StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The purpose of this thread is to nominate the most impressive creations of the SW fan community including, but in no way limited to, ships, vehicles, weapons and technology. Note that "best" and "most impressive" doesn't mean "most fantastic". I'm specifically looking for creations that are plausible within the established setting, if not continuity. Things that, had they come from an official source, would be applauded as a welcome and intuitive addition to the SW universe.

My first submission is the All-Terrain Battle Transport. The existence of ultra-heavy walkers is already canon, but we know virtually nothing about them beyond the fact that they're out there. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. A complete invention that oozes authenticity.

That's awesome. Based on the TESB sketches that Saxton marks as ultra-heavy walker?

It is awesome. I like the fact that it isn't OGed (Over Gunned) like a lot of fan made things, where people stick guns on an spare surface.

I want one of those.

Am I right in thinking that thing on its forehead is a beam weapon as used on the Republic artillery at Geonosis?


Looks good though, sort of like the AT-TE written on a scale of the AT-AT.

It does look similar, yes, although based on the description I think it's meant to be the turbolaser mentioned (the 8 heavy lasers would I guess be the 2 ball turrets at the front with another one on the other side, and it looks like there might be an undercarriage turret at the rear, plus one on the back at the top (these would be some of the heavy blaster cannons).

I like the fact that it isn't OGed (Over Gunned) like a lot of fan made things, where people stick guns on an spare surface.

As far as transports go I think the LAATs were more OG'ed than that thing - they could carry what? 10 Clone Troopers aboard? And had how many guns again ? Yes I know that they weren't pure transports, but meh .

Anyway, a few thoughts of my own...

The good:
-It's already much better armed than the AT-ATs, and its weapons are better positioned, what with those ball turrets.
-Anyone rapelling from the undercarriage will be better protected, thanks to the middle pair of legs and the ball turrets at the front.
-The semi-circular section at the top of the vehicle might be another entry / exit point for personnel or even vehicles (speeders anyone?). This would make it much easier when it comes to assaulting urban environments - stormtroopers could use the upper entrance to enter buildings above the ground level. Against opponents below the AT-BT, it provides cover when entering / exiting the vehicle, and would allow speeders to accelerate a little before leaving the cover of the AT-BT, making them harder to hit.
-It should be able to carry a hell of a lot more stormtroopers than the AT-AT can, unless the weapons, legs and armour require a considerable amount of space inside.

The bad:
-It appears to have several windows at the front - unless the materials used are as good as the main body armour, this could be a problem.
-It still looks vaguely like some sort of giant beast, despite the lack of a head in the same manner as an AT-AT - one of the reasons, I believe, for the AT-AT's design.
-The whole body must turn if it is to fire the turbolaser (assuming that's what the large dorsal weapon is). That said, it looks like the front section of the vehicle may be able to move slightly (look at the differences between the nearest two AT-BTs in the picture).
-The positioning of the turrets at the front leaves both sides unprotected , as the legs are positioned outside the turrets. However, they'd still be fairly well placed to cover any troops disembarking via a hatch in the undercarriage (the legs would also provide cover from the sides).
-The middle pair of legs I'm also not sure about - might they restrict the movement of the vehicle too much? It'd probably need such legs in order to spread its weight though, so possibly it was a compromise design.
-Speaking of weight, it might also be more restricted where it can and cannot be deployed than the AT-AT. It could even be argued that the AT-BT came first, and that the AT-AT was developed after to go where its bigger cousin couldn't.

Teleros wrote:It does look similar, yes, although based on the description I think it's meant to be the turbolaser mentioned (the 8 heavy lasers would I guess be the 2 ball turrets at the front with another one on the other side, and it looks like there might be an undercarriage turret at the rear, plus one on the back at the top (these would be some of the heavy blaster cannons).

There is vertically-swiveling two-cannon heavy laser mount on the side of the "neck" or "cheek" of the walker. Presumably there's a matching one on the opposite side; two twin cheek mounts plus one nose quad mount gives 8 cannon.

You guys could just read the artists description.

one turbolaser, eight heavy lasers and many heavy blaster cannons.

Obviously I should've written "based on the description" above in bold size 20 and red .

There is vertically-swiveling two-cannon heavy laser mount on the side of the "neck" or "cheek" of the walker. Presumably there's a matching one on the opposite side; two twin cheek mounts plus one nose quad mount gives 8 cannon.

That's what I thought, and it certainly makes sense, although I didn't want to say for certain about the ball turret we can't see, on the off chance the AT-BT is like an AT-ST or some other asymmetrical vehicle.

Now that is just fucking awesome

Wow, that's a fan-made thing? I had seen it before, but was under the impression that it was production art from ROTS for a scene that was never shot.

That's awesome, he says it was done in PS with a model but I thought at first he'd actually painted it then digitally touched it up!

How about the smaller one man walker from IMPS? It's much more agile than an AT-ST and seems more suited for urban operations.

http://impstherelentless.com/images/CH2 ... RG_003.jpg

Or the Revenge-class Heavy carrier?

http://impstherelentless.com/images/ch1 ... lrg015.jpg

Illuminatus Primus wrote:That's awesome. Based on the TESB sketches that Saxton marks as ultra-heavy walker?

He never comes right out and says it's the SWTC, but I do believe so.

Ah, IMPS. How could I forget? I had thought that the biped was an already-existing AT-ST variant, but apparently I wasn't paying close enough attention. As for the Revenge-class, while I'm not sure it would actually be classified as a heavy carrier, it's great to have ships of that size and role to fill the vast gulf between Imperator and Executor. Anyone know of any other good Imperial cruiser designs? Capital support ships are another area that needs some serious fleshing-out. I'm sure there are fuel tankers and maintenance tenders with displacements on par with the main ships of the line.

We know of the existence of super-heavy walkers, and we know there's an "assault" variant of the AT-ST that is larger and more heavily armed and armored, and we haven't seen any equivelents to the one-man walkers with open-air cockpits (what a stupid concept), so there's a lot of room for new fan designs to fill.

Would the Tector count as a "fan" design? I know it counts as canon now. An Imperial-class that was a pure battleship rather than the combined battleship/carrier/troop transport, etc. seems like an awesome concept to me. The Tector probably carried over from the Clone Wars where heavy combat ships designed to take on other capital ships would be necessary, and their apparent scarcity (only one was at Endor and they don't get mentioned in any of the novels) could be explained by the Empire only having to fight police actions against rebels and terrorists and therefore not needing a pure anti-capital ship design.

Shit, I write for a hobby. I should try to get a novel approved by LFL and published so I can fix a lot of the damage the minimalists and assclowns have done to the EU, and toss in references to Tectors and super-heavy walkers and such. If Travis can get published, so can I.

There was only one Tector at Endor?

Maybe because the Empire didnt need pure battleships at the time? I mean, the terro-Rebels sure didnt have many capital ships of their own.

Best Fan creation?

The fan movie Troops!

Would the Tector count as a "fan" design?

If we count ILM modelmakers as fans, sure. ;)

Isolder74 wrote:Best Fan creation?

The fan movie Troops!

Canadian sandtroopers for the win.

Although every single large picture of it seems to have disappeared from the intarwebs, I submit this ship. There were some hawt, hi-res models of it floating around a few years ago, and it was called something like the Legacy class then. Looked more or less like a battleship version of a Venator.

Now, while I realize there's some significant "blind spots" on this thing, the hi-res images had additional turrets to cover them. I think. It's been awhile. If anyone has a bigger version, please post it. I'll do the same if I stumble across it.

VT-16 wrote:

Would the Tector count as a "fan" design?

If we count ILM modelmakers as fans, sure.

We got a few seconds of footage of the Falcon flying over what appeared to be a Star Destroyer's ventral side (since there was no bridge tower), but without the hangars or reactor bulb. Everything after that was non-canon statements by Curtis Saxton until the Tector got included in the Star Wars dictionary.

^ So, uh, what exactly *was* that starship before? Its existence has always been canon, simply its designation was not.

Anguirus wrote:^ So, uh, what exactly *was* that starship before? Its existence has always been canon, simply its designation was not.

Unidentified Star Destroyer #5, or something like that.

^ Regardless, the ship has been canon since 1983.

Anguirus wrote:^ Regardless, the ship has been canon since 1983.

The MODEL has, yes. It just didn't get a name and fluff material until over twenty years later, and for quite a while that name and fluff material was just fanon.

It was never named as fanon. Saxton never put forth the name Tector in public until it was published.