StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Imperial is canon, thanks to WEG and the original ICS.

Batman wrote:I see the term 'Expanded Universe' is a stranger to you.

Sources? And please refrain from commenting if you miss the point or just don't know. Thanks

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Darwin wrote:And Imperator will be the canon class name as soon as Dr Saxton gets a chance anyhow.

how do you figure? If the Imperial-class designation is already canon, at best that would mean that the waters are muddied. Its not going to invalidate "Imperial." automatically.

He doesn't need to confront it directly.
Assume a new ICS level book in which he says: "The 1606 meter long Imperator class star destroyer which is widely (even high ranked imperial officers are said to use that slang in informal occasions) called Imperial class ..."- and that' s all. Since it doesn't say: "It is not Imperial class and all other resources are wrong!", it does not contradict, only adds a "small" piece to the current materials.

"Yeah, you can call the Executor a super star destroyer, but if you want to be correct, it is a star dreadnaught" - I think it will be something similar with the ISDs.

Luckily in terms of the revisionist-idiot attempts against the OT:ITW, we have a quote from Leland Chee specifically endorsing the Executor size acknowledgement as being from the films. Some idiots tried to argue that a "common Star Destroyer" wasn't actually referring to an ISD, never mind the fact that no other Star Destroyer in the GFFA could possibly fit the ITWs description and come out anywhere close to the bullshit 12.8km size, so their pathetic databank cum-chugger argument held no water.

The reason I choose Imperator as the class name is because the official class name of a ship is the first ship of the class and I think having the fisrt ISD being named the Imperial just doesn't sound right. Also, the RPGs have shown themselves to be unreliable as sources because of the fact that they call the destroyers in the Corellian trilogy Bakura Class Star Destroyers and the mess they've made of the Nebula/Defender SD and the whole "Super" Class Star Destroyer fiasco.

vakundok wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Darwin wrote:And Imperator will be the canon class name as soon as Dr Saxton gets a chance anyhow.

how do you figure? If the Imperial-class designation is already canon, at best that would mean that the waters are muddied. Its not going to invalidate "Imperial." automatically.

He doesn't need to confront it directly.
Assume a new ICS level book in which he says: "The 1606 meter long Imperator class star destroyer which is widely (even high ranked imperial officers are said to use that slang in informal occasions) called Imperial class ..."- and that' s all. Since it doesn't say: "It is not Imperial class and all other resources are wrong!", it does not contradict, only adds a "small" piece to the current materials.

"Yeah, you can call the Executor a super star destroyer, but if you want to be correct, it is a star dreadnaught" - I think it will be something similar with the ISDs.

That assumes the empire has only one type of mile-long warship (or even one type of wedge-shaped Imperial warship.) Short of including a fucking diagram of an OT Star Destroyer with a big neon sign pointing to it, there's no way to make it a certainty.

EDIT: Besides, how does that supposedly prove one is supposed to be more "correct" over another? It just suggests that there is a "in universe" disagreement over what they call it (some people call it Imperator, some Imperial, but neither has been proven correct.)

EDIT2: And the OT ICS is a "technical guide' not some person making an offhand comment or using a RPG resource (like with Super Star Destroyer.) The context gives it as the accurate name, not incorrect slang.

Vympel wrote:Luckily in terms of the revisionist-idiot attempts against the OT:ITW, we have a quote from Leland Chee specifically endorsing the Executor size acknowledgement as being from the films. Some idiots tried to argue that a "common Star Destroyer" wasn't actually referring to an ISD, never mind the fact that no other Star Destroyer in the GFFA could possibly fit the ITWs description and come out anywhere close to the bullshit 12.8km size, so their pathetic databank cum-chugger argument held no water.

But it illustrates how evidence can be twisted to make it seem like somethign else. (The whole ITW thing regarding Endor is a much better example, though. like with what Pablo "posted" on SW.com)

NRS Guardian wrote:The reason I choose Imperator as the class name is because the official class name of a ship is the first ship of the class and I think having the fisrt ISD being named the Imperial just doesn't sound right. Also, the RPGs have shown themselves to be unreliable as sources because of the fact that they call the destroyers in the Corellian trilogy Bakura Class Star Destroyers and the mess they've made of the Nebula/Defender SD and the whole "Super" Class Star Destroyer fiasco.

Irrelevent. Imperial is the class designation.

Indeed Alyeska is correct, and this is coming from someone so pro-Imperator it isn't funny. This thread really serves no purpose, I don't want to see this decided argument flare up.