4 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Don't get me wrong, I don't think the 8000m size is the correct one, just the correct one for Armada.

The 8000m length came from "A Guide to the Star Wars Universe" published in 1984 by Del Try Books. WEG was held to that length by Lucasfilm. Canon length is 19,000m currently. Personally I ascribe to the 13,469m length based on the brass ISD, but non of this is important to Armada scaling. What is important is getting the right look for a playable model. It just needs to look "BIG" as Robertk so eloquently put it.

And I agree with your point of it has to look Big and be a playable model that fits in the game. I just don't see it possible even though you do. And I'm not sure if you do because you looked at it in a long thoughtful way like I have or if you just want it so much that you haven't looked over the pictures and then looked at the table and measured out what it would look like in play? You very well may have but that's what I'm trying to assess.

That's why I keep posting to see the thoughtful responses on the actual issues of scale and game play and not to just hear "It'll work" without backing it up.

Again, if FFG can pull it off well I will celebrate with the rest but I just don't see how.

14 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

It is too forced perspective! I used Mel's 64cm SSD, and lifted it so it completely covered the 103cm of tape measure next to the ISD on the floor, making my SSD model appear larger than it actually is.

I'm not offended, I'm just pointing out my terminology was correct.?

But Forced Perspective (In the Movies not the model) from an artistic point of view would be having the SSD in the foreground with the ISD in the background looking small. Instead in the movies the ISD's were in the Foreground. But there is Forced perspective going on because the angle shots make the engines and width look off because the actual size of the SSD compared to the ISD's is so huge you have to get in too close to get them in.

It's like if you wanted to make a fly look significant to your face you would have to get a picture of the fly up close but your nose would look Huge compared to the rest of your face and you wouldn't have your whole face in the shot. That's the forced perspective that we are seeing. So these shots are not making the SSD look larger than it is but it is making the engines look larger than they should. But the ISD's are still in relative normal proportions because they are that much smaller than the SSD.

I see your argument but I think you just have it wrong here.

36 minutes ago, Beatty said:

And I agree with your point of it has to look Big and be a playable model that fits in the game. I just don't see it possible even though you do. And I'm not sure if you do because you looked at it in a long thoughtful way like I have or if you just want it so much that you haven't looked over the pictures and then looked at the table and measured out what it would look like in play? You very well may have but that's what I'm trying to assess.

That's why I keep posting to see the thoughtful responses on the actual issues of scale and game play and not to just hear "It'll work" without backing it up.

Again, if FFG can pull it off well I will celebrate with the rest but I just don't see how.

I have put a great deal of thought into this. To give you perspective, I grew up playing the old WEG Star Wars D6, which is most likely influencing my belief that it can fit in Armada. Until a few years ago, in my mind the SSD was 8000m, I never gave it much thought until I started running D6 again. Armada came at a perfect time for me. I had just gotten back into a Star Wars gaming mood, had disposable income, & the time to enjoy it. Armada also scratched the tabletop wargaming itch that was lacking since I sold my BFG fleets.

I am a very visual person, so I was attempting to express my point of view with an image.

At 64cm, Mel's SSD is a beautiful model and is very playable, but it just doesn't seem "BIG" next to an ISD, just "bigger".

I have been talking so much about the 8000m scale, because I believe it would be playable (at least on a 4' x 9', epic field,) and still look Grand enough to represent the iconic monstrosity that is the SSD.

Yes, I want an SSD in Armada, because at the size I pictured, I believe it can work on all levels. I also believe it is almost guaranteed the FFG will make one, for the reasons I stated previously. I continue to discuss it because I do believe it is important that they get it right, &it would be silly of FFG to not use their own forums to gauge the opinions of their customers. I do understand your doubts that a playable model can be made that does the SSD justice. I may disagree, but I am trying to sight reasons, in this case visually. FFG my f it up royal, but I am trying to show how it would be possible.

Like most of us, I will buy one regardless.

14 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

I have put a great deal of thought into this. To give you perspective, I grew up playing the old WEG Star Wars D6, which is most likely influencing my belief that it can fit in Armada. Until a few years ago, in my mind the SSD was 8000m, I never gave it much thought until I started running D6 again. Armada came at a perfect time for me. I had just gotten back into a Star Wars gaming mood, had disposable income, & the time to enjoy it. Armada also scratched the tabletop wargaming itch that was lacking since I sold my BFG fleets.

I am a very visual person, so I was attempting to express my point of view with an image.

At 64cm, Mel's SSD is a beautiful model and is very playable, but it just doesn't seem "BIG" next to an ISD, just "bigger".

I have been talking so much about the 8000m scale, because I believe it would be playable (at least on a 4' x 9', epic field,) and still look Grand enough to represent the iconic monstrosity that is the SSD.

Yes, I want an SSD in Armada, because at the size I pictured, I believe it can work on all levels. I also believe it is almost guaranteed the FFG will make one, for the reasons I stated previously. I continue to discuss it because I do believe it is important that they get it right, &it would be silly of FFG to not use their own forums to gauge the opinions of their customers. I do understand your doubts that a playable model can be made that does the SSD justice. I may disagree, but I am trying to sight reasons, in this case visually. FFG my f it up royal, but I am trying to show how it would be possible.

Like most of us, I will buy one regardless.

I'll buy one too, but if it looks too out of scale it will sit looking pretty on my shelf without any table time.

And we can disagree as long as everyone understands what they're asking for.

51 minutes ago, Beatty said:

But Forced Perspective (In the Movies not the model) from an artistic point of view would be having the SSD in the foreground with the ISD in the background looking small. Instead in the movies the ISD's were in the Foreground. But there is Forced perspective going on because the angle shots make the engines and width look off because the actual size of the SSD compared to the ISD's is so huge you have to get in too close to get them in.

It's like if you wanted to make a fly look significant to your face you would have to get a picture of the fly up close but your nose would look Huge compared to the rest of your face and you wouldn't have your whole face in the shot. That's the forced perspective that we are seeing. So these shots are not making the SSD look larger than it is but it is making the engines look larger than they should. But the ISD's are still in relative normal proportions because they are that much smaller than the SSD.

I see your argument but I think you just have it wrong here.

Ok, I think I understand your point now. Those movie shots don't actually use forced perspective per say, but they do use green/blue screen overlay, creating a type of forced perspective, but as has been pointed out the scaling in those shots is not consistent with each other, so why not just try to make it look "BIG" on the table. Jacking up the elevation of the stand to 15cm would actually help both playability and making it look impressively "BIG". (In this case, using forced perspective on the table to help a model that works in the game actually look right.)

For the record, I love this discussion as a problem solving exercise, but it is much more fun now that it has moved away from just "I want it" vs "It can't work" of the last thread. We have now moved into a much more productive, "how they could make it work" (**** difficult, but not impossible) vs "how they could do it wrong" ( so **** easy).

My big thing is I want to look at the model and rules and think Empire Strikes Back not Michael Bay's Teen Age Mutant Ninja Turtles. Because even the best source material can be ruined by the wrong intentions. (And pumping out a quick product just to make a buck is absolutely the wrong intention. FFG is in business to make money, but a sloppy bad product will led to declining sales and the end of FFG. So far they've been good about quality>quantity for Armada.)

I'm in the camp that I just don't see how they can do the thing justice. And it's not just about making the 'size' of the model right. Game play wise, you would have to seriously tone down the power of the ship to make it playable. Even if the thing was a base cost of 300 points, that means that, in game play terms, it would be at a points disadvantage in a fight against 3 MC80s, or, to go more extreme, against 7 CR90As. If points remained balanced, then that means those 3 MC80s or 7 CR90s should have a reasonable chance at winning a straight up fight against the SSD. That is simply not doing it the justice it deserves, at least in my opinion. CR90's are gnats compared to an SSD. So we go with an epic play requirement, which makes sense. How many points would it have to be to realistically relay the power the ship should have? Does it require such a big game that very few people want to do it so it goes almost completely unplayed? If so, what's the point? So we can all have a pretty model to sit on our shelves?

Maybe some folks just want it bad enough to ignore the massive scaling back that would be required to make it playable (again, I'm not even talking about size and space requirements here), but I suspect I would just feel cheated. If anyone can do it, it's FFG. But, I don't think they should try. Anymore than they should try to make a 'playable' Death Star, or a Nebulon B for X-Wing.

36 minutes ago, Beatty said:

My big thing is I want to look at the model and rules and think Empire Strikes Back not Michael Bay's Teen Age Mutant Ninja Turtles. Because even the best source material can be ruined by the wrong intentions. (And pumping out a quick product just to make a buck is absolutely the wrong intention. FFG is in business to make money, but a sloppy bad product will led to declining sales and the end of FFG. So far they've been good about quality>quantity for Armada.)

On that we agree completely!

Even though it has become a running gag, I am inclined to believe that SWM20 is the SSD, not just for the development synergies with CC and wave 5, not just for the card art hints, not even from the continued lack of Piett, but from the length of development. From my perspective, the longer it stays in development, the better chance it is the SSD & that it will be done well. A rushed version would be nothing but a money grab.

Doing it justice, stat wise, is going to just as much of a balancing act as scale.

Some things to remember; it doesn't need to follow the same 4 arc, single hull formula as existing ships, nor do I think it can. It's massive firepower can be spread between any number of arcs, or it could target any number of ships in an arc, in the same way ships target squadrons. It can be vulnerable to some tactics, while others would be suicidal for the same fleet facing it. An additional range and dice could be added to give it a greater threat range than other ships. It should be expensive, but not prohibitively so. Running one should provide advantages and disadvantages to that fleet.

All of these things, and I am sure there are others, make it difficult but possible. That's why it would need Epic Scale rules.

Just going to toss in my own idea because why not. I accept it will come when it comes, and can wait patiently. I expect at least one more fighter wave first so at minimum a year I feel, maybe that games expo they just had, make it the big reveal next year.

Anyways 2.5x larger than a ISD, on 2 stands like the xwing epics. wide front and rear arcs plus a combined side arc that uses about half of each stand to simulate. Needs at least 20 hull. A minimum of 8 forward shield (another issue as we haven't even seen a 6 yet, have we? I expect that first also, and this thing wont have one more shield than a large ship), maybe 6 sides and 5 rear. means it can run forward and take a beating but it wont be unkillable. For dice, front 6 red, 4 blue 2 black, sides should be stronger because of sheer length and thus number of emplacements maybe 8 red, 4 blue, 3 black. Rear 3 red, 2 blue 0 black. I also think introducing a new die color could limit number of dice needed, say an epic only purple die, good at 2nd range, 2x miss sides, 3x 2 hit sides, 1x 2 accuracy, 1x 2 critical, 1x 3 hits or 2 hits 1 critical. Ship could include 4 of those dice then use them to replace some of the reds and blues. They could even just have a whole new "epic" red blue and black set only to be used with these ships. Just an idea, not sure how to balance or implement. maybe an extra long range stick like xwing (range 4 is red for these ships, 3 is blue, 2 black, and 1 is purple, this represents the improved firepower of these massive ships so their batteries have more punch at further range). Anti fighter could be one of each basic color, maybe 2 reds 1 blue.

Upgrades would have to be numerous to represent size and crew complement again, so perhaps 1 commander, officer, 2x support, 1x weapons teams, 2 turbolaser, 1 ion cannon, 1 fleet support, 1 fleet command, 1x offensive, 2x defensive and allow 2 modifications. I know 10+ possible cards before a title and admiral is insane, but if this one ship starts at upwards of 200 points, these cards easily make it 300pts. some titles could even add more slots and thus more power AND cost. These things should be beasts, but the main focus of your fleet. Special tactics should be required to take one on and win, and rebels should be trying to get fighters in close from multiple angles to force a massive splitting of fire if the SSD still only gets 2 shots. At a 600pts game, with 300+ sunk in this beast, the empire will need to devote a good portion of its 200pts to fighters so either 1 escort or less upgrades and more escorts. This means we see 4-7 rebel ships plus fighters engaging a ship that will one shot a lot of stuff up close, meaning we could have some pretty back and forth fights.

jump up to 800-1000pts and we now have a multiplayer game of 2v2 with some fairly substantial deployments and still keeping a good amount of balance but really letting the SSD stretch its legs when it comes to upgrades. mix in some special epic only ship abilities and powers like we have in xwing (energy?), and the matches will be quite unique.

Also we need Piett. He commanded a SSD. Confirmed for release.

The most intelligent idea in order to perfect the balance of a SSD Release is to release it for both factions initially. The Alliance did eventually gain control of a SSD Lusankya, so give each faction their name brand SSD, Empire can get the Executor and Rebels get the Lusankya.

Was thinking about this more in depth, for a interesting Super Weapon release, Release the Eclipse as a separate later release with an extreamly toned down Laser weapon, or at the very least, a time limit involved for a special mission type that it could only be played in that mission style, giving the Rebels a small window in order to disable the main cannon. before moving onto the rest of the ship, if not, the Eclipse can auto destory ONE enemy ship of the enemy, but it would need to be large as or larger then a Nebulon B to be targeted by it. Up to and including the Super Star Destroyer Lusankya or if it ever does down the line get released Viscount Class Star Defender...

Same gameplay can be featured for a release of the Death Star I or II. Time limit before planet, or ship destruction.

I think when the Empire gets the SSD, the Rebels will get the Starhawk. About three starhawks with squadron support match an SSD.

Im not anti rebels getting a captured SSD like I was against the rebels getting the quasar, I just think it would be a little bit of a boring solution.

If rebels get an SSD however there is an argument then for a scum faction coming into play. Afterall a pirate gan captured and is now running around the galaxy with a SSD. Theres a scum capital ship for ya thats canon.

I doubt that FFG will do a rebel SSD. Doesn't seem like they will be doing anything cross-factional. If there is going to be rebel counter to the SSD I'd favour the bulwark. It's ugly as sin but it's rebel to the core.

In fact the are many great EU ships that would be good in the game. Shame we are not likely to see them.

Or just give Rebs the Viscount. Mon Calamari SSD counterpart.

On 4-4-2017 at 1:53 AM, AegisGrimm said:

Or just give Rebs the Viscount. Mon Calamari SSD counterpart.

As much as I love the Bulwark, I think the Viscount would make a better rebel alternative due to its Mon Calamari looks. The rebels could really use a big mon cal ship that is bigger than ISD's, considering how the Home One model in Armada is way too small.