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:
If you are interested in the larger kind of ship model representing a capital ship there are several good ranges on the market that can be used with nearly any ruleset.

http://studiobergstrom.com/index.php?categoryID=87
http://z4miniatures.blogspot.co.uk/2007/12/online-shop.html
http://www.vbamgames.com/
http://www.ninjamagic.com/
http://www.ravenstarstudios.com/catalog.html (They also produce the Cold Navy range which are well worth a look. The website is difficult to navigate and he also has a blog showing some of the ranges. http://ravenstarstudios.blogspot.co.uk/)

I don't want to put people off Star Wars nor I think could I given the strengths of the game however it is always worth knowing about alternative wargaming stuff.

The first four links are kind of "meh", IMHO.
But the Renvenstar stuff is pretty damn cool. Maybe it's the BSG junkie in me....

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Any chance they're only making one starter and no need for multiple purchases? I'd really like to not blow my wallet up like Kim Jong Un's father in law.

Lol, you're funny. And your wallet will be exploded.

winterdyne wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Any chance they're only making one starter and no need for multiple purchases? I'd really like to not blow my wallet up like Kim Jong Un's father in law.

Lol, you're funny. And your wallet will be exploded.

Actually I'm kind of expecting to not be overly compensated for buying a second starter.So far FFG has certain price ranges they seem to want to have players spend in a release. Two starters for X-wing was $80. A normal four ship wave is $60 for a set and as much as $150 for a "play set". Large ship waves are $80 for a set and after that extremely diminishing returns up through the $160 bracket and capping at the $220 mark. So roughly speaking around $100 bucks is the goal they set for a target sale price. And ta-da the starter is just that. I get the feeling that buying a second starter will still get you some useful stuff, but that your probably better off waiting for individual ship blisters.Having two of that maneuver tool on the table might be too cluttered anyway.

There is no doubt a pricing method that takes into account the costs for making and marketing a starter set, add-on sets, and so on. The licence cannot be cheap either.

They have to enable retailers to make a reasonable profit from selling a box, or no-one will carry it.

They also try to keep the price low enough to maximise sales of the starter in order to get people into the game system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is no doubt a pricing method that takes into account the costs for making and marketing a starter set, add-on sets, and so on. The licence cannot be cheap either.

They have to enable retailers to make a reasonable profit from selling a box, or no-one will carry it.

They also try to keep the price low enough to maximise sales of the starter in order to get people into the game system.

You mean pretty much the things that GW doesn't do?

Steelmage99 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
There is no doubt a pricing method that takes into account the costs for making and marketing a starter set, add-on sets, and so on. The licence cannot be cheap either.

They have to enable retailers to make a reasonable profit from selling a box, or no-one will carry it.

They also try to keep the price low enough to maximise sales of the starter in order to get people into the game system.

You mean pretty much the things that GW doesn't do?

that would be market research

I just noticed that in the packaging the Neb-B is flying away from the Victory. Hmm...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I just noticed that in the packaging the Neb-B is flying away from the Victory. Hmm...

I beg pardon? I'm pretty sure it's not.


What *I* noticed is (since the design of a star destroyer is such that the batteries on each side could be brought to bear on anything in front of it, allowing it to punch into a formation, hold, and destroy something no matter where it fled to) is that 1 anti-fighter battery+2 anti-ship batteries multiplied by two ended up being three anti-fighter batteries and three anti-ship batteries. Moreover, it apparently has more guns on its rear (none of which you can really see) than it does on either of its long, long sides. It's somehow best for fighters to attack it from its sides... that seem weird to anyone else?

Oh dear, this is gonna hurt.

Looks great though!

KnuckleWolf wrote:
I was basing my size estimates off the range ruler next to the model. I mean come on guys its got to be damn near the same ruler right? I can't imagine they would move the board size up to 4'x4' to keep it 'kitchen table' size. so every thing else ought be same scale? I wager it will be a slightly larger box, 10-20% or so. And that the length is about the size of a large base for the Star Destroyer. and the 'small' capital ships will be roughly 75% of that size. Also if the pegs are the same size, which would only make sense but who really knows, then if your lazy you can just get out your X-wing pre-painteds and stick those on there and voila! Instant fully painted armies! (Just ignore the scale difference :-P)

As far as I can tell the capital ship bases in the picture 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 larger/longer than the Firespray.

That would make a Mon Cal or a ISD larger than the Falcon currently is, if they keep the star destroyer's scale constant for the bigger ships?

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I just noticed that in the packaging the Neb-B is flying away from the Victory. Hmm...

I beg pardon? I'm pretty sure it's not.


What *I* noticed is (since the design of a star destroyer is such that the batteries on each side could be brought to bear on anything in front of it, allowing it to punch into a formation, hold, and destroy something no matter where it fled to) is that 1 anti-fighter battery+2 anti-ship batteries multiplied by two ended up being three anti-fighter batteries and three anti-ship batteries. Moreover, it apparently has more guns on its rear (none of which you can really see) than it does on either of its long, long sides. It's somehow best for fighters to attack it from its sides... that seem weird to anyone else?

I noticed that too. The Cr-90 is flying towards the ISD, the Nebulon B is flying away from it.

 EmpNortonII wrote:
I beg pardon? I'm pretty sure it's not.

Yeah it is.



See the artwork. Now look at where the model is in the packaging. It's facing away from the Victory. I find that odd.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

See the artwork. Now look at where the model is in the packaging. It's facing away from the Victory. I find that odd.

It has to do with the ship shapes. If you look closely, you'll see that the Nebulon B and Victory's slots overlap. If the Nubolon B was flipped the over way, the two slots would be conjoined in such a way that the ships would be touching.

The best way to keep them fully displayed and facing the right way would have been to swap the CR90 and Nebulon B's places.

On the X-Wing Core set, the TIEs are flying directly forward while the X-Wing is flying toward the top of the box.

Yup. There goes my money. I wanted to get into X-Wing but kept thinking, "if only it were capital ships, I'd be all over it."
Boom! Wish granted.

Anyone down to split a set? $100 is no more then we pay for a 40K or whfb starter. The only thing I dislike about the FFG starter sets is they are REQUIRED to play the game.

So if anyone is looking to split the ships I could be down.

If you split a set one of the two will be without a ruler, dice, tokens and damage cards though.

 BrookM wrote:
If you split a set one of the two will be without a ruler, dice, tokens and damage cards though.

No, you both buy a set and double your ships. At least thats what I was getting at.

Seems like the Imperial player gets the better end of that deal though...

I split the x-wing starter with a friend... I took the X-wings he took the TIE fighters... I DEFINITELY got the bad end of that deal.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Seems like the Imperial player gets the better end of that deal though...

I split the x-wing starter with a friend... I took the X-wings he took the TIE fighters... I DEFINITELY got the bad end of that deal.

Either way if i dont plan on playing imperial what will i do with the star destroyer? at least i get something for it

If X-Wing is any indicator, you're best served by playing both factions anyway in order to gain access to the broadest spectrum of upgrade cards.

Good point.

Plus ... I have never understood the concept of only buying one faction in a two-faction game. I understand focusing on one, to save money or because of limited aesthetic preferences for example, but not avoiding the other altogether.

Yeah, I started out with "Im only going to play Rebels", within 3 games I was already stocking up on Imperial ships and regretting my decision to split the starter. My only regular opponent who plays strictly imps only finds himself at a general disadvantage at this point since I have access to so many more potential combos than he does.

So does this give us new expansions? SSD with Vader and Capt Needa? Mon Cal with Akbar (recognizes The Trap...you get +1 defense dice on every ship in range 1).
ISD with Grand Admiral Thrawn (100 points...put him on the table for an auto-win).
Hoth with the Super ion Cannon scenario.

@dkellyj

I believe that's the plan, yes. Soooo, are you getting on the bandwagon now? Or do you want us to come pick you up later? How do you want to do this?

The obvious advantages of having the whole starter set and collecting both sides is that you can play proper games with friends who don't have anything and you can combine your models with friends who do have their own ones to play much larger scenarios.

It doesn't seem like an outrageously expensive game anyway, compared with obvious dig at GW pricing. I think you will probably want to use squadrons of two to six ships per player in Armada for the most fun. The Star Destroyer if powerful enough may be enjoyable to play by itself.

I mainly play Imperials in X-Wing, but maintain a Rebel force that sees use in demos, friends borrowing, and for me to play a super elite force of E-Wings.

For these kind of games with many small, but constant releases, it's easier to get multiple armies and keep building them up. It also helps that it's the definition of a skirmish game, each model is a big portion of an army, and usable in a variety of ways.

I'll likely handle this the same way, although a friend of mine is committed to also buying his own starter box, and trading me the ISD and TIEs.

So...what predictions do we have for the first wave of ship singles? Im thinking:

Nebulon-B Cruiser (duh)
CR-90 Corvette (maybe duh?)
Imperial Star Destroyer (super duh)
GR-75 Transport (Got to get the basics out early right?)

I could see wildly different ones though

It would be really cool if they could use this game system and apply it to the Battlestar Galactica IP. Man I would like that!

KnuckleWolf wrote:
So...what predictions do we have for the first wave of ship singles? Im thinking:

Nebulon-B Cruiser (duh)
CR-90 Corvette (maybe duh?)
Imperial Star Destroyer (super duh)
GR-75 Transport (Got to get the basics out early right?)

I could see wildly different ones though

The GR-75 would be better suited to a 2D cardboard objective like the Senator's Shuttle in X-wing. Yes, there is a variant that is armed, but including that one rather than the standard unarmed transport seems wrong.