that it's not that uncommon or hard to modify TIE's with shields.

*continued*
But not something I find relevant at any rate, I feel this fills in wonderfully with established sources and as such, do not see a problem, nor do I see a reason for your hostile attitude.

So, to break it down, what can and can't official evidence do with this:
-Official evidence cannot say they do not have shields
-Official evidence can furhter upon this and say that TIE's can be fitted with shields, which it already does.

Seems perfectly straightforward and simple to me, can't see a contradiction for miles.

[Vympel]

Nor where they on routine patroll from my POV, they where sent after the Falcon, doesn't sound very routine to me, but really, the reasons here are only speculation on both sides and as such couldn't stand up to the weakest comic evidence.

I find them being sent after the falcon to be a special reason, I don't see why there can't always be say a few modified TIE's with shields and/or hyperdrives lying around on most ships and stations, maybe for their best pilots or something.

I disagree. ANH makes it clear that those ships were not sent after the Falcon- as 'sentry' ships they were already on station when the Falcon made it's escape, and the Falcon 'came up on them' as Han said.

BTW: I'm leery as to how far we take this entire 'rationalization' thing.

For example- I don't rationalize the EU saying AT-ATs are 15m tall by thinking "the ones in the movies were special". No- the EU is wrong.

I also don't rationalize the EU saying SSDs are 8km long by saying "they must be special 8km SSDs". No- the EU is wrong.

Where do you draw the line? Canon says TIEs have shields. I should also point out that saying TIEs were getting destroyed in one shot isn't very helpful, because we see various Rebel fighters being destroyed with one shot in the ROTJ battle (ANH doesn't count- deflectors were switched to double front- at least in the trench run).

I'm very conflicted about this.

[His Divine Shadow]

This is not as cut and dry though, the EU, or official evidence in general, never mentions multiple classes of AT-AT's or Executors, but it does speak about TIE's with shields.

[Lord Edam]

I have provided a canon source that demonstrates shields on two different TIE fighters.

compare frames 11 and 21 on tieshileds1.avi with 10 and 20 on tieshields2.avi - they are exactly the same tie getting hit. You have possibly demonstrated shields on a single TIE fighter


There also seems to be problems with where the shields are actually located.

Frames 9 has a beam passing between where the "shield" in frame 14 is and the cockpit

Frame 16 has at least one (and possibly 2) beam passing where the "shield" is in frame 11 (and possibly 14).

Frame 20/21 has a beam passing inside where the shields were in frame 11 and exploding well behind the TIE fighter.


Whilst many object to the "flackburst" idea for Turbolasers, that or something similar would probably be the best explanation for this - some form of proximity or range setting in the laser cannons, unless you also wish to claim the pilots were constantly adjusting the amount the shields extend from the ship,

[Spanky The Dolphin]

Quite, Edam.

Everyone knows that you do have an agenda.

[His Divine Shadow]

range setting in the laser cannons, unless you also wish to claim the pilots were constantly adjusting the amount the shields extend from the ship,

Edam, you assume that it can only happen from a set distance from the shields, this does not have to be so, it appears to be totally random occurance that might or might not happen when passing through the outer layers of a shield.

As for the range settings, we do not know what is meant by that.
Though I can see that flakbursting might be an idea proposed, but I would call flakbursting at most an attempt to get turbolasers to flak against enemy shields.

[His Divine Shadow]

Anyway's as was pointed out to me, the TIE's in question did seem to be not specially sent to get the Falcon, so this would seem to indicate that the adding of shields to TIE's, whilst not universal, is not uncommon.

Thats my stance anyway and it fits with official and canon evidence.