Leland Chee and the Incredible Cross-Sections

[Luke Skywalker]

So earlier in October 2011, "darthy" posted on the Dark Horse Message Boards this question to Leland Chee:

Hello Leland, I had a couple of questions regarding star wars canon that I was hoping you’d be able to answer for me.

The first is regarding the possibility of altered time lines and continuity. In episode "Ghost of Morris" of Star Wars: the Clone Wars, the Son shows Anakin a vision of future events in his life like destroying Alderaan, joining up with Darth Sidious, betraying Obi-wan, and becoming Darth Vader. After seeing this future Anakin decides to join up with the Son to kill the Emperor and take other steps to avoid this future from happening. The Son told him that the future by its very nature can be changed. The Father later told him that destiny's are not set in stone. Later in this episode the Father said his son broke the laws of time by showing him the vision and then erased his memory of it. This presumably restored continuity between the show and the movies.

This episode seems to insinuate that at the very least, the laws of time are not unbreakable. This made it plausible in star wars canon to have a story where we would have seen a new timeline created where Anakin does not become Darth Vader while the series still possibly remains part of star wars canon. Most instances of time travel that I’ve read about involve tidy predestination paradoxes where the past is not actually changed. This avoids the issue of new timelines. However, in the Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia under the entry of time-drifting it says that this method of time travel could create shifts in the flow of time by altering the visited beings’ actions. To me that suggests that possibility of altering time is real.

My question is, could time travel be used to rectify or explain contradictions in canon? Throwing a random example out there to illustrate what I mean: Even Piell gets killed in Star Wars The Clone Wars episode “Citadel Rescue” though there are stories in C-canon which say he’s still alive in the future. On the surface this would suggest that these both cannot be correct. But if we ponder the idea of an altered timeline somewhere in the star wars universe, this could allow both versions to be correct in their own timelines.

My second question regards what seems to me and many others to be controversial statistics in the Incredible Cross Section books. In Star Wars Attack of the Clones Incredible Cross-Sections on Page 23 regarding Republic Assault Ships it states: “Armament: 12 quad turbolaser turrents (200 gigatons per shot); 24 laser cannons (6 megatons per shot);”. I’ve looked all over star wars canon and I’ve seen nothing to suggest that quad turbolasers or any other weapon short of the super laser of the Death Star has this type of firepower. This would mean that the primary lasers of the Republican Assault Ships are over 33,000 times more powerful than their secondary weapons.

To put this in perspective, a nuclear weapon having a yield of 200 gigatons would level of the state of California and cripple most of the continent of North America in a single shot. This just doesn’t seem realistic to me based on what I’ve seen in the movies, the clone wars series, clone wars animated movie, and the rest of the expanded universe. Even in conventional RPG books the primary weapons of capital ships only range between 50% to 200% more powerful than their secondary weapons.

In Star Wars Revenge of the Sith Incredible Cross Sections on page 16 regarding the Invisible Hand toward the bottom of the page there's a line pointing to a quad turbolaser canon that says "Quad turbolaser cannon's maximum yield is equivalent to magnitude-10 earthquake" which most people conclude to then have the equivalent yield of a teraton or 1000 gigatons.

These books are one of the few sources that try to pin an exact yield value of star wars weaponry. Often times in hypothetical versus scenarios, these figures are brought up and treated as factual. My question here is, how seriously should these ICS yield stats be treated in regards to overall canon?

A rather one-sided description of the controversy over Doctor Saxton's work. Leland Chee promptly replied:

The Cross-Section stats with regard to firepower are considered canon.

---------------------------------------------------------------



Just recently, Ulic from spacebattles asked Chee:

Hi Mr Chee, I was wondering if I could ask a question related to something you mentioned on your old Dark Horse forum thread; you confirmed that the Incredible Cross Section firepower stats were still considered canon, but I noticed that X-Wing: Isard's Revenge mentioned capital ships firing "terajoules of coherent light", which is significantly lower than the gigatons of firepower the ICS mentions; are these firepower figures from X-Wing: Isard's Revenge still considered canon, and if so how would the Holocron reconcile the two, for example, if an author requested starship firepower figures from the database?

Chee promptly responds, saying:

Cross-Sections would still be the first place I'd look when determining firepower.

[StarSword]

Even the keeper of the canon is going, "200 GT. Canon. Deal with it."

Love it.

Personally I think the latter one was just Mike Stackpole picking a phrase that flowed better, and it's still technically correct (never says how many terajoules, after all).

EDIT: Holy crap. Didn't notice the timestamp on the OP, sorry.

[Boeing 757]

Even the keeper of the canon is going, "200 GT. Canon. Deal with it."

Love it.

Personally I think the latter one was just Mike Stackpole picking a phrase that flowed better, and it's still technically correct (never says how many terajoules, after all).

EDIT: Holy crap. Didn't notice the timestamp on the OP, sorry.

It's rather astonishing though how many Trektards choose to ignore it in spite of such statements by Mr. Chee.

[the atom]

I find it even more hilarious how they effectively pretend Chee has no authority whatsoever. 'The word of Lucas!' and all that good shi-oh yeah that's right, Lucas isn't running the place now is he? I wonder what the standby excuse is now.

[Havok]

The sad thing is, I completely agree that we never see that level of firepower or anything close to it outside of the Death Star, but the fact that it is canon and drives trekkies nuts just tickles me pink. Not because I don't love Star Trek, but just because I hate trekkies.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Trekkies I don't mind, it's the 'tards that I love winding up

[Silver Jedi]

Trekkies I don't mind, it's the 'tards that I love winding up

Indeed, it's easy for us to forget that upwards of 99.99% of fans of either franchise don't give two shits about numbers and vs. debates. Personally, that just makes the impotent rage of certain members of the community that much sweeter

[jwl]

What do you mean we never see that level of power outside the death star? Unless the assumptions are off or star wars vehicles cards are non-canon. http://www.narutoforums.com/blog.php?b=18605

[jwl]

Actually, maybe someone should show that to chee.

[Connor MacLeod]

does that narutoforums place do an inordinate amount of analyzing of non-Naruto universes or something. It seems every time I turn around someone is quoting some guy from that place 'doing math' that somehow proves something.

The sad thing is, I completely agree that we never see that level of firepower or anything close to it outside of the Death Star, but the fact that it is canon and drives trekkies nuts just tickles me pink. Not because I don't love Star Trek, but just because I hate trekkies.

Thats because the vast majority of debates come down to people trying to prove whose interpretation of the facts is more right. When you look at it from the viewpoint of 'I'm right/you're wrong' the way the things tend to develop makes alot more sense.

I mean when you think about it, the fact that certain yields may be 'canon' because they can destroy planets or travel at massive accelerations (depending on what you define as massive) does not neccesarily translate into what goes into ship to ship combat or other roles, even though it is often assumed 'if you have the capability you MUST use it all the time' or something. Sorta like all that 'potential to build billions of ISDs' that never really manifests.

[jwl]

does that narutoforums place do an inordinate amount of analyzing of non-Naruto universes or something. It seems every time I turn around someone is quoting some guy from that place 'doing math' that somehow proves something..

Most (or at least, a good chunk of) their calculations and releted stuff are archived here: http://www.narutoforums.com/blog.php?b=16935, browse at your leisure. You'll find that the majority of it is manga, with small amounts of other media.

[Generalissimo]

My real problem with the Incredible Cross-Sections calculations is they imply a ridiculous level of incompetence from *everyone* seen fighting in Star Wars media.

[Havok]

My real problem with the Incredible Cross-Sections calculations is they imply a ridiculous level of incompetence from *everyone* seen fighting in Star Wars media.

You can apply that to pretty much all mainstream sci-fi.

[Stark]

All the hopelessly inconsistent stuff, anyway. When you literally have different visions within your brand, its obviously going to lead to absurdity.

I mean, why doesn't Setsuna just use the 00 Trans Am Full Burst Raiser Sword all the time? It's 25,000 kilometers long!

[Connor MacLeod]

Whenever I hear someone complain about 'incompetence' or 'inconsistency' I have to wonder how much personal inference they're injecting into that statement. That is 'I think its stupid therefore its stupid' rather than 'it is objectively stupid.' The two seem to be conflated rather often in sci fi, I've noticed.

Ususally when someone screams 'ICS MAKES SW INCOMPETENT' they're usually imagining that BIG YIELDS mean everyone would simply sweep the field with their uberhuge doomships because ORBITAL BOMBARDMENT RULES ALL. OR something. Nevermind that any technologically advanced society could devise a way of effectively wiping out huge numbers of ground troops via orbital (or aerial bombardment) without resorting to nuclear level boomage (heck you dont need gigatons for that. Kilotons, tons, or even kilograms of boomage in sufficient quantities and dispersion can do it. Or if you're willing to bombard them long enough.)

It also is somehow bizarre that 'big numbers' would be the sole arbiter for incompetence when you have shit like - using AT-ATs instead of AG vehicles, or putting human (or rather clone) infantry that takes ten years to grow and train into human wave tactics up against a droid army. Or the lack of rails. Or Tarkin not deploying enough starfighters to crush the Rebels. Or Palpy deciding to dick around and gloat and antagonize the rebels rather than simply wiping them out.

[Simonoz]

Actually incompetence and genius are usually the deciding factors in wars. For example - the German policy of U-Boats being allowed to shoot everything they see on sight was a key factor in bringing the US into World War One. The Japanese bombed pearl harbour in the second war, achieving the same thing. The Gallipoli campaign failed due to terrible planning. In Vietnam, Australia and the US hadn't adapted to the guerrilla style of warfare. The trojan war was famously won when Odysseus came up with the wooden horse plan. The Romans won their battles through superior discipline.
My bet is that either some jumped up bureaucratic officer in the imperial navy would put his career ahead of the empire and do something cowardly or stupid in a critical place, or else the the Romulans or Vulcans will get annoyed at the Federation for a completely stupid reason and desert them when they need help most. Of course the statistics are helpful for setting the scene and determining the most likely outcome, but the easiest way to win or lose a battle, other than overwhelming numbers, is by leadership.

[Batman]

Silly me. And here I thought the Allies out-everythinging Germany in WW2 materially played a significant part in them winning. Mind you, Adolf being a complete moron certainly helped but I do think the massive numerical advantage was a rather important factor.

[Serafina]

For example - the German policy of U-Boats being allowed to shoot everything they see on sight was a key factor in bringing the US into World War One. The Japanese bombed pearl harbour in the second war, achieving the same thing. The Gallipoli campaign failed due to terrible planning. In Vietnam, Australia and the US hadn't adapted to the guerrilla style of warfare. The trojan war was famously won when Odysseus came up with the wooden horse plan. The Romans won their battles through superior discipline.

That's...yeah, not accurate.

First, while you do have a point in regard to bringing the USA into the war as a result of indiscriminate targeting, that ignores a few points. Germany would still have lost without the USA being in the war, and more refined targeting was not possible because of US lend&lease rendering aid to Britain.
But most importantly - consider WHY the USA entering the war was important. Because of their superior industrial capacity! Without that, all incompetence or genius in the world wouldn't have mattered.

As for Japan, the attack on Pearl Harbor was actually a really smart thing to do - if you assume you have to go to war with the USA at all. And Japan had all reason to assume so, because they had to expand into the Pacific to acquire resources, due to their war in China eating up too many and an embargo by the USA due to it.

Western forces did in fact adapt to guerillia style war and were quite effective in fighting it for the most part. They were however caught between a rock and a hard place - they could be more careful not to kill civilians i exchange for higher losses on their own (unacceptable for their citizens) or they could have reduced their losses by being more indiscriminate (also unacceptable for their citizens).
There was no brilliant solution to the Vietnam War, nor was it lost due ton incompetence. It was lost due to a variety of factors that could not be altered.

While superior discipline was certainly a large factor for roman military strength, that's not actually "genius or incompetence" in the planning-sense. It's not about making that brilliant strategic decision that wins the war, but rather a combination of cultural factors leading to superior quality of your troops.


So - pretty much all your "examples" aren't in fact examples for your point, and some are in fact the opposite.

Wars are won due to a huge variety of factors.
Some are cultural - how willing a nations citizens are to engage in a war. That influences the morale of your soldiers, the level of losses you can take, the amount of industry you can dedicate to the war, your soldiers discipline, the command ethos of your officers and so on.
Some are industrial - what amount of resources you have available, what is your capacity to turn them into war machines, can you still feed your population and supply them with goods at the same time, how vulnerable are your resources and industry and so on.
Some are technological. You could have access to weapons your enemy, doesn't, or your weapons are better, faster or cheaper to produce. That's generally a much more important factor in VS-debates than in real life.
Then there is terrain - how defensible is your home terrain, how easily can you advance into the enemies etc.

Only if these factors are close on both sides does competence play into it. Not even the most brilliant genius possible can conquer a nation that is more willing to fight, has more resources and industry, better technology and other advantages.
Now sometimes factors can be weighted against each other - your enemy may have superior numbers, but you could have superior troops or morale. Using your advantages correctly does matter. But if you are utterly outclassed you have no advantages to use as leverage.

Star Trek is utterly outclassed by Star Wars in every category listed above. They could put their most brilliant minds against the Empires most incompetent officers, Star Wars would still win.

[Admiral Mercury]

The rampant "Chee-ism" you people display is disgusting. If he claimed Yoda was a Sith Lord you'd accept it as fact despite it being contradicted by the movies... Just like a lot of things Leland Chee has said over the years...

[Connor MacLeod]

I love it when a completely new person comes here, then declares how everyone else is wrong.... and we're supposed to take his opinion seriously. Is that a troll, or do you have something *substantial* to bring to the table other than your evident 'you don't think as clearly as I do' snobbery?

[Lord Revan]

The rampant "Chee-ism" you people display is disgusting. If he claimed Yoda was a Sith Lord you'd accept it as fact despite it being contradicted by the movies... Just like a lot of things Leland Chee has said over the years...

Then show us where he was contradicted, don't just say that he was and leave it at that.

there's a saying "exordinary claims need exordinary proof" and saying that person who hired to deside what is and is not Star Wars is wrong about the very thing he was hired for is an exordinary claim, so I ask you now, where's the proof and "because I say so" isn't proof of anything.

So repesent your proof, I'm waiting.

[Batman]

So, going with the official Wars canon policy is 'rampant Chee-ism' now?
But let's for the moment assume Chee was wrong in the past. Guess what? This is fiction. Canon changes. Used to be Clark could only leap tall buildings and bazookas were a halfway serious threat.
Show me where Chee is wrong about current canon.

[bilateralrope]

Show me where Chee is wrong about current canon.

Isn't Chee the person who defines what is and isn't canon ?

Which means he can't be wrong about canon, because canon is defined by what he says it is.

[Lord Revan]

Show me where Chee is wrong about current canon.

Isn't Chee the person who defines what is and isn't canon ?

Which means he can't be wrong about canon, because canon is defined by what he says it is.

that's why I called him being wrong about canon an "exordinary claim"

technically it's possible for Mr Chee to make a statement that conterdicts current official policy but that would most likely be a) a mistake (he's human after all and humans make mistakes) or b) a joke taken out of context. However for him to be so wrong about current canon of SW (which IIRC is his only responsibility with Lucasfilm), that we should just ignore everything he says about SW canon, as Admiral Lardass is suggesting (calling him by screenname would an insult to both the element and to the (former) leadsinger of Queen) would need really incredibly strong evidence to support it, what Admiral brainless has offered so far amounts to essentially to "because I say so" which as we're well aware amounts to jackshit as far as evidence is conserned.

[Connor MacLeod]

Why does it matter if Chee gets some things wrong? Last I checked he's a fallible human being and can make mistakes. Making mistakes doesn't suddenly bring the massive canon/holocron/chee edifice come crumbling down, nor does someone paying attnetion to what a franchises purported canon policies make them a mindless brand zombie.

This reminds me completley of that FUCKING LUCAS mentality you get sometimes, just because some fan gets mad George Lucas did something with STar Wars or whatever that they didn't like. (OHMYGOD HE RUINT IT! EVIL1!!)