I would rather have a 18" long super star destroyer become a possibility than a 6 foot long one be an impossibility.

I am not bothered about the scale of the game. I am bothered about having a game to play.

If the game was accurately scaled there would be either no fighters, or no large ships. Either would be crap.

I'm a scale modeller and for my normal builds, I make a HUGE fuss about scale. But for Armada, seeing how HUGE the size difference between ships... I'm willing to let it slide

Yes, the scale is way off. But it honestly doesn't bother me that much. It was a similar situation in BFG and once you remember that the models are literally abstract representations of their 'real life' counterparts then it doesn't seem like such a big deal.

One thing that I hear a lot from X-Wing players is that the scale in Armada is terrible and that's why they won't play.

First, that really makes no sense to me. I would never let scale get in the way of a good game.

But really, just how "bad" is the scale in Armada?

Everything is made up and frictional. Why do people get so gunhold on the scale?

Is the frictional, it causes frictions...

Teasing aside, do you care if you ISDs are grey or pink? Do you care if they have the right shape?

I dont like the huge corvettes, thats why I got 1/7000 Cr90. Its also a matter of fitting the Star Trek /BSG ships I have. Beside the Corvette the scale if fine. I can even accept the Neb-B.

@DScipio. I get your point, but most consumers of a mass market product want to see reasonably detailed ships to justify their purchase. I think the best solution is for players to get their own alternate models if they want. So long as the ships is still recognizable and the official base is used, you should be fine. Technically you won't be able to use the alt models in official tournaments. Just pull out your stock models those days.

@DScipio. I get your point, but most consumers of a mass market product want to see reasonably detailed ships to justify their purchase. I think the best solution is for players to get their own alternate models if they want. So long as the ships is still recognizable and the official base is used, you should be fine. Technically you won't be able to use the alt models in official tournaments. Just pull out your stock models those days.

Of course, and I dont blame FFG for it. I still think a squadron of 1/7000 Cr90 would be better, but I guess it would sell better. Although Attack Wing alienatied a lot of people by their scale of ships (which is much worse than Armada) beside having a worse quality of ships.

Hark DScipio, hast thou basketh not in the glory that is the Flesh Star Destroyer?! Well, I'm going for a purple on one of my ISD's. I mean, it's more of a faded plum, but the point stands: to each their own, for there is no absoluteness in aesthetics.

On topic... eeeh, I'm of two minds concerning scale. Both approaches work aside from a few 'issues'.

1/7000 is awesome because: more ships in squadrons adds to the 'large scale' effect that Armada can impart. It also more adequately explains the firepower of smaller ships compared to the larger capital classes. Plus, I'm probably going to be buying escort ships by the squadron anyway, might as well use them all, right? So if a person likes accuracy or the drama of scale (as in numbers of ships and how imposing/diminutive they are), then 1/7000 is pretty great for what we have right now.

1/7000 is not awesome because: as others said, The Executor and Snubfighter issue. At 1/7000, extremely large ships and extremely small snubfighters just don't work (what's the accepted minimum size for fighters: 1/2250, correct? So it's still not True Scale*). I'm not sure FFG could even manage 1/7000 from a production and material standpoint. the way FFG makes their models, they look good as prepaints and they're practical sized. The CR90 might already feel small to some consumers for its pricetag.

Now, I'm going to commit two cardinal sins: realistic model kits are generally uninteresting, and -takes a breath- most of the exacting technical specs in Star Wars have always been a bit 'naff' to me (the 19km long Executor, CR90/70 proportions, the Falcon interior, the A-wing balloon and Nebulon deflation, those official numbers and others bothered me to begin with. So why would I slavishly follow them?). But I'm not going to belittle scale modelers. If they find enjoyment in it, then awesome, contentment is a rarity. It comes down to the fact that I'm not dissatisfied with Armada's practical approach to the sliding scale because it has the potential to let me have all the goodies I want! It's also not going to stop me from picking up some 1/7000 scale ships just to paint up.

*like a lot of models these days, I reserve judgment until I see them in person. I'm not convinced that 1/7000 small ships and particularly 1/2250 fighters have enough definition to look aesthetically pleasing to me on the tabletop (rather than in a diorama). I'm not saying it is or isn't, just that I have my doubts. I don't want to go to fighter tokens.

Thats the point. I just makes more sense and contributes to the star War feeling, if I have a squadron of corvettes instead of one facing the Imperial (or New Republic) might.

I dont want to force the 1/7000, I am actually pretty happy with the 1/8000+ for the larger ships, although I dont think a SSD has a place on our boards.

Regarding the fighters I am looking forward to get whole squadrons of this tiny fighters. Of couse still not in scale, but I dont want a strict 1/7000 scale but a scale that is a bit more fitting. Of course the fighters have less details, but I can field a whole cloud of TIEs. And to be honest even the normal fighters dont have so many details.

Despite my interest in frigate/corvette squadrons -and I know this is going to sound weird- I still don't think of Armada 'squadrons' as squadrons. I see them as flights. It's just more heroic and personal (and explains named pilots more to my liking), so the TIE cloud has very little appeal. Though I am thrilled that people have alternatives. If I ever see them in person I might revise my opinion, but I honestly can'tt imagine what they would look like on the tabletop or how I'd readily identify them for that matter (I'm drawn to the models, not the bases).

I'm at least a decent painter, but I have no confidence in my ability to do 1/2250ish fighters with any sort of recognizable marking. I can do them on Armada's, but I'd suspect I couldn't do it with any consistency in 'True Scale'. If I can't do decent work, then I'm not going to enjoy it as a visual spectacle.

And I'm still adamant about the SSD having its place. We might as well just call it 'the discussion on the Marne' for how far that topic has progressed in the past 12 months .

If you feel that the corvettes and the neb-b are overpowered/over sized, think of them as a "squadron" of ships, like 2 nebulons and 3 corvettes per "base". They travel in wolf packs, with one as the leader or something. That way it would line up with your own view of the lore/cannon.

That would also mean squadrons are more likely 12 sub-nosed fighters as the lack of damages a peg of X-wings to a stand of corvette(s) would be explained as "their are more corvettes, damage distributed among three, etc etc."

If you are fine with the scaling, and don't view the CR90 and Neb-B as particularly overpowered, you might then view the stand of fighters as a flight of 3-4 snub-nosed fighters, and having 3-4 of them together would constitute a full squadron. (the reason I say 4 is because in the X-wing books they had a flight be 2 sets of 1 lead and 1 wing-man, so 4 ships in total).

We all know how the Corvette in X-wing doesn't like taking damage, so it seemed kinda odd if you think a stand as 12 fighters being able to bring down a port side shield on a really lucky and good role, when in Epic, 12 X-wings would blast the CR90 into bits before you got done with the whole firing phase.

BUUUTTTT if you think of a stand of fighters to be a flight (and therefore 4 fighters), it makes more sense as to why the damage scaling is so off.

In X-wing (I know it is a completely separate game, but I will use it because it is made by the same company, and is the most relevant material to base things off of right now), 4 X-wings would be able to bring down a CR90's fore shields if you give them an average damage of 2 for each 3 dice attack, and take hull damage, UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES. But, say, in armada, we can assume that the crew is bracing all the time, which would cut the 8 damage (all fore shields and 3 hull damage, or in armada would be all of one of the side and fore shields, and a damage card), into 4 damage, which would be just on the shield, and would/could be interpreted into 1-2 shields on a hull zone, which makes a lot more sense.

Also, a full Star Destroyer compliment of fighters would be 12 TIE fighter stands, 3 TIE interceptor stands, and 3 TIE bomber stands, which is actually terrifying (instead of 4 TIE/ln, 1 TIE/In, 1 TIE/sa, yawn).

/rant.

TLDR: Each stand of fighters could represent a flight of a squadron, around 3-4 fighters. This makes damage more inconstant with what we see in X-wing, explains hero units better, and gives them a more personal feel, which you can them customize and do cool things with.

Despite my interest in frigate/corvette squadrons -and I know this is going to sound weird- I still don't think of Armada 'squadrons' as squadrons. I see them as flights. It's just more heroic and personal (and explains named pilots more to my liking), so the TIE cloud has very little appeal. Though I am thrilled that people have alternatives. If I ever see them in person I might revise my opinion, but I honestly can'tt imagine what they would look like on the tabletop or how I'd readily identify them for that matter (I'm drawn to the models, not the bases).

I'm at least a decent painter, but I have no confidence in my ability to do 1/2250ish fighters with any sort of recognizable marking. I can do them on Armada's, but I'd suspect I couldn't do it with any consistency in 'True Scale'. If I can't do decent work, then I'm not going to enjoy it as a visual spectacle.

And I'm still adamant about the SSD having its place. We might as well just call it 'the discussion on the Marne' for how far that topic has progressed in the past 12 months .

However the most see them as squadrons (see the poll) and it just makes more sense. Otherwise there would be far to few fighters deployed and they would be to dangerous for captial ships. Who should build captial ships that a Sqaudron of fighters can easy knock out?

I was never the "hero" lover type. I like the strategic dimension of a military clash in which every trooper and pilot can make a change, but hardly turn the battle alone.

You just cant compare the (awesome) X-Wing games. X-Wing was a game about you as a pilot. Would be much fun to be one of 100 pilots that hardkly matter, wouldnt it? Nobody would build a corvette that can be taken out so easily. Nobody would even build captials, although they took up to two squadrons of bombers to be destroyed.

Hell X-Wing even had this: Lets launch 3 TIEs and another 3 when they are destroyed. Lets not launch more fighters even when out hull is critical...

Also, it will be interesting to see how big the Raider is. If it is the same size as the CR90 (which it is in the lore), then that should prove they at least stick to scale within each size range. If it is not the same size as the CR90, they use a unique scale for each individual ship.

Lore? There is no lore for the Raider, it was created specifically for X-wing/Armada.

Also, it will be interesting to see how big the Raider is. If it is the same size as the CR90 (which it is in the lore), then that should prove they at least stick to scale within each size range. If it is not the same size as the CR90, they use a unique scale for each individual ship.

Lore? There is no lore for the Raider, it was created specifically for X-wing/Armada.

*facepalm*

They created lore around it. They didn't just make a ship and shove it in the game. As bare bones as it is, they came up with a story behind the development and use of the ship. This includes... wait for it... the size! They worked with LFL/Disney. This is now an official Star Wars ship and it has an official size of 150 meters.

Also, it will be interesting to see how big the Raider is. If it is the same size as the CR90 (which it is in the lore), then that should prove they at least stick to scale within each size range. If it is not the same size as the CR90, they use a unique scale for each individual ship.

Lore? There is no lore for the Raider, it was created specifically for X-wing/Armada.

*facepalm*

They created lore around it. They didn't just make a ship and shove it in the game. As bare bones as it is, they came up with a story behind the development and use of the ship. This includes... wait for it... the size! They worked with LFL/Disney. This is now an official Star Wars ship and it has an official size of 150 meters.

Also, it will be interesting to see how big the Raider is. If it is the same size as the CR90 (which it is in the lore), then that should prove they at least stick to scale within each size range. If it is not the same size as the CR90, they use a unique scale for each individual ship.

Lore? There is no lore for the Raider, it was created specifically for X-wing/Armada.

*facepalm*

They created lore around it. They didn't just make a ship and shove it in the game. As bare bones as it is, they came up with a story behind the development and use of the ship. This includes... wait for it... the size! They worked with LFL/Disney. This is now an official Star Wars ship and it has an official size of 150 meters.

I am sorry but this made me laugh. . . Where did the lore for the VSD come from? Gladiator? MC30? Why, I do declare! The lore was made around it!

The Victory came, I believe from the Han Solo and the Corporate Sector book, then was fleshed out by West End Games for D6Star Wars RPG. I am pretty sure the Gladiator and the MC30 were more recent creations. An even begets example is the Vigil class Star Corvette, that was completely fan created, and made Canon by LFL, when they added it to a Star Wars guide.

There is nothing wrong with FFG adding their own ship. Games of all kinds have been doing it for years. The Assult frigate MKII is straight out of Empire at War. That is how the universe expands.

The MC30c was apparently first glimpsed at in Dark Forces 2 Jedi Knight at

The Gladiator was apparently first featured in the Droids cartoon from the 80s, Screed came from there as well. Demolisher was his flagship.

You're spot on for the Victory

And the Raider is indeed an official FFG ship that is now official Star Wars. And I have to say, I really love the concept of that ship Can't wait to see the preview !

Oh I know all this. I always chuckling AR the guy who was going on about the lack of "lore" behind the Raider.

The MC30 was actually a creation that would have been in Episode 6 but was cut out for the final movie. It then became the MC30 and was used in EaW.

OMG that TIE bomber uses the laser cannon! We almost never see that happen!

Also, HWK must clearly be hacking, No way it did 6 damage in a single round of attacking

(Unless, it could have blaster turret and oppertunist, and also rolled 3 crits and got 6 damage out of them or something )

Folks that say they will not get into the game because of the scale may have less appreciation for game mechanics, balanced competitiveness and perhaps miniature gaming in general.

Just a question I was think of about the Victory classes- what is the projections on the command structure (the one sticking forward and the one sticking up)? I assume the one sticking up is an antenna, but he one sticking straight out- surely not a gun is it?

Upright is a Communications Antenna.

Horizontal is marked as "Forward Observation Station"

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/d/de/VSD_egvv.jpg

So it is a forward observer station...I can see a guy lying on his belly calling in targets. Would be more amusing if it was a big laser cannon.