This is the talk page for the article "Ardent-class fast frigate." This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.

• Isn't this the ship identified as an Imperial Frigate in the plans in the back of Legacy issue 11? If so, the page name would need to be changed. Vryce 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is. I'll take care of it. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 11:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Kuati warship? Edit

I know it would be an assumption, but since it's supposed to be similar in design to the Pellaeon-Class Star Destroyers... Adding the Kuat Capital Ships infobox would be too much, I think, but perhaps we should mention KDY Behind The Scenes?Gorthuar 13:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. Why not? —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 13:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is done then. Gorthuar 16:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Conjecture? Edit

Should we classify this as conjecture? I haven't read the Legacy comics (and I have no desire to), but surely it must have a class, designation, etc. Unit 8311 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

• The schematics for this ship call it an "Imperial frigate" in the back of one of the most recent issues. Although no class name is given, "Imperial frigate" is the current canon, non-conjectural name. —Grand Admiral J. Nebulax ^{(Imperial Holovision)} 20:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I am sure the class will have its name revealed in time, but so far this is LFL's only name for it. When anything additional is revealed, the article's name will be changed accordingly. VT-16 21:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Carrying capacity? Edit

So I'm curious where the number "200" came from as far as troops carrying came from. Seeing as Imperial-I (or II) class Star Destroyers could carry 9000 troops, and the Palleons can presumably carry about the same amount, and this ship is 1/4 the size of a palleon, doesn't it seem as though it should be able to carry more than 200 troops? 71.36.58.137 03:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• It fits the vessel's designation, and other frigates have a similar capacity. I do find it strange that the crew is so large and that it has only a single starfighter squadron, though. But those, too, are official numbers (SotG). Lynata 00:45, 2 June 2010 (GMT)

it might be that the ship might be a man of war. designed only for sea battles not realy designed for anything else. maybe--Chaosdemon999 (talk) 19:34, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

• Please note timestamps before posting, to avoid ressurecting inactive topics. Thread topic was two years old and long dead. NaruHina ^Talk 20:08, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Shields Contradiction? Edit

Okay, does this ship have "impressive" shielding or is it "reduced"? I do know that, technically, something can be reduced and still impressive, but given the context this does sound somewhat contradictory. This ship needs a fast sublight drive AND strong shields to perform its "wedge" function. Does anyone think this should be addressed in the article? The SotG is the newer source, after all, and its words make much more sense than the glasscannon the Encyclopedia makes the Ardent to be. Lynata 00:50, 2 June 2010 (GMT)

Turbolaser Armament Edit

5 heavy turbolaser batteries, 3 medium turbolaser batteries, 5 point-defense laser cannons. This contradicts the pictures which clearly show a group of 4 SOMETHINGS on each side of the wedge, as well as a pair of similar somethings further towards the front. Assuming that the lasers and turbolasers are not spread irregularly (3 heavy turbolasers on one side, 2 on the other, etc), something is wrong here. Are there any other sources for the armament of this ship? Kjølen 09:21, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

• We don't make or question canon, we just document it. We don't know that the formation is regular, nor do we know where other implacements could be hidden. All in all, it probably doesn't even qualify as conflicting canon, and wouldn't deserve more than one sentence or so in the BTS. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 09:26, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • So it's a perfectly reasonable assumption that dissimilar turbolasers could be arranged in a group like that? I always thought turbolasers and heavy turbolasers and laser cannons would be differing sizes, but I guess it's not my place to assume. And I know it's canon, that much I'm not arguing, but the image itself as also canon, so it at least APPEARS there is conflicting canon, OR that there are more weapon emplacements, and either way, some light should be shed on it. I'll go look for some other sources that may have more information. Kjølen 20:37, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Length Edit

One-fourth the size of a Pellaeon-class is roughly 400 meters. I don't want to put that down unless I'm allowed to though. Near-sighted Jedi 03:21, September 7, 2011 (UTC)