We have to realize that the seed of all this discord is that Star Wars isn't sci-fi, and has zero real respect for technical coherence. Even Ghostbusters or Back to the Future have more sci-fi elements than Star Wars. It's space fantasy. The TIEs have fantasy engines and fantasy fuselage that makes them move like that, with fantasy weapons that shoot like that.

As soon as we try to bind those ships to technical sci-fi specs, everything falls apart.

While I absolutely agree with your overall point, I would argue that science fiction and space fantasy are synonymous.

I understand your desire to differentiate the two, but sci-fi has never actually HAD to try and justify itself scientifically. Some works do, some don't, but it's all still science fiction.

We have to realize that the seed of all this discord is that Star Wars isn't sci-fi, and has zero real respect for technical coherence. Even Ghostbusters or Back to the Future have more sci-fi elements than Star Wars. It's space fantasy. The TIEs have fantasy engines and fantasy fuselage that makes them move like that, with fantasy weapons that shoot like that.

As soon as we try to bind those ships to technical sci-fi specs, everything falls apart.

While I absolutely agree with your overall point, I would argue that Science Fiction and space fantasy are synonymous.

I understand your desire to differentiate the two, but sci-fi has never actually HAD to try and justify itself scientifically. Some works do, some don't, but it's all still science-ficiton.

Let's say, for example, Asimov's robot stories. They have a positronic brain that lets them think and they follow the 3 Laws of Robotics. Beyond that, at no point they try to explain how a positronic brain works or why or how those 3 Laws were decided or enforced. That is the fictional "science", period. Now, the rest of the book (or series of books) use those two pillars as foundation for the rest of the stories. How would society be if there were robots like that, what would happen if a robot tried to break some of those laws, etc.

Back to the Future is the same. They part on the discovery of time travel with this and that rules. Then the stories emerge and grow by respecting those rules almost to the letter. At no point Dr Emmet Brown explains how the time machine actually works. That is the fictional science. What matters are the consequences of that discovery in the lives of the protagonists.

Even all the way back to Jules Verne, Journey to the Moon, bases itself on the science-fiction fact of being able to travel to the moon by being shot by a cannon and fly thru the aether, without being squished to pulp to start with. There is no aether, and you cannot be shot by a cannon and survive, but we accept that as a fictional scientific discovery that feeds the idea of the novels (in the same way that you couldn't travel undersea, be they accepted the idea of the Nautilus as a fictional scientific achievement that allowed the rest of the story).

Star Wars is more like Doctor Who. The script writers need something to happen. So the Doctor says some wibbly wobbly timey wimey techno babble and it happens. After five chapters, that is no longer possible and something else can be done with the a sonic, technomagical screwdriver that before couldn't. And so on, and on.

In Star Wars ships couldn't jump to hyperspace when there is a gravity mass nearby (that is the whole concept of the Interdictor-class cruiser). Then in Clone Wars we see characters jumping to hyperspace from the surface of a planet. Explanation? Anything goes.

Imagine a fantasy world with color-coded wizard-warriors, mighty mounts, powerful swords, dready fortresses, and scary dark lords. Just shift the likely tolkienesque setting you have probably imagined into a spacefaring one. There you have Star Wars.

I love The Lord of the Rings. And under no circumstances I would call The Lord of the Rings science-fiction.

Now if you reskin The Lord of the Rings with spaceships instead of horses, lightsabers instead of swords, planets instead of kingdoms, and jedi instead of wizards, that cannot all of sudden become sci-fi, unless you pervert the true meaning of "sci-fi".

Aaand that is the best explanation differentiating Sci fi / Sci Fantasy i've ever read. Thank you.

Star Wars is a Space Opera, an epic poem of fantasy set amongst the stars. It's glorious for it. It's definitely not true Sci-fi.

Star Wars is a Space Opera, an epic poem of fantasy set amongst the stars. It's glorious for it. It's definitely not true Sci-fi.

If your definition of "sci-fi" doesn't include one of the two most popular and recognisable works of sci-fi ever produced then... your definition might need a bit of tweaking.

#TakeThisTopicToCuba

Are you guys really arguing about the detail specs of Tie Fighters? I thought that type of stuff only happened at Star Trek sites. Come on, guys! Let's just roll some dice and say, "pew pew".

Batman is a superhero BECAUSE he doesn't have any super powers. He's a badass normal.

This is why Batman is over 9000 times more awesome than superman.

But that doesn't make Star Wars Sci fi.

Star Trek is Sci Fi

Babylon 5 is Sci Fi.

The Matrix is Sci fi - and that doesn't even have space.

setting in space or far away planets does not a sci fi make, Star wars is based off of pulp shows such as the original Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers etc. Now, these are awesome shows, i'm talking the ones from the 20's through to 50s, should be required watching. But they are NOT Sci Fi. They are pulp fantasy, space opera. The difference does not belittle them.

Here is a good grading scale: http://www.kheper.net/topics/scifi/grading.html

Also as a bonus, please note who coins the phrase space fantasy, and shove your hashtag somewhere where the sun will never shine.

Aaand that is the best explanation differentiating Sci fi / Sci Fantasy i've ever read.

It is a great explanation, but until the rest of the science fiction community agrees with him, it's essentially wishful thinking on his part.

Those are sub-genres of science fiction. Not separate genres.

Strictly speaking Science Fiction and Space Opera aren't the same thing. It's just that Science Fiction is used colloquially as an umbrella by people who don't know the other terms.

It's one of those misconceptions that's so common it's the majority opinion. Like the people who believe water isn't a chemical.

No it's not. New references overwrite old ones. And the X-Wing reference is newer.

As long as there are more valid sources for the name Interdictor than punisher, I will continue to call it that.

You just said they were the same level of validity.

Actually, I'm fairly sure X-Wing itself doesn't have canonical validity: the sourcebook takes precedence.

However, ask yourselves why the TIE interdictor, which has been TIE interdictor for 16 years and became the TIE/IT interdictor in the Stay on Target sourcebook (which also reclassified the TIE phantom as the TIE/ph, merrily overwriting that Modified V-38 Assault Fighter stuff I loathed) became the TIE punisher? Why rename it?

In the sourcebook it most likely wasn't worth the effort, it's a picture and some text on a page. But X-Wing is a much wider scale release. I doubt FFG were the ones who renamed it. I'd bet it was LFL.

Why? Exactly the reason that was stated. Interdictor has a very specific meaning in Star Wars and the TIE punisher flew in the face of it. You'd expect a TIE interdictor to be a TIE with a gravity well projector on it. They renamed it to reduce confusion. The resulting name I don't think was particularly good, but unlike TIE interdictor it's not misleading nor is it incongruous.

Based on that reasoning, I'd wager that that the TIE punisher expansion and the TIE interdictor's Stay on Target appearance been the other way around, the TIE interdictor would be the TIE punisher in the sourcebook. That is to say, it has been officially changed.

That being said, I see literally no harm in Y-wing Ace calling it the TIE interdictor. I do quite frequently.

No it's not. New references overwrite old ones. And the X-Wing reference is newer.

As long as there are more valid sources for the name Interdictor than punisher, I will continue to call it that.

You just said they were the same level of validity.

Actually, I'm fairly sure X-Wing itself doesn't have canonical validity: the sourcebook takes precedence.

However, ask yourselves why the TIE interdictor, which has been TIE interdictor for 16 years and became the TIE/IT interdictor in the Stay on Target sourcebook (which also reclassified the TIE phantom as the TIE/ph, merrily overwriting that Modified V-38 Assault Fighter stuff I loathed) became the TIE punisher? Why rename it?

In the sourcebook it most likely wasn't worth the effort, it's a picture and some text on a page. But X-Wing is a much wider scale release. I doubt FFG were the ones who renamed it. I'd bet it was LFL.

Why? Exactly the reason that was stated. Interdictor has a very specific meaning in Star Wars and the TIE punisher flew in the face of it. You'd expect a TIE interdictor to be a TIE with a gravity well projector on it. They renamed it to reduce confusion. The resulting name I don't think was particularly good, but unlike TIE interdictor it's not misleading nor is it incongruous.

Based on that reasoning, I'd wager that that the TIE punisher expansion and the TIE interdictor's Stay on Target appearance been the other way around, the TIE interdictor would be the TIE punisher in the sourcebook. That is to say, it has been officially changed.

That being said, I see literally no harm in Y-wing Ace calling it the TIE interdictor. I do quite frequently.

Actually, X-wing (for reasons I don't understand) actually does have canonicity in Legends. (Look up R2-F2, his only appearance is X-wing, but he is considered part of Legends.)

Echo and Whisper too...

Echo and Whisper too...

Actually, I haven't been able to find them yet. They may have been added since the last time I checked.

I did just check wookieepedia - they are there. Search Whisper phantom or Echo phantom.

Death rain with coroner net x4 advanced sensors and ei, captain your and what ever else tickles your fancy and slow roll. When big bad ship gets about halfway across the board move up and drop bomb (can boost if need be ) and k turn your takes stress , next turn move up behind or just drop bomb and repeat till big bad ship is off the board.

Your is there to take stress if you need to boost first to drop the net with ei and then the k turn. This only works if the net goes off if dropped on a ship like prox mines do

I've read through (most) of this thread, the good, the bad, the unplayable. Honestly I just like the look of the model. And really that is what it comes down to. It looks like something right out of the OT. For me that means a lot. So it'll be on my shopping list and I will make it work in my squad lists. Sure the MKII upgrades make bombers more attractive, but that's just part of the appeal of this expansion. I love bombers. Anything from ESB is ace. But this TIE is a BEAST. And if I don't find a way to incorporate it into my list then I'm doing myself a disservice as a loyal commander of the Imperial Navy. I shall make this bird work in my force. It's simply too cool not to use.

of course it looks like something out of the OT

it's basically the bomber from The Empire Strikes Back if it had a conjoined twin

**** thing's going to see play just for how cool it is, but competitively speaking it's in an odd spot:

Generics compete with the cheaper Bomber (and imo lose, unless that system slot gets exploited like an industrial era worker)

Redline runs parallel with Whisper, as previously mentioned. His proton torp attack is very similar to her primary, andI don't know how his clusters stack to her range 1 attack. He's certainly chunckier, though.

Of the lot, Deathrain definitely offers a wholly unique playstyle that can't be found anywhere else in the game, so if bombs/mines turn out to be that amazing he'll have a place secured

Admiral Zaarin was the creator of the Tie Defender, and also the tag 'Avenger' was created by the pilots, since the craft was called Tie Advanced.

My biggest problem with the punisher is deciding on what 2 bombs to take on deathrain....

Anyone else feel like enhanced scopes is an auto include?

Proton + Cluster Mines are the initial thought, but conner net looks fun to

or go super cheep with double seismic

Admiral Zaarin was the creator of the Tie Defender, and also the tag 'Avenger' was created by the pilots, since the craft was called Tie Advanced.

Both correct, we use Avenger around here to differentiate the TIE Fighter Advanced with Vaders Advanced.

My question is... what's the relevance? Neither are really being discussed here.

Oh, and welcome to the x-wing boards!

If only we could talk about some game based in all these things folks seems to be arguing over? Like, wouldn't it be awesome if someone would make a starship miniatures game based on all of this clearly beloved fiction?

Oh...wait a minute...

There is a whole subforum for non-Xwing minis game related stuff. Take it there folks

My biggest problem with the punisher is deciding on what 2 bombs to take on deathrain....

Anyone else feel like enhanced scopes is an auto include?

Not I

Sensors all day, everyday

The Possiblities for shenanigans are simply glorious

Also as a bonus, please note who coins the phrase space fantasy, and shove your hashtag somewhere where the sun will never shine.

He probably would. He also invented Jar Jar Binks.

I don't know about Space Fantasy, but the term Science Fantasy has existed since the 50s.

I don't know about Space Fantasy, but the term Science Fantasy has existed since the 50s.

Heinlein was using the term "Speculative Fiction" in the late 40s. That encompasses Fantasy, Science Fiction, and a few other genres.

I'm in the camp that doesn't consider Star Wars to be Science Fiction, it's simply Fantasy with technological trappings.

They make it clear in the source books what all the componets are in the craft. The pannels on all TIEs from ep 2 onward past Dark Empire up too before White pannel craft are built are useing solar pannels. It even says this in the newest source books. What they dont explane well enough on wookieepedia is that the energy gathered by the pannels isnt used too power the craft. The solar pannels can be thought of as "Spark Plugs." The celestial energy is used to fire emitions in a ionization reactor filled with charged radioactive gas under high pressure.

[...]

The White panneled ones might not be solar pannels BUT that doesnt make the black ones not solar pannels ether.

Look, I used to be an Star Wars technical enthusiast like you before. Then I took an arrow on my knee.

And that arrow was when they started retconning, rewriting, respec'ing everything.

At the beginning, the filming diaries with their technical comments were the Truth. But they were made by special effect artists, model-makers, concept artists and, in general, film-makers with almost no knowledge on how physics or engineering work.

Then the West End Games sourcebooks made a huge cleanup of all of that and supposed a blank slate, while trying to adapt "official" numbers and terms to a more coherent universe.

Then the EU books and licensed exploded and they all started to contradict each other. We had different artists making up different new ships, vehicles and races, only the looks of them.

When you make a ship in real life, or whatever, you don't have a bunch of artists designing the looks of it first, then you pass the design to your engineers to fill it up with engines and gadgets. It's actually the other way. The nature and purpose of something is what gives that thing its looks.

It's not like that in Star Wars. TIEs don't have black panels because they are good for their purpose ("spark plugs"? Why my car doesn't need huge black panels to start it's gasoline engine then? Why the Defender needs 3 while the Avenger needs only 2? Why the Imperial Raider has black panels in a ship that size? They don't have room for spark plugs inside?)

They have black panels because an artist thought it looked cool, and someone else approved it.

The drawn design approved by Lucas, or Lucas Licesing comitee, were passed on to the writers to keep extending the EU with more characters, stories, planets, races, and stuff. If some ship became popular, then it would be the job of some techno-babble geek in Lucas Licensing to fill up a "technical card" with a lot of fine grained made up details. The more details you put on something, the more it looks like it's real. So they started to even naming every laser cannon, with their manufacturers, and their models and submodels. Oh, this has a Taim and Baik laser cannon. Not to mistake with a blaster cannon, or an autoblaster, or a turbolaser. (No one told them that lasers don't actually behave like that? What is the standing today on Star Wars lasers? I read some "laser guided energy pulsation" nonsense lately.)

So that is why all of that means absolutely nothing!

That technojargon guy at Lucas Licensing probably looked at other similar ships, by role, and came up with some similar stats or numbers for it. A little bit more of SDB, a little bit less of RU, less DPS, more atmospheric speed... With some cool twist, maybe. "The B-Wing cockpit can rotate to keep the pilot horizontal..." Horizontal in space? There is no horizon! It makes no sense!

We have to realize that the seed of all this discord is that Star Wars isn't sci-fi, and has zero real respect for technical coherence. Even Ghostbusters or Back to the Future have more sci-fi elements than Star Wars. It's space fantasy. The TIEs have fantasy engines and fantasy fuselage that makes them move like that, with fantasy weapons that shoot like that.

As soon as we try to bind those ships to technical sci-fi specs, everything falls apart.

Kerrie Dougherty and Curtis Saxton are amazing writers for SW tech books like crossections, one being a theoretical astrophysisthe other a Curator of Space Technology in Sydney Australia. We are look they were hired too write these books.

And we could hire Larry Page and Elon Musk for writing a fiction book about how Star Wars androids work, because they are Star Wars fans, and whatever they would write wouldn't be more coherent if next month another book contradicts what they said, and then soon after, another movie contradicts it again, and then soon after another game contradicts it again.

Androids are another good example on incoherence.

During the West End Games era of "canon", androids were unable to use weapons or harm living beings, because all androids in the galaxy were programmed against it. I even remember them using some of Asimov laws in a clear homage. Even IG-88 captured his preys alive and used ion cannons. Then soon after, all of that starts contradicting itself with C-3PX, the IG-88 stories, and even worst, the Prequel Trilogy with whole armies full with killer droids.

I stopped caring about all these simulacra of technological foundation when they showed again and again that they don't have any respect for their own works.

I dont know where your getting the idea that tech information in every book is contradicted a month after its published. Every book I have gotten has been 90% + true too one another. As stories continue on you will have new versions of old craft. I also dont see why the old rpgs are considered as canon as actual source books. Most the time they are just filled with bits of info to get players an idea of what it is they gave encountered. The game stats themselves have never been canon, not even in WOTC or FFG.

Your correct in that aircraft being designed first have their mission profiles laid out on the table before artistic conceptual desinging begins. However both in uninverse and out uninverse this was how pretty much how the SW craft were designed, excludingf ine details of internal componets. Lucas and other writter laid out what they wanted for each craft and their rolls in the film, JFYI the ship characteristicts chart you brought up was made by Lucas for his ship designers too follow. Out of universe its not as ass backwards as your saying. That being said that point is not a good reason to proclaim something being invalid for being used as lore, the internal design being designed last outside of universe.

The pannels have other purppose besides energy collecting. They are used for protective purposes as well, and depending on the design, used too enhance atmo flight characteristics. Why SFS went with this design for a powerplant is unknown. It maybe cheeper for them to have a solar ionization reactor than to use other types of reactors. After all when the fuel can be used no longer it is tranfered too the SD reactor to be reenriched with its missing elements. This sounds cheepert han buying freash things of fuel for other craft when they run dry.

There could be many reasons why the Defender has three pannels instead of two. One being redundancy. The pannels are damaged by enemy fire, by adding another pannel there less chances it will lose the ability to collect energy.

As for LASERs in SW compared too the LASER / Light technology we have now, what we got now is ether simular or on the path too being able too produce the same thing. With special mediums we can control how fast or slow light travels, fastest record being 300 x 671 milion mph or as slow as 60 mph. In the UK they were able to make a special lens that forced light travel slower in without using a special medium. Lockheed used a LASER that uses "Spectral Beam Combining" to creat a powerful LASER beam. Its kinda similar too the lasing process of a Super LASER. We also resently find that photons, and in effect LASERs, can be controled at the nano scale with the use of synthetic magnetism. With it we have broken the law of time-reversal symmetry. Last one to point out is Hardlight. With a special medium photons were made to stay together. After leaving the medium 70% of the photons still stay connected together. The guy who invented Hardlight created this as a computing componet for quantum computers. He also wants too use hardlight as building material.

If it the lore behind LASER weapons were changed they should be Hardlight Laser that are protected and guided with synthetic magnetic bottles. The same can be applyed too the super laser and or the lasing process involves partical acclerator that produce powerful photons and with at the end of the process the photons sre put in order with a synthetic magnetic field. The first example is more correct however. All the elements are there for these things to be true.

As of now though in SW LASERs are LASERs the beam you see them firing is really an artifact. If the video is slowed down youll see ship explode before the bolt hits them or youll see ships pass through bolts without being damaged. Blaster ared iffrent, plasma weapons are also diffrent.

The cockpit design for the B-Wing was meant yo help keep the pilots orientated in atmo and space

As for Androids the only Droid that actully would be concidered an Android is the Commando Droid and maybe the model of Droid C-3PO is. IG-88 is a bounty hunter hes not always be killing things

I dont know why you act like thew ritter you mentioned would have their work retcond a month after it published. They people I wrote about wrote their stuff years ago and dtill hasnt been conflicted by newer books.

Are you guys really arguing about the detail specs of Tie Fighters? I thought that type of stuff only happened at Star Trek sites. Come on, guys! Let's just roll some dice and say, "pew pew".

There whole websites where hardcore fans take their lore too fight other fans. Word of warning the 40kers involved in these battles are the worst, vile, angery, and canon breakers. They make these topic personal real quick. Example offically The World Destroyer from BFG is 6 miles long and is biggert han any EOM ship with Chapter ships being an exception maybe. Thew ill break 40k canon and fighty ou that EOM NAVY Battleships are 13 miles too around 65 miles long.

Take in mind Im not saying all 40kers are like this. But debaters I have seen piss me off, they yook over a HALO website "factfiles" and gloat about it. Any fightg he have on their, esp 40K vs HALO, HALO is unfairly screwed over.

Actually, I'm fairly sure X-Wing itself doesn't have canonical validity: the sourcebook takes precedence.

However, ask yourselves why the TIE interdictor, which has been TIE interdictor for 16 years and became the TIE/IT interdictor in the Stay on Target sourcebook (which also reclassified the TIE phantom as the TIE/ph, merrily overwriting that Modified V-38 Assault Fighter stuff I loathed) became the TIE punisher? Why rename it?

In the sourcebook it most likely wasn't worth the effort, it's a picture and some text on a page. But X-Wing is a much wider scale release. I doubt FFG were the ones who renamed it. I'd bet it was LFL.

Why? Exactly the reason that was stated. Interdictor has a very specific meaning in Star Wars and the TIE punisher flew in the face of it. You'd expect a TIE interdictor to be a TIE with a gravity well projector on it. They renamed it to reduce confusion. The resulting name I don't think was particularly good, but unlike TIE interdictor it's not misleading nor is it incongruous.

Based on that reasoning, I'd wager that that the TIE punisher expansion and the TIE interdictor's Stay on Target appearance been the other way around, the TIE interdictor would be the TIE punisher in the sourcebook. That is to say, it has been officially changed.

That being said, I see literally no harm in Y-wing Ace calling it the TIE interdictor. I do quite frequently.

@blue 5 FFG was allow to make their own ships too add too canon. They go through a strict process too add stuff too their game not unlike hasbro, and everything hasbro makes is primary canon. If what FFG was making was not canon they wouldnt need LFL permission to add stuff in their games. I dont think EA asks permission to make addons too that mmo SW game and LFL said those were non-canon. They werent going to interfear or something.