StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Ahh. Smart man. 8)

I've actually campaigned more for this, using the word "millions", followed by military units instead of individual soldiers. Or "countless". Why on Earth LFL didn't think of that on their own, is beyond me.

Ender wrote:

VT-16 wrote:Unless this rejection is stated outright in a source, and since SW:CL came out after Insider 84, retaining the same reference, this is irrelevant. I really can't imagine what goes on inside the head of any LFL representative who thought 3 million troops for a galactic army was a good idea. Talk about a lack of perspective.

They proaby mean a more explicit reference.

TFN Cocksucker off the port bow (Comments section):

LtNOWIS wrote:date Posted: Jul 16, 2006 10:01 AM
This is excellent! Lord of War is probably my favorite Insider Supplement ever. I eagerly await Part 4.

One question:

a reference to a potentially much larger figure from Inside the Worlds of Episode II was rejected

Does this mean the "millions more [divisions]" quote in that book should no longer be taken at face value?

Watch every TFN asskisser repeat Pena's statement about ITW until the end of time, but conveniently forget that in the next paragraph, he even suggests that Odds's numbers might be bullshit as well.

A page late, haven't been following.. but.. she's a creationist? Jesus it's all falling into place now..

Jim Raynor wrote:Watch every TFN asskisser repeat Pena's statement about ITW until the end of time, but conveniently forget that in the next paragraph, he even suggests that Odds's numbers might be bullshit as well.

Yes, that's extremely annoying. However, Peñas' reply over at the TFN thread makes me even more worried about how the EU is managed by Licensing. Peña himself is unaware of how the process works, but he included a passage in his General Grievous: Lord of War which upped the number of clone troopers using the AOTC:ItW as reference. The passage was removed by the editors. The editors?! How the hell are they managing this stuff?

As he said in his long post, that's just an assumption and can easily fall into the "no hard limit" stipulation (you know, the one Kaufman stated existed and then tried to take back by claiming "context" from a one-sentence post so as not to "drive a wedge" between him and Travissty ).

Vympel wrote:As he said in his long post, that's just an assumption and can easily fall into the "no hard limit" stipulation (you know, the one Kaufman stated existed and then tried to take back by claiming "context" from a one-sentence post so as not to "drive a wedge" between him and Travissty ).

Yes, you're quite right.

Due to the size of this thread I'm sticky/locking it for one and starting a new one.

EDIT: part two can be found here