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.

I'm not trying to claim it would bother everyone. What I'm saying is that it would be apparent to everyone, in a way that the scale differences of the current large ships aren't.

That means that it may not bother everyone it will certainly bother more people. I think this is rather mathematically irrefutable - people who don't know something is there can't be bothered by it. Of the people who do know it's there, some percentage will be bothered by it. Making up numbers now, if 50% of players are bothered by bad scaling, and 25% of them know about the scale differences of the current huge ships, you've got 1 in 8 who don't like it. If 100% of the players know about the scale differences in the ISD, 1 in 2 won't like it.

Again, made up numbers. But the shift is truly undeniable. And that's even before you consider players who are fine with minor scale shifts but would find such a massive shift in scale unpalatable, which covers nearly everyone against this idea. And that's before you consider the insane cost of the thing - because let's face it, this is not GW where players are willing to drop $1000 on a model, and Aminar's idea that it could be the same cost as the Corvette for something twice as long and 8 times as wide at the base is simply disconnected from reality.

I honestly don't see a point in going around in circles with you on game design. You'll declare it works mostly because you want it to work, I'll dislike it because it's random, unrepresentative of the fluff, and untested. None of it will matter because FFG isn't going to be sitting there saying to themselves "Hrm, we REALLY want to do an Imperial Star Destroyer but just have no idea how to make it work. Let's go check the forums! Ooooooh, this guy wants to use SIX bases, that solves everything!"

So there's really no point. I think putting anything that big on the table would, all by itself, pretty much ruin the game. It couldn't maneuver, it couldn't turn, it could annihilate 200 points with a well-timed turn, giving it 60 shields that you have to chew through sounds boring as all hell from a gameplay perspective. It just doesn't fit.

Could be worse...

And how's that game doing these days?

Could be worse...

And how's that game doing these days?

You clearly don't read, I said it could be worse and then posted the picture beneath. In other words, it could be worse.

Starship Battles' problem was not its scale or lack thereof. It was its god awful rules. I've got a fair few of those ships. I tend to use the Full Thrust rules for them.

You clearly don't read, I said it could be worse and then posted the picture beneath. In other words, it could be worse.

Clearly you've dropped to meaningless one-liners so thoroughly that you don't even appreciate the different ways to read those cliches.

"It could be worse" frequently means "So this is fine".

Starship Battles' problem was not its scale or lack thereof. It was its god awful rules. I've got a fair few of those ships. I tend to use the Full Thrust rules for them.

And ugly models.

Seriously, I don't want FFG to go that mad with scale.

I'm just going to leave this here.

Actually, I think at page 15 I'm out now too.

Note to self: if you ever think about posting a topic again shoot yourself first. It'll be easier and less painful.

Btw, does anyone think Lt. Hans Gruber would be a good pilot for a Vigil Class?

Well, until FFG decides to pull the trigger on whatever incarnation of an ISD they think will work, I'm going to concentrate on smaller ships. I really think the DP20 would make a decent opponent for the CR90.

Even a Vigil at 2' is probably going to be too big for a 3' x 6' play area. Really, we should all play a few games with the 9" ship that's already out to get a better feel for the max size. And I understand why FFG chose a 3' x 6' play area for Epic games, but if they had gone 4' x 6' there would have been a little more wiggle room for larger ships.

But at 4' you'd run into a lot of problems in most homes.

But at 4' you'd run into a lot of problems in most homes.

4' is pretty standard for a lot of miniature games. Most people buy a few sheets of MDF and whack a coat of paint on one side. These can then be placed on top of another table to provide you with your playing area. The bigger problem I would suspect is the incompatibility with people's existing playing surface solutions.

But at 4' you'd run into a lot of problems in most homes.

4' is pretty standard for a lot of miniature games. Most people buy a few sheets of MDF and whack a coat of paint on one side. These can then be placed on top of another table to provide you with your playing area. The bigger problem I would suspect is the incompatibility with people's existing playing surface solutions.

Not just "people", but organized play venues; "put two of whatever you're using now side by side" seems like it will go over much better than "buy new play surfaces to support X-wing".

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.

I'm not trying to claim it would bother everyone. What I'm saying is that it would be apparent to everyone, in a way that the scale differences of the current large ships aren't.

That means that it may not bother everyone it will certainly bother more people. I think this is rather mathematically irrefutable - people who don't know something is there can't be bothered by it. Of the people who do know it's there, some percentage will be bothered by it. Making up numbers now, if 50% of players are bothered by bad scaling, and 25% of them know about the scale differences of the current huge ships, you've got 1 in 8 who don't like it. If 100% of the players know about the scale differences in the ISD, 1 in 2 won't like it.

Again, made up numbers. But the shift is truly undeniable. And that's even before you consider players who are fine with minor scale shifts but would find such a massive shift in scale unpalatable, which covers nearly everyone against this idea. And that's before you consider the insane cost of the thing - because let's face it, this is not GW where players are willing to drop $1000 on a model, and Aminar's idea that it could be the same cost as the Corvette for something twice as long and 8 times as wide at the base is simply disconnected from reality.

I honestly don't see a point in going around in circles with you on game design. You'll declare it works mostly because you want it to work, I'll dislike it because it's random, unrepresentative of the fluff, and untested. None of it will matter because FFG isn't going to be sitting there saying to themselves "Hrm, we REALLY want to do an Imperial Star Destroyer but just have no idea how to make it work. Let's go check the forums! Ooooooh, this guy wants to use SIX bases, that solves everything!"

So there's really no point. I think putting anything that big on the table would, all by itself, pretty much ruin the game. It couldn't maneuver, it couldn't turn, it could annihilate 200 points with a well-timed turn, giving it 60 shields that you have to chew through sounds boring as all hell from a gameplay perspective. It just doesn't fit.

Balance concerns are real. That's where the debate comes in.

As for the 60 shields/Hull. That's why at least two of the designs in this thread have alternate ways to kill the thing. If you think fighting a Stat Destroyer will be boring you haven't put enough thought into how well they've written the huge ship rules in relation to Star Destroyers. Admittedly, that's understandable given the fact the CR-90 hasn't hit the table yet. But the way it's set up is begging for a gigantic version. The rules, especially the energy system and the hardpoints honestly look to me like they were designed with something larger in mind.

Lastly, I wish people wouldn't try to make discussions like this absurd by saying, "WELP if you're ok with a Star Destroyer clearly you want the Death Star too! I have totally read and understood what you're saying." It's insulting. Nowhere has it been said that scale is totally irrelevent. Only that the scale issues with the Destroyer wouldn't bother us. The Death Star offers very little to the game the Star Destroyer doesn't already have. A planet killing laser is not interesting. What it offers is Trench run scenarios, which have been done and are pretty cool.

The same goes with Super Star Destroyers. There is nothing unique a Super Star Destroyer offers other than more.

Literally nobody has argued for those other than me saying that if FFG made a 4 Foot long Super Star Destroyer I'd be ok with it, but don't think it's a good business decision.

Star Destroyers offer a wellspring of design potential. They can be used as a command ship(like the transport) and Gun platform (like the Corvette) at the same time. And do so well. They are the best ship to be an entire Epic Match Fleet. What they can do with a design that long is simply staggering. Combine that with all the Imperial Figures we can put on a Star Destroyer. Motti, and Grand Moff Tarkin. The string of figures that get choked out in Empire. All of those can be put on a Star Destroyer, but would make no sense on a vigil. You can't give different story based cards for a vigil. It offers 0 Design potential other than being a Star Destroyer for scale junkies. Meanwhile everyone that doesn't obsess over the scale will realize instantly just how cool it is to be able to be in complete and perfect control of a Star Destroyer.

Earlier in the thread somebody talked about it not being a Star Destroyer because it's too small. All of these ships are too small. They are already representations made to fit into the game rules. The issue is that this board has built such an anti-Star Destroyer culture because of discussions that happened before the Epic Rules that nobody seems to see past that to the amazing design FFG's rules really hint at. Even if you're the most anti-Star Destroyer player in the world go look at the rules. Tell me you wouldn't love to see what the geniuses behind those rules could do with a Star Destroyer. Pretend you can get past something as minor as perfect scaling. Can you honestly say that managing all those guns, executing just right Tractor Beam/Turn combo to save your Tie Fighter from that B-Wings firing arc or just the right placement to destroy the Falcon wouldn't be amazing. And then tell me how FFG can possibly market the Vigil to anyone that hasn't read these discussions and had that alternative shoved at them a hundred times. There's nothing to market. No Nostalgia, no ships, no characters, no iconic moments. Only a vagely similar shape to a ship that should be amazing.

Flat capital ships are cheap and fun for "cinematic play". They are below the field of lay so you can fly over them and strafe and they fire turbo lasers back. They can have objectives like shield generators. Realistically you could build a mat or cut-out with a star destroyer or even the Death Star in the distance below the plane. Tractor beams come to mind. That is a plausible way to play "cinematic" and "epic" play. We have been playing enormous point values for months. I suspect there are a lot of people who could care less about tournaments and 100 pts. games. Let people play as they wish. We play to have fun with our friends and kids.

If you had scale capital ships flats on a vinyl, could you play the game on the floor? It might make a good convention event.

While I still say nay to an ISD, I fully agree with you on the Vigil which I only found about in one of these threads. You might expect to see it because it's from the new RPG, but there's no lure for non-RPG players.

If the Imperial faction gets huge ships, I'd rather hope for something like a Nebulon B2 assault frigate which is decidedly Imperial or something totally different: an XQ-series platform.

XQ1 platform crew: Grand Admiral Zaarin, all TIE Defender may perform one free action during the activation phase. .

This topic was started specifically talking about scale. I know that others have brought up ideas on how they feel FFG could represent ISDs on the table top, but that is not what this thread was first about. I don't feel that the "anti-SD" side can be fully blamed for continuing this debate. And for me scale is very important. I'm not asking for "perfect scaling", but I would say the difference between 1/270 and 1/2600 is hardly "minor". To you it is minor. To others it is minor. But it is not minor to myself, and at least some others. To me this game (even the epic scale version of it) is about fighters dogfighting. Adding an ISD does not fit into this in my opinion. An ISD as a background mat with special missions for taking out critical systems of the SD would be great. For me that is the way to represent an ISD in X-Wing miniatures, but not as a 2-3 foot miniature.

I still can't figure out why some would want to dogfight using a Star Destroyer. But then again, I'm still not sure what a dogfighting shuttle is doing in this game either. The game is about maneuver and evade and getting into position to take a shot at the enemy.

If I was to rock up at my local gaming club with a 2' Star Destroyer model, the first thing I'd hear would be "Is that supposed to be a Star Destroyer?? Bit small isn't it?"

For those that think scale isn't a big deal, why do we use templates for moving and range rulers for shooting? Scale is an important factor in this game, and in any miniature game. If you don't apply a scale to a game, then you are just moving markers on a map based board game, similar to Risk. This is not a board game, it's a tabletop miniatures game for dogfighting with starfighters.

Instead of speculating whether FFG is going to try and shoe horn a Star Destroyer into this game or not, why don't we, as a community, petition them to produce a fleet combat game for capital ships? Then we could have all the big ships right where they belong and all in proper scale with each other. I looked at Attack Wing, and the only reason I didn't go for it was the fact that scales were all over the place. And I'm a huge Star Trek fan. Getting something like scale right can make or break a game.

Not going to happen in the current game. The only way it is made is if they develop a whole separate game or a side game with capital ships at a different scale.

I can't believe people would be happy if they modified it THAT much to make it fit on the table. It would be laughable to anyone that has seen the movies. I mean real, honest laughter.

Earlier in the thread somebody talked about it not being a Star Destroyer because it's too small. All of these ships are too small. They are already representations made to fit into the game rules. The issue is that this board has built such an anti-Star Destroyer culture because of discussions that happened before the Epic Rules that nobody seems to see past that to the amazing design FFG's rules really hint at. Even if you're the most anti-Star Destroyer player in the world go look at the rules. Tell me you wouldn't love to see what the geniuses behind those rules could do with a Star Destroyer. Pretend you can get past something as minor as perfect scaling. Can you honestly say that managing all those guns, executing just right Tractor Beam/Turn combo to save your Tie Fighter from that B-Wings firing arc or just the right placement to destroy the Falcon wouldn't be amazing. And then tell me how FFG can possibly market the Vigil to anyone that hasn't read these discussions and had that alternative shoved at them a hundred times. There's nothing to market. No Nostalgia, no ships, no characters, no iconic moments. Only a vagely similar shape to a ship that should be amazing.

Sure I can imagine. I'm imagining how utterly terrible it's going to be because it will either be way too over powered and so can't be used in a game, or will be so under powered so as to no longer represent an ISD in anything but image (and a sh*tty image at that since it will be so out of scale). How will you represent it being able to launch its 72 TIE fighters from it's hanger bays? How are you going to balance it having 72 TIE fighters versus two dozen rebel ships? How it is not going to destroy every last one of those two dozen ships in a couple of turns due to its hundreds of guns and still call the game fair and balanced.

If it can't do those things, it's no longer an ISD. It's ISD lite and ISD lite is a steaming turd, generated by over enthusiastic fans wanting something that is completely impractical. If you're so desperate to have ISD lite, go out and buy a model and come up with some rules for it to play against anyone willing to agree to face it.

I'll show you why I want to dogfight a Star Destroyer. (Second link is shorter)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqd3XJakRaE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTKczkBxrUM

Good memories and pretty fun. "Real world" accurate, probably not. But, I think it is also fairly obvious that it is completely out of scale (along with the Corvette).

I understand the scale issues. If that is an issue for you, that is fine. We all enjoy different things, and have different quirks. I don't see this as a simulator. More as a I game. And I would love to recreate the fun from another game. Personally, I think it could be designed for the Epic format, while scaling up beyond for the super Death Juggernaut many are claiming it should be.

Ok, I think it's time-out time. Up till now everyone has been civil, and I have stayed out of the Conversation. The above post by Eltnot crosses that line.

Ok, I think it's time-out time. Up till now everyone has been civil, and I have stayed out of the Conversation. The above post by Eltnot crosses that line.

Ediited my post to make it more civil. I shouldn't have hit the "Post" button after writing that.

But keeping things on track, as I've been saying time and again, if you want an ISD in the game, no one is stopping you from putting your money where your mouth is, going out and buying one and coming up with some rules for it. You don't have demand that FFG makes one in order to be able to field out vastly out of scale version.