Sorry, I'll disagree.. a 2 foot ISD is not going to be impressive next to the Tantive... it will look small...

Telling me to be more open minded is not the best way to argue your point... you have no idea who I am, I have a more open mind than you can imagine.. also.. I could use the same comment on you.. as your idea is a bit shallow in depth... you amuse me when you say a 2 foot ISD can be balanced but that a Deathstar or SSD cant be..(you said as much in another post) but by your reasoning those shouod be able to be balanced and dropped in.. we can paint a basketball grey and throw some black lines on it and there you have your Deathstar... oh.. bit wait.. that won't look impressive either... will it....

It still holds true.. you cant make an ISD balanced for this game.. but you can make other smaller ships... and that is what they should do. Besides, once you have a scaled down ISD, and driven its power and impressiveness down to such a dinky version.. you just have a Vigil class ship anyway... so make the fair and balanced Vigil, and keep the ISD off table... the ship off mat, that still can take pot shots at the pieces on the table.. that is impressive.. and allows us our big impressive ISD.. because as you are fond of saying.. use your imagination...

I do, every game I play, therenis an ISD sitting just out of range of the ships.. waiting to retrieve its remaining ships, and then jump to new coordinates....

I don't buy it. I have yet to see you suggest anything that suggests you're trying to problem solve the issue, rather than just saying I don't want it, it can't be done. I'm not saying you're closed minded about people, but about this issue you haven't presented yourself as open minded or solution focused. That's pretty normal human behavior really. But it isn't the kind of behavior I have seen from Game Designers.

And I'd love to see an Executor model as well. But I don't think the space or cost can reasonably be mitigated the way I see a Star Destroyer being done, as it would wind up being about a 4 foot long model and take up all 3 feet of the narrow map to be in a sliding scale with the Star Destroyer where it still conveys the size. If they make them as custom made to order models at $1000 or so bucks a piece I won't complain. I just don't know anybody who would buy one.

But a 150-200 dollar 2 foot long Star Destroyer makes sense to me.

And I still think the vigil is a copout made to cater to the Scale Junkies. I always will. It isn't a solution I can really get behind.

I have seen a vision of the future, and ISDs are not in it.

FFG will essentially mirror the Rebel huge ships to huge Empire ships. There will be a combat ship and a support/ewar ship. The stats might slightly vary, more shields vs more hull, maybe different energy values on their dials, maybe more hard points and a weaker main gun. But essentially it will be even.

There will be a fast corvette class ship for 2 epic points, and fully loaded around 150-160.

There will be an ewar/support pickette ship for 1 epic point, and fully loaded for around 70-80 points.

Im guessing these will be the last huge ships for at least a year. They might be revisited afterwards. Maybe produce another one or two per side. All will be in the 100 to 200 meter range.

Sorry, I'll disagree.. a 2 foot ISD is not going to be impressive next to the Tantive... it will look small...

Telling me to be more open minded is not the best way to argue your point... you have no idea who I am, I have a more open mind than you can imagine.. also.. I could use the same comment on you.. as your idea is a bit shallow in depth... you amuse me when you say a 2 foot ISD can be balanced but that a Deathstar or SSD cant be..(you said as much in another post) but by your reasoning those shouod be able to be balanced and dropped in.. we can paint a basketball grey and throw some black lines on it and there you have your Deathstar... oh.. bit wait.. that won't look impressive either... will it....

It still holds true.. you cant make an ISD balanced for this game.. but you can make other smaller ships... and that is what they should do. Besides, once you have a scaled down ISD, and driven its power and impressiveness down to such a dinky version.. you just have a Vigil class ship anyway... so make the fair and balanced Vigil, and keep the ISD off table... the ship off mat, that still can take pot shots at the pieces on the table.. that is impressive.. and allows us our big impressive ISD.. because as you are fond of saying.. use your imagination...

I do, every game I play, therenis an ISD sitting just out of range of the ships.. waiting to retrieve its remaining ships, and then jump to new coordinates....

I don't buy it. I have yet to see you suggest anything that suggests you're trying to problem solve the issue, rather than just saying I don't want it, it can't be done. I'm not saying you're closed minded about people, but about this issue you haven't presented yourself as open minded or solution focused. That's pretty normal human behavior really. But it isn't the kind of behavior I have seen from Game Designers.

And I'd love to see an Executor model as well. But I don't think the space or cost can reasonably be mitigated the way I see a Star Destroyer being done, as it would wind up being about a 4 foot long model and take up all 3 feet of the narrow map to be in a sliding scale with the Star Destroyer where it still conveys the size. If they make them as custom made to order models at $1000 or so bucks a piece I won't complain. I just don't know anybody who would buy one.

But a 150-200 dollar 2 foot long Star Destroyer makes sense to me.

And I still think the vigil is a copout made to cater to the Scale Junkies. I always will. It isn't a solution I can really get behind.

This is why you fail..... Yoda

There is no solution, you just dont make a ISD to fit on the table, because there is NO way to balance a ship like that to such a small scale.. the ship is designed to lay waste to an entire planet... what do you think it should do in this game.. sorry, but the only solution is to not make it.. that isn't close minded, it's reality...

And you say I'm close minded.. smh

A 2 foot model will be unimpressive, and too costly for your average gamer... and it might as well be another ship at that size...

Even if you can get behind placing a 2-3' Star Destroyer on the table, even if it could be made playable, even if it could be balanced and fair (and not just in the video game/book/movie sense where the hero always wins in the end!) even if every argument could be settled and everyone could be happy with the rules:

Imagine what it would cost.

It would be about as wide and the Tantive is long, and then 2-3 times as long and a fair bit taller as well. The volume of plastic itself would be the limiting factor. It's been brought up a few times and ignored every time.

The CR-90 is, essentially, a knobbed tube. Generally speaking, it's pretty simple and pretty compact.

A Star Destroyer has multiple decks, the command tower, all of which is MUCH more finely detailed because, of course, the scale is so much larger. Just the volume of space it would take up would make it a good 3-5 times as expensive as the CR-90. It would also require far more cardboard to support all of it's abilities. Shipping. Storage. "Twice as long" and "Twice as expensive" are two VERY different things.

That being said...

I understand why people want a Star Destroyer. I'm even considering building a 5-6' long surface, similar to the other one that was built by (I think) DarkFather. You could build it and have your battle along side it while "in game" the main focus of the Star Destroyer is a MonCal FAR off the table and unseen. Allow a few cannons per turn to take opportunistic pot shots at the fighters swarming around just above the surface, like in Jedi, but in general it's more scenery (and obstacles) than something intended to actually move around and interact with the snub fighters.

The concept of having the warship on the board just attacking the fighters without it's own compliment of fighters for defense is a little appalling. The idea of a Star Destroyer that could be taken down by a squad of X-wings in such a way the the Imperial Player is perfectly fine with it is just silly.

You can give it some fun Command and Control abilities, have some segment of it's energy devoted to the smaller scale battle taking place along it's surface, but a Star Destroyer has no business trying to swat fighters - that's explicitly why it carries so many of it's own.

It can be done, it can be made entertaining, but it has to be something purpose built for a scenario. The is just NO WAY to make a 3D model of a 2-3' Star Destroyer affordable enough for FFG to be able to sell them.

Sorry, I'll disagree.. a 2 foot ISD is not going to be impressive next to the Tantive... it will look small...

Telling me to be more open minded is not the best way to argue your point... you have no idea who I am, I have a more open mind than you can imagine.. also.. I could use the same comment on you.. as your idea is a bit shallow in depth... you amuse me when you say a 2 foot ISD can be balanced but that a Deathstar or SSD cant be..(you said as much in another post) but by your reasoning those shouod be able to be balanced and dropped in.. we can paint a basketball grey and throw some black lines on it and there you have your Deathstar... oh.. bit wait.. that won't look impressive either... will it....

It still holds true.. you cant make an ISD balanced for this game.. but you can make other smaller ships... and that is what they should do. Besides, once you have a scaled down ISD, and driven its power and impressiveness down to such a dinky version.. you just have a Vigil class ship anyway... so make the fair and balanced Vigil, and keep the ISD off table... the ship off mat, that still can take pot shots at the pieces on the table.. that is impressive.. and allows us our big impressive ISD.. because as you are fond of saying.. use your imagination...

I do, every game I play, therenis an ISD sitting just out of range of the ships.. waiting to retrieve its remaining ships, and then jump to new coordinates....

I don't buy it. I have yet to see you suggest anything that suggests you're trying to problem solve the issue, rather than just saying I don't want it, it can't be done. I'm not saying you're closed minded about people, but about this issue you haven't presented yourself as open minded or solution focused. That's pretty normal human behavior really. But it isn't the kind of behavior I have seen from Game Designers.

And I'd love to see an Executor model as well. But I don't think the space or cost can reasonably be mitigated the way I see a Star Destroyer being done, as it would wind up being about a 4 foot long model and take up all 3 feet of the narrow map to be in a sliding scale with the Star Destroyer where it still conveys the size. If they make them as custom made to order models at $1000 or so bucks a piece I won't complain. I just don't know anybody who would buy one.

But a 150-200 dollar 2 foot long Star Destroyer makes sense to me.

And I still think the vigil is a copout made to cater to the Scale Junkies. I always will. It isn't a solution I can really get behind.

This is why you fail..... Yoda

There is no solution, you just dont make a ISD to fit on the table, because there is NO way to balance a ship like that to such a small scale.. the ship is designed to lay waste to an entire planet... what do you think it should do in this game.. sorry, but the only solution is to not make it.. that isn't close minded, it's reality...

And you say I'm close minded.. smh

A 2 foot model will be unimpressive, and too costly for your average gamer... and it might as well be another ship at that size...

A 2 foot model will impress the hell out of me in all honesty. More than that, I'll have fun flying it. None of the things that apparently bother you(other than the potential of a price tag out of my budget) bother me.

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...

That's a bit...cataclysmic. I think a lot of how you feel about the big ships really has to do with your personal opinions on scale and how much you value it. I'm sorry you feel that way but just because the size question beyond making sure the ISD is what I consider "big enough" (about 2 feet) doesn't make me any less of fan of Star Wars. I honestly can't believe how much I've nerded out over this to be honest. Truthfully, I care about the game to the point that I wan't to believe I can recreate those epic moments from the series, we just care about them in different ways. Please don't read this paragraph with a snobby or argumentative tone. I understand your sentiment I just don't agree on a personal level.

-Edit- If you can't tell, I don;t really have an issue with the transport. I love that thing. Then again it is just a transport.

I love everything Star Wars..also... and I'm sure you do... we obviously depart on what we feel this game can bring..

The scale issue is something we all should be thinking of.. it just drives me over the edge to see a divide here, when we all should be outraged by a small ineffective ship pretending to be an ISD..

I just dont see how anyone could look at a 2 foot kodel and think.. yeah that looks good next to the ship that should fit in its hold..... I do think it would look good on my shelf... but not on my game table...

I just dont understand why people want an unimpressive model.. I think the 'off mat' rules in the transport are the best way to go, therein lies your imagination.. therein lies the large impressive .. imtimidating craft we all know and love... I for one dont need to see it on the table..

I may still get the Tantive, but it will be a decoration in my room.. nothing kore.. but I need to think hard if I wanna spend that kind of koney for such ships..

Largely because I play this game in tournaments. An off the map model, or a model that is a map are meaningless. If I wanted that I'd be in a Star Wars Role Playing Campaign. Having anything other than a model has no substance, no Strategy, none of the feeling of command. It's just a poor substitute. Meanwhile Scale is a triviality for me. I played with Star Wars Micro-machines as a kid. The X-wing, the Falcon and every version of the Star Destroyers were within an inch of each other. It didn't reduce the fun at all.

Obviously FFG differs in opinion, as they have given us rules for ISDs..

And comparing this game to childhood fantasies is really not what we are doing.. seriously, this is totally different.. I mean come on man, we arent children here.. sure we may actnit sometimes, but we are adults... video games have no hold on this game, nor does our memories of flying around our yard with toys.. I was 13 when A New hope came out...

This discussion needs to go beyond childhood fantasies.. you wonder why I say some of the things I do, it's because you keep insisting these crazy notions that FFG is sitting back imagining the samenthing... oooooo wouldnt it be cool if we could... blah blah blah... you wonder why I say you have no care for balance in the game... Right there... your insistance that it can be made ... that a 2 foot model can be 'all that we expect... and fun to play' sorry.. an unimpressive sham is not all I expect.. nor will it be fun.. the ship should destroy everything on the table and crash through your fighters and be the only thing left on the table... but that wouldnt be fun for your opponent.. so there goes balance and fair play...

Maybe ... I just like a game the way it is.. and not how broken it can get...

I like the game how it is. But I would like it better without Star Destroyers. A 2 foot sculpt on the table will be impressive as hell. It will be a thing to behold. I don't think FFG will break the game either. They won't. They've proven that time and again.

They won't break the game. They HAVE proven that time and time again. Which is the reason they won't make a Star Destroyer.

So technically speaking, and I do appreciate the flaw in my logic (if I rounded down it would be 2 not 2.3 I added), I made 2+2=5. But the person said you always round up and I was wrong. Curious to know your thoughts....

What you call "a flaw in your logic" most people just call "being wrong and making stuff up".

x + y = 5 is not (necessarily) the same as (Math.ceil(x) + Math.ceil(y) = 5).

At the outer end of mathematics it does some very strange stuff. But incorrect proofs and made-up numbers is not "math breaking its own rules", it's bad math, and it's wrong.

And I have no idea what this has to do with Star Destroyers, but whoever started it is quite simply wrong.

It was a question for Vorpal Sword which should have been a private message but I posted it here in my hasty curiosity. Not meant for everyone else, but I enjoyed Aminar's reply nonetheless. Like me, perhaps he liked the respite, however brief, from the never ending circle of Star Destroyer debate I foolishly started.

Now continue the Star Destroyer big ben chorus...

...and ignore my maths question to someone other than you.

Again, I liked your reply Aminar

Even if you can get behind placing a 2-3' Star Destroyer on the table, even if it could be made playable, even if it could be balanced and fair (and not just in the video game/book/movie sense where the hero always wins in the end!) even if every argument could be settled and everyone could be happy with the rules:

Imagine what it would cost.

It would be about as wide and the Tantive is long, and then 2-3 times as long and a fair bit taller as well. The volume of plastic itself would be the limiting factor. It's been brought up a few times and ignored every time.

The CR-90 is, essentially, a knobbed tube. Generally speaking, it's pretty simple and pretty compact.

A Star Destroyer has multiple decks, the command tower, all of which is MUCH more finely detailed because, of course, the scale is so much larger. Just the volume of space it would take up would make it a good 3-5 times as expensive as the CR-90. It would also require far more cardboard to support all of it's abilities. Shipping. Storage. "Twice as long" and "Twice as expensive" are two VERY different things.

That being said...

I understand why people want a Star Destroyer. I'm even considering building a 5-6' long surface, similar to the other one that was built by (I think) DarkFather. You could build it and have your battle along side it while "in game" the main focus of the Star Destroyer is a MonCal FAR off the table and unseen. Allow a few cannons per turn to take opportunistic pot shots at the fighters swarming around just above the surface, like in Jedi, but in general it's more scenery (and obstacles) than something intended to actually move around and interact with the snub fighters.

The concept of having the warship on the board just attacking the fighters without it's own compliment of fighters for defense is a little appalling. The idea of a Star Destroyer that could be taken down by a squad of X-wings in such a way the the Imperial Player is perfectly fine with it is just silly.

You can give it some fun Command and Control abilities, have some segment of it's energy devoted to the smaller scale battle taking place along it's surface, but a Star Destroyer has no business trying to swat fighters - that's explicitly why it carries so many of it's own.

It can be done, it can be made entertaining, but it has to be something purpose built for a scenario. The is just NO WAY to make a 3D model of a 2-3' Star Destroyer affordable enough for FFG to be able to sell them.

I've talked about the cost a times and it's a simple matter ultimately, "we don't know." We don;t know how much it will cost so saying they can't make it because of the cost is kind of groundless. What we do know is this. FFG has put out limited run higher priced premium models before like Dust pre painted minis. FFG has now started to release bigger pre painted models. Other companies have released huge complex models with moving parts like forgeworld Titans, which do sell. Basically, while all circumstantial it means its probably not safe to make any assumptions just based on cost.

They won't break the game. They HAVE proven that time and time again. Which is the reason they won't make a Star Destroyer.

Unless a Star Destroyer doesn't break the game.

So technically speaking, and I do appreciate the flaw in my logic (if I rounded down it would be 2 not 2.3 I added), I made 2+2=5. But the person said you always round up and I was wrong. Curious to know your thoughts....

What you call "a flaw in your logic" most people just call "being wrong and making stuff up".

x + y = 5 is not (necessarily) the same as (Math.ceil(x) + Math.ceil(y) = 5).

At the outer end of mathematics it does some very strange stuff. But incorrect proofs and made-up numbers is not "math breaking its own rules", it's bad math, and it's wrong.

And I have no idea what this has to do with Star Destroyers, but whoever started it is quite simply wrong.

It was a question for Vorpal Sword which should have been a private message but I posted it here in my hasty curiosity. Not meant for everyone else, but I enjoyed Aminar's reply nonetheless. Like me, perhaps he liked the respite, however brief, from the never ending circle of Star Destroyer debate I foolishly started.

Now continue the Star Destroyer big ben chorus...

...and ignore my maths question to someone other than you.

Again, I liked your reply Aminar

Shockingly enough, I enjoy these discussions.

I write Speculative Fiction and Mentor at Risk Teenagers. Arguments and Made up stuff basically describe my life. These discussions get my brain going, and compared to what I deal with at work they just aren't enough to possibly make me upset. After the third or fourth person you talk out of commiting suicide there just isn't much that gets my negative emotions really going. It's made me surprsingly optimistic about anything not involving teenagers.

Sorry, I'll disagree.. a 2 foot ISD is not going to be impressive next to the Tantive... it will look small...

Telling me to be more open minded is not the best way to argue your point... you have no idea who I am, I have a more open mind than you can imagine.. also.. I could use the same comment on you.. as your idea is a bit shallow in depth... you amuse me when you say a 2 foot ISD can be balanced but that a Deathstar or SSD cant be..(you said as much in another post) but by your reasoning those shouod be able to be balanced and dropped in.. we can paint a basketball grey and throw some black lines on it and there you have your Deathstar... oh.. bit wait.. that won't look impressive either... will it....

It still holds true.. you cant make an ISD balanced for this game.. but you can make other smaller ships... and that is what they should do. Besides, once you have a scaled down ISD, and driven its power and impressiveness down to such a dinky version.. you just have a Vigil class ship anyway... so make the fair and balanced Vigil, and keep the ISD off table... the ship off mat, that still can take pot shots at the pieces on the table.. that is impressive.. and allows us our big impressive ISD.. because as you are fond of saying.. use your imagination...

I do, every game I play, therenis an ISD sitting just out of range of the ships.. waiting to retrieve its remaining ships, and then jump to new coordinates....

I don't buy it. I have yet to see you suggest anything that suggests you're trying to problem solve the issue, rather than just saying I don't want it, it can't be done. I'm not saying you're closed minded about people, but about this issue you haven't presented yourself as open minded or solution focused. That's pretty normal human behavior really. But it isn't the kind of behavior I have seen from Game Designers.

And I'd love to see an Executor model as well. But I don't think the space or cost can reasonably be mitigated the way I see a Star Destroyer being done, as it would wind up being about a 4 foot long model and take up all 3 feet of the narrow map to be in a sliding scale with the Star Destroyer where it still conveys the size. If they make them as custom made to order models at $1000 or so bucks a piece I won't complain. I just don't know anybody who would buy one.

But a 150-200 dollar 2 foot long Star Destroyer makes sense to me.

And I still think the vigil is a copout made to cater to the Scale Junkies. I always will. It isn't a solution I can really get behind.

This is why you fail..... Yoda

There is no solution, you just dont make a ISD to fit on the table, because there is NO way to balance a ship like that to such a small scale.. the ship is designed to lay waste to an entire planet... what do you think it should do in this game.. sorry, but the only solution is to not make it.. that isn't close minded, it's reality...

And you say I'm close minded.. smh

A 2 foot model will be unimpressive, and too costly for your average gamer... and it might as well be another ship at that size...

Maybe for you. I, and many others, get why the Destroyer name and image is important. And I have yet to see anything in the source material that makes it so 300 points is out of line. Laying waste to a planet is easy. Laying waste to a squadron of X-wings. Not so much.

A 2 foot model will impress the hell out of me in all honesty. More than that, I'll have fun flying it. None of the things that apparently bother you(other than the potential of a price tag out of my budget) bother me.

You assume much.. Queen Amidala...

I get why the ISD is iconic and impressive, making one relatively similar to a ship it should be able to place in its hold... isn't very impressive anymore.. I don't understand why you don't get that, other than.. you just want it..(see what I did there..that's what you keep saying) ... I just dont see it in this game, as it removes those aspects of impressive and iconic from it.. it will become unimpressive and noniconic...

Just call it a Vigil class ship and profit... a dumbed down ISD isn't the way to go...

I really think the people who want a scaled-down Star Destroyer in this game are doing a major disservice to the design.

First of all, it's a MASSIVE warship. The ship is designed, in filmatic terms, to look like an enormous city in space. It's got thousands of tiny little lights representing windows, and according to the fluff it has over 31,000 crew. The vessel is 1.606 kilometers long, and has a volume of at least a 1,000,000 cubic meters, likely more (I'm guestimating).

The vessel also apparently has many HUNDREDS of guns, if you go by the weapon densities seen in the original trilogy. I can't remember where I put the analysis I did on this, but last time I checked the Star Destroyer has several scenes where a small section of the hull had at least 6 or 7 lasers on it (mostly from the Empire Strikes Back scene where the Falcon attacks the Star Destroyer). Stretching it out over the entire length of the trench yielded a result of over 200, based on the area of the section seen in the film, with a somewhat lower density on the hull surface.

According to the fluff, this ship is designed to be able to reduce a world to a lake of molten rock in a matter of hours. Considering the light turbolasers were able to completely vaporize asteroids that approached upwards of 40 meters in a single shot, and even passed through slightly smaller rocks, this is hardly surprising.

The shields are also extremely powerful. I know, I know, one of the ships in TESB had its conning tower destroyed by an asteroid. But in a previous scene you can see an asteroid which was traveling at extreme speed impact the ship with nary a scratch. The entire event was absorbed by the shields and armor. And if you think about it, the shields and armor need to be at least as strong as the weaponry in order to maintain combat for any length of time with other warships.

Finally, its fighter compliment . . . do I really need to state the obvious that most of us would have to pool our fighter reserves with at least ten other people to equal the number of fighters seen on this ship?

Now, that being said, compare it to the Corellian Corvette:

It's a ship which is 160 meters long (roughly 1/10 the length and 1/100 the volume). It has two turbolasers and four laser cannons. It has a crew of, at most, 165 people. No fighters, light-duty capital shields (certainly around the same "hardness" as the asteroid the ISD vaporized in TESB).

There is no comparison between these two.

So I can't comprehend why you would *want* to put an ISD in this game, besides cool-factor.

And yes, it is a cool ship. I love it!! I have Star Destroyer wallpaper on my work computer and a model of one on my shelves. I plan on getting one of those massive resin kits when I can afford it, because I want a gargantuan 38" model of it.

Would I want it in X-wing, though? No, because it would need to be reduced to a MUCH smaller shape to even fit on the table.

But why stop at just discussion? Let's look at the real problem here. With pictures! Yay!

First, here is an Epic Scale table, with all available miniatures:

That should give you a good indication of the size-relationship between the table and the miniatures. I scaled these as closely to the actual scale of the minis as possible, but there's only so much I can do when I don't know the actual figures off the top of my head for their sizes. But you can see they're a reasonable approximation.

Now, here's a Star Destroyer in the same scale as the Corellian Corvette Huge Ship scale:

Yeesh!! Talk about a monster, eh? It's much smaller than it would be if it were in scale with the Small Scale and Large Scale miniatures, but it's still a monster of a model!! There's no possible way FFG would be willing to make a model this size. Well, maybe . . . if they wanted to go bankrupt from people not being able to afford one (the CR90 is $90 . . . I can easily see a miniature this size being over $1500). Plus, does that look like it would fit on the table? Nope. Not a chance. I doubt it could even support its own weight if it were made of resin, even hollow-cast resin. And of course, lighter models would be even less likely to be able to support their own weight. Let's just forget a model this big, okay?

Now, how about a model that's about six feet? Let's take a look:

Now THAT's much better, isn't it? Except it isn't. With a model this big, where is it going to move? It can't move forward at all. It can turn and wipe out everything on the battlefield, but that's a **** move in the extreme. Not only that, what's the different between this and a cardboard token? None. Both will sit at the edge of the battlefield and do nothing except serve as a gun platform, which isn't that fun, at least to me. And if I wanted a gun platform game, I'd play Battleship. I want a game where my minis MOVE! That's the whole purpose of a flight combat game: your ships and vehicles need to move. For the most part. Granted, there are space stations and such, but they're more of a strategic element rather than a combat element.

Let's try one more size: two and a half feet:

There we go! That looks really good! We can move around the board, with some difficulty, and even shoot! Perfect solution, right?

Well . . . no.

We're talking about scale as well. It's still going to be a monster to pay for. The volume is roughly eight or nine times that of the CR90, and the complexity much more so. It would likely be in the $500-700 range, minimum. Sure, you could save up that much, I suppose. Not all of us have that much disposable income, though. I've been saving up for a $500 Star Destroyer model for five years now. I still haven't got it. There have been too many expenses along the way that come first: doctor bills, car repairs, speeding tickets, and many other things. Not to mention all my X-wing miniatures! But cost aside, would this be a good representative to one of the Empire's signature vessels? Look at the comparison between the CR90-scaled behemoth and the "ideal" size:

Those models are right next to each other. Can you honestly say the tinier one accurately represents the presence a Star Destroyer is supposed to have? If you think so, I have some beach-front property in Arizona to sell you. It's not even a tenth of the size and scale it's supposed to be, yet I'm supposed to believe that it's going to represent a massive, mile-long warship? Please. If I wanted no scale consistency, I'd play Attack Wing.

This isn't so much of a problem with FFG producing such a miniature as it is with the people who want to play it, though. You guys who want one aren't thinking about it logically or whether it would even be *fun* to play! Furthermore, you're not showing such an iconic ship the respect it deserves. You just see a cool ship and think, "The Rebels get a big ship, and so should the Empire! And what better ship than the Star Destroyer?" But that's not smart or logical. It's just typical 10-year-old logic that bigger=better. And while I admit I've built large models of the Star Destroyer and other ships in the past, I know better than to try and game with them because I know they're ungainly and extreme-special case. I shouldn't have to explain the problems with this idea. And of course, you can shrink a Star Destroyer down, but then you have the problems I outlined above, with pictures.

It's just an all-around stupid idea . . .

Once again, great post Millennium Falsehood.

Incidentally, the smallest version of the Star Destroyer pictured there would probably be about the perfect size for a Vigil... maybe even slightly big

Sorry, I'll disagree.. a 2 foot ISD is not going to be impressive next to the Tantive... it will look small...

Telling me to be more open minded is not the best way to argue your point... you have no idea who I am, I have a more open mind than you can imagine.. also.. I could use the same comment on you.. as your idea is a bit shallow in depth... you amuse me when you say a 2 foot ISD can be balanced but that a Deathstar or SSD cant be..(you said as much in another post) but by your reasoning those shouod be able to be balanced and dropped in.. we can paint a basketball grey and throw some black lines on it and there you have your Deathstar... oh.. bit wait.. that won't look impressive either... will it....

It still holds true.. you cant make an ISD balanced for this game.. but you can make other smaller ships... and that is what they should do. Besides, once you have a scaled down ISD, and driven its power and impressiveness down to such a dinky version.. you just have a Vigil class ship anyway... so make the fair and balanced Vigil, and keep the ISD off table... the ship off mat, that still can take pot shots at the pieces on the table.. that is impressive.. and allows us our big impressive ISD.. because as you are fond of saying.. use your imagination...

I do, every game I play, therenis an ISD sitting just out of range of the ships.. waiting to retrieve its remaining ships, and then jump to new coordinates....

I don't buy it. I have yet to see you suggest anything that suggests you're trying to problem solve the issue, rather than just saying I don't want it, it can't be done. I'm not saying you're closed minded about people, but about this issue you haven't presented yourself as open minded or solution focused. That's pretty normal human behavior really. But it isn't the kind of behavior I have seen from Game Designers.

And I'd love to see an Executor model as well. But I don't think the space or cost can reasonably be mitigated the way I see a Star Destroyer being done, as it would wind up being about a 4 foot long model and take up all 3 feet of the narrow map to be in a sliding scale with the Star Destroyer where it still conveys the size. If they make them as custom made to order models at $1000 or so bucks a piece I won't complain. I just don't know anybody who would buy one.

But a 150-200 dollar 2 foot long Star Destroyer makes sense to me.

And I still think the vigil is a copout made to cater to the Scale Junkies. I always will. It isn't a solution I can really get behind.

This is why you fail..... Yoda

There is no solution, you just dont make a ISD to fit on the table, because there is NO way to balance a ship like that to such a small scale.. the ship is designed to lay waste to an entire planet... what do you think it should do in this game.. sorry, but the only solution is to not make it.. that isn't close minded, it's reality...

And you say I'm close minded.. smh

A 2 foot model will be unimpressive, and too costly for your average gamer... and it might as well be another ship at that size...

Maybe for you. I, and many others, get why the Destroyer name and image is important. And I have yet to see anything in the source material that makes it so 300 points is out of line. Laying waste to a planet is easy. Laying waste to a squadron of X-wings. Not so much.

A 2 foot model will impress the hell out of me in all honesty. More than that, I'll have fun flying it. None of the things that apparently bother you(other than the potential of a price tag out of my budget) bother me.

You assume much.. Queen Amidala...

I get why the ISD is iconic and impressive, making one relatively similar to a ship it should be able to place in its hold... isn't very impressive anymore.. I don't understand why you don't get that, other than.. you just want it..(see what I did there..that's what you keep saying) ... I just dont see it in this game, as it removes those aspects of impressive and iconic from it.. it will become unimpressive and noniconic...

Just call it a Vigil class ship and profit... a dumbed down ISD isn't the way to go...

Now, if they announce the vigil, and own up to the fact they just couldn't make a SD model feel significant enough for them at a reasonable pricepoint so they found an alternative, as the creators of the game, I might change my mind. But unless they are pretty honest about it, odds are I'm going to see it as a copout.

Sorry, I'll disagree.. a 2 foot ISD is not going to be impressive next to the Tantive... it will look small...

Telling me to be more open minded is not the best way to argue your point... you have no idea who I am, I have a more open mind than you can imagine.. also.. I could use the same comment on you.. as your idea is a bit shallow in depth... you amuse me when you say a 2 foot ISD can be balanced but that a Deathstar or SSD cant be..(you said as much in another post) but by your reasoning those shouod be able to be balanced and dropped in.. we can paint a basketball grey and throw some black lines on it and there you have your Deathstar... oh.. bit wait.. that won't look impressive either... will it....

It still holds true.. you cant make an ISD balanced for this game.. but you can make other smaller ships... and that is what they should do. Besides, once you have a scaled down ISD, and driven its power and impressiveness down to such a dinky version.. you just have a Vigil class ship anyway... so make the fair and balanced Vigil, and keep the ISD off table... the ship off mat, that still can take pot shots at the pieces on the table.. that is impressive.. and allows us our big impressive ISD.. because as you are fond of saying.. use your imagination...

I do, every game I play, therenis an ISD sitting just out of range of the ships.. waiting to retrieve its remaining ships, and then jump to new coordinates....

I don't buy it. I have yet to see you suggest anything that suggests you're trying to problem solve the issue, rather than just saying I don't want it, it can't be done. I'm not saying you're closed minded about people, but about this issue you haven't presented yourself as open minded or solution focused. That's pretty normal human behavior really. But it isn't the kind of behavior I have seen from Game Designers.

And I'd love to see an Executor model as well. But I don't think the space or cost can reasonably be mitigated the way I see a Star Destroyer being done, as it would wind up being about a 4 foot long model and take up all 3 feet of the narrow map to be in a sliding scale with the Star Destroyer where it still conveys the size. If they make them as custom made to order models at $1000 or so bucks a piece I won't complain. I just don't know anybody who would buy one.

But a 150-200 dollar 2 foot long Star Destroyer makes sense to me.

And I still think the vigil is a copout made to cater to the Scale Junkies. I always will. It isn't a solution I can really get behind.

This is why you fail..... Yoda

There is no solution, you just dont make a ISD to fit on the table, because there is NO way to balance a ship like that to such a small scale.. the ship is designed to lay waste to an entire planet... what do you think it should do in this game.. sorry, but the only solution is to not make it.. that isn't close minded, it's reality...

And you say I'm close minded.. smh

A 2 foot model will be unimpressive, and too costly for your average gamer... and it might as well be another ship at that size...

Maybe for you. I, and many others, get why the Destroyer name and image is important. And I have yet to see anything in the source material that makes it so 300 points is out of line. Laying waste to a planet is easy. Laying waste to a squadron of X-wings. Not so much.

A 2 foot model will impress the hell out of me in all honesty. More than that, I'll have fun flying it. None of the things that apparently bother you(other than the potential of a price tag out of my budget) bother me.

You assume much.. Queen Amidala...

I get why the ISD is iconic and impressive, making one relatively similar to a ship it should be able to place in its hold... isn't very impressive anymore.. I don't understand why you don't get that, other than.. you just want it..(see what I did there..that's what you keep saying) ... I just dont see it in this game, as it removes those aspects of impressive and iconic from it.. it will become unimpressive and noniconic...

Just call it a Vigil class ship and profit... a dumbed down ISD isn't the way to go...

What if they give you a balanced ship that's still powerful? A few pages back I put out the ISD with 10x the firepower in turbolasers, like it should, but it has a real problem bringing all that firepower to bear on a single target, because, per canon, it can't.

Now based on past discussions, I know most people won't be happy with this but its just to point out it may be possible to put the ISD in the game. Ultimately at the end of the day I say they could put a balanced but very powerful ISD in the game per canon, you say they can't. As of right now there is absolutely no way for either side to say definitively which side is right or wrong.

Sorry, I'll disagree.. a 2 foot ISD is not going to be impressive next to the Tantive... it will look small...

Telling me to be more open minded is not the best way to argue your point... you have no idea who I am, I have a more open mind than you can imagine.. also.. I could use the same comment on you.. as your idea is a bit shallow in depth... you amuse me when you say a 2 foot ISD can be balanced but that a Deathstar or SSD cant be..(you said as much in another post) but by your reasoning those shouod be able to be balanced and dropped in.. we can paint a basketball grey and throw some black lines on it and there you have your Deathstar... oh.. bit wait.. that won't look impressive either... will it....

It still holds true.. you cant make an ISD balanced for this game.. but you can make other smaller ships... and that is what they should do. Besides, once you have a scaled down ISD, and driven its power and impressiveness down to such a dinky version.. you just have a Vigil class ship anyway... so make the fair and balanced Vigil, and keep the ISD off table... the ship off mat, that still can take pot shots at the pieces on the table.. that is impressive.. and allows us our big impressive ISD.. because as you are fond of saying.. use your imagination...

I do, every game I play, therenis an ISD sitting just out of range of the ships.. waiting to retrieve its remaining ships, and then jump to new coordinates....

I don't buy it. I have yet to see you suggest anything that suggests you're trying to problem solve the issue, rather than just saying I don't want it, it can't be done. I'm not saying you're closed minded about people, but about this issue you haven't presented yourself as open minded or solution focused. That's pretty normal human behavior really. But it isn't the kind of behavior I have seen from Game Designers.

And I'd love to see an Executor model as well. But I don't think the space or cost can reasonably be mitigated the way I see a Star Destroyer being done, as it would wind up being about a 4 foot long model and take up all 3 feet of the narrow map to be in a sliding scale with the Star Destroyer where it still conveys the size. If they make them as custom made to order models at $1000 or so bucks a piece I won't complain. I just don't know anybody who would buy one.

But a 150-200 dollar 2 foot long Star Destroyer makes sense to me.

And I still think the vigil is a copout made to cater to the Scale Junkies. I always will. It isn't a solution I can really get behind.

This is why you fail..... Yoda

There is no solution, you just dont make a ISD to fit on the table, because there is NO way to balance a ship like that to such a small scale.. the ship is designed to lay waste to an entire planet... what do you think it should do in this game.. sorry, but the only solution is to not make it.. that isn't close minded, it's reality...

And you say I'm close minded.. smh

A 2 foot model will be unimpressive, and too costly for your average gamer... and it might as well be another ship at that size...

Maybe for you. I, and many others, get why the Destroyer name and image is important. And I have yet to see anything in the source material that makes it so 300 points is out of line. Laying waste to a planet is easy. Laying waste to a squadron of X-wings. Not so much.

A 2 foot model will impress the hell out of me in all honesty. More than that, I'll have fun flying it. None of the things that apparently bother you(other than the potential of a price tag out of my budget) bother me.

You assume much.. Queen Amidala...

I get why the ISD is iconic and impressive, making one relatively similar to a ship it should be able to place in its hold... isn't very impressive anymore.. I don't understand why you don't get that, other than.. you just want it..(see what I did there..that's what you keep saying) ... I just dont see it in this game, as it removes those aspects of impressive and iconic from it.. it will become unimpressive and noniconic...

Just call it a Vigil class ship and profit... a dumbed down ISD isn't the way to go...

What if they give you a balanced ship that's still powerful? A few pages back I put out the ISD with 10x the firepower in turbolasers, like it should, but it has a real problem bringing all that firepower to bear on a single target, because, per canon, it can't.

Now based on past discussions, I know most people won't be happy with this but its just to point out it may be possible to put the ISD in the game. Ultimately at the end of the day I say they could put a balanced but very powerful ISD in the game per canon, you say they can't. As of right now there is absolutely no way for either side to say definitively which side is right or wrong.

Of quick note, obviously not everyone that doesn't want a Star Destroyer has done this. Millenium Falsehood's work is amazing. On the other hand, it makes me want a SD even more. Same goes for a number of newer arguments about the design of the ship. But arguments saying it cannot be balanced, disrespect the ship, etc... Those have been stated and refuted as purely personal or negative time and again. It would be a lot more fun if we had a group design a SD project than if we had a group of NOPE NOPE NOPE every time the discussion came up.

I'll be back later with some ideas written about how to have the ships shape affect it.

Dingo, as I've said before, scale is all important here. FFG has made that clear as well.. sure then fighters and falcons and such are 1/270th, and the huge ships are somewhere around 1/400th.. this done so they can fit on the table .. granted a 6x3 foot monster.

I cant see a 2 foot ISD because.. like even Aminar says.. My memories of this impressive ship... though my memory makes it so a 2 footer.. isn't impressive.. unless, the corvette was about 3 or so inches.. but then we have a different game...

Because FFG has made scale important, many were drawn to that.. and many were just like.. hey... Star Wars.. but scale is important to the company.. I just dont see them tossing that out just for the sake of dropping a SD on the table...

One day if I win the lottery.. I'll hire a pro to build me a huge ISD.. maybe a victory class.. and I'll set it next to the table for grins and the look on my friends faces... cause a 8 foot victory class SD would be awesome to see.. lol... and put it in perspective..

Dingo, as I've said before, scale is all important here. FFG has made that clear as well.. sure then fighters and falcons and such are 1/270th, and the huge ships are somewhere around 1/400th.. this done so they can fit on the table .. granted a 6x3 foot monster.

I cant see a 2 foot ISD because.. like even Aminar says.. My memories of this impressive ship... though my memory makes it so a 2 footer.. isn't impressive.. unless, the corvette was about 3 or so inches.. but then we have a different game...

Because FFG has made scale important, many were drawn to that.. and many were just like.. hey... Star Wars.. but scale is important to the company.. I just dont see them tossing that out just for the sake of dropping a SD on the table...

One day if I win the lottery.. I'll hire a pro to build me a huge ISD.. maybe a victory class.. and I'll set it next to the table for grins and the look on my friends faces... cause a 8 foot victory class SD would be awesome to see.. lol... and put it in perspective..

If it wont perform like an ISD, why call it an ISD?

I can go out, paint my car red. Put a prancing horse on its hood and call it a Ferrari la Ferrari. No amount of my imagining it will make it a Ferrari, as it cant perform the same way.

I dont want something that looks like a micro machines Star Destroyer, is called a Star Destroyer, but behaves like an escort ship. What is the point? Why call it an ISD? Why not make something similar sized as the CR90 on the Empire's side? Why does it have to be a god damned battleship? This is a dog fight game at the fighter level.

If you want a nice Star Destroyer model go buy one of these: http://www.starwarsmodels.com/stard.html. It will probably cost about the same as a FFG ISD, and it will be much higher detailed.

Any rules bastardization of that concept to get a mini 18 inch ISD on the table will ruin what is essential behind the ISD. There is a reason why you dont see smaller Imperial capital ship that the ISD in the original triology, because the Empire was supposed to portray a sense of enormity and power, and the rebels were supposed to be a ragtag band throwing guns onto whatever they had. It was David vs Goliath in space. An ISD that is on par with a 20 year old blockade running corvette destroys that idea.

The ISD was effing amazing. I remember the first time I saw Star Wars, and the ISD passes overhead to womp the Tantive V, it gave me goosebumps. What a machine! Why would you possibly what to dilute it to the same level of the CR90? Why not just make another Imperial corvette class ship and leave the ISD to what they are supposed to be doing, leveling planets and single handedly dispatching rebel strongholds.

But one group of us can try to create one. The other group just has to say nope nope nope to everything to prove their point. It's a lot easier to hate an idea than to stand by it sadly. Nor will they admit when the mechanics somebody has brought up are intelligent, well thought out or interesting.

No.

Both groups have tried to create one. Both, so far, have failed. Once has acknowledged the challenges as things that can't be overcome. The other continues to insist that Santa Claus will deliver something shiny, we just have to wait for him. It's not that we don't admit that your mechanics are well thought out - it's that your mechanics aren't well thought out. You continuously insist there is some golden destination, but have zero path for getting there.

Your problem here is that you keep insisting things will work by dismissing the concerns that people raise, rather than working within them. You've been given a set of requirements - the ship has to look right in scale, it has to meet the expectations for firepower that people attach to the ISD, it has to fit the design approach FFG has taken so far, and it has to be somewhat reasonably affordable. You don't care about scale, so you ignore it. You don't care whether it matches canon as long as it feels big, so you ignore it. And you address the cost by making laughable estimations that a 2-3 foot long ship would cost the same as the CR90.

Well yes, if you remove every one of the constraints that should bound the design of the project, OF COURSE it's going to work.

Unfortunately, those design bounds DO exist. And that's the difference - one group has tried to work within them and acknowledged that it can't be done, the other continues to try and ignore them.

But arguments saying it cannot be balanced, disrespect the ship, etc... Those have been stated and refuted as purely personal or negative time and again.

Which is no different then you saying you want it just because it would be fun to have one.

Everything here is based on personal preference and opinion. You can't claim to have more facts or logic on your side when we're talking about opinions and what might be possible to do.

Even if they could balance it, which I don't believe they can. It's still too small in my opinion. I get it, you and others don't care about scale, but I and others do. So I have no reason to try and solve the issue, because I don't want it solved. A ISD is wrong for this game for many reasons, so even if they could fix one, there's still others that are just as valid that can't be fixed.

So until you can somehow prove your opinion is superior to mine, the only way this will ever end is when FFG says what they're going to do for the Imperial ships.

But one group of us can try to create one. The other group just has to say nope nope nope to everything to prove their point. It's a lot easier to hate an idea than to stand by it sadly. Nor will they admit when the mechanics somebody has brought up are intelligent, well thought out or interesting.

I know you said that this is refreshing for you, but I will turn what you argument around:

"But one group of us can try and create an alternative to one. The other group just has to say nope nope nope to everything to prove their point. It's a lot easier to hate an idea than to satnd by it sadly. Nor will they admit when the alternative ships somebody has brought up are inteligent, scaled correctly, or interesting."

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

Dingo, as I've said before, scale is all important here. FFG has made that clear as well.. sure then fighters and falcons and such are 1/270th, and the huge ships are somewhere around 1/400th.. this done so they can fit on the table .. granted a 6x3 foot monster.

I cant see a 2 foot ISD because.. like even Aminar says.. My memories of this impressive ship... though my memory makes it so a 2 footer.. isn't impressive.. unless, the corvette was about 3 or so inches.. but then we have a different game...

Because FFG has made scale important, many were drawn to that.. and many were just like.. hey... Star Wars.. but scale is important to the company.. I just dont see them tossing that out just for the sake of dropping a SD on the table...

One day if I win the lottery.. I'll hire a pro to build me a huge ISD.. maybe a victory class.. and I'll set it next to the table for grins and the look on my friends faces... cause a 8 foot victory class SD would be awesome to see.. lol... and put it in perspective..

But saying the won't or you think they shouldn't are two different things. None of us know the motivation when it comes to changing scale nor the tolerance for it FFG is going to use. All the pro ISD guys know is that they changed it once. All the anti ISD guys know is that they mentioned scale was important when they first started to advertise the game. Could they make a 2 foot ISD? Yep. Could they not make a 2 foot ISD? Yep. Could scale be really that important? Absolutely. Could they change it again? Absolutely.

All important to you. Semi important to FFG, but they've shown they are willing to modify that.

The difference between 1/270 and 1/400 is a lot different then 1/270 and 1/2600. Most of are willing to let them fudge the scale a little bit, but 10 times the difference is more then we're willing to accept.

It isn't a valid argument as to why they won't make one.

It's a completely valid argument for why they shouldn't make one.

But arguments saying it cannot be balanced, disrespect the ship, etc... Those have been stated and refuted as purely personal or negative time and again.

Which is no different then you saying you want it just because it would be fun to have one.Everything here is based on personal preference and opinion. You can't claim to have more facts or logic on your side when we're talking about opinions and what might be possible to do.Even if they could balance it, which I don't believe they can. It's still too small in my opinion. I get it, you and others don't care about scale, but I and others do. So I have no reason to try and solve the issue, because I don't want it solved. A ISD is wrong for this game for many reasons, so even if they could fix one, there's still others that are just as valid that can't be fixed.So until you can somehow prove your opinion is superior to mine, the only way this will ever end is when FFG says what they're going to do for the Imperial ships.

It's about proactivity. I could throw new, and good ideas out all day, and get nothing but the same responses. I'm not saying they are invalid. I'm saying that reiterating them doesn't help much, while posts that support the idea and offer solutions are frequently ignored and get the same responses thrown at them, without so much as a why the idea doesn't fit most of the time. This thread was made to talk about ways to solve a puzzle, and immediatley just had NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! thrown at it. That's what I'm getting at.

Sorry, I'll disagree.. a 2 foot ISD is not going to be impressive next to the Tantive... it will look small...

Telling me to be more open minded is not the best way to argue your point... you have no idea who I am, I have a more open mind than you can imagine.. also.. I could use the same comment on you.. as your idea is a bit shallow in depth... you amuse me when you say a 2 foot ISD can be balanced but that a Deathstar or SSD cant be..(you said as much in another post) but by your reasoning those shouod be able to be balanced and dropped in.. we can paint a basketball grey and throw some black lines on it and there you have your Deathstar... oh.. bit wait.. that won't look impressive either... will it....

It still holds true.. you cant make an ISD balanced for this game.. but you can make other smaller ships... and that is what they should do. Besides, once you have a scaled down ISD, and driven its power and impressiveness down to such a dinky version.. you just have a Vigil class ship anyway... so make the fair and balanced Vigil, and keep the ISD off table... the ship off mat, that still can take pot shots at the pieces on the table.. that is impressive.. and allows us our big impressive ISD.. because as you are fond of saying.. use your imagination...

I do, every game I play, therenis an ISD sitting just out of range of the ships.. waiting to retrieve its remaining ships, and then jump to new coordinates....

I don't buy it. I have yet to see you suggest anything that suggests you're trying to problem solve the issue, rather than just saying I don't want it, it can't be done. I'm not saying you're closed minded about people, but about this issue you haven't presented yourself as open minded or solution focused. That's pretty normal human behavior really. But it isn't the kind of behavior I have seen from Game Designers.

And I'd love to see an Executor model as well. But I don't think the space or cost can reasonably be mitigated the way I see a Star Destroyer being done, as it would wind up being about a 4 foot long model and take up all 3 feet of the narrow map to be in a sliding scale with the Star Destroyer where it still conveys the size. If they make them as custom made to order models at $1000 or so bucks a piece I won't complain. I just don't know anybody who would buy one.

But a 150-200 dollar 2 foot long Star Destroyer makes sense to me.

And I still think the vigil is a copout made to cater to the Scale Junkies. I always will. It isn't a solution I can really get behind.

This is why you fail..... Yoda

There is no solution, you just dont make a ISD to fit on the table, because there is NO way to balance a ship like that to such a small scale.. the ship is designed to lay waste to an entire planet... what do you think it should do in this game.. sorry, but the only solution is to not make it.. that isn't close minded, it's reality...

And you say I'm close minded.. smh

A 2 foot model will be unimpressive, and too costly for your average gamer... and it might as well be another ship at that size...

Maybe for you. I, and many others, get why the Destroyer name and image is important. And I have yet to see anything in the source material that makes it so 300 points is out of line. Laying waste to a planet is easy. Laying waste to a squadron of X-wings. Not so much.

A 2 foot model will impress the hell out of me in all honesty. More than that, I'll have fun flying it. None of the things that apparently bother you(other than the potential of a price tag out of my budget) bother me.

You assume much.. Queen Amidala...

I get why the ISD is iconic and impressive, making one relatively similar to a ship it should be able to place in its hold... isn't very impressive anymore.. I don't understand why you don't get that, other than.. you just want it..(see what I did there..that's what you keep saying) ... I just dont see it in this game, as it removes those aspects of impressive and iconic from it.. it will become unimpressive and noniconic...

Just call it a Vigil class ship and profit... a dumbed down ISD isn't the way to go...

What if they give you a balanced ship that's still powerful? A few pages back I put out the ISD with 10x the firepower in turbolasers, like it should, but it has a real problem bringing all that firepower to bear on a single target, because, per canon, it can't.

Now based on past discussions, I know most people won't be happy with this but its just to point out it may be possible to put the ISD in the game. Ultimately at the end of the day I say they could put a balanced but very powerful ISD in the game per canon, you say they can't. As of right now there is absolutely no way for either side to say definitively which side is right or wrong.

But one group of us can try to create one. The other group just has to say nope nope nope to everything to prove their point. It's a lot easier to hate an idea than to stand by it sadly. Nor will they admit when the mechanics somebody has brought up are intelligent, well thought out or interesting.

Of quick note, obviously not everyone that doesn't want a Star Destroyer has done this. Millenium Falsehood's work is amazing. On the other hand, it makes me want a SD even more. Same goes for a number of newer arguments about the design of the ship. But arguments saying it cannot be balanced, disrespect the ship, etc... Those have been stated and refuted as purely personal or negative time and again. It would be a lot more fun if we had a group design a SD project than if we had a group of NOPE NOPE NOPE every time the discussion came up.

I'll be back later with some ideas written about how to have the ships shape affect it.

I'm always amused when you decide you are the only sane one and everyone else is wrong because they dont see your side of it...

You fail to see why it cant work.. scale... SCALE...

You cant bring it down to table size.. you break the scale... and you cannot make it impressive enough at that size to do justice to the SDs... it's really not hard to see... but you have stuck your head in the sand, refusing to see anything but your own opinion..

I see what you want to donwith it, and the rules you suggest would probably be fine... for a smaller ship.. If you dont like the Vigil, there are plenty of small ships in the same size catagory of the transport and corvette... but don't pretend a small version of the ISD is cool.. it isn't.. its just baby SD and unimpressive.