Why isn't the Dauntless considered "canon"?

[Soltaris]

Why isn't the Dauntless considered "canon"? Everywere I look in these forums people say that the Dauntless isn't part of the original fiction. I just don't understand why people say that. The appearance and stats are almost exactly the same as the MC 80b card that I downloaded. Is it just the name that everyone is worried about? If that's so why don't I see people complain so much about the Alliance Escort Carrier? That's really supposed to be called a Quasar Fire Cruiser and it's only supposed to have 50 fighters (4 squadrons) from what I can find from various sources.

[Cain]

Yeah....you are right ....sometimes I feal like all this SW stuff is a dogma... and nobady can change it if the change do not come from Master G Lucas ....anyway we can do better . Just see the Protector Regiment ....it is better than any stormy regiment (In Art) ... the frog face is replaced and evolved.

 

About the Dauntless I like so much that ship ....it is the only one that is almost the same in P II with no modifycations .....

[DarthFelth]

i was never a big fan of it myself, then again i dont really like most rebel ships. On the note of cannnon ships, you could say the Dreadnought isnt, the VSD after all, they wernt made by Lucas

[Shadow_of_Thrawn]

i think its just a desire for realism...from what ive seen many of us seem to have read many of the novels, and would like to see events like those played out as part of the game...as such we'd like to see viscounts, eclipses and clawcrafts in place of bulwarks and dauntlesses...