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.

Again:

What's the big deal with settling for a smaller design if you're just going to nerf the ISD into oblivion anyway?

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.

Again:

What's the big deal with settling for a smaller design if you're just going to nerf the ISD into oblivion anyway?

Design matters.

All of these are tied into the psychology of marketing. And I want FFG to make money.

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?

What I was trying to point out to you is that neither of us have any real basis for using the past releases to determine what they are going to release.

As to the base size, I don't have the CR90 in front of me so I don't want to refute your assertion but I'd be surprised that all huge bases will be limited to the same size, considering the CR90 is going to be fairly bigger than the GR75, and they would define all huge ships by their 1 standard base size.

To put this in perspective, keep in mind what you of a lot of the argument against the ISD seems to revolve around they absolutely shouldn't release one. Most of the people who want one are arguing at the very least they could and they want it. Let's say tomorrow they announce the Vigil. Does that mean they will never release a ISD and people will be quiet about. Not at all since the want of an ISD is just based on a desire and possibility. Until FFG says they won't release an ISD it remains a possibility.

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.

Because they have no story behind them, and look like a Star Destroyer rip off. Why rip off a Star Destroyer when you can model the same thing? Beyond that in my experience with the EU they just aren't as amazing as people seem to think. They get taken down by fighters and Asteroids and Lone Jedi. It's hard to see something so frequently destroyed as a GOD.

The EU also says the following:

AT-ATs are 15 meters tall (they're not; they're 22 meters tall)

The Executor is five miles long (it's not; it's eleven)

The Death Star is 120 kilometers in diameter (it wasn't; it was 160)

The Death Star II is 160 kilometers in diameter (it wasn't; it was 500)

The TIE Fighter has no shields (it does; you can see them flickering in the gun turret battle in ANH)

TIE Fighters have no ejection seats (they do; you can see a pilot ejecting in TESB)

The leader of the Senate was called the President of the Republic (he wasn't; he's called the Supreme Chancellor)

Palpatine was influenced by those around him to become evil (he wasn't; he was evil from the beginning)

Clearly the EU nerfs the Empire by a great margin. Imperial Star Destroyers in the MOVIES though are MUCH tougher to destroy and require capital ships to back you up.

And besides that, YOU are ripping off the Star Destroyer by making it not even a TENTH of what it's supposed to be, even taking the EU into account.

Again:

What's the big deal with settling for a smaller design if you're just going to nerf the ISD into oblivion anyway?

Sorry Falsehood, I must have missed your post. You might be surprised to learn that I'm not against the Vigil or another smaller ship. I just think there is a place for the ISD as well. More the merrier.

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.

And it was mildly humorous for the first six or so posts. Now it's just annoying.

I haven't read this whole thread, but by just looking at this picture the Death Star is only marginally bigger than an x-wing! Should fit nicely on a large base...

I haven't read this whole thread, but by just looking at this picture the Death Star is only marginally bigger than an x-wing! Should fit nicely on a large base...

If FFG did release a Star Destroyer this will be the next thread. Oddly enough I think I've seen a Death Star that scale...

...think it was from Micro Machine

Because they have no story behind them, and look like a Star Destroyer rip off. Why rip off a Star Destroyer when you can model the same thing? Beyond that in my experience with the EU they just aren't as amazing as people seem to think. They get taken down by fighters and Asteroids and Lone Jedi. It's hard to see something so frequently destroyed as a GOD.

The EU also says the following:

AT-ATs are 15 meters tall (they're not; they're 22 meters tall)

The Executor is five miles long (it's not; it's eleven)

The Death Star is 120 kilometers in diameter (it wasn't; it was 160)

The Death Star II is 160 kilometers in diameter (it wasn't; it was 500)

The TIE Fighter has no shields (it does; you can see them flickering in the gun turret battle in ANH)

TIE Fighters have no ejection seats (they do; you can see a pilot ejecting in TESB)

The leader of the Senate was called the President of the Republic (he wasn't; he's called the Supreme Chancellor)

Palpatine was influenced by those around him to become evil (he wasn't; he was evil from the beginning)

Clearly the EU nerfs the Empire by a great margin. Imperial Star Destroyers in the MOVIES though are MUCH tougher to destroy and require capital ships to back you up.

And besides that, YOU are ripping off the Star Destroyer by making it not even a TENTH of what it's supposed to be, even taking the EU into account.

Because they have no story behind them, and look like a Star Destroyer rip off. Why rip off a Star Destroyer when you can model the same thing? Beyond that in my experience with the EU they just aren't as amazing as people seem to think. They get taken down by fighters and Asteroids and Lone Jedi. It's hard to see something so frequently destroyed as a GOD.

The EU also says the following:

AT-ATs are 15 meters tall (they're not; they're 22 meters tall)

The Executor is five miles long (it's not; it's eleven)

The Death Star is 120 kilometers in diameter (it wasn't; it was 160)

The Death Star II is 160 kilometers in diameter (it wasn't; it was 500)

The TIE Fighter has no shields (it does; you can see them flickering in the gun turret battle in ANH)

The leader of the Senate was called the President of the Republic (he wasn't; he's called the Supreme Chancellor)

Palpatine was influenced by those around him to become evil (he wasn't; he was evil from the beginning)

Clearly the EU nerfs the Empire by a great margin. Imperial Star Destroyers in the MOVIES though are MUCH tougher to destroy and require capital ships to back you up.

I always took that flickering to be a grazing shot right before the kill shot, especially because no one has ever really refuted that Ties have don't have shields. Actually all the capital ships are tougher in the movies. Even at the Battle of Endor all the transports and CR90 didn't just blow up. And I think somebody mentioned turbolasers vaping starfighters in one hit but if you watch ANH the X-wings take several hits on the way into the trench. Another example is in Isard's Revenge. An X-Wing laser cannon took out an AT AT really easy.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that this is a movie and complete fiction. Things are going to change or not be consistent with what you perceive because honestly it rarely has ever stayed consistent. The story doesn't nerf the Empire just because, things get nerfed because Star Wars is story driven. When it comes to getting the ISD into the game, I'm not proposing we nerf it but give it a balanced set of rules that accurately portrays its capabilities without blowing them out of proportion.

Again:

What's the big deal with settling for a smaller design if you're just going to nerf the ISD into oblivion anyway?

Sorry Falsehood, I must have missed your post. You might be surprised to learn that I'm not against the Vigil or another smaller ship. I just think there is a place for the ISD as well. More the merrier.

Exactly how I feel about it.

It should be noted that the only Empire ships I knew before learning of EU and Wookieepedia were the Star Destroyer and Super Star Destroyer. I believe that is part of the reason the Star Destroyer (not the super) seems to many the best choice. Since more will recognize what it is...

...but the other side of that is indeed that people will recognize it shouldn't be that small. But I trust FFG to know best how big or small they make it, if they make it, but if they don't I know it isn't because they're party poopers but because it just won't work.

I can't see anything with a hangar working TBH. Not at X-wing's scale.

Because they have no story behind them, and look like a Star Destroyer rip off. Why rip off a Star Destroyer when you can model the same thing? Beyond that in my experience with the EU they just aren't as amazing as people seem to think. They get taken down by fighters and Asteroids and Lone Jedi. It's hard to see something so frequently destroyed as a GOD.

In that case, why settle for a Star Destroyer? If scale doesn't matter, if you want something iconic and awesome and proven to be beatable by Rebel starfighters, why not go the whole hog and get a Death Star?

I mean, all we'd need is a large sphere with a circular depression in it. It doesn't have to be huge, maybe a foot in diameter, we could probably mount it on a large ship base. It could have a movement dial which reads nothing but ones in all directions, and have a 20 attack dice main weapon with target lock.

Then FFG would be able to make lots of money as per your expressed wishes by selling additional dice packs.

What could anyone possibly have against that?

Are you starting to see how your sieve-like justifications appear to others?

...but the other side of that is indeed that people will recognize it shouldn't be that small. But I trust FFG to know best how big or small they make it, if they make it, but if they don't I know it isn't because they're party poopers but because it just won't work.

This is the real problem. How big should an X-wing be next to a CR90? Hard to say, really, there are few clear shots with them next to each other. Maybe some flybys in the prep before the Battle of Endor, but few really good scaling shots.

In fact, stop and ask yourself - out of all three OT movies, what is the best scene comparing the size of two ships? That really sets them up so you can see how big they are compared to each other, with no concerns over matte paintings, distortion of distance, etc? I'd argue it's the first 5 minutes of Star Wars, with the Tantive IV being drawn into the docking bay.

This is an insurmountable problem. Barring the hardest of the hard core, very few even serious fans could look at the X-wing and Transport or CR90 and tell you how off scale they are. The "relative" scale works because both are huge next to the fighters. But the CR90 next to a Star Destroyer... That's a comparison that is early, memorable, and known to everyone who has ever seen the movies. Aminar may not care, but it's going to feel wrong to pretty much EVERYONE else if the relative scale between those ships isn't preserved.

...but the other side of that is indeed that people will recognize it shouldn't be that small. But I trust FFG to know best how big or small they make it, if they make it, but if they don't I know it isn't because they're party poopers but because it just won't work.

This is the real problem. How big should an X-wing be next to a CR90? Hard to say, really, there are few clear shots with them next to each other. Maybe some flybys in the prep before the Battle of Endor, but few really good scaling shots.

In fact, stop and ask yourself - out of all three OT movies, what is the best scene comparing the size of two ships? That really sets them up so you can see how big they are compared to each other, with no concerns over matte paintings, distortion of distance, etc? I'd argue it's the first 5 minutes of Star Wars, with the Tantive IV being drawn into the docking bay.

This is an insurmountable problem. Barring the hardest of the hard core, very few even serious fans could look at the X-wing and Transport or CR90 and tell you how off scale they are. The "relative" scale works because both are huge next to the fighters. But the CR90 next to a Star Destroyer... That's a comparison that is early, memorable, and known to everyone who has ever seen the movies. Aminar may not care, but it's going to feel wrong to pretty much EVERYONE else if the relative scale between those ships isn't preserved.

Buhallin, there is a carrier version of the CR 90.. it takes the starboard side central hull and enlarges it and flatten out more. It has gear to hang X wings on the exterior, but room to land and take off several x wings..

If I could afford 2 CR90s, I would do that as a rebuild..

The thing that bothers me the most about all this is that Buhallin and Aminar use the same avatar. It's so confusing.

If they implement a Star Destroyer, there have to be the Mon Calamari Cruiser, Mon Calamari Wingless Home One, Nebulon B Fregatte, VSD and all other EU big ships. Do they fit between a 1 foot CR90 and a 2 foot ISD? No they dont!

And it would be sort of useless at 300 Points anyway. Do the Rebels need a stronger ship than a CR90 at 300 Points? Not really. Do I want something bigger and stronger than the CR90 if the Imps get a ISD? Of course. 3,4 Nebulon B Fregattes supported by Fighter & Bomber taking this **** down. Is this possible at this scale? Sadly no.

Nebulon B Fregattes would be a theory possibility for the Imps too. It was only build for the IMps and just captured by the rebels one for one.

But to end this post. Even the CR90 should be bigger. I would love it more if it would be bigger and stronger. So please no ISD or VSD or Nebulon B Fregatte unless we play on the floor.

Buhallin, there is a carrier version of the CR 90.. it takes the starboard side central hull and enlarges it and flatten out more. It has gear to hang X wings on the exterior, but room to land and take off several x wings..

If I could afford 2 CR90s, I would do that as a rebuild..

X-Wing Novel?

An something different:

If you compare X-Wing Minatures with a PC game you should take at least a strategy-game. For example Empire at War.

...but the other side of that is indeed that people will recognize it shouldn't be that small. But I trust FFG to know best how big or small they make it, if they make it, but if they don't I know it isn't because they're party poopers but because it just won't work.

This is the real problem. How big should an X-wing be next to a CR90? Hard to say, really, there are few clear shots with them next to each other. Maybe some flybys in the prep before the Battle of Endor, but few really good scaling shots.

In fact, stop and ask yourself - out of all three OT movies, what is the best scene comparing the size of two ships? That really sets them up so you can see how big they are compared to each other, with no concerns over matte paintings, distortion of distance, etc? I'd argue it's the first 5 minutes of Star Wars, with the Tantive IV being drawn into the docking bay.

This is an insurmountable problem. Barring the hardest of the hard core, very few even serious fans could look at the X-wing and Transport or CR90 and tell you how off scale they are. The "relative" scale works because both are huge next to the fighters. But the CR90 next to a Star Destroyer... That's a comparison that is early, memorable, and known to everyone who has ever seen the movies. Aminar may not care, but it's going to feel wrong to pretty much EVERYONE else if the relative scale between those ships isn't preserved.

That's a big generalization. No one is saying that a 2ft ISD's scale is correct. But you can;t assume that just because the scale is way out of whack that it would bother "EVERYONE" else to the point they won't use it just as I can't say the majority would probably eat it up. Instead of talking about the scale issue since it appears there is little no chance of reconciliation, how about talking about game balance and possibilities. Assume you get your scale ISD and we are playing X-Wing on a football field. What would it take to get the rules to where you are happy?

Everyone doesn't care about scale. I've just returned from trying to find the biggest Death Star model I could. Turned out to be a cookie jar but at least you can snack while gaming

Could be worse...

The people wanting FFG to produce a super scaled down ISD are literally giving me cancer.

Please don't ever breed.

The people wanting FFG to produce a super scaled down ISD are literally giving me cancer.

Please don't ever breed.

I hope you're getting some treatment for that, is a Bacta tank available?