10 minutes ago, xanderf said:

Guaranteed.

The last few times people have put their money where their mouth is with a "guarantee", they've ended up spending money...

Not that its a bad thing, just more a warning that "Guarantee" is a hell of a thing to promise when it comes to FFG...

And Technically - its not a Guarantee unless there's some proviso for failure

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

The last few times people have put their money where their mouth is with a "guarantee", they've ended up spending money...

Not that its a bad thing, just more a warning that "Guarantee" is a hell of a thing to promise when it comes to FFG...

And Technically - its not a Guarantee unless there's some proviso for failure

All I'm saying is - I called the ships in the following 4 waves last March without error - only missing the Liberty and Rebel Transports.

FFG is pretty predictable with releases for this one.

1 minute ago, xanderf said:

All I'm saying is - I called the ships in the following 4 waves last March without error - only missing the Liberty and Rebel Transports.

FFG is pretty predictable with releases for this one.

Awesome, but Immaterial - you're still misusing the word "Guarantee", unless you're providing a proviso for if it does not happen

3 hours ago, xanderf said:

I mean, I'm no fan of the new trilogy - rather an outspoken critic of it. I'll watch them once, as it's Star Wars, but haven't bought them or any merch from them (I did totally go crazy for Rogue One, of course), and if the Finalizer is in the next wave for Armada...will rejoice, as I really don't have room in my collection for more ships, and a wave I can skip something in is great for the budget, too!

That said ...I know I'm in the minority, here. I mean, TFA made $2 BILLION in box office tickets, alone. Merchandise sales are much harder to tally (and we don't know Disney's % take, anyway), but were on track to pass $5 billion THE YEAR THE MOVIE CAME OUT .

If you think FFG is going to pass on that because they don't have a good match for the Rebel side? C'mon...ain't happenin'. You may rest assured they are burning whatever midnight oil is needed, and have been since they got details on the ships in the movie, trying to figure out how to make it work in the game in a way that makes sense and works with their license. Given Armada apparently has a longer development cycle than X-Wing does (comparing when we got our Gozanti, Interdictor, Quasar Fire, and Hammerhead to when they appeared on-screen), it was only ever going to be the next wave (at the soonest) before the Resurgent-class could have appeared.

So the question is really - 'will FFG release the Resurgent-class in the earliest wave it could be playtested and ready, or will they for some reason hold off on it because they don't like to make money?'

It's in wave 7. Guaranteed.

Honestly, it's the MC75 that is the bigger question of the two. Normally I'd say odds are very low - it's just too soon for them to have turned that ship around. Arguments in favor of it, though, are interviews by FFG where they indicated they were getting a lot closer co-operation with Disney for 'Rogue One' than they did for Episode VII...as well as the relative obviousness of another Mon Cal ship (IE., it's not unlikely that FFG already had another Rebel Mon Cal-sized design already being worked on, before they had a name to attach to it).

You need to remember the target audience for Armada... a tabletop Wargamers. The older fans are the ones with the disposable income for a tabletop wargame on this scale. That is why we see so many EU ships thus far and zero new trilogy ships. It has been out for a year and a half... That doesn't suggest "striking while the iron is hot". If they do a Resurgent, it will ONLY be as part of a full New Trilogy wave. Possibly 7 or 8. If not we will have 2 more years to wait for Episode 9.

Until then there are plenty of re-canonized EU ships.

37 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

You need to remember the target audience for Armada... a tabletop Wargamers. The older fans are the ones with the disposable income for a tabletop wargame on this scale. That is why we see so many EU ships thus far and zero new trilogy ships. It has been out for a year and a half... That doesn't suggest "striking while the iron is hot". If they do a Resurgent, it will ONLY be as part of a full New Trilogy wave. Possibly 7 or 8. If not we will have 2 more years to wait for Episode 9.

Until then there are plenty of re-canonized EU ships.

Gozanti - announced March 2016, first seen September 2014 ('Rebels' S01E01)...18 months earlier

Interdictor - announced May 2016, first seen November 2015 ('Rebels' S02E09)...7 months earlier*

Arquitens - announced August 2016, first seen February 2015 ('Rebels' S01E14)...18 months earlier

Phoenix Home - announced August 2016, first seen April 2015 ('Rebels' S02E1)...16 months earlier

Imperial Light Carrier - announced March 2017, first seen February 2016 ('Rebels' S02E16)...13 months earlier

Hammerhead Corvette - announced March 2017, first seen January 2016 ('Rebels' S02E12)...14 months earlier

* So while this would appear to be the record turnaround, at 7 months...keep in mind that the Interdictor as a concept is a VERY old and VERY popular EU design. FFG would absolutely have been working on that, already, and only needed to adjust its final design for the game. Otherwise - everything takes over a year, and a year and a half is not unusual, from 'we see it on-screen' to 'announced for the game'. That's the normal turnaround time.

(This is why I feel the MC75 is the least likely choice, but still probable. If, as expected, wave 7 is announced at GenCon in August - that'd be only 8 months since 'Rogue One' was out. Still, like the Interdictor...it's more of an 'obvious design' than the other ships. Surely, FFG had some kind of large-base Mon-Cal-like Rebel ship in their development pipeline, so finding out what one looks like and the name of it requires only small adjustments to release. Fortunately, the ship didn't really do anything particularly unique or memorable in the movie that would require specific design considerations, too, so...)

EDIT IN CASE IT ISN'T OBVIOUS: Don't read too much into the specific month numbers. Remember that FFG is actually working with Lucasfilm/Disney , so will have some details on the ships considerably before they appear on-screen. IE., the 'true' numbers of "when FFG finds out about a new thing coming" to "when they can announce it to us" is probably something like the numbers above plus-6-to-12-months-depending. But we can use the 'when it's on-screen' as a rough approximate starting point...

Agreed. It is important to remember that first seen is not last seen. R1 hit DVD less than 6 months ago, so still fresh. My argument was that the Resurgent will not happen unless they can do an entire wave, (think wave 2 in scope), of new Trilogy stuff with that 6 month window of freshness. Otherwise I am betting they will go with Canonised EU stuff. Appearance on screen is less important than the target audience wants it especially if they can squeeze it in as Canon to placate Disney. If they walk that tightrope, FFG can't loose.

XW Minis has drawn a lot of inspiration from the old X Wing and Tie Fighter computer game series. It stands to reason that Armada may utilise some ships from Empire at War.

I've watched Rebels but as a 46 year old seasoned gamer and original SW fan it doesn't inspire me as much as ships from the only true cannon - the live action movies. Considering the PT is pretty dire that only gives a limited spectrum. Therefore, ships from R1 and the sequel trilogy make more sense at this point. Surely they have to make the SSD work at some point for this game although there is no Rebel equivalent.

"only true cannon"

1) canon

2) Got News fer Ye

There are many true cannons - Star Destroyers each carry dozens upon dozens of them of various types and sizes! There's laser cannons, turbolasers, ion cannons...

On 7/19/2017 at 0:49 PM, cynanbloodbane said:

I would classify the Pelta as a Heavy small, but otherwise Nice visual chart!

My sentiments exactly. I'd put pelta as heavy small also, but love the chart as a whole, both in concept and execution.

15 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:

You need to remember the target audience for Armada... a tabletop Wargamers. The older fans are the ones with the disposable income for a tabletop wargame on this scale. That is why we see so many EU ships thus far and zero new trilogy ships.

This is a fascinating point. Not sure how true it is, but I like it.

15 hours ago, xanderf said:

Gozanti

Interdictor

Arquitens

Phoenix Home

Imperial Light Carrier

Hammerhead Corvette

It's important to note that while, except for the Interdictor, these are all "new canon" ships, none of them firmly displace anything from the EU, or from the OT. I mean, I would have prefered a Tartan Patrol Cruiser to the Raider, but I'll live. The rest just fill in useful spaces.

Consider instead the Fighter squadrons, particularly Rogues and Villains. I think that only two of those ships ever appeared on screen. The Fighter-2 packs were even more EU and OT heavy. E-wings, Z-95s, T/P and Devastator were pure EU. T/D is new canon, but there is not a doubt in my mind that they would have released it anyway. Lambda shuttle is OT, of course. Only the two uniques from Rebel II were new canon.

Releasing the new Star Destroyer is gonna be a big thing for them. It's gonna be a very marked pull away from the OT, and the balancing will have to be carefully considered. Resurgence is bigger, and, even if you allow for the technological stagnation, it's likely to be significantly more powerful. If they model that accurately, it will obsolete several current ships, or else be too expensive to use. If they normalize it, people will be blowing it up with Z-95 Headhunters, and that will rankle some people. The new TIEs, X-Wings and Shuttles might be interesting, but I'm not sure that it would be noticeable at this scale.

For myself, I'm happy enough that they stick with OT, at least until we have more stuff from ST to make a proper go of it. I would, however, like to see a PT wave or two. (but that's a whole other can of worms)

Don't forget Rogues and Villains. I bet a few of those ships haven't appeared on screen in new canon yet.

16 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:

You need to remember the target audience for Armada... a tabletop Wargamers. The older fans are the ones with the disposable income for a tabletop wargame on this scale. That is why we see so many EU ships thus far and zero new trilogy ships.

Didn't respond to that one earlier, but I really don't think that's true at all.

I mean, exhibit A: WH40K. That game has a VASTLY larger audience than X-Wing (still does, although X-Wing is now past it in sales), and it is a HECK of a lot more expensive to play.

Exhibit B: The folks with disposable income levels that dwarf even tabletop gamers and buying these ships are modellers. I mean, seriously, have you seen some of the stuff they are willing to buy? And I'm not even talking about the model train guys that can set up acres (literal acres) of train tracks and tiny cities and towns and such...

X-Wing/Armada is, as tabletop wargames and hobbies go, actually pretty inexpensive/easy to get into. So appeals a lot to folks who only know what is on-screen, and certainly a lot of marketing pushes in that direction.

15 minutes ago, JgzMan said:

Releasing the new Star Destroyer is gonna be a big thing for them. .... Resurgence is bigger, and, even if you allow for the technological stagnation, it's likely to be significantly more powerful. If they model that accurately, it will obsolete several current ships, or else be too expensive to use. If they normalize it, people will be blowing it up with Z-95 Headhunters, and that will rankle some people. The new TIEs, X-Wings and Shuttles might be interesting, but I'm not sure that it would be noticeable at this scale.

Keep in mind, though, the game is already designed for the ship .

I mean, not necessarily literally this ship, exactly - no way for FFG to have known this was coming when they started work on the game. But definitely "something larger than an Imperial Star Destroyer" is built right into the core set.

I'm sure you've noticed the numbers on all those shields dials you've been attaching over the years, no?

Quote

It's gonna be a very marked pull away from the OT, and the balancing will have to be carefully considered

...

For myself, I'm happy enough that they stick with OT, at least until we have more stuff from ST to make a proper go of it. I would, however, like to see a PT wave or two. (but that's a whole other can of worms)

To Disney, per their discussions they've had on marketing, they don't really see it as 'PT' or 'OT' or 'NT'. It's just all Star Wars , and from their marketing perspective you either ARE a Star Wars fan or ARE NOT a Star Wars fan, and while they know certain characters are more or less popular than others...this idea that they make distinctions between their movies and that there are some 'holy lines' that break them into groups...

...that's just not a thing from their perspective. To the extent they break the brand down at all, it amounts to "new content launches coming up" vs "existing content we are maintaining in the market".

If they were to release the Resurgence would it be a large? Or would they go to epic? Physically, can the large base support a 12in+ model without tipping over? Would epic be tournament legal? What would Rebels get for epic?

54 minutes ago, Undeadguy said:

If they were to release the Resurgence would it be a large? Or would they go to epic? Physically, can the large base support a 12in+ model without tipping over? Would epic be tournament legal? What would Rebels get for epic?

The ISD model is only a bit over 8" long, so while the current 'sliding scale' curve would make the Resurgent come in at 13"...I'd bet you could pull that down to 11" or 12" without going outside of the current standard deviation for the curve. And it'd certainly still check the 'looks right' box. The ship IS a lot bigger than an ISD, but not in the 'dwarfs it' difference - just 'very obviously larger'.

Just knocking together a quick comparison - the 'true scaling' between the two ships would look something like this:

(IE., 13" Resurgent and 8" ISD)

...IMHO, splitting the difference and putting the Resurgent at 11" or so would be fine, and that works on a large base without issue.

(Although I suppose nothing precludes FFG creating a new 'Huge'-base size and using that in the standard game. Not sure that would really break anything, actually...)

5 minutes ago, xanderf said:

The ISD model is only a bit over 8" long, so while the current 'sliding scale' curve would make the Resurgent come in at 13"...I'd bet you could pull that down to 11" or 12" without going outside of the current standard deviation for the curve. And it'd certainly still check the 'looks right' box. The ship IS a lot bigger than an ISD, but not in the 'dwarfs it' difference - just 'very obviously larger'.

Just knocking together a quick comparison - the 'true scaling' between the two ships would look something like this:

(IE., 13" Resurgent and 8" ISD)

...IMHO, splitting the difference and putting the Resurgent at 11" or so would be fine, and that works on a large base without issue.

(Although I suppose nothing precludes FFG creating a new 'Huge'-base size and using that in the standard game. Not sure that would really break anything, actually...)

12" of chunky space triangle is a whole lot of plastic, I'd be concerned that it wouldn't be stable on a large base.

Gamewise, I just don't see a place for it in the standard 400-point setting. To give it the hull, shields and firepower to dwarf the ISD, how much would the base hull be? 200? More?

Plus, I firmly believe that one can't dismiss the possibility that it would invalidate a core tenant of Star Wars Fandom.

"Star Destroyers are Awesome."

Things should be done to play up that part. Not invalidate them.

3 minutes ago, Diabloelmo said:

12" of chunky space triangle is a whole lot of plastic, I'd be concerned that it wouldn't be stable on a large base.

Gamewise, I just don't see a place for it in the standard 400-point setting. To give it the hull, shields and firepower to dwarf the ISD, how much would the base hull be? 200? More?

It doesn't need to "dwarf" it - and as noted, the game's shield dials already support something a LOT bigger than the ISD. I mean, if we are going to arbitrarily decide 'the game can't support a bigger ship than an ISD', why do the shield dials go up to '6'?

IMHO, given the VSD comes 20 years before the ISD and the RSD comes 30 years after the ISD, doing the VSD -> ISD adjustments makes the most sense.

Comparing the VSD-II to the ISD-II, and extrapolating, you'd end up with something like (and I doubt it will be anything like this, just riffing on a simple extrapolation to point out there is design room for it):

• 5/4/3 (front / sides / rear) shields over 14 hull
• 5 red 5 blue / 3 red 3 blue / 2 red 2 blue (front / sides / rear) with 1 red + 1 blue AA
• ?4? command - 5 squad - 5 engineering
• ...who knows on the maneuver matrix. No better than the ISD, IMHO, but maybe no worse?
• Say 200 pts. Still no problem fitting that into the regular tournament game.

4 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Plus, I firmly believe that one can't dismiss the possibility that it would invalidate a core tenant of Star Wars Fandom.

"Star Destroyers are Awesome."

Things should be done to play up that part. Not invalidate them.

I disagree. It's just a bigger ISD. People want a SSD, which invalidates the ISD.

2 hours ago, xanderf said:

To the extent they break the brand down at all, it amounts to "new content launches coming up" vs "existing content we are maintaining in the market".

However they choose to think about it, there is "old content" and "new content." Currently, they are releasing a lot of "old content," for whatever reason. Sooner or later, it's gonna be nothing but "new content" because they have tapped most of the worthwhile and/or practical "old content."

Just now, Undeadguy said:

I disagree. It's just a bigger ISD. People want a SSD, which invalidates the ISD.

Y'see, I disagree on that point.

The SSD is so much larger that it doesn't occupy the same space as the ISD in Game Design or Feel at all . The Executor or SSD model doesn't impinge on teh star Destroyer, as much as the ISD doesn't Impinge on an Imperial Raider....

A "Bigger Better Star Destroyer" invalidates a Star Destroyer. And that's what the resurgent is.

1 minute ago, Drasnighta said:

Y'see, I disagree on that point.

The SSD is so much larger that it doesn't occupy the same space as the ISD in Game Design or Feel at all . The Executor or SSD model doesn't impinge on teh star Destroyer, as much as the ISD doesn't Impinge on an Imperial Raider....

A "Bigger Better Star Destroyer" invalidates a Star Destroyer. And that's what the resurgent is.

A Star Destroyer invalidates a Star Destroyer? The Resurgent-class is a Star Destroyer - just a new class from the Imperial.

And if just looking at the timeline of when the movies came out - well, thing is, the Finalizer had major screen time in TFA, and by some accounts will see more screen time in TLJ. And I bet it'll be in Episode IX, as well. So...for the current generation of kids and young adults becoming Star Wars fans, and buying into Armada/X-Wing/etc...it's the Resurgent-class that is what they think of when they think 'Star Destroyer', not the older Imperial class their parents grew up with...

(The older movies are a bit of a tough sell with the younger crowd, given the rather dated special effects and different pacing compared to newer movies. Certainly, 'Rogue One' helped a ton in keeping the old ISD 'fresh in the minds' of the market, but that's only one movie, while there will soon be three putting the RSD in the spotlight...)

Just now, xanderf said:

A Star Destroyer invalidates a Star Destroyer? The Resurgent-class is a Star Destroyer - just a new class from the Imperial.

And if just looking at the timeline of when the movies came out - well, thing is, the Finalizer had major screen time in TFA, and by some accounts will see more screen time in TLJ. And I bet it'll be in Episode IX, as well. So...for the current generation of kids and young adults becoming Star Wars fans, and buying into Armada/X-Wing/etc...it's the Resurgent-class that is what they think of when they think 'Star Destroyer', not the older Imperial class their parents grew up with...

(The older movies are a bit of a tough sell with the younger crowd, given the rather dated special effects and different pacing compared to newer movies. Certainly, 'Rogue One' helped a ton in keeping the old ISD 'fresh in the minds' of the market, but that's only one movie, while there will soon be three putting the RSD in the spotlight...)

My opinion may well change after TLJ, for sure.

But I don't see "Major screen time". We don't even get a hint of its capabilities - It Drops a TIE fighter. That's it.

You're also either dismissing or forgetting Rebels , on top of Rogue One...

If we're talking about the Younger Crowd, thats where Star Destroyers are marketed. Not Rogue One.

I know, I have a 4 year old, after all

1 minute ago, xanderf said:

A Star Destroyer invalidates a Star Destroyer? The Resurgent-class is a Star Destroyer - just a new class from the Imperial.

And if just looking at the timeline of when the movies came out - well, thing is, the Finalizer had major screen time in TFA, and by some accounts will see more screen time in TLJ. And I bet it'll be in Episode IX, as well. So...for the current generation of kids and young adults becoming Star Wars fans, and buying into Armada/X-Wing/etc...it's the Resurgent-class that is what they think of when they think 'Star Destroyer', not the older Imperial class their parents grew up with...

(The older movies are a bit of a tough sell with the younger crowd, given the rather dated special effects and different pacing compared to newer movies. Certainly, 'Rogue One' helped a ton in keeping the old ISD 'fresh in the minds' of the market, but that's only one movie, while there will soon be three putting the RSD in the spotlight...)

That is a major amount of sweeping generalisation there. How about the astoundingly-successful Rebels? By the argument of "what the new generation is being shown", the ISD is still by FAR the major winner. Heck, even if we only discuss the new-canon movies, the ISD still wins out by a landslide from the space battle and all those money shots in Rogue One.

Besides, going forward only half the movies slated so far are even set in the TFA era.

I also feel you are giving the younger crowd a massive disservice in tarring them all with the brush of "it's not flashy so it's not seen as good". Quality film-making is quality film-making, and given that Armada is catered towards a less casual fanbase than X-Wing, I would imagine that the larger portion of new players that enter into the game do so because they are dedicated fans, not kids who just saw the shiny space battle movie and then jump into a "serious" tabletop wargame.

That's what X-Wing is for, after all

15 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

My opinion may well change after TLJ, for sure.

But I don't see "Major screen time". We don't even get a hint of its capabilities - It Drops a TIE fighter. That's it.

You're also either dismissing or forgetting Rebels , on top of Rogue One...

If we're talking about the Younger Crowd, thats where Star Destroyers are marketed. Not Rogue One.

I know, I have a 4 year old, after all

Fair point on Rebels. I just keep forgetting that the giraffe-class exists. It's, like...such an aberration...I blot it from my mind when it appears or something...

(Although, to be fair, this has been announced as the last season of 'Rebels'. While no official announcement exists as to what the follow-on series will be, it's been all but confirmed that there will be one, and rumors point to it being in that 30-year-gap between RotJ and TFA...leaning towards the latter.)