Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Punning Pundit

No Star Destroyers, Please

Recommended Posts

But they released X-Wings and Tie Fighters long before the EU ships. Why?

Because they're the most recognizable, there's no question there. Iconic OT ships are easier to market then EU ones.

But just because that is true, that doesn't mean they should put a ISD into the game, just because it's more iconic. Especially at this stage of the game, when they have an established player base, and built up a fair amount of trust with that player base. Also an ISD just doesn't work... Once again the two biggest issues.

You have to reduce it by about 90% in size to make it fit, so it will look wrong on the table.

You have to reduce it by about 90% of it's firepower to keep it balanced in the epic rules.

So you have something that looks like an ISD sitting next to a nearly same sized CR-90 which everyone will know is wrong, with the firepower and defense of a CR-90... Or you get something that looks more or less like a ISD, yet since it isn't a ISD won't look wrong on the table, and maintains the correct level of firepower for the ship per canon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Vigil cannot have those, because it has appeared in nothing of note.

Why not? Just because we didn't see it in a movie or book doesn't mean anything. There's no reason at all we can't have Darth Vader on a Vigil, I mean we can put him on a shuttle after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course I care about balance. I've said so at least ten times in this thread alone.

You can say that 100 times, but just saying it doesn't make it true.

Clearly if the 6 or so hardpoints that the Vigil would get isn't enough, then you you don't actually care about balance. Not unless you would be happy with a 300 point ISD, that has about 25% of the firepower it should have, which again means it's nothing more then a Corvette in everything but name only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Vigil cannot have those, because it has appeared in nothing of note.

Why not? Just because we didn't see it in a movie or book doesn't mean anything. There's no reason at all we can't have Darth Vader on a Vigil, I mean we can put him on a shuttle after all.
Sure there is. It will make it obvious they made a half-wit Star Destroyer Rip off to appease a handfull of people who can't get past something as minor as size disparity.

10% of a Star Destroyer is cooler than 200% of a Vigil. Hands down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A Vigil cannot have those, because it has appeared in nothing of note.

Why not? Just because we didn't see it in a movie or book doesn't mean anything. There's no reason at all we can't have Darth Vader on a Vigil, I mean we can put him on a shuttle after all.

 

And the point was already made, that Dutch is "alive and kicking" and we can kill Luke with our TIEs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But they released X-Wings and Tie Fighters long before the EU ships. Why?

Because they're the most recognizable, there's no question there. Iconic OT ships are easier to market then EU ones.

 

 

Now you know some, if not all, of the logic behind the "make Star Destroyer" side of the argument. That was my only point.

 

Good thing I took a time-out yesterday as it gets hard to be objective in these kinds of discussions. Hopefully I've managed to mediate a little between the yes and no camps.

 

 

My point of view remains the same. Love Star Destroyers, don't want them in games. Never heard of Vigils until about a week or two ago, will buy two if they get released. As my Catachan23 friend has pointed out my reason for this is simple...

 

...I love Star Wars

EU included

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A Vigil cannot have those, because it has appeared in nothing of note.

Why not? Just because we didn't see it in a movie or book doesn't mean anything. There's no reason at all we can't have Darth Vader on a Vigil, I mean we can put him on a shuttle after all.
Sure there is. It will make it obvious they made a half-wit Star Destroyer Rip off to appease a handfull of people who can't get past something as minor as size disparity.

10% of a Star Destroyer is cooler than 200% of a Vigil. Hands down.

 

Again, I will ask, why not a Super Star Destroyer than?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course I care about balance. I've said so at least ten times in this thread alone.

You can say that 100 times, but just saying it doesn't make it true.Clearly if the 6 or so hardpoints that the Vigil would get isn't enough, then you you don't actually care about balance. Not unless you would be happy with a 300 point ISD, that has about 25% of the firepower it should have, which again means it's nothing more then a Corvette in everything but name only.

In making a Star Destroyer they can leave 11 Hardpoints, giving the option to fill all of them at 300 points or sacrifice a bunch to have other ships capable of firing and drawing fire. It allows them to create the most adaptable ship in the game. Every Hardpoint filled costs points. Having a ship with 12 attacks isn't broken if it has to manage energy, and take all the hits. It's possible to make a ship that can fill the Corvette Role. Or be the entire fleet. Or anything in between, depending what the pilot wants. It's the ultimate in adaptability in design, and provides a single solution to being viable in Epic Tournaments, where the price of entry is in the Hundreds of Dollars range. That doesn't make it broken, because each attack costs points, and energy management, and thought into where to fire. If each of those turrets can only overlap firing arcs with 2 others, and the ship has no rear arc it has exploitable weakness. It creates an entirely new experience, and is exactly what the Epic Ship rules were designed for.

And as I said, 10% of a Star Destroyer is cooler than a Vigil. Or any other EU option they can come up with for the Empire. The next best option is the Lancer, as it was built to take on fighters. The Empire was all about Big Capitol ships. They didn't have any of this little cruiser stuff. The game needs to convey that, and the Star Destroyer is the best way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Vigil cannot have those, because it has appeared in nothing of note.

Why not? Just because we didn't see it in a movie or book doesn't mean anything. There's no reason at all we can't have Darth Vader on a Vigil, I mean we can put him on a shuttle after all.
Sure there is. It will make it obvious they made a half-wit Star Destroyer Rip off to appease a handfull of people who can't get past something as minor as size disparity.

10% of a Star Destroyer is cooler than 200% of a Vigil. Hands down.

Again, I will ask, why not a Super Star Destroyer than?
Because there was only one in the movies. Because there is a limit to scaling things down. And because I'd buy it, but I do think they have to choose which kind of Star Destroyer they want. And because, like the Death Star arguments, that's a Straw Man argument. It's an exagguration of my argument, in an attempt to invalidate it, nothing more. A Star Destroyer that takes up 6-7 times the space of a Tantive is big enough to make the point. A Super Star Destroyer has to be at least twice the size of a regular Star Destroyer to make the same point, and frankly there is a limit to what the play space should hold, and a maximum price-point that has to be met. It sacrifices options a 2 foot long model with an 18 inch base has. But if it added something a Star Destroyer didn't, that would work. I just don't think it offers anything other than a cooler but significantly less iconic design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just putting this out there, here's what the size of an ISD, a Death Star and the planet Alderaan would be, if we extrapolate based on a logarithmic trend line…

 

Why would you extrapolate based on a log curve? Since we know for a fact there's a difference between regular and epic scale, why not fit two linear curves--in which case the ISD would be 84.5 inches long?

Edited by Vorpal Sword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I will ask, why not a Super Star Destroyer than?

Because there was only one in the movies. Because there is a limit to scaling things down. And because I'd buy it, but I do think they have to choose which kind of Star Destroyer they want. And because, like the Death Star arguments, that's a Straw Man argument. It's an exagguration of my argument, in an attempt to invalidate it, nothing more. A Star Destroyer that takes up 6-7 times the space of a Tantive is big enough to make the point. A Super Star Destroyer has to be at least twice the size of a regular Star Destroyer to make the same point, and frankly there is a limit to what the play space should hold, and a maximum price-point that has to be met. It sacrifices options a 2 foot long model with an 18 inch base has. But if it added something a Star Destroyer didn't, that would work. I just don't think it offers anything other than a cooler but significantly less iconic design.

Again, it's not a straw man but a reductio ad absurdum--that being the technical term for an exaggeration of your argument in an attempt to invalidate it. You don't like the implication of carrying your own argument out to its logical limit, but that doesn't make doing so a fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say that 100 times, but just saying it doesn't make it true.

That was unfair of me Aminar. I know based on your other posts here that balance does matter to you so I apologize for that.

I also thought of something I'd consider acceptable as far as allowing a ISD into the game.

A 2-2.5 foot long ship, that costs 280 points. All the hardpoints come pre-installed as it were, but you could swap out the actual weapon with something else. So you're not actually paying points for them, but could change out a Turbolasser for a Ion or Quad Laser.

It would come with no upgrades at all, that can be used on any other ship in the game. But you'd have 20 points to buy titles and other upgrades for it.

This means in a Epic game the person who uses it, get 1 ship and 1 ship only. It also means that anyone who doesn't buy it doesn't miss out on upgrades for other ships. So I or anyone else who doesn't want it, would feel no need to buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I will ask, why not a Super Star Destroyer than?

Because there was only one in the movies. Because there is a limit to scaling things down. And because I'd buy it, but I do think they have to choose which kind of Star Destroyer they want. And because, like the Death Star arguments, that's a Straw Man argument. It's an exagguration of my argument, in an attempt to invalidate it, nothing more. A Star Destroyer that takes up 6-7 times the space of a Tantive is big enough to make the point. A Super Star Destroyer has to be at least twice the size of a regular Star Destroyer to make the same point, and frankly there is a limit to what the play space should hold, and a maximum price-point that has to be met. It sacrifices options a 2 foot long model with an 18 inch base has. But if it added something a Star Destroyer didn't, that would work. I just don't think it offers anything other than a cooler but significantly less iconic design.
Again, it's not a straw man but a reductio ad absurdum--that being the technical term for an exaggeration of your argument in an attempt to invalidate it. You don't like the implication of carrying your own argument out to its logical limit, but that doesn't make doing so a fallacy.

That's up to interpretation. A Straw Man argument does the exact same thing, makes an argument or opinion intentionally absurd. He's claiming I am implying things I am not, by exaggurating my opinion. That's a Straw man.

Anyway that isn't the logical limit, as I feel one can be balanced effectively and the other probably can't. Arguments like that are meant as an attack after the first time they've come up. I am not going to back down on the idea a Star Destroyer scaled down to be balanced with the rest of the game will be good for the game, if not for my wallet.

There is no substantially logical reason to leave out the most Iconic Imperial Capitol Ship. It will leave everythign about the Imperial Military Philosophy of Capitol Ships out of the game in favor of scale models and a linear progression of game design. FFG already dismissed those concepts in how they've designed the big ships we've seen. Maybe the Corvette is their size cap. I doubt it. The same way maybe the Xwing was the Size cap. Or Maybe the Falcon was.

FFG has done an amazing job of living up to every expectation I have had for this game, and blown most of them out of the water. Why should a Star Destroyer be any different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say that 100 times, but just saying it doesn't make it true.

That was unfair of me Aminar. I know based on your other posts here that balance does matter to you so I apologize for that.I also thought of something I'd consider acceptable as far as allowing a ISD into the game.A 2-2.5 foot long ship, that costs 280 points. All the hardpoints come pre-installed as it were, but you could swap out the actual weapon with something else. So you're not actually paying points for them, but could change out a Turbolasser for a Ion or Quad Laser.It would come with no upgrades at all, that can be used on any other ship in the game. But you'd have 20 points to buy titles and other upgrades for it.This means in a Epic game the person who uses it, get 1 ship and 1 ship only. It also means that anyone who doesn't buy it doesn't miss out on upgrades for other ships. So I or anyone else who doesn't want it, would feel no need to buy it.

That's roughly what I'm going for. But it should have the option of not filling it's hard-points for extra ship points(Mainly because I really want to Tractor beam a Tie out of a firing arc some day... The way budgeting works in the game shouldn't be ignored. I can agree it should not be a required buy for anything. (Although it coming with the equivalent of two Tie Expansions or the Starter set ties(but nothing not available elsewhere) would be Ok with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's up to interpretation.

No it really isn't. A straw man is quite clearly defined as misrepresenting the original point and changing it into something that can be easily defeated. So it looks like I won, but in truth I didn't actually address your argument at all.

There is no substantially logical reason to leave out the most Iconic Imperial Capitol Ship.

We've listed a ton of logical reasons why, just because you don't agree with them doesn't make them false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why can't we come to a happy compromise?

and I might just cry with joy...

Victory I-Class Star Destroyer

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Victory_I-class_Star_Destroyer

Bring on the Victory 1 I say! I wasn't even looking for it but there it is...a small Star Destroyer!

Note I have always said Star Destroyer, not ISD. Many people feel the Victory class is still too big.

What I'd almost like, and this requires a lot of suspension of disbelief, is two cards for the same size ship. One represents an ISD and costs too much for other ships, and one that costs much less and represents the Victory class. I know this will knock Scale Junkies for a loop... But it would be an effective way to handle the situation.

Edited by Aminar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it should have the option of not filling it's hard-points for extra ship points(Mainly because I really want to Tractor beam a Tie out of a firing arc some day... The way budgeting works in the game shouldn't be ignored.

I agree, but I also think that if you set the cost at something around 200 points and let people buy hard points like they do for the CR-90, you would have people skimping on the number of weapons they buy, and that would mean you lose the bulk of what makes a ISD so impressive, the massive firepower it has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it should have the option of not filling it's hard-points for extra ship points(Mainly because I really want to Tractor beam a Tie out of a firing arc some day... The way budgeting works in the game shouldn't be ignored.

I agree, but I also think that if you set the cost at something around 200 points and let people buy hard points like they do for the CR-90, you would have people skimping on the number of weapons they buy, and that would mean you lose the bulk of what makes a ISD so impressive, the massive firepower it has.

Their choice. Maybe their SD is in need of repairs. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why can't we come to a happy compromise?

and I might just cry with joy...

Victory I-Class Star Destroyer

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Victory_I-class_Star_Destroyer

Bring on the Victory 1 I say! I wasn't even looking for it but there it is...a small Star Destroyer!

Note I have always said Star Destroyer, not ISD. Many people feel the Victory class is still too big.

What I'd almost like, and this requires a lot of suspension of disbelief, is two cards for the same size ship. One represents an ISD and costs too much for other ships, and one that costs much less and represents the Victory class. I know this will knock Scale Junkies for a loop... But it would be an effective way to handle the situation.

 

 

I'd settle for an Acclamator, which is a little smaller still. It was that I was looking for (couldn't remember it's name) when this appeared and I thought "YES" it IS a Star Destroyer without being THE Star Destroyer we all know from the movies.

 

900 meters makes it 6 times the size of a CR-90, which can be scaled down a little without too much complaining. This I don't mind.

 

EDIT: for those interested in the size difference 180px-Victory_size.jpg

Edited by MajorTomK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

900 meters makes it 6 times the size of a CR-90, which can be scaled down a little without too much complaining. This I don't mind.

I'd find a VSD a lot less objectionable then a ISD.

But I'd still much prefer something that starts off at the 250 or less size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that the Acclamator, what I originally was looking for, is still the best choice. Easily recognizable. 752 meters long. With firepower, at least according to Wookieepedia, amounting to:

 

Acclamator I

12 Quad Turbolaser Cannons

24 Point Defense Laser Cannons

4 Proton Torpedo Tubes

 

Acclamator II

12 Quad Turbolaser Cannons

24 Point Defense Laser Cannons

4 Turbolaser Batteries

2 Heavy Proton Torpedo Launchers

 

But I wouldn't complain about a Victory Star Destroyer.

I'd only get one though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...