Complete Visual Dictionary

[Ender]

I broke my rule and bought it, on the basis that it is DK abd bot the shithole company publishing the written novels.

By and large it is similar, but there appear to have been select chanes made to older entries to newly revealed information, as oppossed to the complete locations, which were straight reprints.

I only gave it a cursory look through, more detailed comparison with the old ones still to come. but so far

no size data on death stars this time

Executor said to be 19 km long

stormies are clones with some recruits

nothing substantiating the 3 million bullshit

the upclose views and such of the AT-UT shows drastic differences from what the text says, and the text is a rehash of that WTS entry, pointing out the idiocy of letting fans make up continuity and not checking it, again.

[VT-16]

the upclose views and such of the AT-UT shows drastic differences from what the text says, and the text is a rehash of that WTS entry, pointing out the idiocy of letting fans make up continuity and not checking it, again.

OMG scanz pleese. :d

Or just a quote to make me grimace.

no size data on death stars this time

Hah, they avoided "teaching the controversy"!

[Jim Raynor]

the upclose views and such of the AT-UT shows drastic differences from what the text says, and the text is a rehash of that WTS entry, pointing out the idiocy of letting fans make up continuity and not checking it, again.

What, the "Unstable Terrain Armored Transport" actually looks like a tank, and not another lame APC/tank hybrid, with even lamer back storage space for stationary artillery pieces?

[Vympel]

no size data on death stars this time

It only referenced the original Death Star in the OT:VD once, IIRC, never the Death Star II, size-wise. Something about Dodonna's plan of attack.

Luckily, the Complete Locations has already come out, so they can't fuck with that

Of course, if they do that for some reason, there's always the chance they might fuck around with the Complete ICS Death Star I size as well. Or it could be a straight reprint, like the Complete Locations. It depends. I think it's insulting not to invite Dr D W Reynolds back to supervise any additional work on a book he wrote, for that matter. Of course, he'd probably object to the size being removed, since he was the one who measured the damn model.

Executor said to be 19 km long

Quote? I mean, this is well-established anyway, but the quote is nice

stormies are clones with some recruits

Quote?

the upclose views and such of the AT-UT shows drastic differences from what the text says, and the text is a rehash of that WTS entry, pointing out the idiocy of letting fans make up continuity and not checking it, again.

That WTS entry on what is clearly a tracked tank has always been utter bullshit of the highest order, even from the three-view visible on the Databank. Whoever wrote that entry was an idiot.

What information does it provide about the Rebels and Imperials? Anything interesting? Is it worth getting?

[VT-16]

That WTS entry on what is clearly a tracked tank

I never saw any clear tracks on that thing. Where did you get that idea? I mean, all the other stuff about it is ludicrous, but tank threads?

[Vympel]

I never saw any clear tracks on that thing. Where did you get that idea? I mean, all the other stuff about it is ludicrous, but tank threads?

You can see it's treads circling under the chassis in the manner of a tank in the Mygeeto scene, IIRC. The notion that this is some sort of repulsor system is patent bullshit.

Still, there's much worse in that stupid article, I admit.

[VT-16]

Sadly, I waited too long to buy ROTS, so I've never seen that in detail. I will, however, make sure to note it when I or someone else provides screencaps of the threads in motion. As much as the competition's official, if the article is based on flawed information, it needs to be fixed. Or at least have the UT-AT roll on threads in addition to it's stick-to-every-surface feature.

Still, there's much worse in that stupid article, I admit.

DM co-wrote it. The End. :P

[Jim Raynor]

[ Whoever wrote that entry was an idiot.

Dark Moose.

[000]

I don't see any treads on that thing. Just the repulsor "skids" mentioned in the article.

Aside from the name and the design history, I don't see any real problems with it. There's nothing that indicates it was a MBT aside from speculation based on its appearance-- and it looks just as likely to be more of a dedicated SPA than anything else.

Plus, on a personal note, I'd hardly call 2ndQuest an idiot. Dark Moose, certainly, but not Quest.

[VT-16]

Even though I like the concept of an artillery carrier, looking at the model, there really isn't much space for it.

[Darth Fanboy]

Saw this at B Dalton today and nearly creamed. My wallet however, suffered from a stroke, not because of the price tag but because of the fact I haven't the cash to buy this OR the new Darth Bane book.

[000]

Even though I like the concept of an artillery carrier, looking at the model, there really isn't much space for it.

True-- I'd rather this have been made specifically some sort of SPA rather than a carrier of artillery.

Although, looking at the top gun, it appears almost as if it can slide back and forth on that track down the center. Maybe it's a modular thing-- the top gun comes off and can be replaced with whatever arty is needed for the role.

[Stark]

Even though the other two weapons are actually larger? Is that thing what they call an APC? Pffft.

[VT-16]

I don't think it had to carry people, only had enough space to shove some clones inside. I think.

[Stark]

I must be getting my 'in ROTS for five seconds' vehicles confused.

What are the rear deck guns for? They can't depress enough to engage infantry.

[VT-16]

Ugh, I remember working on this article:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Unstable ... _Transport

It's basically a "do-everything" wank vehicle.

I had to put up three different military branches in order to cover all the things it can do:

* Self-propelled artillery
* Combat service support
* Mechanized Infantry

[Cao Cao]

I must be getting my 'in ROTS for five seconds' vehicles confused.

What are the rear deck guns for? They can't depress enough to engage infantry.

They look like AA guns to me.

[Stark]

So there are four independent guns that can obstruct each other mounted low with limited elevation and it's AA? I say LOL.

[Cao Cao]

So there are four independent guns that can obstruct each other mounted low with limited elevation and it's AA? I say LOL.

Well that's the only use I can see out of them.
However the whole thing looks like a mess to me, like someone said "Hey let's take an oddly shaped box and attach lots of guns onto it for no reason."

[Jim Raynor]

I must be getting my 'in ROTS for five seconds' vehicles confused.

What are the rear deck guns for? They can't depress enough to engage infantry.

That's exactly what the fanboy-authored databank entry says they're for.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It looks more like a battlewagon style APC than anything else. Also, how can one call it self-propelled Artillery? That gun is a pittance! Might as well call it a heavy tank gun or something. A gross exaggeration. Worse, against those droids, one hit underneath and they are flying.

[Vympel]

Just a note, Ender, they didn't change the Complete Visual Dictionary to "remove" the 160km Death Star reference, there have been different printings of the Original Trilogy Visual Dictionary for a while. I was chatting to Connor, he noted that his copy of the OT:VD doesn't have the 160km Death Star reference on Page 26, whereas yours and mine does. We checked the back of our respective copies and saw that the ISBN was totally different.

His is also an older copy, I think, he says he got it when it first came out, I only got mine back in 2002/2003 or thereabouts.

So it looks like they just used a certain print template when doing the reprint.

Case closed.

[Connor MacLeod]

Perhaps. On the other hand this IS effectively the first printing, and they might very well have gotten rid of it. I didn't bother to look for it when I leafed through it (I may try next time, its a big book after all.)

Alot of books, including some LFL books, do change their text sometime with different versions..

[Ender]

Poking through it I did find them saying that the DS1 was 160 km.

Also, given the retardedness of the AT-UT whaterver the fuck, it ends up saying that laser blasts are projectiles. While Connor dances for joy, the rest of you make of that what you will.

[Vympel]

Poking through it I did find them saying that the DS1 was 160 km.

So it is still there? Cool.

Also, given the retardedness of the AT-UT whaterver the fuck, it ends up saying that laser blasts are projectiles. While Connor dances for joy, the rest of you make of that what you will.

Which laser blasts? Those of the UT-AT? Not that unlikely, IMO. It's guns look the same as the projectile cannon on the AT-TE.