Does the ISD have to be that massive? With the Vic already being approximately 5in, an approximated ISD at 9in would be proportionately accurate but also somewhat unwieldy on the table. Remember the base, with shield dials and arcs of fire, would have the footprint the size of a large hardback book. That much base and such a large model would, even if accurate, spoil some of the immersion to me. I find myself thinking that the ISD just needs to be easily recognizable as bigger than the Vic. Similar to the way the Vic is bigger than the Gladiator. Once it passes the casual eye test, that's enough. Because as goes the ISD, so goes eventual ships of comparable size like Rebel Mon Cal ships. We obviously want ISDs and Mon Cals duking it out. And they need to command the field as the largest ships or at least the typical large ships. But they also need to be manageable. "Excuse me a moment while I bump Home One trying to move a squad of TIEs on the other side of the table." Likewise those mini rectangular bases on the current ships are both functional and innocuous. Imagine multiple bases the size of hardback books on the table ruining the effect, like being able to see strings holding the Death Star up in the movies. I know many people want everything to scale. That's my preference too. But, given how much larger it is, price costs, the need for a table that can be managed easily without fear of knocking over multiple huge models with a complex movement or firing range tool, and how massive the bases would be, I'd be happy with a relative scale ship that was simply larger to the naked eye.

But really, this may have been an excuse to post more images of capital ships on a slow night...

I agree. At this point we know that there will be no 100% accurate scaling I would prefer a relative scaling of around 8-9 inches if the VSD is 5 to 5.5 inches long. It may not look 100% accurate but it looks somewhat realistic and stays within a reasonable price range.

I'm estimating about 7.5-8.5in for the ISD. We already know that the game uses a fairly loose sliding scale, and as long as it has the right visual impact, thats the important thing.

I'd be very happy with 8" (......no comment.....) really.

The ISD is the standard most people think about when they consider Imp cap ships. I'm betting FFG started with the ISD size in mind and adjusted the relative scale of the Victory and the rest of the ships after that.

I think, quite honestly, that people are seriously overestimating the length of the victory class miniatures. The miniatures we saw in the videos from GenCon were *not* 5.5 inches long. More like 4. Big enough to play with, not big enough to seriously skew the required scale of the coming, larger ships. Go back and look.

Which, in turn, means that an Imperial-class is not going to be anywhere close to the size you people are dreaming up. Which is good. It's a game piece. It needs to be *playable* first.

I predict an ISD size of six and a half inches. Seven at the outside. It'll still be plenty big. And when you get to hold it, you'll all mostly go "well, I guess bigger would have been kind of silly."

I don't know why but when I look at this image

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iLalFqaIuy4/U_H2-B4qi4I/AAAAAAAAH3Y/YI7PaZ-wVow/s1600/054.JPGJPG

It seems that the VSD is around the same size as the VT-49 decimator from X wing and that was around 5.5 inches long so I'm thinking that it's around that length. Also when you go to this website

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgameexpansion/168927/star-wars-armada-victory-class-star-destroyer-expa

The box size is too big in my opinion for a 4 inch model. This is one thing I dislike about FFG is that in instances like this they never release the length of there models. Not that it's a big deal it's just nice to know so we have a easier time speculating the size of upcoming models and it saves us the time of guessing the sizes ourselves.

Just looked at the first photo, and I'm actually going to disagree. Taking into account that the decimator is a shelf below the victory, look at the bases for me. The smaller ships bases seem to be double length standard bases from X-wing, and the larger ones are about as long as a medium sized base, just skinnier. It you compare the models relative to the bases with those assumptions, I do think the Victory may be smaller than we've been guessing. I'm okay being wrong if that's not the case, but I'm really not opposed to the idea of a 4-4.5" Victory.

As a side note, I need to stop checking this site and so commenting from my phone, because it takes forever to proof and post a comment, which usually still includes a typo

Yea man FFG would never make a ship 9inches long (shoves CR90 and future Imp Raider under the bed)

Yea man FFG would never make a ship 9inches long (shoves CR90 and future Imp Raider under the bed)

A poor comparison since in X-wing the CR90 and Raider are such that only 1 of each could be fielded in a single game -- and an epic (i.e., not regular) game at that -- where the focus is on the much smaller starfighters. For ships as iconic as the ISDs and Mon Cals, in a game such as armada where you are expected to field multiple capital ships, they need to be functional. Make too big a game piece you expect to have 3+ of on a table and the game becomes awkward. There is a reason why the small base fighters of X-wing and such a size, they're the main pieces. Armada is doing the same thing. It's main pieces need to be likewise manageable. And, while the ISD and MCs are iconic, they're also on the larger end of the scale (like the Falcon in X-wing) since there are many smaller capital ships (see all of wave 1).

I'll double check it sometime when I'm at the FFG event center but I'm 90% sure the Vic isn't nearly as big as the Decimator. I'd say 4" is probably close to right.

Alright, so I did a terrible thing. I used math to solve our problem. Edit: Did math wrong, be right back with real numbers. Feel free to skip the next paragraph if you don't care how I got the numbers in the first place.

Final Edit: Alright, after several hours of other distractions, I reran the numbers taking into account the angle of the box... I now feel like a newb. Anyway numbers didn't change much (~5.3" the first time), but since this is my second time typing this explanation it's not going to be as fancy as it was the first time, which anyone reading after this will not be able to see anyway. I took the picture given in the link by jrmus mrawn at board game geek, and used our known dimension of the box height (7.25"), got the angle of the line that passed through the bow and the stern of the VSD, used that to get the length of the line I found using some good old fashioned trigonometry, then used gimp to measure that line and the length of the VSD in pixels, then used the ratio I got from those two measurements applied to the actual length of the first line and arrived at the following conclusion:

The VSD is roughly 5.5" long.

This proves my earlier post... well blatantly wrong actually. Well said all of you who tried in vain to convince me that the VSD was actually 5-5.5".

With that now (fairly) well settled, we can get back to debating the reasonable size for the ISD and how we feel about those conclusions proportionate to the VSD.

Unless of course, that box image is computer generated in the first place...

Alright, so I did a terrible thing. I used math to solve our problem. Edit: Did math wrong, be right back with real numbers. Feel free to skip the next paragraph if you don't care how I got the numbers in the first place.

Final Edit: Alright, after several hours of other distractions, I reran the numbers taking into account the angle of the box... I now feel like a newb. Anyway numbers didn't change much (~5.3" the first time), but since this is my second time typing this explanation it's not going to be as fancy as it was the first time, which anyone reading after this will not be able to see anyway. I took the picture given in the link by jrmus mrawn at board game geek, and used our known dimension of the box height (7.25"), got the angle of the line that passed through the bow and the stern of the VSD, used that to get the length of the line I found using some good old fashioned trigonometry, then used gimp to measure that line and the length of the VSD in pixels, then used the ratio I got from those two measurements applied to the actual length of the first line and arrived at the following conclusion:

The VSD is roughly 5.5" long.

This proves my earlier post... well blatantly wrong actually. Well said all of you who tried in vain to convince me that the VSD was actually 5-5.5".

With that now (fairly) well settled, we can get back to debating the reasonable size for the ISD and how we feel about those conclusions proportionate to the VSD.

Unless of course, that box image is computer generated in the first place...

Nice job. At least it's entertaining even if it's off a bit.

Didn't anyone at Team Covenant measure the VSD at GenCon?

Yea man FFG would never make a ship 9inches long (shoves CR90 and future Imp Raider under the bed)

A poor comparison since in X-wing the CR90 and Raider are such that only 1 of each could be fielded in a single game -- and an epic (i.e., not regular) game at that -- where the focus is on the much smaller starfighters. For ships as iconic as the ISDs and Mon Cals, in a game such as armada where you are expected to field multiple capital ships, they need to be functional. Make too big a game piece you expect to have 3+ of on a table and the game becomes awkward. There is a reason why the small base fighters of X-wing and such a size, they're the main pieces. Armada is doing the same thing. It's main pieces need to be likewise manageable. And, while the ISD and MCs are iconic, they're also on the larger end of the scale (like the Falcon in X-wing) since there are many smaller capital ships (see all of wave 1).

Something you might be missing is the board is a 6'x3' so lots more room than X-wing, and if my cost prediction is accurate the most in a standard game you would see is 4 (2 per side in a mirror match) or maybe not even that, maybe 1 ISD and a VSD will be the most you can field. Of course if both sides are fielding max ISDs then neither side will have lots of fighters/picket ships so it hardly would be a cluttered/awkward table

For ships as iconic as the ISDs and Mon Cals, in a game such as armada where you are expected to field multiple capital ships, they need to be functional. Make too big a game piece you expect to have 3+ of on a table and the game becomes awkward.

You'll never fit 3+ ISD's in a standard game. You can barely fit 3 VSD's in a standard game, so you are realistically looking at 1 ISD in a list.

Alright, so I did a terrible thing. I used math to solve our problem. Edit: Did math wrong, be right back with real numbers. Feel free to skip the next paragraph if you don't care how I got the numbers in the first place.

Final Edit: Alright, after several hours of other distractions, I reran the numbers taking into account the angle of the box... I now feel like a newb. Anyway numbers didn't change much (~5.3" the first time), but since this is my second time typing this explanation it's not going to be as fancy as it was the first time, which anyone reading after this will not be able to see anyway. I took the picture given in the link by jrmus mrawn at board game geek, and used our known dimension of the box height (7.25"), got the angle of the line that passed through the bow and the stern of the VSD, used that to get the length of the line I found using some good old fashioned trigonometry, then used gimp to measure that line and the length of the VSD in pixels, then used the ratio I got from those two measurements applied to the actual length of the first line and arrived at the following conclusion:

The VSD is roughly 5.5" long.

This proves my earlier post... well blatantly wrong actually. Well said all of you who tried in vain to convince me that the VSD was actually 5-5.5".

With that now (fairly) well settled, we can get back to debating the reasonable size for the ISD and how we feel about those conclusions proportionate to the VSD.

Unless of course, that box image is computer generated in the first place...

I feel your pain

Went through a similar process -- myself -- about a week ago. Only to discover that we had a source who saw the thing at GenCon. Reported length: 5.5"

At least it was a "fun" exercise...

If that source was me, it was actually 5", MAYBE 5.5", but my usual caveat is that I didnt see it up close or get my hands on it. So....yeah

Addressing the original question: Does it need to be that massive, I would like to suggest yes, it does. Other wise, what's the point?

By that, I mean isn't part of the fascination with Star Wars fleets the size of the ships, such as the opening from A New Hope? Part of the fascination with Star Wars is the cinima (the appearence) of the battle. The small Rebellion ships facing off with a monolithic foe. This relative scale stuff ruins this. At least for me. It didnt stop me from buying in. Im just sub-ing other models to get a solid scale.

I know part of the concern is the points value and the size of the table. I just don't understnad the concern over this. Its not like FFG is going to send out Federal Agents to arrest someone for having an 8x8 table or playing 1500 pts for instance. Im looking forward to puting an ISD with a couple VSD escorts fighting some MC80s. I want to fight and Armada, not a squadron.

I'm going to take punt that the base sizes of the larger vessels are likely to be standardised. An ISD may not need a massive base just because it's bigger than other ships. The model just needs to be supported properly. It still needs to be a large model, or it will look wrong.

I'm looking forward to putting an ISD with a couple VSD escorts fighting some MC80s. I want to fight an Armada, not a squadron.

And this ^^ is what the game is all about. Fleet sized battles, not just a ship or two each side.

Yea man FFG would never make a ship 9inches long (shoves CR90 and future Imp Raider under the bed)

A poor comparison since in X-wing the CR90 and Raider are such that only 1 of each could be fielded in a single game -- and an epic (i.e., not regular) game at that -- where the focus is on the much smaller starfighters. For ships as iconic as the ISDs and Mon Cals, in a game such as armada where you are expected to field multiple capital ships, they need to be functional. Make too big a game piece you expect to have 3+ of on a table and the game becomes awkward. There is a reason why the small base fighters of X-wing and such a size, they're the main pieces. Armada is doing the same thing. It's main pieces need to be likewise manageable. And, while the ISD and MCs are iconic, they're also on the larger end of the scale (like the Falcon in X-wing) since there are many smaller capital ships (see all of wave 1).

Amazing comparison if you pay attention to the info posts about the game. Standard table size for armada is twice the length of a standard x wing game and the games are 300 points so you wont see 3 imperial star destroyers on the table, maybe 2 and since the table is twice as long TADA. Epic games ca be played on much bigger tables.

They've established a table size and point value for the games, but is that going to be for a competition format? Most games of X-wing I've played have exceeded the 100 points, and we invariably play on much larger tables. Our usual gaming tables are 8'x4' and we use most of that for a larger game. I can't see Armada's table size and points restrictions being something that's set in stone, and strictly adhered to.

Does the ISD have to be that massive?

No. The actual gameplay is much more important to me than the physical size of the miniatures. There are just some very vocal people on this forum who seem to forget that it's not just the size, it's what you do with it.

Does the ISD have to be that massive?

No. The actual gameplay is much more important to me than the physical size of the miniatures. There are just some very vocal people on this forum who seem to forget that it's not just the size, it's what you do with it.

I know I'm in the minority here and that's fine. Not everyone here is a modeler, a naval historian, or has spent years studying WWII naval tactics. But some are. I've just waited a long time for a game like this and want it to be the best it can be. Not just in game play, but visually. For me, the cinama of the gaming table is a big part of the joy of the game.

No what? I'm confused as to what you're saying "no" to in your opening.

He is saying that no, he disagrees with you - to him the massive scale is important