Wikia

"However, it would take 1,000 Recusants to engage a Kuat Drive Yards Mandator-II Star Dreadnought." 1,000? Any source on that? Also, I've only heard mention of the Mandator-class (in the AOTS ICS book), but never Mandator II-class. --SparqMan 14:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I got that source from the Revenge of the Sith Incredible Cross Sections. Probably these Recusants were produced in a great quantity yet were of poor quality. -- User:222.152.170.253 7:43, 2 July 2005

The ROTS ICS does indeed say it takes 1,000 Recusants to take down a single Mandator II. Recusants are quite weak, and it takes 4-6 of them just to take down a Venator or Victory-class Star Destroyer. That means the Mandator II is a match for approximately 200 Victory-class Star Destroyers. Curtis Saxton, who wrote the ICS, is of the belief that combat ability is related to a ship's volume, since a bigger ship would have a bigger reactor to power its shields and weaponry. Going by this logic, an Imperial-class Star Destroyer can take down 6 Venators or VSDs because it has about 6 times the volume (I know that's not what WEG says, but Saxton and a lot of other technically-minded people think WEG is stupid). This means that the Mandator II is a match for about 34 ISDs. This still means that it's weaker than the Executor, which is said to be over 100 times the size of an ISD. JimRaynor55 09:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The Star Wars data bank doesn't say it takes 4 to 6 Recusant-class destroyer to destroy a Republic Star Destroyer. It says they usally attack in teams of 4-6.

And the ROTS ICS says that those teams of 4-6 ships are needed to take down a Victory or Venator. JimRaynor55 04:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Move?Edit

As stated in the Confederate Navy talk page, this ship was, in fact, called the Recusant-class light destroyer. Therefore, it should be moved. Cmdr. J. Nebulax 12:15, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Star FightersEdit

There is no place where it says the Recusant Destroyers could carry fighters

Except maybe the Episode III Incredible Cross-Sections, I believe. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 00:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The ROTS ICS says that the Recusant doesn't actually have any hangars for holding and maintaining fighters, but droid starfighters are able to go into its empty spaces and hitch a ride through hyperspace. JimRaynor55 04:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There you go. Admiral J. Nebulax ^(talk) 20:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So who came up with the number 240 Droid Starfighters? The ROTS:ICSB was very vague about how many starfighters the ship could hold in its skeleton, yet it is cited as the source. Is someone making an educated guess, using a different source or something else? --Caamasijedi49 23:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

ROTJ original concept?Edit

Anyone found that sideview of the Recusant while ROTJ was being produced? I'd like to add it to the bts section. Could have sworn I've seen it on the net, somewhere. VT-16 17:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

StarWars.com? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 18:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- I found this Photoreceptor image. They don't look especially like the Recusant to me, though - Kwenn 18:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  - That probably isn't it, then. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 18:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
    - It's also Hyperspace only, so I can't see it. Though I'm almost certain I've seen it, or parts of it. Looked just like the Recusant, too, from the side. VT-16 14:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
      - Well, I'm a Hyperspace member, and I always view exclusive images, but I haven't seen this image you refer to. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 22:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. :) VT-16 12:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'll keep my eye out, though. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mon Calamari?!?Edit

"In 20 BBY, plans were stolen from the Mon Calamari Shipyards. Soon after, the CIS began fielding large amounts of the Recusant-class destroyer."

Where is it stated that the Recusant is a Mon Calamari ship? The designs were from the initial drawings from ROTJ, but the correctness of the above statement is yet to be proven. It doesn't look like a mon calamari ship, rather more like the Munificent-class star frigate that originated on Muunilinst. --Pinioncorp 14:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a HoloNet News article in an Insider issue that says Mon Calamari plans were stolen. Considering that concept art for a Mon Calamari cruiser looks very similar to this, I'd say it's a pretty safe bet that the Recusant is a Mon Calamari design. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It is the only capital ship class that was designed and fielded during the war. All the other major classes were operational prior to the CW (Lucrehulk, Munificent, Providence etc.) The date of the theft of the plans is in the middle of the war and Recusants only started to appear in sources after this. Since most HoloNet news articles have some kind of trivia-connection to AOTC and ROTS (which is why they were written in the first place ;)), this would be yet another. VT-16 09:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Good point. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Alliance had a Recusant?Edit

According to the article, the Rebel Alliance were in possession of a Recusant-class destroyer in 0BY. Where's the source to support this claim?

If you looked down at the "appearances" section, you would have seen it. VT-16 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- VT, do you have a picture? I looked, but I didn't see one. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 19:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- I meant, "see in the actual issue of SW:Rebellion". Hang on, I'll try to find a picture. VT-16 21:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  - How can you even tell that's a Recusant? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 23:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Because it looks exactly like one? :S VT-16 07:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
      - Well, I can't see it, then. Perhaps I've just been looking at the image for too long. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
        I think it looks enough like one to assume it is. It's not overly detailed, but the general shape is there. Same with the Class VI frigates seen in the background of #2 and #4 - \\Captain Kwenn// ^{— Ahoy!} 12:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
        I mean, I can see a rough outline of it, but, like Kwenn said, it isn't very detailed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks more like two Rebel Transports flying close to each other.

Hang on, I made a comparison picture and uploaded it on Imageshack: image shack dot U S )/img230/2753/recusantclasslightdestrkp5.jpg see it now? :D When the battle commences in issue 5, I wouldn't be surprised to see more than one be used as cannon fodder. The artist likes to use various PT/OT elements, but he isn't the best when it comes to dimensioning an object accurately. VT-16 17:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like a Recusant to me. --OuroborosCobra 17:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Yeah, those Mon Calamari Star Cruisers were making it hard to see for me. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 21:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
  - Although Badeaux is one of my favorite SW artists, he has a tendency to clutter the pages with details. VT-16 07:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
    - Yeah, I can tell. ;) Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Prow TurbolaserEdit

Can anyone explain what was different about the front mounted turbolaser? The infobox calls it a Prow Heavy Turbolaser, but it appears much larger than a standard turbolaser, and the ship says it has 4 other heavy turbolasers, can anyone explain a distiction to me?

It's just a very large heavy turbolaser. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Name origin?Edit

I think the Recusant's name comes from the ancient Roman language, from the verb Recusare, which means "to refuse".

Recusant means "they refuse".

Could be interpreted as 'they resist'. But unless there's a definite source, we can only speculate. Unit 8311 17:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

SizeEdit

In that picture of the Rebel Recusant, it shows the Recusant dwarfing the Mon Cal cruisers. Now according to the ROTS ICS the cruiser is only slightly larger than a Venator class, which itself was not as big as the Mon Cal cruiser. Is there any possible explanation for this? Unit 8311 17:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah: The Recusant is closer to us as the viewer than the Mon Calamari cruiser is. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- And yet when I look at the image, one of the Mon Cals is shown in front of the engines of the Recusant. Unit 8311 12:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  - Artist's mistake, then. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  - Actually, the engines on a Recusant are just shaped that way. The Mon Cal cruiser isn't blocking the view of them, they're just really small and fragmented. VT-16 10:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    - If you look closely at the image, the tip of the Mon Cal's wing is clearly in front of the lower engine of the Recusant. Though, as Jack said, it's most probably a mistake made by the artist. Unit 8311 12:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
      - It alsmot looks that way, but the engine is still visible. VT-16 15:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        The engine is visible, but the tip of the Mon Cal is blocking part of it. Perhaps the artist used too much shading...Unit 8311 15:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
        Yeah, the artist's thick line runs right across there, but it's a tough call. I've noticed he has a tendency to clutter some panels with details like this. VT-16 07:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
        In any case, the Mon Cal cruiser is blocking the Recusant's lower engine, unless there's something wrong with my computer monitor. But like Jack says, it's just a mistake: case closed. Unit 8311 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Separatist Destroyer worth mention?Edit

Is it worth mentioning somewhere in the article the Separatist destroyer whose design is scaled-up variant based upon the Recusant-class? —Unsigned comment by R.Werner (talk • contribs).

In the Bts, yes, provided that it's sourced properly. CC7567 ^(talk) 04:17, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Scout version?Edit

Wasn't there a scout version, with only one engine and lighter weaponry? Might be worth mentioning. —Unsigned comment by 76.164.119.234 (talk • contribs).

Crash image Edit

Is that image of the Recuscant collision an image from the movie? It looks kind of distorted, or is the image just poor quality, or from something other than the movie? Near-sighted Jedi 00:49, November 15, 2011 (UTC)