Talk: Pursuit-class light cruiser

Back to page
Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Pursuit-class light cruiser."

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.

Essential Guide to Warfare-cover

"War is ruin, predicted, and then remembered as glory."

Pursuit-class light cruiser is within the scope of WookieeProject: Warfare, an effort to develop comprehensive and detailed articles with topics originating in or related to The Essential Guide to Warfare.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice or visit our project page, where you can join the project.

TIE/ln

I dont recall it carrying TIE/ln, just TIE/ad x1JustinGann 17:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Kuat Drive?

This ship is shown on the Kuat capital ship classes template, but does not have the template on the page itself. However, the article also makes no mention of this ship being manufactured bt Kuat. If this vessel is made by Kuat, it should be noted in the article and have the template added as well. If not, it should be removed from the template. I do not have any of the sources for this vehicle, so I cannot locate this information myself. If any fleet junkie out there would like, please take a crack at this one. Maclimes Zero (talk) Infinite Empire 16:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

"Turrets and stationary guns?"

I only see one pair of turrets on any of the available pictures. Is there clear evidence for two sets of guns? --McEwok 18:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

  • There are three bolts on the second image. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 20:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There are also two barrels on the gun-turrets. And It's not impossible that the image is meant to convey the sense of the guns shifting aim between shots, either. I don't really think the evidence is clear enough to specify "two turbolaser cannons fixed to the hull"; nor, for that matter, do I see direct evidence that these are turbolaser turrets, although I agree it's almost inevitable. --McEwok 22:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • You can see the raised superstructure and the square muzzle of the gun on the right-hand side of the vessel, next to the "wing" like structure. That's where some of the blasts are coming from in the firing picture, and this did not have any speedlines to indicate that it was rapid firing from the turret guns instead. VT-16 08:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You mean the detail along the edge of the "deck", parallel with the turrets, here? It's undeniably possible, but I don't think it's certain, and the lack of "speedlines" is hardly conclusive, either. All in all, I still don't really think that's clear enough evidence. Perhaps a "Behind the scenes" note? --McEwok 11:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I suppose so... —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 12:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • We see a muzzle, we later see turbolaser fire coming from that area, while the turret guns point upward. No contest. VT-16 13:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • "No contest"? No. We see what may be a square-ended tube, and we see a representation of fire that may come from forward of the turret. Possible, but no proof. And even then, this doesn't indicate another gun on the other side of the ship. --McEwok 16:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
    • You are debating visuals of a ship that seems to morph between issues? Charlii 20:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
      • How so? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 21:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Compare page 11 issue 18 with page 7 issue 20 for an example of a true rear-profile transformer... I can get you some scans tomorrow, but I tell you that snake of a ship must have retractable sensor-domes! Charlii 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Any differences in the weapons, though? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) Imperial Emblem 23:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
            • The turrets are gone from another image in issue 20. It can be argued that it is simply less detailed though. Charlii 06:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
              • We have retractable turrets on the Lucrehulk (TPM:ICS), need more than that to justify cutting out the additional side gun, which is actually seen firing something. VT-16 07:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
            • VT: A muzzle + turbolaser fire eminating from that point = no proof?
            • No, something that may be a muzzle, and turbolaser fire that could be coming from somewhere on the flank of the hull. No proof. Possibility, but no proof.
            • As Charlii says, we can't really trust the images to be consistent and precise. The basic form of the hull remains broadly constant, and the turrets appear often enough to be mentioned, but I don't think we can interpret this supposed "fixed" gun with the confidence VT's claiming. --McEwok 18:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
              • Coming from the same part of the ship where there was a cannon muzzle depicted, you mean. VT-16 19:20, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Source of the name?

This article does not explain where the name "Pursuit-class" comes from. Also, the sources "West End Games" and "Wizards of the Coast" don't really count as sources. Anyone have any more detailed info? --JMM 12:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I should put the 1stID in the appearance section. VT-16 12:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I hate to be a pain here, but after perusing that issue of the comic, I see no mention of "Pursuit-class". The issue DOES identify the ship as a "light cruiser", but that's it. It may be referred to as the pursuing ship or something, but no Pursuit-class anywhere. Could the name be fanon? --JMM 15:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I put down the wrong issue, it's on page 6, issue 19. Referred to as "Pursuit-class cruiser" but light cruiser in other instances, so I combined the two. VT-16 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
      • OK. It's just seems like ship names are one of those fanon things that pop up online. It's especially unusual for Marvel to name a ship so specifically like that, so it seemed fishy. --JMM 18:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I know. But I) made the article name and remembered it from the comic, so I was glad to go through it again and see it wasn't my imagination. That is a rare thing to see in the Marvel comics, though. :) VT-16 20:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)