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.

overtyrant wrote:
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.

 Manchu wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
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.

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.

Here's some side on pics of the ISD with a VSD

 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.

overtyrant wrote:
EU numbers?

There are fierce flame wars fought across the inter-webs about how big various ships should be.

Some accept numbers from RPGs and source books, others will go back to the films and @#$5ing count PIXELS to extrapolate a ship's dimensions.

Never mind that the film makers themselves weren't that worried.

But no, the TRUE SIZE of these completely fictional ships that run on magical physics MUST be calculated.

It takes A LOT for someone like to say 'that's really nerdy' and y'know...

Debates about SW ships sizes are really, really nerdy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 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"

Here's some more pics of the new ships unpainted.









The ISD looks massive

I can't wait to get my hands on one of these babies!

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.

It all got very confusing.

 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:


Home One:


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.

Edit: spoilered large images.

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).

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)!

Anyone interested in resurrecting the Great A-Wing Scale Debate of 2013 should start a new thread in the FFG sub-forum. Thanks!

 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/

 Manchu wrote:
Anyone interested in resurrecting the Great A-Wing Scale Debate of 2013 should start a new thread in the FFG sub-forum. Thanks!

I laughed, I laughed hard.

 insaniak wrote:

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.

For those who think the Mon Cal Cruiser is too small here is a quote from a wise philosopher

"Size matters not. Look at me. Judge me by my size, do you?" - Yoda

I played a demo today at Adelticon. I'll post my thoughts soon.

 insaniak wrote:

 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.