Which feat is more impressive...

Originally posted by SunRazer
Um, what? The Assassins were all the Drain technique. Some of the others weren't, but it's not as if every Sith in Revan's Empire knew it either. The fact that they never "mastered" it to the degree of Nihilus is irrelevant when Revan and the Star Forge Sith didn't do so either.

Each of the blademasters on Malachor V survived at least ten encounters with a Jedi, and presumably killed them in those encounters (or at least, the vast majority). These Sith also assassinated tens of thousands of Jedi, per the Revan novel. I don't believe the Dark Jedi on the Star Forge have something of that scale to their name.

Revan had his companions by his side, so I'm not sure if he really fought more than Surk, who fought through a score of Storm Beasts and then a legion of elite Sith solo.

How many battlemasters were there?

No, it's just Drew stupidly retconning things. He makes it clear that he's referring to the Triumvirate killing the tens of thousands, not Malak's Empire.

@Ant - Not sure.

You can't stupidly retcon things lmao. More numerous and more reliable sources say 100 than Drew.

What happened to the policy of "newest takes precedence"? That is how continuity works, unfortunately. Especially because TOR is now the leading force of the OR era. Stupid as it is, it takes precedence. The same way TCW got Adi Gallia to be killed by Savage instead of Grievous, and compressed the OCW timeline to the first few months of the Clone Wars, etc.

Never worked like that 👆

Always did, lmfao. LoE, TOR, TCW, etc. If a newer source contradicts an older source, the newer source is taken as the "canon" one. That's what you call a retcon 👆

And there are hundreds of other examples when it didn't 😬

Obviously only newer sources can retcon old ones, since you can't retcon the future.

Yet when it was asked of Leland Chee how they handle conflicting sources he didn't say "new one takes precedence, the end". Right the contrary, the date of the source wasn't even mentioned:

Everything is looked at on a case-by-case basis. Among the factors we consider: In how many sources does this particular fact appear? Which source has the largest audience? Which explanation is the coolest? Have we been told by George Lucas to avoid this topic? If, after weighing all those variables, the answer isn't yet clear, the issue is presented to an internal group that makes the final determination as to which source is "correct."'

Poor Revan novel hilariously loses each and every one of those criteria. Sorry.

Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant given the fact that it doesn't support my point.

Knew you'd use that shitty example. Which explanation is the coolest? LMFAO. Lucas doesn't intervene in this either. So the novel can't lose those last two. I don't know or care for how big the audience of TOR is in comparison to the audience of KotOR. The novel only really loses your first one. These criteria can easily contradict themselves anyway.

Here Leland Chee supports a "new" retcon that goes against well-established continuity, even though it's "bold", which proves that it's entirely possible. I mean, from your perspective, this also "loses each of those criteria".

https://roqoodepot.com/interviews/leland-chee/

That also comes from 2006, whereas your citation comes from 2003. Clearly Chee's had a change of heart.

Just becuase it appears in more sources doesn't mean it automatically changes. If a major new source has it differently, it's the latter that takes precedence, and you can bet your ass that the novel is a major source 👆

For the record, Karpyshyn also says that creative licence is with whoever's writing the source, which doesn't mean you have to be holding hands with previous writers of a particular subject.

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
Yes, but I don't see how that's relevant given the fact that it doesn't support my point.

The salt's strong, but I don't even need that point, lol. I honestly couldn't care less if the retcon was disproven, since it doesn't affect my argument.

My main point is based around those blademasters surviving battles with 10+ Force users, which is supported by both KotOR and the Prima Guide. So even Zoltan would have to agree with me on that one.

By the way, there's a lot of ways to disprove the "tens of thousands" quote's relevance to Surik's run in the Trayus Academy.

For the record there are sources which state barely a hundred Jedi remained after the purge, not before it.

"When making such a bold retcon, we considered how necessary it was for the story, whether there were alternate ways for the author to obtain the same objective, and whether there was an existing precedent for this power. We also considered how the retcon aligned with other things that were also in development at the time."

That doesn't say: "If the author says it, it just happens." If anything, that's just him rephrasing what he said in cz's source, but you cherry-picked the part that agreed with you. Again.

Nah. KotORCG, Chronicles, and KotoR II (twice) state that it's less than a hundred before the purge.

Still, TOR has a larger audience. So it does win on at least one of the criteria. KotOR II wins on another (most sources that the fact apepars in). The other two criteria aren't applicable here. So it's a stalemate.

Originally posted by FreshestSlice
"When making such a bold retcon, we considered how necessary it was for the story, whether there were alternate ways for the author to obtain the same objective, and whether there was an existing precedent for this power. We also considered how the retcon aligned with other things that were also in development at the time."

That doesn't say: "If the author says it, it just happens." If anything, that's just him rephrasing what he said in cz's source, but you cherry-picked the part that agreed with you. Again.

Not at all. I'm saying that this quote makes it clear that there can be exceptions. The Revan novel doesn't necessarily fail this criteria either. And even based on Zoltan's criteria, it's a stalemate, not a win for the "less than hundred" argument. And TOR's the newer source. The latter has the stronger case.

Do you think throwing more examples in my face gona change the facts? Obviously there are exceptions, obviously there are retcons. You have proof the Revan novel was a legit retcon or just a mistake? Besides that "it's a newer source hurr durr".

Because if you don't, I'm gona take Chee's statements, 2 out of univerese and a 3rd in universe source over Drew's phaggotry who made it blatantly obvious he doesn't know shit about the lore.

Originally posted by cs_zoltan
Do you think throwing more examples in my face gona change the facts? Obviously there are exceptions, obviously there are retcons. You have proof the Revan novel was a legit retcon or just a mistake? Besides that "it's a newer source hurr durr".

Because if you don't, I'm gona take Chee's statements, 2 out of univerese and a 3rd in universe source over Drew's phaggotry who made it blatantly obvious he doesn't know shit about the lore.

Chee's statement doesn't give you the win at all. TOR has the larger audience. Your thing is backed by more sources. That's it.

And it's not as if your back-up OOU sources are immune to mistakes, either. One of them declares Sion to be a Wound in the Force, and another is literally filled to the brim with contradictions, even contradicting itself blatantly.

Pretty sure Kotor II has a bigger audience than the Revan novel, not sure why you bring in SWTOR when the fact we are discussing didn't appear in the game.

It's a tie-in to TOR. Doesn't TOR have any influence in the editing or even writing process? Perhaps that explains the novel's shittiness.

It's a tie-in to SWTOR, but it's not SWTOR. The difference is stark when you consider, for example, how many tie-ins didn't make the cut into Disney Canon. They are separate entities.

If you are so adamant about it, then write an email to someone. Until then you are only convincing yourself.