I say use Armada for capital ship engagements and fighters vs. capital ships, then switch to X-wing whenever two or more groups of fighters are going at it. Once the conflict is resolved return to Armada.

1 hour ago, Vontoothskie said:

iwould love to see a gaming convention where a to scale ISD played against the rest of the convention

Way back in the '90s, some guys at Gen Con invented a Star Wars space battle game using Micro Machines. They had a 20' long ISD in the background (they had a whole room to themselves to play in) and several other to-scale capital ships. All the tiny fighters were on 3' tall stands to sorta bring them up to the level of the ISD. It was crazy cool.

14 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

a lot of people, myself included, play miniature games because we're visually oriented. The games scale is the primary selling point. this is a dogfighting game about small manueverable craft, there is no reason to force something that doesnt fit.

also people are leaving the game over scale, so i wouldnt claim it doesnt break immersion. i might play against an arquitens class SD at 30 inches, but any more of a scale reduction and i'll pass. its not fun anymore if it doesnt look cool

I don't think anyone is leaving X-wing over scale. I would say a broken meta is more like it. But for me X-wing has a sense of versatility that Armada lost in inception. So yes I still hope for a X-wing sliding scale sized Star Destroyer model for Epic play.

2 hours ago, Marinealver said:

I don't think anyone is leaving X-wing over scale. I would say a broken meta is more like it. But for me X-wing has a sense of versatility that Armada lost in inception. So yes I still hope for a X-wing sliding scale sized Star Destroyer model for Epic play.

eh i left for 6 months over scale, havent bought new ships since 2016. Its okay that it doesnt bother you, but it bothers me.

8 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

eh i left for 6 months over scale, havent bought new ships since 2016. Its okay that it doesnt bother you, but it bothers me.

Alright, but jut a warning Huge ships have never been to "scale". Heck even Armada doesn't follow scale. I can't fit a CR-90 in the docking bay of an ISD.

Gozanti is scale if memory serves

On 1/13/2018 at 1:40 PM, Marinealver said:

Alright, but jut a warning Huge ships have never been to "scale". Heck even Armada doesn't follow scale. I can't fit a CR-90 in the docking bay of an ISD.

Gozanti and raider are to scale, CR90, CROC, and GR75 arent.

I made a custom rebel Epic ship to scale and play that as the GR75.

also pretty silly trying to explain scale in response to someones comment explaining scale

Just now, Vontoothskie said:

Gozanti and raider are to scale, CR90, CROC, and GR75 arent.

I made a custom rebel Epic ship to scale and play that as the GR75.

also pretty silly trying to explain scale in response to someones comment explaining scale

Gozanti is understandably the same scale. It has the models docked on to it. But as you also mentioned the CR90, CROC, and GR75 are not.

Not trying to say one argument is ridiculous or another, I already know that saying " Hey lets put a Star Destroyer in X-wing " is a ridiculous idea. But that is the thing about ridiculous ideas, either they work surprisingly great, or completely terrible.

11 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

Gozanti and raider are to scale, CR90, CROC, and GR75 arent.

The Raider is nowhere near to scale. It's canon length is 150 meters, which at the 34.5cm model length puts it at around 1/435 - just slightly closer than the CR-90's 1/465 relative scale.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2014/12/19/here-comes-the-imperial-raider/

"Like the Rebellion’s huge ships, the GR-75 medium transport and CR90 Corellian corvette, the Raider is too big for Standard Play and the game’s standard 1/270 scale. Accordingly, the expansion’s Raider miniature is presented at a relative scale that makes it playable, even as it dwarfs the game’s small- and large-base ships."

Also, the C-ROC Cruiser is at the game's standard 1/270 scale. This should be obvious as - like the 1/270 scale Imperial Assault Carrier - it is a Gozanti Cruiser variant:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2017/1/9/bargains-bribes-and-battles/

"Even though the C-ROC arrives to X-Wing as a huge ship that's too large for the game's Standard Play format, it still arrives at the game's standard 1/270 scale, and it is accompanied by an M3-A Interceptor escort with an alternate paint scheme. "

Gecko got it. The gozantis are to scale. Wether it's the IAC or CROC patterns they're about the same size

Yeah so Star Destroyer, 1/2000 is not too drastic of a scale now is it?

That would put it at around 31.5" (80 cm)

1/2000 is 6-7x out of scale and 4x worse than the current worst offender. Drastic is exactly the word for that.

We just ain't ever gonna agree. You open with a question and when the answer isn't whole hearted agreement you ignore that then say it's ok. There's no point to this discussion.

1 hour ago, Dabirdisdaword said:

1/2000 is 6-7x out of scale and 4x worse than the current worst offender. Drastic is exactly the word for that.

We just ain't ever gonna agree. You open with a question and when the answer isn't whole hearted agreement you ignore that then say it's ok. There's no point to this discussion.

Well of course not. I already acknowledged that the proposal is both ridiculous and drastic. You clearly are against the idea for obvious reasons and that is never going to change. So I have put in the yes vote and you are clearly in the no camp. But I am going to keep this discussion going because I want to see more of both "yays" and "nays" not just yours and mine opinions on it. Sure there is no point in you continuing this discussion unless you got some alternative proposal. But I still think there might be other people with their agreements or disagreements I would like to hear.

On 1/10/2018 at 7:58 PM, pickirk01 said:

When I first started up with X-Wing, there were pictures from a local group's facebook page with X-Wings and Ties at this same scale and guys were playing on the lawn. About 2 weeks later that store went out of business, their page was closed and I haven't found those pics since.

This?

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1578911/super-size-me-150

1 hour ago, KraytLeader said:

This?

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1578911/super-size-me-150

Yep, I believe that's it or close enough anyway.

On 15.1.2018 at 8:58 PM, Marinealver said:

Yeah so Star Destroyer, 1/2000 is not too drastic of a scale now is it?

That would put it at around 31.5" (80 cm)

The question is how to make the ISD an equivalent of 20 CR90s statwise

8 hours ago, RogueLeader42 said:

The question is how to make the ISD an equivalent of 20 CR90s statwise

Thats the easy part....4 sections, a new upgrade type called a "battery" that can equip multiple hardpoints of the same type and shoots all at once...and it spawns infinite tie fighters (4 per time) and bombers (2 at a time) as the previous wave gets destroyed. It only costs 1000ish squad points...no biggie there....

Please note - this is sarcastic, because the scale of firepower, size, and intrinsic fighter support associated with a ISD doesnt fit in the scale of Xwing in my book.

The only problem I’d have with it is suspension of disbelief. There is no fair way to point this that fighter escorts could fit. An isd should have dozens of available fighters I just think it would be a hard sell. I love my empire but this kinda thing is really why armada exists. Maybe as a special epic sized play mat with fixed turrents all over it and one player is imperial rolling for the turrents and their fighters the other gets like an extra pile of points or something for true epic glory. Hmm

13 hours ago, RogueLeader42 said:

The question is how to make the ISD an equivalent of 20 CR90s statwise

4 hours ago, Cap116 said:

Thats the easy part....4 sections, a new upgrade type called a "battery" that can equip multiple hardpoints of the same type and shoots all at once...and it spawns infinite tie fighters (4 per time) and bombers (2 at a time) as the previous wave gets destroyed. It only costs 1000ish squad points...no biggie there....

Please note - this is sarcastic, because the scale of firepower, size, and intrinsic fighter support associated with a ISD doesnt fit in the scale of Xwing in my book.

Well 3 section cards at least, (fore, bridge, and aft). Two bases size of CR-90 set up in a tri-pod with enough room to fit the CR-90 between them. Between those bases is the influence zone where a ship can fly without overlapping but will have to take a token to specify if they are over the ship or under the ship (under has less weapons but cannot attack the bridge, over can but is exposed to bridge weapons and firepower). A docking zone inside the influence zone that is considered under where TIE Fighters can launch and dock. While docked they can reload discarded weapons, repair ship damage, or even replace pilots (flipping over pilot crits).

So that is my take on it, take it as you will with sarcasm or not.

On 1/21/2018 at 9:04 AM, Bullox said:

I’ve been pondering a different angle to the question of ISD scale. An ISD at Huge ship scale (1:450) would be about 11.5 feet long (and nearly 20 feet long at 1:270). An x-wing executing a speed 4 straight maneuver covers about 8 inches including its base. Therefore, it would take an x-wing about 17 rounds (or nearly 30 rounds) to run the length of an ISD which is more rounds than x-wing games typically last. In the movies we see x-wings strafe the length of ISDs in 3 or 4 seconds. If we take into account the limits of the game’s abstracted movement mechanics, reducing the size of an ISD with a sliding scale makes sense.

I’m NOT saying my pocket destroyer is a good fit for an ISD, it’s still just a custom creation that makes me happy when I see it on the table.

But we could use this argument to justify a 3’ x 6’ ISD playmat.

Thanks for taking a different perspective. After going through a relativity lecture I forgot that measuring distance is also done by measuring time (I'm not going to get too into that discussion my head still hurts). But yeah it does bring the abstraction aspect of X-wing into question when we start talking about what is suitable and not.

I know you are against the idea even though you have the pocket star destroyer. But I still have some questions. How many turns do you think it should take for an X-wing to cross the length of a star destroyer? Also do you think a 6'X6' playmat would be better if Epic started to include massive capital ships like the Nebulon-B (okay Neb is not massive but it is a step above the CR-90)?

However a 3' x 6' Executor playmat would be awesome. Bring the A-wings.

28 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

Thanks for taking a different perspective. After going through a relativity lecture I forgot that measuring distance is also done by measuring time (I'm not going to get too into that discussion my head still hurts). But yeah it does bring the abstraction aspect of X-wing into question when we start talking about what is suitable and not.

I know you are against the idea even though you have the pocket star destroyer. But I still have some questions. How many turns do you think it should take for an X-wing to urn the length of a star destroyer? Also do you think a 6'X6' playmat would be better if Epic started to include massive capital ships like the Nebulon-B (okay Neb is not massive but it is a step above the CR-90)?

However a 3' x 6' Executor playmat would be awesome. Bring the A-wings.

I didn’t mean to indicate I’m against the idea, I probably should have said “I’m NOT trying to convince anyone ...”

I love my Star Destroyer, uh, I mean my “pocket” Star Destroyer.

I think the size of the play area for massive ships will depend a lot on the mechanism used for movement. Mine uses the normal Huge ship maneuver template and can pretty easily make its way around a 3x3 play area but a 4x4 or 3x6 would still be better.

As for how many rounds it should take, I don’t know. We would have to do some calibrating. In the movies it seems to only take a few seconds.

I have only flown my Star Destroyer in a couple of solo play tests so I’m definetely not an expert. I think there are a few other folks who’ve flown things like this a lot more. Maybe they have suggestions.

On 09/01/2018 at 3:39 AM, Marinealver said:

So again, does this seem like a feasible plan for a Star Destroyer in Epic?

I like your thoughts but it would just be too small in scale (for me) and yet still too big for play. Even taking into account the sliding scale for huge ships it just wouldn’t look right. Then there is a void underneath the model; I couldn’t conceive how you could move ships under it (although the idea is cool). The best hope we have for “massive” huge ships are the Nebulon-B and Arquitens. Even then the Arquitens might cover up too much of the game board. It’d still be an insta-buy for me though!

On 09/01/2018 at 6:39 PM, Bullox said:

Not Star Wars, but ...

Novel and looks fun but all the ships are a similar size and the Warbird is pitifully underscale (it should be about 1.6 times longer than the Galaxy-class). There’s nothing wrong with big models the question in the Star Wars universe is reckoning with the vast differences in ship sizes so they are represented in a usable game format and reasonably in proportion.

On 1/15/2018 at 7:11 AM, FTS Gecko said:

The Raider is nowhere near to scale. It's canon length is 150 meters, which at the 34.5cm model length puts it at around 1/435 - just slightly closer than the CR-90's 1/465 relative scale.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2014/12/19/here-comes-the-imperial-raider/

"Like the Rebellion’s huge ships, the GR-75 medium transport and CR90 Corellian corvette, the Raider is too big for Standard Play and the game’s standard 1/270 scale. Accordingly, the expansion’s Raider miniature is presented at a relative scale that makes it playable, even as it dwarfs the game’s small- and large-base ships."

Also, the C-ROC Cruiser is at the game's standard 1/270 scale. This should be obvious as - like the 1/270 scale Imperial Assault Carrier - it is a Gozanti Cruiser variant:

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2017/1/9/bargains-bribes-and-battles/

"Even though the C-ROC arrives to X-Wing as a huge ship that's too large for the game's Standard Play format, it still arrives at the game's standard 1/270 scale, and it is accompanied by an M3-A Interceptor escort with an alternate paint scheme. "

the Croc is not to scale at all, just look at the box art. in rebels, clone wars, the movies, etc... its not even close. the Crocs bridge would only be about 1 meter interior if it were in scale. they have tweaked some ships so the length or width seems close but basic observations of cockpits, airlocks, etc. show something is wildly wrong.

for example the Crocs top deck would be less than a meter tall and a meter wide, while its cargo pods would be the same, but we know people walk around inside those pods and obviously the bridge we see inside dozens of times is a large room

heres that bridge room interior, which in the games model is the same size as the scyk or A-wings cockpit

correct scale and dimensions shown in box art: note fighter in foreground versus dimensions of CROC in background. also contemplate M3-A cockpit dimensions versus CROC bridge dimensions, which show this scale is close to that shown in rebels and films

now compare that to your miniatures. scale is waaay of huh?