Merger
Why is there a merge tag?
When you click the link for the article to be merged, it's a redirect to the same page.
This makes no sense.
Esahr 07:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
- The merge tag is there because earlier another user created an article for the same book, so somebody added merge tags to both articles. The other article was redirected into this one, so the tag is no longer needed. I'll removed it. Gray Jedi 08:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Release Date
I noticed that it said the release date for this book would be "Around the time of game release". The release date for the book, however, is 27th June 2010. So...isn't this an announcement for the release date of Star Wars: The Old Republic? If this is true, it could usurp BioWare, and if not, it could screw with a lot of crazed fans. TOR has a massive following.
Dating
What is the source for dating this story in 3650 BBY? The estimate of 3653 BBY for Deceived is at least reasoned and understandable, but the Fatal Alliance date just seems to be....pulled out of a hat DigiFluid 10:34, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
When the opening 50 pages made it clear to me that this had to be longer after the Treaty of Coruscant (3,653 BBY) than "3,650 BBY," I emailed Leland directly about it with my reasoning for why it must be quite a few more years after the Treaty of Coruscant than that. He could not confirm the exact date (which I believe is because an exact date has not yet been revealed for the TOR game), but he did confirm that my reasoning was correct, and the novel is definitely some years after the Treaty of Coruscant, later than 3,650 BBY. That means, basically, that, as is often the case, the date on the timeline in the front of the book should be read as a LANDMARK, not as the date of the story. There's "3,650 BBY," then later there's Fatal Alliance, then later there's the next marker date, etc. So, we do NOT know the date for Fatal Alliance at this point, but it is definitely NOT 3,650 BBY. NathanPButler 17:52, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the Epilogue tie it in to 3651/3650 BBY though? Jet Nebula to Dao Stryver, "Has the Republic recovered from the near-beating you gave them a decade ago?" Isn't he talking about the blockade of the Hydian Way in 3661/3660 BBY?Simon E 81.158.82.166 23:18, February 20, 2011 (UTC)
So, what is the source for Fatal Alliance being dated between Deceived and Red Harvest? I agree about the epilogue, but shouldn't that comment of Leland Chee's be taken into account? Imperators II 12:04, February 21, 2011 (UTC)
Release of Book and Game around the same time?
Can we move this line: "It was first mentioned on November 10th, 2008, when Sue Rostoni stated "A novel will come out sometime around the game release time and that's all that's been determined so far."" from the Star Wars: The Old Republic: Fatal Alliance article to here since its clear that the novel that will be released around the time of the game is Deceived, since this book is being released almost a year before and Deceived was moved for the reason to bring it closer to the release of the game? Alexsau1991 (talk page) 
21:29, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
Dark Lords
I am just reading the book and it is strange, The members of the Dark Council are called here the Dark Lords, it is as it was on TOR webside where there was something about "the Imperor took his most trusted Dark Lords and made Council of them". They are Called as such severel times. Does it means that there is another retcon or is it ment as a dark lords and not the Dark Lords of the Sith?--ScorpiO 13:35, July 29, 2010 (UTC)
- Just curious, what are some of the other retcons? I didn't really notice any.(but I did read it at night so I wouldn't be surprised if I missed a few of them) Forkorpl8 03:16, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
- I ment retcons just for the use of this title of the Dark Lord. First, it was stated that it was a sole title and it stood as such until Kaan. Then Jedi vs Sith stated, that it is not true and that Revan with Malak and Exar with Ulic were Dark Lords of the Sith at the same time )wich is contradicted with both Kotor and Tales of the Jedi where there is stated that only exer was DLoTS and in Kotor Malak way DLotS only after the betrayal). And now this book implies that the Dark Council consists of 12 Dark Lords thus another change in the use of this title.--ScorpiO 14:55, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
- It changes throughout history. At this time, apparently, there are the all the Sith apprentices (of any class), then the Masters who are also called Dark Lords, Out of this body is drawn the Dark Council. Then the Emperor. Remember that in these times, when multiple people are called Dark Lord, it is generally used as an alternative title as Sith Lord, not as much a rank or position of power. -In Darkness, Darth Kratis 07:23, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
- I ment retcons just for the use of this title of the Dark Lord. First, it was stated that it was a sole title and it stood as such until Kaan. Then Jedi vs Sith stated, that it is not true and that Revan with Malak and Exar with Ulic were Dark Lords of the Sith at the same time )wich is contradicted with both Kotor and Tales of the Jedi where there is stated that only exer was DLoTS and in Kotor Malak way DLotS only after the betrayal). And now this book implies that the Dark Council consists of 12 Dark Lords thus another change in the use of this title.--ScorpiO 14:55, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
Clunker's military signs
What was the sign language called that Clunker communicated with? It should be added to this article's appearances tab and to Clunker's article. I do not have the source text on hand or I'd do it myself. —fodigg 
(talk) | 19:58, October 4, 2010 (UTC)
Lizard Female vs Male
"¨Dao Stryver; warrior (Mandalorian male[3])" Dao is not a male, and that is eleborated on in the last chapter. Even though "his" first mention was as a male, she is a female and a Gektl. Should be mentioned even if the "dramatis personae" thinks otherwise. Spoiler season is long over. User:SarimThiri-Talk page 17:48, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
- There is a footnote explaining that; I'm not sure if there's any official policy about this, but I think the dramatis personae on the page should appear as it does in the book. --DarthEinstein 19:27, October 6, 2010 (UTC)
Who killed the clone.
I believe the edit at the bottom of the summary is incorrect and the initial idea that it was Ax who killed the clone was correct. the exact wording during that chapter is as follows:
"Ax fell back onto her haunches and put her hands over her face. What had happened? Had she been trying to kill the girl or save her? Not just any girl, of course: her own clone. Did that make it murder, suicide, or fratricide?" —Unsigned comment by 184.34.31.39 (talk • contribs)
- I think it's more of an indirect killing. By being there and interacting with the clone, Ax unintentionally killed her. By trying to save the clone from her mother in that liquid (can't remember its name), they freed her from the tank but her body couldn't adapt to its new environment and she subsequently died. The way this event is phrased in this article makes it seem that Ax murdered her clone, which didn't happen.--Masterbmw 02:21, January 27, 2012 (UTC)
Reading Order
Should I just read these Old Republic books in order they where published or try to read them Chronologically? --98.211.71.137 05:36, March 31, 2012 (UTC)