The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Sector Rangers - Ships & Vehicles
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Sector Rangers - Ships & Vehicles Goto page Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2023 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
That's not how shipbuilding works. Nobody with an ego that demented and the resources to pull it off is working as a successful pirate in the Outer Rim. Two separate ships are best used raiding in two separate places, which increases potential profits. You don't waste them both by recombining them into an Ugly version of a warship that isn't properly engineered and is just as likely to break in half the first time you throw it into a high-g turn as it is to actually function.

A far more likely premise:[list]1). There are sufficient visual differences (no wing cut-outs, the different shape of the bridge, and two engines instead of four) between the Modified Customs Frigate in GG6 and the "344" in Planets of the Galaxy to justify calling them two different ships from the same company.

2) The stats on the GG6 ship need a revamp, as its numbers are too high for a ship that is now the same length as the Millennium Falcon (revised stats have the YT-1300 in the 35 meter range). My first thought is to keep the stats, but flip the length numbers so it's now 53 meters long.

3). Then make the version from Planets of the Galaxy into either a "II" variant of the GG6 ship, or make it the follow-on model, with the same general hull shape, but with upgrades, with a couple stats upped by +1 to make it subtly different. You can also stretch the length from 53 meters to 70 meters if you prefer, as it makes a lot more sense for a ship to be that long if it was designed, engineered and built that way than because it got kit-bashed by a pirate with more ego than sense.

That all makes sense to me.

Inquisitor1138 wrote:
A lot of good points here! Thank you, Whill! Especially for the find of the artist's blog!

I had forgotten about the artist's blog until I was reminded by Wookieepedia. I found it back when looking for a bigger/higher-res image of the Deepwater to use to photoshop into my MC-13v2. I thought I had seen it there and found that it was no bigger than what I already had to work with, but this time around I don't even see it. Oh well. I found the Guardian so confirmed the source of the color image of this topic.

Inquisitor1138 wrote:
Sorry about sending you down a rabbit-hole.

The experience has left me wondering if I shouldn't just remove all the bags and boards from my WEG Star Wars paperbacks. They are packed tightly in place so they would only bend if a lot of them were off the shelf at the same time. And they would get back on the shelf faster if I didn't have to rebag them all (read that as 'if I didn't leave them in a stack on my desk until getting around to putting them back'). Heck, for a quick reference it would be easier to look up something and put it right back on the shelf. Well, there are some things with loose pieces (or sadly, pages falling out), so I think I will keep the bags on all those. But yeah, removing most from the bags sounds like a good idea. I'll still keep my other game books in bags since I look at those less often.

Inquisitor1138 wrote:
Was P&P a retcon? Possibly. We may never know. I would like to track down writers & editors, and ask them directly.
At the moment, we have information gaps, stats for a Modified 334 cruiser that closely match the Guardian-class, and art depicting an Imperial Customs Frigate.
Speculation is fine & i enjoy speculating too. But without evidence all we have are unproven theories.
What i am settling on, is accepting the 344 as a newer model Guardian, and the discrepancy in its *in universe* depictions is human error; Dorok's Pirate Fleet in fact had both a 344 and an Imperial Customs Frigate. Terrified victims/witnesses got the two confused as to which was the command ship, the "Last Thing".

We are unlikely to get Wookiepedia to stop perpetuating WEG's error unless someone from WEG clears up the matter in a blog or a Disney approved/licensed book addresses the matter specifically to clear the matter up, using the Guardian design/art for the 344, ISB Ship & any other variants.

In taking my time to read & reread the source material, and thinking about it, i plan to make some use of Redthorn-class scouts, which were introduced in either that adventure & used in "The Hutt Gambit", but nothing else since.
I also am making a band of pirates, similar to Dorok's Pirate Fleet but larger & more diverse in craft. Morrok is often mocked by NPCs, but an imperial Moff & a few other officers are in hot water because these pirate scum have stolen a disturbingly high number of Imperial ships...
Morrok, to satisfy his ego, has had two of the Imperial Customs Frigates combined to make a 'stretch Customs Frigate' 70 meters long, with extra armor, shields, weapons & speed...

It's not speculation. It is 100% fact that what occurred was effectively a retcon. I have the indisputable proof. The original source for the 344-class nomenclature had no "Guardian" in it. And then a later source, P&P, suddenly added something that wasn't there originally. This update became official and was repeated. Intentions are irrelevant if the end result is a retroactive change to continuity. Retcons can and sometimes do happen because mistakes are made. Look at the history of the Executor's "five mile fallacy." An error was perpetuated by many sources for years until it was adamantly corrected, being retconned to get closer to what it was always supposed to be in the first place. If tying the 344 to the Guardian was an error, then the error remains in continuity until retconned again. But this is Legends continuity so it is not likely to ever change back to its original name.

But the ship class name change couldn't possibly be an error anyway, because how do you just oops and accidentally add the word "Guardian" into a ship class by accident? That's not an 8-character typo. That didn't just poof out of nowhere. These ships have the same maker. The ship class name change was no accident. Someone, the P&P author or an editor, intentionally related the 344 to the Guardian. Why? Who knows, but it did happen.

But there still could be an error. The wrong art image could have been used for the ship. Or maybe they told the artist the wrong ship to base his art on. Or maybe the artist misunderstood. And then deadlines, no time to correct it, so just get the book published as-is. I have reasons to believe WEG occasionally transposed template character images, etc., so this kind of thing can happen. If an error is not corrected either by official statement or a later source contradicting it, then the errors stand as continuity. Do you think WEG would want to alert fandom and Lucasfilm to every little errors that they had made very often? Most of the time they would just let it go.

And Wookieepedia is just 'reporting the news.' That's all they are supposed to be doing. They aren't supposed to be making their own conclusions or judgements. In the "behind the scenes" sections they do often point out contradictions between sources but that doesn't change anything. Wookieepedia can't just stop perpetuating WEG errors because the error are canon.

Of course one is free just to accept the illogical retroactive relation of the 443 and the Guardian. But only self-chosen slavery to canon would make this the only option. We are free to just remove the P&P retcon and go back to these two ships being two unrelated models made by same manufacturer. Your idea of the ship from the image being misidentified in-universe works to explain the discrepancy.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Mon Jan 09, 2023 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honestly, the concept of an improved Guardian is a good idea, as crew size is a real impediment to its mission. Increasing automation to reduce crew size also adds greater depth and versatility to the crew complement. The ten-being boarding squad can also double as backup crew (in case one of the regular crew is injured or killed) or as prize crew for captured / impounded vessels. A lot of the smaller customs ships could really use a similar makeover.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0