Another KDY Star Battlecruiser?

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2004-10-05 11:21pm

Sorry if this has been brought up before, but after looking at this picture
http://www.wizards.com/starwars/images/ ... 220_GS.jpg
from Starships of the Galaxy by WOTC, and comparing it to the pictures of of the Executor in the EGTV&V and those on Saxton's site it definitely doesn't look like an Executor not even a poorly drawn one. So could it be another class of large Imperial warship? Also, on the WotC website it is only labeled as a Star Destroyer and isn't labeled in SotG.
For those that argue it isn't that different from an SSD here is a rundown of the differences I have noticed between this ship and the Executor.
1. No ventral reactor bulb on WotC ship.
2. Less extensive terraced superstructure.
3. No reccess or notch for the ventral hanger bay.
4. Ventral hull plating doesn't go back as far as that on the Executor.
5. at least 3 miles shorter than Executor's movie length.
6. Bridge tower on the fantail, rather than forward of the fantail as with the Executor.
7. Different engine configuration.
Those were all the differences I could notice and seem at least to me to be enough to show that it is a different ship from an Executor and even different from the suggested 8 km SSD/Star Battlecruiser.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2004-10-05 11:39pm

In my opinion, it's just an Executor-class star dreadnaught.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-10-05 11:44pm

I'm actually starting to wonder if we cannot consider some really bad apparent Executors as other vessels; certainly some ships intended as ISDs clearly do not match and have been considered new classes. Where I don't support this for ships that are clearly said and considered to be of the Executor's class, this does not apply all around.

ANH Infinities had some odd Executor-esque ships which could be other vessels.

Gustav32Vasa · Post by **Gustav32Vasa** » 2004-10-05 11:49pm

Looks like an Executor to me.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-10-05 11:50pm

And being Infinities is N level canon unless I'm greatly deceived, so why does it matter?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2004-10-05 11:52pm

Rogue 9 wrote:And being Infinities is N level canon unless I'm greatly deceived, so why does it matter?

I was just giving another functional examples of the phenomenon being described, if it cannot be applied.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-10-05 11:52pm

And why are you breaking a link to the WotC site? They're hardly a source of trolls.

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2004-10-06 01:36am

The reason I broke the link is I wasn't sure about the policy better to be safe than sorry.

Anyways how can you say that is an Executor it only has the rough a similarity in shape to the Executor. But besides that there is little resemblance. The hanger's farther back than it's supposed to be and the hull sticks out rather than being notched where the hanger is, there's no reactor bulb, the ventral hull plating doesn't go back far enough, and the crenelated superstructure doesn't cover enough of the dorsal hull for it to be an Executor. If that is an Executor the artist not only didn't do his homework he didn't even do a very good job even the Lusankya in Crimson Empire bears more resemblance to an Executor and it's one of the less well done depictions of an Executor. Hell if that's supposed to be an Executor I could do a better job of drawing it than who ever WotC got and I only draw SW ships as a hobby every once in a while.

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2004-10-06 01:55am

I tend to take a stance similar to that put forward by IP. If the ship is explicitly and reasonably stated to be an Executor-class ship, then it is so, regardless of how poorly drawn it is.
But, if it is not specifically stated to be an Executor, then each distinctly drawn vessel can be attributed to a new class. The ship in question does in passing resemble Executor, but the resemblance does not survive close inspection. SoD would therefore dictate that we assign it to a new class.
And really, this practice shouldn't upset anyone. With the scope of the GFFA and the demonstrated variety of Imperial and Republic warships, it is trivially easy to accept a large number of ship classes. Not only does the staggeringly vast galactic economy allow for a plethora of ship types to be manufactured simultaneously, but also the fact that the galactic society is ancient and the galactic technology level is high and stable means that any given ship could very well be many hundreds of years old.

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2004-10-06 02:19am

It'd help to sort this out if WotC gave a drawing for the Executor entry instead of a photo, and one of the worst photos you could possibly pick at that. If WotC did explicitly label it an Executor I'd accept it, however they don't so that leaves the door open to it being something other than an Executor.
I was at first tempted to call it a Procurator or Mandator but it doesn't have a ventral reactor bulb and the AOTC:ICS was explicit about that feature being included in the Procurator and Mandator classes. However, Saxton and the ITW do mention a Praetor-class SBC (the reactor on Hoth is said to be from a Praetor).

Post by **NecronLord** » 2004-10-06 04:15am

Frankly, given the vast scope of the empire, it wouldn't surprise me if the same type of ship gets extensive modifications from one end of it to the other.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2004-10-06 04:19pm

Given its similarity to the 5 (or 8) mile so-called "Super-class" from WEG (which is a distinct vessel given its statistics, distinct and varied visual and structural differencse from the canonical Executor, etc.) its probably more or less a varient of the 5(8) mile ship optimized for ship to ship combat (much the way some ISDs, or the Alleigance, lacked hangar capability.)

Currald · Post by **Currald** » 2004-10-06 06:29pm

There will frequently be quite a lot of variation among members of a given class; they are almost never identical.

President Sharky · Post by **President Sharky** » 2004-10-06 06:33pm

I didn't want to create a new thread for this, but I believe that Star Wars: Tales #21 (which now contains canon stories) does indeed have a new KDY Star Dreadnaught present in orbit of Coruscant during the time of the Republic. The ship can be partially seen in the first panel of the preview for the story "Nomad", which takes place in the prequel era according to the symbol beside the title. Note that the Republic already has TIE fighters in service as well.

Lord Revan · Post by **Lord Revan** » 2004-10-06 06:53pm

President Sharky wrote:Note that the Republic already has TIE fighters in service as well.

the orginal T.I.E starfighter was created during Republic era (IIRC)

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2004-10-06 08:45pm

President Sharky wrote:I didn't want to create a new thread for this, but I believe that Star Wars: Tales #21 (which now contains canon stories) does indeed have a new KDY Star Dreadnaught present in orbit of Coruscant during the time of the Republic. The ship can be partially seen in the first panel of the preview for the story "Nomad", which takes place in the prequel era according to the symbol beside the title. Note that the Republic already has TIE fighters in service as well.

I saw that. I thought it might be a Mandator, or it could be the link between the Mandator and Executor, a ship with capabiltities similar to a Mandator only with a Galactic-range hyperdrive and the hypermatter fuel tanks to go with it, instead of the Sector-range hyperdrive of the Mandator.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2004-10-07 09:49am

The previwe doesn't show enough to draw much in the way of conclusions. I presume the actual issue has a bit more?

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-10-07 09:56am

nightmare wrote:The previwe doesn't show enough to draw much in the way of conclusions. I presume the actual issue has a bit more?

The preview shows them having an ISD style fighter bay on the bottom instead of the dorsal opening they have. That's a pretty big difference.

nightmare · Post by **nightmare** » 2004-10-07 01:25pm

Ender wrote:
nightmare wrote:The previwe doesn't show enough to draw much in the way of conclusions. I presume the actual issue has a bit more?
The preview shows them having an ISD style fighter bay on the bottom instead of the dorsal opening they have. That's a pretty big difference.

I was under the impression that Sparky means the ship with partial dorsal view in the bottom of the first panel, not the Acclamators (or Acclamator-like, given the Class II).

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2004-10-07 01:28pm

nightmare wrote:
Ender wrote:
nightmare wrote:The previwe doesn't show enough to draw much in the way of conclusions. I presume the actual issue has a bit more?
The preview shows them having an ISD style fighter bay on the bottom instead of the dorsal opening they have. That's a pretty big difference.
I was under the impression that Sparky means the ship with partial dorsal view in the bottom of the first panel, not the Acclamators (or Acclamator-like, given the Class II).

... shit, I didn't even notice that. I figured it was suppossed to be the planets surface. Now that it got pointed out... damn.

Well, different tower, massive sphere, so it's something new.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Another KDY Star Battlecruiser?

Another KDY Star Battlecruiser?

Re: Another KDY Star Battlecruiser?