Disruptors, Dagobah, and other questions

1. Disruptor rifles. Now, in the Essential Guide to Weapons and Technology, the Tenloss DXR-6 Disruptor Rifle looks a certain way. It looks like an expanded version of this weapon, shown in the Deciper Star Wars CCG:

[image=http://www.decipher.com/starwars/cardlists/specialedition/dark/images/disruptorpistol.gif]

If you follow the game 'Shadows of the Empire', disruptors fire a pulse of green energy that blows stuff apart. That's how I always figured disruptors worked. A pulse of powerful energy that blows stuff away. That's how I wrote the DXR-6 into one of my fanfics.

Now, we get to the game 'Jedi Knight II: Jedi Outcast', and now the Tenloss DXR-6 Disruptor Rifle looks like this:

[image=http://www.lucasarts.com/products/outcast/images/weapons/disruptor_rifle.gif]

It fires a straight-line pulse of red/orange energy, almost like a laser beam, and if you charge it up enough, it turns the target to ash.

Okay, so the JO weapon not only looks radically different from the weapon in the EGtW&T, but the way it shoots and WHAT it shoots is also radically different. In the "Corporate Sector Sourcebook", it says disruptors have short range - that kinda flies in the face of the sniper-rifle capabilities of the disruptor rifle in Jedi Outcast.

Explanations on the discrepancies, anyone? I mean, I'd chalk it up as "different rifles", but both weapons in both sources are listed as a Tenloss DXR-6.

2. We all know Dagobah has this "dark side" aura to it, especially in the cave where Luke confronts himself. My question is, do any sources explain where that dark side energy came from? Is there any history to that?

3. I just bought the Episode 1 Visual Dictionary (on sale at Barnes and Noble for $6, as opposed to $20! ), and I noticed some interesting stuff that made its way into Attack of the Clones. I dunno when the Ep1 Visual Dictionary came out in relation to TPM or AotC's releases, but I found this interesting:
- it shows Yoda's lightsaber on page 9.
- page 63 has Passel Argente. Wasn't he one of the Separatists in AotC?

 

The ccg has the disruptor pistol, the JO has the disruptor rifle, .

The rifle in JO shares many similarieties with the version seen in the EGTWT, except that a bulky support for a scope(and possible increased powerpack) was added, the muzzle was slightly extended, and a different handle in the back of the rifle. So apparently the ones in JO are some kind of modified DXR-6 disruptor.

tenloss


2. Hand of Thrawn, IIRC. Yoda battled a Dark Jedi there.

 

Yeah, the rifle you displayed in the pic you linked to is pretty radically different. Following the CCG color scheme, the color is different, along with the barrel, scope, stock, rear grip... just about everything. And the gun fires differently, as well.

How can both weapons (with the massive appearance AND discharge differences) both be DXR-6s? How can they both be disruptor weapons, for that matter?

Edit - for comparison's sake:
[image=http://www.lucasarts.com/products/outcast/images/weapons/disruptor_rifle.gif] [image=http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Tech/Ground/Disruptor.jpg]
The only real "similarity" I see between the two is the slanted front grip (which has a different texture on each rifle, by the way). Other than that, they're pretty radically different. I could show 'em to people and say "Are these both the same weapon?", and people would probably say no.

 

"Yeah, the rifle you displayed in the pic you linked to is pretty radically different."

This is a matter of opinion on your end, I can't argue with you on it. But from my POV, I see what looks like they took the standard non-scope model, beefed the output, added bulky support for the scope, changed the back handle(that's not to difficult to do as you can do that to many modern rifles, IIRC). Energy output was probably increased to support higher range. The front handle seems to share the similer look to the front handle of the standard rifle design, with a silver piece added to the front of it.

As for you saying the gun fires differently? I don't think the EGTWT described what the beam looked like, or the color?

It did say that the the dxr-6 has a maximum range of 20 meters though. That's about 65 feet. Now it's shown to be a couple of hundred feet in the game right? So I'd say clearly all that added bulk, and the increased muzzle length was to improve the power output for it's range.

As for the tenloss pistol, note that the back end of it on the CCG doesn't exactly fit the version seen in the EGWT. The tecture on the handles aren't exactly the same either.

"Tenloss Disruptor Rifle
The tenloss rifle is outlawed by the New Republic but is still produced on the black market and used by some criminal elements. The primary fire produces a single fast-moving shot with a medium rate of fire. The secondary mode can be charged up and disintegrates living targets. It allows scope activation and zoom."-lucasarts.com

Now you say it was called a DXR-6 in the game, or was it hte manual? Its not mentioned on the official website, and that mostly lists what was in the manual, IIRC.

 

If you acquire four or more disruptor riffles, do you get a 1-UP?

 

He tends to toss the extra rifles and only carries the ammo. Gameplay wise, .

 

But from my POV, I see what looks like they took the standard non-scope model, beefed the output, added bulky support for the scope, changed the back handle(that's not to difficult to do as you can do that to many modern rifles, IIRC). Energy output was probably The front handle seems to share the similer look to the front handle of the standard rifle design, with a silver piece added to the front of it.

The front handle has changed, the back handle (which housed the main powerpack, by the way) is MIA on the JO version, the EGtW&T one is longer (you'd actually have to hold it like a rifle - the one in JO, based on the space between the front and rear grips, could be cradled like a carbine. Also, the cooling vents on the EGtW&T version are MIA on the JO version, the tip of the barrel is different (and the barrel seems pretty distinctive, comparing the pistol to the rifle), and there's the brown casing all over the JO version, not to mention the scope (scope implies sniping - the Corporate Sector Sourcebook says that disruptor rifles are *short range* weapons).
Seriously, if you look at each weapon without knowing that they're SUPPOSED to be the same gun, I doubt you'd reach the conclusion that they're both disruptor rifles, from the same manufacturer, and the same make and model no less.

As for you saying the gun fires differently? I don't think the EGTWT described what the beam looked like, or the color?

No, but the game 'Shadows of the Empire' did. Dash gets a disruptor, and it fires green shots that send enemies flying and blows stuff apart. The one in JO doesn' to that. In fact, both the EGtW&T and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook both say that disruptors have 1 setting: disintegrate. That's kinda contradicted by JO's rifle's "low-power shots", and the need to "charge up" the weapon. The way it's described in both the EGtW&T and the Corporate Sector Sourcebook is that the shots are apparently like extremely-overpowered blaster shots that are essentially unstable.

As for the tenloss pistol, note that the back end of it on the CCG doesn't exactly fit the version seen in the NEGTC.

Where is the disruptor pistol in the New Essential Guide to Characters? ?
The one in the EGtW&T looks very, very similar, though, to the CCG image. The texturing and size of the front grip, barrel tip, and main length of the pistol is the same. In the CCG, the rear end (the power cell) is smaller, but the texture and patterning on it and the angle is the same, especially when you compare the CCG image to the "blueprint" image that points out all the features and stuff on the pistol, which is a different image from the one you linked to earlier.

Now you say it was called a DXR-6 in the game, or was it hte manual? Its not mentioned on the official website, and that mostly lists what was in the manual, IIRC.

In-game, when you pick one up, it's listed as the "Tenloss DXR-6 Disruptor Rifle". It says it at the top of the screen.

 

Maybe it's a newer model? Remember, Jedi Outcast is set a good 12 years after Shadows of the Empire, and Jedi Academy 13 years. It's possible Tenloss just revamped the design.

 

Perhaps, but it's a pretty radical design change, especially with the actual discharge of the weapon (and its effect) being totally different and all.

 

I'd agree with maverick. A 38 special is a bit different looking than a standard 38, IIRC, .

The one in SOTE game was called a DXR-6?

 

In a recent Hyperspace webchat, one of the fans asked if Dagobah would be explained, but the interviewed person said 'Probably Not'

So no official word from GL on Dagobah

 

A 38 special is a bit different looking than a standard 38, IIRC

Not by much. Definately not by the degree that the EGtW&T and JO "disruptor rifles" differ.

.38 Special
[image=http://imagescommerce.bcentral.com/MerchantFiles/4719759/907537/rossi_38.jpg]

.38, model 85
[image=http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/gunpages/85r.jpg]

The one in SOTE game was called a DXR-6?

No, but it was a disruptor, and it fired green pulses that blew enemies away and sent them flying. That jives with the description of what the weapon does according to the Corporate Sector Sourcebook and EGtW&T, which both mention a "blast of energy", as I recall. The one in JO, um, doesn't do that.

 

"No, but it was a disruptor, and it fired green pulses that blew enemies away and sent them flying."

X-wings fire red lasers, and tie fighters fire green. Different models can fire different colored beams.

"That jives with the description of what the weapon does according to the Corporate Sector Sourcebook and EGtW&T, which both mention a "blast of energy", as I recall. The one in JO, um, doesn't do that."

In other words the one in JO is a different model of DXR-6, and some changes were made over the years. I don't see a problem. If you do fine... But I don't think it's worth argueing about... Nitpicking is so exausting and anal-retentive...

Also IIRC, a disruptor was fired in one of the Droids cartoons and it didn't look green, or do what was described in the those two other sources, it was just a red beam. In another episode a disruptor merely causes Artoo to shrink, .

 

X-wings fire red lasers, and tie fighters fire green. Different models can fire different colored beams.

Yeah, but there's a difference between a small green energy pulse that makes stuff go flying, and a red laser-like beam that makes things glow yellow and then turn to dust (and ONLY if you charge the weapon up, no less).

I'm just not understanding why two totally different-looking weapons that operate differently and produce different results have the same exact make and model number.
I mean, I could perhaps buy the "it's been 12 years, they refined and altered the weapon" explanation, but it just doesn't really add up, in my opinion.

Also IIRC, a disruptor was fired in one of the Droids cartoons and it didn't look green, or do what was described in the those two other sources, it was just a red beam. In another episode a disruptor merely causes the characters to shrink

Really? I didn't know that. They actually refer to it as a "disruptor"?

 

"I'm just not understanding why two totally different-looking weapons that operate differently and produce different results have the same exact make and model number.
I mean, I could perhaps buy the "it's been 12 years, they refined and altered the weapon" explanation, but it just doesn't really add up, in my opinion."

If it makes you happy, think of it as a DXR-6 m2, .

"Really? I didn't know that. They actually refer to it as a "disruptor"?

Yes.

In jedi apprentice hidden path there was;

"Disruptor Beam
outlawed during the height of the Old Republic, disruptor beams were security devices which emitted a thin beam of coherent red light. The beam was capable of cutting a being in two without expending much energy. (HP)"

 

If it makes you happy, think of it as a DXR-6 m2,

Yeah, I mean, it'd have made a LOT more sense for me if ANY source indicated that there were different kinds of the weapon, or that it could be modified. I mean, JO lists it as the same exact gun, not modified in any way. That's what got me confused.

The whole reason I even brought it up is that I've been writing fanfics with my main character (9-LOM) using a DXR-6 in the manner described in the EGtW&T, and depicted in 'Shadows of the Empire'.
And then I play Jedi Outcast, and the gun looks totally different, and works differently, too. I was thinking, "Aw crap. All the cool stuff I had 9-LOM doing with the DXR-6 is, like, impossible"

Seeing as how there's apparently 2 versions of the gun, I'll just stick to what I'd been doing, and have him use the "older" version.

 

The dark side energy came from a dark jedi that Yoda tracked down and killed, just before the end or just after the clone wars. The events are told in the Thrawn Duology.

 

Syntax...
"Yeah, I mean, it'd have made a LOT more sense for me if ANY source indicated that... it could be modified."

Perhaps you may have missed the countless numbers of analysis and reviews of Star Wars which points out the "living universe" of Star Wars as being one of the fundamental aspects setting Star Wars apart from any science-fiction coming before it.

The fact that ships were not the nice and white ships of 2001: A Space Odyssey, etc.

The Millenium Falcon is your prime example that anything in Star Wars "could be modified."

I don't think you need to be waiting for LFL to tell you something that's fairly obvious in the films.

 

Yeah, but there's a slight difference when you've got two weapons that look totally different, fire totally different, claim to do totally different things (such as the JO "sniper weapon" disruptor, as opposed to the Corporate Sector "short-range only" disruptors) and yet claim to be the same exact weapon apparently without identified modification.

I mean, it's like if I didn't know what these two ships were, and someone tried to tell me they were the same thing, but "modified":
[image=http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue17/awing.gif] [image=http://www.evula.org/tnjo/ships/y-wing.jpg]
Granted, I know those are different ships, but let's say sources claimed they were the same thing, and yet gives radically different stats and abilities for them, not to mention different appearances. A reasonable, logical, and intelligent person would draw the conclusion that that doesn't make much sense, no? There's a point where "it's modified" can only be stretched so far before it's a little unrealistic. Like I said earlier, I could show the pics of the two "different" DXR-6 Disruptor Rifles to just about anyone I want, and say "Tell me what you can glean about these rifles from these pics", and I'd bet you anything that "Oh, they're the same gun, but modified!" would NOT be something a reasonable person would say.

 

Actually the two disruptor rifles look similar to my eye. But in the sniper rifle, they extended the barrel and made it sleeker possibly so it'll have more range than a standard disrupror. It also would be less powerful than a standard disruptor.

But it still bears a passing resemblance to the standard disruptor rifle.

The one in JO is simply a highly modified version of the one mentioned in the guides.
They might actually discharge the same energy but on different scales. The standard model discharges more while the one in JO is more efficient.

 

Make: Chevrolet
Model: Covette (Convertible)
(2004)
[image=http://www.chevrolet.com/corvette/images/thumb_convertible.jpg]

Make: Chevrolet
Model: Corvette (Convertible)
(1955)
[image=http://corvetteactioncenter.com/images/design/55specs.jpg]

 

"Make: Chevrolet
Model: Corvette (Convertible)
(1955)"

[image=http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:tuj5i8FEP00C:100megsfree4.com/corvette/1955/55red2.jpg]

Honda Accord 1980.

[image=http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:Ky_hR2dgeEwC:www.unixguru.org/~grant/cars/accord_rear.jpg] [image=http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:jEG59ddZ2LQC:home.acadia.net/userpages/northeasta/pics/honda3.jpg]

Hondo Accord 2003;

[image=http://www.autoweek.com/specials/galleries/accord/s1.jpg] [image=http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/ly/images/03accord_1-1.jpg]
[image=http://www.bsmotoring.com/walpprs/03accord/3.jpg] [image=http://www.bsmotoring.com/walpprs/03accord/2.jpg]

"a reasonable person"

Wow, so people that do notice their are similarities, that you can't apparently see, and have an opinion that a reasonable evolution occured over over the course of the years(such as Matt Trias, Maverick889, Genghis and I), are "unreasonable", ... Who do you think you are to go around insulting other people that might see things differently than you, , wow...

 

...and if you stripped away the make and model logos on those cars and showed them to someone who had no idea what they were, I doubt they'd immediately think they were the same car, and might even find it a stretch to say they were the same car but made years apart. My original point stands. If there weren't the 12 year gap between the EGtW&T version and the JO version, it would make very little sense to claim they're the *exact same* weapon.

Who do you think you are to go around insulting other people that might see things differently than you,

Val, I already PMed Genghis once about your taking my comments personally when there's no need to. Don't make me do it again.
Saying "a reasonable person" is a criminal-justice term, such as probable cause that a crime is being committed. "Sufficient reason to cause a reasonable person to suspect a crime is being committed". I was using the same terminology here - "Sufficient reason for a reasonable person to suspect that the two weapons are the same weapon, given the descriptions of their appearance and firing characteristics". I maintain that such sufficient reason doesn't exist. If you factor in the 12-year time difference, yes. Otherwise, I don't think so.

 

"...and if you stripped away the make and model logos on those cars and showed them to someone who had no idea what they were, I doubt they'd immediately think they were the same car, and might even find it a stretch to say they were the same car but made years apart."

Then those people are purely ignorant. They would be just wrong, there assumptions would be wrong. You have probably heard when people assume something they are making an "ass" out of "u" and "me". Their belief doesn't stand up to the facts, and they would be committing an appeal to common belief which is fallacious reasoning. If they continued to think that they were two different cars (even though they are infact the same make, just different years), they would continue to be wrong.

"Val, I already PMed Genghis once about your taking my comments personally when there's no need to. Don't make me do it again."

Um, ok now your making threats... I think you have been warned about making threats before IIRC(isn't that right Genghis?)...

I'm not taking it personally just pointing out that you have no right to consider other people who disagree with you as being "unreasonable" for believing differently than you. I still maintain that you are making too many assumptions and trying to use appeal to common belief fallacy by considering other people having "unreasonable beliefs", and that you have the reasonable beliefs, and assuming that two cars can't have the same name(when in fact they can).

"such as probable cause that a crime is being committed."

Repeat after me, "No crime has been committed here, we are not discussing crimes". I quote a related topic on the term you used, that points out that even in law its a term that is put into question do to the fact that it descriminatory;

Rethinking the Reasonable Person
An Egalitarian Reconstruction of the Objective Standard
MAYO MORAN

The 'reasonable person' is used to assess the acceptability of behavior in many areas of the law including criminal law and accident law. However the reasonable person has also attracted substantial criticism from egalitarian critics and feminists insofar as it presupposes contested notions of 'normal' behaviour and may discriminate against certain classes of defendant. Rethinking the Reasonable Person systematically investigates whether there are deeper foundations to these criticisms and discusses how the legal standard might be reconstructed in a more egalitarian way.

I'm not taking anything personal, just trying to maintain a level of egalitarian nature to this thread.

Remington XP-100s(no kidding);

[image=http://www.webcom.com/24k/jimsguns/image/twinpistol.jpeg] [image=http://www.hunter.ru/gun/articles/images/revolvers7.jpg]
[image=http://www.lascweb.8k.com/images/xp100.jpg] [image=http://www.powernet.net/~eich1/pics/pistol5.jpg]
[image=http://www.billsaccuracy.com/gun-blue.jpg] [image=http://www.pilkguns.com/tenp/rxp100.jpg]
[image=http://www.greatnotions.com/gnimageslrg/9176.gif]