Star Wars Sourcebook Rerelease
Star Wars Sourcebook Rerelease
-
- Posts: 3458
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2000 12:01 am
For those interested, I saw a report earlier today on io9 that the original two Star Wars Sourcebooks are about to be rereleased. These are apparently to be the original WEG books, with the only difference being a new forward.
-
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:01 pm
The source book was one of the original foundations the old EU was built on (other then the movies of course), and information from it is still used today in the new canon.
Hell, TFA calls the Millennium Falcon a Corellian YT Series ship in dialogue, and that designation was established in this book IIRC.
That is pretty big IMO.
Hell, TFA calls the Millennium Falcon a Corellian YT Series ship in dialogue, and that designation was established in this book IIRC.
That is pretty big IMO.
-
- Posts: 3458
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2000 12:01 am
I still remember the furious debates on Bob Brown's website over WEG-sourced material vs. Films Only.
- Jaeven
- Posts: 578
- Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:18 am
Ooohh, the SW Sourcebook was always a glaring miss in my WEG collection, definitely getting it.
Most blatant one I can think of is the Nebulon-B Frigate. Does it have a hangar? And if it does, how many fighters does it carry?The Saxman wrote:I still remember the furious debates on Bob Brown's website over WEG-sourced material vs. Films Only.
-
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 6:01 am
Heh, I dunno why this was debated, it says right in the Star Wars Sourcebook on page 32 that it carries 2 squadrons of starfighters. Now judging from watching the last bit of ESB, the medical frigate didn't look like it could carry starfighters since the medical bay viewport in the movie was located where the hangar would be, but we can handwave that by saying "eh, that's just the Redemption; of course the Medical Frigate is going to be modified to have a medical bay where its hangar used to be!"Jaeven wrote:Ooohh, the SW Sourcebook was always a glaring miss in my WEG collection, definitely getting it.
Most blatant one I can think of is the Nebulon-B Frigate. Does it have a hangar? And if it does, how many fighters does it carry?The Saxman wrote:I still remember the furious debates on Bob Brown's website over WEG-sourced material vs. Films Only.
What I wonder is whether this new re-release is going to be worth it if I already have the original 2nd Ed R&E corebook and the original 1st Ed Sourcebook, as well as the PDFs for both....
-
- Posts: 3458
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2000 12:01 am
I actually used 3D models to test the Nebulon-B a while back. And it's physically impossible for it to carry even ONE squadron of fighters once you account for:
1) Flight deck space for spotting and launching
2) Hangar deck space for storage and maintenance
3) Room to actually MOVE fighters around between the hangar and flight deck, to say nothing of spotting them for launch
4) Storage for fuel, spare parts, ordinance, and other vital equipment
I was able to fit a maximum of 6 X-wings, which required a two-level facility (flight deck with a hangar below it). Additionally, two of the X-wings had to be kept spotted on the "ready" position on the flight deck at all times to provide sufficient room to move the other four around on the hangar deck (and even then it would be something of a juggling act to pull off). It also meant sacrificing almost the entirety of the volume of the forward-upper hull to do it.
I didn't test TIE-series fighters, but you're probably looking at no more than 8 (TIEs aren't THAT much smaller than an X-wing, and their design presents additional handling challenges). You could probably handle between 6-8 A-wings, depending on the scaling you use (9.6m vs 6.24m). Y-wings and B-wings? Nope, not happening.
Ultimately, the Nebulon-B as a pocket carrier is theoretically possible, but EXTREMELY limited. Although those numbers could be sufficient for a light convoy escort or commerce raider, it's not nearly what you would want from a capital ship. I'm honestly of the opinion that it would carry no fighters at all.
This is a problem seen throughout the WEG source material; they seemed to have failed to do their research on just WHY a modern aircraft carrier is so damn big. It's not the space to launch or land the aircraft; a modern carrier only actually uses a small part of its flight deck for launch and recovery ops, thanks to catapults and the arrestor system. All that space is required simply to CARRY the air wing.
1) Flight deck space for spotting and launching
2) Hangar deck space for storage and maintenance
3) Room to actually MOVE fighters around between the hangar and flight deck, to say nothing of spotting them for launch
4) Storage for fuel, spare parts, ordinance, and other vital equipment
I was able to fit a maximum of 6 X-wings, which required a two-level facility (flight deck with a hangar below it). Additionally, two of the X-wings had to be kept spotted on the "ready" position on the flight deck at all times to provide sufficient room to move the other four around on the hangar deck (and even then it would be something of a juggling act to pull off). It also meant sacrificing almost the entirety of the volume of the forward-upper hull to do it.
I didn't test TIE-series fighters, but you're probably looking at no more than 8 (TIEs aren't THAT much smaller than an X-wing, and their design presents additional handling challenges). You could probably handle between 6-8 A-wings, depending on the scaling you use (9.6m vs 6.24m). Y-wings and B-wings? Nope, not happening.
Ultimately, the Nebulon-B as a pocket carrier is theoretically possible, but EXTREMELY limited. Although those numbers could be sufficient for a light convoy escort or commerce raider, it's not nearly what you would want from a capital ship. I'm honestly of the opinion that it would carry no fighters at all.
This is a problem seen throughout the WEG source material; they seemed to have failed to do their research on just WHY a modern aircraft carrier is so damn big. It's not the space to launch or land the aircraft; a modern carrier only actually uses a small part of its flight deck for launch and recovery ops, thanks to catapults and the arrestor system. All that space is required simply to CARRY the air wing.
-
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 11:01 pm
The new canon has them carrying fighters again
But the source is a comic book, so it might have been the artist's/writers fault not knowing the size of the ship.
All we see is 4 X-Wings, a Y-Wing and the Falcon.
But the source is a comic book, so it might have been the artist's/writers fault not knowing the size of the ship.
All we see is 4 X-Wings, a Y-Wing and the Falcon.
-
- Posts: 3458
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2000 12:01 am
Did... they actually even WATCH the movies? That alone should have tipped them off the Falcon couldn't fit ANYWHERE inside a Nebulon-B.
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:07 pm
I got those books since years ago.
And remember the end of ep5...the falcon docking with the nebulon b looks too weird.
I also find a mistake in the fact that the lightsabers proyects a shadow on the ground (and even on Obi Wan when Anakin saves his live while dueling with Dooku in ep2).
Those mistakes survived special editions, bluray, etc...i wonder why?!?!?!
And remember the end of ep5...the falcon docking with the nebulon b looks too weird.
I also find a mistake in the fact that the lightsabers proyects a shadow on the ground (and even on Obi Wan when Anakin saves his live while dueling with Dooku in ep2).
Those mistakes survived special editions, bluray, etc...i wonder why?!?!?!
-
- Posts: 3458
- Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2000 12:01 am
Because lightsaber shadows aren't a mistake. They're not a blade MADE of light, they're a blade that EMITS light, and there's still some sort of mass or substance involved that blocks local light sources.
-
- Posts: 50
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 10:07 pm
Hmm kinda like a solid plasma.
I see.
I give you the point that it can generate shadow cause it block the light, like it block another saber blade clashing.
But the sun (or any other star) is also plasma, it generates different elements inside and all that, but haven't shadow.
I still think it's not right.
But it's ok, let's give it 50% for both.
I see.
I give you the point that it can generate shadow cause it block the light, like it block another saber blade clashing.
But the sun (or any other star) is also plasma, it generates different elements inside and all that, but haven't shadow.
I still think it's not right.
But it's ok, let's give it 50% for both.