Because, in the book, the image is kinda linked to the PTB-625 Heavy bomber, but if you read the description of that vessel, it doesn't fit with the way the ship looks in the image.

The description mentions a flying wing design with six engines. The image is a traditional fuselage+wings with two engines.

So according to the description, the ship would look something more like this (just a bomber from SW:TOR, but you get the idea):

The PTB is an Arc-170 Variant so why would anyone think it was a flying wing?

The PTB is an Arc-170 Variant so why would anyone think it was a flying wing?

This is the description:

"A design departure from other Incom/SubPro products, the PTB-625 is a massive flying wing-style airspeeder driven by six powerful ion turbofan thrusters mounted in the trailing edge of the wing/fuselage. These airspeeders carry a crew of five in two cramped, pressuried cabins with just enough storage room for a small flight bag and a sidearm at each station. There is also a small crew area between the cabins that contains two bunks, a small refresher and even smaller galley for long range bombing missions. PTB-625s are also equipped with ejection capsules for each crew member that automatically seal and launch through the speeders belly should the computers sense an imminent crash."

That certainly doesn't fit this image:

Now, Wookieepedia mentiones that Stay on target is the first time the PTB-625 has been pictured, so it might be that the artist making the pictures didn't get the full description and just got a kind of "bomber based on the ARC-170" note.

The mere fact that the description starts off by saying that this ship doesn't look like the traditional Incom/SubPro designs, and yet the picture is an almost copy of the traditional design, suggests that something is not right.

In fact, it sounds more like the NTB-630 would fit this image better.

Or maybe whoever wrote the Desc didn't get the note about it being an Arc-170 variant

Or maybe whoever wrote the Desc didn't get the note about it being an Arc-170 variant

I don't know, that sounds a bit more far fetched.

Why would someone writing the description decide to go out on a limb and specifically describe it as a departure from the normal Incom/SubPro design if not actually told to do so?

Especially if they knew that art would accompany the text.

Why would a design so different from an ARC-170's be considered an ARC-170 variant rather then a new design?

Why would a design so different from an ARC-170's be considered an ARC-170 variant rather then a new design?

It's not.

It doesn't say anywhere that it's an ARC-170 variant. That's just something that people seem to have assumed due to this line:

"One of a trio of heavy fightercraft produced by a joint Incom/SubPro venture, the PTB-625 is an old, tried-and-true airspeeder design that has proven itself time and again during its decades of service. Designed as a heavy atmospheric bomber, the PTB-625 was first introduced into the Republic Navy arsenal alongside the ARC-170 reconnaissance fighter and the NTB-630 orbital bomber sometime before 22 BBY"

It only states that it was part of a joint Incom/SubPro venture that culminated in three heavy fightercraft, and that it was introduced into the Republic Navy alongside the other two parts of that venture.

Nowhere does it say that it is a variant of the ARC-170.

The text does reference to the other two designs as "its siblings" in the description of its operations, but that only means that they were part of the same joint venture, not that they are design variants of the ARC-170.

EDIT: however, this part of the description of the ARC-170 on Wookieepedia makes me wonder if there might not be some internal conflicts in the holocron database when it comes to these ships:

"Like their other starfighter designs of its time, such as the lighter Z-95, and the heavier PTB-625, and NTB-630, the ARC-170 had a narrow spaceframe flanked by large engines. "

As you can see, that sentence hints that the PTB-625 should have a narrow spaceframe flanked by large engines, and not a flying-wing design.

I don't know which one is right, but going by the description of the PTB-625 in the Stay on target book (and going by its weapon loadout in that book as well), the image is not the correct one.

Further complicating things, the description provided on Wookieepedia of the PTB-625 specifically states its narrow spaceframe look. The source given for that description links to a starwars.com databank description of the ARC-170 that mentions that "The narrow spaceframe flanked by large engines is common in Incom/Subpro designs, and can be seen in PTB-626, NTB-630 and Z-95 starfighter models."

However, that's not from an actual description of the PTB-625 (note, the misprint btw) but instead from a description of the ARC-170.

So I'm still not sure that the image is correct as it is the first depiction of the PTB-625 in any star wars material, and the Stay on target book is also the first book to give a detailed description of the ship.

And since none of the books where it's been described are considered canon, it's hard to know which one to go by.

However, it seems strange that the only detailed description of the ship/speeder deviates so much from the other, cursory, descriptions in relation to the ARC-170 and the NTB-630.

I'm inclined to go with the description instead since it fits more with the loadout of the ship.

The image of the ship actually has more weapons than the described loadout, and also more crew stations.

I've written to FFG about it, but I'm just expecting a cursory "there's nothing wrong" answer, so I'm probably going to go with the image being of the NTB-630 instead in my own in-game canon, unless they give an explicit "the description is wrong, the image is right" type answer.

According to the old Databank on the ARC-170, the PTB shares the same design influences as the ARC-170, the NTB-630 and the Z-95: the long, narrow body flanked by engines.

According to the old Databank on the ARC-170, the PTB shares the same design influences as the ARC-170, the NTB-630 and the Z-95: the long, narrow body flanked by engines.

Which is what I said in my above post

Must have posted simultaneously.

Must have posted simultaneously.

Quite possibly, I was editing that post 5-6 times as I was following the wookieepedia trail...

But still, like I said, Stay on target is the first book that actually describes the ship.

The other descriptions are only ancillary in the form of "XXX ship follows the common narrow body design as the BLA-BLA, PTB-625 and LA-LA ships" or the likes. There's no actual description of the PTB itself, it's always just referenced in that way and always thrown in with the lump description of "just like all Incom/SubPro ships, BLA-BLA follows the narrow fuselage design".

Which is interesting since the Stay on target description specifically states that it breaks from that common design pattern.

Apart from the shape of the ship, the weapons pictured don't match the PTB-625's stat block. The stats say a forward turret-mounted twin light laser cannons (fire arc All), dorsal and ventral twin auto-blasters (fire arc Forward) and the ventral bomb bay (fire arc Down). The pictured forward blister turret might be supposed to be the first weapon on the stat block, but from the picture it's hard to believe it can effectively fire aft, and definitely not port or starboard. The picture has two pairs of weapons that might be the auto-blasters, but they're not dorsal and ventral (and the rear pair look more powerful than the other pair). The pictured tailgunner turret isn't in the stats at all, which have no aft weaponry (other than the turret which is supposedly forward). Only the bomb bay matches up.

That said, I think it is probably meant to be the PTB-625, if only because nothing else in the book seems to fit the bill any better (and the illustration really highlights the bomb-dropping, which is the PTB's big thing). It's probably just been a big error in editing or something.

Hardly the first time the art didn't match the description... The z-95 was originally supposed to be an F-14 tomcat with tripleblasters....

So which one should we go by?

Personally, I'm leaning towards using the image as the template for what the NTB-630 looks like and just go with the description of the PTB-625 when describing the PTB, ignoring the image.

This might be an issue of putting art to fill the space, but not having the right image at the time it was needed. The text and the image definitely don't line up as the picture has 8 guns, 4 locked forward, 2 in a rear turret and 2 in a front... well, bombardier bubble. So, the only thing they have in common are the bombs coming out of the belly.

Still no answer from FFG.

Back in the good old days of science fiction writers the editors would buy stacks of futuristic images from starving artists. Then they'd hand them out to their writers and say "Give me 50 pages on that by next month." That's how the big names got their starts and how some of the classics got written. Might be a similar case where they have stacks of art and they hand them to the writers saying, "Give it a name and write up three paragraphs on it."

Back in the good old days of science fiction writers the editors would buy stacks of futuristic images from starving artists. Then they'd hand them out to their writers and say "Give me 50 pages on that by next month." That's how the big names got their starts and how some of the classics got written. Might be a similar case where they have stacks of art and they hand them to the writers saying, "Give it a name and write up three paragraphs on it."

Doubtful, since the description doesn't actually fit the art.

Interesting. I hadn't given this much thought, but I will also be contacting FFG for clarification.

Interesting. I hadn't given this much thought, but I will also be contacting FFG for clarification.

Did you get a response from them?

Haven't heard anything. Then again, this was also right before my classes turned the heat up.