FANDOM


Wiki-shrinkable

This is the talk page for the article "Battle of Scarif."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

Rogue One SPOILERSEdit

Spoilers. Spoilers. Spoilers. Spoilers. Spoilers. Spoilers. Spoilers. Spoilers. SPOILERS.

So Rogue One established that the battle on Scarif was in fact just the theft of the Death Star plans. I think it would be wise to get rid of this page and move whatever we can to the theft article. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 01:04, December 15, 2016 (UTC)

Come to think of it, it should be the other way around since this is the actual name of the battle. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 01:06, December 16, 2016 (UTC)

I vote yes. Jkirk8907 (talk) 05:52, December 17, 2016 (UTC)


I vote no. granted yes it is part of the theft but i feel the battle gave them the means to actually do the theft. without the fleet to support them it would have been next to impossible. therefore i think the battle needs its own page.

Beamonde 09:24, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's all been sorted out. If you see the second comment I made, I realized that it's the theft article that should be merged with this page and deleted, which it has been for a few days now. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 09:46, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

Green Squadron Edit

According to the Star Wars: Rogue One The Ultimate Visual Guide, Green Squadron was one of the squadrons at the battle. This squadron, made of X-Wings, assisted Red and Gold Squadrons in the space battle. What is the policy on this, if a squadron is identified as being in an event, yet there is no mention made of it in the movie? Should there be a mention made to it in the entry? The information on this squadron comes from pp. 168-170 & 172-173.--Memphis77 (talk) 05:59, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

  • If its mentioned in the Star Wars: Rogue One The Ultimate Visual Guide then its official, just as the Ghost is in the battle but its never mentioned. If the guide says that Green squadron was present in the battle it should be added--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 06:29, December 19, 2016 (UTC)

Unidentified Frigate? Edit

You all know you saw it....there was this weird looking warship with the same color as the Hammerhead Corvette. Only it was bigger, probably 50 meters longer? there are three scenes. one is already on the page. you can see it in the lower right hand side. the other is i guess in the middle of the battle where its on the left hand side of the screen, you can see it firing at an enemy ship, and a third during the escape the unknown ship cuts left to avoid colliding with the incoming star destroyer. if you know what this thing is or can and are willing to get BETTER screenshots...that would be nice. help bring this thing into the light.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/File:Whatthehekisthisthing.png

Beamonde 12:46, December 21, 2016 (UTC)

  • Perhaps....and if it is can we should get cleaner pictures of it at the battle. would be good for the ships page. ive been trying to but not wise to take pictures at a theatre. ive been scouring the depths of youtube, google and other sites but to very little avail. i found a very bad picture someone took from the movie but its grainy and SUPER close.

http://parsec.wikia.com/wiki/File:Pic3308070.png

Beamonde 13:12, December 21, 2016 (UTC)

It was confirmed by Pablo a few days ago that they are indeed Dornean gunships. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 23:42, December 21, 2016 (UTC)

Expansion?Edit

Should this article be expanded to cover the battle in greater detail? As in having sections detailing the Ground Assault, Theft of the plans and the Space battle in greater detail. T-888 (talk) 22:47, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

I believe so. You're welcome to add whatever you feel is necessary. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 23:33, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

-Okay, added some more info. If anyone has any more to added or fix, just do so. I am sure I made one or two mistakes lol. T-888 (talk) 03:30, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Ion bombardmentEdit

It was clearly Gold Squadron that launched the ion attack on the star destroyer. Gold leader says "hit that opening" but then it cuts to who I believe is Gold 9.

The article suggests that Gold leader led the attack on the destroyer. How do we know whether or not Gold leader participated directly in the ion attack or whether he was elsewhere in the battle giving the order? Unsigned comment by 76.24.10.30 (talk • contribs).

SourceEdit

What is the source for Jon Vander being one of the 5 y-wings leading the assault on the ISD? he gives the order, but we don't know if he is actually one of the Y-wings launching the torpedoes. Unsigned comment by 76.24.10.30 (talk • contribs).

OutcomeEdit

Stealing the plans was both the Alliance's tactical objective and was a strategic victory for them, meaning they just had a straight up victory. The Empire failed to stop the Rebels getting away with the plans, and so was a tactical and strategic defeat. They did, however, manage to destroy a portion of the fleet, including the Profundity, and kill the ~30 soldiers comprising Rogue One, giving them some strategic advantage. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 06:03, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

  • Wrong. The alliance forces were forced to flee because of the Death Star. That alone makes Scariff a tactical loss for them and a tactical victory for the empire. On the other hand, the battle was an strategic victory for the alliance and a strategic loss for the empire because the plans were stolen, an objective that enabled the alliance to be victorious in the later battle of Yavin, a decisive victory that greatly contributed to the success of the alliance's entire war effort against the empire. A real life analogy or example of this type of situation would be The Battle of the Coral Sea from WW2, which allowed the USA to be victorious in Midway. -- Kronnang Dunn (talk) 17:44, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
    • The Alliance were not forced to flee because of the Death Star, they left because they successfully retrieved the plans, which was their tactical objective. They completed their tactical objective, and so it was a tactical victory. The Empire failed in stopping them, and so was a tactical defeat. The Alliance also had a strategic victory because stealing the plans gave them the means to deal a major blow to the Empire, like you said. On the other hand, the Empire had a minor strategic victory, the destruction of a portion of the Alliance fleet, including the Profundity, as well as the deaths of all the members of Rogue One gave them somewhat of an advantage in the long run, which is the definition of strategic victory. So, let me reiterate, the Rebels were not defeated in any capacity. They may have sustained damaging losses, but they completed their tactical objective, giving them a major strategic advantage against the Empire. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 22:02, February 9, 2017 (UTC)
      • It is a Rebel Alliance victory, no question, no ifs or buts. How do we know? "It is a period of civil war. Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire." Some of the first words of the saga. - Sir Cavalier of OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 22:08, February 9, 2017 (UTC)

CasualtiesEdit

Are we sure that 4 CR90 corvettes, were destroyed, saw it a couple of days ago and didnt saw it, could be wrong but I only saw the GR and Nebulons being destroyed --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 02:04, March 8, 2017 (UTC)

  • We need to discuss and actually find out how many ships escaped because there are many edits, undos, and misconceptions about how many escaped the battle. We need to agree on this because there have been several edits recently where people have been changing the casualty numbers.--Vitus Infinitus (talk) 21:50, April 25, 2017 (UTC)
  • I am currently replaying their escape and the ships that do escape before Vader arrives are 2 CR90s, a Hammerhead, a GR75, and some fighters. After that Vader arrives and it's impossible to tell what happened to the others (JohnWilliamsMovies (talk) 14:10, April 26, 2017 (UTC))
    • Just replayed it. It's three CR90s, two GR75s, a Hammerhead, and some fighters that escape. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 21:59, April 26, 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is correct. Casualty wise, two GR-75 medium transports and one Nebulon-B frigate were explicitly seen being destroyed, the Profundity was disabled (and possibly destroyed afterwards) and the rest probably escaped off-screen, as there wasn't any debris nor did that lieutenant mention their fate, just the fact that the flagship was disabled. -- User:JediMasterSam
        • So do you know how many rebel ships survived the battle?--Vitus Infinitus (talk) 00:30, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah i checked again, 3 CR90s did escape before Vader instead of 2, but personally I imagine that the fleet was destroyed or heavily damaged since the major point of the battle was that the fleet was heavily damaged but as of now canon-wise I suppose the most of them escaped (JohnWilliamsMovies (talk) 05:35, April 27, 2017 (UTC))
        • We will never know the exact amount of ships that were destroyed, but we add the ships that we actually see being destroyed and the ones that escaped. We don't need to be to specific with information that we don't know and we're speculating --DarthRuiz30 (talk) 06:11, April 27, 2017 (UTC)


Named shipsEdit

I was looked at some paused frames and have identified at least 2 CR90 corvettes that have identical colour schemes to CR90s that appeared in Rebels. One of them is the Liberator. Photos: http://imgur.com/a/uG97F atlas_er (talk) 18:40, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

  • I would say that this tweet from Matt probably means we can't say for sure yet --Lewisr (talk) 18:46, June 13, 2017 (UTC)
    • I was going to say the same, I asked that to Matt and he said that it hasn't been confirmed. See Talk:Liberator (CR90 corvette), could be a new CR90 with same paint job. Maybe the Liberator is destroyed in Season 4 of Rebels--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 18:48, June 13, 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree, if it survives season 4 they'll probably answer whether or not its in Rogue One --Lewisr (talk) 18:51, June 13, 2017 (UTC)

NebulonEdit

I changed the effectif of frigate nébulon b because with have one frigate on the right ( but she disappears in the others scene), also after with have one scene wiht 3 fregate and an others scene with one frigate that exit to hyperespace. I'm french, sorry for the mistake...

I changed the effectif of frigate nébulon b because with have one frigate on the right ( but she disappears in the others scene), also after with have one scene wiht 3 fregate and an others scene with one frigate that exit to hyperespace. I'm french, sorry for the mistake...

Hello, is for the effectif of frigate nebulon b, we have one frigate on the right of profundity and also we have one scene with 3 fregate and just after one frigate exit to hyperespace

  • That's why I added the at least, its going to be impossible to see how many Nebulons were in the battle--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 21:07, June 17, 2017 (UTC)

Second VCX-100 at Scarif Edit

In the scene showing the x-wing exiting light speed a VCX can be seen in the top left corner. Also note the position of the x-wings and y-wings below it. In the scene immediately following it another VCX can be seen exiting lightspeed. The X-wings and y-wings seem to be the same ones with more x-wings arriving leading me to thing the scenes are not simply misordered and would place each VCX in seperate places.

  • Unlike the EF76 Nebulon-B escort frigate or the CR90 corvettes we don't see multiple VCX at the same time to confirm or deny that there were two. Its CGI and it can be a mistake from the movie just like in the Rebels episode Zero Hour the Phantom is gone during the final act but its going to be in S4. If you can get a confirmation that there's two in the battle that could help. For the moment we know the Ghost was there meaning that at least 1 VCX was present in the battle--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 08:32, July 28, 2017 (UTC)
      • While we don't see them at the same time, we have to assume that the scenes take place linearly. The fact we see one already there and then one arriving after we've already seen one implies there are at least 2.
        • That's pure speculation of our part. That's my opinion, I would love to hear what others think about this--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 08:47, July 28, 2017 (UTC)
          • I hardly see how me assuming two scenes happen in the order they're shown is speculation. It seems to me your opinion is that I should prove the movie is right and not that it's on you to confirm it's an error. I'll leave it to other people to decide. Edit: Scene I'm citing is at 1:37:48 on my copy and Netflix and the one immediately following it.

2.2 Updated with new information Edit

Hello ! I have new information for the battle of Scarif, for the death or the troops.
The information come to the book rogue one a star wars story. 

for the 108 TIE fighters in the pages 348 raddus speaks " 9 scadrons of TIE" for the Braha'tok gunship waas destroed is in the page 363 for the second hammerhead was destroyed is in the pages 366 For the 3 GR 75, we have two destroyed in the movies and one in the book, and it's an anothers, I'm sure.

  • The other Hammerhead being destroyed is on page 225/226 in the novel --Lewisr (talk) 14:27, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
    • In which chapter of the novel?--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 14:49, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
      • 19 --Lewisr (talk) 14:51, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
        • Are you referring to the hammerhead caught between the star destroyers? If it is I think that's the lightmaker in the next chapter says the lightmaker was caught between star destroyers-DarthRuiz30 (talk) 15:03, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
          • So it is, unless there are other mentions of Hammerheads in the novel (I can't see any) --Lewisr (talk) 15:07, August 28, 2017 (UTC)
            • Me neither those are the only two that I see--DarthRuiz30 (talk) 15:23, August 28, 2017 (UTC)

Empire surface casualtiesEdit

Pablo recently stated on twitter https://twitter.com/pablohidalgo/status/926609309366042625 that General Sotorus Ramda didn't survive the battle. Given this, and how Cassian and Jyn also died while next to the Imperial security complex, wouldn't others like Bozeden Jeems and Mytus Adema who were also present in the same location also have perished? I'm guessing that we haven't listed them as having died because we don't see them die, but the general consensus Lucasfilm is putting out is that no one survived on the surface of Scarif. Just my opinion but I want to hear what others think about it and whether or not its necessary to make any changes or not.--Vitus Infinitus (talk) 03:18, November 5, 2017 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't assume so, the novel says 'The Citadel had evacuated. Its officers and troops had panicked once they’d realized the Death Star’s purpose. Jyn didn’t know that for sure, but it would explain why she and Cassian encountered no one on their departure from the tower, heard only distant shouts and the rumble of shuttles.' --Lewisr (talk) 03:21, November 5, 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks for clearing that up! Thanks as always.--Vitus Infinitus (talk) 03:29, November 5, 2017 (UTC)

"Rebel alliance victory" > "Rebel alliance mission success" Edit

I propose to change the outcome "Rebel alliance victory" to "Rebel alliance mission (or tactical) success".

Here are my reasons:

  • How the battle being a victory to the Rebel Alliance is a dubious idea. Rogue One's initial attack was given no authorization from Rebel leaders, with no formal acknowledgement of the Death Star, and believing the proposed attack on Scarif to be a deliberate trap. Even after news of the engagement on Scarif reached the Rebels, Raddus ordered his command to reinforce Rogue One without any endorsement from the leadership. As such, Rebel Leadership had no knowledge of the significance of the mission objectives or even its outcome, with the sole exception of Leia, who was not in command of the battle and (without any proof from Canon) had no say in the leadership's views on Scarif.
  • Despite the Rebels managing to inflict greater damage against Imperial forces, the losses taken were still significant in comparison to the Rebel's own forces: the loss of not only corvettes and frigates, significant portions of the Rebel fighter squadrons and ground personnel, but also the death of Admiral Raddus and the loss of a capital ship (Profundity) represents a loss which would not only have impacted the Rebel's material strength to wage war, especially since the Rebellion had only recently been declared up to two years before that and may still have been fledgling, but also resulted in the death of a high ranking and skilled senior officer, which could be seen as a significant impact on Rebel leadership, while Imperial losses (only in this battle) may only have had minor impact on Imperial fighting capability, especially since the Civil War carried on for at least five years even after the first Death Star was destroyed.
  • Once again, without the Rebel leadership having any real confirmation of the Death Star's existential threat on the Rebel Alliance and the true significance of the mission, the losses on Scarif would have not only confirmed the dreaded worries of some of the leaders, but may have also been seen as an utter defeat, or a Pyrrhic victory at best; all in all, objectively speaking the lives and material lost would not have made it a clear-cut victory for the Rebels at all.

However,

  • Rogue One, without any authorization from higher-ups, completed their primary mission of extracting the Death Star plans and relaying it to members of the Alliance (Leia). This was the completion of a (as-yet unknown to the Rebels) vital mission to ensure the survival of the Rebel Alliance.
  • Despite the Rebel's significant losses, the Rebels managed to punch above their weight to inflict more losses on Imperial Forces than they suffered, including the destruction of at least two Star Destroyers (vs one capital ship lost), and an entire Complex on Scarif, and countless Imperial lives; this makes Scarif a true tactical success to the Rebels.
  • Despite not being apparent at that time, this one battle was a decisive battle that ensured the survival of the Alliance, and was hard-won.

Thus, weighing both sides, I propose the changes as mentioned, and I personally prefer "Rebel alliance mission success", and "Minor imperial strategic victory" remains unchanged.

All these things are written from an in-universe perspective, where the perspectives of all the people involved, including the mindset of the Rebel leadership at that time are considered. Deterdettol (talk) 10:28, January 6, 2018 (UTC)

  • This seems like a reasonable argument. Feel free to be bold and change it. Ayrehead02 (talk) 10:36, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
    • I've gone ahead and changed it. Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:09, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
  • What's the difference between "mission success" and "victory"? Losses shouldn't really be relevant to whether a side is victorious, just the completion of the mission. Also, the mission was authorized the moment Alliance reinforcements were officially dispatched on the orders of Mon Mothma, the leader of the Rebellion. In fact, "mission success" would be even less appropriate according to the points you have provided given that "mission" suggests an authorized operation. Like Cavalier said above, the opening crawl of A New Hope itself refers to it as a Rebel victory: "Rebel spaceships, striking from a hidden base, have won their first victory against the evil Galactic Empire." -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 11:14, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
      • Opening crawl of "A New Hope" says the Alliance has one their first VICTORY against the Empire. It is a victory, pure and simple.--Shannon, Jedi Knight (talk) 11:25, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
        • If another source specifically describes it as a victory, then as long as it is cited to that source then changing it back to victory is fine. Ayrehead02 (talk) 11:28, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
    • 1) Is "victory" an objective term that describes a force clearly prevailing over the opposing force in a conflict? 2) In the Rebel chain of command only Rogue One (and subsequently Raddus) approved the attack. Also, according to Rogue One: A Star Wars Story#Battle of Scarif, "Before the council is notified, Admiral Raddus has already sent his fleet in support of Rogue One's efforts". Therefore, unless canon evidence prevails, what you said about Mon Mothma authorizing the second wave is not true. With the success of the mission being apparent to only a few individuals, and with the ensuing losses as mentioned, in some ways it's better explained as a "mission success" rather than an overarching "victory". 3) The retroactive account of the conflict in the movie Rogue One that precipitated the events of Episode IV is peculiar. Like in real-world history, the evaluation of a conflict's outcome has to be done based on what we know, and in fiction, this is the same. Despite the clearly decisive and vital mission outcome to the Rebels, the battle itself, on its own merits, is not a full victory to the Rebels, considering the losses in relation to its full strength (that remains to be determined), but on a larger perspective, the victory to the Rebels is a vital and actually strategic one, considering the fact that without this battle, the Rebel Alliance would certainly have been destroyed and ended; how to describe the battle as a strategic victory to the Rebels would be a problematic one, as compared to the Empire's destruction of a significant portion of Rebel assets and the death of Raddus (which is a strategic success of the Imperials).
To that ends I propose a compromise: "Rebel Alliance tactical victory" or "Vital Rebel Alliance tactical victory". Deterdettol (talk) 11:29, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
  • Addendum to the above post: So despite the A New Hope crawler acknowleding Scarif a victory, we need to see the retroactive account of Scarif objectively. Deterdettol (talk) 11:37, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
      • 1) Yes, which is what I believe the Rebels did. 2) So the forces on Yavin 4, including General Merrick who was with Mothma, took orders to dispatch from someone that had already left, after Mon Mothma had been notified of Rebel forces on Scarif? No. 3) Well, that's what it says. // Honestly, I don't really understand the concern. The Rebels went there in a desperate attempt to steal the plans to the Death Star, they succeeded in that, and so it was a victory. They went there expecting it to be a slaughter, and so the losses don't make it any less of a victory. In fact, the members Rogue One expected it to be a suicide mission, so to them, their near complete destruction would have still counted as a victory (a Pyrric victory, but still a victory) given they got the plans out. The reason I put it as just "victory" was because the mission was both a tactical (stealing the plans, their objective) and a strategic (destruction of the Scarif complex and the ability to destroy the Death Star) success, making it an all-around victory. We're not even sure if the losses were that extreme since we only see a handful of ships destroyed and a reasonably acceptable number of starfighters and infantry. Either way, I still addressed the losses the Rebels suffered under "Minor Imperial strategic victory". The bottom line is: if you complete your objective, it's a victory. Call it a Pyrrhic victory or whatever if you need to (but I don't think we can be sure that applies here), but it's still a victory. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 12:35, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
        • Actually, looking at the definition for Pyrrhic victory, it wouldn't even apply to Rogue One if they had gone alone since their destruction wouldn't have been tantamount to defeat. -- Dr. Porter Resistance starbird (Talk|Contribs) 12:43, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
  • I think it should remain as simply "Alliance victory". We don't need to get into tactical, strategic, pyrrhic, etc. The crawl for A New Hope simply calls it "victory", and the Battle of Scarif was a first a mission when it was only Rogue One, but once the other Alliance forces reached Scarif, it became a full fledged battle, so calling it "mission success" is really out of context in my opinion.--Vitus InfinitusTalk 17:03, January 6, 2018 (UTC)
    • To be honest, I'm also not entirely sure how exactly Episode IV's opening crawl would be at all relevant at this point, especially when Star Wars: Rebels had the main protagonists managing to easily beat the Empire nearly every time (or at least those not named either Vader or Thrawn), making the Empire look like a bunch of incompetent boobs that, had it been applied at all realistically, the Empire would have collapsed far sooner precisely BECAUSE of incompetence on its end (not to mention arguably beating out even Rey in the Mary Sue department). And even going by Legends, there were a few instances such as X-Wing or The Force Unleashed where the Rebels had victories prior to their "first victory" (though in those cases, it was at least by the skin of their teeth rather than easy).
    • Nonetheless, they did ultimately succeed in getting the Death Star designs, so it's still ultimately a victory on their end, even if here it's closer to a pyrrhic victory than, say, a Roman triumph to borrow a phrase from Gangs of New York. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 11:33, January 8, 2018 (UTC)
  • I think my point is that though it is acknowledged as a "victory" in A New Hope's crawler, in military terms it is far from it, not with the loses incurred by the Rebels. I have already explained how so. Despite the vital significance of gaining the Death Star plans, the battle in itself didn't guarantee anything; the Rebels still had to act on the information, had to attack the Death Star, and had to destroy it, and none of these things had anything to do with Scarif directly, and would have also meant a death blow the Rebels if Yavin was unsuccesful. Based on this, despite the vital mission of Scarif, the success of the mission was not made any more significant by the subsequent battle over Yavin, and therefore in terms of military conflict, it was not a clear victory for the Rebels.
I just think that the wording should changed so it does not seem that the Rebels did not win that clear-cut a victory, and Dr. Porter no, I still don't think the Rebels prevailed over the Imperials; they merely, and just managed to escape with the plans by the skin of their teeth.
This is my point. Deterdettol (talk) 15:34, January 10, 2018 (UTC)


Gorin's fate? Edit

  • Considering he was on the bridge of his Star Destroyer a few seconds before the other Star Destroyer smashed into his and tore it to pieces, doesn't that mean that Gorin is KIA?--Shannon, Jedi Knight (talk) 08:03, May 31, 2018 (UTC)

TIE Lander or TIE Boarding Shuttle?Edit

Hey guys, I'm very confused at one scene. When the Battle of Scarif ended with Darth Vader and Governor Tarkin coming out of hyperspace as reinforcements, Vader took one Lambda-class shuttle and two TIE Fighters and two what it appears to be, TIE Lander's or TIE Boarding Shuttles? I think they are TIE Lander's because the Lander is Canon, But I'm just wondering. Let me know, if we should mark them as TIE Lander's. Star Wars Explained thinks that they are TIE Lander's. Supreme Commander Raxus (talk) 14:47, December 7, 2018 (UTC)User:SupremeCommanderRaxus

  • Ugh, yeah those. We marked them as TIE boarding shuttles originally, but a disagreement over wether or not legends names could be applied to canon subjects without other confirmation of the name led to them being removed. Fan26 (Talk) 14:53, December 7, 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh, Well... I think they are TIE Lander's, but we don't exactly know fully. Either way, we'll just have to leave it until further evidence suggests that they are the Lander's or Boarding Shuttles. :P Supreme Commander Raxus (talk) 14:59, December 7, 2018 (UTC)User:SupremeCommanderRaxus
    • Good idea, best to not assume one thing only for it then to be the other --Lewisr (talk) 15:02, December 7, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.