Answering the Nebula/Defender-class Star Destroyer question.

To add what I said, those side spaces would be just perfect enough to place gravity well generators into.

As well if you changed the bridge so it's less of a target that would be a good thing.

Plus a few upgrades to the engine housing so that they aren't as big of a target might be a good thing as well(removing those fins).

 

That might have worked... but wouldn't that have increased the hull points in general? Do the stats reflect that to help your theory?

 

Personally I don't understand the stat system at all. I know that official literature fixes don't always follow the stats exactly, too mathematical for the effect of a story.

Also consider that the ones from CTD are from a time that they don't have gravity field generators listed as far as I know(correct me if someone knows). But the ones from NJO era seen in the new book do have them or so I heard.

Also you note that removal of the big fat controlle tower for a more streamlined one, and change in the engine cowlings, may also account for balance in mass that you have mentioned.

 

I don't play RPG's but the Republic Nebula-Class SD was definitely the one that appeared before the Yevethan Crisis (EC), the Defender Class SD is different and designed later, just before the peace treaty between Gavrisom and Pallaeon. (This comes from Timetales). The SbS destroyers aren't given any specific class denomination in SbS except that it says that they are SD's with interdictor abilities but without the seeable grav projectors.

 

The SOTG has no mention of grav projectors, nor does the CTD. There may be some elaboration in the NJO Sourcebook, but I believe thats not due till next month.

 

That is an unofficial source and person you talked to as far as I know.

Before taking fans assumptions as fact, I recommend you put up your question to WOTC themselves on there own Official Star Wars RPG Message Boards, and let them tell you what they think.

 

Yeah I was anticipating that response so I removed it, but ya already replied

Besides, are we not making fan assumptions of our own?

I think I will actually get some official response to the matter...

 

Also would you be so kind to give us an exact link to were you put up the question or questions in the WOTC message boards?

 

Will do. I'm searching there now to see if there is an existant thread that may shed light on the subject.

 

Thanks

 

Defender-class Star Destroyer. Shouldn't it really be the Nebula-class?

Hopefully this thread I posted at the WOTC boards will get an official response...

 

I'd also ask them if the original picture is still valid for some previous or older version of the ship, officially. Or are they invalidating the older picture?

I can't ask this so someone else with an account on those forums ask it for me?

 

I was thinking about that, but I didn't want the initial post to be too confusing. Added a followup question along with the image link that compares the two designs...

 

Well at least one member at the WOTC boards thinks the WEG and WOTC Defenders are both the same mislabelled ship, and the differences in design are simply two different artistic interpretations for the vessel, the WOTC version taking the very basic shape of the WEG image and stramlining it to more closely resemble the classic angular shape associated with the Star Destroyer name. From that it can be said that the Defender-class designation shouldn't be associated with the NR Star Destroyer at all and should be considered the Nebula-class in both cases, for the CTD and SOTG depictions.

That leaves the new Interdictor Star Destroyer as an unknown class, possibly based either on the Nebula-class or Imperial-class hull...

 

Yes, moridin good for fan information, and fair speculation, but I hope we can get editor or someone who designed to let us in on the behind the scenes deal, .

 

If it doesn't seem to be getting attention of the higher-ups after a while I may scrounge for an editor/creator email to pester them that way for an answer...

 

That would be cool, if you could.

You could try "VaderDave"(Dave Gross) from these forums he is Gamer's head editor, he might know something.

 

They're still too different looking to be the same ship. Plus, why would REC make a new star destroyer with identical stats with the older model.

 

I don't think it would be possible to construct two completely different designs that shared identical stats, and REC most likely wouldn't create a different design that shared the same class name as a previous design. It seems to be a case of different artistic interpretations of the same ship and not two seperate classes with nearly identical stats. Since WOTC is the current officially licensed producer of the RPG, perhaps that means their newer design can supercede the older WEG design, and yet be the same ship.

The WOTC images for the other ships pretty much match the original appearances of the ships. This seems to be a unique case of a new WOTC design replacing an older WEG design.

 

"I don't know enough about the stat situation to give an opinion one way or the other. It's curious that WOTC did a different design for the DSD than the original version in WEG, but I have to admit that I like WOTC's version much better. Perhaps the WEG was the prototype and the WOTC was the production version."

-Answer I got back from Dan Wallace(Author of the upcoming EG to vehicles and vessels, 2nd ed.), when I sent him RaptorRage's wizards.com question.

 

It's good to get a response from someone on the production end of this sort of thing. Wonder what he would have to say about the SSD issue as well. Also its nice that there will be an updated EGVV.

I went ahead and made another size comparison chart, this time including the WOTC depicted "Defender"/Nebula-class as well as a number of other EU Star Destroyers. If I could get my hands on the current Republic-class image, be it from CTD or another source, that would just about do it for the major Star Destroyers that have been mentioned in the EU, except for the various Interdictor versions...

[image=http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid28/pacbcae3d1d59a2b79adf3d592215ae08/fdfdea70.jpg.orig.jpg]

 

Hi...

I just wanted to pop in and correct the misassumption that I am writing the 2nd edition of the Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels. I've never said that, and I don't feel I should comment further on that particular project until an official announcement is shaken loose from the Del Rey tree.

Best,
Dan

 

WHOA! The Author of the... here... in the.... I feel faint
*faints*

 

hmm, interesting. My misinformation that you were behind it came from TFN news, and/or jedinet news by way. So please don't feel like I invented that idea out of my head, . Nor was I inferring you said you were behind it that part of the message.

I don't want to offend you, . Thanks for clarifying.

 

No, no, let me clarify, since upon reading my earlier message I think it sounded a bit wacko-paranoid. The writer of the Vehicles guide isn't that big a deal in the grand scheme of things. It's just that Del Rey ultimately controls the information on this and I don't want to be their spoiler.

No harm done.

Best,
Dan