A tector class Star destroyer is nearly identical to an imperial Star destroyer:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tector-class_Star_Destroyer/Legends

It's basically just a hangarless Star Destroyer designed like a tank rather than carrier.

The ISD I and ISD II are very different as well, rebels have gotten the Home One, Liberty and they should get as a future release a wingless liberty as well. In that same vein, imps should have been given an ISD I with 2 types, an ISD II with 2 types (not one model with 1 type each) and a future release of a tector. These are the basic canon large capital ships for both factions. (The interdictor should have been large as well, I don't know what happened there.)

That FFG got lazy and made both Star Destroyers 1 model... For people that are supposed to be fans of star wars that's a pretty massive oversight!

When they release the rogue one ISD I (and they had better) it needs 2 ship cards, ISD I Command ship and an ISD II Command ship. This would at least help fix their oversight.

23 hours ago, Darthain said:

I still get the feeling if we start getting multiple ISD models they are pretty much done with Armada, out of ideas, and it will be in its death throes. We don't need models in a case like this, just a ship card, which could come in some variety of expanded play pack.

We have 2 MC80s... guess its dying already

Very different appearances as well as statlines though.

Which is why I wouldn't object to a Tector.

17 hours ago, Gadgetron said:

A tector class Star destroyer is nearly identical to an imperial Star destroyer:

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tector-class_Star_Destroyer/Legends

It's basically just a hangarless Star Destroyer designed like a tank rather than carrier.

yes, the underside is fixed due to having appeared in a movie - but they can do a lot to make the topside look different from that of a standard ISD. More guns, more overt armour, etc.

I think they should make the top of the Tector look similar to the FO Resurgent class. To me that style goes with the heavier armor and less frills.

I'd keep the basic tower structure, and the approximate layout (height-wise) of the superstructure - so that the Tector could have been visible in the distant shots of the Imperial fleet.

It would be up close, that the differences would become overt.

On 1/23/2017 at 10:05 AM, Gadgetron said:

I suggest you watch the movie and look again at the scale, the bridge is WAY to small, it should be appropriately 1/3 the width of the ISD beam. The FFG bridge is barely even 1/4. so either they made the beam way too wide, or the bridge way to small. Either way, the ship is too stubby on top of that.

The beam is too wide.

Edit: after reading through more of the thread and getting to the photo's I guess I'm wrong. But the beam definitely looks too big.

On 1/28/2017 at 0:07 PM, Forresto said:

How? Thats a BOLD claim to make.

The ISD I is a canon Imperial ship. So is the tector. The former is strikingly different visually from the current ISD II and for what we know of the latter it could be very different as well.

The Imperials only have the Quasar left otherwise whereas the rebels have three new ships they are surelu getting models of.

It may be bold, but it also exemplifies the fact that splitting hairs over minutiae is not for every player, heck there are a fair number of players to whom canon means nothing to, and the fact that it is star wars isn't actually important to them. I provide some insight to this latter, not super fan perspective. For these players it is the game that draws us, the fact the ships are recognizable per pop culture is a slight bonus if anything. Anyone but the most hardcore of fans will be asking why we have 3 different ISDs when a few cards will do, not cheer it on.

Further to that, as mentioned, at the scale we play a Tector will be virtually indistinguishable from any other ISD, no hangars? well what does that matter we don't see the hangars anyway.

6 hours ago, Ironlord said:

Very different appearances as well as statlines though.

Which is why I wouldn't object to a Tector.

yes, the underside is fixed due to having appeared in a movie - but they can do a lot to make the topside look different from that of a standard ISD. More guns, more overt armour, etc.

Not sure what they can add since it's already canon. It's basically just a hangarless Star Destroyer, with some extra armor plates but visually it's a Star Destroyer sans the hangars.

Also, this just reinforces that FFG got lazy with the ISD I and ISD II, they should have had more differences, The devastator (Vader's ISD I) was closer to an ISD II in terms of upgrades and capabilities, this was because it was the last ISD I built before they went to the II. What's this mean? It means they've been upgrading and updating the lines as they were being built, so they're going to have quite a few variations of the ISD I, not just 1.

Plus there's the different ISD II hull shapes, the narrower and wider, this would indicate different builds within the ISD II...

So, lazy work on FFGs part...

1 hour ago, Swusn said:

The beam is too wide.

Edit: after reading through more of the thread and getting to the photo's I guess I'm wrong. But the beam definitely looks too big.

I'm right there with you, you and I see the Empire Strikes Back ISD as the definitive design as that's what the majority of outside media uses, while FFG used the RotJ model.

1 hour ago, Darthain said:

It may be bold, but it also exemplifies the fact that splitting hairs over minutiae is not for every player, heck there are a fair number of players to whom canon means nothing to, and the fact that it is star wars isn't actually important to them. I provide some insight to this latter, not super fan perspective. For these players it is the game that draws us, the fact the ships are recognizable per pop culture is a slight bonus if anything. Anyone but the most hardcore of fans will be asking why we have 3 different ISDs when a few cards will do, not cheer it on.

Further to that, as mentioned, at the scale we play a Tector will be virtually indistinguishable from any other ISD, no hangars? well what does that matter we don't see the hangars anyway.

That's cool, but when you started playing a Star wars game, you agreed to accept that star wars was the theme and setting. In this theme and setting, the rebels primary ships are similar looking Mon Calamari cruisers, while the imp ships are similar looking Star Destroyers. TIE/ln, TIE/SF and TIE/fo look similar from a distance, should they have never released the fo and sf?

The climactic Battle at Endor had all canon ships, amongst them, the wingless liberty, the tector and the ISD I, all of these are different looking ships, all of them still waiting for a model!

But why would any of this matter to someone who doesn't like star wars? What difference to you does it make if they release 3 Mon Cal and 3 ISD ships?

The tector has never visually been seen besides that bow shot. Its supposed to look basically like an Imperial Class but that's never been visually been confirmed as an entire ship. I would argue that it can look very similar to an Imperial but with many differences in the way an ISD I is different to an ISD II. Virtually the same ship but key features make them strikingly different. So if FFG was to ever make one I hope we get the ventral details but I also hope we get some dorsal differences as well.

Maybe a fatter armored neck. The Shield Generators on top could be reinforced instead of exposed and poppable. Notice in Rogue One how the ISD I sliced through the side of the superstructure? How about armor there so nothing is exposed for that to occur again. More cannons?

There is a lot that keeps the basic form of an ISD that also makes it visually different enough that on the table you can clearly tell whats a standard ISD and what's a sector.

I'd like to see the Tector as a dedicated warship-Better hull and stronger shields with a heavier broadside potential. Somewhere in the 160-180 point range, with command 3, maybe even command 4, squadron 1 and engineering 5.

11 hours ago, idiewell said:

I'd like to see the Tector as a dedicated warship-Better hull and stronger shields with a heavier broadside potential. Somewhere in the 160-180 point range, with command 3, maybe even command 4, squadron 1 and engineering 5.

There are a few in the kuat drive yards (fan made ships) I think with the gimp that large ships already bring, 160-180 would be WAY to much to ever be competitive!

On January 27, 2017 at 0:59 PM, Fractalsponge said:

There's perspective effect on the starboard side photo of the reference:

The upper side edge of the hex module should be approximately twice the length of the sensor globe, that's what matters.

Well first of all thanks for posting. Sorry I missed it earlier (grad paper). The only thing I can say is that the bottom edge of the cross piece of the command bridge seems to be slightly longer, relative to the top edge. It's hard to say, as no two pics are from the same exact elevation or rotation, but your back vertical face of the bridge doesn't run parallel to the support fin it's attached to's back line. The production model and FFG model very nearly do.

At first I thought you used a different production model than I did, but it appears to be the same.

Regardless, beautiful render. I've got two copies saved on my PC

Any thoughts on good title abilities for ISD Is?

So guys, here is a crappy picture of the ISD II Prop I took at star wars identities. Should be the same prop(same exhibition) fractalsponges picture is from. It took this with my sellphone camera back in august, when I didn't know it could be used for scale comparison . So please excuse the quality and angle;-) Hope it can help with the measurements of the ESB Destroyer(it's the ESB one).

Thousand apologies for the Necro thread here... but seeing as the Chimaera is coming to us finally, I had a moment today connected to this thread

Did the old ISD2 to ISD1 conversion kit to the FFG model and sent a WIP pic to a friend... who immediately asked why I went to the trouble of putting ISD1 parts on the longer, more slender ISD2... because I’d mentioned to him that it was a conversion but forgot to tell it was the FFG model.

If you compare my slightly off angle pic to the supposed WEG ship dimensions, it’s really close... and if I wanted to gently play with it, I could match it... so I’m wavering now. I kinda think we’ve got only one production ISD footprint and the supposed longer ISD2 is just a change in angle

Guys honestly... the Tector Star Destroyer is just a lazy fix for a misbuild ISD model appearing on screen for 2 sec in ROTJ... to squeeze a whole new expansion out of that is... well just stupid. Same with the wingless Liberty. And the issue regarding the ISD 1 and 2 models is the exact same, the model builders from EP5 just gave the Star Destroyer a new bridge and cannons because they had to build a new ISD model which had to be more detailed and 3 times the size of the one from EP4. There never was a ISD 1 and 2 class, at least when it came to designing those ships. They were not meant to be two different ships, its just a retcon fix made by Expanded Universe Authors and then adopted into canon. I think you guys take it too seriously that those were ever meant to be distinctly different ships. Im fine with that idea of class 1 and 2 but we already have 4 versions squeezed out of the same one ship model... just move on already. Give us the Venator or Acclamator or any Legends ship, its not like there arent enough imperial-looking ships out there.

I vote Venator... given the scale, it seems like New Trilogy era ships won’t work... but there’s so much in the clone wars that could.

2 new factions would be a blast

13 hours ago, >kkj said:

Guys honestly... the Tector Star Destroyer is just a lazy fix for a misbuild ISD model appearing on screen for 2 sec in ROTJ..

Not a "misbuild" - an intentional modification, specifically to make the "Millennium Falcon skims underside of Star Destroyer" shot.

9 hours ago, Ironlord said:

Not a "misbuild" - an intentional modification, specifically to make the "Millennium Falcon skims underside of Star Destroyer" shot.

Yeah sure they totally intended to create a new kind of Star Destroyer with that shot... im pretty sure someone at the model department just didnt give much of a **** about consistency when creating that model. People are reading way to much intent into all those Legends explainations for things.

Wouldn't a tector be just a little bit to silly if it is the combat oriented version of the ISD. What would it have to lose from the ISD to make it not game breaking (meaning if I lose the hangars up the hull points and take the implied increase in firepower) that now a much better ISD in the ship to ship game.

1 hour ago, Noosh said:

Wouldn't a tector be just a little bit to silly if it is the combat oriented version of the ISD. What would it have to lose from the ISD to make it not game breaking (meaning if I lose the hangars up the hull points and take the implied increase in firepower) that now a much better ISD in the ship to ship game.

Maybe:

It's a combat vessel with heavier armor and no hanger bays. So Squad 0. More energy needed to shift it's bulk (I don't know if that makes sense in space, but whatever) Speed 2. Tougher to restore the shields and keep the firepower up (same reactor as an ISD+more guns = something's gotta give) - Eng. 3.

What does it get in return? Maybe hull 13 (14? With Motti+RBD that could be too strong: Hull 20!!!!) Title, Officer, Weapons Team, Defensive Retro(?) and Turbolaser slots. 10 dice out the front 4 Red, 4 Blue, 2 Black (or maybe 4/3/3?)? and 3 out the sides, one of each?

I could just about stomach the Tector as an additional set of cards. Certainly not another ISD model.

But overall do not favour its introduction at all.

On a side note, looking st the underside of my ISD model, the filled in hangar from the fleeting ROTJ shot seems to be the forward hangar not the main one.

1 hour ago, ISD Avenger said:

I could just about stomach the Tector as an additional set of cards. Certainly not another ISD model.

But overall do not favour its introduction at all.

On a side note, looking st the underside of my ISD model, the filled in hangar from the fleeting ROTJ shot seems to be the forward hangar not the main one.

You can see the filled in forward hangar - but you can also see a patch where the main hangar would be and isn't - replaced with textured surface.

ISD:

Sequence of Tector images

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/tector-class-star-destroyer.50015468/

I’m not a fan of including the Tector... isn’t the Kuat-refit the same in a practice? Lower squads, better defense, ‘better’ guns (Ord + Ion).

9 hours ago, Ironlord said:

You can see the filled in forward hangar - but you can also see a patch where the main hangar would be and isn't - replaced with textured surface.

ISD:

Sequence of Tector images

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/tector-class-star-destroyer.50015468/

Wait, that's the underbelly? I always thought that was the top. . . so ships do end up upside down relative to each other in Star Wars.