Subject:
|
Re: A couple stupid SW questions...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Sat, 10 Jun 2000 15:15:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1048 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Aaron West writes:
> In lugnet.starwars, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > In lugnet.starwars, Aaron West writes:
> > >
> > > > > DO all of the rebel fighters have hyperdrives?
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but the later models didn't need astromech droids for navigation. So
> > > > basically the A and B wings are new tech and the X and Y are older tech.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jason F.
> > >
> > > Amendment:
> > > Astromech Droids are able to carry 10 preprogrammed hyperdrive routes in
> > > memory, and can recalculate for new jumps with some ease and a little time.
> > > Rebel hyperdrive equiped fighters not using Astromechs or sophisticated
> > > computers (ie, Falcon) can only make two preprogrammed hyperdrive routes.
> > > This is to keep 'em from bouncing off stars or flying right through
> > > supernovas, that would end your trip real quick. Y-wing has a useful role • of
> > > the ability to carry proton bombs, like TIE Bombers. B-wings cannot.
> > > Therefore they aren't being replaced, just another role of assault gunship • is
> > > being filled. Rebels don't replace anything, just modify it to work better
> > > (it's all they can afford). This information comes straight out of the Star
> > > Wars Roleplaying Game and Sourcebook.
> > > Thanks for the rant-space,
> > > Aaron
> >
> > Um... The Star Wars Roleplaying Game and Sourcebook is not considered canon
> > matieral. (Canon material means it is "real" in the Universe so is one step
> > above "Offical" material.) The order of canon is in order of most important • in
> > the event of a contradiction: Movies, Original Radio Dramas of movies,
> > Novelisations of Movies, Expanded Universe novels published by Bantam, and
> > Comics published by Dark Horse. Everything else is basically considered • false
> > and misinformation. Offical material is usually stuff like the Star Wars
> > Encyclopedia and the Behind the Magic CD. (offical means it is authorized and
> > based on canon material.) Anything in an offical source is always overruled • by
> > a canon source. Everything else; Droids cartoon, and Star Wars game computer
> > or otherwise, is basically worthless for getting stats out of.
> >
> > -Lord Insanity
>
> WORTHLESS!?!
> Excuse me, but most all of it makes more sense than gas from beans :>
> I don't care how "Lucas" it is, it is just a helpful and usefull sorce of
> information that makes my teenie brain say, " Ah, how simple." Many books
> spawned off of the Original Trilogy, and Lucas said it was good. Another
> bunch of movies (and specials) spawned from the Original Trilogy and the fans
> said, "Bleoch!" I have followed Star Wars and seen and read everything since
> I was 4 (waaaay back in '77) to the point that I know enough to know that
> Lucas reserves the right to call anything he did not personally write so much
> poo-poo. If you don't want discussion material or helpful info, then don't
> cruise the discussion groups with superiority. I merely suggest another
> source for the Questioner's knowledge. Geez, this Star Wars bunch is awful
> touchy!
> Doesn't anybody ever watch anything else, like campy "Red Dwarf" for our goof-
> ball entertainment?
> How in the great wide wilderness can you call anything Star Wars "real". Good
> grief.
> Recovering Star Wars encyclopedia (and how),
> Aaron
Oh for crying out loud. What I stated was the offical standpoint of
Lucasfilm/Lucasarts. All it states is that if their is an argument information
form any game is worthless as it is overridden by offical and canon material.
This was not meant as an attack against you or anyone else. I was merely
pointing out that using games as a source of stats is incorrect for the
purposes of "acurate" representation. Speaking of touchy... Sheesh.
-Lord Insanity
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A couple stupid SW questions...
|
| (...) Star (...) and (...) computer (...) goof- (...) Good (...) information (...) Have they stated anything to contradict the Sourcebook information I added to discussion, or does it merely not get in the way of "canon"? If it does, please point (...) (24 years ago, 11-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A couple stupid SW questions...
|
| (...) in (...) WORTHLESS!?! Excuse me, but most all of it makes more sense than gas from beans :> I don't care how "Lucas" it is, it is just a helpful and usefull sorce of information that makes my teenie brain say, " Ah, how simple." Many books (...) (24 years ago, 10-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
82 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
