If they came out with a 31' model, I imagine many people would buy it just as a display thing.

At that size, it would cost around $250-300. I'm not going to pay that much for a display piece. As good as FFG models are they aren't going to be able to make something that really matches up with a true display piece. For that price I expect a highly detailed model and perhaps even some lighting...

At 31' long you'll have trouble getting it to do much even on a 3x6 table. I don't know the exact ratios of a ISD. But at 31' long, it's going to be what 12-14 wide at the back end. That's going to take up a huge chunk of the board.

At that size, it would cost around $250-300. I'm not going to pay that much for a display piece. As good as FFG models are they aren't going to be able to make something that really matches up with a true display piece. For that price I expect a highly detailed model and perhaps even some lighting...

You might not shell out that much, but I imagine there are people who would. I would certainly agonize over it, especially if the model was done with the level of detail that FFG's current products are made. I also think that they could cut down on the price if they made it a model kit that you could assemble.

Currently, the model kits available are about half the size necessary. I don't think that twice the size of the currently available model kits would have to be twice the price. There's also this awesome one, which is made by a small-time manufacturer. While I don't advocate putting him out of business, I imagine that mass production in China could cut that price of $525 down considerably.

At 31' long you'll have trouble getting it to do much even on a 3x6 table. I don't know the exact ratios of a ISD. But at 31' long, it's going to be what 12-14 wide at the back end. That's going to take up a huge chunk of the board.

You're quite right that even on a 3x6 table, this would be a beast. I do think that you would prefer to do a 4x8, and then still maneuvering would not be much of a feature for this thing. It would (and should) be slow, scooting the thing forward a couple of inches per turn, and having it need to turbolaser the asteroids, with the chance of nearby ships being damaged by the debris.

That, I think, would be fun.

DAMMIT!!!

I didn't want this to be an ISD thread, and here I go contributing to it.

So... scale... it matters, but we're willing to accept a sloping scale as the ships get larger so as to not make them too large for the table?

I would by a $500 Star Destroyer without hesitate!

but we're willing to accept a sloping scale as the ships get larger so as to not make them too large for the table?

No we're not, at least not all of us are. Most of us are willing to accept some change in scale for the sake of the game, like reducing the CR-90 like they did. But many of us are not willing to accept the reduction in scale you'd need to make something like a ISD fit.

I would by a $500 Star Destroyer without hesitate!

Well you're in luck then. Mikael posted a link above to where you can buy one.

but we're willing to accept a sloping scale as the ships get larger so as to not make them too large for the table?

No we're not, at least not all of us are. Most of us are willing to accept some change in scale for the sake of the game, like reducing the CR-90 like they did. But many of us are not willing to accept the reduction in scale you'd need to make something like a ISD fit.

Yeah, I can certainly understand that sentiment, and I might just share it. I don't know. I'm on the fence at the moment.

I'm trying to imagine a 31" model. At that size, I think it would feel large, especially considering its other dimensions.

I would by a $500 Star Destroyer without hesitate!

Well you're in luck then. Mikael posted a link above to where you can buy one.

I did indeed. Go buy one!

Or, were you referring to a $500 FFG product?

I know there's no way in hell my wife is letting me get one if FFG were to produce one at $500, even though she does love Star Wars (though not this game, frustratingly - she's just not a gamer). Nor would it be a good idea to get one. It really would just be a display piece that would be in the way and collect dust.

I'm trying to imagine a 31" model. At that size, I think it would feel large, especially considering its other dimensions.

Sure it would... But as soon as you put a CR-90 on the table assuming you'd have room, it wouldn't look large enough IMO. Or even the Falcon for that matter. We all know very well just how big a ISD is compared to the Falcon, which is why I think scale matters, because some ships we know just how big they are supposed to be, and you just can't get them large enough to look right and still fit on the table.

It even happens when you have a YT-1300 next to a Transport, it just doesn't look quite right. But the difference in scale, between a YT-1300 and GR-75 is several orders of magnitude less then a YT-1300 and a ISD.

That's why I don't think we'll ever see anything much bigger then 200m in this game. At 200m they can make it small enough to fit the table comfortably but still look mostly correct compared to the other ships. Also make no mistake, how the ships look on the table does matter to many if not most of us.

Exact scale isn't a make or break thing, but having the ships look correct when on the table is part of why FFG has done so well with this game.

Or, were you referring to a $500 FFG product?

No that one you posted the link to. See that is IMO worth being a display piece, as good as the FFG stuff is though, I don't think it's good enough. It's like with miniatures, there's two levels of painting... Tabletop and Show. Tabletop is normally pretty good, but not great, looks good on the table but not something you'd display. FFG stuff is very much tabletop quality.

Vanor.. agreed, and agreed.. you just keep pulling the words out of my brain...

Even playing devils advocate here - they put an Star destroyer in the game. 2 feet long, 6 feet long, whatever, it's in stores for a boatload of cash.

How would it even function with the games mechanics? How do regular snub fighter weapons feasibly cause critical damage? Because torpedo (and missile) weapons work basically the same as laser weapons and are only distinguished by the likes of more dice and/or re-rolls, how would a squadron of x-wings with proton torpedoes, which in-canon poses a hefty threat to the well being of a star destroyer, possibly pose a threat to one using in-game mechanics? You'd need to attack it with 30+ ships, with near irrelevancy of whether or not they'd be shooting lasers or torpedoes.... which is fairly stupid and not in the spirit of the star wars universe.

TL;DR - the way torpedoes / rockets are designed for gameplay in FFG's X-Wing Miniatures means that the portrayal of Capital ship sized vessels (and taking them out) would be dumb.

Make two damage decks, as with the other large ships, but rather than fore and aft, have Primary and Secondary decks, where crits with the Primary are things like double damage (oh no, not 2 of my 40 hull gone!) and minor effects ("Choose 1 secondary weapon. That weapon loses 1 attack die. Action: roll 1 attack die, on a hit, flip this card facedown.",) and the secondary deck is MASSIVE damage crits ("This card counts as 6 damage", "Discard a secondary weapon.", etc.)

You certainly could hack together rules to make it work, but that is exactly the problem. Torpedoes are just one of many issues with scaling the system up, and you are going to have many such circumstances where you need to hack together new rules, which leaves you with an extremely bloated, confusing, and complex rules system.

The huge ships we have now are already pushing the complexity of the rules about as far as I would ever want to see them go. I'm a software engineer, and this is a discussion I have with my boss all the time. He proposes something that wont work, and I start pointing out that it will increase the complexity of the code, and start giving him example of how. His response is always something along the lines of, "Well we can just do (x) to solve that problem, and I guess (y) to solve that one, and (z) to solve that one", and my response is always the same: the issue isn't that any individual problem can't be solved, it's that when you start seeing this many little issues come up it is indicative of a foundation problem with your system/plan. Each individual fix is possible and will not be too hard, but combining all the fixes for all the foreseen problems (which typically indicates even more unseen, unexpected problems) leaves you with a mess of a system that is impossible to use or maintain. At that point it is better to either just re-focus on what your system is supposed to do, or make a new system that actually does what you want. And I feel the same way here: stay focused on the scale this system can handle, or make a new one that handles what you want.

The scale issue is just for looks and does not affect game play. The base the ships are on is the important thing, I wish there had been more of a variety in base sizes as it would have added even more variety to ships then they already have

No, the scale issue effects game play greatly. Scale isn't just about model size, it's also about presence in the game. The scale of a Star Destroyer doesn't fit into the game rules-wise either. Look how powerful the Lambda and the Falcon are in a game. Then look at the corvette. It's a massive centerpiece (in gameplay, not just because of the model) that totally dominates both sides tactical and strategic considerations. Possibly one could go as far as a Neb-B gameplay wise, a ship which could possibly solo an entire 300pt epic army without any fighter support. I could see that.

Then how do you represent a Star Destroyer as anything but a Neb-B 1.5, or a corvette x2? It should dominate several Neb-Bs, and a dozen or more corvette's, but there is no way you could do that.

So you wouldn't only be fudging the model scale, but the rules scales to try and shoe-horn it into the game. Now, I'm not saying you shouldn't do that right here, I'm just trying to illustrate it isn't just a problem of physical models. It's a problem of rules and gameplay as well.

So do you measure to the model or to the base?

I'm trying to imagine a 31" model. At that size, I think it would feel large, especially considering its other dimensions.

Sure it would... But as soon as you put a CR-90 on the table assuming you'd have room, it wouldn't look large enough IMO.

You're right about that. The awesome thing about the ISD is its sheer size.

Or, were you referring to a $500 FFG product?

No that one you posted the link to. See that is IMO worth being a display piece, as good as the FFG stuff is though, I don't think it's good enough. It's like with miniatures, there's two levels of painting... Tabletop and Show. Tabletop is normally pretty good, but not great, looks good on the table but not something you'd display. FFG stuff is very much tabletop quality.

I was actually addressing that question to AndiOne, who said he'd buy one in a heartbeat. However, I do think you're right that Cooper's model would probably be better than what FFG would crank out. Of course, FFG's model would probably be considerably cheaper - that $200-$250 range you were talking about.

That's why I don't think we'll ever see anything much bigger then 200m in this game. At 200m they can make it small enough to fit the table comfortably but still look mostly correct compared to the other ships. Also make no mistake, how the ships look on the table does matter to many if not most of us.

So, here's the real meat of the matter (rather than the ISD discussion). There's a sloping scale, but it ends somewhere for you, and for you it's the 200m ships. Regrettably that pretty much excludes most of what the Empire fields in its Navy.

So, would you prefer some obscure Imperial ship from some video game, an FFG homebrew, or no Imperial huge ship?

Well thats really tempting!

But I was talking about a FFG version.

Due to the scenarios and rules and templates and cards and yeah u guys get the point.

And unfortunatley I really suck at modelbuilding and painting models.

And third it was another 100 bucks in shipping fee to Sweden, so instead of $500 it would cost me $625.

But **** it was a really nice looking model.

The transport bugs me because the bridge pod up top implies scale. It must be flown by baby ewoks!

IMO Scale matters. One thing that I haven't seen is how long an actual turn is. Imagine if 1 turn was 3 seconds. An epic sized ship should only turn so far due to it's size and shifting mass. From a game mechanic point of view the epic template demonstrates that exact principle. While a large ship may have a better dial it's not nearly as agile as a small ship in the same 3 seconds. As an example take the Falcon chase from Ep. V, the Falcon drops on the z axis quickly while the star destroyers have to take "evasive action" to avoid collision. In this case its a car vs a toy remote car dramatic but illustrates the size of the encounter. As a result size and scale do matter.

Wrong topic post, please ignore