I wish FFG would just say whether or not they are going to do an SSD....
I honestly doubt they know.
I'd imagine that they're still working out on the easy ships to fit in. Like say an Interdictor, or other ships that are between the 150m and 1600m sizes.
Once they have a number of those in then they'd consider if a SSD is possible or not, and how to make it work. Until they get to that point I don't expect they'd bother saying anything either way.
Perhaps, but I think they have a list of ships they want to do. Whether they have tested or fleshed those out is another matter.
But I think they have a good idea is they want to make an SSD work or not. This game has been in development for at least a year at this point.
One of my customers at the FLGS I work at had a saying when I was in yesterday that I think I'll paraphrase here.
If you're a proponent of Super Star Destroyers, you will find every reason to include them.
If you're an opponent of Super Star Destroyers, you will find every reason not to include them.
And so it goes...
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.
But again, its a matter of opinion on where the line is drawn. Some in the community feel that by downscaling an SSD drastically enough to be playable will be an sufficient representation of this capital ship, because as long as it's one-shotting CR-90s from multiple arcs, that's enough. One-shotting mediums as some would expect is not a requirement for presenting the Executor.
Moreover, I don't feel that a number of special rules need to be added to the engine to represent a Super Star Destroyer. The tools are already there in the engine to make it work. Weapon clusters are abstracted into dice amounts, ships have stacked commands, and there are hull values and defensive options to represent the mass of the ship.
In X-Wing it feels like in order to make a True Imperial work (beyond the pretending Raider), you need to make efforts like introducing several (4+?) hull section cards, upgrade cards to represent every emplacement on the Star Destroyer, deployment rules for launching new fighters (since neither the CR-90 nor the Raider are proported to be starfighter carriers), Defensive shields... the list goes on. People have tried.
Do you need to go through the same hoops to make a Super Star Destroyer work in Armada? You need some, but not nearly as many, and bookkeeping two sections is not nearly as tedious as more than 4 that you will need for a large scale Imperial. And with two sections you're resolving up to four attacks instead of however many primary and secondary weapons you would have equipped on your Imperial.
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.
Well, an Victory outclasses a CR-90 drastically too. Does it outclass an Imperial ? The MC80 ? I do not think it does to the degree that would make Mediums and Large ships insignificant. Which is what X-Wings and YT-1300s are to Star Destroyers.
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.
...
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.
We know the Imperial is going to fire 8 dice out of the front, with a generous firing arc. There are two ways you can do firepower, and the other is to split large volumes of fire over several arcs. None of the ships so far have been big enough to do it, but I can see it happening with the front section of an Executor. It would be so drastic that if you approached the ship from the front, you'd better be prepared. That's my guess.
Of course another way is to throw a curve ball and cut the ship up in an unexpected way. Why not divide the front firing arc in half down the middle, so that there's a left and right zone in the front in addition to the flanks? Turn the four hull zones and divide the ship horizontally-vertically? That way if you approach from the front, you're hit with two massive arcs of firepower.
Anyway... I agree it's an opinion thing and again point out that canonically the Super Star Destroyer hardly fired a shot. Yes there are EU elements in the game, but they are only names, and their capabilities are hardly reflected in their one-ability cards. So long as the Executor doesn't have a superlaser, or a demonstrated ability to annihilate smaller ships with turbo laser volleys on-screen (or in any of the new novels...), FFG can compromise on its firepower and still have the support of LFL.
Well, an Victory outclasses a CR-90 drastically too. Does it outclass an Imperial ? The MC80 ? I do not think it does to the degree that would make Mediums and Large ships insignificant. Which is what X-Wings and YT-1300s are to Star Destroyers.
An SSD as represented in the films, could ram an ISD and not even feel it. So yeah, I think it greatly out-classes your standard ISD or Mon Cal.
A Mon Cal going against an SSD would be like a Destroyer taking on the Bismarck.
Edited by Jo Jo
Well, an Victory outclasses a CR-90 drastically too. Does it outclass an Imperial ? The MC80 ? I do not think it does to the degree that would make Mediums and Large ships insignificant. Which is what X-Wings and YT-1300s are to Star Destroyers.
An SSD as represented in the films, could ram an ISD and not even feel it. So yeah, I think it greatly out-classes your standard ISD or Mon Cal.
A Mon Cal going against an SSD would be like a Destroyer taking on the Bismarck.
Could you give me the time code in the movies of where that happens? Or mention which book and where it is that it happens?
Sure it looks that way and everyone (including me) believes that it can, but unless you point to a (now canon) place where it does, the playing piece doesn't have to , and so FFG is not bound to these conventions that everyone assumes. Just as how the Super Star Destroyer is supposed to vomit green Turbolasers at ships and kill them in one blast, but we never see this in the films. It just looks big and imposing and dies to a final A-Wing collision after killing an X-Wing and mussing the paint on a Nebulon-B.
And that's the nebulous area that will allow FFG to water down the Executor and still call it an Executor Super Star Destroyer. Since it is not on screen there are fewer certainties to become beholden to when crafting this expansion.
That's like saying I've never seen a bus run over someone before, therefore I don't think it can.
We don't see an ISD do much in the OT but no one disputes their power. Why would the Empire make a Star Destroyer 11 miles long and not give it a massive arsenal? Just because the SSD doesn't do much in the movies doesn't mean it's filled with swimming pools and Jamba Juices.
Anywho... I think the Pro-SSDers should run a 19K and still see if they should put an SSD in Armada.
Happy Friday. I'm out!
Edited by Jo JoBut a Super Star Destroyer isn't a bus, and a Star Destroyer isn't a person. A more apt analogy is a Recreational Vehicle ramming a sports car since both of them are vehicles.
One could say that the Executor's bulk is given to administrative facilities, troop housing and training, research labs, hangars for small ships, black ops projects, factories for fleet maintenance, and the like. Executor is a fleet flagship in addition to being a star dreadnought. Unlike Fractalsponge's murder space wedges (The Bellator for instance) the armament of the Executor is not obvious. One can argue that with the guns so small it is only supposed to defend itself from fighters and small craft and leave the heavy lifting to proper Star Destroyers and the rest of the fleet escort.
Is it an opinion I necessarily agree with personally? No, personally I feel an SSD should crush small ships and bat mediums around like space pinatas.
But I point this idea being justification for FFG to set a Super Star Destroyer's dice pools in a balanced way. Because there is no demonstrated certainty in canon that holds them to set firepower at a certain percentage. SSDs are not demonstrated to kill Mon Cals, even though the EU easily assumes they do, so FFG doesn't have to create an Executor that does.
Your assumption is that FFG will treat them as such then?
would this not be easy to look into, what is the SSDs stats in games like age of rebellion or the star wars card game?
i dont know personnally but im sure someone could shed some light about what FFGs think.
Edited by LurtzJust wondering, did anyone at Gen Con ask one of the FFGs employees if they are going to try, or are already in the process of creating an Executor class or something similar like an Bellator or Assertor.
In X-wing, FFG demonstrated that they can respond to the demand of having a Star Destroyer-like epic ship by creating the Raider. Perhaps FFG will do the same for the SSD by creating a smaller version that preserves the look and feel of one.
From my point of view, I would hope for FFG deciding on new ships purely from a gameplay perspective. Does a SSD bring something unique and enjoyable to the table without making it a pain in the ass to include this massive beast ruleswise? Ofcause I care for the visual appearance, but on a somewhat lesser degree - the gaming should be top priority, and if the SSD could only be released by bending a dozen rules around it to make it somewhat playable, it should stay in the movies and gtfo of armada. There are still enough ships available from canon which offer a unique playstyle, fit the scale without going full rollercoaster and would not need anything like splitted firing arcs, special maneouvering tools or whole sets of new dice to function.
Well, given the game designer mentioned "Tarkin at 1000 points",
I can only assume they were play testing an epic level ship(s), such as an SSD...
Wasn't there also some mention of a Star Destroyer in Armada, at one of their conferences at gencon?
Clearly there are some folks here who have NOT been reminded recently of how big the Super Star Destroyer is. So I will take the burden upon myself of reminding them.
The SSD is 19,000 Meters Long. 19 THOUSAND METERS. That's 19 kilometers, or almost 12 miles. That means it's over 11 times as large as the ISD, which will be about 9-10 inches. So you're looking at a model that's 100 inches long, somewhere around 8'. Even on a 50% sliding scale, that's 4 feet long. Anything less than that and it won't look right.
There is one possible solution though; base the ship so it's standing on end, like a big obelisk, straight up and down. Since there is no orientation in space, this would work, and conserve table space, and look pretty cool. Obviously, you'll need 8' ceilings in order to achieve this. (3-4' gaming table, + height of ship (4') = 7-8" And take down your chandelier/lighting.
Noooo! Curse you Jarmus mrawn. The immortal beast topic has awoken once more, and will undo all the works of man (or at least this forum)!
Repent ye sinners, the end is nigh!
Er....yeah. Too big still, it'd be either unusable or look so small it'd be silly and features like the bridge would be tiny.
Awesome ship, beautiful looking design....massively impractical. Which is a damned shame.
You could just make it into your table though.....
I always felt they overinflated the Executor's size for some nefarious (our universe's ships must be the biggest!!) purpose. Originally the estimate was that it was 8km's long which is much more workable in Armada. As for the armament, since its a command ship I always felt its should have proportionally less weapons since so much of its capacity was directed at logistical support, communications and various command infrastructure. So I'd be totally fine with 3 ISD's actually outgunning one side of the Executor.
Also, considering the relative scale at which SW ships fight, can the rear guns of the Executor actually reach targets in front of the Executor?
I always felt they overinflated the Executor's size for some nefarious (our universe's ships must be the biggest!!) purpose. Originally the estimate was that it was 8km's long which is much more workable in Armada. As for the armament, since its a command ship I always felt its should have proportionally less weapons since so much of its capacity was directed at logistical support, communications and various command infrastructure. So I'd be totally fine with 3 ISD's actually outgunning one side of the Executor.
Also, considering the relative scale at which SW ships fight, can the rear guns of the Executor actually reach targets in front of the Executor?
it's definitely more than 5 times the size of an ISD if you look at the movies (which is what 8km would make it).
As for the gun ranges....depends on your source. The EU books....yes, easily. The PC games....no. The movies....who the hell knows?
I always felt they overinflated the Executor's size for some nefarious (our universe's ships must be the biggest!!) purpose. Originally the estimate was that it was 8km's long which is much more workable in Armada. As for the armament, since its a command ship I always felt its should have proportionally less weapons since so much of its capacity was directed at logistical support, communications and various command infrastructure. So I'd be totally fine with 3 ISD's actually outgunning one side of the Executor.
Also, considering the relative scale at which SW ships fight, can the rear guns of the Executor actually reach targets in front of the Executor?
it's definitely more than 5 times the size of an ISD if you look at the movies (which is what 8km would make it).
As for the gun ranges....depends on your source. The EU books....yes, easily. The PC games....no. The movies....who the hell knows?
Here is an interesting article on the Executor's size. For those too lazy to read, it says the -intended- size was 8.4 times the size of an ISD.
http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-mysteries-exacting-executor-measurements
Edited by Lord TareqFrom a statting point of view (I'm talking gameplay/balance only here, not the actual model), if we draw a comparison to an Aircraft carrier (as "flagship"), then it could be made workable; have 2 or possibly even 3 "side" arcs per side, each of which as a a reasonable number of guns.
But the main benefit of the model would be a high squadron rating, like an aircraft carrier, something like 8. I'm thinking you could also do something where it's "Squadron" activation actually trickled down to other capital ships. (Ie, it would treat other SD's the way SD's treat squadrons).
Again this is all academic because...yeah...19k km.
I always felt they overinflated the Executor's size for some nefarious (our universe's ships must be the biggest!!) purpose. Originally the estimate was that it was 8km's long which is much more workable in Armada. As for the armament, since its a command ship I always felt its should have proportionally less weapons since so much of its capacity was directed at logistical support, communications and various command infrastructure. So I'd be totally fine with 3 ISD's actually outgunning one side of the Executor.
Also, considering the relative scale at which SW ships fight, can the rear guns of the Executor actually reach targets in front of the Executor?
it's definitely more than 5 times the size of an ISD if you look at the movies (which is what 8km would make it).
As for the gun ranges....depends on your source. The EU books....yes, easily. The PC games....no. The movies....who the hell knows?
Here is an interesting article on the Executor's size. For those too lazy to read, it says the -intended- size was 8.4 times the size of an ISD.
http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-mysteries-exacting-executor-measurements
Cant see it right now, but that makes it about 13-13.5KM? I could live with that measurement based on the view to the naked eye in the movies.
Still rather too enormous for a reasonably scaled model though.
Wasn't there also some mention of a Star Destroyer in Armada, at one of their conferences at gencon?
Yes Chris the CEO said one of the things he loves about Armada is that they can finally get a ISD on the table. There was no mention of a Super Star Destroyer that I heard of.
There will never be an Executor class in Armada, it's just too big, even with a sliding scale it's going to be very hard to fit on on the table and still have it look right. But I could see them creating a new class of SSD one that's say 3,200-4,800m that would fit on the table. That would make it somewhere between 3 and 4 times the size of a ISD, which could scale down to 2.5-3 times the size on the table.
But the problem with even that is cost. A CR-90 or Raider is likely about the largest model they want to make, simply because as the cost goes up, the number of people who will buy it go down.
They dont even need to create new ships most likely. There's a TON of Star Destroyer and other large designs of various sizes....the Bellator for example is 7000m, which would be very big but not totally impossible on the sliding scale. Probably about 3 times the size of an ISD model-wise?
Probably about 3 times the size of an ISD model-wise?
I think the best way to tell, would be to put a Raider on the table next to a ISD and see how much bigger it is. We don't have any ISD's yet, but if someone could do that with a Raider and VSD we'd have something to compare.
Myself I'd bet that the Raider/CR-90 is about the biggest model FFG is likely to make. So I'd expect a SSD to be about that size for Armada.
Probably about 3 times the size of an ISD model-wise?
I think the best way to tell, would be to put a Raider on the table next to a ISD and see how much bigger it is. We don't have any ISD's yet, but if someone could do that with a Raider and VSD we'd have something to compare.
Myself I'd bet that the Raider/CR-90 is about the biggest model FFG is likely to make. So I'd expect a SSD to be about that size for Armada.
I agree, that should be a decent rule of thumb. I highly doubt they will make anything much (if at all) bigger than that.
Once my ISD arrives (when, damnit?) i'll do some measuring and find a ship that fits the size. i'm sure there'll be one, but it sure won't be an Executor.
Once my ISD arrives (when, damnit?) i'll do some measuring and find a ship that fits the size.
Armada uses a sliding scale, although so far it seems it slides most at the bottom. CR-90s being far to big, but if you compare the MC80, ISD, VSD and AF MK2, they all look close based on the pictures anyway.
But if we could compare a Raider to a VSD we could get an idea what possible max size could be. So if the Raider is 2.5 times longer then the VSD, then it could be that 2,250 could be about the biggest ship we'd see in Armada.