Why would you extrapolate based on a log curve? Since we know for a fact there's a difference between regular and epic scale, why not fit two linear curves--in which case the ISD would be 84.5 inches long?

In my opinion, a log curve is the proper way to scale ships.

If they were to come out with a ship that is 70m long in canon, which scale would you use, the one for huge ships, or the one for small ships? Probably one in between - which is exactly what a log curve gives you.

Edit: If you calculate a log-curve from the 2 huge ships we have so far, ignoring the small ships, you get the following extrapolated measurements:

• Vigil-class Corvette: 14.1"
• Victory I-class Star Destroyer: 21.5"
• Imperial Star Destroyer: 24.9"
• Death Star: 50.3"
• Alderaan: 77.5"

Edit 2: Also, cool tidbit, human perception is logarithmic .

Edit: If you calculate a log-curve from the 2 huge ships we have so far, ignoring the small ships, you get the following extrapolated measurements:

Yes but your size of the Transport is actually wrong, someone who has it measured it and it's 8.5 inches long not 8. Also we don't know how long the CR-90 actually is. So your scale is based on unknown and in one case faulty data.

I feel that the Acclamator, what I originally was looking for, is still the best choice. Easily recognizable. 752 meters long. With firepower, at least according to Wookieepedia, amounting to:

Acclamator I

12 Quad Turbolaser Cannons

24 Point Defense Laser Cannons

4 Proton Torpedo Tubes

Acclamator II

12 Quad Turbolaser Cannons

24 Point Defense Laser Cannons

4 Turbolaser Batteries

2 Heavy Proton Torpedo Launchers

But I wouldn't complain about a Victory Star Destroyer.

I'd only get one though.

I will concede a Victory as the extreme upper limit of my suspension of disbelief when it comes to Star Destroyers go.

Only if it is a stand alone, nothing usable in anything other than epic, so that it is completely optional and nothing in the game is missed by not being able to spend the concievably YT-1300 load of credits it will cost to buy the dang thing!

Edit: If you calculate a log-curve from the 2 huge ships we have so far, ignoring the small ships, you get the following extrapolated measurements:

Yes but your size of the Transport is actually wrong, someone who has it measured it and it's 8.5 inches long not 8. Also we don't know how long the CR-90 actually is. So your scale is based on unknown and in one case faulty data.

Sorry, was going with the best measurements I could find.

Considering 8.5" and 11" actually makes the measurements shorter:

And as I said, 10% of a Star Destroyer is cooler than a Vigil. Or any other EU option they can come up with for the Empire.

That's the good thing about opinions, isn't it? Everyone's got one, and they're not the only thing everyone's got one of, either. What I've quoted above might well be your misguided and ill-informed opinion on the matter, but that doesn't make it a fact.

Personally, I'd consider a to-the-current scale Vigil to be a thousand times cooler than an ISD shrunk-to-fit a 6x3 game board. In much the same manner as I prefer David Prowse's Darth Vader to Rick Moranis' Dark Helmet. One looks the part, the other is clearly a joke.

Sorry, was going with the best measurements I could find.

Oh I get that. But we don't actually know how long the CR-90 is. The 11 inch that I see a lot was based on the length of it compared to a 8 inch GR-75. If the Transport is 8.5 inches long then the CR-90 is going to be closer to 12 or even 14 inches.

Personally, I'd consider a to-the-current scale Vigil to be a thousand times cooler than an ISD shrunk-to-fit a 6x3 game board. In much the same manner as I prefer David Prowse's Darth Vader to Rick Moranis' Dark Helmet. One looks the part, the other is clearly a joke.

Slightly crass, but funny imagery non the less.

From what I understand, the Tantive is shrunk down by about an extra inch from what it would be at scale with the Transport. 11 Inches versus 8. I don't remember where I read this, as it was a couple months ago, but they follow a scale curve that puts a Star Destroyer between 1.5 and 2 feet.

You might have been getting that from this BGG thread:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1134209/size-and-scale-of-the-huge-ships

The math there is fundamentally wrong. Here are some scales that it predicts:

Medium Transport: 0.73 ft

Tantive IV: 1.06 ft

Nebulon B: 1.6 ft

Liberty: 2.57 ft

Star Destroyer: 2.7 ft

Super Star Destroyer: 3.17 ft.

The Entire Universe: 3.22 ft

So no, that scale curve is completely bogus. Nobody checked his math on that thread though.

From what I understand, the Tantive is shrunk down by about an extra inch from what it would be at scale with the Transport. 11 Inches versus 8. I don't remember where I read this, as it was a couple months ago, but they follow a scale curve that puts a Star Destroyer between 1.5 and 2 feet.

You might have been getting that from this BGG thread:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1134209/size-and-scale-of-the-huge-ships

The math there is fundamentally wrong. Here are some scales that it predicts:

Medium Transport: 0.73 ft

Tantive IV: 1.06 ft

Nebulon B: 1.6 ft

Liberty: 2.57 ft

Star Destroyer: 2.7 ft

Super Star Destroyer: 3.17 ft.

The Entire Universe: 3.22 ft

So no, that scale curve is completely bogus. Nobody checked his math on that thread though.

http://randycoopermodels.com/content/avenger-star-destroyer

That is an absolutely amazing model. It also looks way too small for this game to have a reasonable sense of scale. Twice that size at 6 feet would probably be about right.

There are, however, many issues with building a six foot long model.

It is a stunning model. And you're right, it's still much too small. Unfortunately, the issue with building a scale model of a Star Destroyer which fits into the scale of the X-Wing Minatures game pale in comparison to the issues with accurately depicting it's power and abilities within the game.

Take the current Epic Dogfight Tournament Rules, for example. 300 points per squad, maximum 5 Epic points per squad.

A Corvette is - what - 90 points basic, and costs 3 Epic points?

A Rebel Transport is 30 points basic, and costs 2 Epic points?

I'd imagine that if we were making a direct comparison to the above ships, then an ISD - even scaled down to a fraction of it's true power - would weigh in at least 1000 points basic and around 30 Epic points. And if you wanted to be able to field a ship for less than that, you may as well not use an ISD. You may as well use a Nebulon B, or a Lancer Frigate, or a Vigil - i.e. a ship that can be accurately depicted and fielded in the current system without nerfing it into oblivion.

I keep forgetting about this page here - http://www.merzo.net/

By far the BEST visualization for starship scale I have ever seen.. And it includes ships from different Sci-Fi universes to compare to - TAKE THAT ATTACK WING!!

I'm probably re-hashing much of the debate on this subject, BUT...

1. The ISD is THE iconic huge ship for the Empire. That's pretty much a solid fact. Yes there's the EU, and games and other source material, which I imagine more X-wing players than not are at least knowledgeable of, but from a business and marketing sense, when people think of huge Imperial ships, the only thing they'll think of is ISDs.

2. Therefore that leaves FFG with a choice between: Make the ISD in the game somehow, or don't include it at all.

3. Now the health of the game is such that, no matter what the first imperial huge ship is, it WILL sell; there's too many players already invested, interested in Epic format and there will no doubt be more chase pilots/upgrades included anyhow. This means that FFG's choice isn't between make money (make an ISD in the game) or don't make money (do some other Imperial huge ship). But it's rather make money (do some other Imperial huge ship) or make a TON of money (make an ISD in the game).

4. Then it comes down to compromise. At what point are FFG willing to stop compromise on scale, lore and power level, in order to get the ISD in the game and make a ton of money off of doing so?

5. Even if they made it, and a whole slew of players complained about scale, it not making thematic sense, or it's power level being too low, what would actually happen? No one's going to rage quit a game they love and have invested hundreds of dollars and hours into. They'll probably secretly buy it anyhow.

6. The challenge of an ISD then, is its scale, physical size, points value and power level. The ISD is easily the biggest thing they could ever hope to fit in the game. Therefore it's maximum size is probably half as big again as the Corvette? It's point value probably 130-150 points max and its power level could leave it as undoubtedly the most powerful in the game.

Is that really a problem? Sure it's scale is WAY off. And it takes up half your fleet. But it's a ****ing ISD. You get to play with it! It's badass and the single most powerful ship in the game. Isn't that better than longingly looking at pictures in a Star Wars Encyclopaedia or having to settle for some unheard of EU alternative?

6. The challenge of an ISD then, is its scale, physical size, points value and power level. The ISD is easily the biggest thing they could ever hope to fit in the game. Therefore it's maximum size is probably half as big again as the Corvette? It's point value probably 130-150 points max and its power level could leave it as undoubtedly the most powerful in the game.

Is that really a problem?

I'd say yes; that's not just a problem, it's a HUGE problem. In order to be viable in games of Epic play, an ISD cannot be any more than 300 points in value and 5 Epic points. Even taking up all the available points quota, it would STILL be a pale shadow of what it is meant to be.

Think about what you're suggesting here. An ISD for 150 points? You're saying it should be equal in capabilities to a Corvette and a Rebel Transport combined? How big would the model be? The same size as both combined? What price would it be? $300? More? That's borderline laughable. Especially when there are MANY alternatives available that would work perfectly well at that scale without reducing (as you rightly point out) one of the most iconic ships of the franchise into a parody of itself.

Star Destroyers have no place in the 100 point game, and they have no place in the Epic game as it stands (the same is obviously true of Mon Calimari cruisers). The only way they should appear in this game is as a custom-made model for a gaming club campaign weekend or special event etc.

Which is why we need a capital ship game as well as a dogfighting game. Then we CAN get a star destroyer (several, in fact) and not have it be idiotically underpowered and out of scale.

Honestly, the arguments about point costs and power levels don't fit with this game. This isn't a linear power level game. It hasn't been since the Falcon hit the field with the same offensive firepower as an X-wing. This game has all the right mechanics to recreate huge space battles. Star Destroyers are not godly powerful ships. They've been taken down throughout the series by things as small as meteors and A-wings. In books and games, all over the place, they are treated as large but with exploitable weaknesses. 12 X-wings have 1 shotted a Star Destroyer with torpedos. Does that scream, 1000points of power. Remember the game is built around fighter combat, where a Star Destroyer is at its absolute worst. Meaning it's point value relative to fighters shouldn't be that high. This can be represented by game mechanics relatively easily. Beyond that, creating multiple Star Wars Space Battle strategy games is an awful financial move for FFG. They don't have the time to build it up in their license, and it will split the playerbase into 1 game or the other, with only the wealthiest players doing both. A capital ship game will not feel nearly as personal or interesting, and will not sell half as well as X-wing. There are a handful of usable big ships on either faction. Not enough to support a full game. The only way we'll see a FFG Star Destroyer is through this game.

Fact is, game design allows for a balanced Star Destroyer, that is as relative in firepower to a Corvette as an X-wing is to the Falcon. It fits the game in everything but scale and the minds of fans who vastly overpower what it can do in their minds. It can dish out the hurt, but they were vulnerable to attack, and not meant to take on fighters at all. That makes them easier to fit into theis game, because we don't have to worry about orbital bombardments, or even many large fleet battles. With 11 hardpoints it will be able to take out a Tantive in a single turn. With narrow fields of fire, and no rear arc it will be bad against fighters. With it's immense size it will still loom over the entire battlefield like the menace it is. Even at only twice as long, and 6-7 times the size of a Tantive. The hardest question is, can FFG make it for a reasonable price. Not can they make it fun to play and terrifying to fight.

What basis do you have for your presumption about a FFG capital game being a bad move, Aminar? I'd gladly buy into it and still support X-Wing just as much. Frankly I'd find the scope of a capital game more entertaining than starfighters... I like Star Destroyers more than TIE Fighters. I'd just hope they can allow a distinction between the tall-masted Imperial-Is and the typical Imperial-IIs!

I dunno. Star Destroyers here felt awkward. I never liked player's custom imported Kenner Star destroyer models back then, and I like the idea less now of bringing them in "just because". I believe FFG will come up with an inventive solution to give us either something new, or an obscure conventional craft brought back into the limelight. I love the star destroyers but this is not the place for them. The only reason it seems to bring them in anyway is "Just because". Well, that's not good enough. Not at the expense of sacrificing player and scale considerations FFG has been putting into this game so far.

The bottom line, too, is that LFL may not let them even if they for some reason wanted to. Remember that Licensed approval has to go in to the miniatures, what says it stops there?

Again, the difference between the armament of an X-Wing and the YT-1300 is negligible when compared to the difference in armament between a CR-90 and a Star Destroyer.

HUGE difference.

Again, video games and books are tools to tell a story. A story where the audience is alone and the only one who needs to enjoy the experience is the single player or reader. Boss fights in games have giant glowing "weak spots." In the case of Star Destroyers in games, the "weak spots" are the "little balls on the bridge" that count as shield generators. Take those out, and it's easy peasy. Apparently.

Those glowing "weak spots" give the player a way to know where to shoot the terrifying monster that can kill everything and is impervious to all forms of damage except the damage that the "lone hero" controlled by the player inflicts upon it. That allows the player to feel awesome by defeating the "gigantic" monster and overcoming "gigantic" odds.

Games and storytelling are designed to allow the impossible.

When you design a game that is meant to be played by two players who are facing off against each other however, you have to balance each side with the other. Otherwise, one side will not have any fun playing the game because it would be merely an exercise in futility for them.

Could you imagine playing XWMG if Luke and Wedge could not die? Not fun. In the video games 12 X-Wings take out a (damaged) Star Destroyer because it makes a great (single) player game and tells a great story in which the invincible heroes can vanquish the unstoppable villain and thus save the galaxy from certain doom.

If only real life was like that.

The single A-Wing destroying a Super Star Destroyer, that was heavily damaged from a Capital Class battle and the bombardment of numerous MonCals mind you, tells a great story, but would not be fun as a game. Imagine if I could destroy my opponent's Star Destroyer, which would consist of his entire force point wise, if I flew Arvel straight at the bridge. Not fun.

Shields and a full compliment of fighters and turbolaser batteries are present to prevent that and to vaporize Arvel before he gets a chance to introduce the bridge crew to his shiny new starfighter. And that is where the disagreement between the two camps rests.

In order to achieve that, not only would you have to completely disregard the scale, both pre and post epic expansion, which some have already said matters little or is relative, but you would also have to disregard the weapons capabilities, shielding, and standard fighter compliment of a Star Destroyer.

I don't think any of us truly wants to field a "lone, damaged, unprotected (or merely a handful of remaining fighters) Star Destroyer" every time we put on on the table in order to justify the absence of those very things that are standard on a Star Destroyer.

At that point then, the Star Destroyer has become a nothing more than a "Boss Fight" from a video game, complete with glowing "weak spots" in the shield generators that we have to shoot in order to destroy it .

A kitted out CR-90 will be able to cross 150pts fairly easily as it stands currently. Do we really want to reduce a Star Destroyer to being equal to that?

Repeated multiple times before by myself and others, a Star Destroyer would have to be handicapped into a shadowy ghost of itself in order to feasibly be used on the table. FFG has demonstrated that knowledge to some degree by implementing a Star Destroyer in the GR-75 campaign as an off-board mechanic, knowing that a GR-75 is minuscule in comparison.

I also have already admitted that a Victory Class Star Destroyer would be my personal extreme upper limit of what should ever be looked at as being feasibly playable as a game piece. I would be willing to accept that in order to please those who call for one.

However, I personally would prefer that they let the Capital Class ship stay "gigantic" off-board and instead let us field our "huge" corvettes and frigates in our dog-fighting game.

Fact is, game design allows for a balanced Star Destroyer, that is as relative in firepower to a Corvette as an X-wing is to the Falcon. It fits the game in everything but scale and the minds of fans who vastly overpower what it can do in their minds.

LOL NO. No, no, no. That's not a fact, it's a wild, overly-optimistic and ridiculously vain hope masquerading as a fact. If you want to talk facts, then let's look at some, shall we?

Please remember, the base game rules are capped at 100 points per squad. The Epic Tournament play rules are capped at 300 points per squad, with 5 Epic points available for Huge ships.

Incom T-65 X-Wing Starfighter

12.5 metres long (approximately 1" long in the X-Wing Miniatures game).

4 x IX4 Laser Cannons

2 x MG7 Proton Torpedo launchers

Crew: 1

In Game Basic Points Value : 21 points (Rookie Pilot)

Millenium Falcon modified YT-1300 Light Freighter

35 metres long (approximately 3" long in the X-Wing Miniatures game)

2 x AG-2G Quad Laser Cannons

2 x ST2 Concussion Missile Launchers

Crew: 1 minimum, can carry up to 15 passengers)

In Game Basic Points Value : 42 points (Chewbacca)

CR-90 Correllian Corvette

150 metres long (approximately 12" long in the X-Wing Minatures game).

2 x H9 dual turbolaser turrets

4 x H9 single turbolaser turrets

Crew: 7 minimum, usual 30-165, can carry up to 600 passengers

In Game Basic Points Value: 90 points(?)

Epic Points Value: 3

OK, so far? We have internal balance for these ships in-game, both in offensive capabilities and physical representation on the board. Right, let's look at one of the SMALLEST Star Destroyers then, the Victory I-Class, and see what it would bring to the table...

Victory I-Class Star Destroyer

900 metres long

So, to keep it in scale with the Corvette (which is already scaled down from the X-Wing and Falcon), it would need to be 6 foot long. Even if you decided to say goodbye to any idea of comparative scaling and HALVED this, it would still be 3 foot long, which means it would barely fit at all on a regular sized board, and would still be a logistical nightmare to move (and manuever around) on even a 6' by 4' board. OK, let's ignore the obvious sizing issues (and by association, the cost of producing and shipping such a model and the price it would consequently demand) for a moment and look at the ship's capabilities instead, shall we?

I still say Balrogs do not have literal wings and that Rumble is blue. So there.

^^All of the above^^

Exactly.

Which is why I said:

...

I don't think any of us truly wants to field a "lone, damaged, unprotected (or merely a handful of remaining fighters) Star Destroyer" every time we put on on the table in order to justify the absence of those very things that are standard on a Star Destroyer.

...

... I personally would prefer that they let the Capital Class ship stay "gigantic" off-board and instead let us field our "huge" corvettes and frigates in our dog-fighting game.

Please let this topic die.

Everything that needs to be said has been said...

...again...

...and again...

...and again...

...and again...

...and again...

How happy I was today when I came to the forum to find that this topic had finally slipped to the bottom of the list, then off the list altogether as new, fresh topics were being discussed.

How happy I was today when I came to the forum to find that this topic had finally slipped to the bottom of the list, then off the list altogether as new, fresh topics were being discussed.

So naturally, you bumped it up to the top of the list.

15 pagess in 3 days! This arguement is starting tolw become iwsane. I can understand those that don't want it. But I don't think I am in the wrong for wanting to recreate a favorite battle from Rofue Squadron II. Down to the insane out of scaleness. With thefull rules out, I fail to see how a star destoyer cannot be scaled up from 200 pts nakee, to well over a 1000 pts fully upgraded. In the end, only FFG will decide. And we should know by Gencon. Can we kill this fight?

Frankly, we need to see what Disney does with Star Destroyers before ANY are included in this game.