Jump to content
Marinealver

Is the Star Destroyer Really TOO BIG for Epic?

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Vontoothskie said:

the Croc is not to scale at all...

Sorry, but I'm going to take FFG's word for it over yours.  They are - after all - the ones who collaborated with Disney/Lucasarts over it.  And you are the one who thought the Raider was to scale, showing how reliable your knowledge of the game's scale is.

On ‎15‎/‎01‎/‎2018 at 12:11 PM, FTS Gecko said:

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. "

...it doesn't help when you contradict yourself either; you said earlier (correctly) that the Imperial Assault Carrier is to scale.  If the Imperial Assault Carrier is to scale, then so is the C-ROC, as (again) they are both designed around the same basis chassis - the Gozanti-class Cruiser.

Edited by FTS Gecko

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

Sorry, but I'm going to take FFG's word for it over yours.  They are - after all - the ones who collaborated with Disney/Lucasarts over it.  And you are the one who thought the Raider was to scale, showing how reliable your knowledge of the game's scale is.

...it doesn't help when you contradict yourself either; you said earlier (correctly) that the Imperial Assault Carrier is to scale.  If the Imperial Assault Carrier is to scale, then so is the C-ROC, as (again) they are both designed around the same basis chassis - the Gozanti-class Cruiser.

God, this smacks of the old, "Executor is 8km long because WEG says so" argument from back in the day...

****, canon sources STILL insist that Home One is no larger than any of the other cruisers in RotJ, even though she's DEMONSTRABLY at least twice the length on-screen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Ambaryerno said:

God, this smacks of the old, "Executor is 8km long because WEG says so" argument from back in the day...

****, canon sources STILL insist that Home One is no larger than any of the other cruisers in RotJ, even though she's DEMONSTRABLY at least twice the length on-screen.

When the options are "listen to the designers who work closely with and require official approval from Disney" or "listen to some random joe on the internet who's evidence is vaguely eyeballing screenshots and who repeatedly contradicts themselves", the choice is pretty clear.

The Imperial Assault Carrier and the C-ROC are both essentially modified variants of the same ship - the Gozanti-class Cruiser.  This is indisputable.  @Vontoothskie says that the Imperial Assault Carrier is to scale but the C-ROC is not.  So either he's right about the Imperial Assault Carrier being the correct scale (in which case the C-ROC is as well) or he's right about the C-ROC being out of scale (in which case the Imperial Assault Carrier is the wrong scale too).  Either way, he's clearly wrong somewhere.  :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

When the options are "listen to the designers who work closely with and require official approval from Disney" or "listen to some random joe on the internet who's evidence is vaguely eyeballing screenshots and who repeatedly contradicts themselves", the choice is pretty clear.

You DO realize that "random Joe on the internet eyeballing screenshots" is why we got Executor's length fixed in the FIRST **** place, right? It was gentlemen like Curtis Saxton — who by the way, got his gig doing one of the Cross-Section books BECAUSE of his skill "eyeballing screenshots" — that got those things corrected.

So how about less apologist/throwing shade? Believe it or not, it's possible for the people who "work closely and require official approval" to still make mistakes. In fact, it's possible for DISNEY to make mistakes.  And just because they INTENDED two ships to be related doesn't mean that it doesn't break the final product. Ultimately, the people who design these craft are focused on one thing: Make something that looks GOOD. Making it something that actually WORKS isn't a priority (I've been spending YEARS trying to figure out a working mechanism for the T-65's main landing gear for a 3D model) and I would not be surprised at all if they forgot how much headroom one needs (****, the "official" blueprints for the Outrider at one point made her so small that the "crew quarters" would only work if the ship was manned by Ewoks).

I can believe entirely that the Gozanti could be in-scale but the CROC not, simply because the ARTISTS THEMSELVES screwed up when designing the thing, and didn't realize how much bigger the ship would actually have to be for their design to work. I've been watching WEG and WOTC — both of whom worked closely with and required official approval from LucasFilm — do it for DECADES, Junior (case in point: Aaron Allston had Wraith Squadron fit eight X-wings and four TIE fighters in the front module of a Corellian Corvette. For that to actually work would require the forward module to be enlarged at LEAST 300%. However the ship in the book was explicitly visiually indistinct at a glance from a conventional Corvette. Trust me, it wouldn't have gone unnoticed the forward module of Night Caller was 3x the size it ought to be).

Edited by Ambaryerno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

also of note,  the CR90 show has A-wings inside it. think on that for a second. the Star destroyer has a hanger the size of the boards we play on... its too big for the game

ISZ-Tantive_IV.jpg

...

Well even Armada doesn't follow that as I can't fit the CR-90 in the hanger bay of a Star Destroyer. However I think Bullox has the best point on taking a look at scale not only in terms of length but also time (Anyone up for a lecture on General Relativity:))  Well measuring a distance of something is not entirely dependent on mere displacement but a difference in length and a different in time are completely related (the whole dx/dt thing) Here I placed the quote.

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.

Which also brings up the question. Okay if we made a place mat instead of a model? How many turns should it take an X-wing to cross the length of a Star Destroyer. I think 2 or 3 turns is all it should be which makes scaling it down to 30" seem plausible. Granted a model that size will still be ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, FTS Gecko said:

Sorry, but I'm going to take FFG's word for it over yours.  They are - after all - the ones who collaborated with Disney/Lucasarts over it.  And you are the one who thought the Raider was to scale, showing how reliable your knowledge of the game's scale is.

...it doesn't help when you contradict yourself either; you said earlier (correctly) that the Imperial Assault Carrier is to scale.  If the Imperial Assault Carrier is to scale, then so is the C-ROC, as (again) they are both designed around the same basis chassis - the Gozanti-class Cruiser.

You can take whoevers word you want, but FFG have gotten caught fudging scales on a bunch of the ships. The Upsilon and Havoc are closer to epic 1/435 for example. anyway I dont think thats a big deal,  the game is still exciting and fun in spite of minor mistakes, but it doesnt make them a very cannon source on scale. FFG did make the Uwing a large base and Havoc small, after all. 

Also it doesnt follow that one Gozanti is in scale because the other is, thats a logical fallacy. they are individual sculpts based on an artists conception of those ships, and were likely adjusted to fit a desired product size for packaging, material cost, etc. Scale is determined by measuring known quantities to compare them, and those measurements dont add up. basic features like airlocks are different sizes between the 2 models, and the CROC appears to be around 1/400 or so.  as a thought exercise compare the M3-A scyk to the CROC for example; its apparent to the naked eye that something is off, but when you measure them you find that one of them is very very off... either the Scyk size is almost doubled(it isnt) or the CROC is nearly halved. also look at the doors and cockpit windows, they are the easiest frame of reference. the scyk scale is in line with all of the tie fighters at 1/270ish. by comparison the tie fighter models ball/cockpit/hull is larger than the CROCs bridge section, which anyone can tell doesnt make sense. just do some measurements youll see what im talking about.

Edited by Vontoothskie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

also of note,  the CR90 show has A-wings inside it. think on that for a second. the Star destroyer has a hanger the size of the boards we play on... its too big for the game

the CR90 in Rebels does not have A-wings inside it. that was the Pelta class Frigate. the CR90's in the show could carry a trio of A-wing externally on their docking ports.

this is a pelta, it is much larger than a CR90:

Home_Base_and_its_fleet.png

latest?cb=20150621064724

i can see where the confusion might occur, given the way the cylindrical bow section has some similar surface textures in the close up, but the scene does make it fairly clear.

this is the CR90 with Docked A-wings from Rebels.

CQe2B2hUkAAneJC.jpg

YmPsedQl.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/9/2018 at 11:01 AM, Captain Pellaeon said:

I'd appreciate an Arquitens or Nebulon-B, or Lancer or any other corvette more. For true capital ship engagements, there's Armada to play.

I have a 19-1/2 inch Nebulon-B that adheres to FFG's Huge ship sliding scale:

https://imgur.com/a/x8pLl

I've also commissioned a scratch-built Arquitens Command Cruiser that I'm currently on a waiting list for:

https://imgur.com/a/cYDu2

It's also around 19-1/2 inches long, so it doesn't perfectly adhere to FFG's Huge ship scale as the Nebulon-B is 300m long and an Arquitens Command Cruiser is 325m.  But, it's close enough for me.

Initially, I tried to have a Lancer-class Frigate scratch-built to balance out my Nebulon-B but I couldn't find any takers.  It's apparently more difficult to build from scratch than it looks.

Anyway, Frigates and small Cruisers are as big as I'm willing to go for ships that actually move in XWM scale.  I use the small Revell ISDs in my Battle of Scarif scenario but they don't move or shoot and are basically just static 3D objective tokens.   I wave it off as if they're much lower in orbit.  It looks a little wacky when my custom Hammerhead rams into one but, whatever.  If I ever do a scenario involving an attack on an ISD, I'd probably use a mat with the bridge area of the ship printed on it and use 3D shield generators and turrets as attack objectives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, AwesomeJedi said:

I have an idea:

ISD model length Armada/CR-90 model length Armada=Potential ISD length X-wing/CR-90 length X-wing.

Solve equation for Potential ISD length X-wing.

It would help with nailing down the scale. But I am also for mechanics as X-wing is an abstraction of Star Wars 3d dogfights. How many turns do you think a 4 straight should take to run the length of the ISD?

Trying to find the scale I think the ISD in Armada is at 1/7900 and the CR-90 is 1/2514 but I am not certain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, AwesomeJedi said:

I have an idea:

ISD model length Armada/CR-90 model length Armada=Potential ISD length X-wing/CR-90 length X-wing.

Solve equation for Potential ISD length X-wing.

 

9 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

It would help with nailing down the scale. But I am also for mechanics as X-wing is an abstraction of Star Wars 3d dogfights. How many turns do you think a 4 straight should take to run the length of the ISD?

Trying to find the scale I think the ISD in Armada is at 1/7900 and the CR-90 is 1/2514 but I am not certain.

Some quick "back-of-the-envelope" calculations using the comparative sizes of the Armada ships as reference, I think Marinealver's 30 inch model would be about the right size for a Victory class Star Destroyer in X-Wing if you wanted to keep the same relative sizing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bullox said:

 

Some quick "back-of-the-envelope" calculations using the comparative sizes of the Armada ships as reference, I think Marinealver's 30 inch model would be about the right size for a Victory class Star Destroyer in X-Wing if you wanted to keep the same relative sizing.

Well one of my ideas for a Star Destroyer Expansion is to have the Imperial class Star Destroyer as the model but it could be played as either a Victory class or Imperial class Star Destroyer. Just the Victory class uses a different dial and a bridge section that is a lot less squadron points than the Imperial class Star Destroyer. The Imperial Class Star destroyer would be faster and make more energy but would be about 90 points more than the victory and have slightly more shielding and weapons in the bridge section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Bullox said:

 

Some quick "back-of-the-envelope" calculations using the comparative sizes of the Armada ships as reference, I think Marinealver's 30 inch model would be about the right size for a Victory class Star Destroyer in X-Wing if you wanted to keep the same relative sizing.

 

1 hour ago, Marinealver said:

Well one of my ideas for a Star Destroyer Expansion is to have the Imperial class Star Destroyer as the model but it could be played as either a Victory class or Imperial class Star Destroyer. Just the Victory class uses a different dial and a bridge section that is a lot less squadron points than the Imperial class Star Destroyer. The Imperial Class Star destroyer would be faster and make more energy but would be about 90 points more than the victory and have slightly more shielding and weapons in the bridge section.

Now that we have an estimated size, what kind of stats would be appropriate for a ship of this magnitude? Remember that we want to make both a Victory-class Star Destroyer and an Imperial-class Star Destroyer.

Here is what I have seen in the past that was neat. Even though not all of them are technically Star Destroyer size, some of the ideas can be the same.

 

@melminiatures

https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1174422/custom-huge-ship-star-destroyer

 

@Refugeanoth

https://m.imgur.com/a/BPx5r

 

@Bullox

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/259511-introducing-the-preemptive-strike-a-pocket-star-destroyer/

 

I don't play Armada, but I think that a lot of mechanics should be borrowed from that game to design both Star Destroyers.

Edited by AwesomeJedi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, AwesomeJedi said:

 ... Now that we have an estimated size, what kind of stats would be appropriate for a ship of this magnitude? Remember that we want to make both a Victory-class Star Destroyer and an Imperial-class Star Destroyer.

 ... I don't play Armada, but I think that a lot of mechanics should be borrowed from that game to design both Star Destroyers.

My Preemptive Strike uses a regular Huge ship maneuver dial and template but I am thinking of adopting the Armada idea of having to select maneuvers one or more turns ahead of time.

The other idea I like from Armada is the Commander upgrade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I was thinking of three sections but using 2 huge ship bases. The for section is in the front base. The Rear base contains the Bridge and the Aft Engineering section. The bridge is sort of the front section of the rear base. The Aft is the rest and can be considered the entire base (if a token states being below the ship in the influence zone). The idea that the bridge might be the most vulnerable section but to make an attack run on it you will be exposed to the guns near the bridge (Intensify Forward Firepower).

Both Fore and Aft section should have a lot of hit points. Say fore section has 10 shields 12 hull with 4 firepower and range 3-5, hard points will make up the difference between the smaller corvettes, Aft section has 8 shields 10 hull with 10 energy. Teams and hard points in the fore, cargo and a team in the rear.

Victory class Bridge section could have 8 hull and 4 shields (Raider Aft) and 4 energy and a forward firing arc with a hardpoint. 

Imperial class Bridge could have 8 hull and 8 shields (Raider fore) and 4 Firepower making it more deadly when ships try to run for the bridge.

Also when either bridge section is crippled the back side says discard all shield tokens from all sections of the ship. Also the recover action should be disabled. Sum it all up, Bridge section destroyed = no shields. 

Well that's a start.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, AwesomeJedi said:

 

Now that we have an estimated size, what kind of stats would be appropriate for a ship of this magnitude? Remember that we want to make both a Victory-class Star Destroyer and an Imperial-class Star Destroyer.

My fuzzy math:

Imperial Star Destroyer Models:

Raider-class Corvette = 13.5” long x 5” beam (LF = 1)

OT Imperial Star Destroyer = 15” long x 8.5” beam (LF = 1.11) (HP = x1.23)

RO Imperial Star Destroyer = 15.75” long x ?.5” beam (LF = 1.17) (HP = x1.37) {1/4000}

RO Imperial Star Destroyer = 23.5” long x 13.5” beam (LF = 1.17) (HP = x1.74) {1/2700}

Republic Venator Star Destroyer = 20” long x 9.5” beam (LF = ?.17) (HP = x1.??) {1/2700}

 

HP = (Length Factor)^2 (p. LT120)

 

Imperial Star Destroyer 1/270 Scale:

Raider-class Corvette = 150 meters long (LF = 1)

     8+8 Hull, 6+4 Shields

Imperial Star Destroyer = 1,600 meters long (LF = 10.67) (HP = x113.8)

     HP = (Length Factor)^2 (p. LT120)

     thus, ISD in XWM 1,820 Hull, 1,138 Shields

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Darth Meanie said:

My fuzzy math:

Imperial Star Destroyer Models:

Raider-class Corvette = 13.5” long x 5” beam (LF = 1)

OT Imperial Star Destroyer = 15” long x 8.5” beam (LF = 1.11) (HP = x1.23)

RO Imperial Star Destroyer = 15.75” long x ?.5” beam (LF = 1.17) (HP = x1.37) {1/4000}

RO Imperial Star Destroyer = 23.5” long x 13.5” beam (LF = 1.17) (HP = x1.74) {1/2700}

Republic Venator Star Destroyer = 20” long x 9.5” beam (LF = ?.17) (HP = x1.??) {1/2700}

 

HP = (Length Factor)^2 (p. LT120)

 

Imperial Star Destroyer 1/270 Scale:

Raider-class Corvette = 150 meters long (LF = 1)

     8+8 Hull, 6+4 Shields

Imperial Star Destroyer = 1,600 meters long (LF = 10.67) (HP = x113.8)

     HP = (Length Factor)^2 (p. LT120)

     thus, ISD in XWM 1,820 Hull, 1,138 Shields

I think you are missing out at some other informational tools at disposal for data. Again using Armada as a mid way point we got the Cr-90

CR90aShipCard.png = cr90-corvette-fore.pngcr90-corvette-aft.png

So 4 hull in Armada = around 16 hull in X-wing and 7 Armada shields is about 8 shields in X-wing. Or take a look at the Raider and again you have 4 hull = 16 hull and 8 shields = 10 shields.

 So given this card imperial-ii-class-star-destroyer.png  and using it stats to interpret into X-wing 1 A-hull = 4 X-hull 1 A-shield = 1.2 X-shields 

We come up with about 44 hull and 15 shields for a total of 59 hit points to be spread across 3 or 4 sections.  That is about 19 hit points per section (for 3 sections).

So with the largest hull value per single ship/pilot card is 12 hull and that is the VT-49 Decimator. Granted having 12 hull you will need 4 sections to match the 44 hull points but we could shift a little more hull into the shields and come up with a similar if not exact value. Granted the largest shield value in X-wing is 6 I think we can extend that here. So fore section lets go 12 hull 10 shields for the fore section, 10 Hull 7 Shields for the Bridge, and 12 Hull 8 Shields for the Engines we will have a total of 59 hit points. Granted only 34 hull but that is made up by adding more shield tokens for a total of 25 instead of 15.

Edited by Marinealver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

We come up with about 44 hull and 15 shields for a total of 59 hit points to be spread across 3 or 4 sections.  That is about 19 hit points per section (for 3 sections).

So with the largest hull value per single ship/pilot card is 12 hull and that is the VT-49 Decimator. Granted having 12 hull you will need 4 sections to match the 44 hull points but we could shift a little more hull into the shields and come up with a similar if not exact value. Granted the largest shield value in X-wing is 6 I think we can extend that here. So fore section lets go 12 hull 10 shields for the fore section, 10 Hull 7 Shields for the Bridge, and 12 Hull 8 Shields for the Engines we will have a total of 59 hit points. Granted only 34 hull but that is made up by adding more shield tokens for a total of 25 instead of 15.

15 Hull and 5 shields per section (sliding up and down as required for different sections) doesn't sound unreasonable.

Another point to consider is how Reinforce should work - the more sections you add (especially in a wedge-shaped ship where multiple sections will be targetable from the front) the less useful reinforce becomes unless you let a reinforce action place multiple tokens.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

15 Hull and 5 shields per section (sliding up and down as required for different sections) doesn't sound unreasonable.

Another point to consider is how Reinforce should work - the more sections you add (especially in a wedge-shaped ship where multiple sections will be targetable from the front) the less useful reinforce becomes unless you let a reinforce action place multiple tokens.

 

Well going back to the base foot print (I do need to put hull outlines and firing arcs on it eventually). The idea is the weakest section the bridge is also the least exposed.

pic2215163.png

So the front base is pretty much the fore section and the green influence zone counts as part of the fore section for measuring range purposes but being inside the influence zone doesn't count as overlapping the base nor does it block line of sight to be exactly. The Back base is the Engine section however the front part of that section is considered to be the bridge. Ships inside the influence zone need to declare if they are above or below the star destroyer. Ships that are outside of the influence zone or have declared above can attack the bridge section over the engines if they chose but can also be attacked by any hardpoint or primary weapons from the bridge if they are in range. Ships that are behind the Star Destroyer base or declared below can only attack the engines.

Another thing is you can split up reinforce and recover from the different sections so it makes sense that the behemoth can do both. You are paying about 175 to 250 squadron points for it.

Reinforce will work pretty much the same as it has. You declare a section that section gets 1 evade result to all attacks. The fore section will be a monster with reinforce on the largest section and recover on the bridge. However if an A-wing is getting too close to the bridge the Captain may recoil in fear and declare reinforce on the bridge.

Edited by Marinealver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Marinealver said:

I think you are missing out at some other informational tools at disposal for data. Again using Armada as a mid way point we got the Cr-90

CR90aShipCard.png = cr90-corvette-fore.pngcr90-corvette-aft.png

So 4 hull in Armada = around 16 hull in X-wing and 7 Armada shields is about 8 shields in X-wing. Or take a look at the Raider and again you have 4 hull = 16 hull and 8 shields = 10 shields.

 So given this card imperial-ii-class-star-destroyer.png  and using it stats to interpret into X-wing 1 A-hull = 4 X-hull 1 A-shield = 1.2 X-shields 

We come up with about 44 hull and 15 shields for a total of 59 hit points to be spread across 3 or 4 sections.  That is about 19 hit points per section (for 3 sections).

So with the largest hull value per single ship/pilot card is 12 hull and that is the VT-49 Decimator. Granted having 12 hull you will need 4 sections to match the 44 hull points but we could shift a little more hull into the shields and come up with a similar if not exact value. Granted the largest shield value in X-wing is 6 I think we can extend that here. So fore section lets go 12 hull 10 shields for the fore section, 10 Hull 7 Shields for the Bridge, and 12 Hull 8 Shields for the Engines we will have a total of 59 hit points. Granted only 34 hull but that is made up by adding more shield tokens for a total of 25 instead of 15.

 

6 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

15 Hull and 5 shields per section (sliding up and down as required for different sections) doesn't sound unreasonable.

Another point to consider is how Reinforce should work - the more sections you add (especially in a wedge-shaped ship where multiple sections will be targetable from the front) the less useful reinforce becomes unless you let a reinforce action place multiple tokens.

 

 

Based on your calculations I might be a little shield heavy. I don't have a closeup pic of my ship base (I'll add one later) but the lines are marked such that the fore section is easiest to target for attacks since I'm letting it represent the bulk of the ship's hull/superstructure while the center and aft sections represent smaller, more specific parts of the ship. 

g2NUyBl.jpg

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Marinealver said:

I think you are missing out at some other informational tools at disposal for data. Again using Armada as a mid way point we got the Cr-90

CR90aShipCard.png = cr90-corvette-fore.pngcr90-corvette-aft.png

So 4 hull in Armada = around 16 hull in X-wing and 7 Armada shields is about 8 shields in X-wing. Or take a look at the Raider and again you have 4 hull = 16 hull and 8 shields = 10 shields.

 So given this card imperial-ii-class-star-destroyer.png  and using it stats to interpret into X-wing 1 A-hull = 4 X-hull 1 A-shield = 1.2 X-shields 

We come up with about 44 hull and 15 shields for a total of 59 hit points to be spread across 3 or 4 sections.  That is about 19 hit points per section (for 3 sections).

So with the largest hull value per single ship/pilot card is 12 hull and that is the VT-49 Decimator. Granted having 12 hull you will need 4 sections to match the 44 hull points but we could shift a little more hull into the shields and come up with a similar if not exact value. Granted the largest shield value in X-wing is 6 I think we can extend that here. So fore section lets go 12 hull 10 shields for the fore section, 10 Hull 7 Shields for the Bridge, and 12 Hull 8 Shields for the Engines we will have a total of 59 hit points. Granted only 34 hull but that is made up by adding more shield tokens for a total of 25 instead of 15.

So, from a gameplay perspective, the math works.

But you are saying that a 1.6 km long capital ship can only soak up 12x the damage of a 12 m long snubfighter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Darth Meanie said:

So, from a gameplay perspective, the math works.

But you are saying that a 1.6 km long capital ship can only soak up 12x the damage of a 12 m long snubfighter.

Well yeah when it only costs around 12x that of a snubfighter it should only survive as well as 12x said snub.

The one with 76hp is being floated at 250pts +upgrades which is a screaming deal. That's 11 x wings to buy 1 SD

 

 

ISDdont scale well to x wing man. They have a complement of what? 72 tie fighters? And that's just an aspect of the power an SD brings to the party. 

 

It's either so expensive and overpowered that you can't fit enough on a table to match it, or you make star destroyers way cheaper and weaker than an SD should be. Not to speak of model scale. 

Edited by Dabirdisdaword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/01/2018 at 7:44 AM, Ambaryerno said:

God, this smacks of the old, "Executor is 8km long because WEG says so" argument from back in the day...

****, canon sources STILL insist that Home One is no larger than any of the other cruisers in RotJ, even though she's DEMONSTRABLY at least twice the length on-screen.

Ok. Grab a croc. Grab an IAC.

Both gozantis. Ffg says they're both to scale. Nerds have checked that the IAC is to scale.

 

Now hold them up next to eachother. They're both to scale with eachotherr at least. So either both are in or both are out.

 

I would just post a pic but I am technology illiterate.

Edited by Dabirdisdaword

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Dabirdisdaword said:

Ok. Grab a croc. Grab an IAC.

Both gozantis. Ffg says they're both to scale. Nerds have checked that the IAC is to scale.

 

Now hold them up next to eachother. They're both to scale. 

 

I would just post a pic but I am technology illiterate.

I'm not disputing whether or not it "canonically" scales to a given size. I'm saying that this debate assumes that the people who designed the CROC didn't frell up when designing it in the FIRST place. They may have INTENDED for both ships to be built on the same hull, but the actual design would require a much larger ship to physically work (IE, decks ending up too small to actually accommodate the crew).

Edited by Ambaryerno

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...