StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Wampas, rancors, dianogas and sarlaccs, just to name the most memorable OT film wildlife, don't splatter as you might expect an unshielded animal to when shot with blaster fire, to the best of my knowledge. The only film incidents I can recall is of Lando shooting the sarlacc, which should've taken the limb off but only made it retreat to lick the cauterized wound, and that of Han downing a mynock inside the exogorth in the Hoth asteroid field, plus multiple lesser canon instances of other creatures, many of which admittedly may be due to game mechanics, but the standard appears to be in favor of most SW wildlife not turning into viscera showers when shot with blasters. I find it more than a slight stretch to suggest that CIS droids and stormtroopers dial down their guns every time they face hostile wildlife or beasts of war, but the SW galaxy hasn't been wielding them long enough to evolve animals that resist them. "Energy resistance" is all fine and well to propose for Force users, but the Force can't possibly be protecting all nonsapient or semi-sapient life forms in the galaxy like that.

So why wasn't the battlefield on Naboo streaked with the crimson remains of falumpasets and their exploded carcasses? Any tank gunner droid who couldn't see the tactical value in toppling one onto the ranks of gungans underscores a serious AI problem among CIS droids, so why wouldn't they selectively target them? Fucking hell, the exogorths apparently can chomp their way through ISD hulls, implying they can resist fucking turbolasers, although it's probably likelier that they simply lie in wait for them to come close enough to strike, like snapping turtles.

Still - WHAT THE HELL?!?

When a blaster bolt slams into an unarmored human, they don't splatter either. I've never been able to figure out a suitable in universe rationale for this obvious PG-rating circumstance.

Desdinova wrote:When a blaster bolt slams into an unarmored human, they don't splatter either. I've never been able to figure out a suitable in universe rationale for this obvious PG-rating circumstance.

Most instances of unarmored humans not splattering can be attributed to the fact that their assailants knew ahead of time that they'd be shooting nudies and so reduced their blaster settings appropriately to avoid making a mess. Where charging wampas are involved, I don't see any similar need for delicacy.

Also the blasters used by Jabba's henchmen (and Lando when disguised as one) Seemed to be of the crappy low-quality type.

I'm sorry, evidence for a reduced setting on any SW personnel weapons? We know the capital ships can do it, but I've never heard of a "dial down" for their handheld guns. (And, no, I don't think you can argue that "stun" was a lower powered setting of the gun's main firing mechanism. It seems like a different mechanism altogether.)

Darwin wrote:Also the blasters used by Jabba's henchmen (and Lando when disguised as one) Seemed to be of the crappy low-quality type.

I can accept this explanation even though I would expect better from a wealthy gangster, and Han's encounter with the mynock can also be explained as a conscious decision on his part to avoid gorestains on his ship. The Trade Federation versus the gungans could've been a conscious decision on the part of the TF commanders, but I don't see why, especially when a single high-powered hit on the falumpasets from a TF tank would both bring down the beast onto nearby ranks and disable the shield.

TithonusSyndrome wrote:Most instances of unarmored humans not splattering can be attributed to the fact that their assailants knew ahead of time that they'd be shooting nudies and so reduced their blaster settings appropriately to avoid making a mess. Where charging wampas are involved, I don't see any similar need for delicacy.

There's also the possibility (eg in the case of Leia at the bunker in RotJ) of the clothing containing some material that dampens the effects of the shot. Do we see any shots against unprotected flesh in the movies (discounting of course Luke's replacement hand)?

I've never been able to figure out a suitable in universe rationale for this obvious PG-rating circumstance.

You see a similar thing when Luke's laying into Jabba's minions aboard the skiffs - I've never seen any evidence of his lightsabre cutting them beyond Boba Fett's pistol. Perhaps his lightsabre had a "non-cutting" setting (but then why)? Assuming of course I'm not just blind and failed to see the gashes in the bodies .

Desdinova wrote:I'm sorry, evidence for a reduced setting on any SW personnel weapons?

None, sorry, other than the fact that the assassination of the Jedi masters during Order 66 raises prickly questions without implying the clonies had power settings on their weapons.

We know the capital ships can do it, but I've never heard of a "dial down" for their handheld guns. (And, no, I don't think you can argue that "stun" was a lower powered setting of the gun's main firing mechanism. It seems like a different mechanism altogether.)

Unless handheld blasters are dramatically different in principle than turbolasers, why would it be difficult to apply it?

Teleros wrote:There's also the possibility (eg in the case of Leia at the bunker in RotJ) of the clothing containing some material that dampens the effects of the shot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Leia was scorched from a blaster hitting the wall of the bunker. If anti-blaster fabric exists in the films, we don't see much of it, nor of the personnel shields from the Old Republic era.

You see a similar thing when Luke's laying into Jabba's minions aboard the skiffs - I've never seen any evidence of his lightsabre cutting them beyond Boba Fett's pistol. Perhaps his lightsabre had a "non-cutting" setting (but then why)? Assuming of course I'm not just blind and failed to see the gashes in the bodies .

The guards are gashed, but not bisected. The lightsaber cauterizes the wounds immediately with no gore spray. Not sure why Luke took this measure - perhaps moving within adequate range for a kill and coming no closer is ergonomic, and outright bisection is a Sith-like indulgence that Yoda would've dissuaded Luke from regularly doing, especially bearing in mind Obi-Wan's vengeful strike on Darth Maul.

TithonusSyndrome wrote:and outright bisection is a Sith-like indulgence that Yoda would've dissuaded Luke from regularly doing, especially bearing in mind Obi-Wan's vengeful strike on Darth Maul.

Or maybe because cleaving people in two takes more energy than simply slicing them, and when both kill or incapacitate the person anyways, you would chose slicing.

Yes, blaster bolts should be one of the goriest ways to die. Stover gets that right in his novels. In the films, I assume that, given the precision of control they have in thermodynamics, that blasters can adjust intensity, power, and energy of individual shots without much problem. A low power shot will nto cause the large explosions one would expect. A high energy, high intensity, low power blast would work similar to an armor piercing shot, and would mimic what we see fairly well (from what my attempts at mathmatical models show)

Darth Ruinus wrote:Or maybe because cleaving people in two takes more energy than simply slicing them, and when both kill or incapacitate the person anyways, you would chose slicing.

I'm pretty sure the difference in effort is negligible. Either way, this is what I meant by saying that gashing midsections is "ergonomic."

Ender wrote:In the films, I assume that, given the precision of control they have in thermodynamics, that blasters can adjust intensity, power, and energy of individual shots without much problem. A low power shot will nto cause the large explosions one would expect. A high energy, high intensity, low power blast would work similar to an armor piercing shot, and would mimic what we see fairly well (from what my attempts at mathmatical models show)

Promising. I suppose the only real problem with this is the same as the various settings on phasers discussed in the PST forum right now - I don't clearly see how these multiple settings are adjusted in the average E-11. Maybe "user presets" that focus on specific functions instead of manual adjustments?

Ender wrote: Stover gets that right in his novels.

This line has me interested, what happens in these novels written by this Stover guy?

TithonusSyndrome wrote:

Ender wrote:In the films, I assume that, given the precision of control they have in thermodynamics, that blasters can adjust intensity, power, and energy of individual shots without much problem. A low power shot will nto cause the large explosions one would expect. A high energy, high intensity, low power blast would work similar to an armor piercing shot, and would mimic what we see fairly well (from what my attempts at mathmatical models show)

Promising. I suppose the only real problem with this is the same as the various settings on phasers discussed in the PST forum right now - I don't clearly see how these multiple settings are adjusted in the average E-11. Maybe "user presets" that focus on specific functions instead of manual adjustments?

Flip the little toggle that was the safety on the original base gun to "stun" "normal" or "armor piercing" We aren't arguing for the zany all over the place yields ST needs, just 3 preset ones. Heck, even the HTLs on a Venator only have 7 settings.

An enerrgy weapon requires certain conditions to be met in order to be explosive, one of them being a VERY rapid input of energy in a very small period of time. An energy bolt won't neccesarily blow someone apart (at least not very violently/messily)

We see what blasters do in ROTS to organics.. the jedi aren't armoured, and they're leaving large, charred holes in the body. Ki-Adi-Mundi even appears to have a bolt shot entirely through his torso (frame by frame revealed to me that there is a charred hole in front and back) IT seems that blasters can inflict kills by either severe thermal effects/burning with mimal explosive effects as well as creating tremendous explosive effects as well, and probably both.

I should note that in the TESB novelization a Wampa is incinerated by the Probe droid's laser weapon set to maximum power (and apparently a wide-beam effect), and WEG always mentioned maximum settings "vaporizing" any material.

Desdinova wrote:I'm sorry, evidence for a reduced setting on any SW personnel weapons? We know the capital ships can do it, but I've never heard of a "dial down" for their handheld guns. (And, no, I don't think you can argue that "stun" was a lower powered setting of the gun's main firing mechanism. It seems like a different mechanism altogether.)

Star wars technical journal, WEG mentions variable settings, the Visual Dictionaries and ICS do, various novels do, etc. etc.

TithonusSyndrome wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Leia was scorched from a blaster hitting the wall of the bunker. If anti-blaster fabric exists in the films, we don't see much of it, nor of the personnel shields from the Old Republic era.

It exists, but its not common. The visual dictionaries mention various kidns (the Naboo guards in TPM all wwore blaster resistant fabrics, for example.)

Ender wrote:

TithonusSyndrome wrote:

Ender wrote:In the films, I assume that, given the precision of control they have in thermodynamics, that blasters can adjust intensity, power, and energy of individual shots without much problem. A low power shot will nto cause the large explosions one would expect. A high energy, high intensity, low power blast would work similar to an armor piercing shot, and would mimic what we see fairly well (from what my attempts at mathmatical models show)

Promising. I suppose the only real problem with this is the same as the various settings on phasers discussed in the PST forum right now - I don't clearly see how these multiple settings are adjusted in the average E-11. Maybe "user presets" that focus on specific functions instead of manual adjustments?

Flip the little toggle that was the safety on the original base gun to "stun" "normal" or "armor piercing" We aren't arguing for the zany all over the place yields ST needs, just 3 preset ones. Heck, even the HTLs on a Venator only have 7 settings.

The way I've read the controls on an E-11 described, the selector switch on a real Sterling SMG performs the same function on E-11: Safe, semi, and full-auto. Some versions of the E-11 can fire a two-round burst in semi if you depress the trigger further, which explains the occasional double-tap in the OT. The power settings are another switch that is a little less ergonomic because you can't put it right there like the safety selector without getting in the way and you wouldn't change settings often anyway.

A simple stun, kill (unarmored personnel), kill (armored personnel), and fuck-shit-up series of settings on a switch would be sufficient. And we know blasters drain power packs faster on the higher settings and experience cooling problems on higher settings and when firing fully-automatic, so it would make sense to only use as much power as necessary to conserve ammo and avoid damage to the gun.

As for blaster resistant cloth, the numerous detail images of Boba Fett's gear often include a note about the padded vest worn under his armor plate, describing it as blaster-resistant body armor. Probably something similar to kevlar in function, and its existence may explain why we never see rebel or New Republic troopers in hard armor like stormtroopers or even Imperial Army (like Veers). They took lighter, low-profile protection over bulky armor that, to be honest, doesn't stop a direct hit from most blasters anyway.

Desdinova wrote:I'm sorry, evidence for a reduced setting on any SW personnel weapons? We know the capital ships can do it, but I've never heard of a "dial down" for their handheld guns. (And, no, I don't think you can argue that "stun" was a lower powered setting of the gun's main firing mechanism. It seems like a different mechanism altogether.)

Uh, check your EGtW&T. The E-11 and other blaster weapons have a clearly labeled "power setting."

Never read that source, but thanks for the illumination. I stand corrected.

Darwin wrote:Also the blasters used by Jabba's henchmen (and Lando when disguised as one) Seemed to be of the crappy low-quality type.

We saw the effects of those Saturday Night Special's Jabba's men were using twice. In both instances they did little more than break skin even though the characters had plenty of reason to juice them up to full if they had the setting. I wouldn't call them "crappy low quality" as much as I would call them Star Wars equivalent Derringers. Some blasters are probably just designed to fire on one setting for simplicity. I comparison, Han's blaster fucking blew torso sized holes in the walls whenever he fired it. (From the looks of it, it also had a lot of recoil.) So i'd call Han's DL-44 the SW equivalent Desert Eagle. Which, knowing Han, makes sense.

Swindle wrote:A simple stun, kill (unarmored personnel), kill (armored personnel), and fuck-shit-up series of settings on a switch would be sufficient. And we know blasters drain power packs faster on the higher settings and experience cooling problems on higher settings and when firing fully-automatic, so it would make sense to only use as much power as necessary to conserve ammo and avoid damage to the gun.

Yeah. Different power settings or ratings for blasters are common. The reason some blasters aren't as powerful as others is the same reason the US Army doesn't equip its men with .50 cal assault rifles. The biggest gun isn't always the best gun. Given that the E-11 is just a carbine, i'm not surprised that we often see it firing low power shots. It CAN go higher, but at the aforementioned cost of wear on the weapon and ammo use. Rifles, like the DC-15A as we've seen, often fire on high settings and are probably much better suited for it.

TithonusSyndrome wrote:None, sorry, other than the fact that the assassination of the Jedi masters during Order 66 raises prickly questions without implying the clonies had power settings on their weapons.

You most definantly would not want to fire full power shots at Jedi who could easily deflect them and send those grenade power rounds at you and your friends. Jedi are unarmored anyway, so their's no reason to fire full power rounds. You'd be far better off using a blaster with a high RPM.

It's also conceivable that onboard the Tantive IV (when they wanted to leave the ship relatively intact so they could find the Death Star plans) and the Death Star the stormtroopers had their blasters powered down to avoid collateral damage. On the Tantive IV they just had to kill any defenders and stun passengers, not wreck the ship. On the Death Star, they just had to convince the rebels that they were trying to kill them, and they certainly didn't want to blow the shit out of their own battlestation.

Ditto for Endor. How much firepower does it take to kill a teddy bear throwing rocks? You don't want a stray shot taking out your buddy, so you dial down to the minimum required power and conserve ammo.

Blasters must almost certainly have settings that allow them to adjust the "power" output as well as the energy output. (And if you dont know what I mean, ,by "power" I mean energy delivered over a certain period of time... for a weapon, a fraction of a second.) While the number of settings or versatility of a blaster probably varies according to the model and type of blaster (some blasters I've read about can actually HAVE cutting effects, for example, and we know theyre are "projectile, masselss, particle/plasma blasters, etc.)

There are a number of reasons why you might not use blasters on an "explosive" setting (or at leat not a very explosive one.) For one thing, shrapnel can be a concern in some cases (bone, metal, plastic, stone, waht have you.) There are also always going to be cases where you want to take someone (mostly) intact as well, so blowing them or it apart isn't an option (taking someone alive, incapacitating them, or taking trophies. Vaporizing might be useful in some cases too (toxic metal or silicon vapour in the air could be a real hazard if you dont have breathing gear, or it might obscure vision.)

In some cases, body physiology may be a factor as well. Maybe some creatures are more resilient to mechanical damage than thermal, or vice versa. Body armour also probably has a big par in dampening "explosive" effects as well, so I imagine that armoured troops (like stormteroopers) rely on thermal effects more than mechanical for damage.

Wampas

As I recall, they were killed by a lightsaber, and rather different htan a blaster. It doesnt take much energy to cut through someone, even with cauterization (it depends heavily on just how much volume you affect.)

rancors

Rancors were shot with blasters?

dianogas

We never saw the results of the hit. Hell, we didnt even see any exampes of the water the bolts touched boiling or vaporizing on contact, so its rather hard to judge anything from that incident.

sarlaccs

When he had no time to check the weapon for settings or make adjustments? Never mind that Lando was close by (shrapnel injury, near miss, etc. Han's a good shot, but he's still recovering from blindness.) He just needs it to let go. And I daresay it would requier ALOT of energy to sever that tentacle, even explosively. Its quite thick (and it could be tough at that.)

and that of Han downing a mynock inside the exogorth in the Hoth asteroid field.

You mean the one attached to the Falcon, that Han might hav ebeen said were "chewing on power cables" or things like that that would have energy (and thsu be potentially volatile) in them? I doub't you'd want an excessively powerful thermal or explosive effect (much less any shrapnel) going on near a ship, especially if there's a chance of damaging delicate (or volatile) systems.

That also probably meshes with the lack of effect when Han shoost at the Slug with no effect.

plus multiple lesser canon instances of other creatures, many of which admittedly may be due to game mechanics, but the standard appears to be in favor of most SW wildlife not turning into viscera showers when shot with blasters.

Uh, care to be more specific?

Lastly, its also possible (likely even) that "lethal" blaster shots have a stronger/deadlier version of the "stun" setting in addition to physically damaging effects (the same way laser bolts can supposeldy cause ion cannon like effects, or ion cannons can do physical damage as well as their disruptive effects.) - the fact that strong stun levels CAN be lethal would make sense, and it would also help explain why some blasters might not always be so... messy.

We also have canon statements that blasters can be set to vaporize objects as large as a corpse (in Tales of the New Republic, the wolfman vaporizes the corpse of that leech chick he met in the cantina so the Imperials won't get it).

There's also Darth Vader's "And no disintegrations!" comment to Boba Fett, though that may not refer specifically to blasters.

Swindle1984 wrote:There's also Darth Vader's "And no disintegrations!" comment to Boba Fett, though that may not refer specifically to blasters.

He was refering to disintegration guns. Different from blasters.