Sorry but this is going to be a massive comment. If you posted a good idea, and I missed it, it wasn't personal I just struggled to see the pros for the never ending list of cons:

I found the Star Destroyers that folks want:

It's from the alternative "The Star Wars" comic adaptation of the first version of Lucas' original draft.

Though I suspect this was meant as a joke I have to say I'd like to have them in the game. Just saying. I like them.

OK, after thinking it through, I've come up with some house rules which I feel represent an ISD perfectly within the confines of the game. Let's git ourselves some playtestin'!

Model:

• We use a cardboard cut out to represent the ISD - a 3 foot long, 1 foot wide triangle. Is is mounted on 12 large ship bases, arranged in a triangle.

• The ISD is split into five sections - forward port, forward starboard, aft port, aft starboard and Bridge. All sections have 10 hull points. The ISD has 10 energy.

Movement:

• The ISD can make 1-forward, 2 -forward, 1-bank and 2-bank moves only

• If any part of the ISD overlaps the board edge at any time it is considered to have fled the batlefield.

• Any asteroid or other obstacle touched by the ISD is immediately removed from play

• Any ship (small, large or huge) whose base overlaps the ISD (or the ISD moves onto) is considered destroyed. If the ISD's shields are down when this happens, that section of the ISD overlapped takes a critical hit.

Actions:

• The ISD has the target lock, tractor beam and hangar icons in it's action bar

• The ISD can expend one energy to launch an Academy Pilot TIE fighter, Scimitar Squadrom TIE Bomber or Alpha Squadron TIE Interceptor. It can launch up to two TIE fighters per round.

• The ISD can expend one energy to use it's tractor beam on any enemy ship which has already been target locked. That ship takes no damage, but is considered both stressed and ionised until the end of the next movement phase. Do not discard the target lock.

• The ISD can recover one shield by expending one energy point, up to it's maximum value. It can recover up to two shields in tis manner per turn.

Combat:

• Each section of ISD can attack any ships within range 3-5 of itself with a 4 attack turret main weapon, double defence dice for the target.

• Each section ISD can attack also any ships within range 1-3 of itself with a 3 attack turret secondary weapon by expending an energy point.

• Each section of the ISD can also attack any ships within range 1-2 of itself with a 3 attack ion turret secondary weapon by expending an energy point

• The only section of the ISD which can be initially targeted for attack is the Bridge - representing the Shield Generators. The Bridge has a shield value of 10.

• Once the Bridge's shields are down, all sections of the ISD can be targeted. If reduced to 0 hull points, that section is crippled and may no longer perform attacks or actions. Once all sections are crippled, the ISD is destroyed.

• If the ISD is destroyed, any ship (small, large or huge) within range 3 of any section of the ISD is also destroyed due to the resulting explosion.

Cost: 300 points, 5 Epic points.

Have fun!

Anybody willing to give this a go?

But if we could get some cool 3' x 6' play mats with imagery of a cross section of an ISD and some minis to represent the important features (turrets and the like), i'm in. I really don't think there are many folks that a tuay wouldn't enjoy an ISD in the game, the hate is for doing it poorly. And a nerfed up mini IS doing it poorly.

All the ISD proponents won't like this idea, because they aren't in it for the gameplay experience. That's apparent by the sacrifices they're willing to make to get a 2' model. That's the real issue, they want the ship so bad they don't care about the game. It's about the trophy mantle piece. And hanging a game mat over the fireplace just isn't the same.

So, the two sides will probably never agree. And our constant squabbling is probably an indication to FFG that at the very best any ISD product will lose market share because of this division. It will be interesting to see if and what they ever decide to do about it.

I'm a Star Destroyer proponent and I not only like the idea but I wholeheartedly support the idea.

I love what DarkFather did here:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/104459-600-point-2v2-defend-the-star-destroyer-game/

My reply is #22

I arrived late to the BatRep

EDIT: if FFG followed DarkFather's lead, doing a 6 feet flat Star Destroyer with the turrets, bridge and shields as separate "scenery" pieces then I would be a very happy gamer. Hopefully others would too.

This is a compromise I would be very, very, very willing to accept! In fact, it's better than a 2 feet Star Destroyer model. An actual "epic scale" Star Destroyer gaming table. Just awesome! DarkFather did fantastically and I'd love FFG to do this.

The way I see it the Star Destroyer offers a large collection of things X-wing has, up to this point not had, that fit it better than any other ship.

First off, it is the best ship to have at 300 points fully upgraded(all its hardpoints filled)
Secondly it offers a unique style of play. It can justify have the ability to yank other ships toward it, full on broadside firing, and can at less point costs, command a battlefield.

Part 1.
Weakness based gameplay. Star Destroyers have a large exploitable weakness. They have a command center that when destroyed causes them to veer off into space. This mechanic works very well in X-wing and allows the SD to have a very unique weakness, especially paired with it's lack of rear firing weaponry. Get behind it and it is in trouble. But once that command tower is crippled it puts the game on a clock as the Destroyer marches inexorably towards the edge of the map and a Hyperspace retreat.
Meanwhile this frees up the ship to have a whole lot of sections with manageable Hull and shield levels that when destroyed lose their hardpoints. That means that Star Destroyers are rarely destroyed fully. Instead they are a ship that is crippled and forced to retreat. Which keeps much of their power from inside the universe intact in game.

Part 2.
Energy based gameplay. The energy system is frankly brilliant, and allows a SD to be a very involved experience, even if it is the only ship on the field.

Part 3.
Tractor Beams.
These can be an amazing ability for a ship capable of ramming things into space dust. This makes the fight very different for both sides, making a unique play experience.

Part 4.
The Star Destroyer is Iconic. Iconic ships draw in sales much better than EU ships.

Part 5.
Customizability. With an undoubtedly huge number of hardpoints designing a Star Destroyer will be as involved as any other list build, on its own. It isn't just point and click, it's deciding how many close guns you need, how many far range guns you need. Flying it will be an exercise in careful planning.

Part 6. Scale in games, both powerwise and sizewise, is always relative. Yes, the command tower will barely be as wide as the falcon on a shrunk down model. I get that. But scale has never bothered me in games before, why would I let it now? We've been exceedingly spoiled by how to scale everything has been so far.

Part 7.
The Imperial March.

What it comes down to is I can imagine this game actually feeling like I'm controlling a Star Destroyer. I can imagine being absolutely in awe of its firepower.ile knowing that I have to play well to win. It can be among the greatest tactical experiences this game has to offer.

Technically this can be done with the vigil. I get that. But I don't think it should be. I feel like that mentality robs us of just how amazing the Star Destroyer could be. What I would like to see the most, despite it bothering scale junkies, is a 150 point Victory class option that upgrades to about 200 points, and a 200 point Imperial Star Destroyer option that upgrades fully to around 300. Both in the same box. That way the model is usable in team games, but can also max out an Epic game.

I'll have to read it again, but it looks good.

I completely hesitated to even dip my toe into this topic again...

*snip*

Not Awesome.

Glad you did, that was a great post. However, I still recommend giving my ISD roolez on the previous page a try. Just imagine how much FUN it will be!*

*nb - especially for your opponent

I know you meant it in jest, but you actually put forward some pretty neat ideas when it comes making an ISD like the bridge damage section. If you tone down the firepower to make it more accurate to how much firepower in turbolasers the ISD actually had you could break up the flight base into an 10x2 grid (or 8x2 with a separate arc for the back to represent the lack of guns to the rear) each with the firepower of a CR90 base. Each grid square could represent a firing arc which would mean the ship would have tremendous all around firepower, probably bring about 3 arcs to bear on a CR90, and have a really hard time bringing more than one grid on a starfighter (could bring two if you managed to get a starfighter right on the line between squares). It's actually quite accurate because the ISD in this case would bring 10x the firepower to the table without being able to fire every gun at a single target which is pretty accurate to canon.

-edit- just spitballing ideas...

I really like this idea that SpaceDingo put forward. Fact that it ties into an earlier post is even better, This is the kind of idea exchange I wanted.

I haven''t address the Tie Fighter issue because it would muddy the waters even more but really I don't see an issue with a ISD having less than 72 Ties for the same reason you don't buy Tie Fighters in Squadrons of 12. It's a game and you make concessions for game balance. Can you run 4 Tie interceptor fleet? Sure. Not really canon but it could happen. Could you face an ISD without fighters? Sure. Not really canon but it could happen.

And he strikes again! Forget the Ties that are supposed to be transported. Epic rules only allow 12 anyway and they can be squadrons bought separately and fly around.

Seriously, the only thing that matters is that in apperance it looks like a Star Destroyer. That. Is. All. No substitutions accepted.

On that, me and catachan23 agree. See my earlier response to Hexis if you don't believe me.

Phew!

I'm pleased I found them. Also found some posts I liked but never saw.

If you take a look at around post #142 one of my proposals it to make the ISD have 10x the firepower like it should of the CR90 but limit its arcs, since in canon it can't bring all of its guns to bear on a single target, especially smaller faster ships. Please feel free to tear it apart but it will help the idea to develop. As of right now it seems balances and accurate.

Ok, 10 times the firepower of the CR90, which costs 150 points when outfit... Do you realize that there should be some sort of proportional relationship between firepower and cost?

So, say we go with the obvious 1:1 ratio of 1 guns worth of firepower would equal 1 guns worth of cost, your rules would make a Star Destroyer cost 1500 points. Having played a epic team game with 400 points per side, I dont want to know how long it would take to do a 1500 point game. And that would be 1500 points of star destroyer versus multiple people's collections of Rebel fleets.

So on the basis of balanced game cost to performance, doesnt work.

Lets look at the rules you posted.

Now lets look at what we know about the sizes of the ships:

CR90 is 150m x 48m x 33m

ISD is 1600m x 800?m x 600?

In the current game, the CR90 (240,000 meters cubed of spaceship) is represented by 2 cards:

The fore card, having 8 hull and 3 shields, and with a cost of 50 points.

The aft card, having 8 hull and 5 shields, and with a cost of 40 points.

The grand total, 16 hull and 8 shields.

You are proposing to make a 6 card ship, with each card representing a sixth of a 768,000,000 cubic meter ship, and having in total, 30 hull and 30 shields.

Just on HP alone, the ISD is way too frail.

Then there is the fact of all the other stuff that the ISD has: namely 72 TIE fighters. Ok, lets wave our magic wands and drop this down to 10? thats still 120 points of Academy ties.

Do you get that any way you try to balance the ISD to fit into xwing will either amount to:

1) the bloody thing not being a Star Destroyer

2) the bloody thing being multiple thousands of points.

Lets nerf the ISD a bit. Still make it crazy.

40 hard points. Lets say 20 single turbolaser, 20 quad cannons. thats 380 points.

36 TIE fighters (thats HALF): 432 points

4 Lamda Shuttles (HALF again): 84 points

If 16 hull points equal 240,000m³ then X hull points equal 768,000,000. The ISD would have 3200 hull points. Thats crazy balls, lets say it has 1/10 the hit points it should. 320 hull points. And say 30 shields.

That monstrosity is not even HALF of what the ISD should be. It would be worth over 1000 points, and thats not counting crew.

Actually my post was dealing directly with firepower which is just a a start, so you are correct that it doesn't really do anything about the health, although someone posted about two pages before me with some pretty interesting ideas.

I'd figure i try to show you why I came to the rules I did.

In terms of firepower an ISD has 60 Turbolasers and 60 Ion cannons (please be careful when referring to the wookipedia article because it appears to add the armaments from the Essential Guide and Incredible Cross Sections together, I went with the Essential Guide for simplicity). You can leave off the Ion cannons for simplicity since FFG has left them off of every other starship and can be represented with an upgrade card. So we are down to 60. I went with a 10x firepower number just to give it a bit more oomph and its still pretty accurate.

Now we can get into the arcs on a 10x2 grid on the flight base. Each square of the grid would be a firing arc and give you "lanes of fire". You'd be correct in the cost if it could fire every single gun at one ship. In this case it can't since at most your could probably bring 3 or 4 lanes onto a CR90 at most and would more than likely be stuck firing one lane at a starfighter. So how much would it cost for a ship like this that can bring a really impressive amount of all around firepower but can't bring more than 3 arcs to bear on a CR90? It would definitely be more expensive than a CR90 but not prohibitively so. But then again I didn't get to point cost but it would be nowhere near your cost estimates. Personally I think for a ship like that you could probably get away with charging 200 points for it depending on how you do the health or energy reserve.

Trying to include the cost of the fighter and shuttles just muddies the waters. Nothing about the order of battle in X-Wing seems to care about canon from Tie Fighters appearing in less than squadrons to Fel escorting a Bounty Hunter. It also doesn't do anything about trying to get the power of the ISD right directly.

-Note- when you think of how much firepower the ISD should be able to bring directly with 60 turbolasers, imgine a 2 foot ISD and then take something like a paper clip and but the paper clip in different positions in relation to the ISD. It should start to become apparent that the ISD is just too big and its guns aren't spaced well to bring all the guns to bear at once. Now take this to the table top with a 2 foot model for the ISD and the new CR90 model, event though the pro scale people might cringe, the same thing should hold true and the ISD shouldn't be able to bring a huge number of guns to bear. While the scale is out of wack it makes how the ISD handles more accurate.

Question: If FFG were going to make an ISD, why wasn't it in the first wave? On ship identity alone, surely Corvette and ISD would be a much better start than both Epics being Rebel?

It wasn't ready yet? Bigger ships take longer to make? Waiting to see how smaller ships do before they tackle something that big? Maybe they aren't making one? Maybe they are? There's plenty of plausible reasons.

There's a loose parity in all their previous releases. Every ship has a counterpart. Even when it's weak (Wave 4, for example) there are the same number of releases. If they could have, I've next to no doubt the Huge debut would be one big Imperial ship and one big Rebel ship. They didn't, which suggests that they were of the opinion that no Imperial trilogy ship fits the Huge base.

Main Ship: TIE fighter, X-wing

Tougher Ship: Y-wing, TIE advanced

Large Ship: Millenium Falcon, Slave I

Fast Ship: A-wing, TIE interceptor

"Bomber": TIE bomber, B-wing

Support Ship: HWK, Lambda

Ace Pack: Imperial Aces, Rebel Aces

High Tech Ship: E-wing, TIE phantom

Anti-Swarm Meta Ship: Z-95, TIE defender

I'm on the pro-ISD side, and whereas I know this makes me a bad person, I have a very simple reason why.

I just want to recreate the space battle in RotJ.

If a few of the pretend ships involved aren't quite strong enough, I can live with it.

To recap, yes am a bad person.

No, this does not bother me.

Thank you.

Question: If FFG were going to make an ISD, why wasn't it in the first wave? On ship identity alone, surely Corvette and ISD would be a much better start than both Epics being Rebel?

It wasn't ready yet? Bigger ships take longer to make? Waiting to see how smaller ships do before they tackle something that big? Maybe they aren't making one? Maybe they are? There's plenty of plausible reasons.

There's a loose parity in all their previous releases. Every ship has a counterpart. Even when it's weak (Wave 4, for example) there are the same number of releases. If they could have, I've next to no doubt the Huge debut would be one big Imperial ship and one big Rebel ship. They didn't, which suggests that they were of the opinion that no Imperial trilogy ship fits the Huge base.

Main Ship: TIE fighter, X-wing

Tougher Ship: Y-wing, TIE advanced

Large Ship: Millenium Falcon, Slave I

Fast Ship: A-wing, TIE interceptor

"Bomber": TIE bomber, B-wing

Support Ship: HWK, Lambda

Ace Pack: Imperial Aces, Rebel Aces

High Tech Ship: E-wing, TIE phantom

Anti-Swarm Meta Ship: Z-95, TIE defender

I'm on the pro-ISD side, and whereas I know this makes me a bad person, I have a very simple reason why.

I just want to recreate the space battle in RotJ.

If a few of the pretend ships involved aren't quite strong enough, I can live with it.

To recap, yes am a bad person.

No, this does not bother me.

Thank you.

You're in good company then. I think I'm public enemy number one right now.

Question: If FFG were going to make an ISD, why wasn't it in the first wave? On ship identity alone, surely Corvette and ISD would be a much better start than both Epics being Rebel?

It wasn't ready yet? Bigger ships take longer to make? Waiting to see how smaller ships do before they tackle something that big? Maybe they aren't making one? Maybe they are? There's plenty of plausible reasons.

There's a loose parity in all their previous releases. Every ship has a counterpart. Even when it's weak (Wave 4, for example) there are the same number of releases. If they could have, I've next to no doubt the Huge debut would be one big Imperial ship and one big Rebel ship. They didn't, which suggests that they were of the opinion that no Imperial trilogy ship fits the Huge base.

Main Ship: TIE fighter, X-wing

Tougher Ship: Y-wing, TIE advanced

Large Ship: Millenium Falcon, Slave I

Fast Ship: A-wing, TIE interceptor

"Bomber": TIE bomber, B-wing

Support Ship: HWK, Lambda

Ace Pack: Imperial Aces, Rebel Aces

High Tech Ship: E-wing, TIE phantom

Anti-Swarm Meta Ship: Z-95, TIE defender

Except there hasn't been parity with the Huge Ships. The huge ship releases broke all the rules. They've released out of scale single ships in single releases without an Imperial counterpart twice now. Really it could just be as simple as they are releasing them in ascending size order. We just don't know.

I'm so hated by the anti-Star Destroyer crowd

I'm Palpatine

Aminar, I care about scale so much because FFG cares... and it is one reason I got into this game, like Vanor said, the difference between 270, and 400 is one thing, but 270 or 400 to 2600.. that is not what the company meant when they slide the scale to let the big ships on the table.

Good chance they sat down and said.. well, 270 for the tantive will make it close to 17 inches, and too big for the 3x3 table.. maybe a smaller version that is close would work...

You seem to think game designers are some sort of god like people.. they're just gamers like you and I.. this game is awesome, and fun, but you can only do so much... and it is far from perfect...

No, I get that they are real people. Real people intelligent enough to have devised a very clever system. People that have impressed me with their game design enough to rope me back into miniatures gameing. That says a lot. They've taken a concept that no video game or tabletop game has ever really gotten right, and made something amazing and fun out of it. And it makes me want to see what they can do. Beyond that they are gamers with enough talent to work in the Game Design industry. That is not an easy thing to do. It means they are the most creative, proactive, and capable gamers. It means, like Joey's Rattatta, they are in the top percent.

Trust me when I say I know a little about game design... I helped write the gerwalk rules for battlleteck back in the 80s.. I have a healthy respect for what people create, I also have friends that do game design as well...

There is just no room for an ISD in this game... shrinking it down is a disservice to such a magnificent dominating presence.

Aminar, I care about scale so much because FFG cares... and it is one reason I got into this game, like Vanor said, the difference between 270, and 400 is one thing, but 270 or 400 to 2600.. that is not what the company meant when they slide the scale to let the big ships on the table.

Good chance they sat down and said.. well, 270 for the tantive will make it close to 17 inches, and too big for the 3x3 table.. maybe a smaller version that is close would work...

You seem to think game designers are some sort of god like people.. they're just gamers like you and I.. this game is awesome, and fun, but you can only do so much... and it is far from perfect...

No, I get that they are real people. Real people intelligent enough to have devised a very clever system. People that have impressed me with their game design enough to rope me back into miniatures gameing. That says a lot. They've taken a concept that no video game or tabletop game has ever really gotten right, and made something amazing and fun out of it. And it makes me want to see what they can do. Beyond that they are gamers with enough talent to work in the Game Design industry. That is not an easy thing to do. It means they are the most creative, proactive, and capable gamers. It means, like Joey's Rattatta, they are in the top percent.

Trust me when I say I know a little about game design... I helped write the gerwalk rules for battlleteck back in the 80s.. I have a healthy respect for what people create, I also have friends that do game design as well...

There is just no room for an ISD in this game... shrinking it down is a disservice to such a magnificent dominating presence.

I'm so hated by the anti-Star Destroyer crowd

I'm Palpatine

I dont hate anyone on here.... I dont know anyone well enough to have that kind of emotional attachment to them...

And while the ship itself is huge, it's easy to disable with fighters. That's what 60 total health represents. Disabling it to the point it is no longer combat effective. At which point it can be assumed to have leapt to Hyperspace, as Star Destroyers so often do. An ISD is only as good as it's wepon mounts, and giving them 10 Hull/Shields per section seems applicable to me.

Beyond that we've seen many many examples of Star Destroyers being taken out by well placed Salvoes of Torpedos. As few as 12 have utterly Destroyed an Imperial Class Star Destroyer. I am not trying to model that, as a total of between 36 and 48 Hull is too low to actually feel right.

And this is me modeling a Victory Class. If you'll look back I'd prefer an Imperial Class to be around 80 total health and 15 total hardpoints, but have distinct issues fitting any kind of fighter support on it in an epic game. For some that may not be anything more than a glorified Corvette. That's fine. Personally it makes sense to me. It fits with the idea that they can utterly mutilate other Capitol Class ships, but struggle against fighters. It creates weaknesses and yet will allow for strategic and interesting gameplay, as well as allow for some fascinating upgrade cards.

You keep saying that without a lick of proof.

Star Destroyers are NOT easily disabled by fighters. Their shields have to be taken out first by CAPITAL SHIPS before their fighters can stand a chance against them. Admiral Ackbar said this in the novelization. When the shields of the Executor were taken out, then the A-wings and X-wings started to strafe them and disable soft targets like the scanner globes on top of the bridge and exposed gun turrets. If Arvel Crynyd hadn't hit the bridge when he did, they would have had to chew their way past the armor plating and then hit the reactor core. If he had taken out the bridge and the Death Star hadn't been in the way, then the backup controls would have been activated (as per the Star Wars Complete Locations book).

You must really not like the ISD as portrayed in the films. You know, the ones that EVERYONE ALWAYS RUNS FROM unless they have to directly confront them in battle.

Having listened to the arguments made by the pro-ISD crowd, I think this is what it would sound like in the FFG offices if they tried to make their case:

"Hey guys! Listen! We're gonna put the Star Destroyer in the game!"

"You're gonna put the Imperial-class Star Destroyer in X-wing?"

"Yeah!"

"Well, our Epic Scale line might work. But wouldn't a ship that's a mile long be about 10 feet at that scale?"

"Um, yeah, but we're gonna shrink it down until it's about two or three feet."

"Wouldn't that be pretty expensive?"

"Sure, but the fans will buy anything."

"Uh-huh. And what about the enormous weapon compliment it's supposed to have? I remember something about 60 turbolasers and 60 ion cannons, plus it's got shields and armor out the wazoo. How are starfighters supposed to defeat this thing?"

"That's the thing: we need to scale down the weapons and shields to about a tenth of the firepower of the ISD."

" . . . a tenth?"

"Yeah."

"What about the enormous fighter compliment? It's got over seventy TIEs in it, not to mention shuttles and transports and gunboats."

"Um, we'd probably need to limit it to about ten at most, to keep it reasonable for the average consumer."

"I see. So, what you're saying is you want a ship which is a tenth the size, firepower, and fighter compliment of the ISD."

"Yeah! The fans will go nuts!"

"But it's not an ISD."

"But it *looks* like an ISD."

"No it doesn't. An ISD would be 10 feet long, have ten dozen weapons, and seventy fighters."

" . . ."

"Why don't you just work up a smaller ship for the Imperial players?"

"Okay."

*Trudges out of the office.*

Aminar, I care about scale so much because FFG cares... and it is one reason I got into this game, like Vanor said, the difference between 270, and 400 is one thing, but 270 or 400 to 2600.. that is not what the company meant when they slide the scale to let the big ships on the table.

Good chance they sat down and said.. well, 270 for the tantive will make it close to 17 inches, and too big for the 3x3 table.. maybe a smaller version that is close would work...

You seem to think game designers are some sort of god like people.. they're just gamers like you and I.. this game is awesome, and fun, but you can only do so much... and it is far from perfect...

No, I get that they are real people. Real people intelligent enough to have devised a very clever system. People that have impressed me with their game design enough to rope me back into miniatures gameing. That says a lot. They've taken a concept that no video game or tabletop game has ever really gotten right, and made something amazing and fun out of it. And it makes me want to see what they can do. Beyond that they are gamers with enough talent to work in the Game Design industry. That is not an easy thing to do. It means they are the most creative, proactive, and capable gamers. It means, like Joey's Rattatta, they are in the top percent.

Trust me when I say I know a little about game design... I helped write the gerwalk rules for battlleteck back in the 80s.. I have a healthy respect for what people create, I also have friends that do game design as well...

There is just no room for an ISD in this game... shrinking it down is a disservice to such a magnificent dominating presence.

That has nothing to do with Game Design. It has to do with what you want out of the game. Any game design experience you have doesn't make it more valid than wanting it because it's imagery is so incredibly iconic it would be a shame not to use it. Especially given the design potential inherent within the Star Destroyer.

Problem is, you refuse to see that it's too big to put on the table... at any scaling down it's not a good idea....

When you refuse to see the logic of what has been suggested, you throw out the simple, yet reasonable responses...

So.. once again... I'm gonna just be done here...

To put it another way, if it's not big like an ISD, as powerful as an ISD, and as hard to defeat as an ISD, it ain't an ISD.

Aminar, I care about scale so much because FFG cares... and it is one reason I got into this game, like Vanor said, the difference between 270, and 400 is one thing, but 270 or 400 to 2600.. that is not what the company meant when they slide the scale to let the big ships on the table.

Good chance they sat down and said.. well, 270 for the tantive will make it close to 17 inches, and too big for the 3x3 table.. maybe a smaller version that is close would work...

You seem to think game designers are some sort of god like people.. they're just gamers like you and I.. this game is awesome, and fun, but you can only do so much... and it is far from perfect...

No, I get that they are real people. Real people intelligent enough to have devised a very clever system. People that have impressed me with their game design enough to rope me back into miniatures gameing. That says a lot. They've taken a concept that no video game or tabletop game has ever really gotten right, and made something amazing and fun out of it. And it makes me want to see what they can do. Beyond that they are gamers with enough talent to work in the Game Design industry. That is not an easy thing to do. It means they are the most creative, proactive, and capable gamers. It means, like Joey's Rattatta, they are in the top percent.

Trust me when I say I know a little about game design... I helped write the gerwalk rules for battlleteck back in the 80s.. I have a healthy respect for what people create, I also have friends that do game design as well...

There is just no room for an ISD in this game... shrinking it down is a disservice to such a magnificent dominating presence.

That has nothing to do with Game Design. It has to do with what you want out of the game. Any game design experience you have doesn't make it more valid than wanting it because it's imagery is so incredibly iconic it would be a shame not to use it. Especially given the design potential inherent within the Star Destroyer.

Problem is, you refuse to see that it's too big to put on the table... at any scaling down it's not a good idea....

When you refuse to see the logic of what has been suggested, you throw out the simple, yet reasonable responses...

So.. once again... I'm gonna just be done here...

Hey Oneway, you have an opinion on my proposed rules just dealing with the base firepower? I think I asked before but I can't seem to find an answer. Its always good to get some insight from the other side.

Except there hasn't been parity with the Huge Ships. The huge ship releases broke all the rules. They've released out of scale single ships in single releases without an Imperial counterpart twice now. Really it could just be as simple as they are releasing them in ascending size order. We just don't know.

Exactly my point. Where's the Imperial one? It suggests to me that FFG doesn't think the ISD fits the huge base.

As for the size order thing, that's size of the model. The base size is the same, it's the same size in terms of gameplay, and this is utterly critical.

FFG classifies their ships by base size, not model size. Large Ship means the doublesized base. Huge ship means the Huge sized base. The Epic format uses Huge Ships. Huge ships means the Huge sized base.

That's the hugely (badoom tish) important thing people are missing. If they made an ISD, they either have to design a bigger base or fit it to the huge one. And I can't see a bigger base happening. They scaled down the huges because they were too cumbersome for the tabletop. That, and they'd have to develop a whole new maneuver template. All that work for one ship so expensive only a few, relative to the playerbase, are going to have it. Unlikely.

So if our ISD turns up, it'll be on the huge base. It won't be 2ft, it'll be the size of the CR-90.

I'll reiterate, 2ft is still too big for the Huge Base and the Epic format.

Would you be happy with an ISD like that?

To put it another way, if it's not big like an ISD, as powerful as an ISD, and as hard to defeat as an ISD, it ain't an ISD.

I guess that's where the miscommunication is. For me, at least, I'm suggesting we make a ship that accurately portrays how powerful the ISD is and is pretty hard to kill. I think it can be done. I just don't really agree with about how valuable the scale aspect is. 2 out of 3 ain't bad though.

FFG classifies their ships by base size, not model size. Large Ship means the doublesized base. Huge ship means the Huge sized base. The Epic format uses Huge Ships. Huge ships means the Huge sized base.

One point here - I don't believe the Transport and CR90 actually have the same base size.

They both use dual large bases, but they have a center connecting section between the two bases that appears to be differently sized. The CR90 base looks appreciably longer than the Transport.

I don't think this means we'll see an ISD with a 3"x24" strip of cardboard connecting two large bases, but there doesn't seem to be a consistently-sized base for huge ships the way there is with the others.

I dont hate anyone on here.... I dont know anyone well enough to have that kind of emotional attachment to them...

Just having a laugh at my own expense.

Sometimes it is better to laugh.

If you hate me and you know it clap your hands....

....hey not so loud you'll wake the neighbors

This martyr complex isn't at all warranted. Please stop.

Aminar, I care about scale so much because FFG cares... and it is one reason I got into this game, like Vanor said, the difference between 270, and 400 is one thing, but 270 or 400 to 2600.. that is not what the company meant when they slide the scale to let the big ships on the table.

Good chance they sat down and said.. well, 270 for the tantive will make it close to 17 inches, and too big for the 3x3 table.. maybe a smaller version that is close would work...

You seem to think game designers are some sort of god like people.. they're just gamers like you and I.. this game is awesome, and fun, but you can only do so much... and it is far from perfect...

No, I get that they are real people. Real people intelligent enough to have devised a very clever system. People that have impressed me with their game design enough to rope me back into miniatures gameing. That says a lot. They've taken a concept that no video game or tabletop game has ever really gotten right, and made something amazing and fun out of it. And it makes me want to see what they can do. Beyond that they are gamers with enough talent to work in the Game Design industry. That is not an easy thing to do. It means they are the most creative, proactive, and capable gamers. It means, like Joey's Rattatta, they are in the top percent.

Trust me when I say I know a little about game design... I helped write the gerwalk rules for battlleteck back in the 80s.. I have a healthy respect for what people create, I also have friends that do game design as well...

There is just no room for an ISD in this game... shrinking it down is a disservice to such a magnificent dominating presence.

That has nothing to do with Game Design. It has to do with what you want out of the game. Any game design experience you have doesn't make it more valid than wanting it because it's imagery is so incredibly iconic it would be a shame not to use it. Especially given the design potential inherent within the Star Destroyer.

Problem is, you refuse to see that it's too big to put on the table... at any scaling down it's not a good idea....

When you refuse to see the logic of what has been suggested, you throw out the simple, yet reasonable responses...

So.. once again... I'm gonna just be done here...

And in regards to the strength of SD shields. Shields in this game operate unlike anything in the SW universe. They are simply slightly enhanced Hull. Beyond that you're discussing the executor. It's not exactly a standard Star Detroyer.

Firepower percents arguments don't take into account the way the game is designed at all. Firepower in this game isn't linear, it's on an exponentialy shrinking scale. Base Value weapon 5 is an order of magnitude or more beyond what an X-wing has. Perhaps more. That means that any SD is going to do less damage than it should by at least an order of magnitude just to fit into the games power scale. And that's fine. That's how games work.

To put it another way, if it's not big like an ISD, as powerful as an ISD, and as hard to defeat as an ISD, it ain't an ISD.

I guess that's where the miscommunication is. For me, at least, I'm suggesting we make a ship that accurately portrays how powerful the ISD is and is pretty hard to kill. I think it can be done. I just don't really agree with about how valuable the scale aspect is. 2 out of 3 ain't bad though.

I would be happy with making a large Imperial ship that is more powerful than the Corvette by a large margin.

I just don't want it to be the Star Destroyer.

The Star Destroyer is WAY too big for this game!! It's a GOD in a game like this, because there are so many weapons andso much armor plating.

What's the big deal though with accepting a smaller design like the Vigil or the Tartan class? They're still cool ships, and still have that Imperial flavor.

To put it another way, if it's not big like an ISD, as powerful as an ISD, and as hard to defeat as an ISD, it ain't an ISD.

I guess that's where the miscommunication is. For me, at least, I'm suggesting we make a ship that accurately portrays how powerful the ISD is and is pretty hard to kill. I think it can be done. I just don't really agree with about how valuable the scale aspect is. 2 out of 3 ain't bad though.

since you probably want it to fit the game mechanics and the relation to the other models, make that 0 out of 3, but who is counting.

sure you can keep the name and slap it as a sticker on the boat...

This martyr complex isn't at all warranted. Please stop.

What martyr complex? I don't actually think I'm hated, I'm just having a laugh at my own expense. I started this topic and here we are 13 pages on and getting nowhere.

Do you not think this thread was a stupid idea?

I do.

Do I get angry or frustrated?

(nobody mention yesterday)

No.

I just have a laugh.

Aminar, I care about scale so much because FFG cares... and it is one reason I got into this game, like Vanor said, the difference between 270, and 400 is one thing, but 270 or 400 to 2600.. that is not what the company meant when they slide the scale to let the big ships on the table.

Good chance they sat down and said.. well, 270 for the tantive will make it close to 17 inches, and too big for the 3x3 table.. maybe a smaller version that is close would work...

You seem to think game designers are some sort of god like people.. they're just gamers like you and I.. this game is awesome, and fun, but you can only do so much... and it is far from perfect...

No, I get that they are real people. Real people intelligent enough to have devised a very clever system. People that have impressed me with their game design enough to rope me back into miniatures gameing. That says a lot. They've taken a concept that no video game or tabletop game has ever really gotten right, and made something amazing and fun out of it. And it makes me want to see what they can do. Beyond that they are gamers with enough talent to work in the Game Design industry. That is not an easy thing to do. It means they are the most creative, proactive, and capable gamers. It means, like Joey's Rattatta, they are in the top percent.

Trust me when I say I know a little about game design... I helped write the gerwalk rules for battlleteck back in the 80s.. I have a healthy respect for what people create, I also have friends that do game design as well...

There is just no room for an ISD in this game... shrinking it down is a disservice to such a magnificent dominating presence.

That has nothing to do with Game Design. It has to do with what you want out of the game. Any game design experience you have doesn't make it more valid than wanting it because it's imagery is so incredibly iconic it would be a shame not to use it. Especially given the design potential inherent within the Star Destroyer.

Problem is, you refuse to see that it's too big to put on the table... at any scaling down it's not a good idea....

When you refuse to see the logic of what has been suggested, you throw out the simple, yet reasonable responses...

So.. once again... I'm gonna just be done here...

And we know this how? There is enough room with a 30 degree turn, or even less with slower movement speed via a seperate movement template, to turn the ship around on the board. Adjustments to the way something that big moves can be made.

And in regards to the strength of SD shields. Shields in this game operate unlike anything in the SW universe. They are simply slightly enhanced Hull. Beyond that you're discussing the executor. It's not exactly a standard Star Detroyer.

Firepower percents arguments don't take into account the way the game is designed at all. Firepower in this game isn't linear, it's on an exponentialy shrinking scale. Base Value weapon 5 is an order of magnitude or more beyond what an X-wing has. Perhaps more. That means that any SD is going to do less damage than it should by at least an order of magnitude just to fit into the games power scale. And that's fine. That's how games work.

I made you a picture to show how it's impossible with anything larger than 2 feet. If that isn't enough, I don't know what else to do.

Actually, they operate similarly to how shields in Star Wars operate.

No it isn't. The TIE Phantom proves this. The turbolasers are explicitly stated to be capable of vaporizing a fully-shielded X-wing in one shot without exceptions in the ICS books.