What you don't like is that the reductio ad absurdum reveals that you're engaged in special pleading: scale is important...

Myself I'd prefer it that they had kept the 1/270 scale for the Vette and Transport. That would of made the CR-90 about 20 inches long, and would of increased the price, which I would of paid... But I understand why they did what they did.But just because most of us are willing to accept the new scale, that doesn't mean most of us are willing to accept such an extreme violation of the scale of the game.A 12 inch CR-90 is a bit out of scale, but isn't glaring. A 2 foot ISD on the other hand is so much more obvious that it's approaching the slap in the face level. How could any self respecting Star Wars fan look at a table with a ISD about twice the size of a CR-90 and think that's acceptable?

At twice the length a Star Destroyer will be 6-7 times as large as the corvette. It's taller, wider, and longer than the corvette. Trust me when I say that any ship two feet long and a foot wide will dwarf everything on the table.

...What you don't like is that the reductio ad absurdum reveals that you're engaged in special pleading: scale is important, but you're willing to make an exception in the case of a Star Destroyer because they're so cool and iconic and great. The only difference between you and the people you're arguing with is that we're making exactly one exception fewer.

No I'm willing to follow the scale curve the other big ships set the precedent for. I don't think a Death Star fits the concet of the game beyond a Mission based Trench Run. But I do think Star Destroyer can still fall into the correct feeling for the game. And what he's doing is a logical Fallacy. It's a form of Straw man the oversimplifies my point to make it look silly. Same as yours.

The "scale curve" set by the existing Epic ships could just as easily be interpreted to mean that the CR-90 is absolutely the largest ship they feel comfortable adding to the game.

And if you believe that Disgruntled and I are both twisting your argument to such a degree that we're effectively debating a straw man, please explain this quote:

Read my earlier point about scaling in game design. And frankly, I just don't care. That's not an argument rooted in the game, it's an argument rooted in Naysayer land, based on fluff.

If I'm mischaracterizing your point here, it's not deliberate: I think it's fair to paraphrase this as "scale doesn't matter", because you're saying that you don't care about scale, that arguments about scale are irrelevant to the game, and that discussion of scale is fantastic and exists only to anchor negative opinions about the game.

Again, here it is in stark terms: either scale is important to the game, or it isn't. If it isn't, then you're right and an 2-foot Star Destroyer that can be meaningfully challenged by a Corellian corvette could be on the drawing board--but it means you can't use considerations of scale to rule out spacetroopers, Super Star Destroyers, Death Stars, etc.

But if scale is important to the game, you can safely ignore the absurd elements, but you have to consider that we might be right that a Star Destroyer even twice the length of a Corvette is well outside the demonstrated scale of the X-wing minis game.

Trust me when I say that any ship two feet long and a foot wide will dwarf everything on the table.

If that's true, then there's not enough room for a ship that large on the table... If it's going to be that much larger then the CR-90 then there's simply not enough room for all the fighters, and other ships you can field in a 300 point game.

But considering that a CR-90 fits inside the docking bay of a ISD. No it's still not even close to being large enough compared to a CR-90 to look right.

What you don't like is that the reductio ad absurdum reveals that you're engaged in special pleading: scale is important...

Myself I'd prefer it that they had kept the 1/270 scale for the Vette and Transport. That would of made the CR-90 about 20 inches long, and would of increased the price, which I would of paid... But I understand why they did what they did.

But just because most of us are willing to accept the new scale, that doesn't mean most of us are willing to accept such an extreme violation of the scale of the game.

A 12 inch CR-90 is a bit out of scale, but isn't glaring. A 2 foot ISD on the other hand is so much more obvious that it's approaching the slap in the face level. How could any self respecting Star Wars fan look at a table with a ISD about twice the size of a CR-90 and think that's acceptable?

Hi Vanor, I know we've been around this merry go-round before but I just wanted to point that not everyone who is for the ISD is against the Vigil. More the merrier I say. But the scale issue is completely personal to each person. I can tell you for a fact that I'm okay with 2 feet. 1.5 is pushing it but its still okay. Its probably the same for people who played with the Kenner ISD and CR90. Its not really that unreasonable.

As to the rules, people are worried that an ISD will suck or break the game. The problem is its all conjecture just like how "Wave X announcement" always seems to start threads of "Imps are screwed." Is it possible they release an ISD? Sure. Is is possible the rules for it are stupid? Sure. Is is possible that the rules will make accurately portray it? Sure. It can really go either way.

Interestingly enough, I was talking to a friend who's been lurking on this board for quite some time and it appears that back in the days of yore, there were several "anti big ships" of any kind threads. This true?

It won't work as a substitute. There are things only a Star Destoyer can bring to this game.

[...]

There is so much that can be gained with a Star Destroyer that the Vigil just cannot do.

[...]

It cannot create the kind of tactical feel a Star Destroyer can.

What exactly could a Star Destroyer do that another ship couldn't?

Take the mechanics you would give the Star Destroyer and drop them on the Vigil - problem solved?

And I think the idea of a 300 point ship is ridiculous... It's a "dog fighting game", not a "let's-each-place-1-ship-in-our-corner-of-the-map-then-roll-dice-to-see-who-wins game".

The Vigil is not of significant power to handle an entire fleet on its own. A Star Destroyer could be set up to be.(Probably not in a way that would win mind you, because 12 X-wings have taken the down before....)

A Star Destroyer can have virtually any number of Hard Points, based on what they feel is balanced. It can have multiple Tractor Beams, a Gravity well generator, and is the perfect platform to create substantial singe ship combos that boost it's efficiency. It can have a much larger energy supply than any other ship we're likely to see. It can justify my crazy, destory the tower and it can't change its dial weakness that would justify a great deal of extra firepower for its points. And again, A knock of STar Destroyer just isn't good enough. Not nearly as many will be purchased. Not nearly as many will be fielded. Even with identical stats the Star Destroyer is more iconic, and more fun just based on previous knowledge of it.

12 X-Wing X 23P without PT are already 276P. And it would be quite boring with only a ISD a enemy. And that 12 X-Wings beat a ISD is only fluff too .

Why cant the Vigil class be a significant power? Let it be min. 150P and max 240P and you have your powerful ship. But its to scale. 150m Corvette = 150P max, Vigil Class 250m = ~250P max.

Interestingly enough, I was talking to a friend who's been lurking on this board for quite some time and it appears that back in the days of yore, there were several "anti big ships" of any kind threads. This true?

I remember them, people argued it took away from dogfighting. Not really related to this thread.

Hi Vanor, I know we've been around this merry go-round before but I just wanted to point that not everyone who is for the ISD is against the Vigil.

I know, I even said that in post #67.

To me the Vigil is the prefect compromise. It looks enough like a ISD that it has that classic look people want, yet it fits into the correct scale of the game in terms of both size and firepower. It also stays true to canon.

But the scale issue is completely personal to each person.

Yes and no. While you might not care much about scale, a lot of us do, and that's why a ISD in the game is a big deal. I don't mind the scale they're using for CR-90's but that's about as far as I'm willing to go.

Also FFG themselves have made it quite clear that they too care a lot about scale. In fact that's one of the selling points of the game.

Is is possible that the rules will make accurately portray it? Sure. It can really go either way.

We already have the rules, and it's pretty clear based on them that a ISD won't work. Not without being massively nerfed.

A CR-90 has about 6 guns per Wookieepeida the FFG version has 1 primary and 3 hard points. That means giving the ISD about 15 or so hard points, giving it 15 or so shots per turn, to keep it true for canon. I don't see how that could be considered balanced even in a 300 point game.

We already have the rules, and it's pretty clear based on them that a ISD won't work. Not without being massively nerfed.

A CR-90 has about 6 guns per Wookieepeida the FFG version has 1 primary and 3 hard points. That means giving the ISD about 15 or so hard points, giving it 15 or so shots per turn, to keep it true for canon. I don't see how that could be considered balanced even in a 300 point game.

Just curious. Why 15? From your source. And its only the ISD I

• Dual heavy turbolaser turrets (6) ^[1]
• Dual heavy ion cannon turrets (2) ^[1]
• Quad heavy turbolasers (2) ^[1]
• Triple medium turbolasers (3) ^[1]
• Medium turbolasers (2) ^[1]
• Taim & Bak XX-9 heavy turbolasers (60) ^[1]
• Borstel NK-7 ion cannons (60) ^[1]
• Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10) ^[6]

And I think the idea of a 300 point ship is ridiculous... It's a "dog fighting game", not a "let's-each-place-1-ship-in-our-corner-of-the-map-then-roll-dice-to-see-who-wins game".

I was in the process of typing something very similar earlier and I stopped for lunch.

I agree wholeheartedly.

To some extent, capital ship battles (AKA - Paint Bucket Dice Yahtzee) does not seem fun.

As a whole new game, I guess it stands to reason, but in the world of X-Wing, the ISD doesn't seem to blend.

Hi Vanor, I know we've been around this merry go-round before but I just wanted to point that not everyone who is for the ISD is against the Vigil.

I know, I even said that in post #67.

To me the Vigil is the prefect compromise. It looks enough like a ISD that it has that classic look people want, yet it fits into the correct scale of the game in terms of both size and firepower. It also stays true to canon.

But the scale issue is completely personal to each person.

Yes and no. While you might not care much about scale, a lot of us do, and that's why a ISD in the game is a big deal. I don't mind the scale they're using for CR-90's but that's about as far as I'm willing to go.

Also FFG themselves have made it quite clear that they too care a lot about scale. In fact that's one of the selling points of the game.

Is is possible that the rules will make accurately portray it? Sure. It can really go either way.

We already have the rules, and it's pretty clear based on them that a ISD won't work. Not without being massively nerfed.

A CR-90 has about 6 guns per Wookieepeida the FFG version has 1 primary and 3 hard points. That means giving the ISD about 15 or so hard points, giving it 15 or so shots per turn, to keep it true for canon. I don't see how that could be considered balanced even in a 300 point game.

It seemed like scale was a major selling point when it came to the fighters.They broke scale once for the big ships, so them breaking it again isn't out of the question. Even the big ship reveal article seemed to explain that they are willing to break the scale and will continue to do so for the big ship. We just don't know how much.

As to the rules, we don;t have anything specific for the ISD. I think it could be reasonably done by using arcs, as an example. I just wouldn't stamp my feet about it until we see it and I really think we will eventually.

We already have the rules, and it's pretty clear based on them that a ISD won't work. Not without being massively nerfed.

A CR-90 has about 6 guns per Wookieepeida the FFG version has 1 primary and 3 hard points. That means giving the ISD about 15 or so hard points, giving it 15 or so shots per turn, to keep it true for canon. I don't see how that could be considered balanced even in a 300 point game.

Just curious. Why 15? From your source. And its only the ISD I

• Dual heavy turbolaser turrets (6) ^[1]
• Dual heavy ion cannon turrets (2) ^[1]
• Quad heavy turbolasers (2) ^[1]
• Triple medium turbolasers (3) ^[1]
• Medium turbolasers (2) ^[1]
• Taim & Bak XX-9 heavy turbolasers (60) ^[1]
• Borstel NK-7 ion cannons (60) ^[1]
• Phylon Q7 tractor beam projectors (10) ^[6]

He's using the relative scale of firepower they used for the CR90. BTW be careful as to using the Wookipedia article because it flies in the face of the "Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels" and most other printed sources other than the RPG. The wookipedia should probably be read as describing the type of guns on the ship, but keeping the 60 gun maximum.

Oh, the Vigil looks like something from a Stars Wars ripoff.

It looks exactly like it was intended to look IMO. Like someone wanted to make a small ship that still looked like an ISD.I don't think anyone would confuse it for an ISD. But anyone who would buy it would either know what it is, come here and ask, or look it up themselves.What gets me is people trying to argue that the Vigil won't work for "aesthetic" reasons, but has no issue with an ISD that is so clearly 1/10th is proper size sitting next to a CR-90.

It won't work as a substitute. There are things only a Star Destoyer can bring to this game. Amazing, fun to play things. In the end, I bet that most of the anti-Star Detroyer people that can afford one will end up buying and loving the end product when FFG makes a Star Destroyer. Having a single ship that can justifiably control the Battlefield will be amazing. It can push the relatively genius Epic ship energy setup to it's boundaries, and justify costing the entire 300 points if they want, and still be a viable setup with enough customization to feel like you've picked a fleet. There is so much that can be gained with a Star Destroyer that the Vigil just cannot do. It cannot create the kind of tactical feel a Star Destroyer can. And yet that all gets ignored because what? Scale and "should be able to take on 10 corvettes"? Look at what could be. Look at how amazing a Star Destroyer could be made to be. Think about the potential rather than why not? Because quite frankly, anybody who doesn't want to see what FFG can do with the idea just misses the point.

If FFG ever comes out and says, we tried, we couldn't make it work right I'll accept that. But until then, they're keeping quiet on denying it for a reason. And it's not to keep debates like this on their forums. It's because they know the potential behind the concept, and are trying to make it work. Seriously people, like everything in life, look at why something would be amazing, not why it could be bad and immediatley say no.

Replace Star Destroyer with Death Star.

...What you don't like is that the reductio ad absurdum reveals that you're engaged in special pleading: scale is important, but you're willing to make an exception in the case of a Star Destroyer because they're so cool and iconic and great. The only difference between you and the people you're arguing with is that we're making exactly one exception fewer.

No I'm willing to follow the scale curve the other big ships set the precedent for. I don't think a Death Star fits the concet of the game beyond a Mission based Trench Run. But I do think Star Destroyer can still fall into the correct feeling for the game. And what he's doing is a logical Fallacy. It's a form of Straw man the oversimplifies my point to make it look silly. Same as yours.

The "scale curve" set by the existing Epic ships could just as easily be interpreted to mean that the CR-90 is absolutely the largest ship they feel comfortable adding to the game. And if you believe that Disgruntled and I are both twisting your argument to such a degree that we're effectively debating a straw man, please explain this quote:

Read my earlier point about scaling in game design. And frankly, I just don't care. That's not an argument rooted in the game, it's an argument rooted in Naysayer land, based on fluff.

If I'm mischaracterizing your point here, it's not deliberate: I think it's fair to paraphrase this as "scale doesn't matter", because you're saying that you don't care about scale, that arguments about scale are irrelevant to the game, and that discussion of scale is fantastic and exists only to anchor negative opinions about the game.Again, here it is in stark terms: either scale is important to the game, or it isn't. If it isn't, then you're right and an 2-foot Star Destroyer that can be meaningfully challenged by a Corellian corvette could be on the drawing board--but it means you can't use considerations of scale to rule out spacetroopers, Super Star Destroyers, Death Stars, etc.But if scale is important to the game, you can safely ignore the absurd elements, but you have to consider that we might be right that a Star Destroyer even twice the length of a Corvette is well outside the demonstrated scale of the X-wing minis game.

There is precedent created by the last two big ships to create a 2foot or so star destroyer. Yes, it would take up 1/9th of the playing field in an Epic Game(ish, as the base should in theory, not be square, but that might be best accomplished by having a 1.5 foot by 6-8 inch base beneath the model. That seems appropriate to me.

The power level scale in this game is set up in such a way where 1 Dice means a very small gun.

2 Dice is sort of an average firepower(on a civilian ship) 3 is average military, between the X-Wing and the Falcon which are pretty far apart in firepower. 4 is Ordnance weapons and capitol class ship weapons(which in theory when hitting directly would vaporize a small ship.) (But as we know there are only 7 direct hits in the deck, so direct hits on fighters are rare.) The Phantom is an anomaly here, but I think it's a bit like the Backstab ability Rogues have in D&D...

Weapon 5 has appeared once, on Advanced P-Torps. They are in a power class of their own, and probably something approximating a small targeted nuke.

That means that a weapon value of 6 or 7 is inordinately powerful and might be beyond the scope of the game outside of specific incredible weapons. Say, that one rediculous Star Destroyer that could crack a planets crust. The one from the Palpatine's clone arc.

That means that a primary weapon value of 5 on Star Destroyer is really as high as it should go, and isn't ouside the scope of the game.

Attack power isn't linear. If it were Star Destroyers would roll dozens of red dice. But it isn't.

From there, Star Destroyers have been shown to have trouble with large amounts of ordnance. By giving them a lot of shields and energy you can create a feeling of indestructibility, that gets wiped out once the command tower is broken. Only fighters really manage the kind of precision that seems to take in the Star Wars Univers. Bigger ships seem to lauch salvos and hit shields.

That means that a dozen or so fighters can in fact take one down. At 300 points that's what Rebels get. A dozen X-wings with Proton Torpedos.

People overstate the power of Star destroyers all the time. The Falcon outruns 3 of them in the break from tatooine, and evades more in Empire. They are not great at hitting small fast ships. This is best done by having lots of restricted firing arcs that still let them pump damage into big ships, but create holes fighters can hide in. The whole reason the Interdictor was made was because Star Destroyers sucked against fighters. Hell, I believe there's a scene in empire where one of them loses their command center to an asteroid. I just read about it the other day.

The Vigil Class Corvette is a blank template. It hasn't really appeared in anything. That makes it pretty boring.

There is a ton of potential to be had in the idea. And a whole lot of naysaying based on the idea Star Destroyers are godly destroyers of everything. Yet we see Arvel crash into and destroy the bridge of the Biggest Star Destroyer of all, taking the whole thing out.

The Death Star is on an entirely different purpose level. It isn't meant to be in Battles like Epic Play. It shouldn'lt be treated as a capitol class ship. Anybody saying otherwise is making a Straw Man. What we've seen destroy it is a reactor explosion at it's core. It effectively cannot have a reasonable Hull value. Or a reasonable weapon value.

The Star Destroyer has half a dozen canonical examples of being taken out completely by Rebel fighters that I can remember.(Well, they were conononical. Now only Arvel is for sure, as I don't know where the rest of the EU sits.)

beyond that it can have enough hard points to take it from 150 to 300 points of the designers want, and filling hardpoints isn't wasted cardboard. It can have Tractor Beams, and any number of other interesting weapons. It can do so much for the game. But apparently it not lookign big enough is an issue.

And I think the idea of a 300 point ship is ridiculous... It's a "dog fighting game", not a "let's-each-place-1-ship-in-our-corner-of-the-map-then-roll-dice-to-see-who-wins game".

I was in the process of typing something very similar earlier and I stopped for lunch.

I agree wholeheartedly.

To some extent, capital ship battles (AKA - Paint Bucket Dice Yahtzee) does not seem fun.

As a whole new game, I guess it stands to reason, but in the world of X-Wing, the ISD doesn't seem to blend.

People can always do dumb things no matter the models. There was a thread on the unmoving YT castle list a while back that had 2 YT's face each other, not move, and shoot you. FFG releasing an ISD doesn't hurt the game as long as they are careful in how they apply it. Just like now the big ships aren't allowed in a normal 100 point tourney. Beyond that people are free to do and play against what they want.

What you don't like is that the reductio ad absurdum reveals that you're engaged in special pleading: scale is important...

Myself I'd prefer it that they had kept the 1/270 scale for the Vette and Transport. That would of made the CR-90 about 20 inches long, and would of increased the price, which I would of paid... But I understand why they did what they did.But just because most of us are willing to accept the new scale, that doesn't mean most of us are willing to accept such an extreme violation of the scale of the game.A 12 inch CR-90 is a bit out of scale, but isn't glaring. A 2 foot ISD on the other hand is so much more obvious that it's approaching the slap in the face level. How could any self respecting Star Wars fan look at a table with a ISD about twice the size of a CR-90 and think that's acceptable?

At twice the length a Star Destroyer will be 6-7 times as large as the corvette. It's taller, wider, and longer than the corvette. Trust me when I say that any ship two feet long and a foot wide will dwarf everything on the table.

So, a 4 feet long piece of plastic on the table. Takes most of the space, blocks path, blocks fire, has no room to maneuver, and if it did, would collide with everything else on the table. The're just no room left around it so It would basically destroy the game.

You'd have to be able to fly ON it, which is why a playmat is the only realistic way I could see it implemented.

edit: sorry, you advocated only 2 feet long. Still too big for playability and yet way too small to fool the sense of scale...

What you don't like is that the reductio ad absurdum reveals that you're engaged in special pleading: scale is important...

Myself I'd prefer it that they had kept the 1/270 scale for the Vette and Transport. That would of made the CR-90 about 20 inches long, and would of increased the price, which I would of paid... But I understand why they did what they did.But just because most of us are willing to accept the new scale, that doesn't mean most of us are willing to accept such an extreme violation of the scale of the game.A 12 inch CR-90 is a bit out of scale, but isn't glaring. A 2 foot ISD on the other hand is so much more obvious that it's approaching the slap in the face level. How could any self respecting Star Wars fan look at a table with a ISD about twice the size of a CR-90 and think that's acceptable?

At twice the length a Star Destroyer will be 6-7 times as large as the corvette. It's taller, wider, and longer than the corvette. Trust me when I say that any ship two feet long and a foot wide will dwarf everything on the table.

So, a 4 foot long piece of plastic on the table. Takes most of the space, blocks path, blocks fire, has no room to maneuver, and if it did, would collide with everything else on the table. The're just no room left around it so It would basically destroy the game.

You'd have to be able to fly ON it, which is why a playmat is the only realistic way I could see it implemented.

Just curious. Why 15? From your source. And its only the ISD I

Because based on the CR-90 a Hard point can be more then one gun. On the FFG version you have 2 hard points for Single Turbolaser/Quad Laser, but yet there's 4 guns. So in this case a hard point would represent the guns on either side of the ship.

For a ISD you could do the same basic thing, based on the arc's on each side of the wedge. So something like 15 hard points seems reasonable, perhaps 30 would be closer to canon.

It seemed like scale was a major selling point when it came to the fighters.They broke scale once for the big ships, so them breaking it again isn't out of the question. Even the big ship reveal article seemed to explain that they are willing to break the scale and will continue to do so for the big ship. We just don't know how much.

Which I'm willing to accept, as long as they don't break the scale by too much. I guess you could say I have a scale of breaking the scale. The CR-90 and GR-75 are ok. A 18in Vigil would be ok. But a 24in ISD is too far from the starting point to be anything other silly looking on the table. When you have a YT-1300 that's a healthy % of the size of a ISD, it just won't look right.

As to the rules, we don;t have anything specific for the ISD.

We don't need anything for the ISD because we can see what the current rules are and quite easily extrapolate from there. Could they nerf a ISD so it fits in the game? Sure, but that still means you have a nerfed ISD.

Looking at the comparative power between a CR-90 and ISD, there is simply no way possible to fit a ISD in 300 point game and have it be even close to accurate.

Welre talking square cubed law. A 2 foot long Star Destroyer will be big enough to fit a CR-90 inside it. Probably more.

You might be able to fit it in physically, but that's not even remotely the same thing as what we saw in the opening of ANH. Where the ISD dwarfed the CR-90 by so much that it could fit in it's landing bay.

You don't care about scale, canon or anything else. I get it. But your whole argument can be summed up with this.

"I want a ISD and nothing anyone else thinks matters."

Just curious. Why 15? From your source. And its only the ISD I

Because based on the CR-90 a Hard point can be more then one gun. On the FFG version you have 2 hard points for Single Turbolaser/Quad Laser, but yet there's 4 guns. So in this case a hard point would represent the guns on either side of the ship.For a ISD you could do the same basic thing, based on the arc's on each side of the wedge. So something like 15 hard points seems reasonable, perhaps 30 would be closer to canon.

It seemed like scale was a major selling point when it came to the fighters.They broke scale once for the big ships, so them breaking it again isn't out of the question. Even the big ship reveal article seemed to explain that they are willing to break the scale and will continue to do so for the big ship. We just don't know how much.

Which I'm willing to accept, as long as they don't break the scale by too much. I guess you could say I have a scale of breaking the scale. The CR-90 and GR-75 are ok. A 18in Vigil would be ok. But a 24in ISD is too far from the starting point to be anything other silly looking on the table. When you have a YT-1300 that's a healthy % of the size of a ISD, it just won't look right.

As to the rules, we don;t have anything specific for the ISD.

We don't need anything for the ISD because we can see what the current rules are and quite easily extrapolate from there. Could they nerf a ISD so it fits in the game? Sure, but that still means you have a nerfed ISD.Looking at the comparative power between a CR-90 and ISD, there is simply no way possible to fit a ISD in 300 point game and have it be even close to accurate.

Every ship is "nerfed" the game is not on a linear powerscale. Every big ship is going to be not Vaporizing ships in one hit most of the time. The CR-90 and its firepower are nerfed. That's a function of game design. And I don't think you realize how huge a 2 foot by 1 foot by 8 inch Star Destroyer would really be. It'll be several times bigger than the biggest other thing on the field. Big enough where I could fit every ship I own right now and 1 of each of the new Rebel big ships inside of it. Hell, they could market it as a storage container in addition to the game rules. It would be close to the size of my Tackle Box. A little shorter, and not nearly so square, but just as long and a little wider.

"I want a ISD and nothing anyone else thinks matters."

If you put a "don't" in between "I want" you get the other side. Nice summary of this whole thread .

It's a different format. What do you care what they print, so long as the 100 point tournament rules remain the same?

You missed the point entirely.

It's not about whether it's a different format. It has to jibe with the starfighter combat rules for painfully obvious reasons, otherwise why not make an entirely new game?

And he doesn't care what they print. He cares about all these people who keep thinking that Star Destroyers are a viable opponent in a game designed around pilots who fly starfighters that, realistically, wouldn't be able to make a dent in a Star Destroyer's shields.

I'll see your SSD, and raise you one 23 point A-Wing. Realism and Star Wars are mutually exclusive terms.

I think I get the point just fine. If he doesn't care what they print, why does he care about what other people think? If another format satisfies the desires of a different segment of the player base, why should FFG be compelled to limit their products to satisfy the whims of the one person who will never play it?

Not pictured in that clip: the entire battle raging around the Executor. Also not pictured: the scores of Rebel capitol ships raining fire on the Executor to weaken its shields enough that fighters can actually do enough damage to it that one badly hurt A-Wing pilot can aim his crash into the bridge.

Which is kind of my point, in a way: in order to care about that one pilot, we have to ignore thousands of other combatants. Per ship. And then ignore the ~100 cap ships in the fight.

Could I enjoy a game which allowed for combat at the scale of the Battle of Endor? Oh yes. But at that scale, Arvel Crynyd becomes just part of Green Squadron. And that entire squadron would probably be a single icon on the board. I could enjoy that game. But that game wouldn't be X-Wing.

[lots of things about scale]

You didn't really address my point. Is scale important to the game--indicating both firepower and physical size--or isn't it?

(You imply the answer is actually yes: you agree that the Death Star is completely unreasonable. So set the Death Star aside for a minute; introducing a spacetrooper at approximately the size and power of an A-wing is actually more reasonable than scaling a Star Destroyer down to even twice the size and power of a corvette. Would you have a problem with that?)

Welre talking square cubed law. A 2 foot long Star Destroyer will be big enough to fit a CR-90 inside it. Probably more. But the model itself would take up about 1/9th of the play space, as detailed above, if the base were also 2 feet by 1 foot. It seems more fitting to have that base be smaller due to the pyramidal shape, leaving the edges of the wings, and the tip of the nose off base.

According to Epic rules touching the base of a huge ship means one thing BOOM. If the smaller ships could fly over the base there might be less complaining about a Star Destroyer crushing everything when it moves or turns.

I'm not against having a model of the most magnificent ship in all sci-fi, I just can't see any way FFG can release one without a huge outcry from players, Rebels and Imperials alike, to the effect that whatever size it is and whatever rules it has will be wrong, unbalanced...boohoo wah wah wah.

If FFG manage to represent the sheer awesomeness of a Star Destroyer with a 2 feet model, I guess I'll be happy with that. So long as other ships on the board, other than huge ships, can fly under and over it without auto-crashing.

Welre talking square cubed law. A 2 foot long Star Destroyer will be big enough to fit a CR-90 inside it. Probably more.

You might be able to fit it in physically, but that's not even remotely the same thing as what we saw in the opening of ANH. Where the ISD dwarfed the CR-90 by so much that it could fit in it's landing bay.You don't care about scale, canon or anything else. I get it. But your whole argument can be summed up with this."I want a ISD and nothing anyone else thinks matters."

No. It's I want one and haven't yet seen a reason I see as important enough to say it shouldn't happen. (Granted those would probably have to be something like, we have to sacrfifice several lives a day to get these made.) There just isn't a valid reason not to make one. It will sell. it will look Cool. It will be fun to play. FFG can make it balanced. Nobody will die because they make it, at least not directly. What more matters in a game?