Imperial Star Destroyer or Imperator class Star Destroyer ?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-21 09:21pm

Except the Mandel blueprints were sold merchandise. By extension, yes, they are official, represent intent during the movies, and also remain consistent with nomenclature in general from Star Wars.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-10-21 10:32pm

With the ICS declared canon, Imperial class Star Destroyer became the canon name.

And the fact that they sold the Mandel blueprints doesn't necessarily make them official, Tales is a sold product but is not official, as are some of the old Marvel comics EG Hoth Stuff

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-21 10:34pm

All sanctioned Star Wars products ARE Official until declared apocryphal or labeled with Infinities.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2003-10-21 10:40pm

*shrug* Doesn't change the fact that the canon name is Imperial class

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-21 10:41pm

Ender wrote:*shrug* Doesn't change the fact that the canon name is Imperial class

I didn't refute that (to your argument, anyway). I prefer Imperator for various reasons.

Chris OFarrell · Post by **Chris OFarrell** » 2003-10-21 10:59pm

nightmare wrote:
Chris OFarrell wrote: Source?
Imperator
The first ship of this class, constructed at the KDY shipyards at Gyndine. A ship with this name followed Admiral Zaarin in his coup attempt; defeated by Thrawn's forces. (Was this the original Imperator, or a ship with a recycled name?) Imperator was also one of the destroyers recognising the authority of Imperial Intelligence Director Ysanne Isard at the time of Coruscant's fall to the New Republic, though it was absent from the capital planet's defence. This venerable ship was a formidable reputation. Its loss to the New Republic would have great symbolic importance.

Yeah I read the same thing Saxton wrote a while back. Fact is he doesn't provide the source for this claim, apparently he simply extends his belief that the Imperator was the lead ship to this description. The fact is Mandles blueprints (appart from being seriously flawed and not even BEING an ISD) have no place in Lucasfilms views. Hence, Imperial class Star Destroyer = the correct and only class name.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-10-21 11:38pm

Kuja wrote:As bad as it is, Imperial-class is still better than Super-class.

Shield of Lies, page 320 wrote: Taggar flew a steady line as he read the reports from R2-R on his cockpit display.
IDENTIFIED: ARAMADIA-CLASS THRUSTSHIP
IDENTIFIED: ARAMADIA-CLASS THRUSTSHIP
IDENTIFIED: VICTORY-CLASS STAR DESTROYER
IDENTIFIED: ARAMADIA-CLASS THRUSTSHIP
IDENTIFIED: IMPERIAL-CLASS STAR DESTROYER
IDENTIFIED: EXECUTOR-CLASS STAR DESTROYER

The list grew longer as N'zoth grew larger ahead.

The notion for an Executor-Class rather than Super-class is rather explicit in official sources. If there is a Super-class, it is probably similar enough to the Executor-class that the two are frequently mistaken as is implied in official literature.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-10-22 12:05am

Chris OFarrell wrote: Yeah I read the same thing Saxton wrote a while back. Fact is he doesn't provide the source for this claim, apparently he simply extends his belief that the Imperator was the lead ship to this description. The fact is Mandles blueprints (appart from being seriously flawed and not even BEING an ISD) have no place in Lucasfilms views. Hence, Imperial class Star Destroyer = the correct and only class name.

As I recall this was never clearly established, and this has been discussed for some time. (not that it matters much whether or not its included in any case, but its amused me that some segments have gone to great lengths to dismiss certain sources, usually out of spite. Though this is not in reference to you specifically, Chris.)

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-22 12:08am

I think that is the point here. EU says Imperial-class and UNOfficial blueprints (which are seriously flawed) say Imperator. You say people who brought you 8km Executor brought Imperial-class and thus Imperial-class is wrong?

No, it's not the size, the problem is Imperial-class is FUCKING STUPID, ok?

And the blueprints are official- with any luck, the Episode III ICS will put Imperial in its coffin where it belongs.

This is not perhaps as stupid as it sounds considering that we have seen ships in the real world U.S. Navy with names like USS America, USS President, USS Constitution, USS United States, etc.

If it was ISD Empire, or ISD Emperor or ISD Galactic Empire I'd agree. However, there is no USS American. That's the problem.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-10-22 12:26am

Except the Imperial-class designation is already canon. Changing it would be contradicting itself (and I'd rather not introduce the whole "ICS can be flaweD" crap again.)

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-22 12:28am

It wouldn't be contradicting itself as it would be two different publications in the same series.

In that case, the second can retconn the first, and there is precedent for this among sources.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-10-22 12:38am

Again, I'd be careful about that claim. What happens if the third ICS establishes firepower of an ISD at say, 20 megatons?

Using the whole "past sources overridden by future ones" is both dangerous and foolish.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-22 12:41am

Connor MacLeod wrote:Again, I'd be careful about that claim. What happens if the third ICS establishes firepower of an ISD at say, 20 megatons?

In-movie evidence contradicts it. The ICS2 would be more in line. The AOTC information would stand.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Using the whole "past sources overridden by future ones" is both dangerous and foolish.

What is this? A lesson in doublethink? If two statements on the same level are irreconcilably contradicting, one MUST be correct, and the other in error, by definition. I'd think the ICS written immediately following Ep. III would properly express the most recent LFL opinion on the ISD.

Obviously its not a constant rule, but generally on the same level, retconning does occur.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-10-22 12:49am

Illuminatus Primus wrote: In-movie evidence contradicts it. The ICS2 would be more in line. The AOTC information would stand.

If "in movie evidene" contradictd it, we would have settled the discussion long before the AOTC ICS came out.

Connor MacLeod wrote: What is this? A lesson in doublethink? If two statements on the same level are irreconcilably contradicting, one MUST be correct, and the other in error, by definition. I'd think the ICS written immediately following Ep. III would properly express the most recent LFL opinion on the ISD.

I imagine it was already established the moment the first ICS came out, else they would not have allowed "Imperial" to have been used, don't you think? Apparently the whole intent to make them canon, as I recall, was a longstanding intent going more or less back to the first ICS.

Obviously its not a constant rule, but generally on the same level, retconning does occur.

Unless some statement to such has been indicated that I am not aware of, there is no part of canon/official policy that states newer sources override others.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-10-22 01:58am

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Illuminatus Primus wrote: In-movie evidence contradicts it. The ICS2 would be more in line. The AOTC information would stand.
If "in movie evidene" contradictd it, we would have settled the discussion long before the AOTC ICS came out.

Or Trekkie's refused to accept arguments and lower limits. Feel free to argue with Mike over this, but he said that by logic, gigaton-yields are necessitated by pre-AOTC observations. This is really an appeal to popularity. Their concession has no impact on whether the observations in the movie did in fact show gigaton yields, and Mike's old calcs and arguments support that.

Connor MacLeod wrote:I imagine it was already established the moment the first ICS came out, else they would not have allowed "Imperial" to have been used, don't you think? Apparently the whole intent to make them canon, as I recall, was a longstanding intent going more or less back to the first ICS.

I think you're reading too much into it. They talk about the ICS's alot, but its mostly informative. The canon question is mostly addressed with "they would recieve LFL's official whatever as canon." But if they choose the change that at any time with a future publication, that's their directive.

According to the ESB novelisation, Hobbie and Veers died when the former rammed into the latter's AT-AT. This was retconned by the NEGTC and Rogue Squadron books, that Hobbie and Veers both survived the crash. Even later-published, lower-tier sources have retconned old canon claims.

Connor MacLeod wrote:Unless some statement to such has been indicated that I am not aware of, there is no part of canon/official policy that states newer sources override others.

Or it is established by precedent. How else do you think they override old continuity errors? Or are you going to go to LFL and inform them that Hobbie and Veers are dead in ESB?

The more recent a publication, the more that particular publication represents the current position and knowledge of LFL.

Post by **Kuja** » 2003-10-22 02:26am

Connor MacLeod wrote:The notion for an Executor-Class rather than Super-class is rather explicit in official sources. If there is a Super-class, it is probably similar enough to the Executor-class that the two are frequently mistaken as is implied in official literature.

SOTE refers to the Executor as a Super-class.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-10-22 04:03am

Illuminatus Primus wrote: Or Trekkie's refused to accept arguments and lower limits. Feel free to argue with Mike over this, but he said that by logic, gigaton-yields are necessitated by pre-AOTC observations. This is really an appeal to popularity. Their concession has no impact on whether the observations in the movie did in fact show gigaton yields, and Mike's old calcs and arguments support that.

Clearly the analogy I made did not penetrate. The ICS was a canonically backed, definitive proof of SW capabiliites. It coincided with what has already been established (in fact, it probably involved some of the very same conclusions in some form.), but it also carried the weight of approval that further demonstrated its validity in a way that only the most deliberately ignorant could refuse to accept.

Point being, the ICS left almost no room whatsoever to "ignore" the facts as presented, whereas before people could just pretend that what Mike and others presented was merely an "interpretation" of canon, no matter how valid. I find it amusing that you seem to think that I am doing something other than pointing out just how readily the ICS ended the debate, and how readily it would probably start up again were it to be nullified in some fashion (directly or by implication).

I think you're reading too much into it. They talk about the ICS's alot, but its mostly informative. The canon question is mostly addressed with "they would recieve LFL's official whatever as canon." But if they choose the change that at any time with a future publication, that's their directive.

But the two sources are (hypothetically) of same status, and the Canon/official hierarchy as such does not dictate which is to take precedence. Nice try.

According to the ESB novelisation, Hobbie and Veers died when the former rammed into the latter's AT-AT. This was retconned by the NEGTC and Rogue Squadron books, that Hobbie and Veers both survived the crash. Even later-published, lower-tier sources have retconned old canon claims.

So where exactly did it state in the TESB novelization that they died? It never indicated such in my copy. Since its not very explicit as to the fate of either, its not all that great a leap in logic to think they survived. Whereas "Imperial"-class is an explicit statement. Changing it to Imperator class at some later date is harder to rationalize. Besides, the incident hardly requires "older sources to be overriden by newer" to be reconciled since it is not a direct contradiction. Even if it were, its not like its the first time two sources of equal status conflicted (IE the EU.)

Or it is established by precedent. How else do you think they override old continuity errors? Or are you going to go to LFL and inform them that Hobbie and Veers are dead in ESB?

If they'd been indicated to have actually DIED in the book, you might have a point.

Then again, it could certainly be argued they ARE dead. By official evidence (and even implied in canon) the destruction of Endor did not happen, even though it should logically have done so no matter what the EU says. And no amount of "retconning" will do that ("retcon?" My, you do love your fancy-sounding words.) One can certainly argue that canon overrides official. But by that same token, its logical to try to harmonize apparent contradictions. But claiming "newer sources override older" is by no means "harmonizing", its an outright dismissal.

If you want to go around with your little machete and hack out bits of the canon and EU that you dislike, thats your choice. Some of us prefer a little consistency is all.

The more recent a publication, the more that particular publication represents the current position and knowledge of LFL.

Which proves what exactly? I asked for a specific statement, you give me vague implications. Nice try.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-10-22 04:06am

Kuja wrote:
Connor MacLeod wrote:The notion for an Executor-Class rather than Super-class is rather explicit in official sources. If there is a Super-class, it is probably similar enough to the Executor-class that the two are frequently mistaken as is implied in official literature.
SOTE refers to the Executor as a Super-class.

The "Super" class is officially 8 km (or second-tier canon 12.8, depending on ytour source.) The Executor itself is 17.6 km by movie canon (unless you want to get into one of those nitpicky arguments about the inaccuracies of scaling methods.) An "Executor-class" vessel, being of the same class as the Executor itself (like the Intimidator), would be of similar size.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-22 06:03am

This bickering is pointless

Sorry- had to say it- I meant that the Ep III ICS could easily correct it in a flat-out, no arguments way. Consider:

- The entire reason Dr. Saxton came up with Acclamator, Procurator and Mandator in the ICS was to further push his pro-Imperator, pro-Executor agenda against the lameness of Imperial and Super class (Super class has no fucking support, as far as I'm concerned).

- The next Republic capital ships seen in Ep III, be they ISDs or some new design, allow an opportunity for more revision for the cause of annihilating embarassing shit from the SW universe. For example:

"The x-class Star Destroyer was a direct predecessor to the Imperator and Imperator II class Star Destroyers, which were also known as Imperial-class to their Rebel opponents."

Or something.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2003-10-22 07:49am

I would like to point out to those that think Imperial-class is like saying American-class you are mistaken. If you look Imperial up in a dictionary you will find it has Adjective forms and Noun forms. I will show you the different meanings for it as a noun.

im·pe·ri·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr-l)
n.
An emperor or empress.
The top of a carriage.
Something outstanding in size or quality.
A variable size of paper, usually 23 by 33 inches (55.8 by 83.8 centimeters).
A pointed beard grown from the lower lip and chin

I bolded what have obvious applications to Imperial-class

Lets translate:
1. An emperor or empress - Emperor-class
3. Something outstanding in size or quality - Grand-class or Majestic-class (maybe Majestic is a stretch)

So I think its clear that Imperial isn't just the same as American. Does American also mean President? No. There is absolutely nothing stupid about Imperial-class.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-10-22 12:06pm

Super-Gagme wrote:I would like to point out to those that think Imperial-class is like saying American-class you are mistaken. If you look Imperial up in a dictionary you will find it has Adjective forms and Noun forms. I will show you the different meanings for it as a noun.

im·pe·ri·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr-l)
n.
An emperor or empress.
The top of a carriage.
Something outstanding in size or quality.
A variable size of paper, usually 23 by 33 inches (55.8 by 83.8 centimeters).
A pointed beard grown from the lower lip and chin

I bolded what have obvious applications to Imperial-class

Lets translate:
1. An emperor or empress - Emperor-class
3. Something outstanding in size or quality - Grand-class or Majestic-class (maybe Majestic is a stretch)

So I think its clear that Imperial isn't just the same as American. Does American also mean President? No. There is absolutely nothing stupid about Imperial-class.

Sorry, but we all know what they were thinking when they made it up- that being the exact same thing they were thinking when those stupid fucking cumstains pulled 'Super-class' out of their arses. They heard someone say it, and attached '-class' to the end. Coming up with obscure, never used forms of it from a dictionary won't change that I'm afraid.

Super-Gagme · Post by **Super-Gagme** » 2003-10-22 12:47pm

Vympel wrote:
Super-Gagme wrote:I would like to point out to those that think Imperial-class is like saying American-class you are mistaken. If you look Imperial up in a dictionary you will find it has Adjective forms and Noun forms. I will show you the different meanings for it as a noun.

im·pe·ri·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pîr-l)
n.
An emperor or empress.
The top of a carriage.
Something outstanding in size or quality.
A variable size of paper, usually 23 by 33 inches (55.8 by 83.8 centimeters).
A pointed beard grown from the lower lip and chin

I bolded what have obvious applications to Imperial-class

Lets translate:
1. An emperor or empress - Emperor-class
3. Something outstanding in size or quality - Grand-class or Majestic-class (maybe Majestic is a stretch)

So I think its clear that Imperial isn't just the same as American. Does American also mean President? No. There is absolutely nothing stupid about Imperial-class.
Sorry, but we all know what they were thinking when they made it up- that being the exact same thing they were thinking when those stupid fucking cumstains pulled 'Super-class' out of their arses. They heard someone say it, and attached '-class' to the end. Coming up with obscure, never used forms of it from a dictionary won't change that I'm afraid.

What your saying is they "someone said it and attached a '-class' to the end" so if they didn't care about meaning then what is wrong with us putting meaning to it? Imperial like American makes no sense. Imperial like Emperor or Majestic sounds good. Since Imperial is canon what do we do? Or you could keep moaning about it.

Sharp-kun · Post by **Sharp-kun** » 2003-10-22 01:29pm

I personally refer to it as Imperator-Class. Regardless of what Lucasfilm say.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2003-10-22 02:26pm

Vympel wrote:This bickering is pointless

Sorry- had to say it- I meant that the Ep III ICS could easily correct it in a flat-out, no arguments way. Consider:

Sure it *could*, but I sort of doubt it happening. Given the resistance they've exhibted on things like say, the Executor scaling, I'm doubtful they'd change their minds.

- The entire reason Dr. Saxton came up with Acclamator, Procurator and Mandator in the ICS was to further push his pro-Imperator, pro-Executor agenda against the lameness of Imperial and Super class (Super class has no fucking support, as far as I'm concerned).

And you have proof for this allegation? Saxton has perhaps been whispering his innermost intentions into your ear? (Not that I'm saying he's telling me anything of course.)

- The next Republic capital ships seen in Ep III, be they ISDs or some new design, allow an opportunity for more revision for the cause of annihilating embarassing shit from the SW universe. For example:

"The x-class Star Destroyer was a direct predecessor to the Imperator and Imperator II class Star Destroyers, which were also known as Imperial-class to their Rebel opponents."

Or something.

Assuming LFL agrees with the assessment.

I find it highly amusing that something as simple as a name can set some of you off so preposterously. I myself am more interested in seeing the canon capabilities maintained in future soures, not silly stylistic "name games."

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2003-10-22 03:19pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Except the Mandel blueprints were sold merchandise. By extension, yes, they are official, represent intent during the movies, and also remain consistent with nomenclature in general from Star Wars.

Imperial is a perfectly in-line naming convention. It fits perfectly with the later "Republic" class and is similair to, as others have pointed out, ships bearing names such as USS America and USS United States. That a vessel with similair namign convntions was chosen as lead vessel indicates little oddity.