Not if you set it facing across the short edge of the board there's not.

I did a quick doodle of it in Paint using the grid.

At 18 long, 8 wide, a ISD in the center of the table would be able to cover about 95% of the table space. There's about a 5 inch space on either of the short edges that aren't in range of a ISD in the center of the table.

Funny thing is, I'd buy it after the Star Destroyer came out. I just will not accept it as a substitute for a Star Destroyer.

But we are not a quality sampling of the playerbase either. We are the most involved. The collectors, and the strategists. What we would buy in many ways doesn't matter, because most of us will buy anything. Including a Star Destroyer.

You've got a ton of the most involved people in the game here telling you they WON'T buy a Star Destroyer, because of the scale, because of the balance issues you refuse to admit, because of the cost.

But I'm sure we're all lying just to cling to our unreasonable hate of the Star Destroyer. Or something.

I wouldn't say ton...

Really? You've got seven pages with like two of you arguing for it, and almost universally otherwise against it. What would you say?

A fairly small (probably really small) representation of the X-Wing community with extra time...

So you think Aminar is wrong about the forum community being the hardcore that will buy everything?

Because that's what I was responding to, and while I see what you're trying to do, you're obviously not understanding the argument.

Aminar made the point that the active forumgoing community is the hardest of the hard core, who will buy anything. His point, not mine, although I agree with it. Do you disagree that the active community here is more likely to buy bunches of stuff, including the very expensive stuff?

MY point was that even within that community, there's little to no interest in anything that big, as demonstrated in pretty much every discussion every time this comes up.

I don't think either of those particular points are debatable, but if you're inclined to disagree, you're welcome to. I guess it's entirely possible that average casual players who don't even know the forums exist will be more likely to drop $300 on an ISD than those of us who have all the extra time on our hands... but I'd be somewhat shocked if it turned out to be the case.

If you're going to make a "not representative" argument, you should probably understand what's being represented, and how that is being used.

Assuming the ship is hollow that seems fair.

Given the amount of material needed to make a ISD, even if it's hollow (both the CR-90 and GR-75 are hollow), it's still going to be more then those two ships combined. It would be at least $150 and more likely around $200.

No. I've put thought into everything but the scale issue. And even that I dismissed simply because all in all, it's just not relevent to the game itself in comparison to what a Star Destroyer means. I get how big that is. It has to be big. I also get how small it is in comparison to the real scale. Those are sacrifices we should all be willing to make for the comparable level of awesome involved…...Saying it seems out of character for FFG has a certain logic to it, but I see their approach differently. I see the visual significance of the SD as paramount to any other concern.

Just in these bits, there are two idiosyncratic value judgments: we should all be willing to sacrifice scale in order to get something awesome, and that the visual significance of the Star Destroyer is the most important thing.So for you , it's worth getting a Star Destroyer into the game regardless of what the implications of doing so would be. I've tried to explain why that's logically inconsistent, as well as how FFG's past decisions about this game indicate that they're probably not on the same page you are.But if you're not willing to accept any evidence contrary to your position; if you refuse to acknowledge that you're engaged in special pleading on behalf of the Star Destroyer; if you don't understand that the game you're describing is fundamentally different from the game FFG is publishing… then there's no chance you're going to change your mind and all of this discussion has been (and will be, since the discussion will undoubtedly continue) pointless.

I don't think it's a different game. i think it is where the game is headed. And I accept the viability of balance concerns. I have said that if FFG tells us it cannot be balanced then it can't be. Same goes for scale. But they haven't said that either. I'm not even arguing against the points. Just explaining why it would be good for the game, why I want it, and why other peoples arguments just don't really bother me.(Mainly because I've seen a lot of game communities say "It can't be done." over and over again. Right up until it is. At which point everybody loves it.

My point is that for the average player, the Vigil is meaningless.

That same average player sure as hell isn't going to drop $100+ on a single Star Destroyer model either.

Assuming the ship is hollow that seems fair.

Given the amount of material needed to make a ISD, even if it's hollow (both the CR-90 and GR-75 are hollow), it's still going to be more then those two ships combined. It would be at least $150 and more likely around $200.

And the two together are 140, are they not?

Nobody would buy it at $300, not even me. That's too much for the game. Iv'e guessed before that it will cost about as much as the Tantive and the Transport put together maybe a little more. Assuming the ship is hollow that seems fair.

So wait... You think the ship will be about double the length, somewhere around 4 times the width, and think it'll be the same price?? Even if we count nothing but surface area, the CR90 has about 184 square inches of surface area (which is a strong overestimation, because it assumes a full rectangle, and without knowing the full dimensions I guess large). CONSERVATIVELY, an ISD would have about 240 400 (Edit: looked up the dimensions, was underestimating the width) square inches of surface, and that assumes a purely flat triangle (top and bottom) and ignores the thickness. So comparing worst-case CR90 to best-case ISD, you're going up by at least 50% more than double, just in surface area. And it's not completely hollow - you need braces and support and connecting pieces.

And that's not even touching packing and shipping costs, which will be dramatically higher, painting labor (which is a large part of the cost), tooling (each bigger step of ship has proven more challenging than the previous)...

The idea that they'd cost the same, for something more than four times the size, is utterly laughable.

Funny thing is, I'd buy it after the Star Destroyer came out. I just will not accept it as a substitute for a Star Destroyer.

But we are not a quality sampling of the playerbase either. We are the most involved. The collectors, and the strategists. What we would buy in many ways doesn't matter, because most of us will buy anything. Including a Star Destroyer.

You've got a ton of the most involved people in the game here telling you they WON'T buy a Star Destroyer, because of the scale, because of the balance issues you refuse to admit, because of the cost.

But I'm sure we're all lying just to cling to our unreasonable hate of the Star Destroyer. Or something.

I wouldn't say ton...

Really? You've got seven pages with like two of you arguing for it, and almost universally otherwise against it. What would you say?

A fairly small (probably really small) representation of the X-Wing community with extra time...

So you think Aminar is wrong about the forum community being the hardcore that will buy everything?

Because that's what I was responding to, and while I see what you're trying to do, you're obviously not understanding the argument.

Aminar made the point that the active forumgoing community is the hardest of the hard core, who will buy anything. His point, not mine, although I agree with it. Do you disagree that the active community here is more likely to buy bunches of stuff, including the very expensive stuff?

MY point was that even within that community, there's little to no interest in anything that big, as demonstrated in pretty much every discussion every time this comes up.

I don't think either of those particular points are debatable, but if you're inclined to disagree, you're welcome to. I guess it's entirely possible that average casual players who don't even know the forums exist will be more likely to drop $300 on an ISD than those of us who have all the extra time on our hands... but I'd be somewhat shocked if it turned out to be the case.

If you're going to make a "not representative" argument, you should probably understand what's being represented, and how that is being used.

Nobody would buy it at $300, not even me. That's too much for the game. Iv'e guessed before that it will cost about as much as the Tantive and the Transport put together maybe a little more. Assuming the ship is hollow that seems fair.

So wait... You think the ship will be about double the length, somewhere around 4 times the width, and think it'll be the same price?? Even if we count nothing but surface area, the CR90 has about 184 square inches of surface area (which is a strong overestimation, because it assumes a full rectangle, and without knowing the full dimensions I guess large). CONSERVATIVELY, an ISD would have about 240 square inches of surface, and that assumes a purely flat triangle (top and bottom) and ignores the thickness. So comparing worst-case CR90 to best-case ISD, you're going up by at least 50%.

And that's not even touching packing and shipping costs, which will be dramatically higher, painting labor (which is a large part of the cost), tooling (each bigger step of ship has proven more challenging than the previous)...

The idea that they'd cost the same, for something more than four times the size, is utterly laughable.

Honestly. Yes. In that much more and it becomes too expensive for anybody to buy. There are ways for FFG to manage that. I've bought much larger amounts of plastic for much much less.

Prepainted? At the level of detail that FFG puts into the models for X-wing? Please, share the what, if there's something that big at that level of detail I might very well like having it as a showpiece on my desk.

Honestly. Yes. In that much more and it becomes too expensive for anybody to buy. There are ways for FFG to manage that. I've bought much larger amounts of plastic for much much less.

Prepainted? At the level of detail that FFG puts into the models for X-wing? Please, share the what, if there's something that big at that level of detail I might very well like having it as a showpiece on my desk.

Funny thing is, I'd buy it after the Star Destroyer came out. I just will not accept it as a substitute for a Star Destroyer.

But we are not a quality sampling of the playerbase either. We are the most involved. The collectors, and the strategists. What we would buy in many ways doesn't matter, because most of us will buy anything. Including a Star Destroyer.

You've got a ton of the most involved people in the game here telling you they WON'T buy a Star Destroyer, because of the scale, because of the balance issues you refuse to admit, because of the cost.

But I'm sure we're all lying just to cling to our unreasonable hate of the Star Destroyer. Or something.

If the "most involved, the collectors, the strategists" say they would not purchase a ISD, why do you believe that the average person, the 'casual' gamers, the ones who play XWMG once and a while and are not members of the 'hardcore' gaming element, would ever purchase something that is so large and expensive as the proposed ISD?

I do expect if they make one it will come with a level of required assembly to save on shipping costs.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Officially done here. You're obviously posting from an alternate reality with the twisted Mirror Universe version of FFG.

Funny thing is, I'd buy it after the Star Destroyer came out. I just will not accept it as a substitute for a Star Destroyer.

But we are not a quality sampling of the playerbase either. We are the most involved. The collectors, and the strategists. What we would buy in many ways doesn't matter, because most of us will buy anything. Including a Star Destroyer.

You've got a ton of the most involved people in the game here telling you they WON'T buy a Star Destroyer, because of the scale, because of the balance issues you refuse to admit, because of the cost.

But I'm sure we're all lying just to cling to our unreasonable hate of the Star Destroyer. Or something.

If the "most involved, the collectors, the strategists" say they would not purchase a ISD, why do you believe that the average person, the 'casual' gamers, the ones who play XWMG once and a while and are not members of the 'hardcore' gaming element, would ever purchase something that is so large and expensive as the proposed ISD?

I do expect if they make one it will come with a level of required assembly to save on shipping costs.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Officially done here. You're obviously posting from an alternate reality with the twisted Mirror Universe version of FFG.

So if an 18-inch long model makes a 30-degree turn (which is what the new template banks seem to be), how far does the base move?

Between that, and the amount of table such a thing can cover... I don't think even a 18 inch base is feasible for this game. Not and having it move around the table.

I'd say that 12-14 inches is likely the biggest single model that FFG can make that still works with the rules.

A few pieces that clip together is somehow wrong?

No, but it's also completely out of character for FFG. Everything they make is done with the least amount of assembly possible. They seem to take the idea of being able to play 5 minutes after you open the box very seriously.

As far as the sales of a Vigil. If it's around $100-120, I'd expect them to sell as many of those as they would CR-90's. But a $175+ ISD will sell worse then a Vigil, that's just a given. The higher the price the lower the demand. Add on to that the fact that a lot of us won't buy it because we won't give FFG money for something that broken...

So if an 18-inch long model makes a 30-degree turn (which is what the new template banks seem to be), how far does the base move?

Between that, and the amount of table such a thing can cover... I don't think even a 18 inch base is feasible for this game. Not and having it move around the table.

I'd say that 12-14 inches is likely the biggest single model that FFG can make that still works with the rules.

12 inches will displace the opposite end of the ship by more than 6", which means that a 4" width would thoroughly squash anything in about a foot-wide swath.

Aminar's suggested footprint displaces by 16", meaning it requires about a 2" section of the table to make a turn.

So if an 18-inch long model makes a 30-degree turn (which is what the new template banks seem to be), how far does the base move?

Between that, and the amount of table such a thing can cover... I don't think even a 18 inch base is feasible for this game. Not and having it move around the table.

I'd say that 12-14 inches is likely the biggest single model that FFG can make that still works with the rules.

Just a head's up. Covering a huge amount of the table with your primary isn't unheard of. The Millennium Falcon already covers a huge amount of the table when its right in the middle with its turret. You'd be surprised how far that range ruler reaches during a game on a 3x3 table from a large base with a turret.

Note - I was just going to suggest they give the ISD a speed zero turn, but that would just open up pandora's box as to if my made up rule would be broken or not.

So if an 18-inch long model makes a 30-degree turn (which is what the new template banks seem to be), how far does the base move?

Between that, and the amount of table such a thing can cover... I don't think even a 18 inch base is feasible for this game. Not and having it move around the table.

I'd say that 12-14 inches is likely the biggest single model that FFG can make that still works with the rules.

12 inches will displace the opposite end of the ship by more than 6", which means that a 4" width would thoroughly squash anything in about a foot-wide swath.

Aminar's suggested footprint displaces by 16", meaning it requires about a 2" section of the table to make a turn.

And yes FFG wants minimal assembly. What I listed is minimal. And a game of X-wing still takes 10-15 minutes to setup everything when you include list building, and about 5 to set up a regular field.

That's a balance concern that can be addressed. Not every large ship 100% has to have the same movement template. Beyond that I think you're numbers might be off. I'll look at it more when I have some epic ship templates to work with.

You really don't need the physical template where math will suffice.

Edit: Well, I don't, anyway.

Not every large ship 100% has to have the same movement template.

So now they need to design a new template, just for a ISD? Even if they decrease the angle, a 18in base is still going to take up a ton of room to turn around, and it should. An ISD should have trouble turning around.

What I listed is minimal.

No what you suggested is extra assembly just to cut the cost. Something that FFG doesn't seem to be very interested in doing. None of their products require any real assembly. The dials for X-Wing are the most complex thing I've seen in one of their games.

No what you suggested is extra assembly just to cut the cost. Something that FFG doesn't seem to be very interested in doing. None of their products require any real assembly. The dials for X-Wing are the most complex thing I've seen in one of their games.

Yeah, I'm trying to think of anything in an FFG game that's required more than dial assembly. I guess some of the larger walkers for Dust, but that's in service of intentionally interchangeable parts, not just separation for the sake of it. I don't play Descent, but I don't think there. Does deck construction count?

It would also go against the packing style they've had for X-wing, which has universally showed off the ships in the pack. That won't work so well if it's in multiple pieces.

That won't work so well if it's in multiple pieces.

Yeah that would hurt the marketing. Having a box on the shelf showing the model in all it's glory helps sell the game.

We will definately have a Star Destroyer because of this statement alone:

"In the end, we decided these ships were simply too iconic and exciting to ignore, and we invented a new “relative” scale..."

FFG statement from the announcement of the Rebel Transport and Tantive IV here:

http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp?eidn=4312

I can't think of a more iconic ship in the Imperial fleet than the Star Destroyer. Fortunately, I'm not involved in the design process .

My guess is an announcement at Gencon 2014 with a release date around christmas. Would make perfect sense.

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.

Ha! You know that's exactly what's going to happen