StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Not sure if this merits a thread on its own, but I thought Chee's reply to my question was worth it:

+http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa? ... tart=01995

His newest post down on the site. 8D

Makes you wonder how many other assumptions are right. And wrong. Well, cheers for that one.

Tasty Taste wrote:The Tector-class is mentioned by name and in his notes on the early version of the Cross-Sections book, Curtis Saxton intended for it to be the hangarless Star Destroyer. I note of this in the Holocron, so for all intents and purposes, it is official though it has never been identified by image in a published source.

Great to finally have confirmation.

I'm wondering how the SW Wiki article should be updated. It's completely obvious to anyone that the Falcon DID fly by a hangarless ship, but I'm afraid to remove the concept art "evidence" because of you-know-who. I'm pretty sure he's going to try to twist his way out of this latest quote as well.

VT-16 wrote:Not sure if this merits a thread on its own, but I thought Chee's reply to my question was worth it:

+http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa? ... tart=01995

His newest post down on the site. 8D

Great to see that confirmed!

I'm wondering how the SW Wiki article should be updated.

Done and done.

EDIT: To clarify, I kept the evidence part up, just to show people how this vessel was originally noticed and singled out as different.

That Policrat fellow here:
+http://forums.starwars.com/thread.jspa? ... tart=02010

Could that be TMcE?

Hell yeah it is.

Still trying to lay all the blame on Saxton, I see.

Still using his lame ass kitbash excuse from SW Wiki, I see? Even if it was a money-saving kitbash, what does that matter? Saying that the ship was the result of a crappy model is going out-of-universe. It's a lot better to come up with an in-universe explanation for things, and Saxton did that in a cool way, by making a new class of Star Destroyer. I fail to see the problem here. McDumbshit isn't just a slave to WEG, he's a complete Saxton hater.

Yeah, I mean, this has nothing to do with WEG being added to or refuted or anything. He's just whining because Saxton made a new ship-class. That's it.

Wonder if he knows Saxton (or his team on ICS:AOTC) came up with AT-TE's name? That would be two "offenses", but strangely, Hodge doesn't seem to be interested in any Army material that goes beyond WEG. Curious.

Cool news, and I figured that some moron would hate it, but at least the morons are in the minority for once.

I'd say we're about due for a novel or comic using the Tector. After all, we're still only assuming what the dorsal side looks like (aside from the obvious, that it resembles an ISD) so there's some room for creative latitude.

Yeah, there nothing in either source (ICS:ROTS or ROTJ) that states anything explicit, except having no hangars and being a sister-design of the Imperator, so there room for artists and authors to add more detail to it. 8)

And that "some moron" is McEwok, and he's been like that for many years. Must be bitchin' to not be asked by Lucas Licensing to write anything.

I don't understand what the problem is. We can see the belly of a Star Destroyer that obviously isn't an Imperator, so much the better that an in-universe explanation (and an interesting such) could be found.

The problem is, Arkady Hodge has an obsession with SW authors that write things he disagrees with and who get fame while he is just a nobody.

A part of his tactics, is to question the "need" for additional explanations, names and distinctions which can resolve some problems. Whether big problems, like with the vastly different classes called SSDs, or small problems, like the non-ISD-looking ships in ROTJ.

If he had a say, you wouldn't hear of any SSDs except Executor, Eclipse and Sovereign (all others being "artistic errors"). They wouldn't have additional designations to specify them. There wouldn't be any additional classes at Endor (all deviating designs being chalked up as "production errors" or "kitbashes meant to be the same ships", like the upside-down ship). There wouldn't be any sources to contradict WEG's assumption of an 8 km Executor SSD (itself a contradiction of ILM's ideas and work).

The only standpoint I can find an explanation for is the SSD length, and that's due to simple nostalgia. All of his other points are completely nonsensical and worthless. (Why should it mean anything to get more names and designations? Is this just because the WEG books never mentioned them?)
Why should all Imperial warships be covered by one phrase, regardless of size or power output? We don't do that in real life, so why do it in SW?

You might as well call a battleship "destroyer", because it's "essentially the same", only bigger and with more guns.

If he had a say, you wouldn't hear of any SSDs except Executor, Eclipse and Sovereign

Is he like, totally blind? How does he... how does he read Dark Empire (which I personally hate, but that's not the point) with a straight face? The Byss great armada is what - artistic error? Someone was drunk and drew hundreds of ships in place of NONE?

There wouldn't be any additional classes at Endor

It's clear that there were at least sub-classes in the ISD-range (Tector, that multi-bridge something). What is this guy smoking?

There wouldn't be any sources to contradict WEG's assumption of an 8 km Executor SSD

Umm... so what's up with, well, the 19 km introduced everywhere now? Is he just denying it

how does he read Dark Empire (which I personally hate, but that's not the point) with a straight face? The Byss great armada is what - artistic error?

Exactly. Even the more detailed ships. Artistic errors.

I wrote about the different cruisers that were clearly derived from the Eclipse design and noted them as being larger than ISDs. He disagreed, of course, but didn't provide any argument against it.

It's clear that there were at least sub-classes in the ISD-range (Tector, that multi-bridge something).

Production errors. Kitbashes. Production errors. Kitbashes.

Umm... so what's up with, well, the 19 km introduced everywhere now? Is he just denying it

Not sure, I think he's just avoiding that one. But he is always quick to point out, no matter where the Executor is mentioned that "it being a Star Dreadnought was only mentioned in one source" (even that isn't true, but apparently, recycled info is only tolerated in WEG sources), and that, i shit you not, "I feel that "ultimate Star Dreadnought" is too strong a phrase".

Stas Bush wrote:

If he had a say, you wouldn't hear of any SSDs except Executor, Eclipse and Sovereign

Is he like, totally blind? How does he... how does he read Dark Empire (which I personally hate, but that's not the point) with a straight face? The Byss great armada is what - artistic error? Someone was drunk and drew hundreds of ships in place of NONE?

He'll cop out by trying to dismiss visuals, either all visuals on principle, or by crying "artistic error." Or, he might say that those were all unique, one-off designs, and that they're all covered by the term "Star Destroyer."

Another fanwhore at TFN once claimed, and I shit you not, that the armada at Byss was a "Frankenstein" fleet of kitbashes, failed designs, and barely functional facades.

There wouldn't be any additional classes at Endor

It's clear that there were at least sub-classes in the ISD-range (Tector, that multi-bridge something). What is this guy smoking?

You can't trust visuals (G-canon), silly.

There wouldn't be any sources to contradict WEG's assumption of an 8 km Executor SSD

Umm... so what's up with, well, the 19 km introduced everywhere now? Is he just denying it

Basically. Since the 19 km fix, he has desperately resorted to a fluffy blurb on some lame figurine collector's magazine (again, I'm not kidding), even though that blurb was obviously written from an uninformed in-universe perspective. Now, he's trying to make the Executor out to be some kind of freak ship, while all other SSDs are still 8 km long.

Or, he might say that those were all unique, one-off designs

I remember him using the phrase "singular monstrosities" or something. As if one ship can't possibly be an individual class.

EDIT: Looking at Wikipedia, there's the unique BB-4 Iowa. But it says it wasn't part of any class. Maybe I was wrong. Still, they don't treat that ship as a "monstrosity".

Another fanwhore at TFN once claimed, and I shit you not, that the armada at Byss was a "Frankenstein" fleet of kitbashes, failed designs, and barely functional facades

Wow. That's... almost Darkstarish, you know. "Of course, given we have nothing to compare it to...".

You can't trust visuals (G-canon), silly.

Because George and ILM are a bunch of retards, and the guys who write books with 8km SSDs out of their shiny ass, not even watching the movie properly, are professionals who define Canon? That's just strange.

Now, he's trying to make the Executor out to be some kind of freak ship, while all other SSDs are still 8 km long.

That can't fucking BE. It's specifically stated that the "Super" class, whatever, is also 19 km long! Hell, Lusankya is an Ex twin, we have depictions of Guardian and Vengeance being 11 times an ISD. His argument is easily debunked. Does he just dismiss three other Ex-type SSDs allright?

He must also, if he's still keeping it up, be dismissing the recent statement from WOTC, that all ships of the ''Executor''-class were also retconned to 19km.

VT-16 wrote:The problem is, Arkady Hodge has an obsession with SW authors that write things he disagrees with and who get fame while he is just a nobody.

What I find strange is why Arkady Hodge suddenly behaves the way he does. He's a fervent anti-Saxonite now. Is this the same Arkady Hodge who once contributed to Saxon's site?


information.

# Defender-class[?] battleship

ROLE:
battleship or commandship

FEATURES:

* Length several miles

A vessel of exceptional size and novelty described in Vector Prime. The first example seen in the literature, the Viscount, is refered to as "Mon Calamari Star Defender", which is an odd term and may be colloquial. Functionally, it must be a battleship.

.....

Apocryphal Note: According to Arkady Hodge, in the 1980s there was a piece of fan fiction dealing with the post-ROTJ era, which was called the "Restored Republic." This story invented the term "Star Defender" for destroyer-sized vessels; a peculiar pun. This idea may have percolated to R.Salvatore, perhaps in the recesses of the roleplaying game references, but it might just be a coincidence.

Is this the same Arkady Hodge who once contributed to Saxon's site?

Someone mentioned his examples were only used to ridicule him on the site, but I'm not sure that goes for everything he contributed on there. Either way, it's downright bizarre.

The kitbash argument mentioned above seems particularly dodgy given that most (all?) of the larger ship models and the DS I surface in the OT had bits of commercial modeling kits stuck to them for "texture", IIRC.

Srynerson wrote:The kitbash argument mentioned above seems particularly dodgy given that most (all?) of the larger ship models and the DS I surface in the OT had bits of commercial modeling kits stuck to them for "texture", IIRC.

The kitbash argument doesn't make any sense, why would the model makers build a seperate model for the ISD upperside when they already had models to film?

He wants it to be official that the original model was meant to be the dorsal part of an ISD, and that since it goes by so fast, most people wouldn't notice.

Now, this is probably the most logical and likely answer, but that doesn't change the fact that, unless somehow stated in a source that it was an ISD, it's open to new suggestions, and that's what we got. A good choice of in-universe explanation, imho.

Of course, what it's really about is finding one more way to implicate Saxton as being a "subversive author" who drags his fanon into Lucas Licensing.