Darth Hoth wrote:
While you have a point, I still feel that the meaning of the text was quite clear. The most intuitive reading of it would, to me, seem to be that the Viper's guns had at least burst firepower ("knockout punch") equivalent to capital ship-grade weapons of some kind (although the fact that turbolasers specifically were mentioned becomes less important, given the terminology issues we discussed earlier). What else would "knockout punch" refer to; some kind of shieldbreaking technology or ion cannon-like charge? How would you interpret the passage instead, to get around the problems implicit in the literal reading?
If I was going to interpret it I would assume it is on the low end of the turbolaser scale, either on a small craft (like a corvette or gunship) or dedicated to point defense roles, if not both. But that won't stop other interpretations either.
I wouldn't focus on "knockout punch" at all either. Getting into semantics unless you absolutely HAVE to is generally more pain than its worth (its an open invitation to wall of text tactics or semantical nitpicking, unless you have a LOT of evidence on your side. But if you have lots of evidence you shouldn't need to get into semantics anyhow.) In fact, the only thing saving the quote at all is the fact the definition of "turbolaser" is so open ended now, if we went with a more narrow (EG WEG) definition, turbolasers would be exclusively anti-ship weapons.
I might have overstated my case, perhaps. Still, I would maintain that the presence of the canon hierarchy does make it rather easier to analyse Star Wars, even if it does not make for a perfect panacea. The canon has not always remained constant, either, as you note, but from what I understand of it, the same basic principles are still roughly applicable - that is, the farther away from the films the EU material ranges, the less weight should be given to it. Myself, I tend towards emulating Publius's methodology, as outlined on his site.
The same for the films - it does not always help to go to them, but just having a basic benchmark and groundwork to build on makes for a considerable difference, in my opinion. As well, for latecomers to the analysis such as myself, at least, we have tech sources that are much more detailed and precise than is the case for something like Warhammer (the ICS, foremost).
'Canon' carries overtly religious connotations to it, and in my experience it tends to be treated that way, as do terms like "Saxtonites" or "rationalists" or that. If not religion, then tribalism or ideology at the very least. What's more canon can and does change over time, orfor whatever whim, and that can throw any large, complicated and long-term analysis into complete disarray. Moreover, it engenders the sort of retarded "canon" discussions that have near-totally overtaken the SW vs ST debate (or any other sw debate) since the ICS came out.
When it gets down to it, you never have enough evidence to do a decent analysis, and playing on canon hierarchy is just asking for nitpicking, semantics, or accusations of cherrypicking (regardless of whether it is true or not.) Especially amongst people who (for example) despise and try to toss out the ICSes as proof. If you can incorporate the supposed "contradictions", they cease to be problems, and take the props out of any basis their argument has.
But that is, in itself, sort of the problem, I think, or at least part of it. Since pretty much everything in Warhammer is wildly variable (and not just because of lack of continuity management, but also canonically within the setting), how can one settle for a sensible baseline for what the "basic" standards of the matter are? Say, if in one book a cruiser's main batteries can destroy a city in a few blasts, and in another, a continent, not only is the variation quite extreme, but how can we know which one is typical and which one, exceptional?
You seem to be under the impression that having things clear cut and laid out is something of an advantage. It may be to a certain extent, but that's what (at least unders suspension of disbelief) the scientific method is supposed to provide. It's a "common" framework by which we can understand, quanitify and even explain an otherwise fictional entity, and it also allows us to make the comparison that is "vs" debating - in theory, at least. Canon can actually HARM that, because one can make an argument that canon even supersedes the scientific method, or if (for example) canon emphasizes something so utterly absurd, anti-scientific, or unreal that we venture into the realm of looney toons type physics. "Canon" also emphasizes an utterly dogmatic approach to evidence which can be quite poisonous, nevermind leading to the sorts of tribal/ideological debates over whose "canon" is more right (purist vs EU supporter. Or something like the arguments that crept up over the size of the GAR in past years. That turned into a complete fiasco in the long run, I believe.)
40K not having a specifically defined hierarchy has in fact shaped my approach to analysis and evidence in a more positive way. It's enforced more flexibility in my approach, and a greater willingness to embrace or approach ideas I would have found utterly repugnant in my vs debating days. And in doing so things actually get much simpler and open ended. It also encourages me to look t the bigger picture, and the bulk of evidence rather than fixating on specific pieces (anyone can do that, and doing that ultimately gets you mired down in wall of text and nitpickery - the textual equivalent of attritional warfare and human wave tactics.)
- PeZook
