I'm definitely against a watered down version of an ISD that could maneuver on the Epic sized game board and would fit close to the 300 pt range. No thank you, I don't want such an abomination, nor do I want to play against it.

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.

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.

I'm definitely against a watered down version of an ISD that could maneuver on the Epic sized game board and would fit close to the 300 pt range. No thank you, I don't want such an abomination, nor do I want to play against it.

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.

Can we please not assume the other sides reason for wanting/not wanting an ISD? Someone tried to point out that the Anti-ISD people didn't want the ship because they were afraid and was promptly pounced on and in this case as well it's not fair to make a general assumption about a lot of people's motivations. Some people want that mantle piece I'm sure but personally I want it because I care about the gameplay experience. I want a powerful iconic ship to have great battles with.

I just don't really care about the scale as long as its about 2 ft long and I also believe its possible to accurately capture the essence of an ISD in the game (which is why I've gone through the its powerful but no that powerful explanations a lot). Maybe I'm just a glass half full type of guy but I'm not willing to say they will never or they can't do it without something more concrete from FFG.

I'm definitely against a watered down version of an ISD that could maneuver on the Epic sized game board and would fit close to the 300 pt range. No thank you, I don't want such an abomination, nor do I want to play against it.

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.

The dilemma for FFG remains, there are certainly divided camps on how an ISD should be represented in the game.

I'll withdraw any assumptions I made about why the other side insists on a nerfed model. I must admit, I really don't understand the motivations behind wanted it.

That does not, however, change my mind that I don't want to see the X-Wing game marginalized by the decision to make such sacrifices to the scale of an ISD to get it on the playing board.

The dilemma for FFG remains, there are certainly divided camps on how an ISD should be represented in the game.

I'll withdraw any assumptions I made about why the other side insists on a nerfed model. I must admit, I really don't understand the motivations behind wanted it.

That does not, however, change my mind that I don't want to see the X-Wing game marginalized by the decision to make such sacrifices to the scale of an ISD to get it on the playing board.

What I do advocate is understanding. Why do you believe an ISD would marginalize X-Wing?

The dilemma for FFG remains, there are certainly divided camps on how an ISD should be represented in the game.

I'll withdraw any assumptions I made about why the other side insists on a nerfed model. I must admit, I really don't understand the motivations behind wanted it.

That does not, however, change my mind that I don't want to see the X-Wing game marginalized by the decision to make such sacrifices to the scale of an ISD to get it on the playing board.

The dilemma for FFG remains, there are certainly divided camps on how an ISD should be represented in the game.

I'll withdraw any assumptions I made about why the other side insists on a nerfed model. I must admit, I really don't understand the motivations behind wanted it.

That does not, however, change my mind that I don't want to see the X-Wing game marginalized by the decision to make such sacrifices to the scale of an ISD to get it on the playing board.

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.

The dilemma for FFG remains, there are certainly divided camps on how an ISD should be represented in the game.

I'll withdraw any assumptions I made about why the other side insists on a nerfed model. I must admit, I really don't understand the motivations behind wanted it.

That does not, however, change my mind that I don't want to see the X-Wing game marginalized by the decision to make such sacrifices to the scale of an ISD to get it on the playing board.

What I do advocate is understanding. Why do you believe an ISD would marginalize X-Wing?

Also, with the edition of Epic rules and energy, it would be easy to represent the visible portion of the capital ship with the same mechanics.

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

But...

A Star Destroyer is more than the mearly the ship alone. A Star Detroyer (based on various opinions on the validity of source material) has debatable capabilities of bringing debatable amounts of weapons to bear.

Would you be content placing the Star Destroyer and the Star Destroyer alone on the table? Star Destroyers of all stripes have a compliment of starfighters to bring to bear as well.

Lets pretent that the Star Destroyer only has a fraction of its full compliment of fighters and only has 100pts worth of TIEs in its hanger, soooo, only 8 ships then. That leaves 200pts to represent the Star Destroyer in the game. A CR-90 has a base total of 90pts, without any upgrades.

Nearly as much as the 100pt fighter compliment of our pretend Star Destroyer and that is without any of its upgrades.

Lets add a couple of uprgrades to our CR-90, say, the Tantive IV (4), two Single turbo lasers (8+8=16), a quad turbo laser (6), an Ionization Reactor (4), Slicer Tools (7), R2-D2 (4), and C-3PO (3).

Not even close to the full alotment of slots filled and I also have no Team Upgrade cards listed (because we havn't seen any yet) and we now have already added another 37pts to the total. So we are now up to 134pts for our CR-90. Nearly half of the 300pts total for Epic level play.

That includes the main gun, two single Turbolasers, and one Quad Turbolaser for armament.

Now imagine a Star Destroyer. Awesome? Yep, Awesome.

We could say that our Star Destroyer costs 200pts in order to account for it's size and it's hull/shields. Since it is twice as long and several times the volume/mass/shields of the CR-90 which has 16 Hull and 8 Shields.

Now lets add some Weapon/Crew Upgrades to our Star Destroyer... wait, we can't because we have already reached our 300pt limit with our 7, and only 7, TIEs.

We won't even be able to add a single Turbolaser or crew member to our Star Destroyer.

Not Awesome.

Having read how disappointed two people were with the transport because of scale I acknowledge that I was an idiot to bring up this topic. I've a feeling the huge ships are not going to be the big hit the hype made them out to be.

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

But...

A Star Destroyer is more than the mearly the ship alone. A Star Detroyer (based on various opinions on the validity of source material) has debatable capabilities of bringing debatable amounts of weapons to bear.

Would you be content placing the Star Destroyer and the Star Destroyer alone on the table? Star Destroyers of all stripes have a compliment of starfighters to bring to bear as well.

Lets pretent that the Star Destroyer only has a fraction of its full compliment of fighters and only has 100pts worth of TIEs in its hanger, soooo, only 8 ships then. That leaves 200pts to represent the Star Destroyer in the game. A CR-90 has a base total of 90pts, without any upgrades.

Nearly as much as the 100pt fighter compliment of our pretend Star Destroyer and that is without any of its upgrades.

Lets add a couple of uprgrades to our CR-90, say, the Tantive IV (4), two Single turbo lasers (8+8=16), a quad turbo laser (6), an Ionization Reactor (4), Slicer Tools (7), R2-D2 (4), and C-3PO (3).

Not even close to the full alotment of slots filled and I also have no Team Upgrade cards listed (because we havn't seen any yet) and we now have already added another 37pts to the total. So we are now up to 134pts for our CR-90. Nearly half of the 300pts total for Epic level play.

That includes the main gun, two single Turbolasers, and one Quad Turbolaser for armament.

Now imagine a Star Destroyer. Awesome? Yep, Awesome.

We could say that our Star Destroyer costs 200pts in order to account for it's size and it's hull/shields. Since it is twice as long and several times the volume/mass/shields of the CR-90 which has 16 Hull and 8 Shields.

Now lets add some Weapon/Crew Upgrades to our Star Destroyer... wait, we can't because we have already reached our 300pt limit with our 7, and only 7, TIEs.

We won't even be able to add a single Turbolaser or crew member to our Star Destroyer.

Not Awesome.

For starters.

6 Sections. each with a narrowed firing arc due to the fact each section has its own card, and the sections extend from the center of the ship.

Each has 5 Hull. 5 Shields(7on the rearmost). Two Hard Points. The forwardmost has a primary weapon value of 5, but only 1 Hardpoint.

The rearmost has an energy value of 12.

They round out to 150 points total, with each of the four center sections being 20ish points apiece, likely less based on the cost of a Lambda. Add in that the rearmost section, when crippled leaves the manuever dial set as it last was(as detailed above).

From there are as many as 11 Hardpoints to be filled. Whenever a section is crippled the Hardpoints are lost. Voila, 200 Point Star Destroyer with space for 100 points of regular ships.

That's roughly what I would like to see the Victory class look like. I'd like at least 8 Sections on an ISD, and have it generally operate shipless.

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've a feeling the huge ships are not going to be the big hit the hype made them out to be.

When we see things that don't match up to those memories we have, then things seem wrong.

That's one of the reasons I don't think the GR-75 or CR-90 will sell quite as well as some people thing they will. That and the cost, because it's simple economics that as the cost goes up the demand goes down.

Add into that the fact that you need a 3x6 foot table and 300 points worth of ships to play epic games... Then you have even more people who will be out of the market for epic ships.

I think they'll sell enough epic ships to warrant Imperial ships, but I'll be surprised if they release many more.

I've a feeling the huge ships are not going to be the big hit the hype made them out to be.

When we see things that don't match up to those memories we have, then things seem wrong.That's one of the reasons I don't think the GR-75 or CR-90 will sell quite as well as some people thing they will. That and the cost, because it's simple economics that as the cost goes up the demand goes down.Add into that the fact that you need a 3x6 foot table and 300 points worth of ships to play epic games... Then you have even more people who will be out of the market for epic ships.I think they'll sell enough epic ships to warrant Imperial ships, but I'll be surprised if they release many more.

Given the 30 Ship number we probably only have 4 more big ships to work with past the Corvette. At most. We may only get 2 per side.

And? That means your design is a bad way to go about designing it. There are plenty of other ways.

For starters.

6 Sections. each with a narrowed firing arc due to the fact each section has its own card, and the sections extend from the center of the ship.

Each has 5 Hull. 5 Shields(7on the rearmost). Two Hard Points. The forwardmost has a primary weapon value of 5, but only 1 Hardpoint.

The rearmost has an energy value of 12.

They round out to 150 points total, with each of the four center sections being 20ish points apiece, likely less based on the cost of a Lambda. Add in that the rearmost section, when crippled leaves the manuever dial set as it last was(as detailed above).

From there are as many as 11 Hardpoints to be filled. Whenever a section is crippled the Hardpoints are lost. Voila, 200 Point Star Destroyer with space for 100 points of regular ships.

That's roughly what I would like to see the Victory class look like. I'd like at least 8 Sections on an ISD, and have it generally operate shipless.

So a Star Destroyer is twice as powerful as a CR-90? And a fully upgraded CR-90 is nearly equal to a Star Destroyer when it has fighters on the table?

And? That means your design is a bad way to go about designing it. There are plenty of other ways..... *LOLsnip*

Wow - and you have the nerve to call catachan23's suggestion a "bad way to go about designing it"?

So you want the iconic, incomparable space juggernaut that is the Star Destroyer to be represented at an order of magnitude lower than it's true capabilities, at a scale at an order of magnitude lower than the Corvette, for a real world price that's likely to be an order of magnitude higher?

the bottom line..?

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...

And? That means your design is a bad way to go about designing it. There are plenty of other ways.

For starters.

6 Sections. each with a narrowed firing arc due to the fact each section has its own card, and the sections extend from the center of the ship.

Each has 5 Hull. 5 Shields(7on the rearmost). Two Hard Points. The forwardmost has a primary weapon value of 5, but only 1 Hardpoint.

The rearmost has an energy value of 12.

They round out to 150 points total, with each of the four center sections being 20ish points apiece, likely less based on the cost of a Lambda. Add in that the rearmost section, when crippled leaves the manuever dial set as it last was(as detailed above).

From there are as many as 11 Hardpoints to be filled. Whenever a section is crippled the Hardpoints are lost. Voila, 200 Point Star Destroyer with space for 100 points of regular ships.

That's roughly what I would like to see the Victory class look like. I'd like at least 8 Sections on an ISD, and have it generally operate shipless.

So a Star Destroyer is twice as powerful as a CR-90? And a fully upgraded CR-90 is nearly equal to a Star Destroyer when it has fighters on the table?

And for gods sake. It's a game. Everything is skewed in games. Everything. If you can't accept that you may want to find a different hobby.

In MTG a behemoth the size of mountain dies to 13 dudes with spears.

In Heroclix Superman and Iron man cost similar amounts.

In Starcraft Cruisers are barely twice as long as fighters. Do you hear people complaining about the lack of scale there? No. Because games are representations morphed to fit balance. What I have described is playable, models a Star Destroyer, and creayes a unique play experience. That's what matters in games. That is all that matters in games. Scale only works in real life. Even in books and movies the power levels are distorted by what fits the plot. If this game were modeling real life it would be far more complex, and take hundreds of hours to understand, play, and wouldn't be enjoyable at all.

And? That means your design is a bad way to go about designing it. There are plenty of other ways..... *LOLsnip*

Wow - and you have the nerve to call catachan23's suggestion a "bad way to go about designing it"?

So you want the iconic, incomparable space juggernaut that is the Star Destroyer to be represented at an order of magnitude lower than it's true capabilities, at a scale at an order of magnitude lower than the Corvette, for a real world price that's likely to be an order of magnitude higher?

At most. We may only get 2 per side.

This kinda fits into the Vigil vs ISD thing. Yes in theory they could produce both, as was suggested a page so back now. But doing so seems like a massively bad idea to me, from a business stand point.

Lets just say either ship will have roughly the same capabilities and be about the same size, and cost the same amount. So they're effectively interchangeable.

Who's going to buy both at that cost? I mean sure the Aces are fairly popular, but they're also a lot cheaper. They also however didn't likely sell nearly as well as the original ship. I doubt many people bought more then 2 Imperial Aces, especially if they already had a couple Interceptors.

With the Rebel Aces pack, how many people are going to buy more then 1 or 2 of those?

If it's unplayable then it's a bad design. We both know that.

If it's unplayable it may just be a bad idea to start with.

There isn't always a way to make something work. No matter how badly you want it you can't make 1=10 without breaking something somewhere.

If it's unplayable then it's a bad design. We both know that.

If it's unplayable it may just be a bad idea to start with.

There isn't always a way to make something work. No matter how badly you want it you can't make 1=10 without breaking something somewhere.

I think if you take Gecko's basis for the ship damage and add on my grid idea for the firepower we might actually have something. Gotta try it out now....

Having read how disappointed two people were with the transport because of scale I acknowledge that I was an idiot to bring up this topic. I've a feeling the huge ships are not going to be the big hit the hype made them out to be.

To be honest, I got it for the X wing... I may use the transport for terrain/obstacle more than as support in an "epic" game.. seeing the difference has really made me rethink getting the Tantive... I was hoping the scale shift wouldnt matter.. or would be 'good enough' but when you realize the falcon is normally a third the size of it... it looks small

And this is why a ISD just won't work in the game... you can pretend there is a balance point to bring it into line with whatnis in game now.. but that ship.. that 2 foot 'ISD' is no longer an ISD.. it is a small disrespectful, diminished, unworthy... substitute... it will not be impressive.. it will not be commandimg... it will be lame, and that is what I find reprehensible about it.... and that you guys are willing to accept lame.. to represent an Icon... saddens me... it makes me feel like you dont care about the game or balance and fairness in the game... no matter how many times you say otherwise, the more you push it the more I feel you just dont care, as long as you get your lame pretend ISD...

Just how I see it... it cant be done, as you can never bring the first few minutes of epIV impressiveness to the table with a 2 foot imposter...

If it's unplayable then it's a bad design. We both know that.

If it's unplayable it may just be a bad idea to start with.There isn't always a way to make something work. No matter how badly you want it you can't make 1=10 without breaking something somewhere.

It can be made playable until FFG says otherwise.

If it's unplayable then it's a bad design. We both know that.

If it's unplayable it may just be a bad idea to start with.

There isn't always a way to make something work. No matter how badly you want it you can't make 1=10 without breaking something somewhere.

I think if you take Gecko's basis for the ship damage and add on my grid idea for the firepower we might actually have something. Gotta try it out now....