Jump to content
Eagle128

Super Star Destroyer discussion thread

Recommended Posts

I still don't fully buy the logic that the SSD is too big for this game. I understand the arguement, and am I one who thinks an ISD is impossible for X-Wing, but the scale differences between that, and SSD-Armada are completely different. It still feels like the equivalent is asking for a Death Star, not the Executor.

 

It's worth noting that the Imperial has a command of 3... same as the Victory. So if a large ship cealing is Command 3 why the presumption that they'll jump to Command 5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't fully buy the logic that the SSD is too big for this game. I understand the arguement, and am I one who thinks an ISD is impossible for X-Wing, but the scale differences between that, and SSD-Armada are completely different. It still feels like the equivalent is asking for a Death Star, not the Executor.

 

It's worth noting that the Imperial has a command of 3... same as the Victory. So if a large ship cealing is Command 3 why the presumption that they'll jump to Command 5?

 

No the scale from CR-90 to ISD is even less than the relative scale of an ISD to an SSD! That's what people don't want to understand.

 

A CR-90 is a 10th the length of an ISD. The ISD is a little less than a 12th the length of a SSD. An ISD makes as much sense as in X-wing as an SSD in Armada.

 

The people that are saying "WE WILL SEE AN SSD IN ARMADA." Sound exactly the same as the people claiming the same thing about the ISD in X-wing.

 

I also love the argument that since X-wing has an "epic" format that Armada must have one. I ask why?

Edited by Jo Jo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Armada doesn't hold the pretense of being in scale?

 

I just believe it's possible and am willing to entertain the idea. If there's any certainty about the SSD being in the game it's because it would be the ceiling of this game about capital ships.

 

Jamming in a Star Destroyer into X-Wing doesn't work but not just because of scale. It's trying to ram in something that doesn't belong there. Once you consider adding a Star Destroyer into X-Wing you get into the thought of "But why not just capital ship battles?" and here we are with Armada.

 

A Star Destroyer offers nothing to X-Wing except being a big target and a huge investment of time into something that isn't why players come to an X-Wing table anyway. Running it would be tedious and pretty only there for scenario play. Then it becomes a special interest case and why would FFG bother making something that nobody would want to play with? As it is, Epic ships don't see enough play.

 

Meanwhile a Super Star Destroyer is, more or less, a peer of the ships that we are playing with now. It's the big bully of the playground but it's still a capital ship in a game about capital ships. Rules to cover larger ships work just as well covering smaller ones, and I think the engine can be pushed higher with bigger craft.

 

I point out that conceptually it would be easier to justify an SSD here than to justify the ISD-XW without actual model scale entering into the argument.

 

And I think Armada fans long to see an epic mode because Armada isn't, well, epic enough. You get a good handful of ships with 3-400 points but to recreate the Battle of Endor you're going to need a lot more, and an Epic mode of play would have rules to handle that.

 

If FFG does announce a Super Star Destroyer I wonder how the fans will react. Will some of the anti SSD crowd ragequit because the precious preconception of scale has, once and for all, been trounced? As if the Corvette and VSD scale didn't do it already?

Edited by Norsehound

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No the scale from CR-90 to ISD is even less than the relative scale of an ISD to an SSD! That's what people don't want to understand.

 

 

I understand it quite well, actually. Did you read and understand my post on logarithmic scales? Is there anything there that you would like to refute? If I made an error in my math, please correct me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20150408_192634_zpsvgc6vcuf.jpg

Actual scale to Corvette vs smallest conceivable scale (per Victory scale i.e. .9" Corvette) 6'×3' almost 1/3 length of field, 2/3 width.

Eliminates standard placement. Would have to be a length-wise scenario, AND it's 40% it's size but should still pack a wallop. Should it's left flank still be limited to one attack no matter how many ships sit on it? How many attack dice? Twice no matter at 9+ dice? Bye bye all med-small ships.

Have fun avoiding getting close to that Rebels. :)

Edited by Son0fGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I am going to sum up the last 16 pages. 

 

"We really really want an Executor SSD because it would be Awesome!"

 

"Ok, what about the scale issue? A Rebel counterpart? It's power will be toned down so much it wouldn't be an Executor but just a larger ISD."

 

"We don't care, it would be awesome and they will do it."

 

There is definitely a theme here. There are those that want an Executor SSD no matter what, period. There are those who find the Executor too big in nature to be put into the game without it becoming awkward and out of place next to other ships. (Both in looks and Power scale.)

 

That's it, and it just keeps coming back to the same questions and answers and I haven't seen anything new really added since page 3 when we laid out our positions. No one is going to move on their position. You people do realize this, Right?

 

So let's forget our differences on this topic and enjoy the game now and through wave 2. We can always comeback to this after the ISDs and MC80s have been played. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please!

The anti-SSD people seem so confrontational to me. It also seems like they completely ignore the many reasonable ideas presented for how an SSD could work and just vent their spleen. Is it just me? Am I taking crazy pills?

Back on point:

Thank you, Eyeless, for putting something out there. It seems like you're stat-ing it out as a normal base ship. I think the SSD would have to be on something like an Epic XWM base, with two sections.

 

 

My current idea is that it will have a special flat base, so that other ships can move over it. The only collision points would be the vertical stands that hold the model up. These would be special hit locations - the forward stand would be the hangar bay and the rear stand the bridge.

 

The front section would have at least four hull zones and firing arcs to split the shields up more, the rear section could maybe get away with just three. I could see going as high as six on the front and five on the back though. More hull zones also means that the armament can be represented better without have a 20 dice arc.

The two sections would have different command values to represent how unwieldy and difficult it is to command such a huge ship (maybe two front and four back). Maybe the front command dial can only be used for tokens.

I have also been thinking about modified movement rules - like you have to feed the rear section at least a nav token just to maintain your speed, otherwise it will drop back to zero and you'll lose your defense tokens.

The front section is where all the firepower will be, but also the high squadron value, so you'll have to choose what to focus on more. The rear section is more vulnerable, but it can't just sit there and spam engineering commands because it takes constant effort just to keep the thing moving.

 

We have tried to work with it.

 

This is the reason why we listed the other ships in the diagram in the first place.

 

If we are going to consider it we need to look at the pros and cons of such a unit first

 

Here's the list of pros and cons I see with a SSD

 

Pros

 

1.It would be cool to have a SSD in Armada

 

2. Would allow epic play for Armada

 

Cons

 

1. SSD will cost a lot to manufacture and purchase.

 

2. SSD will be only available to one faction (Because the rebels didn't have anything bigger past a Bulwark III)

 

3. SSD will overall be unbalanced and unfair

 

4. SSD will be too big and clunky for 6x3 mat with a 6 turn game

 

5. SSD will have to be freakishly out of scale to be considered useable.

 

If there is any other  pros and cons I have missed list them in your post.

 

I have yet to see any other good reason for a SSD.

 

If you want to have good game balance in Epic games then ships need to have ships the same relative same size and firepower.

 

As I have already pointed out that the Rebels biggest ship is the Bulwark mark III (2.5km) so the Imperial faction would need to have a ship of similar size to be fair, such as the Allegiance class (2.2km)  or the Secutor class (2.2km)

 

You can't just have a SSD for one faction and expect that to be fair or make for a better game.

 

And you can't expect a ship model over 16" is going to be just as playable on a 6x3 mat as a normal game is.

 

It simply won't be with the size of ships in this game currently.

 

If the people who are pro SSD could meet the anti SSD half way on this matter I think most people could agree on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beatty, you did a horrible job of summing up the arguments for the SSD. 

If anything its like this

 

"An SSD would be awesome!"

 

"No it wouldnt, it would to horribly out of scale and overpower..."

 

"Ok, here are our ideas...."

 

"We dont care, there is no way they will ever make a SSD"

 

"what if we did it like this..."

 

"We dont care there is no way they will ever make a SSD"

 

"how about this...."

 

"We dont care, there is no way they will ever make a SSD."

 

you seem to think thats its the pro SSD people who arent willing to budge, but it seems to me that those that are against the SSD are the ones who wont budge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beatty, you did a horrible job of summing up the arguments for the SSD.

If anything its like this

"An SSD would be awesome!"

"No it wouldnt, it would to horribly out of scale and overpower..."

"Ok, here are our ideas...."

"We dont care, there is no way they will ever make a SSD"

"what if we did it like this..."

"We dont care there is no way they will ever make a SSD"

"how about this...."

"We dont care, there is no way they will ever make a SSD."

you seem to think thats its the pro SSD people who arent willing to budge, but it seems to me that those that are against the SSD are the ones who wont budge.

Sorry to say you guys have also had a deaf ear to everyone's counter argument and diagrams.

That's the problem, I have heard the points you guys have made but it is not addressing others' concerns and is more of a excuse to justify ignoring the other side completely.

Both sides are doing it but the pro side has countlessly ignored diagrams pictured examples and questions of how to implement it's movement rules and flaws. That is the truth. I have heard the arguments about relative scaling back on page One. Now I am saying that the scaling of both size and power is still an issue not fully addressed and just dusting the conversation with repeated "it can be done, look at the CR90 compared to the VSD." We heard that a thousand times.

By the way just to correct a major mistake you made there is that the Con side Is not, and definitely not me, saying that FFG will not make a SSD. We have only said, and repeatedly, the Executor class would be very very hard to pull off, here's why, period.

So stop and take a really really hard look at this thread and try to justify the Pro sides points as not being stubborn. You can not even when you twist our words to fit your argument.

Edited by Beatty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's also be honest, is this discussion doing Anyone any good or is it creating unneeded drama?

They very well may make a SSD. Will it be the Executor, we don't know. Will this thread change FFG's predecided mind. I highly doubt it but this thread will make FFG sweat like hell trying to figure out where to go if they do go epic. (Again this is the difference between the Pro and Con side, the Con side says "they might do it but-" and the Pro side say "They will do it!". We all want an Executor class model in our home, don't doubt that, but at what cost to the game and idea that is the most powerful ship in the galaxy is the question?)

So do we just agree this topic has run its course or do we go up to page 42 and see no one has added anything of real new importance since all the angles have been looked at, quite throughly I might add, and yet neither side has moved the other side even a little.

Edited by Beatty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last thing and I am calling this thread done for me, I swear. 

 

I left this conversation a while ago when I asked very directly if the Pro side was ok having the Executor scaled down over 70% to the ISD to fit the 2' mark (which is 11" longer than the CR90 from X-Wing. See Son0fGun's picture above on this page to see how big that is'), they said they were ok with that. Well I am not ok with that personally and no explanation of relative scale will make me feel ok with it. It would look weird and wrong to me. 

 

Now if it were made at the size of the X-Wing CR90 then it would be reduced in scale by 85%, and that is a huge difference in scale by any relative scale In My Opinion.

 

If you also say you are ok with down scaling the Executor class by 70-85% then you absolutely allowed your opinion. I and many others don't like that, and nothing you will say can change that. That is just the way it is.

Edited by Beatty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps simple scale is not enough of an argument to convince the pro-size that SSDs are impossible. FFG has clearly stated that scale is not as important of an issue to them for this game as it is for X-Wing, so the pro side is willing to accept the greater reduction in scale for the sake of this playing piece (Obviously within reason... we'd expect it to be about the size of an X-Wing CR-90 wouldn't we, pro side?)

 

The opponents to the SSD keep waving scale diagrams around as if to convince us, but since the pro side is more open to the sliding scale idea, we ignore them.

 

I keep offering the gameplay argument. From that standpoint why not a larger based ship? Give its own movement ruler and other special case rules? I remain open to the possibility that FFG can make it work within this engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps simple scale is not enough of an argument to convince the pro-size that SSDs are impossible. FFG has clearly stated that scale is not as important of an issue to them for this game as it is for X-Wing, so the pro side is willing to accept the greater reduction in scale for the sake of this playing piece (Obviously within reason... we'd expect it to be about the size of an X-Wing CR-90 wouldn't we, pro side?)

 

The opponents to the SSD keep waving scale diagrams around as if to convince us, but since the pro side is more open to the sliding scale idea, we ignore them.

 

I keep offering the gameplay argument. From that standpoint why not a larger based ship? Give its own movement ruler and other special case rules? I remain open to the possibility that FFG can make it work within this engine.

I can respect that position, can you respect ours'? Also when you say SSD you mean the Executor, right? Because many of us are still really open to a SSD, just not the Executor class for reasons stated.

Edited by Beatty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The opponents to the SSD keep waving scale diagrams around as if to convince us, but since the pro side is more open to the sliding scale idea, we ignore them.

 

And that, dear Norse, is the problem. Your side ignores counter points it doesn't like, and not just that one. In an earlier post, I listed the weapons, fighters carried and other abilities and barely got a response. I got some nice back and forth from Eyeless, but that was about it. It was quickly folloed by some Proside troll with the usual "We can just make it smaller!!!"

Ignoring valid points in a debate does not make your side stronger, yet members of your side think it does. Even you seem to be proud of ignoring a valid objection. Thats not exactly a way to impress anyone of the strength of your arguments. Ok, so they make the model stupidly small. How do you achieve any kind of game balace with an Executor class star destroyer that is an actual Executor class that corresponds to what we see in the movies? No one of the pro side seems to be able to truely answer this.

Now, let me be clear: I DO WANT an SSD. Just not an Executor. Maybe an Alliegence or a FFG fiction one, similar to the way FFG came up with the Imperial Raider. Or, I may buy an Ertle ISD model and kitbash the heck out of it. But, I DO NOT WANT an Executor SSD that is a pale shadow of what was shown in the movies and is rediculously small. That would ruin it in many ways.

Now, before someone goes off and says "But we can just make it smaller! Sliding scale! SLIDING SCAAAAAAAAAALE!!" Will some pro-Executor SSDer expalin the weapons scaling issue, please? And please reference the documented capabilities of the Executor class and how you would make it a playable model. (Hint - I got frustrated with the Pro-SSD guys and GAVE you a way to do it earlier in the thread and that GOT IGNORED too!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps simple scale is not enough of an argument to convince the pro-size that SSDs are impossible. FFG has clearly stated that scale is not as important of an issue to them for this game as it is for X-Wing, so the pro side is willing to accept the greater reduction in scale for the sake of this playing piece (Obviously within reason... we'd expect it to be about the size of an X-Wing CR-90 wouldn't we, pro side?)

 

The opponents to the SSD keep waving scale diagrams around as if to convince us, but since the pro side is more open to the sliding scale idea, we ignore them.

 

I keep offering the gameplay argument. From that standpoint why not a larger based ship? Give its own movement ruler and other special case rules? I remain open to the possibility that FFG can make it work within this engine.

I can respect that position, can you respect ours'? Also when you say SSD you mean the Executor, right? Because many of us are still really open to a SSD, just not the Executor class for reasons stated.

Also NorseHound. If your going to scale the Executor down to 40-% size and obviously underpower it...... What's the point? Isn't it just an "Epic" sized ship called Executor or SSD when it's just an "Epic" sized ship that another class is of same size. The SSD then becomes a token "thing" Just the big bad midget SSD that the pro would like. I wouldn't play it and I'd laugh if someone did. If they release it for casual and tourney Epic I congratulate those who will use it and really hope you enjoy it, sincerely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps simple scale is not enough of an argument to convince the pro-size that SSDs are impossible. FFG has clearly stated that scale is not as important of an issue to them for this game as it is for X-Wing, so the pro side is willing to accept the greater reduction in scale for the sake of this playing piece (Obviously within reason... we'd expect it to be about the size of an X-Wing CR-90 wouldn't we, pro side?)

The opponents to the SSD keep waving scale diagrams around as if to convince us, but since the pro side is more open to the sliding scale idea, we ignore them.

I keep offering the gameplay argument. From that standpoint why not a larger based ship? Give its own movement ruler and other special case rules? I remain open to the possibility that FFG can make it work within this engine.

I can respect that position, can you respect ours'? Also when you say SSD you mean the Executor, right? Because many of us are still really open to a SSD, just not the Executor class for reasons stated.
Also NorseHound. If your going to scale the Executor down to 40-% size and obviously underpower it...... What's the point? Isn't it just an "Epic" sized ship called Executor or SSD when it's just an "Epic" sized ship that another class is of same size. The SSD then becomes a token "thing" Just the big bad midget SSD that the pro would like. I wouldn't play it and I'd laugh if someone did. If they release it for casual and tourney Epic I congratulate those who will use it and really hope you enjoy it, sincerely.
Just so we are on the same page and for the record it would be at 15% of its comparable size to the ISD which is at 80% of its comparable size to the VSD. Not just 40%. Edited by Beatty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me personally I have no issues with an SSD, i would like to see it at 28' minimum but hey you get what you get.

I would like to clarify that the rebels did have something bigger than a bulwark.

that was the Home One 3.7km and it was the closest thing to a counterpart the rebels had to the SSD, while not being equal either however.

It is unfortunate that FFG has decided to use the wrong scale for the Home One and so there really is no natural opponent for the SSD (maybe EU?)

That said I still wouldnt mind seeing one, again at 28' minimum i would say if for no other reason than it would be a cool set piece. practical for the game, nah but kool

Though i definately understand the concerns of those who are advocateing for the pro SSDers to explain how it would work in game.

Edited by Lurtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Perhaps simple scale is not enough of an argument to convince the pro-size that SSDs are impossible. FFG has clearly stated that scale is not as important of an issue to them for this game as it is for X-Wing, so the pro side is willing to accept the greater reduction in scale for the sake of this playing piece (Obviously within reason... we'd expect it to be about the size of an X-Wing CR-90 wouldn't we, pro side?)

 

The opponents to the SSD keep waving scale diagrams around as if to convince us, but since the pro side is more open to the sliding scale idea, we ignore them.

 

I keep offering the gameplay argument. From that standpoint why not a larger based ship? Give its own movement ruler and other special case rules? I remain open to the possibility that FFG can make it work within this engine.

I can respect that position, can you respect ours'? Also when you say SSD you mean the Executor, right? Because many of us are still really open to a SSD, just not the Executor class for reasons stated.

Also NorseHound. If your going to scale the Executor down to 40-% size and obviously underpower it...... What's the point? Isn't it just an "Epic" sized ship called Executor or SSD when it's just an "Epic" sized ship that another class is of same size. The SSD then becomes a token "thing" Just the big bad midget SSD that the pro would like. I wouldn't play it and I'd laugh if someone did. If they release it for casual and tourney Epic I congratulate those who will use it and really hope you enjoy it, sincerely.

 

 

I've got the feeling that if the Executor does come out, those who oppose it now are going to refuse to believe it's a "Real" super star destroyer because it would have to be scaled appropriately so enemy fleets have a reasonable chance of fighting one...

 

How do you achieve any kind of game balace with an Executor class star destroyer that is an actual Executor class that corresponds to what we see in the movies? No one of the pro side seems to be able to truely answer this.

 

 

The "Real" executor from the movie hardly fires a shot. The only time it does is when it exchanges less than a dozen turbolaser bolts with a Nebulon-B and some shots to obliterate an X-Wing flying in the trenches. So realistically, all the vaunted firepower a Super Star Destroyer is supposed to have come from EU sources which are now of dubious authenticity to LFL. If we go by what we see in the films, one can infer that the Executor is only a command ship with minimal weapons, relying on her escort to do the fighting for her.

 

With so little of the Executor's capabilities actually defined in the films, its very open to interpretation. And it's that wiggle-room that will allow a balanced Super Star Destroyer to be realized without actually violating screen canon.

 

I can respect that position, can you respect ours'? Also when you say SSD you mean the Executor, right? Because many of us are still really open to a SSD, just not the Executor class for reasons stated.

 

 

I try, but I guess I can't resist the lure of debate and conjecture. I have been on the "its too big" side of the discussion with fans and debating the ISD-XW argument. I just feel that if FFG is going to do something bigger than the ISD, it's not going to be anything else but an Executor-class Super Star Destroyer because no other class is as high-profile as that one. Also, thanks to the canon reset, there are no other Super Star Destroyer designs. Ergo if there is an entity bigger than an Imperial it will be the Executor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you have stated your position Norsehound to my question and I can respect it even if I do not agree completely. (Honestly I love debating too, but there comes a point where we agree to disagree and go have a beer in friendship. Am I right?)

I hope that makes sense. :)

Edited by Beatty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps simple scale is not enough of an argument to convince the pro-size that SSDs are impossible. FFG has clearly stated that scale is not as important of an issue to them for this game as it is for X-Wing, so the pro side is willing to accept the greater reduction in scale for the sake of this playing piece (Obviously within reason... we'd expect it to be about the size of an X-Wing CR-90 wouldn't we, pro side?)

The opponents to the SSD keep waving scale diagrams around as if to convince us, but since the pro side is more open to the sliding scale idea, we ignore them.

I keep offering the gameplay argument. From that standpoint why not a larger based ship? Give its own movement ruler and other special case rules? I remain open to the possibility that FFG can make it work within this engine.

I can respect that position, can you respect ours'? Also when you say SSD you mean the Executor, right? Because many of us are still really open to a SSD, just not the Executor class for reasons stated.
Also NorseHound. If your going to scale the Executor down to 40-% size and obviously underpower it...... What's the point? Isn't it just an "Epic" sized ship called Executor or SSD when it's just an "Epic" sized ship that another class is of same size. The SSD then becomes a token "thing" Just the big bad midget SSD that the pro would like. I wouldn't play it and I'd laugh if someone did. If they release it for casual and tourney Epic I congratulate those who will use it and really hope you enjoy it, sincerely.
Just so we are on the same page and for the record it would be at 15% of its comparable size to the ISD which is at 80% of its comparable size to the VSD. Not just 40%.
Just because the Victory is the only ship I can in hand measure, I felt Vic standard was appropriate. I shall call it VSD standard lol.

900m=5.5" 8000m=48.4" 40*48.4/100=19.36'.

Executor at 40% (displaced relevant to a Corvette and VSD 2.25"/5.5"= 40.909%) Any scaling relative from Vette to SSD disparity I'll leave to a mathematician. But the scaling becomes horrible versus what The Executor should be and should just be assigned to an Epic sized ship of approximately 3168m (2800-3700??) for 19.36".

Silly really. If they make an SSD scaled down, whatever. I don't care. It's silly and I wouldn't buy a token midget.

Edited by Son0fGun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Son0fGun, the Executor is 19,000m not 8,000m. That's from the canon of Lucus Films.

And wait, the VSD is only 900m? I thought it was at 11,000-12,000m for some reason.

Edited by Beatty

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.


×
×
  • Create New...