I'm sorry, I know I'm new, but i created this page after fully editing the L4000 transport page because this is the proper name for the ship as listed in The Force Unleashed Campaign Guide. So if anything please save this one and remove the others. Just my two cents.
- There is a move button where you can move an article to a new name. EDIT: Whoops, didn't see it was by Gallofree. VT-16 11:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Errata for Force Unleashed Campaign Guide out.[]
It states that the L4000 has 140 tons of cargo, and the HWK-290 is 75 tons.
Perhaps we should change them?
source: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=starwars/article/TFUerrata
Operations.kt 23:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
unfortunately that is a dead link. Also a the Millenium Falcon is listed as carrying 100 tons of cargo and has roughly 337.5 Square Meters of floor space in all cargo holds combined ( for 1 ton per 3.375 square meters)(and yes, it took me a while to count all the little squares in the deck plan on this wiki). The L4000 has about 1368 square meters to of floor space (leaving room for people to move about) in all combined holds making 410 tons (@ 3.336 SqM/ton) much more likely. There fore, considering the fact that the L4000 does have about 4 times the space in it's cargo hold (and the fact that the TFUerrata link is dead), we should change the cargo capacity back to 410 tons. Einar 90808 22:48, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
- The math supports your analysis. The "140" figire is obviously a typo, transposing the correct numbers.--Bosda Di'Chi 18:53, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
- It's *not* a typo - though i agree it should be changed back. 'The Force Unleashed Campaign Guide' hardcopy reads '410 tons'. There would be no need for an errata to correct it if it wasn't being changed... and the backup links aren't dead, 'cos i just checked the errata as well... Why WOTC wanted to change it is beyond me, but the fact is they did. Regardless of this, the '410' figure makes sense and agrees with an actual approved published source. I vote the '140' figure goes....--109.157.99.217 00:35, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Please note the timestamps on posts before posting yourself. Each of these has a year between them. xD Just remember that when you encounter a dead topic, you should start a new thread to continue it, no matter how long the thread is. This helps us keep the pages straight. That said, when it comes to RPGs official errata is sacrosanct. It's like when someone like Jason Fry clarifies something about a source. Their decision takes precedence. NaruHina Talk
00:43, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Please note the timestamps on posts before posting yourself. Each of these has a year between them. xD Just remember that when you encounter a dead topic, you should start a new thread to continue it, no matter how long the thread is. This helps us keep the pages straight. That said, when it comes to RPGs official errata is sacrosanct. It's like when someone like Jason Fry clarifies something about a source. Their decision takes precedence. NaruHina Talk
- It's *not* a typo - though i agree it should be changed back. 'The Force Unleashed Campaign Guide' hardcopy reads '410 tons'. There would be no need for an errata to correct it if it wasn't being changed... and the backup links aren't dead, 'cos i just checked the errata as well... Why WOTC wanted to change it is beyond me, but the fact is they did. Regardless of this, the '410' figure makes sense and agrees with an actual approved published source. I vote the '140' figure goes....--109.157.99.217 00:35, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
- The math supports your analysis. The "140" figire is obviously a typo, transposing the correct numbers.--Bosda Di'Chi 18:53, February 15, 2011 (UTC)
My bad. I wasn't aware of that particular protocol, regarding my previous comment.
Anyway, if we're to keep the 140 tons errata figure, then the line //Though two-thirds the size of Gallofree Yards' GR-75 medium transport, the Maka-Eekai had less than 10% of the cargo capacity...// which is taken *verbatim* from the hardcopy of 'The Force Unleashed Campaign Guide' should probably be changed to something like /...had considerably less than 10% of.../, as that refers to the 410 tons, not the 140 tons. If someone wants to get technical, we could now even put /...less than 1%.../, as the GR-75 holds 19,000 tons according to published sources. Just a thought...
Incidentally, can anyone say for certain that the WoTC *errata* was run past LFL?
I do understand why published material is sacrosanct, however dumb it may seem. But i remain unconvinced that the errata is necessarily subject to the same approval, and i struggle to see it in the same light as say, Jason Fry's endnotes, when it amounts to a decision motivated by game-balance in an RPG.
'140 tons' really reads more like such a game-balance decision than anything else - and the maths of the floorplans supports their original figure pretty well, as someone worked out above...--109.157.99.217 06:12, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
- The whole article is a verbatim copy of the text from the hardcopy TFUCG. The sentence //It was possible to convert cargo space into roomy accommodations, at the rate of 10 tons of cargo per additional passenger (to a max of 40 passengers)// (para. 3, History section) is inconsistant with the 140 tons from the errata. I can't believe i care enough to keep stressing this, but *something* surely needs to be done about this. Please advise...--109.157.99.217 15:58, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
Time of introduction[]
In the article was written that the transport was introduced to the galactic market shortly before the Clone Wars, but in the comic "Dark Times—Out of the Wilderness 1" some people on Telerath described the Uhumele as an old kind of vessel, and not just a few years old if this kind of ship was really introduced a few years earlier. --Exodianecross (talk) 02:50, November 19, 2017 (UTC)