How come people are against starfighters hurting ISD's? It worked out pretty well in the X-Wing Games.

Because those games broke Canon in massive ways by allowing a single X-Wing to hurt a ISD.

What? I know its been a while since I played the games, but where in the X-Wing games can a single starfighter take on a Star Destroyer? Even if you were in a B-wing and dumped your entire payload of torpedoes you'd struggle to get through an ISD's shields, much less actually damage its hull. The only ISD's I recall you kill in the game are those that are either severely damaged already and only need a finishing blow, or are attacked by entire squadrons.

How come people are against starfighters hurting ISD's? It worked out pretty well in the X-Wing Games.

Because those games broke Canon in massive ways by allowing a single X-Wing to hurt a ISD.

What? I know its been a while since I played the games, but where in the X-Wing games can a single starfighter take on a Star Destroyer? Even if you were in a B-wing and dumped your entire payload of torpedoes you'd struggle to get through an ISD's shields, much less actually damage its hull. The only ISD's I recall you kill in the game are those that are either severely damaged already and only need a finishing blow, or are attacked by entire squadrons.

I used to do it all the time in X-Wing Alliance. You just concentrate all your laser power on the shield generators until they go up and then do some good flying while you unload lasers and torpedoes into the hull till they go up. If you wanted it to be really easy you just flew under the superstructure (the crossbeam thing in between the shield generators) where the lasers couldn't hit you and match speed so you just slowly ticked away at its health and it couldn't shoot you.

How come people are against starfighters hurting ISD's? It worked out pretty well in the X-Wing Games.

Because those games broke Canon in massive ways by allowing a single X-Wing to hurt a ISD.

What? I know its been a while since I played the games, but where in the X-Wing games can a single starfighter take on a Star Destroyer? Even if you were in a B-wing and dumped your entire payload of torpedoes you'd struggle to get through an ISD's shields, much less actually damage its hull. The only ISD's I recall you kill in the game are those that are either severely damaged already and only need a finishing blow, or are attacked by entire squadrons.

I used to do it all the time in X-Wing Alliance. You just concentrate all your laser power on the shield generators until they go up and then do some good flying while you unload lasers and torpedoes into the hull till they go up. If you wanted it to be really easy you just flew under the superstructure (the crossbeam thing in between the shield generators) where the lasers couldn't hit you and match speed so you just slowly ticked away at its health and it couldn't shoot you.

How come people are against starfighters hurting ISD's? It worked out pretty well in the X-Wing Games.

Because those games broke Canon in massive ways by allowing a single X-Wing to hurt a ISD.

I guess I'm just a little surprised by the sentiment because X-Wing minis already breaks canon (Tie taking more than one hit etc...) and they are both games where they have made changes to the canon in the name of game mechanics.

it's a measure of degree and magnitudes.

Ah, I got you. So its a personal matter for each on what they value in the game. Kind of how scale appears on this board to be a huge issue for some. Not attacking, just trying to understand the sentiment without some of the vitriol that seems to crop up during these kind of discussions.

sure it's a somewhat subjective preference, but one that's at least in part shared by FFG (showing in the released stuff).

On the level of the TIE example you mentioned, there are other effects, like the relative importance and loadout of secondary weapons. In the case of the ISD or something in that size class, given the current game mechanics a working representation of a fully usable ISD would have to be scaled down strength-wise to a degree that it doesn't really fit the source anymore.

as a side note, the size of the upcoming CR90 and transport seems to shows 2 things:

a) FFG seems to have thought on a strategy for dealing with larger ships (new scale, new mechanics)

b) they decided on relatively large models (when changing the scale, they could have gone further)

That seems to indicate that they won't go for the really big ships, otherwise the both of them would probably have been smaller.

I tend to think that any game is an "exceptional game", with "exceptional circumstances", like in the movies, so you get to play out exciting and unconventional situations, like a handful of snub fighters attempting to disable or destroy a Star Destroyer.

Other people tend to be more conservative and like to pretend that nothing special or interesting ever happens.

Yes it's unlikely that a group of Snubs could knock out a Capital ship that size and I'm sure it would be quite difficult in game, but your game is that exceptional moment. That's how I like to see things and that's why I'm sure there are others who have a few buckets of cash ready to throw at their laptop screens when bigger badder ships become reality.

I like that perspective. Besides, Star Wars canon has always been kind of narrative driven, meaning if its good for the story its going to happen. Like in Isard's Revenge when X-Wing laser cannons easily destroyed some AT-ATs.

from my perspective the narrative side is covered in scenarios, which is a case where the really bigger ships(/parts of them/etc) can have a place, but that has been agreed on by most people discussing scale of big ships.

The free use as a unit and complete model in random matches is what the issue on which the opinions diverge.

I used to do it all the time in X-Wing Alliance. You just concentrate all your laser power on the shield generators until they go up and then do some good flying while you unload lasers and torpedoes into the hull till they go up. If you wanted it to be really easy you just flew under the superstructure (the crossbeam thing in between the shield generators) where the lasers couldn't hit you and match speed so you just slowly ticked away at its health and it couldn't shoot you.

Never could get the hang of dodging all that turbolaser fire when shooting at a Star Destroyer. But I'd like to think abusing the flimsy placement of the ISD turbolasers in the game fell under the category "doesn't quite count."

I used to do it all the time in X-Wing Alliance. You just concentrate all your laser power on the shield generators until they go up and then do some good flying while you unload lasers and torpedoes into the hull till they go up. If you wanted it to be really easy you just flew under the superstructure (the crossbeam thing in between the shield generators) where the lasers couldn't hit you and match speed so you just slowly ticked away at its health and it couldn't shoot you.

Never could get the hang of dodging all that turbolaser fire when shooting at a Star Destroyer. But I'd like to think abusing the flimsy placement of the ISD turbolasers in the game fell under the category "doesn't quite count."

I agree. That's why I prefaced that with "if you wanted it to be really easy." As to if we actually get one I think its 50/50 we SHOULD get one. I think its 70/30 in favor we WILL get one just based on the observations from their releases, and I know people have gone the other way but that's the nature of conjecture based on personal observations. Personally, I hope we do because I want a Mon Cal or Rebel Assault Frigate.

Here it is folks...

That's lovely, and cost someone a stack of credits.

(PS: Does it come with its own forklift?)

(PPS: What's the picture from?)

I stumbled across it and other HUGE ships here:

http://supergluedfingers.blogspot.com/2014/03/pyrkon-14-huge-star-wars-ships.html

I stumbled across it and other HUGE ships here:

Love the Neb B model.

But the funny thing is, even at the size of that ISD, it still way out of scale for this game.

I stumbled across it and other HUGE ships here:

Love the Neb B model.

But the funny thing is, even at the size of that ISD, it still way out of scale for this game.

I guess I'm just trying to understand the other part of the argument against the ISD, and maybe the importance of scale in general, but why is the scale such a big deal?

FFG has already changed the scale one so they could again if they want to, and Star Trek Attack Wing has proven that a game can be successful despite massive scale problems. If they made a Star Destroyer even just twice the length of the CR90 it would look considerably larger because of the width and the less slim shape.

but why is the scale such a big deal?

Because one of the selling points of this game is that everything was the correct scale, and myself as well as others want to see this stay as part of the game.

FFG has already changed the scale one so they could again if they want to

It's one thing to make the CR-90 a little bit smaller then it should be, because it still looks more or less correct compared to the other ships on the table.

That is not true of a ISD that even at the same scale as the CR-90 should be around 16 feet long. Shrink that down to 2 feet, and it will look silly on the table next to a CR-90 that's half it's size. The CR-90 should fit inside the ISD's hanger bay, so half it's size is simply not acceptable IMO.

Also it's not just a question of size, it's a question of firepower and capabilities. Even the small ISD's are not only 5-6 times the size of a CR-90, they're 10 times as powerful. Taking a single CR-90 against a ISD is a suicide mission, the CR-90 should be destroyed before it even starts to get though the ISD's shields.

So even if people were willing to ignore the size issues (which many of us aren't) that's still not even the biggest problem with putting a ISD into this game.

and Star Trek Attack Wing has proven that a game can be successful despite massive scale problems.

That's debatable, a lot of people won't play Attack Wing because of the scale issues.

That's debatable, a lot of people won't play Attack Wing because of the scale issues.

It being successful isn't really all that debatable. The fact that its still being sold and continues getting new models shows that it's successful. Not as popular as X-wing, but certainly successful enough to generate enough profit to keep the models coming.

It being successful isn't really all that debatable.

Yes but it could of been more successful if they had kept things to the proper scale. I know a number of people who have come right out and said they'll never touch the game due to the poor models and scale.

So throwing scale out the window because it doesn't matter is a very debatable point.

If they made a Star Destroyer even just twice the length of the CR90 it would look considerably larger because of the width and the less slim shape.

NO they may not!!!

I want them to make me a Nebulon-B frigate at twice the size of the Corvette for me rebs darnit!!!

What about a card hull for on the table where 'smaller' ships could fly over (wouldnt be too stressfull to try and avoid hittin such a huge, slow brick, right?) with raised super structure as model ?

with a nice math for on the side to govern all the upgrade cards and tokens and such? A bit like a blueprint/scematics engineering station? could be fun and pretty to see for some huge games?

FFG has already changed the scale one so they could again if they want to, and Star Trek Attack Wing has proven that a game can be successful despite massive scale problems. If they made a Star Destroyer even just twice the length of the CR90 it would look considerably larger because of the width and the less slim shape.

I'll agree here with VanorDM, and say I'm one of those people. I do have a couple friends that love the Star Trek game, but they are huge fans of the TV series, and Starfleet Battles is just too crazy a game to jump into anymore.

I've played the attack wing game, and I find it lacking in scale and detail to the models. I will also state that one of my biggest problems is the scale of the original Enterprise, compared to the Reliant, which looks ridiculously small compared to the Reliant.

This scale issue is a serious one to some of us. You can't just put two ships side by side and expect us to accept it. I mean, would you throw an SSD on the table, just because you think its a cool ship... in the present scale for large ships it would have to be almost 300 feet.. you wanna shrink that to a foot and a half just to satisfy your desire for an SSD in the game... if so... I don't want to be at that game table...

I still don't really understand how the scale discussion is even a discussion.

It really isn't debatable that a Star Destroyer would have to be shrunk down drastically in order to fit comfortably on the table. Even if it's "just" a Victory -class at 900 meters, that's six times the length of the CR-90, or about six feet; in order to get it to "just" twice the size of the Tantive IV, you'd have to shrink the scale down to about a third of the CR-90's scale (which is itself about half the starfighter scale).

Basically, in order to get the smallest Star Destroyer on the table in a way you can really manipulate, you'd need a scale of about 1:1500. That's really, really far from the original starfighter scale of 1:270, and it's worse if you go with the Imperial II-class we all know and love from the opening of A New Hope. That would put you closer to 1/2600, or about a tenth of the proper scale.

That's right: in order to fit on the table, the Star Destroyer has to be an order of magnitude off from the starfighter scale. That's not just a different scale; that's like putting a pilot and a Battlemech on the table next to each other with the two models at the same height. You can argue that most customers won't really care, but I doubt that's actually true; you can argue that some customers wouldn't really care, but I think the ones that would be willing to invest $200+ in such a model would be exactly the people that would care most about a ridiculous scale issue.

And that's without even touching on the fact that a ship that's supposed to carry six starfighter squadrons might not be appropriate for a skirmish-style tabletop game built around running 3-8 starfighters.

***

TL;DR: No, we won't have a Star Destroyer in X-wing.

I do have a couple friends that love the Star Trek game, but they are huge fans of the TV series...

In Star Trek you seldom see ships compared to each other. You might see them on the screen at the same time, but you don't often see them from a POV that lets you really compare or get a feel for how big they are.

Consider the Defiant is 170m long and the Enterprise from TNG is 642m, around 5 times the size. But you so seldom see the Defiant next to the Enterprise or other starship that you really don't get quite get a good sense of scale.

Now compare that to the opening of ANH, where you see the Tantive IV get pulled into the docking bay of a ISD. So I think it's understandable that Trek fans aren't quite as bothered by scale as SW fans are.

Possibly, but as I have been a modeler since the early 70s, late 60s I am all about scale. In the WWI game I play, Wings of Glory, I wouldn't stand for a Dr1 being made larger just because some nob decided he wanted it to look closer in size to a brisfit. It's ridiculous.. much like this scale arguement.. lol.. I'm just glad I'm not alone in my thinking, and that there are many of us in the same camp.

Possibly, but as I have been a modeler since the early 70s, late 60s I am all about scale.

Yes but you're not the 'semi-casual' fan who's going to buy Attack Wing or X-Wing so you can go pew pew with some space ships.

Myself I'll never buy Attack Wing, for a couple reasons but the poor quality models and lack of anything even remotely resembling scale are two big ones.

What I can't quite figure out is why anyone who would consider themselves an imperial player and a fan of the Empires ships would want a ISD in this game.

I mean if you're a fan of the ISD, why would you want something you like that much neutered into oblivion in both size and power? Why would anyone who calls themselves fans of the ISD pay that much money for something that out of scale to the rest of the game? How could they plop it down next a CR-90 that's half it's size and be happy with how that looks?

Agreed.. honestly, I'd love an ISD.. but it just cant be for the game.. lol.. maybe as a prop for the sideboard. Look there is my SD waaaaaaaaaaay over there.. so far out that you cant be harmed by it.. now here are my TIEs, have fun.. lol. An ISD made by FFG would look awesome, it would be pricey, but I can live without it, or with the idea it is off board and a distant support method.

I won't buy AW either, if I want to play it.. which doesn't really happen, my friends have enough to make it happen. Much like I have enough X wing to do the same...

I'm curious though, just how big is the upcoming Corvette? And how much of a change in scale are we looking at?

I think it will be about a foot or so long, and the difference.. well, I'm not really sure, as I'm not positive about what scale it is. If it's 1/350 then it should be about 3 pr so inches smaller than what a 1/270 should be.. maybe.. if the scale is 1/500 then almost half as big as it should be.. just guessing though, I could be off as I'm not mathing it out.

If it's 1/350 then it should be about 3 pr so inches smaller than what a 1/270 should be..

It's a bit more then a foot long I believe. So it's about 1/400 scale.

So about 1,5 times the old scale? Hmm, at 1/400 we're still looking at 62 centimetres for a Lancer. They're going to have to knock that scale a bit more if we're to have any chance of even remotely iconic Imperial ships...

They're going to have to knock that scale a bit more if we're to have any chance of even remotely iconic Imperial ships...

That's fine with me. I think most of us are willing to see the scale moved a bit here and there, as long as things don't look too far off when they're on the table.

There's a rather massive difference between a Lancer that's even 4 to 6 inches shorter then it should be, vs a ISD that's 14 feet shorter then it should be.