However, with the Starship Battles Preview 1 preview article on October 19th 2006, the Super-class was retconned as explicitly fake, being used to hide the much larger Executor Star Dreadnought class. This kept the 8 km Super-class as a possibility, as these ships could be regarded as belonging to a different class from Executor.

On March 9th 2006, the Wizards of the Coast SW Q&A section reiterated that the Executor was 19 km, 'as are all Super Star Destroyers of the same class' (Jedi Counseling 84). Some controversy was made over the issue as many older sources described the Executor as either an 8 km or 12.8km long Super-class Star Destroyer. Since 2004, the Executor-class were described as Star Dreadnoughts at 19km in length. Wookiepedia-Super Star Destroyer Entry wrote: Location: Washington, DC (AKA Inside the Beltway) So does ANYONE know where/when the first mention of SSD's being 19k came from?Д¬onfucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! Heck, even the 1996 printing of the Star wars Essential guide to vehicles and vessels says its 8k. Then we had Wanted by cracken, which also lists it at 8k. Then we have the same 8k for SSds in the Imperial sourcebook. The first WEG book that listed the Executor was the Galaxy guide 3, ESB, which listed it at 8,000 meters length. And another commenter mentioned about the whole 8k or 19k issue. Someone else then commented, well they do look small when compared to the SSD from ESB and ROTJ. Over on Gateworld's Starwars sub-forum where we are discussing Rogue 1, someone commented that those 'ISD mark 1's that they saw, didn't look like they were the 1.4k that ISDs normally are. Posted: Wed 1:09 am Post subject: 8k,19k Super star destroyer discrepancy? > 8k,19k Super star destroyer discrepancy? The Rancor Pit :: View topic - 8k,19k Super star destroyer discrepancy?

Star wars technical commentaries