Seriously, the only thing that matters is that in apperance it looks like a Star Destroyer. That. Is. All. No substitutions accepted.
And that it actually has the firepower of an ISD. Show me a set of rules that will make that MASSIVE ship make sense. And not cost 2000 points. Seriously.
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.
Because no one has come up with any answer that actually addresses all the issues we've brought up. Other then "Scale, canon, ect... just doesn't matter."
Simple fact is this, a 2 foot ISD just is not big enough for me, and never will be. A ISD with the effective firepower of a Corvette is not powerful enough for me and never will be.
There is no way to address those issues, short of ignoring them.
There is however a very simple answer. The Vigil or other sized ship, which is the correct size for the game, and correct firepower for the game.
http://www.waynesbooks.com/images/graphics/swmmi.jpgBut 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.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.You assume much.. Queen Amidala...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.This is why you fail..... YodaI 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.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....
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
That is unimpressive, but I've had more fun with them than I have with a Tie Advanced.
Scale is relative. Size matters Not. Etc... I feel 2 feet long is plenty to convey things. You don't. You're argument has been made since the beginning of the game. But we just got the epic rules shown to us. They offer tons of tantalizing ideas as to how to make a SD work. But those ideas are unexplorable because you care about scale too much? I see your opinion. I just don't feel it would justify not making a Star Destroyer. And I especially don't see why it would justify not trying to create a close approximation.
Seriously, the only thing that matters is that in apperance it looks like a Star Destroyer. That. Is. All. No substitutions accepted.
And that it actually has the firepower of an ISD. Show me a set of rules that will make that MASSIVE ship make sense. And not cost 2000 points. Seriously.
If you take a look at around post #142 one of my proposals it to make the ISD have 10x the firepower like it should of the CR90 but limit its arcs, since in canon it can't bring all of its guns to bear on a single target, especially smaller faster ships. Please feel free to tear it apart but it will help the idea to develop. As of right now it seems balances and accurate.
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.
100% true. I know people who don't want it and why they don't want it. This was for those who want a Star Destroyer but who get drowned out by the no voters.
Having seen the reaction of some to the Transport I now realize that even some screaming YES for a small Star Destroyer just to have one will find themselves complaining when they get it because it is unimpressive.
Sadly some good suggestions have been lost among the tide of words but I shall now embark upon a perilous adventure to try to find them among this jungle...
....I'll be back
This thread makes me want to wait 3 days and then create another thread about Star Destroyers. I'll call it, "How would you implement Star Destroyers" , and I'll post a thing about how Victory Class Star Destroyers are smaller than most, so maybe they will work.
so maybe they will work.
VSD I is 900m long. That means a 2 foot long model is still 1/1500 scale. Which is IMO still way to far out of scale.
so maybe they will work.
VSD I is 900m long. That means a 2 foot long model is still 1/1500 scale. Which is IMO still way to far out of scale.
I think that post was in jest Vanor.
As of right now it seems balances and accurate.
You can't reduce the arc's enough to let 10x the firepower of a CR-90 fit in this game for under 300 points.
Given the rules we have now. Each hardpoint gets a arc on both sides of the ship, and each hardpoint gets one shot per round. That means the ISD has to produce a massive amount of energy to power them all. Power that it can use for other things if most of it's hard points can't fire.
Plus if you did give it 10x the firepower, even if only 1/4th of that can fire at a target you still have 2.5 times the firepower of a CR-90, which means it has to be at least 2.5 times as expensive points wise. A fully loaded CR-90 is 150 points, so a fully loaded ISD is 375 points.
All that does nothing to address the issue so many of us have about the size.
Seriously, the only thing that matters is that in apperance it looks like a Star Destroyer. That. Is. All. No substitutions accepted.
And that it actually has the firepower of an ISD. Show me a set of rules that will make that MASSIVE ship make sense. And not cost 2000 points. Seriously.
If you take a look at around post #142 one of my proposals it to make the ISD have 10x the firepower like it should of the CR90 but limit its arcs, since in canon it can't bring all of its guns to bear on a single target, especially smaller faster ships. Please feel free to tear it apart but it will help the idea to develop. As of right now it seems balances and accurate.
At 2.5 Ft the Star Destroyer will almost literally be able to reach all the way across the 3x6ft board from turn one. Remeber we have to place the entire model on the table, so it will stick out 2.5 ft into the middle of the table. You will only move it straight forward because at 2.5ft you will not be turning it at all on out 3ft wide board.
In order to have a 2.5ft Star Destroyer in XWMG will consist of:
Deployment- Place your one ship in the middle of the board.
Turn one- Move forward 1. Shoot at everything on the board.
Turn two- Move forawrd 1. Shoot at everything on the board.
Turn three- Move forard 1. Shoot at everything on the board.
Turn four- Move forward 1. Game ends becasue your ship has left the play area.
I think that post was in jest Vanor.
It's not the first time someone suggested the VSD as option.
Question: If FFG were going to make an ISD, why wasn't it in the first wave? On ship identity alone, surely Corvette and ISD would be a much better start than both Epics being Rebel? The only reason I can think of for the disparity is that they couldn't think of an Imperial ship from the trilogy that fit in the scale they wanted, ie: the ISD was too big.
Edited by LagomorphiaAminar, I care about scale so much because FFG cares... and it is one reason I got into this game, like Vanor said, the difference between 270, and 400 is one thing, but 270 or 400 to 2600.. that is not what the company meant when they slide the scale to let the big ships on the table.
Good chance they sat down and said.. well, 270 for the tantive will make it close to 17 inches, and too big for the 3x3 table.. maybe a smaller version that is close would work...
You seem to think game designers are some sort of god like people.. they're just gamers like you and I.. this game is awesome, and fun, but you can only do so much... and it is far from perfect...
If you take a look at around post #142 one of my proposals it to make the ISD have 10x the firepower like it should of the CR90 but limit its arcs, since in canon it can't bring all of its guns to bear on a single target, especially smaller faster ships. Please feel free to tear it apart but it will help the idea to develop. As of right now it seems balances and accurate.Seriously, the only thing that matters is that in apperance it looks like a Star Destroyer. That. Is. All. No substitutions accepted.
And that it actually has the firepower of an ISD. Show me a set of rules that will make that MASSIVE ship make sense. And not cost 2000 points. Seriously.
What's more important is that we look at what a 300 point fleet can bring up, and get it to apprximately equal that firepower. The CR-90 has about half it's in Universe Power at abut 120 points(with guns attached. The Falcon also has about half in that it should have close to double an X-wing in firepower. If we place it at the top end of what Weapon 3 gets.(2 Quad laser Cannons). The fully loaded CR-90 gets 4 attacks. It should have 8. And it`s primary weapon has 4 attack dice, representing at least 3 Quad-laser Cannons. That means that weapon 4 approximates 3-6 quad lasers. Weapon 5 represents 7-14. From there we load the Star Destroyer with 7-8 Weapon 4 attacks and it has it's full armament represented.
Now because that feels like not enough to justify the full cost we jack it up to 11 Hardpoints spread across 6 sections, 60ish hull/shields, as I've used before, and it fits within an interpretation of the games power curve, and is tough as nails to fully destroy. It costs about as much as 6 shuttles, is slightly less tough than 6 Shuttles(no agility), moves like six shuttles trying to fly together, but puts out far more hurt and can heal itself from time to time.
Yes, it isn't linearly as powerful as a SD should be. But none of the big ships or Huge ships really are. They have been cut in size and representational firepower.
This thread makes me want to wait 3 days and then create another thread about Star Destroyers. I'll call it, "How would you implement Star Destroyers" , and I'll post a thing about how Victory Class Star Destroyers are smaller than most, so maybe they will work.
I was actually considering something similar. I was going to call it "This Is For Those Who Don't Want Star Destroyers".
Then I was going to quote this:
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 . . .
Again, awesome post Millennium Falsehood!
Question: If FFG were going to make an ISD, why wasn't it in the first wave? On ship identity alone, surely Corvette and ISD would be a much better start than both Epics being Rebel?
It wasn't ready yet? Bigger ships take longer to make? Waiting to see how smaller ships do before they tackle something that big? Maybe they aren't making one? Maybe they are? There's plenty of plausible reasons.
These threads run out all my likes for the day... sigh..
Vanor, and catachan have made great points.. they continue to keep me sane with poinient thoughts and comments...
they continue to keep me sane with poinient thoughts and comments...
I must be doing something wrong then. 
The last thing I want to do is keep people sane with my comments... goes against the contract I signed.
I think I'm done with this one again. I appreciate people wanting a ISD, but IMO it's a bad idea.
I will give kudos to everyone for keeping the debate civil and respectful.
Aminar, I care about scale so much because FFG cares... and it is one reason I got into this game, like Vanor said, the difference between 270, and 400 is one thing, but 270 or 400 to 2600.. that is not what the company meant when they slide the scale to let the big ships on the table.
Good chance they sat down and said.. well, 270 for the tantive will make it close to 17 inches, and too big for the 3x3 table.. maybe a smaller version that is close would work...
You seem to think game designers are some sort of god like people.. they're just gamers like you and I.. this game is awesome, and fun, but you can only do so much... and it is far from perfect...
If you take a look at around post #142 one of my proposals it to make the ISD have 10x the firepower like it should of the CR90 but limit its arcs, since in canon it can't bring all of its guns to bear on a single target, especially smaller faster ships. Please feel free to tear it apart but it will help the idea to develop. As of right now it seems balances and accurate.
Ok, 10 times the firepower of the CR90, which costs 150 points when outfit... Do you realize that there should be some sort of proportional relationship between firepower and cost?
So, say we go with the obvious 1:1 ratio of 1 guns worth of firepower would equal 1 guns worth of cost, your rules would make a Star Destroyer cost 1500 points. Having played a epic team game with 400 points per side, I dont want to know how long it would take to do a 1500 point game. And that would be 1500 points of star destroyer versus multiple people's collections of Rebel fleets.
So on the basis of balanced game cost to performance, doesnt work.
Lets look at the rules you posted.
Now lets look at what we know about the sizes of the ships:
CR90 is 150m x 48m x 33m
ISD is 1600m x 800?m x 600?
In the current game, the CR90 (240,000 meters cubed of spaceship) is represented by 2 cards:
The fore card, having 8 hull and 3 shields, and with a cost of 50 points.
The aft card, having 8 hull and 5 shields, and with a cost of 40 points.
The grand total, 16 hull and 8 shields.
You are proposing to make a 6 card ship, with each card representing a sixth of a 768,000,000 cubic meter ship, and having in total, 30 hull and 30 shields.
Just on HP alone, the ISD is way too frail.
Then there is the fact of all the other stuff that the ISD has: namely 72 TIE fighters. Ok, lets wave our magic wands and drop this down to 10? thats still 120 points of Academy ties.
Do you get that any way you try to balance the ISD to fit into xwing will either amount to:
1) the bloody thing not being a Star Destroyer
2) the bloody thing being multiple thousands of points.
Lets nerf the ISD a bit. Still make it crazy.
40 hard points. Lets say 20 single turbolaser, 20 quad cannons. thats 380 points.
36 TIE fighters (thats HALF): 432 points
4 Lamda Shuttles (HALF again): 84 points
If 16 hull points equal 240,000m3 then X hull points equal 768,000,000. The ISD would have 3200 hull points. Thats crazy balls, lets say it has 1/10 the hit points it should. 320 hull points. And say 30 shields.
That monstrosity is not even HALF of what the ISD should be. It would be worth over 1000 points, and thats not counting crew.
They've taken a concept that no video game or tabletop game has ever really gotten right, and made something amazing and fun out of it.
I agree completely. FFG has easily the best game in the market right now. The managed to somehow take X-Wing vs Tie Fighter and make it into a table top game with great looking miniatures.
they continue to keep me sane with poinient thoughts and comments...
I must be doing something wrong then.
I think I'm done with this one again. I appreciate people wanting a ISD, but IMO it's a bad idea.
I will give kudos to everyone for keeping the debate civil and respectful.
Im with you on this one as well.
I hope FFG does not head down that path, and these discussions end up like discussions about religion or politics. Like I said earlier...
Thank you and Im out.
Edited by catachan23This thread is 12 pages?
This thread is 12 pages?
We gotta do something to pass the time when we should be working. 
If you take a look at around post #142 one of my proposals it to make the ISD have 10x the firepower like it should of the CR90 but limit its arcs, since in canon it can't bring all of its guns to bear on a single target, especially smaller faster ships. Please feel free to tear it apart but it will help the idea to develop. As of right now it seems balances and accurate.
Ok, 10 times the firepower of the CR90, which costs 150 points when outfit... Do you realize that there should be some sort of proportional relationship between firepower and cost?
So, say we go with the obvious 1:1 ratio of 1 guns worth of firepower would equal 1 guns worth of cost, your rules would make a Star Destroyer cost 1500 points. Having played a epic team game with 400 points per side, I dont want to know how long it would take to do a 1500 point game. And that would be 1500 points of star destroyer versus multiple people's collections of Rebel fleets.
So on the basis of balanced game cost to performance, doesnt work.
Lets look at the rules you posted.
Now lets look at what we know about the sizes of the ships:
CR90 is 150m x 48m x 33m
ISD is 1600m x 800?m x 600?
In the current game, the CR90 (240,000 meters cubed of spaceship) is represented by 2 cards:
The fore card, having 8 hull and 3 shields, and with a cost of 50 points.
The aft card, having 8 hull and 5 shields, and with a cost of 40 points.
The grand total, 16 hull and 8 shields.
You are proposing to make a 6 card ship, with each card representing a sixth of a 768,000,000 cubic meter ship, and having in total, 30 hull and 30 shields.
Just on HP alone, the ISD is way too frail.
Then there is the fact of all the other stuff that the ISD has: namely 72 TIE fighters. Ok, lets wave our magic wands and drop this down to 10? thats still 120 points of Academy ties.
Do you get that any way you try to balance the ISD to fit into xwing will either amount to:
1) the bloody thing not being a Star Destroyer
2) the bloody thing being multiple thousands of points.
Lets nerf the ISD a bit. Still make it crazy.
40 hard points. Lets say 20 single turbolaser, 20 quad cannons. thats 380 points.
36 TIE fighters (thats HALF): 432 points
4 Lamda Shuttles (HALF again): 84 points
If 16 hull points equal 240,000m3 then X hull points equal 768,000,000. The ISD would have 3200 hull points. Thats crazy balls, lets say it has 1/10 the hit points it should. 320 hull points. And say 30 shields.
That monstrosity is not even HALF of what the ISD should be. It would be worth over 1000 points, and thats not counting crew.
Beyond that we've seen many many examples of Star Destroyers being taken out by well placed Salvoes of Torpedos. As few as 12 have utterly Destroyed an Imperial Class Star Destroyer. I am not trying to model that, as a total of between 36 and 48 Hull is too low to actually feel right.
And this is me modeling a Victory Class. If you'll look back I'd prefer an Imperial Class to be around 80 total health and 15 total hardpoints, but have distinct issues fitting any kind of fighter support on it in an epic game. For some that may not be anything more than a glorified Corvette. That's fine. Personally it makes sense to me. It fits with the idea that they can utterly mutilate other Capitol Class ships, but struggle against fighters. It creates weaknesses and yet will allow for strategic and interesting gameplay, as well as allow for some fascinating upgrade cards.
