Were the ships unshielded or something?
Because even then, seems pretty impressive to me the lightning still had the power to kill despite the current needing to travel through the ships first to get to them :hmm
And were the ships actually undamaged? Or did the lightning do something to them too?
Moot if the ships were shielded given how hilariously potent those things generally are *shrugs*
Originally posted by ChaosTheory123
Were the ships unshielded or something?
Visually there was nothing to suggest they were. Also most of them were transport shuttles, not battleships.
Originally posted by ChaosTheory123
And were the ships actually undamaged? Or did the lightning do something to them too?
They were totally unscratched.
Originally posted by ChaosTheory123
Were the ships unshielded or something?Because even then, seems pretty impressive to me the lightning still had the power to kill despite the current needing to travel through the ships first to get to them :hmm
And were the ships actually undamaged? Or did the lightning do something to them too?
Moot if the ships were shielded given how hilariously potent those things generally are *shrugs*
It was in the middle of a battle, so it would be nuts to think they wouldn't be if they could be.
The outside looks undamaged but the consoles get fried along with the pilots.
Also note that Valkorion's lightning had to blast out of the side of a building and into the surrounding sky, and that it was merely the excess power from an attack on Arcann that was being blocked.
Originally posted by cs_zoltan
Visually there was nothing to suggest they were. Also most of them were transport shuttles, not battleships.
Can't think of many times a shield looked visibly apparent outside of that one episode of TCW featuring that Spider Admiral
Not even when the ISD were traveling through that asteroid field in ESB
So I'm not sure that's the route to go with that one *shrugs*
Granted, my memory's hardly complete regarding this subject given I largely don't care too much about tech feats in SW
What's the context of the scene though? Is it a battle? Or just random ships?
And I wouldn't write off transport ships, even unshielded that shit's pretty durable
Durasteel hulls and all, right? Shit can take a pelting from elephant sized chunks of comet during TCW season 5 IIRC. Some 11-72 km/sec orbital velocity coupled with a mass well into the dozens of tons is some pretty sturdy shit for something no larger than a building
Shields on something that size would still protect from even greater force/energy
That said, you ****ers can hash out whether they were up or not *shrugs*
Originally posted by cs_zoltan
Visually there was nothing to suggest they were. Also most of them were transport shuttles, not battleships.
Smugglers use military-grade stuff.
Originally posted by cs_zoltan
They were totally unscratched.
They did not come across full brunt of Valkorion's FLS. Mere residual emissions downed them. And for that to happen, their defenses had to be compromised.
Originally posted by ChaosTheory123
Can't think of many times a shield looked visibly apparent outside of that one episode of TCW featuring that Spider AdmiralNot even when the ISD were traveling through that asteroid field in ESB
So I'm not sure that's the route to go with that one *shrugs*
Granted, my memory's hardly complete regarding this subject given I largely don't care too much about tech feats in SW
What's the context of the scene though? Is it a battle? Or just random ships?
And I wouldn't write off transport ships, even unshielded that shit's pretty durable
Durasteel hulls and all, right? Shit can take a pelting from elephant sized chunks of comet during TCW season 5 IIRC. Some 11-72 km/sec orbital velocity coupled with a mass well into the dozens of tons is some pretty sturdy shit for something no larger than a building
Shields on something that size would still protect from even greater force/energy
That said, you ****ers can hash out whether they were up or not *shrugs*
Asylum Port was a Smuggler's Den. And smugglers do not use normal Starships.
The context is that the Eternal Forces came to Asylum Port in search of the Outlander and his allies. The entire region became a battlefield after that.
Scores of starships mid-flight became collateral damage during the battle between Valkorion and Arcann. Starship flights stopped after that.
What more is needed? The author has been proven to use the term for small ships and the ships wings were low enough and small enough to threaten bisection. No cruiser sized ship would possess wings like that, it's an absurdity to even imagine. Only the first one is needed to cast serious doubt upon the feat and the second cements that the sizes of the ships in question were small.
Originally posted by NephthysThe fact that she has used the term to describe small vessels doesn't preclude using the term to describe large ones, and they are indeed described as massive so there is no need for speculation there.
What more is needed? The author has been proven to use the term for small ships and the ships wings were low enough and small enough to threaten bisection. No cruiser sized ship would possess wings like that, it's an absurdity to even imagine. Only the first one is needed to cast serious doubt upon the feat and the second cements that the sizes of the ships in question were small.
And this logic regarding the wings assumes the structure of the vessels remains unchanged, when it's more likely they have become twisted and broken in various ways, or was not simply coming at them at an angle.
So yeah, your argument is insufficient.
Naturally, but it leaves us unable to verify how she was using the term in this case. That she has used the term cruisers to refer to small vessels and hasn't for actual cruisers is a decided point in my favor, however. This creates enough reasonable doubt to render the feat unarguable in your favor. It's unsubstantiable. And massive is a relative term, especially given the author's proven inaccuracy with descriptions.
I don't see how the wing could get so twisted and broken that it would conveniently hang down low enough and then straighten up horizontally to threaten bisection. Frankly I find that a ridiculously unlikely scenario that's an obvious made-up excuse. Were that the authors intention it would be noted given how unusual it is. Furthermore, it coming at them at an angle would simply support my theory of it being a small sized ship. An angle wouldn't be possible with a cruiser sized wing. It would be long enough to just hit the floor. It doesn't fit the description of bisection anyway. And obviously an actual cruiser win would be too thick to do the job.
Your highly biased, deliberately inaccurate opinion has been noted.
Originally posted by NephthysOnly if we were to base the feat off that phrase alone or even at all, but that's unnecessary.
Naturally, but it leaves us unable to verify how she was using the term in this case. That she has used the term cruisers to refer to small vessels and hasn't for actual cruisers is a decided point in my favor, however. This creates enough reasonable doubt to render the feat unarguable in your favor.
And massive is a relative term, especially given the author's proven inaccuracy with descriptions.To be specific the vessels are described as "huge", "hulking" and "giant" which relative to starship classes does not denote a fighter lmao.
I don't see how the wing could get so twisted and broken that it would conveniently hang down low enough and then straighten up horizontally to threaten bisection.The source doesn't say anything about bisection, just that it could "slice them to ribbons."
Frankly I find that a ridiculously unlikely scenario that's an obvious made-up excuse.The only person making things up here is you.
Were that the authors intention it would be noted given how unusual it is.What exactly? That the ships were "corroded", "wrecks", "decayed"?
Furthermore, it coming at them at an angle would simply support my theory of it being a small sized ship. An angle wouldn't be possible with a cruiser sized wing. It would be long enough to hit the floor. It doesn't fit the description of bisection anyway.Eh?
Your highly biased opinion has been noted.Lol, next time properly read the source material.