Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Who the fuck cares what company they came from? If Bantam released a movie-related supplement, it'd be of higher official status than one of their pure EU novels. Read the fucking canon policy from Cerasi, fuckwad. The ICS2 was based on calcs directly from the objective visuals of AOTC. The VD was not. Thus, the ICS2 is closer to canon. Don't you get that this is the same reason why the Executor is not 8 km long?
This has nothing to do with the canon policy, it has to deal with the apparent *Assumptions* you are tying to it to prove your point. Maybe you care to cite the quote that indicates where it was stated "Because the ICS2 has calcs derived from canon, it is a higher source than the VD or *other* materials?"
In other words, cite your OFFICIAL PROOF that the ICS2 overrides all other official sources, or shut the fuck up.
Connor MacLeod wrote:
Who the fuck cares when they came out. Again: if Bantam released the movie supplement and EU novel simultaneously, they would not be of the same official status due to Cerasi's canon statement.
Your opinionated speculation on the origins of the ICS stats do not prove that it is "higher" canon. It only proves you're trying to pass off your opinion as a fact to support your position.
Connor MacLeod wrote:
Wrong. Movie-related sources are closer to canon than pure EU.
And what makes you think the VD isn't? Oh yes, your OPINION. I forgot how highly valued that was by LFL. Silly me.
Mad already explained that the AOTC VD does not explicitly claim that the blaster bolts are plasma, but rather suggests plasma is used to make a "coherent energy bolt" which loses "plasma energy" as it becomes incoherent.
Not only have you decided to ignore what evidence doesnt suit your viewpoint, you now resort to misrepresentation of facts so you don't have to give up your little pet theory. Go back and read on the bottom of page six where he got the source: its from the "STAR WARS: THE VISUAL DICTIONARY" - the Dictionary that was covering THE ORIGINAL TRILOGY. Next time check up on your sources before you make yourself out to be an idiot.
Now, to see exactly what IP is misrepresenting, I'll quote the relevant sources I mentioned from the REAL AOTC VD:
AOTC VD page 39:
"Clone troopers are issued
plasma guns of two types. Like all
standard blaster weapons, these guns create a
charged plasma bolt using a small amount of Tibanna gas. Blaster weapons free clone troopers from the need to carry projectile ammunition but are notoriously hard to aim due to the inherent instability of
plasma bolts.
and:
"Tibanna gas is carried in a replacable cartridge that lasts about 500 shots, depending on the weapon's settings and traits. Power-charge magazines supply the gun with energy to hyper-ionize the gas into
charged plasma in an igniter chamber. The resulting
bolt is
accelerated out of the gun electromagnetically
We should note as well that the gun cutaway on the same page clearly points out the accelerator coils on the gun. Of course, this will probably make no difference to IP, who will ignore it because he continues to claim "the ICS is above all other official sources." on his opinion alone.
Since you failed to read Mad's posts which already covered what you said and don't understand SW canon policy, I believe you can shut the fuck up.
Its less my failure to read it than your debating dishonesty, or ignorance of the source material, or both.
Accelerated particles meshes fine with AOTC VD. It appears high-energy plasma feeds the firing assembly in blaster weapons--but that the assembly fires "coherent energy bolts"--if I understand Mad correctly.
And you prove you don't bother checking his sources before spewing bullshit. You're just as singleminded in your "every weapon must be a massless beam weapon" ranting as you apparently consider Nitram to be (Although I'm not exactly fond of Nitram and his "its plasma cuz the movie told me so" logic either.) So not only do you ignore what doesnt suit you, and twist evidence around to fit your little pet theories, you're being a hypocrite as well. This gets better and better.
Oh yes, and go see what the ACTUAL AOTC VD quotes say, not what you think they say.
Lower official source than ICS2
Only according to your speculative "it borrows from the movies" opinion, which proves nothing aside from the fact you cant prove your point without artificially altering the canon/official hierarchy to suit your agenda.
Quite explicit. Energy weapons--not blasters or turbolasers. My explanation provides a mechanism for making this remain technically true while still providing the STL beams that Mad pointed out.
Really? Let us complete the quote, since the context clearly identifies that the source is talking about CAPITAL SHIP and FIGHTER weapons. Nowhere on the page are blasters neccesarily mentioned, nor the personal/handheld/vehicle-mounted weapons. - indeed its just yet more of your delusional ranting:
SW AOTC ICS:
page 3
Energy Weapons
Energy weapons fire invisible energy beams at lightspeed. The visible "bolt" is a glowing pulse that travels along the beam at less than lightspeed...The light given off by visible bolts depletes the overall energy content of a beam, limiting its range. Turbolasers gain a longer range by spinning the energy beam, which reduces waste glow. A gun's range also depends on its aiming precision and the time-lag required to detect and anticipate target motion at a distance. For example, a massive warship mounts small point-defense guns that trade power for quick aim, while heavier guns are effective against slow, distance, large targets."
Now, lets reiterate in brief. You want to cling obsessively to a rigid definition you know is unworkable, because you obviously don't like it and dont want to deal with it. The alternative is to accept that the definition of "energy weapon" and "blaster" might encompass more than the "massless beam weapons" you endlessly harp upon, at the very minimum where personal weapons are concerned (although there's nothing preventing a capital version of such weapons.) Doing this in no way alters what the ICS says (and by "what the ICS says" we're ignoring your speculation carries about as much weight as a pile of dog shit.), it simply makes additions to the definition, and the two sources are in no way mutually exclusive. Buit of course, you can't let go of your pet theory, so I suppose we'll have to put up with more repetitive "its all massless" bullshit from you.
