StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Actually, its not Pablo Hidalgo himself, but it is two people who seem to have had their judgement clouded by his refusal to update the databank.

In short, they are arguing that there is no such thing as the Executor and Imperator class Star Destroyers, and that Super and Imperial are the official designations (because the databank says so.) I have cited both the OT:ITW and the ROTS:ICS respectively, and pointed out that not only are they newer sources than the Imperial and Super sources, but that they take presedence over the Essential Guides and novels on the LFL canon scale. However, they have pulled a WoI on me, refusing to accept those two sources for some insane reason. Are there any other sources using those designations, or some way of breaking through they're idiocy?

I like to look at those people like one would look at a religious fanatic. No matter how much evidence you give them they still wont give in.

Out of curiousity, is your debate simply about nomenclature or is there something more involved?

Dangermouse wrote:Out of curiousity, is your debate simply about nomenclature or is there something more involved?

Its pretty much just the nomenclature.

General Zod:

Imperator Star Destroyers

What the heck is an Imperator Star Destroyer? The ones featured in the OT were Imperial then later Imperial-II class destroyers. The ones in RotS were Venator-class Star Destroyers.

Me:

Imperator is the ISD's official name, just like the Super Star Destroyer's official name is Executor-class. Imperial is simply colloquial slang (as of the ROTS:ICS.)

General Zod:

Um, no.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/starsh ... yer/?id=eu

http://www.starwars.com/databank/starsh ... yer/?id=eu

Notice in the entry for the SSD that in the movies section it references the Imperial-class Star Destroyer.

Furthermore, the SWCCG produced by Decipher lists them as Imperial-class Star Destroyers. Before anybody decries the game, without it we wouldn't have names for a lot of background characters and such.

Me:

Both of those entries are officially out of date, as are the decipher cards. Both the Imperator and Executor designations have been used in official sources (ROTS:ISC and OT:BTW) since those entries in the databank were updated. Under LFL canon policy, the new designations take precedence. The old names have been reteconned into Rebel slang for the vessels.

General Zod:

What the heck are these acronyms you keep throwing out? Also, give me proof the things have been retconned, beyond some acronyms I've never heard of or seen before.

Me:

ROTS:ICS Revenge of the Sith: Incredible Cross Sections
OT:ITW Original Trilogy Inside the Worlds

These two books, which are second to only the films and novelizations on the canon scale, specifically cite the Imperator and Executor classes as official designation for the ISD(Imperial Star Destroyer) and SSD (Super Star Destroyer) respectively. These sources place the databank in error.

General Zod

I never liked the idea of those types of books being higher up than other things in the continuity scale.

Thus, officially it's still Imperial-class and Super-class until something more official says so.

Me:

You don't like something, thus its not official. Well, gee I can't argue with that kind of logic.

And what do you mean more official? If the designations were used in novels, would that be official enough for you? How are the ICS and ITW less official than the novels?

Your baseless complaint not withstanding, Imperator and Executor classes are official, unless of course you come up with some evidence beyond "I don't like it!"

General Zod:

Well I don't like it all I really need. It's all anybody really needs.

Don't go getting all high and mighty on me because I don't like something.

And yes, if it does appear in a novel that I like sure it's official then. Until then though, as far as I'm concerned, we still have ImpStars and SSDs.

Me:

How is it that I am getting high and mighty for pointing out that your personal taste does not dictate LFL canon policy?

In any event, you are of course entitled to your own views, but since the books I mentioned are just as canon as any other non-contradicted EU source (moreso actually) the Imperator and Executor titles stand. You may not accept it, but it does not mean the rest of us cant.

And then this guy:

ARC Alpha 0-1:

No such thing as an Executor-class

Executor was the name of the Super-class Star Destroyer that was destroyed at the Battle of Endor (A-wing crash)

Me:

As I told Zod:

The Original Trilogy Inside the Worlds sourcebook, which officially has a canon status just below the movies and novelizations, states explictly that Super Star Destroyers are in fact officially Executor-class Star Destroyers. The class, like in modern warships, is derived from the name of the first ship of its type, as the Executor was. The Super designation has been reteconned as Rebel slang, not its official name.

ARC Alpha 0-1:

sorry Ackbar, wrong again. Look to the Official Guides(i.e. guide to veichals and vessals) for this kind of stuff, It says nothing about an Executor-class
Just the Super-class

Me:

The OT:ITW is newer source, which means it rakes precidence.
Besides, the Essential Guide never once says "Super-class." The official designation is simply omitted, thus it is invalid as a source in this respect.

Even putting those two facts aside, are you saying that the Inside the Worlds is simply wrong because it mentions somethin that the Essential Guide does not? What possible evidence to you have that indicates that the book has that kind of precidence?

Arc goes on to say that some secretive friend of his has this book which he would only identify as "Guide to Starships volume nine, copyright 04-05." He goes on to say that this friend says that both the Executor and Super classes exist, Supers being base models and command ships, like the Executor and Lusankya, being heavily modified Executor classes. Has anyone ever heard anything about this theory, or this book, which I am unable to find on the web?

This is all new to me.

The dude is just pulling it out of his ass. The I was told by a friend line is bull shit and you should call him on it.

Just out of curiosity what source clamed Imperial-class was just slang? Because according to ROTS:ICS the name was changed form Imperator-class to Imperial class.

RotS:ICS page 5 wrote: But the construction of the Venator-class vessels is already slowing in favor of more robust, mile-long Imperator-class (renamed Imperial-class after the Jedi Purge) and hangarless Tector-class Star Destroyers.

KhyronTheBackstabber wrote:Just out of curiosity what source clamed Imperial-class was just slang? Because according to ROTS:ICS the name was changed form Imperator-class to Imperial class.

RotS:ICS page 5 wrote: But the construction of the Venator-class vessels is already slowing in favor of more robust, mile-long Imperator-class (renamed Imperial-class after the Jedi Purge) and hangarless Tector-class Star Destroyers.

Oh. Well, I guess I was off base on that part.
I was refering more to the designation Super Star Destroyer being slang, but I shoudn't have included the Imperial in that element.

Thanks for bringing this to light.

Admiral Drason wrote:This is all new to me.

The dude is just pulling it out of his ass. The I was told by a friend line is bull shit and you should call him on it.

His response to my questioning on the Guide's full name:

That's all he told me. He's kinda weird you know? His dad is a marshal and they have the same secretive personality. Don't even bother to search for it. All i know is that he's good with all this stuff so trust him.
There were Ex-class SD but Lusankya wasn't one. I think the Razor's kiss was though
And remember this is the Star Wars universe, not our world. So you can't expect it to work like it does here.

I suspect you are correct about the bullshit here.

KhyronTheBackstabber wrote:Just out of curiosity what source clamed Imperial-class was just slang? Because according to ROTS:ICS the name was changed form Imperator-class to Imperial class.

RotS:ICS page 5 wrote: But the construction of the Venator-class vessels is already slowing in favor of more robust, mile-long Imperator-class (renamed Imperial-class after the Jedi Purge) and hangarless Tector-class Star Destroyers.

What, Is this true? The Imperator-class was renamed to Imperial-class? WTF? I've always been "brought up" by SWTC that Imperial-class was a damn slang.

My guess is that Saxton tried his hardest to say that it was just slang, but LFL wouldn't have it. I'm surprised they even allowed him to say that Imperator-class was the original.

Uhh ROTS:ICS doesn't say Imperial is just SLANG. It just says that Imperator was the original name. If the class was officaly renamed to Imperial...well...its class name is Imperial. Simple as that.

Rommie2006 wrote:What, Is this true? The Imperator-class was renamed to Imperial-class? WTF? I've always been "brought up" by SWTC that Imperial-class was a damn slang.

Basically, it is like Raynor said. Apparently, the disease is engraved too deep. LFL has a policy of not correcting their stupidity, and a policy of delaying the correction of their mistakes as long as possible.

I'm surprised he got "Star Dreadnaught" in, let alone Imperator.

Chris OFarrell wrote:Uhh ROTS:ICS doesn't say Imperial is just SLANG. It just says that Imperator was the original name. If the class was officaly renamed to Imperial...well...its class name is Imperial. Simple as that.

And so, we have yet another victim to Imperial oppression, the very ships they use for their oppression!

It is amazing the Rebels are so meek and eager to follow the Imperial line on this... when they refuse to follow for almost anything else...

I personally like the idea that it was renamed Imperial class. It satifies the people who liked the -or naming convention while also fitting in with established information.

Then again, I also adhere to the theory that the Executor is an Exectutor-class Super Star Destroyer.

Personally if I can call it an ImpStar, I'll be happy, so Imperator or Imperial is fine by me. Best piece of slang ever.

Errr. Isn't the Databank pretty low in the ranking of continuity anyway?

NecronLord wrote:Errr. Isn't the Databank pretty low in the ranking of continuity anyway?

Not if you´re a retard who loves dumb names, low firepower and has zero insight into military affairs.

Is this the same General Zod who posts here?

Is this on TOS or TFN?

On the subject of the supposed 'Super' class, point out that the command ship at the battle of Mon Calamari in Dark Empire is refered to as a super star destroyer, despite being one of the approximately two kilometer long class of warships that Dr. Saxton tentatively identifies as the Allegiance class.

The Original Nex wrote:Is this on TOS or TFN?

The TOS, hyperspace board.

Noble Ire wrote:He goes on to say that this friend says that both the Executor and Super classes exist, Supers being base models and command ships, like the Executor and Lusankya, being heavily modified Executor classes.

Honestly, this was my opinion as well, although the only basis for it is an attempt to rationalize the conflicts between the "official" 5-mile length of the "Super Star Destroyer" and the "true" 11-mile length of the Executor.

The fact that Admiral Akbar misidentified an Executor class command ship for a cruiser that's only half its size does NOT speak well of the Rebels' military intelligence.

The fact that Admiral Akbar misidentified an Executor class command ship for a cruiser that's only half its size does NOT speak well of the Rebels' military intelligence.

Doesn't the slang term "Super Star Destroyer" refer to any Imperial warship of the wedge design more massive than an ISD?

Yes, and they can´t really ignore this evidence thanks to Dark Empire´s Allegiance.