Has anyone seen this?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
That source represents a compilation of some older stories into a single package as a reprint.

Yeah, a reprint means it's being printed... again. That means it simply "reapplies", though as I said, dates don't matter.

Secondly, the quote itself is new, not reprinted.

That accolade takes Palpatine's political power into consideration alongwith his command of the Dark Side.

Not seeing it.

In-universe writing format is the only method for establishing FACTS in science fiction because those FACTS are not true for our world (OOU). This is why majority of books pertaining to a science fiction saga have in-universe conceit.

OOU statements are 'subjective interpretations' of developments in science fiction; they are like 'personal opinion' of an author or a publisher regarding developments in science fiction. For example, an OOU source identified Revan as a Jedi Knight during the events of novel. However, Revan is a Jedi Master at this point in time. OOU statements are not indisputable for developments in science fiction; they can be easily scrutinized instead.

Ask any writer why he chose in-universe conceit for a book pertaining to Star Wars.

Facts in our world are incontrovertible, lol. Facts in-universe can be restricted by limited knowledge, unreliable narration, etc. which doesn't apply to OOU commentary.

Regardless, it's actually an in-universe statement, as indicated by the limitation of knowledge (it only goes up to Plagueis' time, not beyond).

The codex revelation is not wrong. Vitiate was growing in power with passage of time because he continued to feed on life-force of other beings non-stop.

Valkorion (corporeal) > Vitiate as of Ziost. He packs all that power and then some.

So I didn't need correcting but you decided to do it anyway? lol Okay.

That does not makes sense. The Old Databank is done and dusted.

A source is never "done and dusted", lmao. Unless it's explicitly retconned, which this one isn't.

The quote's as clear as it gets. The Son's powers do not originate from the Sith and are in fact beyond the domain of the Sith Lords. You're in denial.

Originally posted by SunRazer
Yeah, a reprint means it's being printed... again. That means it simply "reapplies", though as I said, dates don't matter.

Secondly, the quote itself is new, not reprinted.

Provide evidence.

Originally posted by SunRazer
Not seeing it.

With the galaxy now ripe for conquest, the Emperor has become the most powerful Sith Lord of all and a master of the Dark Side of the Force

Cannot be more explicit then that. Conquest of galaxy is the criteria that puts Palpatine above all his (Sith) predecessors because no Sith has managed it before. The statement acknowledges Palpatine as a master of the Dark Side of the Force separately from the criteria that affirms his supremacy over all Sith in history.

Originally posted by SunRazer
Facts in our world are incontrovertible, lol. Facts in-universe can be restricted by limited knowledge, unreliable narration, etc. which doesn't apply to OOU commentary.

Regardless, it's actually an in-universe statement, as indicated by the limitation of knowledge (it only goes up to Plagueis' time, not beyond).

In-universe source can be definitive (absolute) or an account of characters who are part of the science fiction universe. Characters are fallible in the same manner as humans are fallible in real-life but a definitive source is not.

A short description of a book, film, or other product written for promotional purposes. (Definition of blurb)

Blurb on the back cover of a book (or 'book blurb' in short) - irrespective of its theme or message - is a marketing statement (intended to generate sales) and strictly OOU in nature. Even if a blurb is highlighting the central theme of the story on the back cover of a book - it is offering you an OOU perspective of it.

Originally posted by SunRazer
So I didn't need correcting but you decided to do it anyway? lol Okay.

Originally posted by SunRazer
A source is never "done and dusted", lmao. Unless it's explicitly retconned, which this one isn't.

The old Databank was taken down and replaced with a new Databank with more refined description of stuff in Star Wars saga. This is an explicit retcon.

Definition # 1 - A subsequent revision of an established story in film, TV, video games, or comics

OR

Definition # 2 - To later revise (an established element of a fictional story)

Writers don't have to issue a disclaimer that the old Databank is null and void. Use your common sense.

Originally posted by SunRazer
The quote's as clear as it gets. The Son's powers do not originate from the Sith and are in fact beyond the domain of the Sith Lords. You're in denial.

The Son might be more ancient than the Sith but one of the earliest known practitioners of the Dark Side of the Force and has learned/demonstrated powers that are identified as "Sith powers" in some sources.

Nothing is beyond the domain of the Sith Lords by the way. They crave absolute power and their is no limit to their ambition in this regard.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Reprint in this case is not an update or expansion of older content.

Provide evidence.

Uh, the fact that it's never appeared anywhere before? Name me a source where the quote's appeared before.

Obviously the quote's new if it's part of the internal flap/blurb of an unprecedented collection. Those comics haven't been collected together yet; this was the first time, and the quote was part of either the blurb or internal flap.

Here:

With the galaxy now ripe for conquest, the Emperor has become the most powerful Sith Lord of all and a master of the Dark Side of the Force

Cannot be more explicit then that. Conquest of galaxy is the criteria that puts Palpatine above all his (Sith) predecessors because no Sith has managed it before. The statement acknowledges Palpatine as a master of the Dark Side of the Force separately from the criteria that affirms his supremacy over all Sith in history.

Nope, it mentions that the galaxy is ripe for conquest, not that Palpatine has done it already. Not to mention it claims that he orders the destruction of the Jedi after the fact. And mastery of the Force is not the same as power in the Force, so of course they can be distinct. Though the "and" can clearly be interpreted as binding the two together.

Facts in our world are irrelevant to facts in the Star Wars saga.

In-universe source can be definitive (absolute) or an account of characters who are part of the science fiction universe. Characters are fallible in the same manner as humans are fallible in real-life but a definitive source is not.

A short description of a book, film, or other product written for promotional purposes. (Definition of blurb)

Blurb on the back cover of a book (or 'book blurb' in short) - irrespective of its theme or message - is a marketing statement (intended to generate sales) and strictly OOU in nature. Even if a blurb is highlighting the central theme of the story on the back cover of a book - it is offering you an OOU perspective of it.

Yet it's clearly in-universe as it doesn't even know if Plagueis ever died, lol.

I had to clear any doubt.

No, you just couldn't read. You literally attempted to correct me by repeating what I said.

Your grasp of explicit retcons seems to be faulty or subjective.

The old Databank was taken down and replaced with a new Databank with more refined description of stuff in Star Wars saga. This is an explicit retcon.

[B]Definition # 1 - A subsequent revision of an established story in film, TV, video games, or comics

OR

Definition # 2 - To later revise (an established element of a fictional story)

Writers don't have to issue a disclaimer that the old Databank is null and void. Use your common sense.[/b]

The new databank was set up for Canon, whereas the old one was Legends. That's why they created the new one... the old one is still relevant to Legends, lmfao.

No elements of any story were revised, lol.

That makes ZERO sense.

The Son might be more ancient than the Sith but one of the earliest known practitioners of the Dark Side of the Force and has learned/demonstrated powers that are identified as "Sith powers" in some sources.

Nothing is beyond the domain of the Sith Lords by the way. They crave absolute power and their is no limit to their ambition in this regard.

No idea what you're talking about. The Son was around long before any of the Sith, and his powers originated both before the Sith and independently of them. No Sith has a Celestial background and no Sith's powers have ever originated from the Font of Power. There's nothing hard to believe here; his powers are simply beyond the domain of the Sith and we have every reason to believe as much even without the quote.

You're just making incoherent screams of "it doesn't make sense" because you're in denial.

Also, don't you believe the Force & Destiny quote that claims that Sidious may be the most powerful Sith ever as meaning that he's on Valkorion's level, with it being possible for either to be stronger? IIRC, that refers to RotS Sidious, and DE Sidious is far more powerful than that.

Bump.

The way Eric worded this seems to imply both at once.

Or, y'know, it could have something to do with the fact that Revan's infinitely more lore-relevant and popular than some random robot god.