Talk:NR-N99 Persuader-class droid enforcer
this wiki
Back to page
Contents |
Page History
Edit
- 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
PilotEdit
- 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)
- Probably where it is on the LEGO version of the tank—in the forward "wheel" section. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
18:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Probably where it is on the LEGO version of the tank—in the forward "wheel" section. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
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) 
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)
- Yeah, I think you're right, Rune. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 18:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think you're right, Rune. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
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)
DesignationEdit
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) 15:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the Databank calls them Persuader-class [1]. RMF 16:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I guess the article will be staying here, then. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 16:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough - Kwenn 16:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I guess the article will be staying here, then. Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
- 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)
NameEdit
I've heard it called the Tread tank before. Should that be considered canon thus allowing it to be put in the article? DarkJedi(dialogue)
- It depends on where it's from. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 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)
- I think he's referring to a nickname, though. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 11:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I knew that. I was just remarking on my feelings. I'm probably not supposed to do that, though. --LtCol. JuiceStain 22:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's just that it's a bit unnecessary. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 22:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, okay. I'll refrain in the future. I generally hate wasting space, anyway. I'm still kind of a noob to all of this (if you haven't already noticed).--LtCol. JuiceStain 22:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. Everyone has to be a noob some time in their life. ;) —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 22:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- nebulax is right i think, might be clone slang like crab and clanker.--75.63.4.114 01:18, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. Everyone has to be a noob some time in their life. ;) —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
- Oh, okay. I'll refrain in the future. I generally hate wasting space, anyway. I'm still kind of a noob to all of this (if you haven't already noticed).--LtCol. JuiceStain 22:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's just that it's a bit unnecessary. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
- Oh, I knew that. I was just remarking on my feelings. I'm probably not supposed to do that, though. --LtCol. JuiceStain 22:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think he's referring to a nickname, though. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision)
- 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)
LengthEdit
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Nope. Vehicles and Vessels only gives height.—Darthtyler (Talk) 19:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Vehicle InfoEdit
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) 
13:37, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
.png)
.png)
.png)
