Talk: NR-N99 Persuader-class droid enforcer/Legends

Back to page
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "NR-N99 Persuader-class droid enforcer/Legends."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for discussing the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit Wookieepedia Discussions. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Page History

  • 11:52, Mar 10, 2005 62.179.205.198 (armed-mounted ->arm-mounted)
  • 19:58, Mar 2, 2005 LtNOWIS (spoiler warning)
  • 18:47, Mar 2, 2005 222.152.238.170
  • 03:47, Jan 30, 2005 AlexTheMartian m
  • 11:03, Jan 6, 2005 222.152.166.215
  • 18:41, Jan 4, 2005 222.152.180.176

Pilot

  • This Vehical never had a pilot BFII is not Cannon

To borrow a cliche from the JC forums...

http://www.nps.gov/fost/expand/graphics/Canonfire2.jpg

CANNON GO BOOM! —Darth Culator (talk) 03:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Heheh...the madness spreads... CooperTFN 03:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Back on the subject... The tank does have a battle droid as a pilot. Admiral J. Nebulax (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Question is, where is it? I've never seen a picture showing where this poor droid fits in. VT-16 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You probably already figured this out, but for the record, it shows a B1 getting blasted out of a tank in the movie when some Wookiee aircraft make it blow up. I think it's just before Gree recieves Order 66. — Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log) NR Seal 16:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I actually think that one was just standing on the side treads, you would think a blue pilot droid would be driving them. :) --Rune Haako 16:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

yep no pilot whatsoever as far as i can tell, though several droids were riding on treads. the only instance i can see is battlefront and LEGO, lego is not cannon, and in battlefront everything needs a pilot even vulture droids. i think it's safe to say it had about as much a pilot as a hailfire droid.--75.63.4.114 01:15, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Designation

The NEGVV names this the Persuader-type, not Persuader-class. I think it should be moved to NR-N99 Persuader-type droid enforcer - Kwenn 15:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

  • What's the difference between "Persuader-type" and "Persuader-class", exactly? Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, the Databank calls them Persuader-class [1]. RMF 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I think "type" is used as an alternative to "class", but in some situations it's used as a placeholder term when you're not sure of what the real name is, i.e Home One-type (for ships that are similar to it yet without a proper class-name), yet Imperial-class, because that kind of name is actually defined. VT-16 17:37, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Name

I've heard it called the Tread tank before. Should that be considered canon thus allowing it to be put in the article?

Blue-exclamation-mark

Inactive user

This user has been inactive for 12 months or more and has lost their user page privileges. If you are the user in question, simply undo the last edit to this page when you return to normal article editing activity.

Last article edit: 8 May 07 (contribs)

  • It depends on where it's from. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 00:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
    • For the record, I personally think Persuader is an awesome name. Tread tank is just too bland. But when you think of Persuader, it's persuading you to_________(Fill in Blank)________. It just makes it sound a little devious. Heh Heh. --LtCol. JuiceStain 01:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Length

Is there any source for the length of the tank? The article mentions the height of it, but I would tend to think the length would be more logical to include, if not both. Flag-Waving American Patriot 19:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

There might be in the New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels...let me check.—Darthtyler (Talk) 19:21, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Vehicles and Vessels only gives height.—Darthtyler (Talk) 19:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... seems odd, but if that's how it's written... Would it be included in the New Essential Guide to Droids? Thanks for the quick reply, by the way. Flag-Waving American Patriot 19:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
If there are pics of it showing a side view (probably one in the New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels) then u could determine the length from the proportions, I'm pretty sure u would have to make a note of it not being actually stated in canon tho.Nebulon B freak 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I hope they look into the size issue. If the Height is 6.2, then it's length would be almost 20. Thats bigger than both the AT-TE, AT-OT, and close to a AT-AT. I also tried putting the height as length instead, although better it only gets 2 meter height this way, and it's bigger than a wookie. The right size should be somewhere about 10 length and 3,5 height, I think. But, until it is published... --Draii 11:00, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Vehicle Info

I added some stuff in the vehicle infobox. Under other systems, I added, High-traction drive tread. I am not sure if that is actually a "system", but I think it sounds ok. I also added Stereoscopic visual sensor under the sensor systems part. These both were mentioned in Star Wars: The Complete Visual Dictionary, so it's good info, but I can remove it is not detailed enough. TK-299 (Click Here) Imperial Emblem 13:37, April 10, 2010 (UTC)