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.

eh it was not one class. It was a few dozen books with wildly different ship sizes. I had planned to go back through them again and use page number and quotes, but feth it. Thats a damned lot of work for an argument I really do not care all that much about. I mean it was one thing to waste my time on it when it was for something I was working on, but waste it for an argument? It took me 15 mins to hunt down the page from one book and I honestly don't care enough to hunt though them all again.


They may have a scale, but they do not use or enforce it setting wide. If you think they have been consistent ,You sir are simply incorrect.

The classic "I have evidence but I can't be bothered" excuse when asked to present evidence followed by simple chanting of "You're wrong" is the all too common response of those that have insufficient or no evidence to back up their points. Usually then the next tactic is resorting to ad hominem attacks at the affront of being asked to back up claims with evidence. The already presented evidence has already been shown to be predominantly showing the opposite of your claim of a majority, outnumbering your provided evidence about 2:1. With no quotable direct evidence, you have no proof and without proof you have no grounds to expect anyone to take your statements seriously. If you don't "care enough" to show evidence, then you shouldn't care that your conclusion is incorrect. If you truly had the evidence, then it shouldn't be that hard to present it. It is the responsibility of those making the claim to present the evidence, and not the responsibility of the audience to find your own evidence for you. Perhaps you have so much trouble and need to spend so much time because the evidence isn't as abundant as you claim it is?

If an outlier BL author should write bolters shooting laser beams, we don't then go and say there is inconsistency about whether bolters shoot bolts or laser beams. We say the BL author didn't do their research. The same holds for the minority of BL inconsistencies with regard to ship size. As shown already by the earlier presented quotes, there has been a remarkable amount of consistency by different authors over the years, more in keeping with Andy Chambers' scale, than FFG's suddenly inflated numbers.

I really do not care if you think I am wrong. I spent hours digging the stuff up the first go around and it showed me the BL stuff is...wonky. I have little respect ot be honest for BL or GW on the matter.

GW never produced a scale, never. If they did I would like to see it. Some guy that worked for them produced one, but it was never official. I mean I wish it had been. If you honestly think BL books are constant, then you need to read more of them.

I like to stick with the Warp Rift Magazine's size estimates; an Imperial frigate is 1-2km long, a cruiser is 6-8km long, a battlecruiser is 10+km long, and a battleship is around 17-20km long.

So, for purposes of scale approximations: a frigate is a Star Destroyer, a battleship is a Super Star Destroyer.