So what ships would you be willing to add at this point? Apart from obscure appearances we have pretty well exhausted film ships for GCW era. Many are resistant to PT and ST ships, and many more are resistant to EU ships. The game launched with EU ships - VSD. The game continued with obscure EU ships - Gladiator, MC30, Assault frigate Mk2, Raider . Honestly the cohesive idea of "canon GCW ships" was exhausted long ago and we have been well into obscure EU for some time.

I don't think you are really arguing for stagnation. However, with thin news it honestly seems that the guys theorycrafting new ships are keeping spirits high with at least something to talk about. I know I enjoy discussions on tactics and obscure uses of rarely used admirals more than theorycrafting, but if they stay involved because of it maybe let them have it?

9 hours ago, Mitthurin said:

So what ships would you be willing to add at this point? Apart from obscure appearances we have pretty well exhausted film ships for GCW era. Many are resistant to PT and ST ships, and many more are resistant to EU ships. The game launched with EU ships - VSD. The game continued with obscure EU ships - Gladiator, MC30, Assault frigate Mk2, Raider . Honestly the cohesive idea of "canon GCW ships" was exhausted long ago and we have been well into obscure EU for some time.

I don't think you are really arguing for stagnation. However, with thin news it honestly seems that the guys theorycrafting new ships are keeping spirits high with at least something to talk about. I know I enjoy discussions on tactics and obscure uses of rarely used admirals more than theorycrafting, but if they stay involved because of it maybe let them have it?

Thanks for the positive continuation of this discussion. For your first question, I think the next two options that most people can agree on are the Braha'tok gunship and the Imperial Support Vessel. Unless I am missing something, that closes out everything that has been in the OT movies and Rebels in the GCW-era. While you are not wrong as far as the EU ships that you mentioned, all of them are from video games, with most of them being from Empire at War . It seems logical then that more ships could be pulled from that game or other SW video games without much of an outcry.

But the next possible step is going to be an unpopular opinion: At some point, there probably needs to be an endpoint to ships coming from the GCW-era. If it keeps going, the ships are just going to get more obscure and unrecognizable. At or before that GCW cut-off point, start introducing Clone Wars factions and ships (and while I previously argued against multi-faction ships, I don't that is an issue if the factions can't play one another, which would be a difference between Clone Wars: Armada or just adding CW factions to the existing game).

Definitely not for stagnation. I certainly enjoy the strategy and fleet-building threads more than others and generally leave the ship-building threads to their own, since they are never going to get added in the proposed form anyways. As stated before, I am more concerned with the proposals for obscure ship inclusion (as opposed to building) and mechanics that could drastically change the game.

Anything that Ansel Hsiao created should be fair game

22 minutes ago, ShadowFox1138 said:

Anything that Ansel Hsiao created should be fair game

I wish he was an official Lucasfilm designer.

On 9/12/2018 at 10:26 AM, Admiral Calkins said:

I think the next two options that most people can agree on are the Braha'tok gunship and the Imperial Support Vessel. Unless I am missing something, that closes out everything that has been in the OT movies and Rebels in the GCW-era.

Nope.

MC80A (RotJ), Tector Class Star Destroyer (RotJ), Imperial cargo Ship (Rebels), Rebel transport (Rebels) & there are a half dozen other Rebel ships that only make background appearances in RotJ, and the very end of ESB.

There is a quote out there though, from some FFG employee working on Armada that "I if it appears on screen, it will be in Armada".

8 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Nope.

MC80A (RotJ), Tector Class Star Destroyer (RotJ), Imperial cargo Ship (Rebels), Rebel transport (Rebels) & there are a half dozen other Rebel ships that only make background appearances in RotJ, and the very end of ESB.

My bad. Should have clarified what has a likely chance of actually being in the game. While I’m not aware of the half a dozen other Rebel ships or the Rebel Transport from Rebels (please post links to these as I am genuinely curious), it’s slim to none that we will see any of the other ships you mentioned. We are likely not going to see another Mon Cal ship that looks strikingly similiar to Home One (I am assuming you are referring to the Wingless Liberty, as the Wookiepedia for MC80a says the most famous variant is the Home One , which we already have), another ISD in which the only change is that the hanger is covered, or a cargo vessel with containers that serves no purpose in a combat fleet.

16 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

There is a quote out there though, from some FFG employee working on Armada that "I if it appears on screen, it will be in Armada".

This quote makes me hopeful that I will see all my favorite ships in the game from the OT, but I also don’t think it is meant to be taken literally for all the variants of more well-known ships (i.e. Tector and Wingless Liberty).

9 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Te  ctor  Class Star Destroyer

1 hour ago, The Jabbawookie said:

They are not equal.

Equivelant, perhaps... but not equal:

Equal means two entities are the same entity; equivalent means that two entities have the same EFFECT, in some sense. That is, when two things are same in some specific way, but not identical, they are said to be equivalent .

Why on earth would anyone want a Tector (or another ISD at this point)?

An ISD with no hangar that you can’t really see on the model anyways. Pass.

5 hours ago, ISD Avenger said:

Why on earth would anyone want a Tector (or another ISD at this point)?

An ISD with no hangar that you can’t really see on the model anyways. Pass.

See, this statement comes from the false premise that you can ever have to many Star Destroyers.

6 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

They are not equal.

Equivelant, perhaps... but not equal:

Equal means two entities are the same entity; equivalent means that two entities have the same EFFECT, in some sense. That is, when two things are same in some specific way, but not identical, they are said to be equivalent .

When you take a look at https://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tector-class_Star_Destroyer/Legends : "The Tector -class was first produced by Kuat Drive Yards during the Clone Wars ."

7 hours ago, Triangular said:

When you take a look at https://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Tector-class_Star_Destroyer/Legends : "The Tector -class was first produced by Kuat Drive Yards during the Clone Wars ."

Weren’t all ISDs though?

8 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:

See, this statement comes from the false premise that you can ever have to many Star Destroyers.

Don’t get me wrong, I love an angry space triangle but the Tector if ever released only needs new cards not a new model.

Model wise, there are other designs I’d like to see.

I've always considered the Tector as a possible broadsider for Imperials. Much the way the MC-80L is a forward firepower ship for Rebels. As such, this would give it a role in Imperial fleets.

13 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

Weren’t all ISDs though?

No. There are no valid information about which type was build at which planet. We have only a line in ANH from Solo referring about the "corellian" types and we see an ISD during construction at Corellia in Solo - A Star Wars Story.

In "Legends" there is a clear note, that the Tector was produced at Kuat. So the Kuat Refit (with Squadron Value 2) is probably the Tector-class ISD variant, which lacks the big hangar bay. (And there really is no need for a new miniature which only differs where you won't see it.)

Just now, Triangular said:

No. There are no valid information about which type was build at which planet. We have only a line in ANH from Solo referring about the "corellian" types and we see an ISD during construction at Corellia in Solo - A Star Wars Story.

In "Legends" there is a clear note, that the Tector was produced at Kuat. So the Kuat Refit (with Squadron Value 2) is probably the Tector-class ISD variant, which lacks the big hangar bay. (And there really is no need for a new miniature which only differs where you won't see it.)

But since there is at least one distinct difference... Imperial Class - Kuat Refit (As depicted with a Hangar Bay - You can barely see the in-cut) vs Tector Class (Whose sole depiction is without a hangar bay), they cannot be Equal with the information we currently have . Only Equivalent.

12 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

But since there is at least one distinct difference... Imperial Class - Kuat Refit (As depicted with a Hangar Bay - You can barely see the in-cut) vs Tector Class (Whose sole depiction is without a hangar bay), they cannot be Equal with the information we currently have . Only Equivalent.

It's maybe before they fill the hangar with concrete?

I don't mind very much if the Tector is or is not the Kuat Refit. For in game purposes I think we have enough ISD variants. But if you want a Tector you can always think of your Kuat to be one.

Just now, Triangular said:

It's maybe before they fill the hangar with concrete?

I don't mind very much if the Tector is or is not the Kuat Refit. For in game purposes I think we have enough ISD variants. But if you want a Tector you can always think of your Kuat to be one.

Of course.

I was just being an absolute smartass git at the very definition of 'Equals' in the posted Image. Because, you know me, #TechnicallyCorrect and all that

You guys are forgetting that the Tector-class removed the hanger bay and armored over the reactor bulb.

Clearly that's enough justification for a new model! ?

14 hours ago, Piratical Moustache said:

You guys are forgetting that the Tector-class removed the hanger bay and armored over the reactor bulb.

Clearly that's enough justification for a new model! ?

It's a joke, is it? I'm no more sure about this forum ... ?

Death Star (Inflatable model): one shoot during the entire game, takes out any ship of choice. 2 minutes before end of game a single fighter squadron may destroyed in a single dice throw...

5 hours ago, Triangular said:

It's a joke, is it? I'm no more sure about this forum ... ?

For the most part, but a Star Destroyer with more dice and hull at the cost of squadron capabilities seems like a good tradeoff.

1 hour ago, Piratical Moustache said:

For the most part, but a Star Destroyer with more dice and hull at the cost of squadron capabilities seems like a good tradeoff.

I feel like this is too good of a tradeoff though, as even though they might not be used, the squadron value would count as points against the ship cost. This benefit would have to be offset by getting rid of some upgrade slots, particularly defensive retrofit. Imagine 3 x ISDs with more dice than an ISD-2 and more hull than all other variants. Slap ECMs and Motti on them and they sound unstoppable.

5 minutes ago, Admiral Calkins said:

I feel like this is too good of a tradeoff though, as even though they might not be used, the squadron value would count as points against the ship cost. This benefit would have to be offset by getting rid of some upgrade slots, particularly defensive retrofit. Imagine 3 x ISDs with more dice than an ISD-2 and more hull than all other variants. Slap ECMs and Motti on them and they sound unstoppable.

Fair points, honestly it would be hard to find a niche for the Tector because of the Cymoon and Kuat variations.

22 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

Fair points, honestly it would be hard to find a niche for the Tector because of the Cymoon and Kuat variations.

Would love to see them try though, especially just by adding one or two Tector variants ship cards that can be used with the current ISD model. It would be a nice gesture towards fans of the ship in RotJ and the EU.