Did you even bother to read what I said?
No he didn't, or at least he couldn't or wouldn't understand what you said. That's they way he is, he makes these outlandish statements and completely ignores or rejects anything contrary to what he said.
As I said above, arguing with him about Star Wars tech is like trying to knock down a brick wall with your head. The only thing you accomplish is a headache.
And again that's crazy. No laser or turbolaser has ever been shown changing course once its been fired except for in legends and those were being pulled off course by Vong defenses not being adjusted by the ship firing them to hit their target
Check out anh and rotj lots of the fighters are firing lasers at diffrent angles than the aoa of the craft. I also brought this up on the xwing forums. One of the writters of the rebels show and some other sw medium has said that legends is still canon too disney wars unless parts are contradicted. So now its secondary canon.
Did you even bother to read what I said? I specifically said that we have never seen a laser bolt change course when its flying through space. What angle the cannon was at when it fired has nothing to do with what I said. Laser bolts and Turbolaser bolts are not homing weapons so once they have been fired they do not turn to follow the target if the target evades.
He never does!
1) Your assuming that the sd targeting computers are badly desinged in that it whould just display one circle in which the cannons are to fire at. Just in display we have better track while scan capabilities. As I posted before your assuming again this is a one on one fight and that the rebel ship is at full
g with no o
ther factors effecting its aoa.
2) The reason you don't want to fire so close too the planet is because its defence weapons are nearly good enoght to one shoot kill theship/s attacking it. At longer ranges you stand abeter chance of evading the mechanical tracking capabilities of most anti cap planetary weapons except there missiles and torps.
3). You don't teror up my posts... In the past you've enjoyed trying toterror apart canonical information, while at the same time neglicting to adress other tidbits of information to make your point look true, and that was before you decided to stalke me on the ffg forums, which is geting ******* old. Any time someone has posted something that shoots your points down you become a ass hole or go ******* nutts like that one time I shoot down your false point about sw lasers
and blasters being plasma. On top of that you have attacked mechanical engineers as
well as other experts in there fields. I don't care if you really have taken acoustic engineering cources as a minor in college and have a good understanding of the currently mainstream understanding of physics you got what it takes to be innovative.
1) Um, really? Where was I talking about tracking capabilities? I really have no idea what you are referring to here. So can't really tear up your post again. If you care to make clear what you actually mean, I'll be happy to point out any errors you have made.
2) Wait what? You do realise that increased range reduces the issues of tracking speed. In that the further away the target is from a weapon, assuming unchanged velocity of said target, the lower the tracking speed required to keep the weapon on target. Now if we are talking about tracking accuracy, as in minimum possible angular adjustment then ground based weapons would be significantly better off than space based ones. Larger turret bases mean increased accuracy. But this is a moot point anyway because either tracking is not an issue because we can bend the beams (as you have claimed), or the ground based weapons are more accurate (and thus would out range the ship based ones).
3) I'm not stalking you. You just have an incredible ability to make my bullcarp detector go into overdrive, thus ensuring I have to respond. I have never gone "ass hole or go ******* nutts". I am always happy to take on additional information, when discussing points. But to say I ignore something when I just don't address it the first time round is just plain crazy. Yes, I will disagree with canon information as and where it makes no sense. Not every writer or producer of canon information understood the implications of some of the things they proposed, or perhaps they did and went ahead anyway because it made a good story or fit the requirements of the game they were making (hence why so much stuff from the games is totally inconsistent with the rest of canon).
As to whether I have attacked certain others whom you have quoted, well yes, I have indeed called you out on whether anyone who is truly a mechanical engineer would really say that a solar panel can produce more energy output than the solar flux falling on it. Either you are lying about what they said (and they never said it), or you are a muppet (in that you didn't understand what they said), or they misunderstood the question (for any number of reasons - so the answer isn't for the question you think was asked), or, just possibly, they are an idiot too (in that they understood the question and got the answer wrong).
I do, quite happily, note you comment on my ability to be innovative. Thanks for the compliment. Indeed I do have that ability, it is why I get paid lots of money for thinking up clever new ways to analyse and monitor risks within my business. Unfortunately I have never studied acoustic engineering, I did a few courses on mathematically modelling waves in both Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. But nothing on acoustics.
4) I did just think of one interesting point. We do know that in SW universe there is a certain ability to adjust the course of turbolaser/laser/blaster bolts. This being the deflector shields. We see in ANH the deflectors on the Tantive IV bounce a blast. This seems to be different to capital ship shields which mostly absorb blasts. Now whether this means ships have the ability to fine adjust trajectories of blasts at long range (sufficient to allow tracking of targets) is a completely different point.
And again that's crazy. No laser or turbolaser has ever been shown changing course once its been fired except for in legends and those were being pulled off course by Vong defenses not being adjusted by the ship firing them to hit their target
Check out anh and rotj lots of the fighters are firing lasers at diffrent angles than the aoa of the craft. I also brought this up on the xwing forums. One of the writters of the rebels show and some other sw medium has said that legends is still canon too disney wars unless parts are contradicted. So now its secondary canon.
Did you even bother to read what I said? I specifically said that we have never seen a laser bolt change course when its flying through space. What angle the cannon was at when it fired has nothing to do with what I said. Laser bolts and Turbolaser bolts are not homing weapons so once they have been fired they do not turn to follow the target if the target evades.
You kinda changed your reply. The post before this one you didnt say through space in your first example.
1) Your assuming that the sd targeting computers are badly desinged in that it whould just display one circle in which the cannons are to fire at. Just in display we have better track while scan capabilities. As I posted before your assuming again this is a one on one fight and that the rebel ship is at full
g with no o
ther factors effecting its aoa.
2) The reason you don't want to fire so close too the planet is because its defence weapons are nearly good enoght to one shoot kill theship/s attacking it. At longer ranges you stand abeter chance of evading the mechanical tracking capabilities of most anti cap planetary weapons except there missiles and torps.
3). You don't teror up my posts... In the past you've enjoyed trying toterror apart canonical information, while at the same time neglicting to adress other tidbits of information to make your point look true, and that was before you decided to stalke me on the ffg forums, which is geting ******* old. Any time someone has posted something that shoots your points down you become a ass hole or go ******* nutts like that one time I shoot down your false point about sw lasers
and blasters being plasma. On top of that you have attacked mechanical engineers as
well as other experts in there fields. I don't care if you really have taken acoustic engineering cources as a minor in college and have a good understanding of the currently mainstream understanding of physics you got what it takes to be innovative.
1) Um, really? Where was I talking about tracking capabilities? I really have no idea what you are referring to here. So can't really tear up your post again. If you care to make clear what you actually mean, I'll be happy to point out any errors you have made.
2) Wait what? You do realise that increased range reduces the issues of tracking speed. In that the further away the target is from a weapon, assuming unchanged velocity of said target, the lower the tracking speed required to keep the weapon on target. Now if we are talking about tracking accuracy, as in minimum possible angular adjustment then ground based weapons would be significantly better off than space based ones. Larger turret bases mean increased accuracy. But this is a moot point anyway because either tracking is not an issue because we can bend the beams (as you have claimed), or the ground based weapons are more accurate (and thus would out range the ship based ones).
3) I'm not stalking you. You just have an incredible ability to make my bullcarp detector go into overdrive, thus ensuring I have to respond. I have never gone "ass hole or go ******* nutts". I am always happy to take on additional information, when discussing points. But to say I ignore something when I just don't address it the first time round is just plain crazy. Yes, I will disagree with canon information as and where it makes no sense. Not every writer or producer of canon information understood the implications of some of the things they proposed, or perhaps they did and went ahead anyway because it made a good story or fit the requirements of the game they were making (hence why so much stuff from the games is totally inconsistent with the rest of canon).
As to whether I have attacked certain others whom you have quoted, well yes, I have indeed called you out on whether anyone who is truly a mechanical engineer would really say that a solar panel can produce more energy output than the solar flux falling on it. Either you are lying about what they said (and they never said it), or you are a muppet (in that you didn't understand what they said), or they misunderstood the question (for any number of reasons - so the answer isn't for the question you think was asked), or, just possibly, they are an idiot too (in that they understood the question and got the answer wrong).
I do, quite happily, note you comment on my ability to be innovative. Thanks for the compliment. Indeed I do have that ability, it is why I get paid lots of money for thinking up clever new ways to analyse and monitor risks within my business. Unfortunately I have never studied acoustic engineering, I did a few courses on mathematically modelling waves in both Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. But nothing on acoustics.
4) I did just think of one interesting point. We do know that in SW universe there is a certain ability to adjust the course of turbolaser/laser/blaster bolts. This being the deflector shields. We see in ANH the deflectors on the Tantive IV bounce a blast. This seems to be different to capital ship shields which mostly absorb blasts. Now whether this means ships have the ability to fine adjust trajectories of blasts at long range (sufficient to allow tracking of targets) is a completely different point.
1) Yes your talking about tracking by including targeting data ie a spot in which to fire. What you posted was a bad design, you designed it that way and ignored points I made, or hypothetical bits, used your own, and I might add in a way made to make the overall point look bad, AND THEN you pass it off as my argument even though it has **** in it I didnt / wouldnt use.
So the only thing your tearing up in the end is your own argument.
Since the lowly star fighters have powerful enough scanners and data collectors to get a large 3d realtime map of there area of engagement as well as the postion, speed, objective (limited), destination, power output & usage this data is at the very least something the firing crews would have access to.
In there targeting computer hud it would more than likely have many points for which to fire for each axis. They could be color coded and or numbered for priority. As long as ECM is not a issue the TC will have the same data I posted above for the figthers.
Or the majority of the dets are only known / feed into the TC the only thing the gunner may do is press a button or at the least manage the systems, keeping an eye out for malfunctions.
Also as I pointed out before I believe they every well could be firing faster than light TLBs that could also have some course changeing capabilities. JFYI if it did have the last attribute as well that doesnt mean they will always hit there target on account of ecm. Even when ships have craked through the enemies ecm it has shown in multi mediums still having a effect on the Lasers fired at the target.
2) Unless the attacker is dealing with a poor ass planet there going to be anti cap ship weapons all over the planet. Alot of thoses weapons have a targeting matrix that DO NOT give them the firing range of the SDs that have these broadsides, which is like 3-5 diffrent models, most others went with missiles while Supers ended up with Super Lasers. In the end that is prob one reason planetary shields were created, and in turn why torp spheres and super laser weapon platforums were created.
3) Your bs meter is broken jfyi. As for the "Solar pannel" bs I dont think you understood what I was saying and or ignored parts I wrote explaning it, not that it matters. You ether didnt ever read the SW CV or articals with its info, missed that tidbit, or left out info to make your point look good. In the very crudest anology the solar pannel system is a giant spark plug. The energy gathered is not the primary output of the reactor on ties.
3A) Bull **** you went nuts over the plasma bull **** and you went nuts over me pointing out how SW craft travel in atmo and the likelyness of the SW universes equv of the FAA passing regulations preventing full g travel in atmo on populated planets and or craft that only use shielding for enhanced atmo travel because if there forward shields fail and they are going ultra hyper mach they will turn into a fire ball.
It mostly doesnt matter because next to ther max ac it says in open space.
4) I dont care anymore for this topic, you just spent this whole time attacking me as well as saying they havent shown beams changing course ergo IM wrong, then you make a point that quasi looks like my point but isnt. THEN YOU NOW ARE KINDA EXCEPTING WHST I WAS SAYING.
**** this ******* topic too ******* hell IM ******* done.
And again that's crazy. No laser or turbolaser has ever been shown changing course once its been fired except for in legends and those were being pulled off course by Vong defenses not being adjusted by the ship firing them to hit their target
Check out anh and rotj lots of the fighters are firing lasers at diffrent angles than the aoa of the craft. I also brought this up on the xwing forums. One of the writters of the rebels show and some other sw medium has said that legends is still canon too disney wars unless parts are contradicted. So now its secondary canon.
Did you even bother to read what I said? I specifically said that we have never seen a laser bolt change course when its flying through space. What angle the cannon was at when it fired has nothing to do with what I said. Laser bolts and Turbolaser bolts are not homing weapons so once they have been fired they do not turn to follow the target if the target evades.
You kinda changed your reply. The post before this one you didnt say through space in your first example.
The one he was quoting said "No laser or turbolaser has ever been shown changing course once its been fired . " And once its been fired the shot would be flying through space, unless fired in an atmosphere in which case it would be flying through the atmosphere.
Edited by RogueCorona1. The New Republic had captured more than a "few" ISDs so it obviously couldn't have been as hard as you say it is.The problem with your last point though IS they would have to capture a Venerator or new SD. Which rarely happend OR survive being attacked by such a weapon and understand what it is that attacked them.
My personal bias and assumptions at play here, I think all of them do have equal power output but I assume that each funnel their power into different areas. CEC probably puts their power into engines for speed. (CR-90 for example) Mon Cals seem to prefer shields, with the redundant generators they seem to install. Rendili probably invested their power into automating systems to reduce manpower (like the slave circuits on the Katana fleet). Kuat probably funnels more into weapons than the others. Star Destroyers aren't named that because it sounds so cool.2: There is no evidence that Kuat Drive Yards designed vessels have more power available then another ship of the same size. If Rendili Stardrive, Corellian Engineering Corporation, or the Mon Calamari built a 1,600 meter long warship class there is absolutely no reason to believe that their designs couldn't match an Imperial-class vessel's power output. When the Essential Guide to Warfare explained why Kuat Drive Yards got most of the Grand Army of the Republic, and Imperial warship contracts nothing was mentioned about Kuat Drive Yards having more efficient power generators.
You do realise though that almost 4 CR-90s could fit in a ISD1 solar ionazation reactor? If there all equal than KDY would be extermly behind on reactor tech if 1 90 had the same reactor output. It would also mean if they used all that energy for traveling they r not thinking clearly because they could have used all that energy for shields.
I all ready posted this... ECM ECM and or close range fighting. Also the REBS would send A-Wings with there electronic attack capabilities to **** up Star Destroyers so they couldnt even fight period. TIE Bombers as well as Heavy TIE Bombers and TIE Interdictors have a electronic attack equipment that **** up antifighter weapons.
2) There lots of diffrent models of Turbo Lasers. They have shown them traveling at diffrent speeds. Lastly you dont know the speed in which the laser is traveling from the broadsides used on the ISD 1 and 2. You dont know the speed of the lasers from T& D6 turbos, XX-8 Heavy Turbos, and XX-9 Heavy Turbos. No where is it written that they travel at 60 mph. For all we know since Lasers r all ready heavly altered the ones fired from these cannons may fire lasers that travel close to 15 light min.
2. My point is that Corellians place their emphasis on speed, the CR-90 being one example and Han brags about outrunning the Corellian ships, ergo they must be fast for such an accomplishment to be worth bragging about. If you believe I really was trying to suggest that a CR-90 has the same power production capabilities as a ship over 10x its size, you either are dumber than I give you credit for or you think I am dumber than I am
And what I said was that Kuat power generators aren't notably superior to scale . In other words a Kuat designed ship the size of a CR90 with the same size of reactor won't have a significantly greater amount of power available then the CR90 but also that a Corellian designed ship the size of an Imperial class Star Destroyer with the same size of reactor that an Imperial class ship has would not have a significantly lower amount of power available then the Imperial class ship has
Imperial Star Destroyers use a Corellian power plant and engines. Kuat literally built the ISD around a Corellian engine.
1) Your assuming that the sd targeting computers are badly desinged in that it whould just display one circle in which the cannons are to fire at. Just in display we have better track while scan capabilities. As I posted before your assuming again this is a one on one fight and that the rebel ship is at full
g with no o
ther factors effecting its aoa.
2) The reason you don't want to fire so close too the planet is because its defence weapons are nearly good enoght to one shoot kill theship/s attacking it. At longer ranges you stand abeter chance of evading the mechanical tracking capabilities of most anti cap planetary weapons except there missiles and torps.
3). You don't teror up my posts... In the past you've enjoyed trying toterror apart canonical information, while at the same time neglicting to adress other tidbits of information to make your point look true, and that was before you decided to stalke me on the ffg forums, which is geting ******* old. Any time someone has posted something that shoots your points down you become a ass hole or go ******* nutts like that one time I shoot down your false point about sw lasers
and blasters being plasma. On top of that you have attacked mechanical engineers as
well as other experts in there fields. I don't care if you really have taken acoustic engineering cources as a minor in college and have a good understanding of the currently mainstream understanding of physics you got what it takes to be innovative.
1) Um, really? Where was I talking about tracking capabilities? I really have no idea what you are referring to here. So can't really tear up your post again. If you care to make clear what you actually mean, I'll be happy to point out any errors you have made.
2) Wait what? You do realise that increased range reduces the issues of tracking speed. In that the further away the target is from a weapon, assuming unchanged velocity of said target, the lower the tracking speed required to keep the weapon on target. Now if we are talking about tracking accuracy, as in minimum possible angular adjustment then ground based weapons would be significantly better off than space based ones. Larger turret bases mean increased accuracy. But this is a moot point anyway because either tracking is not an issue because we can bend the beams (as you have claimed), or the ground based weapons are more accurate (and thus would out range the ship based ones).
3) I'm not stalking you. You just have an incredible ability to make my bullcarp detector go into overdrive, thus ensuring I have to respond. I have never gone "ass hole or go ******* nutts". I am always happy to take on additional information, when discussing points. But to say I ignore something when I just don't address it the first time round is just plain crazy. Yes, I will disagree with canon information as and where it makes no sense. Not every writer or producer of canon information understood the implications of some of the things they proposed, or perhaps they did and went ahead anyway because it made a good story or fit the requirements of the game they were making (hence why so much stuff from the games is totally inconsistent with the rest of canon).
As to whether I have attacked certain others whom you have quoted, well yes, I have indeed called you out on whether anyone who is truly a mechanical engineer would really say that a solar panel can produce more energy output than the solar flux falling on it. Either you are lying about what they said (and they never said it), or you are a muppet (in that you didn't understand what they said), or they misunderstood the question (for any number of reasons - so the answer isn't for the question you think was asked), or, just possibly, they are an idiot too (in that they understood the question and got the answer wrong).
I do, quite happily, note you comment on my ability to be innovative. Thanks for the compliment. Indeed I do have that ability, it is why I get paid lots of money for thinking up clever new ways to analyse and monitor risks within my business. Unfortunately I have never studied acoustic engineering, I did a few courses on mathematically modelling waves in both Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. But nothing on acoustics.
4) I did just think of one interesting point. We do know that in SW universe there is a certain ability to adjust the course of turbolaser/laser/blaster bolts. This being the deflector shields. We see in ANH the deflectors on the Tantive IV bounce a blast. This seems to be different to capital ship shields which mostly absorb blasts. Now whether this means ships have the ability to fine adjust trajectories of blasts at long range (sufficient to allow tracking of targets) is a completely different point.
1) Yes your talking about tracking by including targeting data ie a spot in which to fire. What you posted was a bad design, you designed it that way and ignored points I made, or hypothetical bits, used your own, and I might add in a way made to make the overall point look bad, AND THEN you pass it off as my argument even though it has **** in it I didnt / wouldnt use.
So the only thing your tearing up in the end is your own argument.
Since the lowly star fighters have powerful enough scanners and data collectors to get a large 3d realtime map of there area of engagement as well as the postion, speed, objective (limited), destination, power output & usage this data is at the very least something the firing crews would have access to.
In there targeting computer hud it would more than likely have many points for which to fire for each axis. They could be color coded and or numbered for priority. As long as ECM is not a issue the TC will have the same data I posted above for the figthers.
Or the majority of the dets are only known / feed into the TC the only thing the gunner may do is press a button or at the least manage the systems, keeping an eye out for malfunctions.
Also as I pointed out before I believe they every well could be firing faster than light TLBs that could also have some course changeing capabilities. JFYI if it did have the last attribute as well that doesnt mean they will always hit there target on account of ecm. Even when ships have craked through the enemies ecm it has shown in multi mediums still having a effect on the Lasers fired at the target.
2) Unless the attacker is dealing with a poor ass planet there going to be anti cap ship weapons all over the planet. Alot of thoses weapons have a targeting matrix that DO NOT give them the firing range of the SDs that have these broadsides, which is like 3-5 diffrent models, most others went with missiles while Supers ended up with Super Lasers. In the end that is prob one reason planetary shields were created, and in turn why torp spheres and super laser weapon platforums were created.
3) Your bs meter is broken jfyi. As for the "Solar pannel" bs I dont think you understood what I was saying and or ignored parts I wrote explaning it, not that it matters. You ether didnt ever read the SW CV or articals with its info, missed that tidbit, or left out info to make your point look good. In the very crudest anology the solar pannel system is a giant spark plug. The energy gathered is not the primary output of the reactor on ties.
3A) Bull **** you went nuts over the plasma bull **** and you went nuts over me pointing out how SW craft travel in atmo and the likelyness of the SW universes equv of the FAA passing regulations preventing full g travel in atmo on populated planets and or craft that only use shielding for enhanced atmo travel because if there forward shields fail and they are going ultra hyper mach they will turn into a fire ball.
It mostly doesnt matter because next to ther max ac it says in open space.
4) I dont care anymore for this topic, you just spent this whole time attacking me as well as saying they havent shown beams changing course ergo IM wrong, then you make a point that quasi looks like my point but isnt. THEN YOU NOW ARE KINDA EXCEPTING WHST I WAS SAYING.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That is all.
I find it VERY funny how there is this one guy talking about 15 light minutes being impossible to hit.
*Ahem*
You should see the threads about Battlefleet Gothic and the Warhammer 40,000 Universe vs the Imperial Navy. Im pretty sure most of this huge gun misinformation got started there. And thats because Battlefleet Gothic started out as a Miniatures Game, and not a Movie. In a movie, Knife fighting with spaceships is cool. But with miniatures, fighting in a solar system was cooler.
Taking cover behind a planet and obscuring yourself in the rings, using gravity to slingshot out at faster speeds, and firing at your enemy across the solar system was considered cooler, so thats why Battlefleet Gothic has stupid ranges on the ships. Also, turns represent about 1 hour segments, and firing at a ship meant filling the void with as much explosive flack as you could.
Anyways, lets drop the Turbolaser range discussion, this is a tabletop game about knife fighting with capital ships, so FFG has already determined the ranges to be short.
Anyways, I can see the Imperial Star Destroyer to be more than double the victory's health. Why? Well the volume on the Imperial Class is far greater than the victory's hull. And probably 5 shields as well.
The Weapons would likely be a combination of all three dice pools. The Victory I has 3/0/3 2/0/1 2/0/0, so an assumption might be 5/2/5 4/1/3 2/1/0 (this is a GUESS) and I suspect that I am wrong with the numbers but right with the Idea. A mix of all dice, with a preference to Red and Black, and a favoring of odd numbers for stats like 3's and 5's.
NOW, the Imperial II star destroyer would even out the firepower to strictly reds and blues. I have no way of knowing this, it is a HUNCH. It would be streamlined and more effective without having to rely on getting into range one for slugging matches like its predecessor. I am thinking either 6/4/0 or 5/5/0. A notable increase in ranged firepower with a small diminishment at slug matches, cause its a refined design. Also, probably an increase in shields by one for added protection and to help drive home the message that it is a better model without all the stats going to the firepower.
TL:DR
Imperial star destroyer has lots of red and black dice, with a sprinkle of blue. 16-18 hull, 5 shields front. Used all the dice and could win any slug fest.
Imperial II star destroyer swaps out all its black dice for a few more blues, and +1 shield over the original Imperial class. A more refined design, it wields less total firepower/dice, but the firepower is better spent in ranged dice making it way more deadly.
I read this thread and wanted to weigh in. First and foremost I wanted to state for the record that the definition of what is and is not cannon in Star Wars has changed just this year. And while I believe that most everybody here probably knows about this fact, it appears to have been misrepresented in this thread.
I write this in response to the claim that in the large turbo lasers on the SD can travel some 15 Light minutes or seconds. Which from watching the Movies and Clone Wars, either claim is absolute nonsense. Nothing ever shown on screen Including the Death Star super-laser suggests that any weapon of that level of range/accuracy exists in the Star Wars universe.
The statements about what counts as Star Wars cannon follow…
On April 25 , 2014 , a StarWars.com press release confirmed that the films of the sequel trilogy would not adhere to the post– Return of the Jedi Expanded Universe, with further comments from LucasBooks Senior Editor Jennifer Heddle confirming that the EU as a whole is no longer considered canon. The EU has been re-termed "Legends," with related publications remaining in print under that banner.
Since then, the only previously published material still considered canon are the six original trilogy / prequel trilogy films and the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television series and film . Most material published after April 25—such as the Star Wars Rebels TV series and all novels beginning with A New Dawn —is also considered part of the new canon, on account of the creation of the Lucasfilm Story Group , which currently oversees continuity as a whole. Characters under the Legends banner are still available for use as needed, even if events concerning them are no longer canon.
So as seen above, according to Senior Editor of LucasBooks Jennifer Heddle, all of the EU are now simply “Legends”.
Secondly and I think this should carry some weight. The designers of these games we hold so dear, you know, the guys who meet with the canonical experts to find out exactly how these ships preform, their histories and their exact size and armament. Those game designers have determined that the ranges of these ships are relatively short, and I suspect that that will include the large side mounted turbo lasers on the Star Destroyers when/if they are released.
Finally and most importantly, there is new canon being created as we speak. We may yet see a star Destroyer unleash its main weaponry. And when we do I suspect that the director will choose to go with a visually stunning and cinematic, story inspired visual, (Probably at relatively short range) over an ill-conceived, unsupported and ridiculous EU claim, the most absurd of which were made by people who hijacked Lucas’ work with the actual goal of trying to out-do Star Trek.