I can think of a number of justifiable reasons why an ISD-I(Chimaera) set is a real possibility and not just a waste of an expansion :-

1) The ISD-I differs from the ISD-II in a number of details enough to justify a new model/sculpt. (Eg. Bride detail, Tractor beam array, broadside cannons, forward dorsal cannons, engine fins, whiter painjob, Chimaera motif)

2) There has never been a toy/model/miniature of an ISD-I. Every Star Destroyer that has ever been made into merchandise is of the ISD-II variant so this is a great opportunity for FFG to be the first and possibly only manufacturer to make it.

3) A good chance to introduce specialised variants; command variant with a fleet command slot and a dedicated batteship variant(Tector) that trades engineering and squad value for more armor and firepower.

4) New titles and Commander(Thrawn, Chimaera, Executrix, Harbinger, Sovereign, etc)

Finally, canon wise there aren't alot of options in the Imperial large ship category due to the homogeneous nature of the Imperial Navy. FFG might release the lesser known Star Destroyer classes down the line but for now their priority seems to be ships from the TV series and films.

Also, I think FFG might be waiting to the see if TLJ introduces new ships (hopefully it does)before dipping their feet into the sequel trilogy.

12 hours ago, Norsehound said:

People keep requesting the Tector, but I didn't think the ship has any difference from the standard Imperial except the bottom hangar is closed up? How is that different?

I don't think it'll ever happen because it would be impossible to tell the two ships apart from across the table without upending the model. Not without redesigning the other side of the ship.

Considering the sheer amount of .... debate.... on this forum about the different shapes ISDs have been over the years and which ones are.... proper.... Im sure making them look sufficiently different to make their identification simple wouldnt be a problem.

And more HP, more weaponry and/or shielding for near to no squadron value is a viable tradeoff and would give us another ship card or two. The ISD 1/2 is currently an all rounder large ship, the Tector would be a dedicated battleship.

I did forget Tie Hunters

This one:

And this one:

And this too:

And why not this one too?:

I would like to see the Resurgent class battlecruiser appear in a wave soon but it probably won't come out until after episode 8 is released which will hopefully have resistance/ new republic warships (to go along with the resugrent class in the wave) and hopefully some sort of battle between the first order and the Republic/resistance warships (Then again I wouldn't complain if we got the Resugrent sooner )

The only Imperial ship I want that I do not yet have is the Venator Class Star Destroyer, After the Venator is in do what ever you want

But I always disliked the examples OP gave as Imperial ships, I never thought they fit into the Imperial aesthetic very well.

If they ever re-introduce the dreadnaught from the original Thrawn trilogy into canon that pirate group with the stolen SSD out in wild space may be the best way to do it. Just make it an Old Republic fleet that got lost (keeping most of the original story) but have the pirates find them instead of the Empire/New Republic. Then we have a viable Scum faction. Maybe even mix in the Carrack and the Lancers into the lost fleet just for some good fan service but I'm not interested in seeing them in the Imperial fleet.

Edit: and maybe an Acclamator if they give it the ability to hold 2 boarding parties

1 hour ago, Swusn said:

Edit: and maybe an Acclamator if they give it the ability to hold 2 boarding parties

Think of what else you could do with Double-Offensive - Double-Gunnery Slots.

On 24.3.2017 at 4:19 PM, Norsehound said:

People keep requesting the Tector, but I didn't think the ship has any difference from the standard Imperial except the bottom hangar is closed up? How is that different?

I don't think it'll ever happen because it would be impossible to tell the two ships apart from across the table without upending the model. Not without redesigning the other side of the ship.

Four Gozanti hangars on top!

Go TeamGozTector!

On 3/24/2017 at 3:19 PM, Norsehound said:

People keep requesting the Tector, but I didn't think the ship has any difference from the standard Imperial except the bottom hangar is closed up? How is that different?

It also seems to be missing its belly dome (possibly the reactor is positioned differently).

Assuming for the moment that it's visible in the fleet shots before the Falcon flyby - just being indistinguishable from the rest - then it needs to look enough like an ISD that it can be mistaken for one from a long distance.

But that still allows for details - redesigns of the top of the ship that don't change its shape too much - extra armour, bigger guns, etc.

On 3/24/2017 at 0:20 AM, Norell said:

We alrrady have ISDs. I think new ISD expabsions will be released in somethng like CC. N9 new ships but new cards.

Dreadnoughts and Carracs would be great but as new Disneyverse movies are coming it is morel likely that we'll see whatever the mouse is throwing at us rather than any EU stuff.

Dreadnoughts are Cannon

As has been mentioned the venator is a solid choice as it has shown up in multiple books. And has high demand.

i could also see acclamators but I'm not sure if there is any Cannon reference of the empire using them. And what role would it serve as the non Cannon, I think, vsd i feel would fill that roll in the game.

37 minutes ago, Tirion said:

Dreadnoughts are Cannon

As has been mentioned the venator is a solid choice as it has shown up in multiple books. And has high demand.

i could also see acclamators but I'm not sure if there is any Cannon reference of the empire using them. And what role would it serve as the non Cannon, I think, vsd i feel would fill that roll in the game.

Acclamators were planetary assualt craft mainly carried troops and land attack vehicles. In Armada could actually as a boarding platform as well as a missle boat but not really sure.

44 minutes ago, Tirion said:

Dreadnoughts are Cannon

As has been mentioned the venator is a solid choice as it has shown up in multiple books. And has high demand.

i could also see acclamators but I'm not sure if there is any Cannon reference of the empire using them. And what role would it serve as the non Cannon, I think, vsd i feel would fill that roll in the game.

Dreadnaughts are what they are calling SSDs now. I don't think they have broight back the EU dreadnaught.

On 3/23/2017 at 10:00 PM, Wraithdt said:

2)Venator Class SD - no sure how this will work considering we already have the VSD & ISD to fill out carrier \battleship role.

Imperial heavy Broadside ship. I think the imps need that. The light cruiser started to fill that void in imp line up but a heavier ship is still needed.

5 hours ago, Swusn said:

Dreadnaughts are what they are calling SSDs now.

It's what they used to call big SSDs, too (small ones were called battlecruisers).

These days, (Complete Locations updated reprint) "SSD" is used for the Executors and "other massive capital ships" but we haven't yet got evidence of a battlecruiser subclass of SSD- it tends to be treated as only applying to Star Dreadnaughts. Praetor-class Star Battlecruisers still exist though (mentioned in aforesaid updated reprint).

47 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

It's what they used to call big SSDs, too (small ones were called battlecruisers).

These days, (Complete Locations updated reprint) "SSD" is used for the Executors and "other massive capital ships" but we haven't yet got evidence of a battlecruiser subclass of SSD- it tends to be treated as only applying to Star Dreadnaughts. Praetor-class Star Battlecruisers still exist though (mentioned in aforesaid updated reprint).

Wrooooong!

Dreadnoughts are capital ships used in the Clone Wars then called back from mothball during the GCW by both sides. I'm talking about this one.

Note: I'm not completely familiar with how Disney messed up everything so I stick to EU terms.

The first source to describe SSDs as being divided into two categories (dreadnought, and battlecruiser) was The Essential Guide To Warfare - which was pre-Disney.

The EU's "Dreadnaught-class heavy cruiser" could in theory be brought into the newcanon. Possibly, given how much it resembled ROTS's Providence-class vessel, it could be a precursor to that type of ship.

On 3/24/2017 at 7:52 PM, Wraithdt said:

I can think of a number of justifiable reasons why an ISD-I(Chimaera) set is a real possibility and not just a waste of an expansion :-

1) The ISD-I differs from the ISD-II in a number of details enough to justify a new model/sculpt. (Eg. Bride detail, Tractor beam array, broadside cannons, forward dorsal cannons, engine fins, whiter painjob, Chimaera motif)

2) There has never been a toy/model/miniature of an ISD-I. Every Star Destroyer that has ever been made into merchandise is of the ISD-II variant so this is a great opportunity for FFG to be the first and possibly only manufacturer to make it.

3) A good chance to introduce specialised variants; command variant with a fleet command slot and a dedicated batteship variant(Tector) that trades engineering and squad value for more armor and firepower.

4) New titles and Commander(Thrawn, Chimaera, Executrix, Harbinger, Sovereign, etc)

Finally, canon wise there aren't alot of options in the Imperial large ship category due to the homogeneous nature of the Imperial Navy. FFG might release the lesser known Star Destroyer classes down the line but for now their priority seems to be ships from the TV series and films.

Also, I think FFG might be waiting to the see if TLJ introduces new ships (hopefully it does)before dipping their feet into the sequel trilogy.

Keep in mind, Disney has the CGI template for the ISD-I. Using this CGI template (rather than a copy of the current ISD-II with a few tweaks) it would put an end to the ISD shapes debate.

23 minutes ago, Gadgetron said:

Keep in mind, Disney has the CGI template for the ISD-I. Using this CGI template (rather than a copy of the current ISD-II with a few tweaks) it would put an end to the ISD shapes debate.

Not really. There will still be people who insist that the Rogue One ISDs do not match the ANH ISD (gun shape, bridge module), and ought to be a different class- "Dauntless-class"

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/the-star-destroyer-bridges-of-the-original-trilogy.50044307/page-3

58 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

Not really. There will still be people who insist that the Rogue One ISDs do not match the ANH ISD (gun shape, bridge module), and ought to be a different class- "Dauntless-class"

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/the-star-destroyer-bridges-of-the-original-trilogy.50044307/page-3

However Disney is now the definitive source, it's just like those holding onto the old legends material, as much as they want it to be, it's not canon.

Disney's CGI ISD-I is official, and it's the official template here on out. When and if they make a CGI ISD-II, that will be the official one going forward.

...unless they design different ones for every movie from now on... then we're back where we started...

11 minutes ago, Gadgetron said:

However Disney is now the definitive source, it's just like those holding onto the old legends material, as much as they want it to be, it's not canon.

The argument basically boils down to "what we see on screen contradicts Disney statements, therefore Disney statements are erroneous and can be ignored"

Saxton took a similar approach to the 8km SSD, 120 km DS1, etc. Eventually, he won - worked with James Luceno on Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy - and got his estimates to replace the old official ones.

Possibly these people will try and do a Saxton and get their ideas canonized, replacing the old ones.

Just now, Ironlord said:

The argument basically boils down to "what we see on screen contradicts Disney statements, therefore Disney statements are erroneous and can be ignored"

Saxton took a similar approach to the 8km SSD, 120 km DS1, etc. Eventually, he won - worked with James Luceno on Inside the Worlds of the Star Wars Trilogy - and got his estimates to replace the old official ones.

Possibly this people will try and do a Saxton and get their ideas canonized, replacing the old ones.

That would require a massive effort, with massive backing, and look into our forums for the star destroyer shape threads... they get messy.

I think with Disney releasing the CGI ISD-I in Rogue One, it could end that debate and finalize a fixed appearance.

And who's Saxton? Was he on that forum you linked?

5 minutes ago, Gadgetron said:

And who's Saxton? Was he on that forum you linked?

Nope.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Curtis_Saxton

but it's a similar methodology being applied in that thread.

18 hours ago, Swusn said:

Dreadnaughts are what they are calling SSDs now. I don't think they have broight back the EU dreadnaught.

Tarkin's book

2 minutes ago, Tirion said:

Tarkin's book

Maybe catalyst

2 minutes ago, Tirion said:

Tarkin's book

That had Carracks, and various classes of Interdictor - but not Dreadnaught-class cruisers, otherwise Wookieepedians would have already noticed and created a canon page for the ship class.