Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The cards and stuff are the game rules.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talizvar wrote:

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.

I think this looks pretty sweet.

 Ahtman wrote:

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.

 Toburk wrote:

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.)

Not sold on the game play yet.
Thanks,
Duncan

I will check them out and GenCon and let you know how big they are. They are doing Demos there

No! Don't do that! I'm much more comfortable with knee-jerk reactions than actual information!

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.

Does anyone have a comparison of the large ship game that WOTC did, and THIS one? how do the ships look between the two?

Would it be worth my time to go hunt up the older games stuff and play with the new games rules?


Across the board, the scale is really an issue. Why not just up and shell out for the model kits, and push forward? AMT did this one.

http://www.starwarsmodels.com/stard.html

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?

 Grot 6 wrote:
Does anyone have a comparison of the large ship game that WOTC did, and THIS one? how do the ships look between the two?

Would it be worth my time to go hunt up the older games stuff and play with the new games rules?


Across the board, the scale is really an issue. Why not just up and shell out for the model kits, and push forward? AMT did this one.

http://www.starwarsmodels.com/stard.html

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).

In other words, don't bother.

If I may ask, is there some particular reason why the scale is so (apparently) incredibly important?

 House Griffith wrote:
If I may ask, is there some particular reason why the scale is so (apparently) incredibly important?

You really don't!

 Grot 6 wrote:
Does anyone have a comparison of the large ship game that WOTC did, and THIS one? how do the ships look between the two?

Would it be worth my time to go hunt up the older games stuff and play with the new games rules?


Across the board, the scale is really an issue. Why not just up and shell out for the model kits, and push forward? AMT did this one.

http://www.starwarsmodels.com/stard.html

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.

Looks super interesting, now you will be able to get into the large scale fleet actions seen in the movies.

 Riquende wrote:

 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.

http://studiobergstrom.com/index.php?categoryID=83



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.