Is this name canon? JimRaynor55 01:09, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)

  • They only called it "an Imperial troop transport" in the comic, and since it's a TIE-design I just called it that. Maybe "TIE troop transport" would be better? VT-16 13:11, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't know if we can even assume it's a TIE. It lacks the the signature TIE cockpit. And is that circle thing on the back (the one that kind of looks like it could be a TIE cockpit) supposed to be one large engine (and therefore not a twin ion engine)? I think we should stick to the closest thing it has for a canon name just to be safe, even if it's unfortunately generic. JimRaynor55 16:41, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
      • The only problem with that is, what do we do when another "Imperial troop transport" comes along? I think there already is one, somewhere on this wiki... VT-16 17:21, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
        • That could end up being a big problem indeed. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:32, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
          • There's an Imperial transport. For now though, I think this page is safe enough - Kwenn
            • For now. Admiral J. Nebulax 19:49, 22 Dec 2005 (UTC)
              • We could always make a disambiguation page if another "Imperial troop transport" pops up. JimRaynor55 19:59, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                • What would we do with this page, then? Admiral J. Nebulax 20:01, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                  • We could move it to something like "Imperial troop transport (triple-hulled)". Also, like I said before, I'm not sure we can even assume this thing is a TIE, because of its cockpit and engine. JimRaynor55 20:07, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)
                    • Still, it has the basic design of a TIE fighter, which is why I re-added the category. Admiral J. Nebulax 20:11, 23 Dec 2005 (UTC)

'Always two there are'Edit

Definitely talking about two types of transports here -I know because I'm looking at both SW 56 and 65. The one on display here, both front & back (sorry Jack), is from SW 56. The one in SW 65 has a similar front cabin design, but is more mechanical than insectile in appearance. Also, it has a hatch right in front -where the cockpit window would be on a TIE (the one here has a hatch on the side). Bodywise it almost seems like Tom Palmer was attempting to draw the TIE shuttle that Captain Needa took from the Avenger to the Executor to report losing the Millennium Falcon in ESB and took artistic liberty with what the front would look like. In no way does it have the three hulls seen in the examples shown here (which by-the-way are part of a sequence of panels depicting the approach and landing of the same craft from two different perspectives, as if it were flying past the reader). There are better views of it in SW 57, but I don't have access to a scanner.Tocneppil 22:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Retroactive continuity?Edit

This would have made no sense before the advent of Episode II and the Clone Wars, but as I look at this vehicle, its front side, which appears like the head of an insect, reminds me of the AT-TE with the gecko appearance. Would it not be reasonable to think that previous Republic vehicles during the Clone Wars such as the AT-TE inspired additional classes of Imperial vehicles. We already know of a bunch of relationships between eras, but could this be another one, that after applying a recton, would be derived from one of those newer previous vehicles? -- Riffsyphon1024 22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't this in the TIE series list/box? Edit

This surely belongs there. --Governor Jerjerrod 18:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Build A Star Wars Movie Collection