I think the minis are great. As for the sliding scale, I believe they are aiming to make them look just about right compared to each other (Victory>frigate>corvette>fighters). Also, I'm sure they want to leave room for Falcon-sized ships between corvette and fighters and for Star Destroyers and possibly even SSDs on the other end.

For those complaining about quality, look at Star Trek Attack Wing. Also, the scale issue is far worse in that game...

I'm okay with sliding scale and if X-Wing is anything to go by, I think FFG will get it right.

Forgottenlore , I just checked my edition of the Essential Guide. You must have a misprint or something. My copy properly shows the Victory, with the wings and the forward projection of the command tower and its parts.

Probably a different edition/print run, mine (First Edition, March 1996) also has this drawing.

I'm fine with the sliding scale (the only way to get both the Executor and a Corvette in the game ) and I think the three-ship fighter squadrons are the best way to do it, much better than WotC with their large fighters.

Sliding scale makes perfect sense - it is the only option, unless you think that A) car-sized tabletop minis are fun, and/or B) there should be an enormous size difference between the capital ships that rebel and imperial players get to deploy. It will work. And it will be glorious.

Like I said, it is not really important.

In fact, however the victory class was established originally, I am glad that it has been made visually distinct, and the wing things look good.

Yes, the Victory seems to have been from the original concept art. (Maybe we'll see it in Rebels!) I'm also glad they've put it into this game, distinct from the ISD, with the promise that the ISD will be big.

That's my biggest fear. That the ISD will not be big enough.

Concept art in question.

The bases are too big. Bases should always be smaller than the mini.

I disagree. Bases should be just slightly larger than the miniature. The base is, after all, what defines the figure mechanically. Games where the ships significantly overhang the bases get annoying trying to position ships near each other

Case in point: X-wing's Falcon. We have to remove it from its base every time it gets caught in a ***********, because otherwise we can't even place the other mini's.

Decimator will have the same issues.

As for me, I agree that the scale is a valid point for people to decide whether or not to play the game on, however it is something I can live with. I never quite got to play Battlefleet Gothic before it went the way of the dodo, but ships in that game were not representative of their true scale either (in fact, the small peg was often referred to as "about the actual ship's size", with the rest just being enlarged to look cool) and it did not harm my enjoyment of the game, short though it was.

Most important to me is that this game gives me big ships to play with, with more a different kind of long-term manoeuvring and positioning and a different kind of tactical thinking. And in that, the game so far seems to be ready and willing to provide.

All I'm missing is special rules for torpedo volleys a-la Battlefleet Gothic....

I like them, it is a different scale, and the detail will suffer, but they don't look horrible in my eyes, just decent.

Anyways, your move FFG

ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ﾉ Death Star or RIOT ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ﾉ

I think the scaling is fine. Think about it this way. If FFG makes huge ships for this game, the true to scale size would be staggering.

I mean a Corellian Corvette is what, 150 meters? Put that next to a true to scale Super Star Destroyer. Now think of dollar cost. Complaining about scale just doesn't seem as big a deal at that point.

Yeah, at this scale, pre-painted squadrons can't really happen, and don't really need to.

It'd be like having pre-painted mines and stuff for X-Wing - cute, but pointless.

But how sweet would it be to play this game in ultra large mode?

I am envisioning something like the huge outdoor chess sets that exist. That would be too effing funny ...

From what I can tell the minis look fine. I'm okay with the fighter squadron scale and color right now and can paint them later if I feel the need, but you have to understand the fighter squadron size is just an abstraction to show the location of them in relation to the capitol ships. I for one am very happy the capitol ship game has become a reality....now to save cash for its impending release.

But how sweet would it be to play this game in ultra large mode?

I am envisioning something like the huge outdoor chess sets that exist. That would be too effing funny ...

Hmm, heck, why not? Attack Wing managed.

I think having the ISD being correctly scaled to the VSD is reasonable. Having things correctly scaled that are smaller are also reasonable, except for the corvette and smaller. I really hope that they only use the sliding scale for models of corvette size and below and for ships larger than an ISD.

The random sliding scale stuff turns me off to games very fast. Besides, think of the scale of the universe. Using old "non-canon-canon," the Empire had a "thousand thousand worlds" and I remember in one of the Thrawn books that there were around 200,000 ISDs total. I'm good with smaller battles that would never see more than 2 or so ISDs or MC ships, especially if they are in scale. The variety of support ships (dreadnoughts, bulk cruisers, assault frigates, etc, especially since these ships would be far more common anyway) would more than make up for the lack of terribly out of scale SSDs for me.

Just my thoughts.

The minis look great. You can't really expect accurate scaling in the game when the Star Destroyer, as the gold standard, would render most of the support ship minis vanishing small. I don't think Rebel players would enjoy many of their core assets being munchkin-sized minis next to the gorgeous Star Destroyers.

I personally do not mind the tri of fighters being unpainted, or their scale.

I do not, however, like that there is a differing scale for the capital ships. I honestly hope they do NOT come out with a SSD...not unless it is like how they did Transport and Tantive IV in X-wing, a total shift from 'normal' and needing the introduction of special rules. Everything from the Nebulon B to an Imperial SD should be the same scale just like Tie to M. Falcon are the same scale. If such a scale means that the Tantive IV is 'too small' then so be it, don't include it in the game. No reason the starter set couldn't have been a Victory SD vs a pair of Nebulon Bs.

I think it is more important to be true to scale with capital ships than to try and make sure both sides are fielding ships of roughly the same size.

The random sliding scale stuff turns me off to games very fast.

You do realize that a sliding scale doesn't have to be random, right? As long as the sliding scale is consistent it should be fine, though I do wish they had settled on a small bottom end for the corvette.

Not to be argumentative, but I can and do expect it. If the ISD is the size of the Corvette in X-wing, it could easily work. Then the smaller ships would be a couple inches long at least. Most capital ships are larger than the corvette. The scaling between the Nebulon-B and VSD looks about right to me. I think thats a very reasonable expectation.

I just do not want comically out of scale models. For me, part of the joy of the game is the visual display. I want something that looks as appealing and true to the movie universe as possible. If Im going to spend the cash, I want it to be worth it. And part of that to me is correct and reasonable scaling.

Thanks!

The random sliding scale stuff turns me off to games very fast.

You do realize that a sliding scale doesn't have to be random, right? As long as the sliding scale is consistent it should be fine, though I do wish they had settled on a small bottom end for the corvette.

Im judging by the awful job done with the fleet scale Star Trek game. Attack Wing I think it is. That is a prime example of bad sliding scales to me.

Forgottenlore , I just checked my edition of the Essential Guide. You must have a misprint or something. My copy properly shows the Victory, with the wings and the forward projection of the command tower and its parts.

Probably a different edition/print run, mine (First Edition, March 1996) also has this drawing.

That's really odd. I've also got the March 1996 edition, but here's what mine looks like:

Im judging by the awful job done with the fleet scale Star Trek game. Attack Wing I think it is. That is a prime example of bad sliding scales to me.

Yes, it is. That is an example of a totally random scale and would be horrible. But it can be a movable scale without being bad. It has to be because all of the ships that need to be in it (every capital ship seen in the OT, for a start) cover too wide a spread of sizes to be practical. For an ISD to be in the same scale as this VSD it would need to be at least 8-9" long, which would preclude any larger ship from ever being made. Also, people have already determined that the corvette and frigate are both out of scale with the SD and each other, but it is not a massive out of scale, and it looks to be consistent (as near as we can tell).

Once we get the actual figs in hand, someone will probably do a graph of some sort to extrapolate the likely model sizes of some common ships.

That's really odd. I've also got the March 1996 edition, but here's what mine looks like:

Ok, now really weird, mine also says march of 96.

Anybody want to buy a super rare collectors copy of the original essential vehicles guide? It's the version with the star destroyer misprint. Only $200

For an ISD to be in the same scale as this VSD it would need to be at least 8-9" long, which would preclude any larger ship from ever being made. Also, people have already determined that the corvette and frigate are both out of scale with the SD and each other, but it is not a massive out of scale, and it looks to be consistent (as near as we can tell).

Once we get the actual figs in hand, someone will probably do a graph of some sort to extrapolate the likely model sizes of some common ships.

I agree with that line of reasoning. I'm not opposed to a consistent sliding scale for ships bigger than ISDs or MCs. or smaller than the Nebulon-B size ships. I'm just hoping that those mid range ships are as in scale since they would be the main stays of most fleets. SSDs? Sliding scale for sure, I get that and support it. Same for fighters and Falcon up to corvette size ships. The capital ships in between though can and should be a single consistent scale.

Having said that, being a miniature modeler from way back, I'll make corvettes that are in scale if I have to! lol

That's really odd. I've also got the March 1996 edition, but here's what mine looks like:

Ok, now really weird, mine also says march of 96.

I would assume that the licensing company had to make several reprints of existing sourcebooks, thus many of us have ended up with slight differences in our books.

@Mike Hasselstein

Just checked, and my copy of the essential guide has the art work for the victory, so apparently my copy somehow managed to switch the art for the 2 SDs.

Well I for one really don’t care about the scale issue, it looks great!!! It has plenty of play options and will tie in well with X-wing allowing for a game within a game. On the scale issue if you make an SSD too big it will become unwieldy game wise and something you just plonk on a mat and everything else will zoom around it. And also if you include the SSD at any scale smaller and often very interesting vessles will become rice and sand grains in comparison imho. So some scale comprimise will have to occur just for practical game play. My SSD's are going to charge forth into battle, be mobile, fluid and not just sit and wait for the battle to come to them due to their size to keep to scale. They are not shaped like a spear point for nothing. And also there are some nice little captial ships I can't wait to encounter. All I can say is bring on the SSD, Interdictor, strike crusiers, Mon Cal and let the battle begin.

Im wondering why everyone is so sure there will be SSDs. Think about this: if a VSD costs 85 points how much will a ISD or SSD cost? A single SSD without a support fleet will almost certainly have to cost an enormous amount of points and then add ons would make it astronomical. Now, looking at it from a Rebel player(s)' perspective, that leaves them with an aweful lot of points to have to fill with cheap points but expensive dollar models. Unless, of course, the Rebels are given an equivilant ship which I can't really see since the ship would have to be something new and made up. Not unreasonable, but not something I would hope they did. The Rebellion as shown was under funded with small shps they scrapped togehter for hit and run missions. In the movies, fleet actions were avoided at all costs. Even Endor was not intended as a fleet action but more of a raid on a large scale. The more I think about it, the more I hope there are no SSDs or anything larger than an ISD if only for the financial well being of players.

Just had a look at wookieepedia and my dear old "weg" imperial source book and the victory I-class star destroyer looks spot on to me.