PDA

View Full Version : Thoughts on Saxton lore



Garan
3 August 2005, 12:18 AM
Feel free to post your thoughts on the works of Curtis Saxton here. Creator of the (in)famous incredible cross section books. I am going to make a start with one of my favorite subjects. Please do comment, that’s what this topic is for, after all.

Note:
I am not going to try to ever work out the size of the “Super Star Destroyer” again. Because, these days you could be right if you call it 8 km, 10km, >10,8km, 12 km, 12.8 km, >13,644km, 16 km, 17.6 km, >19,2km, 19,2 km, 22km, >180km or >210 kms long, and that’s without taking size guesses using scaling, but just with pure number crunching. I personally going with what the official star wars website says on the subject of the Executors size and stats, but lets get back to topic.

Saxton vs Super Star Destroyers

The Executor was the first ship build to be called “Super Star Destroyer” (see the essential chronology, plus properly lots of other sources) thus Saxton’s very open ended definition of “Super Star Destroyer” (see inside the worlds of the original trilogy) cannot be pinned on any ship that was build before the Executor, which includes the countless stateless Star-prefix cruisers he created for his Clone Wars books.

Also, his definition does not allow us effectively derive when something can be called a Super Star Destroyer, as it simply says “…a term that covers many warships classes bigger then a Star Destroyer, from Star Cruisers to ultimate Star Dreadnaughts like Executor.” Now, as we don’t know what type of Star Destroyer he was talking about, we need to see for which Star Destroyer -types his definition might work.

Victory-SD are 900 meter long, by Saxton’s definition any ship bigger then that becomes a “Super Star Destroyer” (SSD for the rest of this post), which would leave countless ships open to getting called “SSD”, including most large merchant ships, Mon Cal cruisers and a large number of other vessels, especially the Imperial Class Star Destroyer itself. Putting in the Venator Class, wields pretty much the same results. If we use an Imperial Class vessel we quickly encounter the problem that Mon Cal “Star Cruisers”, aren’t bigger then the Imperial Class Star Destroyer, thus Saxton’s definition seems to not be applicable again.

Putting in the bigger classes of Star Destroyers (Eclipse-Class, Sovereign-Class, Super/Executor-Class), does not only break the Star Cruiser part of the definition again, it actually leads to that ships that have been called SSDs can’t be SSDs, because they are Star Destroyers, but by Saxton only ships that are bigger then Star Destroyers can be SSDs.

Thus, as far as I can tell Saxton’s definition of SSD is not actually useable to the rest of Star Wars lore.

Saxton vs “The Allegiance”

Saxtons guess at the size of the SSD Allegiance (shown in the infamous Dark Empire comic) is utterly random, as the one shoot, which shows the ship, does not give any indication of relative distance and size to other ships in the shoot, plus Star Wars comics often are far from drawing ships to scale, or even drawing the same ship the same way (thus we can’t really use later shoots of “Allegiance” looking-like ships, because we can’t be sure that they are the same type of vessel.)

http://www.theforce.net/swtc/Pix/comics/de/allegiance.jpg

Also, by presuming from how something looks in a comic that it must be something different, would call for that the main characters in comics are actually not themselves, because in many instances they don’t share a big resemblance to there original looks, the same often applies for the ships we see in the comics.

All other sources that mention the ship (Dark Empire Audio Book and Dark Empire Sourcebook) don’t give any indication of size either. The Audio Book simply calls it a Super Star Destroyer, the Dark Empire sourcebook calls it “Imperial command ship”.

It is more likely that the Allegiance is a Super Star Destroyer variant, like the Vengeance (see the new essential guide to characters and the wotc site entry for jerec), just of a different type, and most likely of far larger size then the 2,2 km Saxton guessed.

Saxton vs Super-Class

Saxton named the ship to which the Executor belongs as “Executor”-Class. There is only one other instance when of ship of SSD-typ gets called “Executor-class”, which is during the Black Fleet novel series, were the same ship later gets called Super-Class. In inside the worlds of the original trilogy Saxton says that the ship was “Eventually designated Executor-Class…”, implying that it had another class name before that, which was properly Super-Class if we go by the rest of Star Wars lore. Thus both class names can be used for the ship. The only instance I can think of were Super-class is not used to describe a sister ship of the Executor, or the Lady Ex itself, is in the official Star Wars website entry for gravity well projectors, which says.

“The last generation of Super-class Star Destroyers, including the Eclipse and the Sovereign featured gravity well generators.”

Seeming to imply that “Super-class” like “Interdictor-class” it is just a generic label for a ship with certain abilities. Which properly was the reason that the Executor typ ships, were eventually called “”Executor”-class, because as more ship of the Super Star Destroyer line started to appear it become necessary to subclass them.

boccelounge
3 August 2005, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Garan
Feel free to post your thoughts on the works of Curtis Saxton here. Creator of the (in)famous incredible cross section books. I am going to make a start with one of my favorite subjects. Please do comment, that’s what this topic is for, after all.

Ahh... Saxton-bashing...sweet, wonderful Saxton-bashing...

Well, I'll read and digest to whole of your post after some sleep; for now, let me add a friendly correction: the wonderful artists Hans Jenssen and Richard Chasemore are the creators of the "(in)famous incredible cross section books." Mr. Saxton gets the author credit for the latest one, but the heart of it is clearly the art. Let's not start off on the wrong foot and give him too much credit.

;)

Garan
3 August 2005, 12:39 AM
Yes the art was pretty nice, just sad that the texts with it are usually not up to the same quality. Please, do substitute creator for Author ;)

BrianDavion
3 August 2005, 06:23 PM
Saxton is pretty hit and miss. some of his stuff is good, others, noteably the erronous belive that star destroyers are well.. destroyers. is silly

Garan
3 August 2005, 11:49 PM
Hmm, I personally still have to find something that I can just really marvel at that come from Saxton lore. I mean the stuff that shows up in the cross section books I have seen so far, could have been written by anybody else just as well, but would likely have been without star-prefix cruiser of unknown type on every other page and without a base delta zero operation getting implied on every fifth page.

I mean something like a Bulk Cruiser, or a Dreadnaught (see the Han Solo trilogy) can perform a base delta zero operation just fine. Why he had to go on that an armed trooper transport was the first type of ship that could turn a planet to slag, though we know that even lesser ship and way older ships can do it, is beyond me.

PsychoInfiltrator
4 August 2005, 11:06 AM
Armed troop transports can slag planets (8o) by: A) burning off the atmosphere of a planet using energy blasts; and B) removing more than the top meter of top soil off of a planet using those same energy blasts; and c) create evenly spaced craters on the entire planet? Who knew?

The Rebels could have made Hoth a tropical temperature (albeit moist) paradise if they'd wanted to, apparently.

And I somehow doubt that Large transports with a smattering of anti capital ship weaponry can render a planet uninhabitable within any remotely reasonable period of time. With the amount of energy flying through the atmosphere of Coruscant during certain battles for control Coruscant shouldn't HAVE an atmosphere anyoomre ten times over if a Bulk Cruiser can smite a planet.

(IMHO) Alot of people mistakenly think that Star Destroyers and the like have very little weaponry, and that armed transports have alot.

Star Destroyers have alot more than 6-8 big guns. And transports don't.

Garan
5 August 2005, 12:54 AM
Star Destroyers have alot more than 6-8 big guns. And transports don't.

ISDs depending on type have 60 to 100 planet shattering high-energy weapons emplacements, the Old Republic Assault ship (an armed troop transport) has... well 12 and gets attributed with the ability to slag planets. :rolleyes

Add to that, that In the second book of the Han Solo trilogy a fleet composed of 3 Dreadnaughts, 4 Bulk Cruiser, 2 Carrack Cruisers + Fighters and a handful small Customs Vessels gets deployed to Nar Shaddaa (the moon of Nal Hutta, which had a set of full planetary shields and planet defenders, whilst also like Coruscant being a city “planet”) with the mission to perform base delta zero on it, but has to retreat, because it gets pretty messed up by a fleet of mercs.


And I somehow doubt that Large transports with a smattering of anti capital ship weaponry can render a planet uninhabitable within any remotely reasonable period of time. With the amount of energy flying through the atmosphere of Coruscant during certain battles for control Coruscant shouldn't HAVE an atmosphere anyoomre ten times over if a Bulk Cruiser can smite a planet.

Now, as far as I know we weren’t ever given how long a BDZ would take to perform, though of course with more firepower and ships at hand, it should take less time. Hmm.. if a 12 turbo laser troop transport can supposedly do it in reasonable time by itself and a fleet of 9 “light” cap ships could do a bdz on a full city planet, with planetary defences in place, we should really just marvel at the firepower these ships have. ;) Though what is a reasonable amount of time in planetary genocide is the question. If you got a fleet of something star destroyer-like you can properly slag a planet in "reasonable time", but with smaller fleets, or just single ships, you are properly going to be sitting there for a few weeks/months, just bombing away at the planet.

Just drop an asteroid on it, or some kind of chemical/biological agent, way faster and with pretty much the same effect and use, or use some of those really mean magnestic bombs the empire created for literally bombing planet back into stone age, by messing up all electronics on the planet. ;)

I mean the death star was a least effective at what it would do, but BDZ with ship weapons is pretty much just pointless, if you can reach the same goal through other way faster means.

PsychoInfiltrator
5 August 2005, 03:39 AM
They honestly thought that they could even punch through a planetary shield with a pieces-of-junkheaps fleet like that!?! Loosers. Actually, I do recall that being my general impression of that particular attack.

I guess I'll have to read the trilogy again.

Sarge
5 August 2005, 08:52 PM
I agree with those of you who say that Saxton's capital ship classifications don't match up with GL's intended vision. In my campaign a Star Destroyer is equivalent to a battleship, not a destroyer.

But I do like some of his other stuff, especially his interpretations of TIE wings. The geometry of the TIE's panels is all wrong for "solar panels", as anyone with a grasp of basic physics can see. Saxton's explanation of them as radiators to disperse the heat produced by high performance ion engines makes a whole lot more sense.

Garan
5 August 2005, 10:15 PM
http://www.holonetnews.com/51/business/13411_1.html
The new twin ion engine technology (dubbed "SIE-TIE"), which utilizes microparticle accelerators to agitate ionized gasses to relativistic velocities, features independently articulated ion stream deflector manifolds for pinpoint maneuvering accuracy, and supplements power yields through a set of solar gather panels, is the brainchild of engineer Raith Sienar.

The question is, how much more grasp of how SW technology works is he supposed to have? I mean in SW there is sound in space and a ship that uses an exotic ancient drive system that propels itself to light speed with a giant sail, through who knows what means. They use hyper drives that shift a ship in an alternative dimension so it can go faster then light etc.

Why then should the Empire (or lets better say santhe technologies) not have a different design for its solar panels, then we do in our galaxy, maybe its more advanced, uses a different design theory, alternative materials? Saxton as physicist of all people should know, that things often only hold true as long as something new comes along, just like that they found another planet in the solar system, or that they had to revise the age of the earth, or what not before that.

Why couldn’t the technology in the SW galaxy have figured out a different way to use and build solar panels? I mean it’s not like they don’t know tons of other things, earth science would not even have a grasp at how to recreate, or build.

The wings benign solar panel was a pretty dump idea, but if that’s what they are, then that’s what they are. Later TIE models don’t use/need them as it seems (or at least not to such an extend) and for the TIE base model it was properly part of the cost saving scheme, in that they would supplement the main ion drive with an additional power source(as the articel indicates).

Using them as heat disperse seems no more sound to me in fact then them being solar panels. If you flying in space, your ship should get cooled enough as it is, unless these ion drives generator as much heat as small star, which really would not make them very efficient, if so much power would just get lost through heat. ;)

wolfe
5 August 2005, 10:31 PM
wow when i mentioned something against this dude few years ago it was a stoning offense..

like the art work and on one set of copies of the books have sharpied the text clean out of them..
haven't been following starwars according to the Saxton, Sarge so im not sure of the whole " In my campaign a Star Destroyer is equivalent to a battleship, not a destroyer."

does saxton make that statement?

i couldn't even equate a battleship with a stardestroyer..
don't even equate anything in the normal real like military to starwars vessels, you cant.
no vessel in the world or on any drawing boards for a long time to come come close to the capabilities of a stardestroyer..

launch and retrieve various fighters,able to go nose to nose with the best vessels with standard weaponry -no fighters-
house a nice complement of troops and stil maintain the capabilities of an uber battleship,aircraft carrier, supply vesssel, drydock for smaller vessels..
you just cant compare our vessels with something like that.

i laugh at seeing vessel types designations placed on vessels in starwars,(you have frigates sizes ranging from 30 to over 300 m).


but seriously does anyone really care what that nut says?

i dont even care what he says personally, if i need info the folks here provide far more reliable and sensible info that he ever could.

Garan
5 August 2005, 11:07 PM
does saxton make that statement?

Pretty much, he seems to think that a Star Destroyer is a “smaller cap ship”, because of it’s designation as “destroyer”, to back up he is using old marvel comics and the dark empire comic and saying that they show ships that are bigger then a ISD, though we don’t actually know there size, capacity and what not. They could be giant yachts, or cargo haulers, for all we know. What’s the worse part of it he seems to just consequently ignore any source that says something that would not fit in his theory, mostly the novels and rgp books and leaving aside the fact that it’s about 3-5 times as long as most normal warships (just take a look on his web page were he has novel extracts with comments on the side of them, some of those are just a little to self biased for my liking). For him everything seemingly needs to apparently be several miles long to get ratted as a real warship and of course it needs a Star-prefix. :]


laugh at seeing vessel types designations placed on vessels in starwars,(you have frigates sizes ranging from 30 to over 300 m).

Don’t forget the 700 meter long Rebel Assault Frigate and the 750 meter Tapani Frigate. ;) The Rebel Alliance sourcebook gives a nice breakdown of vessel types and how they are classed; it also explains why so many different lapels get pinned on very different ships, and often different labels on the same ship.


but seriously does anyone really care what that nut says?

A lot of people seem to, but it seems most of those people that really seem to agree with everything he says are also waiting for Star Wars to crash against the same rocks Star Trek did and just like to nitpick and complain.A bit like me, just in a different direction, and of course I don’t want SW to die. :D

PsychoInfiltrator
6 August 2005, 06:20 PM
I mean in SW there is sound in space and a ship that uses an exotic ancient drive system that propels itself to light speed with a giant sail, through who knows what means. They use hyper drives that shift a ship in an alternative dimension so it can go faster then light etc.

There isn't sound in SW space. There is sound in Star Wars movie space, but not in Star Wars space. Novels such as the X-Wing series and several quotes form GL himself both confirm and emphasize that.

Also, the sail uses a variant of a 'solar wind' type particle/energy that appears to travel through hyperspace.

As to another dimension, hyperspace is just a guess as to what would happen if a ship reached the speed of light and then surpassed it. Its the most realistic method of post light speed travel I've ever encountered. And without post light speed travel, 95(+)% of all sci-fi would not exist or would exist in a very different form. And a great deal of science fiction is derived from using current impossiblities and extrapolating past laws of physics as the plot or basis of the whole novel.

"Star Wars is as unrealistic as it has to be in order to exist, but it is also as realistic as it has to be in order to exist." C. Darion.

Drendar Morevo
6 August 2005, 08:28 PM
Right-O, time for me to say my bit.

I am pretty simple in my beliefs on star destroyers and what saxton has gotten wrong (and gotten right...).

Firstly, it is my belief that it should called Executor Class, to me Super is an adjective... Not a noun. Therefore it should not be used as a name for a Vessel. Also most ship classes are named after the first ship of the design, it is arguable that the Executor was built before Lusankya, therefore it is the Executor Class 'Super' Star Destroyer.

Also, the term Super Star Destroyer to me is more of a moniker than a statistical refrence, super is there more to say "hey, theres a star destroyer, but here is one that is bigger and more powerful, its 'super' powered". Super Star Destroyer is a name given to it, it isn't really official. In my mind, there are three types of what could be called 'Super Star Destroyers'; Executor class, Eclipse Class and Sovreign Class. It's kind of like how there are three different 'standard' classes of star destroyer; Victory, Venator and Imperial.

Acclamator Class troop transports have a good amount of large scale weaponry, not many but a good amount, they also have a number of VERY large missile tubes that arent concussion missile or proton torpedo launchers, these things are more like Earth Nuclear missile launchers x10 in strength. Why they would phase them out then? We'll you can't aim them on ships, like you could aim the first death stars superlaser on a ship, also they are quite weak against planetary shielding. So instead they favored mass use of the turbolaser, a weapon capable of slagging a world in large numbers and capable of destroying enemy vessels quite nicely. Plus they have Loronar Torpedo Spheres, who wants something with six tubes when you can have 500 that preform to greater effect.

Ok... that's SSDs and BDZing... on to physics.

To me Hyperspace is KIND OF an alternate dimension. Due to the fact that objects in said almost-alternate dimension can be affected by Mass 'shadows' from other bodies and vessels projected into said almost-alternate dimension from the material plane. But the idea that one can travel the material plane by traveling through an alternate dimension is ridiculous, that would mean that both dimensions would have to lie DIRECTLY on top of each other, exist in the exact same spot in space, and open up on each other and close on each other in the same place. Hyperspeed on the otherhand is more of just Standard FTL drive, the projection of output from the main engines. Otherwise how would you be able to go 'faster' in hyperspace. I've seen some explain it as having a better nav computer, thus you can compute a shorter course to your destination while in hyperspace, this throws the whole on top of exactly almost-alternate dimension theory out of whack. Also it totally disregards the idea of having to buy a better hyperdrive motivator out the window, after all, all you would really need then is just a better computer. Here is a bit of an analogy to explain.

You have a plane. The plane has a standard engine and a standard autopilot with AI. The AI can plot the shortest course and the engine can take you there. But get this, if you get the newer better AI and Computer it can somehow compute a shorter trip, still going from the same point as you started with the old computer and going to the same place you wanted all in a perfectly straight line with nothing in between, same as the old computer and AI... and all this at the same speed no change in engine at all... I'm sorry but that just doesnt make sense in any way, shape or form.

Garan
7 August 2005, 12:25 AM
Also, the sail uses a variant of a 'solar wind' type particle/energy that appears to travel through hyperspace

How it catches enough “solar wind” with a sail of that size is still the question. Though it properly falls in the same category as the thing with the TIE’s solar panels, they properly just figured out a better way of doing it, then we could think of. ;)


Firstly, it is my belief that it should called Executor Class, to me Super is an adjective... Not a noun. Therefore it should not be used as a name for a Vessel. Also most ship classes are named after the first ship of the design, it is arguable that the Executor was built before Lusankya, therefore it is the Executor Class 'Super' Star Destroyer.

Also, the term Super Star Destroyer to me is more of a moniker than a statistical refrence, super is there more to say "hey, theres a star destroyer, but here is one that is bigger and more powerful, its 'super' powered". Super Star Destroyer is a name given to it, it isn't really official. In my mind, there are three types of what could be called 'Super Star Destroyers'; Executor class, Eclipse Class and Sovreign Class. It's kind of like how there are three different 'standard' classes of star destroyer; Victory, Venator and

I agree with that, except for that “Super-Class” is the wrong label. I think it’s far more likely that it was the original project name (like Imperator was the project name for the Imperial Class *points to the swdb*). These ships were build by imperial techs after all. They also build stuff called Death Star, Sun crusher and what not. Yes, I second that it the name sounds kind of silly (but no less then other “superweapons” the empire had build), but it seems likely until the later types of SSD showed up, it was really the only type of ship that would warrant the tag and name “Super Star Destroyer”. Only after others showed up they properly had to start sub-classing them. Ships in the SW galaxy, don’t necessarily get called after the first vessel of its kind like the Defender Class SD, the Republic uses, of which the first was called Obi-Wan.


Due to the fact that objects in said almost-alternate dimension can be affected by Mass 'shadows' from other bodies and vessels projected into said almost-alternate dimension from the material plane. But the idea that one can travel the material plane by traveling through an alternate dimension is ridiculous, that would mean that both dimensions would have to lie DIRECTLY on top of each other, exist in the exact same spot in space, and open up on each other and close on each other in the same place.

The term hyperdrive refers to the engine and interrelated systems that propel a starship through the alternate dimension of hyperspace. In hyperspace, there is no limit to how fast a starship can travel, and thus interstellar distances can be traversed in mere minutes.

Why not? Sure might seem unlikely, but it is certainly far from impossible.


To me Hyperspace is KIND OF an alternate dimension. Due to the fact that objects in said almost-alternate dimension can be affected by Mass 'shadows' from other bodies and vessels projected into said almost-alternate dimension from the material plane. But the idea that one can travel the material plane by traveling through an alternate dimension is ridiculous, that would mean that both dimensions would have to lie DIRECTLY on top of each other, exist in the exact same spot in space, and open up on each other and close on each other in the same place. Hyperspeed on the otherhand is more of just Standard FTL drive, the projection of output from the main engines. Otherwise how would you be able to go 'faster' in hyperspace. I've seen some explain it as having a better nav computer, thus you can compute a shorter course to your destination while in hyperspace, this throws the whole on top of exactly almost-alternate dimension theory out of whack. Also it totally disregards the idea of having to buy a better hyperdrive motivator out the window, after all, all you would really need then is just a better computer. Here is a bit of an analogy to explain.

You have a plane. The plane has a standard engine and a standard autopilot with AI. The AI can plot the shortest course and the engine can take you there. But get this, if you get the newer better AI and Computer it can somehow compute a shorter trip, still going from the same point as you started with the old computer and going to the same place you wanted all in a perfectly straight line with nothing in between, same as the old computer and AI... and all this at the same speed no change in engine at all... I'm sorry but that just doesnt make sense in any way, shape or form.

You aren’t necessarily travelling in a straight line from point a to b if your doing hyperspace jumps. You might jump from a to c to d and from there to b, because it is faster then moving straight from a to b. A better nav computer just allows you to lower your overall travel time, by using a more effective route, through a path that is far from consistent. It increases your average speed (you go just as far in less time), not your actual speed.

If you could jump straight from one point to another without loss of travel time, there would be no need for the big interstellar trade routes, which are commonly travelled routes, because they tend to be fastest way to get from a certain region to another. It’s a bit like taking a walk on foot, sure it might look closer to go straighter over a mountain to get to the village, our you can use the road around the mountain, were you can go faster that trying to climb the mountain. A better nav comp is like having better sight and better maps when your hiking, that allow you to use a better path.

Actually getting faster in hyperspace is archives by picking up a better hyper drive, like if you upgrade the x4 drive on an old transport to a x1 drive (better engines). ;)

Garan
9 August 2005, 06:22 AM
I was just reading through the SWG Movie Triology Sourcebook for the Special Edition and found this little entry under ship systems which explains why “Laser fire” in SW is coloured.

http://people.freenet.de/swrs/laserfire.jpg

So we don’t have any need for Saxton’s “strange pulse” theory, as the coloration of the fire just serves for better aiming and the lasers could just as well fire invisible “bolts”.

Aldaron
27 August 2005, 11:56 PM
Except that there's no possible way for the blasters to be lasers. Lasers don't emit light laterally unless there's something to reflect (like smoke or dust) and you can visually track the bolts! They travel at roughly the speed of a bullet, not 300,000 km/sec.

I personally like the idea that lightsabres and blaster bolts are the same thing (we've seen blue, green, red and purple blaster bolts - well, the explosions from Dooku's escort speeders in Episode II are purple). But the bolts are much lower powered.

There was a website a few years back (I've lost the link many moons ago) that went with the idea that lightsabres are spinning 1-dimensonal force-fields sitting in one spot, whereas blasters are the same thing, but projected at speed (losing coherency as they go...which is why they explode like flak).

Personally, I like a lot of Saxton's stuff. I haven't read most of his bookwork, though - I'm only judging by the Technical Commentaries, which again, I like.

Oh, and Endor is still trashed in my campaign universe! :D

(Darth Vader's glove be buggered! :P )

Drendar Morevo
28 August 2005, 06:38 AM
Ok, that's one thing that really tears up my hide. The whole 'Endor Holocaust' idea, it's downright stupid. Sure all the physics work in a very limited sense but this is assuming that the second death star didn't simply vaporize in that explosion. Plus there is no other mention of it into the EU. He tries to use quotes to support his theory but they don't really support it. As far as I am concerned the Ewoks are still alive on Endor and rockin out to helmet drums. Plus SWRPG downright crushes his theory.

-out

Aldaron
29 August 2005, 06:09 AM
Ok, that's one thing that really tears up my hide.

Well, you probably shouldn't get so stressy over stuff printed on the Internet about a movie, but that's you choice, I guess...


The whole 'Endor Holocaust' idea, it's downright stupid.

Well, I'm going to disagree with you, but I'll refrain from calling your ideas "stupid".


Sure all the physics work in a very limited sense but this is assuming that the second death star didn't simply vaporize in that explosion.

No, the physics works. There's no "limited sense" - it either works or it doesn't. Saxton completely addresses your objection and looks at the scenario of significant portions of the DS's mass being atomised - same result. Whether it's in big chunks or atoms, it's still gotta go somewhere. Besides, the chunks we visibly see are enough to cause an extinction level event on their own...


Plus there is no other mention of it into the EU.

well, the EU is irrelevant to me. I don't like it, never have, and have never incorporated it into my campaign...*shrug*

Movie canon and all that, ya know?


He tries to use quotes to support his theory but they don't really support it.

Two points here:

1) Saxton is very up-front about his "order of canon". It's pretty much the same as mine, where the films are orders of magnitude above and beyond any other source. He only included the EU stuff as an aside.

2) The thing he did quote absolutely supported his case - it made mention of the Ewoks being wiped out by an environmental disaster caused by the Alliance, IIRC. The fact that this doesn't mesh with other EU stuff is why neither I nor Saxton give much credence to the EU.


As far as I am concerned the Ewoks are still alive on Endor and rockin out to helmet drums.

Fine. In your campaign they are. Terrific. In mine, they're all but extinct.


Plus SWRPG downright crushes his theory.


How so? Besides which, the SWRPG is not the be-all and end-all of "correctness" in the SWU. I'm not sure if the d20 version does so, but the old WEG game (which I adored and played for 12 years, by the way) actually promoted the laughable "standing plasma spark" model of a lightsabre.

Never mind that you could fix the Jedi with a really strong electromagnet if that were the case...

Besides...weren't we talking about blasters?

BrianDavion
29 August 2005, 01:28 PM
How so?

well the entire fact that ewoks are a playable species, and there's the Genosis and the outerrim worlds.

Drendar Morevo
29 August 2005, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Aldaron
Well, you probably shouldn't get so stressy over stuff printed on the Internet about a movie, but that's you choice, I guess...

Ok, what the hell? You're telling me I should shut my opinions down? How about telling that to everyone here.


Originally posted by Aldaron
Well, I'm going to disagree with you, but I'll refrain from calling your ideas "stupid".

Good for you.


Originally posted by Aldaron
No, the physics works. There's no "limited sense" - it either works or it doesn't. Saxton completely addresses your objection and looks at the scenario of significant portions of the DS's mass being atomised - same result. Whether it's in big chunks or atoms, it's still gotta go somewhere. Besides, the chunks we visibly see are enough to cause an extinction level event on their own...

Funny, my physics teacher laughed at his theory... Called it a load of useless matter I believe.




Originally posted by Aldaron
well, the EU is irrelevant to me. I don't like it, never have, and have never incorporated it into my campaign...*shrug*

Movie canon and all that, ya know?

So what? you only play in the rebellion era? how boring. The EU is adopted material, wether it is irrelevant to you is irrelevant, the fact remains it exists, you can't pretend that it doesn't.




Originally posted by Aldaron
Two points here:

1) Saxton is very up-front about his "order of canon". It's pretty much the same as mine, where the films are orders of magnitude above and beyond any other source. He only included the EU stuff as an aside.

2) The thing he did quote absolutely supported his case - it made mention of the Ewoks being wiped out by an environmental disaster caused by the Alliance, IIRC. The fact that this doesn't mesh with other EU stuff is why neither I nor Saxton give much credence to the EU.

Where EXACTLY (BOOK PAGE LINE ETC) does it support the endor holocaust? Most of what he quoted could be interpreted either way. And I find it funny that Saxton uses the EU as his support on almost everything if it is 'so low on the order of canon' don't you think?



Originally posted by Aldaron
How so? Besides which, the SWRPG is not the be-all and end-all of "correctness" in the SWU. I'm not sure if the d20 version does so, but the old WEG game (which I adored and played for 12 years, by the way) actually promoted the laughable "standing plasma spark" model of a lightsabre.

Never mind that you could fix the Jedi with a really strong electromagnet if that were the case...

Besides...weren't we talking about blasters?

Hmmm, how about Geonosis and the Outer Rim Worlds?

And actually I think the subject of this thread is 'Thoughts on Saxton Lore'

Aldaron
29 August 2005, 08:19 PM
Brian -
well the entire fact that ewoks are a playable species, and there's the Genosis and the outerrim worlds.

Hmmm, yeah. Fair enough, though Endor only doesn't exist "as is" from the end of Episode VI onwards in my campaign. You could go to Endor in the Prequel timeframe and pull an Ewok off it and have him as a PC (in theory...in reality, there is a snowball's chance in hell of me letting anyone in my campaign play an Ewok! :D)

Drendar -


Ok, what the hell? You're telling me I should shut my opinions down? How about telling that to everyone here.

Where did I say that? You said "that's one thing that really tears up my hide." My suggestion was that you not get that stressed about something posted on an Internet website about a fictitious movie.

Please explain how this equates to me trying to "shut your opinions down"? I couldn't care less if you agree with Saxton or not, I just don't see the point in getting angry about him - it's not good for your blood pressure.


Funny, my physics teacher laughed at his theory... Called it a load of useless matter I believe.

You are aware, are you not, that Curtis Saxton is a professor of astrophysics? (http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/~cjs2/)


So what? you only play in the rebellion era? how boring. The EU is adopted material, wether it is irrelevant to you is irrelevant, the fact remains it exists, you can't pretend that it doesn't.

Err...actually, no. We play in the KOTOR era. I haven't run a game in the Rebellion era for close to ten years.

I've never "pretended the EU doesn't exist" - I merely pointed out that from my campaign's perspective, it doesn't. In other words, in my campaign (assuming it was run post-RotJ), there would be no Thrawn, no Mara Jade and most certainly no Youzhon Vong.


Where EXACTLY (BOOK PAGE LINE ETC) does it support the endor holocaust? Most of what he quoted could be interpreted either way. And I find it funny that Saxton uses the EU as his support on almost everything if it is 'so low on the order of canon' don't you think?

I have no idea what page number it was. The book was X-Wing: Wedge's Gamble, IIRC. I haven't read it - I believe I already stated that I don't read most of the EU stuff. Saxton quoted the book as a source and mentioned the situation where Ewoks were reported to have been made extinct...oh, bugger it. Here's the quote from Saxton...


Antilles found several stuffed ewok specimens on display with a note that the innocent creatures had been made extinct on their native world through the actions of rebels. Though unwelcome news to members of the squadron which detonated the battle station, this report appears to be objectively true. The museum display provides satisfying corroboration for the realistic fate of the ewoks, but of course it is not relied upon as primary evidence. (The primary facts are those events of Return of the Jedi which point to the disaster.)

Some readers have assumed that the ewok extinction reported by the prestigious Galactic Museum is nothing more than a lie serving Imperial propaganda. However it is important to realise that the most effective forms of propaganda do not falsify verifiable truths and circumstances; instead they weave a preconceived pattern of significance through cleverly judicious use of available objective facts. It is true that a few mistruths were told in Museum displays dealing with Emperor Palpatine's motivations at Endor, but those situations were no longer open to testing and disproof. Demonstrably false factual claims about ewok extinction would not serve the propaganda machine very well.

Saxton uses EU support where possible to point out to the EU-lawyers that "X" was supported even in the EU. Whether it's the size of a star destroyer or the destruction of Endor is irrelevant.

If something is supported in both the films and the EU, it's reliability becomes that much higher. If something is supported by the EU and not the films, then it is fair and equitable, but not set in stone. If something, however, is supported by the films and contradicted by the EU, then the EU loses according to the official order of canon, Saxton's own order of canon, and mine.

Saxton attempts to show something suggested by the films and how it was inevitable - EU aside, but pointed out that even the sources he doesn't normally seek support from actually support him.

In other words: "Look! Even my opponents agree with me on this!"

Anolther (hypothetical) example would be:

That Han Solo knew Lando Calrissian prior to Episode V is canon. That they had a falling out over the Tonnika Twins is not. If something comes up that is a logical extrapolation of what is said in the films that indicates neither Han nor Lando had ever met the Tonnika Twins, then the entry in the old WEG Galaxy Guide likely becomes bunk.


Hmmm, how about Geonosis and the Outer Rim Worlds?

See my reply to Brian, above.


And actually I think the subject of this thread is 'Thoughts on Saxton Lore'

Yes, and I was talking about blasters, and made a passing, joking reference to Endor (complete with a smiley) to which you apparently took offence, since it "tears up your hide". You also mentioned that my ideas on this were "downright stupid". My only response was that you seemed to be getting a little too hot under the collar about an Internet article about a fictitious story - at which point you accused me of trying to censor your opinion, when I demonstrably did no such thing.

In fact, I specifically stated:
Oh, and Endor is still trashed in my campaign universe! :D

The important bit is highlighted.

Drendar Morevo
29 August 2005, 08:40 PM
Ok, I've read that section in wedges gamble, its actually not nearly as desript as saxton makes it out to be, just a description that the stuffed ewoks looked even more helpless than they did in real life.

Yeah, saxton is a professor of astrophysics, so my teacher had a doctorate in the same subject, the degree is hanging on his classroom wall behind his desk.

djas_puhr
1 September 2005, 06:44 AM
How much say does starwars.com have in canon? I.E. the Star Wars: Databank? In the Movies section it doesn't mention an ELE, (Extinction Level Event), also in the EU section (http://www.starwars.com/databank/location/endor/?id=eu) it says that the Rebels used as a base of operations. Also a it says a small trading outpost is opperational on Endor.

I just want to know for myself, for when I run my RL campaign based off of canon material. Is starwars.com/databank/ a reliable source of info or not.

Aldaron
1 September 2005, 03:39 PM
How much say does starwars.com have in canon? I.E. the Star Wars: Databank? In the Movies section it doesn't mention an ELE, (Extinction Level Event), also in the EU section it says that the Rebels used as a base of operations. Also a it says a small trading outpost is opperational on Endor.

Well, you'd think the Databank would be pretty solid, but I do remember running into some odd stuff in there from time to time (can't remember, off the top of my head, what it was - but there's some odd stuff there).

It doesn't mention an ELE in the Movies section, and it doesn't mention it in the movies, either. But it's a reasonable extrapolation of events seen in the films, and is not contradicted by the films.

Like you said, the outpost is mentioned in the EU stuff. The official EU has Endor thriving. Mind you, the official EU also has ysalmiri...Jedi Kryptonite...so that's not saying a lot! :D


I just want to know for myself, for when I run my RL campaign based off of canon material. Is starwars.com/databank/ a reliable source of info or not.

There's no easy answer for this. You may get some ideas HERE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_canon), but ultimately, what is canon to your campaign will be different to mine - I use only the movies as canon, for example, and then cherry-pick the rest of the stuff. Part of it also depends on your timeframe. My KOTOR campaign, for example, includes a lot of stuff from KOTOR and KOTOR II, but I've shifted timelines around and eliminated a lot of the heroes from the TotJ comics, putting my players' characters into those roles.

One campaign I have in the preliminary stages, for example, will deal with a "sequel" series to RotJ. It will not have ysalmiri, Admiral Thrawn or Mara Jade in it. It will be set shortly after Truce at Bakura, and the players will actually be playing the main heroes - Luke, Leia, Han and Chewbacca (plus the droids, if I can find enough players!).

But, the short answer is: what is included in your campaign is entirely up to you.

Garan
7 September 2005, 01:22 AM
Doesn’t this entire Endor holocaust notion just die of with the rebels celebrating on Endor after the battle? I mean they certainly would not be there for several hours having a party when the planet was about to go down. :D

Aldaron
7 September 2005, 06:07 AM
Originally posted by Garan
Doesn’t this entire Endor holocaust notion just die of with the rebels celebrating on Endor after the battle? I mean they certainly would not be there for several hours having a party when the planet was about to go down. :D

It wouldn't happen overnight. Even the larger pieces would have hit in more remote areas (or else the Ewoks/Rebels wouldn't be there) and it would take time for the atmosphere to become choked with the dust and smoke thrown up.

Additionally, the smaller pieces - right down to the atomised remnants, might take weeks or more to settle into the atmosphere under the influence of Endor's gravity (which is demonstrably lower than Earth's).

djas_puhr
7 September 2005, 07:23 AM
However, the Death Star II is in plain view of the Rebels located upon the surface of Endor. Granted gravitational could deflect or prolong the incoming debrie to a diffirent location, most of the debrie that we see from the Death Star entering the atmospher from the movie are small fragments of metal burning up.

IIRC endor is 4,900 km in diameter. The earth has a mean 12,742.02 km diameter. An ELE impact or explosion would take less then half the time it would to have total cloud coverage on Earth then on Endor. This is all speculation, since I didn't study this in college but I am studying Microbiology and biochemistry so... Though the reduced gravity does make a good case but I still think we would see an ELE during the movie since the Death Star II is haging right above the planet

Aldaron
7 September 2005, 03:41 PM
I see what you're saying re: cloud cover time. My point was with the actual impacts. Although the DS is in view of the people on the ground, it isn't overhead - it is at an angle (from memory - and I'm at work at present) of about 45 deg from the horizon. This would suggest that the actual ground location would be several thousand kilometres removed from the ground party.

This, of course, assumes the DS has moved since the destruction of the shield generator - it's a fairly safe assumption that the shield generator was more or less directly beneath the DS, but since the location of the DS in space and the actual explosion were not directly overhead, the DS must have moved between the destruction o fthe shield generator and its own destruction.

From memory, this is borne out by the novelisation as well - didn't Jerjerrod try and turn the DS's superlaser onto Endor?

Actually...I just thought of perhaps the best argument against the Endor holocaust...if Jerjerrod was going to blow Endor, one would imagine he'd want to be a good distance away from the planet - perhaps he moved the DS far enough away before the explosion that it didn't get enough debris into the atmosphere.

Hmmm...I need to think on this.

At least it avoids accepting the Darth Vader Glove theory! :D

djas_puhr
7 September 2005, 05:10 PM
I didn't buy into the whole 'Darth Vader Glove thing' either. Never though it viable. But you do bring up a good point about wether or not Moff J was going to destroy endor.

If we assume Alderaan is propartional equal to size a mass of earth the shock wave from the destruction of the planet would have severly damaged if not destroyed the original Death Star if it was in close like in ROTJ with Endor. Since the second Death Star was still under construction, any damage to the structure would be amplified exponentially. I haven't read the novel of ROTJ so I can't say if Moff J did or didn't but it would be safe to state that his intensions were to clear low orbit and achieve and extrem orbit around the forest moon of Endor and destroy the planet.

An extreme orbit around a planet could be the distance say between the earth and the moon. With that give distance it would be safe to predict a low probability of an ELE. Also Endor is 0.85 of earths gravity so a lower pull of spacial debris would, then add to that the actual size of Endor, 4,900 km in diamter. Endor then becomes a small target at the before mentioned distance.

Just some random thoughts...

Aldaron
7 September 2005, 06:08 PM
In the novelisation, Palpatine ordered Jerjerrod to destroy Endor as a last resort, an order Jerjerrod was carrying out even as Wedge and Lando were careening through the DS's architecture.

It doesn't get referred to in the film, but there's also nothing to contradict it in the film. Add into that the evidence that the DS has actually moved from its original position, and there's a fairly good argument to be made, IMO.

In fact, I think you guys have just converted me! :D The original DS looked to be at roughly an Earth-Moon distance when it took out Alderaan (Alderaan looked roughly the same size from the DS as the Earth does from the Moon), assuming Earth and Alderaan are more-or-less similar in size.

The original DS was also a long distance away from Yavin IV when it was about to fire - it had only just cleared the gas giant itself, so it's pretty safe to assume that the superlaser can fire at a planet-sized target something in the order of half a million kilometres away, at least.

The explosive destruction of a planet would most certainly damage the DS - if nothing else, why run the risk of a piece of planet the size of the DS hitting it??

I think Jerjerrod was definitely moving out and away from Endor in an attempt to put some distance between it and the DS in order to carry out the Emperor's orders. This would mean that far less stuff landed on Endor than Saxton assumes. His calculations and assumptions are all correct - except for the distance between Endor and the DS at the time it exploded.

Yep...I've just slipped into the "Endor Not Destroyed" camp as of this moment. Well done, guys! :D

djas_puhr
8 September 2005, 08:08 AM
Welcome to the "Endor is NOT Destroyed" club! I really never like the whole idea of destroying Endor or the whole "Darth Vader’s Glove" thingy. Moving the Death Star and then destroying makes sense.

Sorta like the movie Armageddon were they have to split the meteor before it hits the planet. Only this time the planet is 2.6 times smaller then Earth and has a weaker gravity field. Makes missing even easier in my book.

Anyways welcome onboard!

Garan
9 September 2005, 02:01 AM
Now that sounds like the best explanation in a long time, combined with that some of it was sucked into a hyperspace wormhole (yes I know, its silly but it’s canon) and some got blasted by the rebel fleet (I know one of the tales mentions it, but I think it’s also in one of the swg or insiders), there probably was not a lot left to do real harm.

djas_puhr
9 September 2005, 05:33 AM
Glad that I could help with trying to explain it for you. I was never a fan of the whole 'Endor Holocaust' idea. Just didn't seem to fit what we saw in the movie or what I had invisioned in my mind after reading the books.

Aldaron
12 September 2005, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Garan
Now that sounds like the best explanation in a long time, combined with that some of it was sucked into a hyperspace wormhole (yes I know, its silly but it’s canon) and some got blasted by the rebel fleet (I know one of the tales mentions it, but I think it’s also in one of the swg or insiders), there probably was not a lot left to do real harm.

Well, GoDV is only canon in the sense that the Star Wars Holiday Special is canon *shudder*. It's not movie canon, and it certainly isn't cross-referenced anywere else. I think we can pretty safely ditch the entire wormhole theory without too much trouble.

Garan
16 December 2005, 02:17 AM
I just dug up my old ROTJ ORD (Original Radio Drama, which is G level canon btw) and there are two very interesting things in there.

The first one is that Ackbar calls Star Destroyers Dreadnaughts and that Luke specifically mentioned the remnants of the Death Star burning up in the atmosphere. Two more blows to Saxton lore, no? ;)

Drendar Morevo
16 December 2005, 08:32 PM
Wonderful, the more who deny the Destruction of Endor the better.

Ewoks live, Endor Survives.

Also in the Dark Horse Series 'Rogue Squadron' (The new one) it shows the alliance fighting fires on the forest moon. Other than that the moon seems fine. It also seems to have a Hangar Bay planetside, which somewhat debunks saxtons statement that there wouldn'tve been enough time for the alliance to set up a shield... and yet they can set up an entire base on Endor. The timing is also Key, The events shown occur after the Bakura Incident.

Garan
29 December 2005, 04:29 AM
Another interesting thing from the Audio Books, this time from the one for Dark Empire and one that might be relevant for the Allegiance thing. In the scene were the emperor brings his new flagship to the Rebel command base we hear

Rebel: (over com) We count three ships--repeat, three ships--approaching Pinnacle Base

Rebel 2: (com) Confirm that. Scanners indicate two Imperial-class Destroyers. The third is---

Rebel 1: (com) It’s Enormous!! Measures 10 miles across

Leia: Mon Mothma, what’s happening?

Mothma: Good. You and Han have arrived. Three Imperial ships just came out of hyperspace right over the planet. Two Super Star Destroyers, and..... well, it can only be the Emperor’s flagship.

Well…. so are these supposed to be modified Imperial Class Star Destroyers, or something in that direction? Or why would Mothma not simply call them Star Destroyers? In the comic the picture (attached) to that sequence shows two “Allegiance”-kind ships floating in space together with the Eclipse. Maybe these ships are a kind of modified Imperial Class Star Destroyer meant to serve as command vessels (like the Allegiance is said to do) and that’s why Mothma and Antilles (over Mon Cal earlier in the Radio play) called them Super Star Destroyers. Or, maybe something akin to the Avenger that served as communications ship at Endor, just a pimped up normal Imperial Star Destroyer.

MikeLynch
14 January 2006, 09:55 AM
From memory, this is borne out by the novelisation as well - didn't Jerjerrod try and turn the DS's superlaser onto Endor?
Sounds familiar to me too; isn't it mentioned in the ROTJ Galaxy Guide?


Actually...I just thought of perhaps the best argument against the Endor holocaust...if Jerjerrod was going to blow Endor, one would imagine he'd want to be a good distance away from the planet - perhaps he moved the DS far enough away before the explosion that it didn't get enough debris into the atmosphere.
To quote the Guinness commercials, "Brilliant!"

Except that if it's that simple, why wouldn't the Alliance have publicized that information to prevent the very same galactic-citizen-rumormongering we witness in that one "Tales" comic? How's this for an explanation (and this is my Endor verdict IMC, by the way):

*Some* debris did hit the moon and did cause localized ecological damage. Maybe wiped out an Ewok sub-race on a Galapagos-style island or something. (Why not? Endor's well established as having the most diverse biosphere in the entire SWU :rolleyes: .)

The Rebels, being the good guys, did indeed fly around vaporizing the bigger chunks as best they could, but even despite the DS2's increased distance from the moon at that point, there was still a good amount of falling debris and they only had so many pilots left. So, they didn't talk up the aftermath of Endor all that much for fear of a public relations black eye. (Hey, they're a plucky band of revolutionaries; nobody ever said they were PR gurus.)

Let's not forget also that so many capital ships getting destroyed, at the stage of the battle where they're really quite close to Endor, is gonna send some debris Ewokward too.

This explanation accounts for the rumor mill screaming "Ewok holocaust!" and the flimsy explanations, because each has roots in the actual events. In war situations, it's common for a snowflake of truth to spawn an avalanche of disinformation.

This way I can reconcile the Mega-Happy Ending of ROTJ with my own SWU's more gritty, realistic feel. Not that I go whole-hog realistic like Saxon, but I just don't like my war stuff to be 100% sanitized. It's war. Destruction happens. Scores of innocent cute furry things die.


As far as I am concerned the Ewoks are still alive on Endor and rockin out to helmet drums.
:D
Yub yub.

Isn't it funny how Ewoks used to be the most hated species in all SWdom, and now it's Gungans?