Did you not read the part where the Executor hit an X-wing, dead center at close range (<100 meters), from the side?

Yes I did. But Canon is pretty clear on the matter. Turbolasers can not accurately hit star fighters other than by luck, or because the fighter is traveling in a straight line, most often at the gun itself.

Hitting a bird flying past you isn't that difficult actually, not if you know how to lead a target. Hunters do it constantly. Turbolasers however don't have the ability to accurately lead a starfighter. So in the case of that shot it's most likely the fighter pilot actually flew into a bolt from the gun.

Given the fact that turbolasers generally can not track and hit a starfighter, again something well established in canon, so a few cases of it happening doesn’t really change anything. Putting an ISD into a game that revolves around starfighters doesn’t make much sense. The ISD would simply never be able to effectively target and shoot the fighters. This is simply not a matter that is up for debate. All canon sources agree on it. ISD's are not effective at shooting down fighters, that's one of the reasons they cary Tie Fighters. So they can act as a anti-fighter screen for the ISD.

Don't forget about all the tie fighters based on an ISD. After all, they're there as defense against fighter attacks. ISD's are just really prohibitively big for fighter skirmishes, unless you base the battles on scenarios with specific goals. I agree with this whom feel such large ships are at best represented as a localized mat.

Alright, backup. As far as the "ISD vs X-Wing Squadron" debate goes, lets put it like this. Yes, an ISD mark 2 has 72 fighters aboard, and yes it has a terrible amount of its own weaponry, but saying that hitting a starfighter with turbolasers is pure luck is really putting down what we're talking about.

The Turbolaser in this situation isn't so much of an anti-aircraft gun as it is a area-of-denial weapon, fire at an area of space with condensed turbolaser fire and any pilot stupid enough to keep flying in it will be toast. This forces evasion and allows TIE Fighers to descend upon evading foes.

The X-Wing vs TIE fighter debate is one of quality vs. quantity, an X-Wing is worth at least 2-3 TIE Fighers in combat, and can successfully engage multiple foes, in this situation the problem becomes a matter of atrition, eventually the X-Wings will wear down.

Now lets even the numbers a little more and we have a more interesting discussion.

A Wing of Rebel Starfighters (Rebel wings are 36 fighers to an Imperial wing's 72) vs a fully loaded ISD. Say a wing of X-Wings. Those X-wings will successfully engage the fighters, the bombers will be relatively useless (the use of Bombers as missile boats in starfighter combat is a relatively recent matter of fluff that bares no reality on all prior established works which treat Dupes as slow flying targets for anything even remotely more maneuverable or fast such as Y or B-Wings). This means that the numbers game is a little more even, and Three Squadrons of X-Wings is more than a match for 4 squadrons of TIEs unless they are ALL Interceptors.

Tactics dictate the following, (normally X-Wings would still bug out unless trapped in a gravity well, should never CHOOSE to take on an ISD without backup) if X-Wings are fully laden with Proton Torpedoes (load of 6), they will first aquire torpedo lock on incoming fighters, lob a torp at each fighter, score some kills on unlucky pilots, then engage in a furball. Given that TIE pilots are likely to suffer 2-1 casualties or worse, the X-Wings can somewhat safely peel off one squadron at a time to lob a volley of proton torpedoes at the ISD, at 2 per x-wing thats 24 torpedoes each, those torpedoes WILL hurt an ISD. Standard procedure for the ISD would be to recall fighters and bug out as those X-Wings can fire two volleys per squadron, between 72 and 144 torpedoes would cripple the ISD over time. And this only requires that the pilots on the Rebel and Imperial side be of relatively even level. If say we were talking about Rogues, Wraiths and say High-Flight for shiggles, the battle is over far faster, with a very dead ISD and the opposite is true if we're talking about the 181st or 128th.

Now, all this said, there is a canonical picture of B-Wings destroying an ISD at the Battle of Endor.

The Tantive IV preview model seems to be fully 15cm shorter than it would be at 1/270 scale, so it's way off. Clearly, FFG is willing to use different scales for ships they consider iconic and fun.

Weapon ranges and travel distances are abstracted to the point where I can easily see a not-to-scale capital ship working out just fine.

If a Star Destroyer's primary role in this game would be to act as a carrier for smaller ships, that's pretty cool. And there's a ton of other stuff you can do, mission-wise. Escape from Hoth, blockade running, rescue the Rebel prisoner, bombard the Rebel base, chase the Millennium Falcon, just off the top of my head.

Why can't we have/get a Death Star?

Think about it... A 1/2 Death Star.... OK, it'd be huge... 24"x24" and let's say 6" 'fat' at it's most rounded point.

BUT!!

It's also a carry case!! An X-Wing Miniatures purpose built carry case (think along the lines of the Darth Vader bust from 1977 for carrying your beloved Star Wars action figures). Or maybe even 2 separate carrying cases (2x 1/4 Death Stars, that when combined sit one atop the other).

Just a thought...

If that's all a Star Destroyer would be used for, why make a miniature? Heck, the game presupposes that TIE Fighters are already in position anyway despite lacking a hyperdrive, so there's zero need for a carrier.

Did you not read the part where the Executor hit an X-wing, dead center at close range (<100 meters), from the side?

Yes I did. But Canon is pretty clear on the matter. Turbolasers can not accurately hit star fighters other than by luck, or because the fighter is traveling in a straight line, most often at the gun itself.

Hitting a bird flying past you isn't that difficult actually, not if you know how to lead a target. Hunters do it constantly. Turbolasers however don't have the ability to accurately lead a starfighter. So in the case of that shot it's most likely the fighter pilot actually flew into a bolt from the gun.

Given the fact that turbolasers generally can not track and hit a starfighter, again something well established in canon, so a few cases of it happening doesn’t really change anything. Putting an ISD into a game that revolves around starfighters doesn’t make much sense. The ISD would simply never be able to effectively target and shoot the fighters. This is simply not a matter that is up for debate. All canon sources agree on it. ISD's are not effective at shooting down fighters, that's one of the reasons they cary Tie Fighters. So they can act as a anti-fighter screen for the ISD.

Movies override the books in all cases, unless there's no conflict. In the movies we have seen them hit a starfighter-sized object on multiple occasions. Therefore it is unfair to the Empire to say their turbolasers cannot track or hit fighters. As I said, it's difficult, but clearly not impossible.

Having hunted pheasant and quail with my dad since I was twelve, I can say categorically that it is a difficult shot to pull off with a rifle, even if you know to lead your target. Actually come to think of it, only an idiot would hunt birds with a rifle. You use a shotgun because it's extremely difficult to hit a moving bird at great distance with a single projectile. You use rifles for hunting larger, slower targets that you can draw a bead on. This being the case, since the Executor used the equivalent of their 6 inch high-angle guns to hit the X-wing and A-wing, I have to conclude that they're quite capable of defending themselves from fighters should the need arise.

The fact that the Executor was able to clear away an attack squadron on approach to its command tower, an act which probably took place in under thirty seconds, speaks volumes about its ability to defend itself from starfighter attack. Its weapons are not 100% accurate. Heck, if you look at the film, you see them fire off several shots before they hit the A-wing and X-wing, so it's not even 50% accurate. But they are certainly capable of getting the job done.

According to the books, the fighter screen serves both that purpose and the purpose of hitting targets with precision at long range, but if the Executor is able to take out nearly an entire squadron by itself, then there's no reason to assume a Destroyer can't defend itself from fighters with its own batteries.

But we're in agreement on the issue of whether or not an ISD is needed at all.

The primary purpose of an Imperial Star Destroyer is its role as an attack ship for the Empire. It can defend itself well enough against incoming fighters, but that's not what it was designed to do in the first place. TIE fighters are what they normally use to defend themselves against other fighters; Executor was forced to use its own guns to defend itself in RotJ because the fighters were all engaged elsewhere. ISDs would not be effective anti-starfighter platforms because of their orientation as a general-purpose medium-scale attack craft. For anti-starfighter and interdiction roles, I would turn to something smaller with lighter weapons, like the DP-20 Gunship or the Rendili Stardrive Light Corvette, because they're capable of tracking fighters much more accurately with their weapons and can maneuver much more quickly. Using a Star Destroyer to take out fighters would be like using an anvil to crush a spider from ten feet away. Yeah, it can be done, but wouldn't you rather just walk up and use your shoe?

1/270 -> 1/300 is a 10% reduction in size.. 90% of the length is still there...

1/270 -> 1/1750 is a 85% reduction in size ... it's 15% of the length it should be..

There is a vast difference in 90% of the proper length and 15% of the proper length. And that's just to get a Star Destroyer on a 3" board, it won't be able to move.

The DS-1 would have to be 99.85% smaller than it should be, that is even sillier.

The said in the video, that they were trying to keep things consistent, and even if the reduced the size, not to reduce it so much that it didn't look right. A 10% reduction in the size still looks reasonable, the Tantive looks not horribly out of scale to the X-Wing.

A Star Destroyer would, especially against the Tantive, it's meant to be able to get a Tantive into the bay under it's hull.. that bay would be lucky to fit an X-Wing in it at 1/1750 scale. So it does not fit the stated goal of FFG to make it look about right.

Even if it can't shoot snub fighters, we know that a Star Destroyer can attack a Corellian corvette (and probably a Rebel transport).

In any case, couldn't a Star Destroyer be useful in a support capacity, like the HWK-290 and the Lambda-class Shuttle? It doesn't have to be able to shoot snub fighters reliably if it can hand out stress tokens or focus tokens, deploy fighters of its own, receive damaged fighters before they're destroyed, send out fresh reinforcements, carry interesting crew, drop mines, and so on.

Maybe an actual model isn't the way to handle Star Destroyers. They could be left entirely outside of the play area and be represented by just a (big) card and some upgrades. It's not as fun to look at, but the play possibilities are there.

Even if it can't shoot snub fighters, we know that a Star Destroyer can attack a Corellian corvette (and probably a Rebel transport).

In any case, couldn't a Star Destroyer be useful in a support capacity, like the HWK-290 and the Lambda-class Shuttle? It doesn't have to be able to shoot snub fighters reliably if it can hand out stress tokens or focus tokens, deploy fighters of its own, receive damaged fighters before they're destroyed, send out fresh reinforcements, carry interesting crew, drop mines, and so on.

Maybe an actual model isn't the way to handle Star Destroyers. They could be left entirely outside of the play area and be represented by just a (big) card and some upgrades. It's not as fun to look at, but the play possibilities are there.

Yeah I would have no issues with it either used as a board to fight on with set turrets you could use and that were attack-able, or off the board as a global effect card.

1/270 -> 1/300 is a 10% reduction in size.. 90% of the length is still there...

1/270 -> 1/1750 is a 85% reduction in size ... it's 15% of the length it should be..

Is 1/300 the confirmed scale of the Corvette?

TBH it would be fairly cool for them to release a Death Star/ISD box set, with double sided tiles, one side Deathstar surface, maybe with a trench running up the middle and the other side ISD hull. 4 small Turbo Lazers and 1 large Turbo Lazer. Cutouts for structures (eg. Exhaust port). And ofc rules for playing scenarios related to both of them. I think that would come in at a fairly reasonable price point and allow you all the DS/ISD fun you could want.

I've though that the whole point of the game is having star fighters duke it out. Putting something bigger than a corvette of a patrol craft could be fun, but you'd have to alter the game so much that you might as well develop a separate ruleset.

How about a related game from the capital ship standpoint?

Also, back to the op. there has been a Death Star, although completely unofficial. I really want to play on it...

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/80600-just-another-death-star-trench-run/

If you really wanted to fight near a star destroyer...you could make a custom mat with details of the hull, the bridge, and the port and starboard turbo-laser turrets. Have rules where the bridge is terrain (like a large asteroid)...but give it shield and hull points (allot), so you could swarm it and have a small chance of taking it out (maybe even have some custom ramming rules?).

Same could be said for a small section of the DS-1 trench. FFG could release some (close?) to scale turrets for the defense towers.

we will get a death star. just not a whole death star. it probably wont even be a miniature but we will get something. a 3d mat or something is probably what we will get.

they will be crazy to not find a way to give us a death star.

the first things we will get are turrents.

just wait until the cenematic theme battles get going...

If you really wanted to fight near a star destroyer...you could make a custom mat with details of the hull, the bridge, and the port and starboard turbo-laser turrets. Have rules where the bridge is terrain (like a large asteroid)...but give it shield and hull points (allot), so you could swarm it and have a small chance of taking it out (maybe even have some custom ramming rules?).

Same could be said for a small section of the DS-1 trench. FFG could release some (close?) to scale turrets for the defense towers.

There's a fan-made mission like that called Flytrap here:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/858400/custom-mission-the-flytrap

Well, a way to represent a carrier ship being in the battle could be easy if taken in the right context as upgrades rather than units, but they would be PLAYER upgrades rather than ship upgrades.

Nearby Carrier 25pts

- The First time one of your fighters would be destroyed replace it with a copy of that miniature, this can only be done once per game and only for non-unique pilots

Turbolaser Barrage, 25pts (comes with large, target shaped template, roughly the size of Fett's proximity mine)

- place turbolaser barrage on the playing field every turn at the end of planning phase, ships that would move through the turbolaser barrage suffer a 3 dice attack, but get +1 evasion dice unless their movement ends on the barrage in which case they get -1 evasion dice. No allied ships can start within range 2 of the template.

I'm pretty sure we will never see a Death Star because this game is dubbed "Star Fighter combat" Seeing as how the capacity of TIES the Death Star could carry would be enough to empty your back account, and make you take a second mortgage out, before you ever even paid for a single tile of surface trench, is enough to say not going to happen.

The Death Star, just like a Star Destroyer, are locations for the game, not practical pieces. I could see them both as maps to fight on, with specific scenarios in play, but not as stand alone vessels. Oh and those arguments geared around single ships or groups of X-Wings Or B-wings taking down destroyers is bull. If that was at all possible, why did the Tanitive 4 run? It was carrying the Death Star plans, sure, but if an X-wing was a viable threat, wouldnt the Blockade Runner be more than a fight?

Such a cool model, thought I should post it here... Tell me when you spot why, it is related to the subject of scale.

Such a cool model, thought I should post it here... Tell me when you spot why, it is related to the subject of scale.

I've wanted that kit for some time . . .

I've wanted that kit for some time . . .

Does it come with that base or is that scratch built?

The reflection of the Tantive IV maybe?

The reflection of the Tantive IV maybe?

That's one of the things

I've wanted that kit for some time . . .

Does it come with that base or is that scratch built?

The base is definitely a scratchbuild, but it actually came with the Blockade Runner. Unfortunately, the kit is discontinued due to a C&D order with no prospects for reissue.

Will the extra vessels help in the Kessel Run?