“General, there’s a fleet of Star Destroyers coming out of hyperspace in sector four.”
–The Empire Strikes Back
Fantasy Flight Games is proud to announce the upcoming release of Star Wars™: Armada, a two-player miniatures game of epic fleet battles in the Star Wars galaxy!
Massive Star Destroyers fly to battle against Rebel corvettes and frigates. Banks of turbolasers unleash torrential volleys of fire against squadrons of X-wing and TIEs. Engineering teams race to route additional power to failing shields. Laser blasts and explosions flare across the battlefield. Even a single ship can change the tide of battle.
In Star Wars: Armada, you assume the role of fleet admiral, serving with either the Imperial Navy or Rebel Alliance. You assemble your fleet and engage the enemy. Using the game’s unique maneuver tool, you steer your capital ships across the battlefield, even while squadrons of starfighters buzz around them. Then, as these ships exchange fire, it’s your job to issue the tactical commands that will decide the course of battle and, perhaps, the fate of the galaxy.
The Armada Core Set contains ten unpainted squadrons, three pre-painted capital ships, nearly one hundred cards, an innovative maneuver tool, a range ruler, six command dials, nine custom attack dice, and all the tokens that you need to engage the enemy and battle for the fate of the galaxy!
Space Battles on a Galactic Scale
Winning a battle between capital starships requires more than raw firepower. It requires the coordinated activity of hundreds – even thousands – of crew. As a ship’s commanders belt out orders, gunners rain fire upon enemy ships, and engineering teams race to keep their ship’s shields and hull intact, often rerouting power where it’s needed most.
Armada allows you to bring one or more of these massive ships to battle, along with whole squadrons of starfighters. To win, you must issue commands, direct your fleet’s movement, coordinate its fire, sustain its defenses, and do all of this while remaining mindful of your battle objective.
More than that, you’ll need to master every aspect of the ships in your fleet. You need to become intimately familiar with your ship’s design, its firing arcs, its attacks and defenses, and the way that it uses the game’s unique maneuver tool to set its course.
The game’s unique maneuver tool. (Product image not final. Pending Licensor approval.)
This maneuver tool is one of the game’s most innovative features and adds a unique feel to the way your capital ships must accommodate for inertia as they maneuver through the stars.
Using the game’s unique maneuver tool, a Rebel player plots a “3” speed maneuver for his Nebulon-B escort frigate
Capital ships can’t easily vary their speeds or execute hairpin turns like the starfighters that buzz around them. Accordingly, you only use the maneuver tool to maneuver your capital ships. Then, even as it makes it easy for you to set a ship’s course, the game’s maneuver tool lends an element of realism to its pitch and yaw.
As an example of how Armada uses its maneuver tool to realistically portray the different ways its capital ships can maneuver, we can consider the differences between the CR90 and the Victory-class Star Destroyer.
The speed chart for the CR90 (left) alongside that of the Victory-class Star Destroyer (right).
The CR90 is both capable of tighter turns and faster, with a maximum speed of "4" versus the Star Destroyer's maximum speed of "2." At speed "2," while the Star Destroyer can adjust the maneuver tool only one click to either side, and then at the second range increment, the CR90 can adjust its course one click at the first range increment and two clicks at the second range increment. Still, the faster the CR90 flies, the fewer clicks it can adjust its course through the initial range increments.
Another important consideration is that capital ships in Star Wars: Armada fire before they move, so when you set your ship’s course, you’re always trying to set yourself up for a good shot in the next round. However, the more powerful your ship, the less nimble it is, and the harder it is to adjust your actions on the fly.
Altogether, the maneuver tool and the rules for ship movement work in tandem to force you to always look ahead. Successful fleet admirals excel at planning their attack strategies well in advance of their initial engagements.
Capital Ships in Combat
Armada balances the awesome scale of the Star Wars galaxy’s ships and space warfare with intuitive ship designs and accessible rules for issuing commands and resolving combat that make for rich, engaging, and highly tactical play experiences.
Capital ships are extremely powerful war machines, but they’re also massive and sophisticated vessels that can’t swiftly react to every development in the heat of battle. Accordingly, the key to flying these vessels effectively is learning how to plan ahead. You want to issue your commands in such a way that your crews will be ready to execute them at just the right times.
Each of your pre-painted capital ships has a command value, which determines how many commands it will have in its stack at any given point in time. During setup, you secretly build your initial command stack, selecting from any of four different commands, each of which provides a different advantage. Once you have locked your selections, you place the commands in your stack in the order of your choice. Then, during each round of game play, you secretly select and assign a new command to your ship, placing it at the bottom of your command stack, before you reveal the command at the top of your stack and gain its benefits.
A Rebel player selects a command for his Nebulon-B escort frigate by framing it within his command dial’s fastener (1). Then, he places it at the bottom of his command stack, to be revealed in a future round (2).
You might launch a screen of TIEs to intercept incoming X-wings. You might concentrate your fire on an incoming capital ship. You might scramble to repair your shields. Or if you reveal a command that doesn’t offer an immediate benefit, you can place a token on your ship and save a lesser version of that command’s benefits for later use.
Notably, the larger and more powerful your ship, the less quickly it can react to your commands. Most of the more powerful ships, like the Victory-class Star Destroyer, feature higher command values that force you to plan your actions two or more rounds ahead of time. In this way, the command stack doesn't just reflect the various actions your ships can take; it also reflects how swiftly they can adjust to the changing tides of battle.
After your ship resolves its command, it can perform up to two attacks. These can be directed against the same target or against different targets. However, these attacks must originate from two different hull sections and can only target ships or squadrons within range of those hull sections’ firing arcs.
Ships are all divided into four sections, each of which has its own firing arc, shield rating, and attack value. Here, we see a Victory-class Star Destroyer presented next to its base.
The number and type of dice you roll for your attacks depend upon the ship, the hull section from which its attack originates, and the range of the attack.
Each of the game’s attack dice presents a different effective range and spread of possible results
Meanwhile, each ship offers a number of defenses from enemy fire. Each ship’s hull is reinforced to withstand enemy fire, though larger ships like the Victory-class Star Destroyer can withstand much more than smaller ships like the Corellian corvette. Meanwhile, each section of your ship’s hull has a shield rating, indicating how many hits its shields can absorb before enemy fire damages the hull directly. Moreover, in the heat of battle, you need to decide when and how to make use of your ship’s defense tokens. With these, you can angle your deflector shields and perform evasive maneuvers to reduce the amount of damage your ship suffers.
Squadrons of Starfighters
Although Star Wars: Armada is built around the galaxy’s many capital ships, you’ll almost certainly want to fly one or more squadrons of starfighters in your fleet, both to threaten enemy ships and to defend your ships from enemy squadrons.
Your squadrons are highly adaptable and flexible collections of starfighters, and only a foolish fleet admiral would overlook the tactical options that they can bring to a battle. While squadrons don’t pack the raw power or resilience of the capital ships they accompany, they come with their own rules for movement and combat that make them far more capable of occupying and threatening the exact portion of the battlefield that you choose.
If left unchecked, a swarm of starfighters can tear down even the most massive of capital ships, and while capital ships can return their fire, any shot directed at squadrons is a shot not taken at a larger ship. Furthermore, capital ships don’t use their primary weapons while attacking squadrons; they have to use their anti-squadron armament, which is typically much less effective.
Add to this the fact that some squadrons are led by such skilled pilots as Luke Skywalker, who can bypass a capital ship’s shields when he attacks, and you’ll find that squadrons are far more than an afterthought. They’re powerful weapons that skilled fleet admirals will be able to integrate into their larger strategies.
Meanwhile, even though the squadrons in Armada aren't pre-painted like the capital ships, they are presented in colors intended to complement their fleets.
An X-wing squadron is shown connected to its base which tracks its remaining hit points (shown here at "5") and whether or not it has activated. Here, the blue tab on the left of the base indicates that the squadron has not yet activated. Once the squadron has activated, the tab is pushed through to the other side and displays its orange end.
Winning the Battle to Win the War
In addition to its ships and squadrons, Armada shapes your Star Wars battles with twelve different objective cards. Each game uses one of these objectives, which introduces special rules and helps to define the narrative of your battle. Are you tracking down a specific target? Are you contesting a key outpost? Are you trying to intercept key intel?
Objective cards challenge you to adapt your tactics in each battle
Importantly, the game’s objectives change the ways that you’ll score points in each battle, and they force you and your opponent to adapt your strategies, leading to tremendous replayability.
The Enemy Fleet Is Coming into Firing Range
Star Wars: Armada is due to arrive at retailers in early 2015, and Rebel and Imperial fleets will then battle for the fate of the galaxy!
An Imperial fleet heads to battle, led by a pre-painted Victory-class Star Destroyer
In the meantime, you can visit the game’s description page to find more information and keep your eyes open for our upcoming series of previews, announcements of future expansions, and other news. Plus, if you’re headed to Gen Con Indy, you can stop by our booth for a free demo of its epic fleet battles!
They've got at least 4 sets down here. I haven't gotten in on one yet, but was able to snap some pics, including the rules reminders printed on the mats.
The different diamonds on the range ruler indicate which color of dice you can roll at that range.
I didn't get a picture, but the Rebel demo have an X-Wing Squadron card that state the squadron contains Luke Skywalker, so there are different squadron variants you can field.
Also, I think both the CR-90 and the Nebulon(the Nebulon is a definite) have Evade abilities that let them cancel, IIRC, 1 critical hit.
RiTides wrote: Some of the pics nabbed from the site warboss linked to:
Given the size of the star destroyer when viewed on the large table in that last pic, I can't imagine there will be that many ships used at once in this game. Despite comments to the contrary here, imo that thing is massive . If they put out a larger Imperial (rather than Victory class) destroyer, running one of those flanked by two Victory ships would take up most of your space already, assuming you want to be able to do any maneuvers.
Kilkrazy wrote: The next thing will be rules to use fighter battles in X-Wing to determine the results of fighter battles in Armada.
Campaign style! Then they need to make a new squad based game so we can have our fighters battle, then sneak onto a ship to do a squad based fight and then finish out the capital ship battle.
Next you'll tell me that Tie Fighters and X-Wings aren't actually that big either.
Capital ship games often have a different scale to represent fighter squadrons. That's a reasonable compromise for the size differences involved.
But the capital ships themselves should all be to scale. Making them so far out of whack takes them (IMO) from being miniatures to just being board game counters.
Next you'll tell me that Tie Fighters and X-Wings aren't actually that big either.
No, X wing is pretty good for scale, capital ships and A-Wing excepted (and those are only a small bit out).
Having a Corvette the same size nearly as a ship twice its length pretty much ruins the immersion for me, I wouldn't feel like I was playing with Star Wars ships at all.
Next you'll tell me that Tie Fighters and X-Wings aren't actually that big either.
Capital ship games often have a different scale to represent fighter squadrons. That's a reasonable compromise for the size differences involved.
But the capital ships themselves should all be to scale. Making them so far out of whack takes them (IMO) from being miniatures to just being board game counters.
Reminds me of the star trek game for scales! Looks like I'll still be waiting for DZC to get there Space Combat game out there.....
I have no idea what the scales of the different ships are, and I don't care if a Tatooine Cruiser should be 2cm shorter or longer as long as I get to fly a Star Destroyer.
Large ship combat! Yes, this could be excellent. Mass battles in space with Star Destroyers and alliance Cruisers?
As for scale, the size range of capital ships makes true to scale very difficult. If the ship rules reflect the relative scale, not the unit size, then that will be acceptable.
Kilkrazy wrote: The next thing will be rules to use fighter battles in X-Wing to determine the results of fighter battles in Armada.
Campaign style! Then they need to make a new squad based game so we can have our fighters battle, then sneak onto a ship to do a squad based fight and then finish out the capital ship battle.
Ouch.
Ah just like Interceptor (fighters) Centurion (ground combat) and Leviathan (Capital Ships) from FASA, great games, and Renegade Legion the RPG to round it out
I just realized that this, minus the fighters, is what I hoped Star Trek: Attack Wing would be. IE, take the broad-stroke ideas of X-wing, and adapt it to capitol ships.
I've got the same perspective on capital ship warfare scale as mentioned elsewhere in the thread: doesn't especially bother me. I'll be very interested in their finalized movement mechanics; one of the things I liked best about BFG/ACTA was that capital ships WERE ponderous.
Incidentally, how has Battlefleet Gothic aged? If I were to buy up old models would the game still be great, or am I best served waiting for the new-gen options like this and the game from the DZC team?
how can they announce it 6 months out? they should do it a week before like GW so I can get it now!
Hell, no! If it was announced like GW does things I could get it a lot sooner after finding out about it, lol!
I also love how people will refuse to even consider a game because two of the ships are not accurately in scale with each other. Nerd much?
Who cares? This game made my pregnant wife immediately say ,"Whoa, that's pretty sweet". There is no valid argument after that.
Incidentally, how has Battlefleet Gothic aged? If I were to buy up old models would the game still be great, or am I best served waiting for the new-gen options like this and the game from the DZC team?
Really, as long as you don't mind playing a game where the ships are fighting like sailing ships, BFG is awesome if you can stomach what it takes to buy the ships currently. I have cardstock flats made from the Vassal BFG sprites, and I played the game when it first came out as a demo in White Dwarf, and I would play it tomorrow.
It will be very hard for me to not spend a lot of money on this when it comes out. I still believe Battlefleet Gothic was GW's best game, and this may fill that "capital ship game" sized whole in my gaming heart.
As for the scale, as long as the small ships are small, the medium ships are medium, and the big ships are big, I will be happy. I do not need 100% exact scaling in my space fantasy. A certain level of abstraction is required when dealing with size and distance in the vastness of space (and, if it helps keep the costs lower so I can buy, yes, please).
I can see why the fighters would be unpainted, as they would probably be too small for whatever painting process they use to paint them.
When X-Wing came out I knew that because of scale issues there would never be large scale capital class battles. I never liked the few starfighters per side deal. I want to command a proper fleet.
This is everything I ever hoped for and am super excited. I was looking for a new game to replace 40K and here it is.
Heh, was just dropping out of X-Wing as I noted a few days ago to Aura that what I was missing was the capital ships.. I like fighters, but I want them buzzing between bigger ships ala BFG.. and there we go.
The box set looks awesome and the minis are gorgeous. That said if i am gonna be a technical geek about it the box contents are completely off. I mean a corvette and a medical frigate versus a star destroyer?!!!!! THis battle would be over in about ten seconds ( amount of time it would take to target the med frigate and then suck the corvette into the landing bay of the SD! Seems way off! That said again its gorgeous
At least it will be more economical to have a fully painted Rogue Squadron at your disposal.
I mean a corvette and a medical frigate versus a star destroyer?!!!!!
To be truthful, it's a standard Escort Frigate and a Corvette, against one of the smallest classes of Star Destroyer. In lots of EU battles, adding in the X-Wings versus TIEs can actually swing the battle in the favor of the Rebels.
I also love how people will refuse to even consider a game because two of the ships are not accurately in scale with each other. Nerd much?
Unabashedly so, yes.
Having at least a semi-accurate nod to scale is a large part of setting up the illusion in a miniatures battle. It's irritating enough when, say, a transport vehicle is not quite large enough to fit the models it's supposed to transport. It's worse when you get to the size disparity between the corvette and the star destroyer here.
I fully realise it's not an issue for many people... But for me, a good miniatures game is just as much about the miniatures as it is about playing the game.
They didn't kickstart x-wing either, you might be muddling it up with one of the various third-party terrain or templates kickstarters that are always running?
Dear Goddess, it is a horrifying thing to be a target audience. I don't think I could possibly not buy this product. X-wing was nothing more than the gateway drug. Next thing you know they'll release a mass combat ground game styled after Epic!
Next thing you know they'll release a mass combat ground game styled after Epic!
I think my wallet just threw itself into the dog's dinner bowl at the mere thought of such a thing. (love's chewing leather that one)
As to scale, I can understand that, but the fighters are enver to scale in these kind of games, so it tends not to bother me, Babyllon 5 Wars which is still one of my all time faves had the same issues, and I just skimmed over it and enjoyed the carnage... and ticking of boxes... so many boxes.
Dear Goddess, it is a horrifying thing to be a target audience. I don't think I could possibly not buy this product. X-wing was nothing more than the gateway drug. Next thing you know they'll release a mass combat ground game styled after Epic!
Can't say anything about a large scale combat game, but a little bird told me of a Skirmish game.
I also love how people will refuse to even consider a game because two of the ships are not accurately in scale with each other. Nerd much?
Not really, I'm just aware of the setting and what sort of size the models would need to be to reflect what they're attempting to portray, and they fail. Not just slightly, but to a very large degree.
If 40k used Epic-scale Rhinos to transport squads, would it not seem silly to you?
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: Incidentally, how has Battlefleet Gothic aged? If I were to buy up old models would the game still be great, or am I best served waiting for the new-gen options like this and the game from the DZC team?
BFG is great, you just need to use 2010 FAQ clarifications, original rules have perhaps bit too many ambiguous things to modern taste.
Some time ago, me and my bud introduced a friend to starship games. One day we asked, would you like another game of X-wing? "Umm...couldn't we just play BFG instead?" Well, we sure could.
It's a travesty they don't make the models anymore.
John D Law wrote: The box set looks awesome and the minis are gorgeous. That said if i am gonna be a technical geek about it the box contents are completely off. I mean a corvette and a medical frigate versus a star destroyer?!!!!! THis battle would be over in about ten seconds ( amount of time it would take to target the med frigate and then suck the corvette into the landing bay of the SD! Seems way off! That said again its gorgeous
As a technical geek you should know the Nebulon-B class escort frigate was a normal combat ship widely used in the GCW for escort and anti-starfighter interdiction.
However, it does beg an interesting question. X-Wing has kept the two factions distinct with no ship overlaps which has worked well enough because in the fiction the two sides didn't use each other's fighters that often (outside of the obsolete fighters/rear-lines squadrons or some sort of special operation). However, capital ships with their much higher resource costs and comparatively fewer shipyards tended to be re-used often if captured. Corellian corvettes and Nebulon-Bs were both used widely by both sides in the war, and many other ships were such old designs that they fought on both sides. If one wants to delve into the EU, the New Republic made extensive use of Star Destroyers in addition to Mon Calamari crusiers.
It makes me wonder if there will be the hard separation between Rebel and Imperial, or if certain ships will be "Common Pool" where appropriate for the GCW era.
John D Law wrote: The box set looks awesome and the minis are gorgeous. That said if i am gonna be a technical geek about it the box contents are completely off. I mean a corvette and a medical frigate versus a star destroyer?!!!!! THis battle would be over in about ten seconds ( amount of time it would take to target the med frigate and then suck the corvette into the landing bay of the SD! Seems way off! That said again its gorgeous
As a technical geek you should know the Nebulon-B class escort frigate was a normal combat ship widely used in the GCW for escort and anti-starfighter interdiction.
However, it does beg an interesting question. X-Wing has kept the two factions distinct with no ship overlaps which has worked well enough because in the fiction the two sides didn't use each other's fighters that often (outside of the obsolete fighters/rear-lines squadrons or some sort of special operation). However, capital ships with their much higher resource costs and comparatively fewer shipyards tended to be re-used often if captured. Corellian corvettes and Nebulon-Bs were both used widely by both sides in the war, and many other ships were such old designs that they fought on both sides. If one wants to delve into the EU, the New Republic made extensive use of Star Destroyers in addition to Mon Calamari crusiers.
It makes me wonder if there will be the hard separation between Rebel and Imperial, or if certain ships will be "Common Pool" where appropriate for the GCW era.
I have a sinking feeling that those will be the 'Aces' expansions of this game. Or, heavens forbid, the product of some sort of campaign system!
Per my friend, if this takes place shortly after the clone wars, then its most likely a Victory 1, not a Victory 2. The Victory is a baby battleship even baby compared to the Vic 2, so for scale wise its correct or darn close. The fighters are alittle big but I assume they represent a squad, which is 12 fighers. If they made the fighters to scale we would have BFG paper cut out,
Ruberu wrote: Per my friend, if this takes place shortly after the clone wars, then its most likely a Victory 1, not a Victory 2. The Victory is a baby battleship even baby compared to the Vic 2, so for scale wise its correct or darn close. The fighters are alittle big but I assume they represent a squad, which is 12 fighers. If they made the fighters to scale we would have BFG paper cut out,
The card in the OP says Victory II class star destroyer.
Ruberu wrote: Per my friend, if this takes place shortly after the clone wars, then its most likely a Victory 1, not a Victory 2. The Victory is a baby battleship even baby compared to the Vic 2, so for scale wise its correct or darn close. The fighters are alittle big but I assume they represent a squad, which is 12 fighers. If they made the fighters to scale we would have BFG paper cut out,
According to Wookieepedia both the Victory-I and Victory-II are approximately 900 meters long.
insaniak wrote: Having at least a semi-accurate nod to scale is a large part of setting up the illusion in a miniatures battle. It's irritating enough when, say, a transport vehicle is not quite large enough to fit the models it's supposed to transport. It's worse when you get to the size disparity between the corvette and the star destroyer here.
I fully realise it's not an issue for many people... But for me, a good miniatures game is just as much about the miniatures as it is about playing the game.
But which would you rather have: a Star Wars capital ship game with scale issues, or a Star Wars capital ship game that doesn't exist? Because those are the choices here, the size differences between the smallest ships and the largest ships are just too big to make it practical to use true-scale models. Either you have giant star destroyers that you can't really fit onto the table, or tiny corvettes that are a barely-detailed blob at the top of the base. This isn't like in 40k where the models could be scaled correctly if GW cared enough to do it.
Peregrine wrote: But which would you rather have: a Star Wars capital ship game with scale issues, or a Star Wars capital ship game that doesn't exist?
I would rather wait for a game that picks a scale and sticks to it than buy a game I'm not going to be happy with.
those are the choices here, the size differences between the smallest ships and the largest ships are just too big to make it practical to use true-scale models.
Only if you include the smallest ships and/or the largest ships in the game.
A Star Wars game doesn't actually have to include every ship that has ever been shown.
insaniak wrote: I would rather wait for a game that picks a scale and sticks to it than buy a game I'm not going to be happy with.
Then you're going to be waiting forever, because that game can not exist.
Only if you include the smallest ships and/or the largest ships in the game.
A Star Wars game doesn't actually have to include every ship that has ever been shown.
It doesn't have to include every ship, but even if you include just the iconic canon ones you've got too much of a size range. Assuming the upper limit on a practical ship is 6" and the biggest one is a normal 1.6km star destroyer a corvette would be about half an inch long, way too small to include any real detail or sell in a $15 expansion. And if you don't include those ships then everyone is going to be asking why you didn't, and why they have a "Star Wars" game where all the ships are random EU stuff that hardly anyone recognizes.
Peregrine wrote: It doesn't have to include every ship, but even if you include just the iconic canon ones you've got too much of a size range. Assuming the upper limit on a practical ship is 6" and the biggest one is a normal 1.6km star destroyer a corvette would be about half an inch long, way too small to include any real detail or sell in a $15 expansion.
At half an inch long it doesn't need a huge amount of detail, and you simply include a bunch of them in the expansion (or a bigger ship and a couple of smaller ones) instead of just a single ship.
The Corvette is tiny, so it would come in squadrons. But they want to include it as a capital ship, and they need the minis to be a reasonable size, so they're not in perfect scale. I don't think it's that big a deal.
Hmmm I'm definitely in the one scale camp...On the other hand it's Star Wars and just one starter box wouldn't hurt now would it. What could possibly go wrong.....
It's true that SW capital ships have large size range...in BFG, smallest modelled ships are destroyers, which are 1.5km long in the lore (though sources vary). Battleships are maybe 8km long, so they are bit over 5 times longer than the smallest presented craft (excluding attack craft).
By contrast in SW, a Nebulon frigate is what, 300m long, and Imperial Star destroyer is 1.6km. So those would be within same limits, but if you start add other stuff, there are bigger ships even in the movies - Calamari flagship is over 3km long, not to mention about Executor - and in EU, there are many ships intermediate that size. And of course there are also smaller ships in the opposite end of the scale.
That said, I wish they paid better attention to the scale. It annoys me how in X-Wing, scale is all over the place (Y-Wing is too small etc). Logically, it is very hard to understand what a lone corvette could do to hurt a Star Destroyer, even Victory class - it would be a smack in the windscreen, so to speak. So why even bother to model that? I'm sure there are better fits in the canon if it comes to that. Warhammer universe also has tons of ships smaller than a destroyer size, but they are simply ignored in the game, or included with the attack craft.
Daston wrote: Oh balls.......well at least I managed to hold off getting any xwing stuff.
This will ruin me lol
My thoughts exactly . Glad I waited! Capital ship combat with small squadrons of fighters is where it's at
Very, very interested in this! Not too fussed about exact scale if they keep things reasonable. The new bigger ships for X-wing are too large to game with, imo- a compromise is okay with me.
Yep I was getting *this* close to picking up X-Wing. I still probably will as I imagine these will play somewhat differently, but the idea of capital ships and fighter squadrons really tickles my fancy!
This has been a dark day for my wallet - first the DZC plastics are announced and then this!
I know Scale is an issue for some gamers, but given the massive disparities in size in a universe ranging from tiny fighters up to 5-10 mile long spaceships (depending on what the current canon is ref size of the SSD), you have to ask at what level could you get an accurately scale Star Wars game going outside of the PC without needing a cricket pitch to play it on?
All miniature gaming is about a suspension of disbelief - to me this game is EXACTLY what I was looking for.
GW take note - this week I've pledged to Mantic for KS, will buy into DZC with at least 2-3 boxes and am mentally budgetting for this too - this is where your vanishing sales are going - onto high quality, excellent products delivered with enough notice to get me very excited indeed.
Being a visual learner, this helped me quite a bit. If FFG takes the capital ship thing seriously there could be some huge ships in the pipeline. Check the upper left corner at the highest magnification you can find the ship in the starter set.
Frankly, I would rather have a Capitol ship game where things are slightly out of scale when dealing with 4-inch long ships, than the effort it takes to shoehorn a Corvette into a game of X-wing, even after making it at a smaller scale than the fighters.
It is impossible to have a capitol ship game in Star Wars without scale issues. Otherwise, something like a Rebel Transport has to be as large as one of the individual X-wings on a squadron base (with a Corvette barely the size of an A-wing from X-Wing, and there is not as much fun involved with pinhead-sized ships.
As strange as it sounds coming from someone who has painted likely somewhere between 500-1000 miniatures but the lack of prepainting on the squadrons kind of messes it up for me. Also, when you get to the large capital ship battles, I don't feel that it is as fair of a fight between Rebels and Imperials. After my initial rush of excitement, I get the feeling that I'm talking myself out of getting into this frankly.
So this isn't quite the place to ask this, but what rival products even inhabit this play-space right now?
I know DZC has fleet-scale "something" coming next year... but beyond that, Battlefleet Gothic is beloved, but long gone. I know Firestorm Armada exists... is that any good?
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: So this isn't quite the place to ask this, but what rival products even inhabit this play-space right now?
I know DZC has fleet-scale "something" coming next year... but beyond that, Battlefleet Gothic is beloved, but long gone. I know Firestorm Armada exists... is that any good?
There is firestorm armada. It's a fun fast paced game. Can be static at times but I recommend it for new comers or just to paint the models.
There is also Cold Navy which does not have any official models IIRC and there is also Full Thrust. Both of which I recommend.
Then there is a Naval Thunder spin-off for space games. The rules were for WWI and WWII navies which are great but never played the space ship game.
DZC doesn't just have something coming- they have something designed by Andy Chambers coming. He made BFG, so it is totally unknown how awesome it will be, but the limit is very, very high.
This game will most likely play faster and cleaner and be perpetually sold out, because FFG has timed its release with Episode 7, which will use many of these vessels. Not since Decipher have I ever seen a company use the Star Wars license so well.
Yeah, but at least in the EU in series like Rogue Squadron, you have battles where a combination of smaller capitol ships and dedicated attacks by fighter squadrons took out Imperial Cap ships.
Probably the only problem with Armada I have is the price point, because I think they really needed to have it be in the 50-75 dollar range at least. Look what you get for things like Dropzone Commander and Infinity for the around same price as Armada.
Even other fleet games like Leviathans gave you (and they are very sizeable ships) a battleship, cruiser and two destroyers (or maybe the other way around for cruisers/destroyers) per side for that price.
So I am really on the fence about Armada, but leaning towards it just for how accessible the Star wars franchise is for the people I would be playing it with versus other competitors. I mean, Battlefleet Gothic takes some pretty sizable explanation of the setting to the uninitiated, where Star Wars sells itself.
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: So this isn't quite the place to ask this, but what rival products even inhabit this play-space right now?
I know DZC has fleet-scale "something" coming next year... but beyond that, Battlefleet Gothic is beloved, but long gone. I know Firestorm Armada exists... is that any good?
There are many capital ship "naval" games including WW1, WW2, modern and IIIIIIN SPAAAAAACE games. The Star Ranger page is the best source of info.
The key selling points of this game are (1) it is Star Wars, (2) the game mechanisms using some clever devices that will make it accessible and direct to play, rather than the typical tables, hex maps and so on.
I hadn't noticed the $100 price tag as it is hidden in the product page and not the announcement. That is a bit above my comfort zone for this especially with the fighters being unpainted. I had hoped for it to come in around $70-80 but no such luck. That may be the final nail in the coffin for me personally as I'd rather spend that same amount on a half dozen X-wing fighters.
warboss wrote: I hadn't noticed the $100 price tag as it is hidden in the product page and not the announcement. That is a bit above my comfort zone for this especially with the fighters being unpainted. I had hoped for it to come in around $70-80 but no such luck. That may be the final nail in the coffin for me personally as I'd rather spend that same amount on a half dozen X-wing fighters.
You can probably buy it online at a discount from the retailer of your choice. Besides, there appears to be quite a lot in the box.
Completely understand the scale issues people have mentioned, but feel the fun involved in moving a star destroyer around on the board is more a + than a -. I don't think you are likely to get a better opportunity to do this, frankly.
Also, already thinking of some way to have this game set up on one board, and then a 'zoomed in' version when squadrons of X-Wing and TIE fighters (or other escorts) encounter each other on the other (using the current X-Wing set & rules).
The key selling points of this game are (1) it is Star Wars, (2) the game mechanisms using some clever devices that will make it accessible and direct to play, rather than the typical tables, hex maps and so on.
It seems like those fiddly pieces on the base of the ships are designed to eliminate most of the record keeping associated with the game. That is a nice bit of game design to shift it away from off-putting record keeping associated with other game systems.
Completely understand the scale issues people have mentioned, but feel the fun involved in moving a star destroyer around on the board is more a + than a -. I don't think you are likely to get a better opportunity to do this, frankly.
Also, already thinking of some way to have this game set up on one board, and then a 'zoomed in' version when squadrons of X-Wing and TIE fighters (or other escorts) encounter each other on the other (using the current X-Wing set & rules).
I'm sure that it won't be long before linked campaigns using the two systems are available, and possibly not too long until a third, ground combat system is released to complete the set.,
The key selling points of this game are (1) it is Star Wars, (2) the game mechanisms using some clever devices that will make it accessible and direct to play, rather than the typical tables, hex maps and so on.
It seems like those fiddly pieces on the base of the ships are designed to eliminate most of the record keeping associated with the game. That is a nice bit of game design to shift it away from off-putting record keeping associated with other game systems.
It also means there seem to be a lot less tokens to keep track of than in X Wing and other FFG games, which is dope.
Yeah, I do like the in-built wound/activated tracking on the squadron bases, and the shields-on-all facings dials. Kind of an interesting take on the maneuver dials, too, where they all stack up.
I was very much preaching, "ah but it's just a baby star destroyer" earlier. - But considering the victory is actually 'supposed' to be much larger than I remembered, I am kinda going.... "Uhhh" now.
I mean, lets face it, a Corvettes supposed to be 1/6th the size of the Victory, right?
That, quite conveniently... Puts it at roughly the size of an... X-Wing Miniatures Games... X-Wing. - And their paintjobs are awesome.
It'd seem to me, to be far more sensible and awe inspiring, if they rebalanced the corvettes stats a bit and instead gave you 2 of them in the starter set along with the Nebulon B. I mean, the darn thing does only have 6 guns on it...
Plus, that does have the awesome factor of:
"You see that big huge gigantic space ship in X-Wing? That's now the size of a fighter in Armada."
To be fair, Corvettes might lack in the energy weapons department but they were (canonwise) supposed to be highly customizable. I think I remember some novel that brought up the idea of a Corvette which replaced its escape pods with torpedo launchers...
Which would be a hilarious thing to see for this game.
I like the idea of multiple corvettes as well to go along with the frigate because i honestly still cant see how the rebels can hold up in this box set! I mean we all do remember the opening scene from Star Wars right? The corvettes weapons where just pinging off that Star Destroyer like marker lights for goodness sake! How are those supposed to handle one (all be it a slighter lower class one) in a straight up fight? Unless there is a rule allowing waves of extra x wings to enter the board every other turn or so. That said will still probably pick it up
John D Law wrote: I like the idea of multiple corvettes as well to go along with the frigate because i honestly still cant see how the rebels can hold up in this box set! I mean we all do remember the opening scene from Star Wars right? The corvettes weapons where just pinging off that Star Destroyer like marker lights for goodness sake! How are those supposed to handle one (all be it a slighter lower class one) in a straight up fight? Unless there is a rule allowing waves of extra x wings to enter the board every other turn or so. That said will still probably pick it up
I have a feeling that the dynamic of X-Wing is going to be swapped in this one with Rebels being the horde/swarm faction and Empire being the elite forces.
John D Law wrote: I like the idea of multiple corvettes as well to go along with the frigate because i honestly still cant see how the rebels can hold up in this box set! I mean we all do remember the opening scene from Star Wars right? The corvettes weapons where just pinging off that Star Destroyer like marker lights for goodness sake! How are those supposed to handle one (all be it a slighter lower class one) in a straight up fight? Unless there is a rule allowing waves of extra x wings to enter the board every other turn or so. That said will still probably pick it up
I have a feeling that the dynamic of X-Wing is going to be swapped in this one with Rebels being the horde/swarm faction and Rebels being the elite forces.
To extend the comparison, looking at their example info, not only will the Rebel ships be more maneuverable and speedy in general, ala TIE fighters, but also able to react faster. I like the concept of the Star Destroyer having to set up its chain of orders much longer in advance, owing the vast size, amount of crew, etc, so not only is it slower and less maneuverable, but requires a lot more advanced planning, which the rebels could exploit, being able to change their plans and approach much more often.
I think a big thing here is room for expansion. X-Wing has already more or less tapped the number of fighters in the Starwars universe. There's only a handful of oddball, one-off and uncommon or not well known ships for them to do, I mean, honestly, are they going to do an I-9 Howlrunner and Preybird? Doubtful. With capital ships though, there's a ton of stuff to work with, particular with the "____ Aces" approach they used in X-Wing to introduce variants using the same model, and some of the Clone Wars era ships wouldn't be completely out of place either. Perfect time to introduce it with X-Wing running out of materiel to work with, at least until Abrams adds his own stuff to the setting.
Though, if I'm being honest with myself, all I really want is the ability to use Grand Admiral Pellaeon in game-form, and an excuse to say, whenever I beat my Rebel Scum fiance, "IT'S A TRAP!"
John D Law wrote: I like the idea of multiple corvettes as well to go along with the frigate because i honestly still cant see how the rebels can hold up in this box set! I mean we all do remember the opening scene from Star Wars right? The corvettes weapons where just pinging off that Star Destroyer like marker lights for goodness sake! How are those supposed to handle one (all be it a slighter lower class one) in a straight up fight? Unless there is a rule allowing waves of extra x wings to enter the board every other turn or so. That said will still probably pick it up
4 X-Wing squadrons in the box vs 6 TIE squadrons will help balance things, as X-wings have torpedoes to plink away at the VSD as well.
John D Law wrote: I like the idea of multiple corvettes as well to go along with the frigate because i honestly still cant see how the rebels can hold up in this box set! I mean we all do remember the opening scene from Star Wars right? The corvettes weapons where just pinging off that Star Destroyer like marker lights for goodness sake! How are those supposed to handle one (all be it a slighter lower class one) in a straight up fight? Unless there is a rule allowing waves of extra x wings to enter the board every other turn or so. That said will still probably pick it up
I have a feeling that the dynamic of X-Wing is going to be swapped in this one with Rebels being the horde/swarm faction and Rebels being the elite forces.
Rebels are what? You said them twice. Do you mean the Imperials as the Elite forces?
FFG already owns me so hard through Netrunner and other games. Now, I'm going to have to buy into Armada!
I honestly don't have an issue with dynamic scale, since if the CR90 was to scale, it'd be too small to even see. By having a relative scale, we can have all the ships at relational scale to each other, so the CR90 is smaller than a Neb-B, smaller than a VSD... but without the headaches true scale involves.
I'd also not read too much into the points cost of the CR90 vs a VSD. For all we know, the VSD's upgrade options will be far superior, and far more expensive.
Plus, it's only a VSD. Perhaps the ISD2 is twice as powerful or something, since it looks like this game's stat ranges will be much wider potentially than what X-wing's engine allowed.
----
Also, I wouldn't be so sure of Elite Imps vs Swarm Rebels. Imps have crappy ships too (Dreadnaught, Lancer, Carrack), while Rebels have ships more powerful than ISDs (some Mon Cal models).
John D Law wrote: I like the idea of multiple corvettes as well to go along with the frigate because i honestly still cant see how the rebels can hold up in this box set! I mean we all do remember the opening scene from Star Wars right? The corvettes weapons where just pinging off that Star Destroyer like marker lights for goodness sake! How are those supposed to handle one (all be it a slighter lower class one) in a straight up fight? Unless there is a rule allowing waves of extra x wings to enter the board every other turn or so. That said will still probably pick it up
The Star Destroyer in that scene is twice the size (and significantly more capable) than the one in the boxed set, though its still a significant capability mismatch between the rebel and imperial options. My best guess is that the rebel fleet is intended to rely on starfighters to be heavy hitters with the smaller ships providing support and covering fire.
John D Law wrote: I like the idea of multiple corvettes as well to go along with the frigate because i honestly still cant see how the rebels can hold up in this box set! I mean we all do remember the opening scene from Star Wars right? The corvettes weapons where just pinging off that Star Destroyer like marker lights for goodness sake! How are those supposed to handle one (all be it a slighter lower class one) in a straight up fight? Unless there is a rule allowing waves of extra x wings to enter the board every other turn or so. That said will still probably pick it up
I have a feeling that the dynamic of X-Wing is going to be swapped in this one with Rebels being the horde/swarm faction and Rebels being the elite forces.
To extend the comparison, looking at their example info, not only will the Rebel ships be more maneuverable and speedy in general, ala TIE fighters, but also able to react faster. I like the concept of the Star Destroyer having to set up its chain of orders much longer in advance, owing the vast size, amount of crew, etc, so not only is it slower and less maneuverable, but requires a lot more advanced planning, which the rebels could exploit, being able to change their plans and approach much more often.
I think a big thing here is room for expansion. X-Wing has already more or less tapped the number of fighters in the Starwars universe. There's only a handful of oddball, one-off and uncommon or not well known ships for them to do, I mean, honestly, are they going to do an I-9 Howlrunner and Preybird? Doubtful. With capital ships though, there's a ton of stuff to work with, particular with the "____ Aces" approach they used in X-Wing to introduce variants using the same model, and some of the Clone Wars era ships wouldn't be completely out of place either. Perfect time to introduce it with X-Wing running out of materiel to work with, at least until Abrams adds his own stuff to the setting.
Though, if I'm being honest with myself, all I really want is the ability to use Grand Admiral Pellaeon in game-form, and an excuse to say, whenever I beat my Rebel Scum fiance, "IT'S A TRAP!"
There are still lots of starfighter designs to choose from without having to go to "more obscure"designs.
Also, Admiral Ackbar said Its a Trap, Pellaeon wasnt even in the films.
Yeah, I can see why FFG would be releasing this right now. - While there are plenty more ships to come out, some rather famous for X-Wing.
Offhand, I can't help but think there's a massive lack of Rebel fighters.
Sure, the big ones for the Empire are the Assault Gunboat and the Missile Boat from TIE Fighter (after all, being one of the main inspirations for the game in the first place). Then yeah, you potentially have the I7-Howlrunner and the Preybird, not that well known. However, you could possibly throw in the Chiss Clawcraft for a wild card.
Rebels? Well, you have the pretty much inevitable Stealth-X (the fact that one of the TIE Phantoms cloak upgrade cards aren't TIE Phantom only is a big hint) but aside from that, the book and game designers just loved peoples classic X-Wings with things like the K-Wings and T-Wings just being obscure footnotes, and most of the time, would turn up being owned by pirates more than anyone else.
In any case, an X-Wing fighter sized "CR-90" would not be that outrageous, or impossibly tiny at all.
As for the Armada fighters, I guess it's best just to think of them as counters more than anything else, probably why they're not prepainted too.
Oh, and before I forget, all they need to do is mark time until the new film comes out. - We've already seen the new model of the X-Wing after all!
In any case, an X-Wing fighter sized "CR-90" would not be that outrageous, or impossibly tiny at all.
You mean one of the X-wings from an Armada squadron base? Because that is nearly how small it would be to be "perfectly" in scale with the other two Cap ship in Armada.
Killionaire wrote: Also, I wouldn't be so sure of Elite Imps vs Swarm Rebels. Imps have crappy ships too (Dreadnaught, Lancer, Carrack), while Rebels have ships more powerful than ISDs (some Mon Cal models).
Playing the old West End Games Star Wars RPG paid off - I know these ships you're all talking about ; p The Imperial Sourcebook has stats for a lot of ships that would work here. WTB an escort carrier with a load of TIE's!
Ahtman wrote: I was surprised that it wasn't Star Destroyer vs. Mon Cal in the starter actually. I can't imagine they won't be in down the line.
Probably a Wave 0/1 sort of thing, just like how Y-Wings and TIE Advanced were more or less simultaneous with X-Wing's original release (I think).
They're more evenly matched, but the asymmetrical setup of the X-Wing starter was, in my opinion, a strong feature about it, and helped set the tone for the rest of the faction. Even a standard MC80 should be noticeably lighter armed than an ISD; canonically, a lone moncal cruiser will lose pretty much every time against an ISD, whereas two will beat an ISD, though probably still lose a moncal in the process.
I am curious to see what variations we'll see in fighters though; probably something relative simple like interceptor, multirole and bomber archtypes, rather than specific models, with faction-specific stats, ala BFG. The differences between a TIE Fighter or Interceptor are largely irrelevant at this scale, though there will no doubt be some room to pay more points for improved stats to represent such things, after all, FFG loves printing upgrade cards.
I was under the impression the more powerful Mon Cal cruisers were slightly more powerful than star destroyers. Which was why some of them destroyed on-screen enemy ships at Endor. They're actually a touch larger too.
It'd also fit, making them 'Star Cruisers' vs 'Star Destroyers'.
It's entirely possible as far as fighter types go, we have 'rubbish' fighters (Ie, TIE, Z-95), 'Line' fighters (X-Wings vs ...Assault gunboats?), 'Fast' Fighters (A-Wing vs Interceptor) and Bomber (Y or B Wing vs TIE Bomber).
Seeing the game pieces makes me think about getting into this, simply because the fighters are reasonably small, if not really close to in scale. The only point to playing miniature games instead of computer games is the visual aspect, and fighters half the length of capital ships is a big downer.
Killionaire wrote: I was under the impression the more powerful Mon Cal cruisers were slightly more powerful than star destroyers. Which was why some of them destroyed on-screen enemy ships at Endor. They're actually a touch larger too.
It'd also fit, making them 'Star Cruisers' vs 'Star Destroyers'.
Since every Star Wars thread devolves into technical nerd talk...
You're thinking of the MC90 class which was built after the GCW for the New Republic. As such, it was designed to be better than the ISD, otherwise the Republic would have (and did to an extent) simply continue to build ISDs. The MC80 class used by the Rebels were actually converted to warships and while they boasted impressive shields and other defenses could not stand toe-to-toe with an ISD.
On a different note, I do want to see what the expansions that come out with the core game are going to be. I'm sure we'll find out long before this releases in 2015 but I want to know noooooooooow... </petulant whining>
kestral wrote: Seeing the game pieces makes me think about getting into this, simply because the fighters are reasonably small, if not really close to in scale. The only point to playing miniature games instead of computer games is the visual aspect, and fighters half the length of capital ships is a big downer.
Those fighters btw are no where near close to scale with the ships. The ships are not really close in scale with each other either. That said, it wouldn't be practical to have them as such. Even if the rebel fighters were in scale with the rebel ships AND the rebel ships were in scale with each other, they'd be humungously out of scale with the Imperial ships. Scale TIEs would be the size of a ballpoint pen tip. It simply isn't practical to have them remotely close to in scale which is why they aren't.
Well, to be honest, it's not like GW has any kind of fleet-scale game that was very successful which lots of people love to play even after the models went OOP, that they could simply just put right back into production with molds they already have.
Wait.........
You would think that seeing other companies making money hand-over-fist selling games in formats they already have a ready-made, in universe game with an established history with their fanbase that they could roll back out would make GW wonder about things, but go figure. Fleet-scale games, 6-10mm games, etc.
Now this is a game I could get in to! After seeing all the good stuff that came out of X-Wing I have very high hopes for Armada as well.
I just wish everything came unpainted. I am probably among the minority here but having to paint the ships would feel a whole lot less like just buying some very small and expensive toys...
I want to see more of the range. If the power level is Victory I = Neb-B + Corvette then it's going to need a bit more to make it work. I really do wish they'd done it the way Empires at War did it, showing off just how powerful Empire ships are. Just seems from the stats on those cards and the dice you roll that they've set the ceiling very low for this game as far as diversity of units.
H.B.M.C. wrote: I want to see more of the range. If the power level is Victory I = Neb-B + Corvette then it's going to need a bit more to make it work. I really do wish they'd done it the way Empires at War did it, showing off just how powerful Empire ships are. Just seems from the stats on those cards and the dice you roll that they've set the ceiling very low for this game as far as diversity of units.
Flawed game (mainly due to ground combat) but I agree very much about the feeling of the space combat in Empire at War. Sins of a Solar Empire has the potential for that too but I don't think the Star Wars mod pulled it off too well but it's been a while. I hope the ceiling isn't too low - for their sake. A lot of us will buy ISD's and Mon Cal's if they're available ; p
H.B.M.C. wrote: I want to see more of the range. If the power level is Victory I = Neb-B + Corvette then it's going to need a bit more to make it work. I really do wish they'd done it the way Empires at War did it, showing off just how powerful Empire ships are. Just seems from the stats on those cards and the dice you roll that they've set the ceiling very low for this game as far as diversity of units.
Keep in mind, it also includes ten fighter squadrons in that box, and, as X-Wings are superior to TIE Fighters, that could make up the difference in power levels between the capital ships. I'm also assuming that, like the X-Wing game, there are crew and upgrade cards to further improve the ships.
Of course, it wouldn't be the first time a starter set for a game was a bit lopsided.
Yonan wrote: Flawed game (mainly due to ground combat) but I agree very much about the feeling of the space combat in Empire at War. Sins of a Solar Empire has the potential for that too but I don't think the Star Wars mod pulled it off too well but it's been a while. I hope the ceiling isn't too low - for their sake. A lot of us will buy ISD's and Mon Cal's if they're available :p
Ground combat is always iffy in Star Wars because the Imperials have tons of stuff and the Rebels have... Snow Speeders and infantry. Great. That's why the Clone Wars makes for a better war game - the two sides have loads of different units. Same could be said about space combat as well, unless they want to really go digging into the EU for some very obscure Rebel ships.
And yes, ISDs and Mon Cals would be very popular, but it's got to be a case of ISD vs Corvettes = dead Corvettes, and not equal points of Corvettes = fair fight with an ISD.
This looks fantasic, will look great next to my B5 ACTA and BFG fleets, as they both use the capital ships + stands of fighter layout.
I'm much more interested in this than I was X-wing. Full scale star destroyers and Mon Cal ships must be expected very close to launch.
Commander Cain wrote: Now this is a game I could get in to! After seeing all the good stuff that came out of X-Wing I have very high hopes for Armada as well.
I just wish everything came unpainted. I am probably among the minority here but having to paint the ships would feel a whole lot less like just buying some very small and expensive toys...
I know it's not the same, but I added detail to quite a few of my miniatures, and I know a lot of other people have done similar. Certainly, I've bumped into a number of different YT-1300 and multi-coloured A-Wings when playing in tournaments.
Here are some of my 'Brown Squadron' X-Wings, and 'The Flying Rancor' Correllian Smuggler's vessel
I very much doubt that we'll ever see the majesty of the Executor as it's 21 times the length of that ship in the starter. I think anything less than a scaled representation wouldn't do the ship justice.
So if that ship is 2 to 3 inches long that puts it either 1m ish or 1.6m ish... so yeah.
Medium of Death wrote: I very much doubt that we'll ever see the majesty of the Executor as it's 21 times the length of that ship in the starter. I think anything less than a scaled representation wouldn't do the ship justice.
Well they did make that capitol ship for X-Wing, and that would be an equivilant. I can't see it moving much on the board, though. You set it down and it just shoots every turn while unleashing wave after wave of fighters.
kestral wrote: Seeing the game pieces makes me think about getting into this, simply because the fighters are reasonably small, if not really close to in scale. The only point to playing miniature games instead of computer games is the visual aspect, and fighters half the length of capital ships is a big downer.
After reading this, and you saying fighters, all I can wish for now is Star Blazers. This may just scream for Star Blazers to be in there. Battleships with fighter supports.
Now on a different note, I wonder if we will eventually have a Death Star Ray rule so the Imperials can pick of the capital ships.
With reference to there being no competition, or in fact any need for market research...
Nuff said
I exalted this. Not sure what it does, because I never see if anyone ever exalted a post. Wonder why, do we have Exalts if the tall is never shown?
I wonder, what is your limit on expansion or separate ship prices? Lets use the 3 ships in the box? For me I think no more than $30 for the destroyers and $20 for the Rebel 2 ships. Maybe even $15 for the Tantive IV ship. $20 may just be too much. Speaking of the Tantive, imagine if the Rebels had ship that big in size if we use the Tantive IV from X-wing. Would that be the Rebels version of the Superstar Destroyer? I think it would be a great time for a fun game.
I'm not as concerned with scale (so long as the Executor is an out-of-scale 17.6km instead of an out-of-scale 8km) as I am with the firepower. The ISDs better have Saxton's petaton broadsides or I'm out.
Honestly, I'm going to give the game a year to get out the ships I really want to buy, and then a little longer for Miniature Market to price them just right, and then, BAM! They will be mine. I'm glad that FFG is focusing on the OT era and the extended universe ships, which were probably the least-crappy not-Zahn parts of the EU. I suppose some of the Clone Wars cap ships are nice, too, but the Trade Federation doughnut ship just brings back too many awful feelings.
I think the only way to Portray a ship that size would be to make it the table and have the fighters carrying out their runs on top of it. You'd have to use a drift like dynamic where the imperial player decides how the ship/table moves and then all the ships on the table are moved opposite of that on the table. It could make for some interesting moves for the big ship as the imperial player could "drive" an opposing player off the map if he is too close to the edge.
Medium of Death wrote: I don't think the Captial ships are out of scale, that Star Destroyer isn't the one we see in the opening of A New Hope.
We know that. The Victory I is 900 metres long, which is 6 times the length of the CR90. Is the Victory miniature 6 times longer than the Corvette? The Neb-B is twice the length of the CR90, and the mini for the Neb-B is only slightly longer.
Totalbiscuit is getting pretty heavily into X-Wing, talking about it (and ragging on GW/40k) with 2 other british ex-pats for half an hour on the last co-optional podcast. Also tweeted about Armada and talked about it for a while during a dota stream. Can't hurt FFG to get some free advertising in the ~30 yr old white male gamer demographic that TB has.
He showed his X-Wing Corellian Corvette on the podcast and damn that thing is big and sexy.
I was going to post a time-stamped link to that particular Podcast in the GW financial's thread just to show how even people outside of the GW realm know about these things.
His perspective on the big/small GW games was interesting, and the reverse of what you see here in the dedicated tabletop stuff. GW killing off their small games like that basically killed of his (and those like him) participation in tabletop gaming. FFG releasing games like X-Wing and Armada is getting him back in. Him playing FFG Dark Heresy (before his health problems) is also telling. Man has an eye for good rules and good companies - who would have thought a game critic known for honest critique would have such good taste ; p
Yonan wrote: Flawed game (mainly due to ground combat) but I agree very much about the feeling of the space combat in Empire at War. Sins of a Solar Empire has the potential for that too but I don't think the Star Wars mod pulled it off too well but it's been a while. I hope the ceiling isn't too low - for their sake. A lot of us will buy ISD's and Mon Cal's if they're available :p
Ground combat is always iffy in Star Wars because the Imperials have tons of stuff and the Rebels have... Snow Speeders and infantry. Great. That's why the Clone Wars makes for a better war game - the two sides have loads of different units. Same could be said about space combat as well, unless they want to really go digging into the EU for some very obscure Rebel ships.
And yes, ISDs and Mon Cals would be very popular, but it's got to be a case of ISD vs Corvettes = dead Corvettes, and not equal points of Corvettes = fair fight with an ISD.
Oops missed this. Yeah while the scale doesn't bother me so much, the relative power has to be very close and should be pretty doable imo.
The Clone War era definitely had a lot more thought put into the whole "realistic" military, both in space and on ground. I still find the original space stuff "cooler", but the sequel ground stuff is better. More jedi, clone troopers looking half competent unlike stormies and most importantly - droidekas. I fething love me some droidekas!!
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I'm not as concerned with scale (so long as the Executor is an out-of-scale 17.6km instead of an out-of-scale 8km) as I am with the firepower. The ISDs better have Saxton's petaton broadsides or I'm out.
Honestly, I'm going to give the game a year to get out the ships I really want to buy, and then a little longer for Miniature Market to price them just right, and then, BAM! They will be mine. I'm glad that FFG is focusing on the OT era and the extended universe ships, which were probably the least-crappy not-Zahn parts of the EU. I suppose some of the Clone Wars cap ships are nice, too, but the Trade Federation doughnut ship just brings back too many awful feelings.
The issue I have with all this is that there are *a lot* of ships larger than an ISD (and smaller than an Executor), they have already shown a disregard for scale with the three ships in the starter, I can only imagine that future releases will feature a similar sliding scale. The alternative is that the ISD is the largest they go, and costs so much to seriously limit the number one can use in a game. Hell the Lucrehulk-class battleships (i.e. 'the Trade Federation doughnut ship') is 3km in diameter.
Yonan wrote: The Clone War era definitely had a lot more thought put into the whole "realistic" military, both in space and on ground. I still find the original space stuff "cooler", but the sequel ground stuff is better. More jedi, clone troopers looking half competent unlike stormies and most importantly - droidekas. I fething love me some droidekas!!
I always liked the Hailfire Droids. Man a Dropship Commander-scale Clone Wars game would be great!
As much as I appreciate the hard work FFG has put into X-wing to be scale, I'm not a scale fanatic. I'll happily play the Star Trek Attack Wing, with it's wonky scale because a) I like Trek and b) it's a pretty good game. If the models for Armada look nearly as fantastic as they do for X-wing and the game plays great, I'll take it over it being in scale any day.
And honestly, after the poor WotC version of a couple years ago with it's crappy-bent models, stand-and-fire gameplay and collectability scheme, I'll take this any day of the week.
Honestly, I'm going to give the game a year to get out the ships I really want to buy, and then a little longer for Miniature Market to price them just right, and then, BAM! They will be mine. I'm glad that FFG is focusing on the OT era and the extended universe ships, which were probably the least-crappy not-Zahn parts of the EU. I suppose some of the Clone Wars cap ships are nice, too, but the Trade Federation doughnut ship just brings back too many awful feelings.
Doughnut ships were simply plain boring - now, World Devastators, they were truly stupid in both concept and execution.
The issue I have with all this is that there are *a lot* of ships larger than an ISD (and smaller than an Executor), they have already shown a disregard for scale with the three ships in the starter, I can only imagine that future releases will feature a similar sliding scale. The alternative is that the ISD is the largest they go, and costs so much to seriously limit the number one can use in a game. Hell the Lucrehulk-class battleships (i.e. 'the Trade Federation doughnut ship') is 3km in diameter.
Even putting ISD on scale with Victory is bit challenging, as it is several times the bulk:
I don't see any scaling issues in Attack Wing. If you take any starship mini and place it next to a Bird of Prey you'll see that they're always in scale as established in the show.
Edit: By the transitive property, Attack Wing is in perfect scale. QED.
Said it once, will say it again. Something is wrong when grown men have to talk to other grown men about a play thing that is not long enough.
For me, I don't need proper scale. I want clear, sharp and beautifully painted minis. If one is longer than another, or one is shorter compared to someone else, WHO CARES.
Davor wrote: Said it once, will say it again. Something is wrong when grown men have to talk to other grown men about a play thing that is not long enough. .
Something is wrong when someone is so insistent that their way is the only way and other peoples concerns are unjustified imo.
Davor wrote: Said it once, will say it again. Something is wrong when grown men have to talk to other grown men about a play thing that is not long enough. .
Yes, you've said it repeatedly. You can stop saying it now.
Davor wrote: Said it once, will say it again. Something is wrong when grown men have to talk to other grown men about a play thing that is not long enough.
For me, I don't need proper scale. I want clear, sharp and beautifully painted minis. If one is longer than another, or one is shorter compared to someone else, WHO CARES.
It's how you use it.
No, there's nothing wrong. Just people making informed decisions not to buy products, because they don't quite work for them. Of course, if you want to want to repeatedly try to reraise the issue to get a reaction from someone, because you feel like calling someone a 'nerd' today, go right ahead.
I don't need proper scale either. What I do need is a better representation of the relative scales between the ships that what this offers us. For that reason, I won't be buying it. I might buy a big-box Executor as a standalone display piece. So yeah, I care. What I don't particularly care about is your opinion that there's 'something wrong' with that, because quite frankly, who the hell are you? You can write ALL CAPS as much as you like, I don't agree with your opinion, and won't suddenly start placing pre-orders just because you think scale issues are something worth berating other people over the internet over.
If (for example's sake) you had a Space Marine army, and GW mandated replacing all your Rhinos with 6mm Epic scale equivalents, would this not concern you? I mean, they're the same thing... just not as long. Would you be okay with it, or would it perhaps ruin the visual spectacle of the army to have ten 28mm guys dropped off by a 15mm long APC?
Aren't space marines already an example of a scale issue in 40k? True-scale marines are a thing because so many people do care about scale. Not enough to cost GW any real money, but certainly enough to create a small garage industry. I expect Shapeways will see true-scale not-corvettes and the like before too long.
40k is much larger than this game will be though which is why those spin offs crop up. I'd much rather pester them about what we want changed now so they can think about modifying it before release. If there's still room for that... not sure.
Well, they will probably find out that a lot of people care one way, a lot of people care another way, and most people don't care as long as they feel like they're getting their money's worth.
Personally, I prefer for an elastic scale, as it presently is. I like having the minis as toys, where utility is more important than scale. I can use my imagination to provide for the scale. I can't use my imagination to make a teeny toy or a behemoth toy into a comfortable size. And if they are all roughly the same size then all the ships should have similar amounts of detail, a serious problem for Attack Wing, where many of the ships look like vending machine toys.
But if it turns out more people care about scale than not, FFG should damn well make their ships to scale.
Davor wrote: Said it once, will say it again. Something is wrong when grown men have to talk to other grown men about a play thing that is not long enough.
For me, I don't need proper scale. I want clear, sharp and beautifully painted minis. If one is longer than another, or one is shorter compared to someone else, WHO CARES.
It's how you use it.
Okay, you don't care. Good for you.
Other people do, and there's nothing wrong with it. Also, no one cares if you care or not.
As far as I can tell from the pictures, the capital ship bases are the same size as 2 of the small X-Wing bases put end-to-end (or a large base cut in half). That would make the rebel ships somewhere around the size of the HWK-290, and the Victory Class Star Destroyer about that of a Firespray.
That would make a Mon Cal or a ISD a bit shorter than the X-Wing Rebel Transport, but wider, if they keep the star destroyer's scale constant for the bigger ships?
For me, scale is important since modelling is about emulating reality, and one part of that is seeing first-hand how the models compare size-wise. I never buy scale models which are not in scale with those I already have (1:72 or 1:48 for aircraft, 1:600 or 700 for ships). And when it comes to gaming, even in fictional universe there are usually certain rules, assumptions and guidelines to which I expect everything to confirm, so the universe is internally consistent. I don't like the idea that smaller vessels like that Corvette are simply 'written up' so they fit to the preconceived notion what a game like this should be. It's like having a WW2 naval game and put a cruiser and gunboat against a battleship. "Yeah, we had to scale the gunboat up a bit so it wouldn't look as silly. Also, cruiser is about 2 times more powerful compared to real world so it has a fighting chance against the BB."
Personally, SW miniature games don't attract me, because the universe is simply very uninteresting from a modelling perspective. Everything is white, sometimes with a bit of red, or blue if we're lucky. Truly outrageous items might be grey or even black! Makes a great visual for movies, not so much for modelling. So I probably wouldn't buy this even if it was for scale.
But that said, I'm really interested about the rules. I've been toying with the idea of a game where a single larger ship fights a bunch of smaller vessels, with all the subsystems and armament modelled, and the captain tries to keep the ship up & running, whilst opposing player tries to swarm it. This seems bit like a step to that direction.
There are also Tie Interceptors on the box art, plus the talk of how important squadrons are to the game in the article, it's probably safe to assume we will be getting a variety of squadrons. How they will be sold I don't really know. Perhaps the most likely option is as extras within the larger ship's expansions packs?
Unfortunately shipping outside the UK is courier only which is £16 so i'll wait and buy it locally (plus Im reluctant to give a web store a pre order that far in advance been burned before)
also worth noting that the Wayland pre-order above comes with a mystery
Exclusive Pre-Order Special Offer You will also receive an exclusive special offer of fantastic value for future Star Wars: Armada releases. We'll include it with your Star Wars: Armada Core Set Box when it ships.
(nope I've no idea what it is, but if you're in the UK and planning to get it anyway this may be an added incentive)
Well, I don't trust them enough to hold my money for half a year. The times I've used them they're anything but swift and really crappy with their stock levels. This were non-GW items by the by.
For the uninitiated what is the physical size of the X Wing and STWARmada models in Earth inches or cm?
Some interesting points are being brought up about scale. For me, I have 1/700 scale ships like Backfire and I use 1/600 scale aircraft models with them. This is partly because there are more 1/600 scale models on the market than 1/700 and it has the advantage that the planes are a bit bigger and more recogniseable. I rationalise it by considering that from my "God's eye view" the planes are closer to me and therefore look larger.
OT: Lack of standardization in ship model scales is really annoying. 1:700 is relatively common, some use 1:720. They're close enough, but 1:600 is not. 1:350 and 1:450 are then too big and too expensive.
Thank God for Trumpeter which has a decent 1:700 selection.
There are a few other kit producers out there which might help in scale. For example, there's the Odyssey Slipways ones, which do a range of 1/10000 and 1/50000 models.
Their blockade runners look a little smaller, and might help with the scaling slightly.
If you can get hold of one, there's the old AMT Star Destroyer kit,
There was also the .jpg productions Victory class star destroyer:
The SithPlanet SSD kit is about as close as you'll get to being able to get something that large on the battlefield, although you'd probably have to treat it as background terrain/ a static model at 38" long.
Davor wrote: Said it once, will say it again. Something is wrong when grown men have to talk to other grown men about a play thing that is not long enough. .
Something is wrong when someone is so insistent that their way is the only way and other peoples concerns are unjustified imo.
You know it goes the other way around as well right? How many times do people who say scales doesn't matter and we are told we are wrong all the time? But that wasn't my intent.
I am only kidding. I wasn't serious at all. I guess I forgot the smiley face. I wasn't meaning the person who likes scale is wrong, that it was funny a grown man complaining about size.
I would like for us to move on from the "whether scale matters or not" discussion.
Posts like Ketara's above are really helpful for those who are interested in a way to field a larger ship (even a SSD!) that is (close to) in-scale.
Posts about other games and how they make impossible-to-fit-scales work is also helpful.
Basically, if it's a useful post about scale, it's worth making, but the "whether or not it matters" point has really been done to death by now. Let's move on, please
-------
For myself, I would love a way to put down a massive Super Star Destroyer... but the one above looks like it's about $400 which is a bit pricey
Hmm, I hope people consider this a "useful" post about scale.
I personally am put off by the sliding scales and would prefer an exact scale game (more like X-wing). The old WOTC game had no proper scaling and it was a bad thing.
That said (and here is what I hope is the useful part) I could stand a "class" based scaling. Basically ships are devided into classes and each class is consistant within it's self.
So the Corvette might be Escort class and any other ship of similar power and dimensions use the same scale (say 1:600 just to have a number.) The the Nebulon-B would be a light warship class and have a scale of 1:700. Star Destroyers would be heavy warship and be 1:800 scale. IF it were something like that, I could probably support it.
Anyhow, I think the game looks good and I look forward to getting the rules.
Thanks,
Duncan
These sorts of boxed sets always seem to lack enough ships/models to get me to pull the trigger. All the chitlets and cards look cool, but I'd want at least twice as many models to call it a deal.
How has GW not gotten around to suing Star Wars for stealing their shoulder pad insignia
I think I'll stick with x-wing and leave the big boats to everyone else. of course I'll be sucked in after wave 3 of this and will "have to" catch up just like with x-wing.
Has anyone read anything about play mechanics yet, and specifically how damage works?
I'm hoping for more of crew decks being on fire, deflectors or weapons disabled, sensors disabled etc. Rather than 'hit 8 damage posts then pop!', of the X-Wing type.
@Ketara - those blockade runners are awesome, thanks for posting them!
I kind of like the contents, ship-wise. More would be better, but this gives me enough for several games of the size I am most likely to play. Having said that, I think (like X-Wing) having the inevitable expansions will add to my enjoyment by offering options to even smaller games.
Vertrucio wrote: So long as relative scale stays consistent in Armada, it'll be fine.
The problem with Attack Wing was that things weren't even in relative scale, stuff was just random sizes.
While I understand people want things to be in scale, these aren't highly detailed scale models. They're gaming pieces first and foremost.
Right, but the point is that many of us would like to try to re-enact battles from one of our favorite sci-fi franchises, scale is a bit of a hang-up in that regard, esp. considering their relative capabilities, especially once some of the larger ships start getting involved, ex- an ISD (Imperial I) class carries several times more turbolasers and TIE fighters than a Victory does in addition to a much more sizable secondary armament, the Imperial II class practically doubles the Imperial I's armament and fighter compliment (at the expense of its secondary armament), unless they seriously fudge the game stats or something its going to leave a lot of people wondering why their ISD which is only slightly larger than their Victory class can completely annihilate any of the ships in the starting box in only a couple turns.
Hell, the CR90 isn't really even a warship, it wouldn't even have the firepower to stand a chance against a Nebulon-B let alone even the smallest and oldest Star Destroyers, and the Nebulon-B is meant for light escort duty of convoys, whereas the Victory class was originally a main-line warship that was later outclassed by newer larger designs. I could see 3-4 Nebulon Bs putting up a fight against a Victory class ( a Nebulon B in Imperial service could carry as many TIE fighters as a Victory could, but had about a quarter the number of turbolasers).
In actuality, I'm wondering how well the gameplay will work out, fleet battles in Star Wars are pretty slow/lengthy affairs, I think the best term would be a 'slog', most starships could give and take pretty significant beatings before being destroyed, I'm not sure how well that will translate to the tabletop.
Toburk wrote: As far as I can tell from the pictures, the capital ship bases are the same size as 2 of the small X-Wing bases put end-to-end (or a large base cut in half). That would make the rebel ships somewhere around the size of the HWK-290, and the Victory Class Star Destroyer about that of a Firespray.
That would make a Mon Cal or a ISD a bit shorter than the X-Wing Rebel Transport, but wider, if they keep the star destroyer's scale constant for the bigger ships?
I think you're delusional. Assuming those dice are the same size as the ones we have now, both the CR90 and Nebulon B are the length of an A-Wing, which puts the victory at slightly larger than the length of a HWK-290 (although considerably more bulky). Realize that the box shown is the same size as the X-wing starter box, the minis aren't that large.
Thokt wrote: These sorts of boxed sets always seem to lack enough ships/models to get me to pull the trigger. All the chitlets and cards look cool, but I'd want at least twice as many models to call it a deal.
Preach it, brother. I always feel like they don't realize that the minis are the draw. All the chits, cards and tokens in the world won't compare with another half-dozen ships. Kids won't spend hours playing with chits. The ships are where the value is.
chaos0xomega wrote: Assuming those dice are the same size as the ones we have now, both the CR90 and Nebulon B are the length of an A-Wing, which puts the victory at slightly larger than the length of a HWK-290 (although considerably more bulky). Realize that the box shown is the same size as the X-wing starter box, the minis aren't that large.
Hmmm...you seem to be right, the ships do not look very big. On a plus side, it makes it easier to fit larger ships like ISD, on a minus side, the set starts to look bit steeply priced, with just three actual ships for $100.
Yeah, and thats why I'm finding a lot of issue with it, even including the 10 squadrons (actually that would be incorrect terminology, as it seems that they are in fact representative of flights, although why they only have 3 fighters per flight and not 4 is a bit beyond me. A VSD for example carried 24 Tie Fighters in 2 Squadrons, each having three flights of 4 fighters, which would correspond perfectly with the 6 stands of *four* fighters) it doesn't seem like a lot of value, esp. for the Rebels. The VSD is at least a substantial chunk of plastic and a (lighter) warship, the Nebulon-B and the CR90 are lighter patrol/picket/escort ships at best and considerably smaller/without the cool factor of the VSD. If it was $50 it would be a great value, but at $100 it seems like a pretty substantial investment and like a pretty heavy tax is being paid for a lot of gaming aids and tokens, etc.
I'm also curious about scalability, assuming rebel fighters are as effective on tabletop as they are in the (former?) canon, it seems to me that a Rebel player could show up with a disproportionately large number of fighters and absolutely roll an Imperial player.
chaos0xomega wrote: ... but at $100 it seems like a pretty substantial investment and like a pretty heavy tax is being paid for a lot of gaming aids and tokens, etc. .
It's a starter set for a game that uses a lot of cards and tokens. So including a lot of cards and tokens in the starter set seems somewhat unavoidable.
People are buying this because they love Star Wars. Even the people who are excited about the mechanics are here primarily for the Star Wars. They would still sell the ships without the rules, but they could never sell enough rules without the ships to make it worth while.
chaos0xomega wrote: Once again, thats a Victory class Star Destroyer, the blockade runner isn't *supposed* to fit in its belly.
You are correct.
The victory class is 900m and the Tantive is 150 = 1/6 the size but the model looks about 1/3 the length.
Scale is still double what it should be which is the main point I was getting at.
I must admit the correction you made then shows me that an Imperial Star Destroyer at 1600m is 1.8 times bigger than the Victory, will be interesting to see.
Right but the X-Wing starter was what, a $40 retail release? And it included three decent sized ships and a ton of measuring devices, tokens, cards, etc. etc. It is also a great value, as you get $45 worth of ships for $40. Assuming that these ships obey a similar pricing scheme, figure $15 for the Nebulon-B, $15 for the Corvette, and $30 for the VSD, and thats $60 of ships for a $100 box. Unless they inflate the costs higher by including fighters with every purchase as well... but thats an extra 10 cents in plastic in the starter box that they are seemingly charging us $40 for.
chaos0xomega wrote: Once again, thats a Victory class Star Destroyer, the blockade runner isn't *supposed* to fit in its belly.
You are correct.
The victory class is 900m and the Tantive is 150 = 1/6 the size but the model looks about 1/3 the length.
Scale is still double what it should be which is the main point I was getting at.
I must admit the correction you made then shows me that an Imperial Star Destroyer at 1600m is 1.8 times bigger than the Victory, will be interesting to see.
Yeah, its still incorrect scale, but the VSD's docking bay couldn't accommodate a CR90 so that wasn't a correct metric by which to judge it
chaos0xomega wrote: Right but the X-Wing starter was what, a $40 retail release? And it included three decent sized ships and a ton of measuring devices, tokens, cards, etc. etc. It is also a great value, as you get $45 worth of ships for $40. Assuming that these ships obey a similar pricing scheme, figure $15 for the Nebulon-B, $15 for the Corvette, and $30 for the VSD, and thats $60 of ships for a $100 box.
Aren't there also 10 stands of fighter squadron minis? There seems to be more plastic for movement and counters than the X-wing box as well.
chaos0xomega wrote: Right but the X-Wing starter was what, a $40 retail release? And it included three decent sized ships and a ton of measuring devices, tokens, cards, etc. etc. It is also a great value, as you get $45 worth of ships for $40. Assuming that these ships obey a similar pricing scheme, figure $15 for the Nebulon-B, $15 for the Corvette, and $30 for the VSD, and thats $60 of ships for a $100 box.
Aren't there also 10 stands of fighter squadron minis? There seems to be more plastic for movement and counters than the X-wing box as well.
Also important to bear in mind that the X-Wing starter box is ridiculously cheap compared to most starter sets and when measured against pretty much every other game.
You seem to get a fair bit less in this than the likes of the Firestorm Armada starter set (which is priced comparatively), but with this you get the pre-paints and Star Wars as opposed to Drethengyllzap Federation
And i feel like they figured out its better to sell the starter as something people would buy 1 of and then shift to blister purchases instead of mass buying the starter to fill out two full fleets on the cheap.
Hulksmash wrote: And i feel like they figured out its better to sell the starter as something people would buy 1 of and then shift to blister purchases instead of mass buying the starter to fill out two full fleets on the cheap.
Probably this. The X-Wing Starter Set is something of a loss leader since the ships on their own are less expensive and that doesn't include the counters and dice. I think they went with that model because they weren't sure of what the uptake would be and then, once it was obvious it was wildly popular (by gaming standards) they to their credit didn't jack up the price even though they could have probably charged $50-60 and not heard vast outcry. I therefore wouldn't be surprised if this time around the ships come out to $80 in blisters rather than $45 in blisters and $40 in the starter.
If that's not the case, I will be saddened if the ships on their own come out to $100+ like with the X-Wing starter.
In terms of raw ship costs compared to the X-wing core set, with the rebel ships being about the size of a Y-wing or maybe an HKW, and the Victory class SD being the size of the Slave 1, plus the 10 squadrons:
1x$15
1x$15
1x$30
10x$4
=$100
Remember that this set has 13 units, not just 3. I'd say they figure they can sell this at a premium price compared to the untested X-Wing core set.
I wonder how they will sell the squadrons of fighters/bombers etc. Either as "added value" in the larger ship boxes to justify a higher cost (ie. 2 x-wing squads with the rebel ships, 6 ties with the SD) or as individual packages of 2-3 squadrons per blister pack. The second option would also give them more products to pad out releases.
Both rebel ships are about the size of an A-wing if not smaller and the victory is only slightly longer than a HWK-290 by my estimation, so not quite Slave 1 sized either.
And the fighter bases, ALL TEN OF THEM are literally 10 cents of plastic, they arent even painted, wo claiming it to be worth $40 is a bit of a joke.
chaos0xomega wrote: Both rebel ships are about the size of an A-wing if not smaller and the victory is only slightly longer than a HWK-290 by my estimation, so not quite Slave 1 sized either.
And the fighter bases, ALL TEN OF THEM are literally 10 cents of plastic, they arent even painted, wo claiming it to be worth $40 is a bit of a joke.
Look at the range ruler next the the SD, its bases are the size of two small X-Wing bases put end-to end, or one large base cut in half. Go grab your stuff if its available and hold a Slave 1 over top of the bases and compare it to the same view of the Victory SD, minus the "fins" the Slave 1 covers almost the same area. Similarly, the HWK (without its "wings") looks to be about the same length as the Neb-B, as the rebel ship's bases are slightly smaller (look at the information bubble at the back of the base for the size comparison. The squadron bases seem to be the size of a 40k 25mm base
The small Rebel ships will likely retail for $20-$25 and the Victory SD for $35-$40, or more if squadrons are included with them. I was just comparing them to the value of the X-Wing core set and its expansions. The $4 per squadron was what it took to get the Armada starter to $100. There's no way the stater will be much more than the individually priced ships.
Look at the dice literally right next to the neb b and blockade runner, its not that big. also compare the damage deck to the base size of those smaller ships, again not that big. I dont know how youre figuring that the base size is 2x that of an xwing ships, but it seems you have some big issues with perspective and relative size.
If the base size is roughly the size of a damage card, and a damage card is the same size as a HWK-290 is long, and neither of those two ships are as long as the base, there is no way for them to be as long as a HWK-290.
Additionally the VSD base seems about the size of a stat card, thr VSD is ever so slightly longer, and wider, so while its close to the slave 1 its still significantly smaller (in terms of bulk at least)
chaos0xomega wrote: Look at the dice literally right next to the neb b and blockade runner, its not that big. also compare the damage deck to the base size of those smaller ships, again not that big. I dont know how youre figuring that the base size is 2x that of an xwing ships, but it seems you have some big issues with perspective and relative size.
If the base size is roughly the size of a damage card, and a damage card is the same size as a HWK-290 is long, and neither of those two ships are as long as the base, there is no way for them to be as long as a HWK-290.
Additionally the VSD base seems about the size of a stat card, thr VSD is ever so slightly longer, and wider, so while its close to the slave 1 its still significantly smaller (in terms of bulk at least)
There are no dice near the rebel ships. The objects at the back of the picture are further away from the camera than the objects closer to the camera, they are not side-by-side.
A Slave 1 is smaller than a ship stat card, literally place one on top of the other and see. The base is literally right next to the measuring stick. Go put a large base down in the same spot next to your measuring stick and you can perfectly recreate the dimensions in the picture. It's defiantly that long, 4cmx8cm.
The Rebel ships are on slightly smaller bases, that are most likely to be 3cmX6cm if you compare them to the 25mm bases the squadrons are on. Also compare them to the height of the two plastic pegs the ships are resting on. The Neb-B is clearly the same size as the HWK, reversed, turned on its side and with one "wing" cut off.
chaos0xomega wrote: Look at the dice literally right next to the neb b and blockade runner, its not that big. also compare the damage deck to the base size of those smaller ships, again not that big. I dont know how youre figuring that the base size is 2x that of an xwing ships, but it seems you have some big issues with perspective and relative size.
If the base size is roughly the size of a damage card, and a damage card is the same size as a HWK-290 is long, and neither of those two ships are as long as the base, there is no way for them to be as long as a HWK-290.
Additionally the VSD base seems about the size of a stat card, thr VSD is ever so slightly longer, and wider, so while its close to the slave 1 its still significantly smaller (in terms of bulk at least)
There are no dice near the rebel ships. The objects at the back of the picture are further away from the camera than the objects closer to the camera, they are not side-by-side.
A Slave 1 is smaller than a ship stat card, literally place one on top of the other and see. The base is literally right next to the measuring stick. Go put a large base down in the same spot next to your measuring stick and you can perfectly recreate the dimensions in the picture. It's defiantly that long, 4cmx8cm.
The Rebel ships are on slightly smaller bases, that are most likely to be 3cmX6cm if you compare them to the 25mm bases the squadrons are on. Also compare them to the height of the two plastic pegs the ships are resting on. The Neb-B is clearly the same size as the HWK, reversed, turned on its side and with one "wing" cut off.
*ahem*
Its really not ghat big, well the CR90 at any rate, but the ruler leads me to believe the VSD isnt all that large either.
I will check them out and GenCon and let you know how big they are. They are doing Demos there. Also if you check out the Description page at FFG they cover the rules a bit more. The game is turn limited (i.e. play for so long and count points.)
Is there an indoor schematic or map of a star destroyer out there in Star Wars Land? I am interested in digging out my WOTC stuff and playing a few games with reading into this conversation.
I think this game might have a few options to it, especially in light of the fighter game.
I'd really like to see how they pull of more capital ships.
Though I want to be excited about this game, I have some issue with the scale being off, and I am currently very concerned with the stat cards that can be seen in the previews.
It appears that the CR90 is almost exactly half as strong as the Victory. It costs 44 points while the Vicory is 85, it has a hull of 4 while the Victory has 8, it has shields of 2/2/1 while the Victory has 3/3/2, and, it is 3 die less on the front and 1 die less everywhere else. Unless there are additional special rules somewhere else, it would appear that the only non-scalible differences are the upgrade slots and the maneuverability. In every other way, it would seem that 2 CR90 would have an equal fight with the Victory.
This makes it appear that FFG is shoehorning ships into roles that don't make sense, with 2 CR60s with their 6 light guns each likely able to take on a heavily armed Star Destroyer. I think it should work largely like Empire at War's space combat, where a small ship not suited to fighting a capital ship (such as the CR90) should have no chance against one in any numbers. It would not feel right to me for these tiny ships to be able to fight Star Destroyers, and it would feel a lot less like a Star Wars game if the ships power in-game is way out of touch with how they should preform based on their specifications and performance elsewhere.
Thus, unless something major appears once the rules are more fully revealed, I think I will be avoiding this game (at least until they expand it to where I can ignore the poorly stated ships [assuming the new ships are not poorly stated too), partially because of the scale issue, but largely because it simply would not feel like I was fighting a Star Wars fleet battle, but a set of rules with Star Wars ships in it.
What exactly is the base scale for the game, ship wise? Are we looking at the same way as GW did with Gothic, that the ship is the same size as the point of the flying stand, or is there a across the board scale, and some ships just get a larger scale, because they are supposed to be so small? and if that's the case, how large are we looking for the ships, and how much will they be sold for?
What exactly is the base scale for the game, ship wise? Are we looking at the same way as GW did with Gothic, that the ship is the same size as the point of the flying stand, or is there a across the board scale, and some ships just get a larger scale, because they are supposed to be so small? and if that's the case, how large are we looking for the ships, and how much will they be sold for?
It would not be worth it to try and find the WoTC ships, as they tend to be very low quality (painting actually good, but bent, irreparably warped, even partially broken before opened), the scale is everywhere (I dont think a single ship was in scale with any other, even the ones that could be were off), and, at least as of a few years ago, they are still relatively expensive.
The only 2 I have that are any good are the Executioner and Viscount, but both would be way to small for Armada (18.5 cm by 8.5 cm on Executioner). The MC80 (11 cm long, 5 cm wide) and "Republic Assult Ship" (9.5 long, 5.5 wide) are the only 2 that I have that seem like they may be close to scale, but both are warped/broken badly (underside of MC80 bent downward and large gap on underside, other has front bent badly even though it is a very solid model).
What exactly is the base scale for the game, ship wise? Are we looking at the same way as GW did with Gothic, that the ship is the same size as the point of the flying stand, or is there a across the board scale, and some ships just get a larger scale, because they are supposed to be so small? and if that's the case, how large are we looking for the ships, and how much will they be sold for?
Hard to do since these models aren't out in the wild yet.
House Griffith wrote: If I may ask, is there some particular reason why the scale is so (apparently) incredibly important?
Only that for some people, having ships so mismatched in their supposed size breaks the immersion of playing a 'Star Wars' game. For most folks, it won't matter a jot, and that's fine (I'm sure this is going to sell really well and I don't resent that). But for me, I know how big those ships are supposed to be (relatively) and the fact that they don't even approach that just feels off.
Of course, feel free to contextualise me as some sort of frothing neckbeard taking my mandollies too seriously, because what this thread really needs is the continuing faux-outrage that some people won't buy this for reasons.
House Griffith wrote: If I may ask, is there some particular reason why the scale is so (apparently) incredibly important?
Nope, all measuring will be done from the bases and such. You could easily pop the ships off and replace them with meatballs or Spaceballs ships or your hand and it won't affect the mechanics at all.
Scale compression is used to make the game affordable. If 5% won't buy the product because the scale is off, that is an acceptable loss versus selling the ships for GW-style pricing and getting only 5% of the sales they would have if it was more affordable.
As it stands, at $100 I'm very iffy on it (but will probably buy it from like miniature market at a discount). If the set was $200 because the VSD had to be twice as big, I'd definitely not get it.
House Griffith wrote: If I may ask, is there some particular reason why the scale is so (apparently) incredibly important?
Only that for some people, having ships so mismatched in their supposed size breaks the immersion of playing a 'Star Wars' game. For most folks, it won't matter a jot, and that's fine (I'm sure this is going to sell really well and I don't resent that). But for me, I know how big those ships are supposed to be (relatively) and the fact that they don't even approach that just feels off.
[/i].
That's it in a nutshell.
As a fan of the Expanded Universe, I've read countless books detailing these ships, setting scenarios with them in and slugging it out with each other. It's sort of like going up to a long time Lord Lord of the Rings fan, and saying that you've made a wargame in which the Trolls are only slightly taller than the dwarfs, and the mumakil is the size of a horse. Sure, you can point at it and say, 'Honestly guys! Why does the scale matter?' But to those of us who read the book before and know the Mumakil is meant to be the size of an elephant, it just breaks the immersion for us.
There's always a certain amount of give. If the VSD is off by a couple of inches, it's not so important. But when it is literally a third of the size of what it should be, and is hard pressed by two other ships it should be able to fend off with ease? It's like Pippin and Merry ganging up on Aragorn and defeating him in a straight swordfight. It breaks our immersion because it shouldn't be possible.
I've successfully found some more 'not star destroyers' in a closer approximation of size to the SW: Armada game at Studio Bergstrom.
My hope is that if I find enough tiny Blockade runners and slightly larger VSD's and ISD's, I can mod the rules slightly and play the game without two metaphorical SW goblins being able to take down an Ent.
The other issue with upsizing the really large ships is just playability- they need to be of a size that you can have tactics and manuevering on a 3x3 or 4x4 table size. Or heck, 4x6, but I'm not sure if that will help. So, having commonly used ships be over a foot long or the like just isn't practical (as I imagine most of this is done with the normal star destroyers, not the Victory class, in mind).
Personally Im of the opinion that they should have gone smaller with scale, lets be honest, everyone wants to be pushing around fleets of ISDs, most of us couldnt care less about CR90s and Nebulon-Bs, their presence is just bonus flavor, and even the VSD is only desireble as a lighter option to support ISDs with. If they gave us a game that focused more on ISDs and Mon Cals and Nebulon Bs were tiny inch long things, would anyone be disappointed?
I mean hell, if the Neb B was an inch, then were talkin just over 5" for an ISD in scale and .5" for a CR90, I find that acceptable, youd probably have to sell the CR90s in squads of 3 minis, but Id pay $15 for that as a light skirmish and escort craft.
Better yet make the Neb B .5", forget about the CR90 entirely, and larger ships become even more realistic.
House Griffith wrote: If I may ask, is there some particular reason why the scale is so (apparently) incredibly important?
For some people they want all their minis in scale. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. For me personally it's not a deal-breaker, although that Corvette should be smaller. I'm more concerned with rules scalability, and how it appears that the comparative power between the Victory and the Corvette is such that a 2-3 Corvettes would be an even battle when that's so far removed from the way SW works that it's annoying. Corvettes aren't really fighting ships. Victory's most certainly are. A Neb-B and a Corvette would be quite outmatched by a Victory if its fighter screens can keep the X-Wings away.
I had assumed the Cr-90 would be for shooting down tie squadrons, but it appears that it's actually the Neb-B that has the best anti-squadron power of all 3 ships (Cr-90 and VSD are "2" Neb is "3")
I also wonder what the standard number of points in a list will be given that the CR-90 is 44 and the VSD is 85. The X-wing set came with 25%-33% of a standard list, and Armada must allow for at least 2 ISD in a list, plus squadrons, right?
I dont really know what purpose the CR90 is supposed to play, maybe its like a command ship/awacs? The Neb-B hqving more anti-fighter firepower is accurate though, Victory IIs were basically all anti-ship, no laser cannons just turbolasers, if anything Id say the Victorys anti-fighter capabilities are a bit too good for what it is, its TIE compliment was supposed to serve as its anti-fighter screen.
Memories of parking right behind a Victory in an X-wing & just holding down the fire key for many, many minutes.... The AI in X-wing & Tie Fighter wasn't anything too special, but it captured the feel at the time.
Oh man, I remember sending my "flight" off to get killed so I could kill everything in my missions for Tie-Fighter....Killed every ship in the game except the emperor's transport (they wouldn't let you kill that one). It was awesome.
Seriously looking forward to this game. Hopefully they are going to be pulling from the EU and Rebellion. I'd love to see some of those ships made.
People are buying this because they love Star Wars. Even the people who are excited about the mechanics are here primarily for the Star Wars. They would still sell the ships without the rules, but they could never sell enough rules without the ships to make it worth while.
People can buy models already. They are buying a game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
House Griffith wrote: If I may ask, is there some particular reason why the scale is so (apparently) incredibly important?
Because "The mastery of insignificant or even purely fabricated information, the achievement of professorial erudition about things that do not in fact exist, barely matter, is the hallmark of a nerd."
Hulksmash wrote: Seriously looking forward to this game. Hopefully they are going to be pulling from the EU and Rebellion. I'd love to see some of those ships made.
I wonder where my copy of Rebellion has gotten to. (I wonder if it'll install under a modern version of Windows....) I actually liked that game, bad UI and all.
But yeah - balance matters more than scale to me. Corvettes have no business engaging a VSD, at 2:1 odds or otherwise.
Looking at the dice, I don't think it is nearly as equal a fight as it looks. A VSD looks like it can throw 6 dice- and those red dice have some sides that are double hits. That would mean it is perfectly capable, without any actions, of one-shotting a corvette.
That's suitably scary to me. I agree a corvette should be a joke, or some sort of flanking vessel at best. They should be hiding from the VSD's forward arc as a monkey in a pinata hoping the children don't break in with the stick!
Maybe it's just the X-wing tokens that turn the tide? I'm willing to wait a few days and hope someone snags a video of a demo at GenCon and uploads it here
RiTides wrote: Maybe it's just the X-wing tokens that turn the tide? I'm willing to wait a few days and hope someone snags a video of a demo at GenCon and uploads it here
I won't be videoing it, but I do aim at grabbing a demo on Thursday. Assuming I'm not exhausted, I'll even give you ladies and gents a rundown from my tablet that eve.
Yeah, I think that the real match of a pair of Corvettes versus a Victory will be the difference in the dice that the Victory is throwing at them.
I think it's going to be a matter of Corvettes (and maybe even the Nebulon-B's) having to maneuver around the more sluggish Destroyer to get at it's weaker spots.
RiTides wrote: Maybe it's just the X-wing tokens that turn the tide? I'm willing to wait a few days and hope someone snags a video of a demo at GenCon and uploads it here
I won't be videoing it, but I do aim at grabbing a demo on Thursday. Assuming I'm not exhausted, I'll even give you ladies and gents a rundown from my tablet that eve.
Yeah would love a rundown on how this looks and plays. Just remember to drink plenty of coffee so you're not exhausted. It is by caffeine alone you set your mind in motion.
I know I plan on demoing it at Gencon, myself. Going by X-wing, I trust there is some meat on the rules that we are not seeing that makes some of the things being commented on in the thread make more sense during a game.
Janthkin wrote: I wonder where my copy of Rebellion has gotten to. (I wonder if it'll install under a modern version of Windows....) I actually liked that game, bad UI and all.
Yes, putting aside the bad interface I loved Rebellion. I've played it through so many times (as the Empire - always as the Empire!). As for modern systems, well I believe it can be done.
Janthkin wrote: But yeah - balance matters more than scale to me. Corvettes have no business engaging a VSD, at 2:1 odds or otherwise.
Janthkin wrote: I wonder where my copy of Rebellion has gotten to. (I wonder if it'll install under a modern version of Windows....) I actually liked that game, bad UI and all.
Yes, putting aside the bad interface I loved Rebellion. I've played it through so many times (as the Empire - always as the Empire!). As for modern systems, well I believe it can be done.
I wish I could have gotten into that but it bypassed my radar (damn the days before widespread internet) and by the time I knew about it the horrible interface and lack of tutorials made it too hard to get into. Empire at Wars galaxy management was horrible by comparison... but worth it for the space battles which I'm firing up again after you reminded me of it ; p (unrelated pc gaming note: I discovered mods for Space Marine where you can change the texture of the ultramarines armour to that of other chapters... Blood Ravens ftw!)
spoilered Empire at War fleet battle pic links for relevance and omg want on tabletop:
chaos0xomega wrote: I hope some true Star Wars die-hards give FFG the riot act at Gencon over the scale issues and the mismatch between the CR90/Neb B and the VSD.
I'm thinking scalable. Small and quick games up to huge and slow games depending on what you feel like. I like Deadzones 2x2 mats that you use as many of as you like in any configuration.
chaos0xomega wrote: I hope some true Star Wars die-hards give FFG the riot act at Gencon over the scale issues and the mismatch between the CR90/Neb B and the VSD.
I plan to.
Why bother? They're making a game where the ships have a variable scale between each other likely to fit most of the ships in a certain range. As long as the ships aren't visually way out of scale between gross classes like with the WOTC game where corvettes were bigger than some flagships, that will satisfy most gamers. In any case, they're absolutely not going to change things at this point. In the mill falc x-wing gencon release interview, one of their employees said they work on stuff over a year in advance so they're likely at this point already putting the design finishing touches on the second wave with the first wave moulds either already made or being made soon.
People are getting a star wars mass battle from a company known for having an eye for detail, quality games, and good support. Why give them "the riot act" for not keeping exact scales when it would be entirely unfeasible to do so in a tabletop game? Don't get me wrong in that I would have preferred more accurate scaling but I certainly understand why they chose to do what everyone else who has ever made star wars game starship models has done as well.
Well for what it is worth, it will not really be a Riot Act. I am pretty mild mannered. That said, I will express my concerns about scale and balance. Why? Because IIRC the Star Wars LCG was previewed at GenCon and based on feedback it was scrapped and reworked into a very different game before release. So you never know. Enough feedback in one direction could have a big effect. (Of course redoing an LCG is easier than a CMG.)
Talk about hypocrisy. I want to see someone stuff 10 marines into a rhino or 12 guardsmen into a Chimera or 12 firewarriors into a devilfish. GW is just as bad about scaling as anyone else, with Fantasy being worse than 40K.
Game looks good and should play well. I look forward to it.
chaos0xomega wrote: I hope some true Star Wars die-hards give FFG the riot act at Gencon over the scale issues and the mismatch between the CR90/Neb B and the VSD.
I plan to.
Ah come on guys, be nice. They have produced want looks to be a fantastic game and have come up with a reasonable compromise on what is an impossible issue around the scale.
I think from what I have seen, they have done a cracking job, well done FFG!
Barfolomew wrote: Talk about hypocrisy. I want to see someone stuff 10 marines into a rhino or 12 guardsmen into a Chimera or 12 firewarriors into a devilfish. GW is just as bad about scaling as anyone else, with Fantasy being worse than 40K.
Game looks good and should play well. I look forward to it.
Ah but I dont play much 40k, and as far as marines go I went through the trouble of true scaling them.
Barfolomew wrote: Talk about hypocrisy. I want to see someone stuff 10 marines into a rhino or 12 guardsmen into a Chimera or 12 firewarriors into a devilfish. GW is just as bad about scaling as anyone else, with Fantasy being worse than 40K.
Game looks good and should play well. I look forward to it.
Ah but I dont play much 40k, and as far as marines go I went through the trouble of true scaling them.
To bad laws say you can only do that with 40K model, right. Now did you true scale the rhino or can you still not fit them inside.
Barfolomew wrote: Talk about hypocrisy. I want to see someone stuff 10 marines into a rhino or 12 guardsmen into a Chimera or 12 firewarriors into a devilfish. GW is just as bad about scaling as anyone else, with Fantasy being worse than 40K.
Game looks good and should play well. I look forward to it.
I don't have a big issue with the scale here but comparing ships that are twice the size they should be to an APC that is maybe 20% smaller than it should is very disingenuous. The difference in scales being complained about here is multiple times that of 40k.
Yes, but so are the size of the ships! I'd rather not have most ships be pinheads, or the reverse, a foot long. I think they made some necessary compromises. If it plays well, most of us will be happy.
I'm not sure you're disagreeing with me. I'm saying that the difference in scales HERE is much greater than any discrepancy in 40k which makes it a BS comparison. Also, whereas in 40k, a difference in scale of 50-100% would be unacceptable, it is an acceptable compromise for many players here both in terms of playability and cost to own here for armada.
Barfolomew wrote: Talk about hypocrisy. I want to see someone stuff 10 marines into a rhino or 12 guardsmen into a Chimera or 12 firewarriors into a devilfish. GW is just as bad about scaling as anyone else, with Fantasy being worse than 40K.
And people complain about GW's whacky scale as well. Not seeing the hypocrisy there.
Barfolomew wrote: Talk about hypocrisy. I want to see someone stuff 10 marines into a rhino or 12 guardsmen into a Chimera or 12 firewarriors into a devilfish. GW is just as bad about scaling as anyone else, with Fantasy being worse than 40K.
And people complain about GW's whacky scale as well. Not seeing the hypocrisy there.
Everyone knows that anyone you disagree with on the internet is part of the same hive-jerk, which conveniently lets you throw out completely unrelated complaints of hypocrisy in situations like this.
RiTides wrote: Yes, but so are the size of the ships! I'd rather not have most ships be pinheads, or the reverse, a foot long. I think they made some necessary compromises. If it plays well, most of us will be happy.
Exactly. The clincher here will be the gameplay. The miniatures look nice enough, and I can put up with the scale differential, but I'm hoping for something that gives the 'feel' of these great big capital ships manoeuvring around each other.
Barfolomew wrote: Talk about hypocrisy. I want to see someone stuff 10 marines into a rhino or 12 guardsmen into a Chimera or 12 firewarriors into a devilfish. GW is just as bad about scaling as anyone else, with Fantasy being worse than 40K.
Game looks good and should play well. I look forward to it.
Ah but I dont play much 40k, and as far as marines go I went through the trouble of true scaling them.
RiTides wrote: Yes, but so are the size of the ships! I'd rather not have most ships be pinheads, or the reverse, a foot long. I think they made some necessary compromises. If it plays well, most of us will be happy.
Exactly. The clincher here will be the gameplay. The miniatures look nice enough, and I can put up with the scale differential, but I'm hoping for something that gives the 'feel' of these great big capital ships manoeuvring around each other.
The mechanism for that is plotting your big ship moves two turns ahead.
I like X-Wing.
That game is different and quite unique at how it is played.
The Star Wars theme, which i love, is the reason i started playing it.
I like the look of this, but it's something between X-Wing and other space battle games, the ones without a ruler that determines how you can or cannot move.
At this scale i have and play both BFG and FA and that is enough for me.
They are barely demoing at GenCon. I doubt they'd make it to Nova with the game being almost 6 months out but I'd be stoked if it was since I'll be there
Personally I'm really interested in the actual size of the models. I get the feeling they are smaller than many people on the FFG forums are assuming. From the dice I'd put them in the range of the current fighters but people are swearing the VSD is in the Falcon range which doesn't quite make sense with the dice.
That's going to be a big impactor too. I want to play with fleets. Not 1-3 "capital" ships.
You can't play with fleets if the models are too large to get a lot of them to fit on the table. That is why I look for ranges of spaceships in the 1 to 3 inch size for playing big fleet battles, by which I mean at least a dozen ships a side.
I envisage this game as a "task force" size of game, in which each side might consist of three to six ships.
I envisage this game as a "task force" size of game, in which each side might consist of three to six ships.
Sadly I agree. Even scaled to X-Wing fighter sizes (which I think most of these are) where the Blockade Runner is A-wing sized you still can't fit that many ships on the table. I mean the biggest swarm in basic play is 8 ships for X-wing. I'm hoping we get a larger scaled game but I'm not 100% it's going to happen.
I just think a lot of people are overestimating the size of the ships. Mostly seeming to want to justify the price tag of the starter. Personally I think FFG learned from their "mistake" of the X-Wing starter and aren't going to make the starter a cheaper way of building your forces than actual boosters.
This was taken at Gencon on the Fantasy Flight Stand, the Wave 5 ships are on display already. Star Wars Armada has already been announced. Begin speculation now!
X wing launched with a couple of extra 'non-starter' ship blisters, right? I assume then it's the rest of wave 1 for Armada.
Or possible a new 'Epic' ship for X wing, maybe an Imperial one... though there's not a lot that would fit. SPV is the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
Barfolomew wrote: Talk about hypocrisy. I want to see someone stuff 10 marines into a rhino or 12 guardsmen into a Chimera or 12 firewarriors into a devilfish. GW is just as bad about scaling as anyone else, with Fantasy being worse than 40K.
Game looks good and should play well. I look forward to it.
Ah but I dont play much 40k, and as far as marines go I went through the trouble of true scaling them.
To bad laws say you can only do that with 40K model, right. Now did you true scale the rhino or can you still not fit them inside.
I dont use rhinos (or any other SM vehicles for that matter, nor any non-forgeworld Imperial Guard infantry) for that exact reason. youre not going to win this argument, friend.
Barfolomew wrote: Talk about hypocrisy. I want to see someone stuff 10 marines into a rhino or 12 guardsmen into a Chimera or 12 firewarriors into a devilfish. GW is just as bad about scaling as anyone else, with Fantasy being worse than 40K.
Game looks good and should play well. I look forward to it.
Ah but I dont play much 40k, and as far as marines go I went through the trouble of true scaling them.
Would you like a cookie?
would love one, itll taste sooo gooooood with your bruised ego.
They've got at least 4 sets down here. I haven't gotten in on one yet, but was able to snap some pics, including the rules reminders printed on the mats.
The different diamonds on the range ruler indicate which color of dice you can roll at that range.
I didn't get a picture, but the Rebel demo have an X-Wing Squadron card that state the squadron contains Luke Skywalker, so there are different squadron variants you can field.
Also, I think both the CR-90 and the Nebulon(the Nebulon is a definite) have Evade abilities that let them cancel, IIRC, 1 critical hit.
Ok, the Corvette is smaller than I first thought. It's still too big, but the problem is really the Neb-B. It looks about the same size as the Corvette. It probably needs to be about 1.5x the size.
Frigate actually looks longer if they are on the same base. The Frigate goes from almost the front to overhanging the rear. The corvette fits snugly on it's base with space at both ends.