I don't have a problem with this. We all knew scale wasn't going to be adhered to slavishly from the beginning, so all I'm looking for is a fun game with recognizable game pieces. I would recognize that as a representation of a SSD, and I'd mentally adjust the scale in my head (my visual cue would be comparing the bridge towers and seeing them as approximately the same size), just like I have to do with a Corellian Corvette and a Star Destroyer.

But, do you just want a model of the ship, or do you want a playable game? Putting the model on the board is one thing, then it have to be made into a playable piece is another step altogether. Damage, speed, firing arcs, defense, squadrons must be all accounted for. Is it still a SSD? How does one scale what would be a 800-1000 point ship down to a 300 point ship - and still be a SSD?

It would not have any movement in 6 rounds, and zero turning. Where you deploy it - it stays. It would have one firing arc - 360 degrees. It would take 15-20 rounds of max damage from all capital ships to just damage it. Everything on the board would be in close or medium range when the game begins, and enough damage that every turn would involve at least one critical roll and another dozen damage points. The ship can just stay there (it can't move anyway) then it would have an activation for all of the players squadrons and can just wait until the Rebel alliance is in range to activate and launch squadron attacks (if there are any points left even for a TIE fighter).

I have an idea... rather than this back-and-forth of "Yes!" "No!", why not try to make something productive out of this thread and speculate, if there is going to be a Super Star Destroyer, what would it look like? How would it work?

Anti SSD fans, we (at least I) hear you and understand your argument. But is this thread just going to be nothing but the naysayers shooting down ideas from the yea-sayers? That's what it seems to be for about twelve pages. The sheer size of the SSD being too big for this scale is understandable, nevertheless, I feel it's worth speculating on to make one. After all fan-made Imperial Star Destroyers showed their heads in X-Wing in spite of the scale argument.

Pro SSD guys, what do you see the Super Star Destroyer being and doing while it's on the table? Let's have some ideas for the critics to chew on because attacking the very concept isn't getting us anywhere. Let's make this SSD thread about what we in the community think a Super Star Destroyer will look like.

I would love to see a SSD in Armada. I just think the Executor class is just Too Much ship for Armada. (I know that is saying a lot.) I think a smaller class SSD would be great and doable.

It just seems when this idea gets brought up it gets shoot down with "It has to be the Executor, why else would they do it?" (That is not the exact words but really really **** close to it.)

The pro-Executor class posters (let's call them) want us to except a ship that would have to be reduced >70% to the ISD that has already been reduced in scale. (Though not 70%)

So I ask why not have another super awesome SSD instead of the Executor class just like X-Wing got the Raider instead of the ISD or even the Victory class? I think that is a fair middle ground.

I'm not behind the Executor because "It's the Executor!", I just think that there's a logical argument for it's visibility and popularity that makes it pass over smaller craft like the Praetor. Believe me, my first choice is the Praetor II in part because that's another awesome EU ship that has low visibility for being passed over by more popular designs (as the list of named SSD grows longer...).

Anyway to be productive, regardless of the final ship, I think it's worth mulling over the special kinds of rules that would go into governing these star dreadnoughts. If one turns up to be the executor, or not, both of them are going to be exceptional playing pieces that have rules seperating them from the rest of the flock. What can they be?

I like the idea of specialized command dials adding a fifth command for a Dreadnought But I don't know what that command could be... maybe some inter-communications to let one side use abilities of the other? Or perhaps a new kind of command related only to its flagship abilities? I think sectional damage is also a thing since it works for Huge X-Wing ships. Not sure if specialized damage decks would be as fun of an idea, but I can see a rule saying if the back end of the ship is disabled then it cannot move.

There's one that looks exactly like the ISD, just bigger. I don't think that one should be made because the miniatures should be visually distinct, which is hard enough with Star Destroyers already. Yes, I still think that FFG is capable of making the Executor balanced and of an appropriate size for a logarithmic scale , but I'd be down with whatever ships as long as they're cool

In Empire at War, the SSD could launch a squadron of TIEs as an in-game ability. Could a similar ability work in Armada on these big ships? Perhaps there could be a Carrier rule - X squadrons that must remain within distance 1 of their carrier, but they get to move and fire every turn.

In general, I think giving the huge ships powers or abilities outside of just "more guns, more armor" will make them easier to balance.

also would someone with some photoshop skillz try to do some scale comparisons against current armada models to give everyone a better idea of what this stuff would look like.

Lolz, it just looks so bad. Cant even see the bridge at all I had to shrink it down so much.

I dunno, you see how much the ISD hangs out over the base? The base might be small, but I'd expect the model to have a lot more overhang than that!

Hopefully also being tall enough for the smaller ships to fit underneath...

Yak, I still have to disagree. Cartoonishly out of scale is putting a beach ball of a Death Star on the table and calling it a playing piece. Saying the Executor would be something like what, two and a half foot long model? wouldn't. It's still larger than the Imperial at that point and the base would be smaller than the model. It wouldn't be any more ridiculous than an inflated CR-90 next to an Imperial... which is kind of the case now.

76cm long SSD is going to be too long for a gaming mat.

It would be taking up most of the length of the mat, and couldn't turn or be able to move without colliding with other ships on the map

A gaming Mat is 3' long by 6' wide it simply would be too big for it.

So the other option is to severely under scale the SSD making it completely underwhelming and pointless.

This is what you are looking at if FFG make a useable SSD

Both of the pictures here make a good point towards the argument. I do hope we'll see a SSD in the game though. I mean, I understand the people who say the SSD is simply too large. It is absolutely huge so I totally get it.

I would also love to have a huge ship, even bigger than X-Wing's Tantive, simply for the beauty of the thing. I mean this games draw is Star Destroyers right? Only 2 types of Star Destroyers ever appeared in the original trilogy, and the SSD is one of them. So there is plenty of reason to shrink it down to somehow fit on the table.

Hello all,

Been following since my last post - I'm pretty much on the fence on the issue. Star Wars and it's awesome designs (especially ships) left such a impression on my childhood mind that is probably mostly responsible for the career field I pursued as an adult - 3d art. I'd would so love to see the Executor as a miniature model but I'm not entirely sure if it would be feasible. So, I mocked up some 3d renders using some of the numbers being thrown around in the thread so I could visually see how it looks at various lengths compared to the ISD and wanted to share it.

I used Fractalsponge's 3d models from scifi3d, they were by far the highest detailed of the ones I found. I know there is some debate about the size of the ISD model, so just for simplicity I went with 8 inches. I scaled the ISD to 1,600m and the SSD to 19,000 m. The scaled down SSD variations are just 2x and 3x the size of the ISD. All my math is derived from there.

You can see just how massive a SSD at the appropriate scale would be. It's insane! It would go off both ends of a 6x3 table at that length. Next, I took a closer look at the ISD and the 2x, 3x SSD variations. To me, the 2x SSD looks too small - the ISD as MaverickNZ pointed out is wider than a SSD at that size. It looks wrong too me, I feel like the SSD should be larger in all aspects including width.

To me the 3x SSD looks the most appropriate. It's larger in all aspects while still being significantly down-sized. It just feels more like the Executor to me. So I took the 3x SSD and put it on a 6x3 playmat with a fleet of escort ISDs.

Length wise, there's not too much of an issue. You'll be pretty limited turning, but it's sort of fitting for a ship that size. Ships caught on one side of it will be stuck there until it can clear it, but that's not all that much different from huge ships in X-Wing. The real issue comes up when you look at how the SSD would fit width wise. You can really see how the 24 inch (60.9 cm for my metric guys and gals) SSD is really too big for that kind of orientation.

Again, I'd like to see it, but it's tough to definitively say that it could fit in the game.

Hello all,

Been following since my last post - I'm pretty much on the fence on the issue. Star Wars and it's awesome designs (especially ships) left such a impression on my childhood mind that is probably mostly responsible for the career field I pursued as an adult - 3d art. I'd would so love to see the Executor as a miniature model but I'm not entirely sure if it would be feasible. So, I mocked up some 3d renders using some of the numbers being thrown around in the thread so I could visually see how it looks at various lengths compared to the ISD and wanted to share it.

I used Fractalsponge's 3d models from scifi3d, they were by far the highest detailed of the ones I found. I know there is some debate about the size of the ISD model, so just for simplicity I went with 8 inches. I scaled the ISD to 1,600m and the SSD to 19,000 m. The scaled down SSD variations are just 2x and 3x the size of the ISD. All my math is derived from there.

You can see just how massive a SSD at the appropriate scale would be. It's insane! It would go off both ends of a 6x3 table at that length. Next, I took a closer look at the ISD and the 2x, 3x SSD variations. To me, the 2x SSD looks too small - the ISD as MaverickNZ pointed out is wider than a SSD at that size. It looks wrong too me, I feel like the SSD should be larger in all aspects including width.

To me the 3x SSD looks the most appropriate. It's larger in all aspects while still being significantly down-sized. It just feels more like the Executor to me. So I took the 3x SSD and put it on a 6x3 playmat with a fleet of escort ISDs.

Length wise, there's not too much of an issue. You'll be pretty limited turning, but it's sort of fitting for a ship that size. Ships caught on one side of it will be stuck there until it can clear it, but that's not all that much different from huge ships in X-Wing. The real issue comes up when you look at how the SSD would fit width wise. You can really see how the 24 inch (60.9 cm for my metric guys and gals) SSD is really too big for that kind of orientation.

Again, I'd like to see it, but it's tough to definitively say that it could fit in the game.

Great post Jonnyboy0121!

That is a fantastic diagram of the ship scaling!

Yeah this is my is my biggest problem with the idea of a playable SSD being that it would be a great difficulty to play on the standard mat layout without being too under scaled.

I would be really interested if you could be able to do EU ships in a similar diagram if you had the time.

Here's some Top down views of some EU ships you could implement into your Diagram

Praetor class battlecruiser - 4km

Allegiance class battlecruiser - 2.2km

I don't believe people really are set on getting an Executor SSD just because its the only SSD in the movies.

If Armada has proven anything its that people are happy enough to pick up the core set even when it doesn't have a ISD

Ok, as the starter of this post I have a confession to make: I did not expect this post to be so popular. I made it so the SSD discussion could come and eventually fizzle out here. That has not been the case.

Up till now I have not believed that FFG would build a Super Star Destroyer, BUT they just released this little teaser advertisement. Please note what most of the dialog relates to...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja2bb9iKFjk

Ok, as the starter of this post I have a confession to make: I did not expect this post to be so popular. I made it so the SSD discussion could come and eventually fizzle out here. That has not been the case.

Up till now I have not believed that FFG would build a Super Star Destroyer, BUT they just released this little teaser advertisement. Please note what most of the dialog relates to...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja2bb9iKFjk

That's not a confirmation.

They just reused dialouge from the films it isn't a indication they will bring in a SSD.

I heard some Dialogue that was from General Veers who was in a AT-AT in Empire Strikes Back

Ok, as the starter of this post I have a confession to make: I did not expect this post to be so popular. I made it so the SSD discussion could come and eventually fizzle out here. That has not been the case.

Up till now I have not believed that FFG would build a Super Star Destroyer, BUT they just released this little teaser advertisement. Please note what most of the dialog relates to...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja2bb9iKFjk

I wouldnt read anything into it - "Star Wars" didnt have any capital ship combat (aside from the opening scene) to use audio from, and in ESB and ROTJ, most of the characters we see on capital ships in any form of combat were on the Executor - where else could they possibly get recognisable "star wars" movie audio quotes from?

Edit: yes, the first quote was from General Veers blowing up the shield generator on Hoth in an AT-AT.

I would be really interested if you could be able to do EU ships in a similar diagram if you had the time.

Sure do! I used the high resolution images from Fractalsponge's website and stuck them in here. All credit goes to him for his high quality work.

So they are to 1:1 scaled compared to the ISD which just for arguments sake I said was 8 inches. The Praetor falls into the same pitfall of being a little too large, length as well as width. But it could use a sliding scale to fit it in even better. The Allegiance class as it is I would say is pretty feasible at only a couple of inches larger than the ISD. The question I'd ask for it though is, "is it different enough to be included?".

I would be really interested if you could be able to do EU ships in a similar diagram if you had the time.

Sure do! I used the high resolution images from Fractalsponge's website and stuck them in here. All credit goes to him for his high quality work.

So they are to 1:1 scaled compared to the ISD which just for arguments sake I said was 8 inches. The Praetor falls into the same pitfall of being a little too large, length as well as width. But it could use a sliding scale to fit it in even better. The Allegiance class as it is I would say is pretty feasible at only a couple of inches larger than the ISD. The question I'd ask for it though is, "is it different enough to be included?".

That's great!

Thanks for that. It gives us a good idea what ship can be useable for the game.

Yeah I have to agree that the Praetor is still too big, but it could be possible to scale it down a bit like you said.

I feel the Allegiance while looking very similar to a ISD is at a good scale to be playable without scaling it down.

As I've mentioned in a previous post the Allegiance would allow for the Rebels to get a similar sized ship on the field like the Bulwark Mark III

Bulwark Mark III - 2.5km

Unfortunately I couldn't find a top down view of this ship.

What we also have to look at when it comes to these big ships is the cost to make and sell them.

I have a feeling FFG would prefer ships don't exceed the size of the X wing Tantive IV model.

Unfortunately I couldn't find a top down view of this ship.

I'll take a look around, sometimes Empire at War mods have EU ships modeled out and I can probably figure out a way to rip those models.

I have a feeling FFG would prefer ships don't exceed the size of the X wing Tantive IV model.

I think you're right there too. Looking at the Raider I wished it was a couple of inches larger than the Tantive IV model, even if the stats were similiar, just to reinforce that theme that the Rebels are the scrappy, ill-equiped, underdogs. It seems like FFG is hesitant to introduce ships larger than that, I'm sure, for good reasons.

Jonnyboy,i really like your SSD diagram. But i do think that 24" is to much. What about one that was 20"? Somewhere of a 2.5 in your scaling?

I think ne thing we can all agree n is, everything becomes awesome when it starts with "super".

FALSE!!

(It becomes super not awesome, other wise it would be an awesome star destroyer)

FALSE!!

(It becomes super not awesome, other wise it would be an awesome star destroyer)

Well played

I took the image of the SSD and scaled it down until it is just a smidge wider than the ISD. From the pixel length, I got the multiplier to be about 2.5 or 20 inches.

Previously, based on the CR-90 size in relation to the X-Wing map size, I estimated a size of 16x6. If we use the 16x6 for the size of the base (or slightly smaller perhaps), I think a 20 inch SSD model could be workable.

If it is then on higher stands, it will both look bigger and easily use the smaller area of the base for game mechanics interactions.

Thanks, I updated the SSD to x2.5 the size of the ISD. Yeah, I got the same measurements.. somewhere around 20 inches is where the width of the SSD is the same as an ~8 inch ISD. I also managed to find a Bulwark cruiser from a mod for Empire at War. At 2.5km I estimated it's size, based off the ISD, at about 12.5 inches. I also added a Mon Cal cruiser for reference. I used the Star Wars wiki size of 1.3km and it came out to 6.5 inches (compared to the ISD's 8 inches). I always thought the Home One was a lot bigger than that, but looking at pictures of FFGs Armada model that seems accurate.

Previously, based on the CR-90 size in relation to the X-Wing map size, I estimated a size of 16x6. If we use the 16x6 for the size of the base (or slightly smaller perhaps), I think a 20 inch SSD model could be workable.

I put a 16x6 base under the 20 inch SSD (The SSD on the left is also 20 inch, so you can see it uncluttered).. It'd be best to taper the base some so it's not sticking out so much, but I just left it as a rectangle. It could probably stand to be even smaller, like 12x6 inches or something, provided that's stable enough so it won't fall over. Things get hairy as you can see when both sides have "epic" sized ships. Not only is it hard to turn one width wise, but you're likely to crash into the other side's if you move very far.

Edit: Grammar.

After playing with the Victory Star Destroyer in two games I am finding it harder to see how all the ships are going to move around with a base larger than large now without constant collisions. In X-Wing I realized most ships are fighters with small bases and great movement control. But in Armamda all the Ships are on larger bases than X-Wing fighters and their turning ability is not nearly as good even with premeasuring.

I could be wrong and need to get more games in first but it is already hard to keep the VSD on the table if it is above the speed of one. Anyone else notice this?

After playing with the Victory Star Destroyer in two games I am finding it harder to see how all the ships are going to move around with a base larger than large now without constant collisions. In X-Wing I realized most ships are fighters with small bases and great movement control. But in Armamda all the Ships are on larger bases than X-Wing fighters and their turning ability is not nearly as good even with premeasuring.

I could be wrong and need to get more games in first but it is already hard to keep the VSD on the table if it is above the speed of one. Anyone else notice this?

I certainly did. Even on a 6x3 playing space the SDs will have to start at a good angle to easily stay on the play space without navigate dials. If we're even going to continue talking about epic sized ships we may have to define an epic sized play space as 5x6 (Two average fold-out tables) or larger.

I dont have my game yet. But with a 6 turn limit, exactly how much movement do the ships actually do? Especially the slower ones.

Yeah the SSD is big, but when the turns are finite, how much is it going to move, and how much does it need to move?

They could also make a different movement tool for gigantic ships that change the distance it moves

I dont have my game yet. But with a 6 turn limit, exactly how much movement do the ships actually do? Especially the slower ones.

Yeah the SSD is big, but when the turns are finite, how much is it going to move, and how much does it need to move?

They could also make a different movement tool for gigantic ships that change the distance it moves

Unlike in X-Wing where your fighters zip ahead of the CR-90 your larger ships will be stuck on one side of the Epic ship the whole game. I will have to see the Large ships on the table and how they move before I go any further. As my opponent said yesterday the Imperial ships turn like a Bathtub.

I don't see SSDs going much beyond speed 2, if not restricted to 0-1. With such a huge base we can't expect them to go that fast and still stay on the board.

All huge ships have this problem. If you run it enough turns, a CR-90 will fly off an X-wing standard table. In fact I'm pretty sure that's why the turn limits were hard set in the first CR-90 scenario, so it can end before this eventuality.

That said if you're crawling at speed 1 for a base that big how likely is it, really, that it'll run off the table before the end of turn 6?

As for collisions and the like there is one simple problem to fix this: Blow up whatever you'd be colliding with. Or you could do the interesting tactic of intentionally using your huge ship as a battering ram. I've seen deliberate rams to kill capital ships as a legitimate tactic in Armada in some places, especially with ships shot up so badly they're down to 1-2 health.

A huge ship dealing two damage cards on collision wouldn't surprise me, to support this line of thinking. It also encourages opponents to keep their distance and prevent those collisions.