Talk: TIE/ca Punisher/Legends

Is this image fan art? JimRaynor55 22:25, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• nope, Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds is an 2D isometric game which uses 2D sprites such as these. -- Falmarin 22:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • What he said ^. I used some software I have to rip the sprites from the game, then I used Microsoft Image Composer to mirror some of the sprites and compile the shot. Shadowtrooper _talk 04:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• That's an image up an upgraded TIE Bomber, not an Interdictor. Either of these images from the Databank would be fine: [1] or [2] --SparqMan 05:09, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• This is an article about the TIE Interdictor, not the TIE Interceptor JimRaynor55 09:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Is this craft actually called "TIE Interdictor" in the game? I don't think so. "Some pilots speculated the reason for their unpopularity might have been that the one pilot had to not only fly the craft but control the complex weapons sytems." is this fanon?. - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
  • It's definitely called "TIE Interdictor" in a canon source. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • And what is that canon source? - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
      • I'm afraid I don't have time right now to look it up. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Until the source is found, though, I wouldn't mind having it at Advanced TIE Bomber. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait! — Aiddat ^{(Holonet) (Contribs Log)} 12:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have the source? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the game (GB) if you have the help tips on and hover over a unit's production icon when you select the building you build it at, a text box shows up. The box lists its cost, official name (instead of "Advanced Bomber", "Mech Destroyer", etc), a small description, and health and armor stats. Hovering over the Empire's advanced bomber shows the name "TIE Interdictor". — Aiddat ^{(Holonet) (Contribs Log)} 12:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Excellent. Thank you. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Interesting, thank you. - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
  • Too bad I got rid of the game after I was done. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • Well, no one is going to fault you on that, it was little more that an Age of Empires total conversion. By the way, Aiddat, can you upload screenshots from GC with the in-game descriptions for all those "advanced" units? - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
      • What, you don't trust Aiddat? Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 14:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• • • • Sure, if my disks are okay, I'll reinstall GB. I'll see to it now. — Aiddat ^{(Holonet) (Contribs Log)} 15:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and just because we only have one voice answering doesn't mean there is only one crew member. When a Star Destroyer reports, only the captain does, not every crew member on board. — Aiddat ^{(Holonet) (Contribs Log)} 15:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

There. I stripped it down to what we know. It seems like it might be a little longer than the TIE/sa, too. And you can't tell if it has missile ports, it only drops bombs in the game. — Aiddat ^{(Holonet) (Contribs Log)} 15:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I reinstalled GB, but my playdisk is broken. I'll fix that later. — Aiddat ^{(Holonet) (Contribs Log)} 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for your efforts - NobodyExpectsTheSpanishInquisition
  • Well, we've got your confirmation, and that's all we need. Thanks again, Aiddat. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistake

Wait, the Advanced Tie Bobmer and Tie interdictor are two different ships in the game. The pic is the Tie interdictorJustinGann 12:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• Could you provide an Advanced TIE Bomber picture? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 12:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Name change

TIE/ca Punisher was created as a Canon article, but will soon be deleted as just a new name/designation does not qualify for this ship to be Canon, even though the Conversion Kit was released after 2017. Once it gets deleted, I believe this page should be moved to the TIE/ca Punisher namespace. It is a bomber, plain and simple. It does not have any ability to create an interdiction field. Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds, which first called it an Interdictor, was released 18 years ago. The most recent sources for this ship are FFG's X-Wing Miniatures Game TIE Punisher Expansion Pack and Star Wars: X-Wing Second Edition Galactic Empire Conversion Kit which identifies this ship as the TIE/ca Punisher. Both these sources were released 4 years and under 1 year ago respectively. As it reflects the most current name, and also it removes the inaccurate "Interdictor" from the name. The former name could be moved to the Bts section or something. Thoughts? - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 14:42, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

• I'd suggest against renaming the article. Just because it's the most recent name doesn't mean it's the name we should go by. We don't have a Darth Sidious/Legends article, or a Darth Vader article, or even a Moraband article, and those are technically most recent.
• Besides, the name Interdictor has absolutely nothing to do with interdiction fields. It actually is the name of a specific type of bomber craft that operates deep within enemy territory that's used primarily for interdicting, that is to say, making preventative measures against an enemy before a conflict happens, an enemy's logistics locations. In other words, "Interdictor" in this particular case refers to a specific type of bombing run.
• We could note the name origin of "TIE Interdictor" in the behind the scenes section and what it entails as a compromise, though. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:10, May 1, 2019 (UTC)