There are a lot of threads going on right now with predictions for future ships/squadrons or people gauging interest if others would like to see a certain ship in the game (nothing particularly new and definitely a good thing). In these threads, canon always gets brought up, but what I tend to see is that the canon references are from comic books, or to a lesser degree, novels. Before Disney, they had the G-canon, T-canon, C-canon, S-canon, N-canon and D-canon model, whereas certain products held more weight than others. I know that right now there seems to be the "canon is canon" mentality, which is by no means wrong, but it leaves a lot of us confused when something is canon and yet we have never heard of it before due to not reading every novel or comic book. Some people, like myself, put these into high canon and soft canon categories, which still have blurred lines. Even though "canon is canon," I personally give the movies and TV series much more weight than anything else, with the novels and video games being in the middle, and comics and visual guides being at the bottom. Obviously no wrong answers as everyone has different weights they attribute to these mediums, but just wanted to hear other people's thoughts on this since "canon" is being thrown around so much in these threads.

That's certainly a lot of Canon.

Personally I would go with a British 9 pdr.

I have read even fewer Star Wars novels and comics than yourself. I take the view that if it wasn't on screen in the ANH, ESB, ROTJ movies then basically it is just made up by some author who new nothing of war gaming at the time they dreamt up a plot device and therefore it shouldn't be used as an argument for our game one way or the other.

A bit harsh - and it does mean that my favourite armada ship, The Arquitens CL, is ruled out by my own rule.

Rebels and Rogue one I suppose can claim a second tier of credibility, especially as the SSD seems to fill up my tier one category quite nicely.

"Mouse" canon is basically the movies and series (CW, Rebels), and every book, comic, game and other stuff (encyclopaediae and others like that) that was released AFTER Disney purchased the Lucas empire. Everything that chronologically happened AFTER RotJ is not canon any more(now called Legends), while every other source is "soft canon" (so it is canon until indicated otherwise in newly released material). For example the KOTOR games are currently canon, until Disney decides that they are not canon any more.

Ninja'd by @Mad Cat

By the way, @Admiral Calkins used Canon right. Cannon is the artillery piece

Also, I think whatever Disney did so far was horrible and I hate it. EU FTW! Long live the Yuuzhan Vong!

9 minutes ago, Mad Cat said:

That's certainly a lot of Canon.

Personally I would go with a British 9 pdr.

The British 9 pdr is a very nice cannon. Good call.

1 hour ago, Admiral Calkins said:

I know that right now there seems to be the "canon is canon" mentality, which is by no means wrong, but it leaves a lot of us confused when something is canon and yet we have never heard of it before due to not reading every novel or comic book.

Eh...that's sort of like doubting humans have been to the moon because you haven't personally been there?

In the old days, the reason there were different 'levels' of canon, was because Lucasfilm put different levels of effort into managing things into a consistent narrative. Some things (films) got a lot of effort, some things (comic books and novels, usually) got much less effort, and some things (video games) Lucasfilm never bothered to try to reign in at all and just let them do whatever they wanted. So the varying levels of canon back then really just pointed to how close something was managed to fit into the overall story, and what priority to resolve the inevitable conflicts given varying levels of effort.

Disney is running the ship differently - things are either 'canon' (where they ostensibly put the same level of effort into everything that falls into this category...to create a single, consistent, overall vision for the entire setting) or 'Legends' (they don't make any attempt to manage or limit it - anything goes).

Thanks @xanderf for the detailed description on pre- and post-Disney canon and how it is managed.

26 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Eh...that's sort of like doubting humans have been to the moon because you haven't personally been there?

Not really. I think this is more “you don’t know what you don’t know” when it comes to what is out there as opposed to outright doubting it. And for me at least, if it is a canon ship that is more difficult to find (specifically in books or comics), it seems to hold less weight for me than something that is easier to access and digest such as movies and TV series.

1 hour ago, Admiral Calkins said:

if  it  is a canon ship that is more difficult to find (specifically in books or comics), it seems to hold less  weigh  t f  or me than something that is easier to access and digest such as movies and TV series. 

I would agree with what you’re saying. The Raider to me was already in my personal Star Wars canon having got it in X-Wing and then Armada before it was officially canonised in some video game. Also Victory Star Destroyers were in my personal canon starting with Deciphers CCG. It’s all personal meaning and there’s nothing wrong with that. It doesn’t make something more or less canon officially though. And FFG, I’m sure, is bound to support official canon first and foremost which is why I think people go on about canon.

I don't mind at all if a book, film, or comic is canon or not. The only thing that matters is, if I like it. I feel totally free to dislike and ignore a canon movie, or to enjoy an EU novel. I think it's kind of weird to have a sort of "official" fiction opposed to unofficial fantasy, that tells me what to "believe" or to enjoy.

FFG invented the Raider without any example in any source and I don't mind at all. It's the ship that has to convince but not its source.

But it seems that Disney does pay more interest in what kind of stuff should be allowed for licence holders than Lucas did. For that canon makes a difference. But only for that.

They certainly don't make an interest in the QUALITY of the new canon though.

15 hours ago, xanderf said:

In the old days, the reason there were different 'levels' of canon, was because Lucasfilm put different levels of effort into managing things into a consistent narrative. Some things (films) got a lot of effort, some things (comic books and novels, usually) got much less effort, and some things (video games) Lucasfilm never bothered to try to reign in at all and just let them do whatever they wanted.

That’s not exactly true. At least, I wouldn’t phrase it like that. The films paid no more attention to getting canon correct than other sources really, the difference was how much authority the different media were given to decide canon. When Zahn was writing the Thrawn books, lucasfilm rather famously sent him piles of source material so he could get the canon right, but when a film came along that paid no attention to what he wrote, the film was considered the stronger canon, just by virtue of being a film. It wasn’t about how much effort each media made, but how much authority they were given.

15 hours ago, xanderf said:

Disney is running the ship differently - things are either 'canon' (where they ostensibly put the same level of effort into everything that falls into this category...to create a single, consistent, overall vision for the entire setting) or 'Legends' (they don't make any attempt to manage or limit it - anything goes).

And this is just because the Disney canon is so young. It is unavoidable that inconsistencies will creep into the setting, and when that happens the nucanon is going to need a hierarchy, either official like before, or unofficial, to resolve them.

The byzantine levels of canonicity was also a mechanism to try "allowing" "everything" that had been created for Star Wars (including children's literature- Jedi Prince series! Glove of Darth Vader!), but to varying degrees of permission/acceptance/prevalence. I think this is because there wasn't tight oversight in what should go and what shoudln't. Anything and nearly everything went in Legends.

Rather than untangle this mess and try picking one thread of "proper-ness" or another, LFL (and Disney) decided it was better and easier for content writers to just >reset everything<. I don't blame them, and it's had positive results. The recent generations can feel on the forefront of creating new stuff surrounding the original trilogy without feeling like they missed something pivotal defined in some book twenty years ago. It's kind of exciting to see the tale about stealing the Death Star Plans, instead of trying to reconcile 3-4 different accounts of the incident from previous media.