superlaser question...

[Darth Garden Gnome]

The novellizations are canon, and wheter you're buying it or not is irrelevant to LFL policy, if official material even says so, and there's not an explicit conflict, then it dictates that the ISD does have missiles and thats it, it's the law as Judge dredd would say.

You still HDS have yet to provide me with any evidence anywhere at any time that says ISDs, not the DS, have missle launchers. Why is this so difficult? Either you do or you don't.

[His Divine Shadow]

I don't see why I have to, or why they have to be missiles, they can be rail-guns or something for all we know.

But:
========================
Pg. 302: "The snubs are too small for turbolasers to track them. The War Cruiser is in our aft, so my missiles are having difficulty finding firing solutions."

"By all that's Imperial, you'll find solutions, Lieutenant Gorev, or someone else will in your position, do you understand?"
========================
-The Bacta War

========================
Pg. 206: There were more than twenty fast-firing, fast-tracking antimissile octects arrayed around Indomitable's hull, and those that had a firing solution immediately began firing the missiles' projected path with a cloud of high-velocity shrapnel. When the missiles hit and the cloud met, spectacular flowers of red and yellow fire blossomed silently in the vacuum.
========================
-Tyrant's Test

[His Divine Shadow]

I feel I should explain, I don't see why I should have to, since it's a possbility about ISD's having many more small weapons systems than is listed, not a definite argument that claims they do with 100% impunity.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Thank you HDS. That's all I needed. Although it is possible these were custom jobs, I'll except them as standard for the sake of argument.

BUT! The fact that the flak was generated by a strangley turbolaserish bolt suggests that it wasn't a missle. In the movies these missles are either red (Lukes protons in ANH, Wedges protons in ROTJ) or blue (Naboo fighters protons in TPM). I have yet to see a green colored one, although it is most likely possible.

To that end, I doubt this flak was generated by missles that are strangley turbolaserish in apperance.

[His Divine Shadow]

I didn't try to claim they where missiles, I think the flak effects are bolt/shield interactions, the result of the bolt being absorbed/deflected

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Oh you did? I'm doing so many things at once I got confused. In light of this latest revelation, concession granted, HDS. that si on the missles of course.

the bolt/shield interaction still doesn't work for me.

[His Divine Shadow]

Why doesn't it do that? It fits all of the criteria and does not create conflicts with official material

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Take note HDS. In the novel it describes "flak bursts." Not shield/bolt reactions. This flak cannot be created by missles for even if it was intended to in the book, the film cleary shows turbolasers attacking with flak bursts.

Thus, the book says flak bursts, and the film shows flak bursts from turbolasers. Why are we to assume that this is a shield/bolt reaction?

[Vympel]

Does it matter if I point out that TLs have recoil- in the heaviest examples, gigatons worth- Slave Ship.

I have no idea about these TL debates.

[Connor MacLeod]

Does it matter if I point out that TLs have recoil- in the heaviest examples, gigatons worth- Slave Ship.

I have no idea about these TL debates.

Probably not. We dont know what the recoil is part of (IF its a massless beam the recoil could very well result from some sort of explosive generation or interaction process inside the gun.)

[Connor MacLeod]

Well I think that the VD quotes and EGWT quotes and so on can be incorporated, particle beam yes, infact Star by Star explicitly mentions the word particle beam in reference to Han's blaster when he is shooting stuff up.

Actually its called a "supercharged particle beam." The particle beam analogy is also mentiond in "Darth Maul shadow hunter". A charged particle weapon also makes an appearance in "shadows of the empire" and a "proton blaster" exists in "Planet of Twilight". That same novel as well as CotJ also mention plasma weaponry existing, but not neccearily in conjunction with capital weapons (only personal ones like Han's blaster.)

In some sense, a plasma weapon IS a kind of particle beam. But in the capital scale sense, the "particle beam" could very well be a massless one.
The EG references never specify whether the particles are massive or massless.

Anyhow blasters have more components than we know, it's possible that the charged tibanna gas is turned into this particle beam somehow:
"Common blaster weapons use high-energy gas for ammunition, activated by a power cell and converted into plasma. The plasma is released from a magnetic bottle effect to fire through collimating componets as a coherent energy bolt."

It should be noted that the AOTC VD gives a radically different internal setup than what the Essential Guides do (or WEG for that matter.) - for example, in the EGW&T, blasters lack acceleration coils and possess lenses. Plasma weapons dont need a lens.

These collimating components might turn the plasma into said particle beam, or whatever it is, the damaging bolt is clearly invisible and the light is probably just parts of the bolt's quanta degenerating into light(and the invisible bolt and light does not have to be positionally accurate either), and when the bolt intercepts an opaque object, the decay into light is stimulated in a "runaway cascade"(to quote Saxton on the subject) that turns the bolt's internal energy to light, which is absorbed as heat at the impact point.

Superheated target material may explode as a puff of vapour from that site, and this provides the secondary "blast" effect that helps to knock some men off their feet.

And an explsoive interaction inside the gun may cause the recoil (or possibly the expulsion of gas sometimes seen with blaster discharges) in the gun.

[Connor MacLeod]

Perhaps some "particle" that decays rapidly, and once it is finished it causes an explosion?

How would the bolt "explode?" The decay of the massless particles turns into visible light (explaining the "glow" of the bolt, as well as the "flash" we often see with shield interactions.)

Well there is no canon evidence I am aware of that suggests an ISD has any sort of physical weaponry. you seem to be, so please post a quote verifying this.

So the only evidence you will accept is canon, and only if its a direct statement?

As for "revisons," they're can be as many as they like, until they actually put the physical armaments on there, they don't exsist!

Blah blah blah...

ACcording to the Dark Empire sourcebook, the Rebels captured two Star Destroyers at Endor. Both were Imperator-1 models, and both carried not only their basic armament, but were equipped with proton torpedoes (The DE comic had the Star Destroyer firing torpedoes as well.) Granted, they were somewhat different and had undergone refit, but as I recall the stats weren't substantially different from a conventional ISD - It seems unliekly they "Traded off" anything to add the launchers.

Wedge's Gamble - The battle for Coruscant. The Battles between the heavy ships were both ISD's and Mon Cal cruisers - there was extensive mention of each side "trading" fire, which not only included energy weapons, but missiles. Additionally, damage suffered on each side included the loss of torpedo tubes.

Spectre of the Past and Visions of the Future - Pelleaon's Star Destroyer, the Chimaera, had proton torpedo tubes (at least 8 15-tube launchers). Additionally, The Errant Venture (a recurring ship) which was a Imperator-2 class, was used by the New Republic to mimic an Imperial Remnant ship for purposes of infiltrating a Ubiqtorate base. Part of the deal was that the Venture would be UPGRADED to Imperial standards (so that it would be indistiguishable from any other Imperial warship) and it was later mentioned that proton torpedo tubes were apart of the armament when they fell into a trap at the base. Not only does this tell us that ISD-2's have proton torpedo launchers as part of their standard armament in ADDITION to the standard ISD-2 armament, but that the other remnant ships were outfitted as such (and were indistinguishable from an ISD-2 model, for that matter.)

Courtship of PRincess Leia: Star Destroyer's in orbit around the planet (Zsinj's) fired missiles on an assault shuttle inside the planet's atmosphere.)

This is ignoring the point I ALREADY made - virtually EVERY Star destroyer design in existence - Victory, Super, Defender and (IIRC) Republic class - and even the simple Acclamator assault transport - carries missile launchers as part of its armament. Why the hell would they put them on an Victory class (predating the ISD), skip over the ISD in regards to missiles, and then outfit the Executor-class with missiles?

And missiles were also labeled as part of the Mandel diagrams for the Imperator, I might add.

In short, we have every REASON to believe they carry them AND use them.

[Connor MacLeod]

BUT! The fact that the flak was generated by a strangley turbolaserish bolt suggests that it wasn't a missle. In the movies these missles are either red (Lukes protons in ANH, Wedges protons in ROTJ) or blue (Naboo fighters protons in TPM). I have yet to see a green colored one, although it is most likely possible.

They're "turbolaserish" because they're glowing?

Bowcaster bolts are physical projectiles, yet look like physical blaster bolts. Zam Wessel's rifle fires physical projectiles that look like blaster bolts (and have uncanny accuracy as well.) Concussion missiles and proton torpedoes BOTH have appearnaecs that at a distance make them resemble blaster bolts. Just what part about this is eluding you?

To that end, I doubt this flak was generated by missles that are strangley turbolaserish in apperance

So you advocate using a theory that is even MORE questionable where energy weapons somehow attain the qualities of physical warheads and can detonate like a bomb without a problem and think THIS is the logical explanation?

[Connor MacLeod]

Take note HDS. In the novel it describes "flak bursts." Not shield/bolt reactions. This flak cannot be created by missles for even if it was intended to in the book, the film cleary shows turbolasers attacking with flak bursts.

Thus, the book says flak bursts, and the film shows flak bursts from turbolasers. Why are we to assume that this is a shield/bolt reaction?

Again, we see you decide to plug your ears and ignore all but the most specific definition that fits your viewpoint:

I've already pointed out that the definition of "flak" does not require the use of an "exploding bolt", and that if we DID take the exploding definition, it would also mean that blasters are physical weapons (since a "shell" is by definition a projectile.)

I suggest you look up the definition of "burst" - it can also mean a short/intense volley (generally of gunfire, but thats also a separate definition from "short intense period." it also means "sustained activity".

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/ ... arch=burst

So "flak burst" can mean a "short intense volley of AAA fire" or "sustained activity of AA fire"

Or, if you prefer, lets look at a thesaurus:

http://www.britannica.com/thesaurus?hdw ... 5D%3D55860

Another word for "burst" can include "barrage", "volley", or "salvo."- only further reinforcing my point.

[Connor MacLeod]

Lets see - the whole "flak burst" theory appears to be predicated on the notion that energy weapons can and do possess properties very much akin to exploding AA shells and can act like a physical warhead. The evidence cited is twofold:

- visuals of "flak bursts" in the movies, most notably TESB.

- mention of "flak bursts" in the novels - again most notably TESB.

Quite ironically, this "Evidence" all requires a very specific interpretation of both sets of evidence. The "shield/beam" interactions have are also attributed to the same visuals that allegedly prove the existence of "flak bursts" - Saxton has made a rather meticulous study of the issue on his site, I believe - so I fail to see why THAT conclusively supports flak bursts any more than it does the shield/beam interactions.

Secondly, the novel references as evidence are likewise dependent upon a very narrow definition of the term "flak burst" - when I have more than adequately demonstrated that the term is open to quite a BIT of interpretation that fits EQUALLY well.

Not only that, I have posited alternative theories that fit the facts equally well, and have support, but do NOT require us to accept the underlying principles required for the flak-bursting TL.

And of course, there is the awkwardness of the theory itself. It is obviously NOT the only theory we must accept, and it is by no means the simplest or most convenient theory, so why MUST we accept it.

Again, there is no overriding proof that requires acceptance of the theory, and there is more than a bit of evidence against it.

[His Divine Shadow]

Does it matter if I point out that TLs have recoil- in the heaviest examples, gigatons worth- Slave Ship.

I have no idea about these TL debates.

Well, that can be ascribed to the fact that even light have momentum and that TL's are also theorized to expell waste tibanna gas from the barrel along with the shot.

[His Divine Shadow]

In some sense, a plasma weapon IS a kind of particle beam. But in the capital scale sense, the "particle beam" could very well be a massless one.
The EG references never specify whether the particles are massive or massless.

Well given visual evidence I'd say it's massless, but somehow slowed down to STL velocities, possibly through some force-field or other medium.

It should be noted that the AOTC VD gives a radically different internal setup than what the Essential Guides do (or WEG for that matter.) - for example, in the EGW&T, blasters lack acceleration coils and possess lenses. Plasma weapons dont need a lens.

Hmm, well looking at the Visual Dictionary's cross section of the clone-rifle there is no mention of a lens, this might mean that they work differently, argh, personally DWR's insistance on them being plasma weapons is annoying as there are some serious realism issues with those.

So either the blasters in the EGWT and other issues might be the particle-beam types whilst the clone-rifles might be actual plasma weapons, or just a blaster that works differently.

And an explsoive interaction inside the gun may cause the recoil (or possibly the expulsion of gas sometimes seen with blaster discharges) in the gun.

The existance of atmosphere in the barrel might be responsible for that.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

How would the bolt "explode?" The decay of the massless particles turns into visible light (explaining the "glow" of the bolt, as well as the "flash" we often see with shield interactions.)

I already conceded to HDS that they cannot be massless photons. The glow of the bolt has been established as a 'tracer' (see the AOTC ICS).

So the only evidence you will accept is canon, and only if its a direct statement?

Actually canon or official sources, I really consider them one in the same. But yes I would prefer a direct quote to speculation, but HDS has already provided me with some.

Blah blah blah... :snip:

Again, HDS already provided me with this information.

[Darth Garden Gnome]

Although it is possible that these bolts were missles, the fact that they appear identical to every other TL bolt in the movie seems to suggest otherwise. And while its possible that its this, they are identical, I sincerley doubt it. GL has seemed to make sure the audience knows when a ship is employing a different kind of weapon.

So this can mean one of three things, either A.) All the supposeded TLs in the movie are actually missles, or B.) All Imperial missles and TLs are identical or C.) The ISDs in the movies did not use missles.

Although you may take your pick between the three, I prefer C. It just makes the most sense. Keeping that in mind...the definition of 'flak' can indeed mean projectile. But it can in truth mean a wide variety of things, such as bolts. Now unless you go along A or B this cannot be projectiles, it must be flak generated by a TL.

And what if 'burst' can mean volley? That would simply mean multiple flak explosions. That is, if we keep the previous paragraph in mind.

Also an interesting point, many SW sources describe shields as 'absorbing' laser blasts rather than alowing them to detonate on their shields. The Essetial Guide to Weps and Tech clearly states: "Ray shields will absorb blasts from laser canons, turbolasers, and other energy weapons." keeping the previous paragraphs in mind, this would quite simply mean that the those blastsmusthave been detonated TL blasts. We can see this happen best at Geonosis, where battle droid fire is absorbed by the Gunships shields, or at the Battle fo Naboo, where droid AAT fire was absorbed by the Gungans shields.

[Connor MacLeod]

Although it is possible that these bolts were missles, the fact that they appear identical to every other TL bolt in the movie seems to suggest otherwise. And while its possible that its this, they are identical, I sincerley doubt it. GL has seemed to make sure the audience knows when a ship is employing a different kind of weapon.

Subjective impression, which is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

So this can mean one of three things, either A.) All the supposeded TLs in the movie are actually missles, or B.) All Imperial missles and TLs are identical or C.) The ISDs in the movies did not use missles.

Or D.) missiles and energy weapons might use the same sort of "emission" as a tracer. Are you seriously telling me that its impossible for the missiles to emit the same kind of "massless particles" that might decay spontaneously as a method of tracking them or making them visible?

Again, I refer you to the fact bowcaster bolts ARE physical projectiles even though they are identically blaster bolts. Your argument collapses entirely on THAT point alone, ignoring the fact you have provided no actual proof to counter any of my claims.

Although you may take your pick between the three, I prefer C. It just makes the most sense. Keeping that in mind...the definition of 'flak' can indeed mean projectile. But it can in truth mean a wide variety of things, such as bolts. Now unless you go along A or B this cannot be projectiles, it must be flak generated by a TL.

The only way we have to accept physical projectiles as flak-bursters (or one kind of flak) is if the belief persists that the "flashes" must be explained or are not satisfactorily explained by prior rationalizations (such as ones mentioned by Brian Young or Curtis saxton). We can accept energy weapons like lasers or turbolasers as "flak bursts", but this would exclude the "exploding" definition, since that was proven to be the sole province of the physical projectile by definition. Hence "flak burst" means either a short intense burst of antiaircraft fire, or a sustained barrage of antiaircraft fire.

Of course, this doesn't in any way invalidate phyiscal projectiles as flak weapons either.

And what if 'burst' can mean volley? That would simply mean multiple flak explosions. That is, if we keep the previous paragraph in mind.

I've shot down your subjective "evidence" about "TL explosions" - you're going to have to bring up something more substantial if you're going to continue arguing that the theory is valid. Otherwise just concede the point.

I've satisfactorily countered the notion that the "TL detonating like a phyiscal shell" theory is the only theory that explains what we see and the "flak burst" definition - the primary and more or less ONLY evidence that actually relates to or even remotely supports said theory. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to come up with something BETTER to defend it with, unless you intend to concede that the theory is unworkable.

Also an interesting point, many SW sources describe shields as 'absorbing' laser blasts rather than alowing them to detonate on their shields. The Essetial Guide to Weps and Tech clearly states: "Ray shields will absorb blasts from laser canons, turbolasers, and other energy weapons." keeping the previous paragraphs in mind, this would quite simply mean that the those blastsmusthave been detonated TL blasts. We can see this happen best at Geonosis, where battle droid fire is absorbed by the Gunships shields, or at the Battle fo Naboo, where droid AAT fire was absorbed by the Gungans shields.

Red herring. If you knew your sources as well as you apparently try to pretend you do, you'd know that according to the AOTC ICS, shields are energy absorption and retransmission devices.. the bolts must naturally "decay" into photons before they can be absorbed - duh.

Face it. You've lost. Stop trying semantics dodges and concede.

[nightmare]

ACcording to the Dark Empire sourcebook, the Rebels captured two Star Destroyers at Endor. Both were Imperator-1 models, and both carried not only their basic armament, but were equipped with proton torpedoes (The DE comic had the Star Destroyer firing torpedoes as well.) Granted, they were somewhat different and had undergone refit, but as I recall the stats weren't substantially different from a conventional ISD - It seems unliekly they "Traded off" anything to add the launchers.

Wedge's Gamble - The battle for Coruscant. The Battles between the heavy ships were both ISD's and Mon Cal cruisers - there was extensive mention of each side "trading" fire, which not only included energy weapons, but missiles. Additionally, damage suffered on each side included the loss of torpedo tubes.

Spectre of the Past and Visions of the Future - Pelleaon's Star Destroyer, the Chimaera, had proton torpedo tubes (at least 8 15-tube launchers). Additionally, The Errant Venture (a recurring ship) which was a Imperator-2 class, was used by the New Republic to mimic an Imperial Remnant ship for purposes of infiltrating a Ubiqtorate base. Part of the deal was that the Venture would be UPGRADED to Imperial standards (so that it would be indistiguishable from any other Imperial warship) and it was later mentioned that proton torpedo tubes were apart of the armament when they fell into a trap at the base. Not only does this tell us that ISD-2's have proton torpedo launchers as part of their standard armament in ADDITION to the standard ISD-2 armament, but that the other remnant ships were outfitted as such (and were indistinguishable from an ISD-2 model, for that matter.)

Courtship of PRincess Leia: Star Destroyer's in orbit around the planet (Zsinj's) fired missiles on an assault shuttle inside the planet's atmosphere.)

This is ignoring the point I ALREADY made - virtually EVERY Star destroyer design in existence - Victory, Super, Defender and (IIRC) Republic class - and even the simple Acclamator assault transport - carries missile launchers as part of its armament. Why the hell would they put them on an Victory class (predating the ISD), skip over the ISD in regards to missiles, and then outfit the Executor-class with missiles?

And missiles were also labeled as part of the Mandel diagrams for the Imperator, I might add.

In short, we have every REASON to believe they carry them AND use them.

The official stats for the ISD-II doesn't have any launchers either, but on the model you can see something that certainly looks like 3x4 missile launchers.

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/Xbrooklyn/Isd17.jpg

[omegaLancer]

I donot understand why many of you feel like a bolt of photon cannot explode like a flak burst. Look at this from the light Bullet home page









A light bullet decaying into a shower of smaller light bullets

[Connor MacLeod]

You're too obsessed with that soliton BS omegalancer, and we've already been over why it doesn't work. Give it up.

[Darth Yoshi]

In Specter of the Past, the ISD Chimera does have proton torpedo launchers.

Pellaeon turned back to the viewport. A few seconds later the Preybirds appeared around the edge of the hull, a clump of close-formation drive trails arrowing straight out toward the incoming attackers. "Stand by Number Eight proton torpedo cluster," he called. "All fifteen torpedoes to fire in three-by-five sequence along vector two-three by seven."

Granted, this is 15 years after ROTJ, and the EU, but still.

[Connor MacLeod]

In Specter of the Past, the ISD Chimera does have proton torpedo launchers.

Pellaeon turned back to the viewport. A few seconds later the Preybirds appeared around the edge of the hull, a clump of close-formation drive trails arrowing straight out toward the incoming attackers. "Stand by Number Eight proton torpedo cluster," he called. "All fifteen torpedoes to fire in three-by-five sequence along vector two-three by seven."

Granted, this is 15 years after ROTJ, and the EU, but still.

I already said that I believe. And the Errant VEnture had them, and the Tyrannic was implied to.