Something this community fails to see and understand is that this is a game of capital ship combat with the engagements happening over vast distances. The mechanics of the game reflect that and the models themselves are only there to give the player the representation of what they are playing. Just like Battlefleet and Firestorm, these ships and fighters are only representations of vessels engaging each other in the vastness of space.The players should be happy that the VSD is as large as it is and not begrudge FFG if they were not to make a ISD that was exactly to scale. The desire for such is inane and would not have a good impact on the overall purpose/play of Armada. There is obviously a distinction between different ship weightclasses as shown by the variance in base size. All this talk of "there won't be a SSD because it will be so far out of scale" is preposterous. FFG would not avoid the chance to release such an awesome kit just because it wasn't going to fit on a three meter table. They'll make the kit, but it won't be represented by a vessel any longer than the Tantive. To do otherwise would be cost prohibitive and gameplay stupid. The same goes for the ISD. It might be bigger, but if it is just a representation of the vessel (which is what it will be since these ships are not to scale) then it will probably be similar with a different profile.

It's neither "insane" nor "preposterous". Units being abstract objects within the a miniature space and miniatures being to scale with each other are two separate issues entirely. Firestorm, BFG, 40k and numerous other miniature games strive (with varying degrees of success) to maintain scale models while ALSO making it clear in the rules that the actual unit merely occupies a space within the footprint of a model.

X-Wing does exactly what you say is preposterous. It aims for reasonable scale accuracy while also maintaining the the size of the ships and the distance between them has been abstracted.

FFG would not avoid the chance to release such an awesome kit just because it wasn't going to fit on a three meter table.

They have done exactly this consistently for years, putting off implementing things they new people would buy because they didn't fit in with the rule set. I've heard people say the exact same thing about ISDs in X-WIng for a couple of years now, yet here we are, no ISD in X-Wing. They built a new game to handle the ISD rather than make significant concessions to get it into an established game.

And they have done this consistently for YEARS. The 40k RPGs went without Space Marines until they could build a system around it. The Star Wars RPGs have gone without Jedi. 40k without Space Marines? Star Wars without Jedi? Preposterous! Insane!

FFG as a company has consistently showed dedication to fluff consistency in their games, to the point of actively sacrificing sales in the name of maintaining consistency.

And consistency isn't something they could maintain with an SSD. It isn't just an issue of physical model size, but also of mechanical size in the rules. You couldn't run a game large enough to combat one in a reasonable amount of time, so they would have to severely scale down their effectiveness in rules as well as the physical model.

Personally, based on their history, I doubt FFG will do this. I don't be terribly surprised if they DO make a model (because, hey, money), but I do find it more likely that they will follow the pattern they have for many years now, and put making a consistent, fluffy, well balanced game ahead of pure profit.

Again, I'm not saying they definitely won't, but I think your hyperbolic claims that anyone thinking they wont release one is "insane" and "preposterous" is entirely unfounded. It would be perfectly in character with FFG to not release a product that broke the scale and scope of their game and required significant sacrifices in terms of lore to fit in.

Really? They said that somewhere? Or are you simply assuming?

If we use the Corvette as our standard, then both the Nebulon B Frigate and the VSD are noticeably smaller while the Corvette is larger to better accomodate a detailed model. This should not be a surprise. If a 'sliding scale' were actually a set scale, then the models would correspond to one another (ie: the Corvette would be noticeably smaller than the Nebulon and the Nebulon smaller than the VSD, etc). There are no assumptions. This observation is based on the available visual data, the core set image.

Clearly they're using the same type of sliding scale in Armada that they did for Epic ships in X-Wing.

This is not clear however. See the above example. Epic ships in X wing are scaled down for game play issues but are still scaled to be impressive center pieces, so the transport is much larger than fighters but still smaller than the corvette and the corvette is large enough to be impressive, but small enough to still function. But this comparison is even worse than X wing vs Armada, because now it is borrowing from an internal game system within X wing. FFG has created a whole new game in Armada and it is not reasonable to assume they will follow conventions from a completely different game that just happens to be based in the same fictional universe. The two games are going for very different experiences.

As for the firepower discrepancy of an SSD, that could be handled in many different ways. FFG has a fairly clever game design group. I would leave that in their competent hands.

Riplikash, making an ISD for a game like X wing (a dog fighting game) is a very different argument than making an SSD for Armada (a capital ship game). That is again comparing apples to oranges. X wing is not a game about the macro engagement, but smaller, personal fights (as you would agree). An ISD would not work inside the game's purpose or set scale. Armada, on the other hand, does not have those scaling issues as can clearly be seen with the models available. A SSD is also a capital ship, so adding a capital ship to a capital ship game is not changing the scope of the game, as it would have for X wing. Remember as well that Armada may have been in development for some years, perhaps even as X wing was launched, so FFG probably didn't even bother too much with the inclusion of an ISD into X wing since there would be a sister game system like Armada which would be able to scratch that itch for players everywhere.

It would be perfectly in character with FFG to not release a product that broke the scale and scope of their game and required significant sacrifices in terms of lore to fit in.

This doesn't matter as Armada doesn't currently have a standard scale to break.

I would also point out, Riplikash, that I said such thoughts and desires were inane and preposterous. Very different from claiming the individuals making them are delusional as you imply by misrepresenting my statements. When you reference a post, be sure you quote the correct word. Inane and insane have very different meanings.

This doesn't matter as Armada doesn't currently have a standard scale to break.

That is simply untrue. They have to have a scale or else the size of ships becomes completely random. They may not have a hard and fast scale like they do with X-Wing. But that doesn't mean they don't have one. All miniature games have a scale... Well all games other then STAW anyway.

The scale may be a sliding one, with the scale getting smaller as the ships get bigger, but that is not the same thing as not having a scale.

As for the firepower discrepancy of an SSD, that could be handled in many different ways. FFG has a fairly clever game design group. I would leave that in their competent hands.

Also the same exact thing that people said about the ISD in X-Wing... Their answer, a new game that actually allows a ship like a ISD to be fairly represented.

The scale may be a sliding one, with the scale getting smaller as the ships get bigger, but that is not the same thing as not having a scale.

Exactly. It's not a standard scale. Shrinking a SSD will not break the scale anymore than ballooning the Corvette.

With regards to your ISD/X wing point, that's again differing design purposes. The SSD is a capital ship, the ISD is a capital ship, the X wing is not. Fitting a SSD into a capital ship game is wholly different than fitting a ISD into a fighter game. FFG had to create an Epic game just to fit playable pieces like the transport. Pieces that still had to maneuver and force the fighters to maneuver around them while fitting (as closely as possible) to the standard scale used in X wing.

Shrinking a SSD will not break the scale anymore than ballooning the Corvette.

It's not a question of simply breaking scale, it's the degree to which it's broken that's the issue. But as I said a number of times, there is a size I'd find acceptable, even if I wouldn't buy it.

Fitting a SSD into a capital ship game is wholly different than fitting a ISD into a fighter game.

No not really, because in both cases you're dealing with the massive difference in magnitude of firepower. If a VSD which has about half the firepower of a ISD throws 2-3 dice, then a ISD should be throwing what 4-6 dice... A SSD on the other hand has about 10 times the number of guns a ISD does.

I agree with Vanor that the biggest issue isn't even really the scale (although I see that as an issue as well). The issue is the dice. If we assume an ISD throws about 4-6 dice as Vanor suggested, then an SSD would require massive amounts of dice.

According to source materials the Executor class of SSDs carried over 5000 weapon emplacements. That is as opposed to an ISDs 120. That means that if an ISD rolls 4-6 dice in attack, a SSD would have to roll around 166-250 dice to be close to accurate. It would simply break the game if it was done even remotely right in terms of firepower, and wouldn't be fun to play with or against in my opinion.

It would simply break the game if it was done even remotely right in terms of firepower, and wouldn't be fun to play with or against in my opinion.

Even if you just increase the firepower by a factor of 10, and give the SSD more arc's. Then you're still looking at 40-60 dice...

Which again causes the same issue that the ISD in X-Wing did... Too freaking many guns.

If a VSD which has about half the firepower of a ISD throws 2-3 dice, then a ISD should be throwing what 4-6 dice... A SSD on the other hand has about 10 times the number of guns a ISD does.

But this abstraction doesn't hold up, especially when we don't know the power differential in this game between dice/shields/etc.

While I loathe using X wing as an example, I'll do so for game design purposes. X wing's abstraction of attack dice does not follow with a ship's actual firepower either. The Falcon has a ventral and dorsal turret, but that doesn't double its attack value when compared with a Decimator.

An ISD may only have 4/3/3/2, be 25 more points and have 4 more hull (hypothetically); that may not seem like it would equate with the true power of an ISD vs a VSD, but in game terms, that may be enough to wrestle with two VSDs or demolish a fleet of corvettes. Likewise, an SSD could be a ship that is outfitted like 4/5/5/3 and 2 times the hull value of an ISD, but play in such a way as to honor its fluff. The SSD could even be designed to be very difficult for a capital ship fleet to fight against, but very vulnerable to a concentrated fighter assault. Again, I'm not concerned about those nuances because FFG is at the helm. I'm sure they can figure out a way to fit the SSD into the constraints of the game (honestly, they've probably already done so with future waves in mind).

The ISD in X wing was different though because it didn't fit the game purpose. Design intent is wholly different between the two systems.

As for the firepower discrepancy of an SSD, that could be handled in many different ways. FFG has a fairly clever game design group. I would leave that in their competent hands.

I would like to point out in this wave of optimism that their initial handling of the CR90 in X-wing is not exactly encouraging when it comes to handling ships with a vastly different scale of firepower.

Heck, people are already raising question marks towards the Armada's Corvette in this regard.

A modular escort corvette fighting fighters is very different than the same capital ship (which has capital grade primary weapons) engaging another capital ship that is less maneuverable, easier to hit, etc. Capital ships within our history have always been very vulenerable to fighter attack. The same has been true of the Star Wars universe throughout the films.

X wing's abstraction of attack dice does not follow with a ship's actual firepower either.

And again, you make the same exact argument people made for ISD's in X-Wing, and make no better of a case for that then they did.

That's not my argument for an ISD in X wing though. I'm not even arguing that. My point there has nothing to do with having an ISD in the game or not, in fact it represents the different and effective ways that actual firepower can be abstracted into game terms without creating a critical problem (such as having to roll 40 dice).

I've argued against your concept that a SSD is too much for Armada. Excluding an ISD from X wing probably has much more to do with the actual intent of the game (dogfighting) than it has to do with abstracting firepower, etc. An ISD by its nature is antithetical to a game that wants opposing players to fly ships which can maneuver effectively and simulate a dogfight. That's why it took an expansion, Epic, to include the biggest ships that could fit that framework without changing the game.

The SSD on the other hand is perfectly compatible with Armada given it's purpose of design: a capital ship engagement game. There will be slow, ponderous ships with massive firepower. There may be an expansion in the game that allows players to include a SSD and play at three times the point level so the experience is satisfying. Or FFG may have different plans that are going to blow some minds. The TIE Phantom still stands for me as an example of FFG's game design ingenuity. The Phantom literally feels like its cloaking and decloaking as it plays through design and not just paper stats. The same may be true for the SSD. FFG has the capability to design it in such a way as to fit the SSD into a capital ship game like Armada.

Regardless of that point, we still don't know what the power differential actually means in game terms between one attack dice and two. That could be massive, and if it is, then it is easy to imagine the inclusion of vessels on the SSD's scale (in universe terms).

in fact it represents the different and effective ways that actual firepower can be abstracted into game terms without creating a critical problem (such as having to roll 40 dice).

Which is again exactly the same argument that people made for ISD's in X-Wing.

Are you just ignoring the point that these are two different game systems: one for dogfighting and one for capital ship engagements? This is probably the single biggest reason the SSD will be in an expansion (next to the fact that its iconic). I don't understand the rigid focus on the argument for/against an ISD in X wing when an ISD style expansion in X wing is antithetical to the purpose of the game.

I would encourage a deeper reading of my last post, since it exemplifies FFG's ability to create rules and ships that capture the essence of their cinema counterparts without resorting to linear and obtuse thinking.

A modular escort corvette fighting fighters is very different than the same capital ship (which has capital grade primary weapons) engaging another capital ship that is less maneuverable, easier to hit, etc. Capital ships within our history have always been very vulenerable to fighter attack. The same has been true of the Star Wars universe throughout the films.

And the result is a model that, while looking cool on the battlefield, is an absolute mess to play. Too many points, too little firepower, too little resilience.

This does not inspire your level of confidence towards FFG in me when it comes to the SSD. Perhaps the Imperial ships will sway this opinion, if they learned from it, but for now... I remain hesitant.

Are you just ignoring the point that these are two different game systems:

Nope not ignoring it, just don't agree with your basic premise.

Regardless of the system used, you're trying to fit a watermelon though a garden-hose, just like the Pro-ISD camp tried to do in X-Wing.

On 8/11/2014 at 4:09 PM, VanorDM said:

A 8" ISD and I'll likely get out of the game. A 15" SSD on the other hand is completely laughable. It would look so wrong on the board.

Again a 1-1.5 foot long SSD is just not going to look correct on the table, not next to a ISD... Unless FFG completely destroys any sense of scale with those.

How propheic...

Also, necro'd

6 minutes ago, Scopes said:

How propheic...

Also, necro'd

It’s 2.5 feet and not yet released. So short of there being an SSD, where’s the prophecy?

Admitting that you're resurrecting a dead thread doesn't make it ok to resurrect a dead thread.

Holy necromancy batman!

I havent seen Necromancy this strong since Nagash.

5 hours ago, Scopes said:

How propheic...

Also, necro'd

So...not prophetic at all? It looks fine on the table, the predicted size is wrong, and the announcement hasn’t led a noticeable portion of people to leave - at least not vocally.

This is like someone saying they brought your loved one back from the dead and all they’ve done is string them up like a marionette and clumsily made them dance.

10 hours ago, The Jabbawookie said:

It’s 2.5 feet and not yet released. So short of there being an SSD, where’s the prophecy?

About 25" is what we can gather so far. Based on the sexy centerfold in the gametrader magazine.

For more hilariously inaccurate prophecy, check out the top post in the old Game of Thrones Card game off-topic forum about the “new” HBO show. Guy on the first page’s episode 1 review:

”Yawn. Won’t interest anyone other than hardcore fans of the book.”

Good call there Nostradamus.

Yeah this thread didn’t age well lol