For some yes. For me. Not at all. So long as ships that are a lot bigger than other ships are still significantly larger I'm absolutley fine. This is a game, the pieces can change size to fit those needs. If we get a Star Destroyer the length of Tantive I'll be irked. But as little as 6 inches longer covers everything I need from it.

Completely agree! After disagreeing with you most of the day, we can at least be on the same page here.

Expectations get out of control when talking about scale.

Its a game from a fictional movie. As long as the scale is relatively appropriate, I don't see the problem.

You can't have a space ship game and leave out one of the most iconic space ships in the history of the genre.

I am just curious why the TIE defender was done at 1:280 rather 1:270.

With the big ships I understand the fudging, once it start moving to the smaller "core" sized ships I think there is some slight integrity issues.

You want scale, play old time descent freespace.

I'd bet money such a thing is at least in planning/testing stage already. They'd be crazy to not at least consider it.

The one sort-of problem I see with the spin-off game is that you'd have to fit the fighters in there somehow (maybe as a model = squadron thing), otherwise you'd be missing a really critical part of Star Wars space combat. So how does one handle this? New stats/bases for existing models to transfer them across, or entirely new releases. It could get strange.

Scale only matters for aesthetics.

Gameplay-wise there is no scale. There is only base size.

You don't need the miniatures to play the game.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, scale absolutely matters, and it isn't just about model scale. There is rule scale. The large ships have an imposing presence IN THE RULES, not just because of the models. And the Corvette even more so. It totally dominates all the strategic and tactical decisions for both sides in a 300pt game. You may be able to stretch the game as far as a Neb-B Frigate, which I could see being the sole center piece in a 300pt game, taking on an entire 300pt list by itself.

Beyond just the models, many ships don't fit into the game scale rules wise either. The techniques to battle them are in the rules (proton torpedoes don't work right, for example). They would have to be much more powerful than could reasonably be played with.

Scale, both in the models and in the rules, is an important consideration.

I think the talk of novels and how easy it was to take a SD down is a wrong look at things. Novels are about the story, and usually, the good guys winning, talking .. or having to read about, a story where three chapters are devoted to ships fighting one of the most dreaded things in the galaxy isn't going to sell books.. in movies and video games.. a SD that takes half the movie or game to kill itnisnt going to draw fans to it... making you look heroic... that makes people want the game... or gives your imagination something to say.. yeah if I was a x wing pilot I'd shoot this or that to take out the big ship... this game is about balance and game mechanics.. you cant put in a ship that should destroy everythimg and make it killable by a couple small ships...

So what do we base things off given that every single ship in the game is based off of Story Performance. All there is is story performance.

Yes there is a lot of 'story' but we can also infer some 'real life' aspects of it.. and

We have the rules of the game. I know it feels great to be the one to shoot up the bad guy but this game has rules and they are fair and balanced. Use them to full effect, and take down the opponent, but don't look to be the guy in the video game or the novel that has to be cool for the story line and draw in the reader. I think as Miniatures gamers we have an idea of how this all works out and how it looks in the minds eye..

So I keep seeing this come up, and each time someone pipes in about an ISD, and I find it very very sad.
The X-wing miniatures game is never going to have an Imperial Star Destroyer
(except maybe if they sell turbolaser turrets minis with a playing mat),
so I really wish everyone would stop torturing themselves and others with this sad fantasy.

What Imperial players who want their slice of pie should be concerning themsleves with
isn't whether they will get an Imperial Star Destroyer, but rather an Imperial Star Frigate.
Hello!



Ardent Class Frigate


Imperial II-class frigate

I was looking at this list that was posted back in August of 2013,
all ship of all sizes, and I found this slice of pie that is only 400 meters long.
And it surprised me that it's been absent from these discussions.

Since someone is already working on a design for the bases,
I should give him the credit for putting me on the scent.

@gabe69velasquez

I have been working on say a rough design on the base of an Imperial Star Destroyer. Here is the link.
http://s27.postimg.org/bc196k803/Star_Destroyer_Base.png

So there you have it, very possible, very close to scale with the current huge ships,

but not an ISD that people are stuck on because they need a triangle shaped ship, an

Imperial Star Frigate = Very Attainable Pie

So please stop dreaming about something isn't going to become real for this game

and get behind the possible, cause you're really tiring me out with your broken broken

broken broken record.

As long as FFG gets at least one (Vigil) Customs Frigates and a bunch more of the Large ships and a few more Transport sized HUGE ships out... that is good enough for me.

For as much as I absolutely love X-WING EPIC, a REAL ISD is just to big.

Now if it is done on a 4x6' or 4x8' table as a 3x5' layout like we have seen from some of our fellow Wingers... that is fine, and close enough to be cool.

Somebody fetch Millenium Falsehood's post that killed off the ISD argument last time. The one with pictures.

DONE.

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 . . .

I am just curious why the TIE defender was done at 1:280 rather 1:270.

Where does it say that?

I am just curious why the TIE defender was done at 1:280 rather 1:270.

Where does it say that?

Seriously though, it said that in some early promotional material, and I wondered the same thing myself. If it really is in 1:280 then I suspect (Though I have no idea really) that it might be so they did not have to redesign special packaging for it, as maybe it would be slightly too big to fit securely in the standard small ship bubble. That's my best guess.

Scale only matters for aesthetics.

Gameplay-wise there is no scale. There is only base size.

You don't need the miniatures to play the game.

*hugs his tie defenders* don't you listen to the nasty man, I wish you and your going no where.

The other problem with an ISD is the sheer firepower and durability it has. It would be completely unbalanced or if balanced would be ridiculous to call it an ISD.

24 proton torpedoes punching through in two volleys normally takes one down in books, and snubfighters are too fast for it's guns to handle. It'll basically sit on the table and eat '90s and '75s while snubfighters launch missiles into it's guts and blow it to pieces

I have no idea which books you are talking about but remember many of the authors were lazy unimaginative hacks. I do remember in one of the x-wing books Corran Horn took out a Lancer frigate (a much smaller ship then an ISD) with 10 proton torpedoes hitting exactly the same spot at the same time.

If all it took was 24 torpedoes then why aren't all capital ships full of torpedoes? Oh right, you need to get in range for a target lock. But to get that close all the turbolasers on the ISD have already blown your torpedo boat up. So that is why you send in the bombers and also why you have your own starfighters to deal with enemy bombers.

If it really is in 1:280 then I suspect (Though I have no idea really) that it might be so they did not have to redesign special packaging for it

The Defender isn't that big, so even if it is 1:280 vs 1:270, the increase in size wouldn't be enough that it would require a special package. The difference between the two scales for a defender works out to be a pretty small fraction of an inch.

Since there's no reason I can see to change the scale I'm pretty sure the 1:280 was a typo.

Yes, scale is important. It is what kept me out of attack wing. I can understand the off scale on the epic ships, but even that needs to have some kind of workable range. We shouldn't expect to see ships isd size. They are just to large. As for the defender if the TIE pod is a standardized size then its 1:270.

I feel that scale is semi-important, if only to get that cool “in universe” feel for playing the game. However, even Lucasfilm sources have conflicting scales for many expanded-universe ships. While FFG has done the movie ships perfectly, basing them off the actual studio models, the expanded universe stuff is far more difficult….and even some of the CGI movie ships. For example, the Tantive IV, a CR90 Corvette, which we got a huge ship of, is listed as 150 meters long in most sources and on Wookiepedia, while the official Star Wars website lists it at a retconned 126.68 meters, which at 1/270 scale would be just shy of 18.5 inches long.

Does anyone have a proper measurement for the Tantive IV miniature? 18.5 inches looks pretty close just eyeballing it.

Anyway, yes Scale is important…but not all the sources are in agreement as to what that proper ship size is.

Does anyone have a proper measurement for the Tantive IV miniature? 18.5 inches looks pretty close just eyeballing it.

I've read other people saying that it's 13 inches long.

I feel that scale is semi-important, if only to get that cool “in universe” feel for playing the game.

...

Anyway, yes Scale is important…but not all the sources are in agreement as to what that proper ship size is.

You're right that sources dispute one another, and even some of the drawings are awkward. As much as I do love West End Games, I think many of the errors (but also the most complete source material) come from them. I can't really speak to the video games, which is the source for most of the really weird over-the-top material that annoys me.

I think "in universe" feel is really important. I don't play this game for the love of the game alone. Maybe even not predominantly, though I do love the game. I play it because it's Star Wars. If they mess too much with Star Wars by breaking the scales too much, then they start to lose me.

Does anyone have a proper measurement for the Tantive IV miniature? 18.5 inches looks pretty close just eyeballing it.

The CR-90 we have is around 14in long and it's like 1:450 scale, so it would be a bit under double in size at 1:270

The game miniature? I just measured it and I get 13 1/16" long.

Does anyone have a proper measurement for the Tantive IV miniature? 18.5 inches looks pretty close just eyeballing it.

I've read other people saying that it's 13 inches long.

I feel that scale is semi-important, if only to get that cool “in universe” feel for playing the game.

...

Anyway, yes Scale is important…but not all the sources are in agreement as to what that proper ship size is.

You're right that sources dispute one another, and even some of the drawings are awkward. As much as I do love West End Games, I think many of the errors (but also the most complete source material) come from them. I can't really speak to the video games, which is the source for most of the really weird over-the-top material that annoys me.

I think "in universe" feel is really important. I don't play this game for the love of the game alone. Maybe even not predominantly, though I do love the game. I play it because it's Star Wars. If they mess too much with Star Wars by breaking the scales too much, then they start to lose me.

Yeah unfortunately a lot of the video games are treated as canon even though they have….just…TERRIBLE additions to the existing stuff. Wookiepedia unfortunately even treats stuff like the “corporate alliance artillery regular” http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Corporate_Alliance_Artillery_Regular or the “commerce guild bomber” http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Commerce_Guild_Bomber as canon….even though they appear only in one video game “Galactic Battlegrounds: Clone Campaigns”

I’m not necessarily one to judge what IS and ISN’T canon…but sometimes I’d really like a ruling

Exact scale no but representational scale yes.

One of my biggest problems with Star Trek Attack wing is not just the scale is off which can be understandable but ship classes such as the D'Drex class Romulan Warbird which is significantly larger than the Galaxy Class Federation Starship has a model size that is smaller than the size of the Galaxy Class. I could understand if it was the same size but not smaller.

Now on to the huge ships. We all know that the scale has been adjusted from X-Wing, to Tie Defender, to Millennium Falcon, to Rebel Transport, to Tantive IV. However as the scale is adjusted the models are still arranged so that the larger ships have the larger models. There is no question about which ship is bigger between the two and if they are about the same size then they are the same scale.

As for the Star Destroyer it has to be significantly the largest model on the board (I am pretty sure they won't attempt an Executor) but I say at-least 2 and a half times the Tantive IV (even though scale wise it is 10 times the size). The size must also allow room for smaller ships such as the Nebulon B Frigate which should be larger than the Tantive IV but significantly smaller than the Star Destroyer.

However with this being a franchise owned by Disney it is not up to FFG on what scale to make for the Star Destroyer, it is up to well Disney since they own the franchise. Games Workshop has the same problem with New Line Cinema and Tolken Ltd. with their Lord of the Ring models. They have to be approved that is why you won't see a Smaug because New Line is demanding that the scale be the same as the rest of their line and not scaled down.

Marinealver, without access to the licsence contract between ffg and lfl its impossible to know if scale is part of the liscence agreement.

http://www.afewmaneuvers.com/topic/2519-star-destroyer-huge-ship-full-design/

I would not buy a star destroyer that was massively out of scale. We have the Tantive in this game (which already looks a bit too small to me when seen next to fighters), which is supposed to fit inside the docking bay of a star destroyer. If the ISD is so out of scale that it doesn't look right next to the Tantive, which it won't without being prohibitively large and expensive, I don't see it as a good addition to the game.

I already find the capital ships to be of questionable value to the game, as they just kind of float around slowly using support abilities or shooting at things when they can. They are cool, and great for scenarios, but in terms of playing them they just aren't that interesting. A really huge ship like a star destroyer is probably not going to break that trend, and will just float around even more and shoot more guns and cost an absurd amount of points so that you can barely fit anything else. It's just not feasible IMO

We all know that the scale has been adjusted from X-Wing, to Tie Defender, to Millennium Falcon, to Rebel Transport, to Tantive IV.

The scale for the Transport and Tantive IV have been changed yes. But the Falcon and Defender are both the same scale, 1:270 the same scale as every other ship, other then the two epic ones. The defender is not 1:280, that was a typo on a article they wrote up.

http://www.afewmaneuvers.com/topic/2519-star-destroyer-huge-ship-full-design/

Thanks for sharing that!

Your sloping scale does make some of the other huge ships more reasonable.

While I'm hoping that they make an Imperial huge that most of us would recognize, rather than some obscure obscenity from some video game, I still don't see too many realistic candidates. The uniformity with which the Empire is represented in most of the most popular outlets, makes the Star Destroyer the only game in town for that (though, I'm still a fan of the Lancer).

But I'm starting to weaken my belief that a Star Destroyer can't be done. If they came out with a 31' model, I imagine many people would buy it just as a display thing. If it would sell for that alone, I'm not sure why FFG would not have an incentive to make it happen, even if it wasn't all that great in the game.