http://www.therpf.com/f10/star-destroyer-3-a-116225/ Here's a nice sized model to use "some assembly" required*

*may take a few hrs to get through the awesomeness of the build reading that thread

To address the "don't you trust FFG?" issue, I think it's a red herring. Of course FFG could put together a balanced, fun rules package representing an Imperial opposite number to the CR-90. What the anti-ISD group is saying is that rules package is very different from what you'd get if you looked at the canon descriptions of ISDs and developed a rules package based on them instead.

I don't buy into "it can't be done." I buy, "That seems difficult, let's figure out the problems and deal with them" I am willing to bet that the designers at FFG feel the same. And they are right to do so.

An ISD could ram a CR90 and not even feel it. It would be like a semi-truck running over someone on a bicycle.

More like a semi running over an ant.

To address the "don't you trust FFG?" issue, I think it's a red herring. Of course FFG could put together a balanced, fun rules package representing an Imperial opposite number to the CR-90. What the anti-ISD group is saying is that rules package is very different from what you'd get if you looked at the canon descriptions of ISDs and developed a rules package based on them instead.

And I think they're wrong. It's pessimism over what can be done with creativity. A Star Destroyer should wipe the floor with the Corvette, but Star Wars made it very clear that the Empire was not equipped to handle small fighters with their capitol ships several times. Thus, when it comes to dealing with fighters a Star Destroyer just isn't that useful. It isn't what they were designed for, making their anti-fighter point cost pretty low.(This can be represented with lots of low dice attacks. It will allow the Detroyer to eat low agility Capitol ships while having trouble against X-wings, A-wings, and the like. We need something other than a Tie Swarm that can chew through B-wings and YT's. A Star Destroyer seems a good fit. Take my example earlier. 8 2 Dice attacks can wipe out a CR-90 in two turns. Seems a fair amount of time for that fight. But a bunch of X-wings? It might kill one a round. But if you make a hevay ship designed to kill those fighters you give it 4-5 attack diceo it can take out the more agile ships while not having enough attacks to seriously hinder the bigger ships.

I don't buy into "it can't be done." I buy, "That seems difficult, let's figure out the problems and deal with them" I am willing to bet that the designers at FFG feel the same. And they are right to do so.

You havebt even come close to addressing the issue I raised, which is that a representation of an ISD that's balanced against the Corvette would differ substantially from a representation of an ISD that's derived from a consensus of canon.

Or, to put it another way--an ISD doesn't need to be balanced against one corvette, it needs to be balanced against three or four.

That's outside the scope of the game. And outside of what is Canon from a technical standpoint. We just don't know where that comparison is because nothing on film really shows it, and the EU stuff barely ever raised that question, if at all. Besides which, that fight is easy, 1 Corvette Jettisons it's crew and rams the thing while the other three weaken the Star Destroyers shields and pick up the pieces. Sure it could outfirepower them, but it would never win the fight. If an A-wing can kill a Super Star Destroyer a Corvette can cripple a Victory Class Destroyer. The same tactic applies 2 on 1 and would end with all 3 ships dead(Most likely.) Given what we've seen of the Corvette what I've described is still more than accurate enough for this game.

That's outside the scope of the game. And outside of what is Canon from a technical standpoint. We just don't know where that comparison is because nothing on film really shows it, and the EU stuff barely ever raised that question, if at all.

It's not outside the scope of the game, because FFG has been very careful about respecting canon. And I'm not sure at all why you think descriptions of the ISD are outside canon, since the EU does cover the ISD and its capabilities fairly extensively--albeit not always in agreement with other EU sources.

Also.. we aren't talking Victory class SDs... ISDs are 1600 meters long... Victories are 900 big difference... This may be where your confusion lies...

Do you realize a scale ISD is about 16 feet in this game... now tell me that would look good at 2 feet... sorry, that's ludicrous

Also.. we aren't talking Victory class SDs... ISDs are 1600 meters long... Victories are 900 big difference... This may be where your confusion lies...

Do you realize a scale ISD is about 16 feet in this game... now tell me that would look good at 2 feet... sorry, that's ludicrous

C'mon Oneway, you know that's all based on personal preferences. A 2 foot Star Destoryer would be sweet and look awesome while still being able to be transported without a huge amount of difficulty. It would also look considerably bigger than than the CR90 since the its will be both significantly wider. Kind of how Lucas used forced perspective in the movie to make his ISD seem so much larger than the CR90 even though his own models weren't to scale.

On a side note, some friends and I are starting to come up with some experimental rules for a 2 foot ISD using a rectangle flight base. We think we figured out how to get 10x the firepower of a CR90 without breaking the game by breaking up the flight base into 9-10 sections, each of which would bring the same firepower of the CR90 (we really are using the CR90 as a baseline since its what we have spoiled so far). The trick is figuring out how to break up the sections since we want to make it a rare shot that allows the ISD to ever bring more than one section against a Starfighter but more than one against a CR90 but not too many. We think it works because it actually kind of accurately shows that an ISD has a ton of firepower but since its so large it has a problem bringing all the guns to bear on one target.

Also.. we aren't talking Victory class SDs... ISDs are 1600 meters long... Victories are 900 big difference... This may be where your confusion lies...

Do you realize a scale ISD is about 16 feet in this game... now tell me that would look good at 2 feet... sorry, that's ludicrous

Think of it this way. If your buddy bought an ISD model for the game, and absolutely loved playing it because it was fun, would you buy it(assuming you can afford the model.) I guarantee I would. I can guarantee the only people on this board that wouldn't would be the one who are bitter over nonsense like scale and what the ship should be able to do in their minds. And frankly none of that matters. In my mind an X-wing should be able to fire far more than one overcosted Proton Torpedo. It should have a hard 1 red turn, and it should have 2 fore and 2 aft shields, as well as the ability to regenerate them. The game doesn't allow for that. That's fine, I understand the need to balance and simplify the game. I respect the challenges, but I refuse to see them as making the ship impossible. In fact I feel honest contempt for that level of defeatism. It's the kind of thinking that destroys the fun of games and books and movies alike. It is a negative outlook that spoils creativity in favor of more of the same.

...I respect the challenges, but I refuse to see them as making the ship impossible. In fact I feel honest contempt for that level of defeatism. It's the kind of thinking that destroys the fun of games and books and movies alike. It is a negative outlook that spoils creativity in favor of more of the same.

At the risk of repeating myself, no one is saying it can't be done. It's obvious that FFG could slap whatever name and model they choose on a particular package of game elements*. What we are saying is that it shouldn't be done. Every creative process has constraints, imposed by context or medium or perspective, or even by nothing more tangible than the creator's self-imposed rules for a particular composition.

My argument (and others') boils down to the idea that this particular creative process is constrained by the rest of the in-universe fiction. Apparently acknowledging that fact makes one contemptible, from your perspective--which, if nothing else, probably signals that it's time for me to get off this particular ride.

(*FFG's discretion about which name and model are associated with which rules package is very likely subject to oversight from Lucasfilm--I'm thinking here of the little cards on their demo models that say something to the effect of "models are subject to licensor approval and not final". I very much doubt that oversight would be okay with the kind of scale discrepancy we're talking about, particularly given the iconic forced-perspective shot that opens ANH. But of course that's supposition, and doesn't really rise to the level of "evidence" for any kind of argument.)

No, to simply disregard one of the most important aspect of the game... one the game desiners respect and feel opposed to breaking... that is the fun assassin here...

The idea of a scale slide, is in thenidea they went from 270, to about 400 for the larger ships... I dont see them going to 15000 scale to make it work.. that also goes against their previous stance.. scale means a lot to the designers.. this is why they used an 'off camera' feel with the transports scenario.. because even they know you cant put a ISD on the tabe, and have people believe it is an all powerful minion of oppression and dominance... seriously, I dont understand why this debate goes on.. even your own arguement backs the idea of not doing it.. you talk of awe... nothing awe inspiring about a 2 foot ship that should be near 10 times bigger.

Also, as I've stated before, no... I won't be buying one if they do make it.. which I am highly doubtful they will. Not that I cant afford it, but I won't pay crazy amounts of koney for a game... I'm not from the warhammer crowd... I dont spend hundreds on one game piece I may use once in my lifetime...

Spacedingo.. I hope that's all a joke man.. haha..

...I respect the challenges, but I refuse to see them as making the ship impossible. In fact I feel honest contempt for that level of defeatism. It's the kind of thinking that destroys the fun of games and books and movies alike. It is a negative outlook that spoils creativity in favor of more of the same.

At the risk of repeating myself, no one is saying it can't be done. It's obvious that FFG could slap whatever name and model they choose on a particular package of game elements*. What we are saying is that it shouldn't be done. Every creative process has constraints, imposed by context or medium or perspective, or even by nothing more tangible than the creator's self-imposed rules for a particular composition.

My argument (and others') boils down to the idea that this particular creative process is constrained by the rest of the in-universe fiction. Apparently acknowledging that fact makes one contemptible, from your perspective--which, if nothing else, probably signals that it's time for me to get off this particular ride.(*FFG's discretion about which name and model are associated with which rules package is very likely subject to oversight from Lucasfilm--I'm thinking here of the little cards on their demo models that say something to the effect of "models are subject to licensor approval and not final". I very much doubt that oversight would be okay with the kind of scale discrepancy we're talking about, particularly given the iconic forced-perspective shot that opens ANH. But of course that's supposition, and doesn't really rise to the level of "evidence" for any kind of argument.)

If we continue with the sliding scale, the LARGEST that I would like to see for the Imperials would be an Immobilizer/Vindicator. I could accept that at 2–2.5x the size of a Corvette

...I respect the challenges, but I refuse to see them as making the ship impossible. In fact I feel honest contempt for that level of defeatism. It's the kind of thinking that destroys the fun of games and books and movies alike. It is a negative outlook that spoils creativity in favor of more of the same.

At the risk of repeating myself, no one is saying it can't be done. It's obvious that FFG could slap whatever name and model they choose on a particular package of game elements*. What we are saying is that it shouldn't be done. Every creative process has constraints, imposed by context or medium or perspective, or even by nothing more tangible than the creator's self-imposed rules for a particular composition.

My argument (and others') boils down to the idea that this particular creative process is constrained by the rest of the in-universe fiction. Apparently acknowledging that fact makes one contemptible, from your perspective--which, if nothing else, probably signals that it's time for me to get off this particular ride.(*FFG's discretion about which name and model are associated with which rules package is very likely subject to oversight from Lucasfilm--I'm thinking here of the little cards on their demo models that say something to the effect of "models are subject to licensor approval and not final". I very much doubt that oversight would be okay with the kind of scale discrepancy we're talking about, particularly given the iconic forced-perspective shot that opens ANH. But of course that's supposition, and doesn't really rise to the level of "evidence" for any kind of argument.)

And that "shouldn't" argument is completely invalid. It's applying a highly subjective level to it. From the few should's we know FFG has to follow(Money, Marketing, and Fun) they should. There is nothing immoral about a 2 foot Star Destroyer. There is money to be made, marketing is easy, and most certainly potential fun to be had. Anything going back to the fluff is questionable. We can argue about which fluff is the best example of a Star Destroyer all day. It won't change what FFG can do with the options a Star Destroyer gives.

and the "should" argument doesn't apply a highly subjective level to the discussion?

and if money is the only argument, assuming of course that it would work like you suggested.

and it doesn't answer why they didn't start with an ISD in the first place, I mean from your argumentation it should have been the first big ship and not a CR90 and never a rebel transport. It would have been the most "fun" and of course iconic big ship to start in the series.

(*FFG's discretion about which name and model are associated with which rules package is very likely subject to oversight from Lucasfilm--I'm thinking here of the little cards on their demo models that say something to the effect of "models are subject to licensor approval and not final". I very much doubt that oversight would be okay with the kind of scale discrepancy we're talking about, particularly given the iconic forced-perspective shot that opens ANH. But of course that's supposition, and doesn't really rise to the level of "evidence" for any kind of argument.)

I think that it is safe to assume Lucasfilm would be okay with going wildly off scale in order to bring an SD to the table. They sure don't need the money and it would be detrimental to the brand as a whole. I think it would be more likely to expect a new game, based on this one, only with capital ships. Corvettes the size of small bases, frigates on large and SD's and Mon Cal Cruisers on huge. Maybe, maybe, complete squads of fighters and bombers on a small base.

A 2 foot Star Destoryer would be sweet and look awesome while still being able to be transported without a huge amount of difficulty.

I own the Lego ISD, box 6211, which is a little over a foot wide and two feet long, transporting that is not that easy. There's also a sizeable weight, and while the Lego one is easily fixed if something snaps off, that won't be the case with an FFG one.

I should put it back together to snap some pics with the current miniatures, but in my mind it is too small.

And that "shouldn't" argument is completely invalid.

And this is why I'm done trying to debate with someone who simply sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "na na na na" over and over again. You make blanket statements with nothing to back them up and state opinions as facts.

You clearly aren't listening to anything anyone else says. You want a ISD in the game, fine you are more then welcome to have the opinion that such a thing can work. Despite the tons of logical arguments to the contrary.

You're even free to feel we should throw out canon, balance and even common sense to get it. But we are clearly way past the realms of rational debate here. There is no reason to argue canon with someone who either doesn't understand it, or simply rejects it out of hand.

That said... Here's what I think would work.

A Vigil class Corevette, the model would be 16-18 inches long. That should keep the price point at $125 or so. It would have 6 hardpoints for weapons, and 3 hull sections. It could have 3/3 or even 2/2/2 based on the image at on the Wookipedia page. Hull/Sheilds could be something like 10/6 for all 3 sections with 8 energy from the engines section.

It would have 3 Heavy Turbo Laser upgrades, I'm thinking something like the Single Turbolaser, only against agl 0 ships all blanks are turned into hits, but keep the double the agi. That means they'd be very effective against cap ships like the CR-90, but poor against fighters.

And that "shouldn't" argument is completely invalid.

And this is why I'm done trying to debate with someone who simply sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "na na na na" over and over again. You make blanket statements with nothing to back them up and state opinions as facts.You clearly aren't listening to anything anyone else says. You want a ISD in the game, fine you are more then welcome to have the opinion that such a thing can work. Despite the tons of logical arguments to the contrary.You're even free to feel we should throw out canon, balance and even common sense to get it. But we are clearly way past the realms of rational debate here. There is no reason to argue canon with someone who either doesn't understand it, or simply rejects it out of hand.That said... Here's what I think would work.A Vigil class Corevette, the model would be 16-18 inches long. That should keep the price point at $125 or so. It would have 6 hardpoints for weapons, and 3 hull sections. It could have 3/3 or even 2/2/2 based on the image at on the Wookipedia page. Hull/Sheilds could be something like 10/6 for all 3 sections with 8 energy from the engines section.It would have 3 Heavy Turbo Laser upgrades, I'm thinking something like the Single Turbolaser, only against agl 0 ships all blanks are turned into hits, but keep the double the agi. That means they'd be very effective against cap ships like the CR-90, but poor against fighters.

No, I hear your arguments. I just don't think theybhave anything to do with business or game design. Or even Star Wars. They deal with your Star Wars. That has no bearing on FFG or what they could do. Arguing why something morally not wrong shouldn't be done while enetertaining no reasons it should is self defeating. There are no reasons they should not. Only challenges. And every challenge has a way around it. Your sticking your fingers in your ears far more than I am. There is no functional canon for a Star Destroyer's point cost. It is a function of perception. And it is not nearly so powerful as you seem to think, not in all cases. There are times where 3 Rookie Xwings kill one and times where it takes 12 X-wings with linked photon torpedos. Even then, that's a grand total of 36 hull/shields(statistically) in game. That can be statted out. It ian't obscene. 4 Lambdas have more than that. Everything else is representative. We don't need 1 hardpoint per Turbolaser battery on a Canon Star Destroyer, we just need to feel like it has a ton of firepower. 16 is more than anything but a Tie Swarm and will chew through low agility ships like candy. The fact is that if you cannot have fun smacking a FFG Star Destroyer on the table it is because you actively choose not to.

There are times where 3 Rookie Xwings kill one and times where it takes 12 X-wings with linked photon torpedos.

See right here. Proof you're not actually reading anything we say. Because the example you cite is not canon, so it doesn't actually count, where as the examples we cite are in fact canon. Again, since you're willing to throw out canon, scale and everything else that makes this game enjoyable for most of us. I'm not going to bother arguing with you about it.

There is no functional canon for a Star Destroyer's point cost.

Yes there is. We can look at the cost of a CR-90, which we know and extrapolate from that what the cost a canon ISD should be. It's actually fairly simple math...

And that "shouldn't" argument is completely invalid.

And this is why I'm done trying to debate with someone who simply sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "na na na na" over and over again. You make blanket statements with nothing to back them up and state opinions as facts.You clearly aren't listening to anything anyone else says. You want a ISD in the game, fine you are more then welcome to have the opinion that such a thing can work. Despite the tons of logical arguments to the contrary.You're even free to feel we should throw out canon, balance and even common sense to get it. But we are clearly way past the realms of rational debate here. There is no reason to argue canon with someone who either doesn't understand it, or simply rejects it out of hand.That said... Here's what I think would work.A Vigil class Corevette, the model would be 16-18 inches long. That should keep the price point at $125 or so. It would have 6 hardpoints for weapons, and 3 hull sections. It could have 3/3 or even 2/2/2 based on the image at on the Wookipedia page. Hull/Sheilds could be something like 10/6 for all 3 sections with 8 energy from the engines section.It would have 3 Heavy Turbo Laser upgrades, I'm thinking something like the Single Turbolaser, only against agl 0 ships all blanks are turned into hits, but keep the double the agi. That means they'd be very effective against cap ships like the CR-90, but poor against fighters.

No, I hear your arguments. I just don't think theybhave anything to do with business or game design. Or even Star Wars. They deal with your Star Wars. That has no bearing on FFG or what they could do. Arguing why something morally not wrong shouldn't be done while enetertaining no reasons it should is self defeating. There are no reasons they should not. Only challenges. And every challenge has a way around it. Your sticking your fingers in your ears far more than I am. There is no functional canon for a Star Destroyer's point cost. It is a function of perception. And it is not nearly so powerful as you seem to think, not in all cases. There are times where 3 Rookie Xwings kill one and times where it takes 12 X-wings with linked photon torpedos. Even then, that's a grand total of 36 hull/shields(statistically) in game. That can be statted out. It ian't obscene. 4 Lambdas have more than that. Everything else is representative. We don't need 1 hardpoint per Turbolaser battery on a Canon Star Destroyer, we just need to feel like it has a ton of firepower. 16 is more than anything but a Tie Swarm and will chew through low agility ships like candy. The fact is that if you cannot have fun smacking a FFG Star Destroyer on the table it is because you actively choose not to.

so I suppose a snow globe sized Death Star for around 30 points should be also ok, I mean it was technically a one shot by an x-wing.

and since it might be fun it would also fit the game.

There is no functional canon for a Star Destroyer's point cost.

Yes there is. We can look at the cost of a CR-90, which we know and extrapolate from that what the cost a canon ISD should be. It's actually fairly simple math...

not to forget summing up the few dozen tie fighters in its hanger, for which we have values.

not to forget summing up the few dozen tie fighters in its hanger, for which we have values.

Yeah I'm just looking at the cost of a ISD without it's fighters.

Now lets consider just the difference in guns a ISD has vs a CR-90.

A CR-90 has 2 Dual Turbolasers, and 4 single turbolasers.

A ISD I has 6 Dual heavy turbolaser turrets, 2 Dual heavy ion cannon turrets, 2 Quad heavy turbolasers, 3 Triple medium turbolasers, 2 Medium turbolasers 60 heavy turbolasers, and 60 ion cannons.

A ISD II has 8 Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons, 50 Heavy turbolaser batteries, 50 Turbolaser batteries, 26+ Additional turbolaser batteries, and 20 Heavy ion cannons.

Looking at the smallest least armed ship the VSD I it has 10 Quad turbolaser batteries and 40 Double turbolaser batteries.

So even the lowest firepower version has 10 quad and 40 double vs 2 double and 4 single, that is a 15 to 1 advantage in guns.

And that "shouldn't" argument is completely invalid.

And this is why I'm done trying to debate with someone who simply sticks their fingers in their ears and shouts "na na na na" over and over again. You make blanket statements with nothing to back them up and state opinions as facts.You clearly aren't listening to anything anyone else says. You want a ISD in the game, fine you are more then welcome to have the opinion that such a thing can work. Despite the tons of logical arguments to the contrary.You're even free to feel we should throw out canon, balance and even common sense to get it. But we are clearly way past the realms of rational debate here. There is no reason to argue canon with someone who either doesn't understand it, or simply rejects it out of hand.That said... Here's what I think would work.A Vigil class Corevette, the model would be 16-18 inches long. That should keep the price point at $125 or so. It would have 6 hardpoints for weapons, and 3 hull sections. It could have 3/3 or even 2/2/2 based on the image at on the Wookipedia page. Hull/Sheilds could be something like 10/6 for all 3 sections with 8 energy from the engines section.It would have 3 Heavy Turbo Laser upgrades, I'm thinking something like the Single Turbolaser, only against agl 0 ships all blanks are turned into hits, but keep the double the agi. That means they'd be very effective against cap ships like the CR-90, but poor against fighters.

No, I hear your arguments. I just don't think theybhave anything to do with business or game design. Or even Star Wars. They deal with your Star Wars. That has no bearing on FFG or what they could do. Arguing why something morally not wrong shouldn't be done while enetertaining no reasons it should is self defeating. There are no reasons they should not. Only challenges. And every challenge has a way around it. Your sticking your fingers in your ears far more than I am. There is no functional canon for a Star Destroyer's point cost. It is a function of perception. And it is not nearly so powerful as you seem to think, not in all cases. There are times where 3 Rookie Xwings kill one and times where it takes 12 X-wings with linked photon torpedos. Even then, that's a grand total of 36 hull/shields(statistically) in game. That can be statted out. It ian't obscene. 4 Lambdas have more than that. Everything else is representative. We don't need 1 hardpoint per Turbolaser battery on a Canon Star Destroyer, we just need to feel like it has a ton of firepower. 16 is more than anything but a Tie Swarm and will chew through low agility ships like candy. The fact is that if you cannot have fun smacking a FFG Star Destroyer on the table it is because you actively choose not to.

so I suppose a snow globe sized Death Star for around 30 points should be also ok, I mean it was technically a one shot by an x-wing.

and since it might be fun it would also fit the game.

And again, 15 to 1 guns is if you follow a linear progression. Games don't do that. 1 dice means weak guns. 2 Dice means standard firepower. 3 Means more so. 4 Means a lot. 5 Means Holy crap, and 6 means Death Star. Now personally I'd put the Death Star Blast at 8 or 9 dice.

A Star Destroyer does not need 15 gun mounts for every mount on a CR 90. It just needs enough more where it feels and plays significantly differently to feel right.

Long ago I played a game called Heroclix. In it Superman started with 5 damage and a Thug started with 1. That didn't mean Superman punched 5 times harder than a Thug. It meant 5 was the blanced highest damage they could manage. X-wing follows those same guidelines. A A-wing has 2 guns. It has two dice. Shouldn't an X-wing with 4 guns have 4 dice? And an Interceptor with it's wing mounted guns and Cockpit mounted guns have 6? How about the falcon having two guad turrets having 8? That isn't how this game works. It never has been. But suddenly a Star Destroyer has to? 3 Attack dice covers a wide range of firepower, and 4 an even wider one. Every game makes those allowances. It's a necessary conceit of gaming in general.

not to forget summing up the few dozen tie fighters in its hanger, for which we have values.

Yeah I'm just looking at the cost of a ISD without it's fighters.

Now lets consider just the difference in guns a ISD has vs a CR-90.

A CR-90 has 2 Dual Turbolasers, and 4 single turbolasers.

A ISD I has 6 Dual heavy turbolaser turrets, 2 Dual heavy ion cannon turrets, 2 Quad heavy turbolasers, 3 Triple medium turbolasers, 2 Medium turbolasers 60 heavy turbolasers, and 60 ion cannons.

A ISD II has 8 Octuple barbette turbolaser or Ion cannons, 50 Heavy turbolaser batteries, 50 Turbolaser batteries, 26+ Additional turbolaser batteries, and 20 Heavy ion cannons.

Looking at the smallest least armed ship the VSD I it has 10 Quad turbolaser batteries and 40 Double turbolaser batteries.

So even the lowest firepower version has 10 quad and 40 double vs 2 double and 4 single, that is a 15 to 1 advantage in guns.

There's actually a some major discrepancies when it comes to the armament of a ISD. The Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels has the armament of 60 turbolasers and 60 ion cannons, without reference as to how they are grouped in batteries. The Imp Star Deuces has 100 turbolaser and 20 ion cannons. It looks like the Wookiepedia article actually pulled its description from the RPG sourcebook, so it may just be an artifice of the game for the RPG and I don't think it should be considered canon IF we go by pure canon standards..

I would think the more conservative description of firepower is probably more accurate just because it scales correctly to a comparison with what we know about the Mon Cals with 48 turbolasers and 36 ion cannons, them basically being very comparable combatants with the Mon Cal being tough and the ISD having more firepower.

Yeah.. Vanor is right... you keep throwing out arguements that make no other sense than a 5 year old stamping his foot and stating again and again.. 'I want my ISD' .. I'm also done trying to explain this to you.. * drops microphone * ...