Yak9UT wrote: I don't think people can really say the scale is out until we see the ships for ourselves.
The Imperial Class Star Destroyer would have to be twice as long as the Victory Class Star Destroyer to be in scale.
VSD is 900 meters while the ISD is 1600 meters so it seems feasible to be able to match that in scale.
I think if they did not meet scale it would either be for cost or for playability, but I have a good feeling it will be sufficient in scale for people.
I wanted to be excited about this game, but the lack of adherance to even a semblance of scale killed it for me.
What is this?
Seriously, what is it?
Especially coming from people who play a game where guns have a lower range than thrown footballs (assuming there's an accurate ground scale).
ANY space combat game should be played with grains of rice (or maybe grains of sand) on a gym floor if you want an accurate scale, otherwise you've already given up.
I wanted to be excited about this game, but the lack of adherance to even a semblance of scale killed it for me.
What is this?
Seriously, what is it?
Especially coming from people who play a game where guns have a lower range than thrown footballs (assuming there's an accurate ground scale).
ANY space combat game should be played with grains of rice (or maybe grains of sand) on a gym floor if you want an accurate scale, otherwise you've already given up.
Hey, real men play games that are perfectly in scale.
Yeah, I don't personally get the obsession with scale when it wouldn't make sense to adhere to it (like it completely wouldn't in this case or else the big stuff would be way too big and the small stuff would be way too small).
I'd rather have a uniform sliding scale that allows me to play with both the biggest and smallest ships together than sticking rigidly to one scale and losing everything on the extremes.
I am very excited about Armada. The only issue I have is trying to figure out if I should wait to see how Halo plays, as I probably will end up getting into one or the other (but not both).
namiel wrote: Scale is in unrealistic goal. Think about it....
It's unrealistic if you want to include everything from fighters through to 17km long capital ships in the same game, certainly. That's not really necessary though... but it seems that everyone who makes a Star Wars space battle game feels compelled to try to include everything in the same game, and so scale just goes straight out the window.
Especially coming from people who play a game where guns have a lower range than thrown footballs (assuming there's an accurate ground scale).
ANY space combat game should be played with grains of rice (or maybe grains of sand) on a gym floor if you want an accurate scale, otherwise you've already given up.
The shortening of ranges in most 28-ish mm scale games is at least more or less consistent. I have no problem with scale being fudged where there is some consistency about it.
Completely ignoring scale between different models in a range because you want to fit something into a particular sized box, on the other hand, I just find irritating.
It's ok in a boardgame, but (for me) it breaks the illusion for a miniatures game.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: I like BFG's answer to that, the ships were big enough to look cool but in game terms they were just a speck in the center of the base.
It allowed a game with big ship minis, planets etc and no nonsense about scale.
Can't that same analogy just be used when playing just about every starship game? Or is just because they actually spelled that out in the rules that makes the difference?
With Armada, it looks like they have different base sizes to represent general classes of ships, so while the scale may not be accurate (as it cannot really be), I believe their goal was to make the scale of the ships within each base size to be accurate to each other…so where you have larger or smaller bases is where you get the 'cheat' between scale.
That's all I really care about. As long as there is rough consistency of scale between ships of comparable class, then I'm good to go, even if the different classes are out of scale with each other (due to practicality).
The thing is, FFG made a big fuss about scale, and used it to guide design decisions, like this created Imperial Raider rather than a Lancer Frigate, because it would be out of scale. This isn't something the fans are asking them to be held to, it is something FFG has stated they want to be held to.
If it's important enough to dictate what ships they create, shouldn't it be important enough to be accurate?
There will always be lines of scale models for those that want them.
The Lancer frigate is a dumb looking penis shaped ship from the EU. It's gone and should stay that way. Most of the crap from the EU needs to do the same. I really wish they had given the E-Wing a redesign, for example, rather than giving us that blocky piece of garbage that no one would think was good looking except for those too mired in nostalgia. And the Assault Frigate I wish they'd just designed something as good looking as the new Imperial ship instead of using a reject from a random computer game.
We haven't seen pictures of these big ships next to other ships yet, but I'm fine with things being out of scale, so long as the game plays well.
Gitzbitah wrote: The thing is, FFG made a big fuss about scale, and used it to guide design decisions, like this created Imperial Raider rather than a Lancer Frigate, because it would be out of scale. This isn't something the fans are asking them to be held to, it is something FFG has stated they want to be held to.
If it's important enough to dictate what ships they create, shouldn't it be important enough to be accurate?
Thought that was only for X-Wing. I don't think they're holding Armada to the same standard, and I'm fine with that. Wizkids started their line with scale ships and the resulting TOS Enterprise is tossable and groan inducing.
Vertrucio wrote:There will always be lines of scale models for those that want them.
I'm not sure how that's relevant to someone wanting a miniatures game with miniatures to scale...
The Lancer frigate is a dumb looking penis shaped ship from the EU.
I would recommend you see a doctor if you think that the Lancer is what a penis looks like...
I really wish they had given the E-Wing a redesign, for example, rather than giving us that blocky piece of garbage that no one would think was good looking except for those too mired in nostalgia. And the Assault Frigate I wish they'd just designed something as good looking as the new Imperial ship instead of using a reject from a random computer game.
Does every ship have to look 'good'?
I'm totally fine with some ship designs looking ugly, particularly given how many of them are (in-universe) designed by non-humans, who would potentially have a very different idea of what is and isn't aesthetically pleasing. And different ideas of how relevant that is for warship design...
It seems fairly clear that FFG have no issue using EU designs, even just looking at this latest release.
Stormonu wrote: Thought that was only for X-Wing. I don't think they're holding Armada to the same standard, and I'm fine with that.
Exactly. They made a big deal about X-Wing being correctly scaled (some models are still wrong, but at least it looks pretty much correct on the table) but Armada was never intended to have a consistent scale.
insaniak wrote: It's unrealistic if you want to include everything from fighters through to 17km long capital ships in the same game, certainly. That's not really necessary though... but it seems that everyone who makes a Star Wars space battle game feels compelled to try to include everything in the same game, and so scale just goes straight out the window.
Everyone who makes a game besides FFG? Or is X-Wing not a space battle game?
And I don't really see why including the full range of ships is controversial. Players are going to expect them to be there, and will be disappointed if the iconic ship designs are missing. It might be a space battle game, but it isn't going to be Star Wars.
Completely ignoring scale between different models in a range because you want to fit something into a particular sized box, on the other hand, I just find irritating.
It's not just having a particular box size, it's about having a decent model at a sane price. True-scale Armada would either have tiny poorly-detailed small ships that would feel like a ripoff or giant star destroyers that nobody could afford. Nobody wants sand-grain sized fighter "models", and nobody wants $100+ star destroyers. The only solution is to give up on having a single scale for everything and accept that the models are just an approximation of the "real" battle.
Peregrine wrote: And I don't really see why including the full range of ships is controversial
I didn't say it was contraversial. I said it was a decision that makes it impossible to stick to a scale.
Players are going to expect them to be there, and will be disappointed if the iconic ship designs are missing.
But that's exactly the point... including iconic Star Wars ships is what makes it a Star Wars game, not including every Star Wars ship.
It's not just having a particular box size, it's about having a decent model at a sane price.
No, that's pretty much what I meant with the box comment.
They've decided that for the purposes of their game, the ships should all be around a certain size. And that's fine, so far as it goes, and I am not at all surprised that a lot of people seem to have no issue with that. It's just not a design decision that I'm personally a fan of.
True-scale Armada would either have tiny poorly-detailed small ships that would feel like a ripoff or giant star destroyers that nobody could afford. Nobody wants sand-grain sized fighter "models", and nobody wants $100+ star destroyers. The only solution is to give up on having a single scale for everything and accept that the models are just an approximation of the "real" battle.
That's a long way from being the 'only' solution.
The easy alternative would have been to base the game around a particular class size, and only produce ships that are viable around that size. Smaller ships could be built on squadron bases (ala the old Babylon 5 game) and fighters (if they wind up too small with the chosen capital ship class) simply dealt with through special rules rather than physical models on the table. After all, they already have a separate game dealing with fighter combat, if that's what you're after...
insaniak wrote: But that's exactly the point... including iconic Star Wars ships is what makes it a Star Wars game, not including every Star Wars ship.
Yes, but even if you only include the major ships from the movies and ignore all of the EU stuff there's a huge difference in scale. In fact, let's be really generous and ignore the fighters too, since we can just represent them as abstract squadron tokens instead of models. Oh, and let's save the Executor for a special "epic" game since the rebels don't have an equivalent ship without going into the EU. You still have to deal with the 1600m star destroyer and 150m corvette, and that's enough to break the idea of having a single scale for everything. If we assume the ~13cm YT-1300 model in X-Wing is around the upper limit for a practical model in a game like X-Wing and Armada* then the corvette would be a mere ~1.2cm long. IOW, it's going to be a vaguely corvette-shaped lump of plastic and you're going to feel like it's a blatant ripoff if it costs anywhere near the price of a full model (and it will have to because of all the tokens/bases/etc).
*The epic ships in X-Wing are bigger, and they're an awkward mess that you don't want in the core game. They also cost way more than most people are willing to pay.
The easy alternative would have been to base the game around a particular class size, and only produce ships that are viable around that size.
Great, now you no longer have the iconic ships and you have endless fan complaints about "where's my star destroyer". Good luck selling a bunch of EU stuff that hardly anyone recognizes.
Smaller ships could be built on squadron bases (ala the old Babylon 5 game) and fighters (if they wind up too small with the chosen capital ship class) simply dealt with through special rules rather than physical models on the table. After all, they already have a separate game dealing with fighter combat, if that's what you're after...
IOW, do exactly what FFG did with fighters. They're an abstract fighter token that doesn't share the same capital ship mechanics, the only difference is that they have some models on top of the token instead of just a picture of an x-wing or TIE fighter. If you really hate the fighters that much you can always just ask to remove them from the base and only play with the tokens.
I definitely get it, but I for one am very happy they decided to go with a mixed scale to be able to accommodate everything you see in the movies all at once, because that is what I want to play.
I never liked X-Wing just because I don't care much for dogfigther space combat (just not my cup of tea).
But the idea of being able to have fighters and capital ships and even the death star theoretically all at once is just super awesome, especially given the rules I've read about so far and the ability to take different pilots/commanders like you can X-Wing.
Just seems like a winner to me and this second wave of ships is definitely awesome looking as the Mon Calamari stuff is easily the best Rebel designs IMHO.
I'm not sure how that's relevant to someone wanting a miniatures game with miniatures to scale...
What you want, and what you get are two different things. And it's fine for you to want it. But every single damn thread posters like you throw a hissy fit in at the mention of Armada, it's the same tired hissy fit that I bet even you've made fun of others for doing the same for some other geekdom.
It's already been decided, and you've already expressed your opinion, and decision, not to get into the game.
I understand that this is a discussion forum, but there is a point where the constant repetition is no longer a discussion but a sounding box.
Does every ship have to look 'good'?
Really? You have to ask that question? Yes. Most resoundingly yes! If it doesn't look good, why would anyone ever buy it? Why would anyone have gone to see the original Star Wars?
How do you think Star Wars became a thing as popular as it was to spawn all these crappy additions? It's because almost everything in the movies looked great. They had had great artists and a great art director who literally went around with a chisel breaking off bits of ships, or entire ship models that weren't up to his standard of quality. Go look it up. That's what helped make Star Wars great, it was the ability for the people behind it not to simply tolerate a crappy looking design just because every other mediocre scifi movie of the time was doing the same.
And if you want to see what happens when you don't get that level of editorial and artistic control, just look at what happened to the prequels.
FFG, and any other director will use the EU designs that actually look good, or close enough to good (that HWK is kinda ugly). Where nothing fits, they'll make stuff up. After all, everything is made up
Every person has just as much right to express their concern over the scale as someone has the right to say they don't care about the scale.
This is the same issue that people whinge on about everything everywhere on the internet...that they're tired of seeing someone else bag on something because they've already seen that argument a billion times.
Yet, if you just focus on discussing the things you like, then it doesn't matter that other people are expressing their concerns. Just let them say their peace and discuss the things you want to and everything is good.
Honestly, the only reason why discussion like that drags everything else down is because people *want* to engage and argue about whether or not scale matters. If the people that don't care about scale just ignore the other sides' opinions and discuss other parts of the game, then there are no issues.
What you want, and what you get are two different things. And it's fine for you to want it. But every single damn thread posters like you throw a hissy fit in at the mention of Armada, it's the same tired hissy fit that I bet even you've made fun of others for doing the same for some other geekdom.
Nobody here is having a 'hissy fit'.
I mentioned i didn't like the scale direction they took with this, and that spawned some discussion. You seem to be attributing a level of angst to that that simply doesn't exist.
I don't think the scaling is as off as people think. If you compare the the size of the counters and cards between the pictures of the VSD and ISD, the ISD base is about 60% larger(I'm estimating 2.5 inches to 4 inches roughly). Which fits closely into the 900 vs 1600 meter difference of the two ships.
Easily within the margin of error when it comes to the inconsistent scaling of movie special effects.
I was hoping the ISD would be the Armada equivalent of the Corvette/Raider in X wing. It doesn't look to be the case. I guess that means Executor will one day adorn the top of my display case instead, which is no bad thing.
And I can go on happily ignoring Armada's existence until then.
Tamwulf wrote:Awesome! They announced the next wave to a game that hasn't released yet! Wahooo!
It's not entirely their fault. Labor disputes on the west coast has made a mess of their release schedules. The box game should have been out already. It should be shipping to retailers next week finally.
I actually wouldn't mind the N1, or Jedi Starfighter showing up in X-Wing. However, I think it's more the stigma of the prequels that are holding it back. There might also be some other licensing issues.
Likewise, a B5 attack wing game would probably go over pretty well as a limited release. But that's beyond the scope of this thread.
I would love if they did a separatists, and clone/jedi lists for the prequels! Use exact same rules as xwing and if you happen to play against a current faction then its a happy coincidence! I cant see them expanding xwing much further as it is. What other factions could they possibly do?
X-Wing doesn't necessarily need more ships but it does need more ways to use the ships. Sadly, FFG seems committed to selling plastic with every purchase. Otherwise, a campaign book for X-Wing would be awesome. An alternative to deathmatch (for example, Armada's objective system) would also be good for X-Wing.
Sigh. And once again FFG goes with stupid EU numbers over film evidence* and we get a ridiculously tiny Home One instead of the proper length (about twice the length of a star destroyer). I know a game like this has scale limits, but they could have at least made it star destroyer size so that it doesn't look so weird when the ships are next to each other on the table.
Manchu wrote: I bet we will see a third and larger Mon Cal ship eventually.
Maybe, but I don't really care about some random EU design, I want the ones from the movies and it's disappointing that they once again ignored movie evidence in favor of random EU numbers.
... as in, dimensions given in various books (RPG sourcebooks, essential guides, etc) as opposed to dimensions extrapolated from models used in filming or the relative sizes as they appear on the screen.
... as in, dimensions given in various books (RPG sourcebooks, essential guides, etc) as opposed to dimensions extrapolated from models used in filming or the relative sizes as they appear on the screen.
Thanks! EU= expanded universe. I was scratching my head for a minute there thinking of the Metric system lol!
Manchu wrote: ... as in, dimensions given in various books (RPG sourcebooks, essential guides, etc) as opposed to dimensions extrapolated from models used in filming or the relative sizes as they appear on the screen.
Exactly. Sometimes a random RPG author/game designer/etc needs a length for a ship, so they just invent one. And then that number keeps getting repeated over and over again, despite the fact that the films (the highest level of canon) contradict it. For example, a random RPG author many years ago stated that the Executor was 8km long and for a long time that was the official length. But the film evidence indisputably showed a ship about twice that length. Unfortunately it took a lot of fan complaints to get the official length changed and a lot of other games/books/etc used the incorrect 8km length while it was official. A similar thing happened with FFG's a-wing model: the a-wing in ROTJ is indisputably a tiny ship and much smaller than the official length number (which was invented by a random game author), but instead of going back to the highest level of canon information and making a tiny a-wing model FFG used the EU length and made a model that is obviously too big.
In the case of Home One the official length (again, from a random game author) is about 1200-1500m, compared to about 1600m for the star destroyer. And that seems to be the size FFG picked for the Armada model. However, the higher canon evidence (ROTJ and the ROTJ novelization) shows a much bigger ship, about 2500m at minimum. I understand that the full 2500m length might not be practical for the same reasons that a true-scale corvette wouldn't, but I really wish FFG had at least made it slightly bigger than the star destroyer model so that it wouldn't look so tiny next to one on the table.
I remember the West End games RPG sourcebooks when the Imperial book had a two page spread scale diagram of the Empire's combat vessels. The Super Star Destroyer contjnued over the next couple of pages of text.
I can quite happily see why scale would be a dealbreaker for some, it isn't something that particularly bothers me. I do think that across wargaming in general, some can be too literal and unable to use imagination. I think the worst case was a player who, when the battlefield was set up as a desert, wouldn't play against a Valhallan army as he thought they looked stupid wearing winter gear.
Peregrine wrote: Exactly. Sometimes a random RPG author/game designer/etc needs a length for a ship, so they just invent one. And then that number keeps getting repeated over and over again, despite the fact that the films (the highest level of canon) contradict it. For example, a random RPG author many years ago stated that the Executor was 8km long and for a long time that was the official length. But the film evidence indisputably showed a ship about twice that length. Unfortunately it took a lot of fan complaints to get the official length changed and a lot of other games/books/etc used the incorrect 8km length while it was official. A similar thing happened with FFG's a-wing model: the a-wing in ROTJ is indisputably a tiny ship and much smaller than the official length number (which was invented by a random game author), but instead of going back to the highest level of canon information and making a tiny a-wing model FFG used the EU length and made a model that is obviously too big.
In the case of Home One the official length (again, from a random game author) is about 1200-1500m, compared to about 1600m for the star destroyer. And that seems to be the size FFG picked for the Armada model. However, the higher canon evidence (ROTJ and the ROTJ novelization) shows a much bigger ship, about 2500m at minimum. I understand that the full 2500m length might not be practical for the same reasons that a true-scale corvette wouldn't, but I really wish FFG had at least made it slightly bigger than the star destroyer model so that it wouldn't look so tiny next to one on the table.
Not sure about Home One, but the A-wing size actually came from behind the scenes material rather than from the EU.
insaniak wrote: Not sure about Home One, but the A-wing size actually came from behind the scenes material rather than from the EU.
No, it's definitely EU. The model used in ROTJ clearly shows a tiny ship, the interior shots confirm it, and in previous debates over the size of the FFG model nobody has ever provided a non-EU source for the 9.6m length. And according to http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/RZ-1_A-wing_interceptor nobody knows exactly where the 9.6m number originally came from.
Peregrine wrote: No, it's definitely EU. The model used in ROTJ clearly shows a tiny ship, the interior shots confirm it, and in previous debates over the size of the FFG model nobody has ever provided a non-EU source for the 9.6m length. And according to http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/RZ-1_A-wing_interceptor nobody knows exactly where the 9.6m number originally came from.
That wiki credits the size to 'Star Wars: Behind the Magic' ... which is behind the scenes material, not an EU publication.
insaniak wrote: That wiki credits the size to 'Star Wars: Behind the Magic' ... which is behind the scenes material, not an EU publication.
But where did it come from originally? Was it new research that said "the model designer intended it to be 9.6m long", or did that source just cite some other EU source about the a-wing? Or did it just invent the 9.6m number because it sounded good? If it's the first case then it's behind the scenes material, but it's material that conflicts with the actual models and on-screen portrayal of the a-wing. If it's either of the two other cases then it's just another EU source and no more "canon" than a random RPG book.
Manchu wrote: ... as in, dimensions given in various books (RPG sourcebooks, essential guides, etc) as opposed to dimensions extrapolated from models used in filming or the relative sizes as they appear on the screen.
Exactly. Sometimes a random RPG author/game designer/etc needs a length for a ship, so they just invent one. And then that number keeps getting repeated over and over again, despite the fact that the films (the highest level of canon) contradict it.
Just to note (WHY AM I JOINING THIS REALLY NERDY DEBATE? WHY? WHY? WHY?) these 'random RPGs' were approved by Lucas Film, y'know, they people who made the @#$%ing films and own the @#$%ing IP, so it's not like they were some fan work.
And if y'all keep bringing up the films, then can I go off on how there's no sound in airless space and no gravity?
And the fact that when it jumps 'to light speed' that means the Millennium Falcon will reach the next star in oh, four or five years?
Kid_Kyoto wrote: And if y'all keep bringing up the films, then can I go off on how there's no sound in airless space and no gravity?
Ah, see, the sound is a simulation fed through the ship's cockpit speakers to show the pilot that a hit has been scored. And while they never bother to mention artificial gravity in the movies, it gets mentioned quite a lot in the EU.
And the fact that when it jumps 'to light speed' that means the Millennium Falcon will reach the next star in oh, four or five years?
That's just shorthand for going into Hyperspace. The Falcon's top speed is 'point 5 past lightspeed'... which is obviously something faster than lightspeed. Your guess is as good as mine as to just what, though.
It's funny how this game is shaping up to be "Empire at War: Tabletop Edition" in the ship selection, at least for the Rebels. Odd that the Home One is presented as the Mon Cal Cruiser and not a generic one, but I guess they wanted one that could actually go toe to toe with an ISD.
Game is still a no-go for me, as I still would rather be playing with 10 or so large capital ships a side, though I might come back to this if the Halo game is a disappointment...
Kid_Kyoto wrote: Just to note (WHY AM I JOINING THIS REALLY NERDY DEBATE? WHY? WHY? WHY?) these 'random RPGs' were approved by Lucas Film, y'know, they people who made the @#$%ing films and own the @#$%ing IP, so it's not like they were some fan work.
So? Approving the license doesn't mean that the people in charge of licensing specifically approved of every minor detail. And LucasWhatever's canon policy has always been that the movies are the highest level of canon and anything that conflicts with them must be discarded. So if the movies show that a ship is X meters long and an RPG author claims it's actually Y meters long then Xis the correct number, end of discussion.
And if y'all keep bringing up the films, then can I go off on how there's no sound in airless space and no gravity?
And the fact that when it jumps 'to light speed' that means the Millennium Falcon will reach the next star in oh, four or five years?
There's a difference between suspension of disbelief and bad research. There's sound in space because most scifi movies have sound in space, you just accept that it's part of entertainment. But no such suspension of disbelief is required for ship lengths. If an RPG author doesn't do their research and publishes incorrect numbers then there's no reason to accept those numbers.
It gives me an excuse to watch the films again but at what stage is there a shot that clearly shows a Star Destroyer in full up against any other vessel to accurately judge scale.
I know ESB has the Falcon docked with the frigate so you can do some extrapolation there.
Add in the fact that due to the way they made the FX, different ships were getting filmed at separate times.
Add in perspective and it gets me thinking of Father Ted:
"No Dougal. These are small, those ones are far away"
Those who say this is Home One, can one of you tell me why you say so? I mean, have you seen a card or something that says so or are you just thinking it looks like Home One?
Well seeing them side by side makes me want it....lots...then I remember the price....then I see that the victory star destroyer has 3 engine pods and the 4 smaller ones surrounding the middle one when they never had them.....gah....but STAR DESTROYERS!!!!!
Also Home one should be much bigger, if it is home one, as it was the rebel version of a super class star destroyer hull. The one with Wings from ROTJ would have been better as the ISD sized one.
Not complaining mind, I think the ISD will be in scale with my lego SSD!
One point to raise re: peregirnes EU SSD size. The issue arose from the Executor being about 8 ISD's long, so about 8 Miles, but this got confused and taken as KM, when in fact it should have been 8 miles turned into KM, which is about 13km. The Executor is Massive, and when put up against the Eclipse star destroyer from Dark Empire was about the same size, where some using the 8km size has the eclipse as TWICE the size of the Executor.
Manchu wrote: Those who say this is Home One, can one of you tell me why you say so? I mean, have you seen a card or something that says so or are you just thinking it looks like Home One?
As the Home One is different from the standard Mon Cal Cruiser from the Battle of Endor:
Standard:
Spoiler:
Home One:
Spoiler:
I expect they chose the Home One so that they could have Admiral Ackbar as a unique commander, but I don't think there was more than one in the fiction... but I do prefer its look to the standard a little.
I'm sorry but my powerful geekdom forces me to make a small comment on scale.
Because the majority of space battle shots in Star Wars were filmed using many many multiple shots (each of an individual ship model) superimposed over each other (170 at once in one case!) ships scale in relation to each other is super unreliable and tends to vary from shot to shot. This could be from slight differences in camera distance or even just for aesthetic reasons...the cinematographers were likely more interested in making an awesome action scene than keeping perfectly to scale.
The best example of this is probably a-wings during the Battle of Endor. Check out Youtube for a compilation of all the space battle scenes...A-wings will go from teeny-tiny to almost bulky compared to x-wings and y-wings depending on what shot you're looking at.
While I'd love hard and fast scale for all Star Wars ships the truth is, there simply isn't one...even the films contradict themselves from time to time. Any scale imposed is mostly just "headcanon"...that being said, I wish the Mon Cals were just a bit bigger (but I'll still buy 'em)!
Tronbot2600 wrote: While I'd love hard and fast scale for all Star Wars ships the truth is, there simply isn't one...even the films contradict themselves from time to time. Any scale imposed is mostly just "headcanon"...that being said, I wish the Mon Cals were just a bit bigger (but I'll still buy 'em)!
And that's certainly an issue, and is exactly why even I don't expect the scaling to be perfect. Just that the ships look 'right'.
But that's enough yammering about scale from me... For whatever faults the game may have, that ISD looks awesome...
Manchu wrote: But, again, all Mon Cal ships are unique. Not every MC80 has "wings" for example -- just look at Home One, another MC80 (according to your pics).
Is it canon that they are still all luxury cruise ships converted for war? I always thought it was odd that they were famous for their luxury liners...that all look like poop. Not metaphorically, but like the actual droppings of the most populous and economically dominant species in the galaxy. Must have done some interesting Market research.
Also, if you think the debats on the ships' sizes were contentious, don't even bring up their firepower/
But that's enough yammering about scale from me... For whatever faults the game may have, that ISD looks awesome...
Amen...like I said, I couldn't help myself. I'm not a proud man.
Question:
Has anyone here had a demo of this game yet? I'm really on the fence about it, the ships are beautiful but all the accessories (movement guide, weird order cups) are a little off putting...I don't mind x-wing's templates, but armada's accessories are lacking a certain "sexiness" factor for me. Also the rules don't seem as "tight" as x-wing. Someone talk me off the ledge and tell me it's the greatest game ever, I really want this one to succeed.
Manchu wrote: But, again, all Mon Cal ships are unique. Not every MC80 has "wings" for example -- just look at Home One, another MC80 (according to your pics).
Though there may have been more forms (I think there is a 3rd shorter one at Endor) of the MC80 (as they were converted luxury liners, later Mon Cal ships were standardized), the winged is relatively close to a "standard" for MC80s.
There are at least 3 at Endor of that exact design and when the MC80 is depicted at other times it is always depicted as the winged version (Empire at War, the various ship guides, etc.) So it could be said that the winged version was at least the most common, if not a standard that the others were exceptions to.
General Seric wrote: Though there may have been more forms (I think there is a 3rd shorter one at Endor) of the MC80 ....
Wookiepedia lists 4 x MC80 'Home One' class, 3 x winged MC80 'Liberty' class, an unspecified number of wingless MC80 'Liberty' class, and an unspecified number of MC80A cruisers.
General Seric wrote: Though there may have been more forms (I think there is a 3rd shorter one at Endor) of the MC80 ....
Wookiepedia lists 4 x MC80 'Home One' class, 3 x winged MC80 'Liberty' class, an unspecified number of wingless MC80 'Liberty' class, and an unspecified number of MC80A cruisers.
It looks like you are right, I have just always seen the Home One class as exclusively Ackbar's flagship in other things than the movie (such as Empire at War)
Okay, so I played the demo at Adepticon yesterday. They use two starter sets together to make the demo, and they let you play 2 turns before resetting for the next players. Overall I was incredibly impressed. I was already interested, knowing the pedigree of the rules for X-Wing and the pre-painted quality of those minis, and what I saw did not disappoint. X-Wing was never for me because I don't find individual fighter combat all that enaging, plus I don't like having to bust out a movement dial thingee for every single ship that gets moved.
With Armada, naturally only the capital ships use a turning doo-hickey, all the fighters just get to buzz around however they want, which seems perfect to me, and the scale of the battles is much more evocative to me personally. Another thing that always irked me about X-Wing was the number of tokens on the table at any time. With Armada, they've clearly considered this and I'm happy to say there doesn't seem to be even a SINGLE TOKEN ANYWHERE ON THE GAMING SURFACE! That alone is an epic achievement in my book.
The bases of the capital ships track each of their shield facings separately, and fighters stands just track their overall damage (again, built into the base itself). Figthers also have a completely ingenious method of marking when they've been activated for the turn: they have a little sliding tab built into their base, so you push it in one side and it pops out on the other side of the base. One side of the tab is orange and the other is blue. You keep a token off the side of the table that tells you whether you're on an 'orange' or 'blue' turn...and when you finish moving/attacking with the fighter base, you push the tab over to the other color to show it has been activated. Then at the start of the next turn you simply flip the main token off the table over from 'orange' to 'blue' (or vice-versa) and all your ships are already properly marked as 'not activated' without having to do anything extra. That's just great design.
The capital ships having to issue their special orders turns in advance (how far in advance depending on how big/slow they are), is aweseome too, but since you're not actually like giving directional orders that far in advance it doesn't ever feel like a massive burden if you screw it up.
The reversal from most games of shooting first before moving really made me have to think very differently about how to play, as did the way fighters work. Unless you issue fighters a special order from one of your captial ships, they can only move or shoot (not both) and they have an extremely short range. Plus, if they are within 3" of enemy fighters they are 'engaged' and cannot move (they must shoot). So you kind of want to fly your fighters up to within 3" of enemy figthers to lock them in place, but doing so is what allows the enemy figther to shoot at your fighters...so it is a very tricky balance that I definitely don't have a good feeling yet of how to paly it the 'right' way, but I'm definitely interested to keep learning.
Playing the Imperials, I quikcly learned that Star Destroyers do not have very good anti-figther defenses, so you absolutely need to use your tie fighters to try an take out the Rebel Fighters. Because if you waste your Ties shooting at Rebel capital ships and the X-Wings take our your Ties while you're doing that, you'll be stuck in a very bad position.
So anyway, I found it to be a very elegant, yet thought provoking game based on the demo. I am more interested in it than before, my only concerns still being over whether or not I can truly get into what is essentially a 2 faction game. I wonder if it will end up having the same variety of different fleet configurations that X-Wing does, or whether most fleets will end up looking roughly the same.
Also the special movement/turning stick is super slick, and it is designed to lock into the model's base to give ultra precise movement. However, that requires you to have an open table path to do so. My experience already is that there are so many fighters on the table that most of the time you just don't have an open table to measure out these moves properly. That means either moving fighters out of the way temporarily (which can lead to measurements getting screwed up later) or just holding the turning stick thingee above the table and doing a 'best guess' move. Neither of these solutions seems great, so that kind of bums me out a little bit.
yakface wrote: With Armada, they've clearly considered this and I'm happy to say there doesn't seem to be even a SINGLE TOKEN ANYWHERE ON THE GAMING SURFACE! That alone is an epic achievement in my book.
This shocks me, what have they done to the FFG we all know?
Thanks for the review Yakface, was probably going to get this just because of the Star Destroyers, but if they have made a cracking game as well then that just makes the whole thing a no-brain purchase!
yakface, do you foresee any problems arising from the rules encouraging everything to clump up in the middle of the board? I figured using the non-collapsible measuring stick and the fact that you have to access all 4 facings of the ships' bases with your fingers would end up being rather clunky when all the ships mash together to get into the first range band.
lord_blackfang wrote: yakface, do you foresee any problems arising from the rules encouraging everything to clump up in the middle of the board? I figured using the non-collapsible measuring stick and the fact that you have to access all 4 facings of the ships' bases with your fingers would end up being rather clunky when all the ships mash together to get into the first range band.
Its a little hard for me to say based on the fact that I only saw 2 turns and I don't know what the standard size of games will be compared to the demo. We played on a 3x6 (two 3x3s next to each other) and there seemed to be a pretty decent amount of space available. Also, the captial ships essentially *have* to move a certain distance each turn based on the speed band they're at, so I think it will be more of the capital ships passsing in the night instead of just clumping up in the middle.
My biggest concern (if it is a concern) are the fact that the fighters *aren't* just glorified tokens...their position on the table totally matters. And given that when you reach down to their base to try to spin their damage dial there is a fair chance at fudging the model a tiny bit, I am concerned that fighter placement might be hard to keep track of in competitive/tournament situations. The guy running the demo suggested moving fighters out of the way temporarily to make it easier to lay down the capital ship measuring tool...I don't know if that's part of the rules or just something he did to make it easier for the demo, but that seems like it has a big potential to screw things up.
They do have a mechanic on how to move ships/fighters you end up on top of after moving that works really well, but I don't know yet if there is anything addressing issues with trying to move completely over other models in the way.
AegisGrimm wrote: I find it increasingly hard to choose between Star Wars Armada and Dropzone Commander for my newest, non-28mm game.
Do both!
I'm kinda thrilled we have so much choice.
Not really a good option, unfortunately. Too many other games already (and a new baby). Both are games I will definitely have to buy both sides of for any likelyhood of playing, which for each of these is about a 200 dollar investment for two 300pt fleets for Armada or two 1500pt forces for DZC.
insaniak wrote: Not sure about Home One, but the A-wing size actually came from behind the scenes material rather than from the EU.
No, it's definitely EU. The model used in ROTJ clearly shows a tiny ship, the interior shots confirm it, and in previous debates over the size of the FFG model nobody has ever provided a non-EU source for the 9.6m length. And according to http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/RZ-1_A-wing_interceptor nobody knows exactly where the 9.6m number originally came from.
From what I recall it was more a matter of them changing which scale figure they used for the pilot. If they used the same scale figure they'd used with the X-wing and Y-wing models the A-wing would be 9.6m. I have to agree with the EU numbers because a starfighter the size of a compact car and a star destroyer the size of Manhattan is functionally slowed.
RogueRegault wrote: From what I recall it was more a matter of them changing which scale figure they used for the pilot. If they used the same scale figure they'd used with the X-wing and Y-wing models the A-wing would be 9.6m. I have to agree with the EU numbers because a starfighter the size of a compact car and a star destroyer the size of Manhattan is functionally slowed.
I guess you missed the "enough of the scale debate" mod warning from the previous page, so I'll keep this short and not continue the debate beyond this post: the sizes of the a-wing and Executor are not up for debate. Canon film evidence (the highest form of canon in Star Wars, that trumps all other sources) indisputably shows a tiny a-wing and a 15+ km Executor. This isn't something you can "agree" with, the EU numbers are the equivalent of saying "Biggs didn't die in the trench run" and writing a story about him surviving to blow up the death star instead of Luke. It's nice to speculate about your own personal fanfiction, but it's not canon.
Keeping it even shorter: Lucasfilm has the final say and when consulting FFG on the game they decided that the A-Wing needs to be that big to be of a reasonable size for all the stuff in it and so this is the final canon-size.
@Aegis
Both games are great and Dropfleet coming out near the end of the year does not make the coice easier, but they scratch two quite different itches so better prepare to get them both sooner or later.
A bit of big fleet combat, considering all tactics, thinking ahead, analysis.....just like my day job!
On a plus point, it sounds like the scale issue may keep away some of the nerdy pedants who probably wouldn't be fun to play against anyway.
"I think you'll find that an X-Wing isn't structurally capable of making a turn like that" whilst not questioning the whole moving spaceships by utilising a mystical energy field or other such goofery.
A bit of big fleet combat, considering all tactics, thinking ahead, analysis.....just like my day job!
On a plus point, it sounds like the scale issue may keep away some of the nerdy pedants who probably wouldn't be fun to play against anyway.
"I think you'll find that an X-Wing isn't structurally capable of making a turn like that" whilst not questioning the whole moving spaceships by utilising a mystical energy field or other such goofery.
The baseless generalisation is strong with this one.
Scale matters to me because I like the miniatures to look 'right' on the table. So, say, a blockade runner being 40 times bigger than it should be is as much of a distraction as would be a model of the millennium falcon with a square cockpit. The model doesn't accurately represent what it is supposed to be... And having models that represent what they are supposed to be is what, for me, makes miniatures games interesting.
I couldn't care less about physics. It's space opera.
A bit of big fleet combat, considering all tactics, thinking ahead, analysis.....just like my day job!
On a plus point, it sounds like the scale issue may keep away some of the nerdy pedants who probably wouldn't be fun to play against anyway.
"I think you'll find that an X-Wing isn't structurally capable of making a turn like that" whilst not questioning the whole moving spaceships by utilising a mystical energy field or other such goofery.
The baseless generalisation is strong with this one.
Scale matters to me because I like the miniatures to look 'right' on the table. So, say, a blockade runner being 40 times bigger than it should be is as much of a distraction as would be a model of the millennium falcon with a square cockpit. The model doesn't accurately represent what it is supposed to be... And having models that represent what they are supposed to be is what, for me, makes miniatures games interesting.
I couldn't care less about physics. It's space opera.
OK.. I think it's fair say though that the kind of scale mis-representation in this game matters less than a square Millennium Falcon cockpit to most people!
Yes it really plays like a capital ship game and not like Attack Wing which did quite a fair job at transfering dogfight-rules to bigger ships, but can´t fully hide the fact that at the core they are still dogfight rules.
Gitzbitah wrote: For those that have played, would it be fair to characterize this as a capital ship skirmish game?
From the sample fleets, it appears it will be less than a dozen models on table at any given time.
I would somewhat expect that for tournament play and certainly the early days of Armada that will be exactly the case. For the competitive scene it's more a function of being able to play quickly without abstracting everything to the level of the fighters. For the overall life of the game it's an outgrowth of the fairly limited amount of ships you have to choose from. I have nothing to base this on other than gut reaction, but the objective cards seem likely to be somewhat unwieldy in games of dozens of ships per side.
I'd expect the arc of the game will largely mirror X-Wing's development. A year or two down the road when more waves are released you'll see "Epic" format coming about wherein the game will take on more of a full fleet battle feeling.
Gitzbitah wrote: For those that have played, would it be fair to characterize this as a capital ship skirmish game?
From the sample fleets, it appears it will be less than a dozen models on table at any given time.
Yeah, it's a capital skirmish game because all the capital ships move and fire individually. Each fighter stand also technically moves and fires individually as well, but there are rules that allow you activate multiple fighters more or less simultaneously.
Youtube the demos from last years GENCON. They had some good demos there on this. From what I saw, facing definitely mattered. You brought more guns into a firing arc.
The guys at my FLGS told me Friday that it would be in next week.
Being the crazy person I am I would totally play Armada if I could have a dozen ISD on the table. I don't think my wallet or the game system will aloow that. :(
I wanted to be excited about this game, but the lack of adherance to even a semblance of scale killed it for me.
What is this?
Seriously, what is it?
Especially coming from people who play a game where guns have a lower range than thrown footballs (assuming there's an accurate ground scale).
ANY space combat game should be played with grains of rice (or maybe grains of sand) on a gym floor if you want an accurate scale, otherwise you've already given up.
Hey, real men play games that are perfectly in scale.
Like Battletech.
you owe me a new monitor I just spit taked. battletech's scale can be pretty messy at times.
Well, I have decided to get into this after all, as I have found a lot of people at my LGS are getting into it and I really like what i have seen of the game play.
I pre-ordered it from Walmart's site, as $60 shipped is the best deal I found, but for some reason it is estimating April 28th as the shipping date, so I guess it will be a while until I actually get it.
In regards to the expansions, are they being shipped too, or is it only the core box? I was just looking at MM to see how much extra it would cost to get it a month earlier, and noticed that only the core box is not listed as pre-order. If the rest is delayed, do we know when it is releasing?
General Seric wrote: In regards to the expansions, are they being shipped too, or is it only the core box? I was just looking at MM to see how much extra it would cost to get it a month earlier, and noticed that only the core box is not listed as pre-order. If the rest is delayed, do we know when it is releasing?
It's only the core box at the moment. While the rest of Wave 1 was supposed to be a Q1 release, reportedly the shipping situation with the west coast imposed delays and now the expansions are Q2. Based on their "On the Boat" date on FFG's website, late April/Early May is the likely release window of those expansions.
Yes I am having trouble with that as well! I spent last Saturday night chasing an ISD around while he repaired shields to invalidate what damage I managed to do at medium and long range.
Sadly it hasn't taken hold around me but hopefully a few more people will start playing it. For those who have played it how fluid is the game play? Is it as easy to pick up as X-Wing?
I really, REALLY want to start playing this. Super pumped. But... it's so insanely expensive. The individual ships make GWs plastic clampack characters look cheap. I'm guessing they might be the most expensive plastic models of all time? It's just so hard to bring myself to spend so much money on such tiny ships. The starter box should've had double the amount of ships to feel worth it tbh (mind you the box is quite a lot more expensive here in Europe). I don't know what to do :(
Mymearan wrote: I really, REALLY want to start playing this. Super pumped. But... it's so insanely expensive. The individual ships make GWs plastic clampack characters look cheap. I'm guessing they might be the most expensive plastic models of all time? It's just so hard to bring myself to spend so much money on such tiny ships. The starter box should've had double the amount of ships to feel worth it tbh (mind you the box is quite a lot more expensive here in Europe). I don't know what to do :(
Buy the models? If you're really worried about price I'm sure there is some European equivalent of coolstuffinc. They offer a ~31% discount and free shipping on larger orders (like core set plus fighters plus one more ship).
Yeah, you can't do a Google search without tripping over people offering at least 15% that'll ship to mainland Europe.
It should be pointed out that, unlike GW clam packs, the models are painted and also include all the tokens and any other accessories needed to use them in game, plus often upgrade cards which can be used on other ships, further expanding your options when list building.
All that said, I don't find it as compelling to play as X Wing and it certainly isn't as cheap to start. If a few retailers feel overstocked and start to discount the starter to around £40 then I'll pick one up, otherwise I'll probably let FFG keep expanding and look again in a few months.
The ships themselves are on par with xwing for prices. The starter box is very expensive but then the xwing starter was very cheap IMO they went to far the opposite way this time. If you can spilt it with a friend then great if not I've seen it around the £60 mark. Gameplay wise? I've only a few games under my belt but (once again IMO) it actually plays better then xwing, I particularly like how ships and squadrons activate and the differences between the two and it utilities missions, though it is a completely different game from xwing.
The game's already excellent, easily the best space fleet combat game I've played in years.
As for the price, these guys are BIG miniatures, and they're prepainted to a fairly solid degree. The Victory Star Destroyers are like 6 inches long, That ISD is going to be bigger, yet the game rules make that relevant (base size is a gameplay tool to show shield health on various arcs, etc)
The bases are also quite a bit more complicated than X-Wing, propped up on legs with attachable card and plastic shield dials, and the poles designed with a slide and slot to both lock down the ship card, and be removable to flip the card over to switch between basic hull types
Just played my first Armada game today, I really like it. It is very satisfyingly different from X-Wing (which I enjoy a great deal). It doesn't feel like you're playing a scaled up X-Wing, it feels like a proper battle between giant engines of destruction. It really captures the feel of a naval battle vs. a dogfight.
Imperials take a LOT of forward planning to be successful, and you can't ignore those squadrons of mosquito-like starfighters. But the Impys sure have some tough capital ships - my Victory II took no hull damage in the fight, though its shields were taking a pounding.
The only *hrumph* about this is the dials on the fighter squadrons are hard to spin in place. I'm thinking of getting some quarters or tokens to put down so you can pick the darn things up and spin the damage dial without losing your position.
Well, that and some option to get out of a squadron engagement without having to have a special card. It's sad to watch ties mercilessly explode to x-wings and have no way to get out of a bad engagement.
Think the idea is that fighters tie other fighters down, it's more a limitation of the core set content as with the fighter expansions more options open up.
They are Ties. Meant to literally swarm. They even have a special rule Swarm. With, between it, Howl's ability, and a properly timed Squadron command, means you actually can lay down some hurt then tie them up while you wrap up.
timetowaste85 wrote: I got the starter for $55. *runs and hides in the corner from rabid nerds*. Looking forward to trying it out.
I got mine for that much, maybe a little less - back in November last year amazon accidentally put up preorders for the starter too soon, and for too little. Took them a fortnight to take it down again, but by that time a lot of people had made their order, and though they did try very hard to convince me to cancel my order with stock level and delay warnings, I held out and got it in the end, about 3 weeks after everyone else got theirs at retail.
