+1 to the above post

The base game is already off scale. Slavishly cling to this concept that because an SSD is over 10 times as long as an ISD that a model of the former would be 10 times the size of the later, is silly. Infact it be foolish to assert the scale you continue to assert.

An ISD is over 10 times the length of a CR90. We know the ISD model is not that large. Therefore, again, why are you continually asserting a accurate scale when you know the game doesn't follow it?

Just because your "facts" are facts doesn't mean they are relevant facts, because you are repeatedly ignoring other information.

I haven't been ignoring anyone's point, I get it we all love SSD's and want one. We all do. I hear that loud and clear. They would sell. My point is to scale it down to less than a third of its size, closer to a quarter of its size, it will not be very accurate looking at all. That is a big difference than scaling down the CR90 15% in X-Wing. We're talking about scaling down the SSD 70% to fit the 2' mark of a doable model.

I have been listening to the other side constantly, I just felt the pro-SSD arguments have not addressed this big of a discrepancy of scale.

Well said NewTroski. Working on the formula for said scale as well if I can get some exact lengths for current models.

Well said NewTroski. Working on the formula for said scale as well if I can get some exact lengths for current models.

The base game is already off scale. Slavishly cling to this concept that because an SSD is over 10 times as long as an ISD that a model of the former would be 10 times the size of the later, is silly. Infact it be foolish to assert the scale you continue to assert.

An ISD is over 10 times the length of a CR90. We know the ISD model is not that large. Therefore, again, why are you continually asserting a accurate scale when you know the game doesn't follow it?

Just because your "facts" are facts doesn't mean they are relevant facts, because you are repeatedly ignoring other information.

Just saw this post. I addressed this concern of mine in a post just above here where I state that if a SSD was done at 2 feet it would be less than a 1/3 size of scale to the ISD in Armada.

I haven't been ignoring anyone's point, I get it we all love SSD's and want one. We all do. I hear that loud and clear. They would sell. My point is to scale it down to less than a third of its size, closer to a quarter of its size, it will not be very accurate looking at all. That is a big difference than scaling down the CR90 15% in X-Wing. We're talking about scaling down the SSD 70% to fit the 2' mark of a doable model.

I have been listening to the other side constantly, I just felt the pro-SSD arguments have not addressed this big of a discrepancy of scale.

I think NewTroski addressed your argument.

The base game is already off scale. Slavishly cling to this concept that because an SSD is over 10 times as long as an ISD that a model of the former would be 10 times the size of the later, is silly. Infact it be foolish to assert the scale you continue to assert.

An ISD is over 10 times the length of a CR90. We know the ISD model is not that large. Therefore, again, why are you continually asserting a accurate scale when you know the game doesn't follow it?

Just because your "facts" are facts doesn't mean they are relevant facts, because you are repeatedly ignoring other information.

Just saw this post. I addressed this concern of mine in a post just above here where I state that if a SSD was done at 2 feet it would be less than a 1/3 size of scale to the ISD in Armada.

I haven't been ignoring anyone's point, I get it we all love SSD's and want one. We all do. I hear that loud and clear. They would sell. My point is to scale it down to less than a third of its size, closer to a quarter of its size, it will not be very accurate looking at all. That is a big difference than scaling down the CR90 15% in X-Wing. We're talking about scaling down the SSD 70% to fit the 2' mark of a doable model.

I have been listening to the other side constantly, I just felt the pro-SSD arguments have not addressed this big of a discrepancy of scale.

I think NewTroski addressed your argument.

At least the scale is better than Starship Battles!

Alright so I don't have a scale yet for actual ship lengths to model lengths, but we do have exact measurements for the bases of each ship so I used those to get as reasonable a comparison as I could. I realize there are inaccuracies using this method That being said, actual ships lengths compared to bases gives us a great comparison for their playability in game, since the base size is what matters for each ships hit box and firing range.

The small based ships have a scale that is all over the place compared to their bases, anywhere from 2,000:1 - 8,000:1.

Medium and Large bases are more consistent, staying within about 6,500:1 - 8,500:1. They also more consistently match their bases sizes however, so that makes sense.

I'll refine this later, but since we're looking at arguments for or against the SSD here are my thoughts. I liked NewTroski's argument the best so far, as it addresses both what we really do and don't know about the SSD, as well as what that means on our play space. Since any real angst seems to come from size comparisons to known iconic ships, lets looks at this for a second. We seem all but in unanimous agreement that the Imperial SD is beyond awesome and set at the correct scale, both in what we know so far of it's abilities and its size. Since one of the most Iconic scenes with this ship compared to another is an Imperial SD chasing down and swallowing a CR-90, but we're not upset with that yet, that seem to mean we can accept a difference of 4:1 on "real" scale (~8,400:1 for Imperial SD, ~2,100:1 for CR-90) if it everything looks good and is playable. Since we're comparing the SSD to the ISD most often, lets apply that same scale of scale to the possible size of the SSD. If we jump out to ~33,600:1 scale (4:1 for SSD:ISD scale), we get a 22 inch long base for the ISD.

Now my two cents, not only did I enjoy getting to this point, the math actually works out perfect! Sure this is a 16:1 scale difference compared to a CR-90, but after seeing all the arguments for and against the SSD I'm actually leaning towards this being rather feasible. This is helped by the fact that the SSD is considerably more narrow compared to it's length than the ISD is, so 22' long doesn't mean say 12" wide. Let's hope that FFG pulls this off well enough that we all feel as awesome about it's possible/imminent(?) release as we do currently about the news and scale of the ISD. Something I'd like done there is the previously mentioned idea of the SSD being 18-24" long and simply put on a taller base. I'd also really like it to keep the same rules used so far in Armada rather than requiring it's own game, which is kinda what the CR-90 seems to have done in X-Wing.

Well this is embarrassing... I guess I was late to the party in that the new actual base size for the large models is 129mm, not 192 as was in the version I got. Reworking the math now, we have some new scales.

Small: Still range 2,000:1 - 8,000:1

Medium: Still 6,500:1 - 8,500:1

Large: Now 10,000:1 - 12,500:1

This now make the scale of the scales of the ISD to the CR-90 6:1, per my previous argument in post #58. If we kept this same scaling up our SSD would now be a much less respectable 253mm, or just under 10 inches. That's smaller than the CR-90 was in X-wing! Lame... If we go by either linear or exponential best fit equations for the data even worse things start to happen, like the SSD being smaller than a fighter squadron. The only good news from this being that the sliding scale as a reason for not including the SSD is no longer even an argument,

Edit: New plan. The ships we have so far loosely follow these rules as far as their scales relate to each other.

Small:Medium = 1:3

Medium:Large = 1:2

Small:Medium:Large = 1:3:6

If we say the next "step" in size is the SSD, and use a scale of 1:3:6:36 (Large:SSD = 1:6, leaving room for a Large:? = 1:3 ratio for something in between like in X-Wing), then we get a 10" base for the SSD, and a model of 18-24", similar to the base:model ratio on the ISD?. At this point I'm starting to feel like I'm trying to force the numbers to say what I want them too... But hey, that's what math and science are all about, right? Anyway I'm getting tired of running numbers, and that typo in the rules for the size of the Large base has gummed up and frustrated me and my numbers to no end.

Ok, looking at Troski's and Cobalt's arguments I see some good points. I am not going to fight that. But having the SSD scaled down ~70% still feels extreme, which is how much it would have to be scaled down to to fit in the two foot agreed size.

It could happen but that just feels weird to me and I still believe will stand out like a sore thumb among toes.

(Sorry I had to play Devil's Advocate to get to this point but we were going in circles before.)

It was stated above that the ISD is 5-6 inches but based on the pictures it was determined in an earlier post that the ISD is close to 9 inches in length.

It was stated above that the ISD is 5-6 inches but based on the pictures it was determined in an earlier post that the ISD is close to 9 inches in length.

Alright, that works perfectly. Applying the same scale ratio of 6:1 for the SSD to ISD, and going off our 9" measurement for the ISD, we get a model length of just under 18" to go on our base of 10". This really brings the argument full circle. Is it worth having the SSD exactly twice the size of the ISD in order to make it playable? The only reason I would say yes is that after hearing the same points made for the last few months, there are some refreshing and VERY well presented arguments on page 3 of this thread.

small Rebel fleet focused their firepower on it, it went down.

Going to switch to a historical example.

The BC Bismark. The most advanced ship of its day. It one shots the HMS Hood, pride of the British navy. The Brits send every available Battleship to destroy it. They did, 5 BBs "concentrate fire" and the Bismark goes down.

The SSD at its size and firepower is too much for Armada's scale.

It was stated above that the ISD is 5-6 inches but based on the pictures it was determined in an earlier post that the ISD is close to 9 inches in length.

I think the ISD length of 8 to 9 inches is based on the typo'd version of the rules reference base size. The large base was originally listed at 192mm ~= 7.5 inches, plus overhang on each end gives you close to 9.

The new, correct (as far as I know) large base length is 129mm ~= 5 inches, plus overhang on each end gives close to 6. The numbers that CobaltWraith and I have estimated range from 15-24", which would make the SSD model about 3-5x bigger than the ISD model.

Remember that this is just length. The volume is going to be greater by a larger factor, and thus appear to the human mind to be larger in relation than the length numbers would lead you to think. So, I believe on the table an SSD that is 3-5x the length of an ISD is going to appear suitably massive.

So lets look at what we know is canon, and the only scene in which an SSD fights: From RotJ, we know that it fights in the fleet action, and that it is important enough to single out as a target, and that when a small Rebel fleet focused their firepower on it, it went down. Based on that, I would say that power-wise it would fit well in a larger scale "Epic Armada" format. The Rebel fleet wasn't huge, but it was still able to focus fire down an SSD, while still being engaged with a much larger fleet and having the DSII taking out some of their most powerful vessels. So it seems to me that it is powerful, but not so powerful that it can't be represented in Armada.

The hit that took down the Executor in ROTJ was a 1 in a million shot. Were it not for Arvel's heroics (or luck) the Executor could have likely taken down the Rebel fleet single-handedly. The Rebel fleet was also much larger than what was shown on film. They had about 10 MC80 class warships and dozens of support ships. You really only see 3 or 4 MC80s up close. There are a lot more in the background. Just going off the numbers, the SSD does have the firepower of multiple ISDs, which by lore are really powerful.

There are 3 things holding back the SSD in Armada:

Size

Combat power

Rebel equivalent

We have talked size ad nauseam and I think if they made an SSD maybe twice the length of the ISD it would be ok. However, how much dice are you giving it in its arcs? I imagine the ISD will have at least 8 forward attack dice and 1 extra on each of the other hull zones. Maybe 7 forward dice, but I think 8 seems more likely. How much would you give an SSD? 10? 12? 10 dice would be a lot, but its not going to be a huge upgrade from a ISD. Is it going to be fun for your opponents when you just move this thing laterally on the table throwing fist-fulls of dice everywhere?

Will they make a Rebel one? I know there is the Bulwark Battlecruiser, but that was just a kind of fill-in to give Rebel players a SSD equivalent in a computer game 17 years ago. Its a pretty obscure model even by EU standards. I can see FFG making their own capital ship like the Raider, but I'm not sure they want to make an entire fleet of ships. Or that LFL will let them.

I just think its going to be too cumbersome.

It was stated above that the ISD is 5-6 inches but based on the pictures it was determined in an earlier post that the ISD is close to 9 inches in length.

I think the ISD length of 8 to 9 inches is based on the typo'd version of the rules reference base size. The large base was originally listed at 192mm ~= 7.5 inches, plus overhang on each end gives you close to 9.

The new, correct (as far as I know) large base length is 129mm ~= 5 inches, plus overhang on each end gives close to 6. The numbers that CobaltWraith and I have estimated range from 15-24", which would make the SSD model about 3-5x bigger than the ISD model.

Remember that this is just length. The volume is going to be greater by a larger factor, and thus appear to the human mind to be larger in relation than the length numbers would lead you to think. So, I believe on the table an SSD that is 3-5x the length of an ISD is going to appear suitably massive.

Uh oh, is that one typo on base sizes going to come back and bite me again? I think the post those numbers came from was using the 129mm measurement, and the math seemed sound. Feel free to double check me here .

I agree that it will still seem suitably massive, but it looks like an 18" SSD will still only be 2-3 times larger than the ISD.

Check my thread on ISD base size, the model is significantly larger than its base, my estimates are just under 25cm long and 14cm wide. So if you want a SSD that is twice the size of that then it would have to be 50cm long (half a meter) and about 30cm wide. (That's 20 inches long for those still on Imperial measurements) which is between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the game area width.

So its actually over 9 inches then.

Check my thread on ISD base size, the model is significantly larger than its base, my estimates are just under 25cm long and 14cm wide. So if you want a SSD that is twice the size of that then it would have to be 50cm long (half a meter) and about 30cm wide. (That's 20 inches long for those still on Imperial measurements) which is between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the game area width.

Which is actually about what we've been saying. Also the SSD is much narrower relative to it's length than the ISD, so I'm thinking more 20cm, or about the length of the ISD. You are also certainly correct that even at this ludicrously small scale, the playing space would need to be drastically enlarged.

You may hate me for saying this, but the Executor is pretty much certain

If I had a dime for every time that was said about the ISD in X-Wing I could pay for Armada with it...

But FFG put the nail in that finally, because they will only shrink stuff down so far. That means the whole issue with a SSD in Armada is the same as the issue with the ISD in X-Wing. It's too freaking big to look right and yet fit on the table.

my theory, ffg is planning the isd to be the largest ship (or at least we won't see anything much larger)

Proof?

http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars-armada/images/1/13/Admiral-motti.png/revision/latest?cb=20150117185938

It only goes up to large

Anyway, food for thought

Makes sense to me. They wouldn't consider an ISD and a SSD both large.

An SSD would certainly be XXL.

However, how much dice are you giving it in its arcs? I imagine the ISD will have at least 8 forward attack dice and 1 extra on each of the other hull zones. Maybe 7 forward dice, but I think 8 seems more likely. How much would you give an SSD? 10? 12? 10 dice would be a lot, but its not going to be a huge upgrade from a ISD. Is it going to be fun for your opponents when you just move this thing laterally on the table throwing fist-fulls of dice everywhere?

Just another food for thought post. I think this could easily be solved by adding more firing arcs. The ISD appears to have as many dice as are reasonable to have in one arc, so add more arcs. I'm torn on whether overlapping arcs would be reasonable, so perhaps just split each of the 4 existing arcs in half. As for it's size, in a standard playing space you could make it an objective piece for two players. In addition to blowing each other up, each of the 6-8 hull zones could have it's own hull value as well as shield value, and when a hull value reaches zero the player with the last hit could get an objective token with say 35 points at the end of the game. You could use the same sort of mechanic with a faction-less space station with a boarding objective later. In a larger playing space this could be considered epic play for Armada, but the more I think about it the less feasible I think it would be to use the same upgrades and fleet building rules used for the other ships. Another problem from keeping the same rules would be if it could still only fire out of two arcs, a large fleet of smaller ships should be able to pretty easily overwhelm it even if two ships are getting one-shot per turn. Again, all just food for thought.

Check my thread on ISD base size, the model is significantly larger than its base, my estimates are just under 25cm long and 14cm wide. So if you want a SSD that is twice the size of that then it would have to be 50cm long (half a meter) and about 30cm wide. (That's 20 inches long for those still on Imperial measurements) which is between 1/2 and 2/3rds of the game area width.

Which is actually about what we've been saying. Also the SSD is much narrower relative to it's length than the ISD, so I'm thinking more 20cm, or about the length of the ISD. You are also certainly correct that even at this ludicrously small scale, the playing space would need to be drastically enlarged.

And there we get into even bigger problems,

With the way the movement tool works and moving large ships.

When I first saw the ISD I thought "why the heck is the nose sticking so far out over the front of the base?" and "why is the base so small compared to the model?" Then I realised it is because of the movement tool.

If you had a base that was the same size as the ISD, when you move it from the front, every time you turn the back end of the model would swing out rediculously like a pendulum behind it, at smaller base sizes this creates a cool yaw/drift effect, but at larger sizes it just would look silly. By making the ISD base smaller and further under the model, it brings the pivot point closer to the model's "centre of mass", to reduce the yaw effect. It's the same reason why they had to make a new movement template for epic scale ships in X-Wing that worked from the middle of the ship.

What would this mean for a SSD? It means that the current movement system cannot work for a ship any larger than an ISD, because I think they are already pushing the size beyond the base size as much they can. So it would mean a new movement system probably being developed, but it still raises the problem that when you have something over half the size of the play area (see my previous comment about ISD size), being able to turn without the stern swinging off the play area is a huge problem.

I just don't think its workable in a 3 foot wide space to turn anything that big, and I don't think it's reasonable to say "make it a bigger play area" because 6x3 is already pretty big.