Well thankfully FFG continue to apply Gameplay > Fluff.
I'm sure they will make it. I'm sure it will be great and bring in some brilliant aspects to tournament play by the cards alone. And the epic version lends it self so perfectly to Corellian conflict style expansions that have already exceeded expectation.
The only other certainty is that people will also carry on and complain about scale etc.. ..
On 16/03/2017 at 11:24 PM, Ironlord said:It's based on the assumption that the SSD's conning tower is comparable in diameter to that of the ISD. 289m was the figure given in Complete Locations - which was redone for the newcanon with minimal changes
And what has ever given people reason to believe that the conning towers are anywhere near the same size? Nothing has ever given measurements or compared the bridges. This is just peoples preconceived notions.
On 17/03/2017 at 3:26 PM, Ironlord said:While I believe the brass ISD exists, and that it was used for a few shots, I think we can safely say that it would have a larger command tower than the SSD.
Why can you safely say that? Do you have anything to base that on, or proof? Anything other than "I think" ?
Since this game has only 3 different sizes of ship anyway, small medium or large, what does the scale of the model do except give you a bit of shiny? You could put a tissue box on the top of the ISD base and it wouldn't change how the game is played a single bit. Except for being able to offer a tissue to those who are crying in their defeat.
Edited by Teloch9 hours ago, Teloch said:And what has ever given people reason to believe that the conning towers are anywhere near the same size?
The book: From Star Wars to Indiana Jones - which discussed the props from both movie serieses, including the Executor prop - and stated that the conning tower was supposed to be the same size as the ISD one (and that the ship was supposed to be 11x the ISD's length).
9 hours ago, Teloch said:Why can you safely say that?
Measuring. I've measured the FFG ISD's tower - 3.5 cm (it's 20.5 cm long). Upscaling it to Brass Star Destroyer size (Brass Star Destroyer is 33.5 cm long) would produce a tower around 5.7 cm wide. According to Saxton, David West-Reynolds measured the Executor's tower and found it to be 4.2 cm wide.
19 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:If the 19000m SSD is scaled for Armada, the command tower will be way too small, but if FFG uses the original official 8000m SSD, then the command tower is visually correct.
If FFG are directly copying from the movie (find original movie model, scan it, 3d-model it) - the command tower will be the same size relative to the ship's length, no matter what length they use. Specifically, the model will be about 66x as long as its tower is wide.
Edited by IronlordI think it's safe to say that no matter how much we fanboy over the SSD class (after all, it is AWEome, isn't it?!) it would just be too OP for inclusion into Armada. Even taking in the scale anomalies we already have, it is just a little too much to believe we could put it on the board in any playable, meaningful size. It would be more believable if you played on a 'SSD map' than an actual ship model. Setting scale aside, you could probably play a CC final battle with three Rebel fleets on one side and the Imperial player with 1 SSD but points alone would keep the Imp player from fielding anything meaningful in support. Better to dream and wait for that next game release where the SD's are quarter-size and your SSD is the size of a X-Wing Raider.
Edited by BoreSight21 minutes ago, BoreSight said:I think it's safe to say that no matter how much we fanboy over the SSD class (after all, it is AWEome, isn't it?!) it would just be too OP for inclusion into Armada. Even taking in the scale anomalies we already have, it is just a little too much to believe we could put it on the board in any playable, meaningful size. It would be more believable if you played on a 'SSD map' than an actual ship model. Setting scale aside, you could probably play a CC final battle with three Rebel fleets on one side and the Imperial player with 1 SSD but points alone would keep the Imp player from fielding anything meaningful in support. Better to dream and wait for that next game release where the SD's are quarter-size and your SSD is the size of a X-Wing Raider.
totally disagree.
Imagine a Corellian Conflict style release - a Campaign about stopping the Dreadnaughts. You get multiple ship cards for it - 3 levels. 1 level is an "Under construction" version where it has very few capabilities and effectively serves as a huge target. The second version is "partially built" and that's the version that might eventually see casual play - it would cost 180 points and have moderate dice and defenses. about the same as a victory 2, but more firing arcs, and special upgrades that allow it to fire 3 times per round instead of just 2.
The final version would be fully loaded and would cost you 300 points. It would be nasty but it's probably your only ship. (Maybe you sneak some squadrons and a raider in there, or if you go up to 500 points then you MIGHT have a small defense force.
It's inherent weakness would be that almost every ship will permanently have double arc on it - so it could lose over multiple rounds. It might even have a special condition that if it dies, it's an instant win for the other side.
Plenty of ways to make it.
3 minutes ago, Crabbok said:totally disagree.
Imagine a Corellian Conflict style release - a Campaign about stopping the Dreadnaughts. You get multiple ship cards for it - 3 levels. 1 level is an "Under construction" version where it has very few capabilities and effectively serves as a huge target. The second version is "partially built" and that's the version that might eventually see casual play - it would cost 180 points and have moderate dice and defenses. about the same as a victory 2, but more firing arcs, and special upgrades that allow it to fire 3 times per round instead of just 2.
The final version would be fully loaded and would cost you 300 points. It would be nasty but it's probably your only ship. (Maybe you sneak some squadrons and a raider in there, or if you go up to 500 points then you MIGHT have a small defense force.
It's inherent weakness would be that almost every ship will permanently have double arc on it - so it could lose over multiple rounds. It might even have a special condition that if it dies, it's an instant win for the other side.
Plenty of ways to make it.
Ok, I could see this and would probably buy it 
but I don't see that as 'plenty of ways' being that it's part of a limited campaign and not for general use. Could you use that in multiple ways to use in a tournament? I see it as more of a Death Star Trench Run deal.
I may have mistook your original post as meaning 'for general play.'
Unfortunately I think an Executor-class SSD is about as appropriate for the scale of Armada as a Neb-B or Arquittens showing up in X-Wing. It's just too **** big and powerful, even for the sliding scale. Yeah, things are sometimes fudged 30-40% either way in Armada, but the Executor would be more like 75% downscaled in both power and size.
Seriously, how balanced would a ship be that can concievably one-shot an Assault Frigate or maybe even an MC80 like an ImpStar can one-shot a CR-90?
Edited by AegisGrimmIt is important to remember that "general play", "tournament play" and "campaign play" are 3 completely different conditions.
Only"tournament play" limits fleet builds to 400 points.
"Campaign play" sets forth an expandable fleet system.
"General play" has no limit on the points available, other than the 1/3 points max of Squadrons. There is no top end, other than the time of the players.
An SSD in Armada would be very conducive to both "campaign & general play" only in "tournament play" would it have no place. Even though I would expect FFG to release "Epic Scale tournament play" guidelines at the same time as an Epic Scale ship.
Not everyone plays Armada with a 400 point limit, and as a Game company, that wants to sell as many expansion packs as possible, why would you want to limit your customers to only purchase products that can fit in a 400 point list.
By your logic, I would have no reason to own 5 ISD expansion packs... But I do, and 4 of them have already ended up in the same list for an 800 point game.
Why not? I have both the time and the willing opponents.
I played a 900 point game with a 280 point, 26 hull, 22 inch Executor, and I thought it was just fine in terms of physical size, power level, etc. It didn't seem at all unbelievable when the thing finally went down.
The Executor is the Boba Fett of capital ships. Everyone says, "No way you could play the Executor, it's too badass, it would one-shot everything and be indestructible", meanwhile, in Return of the Jedi, the only movie where we see either Boba or the Executor in combat, and they both get one-shotted by a critical hit.
No one could ever believe, from an in-universe perspective, that Han or Luke could ever be gunned down by some no-name TIE fighter pilot, but in Armada they're just regular squadrons with regular stats and two measly brace tokens and yet nobody freaks out about it.
Granted, in terms of tournament use, I don't think an SSD would be a good fit.
FFG's Executor will probably be out very soon, and as others have mentioned it will probably have a Fleet Command slot. The Entrapment Formation! card shows an SSD in the center of a fleet of ISDs, with no Rebel ships in sight. It seems to me that Imperials are the ones utilizing that upgrade in that artwork.
Really, there just isn't any question that FFG will be releasing the Executor. After printing so many no-name Imperial admirals yet neglecting the guy who commanded the most famous Star Wars capital ship at the most famous Star Wars capital ship battle. If they thought Armada's scale wasn't appropriate for the Executor, then they would have designed Armada at a smaller scale from its very inception in order to include it. They would have rather pushed GR-75s out of the bottom end of the scale then fail to release a model of the single most famous capital ship in the Star Wars universe.
For me, I think the problem turn more of what the SSD will bring on the table insted of the longuer of it.
You have to balanced thing's out, armement vs. defence. Too many red dices in the frontal arc, it will be to hard to fight against. Not enough, it will not respect the theme. Blue dices could maybe be the alternative. It's the same for de number of shield.
A good number of hull and shield could be good if you think for defence, you could only rely on redirecting shield loss (no brace or evade). I don't want to give a number of dice, hull or shield because each one of them have to be analyse for the number of point that the vessel should cost and the synergy with all the upgrades, modifications or with admirals.
I have a strong believe that FFG is doing is homeworks on this one and are analysing each asset and will bring something that can respect the theme and be fun to play with or against it. 
I don't think every release for armada needs to be catered to the tournament crowd. The ssd could be made for the casual fans for casual, friendly games and be banned from tournaments. I don't see ffg holding admiral piett out of the game for this long if the ssd isn't planned for release. Further, they had to of had the idea of the executor when the game was being created. They would not make this game without the intention to release it. As long as it's double the size of the sd, I'll be content. Scale really doesn't mean to much in this game.
Edited by ninclouse2000I wouldn't mind if we get Epic scale Armada but that would mean some things like the Resurgence class would be huge size and not large.
37 minutes ago, chr335 said:I wouldn't mind if we get Epic scale Armada but that would mean some things like the Resurgence class would be huge size and not large.
Not necessarily, the Resurgence class could still fit as a large base ship. It would depend on how they want to portray it in Armada.
20 hours ago, BoreSight said:Better to dream and wait for that next game release where the SD's are quarter-size and your SSD is the size of a X-Wing Raider.
One option might be to use the existing system - but with ships proxying other ships. Result - a "scaled up" Armada game that doesn't require you to invest in a whole new rules system - only in models.
In this case, the Executor would use VSD rules (since there exist SSDs even more powerful than the Executor), and the ISD would be fielded as a squadron of 3 and use the rules for one of the TIE types.
I wonder if they release an SSD at two or three times the length of an ISD if whether they should exaggerate some of the features slightly to let it better fit amongst the other ships. I'm talking like the bridge and the engines. It would probably be best to just make SSD proportionally accurate so at least the model by itself looks good.
As for being OP, well squadrons took out the main engines and shield generators and bridge of the Executor so its not like the ship is invincible to tiny ships (although I will forever call BS on that explanation but whatever).
Edited by ForrestoMy guess on scaling would be just under 1 meter.
I did a little forced perspective work and came op with this:
That is a 8000m SSD nearly perfectly scaled to the FFG ISD.
5× the length, over double the width. Give it a new base, or double up on Large bases, and it would not only look good on the table, it would be playable as a slow (speed 1-2) ship.
The command tower needs some rescaling to fit, but only about double it's current size on this model. Sorry, if it is hard to tell the size of the bridge tower, all you can really make out is the metallic highlights.
This is the scale Armada should be shooting for in developing an SSD.
On 12/03/2017 at 2:10 AM, cynanbloodbane said:How do you get the crew to want to get off a SSD?
How do you get the crew to want to get off a Nuclear Submarine?
Read or watch Hunt for Red October, and it becomes a more believable scenario.
The crew of a Typhoon class submarine numbers ~160. It's not the same as stealing / mutiny on something with a large complement.
(also it never happened, and was based on a Krivak incident I think..?)
Go try stealing a US aircraft carrier, you'll get shot on the dock by SEALs, and wouldn't be able to start it up anyway.
About the closest is the Enterprise, stolen by Kirk et al. Crew ~750..
11 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:My guess on scaling would be just under 1 meter.
I did a little forced perspective work and came op with this:
That is a 8000m SSD nearly perfectly scaled to the FFG ISD.
5× the length, over double the width. Give it a new base, or double up on Large bases, and it would not only look good on the table, it would be playable as a slow (speed 1-2) ship.
The command tower needs some rescaling to fit, but only about double it's current size on this model. Sorry, if it is hard to tell the size of the bridge tower, all you can really make out is the metallic highlights.
This is the scale Armada should be shooting for in developing an SSD.
Not accurate actually. Here is a picture straight from the movie. It's not force perspective it's actually extremely large.
Note, the ISD's are in the Foreground! Forced perspective would have them in the background, so that 8000 meter argument is not accurate and I'm not sure where you got that number from. And I am saying that with respect, it's just not accurate.
I never understood where that 8km size came from. The picture above clearly shows an ISD in front of the Executer and it's NOWHERE NEAR being 1/5 the length. That's a shot straight from the movies. I think WEG's roleplaying game is guilty of this one, but I don't get how they came up with their stats. Regardless, if an SSD ever comes to Armada (I hope it doesn't), then I think it needs to be at least close to the size cynanbloodbane shows. While that's not 'accurate' it would work with the sliding scale and still do Executer justice. It could probably be squeezed down another 20-25% but anything smaller just wouldn't feel right. That said, I hope they don't make it. I just don't think you can do it the justice it rightly deserves in a game of this scale.
Edited by XindellAnother picture from the movie to give perspective.
This is what I think of when I hear Executor. Not the Executor crashing into the Death Star which makes it look small but this image here which blew my young mind when I saw it on the big screen.
2 minutes ago, Beatty said:Another picture from the movie to give perspective.
I must say that the more I see of the SSD from these angles, the uglier it becomes. . . I mean, I always remembered it as slim flat and narrow, but that engine bit is very tall, the bridge sticks out to much in my opinion, and the 'buildings' bit is too hill-like. . .
It could just be the angle at which I am viewing it, but it seems a bit. . . I dunno, ungainly. Inelegant, if you will.
7 minutes ago, NobodyInParticular said:I must say that the more I see of the SSD from these angles, the uglier it becomes. . . I mean, I always remembered it as slim flat and narrow, but that engine bit is very tall, the bridge sticks out to much in my opinion, and the 'buildings' bit is too hill-like. . .
It could just be the angle at which I am viewing it, but it seems a bit. . . I dunno, ungainly. Inelegant, if you will.
It's the angle. To actually have the ISD's be in the shot and to still notice them for an ISD they had to get a shot too close up to the ship. Like taking a picture of your nose close up, it will make it look huge compared to your face. That forced perspective that was mentioned earlier. (But he got the idea backwards because forced perspective deals with putting images in close in the foreground for it to work.)
Here it is at a distance.
Edited by BeattyThere are problems with scaling in those two images. In the first image, the ISD in the foreground has a bridge that appears smaller than the apparent size of the SSD bridge. This implies that the bridge on the (more distant) SSD is much larger than an ISD bridge.
When you look at the second image, the ISD in the background (upper right) has a bridge roughly the same apparent size as the SSD bridge. But if it is further away (and it must be, because the SSD partially covers it) then its bridge should have a smaller apparent size.
Truth is, I don't much mind that the scaling might have been a little sloppy. I always had the idea that the SSD was BIG, and that is what was important from a cinematic point of view.
24 minutes ago, Xindell said:I never understood where that 8km size came from. The picture above clearly shows an ISD in front of the Executer and it's NOWHERE NEAR being 1/5 the length. That's a shot straight from the movies. I think WEG's roleplaying game is guilty of this one, but I don't get how they came up with their stats. Regardless, if an SSD ever comes to Armada (I hope it doesn't), then I think it needs to be at least close to the size cynanbloodbane shows. While that's not 'accurate' it would work with the sliding scale and still do Executer justice. It could probably be squeezed down another 20-25% but anything smaller just wouldn't feel right. That said, I hope they don't make it. I just don't think you can do it the justice it rightly deserves in a game of this scale.
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.
17 minutes ago, Beatty said:It's the angle. To actually have the ISD's be in the shot and to still notice them for an ISD they had to get a shot too close up to the ship. Like taking a picture of your nose close up, it will make it look huge compared to your face. That forced perspective that was mentioned earlier. (But he got the idea backwards because forced perspective deals with putting images in close in the foreground for it to work.)
Here it is at a distance.
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.?
