Would you trash the EU?

[Stark]

UGH. *One*, *huge*, gun, that fires *PINK* projectiles that *fuck up* ships, are not EU 'every second fighter has blue guns of disabling anything safely'. Noone ever uses ion guns on the MF, the Queens ship in TPM, is my point: there is no evidence AT ALL that fighters or even capships have these weapons. ONE ion shot would've disabled MF, allowing Vader to capture them and nab Luke, ONE ion shot would've disable the Queens ship, allowing her to be kidnapped, etc.

Anyway, off topic, and these ideas aren't popular anyway. Damn the EU! *waves fist*

[Cal Wright]

Trash it. Not entirely though. This is a very complicated answer that I probably won't go into fully. However, it stems that most EU material is highly incorrect. I believe they should have some form of restart from the ground up. We now have all six movies, GL has given everything we need to know. Not to mention the novels, the scripts, VD, ICS, radio dramas to draw from and make a complete work. While not invalidating everything, pieces that are not contradicted and make sense should be reused to help make leaps and connections. Essentially giving whatever it is placed in a unique reason of being a 'tale'.

[NeoGoomba]

UGH. *One*, *huge*, gun, that fires *PINK* projectiles that *fuck up* ships, are not EU 'every second fighter has blue guns of disabling anything safely'. Noone ever uses ion guns on the MF, the Queens ship in TPM, is my point: there is no evidence AT ALL that fighters or even capships have these weapons. ONE ion shot would've disabled MF, allowing Vader to capture them and nab Luke, ONE ion shot would've disable the Queens ship, allowing her to be kidnapped, etc.

Anyway, off topic, and these ideas aren't popular anyway. Damn the EU! *waves fist*

Yeah I never thought of that. In the ESB, if an ISD has like 40-60 Ion Cannons, where were they when they wanted the Falcon captured?

[Stark]

BECAUSE THEY DON'T FUCKING EXIST. Every time, EVERY FUCKING TIME, they want to capture something, they use careful, low-level turbos. Ion cannons are cool and all (although I think they do more damage than the EU likes to represent and fighters having useful ions seems retarded) but the movies don't support it. We have to put up with it because of the EU, and I fucking hate that.

[Galvatron]

Skullfuck the current EU.

That doesn't mean one can't co-opt the best elements for a new and improved EU though.

[Robert Walper]

BECAUSE THEY DON'T FUCKING EXIST. Every time, EVERY FUCKING TIME, they want to capture something, they use careful, low-level turbos. Ion cannons are cool and all (although I think they do more damage than the EU likes to represent and fighters having useful ions seems retarded) but the movies don't support it. We have to put up with it because of the EU, and I fucking hate that.

A good example there Stark.

What annoys the hell out of me is the author's attempts to constantly make things "bigger, stronger" technology or Force wise...as if that's what makes good story telling. We don't need fictional Force storms that destroy entire fleets of starships for the Emperor to be considered powerful, nor do we need things like Centerpoint Station that exist for no other purpose than to be "better" than the Death Star.

Mind you, SW EU is certainly not alone on this issue. Trek is guilty of this crap as well, more so if you consider the fact technology there is exaggerated to levels beyond even Star Wars. The last novel I read had a secretly created Genesis wave consuming entire star systems at FTL rates.

[Connor MacLeod]

BECAUSE THEY DON'T FUCKING EXIST. Every time, EVERY FUCKING TIME, they want to capture something, they use careful, low-level turbos. Ion cannons are cool and all (although I think they do more damage than the EU likes to represent and fighters having useful ions seems retarded) but the movies don't support it. We have to put up with it because of the EU, and I fucking hate that.

What maeks you think they *don't* use ion cannons? Just because we see a little green blob of nothing flying towards the target doesnt mean its always the same weapon now does it? Its a fucking tracer and/or side effect that can represent a massless beam, a particle beam, or even a physical projectile.

(And for the record, Ion cannons would be just about AS damaging as TLs, they simply have secondary electromagnetic/disabling effects in addition to the "direct" damage - rather consistent with the nature of charged-particle or "ion" beam weaponry.)

[Spanky The Dolphin]

We don't need fictional Force storms that destroy entire fleets of starships for the Emperor to be considered powerful

Such a thing never happened.

[Ender]

BECAUSE THEY DON'T FUCKING EXIST. Every time, EVERY FUCKING TIME, they want to capture something, they use careful, low-level turbos. Ion cannons are cool and all (although I think they do more damage than the EU likes to represent and fighters having useful ions seems retarded) but the movies don't support it. We have to put up with it because of the EU, and I fucking hate that.

What makes you think they *don't* use ion cannons?

Because there is no such thing as green plasma?

I'd trash chunks of it, keep others, and retcon the hell out of the rest.

[Connor MacLeod]

BECAUSE THEY DON'T FUCKING EXIST. Every time, EVERY FUCKING TIME, they want to capture something, they use careful, low-level turbos. Ion cannons are cool and all (although I think they do more damage than the EU likes to represent and fighters having useful ions seems retarded) but the movies don't support it. We have to put up with it because of the EU, and I fucking hate that.

What makes you think they *don't* use ion cannons?

Because there is no such thing as green plasma?

Hello? Did you even bother reading what I posted? I never said anything about it being a plasma, I said that it was a tracer/side effect.

[Ender]

What makes you think they *don't* use ion cannons?

Because there is no such thing as green plasma?

Hello? Did you even bother reading what I posted? I never said anything about it being a plasma, I said that it was a tracer/side effect.

Yes, you did. And it is stated that the Ion cannons are plasma guns. It may be a tracer for other things, but not for a ball of plasma.

[Knife]

Skullfuck the current EU.

That doesn't mean one can't co-opt the best elements for a new and improved EU though.

Probably the best idea. Even in KJA's crapola, there are bit's and pieces that I like. The Jedi on Yavin was a neat bit and made some sense. The constant over use of Yavin there after was horrible. Sith ghosts and every damn thing else.

Keep the Eclipes and ditch the soul-clone transfer crap. Keep Thrawn, ditch the idea that clones fought 50 years ago and were bad because of mind wiping thingies.

[Connor MacLeod]

Yes, you did.

Please point out where I said they were plasma.

And it is stated that the Ion cannons are plasma guns.

Yes, I am aware of this. But a real life "plasma" weapon would behave effectivley like a particle beam (unless it was contained by some sort of projectile, but then its more of a projectile weapon by definition.) I do believe Mike wrote an essay on the subject.

It may be a tracer for other things, but not for a ball of plasma.

Yes, but the visuals for ion cannon shots aren't really consistent with a workable plasma weapon either (the visible bolt would have to be a tracer in that instance as well.)

[RedImperator]

Empire Strikes Back is set six months to a year before Return of the Jedi, as I recall.

So, where in filmic canon does it state the DSII was built between ESB and ROTJ?

They could've started construction of the DS2 right after the destruction of the first one.

Which extends the time it took to construct it to, what, 3 years? I have news for you: three years to build a 900km battlestation is not less impressive--not to say wankish--than six months.

As for the EU, shitcan the lot of it. Every wankalot weapon, every Palpatine clone, the whole alphabet soup of Rebel/Republic fighters that don't start with X, Y, A, or B, every Marty Stu fighter pilot and uber-Jedi, every half-assed dimwit Snidely Whiplash Imperial officer, every Force-negating slug, every monster of the week, every reference to Tattooine that doesn't start and end with "Luke Skywalker grew up there", every reference to Yavin IV that doesn't start and end with "The Rebels had a base there until they blew up the Death Star and the Empire kicked them out", the Yuzhan fucking Vong, every last line of brain-dead minimalist tripe from the pens of pseudo-literate hacks who aren't fit to write Han/Chewbacca slash fantasies for fanfiction.net. Stamp every damn word of it "Apocryphal!", rewind the saga to the moment before the credits roll in Return of the Jedi, and start with a blank slate and writers who actually know what they fuck they're doing. While you're at it, fire everyone at Lucasfilm who wants to turn Star Wars into Looney Tunes, because they're responsible for half this shit in the first place.

[Illuminatus Primus]

BECAUSE THEY DON'T FUCKING EXIST. Every time, EVERY FUCKING TIME, they want to capture something, they use careful, low-level turbos. Ion cannons are cool and all (although I think they do more damage than the EU likes to represent and fighters having useful ions seems retarded) but the movies don't support it. We have to put up with it because of the EU, and I fucking hate that.

While I agree with the majority of this post, why is it inconcievable that fighter might have their own ion cannon-type guns for particular roles?

[Stark]

Connor, the only point I'm making is that there's no reason to assume warships use ion cannon to disable ships. You're right: the shots in ROTJ (particularly the ones seen from the DS2) could have been anything, and there is scope for multirole weapons. I object to having to put up with nonsense like ubiqutious ion cannon just because EU authors are morons. Particularly as the ESB ion shot totally fucked that ship up, causing engine misfires, and (IIRC) imparted rotation to it. The ROTJ battle would've been way fucking shorter if capships used similar weapons.

I think putting ion guns on fighters is just dumb. Use low-power regular guns to disable, just like everyone else in the movies. TLs can be used for both roles, 'EU-ions' just one. You don't NEED them, and the reduce the hardpoints used for 'proper' guns that you use 98% of the time. I also question scaling the ion cannon down, but there isn't enough info.

[HemlockGrey]

I completely agree with RedImp. The EU probably has some decent ideas, although I can't think of any off-hand, but the vast majority of it is total bullshit. You can tell the writers have no talent whatsoever simply by looking at the NR's constant stream of enemies. Imperial warlord, dark jedi, imperial warlord, imperial warlord, dark jedi, oh, look, the Emperor's back, imperial warlord, uberwank race from another galaxy that's immune to the Force, et cetera.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Connor, the only point I'm making is that there's no reason to assume warships use ion cannon to disable ships. You're right: the shots in ROTJ (particularly the ones seen from the DS2) could have been anything, and there is scope for multirole weapons. I object to having to put up with nonsense like ubiqutious ion cannon just because EU authors are morons. Particularly as the ESB ion shot totally fucked that ship up, causing engine misfires, and (IIRC) imparted rotation to it. The ROTJ battle would've been way fucking shorter if capships used similar weapons.

That's fucking stupid. Its not the type of weapon, but the size and power of the emplacement that caused the ISD to get fucked up.

I think putting ion guns on fighters is just dumb. Use low-power regular guns to disable, just like everyone else in the movies. TLs can be used for both roles, 'EU-ions' just one. You don't NEED them, and the reduce the hardpoints used for 'proper' guns that you use 98% of the time. I also question scaling the ion cannon down, but there isn't enough info.

If surface ion cannons fill a particular role that turbolasers would not, than there is perhaps a niche for them afterall. You yourself have not proposed any pure canon idea of what that niche might be, despite criticizing the disable interpretation.

[Connor MacLeod]

Connor, the only point I'm making is that there's no reason to assume warships use ion cannon to disable ships.

Really?

Not according to Curtis

The nature of the ion cannon shots is as unobvious as the shots from blaster weapons. With "turbolaser" blasts, it is uncertain whether the dangerous energy is supposed to involve or merely create "lasers", and similarly it is not certain what the role of ions might be in ion cannons. Roleplaying game sources stated that ion cannon shots disrupt electronics in a target vehicle. This would be understandable if the shots carry or cause the creation of ions -- electrically charged atomic fragments of matter.

Its also worth noting that the ROTS ICS (as well as the OT ICS, if not other sources) support the "disabling" effect. And I would further submit that not all official sources agree on the "disabling without damage" - ion cannons in the X-wign novels as well as the Jedi Academy Trilogy (and others) are known for being damaging to targets as well as disruptive/disabling.

(and before the "unaffected by shields" bit comes up, that too is inconsistently demonstrated in official sources, some sources do show ion cannon shots being blocked by shields. X-wing novels are one example I believe. And even if that weren't the case, that bit is overriden by higher source - being the movie itself and the novelization.)

You're right: the shots in ROTJ (particularly the ones seen from the DS2) could have been anything, and there is scope for multirole weapons. I object to having to put up with nonsense like ubiqutious ion cannon just because EU authors are morons.

I fail to see whats supposed to be moronic about it other than "They don't seem to use it when I think they should!" or something. This is absurd as the "They don't show multi gigaton turbolasers so they don't have them" logic the trekkies and other ICS-whiners spout.

Particularly as the ESB ion shot totally fucked that ship up, causing engine misfires, and (IIRC) imparted rotation to it. The ROTJ battle would've been way fucking shorter if capships used similar weapons.

So for some reason, you think its impossible for them to scale down such technology to at LEAST capital ship scale, even though we HAVE seen similar examples (micro-superlasers on the LAAT, for example.) Blaster technology is so blatantly and easily scalable, why is this somehow NOT true for ion cannons.

And did it ever enter your skull that an ion engine functions on basically the same principle as an ion cannon? I don't see capital ships (or fighters) having problems mounting them

And the ion cannon did NOT impart rotation to the ship - the rotation was the result of the engine misfiring alone after the shot. The recoil of the shot would have (if anything) propelled the ship back at thousands or tens of thousands of gees (But thats an entirely different problem to deal with.)

I think putting ion guns on fighters is just dumb. Use low-power regular guns to disable, just like everyone else in the movies.

Yeah, but you have the problem of getting through the fucking shields to begin with, don't you? firing low powered shots isnt gonna do much good until the shields drop.

Besides which, this still assumes we *don't* see ion cannons being used, and that larrgely seems to be based on the assumption that "every glowy blob we see must be a specific kind of weapon rather than a mere tracer or side effect"

TLs can be used for both roles, 'EU-ions' just one.

Bullshit. Read above.

You don't NEED them, and the reduce the hardpoints used for 'proper' guns that you use 98% of the time.

How so? Most of the heavy weaponry on proper warships tend to be concentrated in a smaller number of larger turrets (most of which ar emany times SMALLER than the warship itself. ISD HTL armament, ,for example.)

I also question scaling the ion cannon down, but there isn't enough info.

Yeah, they can scale turbolasers and ion engines down, yet somehow they CAN'T scale an ion cannon down?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Yes and no.

I like the notion of an EU, but I don't like what was done with the EU. Sometimes I actually wish a big ol' reset button could be pushed and we can go back to square one, start again, and avoid the same mistakes.

But that would still mean an EU of some sort, just not the EU we have. So.. yes and no.

My thoughts precisely (note: I hadn't bothered to see the rest of the pages).

[Uraniun235]

I'm fine with continuing adventures in novel and even comic-book form. I'm not fine with what those adventures have been.

[Ender]

Yes, you did.

Please point out where I said they were plasma.

Sorry, that should have been "Yes, I did", in reference to the question of if I had read your post. my bad.

And it is stated that the Ion cannons are plasma guns.

Yes, I am aware of this. But a real life "plasma" weapon would behave effectivley like a particle beam (unless it was contained by some sort of projectile, but then its more of a projectile weapon by definition.) I do believe Mike wrote an essay on the subject.

Yes and no. His point with that was more aboout slow moving blobs in scifi. You can have a design that shots little blobs, you just have to make them go really fast for them to be effective. This is how star shiva was suppossed to work before its funding was cut/it went black budget (take your pick)

Incidently, that bit is now cited on atomic rocket as a"definitive analysis". Nifty.

It may be a tracer for other things, but not for a ball of plasma.

Yes, but the visuals for ion cannon shots aren't really consistent with a workable plasma weapon either (the visible bolt would have to be a tracer in that instance as well.)

The only one we've seen onscreen for certain is the one in ESB. How fast is it going? We can backtrack from there, the size when it leaves the cannon, and the size when it hits the Avenger to figure out if it has to be a tracer or not.

[Ender]

And the ion cannon did NOT impart rotation to the ship - the rotation was the result of the engine misfiring alone after the shot. The recoil of the shot would have (if anything) propelled the ship back at thousands or tens of thousands of gees (But thats an entirely different problem to deal with.)

Could you clarify here? What makes you think the shot possessed that much momentum?

[Noble Ire]

I would not trash the EU. I think it is one of the major elements of the Star Wars saga that makes it as great as it is. The background, the technology, a good deal of the story lines are all good, or even great. This of course, does not mean I wouldnt mind seeing GL or a high up shunt some of the less than stellar examples of it into infities (Crystal Star comes to mind.)

[Dooey Jo]

UGH. *One*, *huge*, gun, that fires *PINK* projectiles that *fuck up* ships, are not EU 'every second fighter has blue guns of disabling anything safely'. Noone ever uses ion guns on the MF, the Queens ship in TPM, is my point: there is no evidence AT ALL that fighters or even capships have these weapons.

Well, the original version had the TIE Fighters in ESB shoot blue bolts at the MF (when they're flying through the big asteroid). It was changed to green in the Special Edition, but I think they kept the sound. They sound different from other TIE lasers (much like the ion guns in the X-Wing and TIE Fighter games). It doesn't necessarily prove that every other fighter has ion guns, but that's probably where the blue beams come from (unless my tape is fucked up, that is, and they actually are green)...


As for the OP. I like some of the EU. Haven't read most of it, though. Trash the destruction of Coruscant! Make Thrawn's pronunciation of Coruscant (from TIE Fighter) the correct one