3 hours ago, Norsehound said:

Well, just play with Imperials and never look at the bottom. Since I imagine everyone plays the game looking down on the top of their models, you'll never notice the difference.

but they are too expencive

On 5/17/2017 at 9:12 PM, Norsehound said:

Do we have any reason to presume the Tector is anything other than an ISD without the hangar apertures on the underside?

If not, just run your ISD-II without any offensive retrofits and you have a Tector.

Seriously, I do not understand the want and desire for this ship, considering every depiction, legends and otherwise, is an Imperial class in every other angle than the underside. Can someone please post a comprehensive overview image of the Tector that isn't identical to the Imperial?

It adds another large base to Imps that can have a different stat line which I'm fine with. Not sure why anyone would want to limit the amount of ships we can play with since it opens up different fleet builds.

1 hour ago, Undeadguy said:

It adds another large base to Imps that can have a different stat line which I'm fine with. Not sure why anyone would want to limit the amount of ships we can play with since it opens up different fleet builds.

In my view, it's because the Tector is only barely different.

It was originally a design mistake, and it's difference versus an Imperial is sacrificing squadron capacity for being more heavily armored.

That's a pretty boring contrast to base an entire separate ship around. Contrast that to the difference in design space the HMC80/LMC80 occupy - in order to make a Tector that different from an Imperial, you'd have to change it enough that it's hardly recognizable as a Tector anymore. And on that point, the Tector looks almost just like an Imperial to boot. Variety is good, which is exactly why I think the Tector should be constrained to a title. There are other options for large base Star Destroyers that would be more distinct from the ISD.

And on that note, I've serious-ed up my Tector title pitch:

Tector-Class (non-unique)

When you resolve a squadron command, you cannot activate more than one squadron.

At the start of the first round, increase both of your side arc shields by one. The first time you would take one or more faceup damage cards, discard this card instead.

7 points

3 minutes ago, svelok said:

And on that note, I've serious-ed up my Tector title pitch:

Tector-Class (non-unique)

When you resolve a squadron command, you cannot activate more than one squadron.

At the start of the first round, increase both of your side arc shields by one. The first time you would take one or more faceup damage cards, discard this card instead.

7 points

So, it takes damage and then can suddenly command all the fighters ?

14 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

So, it takes damage and then can suddenly command all the fighters ?

17 minutes ago, svelok said:

In my view, it's because the Tector is only barely different.

It was originally a design mistake, and it's difference versus an Imperial is sacrificing squadron capacity for being more heavily armored.

That's a pretty boring contrast to base an entire separate ship around. Contrast that to the difference in design space the HMC80/LMC80 occupy - in order to make a Tector that different from an Imperial, you'd have to change it enough that it's hardly recognizable as a Tector anymore. And on that point, the Tector looks almost just like an Imperial to boot. Variety is good, which is exactly why I think the Tector should be constrained to a title. There are other options for large base Star Destroyers that would be more distinct from the ISD.

And on that note, I've serious-ed up my Tector title pitch:

Tector-Class (non-unique)

When you resolve a squadron command, you cannot activate more than one squadron.

At the start of the first round, increase both of your side arc shields by one. The first time you would take one or more faceup damage cards, discard this card instead.

7 points

This is a start

14 minutes ago, svelok said:

In my view, it's because the Tector is only barely different.

It was originally a design mistake, and it's difference versus an Imperial is sacrificing squadron capacity for being more heavily armored.

That's a pretty boring contrast to base an entire separate ship around. Contrast that to the difference in design space the HMC80/LMC80 occupy - in order to make a Tector that different from an Imperial, you'd have to change it enough that it's hardly recognizable as a Tector anymore. And on that point, the Tector looks almost just like an Imperial to boot. Variety is good, which is exactly why I think the Tector should be constrained to a title. There are other options for large base Star Destroyers that would be more distinct from the ISD.

And on that note, I've serious-ed up my Tector title pitch:

Tector-Class (non-unique)

When you resolve a squadron command, you cannot activate more than one squadron.

At the start of the first round, increase both of your side arc shields by one. The first time you would take one or more faceup damage cards, discard this card instead.

7 points

Idk, the last time I checked, having another Imp ship devoted to getting into close range and tanking would be great. Just because they look the same does not mean they are the same. Giving it double turbolaser upgrades would be amazing for Imperials. Not paying a premium on squadron value would be great. Instead you pay for all ship on ship action, which is what a lot of people want. Give it 3 anti-squadron dice and it can reliably fend off squadrons when it's supported by some Raiders.

The ISD would fall into a command ship role. The Tector would be your hammer. I think it would be very fun to field both of them at the same time.

3 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

Idk, the last time I checked, having another Imp ship devoted to getting into close range and tanking would be great. Just because they look the same does not mean they are the same. Giving it double turbolaser upgrades would be amazing for Imperials. Not paying a premium on squadron value would be great. Instead you pay for all ship on ship action, which is what a lot of people want. Give it 3 anti-squadron dice and it can reliably fend off squadrons when it's supported by some Raiders.

The ISD would fall into a command ship role. The Tector would be your hammer. I think it would be very fun to field both of them at the same time.

Again, I'm not opposed to any of these ideas. I just think the Tector is a bad choice. By all means bring in more variety for Imperial large ships.

25 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

So, it takes damage and then can suddenly command all the fighters ?

Stare too closely at your own work, and you lose the forest for the trees...

On 5/17/2017 at 0:55 PM, BrobaFett said:

Until we see it on screen, it's chance of appearing in Armada is slim. Who knows though, maybe we get lucky and Han Solo has to flee from one at some point during his prequel biopic.

If you want to skip the wait and get right to the money, then I can point you here-

http://kdyards.com/ships.view.php?id=291

This Tector by @cynanbloodbane is pretty well fleshed out, and if you snoop around a little you will find a number of other Tector's designed by various individuals over the years.

Thanks. That is one of my personal favorites, though I actually like my Tector II even more.

http://kdyards.com/ships.view.php?id=426

One of these is a Tector, and one is an ISD-II. Which is which?

I mean the next design is ugly, but at least it's more distinct than the Tector:

24 minutes ago, GrandAdmiralCrunch said:

One of these is a Tector, and one is an ISD-II. Which is which?

I mean the next design is ugly, but at least it's more distinct than the Tector:

The second one.

4 minutes ago, starbat861 said:

The second one.

Is second, yes.

Just now, GrandAdmiralCrunch said:

Is second, yes.

See you can tell by how long and narrow it is to the isd

1 minute ago, starbat861 said:

See you can tell by how long and narrow it is to the isd

Is that actually a difference, or just a difference with depiction?

I feel like I've read arguments about fat ISDs vs. Skinny ones.

Just now, GrandAdmiralCrunch said:

Is that actually a difference, or just a difference with depiction?

I feel like I've read arguments about fat ISDs vs. Skinny ones.

That is what it looks like in movies and the pictures

6 minutes ago, starbat861 said:

That is what it looks like in movies and the pictures

Yes, but depending on the angle an ISD can look thicker, or skinnier.

The wiki brings out that the only difference is the armored keel. Doesn't mention that the hull is shaped differently: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tector-class_Star_Destroyer

1 hour ago, GrandAdmiralCrunch said:

Yes, but depending on the angle an ISD can look thicker, or skinnier.

The wiki brings out that the only difference is the armored keel. Doesn't mention that the hull is shaped differently: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tector-class_Star_Destroyer

You used a classic tector image but can we stop talking about pictures and start talking about stats

No, I used a Tector image that is indistinguishable from an ISD image... because from a top angle there is no difference. No official source has stated that their is a difference other than the changes to the bottom of the ship.

The point being that a new Tector model would be pointless, as you couldn't tell it from an ISD without flipping it over, which would be a pain during game play.

now if they want to release some new ISD-Tector variant ship cards in a campaign box... that would be awesome. Maybe drop the price a bit, increase the hull value, change the upgrade icons. That would be a welcome addition.

I still think you could make the boring Tector very interesting by canonizing its unseen upper parts in a way to carry four Gozantis.

Piggy-Back Gozanti Tector!

#GoTeamGozTector

1 hour ago, GrandAdmiralCrunch said:

No, I used a Tector image that is indistinguishable from an ISD image... because from a top angle there is no difference. No official source has stated that their is a difference other than the changes to the bottom of the ship.

The point being that a new Tector model would be pointless, as you couldn't tell it from an ISD without flipping it over, which would be a pain during game play.

now if they want to release some new ISD-Tector variant ship cards in a campaign box... that would be awesome. Maybe drop the price a bit, increase the hull value, change the upgrade icons. That would be a welcome addition.

fine just make a ship card for it

Ok all you need is this -

Tector Class Variant

(Imperial Star Destroyer Only)

Offensive Retrofit Slot

"Reduce your squadron value to zero"

Cost: -10

27 minutes ago, Crabbok said:

Ok all you need is this -

Tector Class Variant

(Imperial Star Destroyer Only)

Offensive Retrofit Slot

"Reduce your squadron value to zero"

Cost: -10

how does this help it gives no benifits

14 minutes ago, starbat861 said:

how does this help it gives no benifits

negative 10 point cost

1 minute ago, Crabbok said:

negative 10 point cost

ok i get your point this is sweet and maybe one more hull. bright hope ability would be great

27 minutes ago, starbat861 said:

ok i get your point this is sweet and maybe one more hull. bright hope ability would be great

A single use of a Pseudo-Bright-Hope ability - on any ship (ie, not just a Flotilla) is worth an Officer Slot, Unique to a Fleet, and 7 Points. (Maj. Derlin)

If you want the Bright Hope ability on a large, tough, survivable ship - and have it happen more than once per turn... You're going to have to pay for it. A lot.

7 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

A single use of a Pseudo-Bright-Hope ability - on any ship (ie, not just a Flotilla) is worth an Officer Slot, Unique to a Fleet, and 7 Points. (Maj. Derlin)

If you want the Bright Hope ability on a large, tough, survivable ship - and have it happen more than once per turn... You're going to have to pay for it. A lot.

thanks