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.

Exactly. And yet, a single Star Destroyer engaging a squadron of small, fast fighters, in the middle of an asteroid field, with few or none of its 72 TIE fighters for support - that feels authentic to you? Star Destroyers were designed for ship-to-ship combat and orbital bombardments. Wouldn't it have a better "feel" to field a picket ship that was actually designed to be an imposing monster to any fighters it came across? Why try to shoehorn a familiar ship into a role it never actually filled?

[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?)

Scale is important. The Star Destroyer just isn't beyond the scope of that scale. What I meant by not caring is that quite frankly the number of people saying it won't be right relative to the CR-90 just don't matter to me. They're treating this like a simulation. If you look at the game as a simulation it is frankly terrible. It isn't real time. It doesn't have linea fire power progression. Etc. I can pick apart the game on that level for hours. But I don't want a simulation. I want a Tabletop game. If I wanted a simulation I'd be playing a video game. They're slightly better(but really bad at making things an appropriate speed for space combat). I am willing to accept the scaling power level and size scale conceits of the game in favor of having a fun, balanced, game that makes FFG lots of money. Something the Star Destroyer can do better than any substitute.

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.

"Naysayer land"? Seriously?

Yes, the game scales - so that means the ISD should have merely 71 attack dice.

It's really awesome that you don't care - I don't especially care that you don't care. It would be completely out of whack for the game in every way - play, visual, cost. Those most certainly are rooted in the game, because the game is supposed to be based on fluff. There are deviations, and there are DEVIATIONS.

If you're willing to chuck everything that keeps X-wing consistent - which is a huge selling point for a lot of people - because of your lust for a Star Destroyer, that's your prerogative. But many people aren't, and hope FFG doesn't ruin the Star Destroyer by gimping it to a stupid level just to sell a big ship.

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.

Exactly. And yet, a single Star Destroyer engaging a squadron of small, fast fighters, in the middle of an asteroid field, with few or none of its 72 TIE fighters for support - that feels authentic to you? Star Destroyers were designed for ship-to-ship combat and orbital bombardments. Wouldn't it have a better "feel" to field a picket ship that was actually designed to be an imposing monster to any fighters it came across? Why try to shoehorn a familiar ship into a role it never actually filled?

That level of discussion is about how many points you pay for a Star Destroyer and everything it contains. And I'm OK with someday running a match with a Star Destroyer and a bunch of Ties(not 72, as nobody should ever own that many). It's yet another factor of scale in the game. You run on a budget and fit what you can into the budget. The Empire didn't have a budget in our understanding of the word. It had more money than there is Mass on Earth at its disposal. The game is built on a principle of budgeting. And I think saying a Lone Star Destroyer and a couple ships can have trouble fighting off a Squadron of X-wings just fine.

My objection remains not about scale, but about what a Star Destroyer is supposed to represent. It's supposed to be this vast, armed juggernaut that strikes fear into its opponents. And I just don't see a way to bring that across in this game that wouldn't require its opponent to field more ships than the average player owns in order to even make a dent in it.

Just give it up. By his own admission, Aminar considers nothing short of human sacrifice as a justifiable reason not to put an ISD in the game. He cares nothing for anything that makes X-wing a good game to the rest of the community, as long as he gets his big shiny toy.

Scale, balance, cost, fluff appropriateness - all irrelevant to him. He's willing to literally abandon the entire game as it exists. There's no reasoning with that.

He's going to want what he wants, the rest of us will just have to hope that FFG's smart enough not to give it to him. Which I think they are, but we'll see.

My objection remains not about scale, but about what a Star Destroyer is supposed to represent. It's supposed to be this vast, armed juggernaut that strikes fear into its opponents. And I just don't see a way to bring that across in this game that wouldn't require its opponent to field more ships than the average player owns in order to even make a dent in it.

FFG will tell us if they can't get that feeling right. It is possible. But I honestly think FFG can pull off making it intimidating enough.

Just give it up. By his own admission, Aminar considers nothing short of human sacrifice as a justifiable reason not to put an ISD in the game. He cares nothing for anything that makes X-wing a good game to the rest of the community, as long as he gets his big shiny toy.

Scale, balance, cost, fluff appropriateness - all irrelevant to him. He's willing to literally abandon the entire game as it exists. There's no reasoning with that.

He's going to want what he wants, the rest of us will just have to hope that FFG's smart enough not to give it to him. Which I think they are, but we'll see.

I think they will just make a new game called "Star Destroyer" for capital ships, but not anytime soon.

+1

I think a capital ship game will see the light of day eventually, and I can wait that long for a Star Destroyer.

Of course, then the big debate will be on when we get a Death Star...

[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?)

Scale is important. The Star Destroyer just isn't beyond the scope of that scale...

Okay! Now take just one more step with me.

The smallest Star Destroyer is the Victory -class, at 900m. That's 6 times the size of the CR-90 corvette. FFG already reduced the corvette down to about half-scale, in comparison to the game's starfighters, and introduced an entire new tier of play to accommodate its physical size and firepower. You're suggesting that it's not only possible but virtually certain that FFG will reduce the scale of the Victory -class Star Destroyer by an additional two thirds, without a corresponding new tier, in order to fit a Star Destroyer into the game.

To me, that seems very unlikely--not because I think they can't do it, but because it's very unlike the decisions they've already made with the game. In fact, they've been very protective of degree to which the game corresponds to the canon universe, down to possibly negligible issues of scale at the starfighter level.

[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?)

Scale is important. The Star Destroyer just isn't beyond the scope of that scale...

Okay! Now take just one more step with me.The smallest Star Destroyer is the Victory -class, at 900m. That's 6 times the size of the CR-90 corvette. FFG already reduced the corvette down to about half-scale, in comparison to the game's starfighters, and introduced an entire new tier of play to accommodate its physical size and firepower. You're suggesting that it's not only possible but virtually certain that FFG will reduce the scale of the Victory -class Star Destroyer by an additional two thirds, without a corresponding new tier, in order to fit a Star Destroyer into the game.To me, that seems very unlikely--not because I think they can't do it, but because it's very unlike the decisions they've already made with the game. In fact, they've been very protective of degree to which the game corresponds to the canon universe, down to possibly negligible issues of scale at the starfighter level.

I see it as very in character with their decisions. Right now they are testing the waters with the smallest of their capitol ships. Seeing how the format works. From what it looks like the Corvette is right around the %price point of the named Bounty Hunters. We have yet to see what the YT1300 of epic play will be. They didn't create a new format for the CR-90. They created a new format for bigger things. And they haven't scratched the surface of that format yet. But they have to test the waters with the least crazy of those ideas. The Star Destroyer is on the high end. Of course they need to research how players use the bigger ships before they make the Biggest Ship.

What part of balance did I say I didn't care about. I want it to be balanced. The rest is just not important.

Even ignoring whether the numbers they put on the ship are right, you've suggested it should be something like 2 feet by 1 foot for the base. You cannot balance a 2-foot long ship on the board. Anything it does covers the entire board, and it simply breaks the maneuver system as ships are literally unable to move past it. If you let ships overlap it freely, now you've got to deal with the physical realities of figuring out how to let ships do that and keep their current position. Do you elevate the ISD enough so ships can fly under it? What happens to anything on the base when the ISD moves? And heaven help anyone who happens to bump it and knock it over.

So no, I don't think you actually care about balance, or at the very least haven't actually stopped to think about what it would mean and how it would work in the game.

I don't think anyone can expect to see an actual Imperial Star Destroyer in the core game of X wing. I think even getting it close to scale it'll be too big. Better fit for an attack wing style capital ship battle.

However, the smaller end of triangle style I easily see them doing, as well as ships about the size of the blockade runner, light cruisers and assault transports. As has been pointed out, there are 5 epic points and no 5 epic point ship. I can't see them leaving the empire out of having their own epic ships. I'd wager they are already in the works perhaps with announcement around wave 4's release.

I will be picking up the empire epic ships.

Okay! Now take just one more step with me.The smallest Star Destroyer is the Victory -class, at 900m. That's 6 times the size of the CR-90 corvette. FFG already reduced the corvette down to about half-scale, in comparison to the game's starfighters, and introduced an entire new tier of play to accommodate its physical size and firepower. You're suggesting that it's not only possible but virtually certain that FFG will reduce the scale of the Victory -class Star Destroyer by an additional two thirds, without a corresponding new tier, in order to fit a Star Destroyer into the game.To me, that seems very unlikely--not because I think they can't do it, but because it's very unlike the decisions they've already made with the game. In fact, they've been very protective of degree to which the game corresponds to the canon universe, down to possibly negligible issues of scale at the starfighter level.

I see it as very in character with their decisions. Right now they are testing the waters with the smallest of their capitol ships. Seeing how the format works. From what it looks like the Corvette is right around the %price point of the named Bounty Hunters. We have yet to see what the YT1300 of epic play will be. They didn't create a new format for the CR-90. They created a new format for bigger things. And they haven't scratched the surface of that format yet. But they have to test the waters with the least crazy of those ideas. The Star Destroyer is on the high end. Of course they need to research how players use the bigger ships before they make the Biggest Ship.

They created a new format and introduced two ships at half-scale. Why do you think it's more likely that they'll continue to make even larger compromises in scale than that they'll search for ships that function at the scale they've already adopted--particularly in light of FFG's attention to detail with the product line up to this point?

As has been pointed out, there are 5 epic points and no 5 epic point ship.

Where's our 100-point starfighter?

Just because they give you 5 Epic Points does not mean that that allocation must be capable of being filled by a single ship. Honestly, I can't think of a single game point system that follows that. If anything, having 5 points suggests rather strongly that we WON'T see a 5-point ship.

What part of balance did I say I didn't care about. I want it to be balanced. The rest is just not important.

Even ignoring whether the numbers they put on the ship are right, you've suggested it should be something like 2 feet by 1 foot for the base. You cannot balance a 2-foot long ship on the board. Anything it does covers the entire board, and it simply breaks the maneuver system as ships are literally unable to move past it. If you let ships overlap it freely, now you've got to deal with the physical realities of figuring out how to let ships do that and keep their current position. Do you elevate the ISD enough so ships can fly under it? What happens to anything on the base when the ISD moves? And heaven help anyone who happens to bump it and knock it over.

So no, I don't think you actually care about balance, or at the very least haven't actually stopped to think about what it would mean and how it would work in the game.

Okay! Now take just one more step with me.The smallest Star Destroyer is the Victory -class, at 900m. That's 6 times the size of the CR-90 corvette. FFG already reduced the corvette down to about half-scale, in comparison to the game's starfighters, and introduced an entire new tier of play to accommodate its physical size and firepower. You're suggesting that it's not only possible but virtually certain that FFG will reduce the scale of the Victory -class Star Destroyer by an additional two thirds, without a corresponding new tier, in order to fit a Star Destroyer into the game.To me, that seems very unlikely--not because I think they can't do it, but because it's very unlike the decisions they've already made with the game. In fact, they've been very protective of degree to which the game corresponds to the canon universe, down to possibly negligible issues of scale at the starfighter level.

I see it as very in character with their decisions. Right now they are testing the waters with the smallest of their capitol ships. Seeing how the format works. From what it looks like the Corvette is right around the %price point of the named Bounty Hunters. We have yet to see what the YT1300 of epic play will be. They didn't create a new format for the CR-90. They created a new format for bigger things. And they haven't scratched the surface of that format yet. But they have to test the waters with the least crazy of those ideas. The Star Destroyer is on the high end. Of course they need to research how players use the bigger ships before they make the Biggest Ship.

They created a new format and introduced two ships at half-scale. Why do you think it's more likely that they'll continue to make even larger compromises in scale than that they'll search for ships that function at the scale they've already adopted--particularly in light of FFG's attention to detail with the product line up to this point?

Even Wave 4 used ships that debuted in visual mediums. Comics, and Video Games.

Star Destroyers have absolutely no place in this game. Even on the epic game play format.

I'm not about to read this whole thread, but i will chime in.. As long as big ships don't get into competitive play, that's cool. Do what you want.

I'm not about to read this whole thread, but i will chime in.. As long as big ships don't get into competitive play, that's cool. Do what you want.

Kind of like Titans and 40K. They started out as cool centerpieces with OK rules and it wasn't until they started to shove down people's throats with Escalation that people (at least in my area) started having real issues with them.

I'm not about to read this whole thread, but i will chime in.. As long as big ships don't get into competitive play, that's cool. Do what you want.

I really don't want to have to buy one for certain cards.

What part of balance did I say I didn't care about. I want it to be balanced. The rest is just not important.

Even ignoring whether the numbers they put on the ship are right, you've suggested it should be something like 2 feet by 1 foot for the base. You cannot balance a 2-foot long ship on the board. Anything it does covers the entire board, and it simply breaks the maneuver system as ships are literally unable to move past it. If you let ships overlap it freely, now you've got to deal with the physical realities of figuring out how to let ships do that and keep their current position. Do you elevate the ISD enough so ships can fly under it? What happens to anything on the base when the ISD moves? And heaven help anyone who happens to bump it and knock it over.

So no, I don't think you actually care about balance, or at the very least haven't actually stopped to think about what it would mean and how it would work in the game.

That seems to fit with the Star Destroyer Just fine. It should dominate the battlefield. And As I said, due to the angle of the ship the base should be samller than the model by about 6 inches length and 4 width. (A 1.5 foot by 8 inch base.) It can still move. Probably even turn around on the board, but it will hit every Asteroid on the way. I'm not saying I can balance it. But it can be balanced within the game.

This does not change any of the issues I've raised, all of which you conveniently ignore.

A ship that large simply does not work, physically , with the X-wing game system.

Wow. I read through that whole thing.

...What a waste of time that was.

What part of balance did I say I didn't care about. I want it to be balanced. The rest is just not important.

Even ignoring whether the numbers they put on the ship are right, you've suggested it should be something like 2 feet by 1 foot for the base. You cannot balance a 2-foot long ship on the board. Anything it does covers the entire board, and it simply breaks the maneuver system as ships are literally unable to move past it. If you let ships overlap it freely, now you've got to deal with the physical realities of figuring out how to let ships do that and keep their current position. Do you elevate the ISD enough so ships can fly under it? What happens to anything on the base when the ISD moves? And heaven help anyone who happens to bump it and knock it over.

So no, I don't think you actually care about balance, or at the very least haven't actually stopped to think about what it would mean and how it would work in the game.

That seems to fit with the Star Destroyer Just fine. It should dominate the battlefield. And As I said, due to the angle of the ship the base should be samller than the model by about 6 inches length and 4 width. (A 1.5 foot by 8 inch base.) It can still move. Probably even turn around on the board, but it will hit every Asteroid on the way. I'm not saying I can balance it. But it can be balanced within the game.

This does not change any of the issues I've raised, all of which you conveniently ignore.

A ship that large simply does not work, physically , with the X-wing game system.

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

No not at all.

Myself and others give logical, consistent and in universe reasons why a ISD won't work in this game. We are not being illogical and emotional in our reasons why we don't want it.

Plus that I don't think there's many people other then Aminar who wouldn't accept something like the Vigil as the big Imperial ship for the epic format.

Lets consider the following two situations.

1) FFG makes a ISD that is massively out of scale, both in terms of firepower and size.

2) FFG makes a Vigil that is correct in terms of scale for size and firepower.

Both ships have the same stats, and capabilities in the game, they even look pretty much the same. The only difference between them, is one is called a Star Destroyer the other is called a Vigil.

So tell me, which one of those makes more sense? The one that is correct for sale or the one that isn't? I mean if someone could give a reason other then "because" why a Vigil isn't good enough then I'd be happy to listen and even debate it. But so far Aminar hasn't offered even a single bit of logical or reasonable argument for why a Vigil isn't good enough. Other then his clearly blinded by lust for a ISD emotional "it wouldn't be as much fun" type response.