Wjgo, a corelian corvette has 6 guns and throws 3 dice. An ISD has hundreds of guns yet only throws 8 dice. I dont hear people complaining that the ISD is underpowered.

I can tolerate one sort of silliness. And actually, I think the corvette should be tossed. It was rediculous to even include it. I guess is was X-Wing Corvette "epicness" that they thought a corvette needed to be in this game also. That is a terrible excuse and a poor basis to justify a SSD. I think the corvette should go to.

http://m.imgur.com/UiFxz8V

Thread solved

http://m.imgur.com/UiFxz8V

Thread solved

HOLY JEDI JELLYBEANS!

(envy)

Wjgo, a corelian corvette has 6 guns and throws 3 dice. An ISD has hundreds of guns yet only throws 8 dice. I dont hear people complaining that the ISD is underpowered.

I can tolerate one sort of silliness. And actually, I think the corvette should be tossed. It was rediculous to even include it. I guess is was X-Wing Corvette "epicness" that they thought a corvette needed to be in this game also. That is a terrible excuse and a poor basis to justify a SSD. I think the corvette should go to.

Regardless of what you think about the corvette its not a terrible excuse. Its shows how FFG i approaching the scale of the game. The corvette doesnt need to be a half and inch long, it just has to be the smallest. The SSD doesnt have to be 100 ft long, it just has to be the biggest.

Wjgo, a corelian corvette has 6 guns and throws 3 dice. An ISD has hundreds of guns yet only throws 8 dice. I dont hear people complaining that the ISD is underpowered.

A SSD diesnt need to throw a hundred dice in order to stick to the relative scale. It just needs to throw more dice than any other ship. How much more is debateable, but im the only one giving any reasonable figures...

Thalomen:

Why do the rebels need a counterpart extremely huge ship? They dont need something like it because it doesnt fit the lore.

As for how they fight it. All that takes it good play testing and balance. It would certainly cost a big chunck of points, and would be a "all your eggs in one basket" ship. For its cost the rebels could get X ships and outnumber it. Also, its anti fighter armament should be to good. Maybe just 2 dice. Then any fighter, especially bombers, would be quite effective.

The size of the modelcan still be worked around. Different movement rules could help solve the problem of it ramming to many ships, it would be up to the other player to keep his ships from ramming into it.

As for shelf space...i dont know about your FLGS but the ones around here seem to have space where you could put a 2ft model. It would be big, but it could work and wouldnt have to displace other product. Plus i know in the places nearby there are 10 year old metal GW models on the wall that nobody has bought, or will ever buy. They could go.

For your third point, i think, again, this is where balanced point costs come in to play. If you took the SSD and more fighters, you wouldnt have room for much else, so the rebels would outnumber you

Edit: id like the jury to know that i have always been against the ISD in x wing. This is hardly the same argument

The reason I would think the Rebels would need an equivilant ship is so that they do not have to bust thier wallets buying models to equal the points of an SSD.

Norse,

Good points. I can see those things as you explain them. I'm still not sure I want to see an Executor, but I can certainly see another SSD being built under the guidlines you describe.

Bottom line is that I think no Executor FFG ever makes will make everyone happy. This thread proves it. I do think an SSD could be created though. It just remains to be seen how. We will see.

even if the SSD cost 500 points, Im sure that if you bought every rebel expansion from wave 1 and 2 you could build a 500 point fleet

And for a miniature wargame, armada is on the cheaper side of things IMO as a gw vet.

even if the SSD cost 500 points, Im sure that if you bought every rebel expansion from wave 1 and 2 you could build a 500 point fleet

And for a miniature wargame, armada is on the cheaper side of things IMO as a gw vet.

Ok, so the SSD cost 500. What about all the other Imperial ships on the table. In an "epic Armada" game what would the points top out at? A 750 seems reasonable if an SSD is 500. Still seems a lot for the Rebel players unless they have a bunch of MC80s or something.

And GW... Yeah.... Those people need repeated beatings until they are fit to rejoin humanity.

Think about the points some more. Lets say the SSD costs 2/3 of the totsl, so 500 out of 750. Then you add upgrades, and a commander, plus fighters (which will be less than 1/3 of your fighter allowance becuase you need to buy a commander). Youll barely have enough for another ship. The vic costs 75ish right? You could then have 2, may three ships and a smaller amount of fighters. The rebels, for 750 points could have exactly 1/3 fighters, and much more than 4 or 5 ships.

http://m.imgur.com/UiFxz8V

Thread solved

I just keep staring at that and thinking how much I want it.

Am I terrible person by seeing that Lego SSD as working on the table? It needs to be kind of smaller, but I can see it being possible from FFG....

Edit: id like the jury to know that i have always been against the ISD in x wing. This is hardly the same argument

Yes it is. You could change SSD to ISD, 19km to 1600m and post it in the X-Wing forms and no one would notice a difference in the core arguments being made.

No, it isn't.

When you jam an ISD into X-Wing the result is one of two things. Either you compromise with a playable piece that might as well be another kind of ship (ie, the Raider). Or you are forced to create a scenario around the massive miniature, because an Imperial is so above the scale of a CR-90 that it really requires a seperate game to track capital vs capital battles (like... Armada).

When it comes down to it why are you jamming an Imperial into X-Wing? To do so means you're looking for a specialized objective scenario, because if you want to Fight CR-90s with Star Destroyers, you play Armada. The bookkeeping, time, tracking, and effort for controlling an Imperial is honestly contrary to the spirit of X-Wing (which you must remember is being a fast-paced dogfighter). Scenarios are the only justifiable reason to bring in something so huge that you need an entire play-space to use it with, and homebrewed tools to make it operate with any satisfaction to fight those zippy starfighters.

So let's turn around and consider this with Armada.

Is the Executor so big it outclasses other capital ships worse than corvettes do with snubfighters? I don't think so. The Executor is big but it's just another capital ship... only bigger. It will have a bigger base size, probably a specialized maneuver tool, and modified rules from the standard, but when it comes down to it Armada is a game about Capital Ships. The Executor is a Capital ship.

I keep saying that the X-Wing/ISD analogy isn't the Super Star Destroyer, but the Death Star (and other similar Battle moons, like the Torpedo Sphere). Like ISDs in X-Wing, their inclusion will either result in a compromise (to form a new class) or a scenario focused exclusively on them that will require special rules to operate.

And I think that's where the community is divided because everyone has opinions on where that line is drawn. Citing scales and graphs some think that to portray the Super Star Destroyer effectively it MUST be big, even in reduced scale, in order for its effects to be felt. Others feel that as long as the base size is visibly larger than every other ship in the game, it can be possible with special rules and compromising the firepower described in the EU.

I feel the answer here is to create a new class exclusive to a special mode of play to represent these monstrous ships, like Epic play, and that is likely what FFG will be forced to do if and when they decide to include the Executor. Personally I feel the draw is too great for FFG to consider passing on the Executor in some form. Unlike ISDs in X-Wing, the Executor does not feel out of place next to other capital ships (again, being a capital ship itself). So the Executor in Armada doesn't feel as forced idealistically as ISDs do in X-Wing.

And that is why I feel the scale argument is not the same.

Wow, so much rantage since my last glance into here.

Just my 2 cents

The pro SSD crowd would win a few points in their favour if they supported the 8.2km length scale of the Executor. Still outrageous but much more feasible than 19km. Hell they have shrunk Home One down from 3.7km

I was a PRO SSD guy, but I'm willing to budge. After playing the game a bunch I actually don't want a 2 foot (or longer) long ship taking up the whole board. The game is actually really really good the way it is, and I'd rather see more ships in it's current scale.

HOWEVER I think it could be possible to create a SSD if it were more of an objective based thing. Essentially it would have to take up an entire side of the board, so at least 3 feet, and it'd be stationary. For the mission it woudl have to be (mostly)disabled, and the rebel fleet is trying to finish it off, while the Imperials are trying to save it. The rebels have basically 6 turns to finish it off, or they lose. Something like that could work, but it won't happen because you're looking at a 200 dollar model for a single scenario - and the model would essentially be a paperweight. Things like that tend to be better for home-made custom scenarios rather than official FFG product.

Either you compromise with a playable piece that might as well be another kind of ship (ie, the Raider). Or you are forced to create a scenario around the massive miniature

Which is the same thing that's happening here with the SSD. Either it's shrunk down to the point it's no longer really a SSD and you have to come up with special rules to make it work. Exactly like what people were trying to do with ISD's in X-Wing.

Is the Executor so big it outclasses other capital ships worse than corvettes do with snubfighters? I don't think so. The Executor is big but it's just another capital ship... only bigger.

Well you're welcome to your opinion, but I disagree, to me it is pretty much the same thing. It outclasses a CR-90 as much if not more than a ISD does a X-Wing.

And I think that's where the community is divided because everyone has opinions on where that line is drawn.

The reason the community is divided is once again the same reason we were on the ISD issue. Because some people are willing to accept a SSD scaled down enough in size and firepower to make it fit, and others aren't. Either way it's pure opinion, and not something that can reasonably be debated, anymore then you can debate why olives are good on pizza.

The prevailing Pro SSD logic is that a SSD of X size and Y Firepower would be good enough. In theory I agree, but the debate becomes how big X and Y is, and if I'm willing to accept that value or not, and still have it fit into Armada.

For example... Assuming a 8 inch ISD. Would anyone accept a 8.5 inch SSD? One that has 9 dice on it's front arc? We have a ship that is both bigger and more powerful than a ISD, but how many people would say that's good enough? I can't see anyone saying that myself.

On the other end, we could have a 6 foot SSD that throws 50 dice. But here we run into the issue that it's simply too big (and expensive) with way too much firepower.

So the question is, how large X (size) and Y (firepower) should be, while still having the correct feel to match the fluff, and yet can fit into the game. In X-Wing it was the same problem, and the answer was that it could not be done. You couldn't make a ISD fit into X-Wing.

Given the fact that a SSD is to a ISD what a ISD is to a X-Wing, I think the answer here will be the same. But I do think that it's at least in theory possible to fit one.

I don't understand why people keep going back to this "scaled down" SSD talking point. Everything in the game has been scaled down. An ISD has dozens of tie squadrons available to it, and that's not represented in the game, you have to spend points for your fighters. The Mon Cal's shields have been scaled down. So yes, the SSD, regardless of its final in-game size, will be nerfed to accommodate the existing scale of the game. It's not a valid argument against the SSD.

I'm on the fence with this.

If FFG can fit the SSD into Armada so that it is playable and fun to play then I'm OK with it.

If FFG can't fit the SSD into Armada so that it is playble and fun to play then I'm against it and I'm OK with that.

It's not a valid argument against the SSD.

Yes it is. Because the question isn't if it will get scaled down, the question is how much it will be scaled down and if that is too much to really fit what a SSD should be. A "SSD" that's 8.5 inches long and throws 9 dice, is not really a SSD, it's a slightly larger ISD.

Frankly I don't see how this can even be a question, unless you haven't actually bothered to read any of the posts in this and other threads on the same subject.

Anyone emailed ffg to see if they are even considering adding the ssd?

It's not a valid argument against the SSD.

Yes it is. Because the question isn't if it will get scaled down, the question is how much it will be scaled down and if that is too much to really fit what a SSD should be. A "SSD" that's 8.5 inches long and throws 9 dice, is not really a SSD, it's a slightly larger ISD.Frankly I don't see how this can even be a question, unless you haven't actually bothered to read any of the posts in this and other threads on the same subject.

When it comes to the scaling of the game coupled with the suspension of disbelief, yes, in reality the SSD will be a larger ISD. When everything is boiled down, the effectiveness of the ships are the probability it has to score hits, the capability it has to absorb hits, and the various augmentations it can support, within this system and SSD can be boiled down to support it.

If the current tournament rules are any indication, FFG shows a willingness to alter the scaling of the game to accommodate future waves. I'm sorry, but no the scaling issue isn't a valid argument. When wallets and demand are involved, there is a way.

I'm sorry, but no the scaling issue isn't a valid argument. When wallets and demand are involved, there is a way.

If I had a dime for every time someone said that about the ISD in X-Wing I would have enough to pay for wave 1 and 2.

FFG's willingness to alter scale doesn't mean that the SSD is suitable to the game. Because for some people the amount you have to scale it down is not acceptable.

So unless you're going to really try and argue that peoples opinion is somehow invalid, then your whole point falls apart. Just because you're willing to accept something doesn't mean everyone else will. For those people scaling is a valid argument, because in both cases it is an argument based on opinion and what they're willing to accept.

Based on the fact that there is no ISD for X-Wing despite the number of people who said they wanted one, there is clearly a limit on how far FFG will scale something down.

IMO the amount you have to scale it down is too far. So again, unless you're going to say my opinion is wrong, then it is very much a valid argument on why they shouldn't include one.

But please don't bother with the nonsense about how I don't have to buy it. Because it's well established that FFG likes to include upgrades that are useful for other ships in pretty much every expansion.

None of the game stats are 100% accurate representations of the "real thing". And what is the "real thing"? The movies, comics, and books sometimes contradict each other. There are inconsistencies in the movies themselves.

All of the setting and story information in the world can be considered (and most of it probably is), but at some point somebody has to draw a line and say, "Well, this is how it is going to work in the game". This is where compromises are made, like how ion guns and missiles are represented. Is there really only room for two squads of crew on a VSD? Of course not, but those crew slots are an abstract representation of the Victory's abilities in order to make a balanced and fun game piece for a plastic toy space ship game.

None of the game stats are 100% accurate representations of the "real thing".

Is anyone arguing otherwise? If so they may need to check with a Doctor about separating Reality from Fantasy.

Everyone accepts that a X-Wing throws 3 dice, even though it has 4 guns on it. The same goes here, no one expects a ISD to throw 1 die per gun.

But none of that is an argument for why a SSD should be included, because it's a question of how much nerfing people are willing to accept to get one into the game.

Some people are willing to accept X amount, others are only willing to accept Y amount. X would be in general how ever much it takes to get it into the game. Y on the other hand is some value that is the limit someone is willing to accept, and if Y won't work in Armada then they would rather see the ship not included.

This is all a matter of opinion and perspective, it is not something that can reasonably be debated unless you're so egotistical as to believe you can tell me my opinion isn't valid.

The thing is, that if they were to make a SSD then everyone has to accept it as it is. There really isn't an option to just ignore it. Because I may have to play against it, and I most certainly would want upgrades that come with it. So if they do make one, then I'm stuck spending perhaps $200 on something I don't really want.

It is a matter of opinion, I recognize that and you don't need to get insulting about it. The thing is, the viewpoint that the SSD will never fit in Armada has been made abundantly clear at this point. There's really nothing more to say about it, because it is a matter of opinion.

I don't want to stifle free speech, but what else is there to discuss if you don't think it will ever work? I am seriously asking, because it seems like a dead-end conversation. If you say, "I don't think it will work, that's my personal opinion, I have read the ideas and my opinion has not changed, nor do I expect it to." Whelp, ok. I guess the conversation is over. For you .

For the people that think the SSD could work, though, there is still productive discussion to be had. We have put forth numerous ideas about movement, firing arcs, hull zones, dice, bases, etc.

this has undoubtedly come up in the past 19 pages, but just to be sure

just imagine shipping that monster

(also inb4 thread about the Eclipse )

I don't understand why people keep going back to this "scaled down" SSD talking point. Everything in the game has been scaled down. An ISD has dozens of tie squadrons available to it, and that's not represented in the game, you have to spend points for your fighters. The Mon Cal's shields have been scaled down. So yes, the SSD, regardless of its final in-game size, will be nerfed to accommodate the existing scale of the game. It's not a valid argument against the SSD.

The standard compliment of Tie Squadrons on an ISD is 6. Not dozens.

The thing is, that if they were to make a SSD then everyone has to accept it as it is. There really isn't an option to just ignore it. Because I may have to play against it, and I most certainly would want upgrades that come with it. So if they do make one, then I'm stuck spending perhaps $200 on something I don't really want.

This is why us non-SSDers are so passionate about this issue. If there is no SSD to be released, the pro-SSDers are not going to rage quit and stop playing. If Wave 1 or 2 had a pseudo-SSD (lets face it, that's what it will be), my pre-order would be canceled the same day. Its the same reason I don't have a bunch of Attack Wing ships, among others (I love ST). I can deal with a sliding scale. I can't deal with a scale that slides off a cliff.

I wish FFG would just say whether or not they are going to do an SSD....

You can get your SSD in a game already anyway