The ILM sketches used during production of 'Star Wars' in 1977 (significantly-pre-"Episode IV"...it was only "Star Wars" at this point) for the various ship sizes...

...now, I dunno about you guys, but as far as rough estimates go...that kinda points to some...let's say..."flexibility" regarding the ship scale.

Here comes trouble...

Never mind the scale. The huge differences in scale never fit on the table top. Lucas had a big screen, we have 3' by 6'.

Lucas is all about visual effect, which he does great, but there is no consistent story, let alone a consistent universe. Analyzing "historical data" like a nerd eloped from "Galaxy Quest" (go see that movie, it is hilarious) will not make a working game.

Never mind the scale. The huge differences in scale never fit on the table top. Lucas had a big screen, we have 3' by 6'.

Lucas is all about visual effect, which he does great, but there is no consistent story, let alone a consistent universe. Analyzing "historical data" like a nerd eloped from "Galaxy Quest" (go see that movie, it is hilarious) will not make a working game.

Oh, I'm just saying - look at that CR90 vs the Falcon. Heh - those saying our CR90 is 'too small', and it's well bigger than that one!

The ILM sketches used during production of 'Star Wars' in 1977 (significantly-pre-"Episode IV"...it was only "Star Wars" at this point) for the various ship sizes...

...now, I dunno about you guys, but as far as rough estimates go...that kinda points to some...let's say..."flexibility" regarding the ship scale.

If it makes you feel better, I don't think we need to worry about having a Sandcrawler in-game. I honestly do think the scale they chose it is almost perfect. I'm looking forward to testing out melminiaures Star Destroyer rules though.

I did not realise how big the falcon was compared to the CR90.

I think with the introduction of Armada the dream of ever seeing an Imperial (or other class) Star Destroyer on the X-Wing table is over.

I do expect we will see 'some' Epic Scale Imperial ships at some time in the future, but the idea of a Star Destroyer has been realized, in Armada.

I bought an old 15" model kit of an ISD off eBay the other day (still to be assembled). I'm thinking of just having it at the side of the table. Maybe I'll use the off-screen turbolaser rules from the Transport set.

The ILM sketches used during production of 'Star Wars' in 1977 (significantly-pre-"Episode IV"...it was only "Star Wars" at this point) for the various ship sizes...

...now, I dunno about you guys, but as far as rough estimates go...that kinda points to some...let's say..."flexibility" regarding the ship scale.

If it makes you feel better, I don't think we need to worry about having a Sandcrawler in-game. I honestly do think the scale they chose it is almost perfect. I'm looking forward to testing out melminiaures Star Destroyer rules though.

I did not realise how big the falcon was compared to the CR90.

For the record, I now want a Sandcrawler in game.

Also, I think this actually backs up the people who are concerned about scale. The biggest complaint I hear around scale is those who want to keep on tweaking the scale to bring star destroyers onto the table top. This sketch clearly shows that regardless of the Blockade Runner being 2 Falcons long or 5 Falcons long, the Blockade Runner itself is absolutely dwarfed by the Star Destroyer, hence no tweaking of scale would allow the Star Destroyer to work on a 3'x6' play area in conjunction with stub fighters

I think the A wings are too big tbh but if they made them 'true scale' they would be tiny and people would begrudge paying the same price as you do for a bigger ship like a B wing.

Likewise Y wings seem underscaled.

Before we even get to the big stuff.

The ILM sketches used during production of 'Star Wars' in 1977 (significantly-pre-"Episode IV"...it was only "Star Wars" at this point) for the various ship sizes...

...now, I dunno about you guys, but as far as rough estimates go...that kinda points to some...let's say..."flexibility" regarding the ship scale.

If it makes you feel better, I don't think we need to worry about having a Sandcrawler in-game. I honestly do think the scale they chose it is almost perfect. I'm looking forward to testing out melminiaures Star Destroyer rules though.

I did not realise how big the falcon was compared to the CR90.

For the record, I now want a Sandcrawler in game.

Also, I think this actually backs up the people who are concerned about scale. The biggest complaint I hear around scale is those who want to keep on tweaking the scale to bring star destroyers onto the table top. This sketch clearly shows that regardless of the Blockade Runner being 2 Falcons long or 5 Falcons long, the Blockade Runner itself is absolutely dwarfed by the Star Destroyer, hence no tweaking of scale would allow the Star Destroyer to work on a 3'x6' play area in conjunction with stub fighters

I do not believe that any reasonable people actually want a playable Star Destroyer model. Where is the fun in a model that either weighs as much as a labrador and can't move, or is so comically out of scale it becomes a spoof of itself? The die-hard SD fans need to try the melminiature's SD template. I think they would see it's a great compromise.

I do not believe that any reasonable people actually want a playable Star Destroyer model. Where is the fun in a model that either weighs as much as a labrador and can't move, or is so comically out of scale it becomes a spoof of itself? The die-hard SD fans need to try the melminiature's SD template. I think they would see it's a great compromise.

The argument posed--and, let's be clear, I'm just reporting here; I'm certainly not an advocate for Star Destroyers in X-wing--is essentially that they're so cool and so necessary to the theme of Star Wars that scale should be a secondary consideration.

That is, a Star Destroyer reduced to fit meaningfully on the tabletop wouldn't be a comically out-of-scale parody, but a representation of a critical element of Star Wars lore.

I do not believe that any reasonable people actually want a playable Star Destroyer model. Where is the fun in a model that either weighs as much as a labrador and can't move, or is so comically out of scale it becomes a spoof of itself? The die-hard SD fans need to try the melminiature's SD template. I think they would see it's a great compromise.

The argument posed--and, let's be clear, I'm just reporting here; I'm certainly not an advocate for Star Destroyers in X-wing--is essentially that they're so cool and so necessary to the theme of Star Wars that scale should be a secondary consideration.

That is, a Star Destroyer reduced to fit meaningfully on the tabletop wouldn't be a comically out-of-scale parody, but a representation of a critical element of Star Wars lore.

Also: it would be a comically out-of-scale parody.

(I mean, size issue aside, the thing beat up a CR-90 and took its lunch money without the remotest bit of trouble...how the heck would you have an interesting fight against it at the fighter scale? I'm pretty happy 'Armada' is coming out, as that's really the right way to put a Star Destroyer on the table - to really show what it can do in combat, even outside of the scale issues)

That said, the Star Destroyer wasn't really the point of the above post - more just pointing to the comparison between the Falcon, fighters, and CR90.

Definitely seems like ILM had a somewhat different impression of the scale of these than has evolved into "canon" over the years...

I do not believe that any reasonable people actually want a playable Star Destroyer model. Where is the fun in a model that either weighs as much as a labrador and can't move, or is so comically out of scale it becomes a spoof of itself? The die-hard SD fans need to try the melminiature's SD template. I think they would see it's a great compromise.

The argument posed--and, let's be clear, I'm just reporting here; I'm certainly not an advocate for Star Destroyers in X-wing--is essentially that they're so cool and so necessary to the theme of Star Wars that scale should be a secondary consideration.

That is, a Star Destroyer reduced to fit meaningfully on the tabletop wouldn't be a comically out-of-scale parody, but a representation of a critical element of Star Wars lore.

Well I see what you are saying(I think - that it's an unanswerable point of view). I would simply say x-wing is first and foremost a dog-fighting game, and as such Star Destroyers (and death stars) have no more place in them than Lightsaber duels, which are also a critical element of Star Wars lore.

Seeing as an ISD is twice the length of a Victory-class, I suspect the ISD will be a "huge" ship in Armada.

Seeing as an ISD is twice the length of a Victory-class, I suspect the ISD will be a "huge" ship in Armada.

I was thinking about that today - I actually think ISD is going to squeak in at "large" along with Home One, and they may save "huge" for the SSD.

If they go that route though, I will be VERY disappointed if Rebels end up getting a huge ship. Home One should be as big as it gets. I want Armada to look like the opposite of X-WIng, swarms of small cheap rebel ships going up against fewer, beefier imperial ships.

Ballparking from pictures and video, the Victory in Armada is what? 4-5 inches? For argument's sake lets say 4.

That puts the ISD at 8.

The SSD would be nearly eight feet long, putting it in the realm of ridiculousness that the ISD has with X-Wing.

Seeing as an ISD is twice the length of a Victory-class, I suspect the ISD will be a "huge" ship in Armada.

I was thinking about that today - I actually think ISD is going to squeak in at "large" along with Home One, and they may save "huge" for the SSD.

If they go that route though, I will be VERY disappointed if Rebels end up getting a huge ship. Home One should be as big as it gets. I want Armada to look like the opposite of X-WIng, swarms of small cheap rebel ships going up against fewer, beefier imperial ships.

Based on nothing but a 'gut feeling' - that's sort of the direction I'm expecting. Fully take advantage of that sliding scale - the ISD will be 25% bigger than the VSD in each dimension...enough so that it's visually a "bigger ship", but not so large it needs to be a 'huge' base.

Then they can release the Super Star Destroyer about the size of XWM's "Tantive IV" model.

Then they can release the Super Star Destroyer about the size of XWM's "Tantive IV" model.

I disagree... Releasing a SSD in a scale to work with Armada brings about the same scale issues we'd have with an ISD in X-Wing. It would just look ridiculous to have an ISD sitting next to a SSD and be half it's size. (IMHO, of course).

Then they can release the Super Star Destroyer about the size of XWM's "Tantive IV" model.

I disagree... Releasing a SSD in a scale to work with Armada brings about the same scale issues we'd have with an ISD in X-Wing. It would just look ridiculous to have an ISD sitting next to a SSD and be half it's size. (IMHO, of course).

But they've already done that. "X-Wing" is fanatical about scale, both in size and damage output, so an ISD can't work here.

In contrast, "Armada" has already - in the core set - implemented a 'sliding scale' to allow a CR90 Corvette to be reasonably competitive with a Nebulon-B Frigate, as well as being something close to 50% larger than it should be.

Releasing a SSD in a scale to work with Armada brings about the same scale issues we'd have with an ISD in X-Wing.

The other problem and IMO the larger problem, is that of firepower and other capabilities. A VSD is nearly 1/3rd of your total points in Armada, a ISD is going to be nearly half... Yet a SSD with anywhere between 10 and 25 times the firepower of a ISD just can not fit in a 300 point game and be both balanced and accurate.

Ballparking from pictures and video, the Victory in Armada is what? 4-5 inches? For argument's sake lets say 4.

That puts the ISD at 8.

The SSD would be nearly eight feet long, putting it in the realm of ridiculousness that the ISD has with X-Wing.

Look at it this way - in terms of game mechanics, an 18-24 inch SSD is going to be a reasonable both in scale and mechanics next to a 5-6 inch Star Destroyer. That is a BIG model, true, but not as big as some of the stuff Forge World makes. It's not going to look ridiculous like a 24-inch SD would next to an x-wing.

Look at it this way - in terms of game mechanics, an 18-24 inch SSD is going to be a reasonable both in scale and mechanics next to a 5-6 inch Star Destroyer.

The VSD is 5-6 inches, the ISD will be even larger, say 8-10.

Releasing a SSD in a scale to work with Armada brings about the same scale issues we'd have with an ISD in X-Wing.

The other problem and IMO the larger problem, is that of firepower and other capabilities. A VSD is nearly 1/3rd of your total points in Armada, a ISD is going to be nearly half... Yet a SSD with anywhere between 10 and 25 times the firepower of a ISD just can not fit in a 300 point game and be both balanced and accurate.

The game is scaling firepower, too. Wookiepedia gives us 10 quad turbolasers and 40 double turbolasers for the Victory-class, in comparison to 2 double turbolasers and 4 single turbolasers on the CR90. 120 total turbolasers vs 8 is fifteen times as much firepower.

Yet, in-game, the CR90 has 50% the firepower of the Victory-class.

Look at it this way - in terms of game mechanics, an 18-24 inch SSD is going to be a reasonable both in scale and mechanics next to a 5-6 inch Star Destroyer.

The VSD is 5-6 inches, the ISD will be even larger, say 8-10.

I may be stupidly out of whack, but I'm guessing 3-4 inches for the victory, roughly 4-5 dice long:

No scale on that picture: not scale drawings.

Releasing a SSD in a scale to work with Armada brings about the same scale issues we'd have with an ISD in X-Wing.

It would fit just fine at CR-90 size. It's between 7 and 11 ISDs long officially. It's nowhere near the TIE fighter to Star Destroyer gap. That being said, I think FFG are making the Imperial Star Destroyer a monster rather than a ship of the line, so that might make the Executor impractical, which is a shame.