Hi all,

I was a bit confused by some of the comments about the ISD base size being a medium base, as it looked way bigger to me just by looking at the distance between the shield dials and the corners of the base.

So I did a check.

I took an official picture of the FFG Death Star and Yavin playmat from here: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/2/6/the-galaxy-at-your-fingertips/

We know that the mat is 3 ft x 3 ft, or 36 inches.

Because whole inches arent exact to work with, and FFG published the ship bases sizes in millimeters, I converted to millimeters.

36 inches = 914.4mm, but lets call it 914 mm.

The base sizes, for reference are:

Small, 41mm x 71mm

Medium, 61mm x 102mm

Large, 76mm x 129mm

EDIT: From the new UPDATED Rules Reference Guide - check the FFG Armada support page.

I then re-sized the picture of the playmat so that it was exactly 914 pixels x 914 pixels, so each pixel would represent 1mm in real life.

This allowed me to measure using a square, the size of Yavin, 160px x 160px which as a circle worked out to 160 pixels, or 160mm diameter.

Then I referred back to one of the twitter pictures showing the ISD on top of Yavin, and looked at the specific positioning.

We can see that the Star Destroyer is fairly central in its front, but if we draw a line between the two objects (moons) on each side, the ISD is close to the one on the left with its front lining up, and close to the one on the right with just infront of its half way mark.

I then went back to my original diagram and drew in (using FFG's measurements at a 1mm = 1 pixel scale) boxes in an approximate position for Large and Medium base sizes.

As you can see, the Large base size actually fits the picture pretty well, allowing for a slight warp from the angle of the perspective. The medium base however would only just extend beyond the Yavin's edge, but we can see in the picture that the curvature of Yavin comes under the outline of the base, just after about where halfway on the large base. We can see that replicated on the star destroyer base in the picture where it does actually appear to extend a reasonable distance beyond Yavin, and where the curvature of Yavin does disappear under the base is just behind the mid point with the shield dial.

What do you guys think?

LIKE LIKE LIKE

AND LIKE!

Any way thank you, the other guy that did the math in the wave 2 thread (and came up with some hockey number, no offense if you read this that's just imo) I felt was wrong and this makes perfect sense and will hopefully quit this debate

Edit:btw the large base is suppose to be 76x192 not 76x129

anyone following the reddit side of this thread? i was solidly in the field of ISD/moncal cruiser being large but there was debate on them being medium. to sumarize the debate.

in this picture ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CAZcqBjUgAAFS8w.jpg ) you can see the ISD beside a debatable small or medium mon cal frigate if medium the base of the ISD could be large, but if its small than based on this picture ( http://i.imgur.com/jxAc0vo.png ) the ratios are off. latest math provided was based on this play mat ( https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/c4/ae/c4ae9ff6-2675-42e4-bd9e-687de26b49ef/usws23-24-playmat1.jpg ) the 3x3 x-wing playmat other poster knew the dims of the planet pictured and had this math. The planet is about 156mm in diameter. Since the base of the ISD doesn't even stretch the entire planet, and we know the large base is 192mm, it cannot be a large base.

Thoughts?

Ah, finally traced the source of this misconception back. (from the Wave 2 announced thread)

I measured the planet as 160mm, vs 156 in the above comment, so reasonably close actually.

The large ship base is 76mm x 129mm long according to the rules reference guide, so its length is significantly smaller than the planet's diameter of 156/160mm

Unfortunately someone in the arguement above made a typo between 129 and 192mm, hence leading to the confusion thinking incorrectly that a large base needs to be larger then the planet, its not it should be smaller, hence the ISD and Mon Cal Cruiser are defintely large base ships.

EDIT - FFG published the length incorrectly as 192mm in the original rules reference guide and has since changed it to 129mm and re-uploaded it. Hence the confusion with some people quoting it as 192mm, there is now a new version on the Armada support page.

Its not a typo in the thread, the RRG States a large base is 76x192mm, not 129. Wether that is a typo is another thing

Its not a typo in the thread, the RRG States a large base is 76x192mm, not 129. Wether that is a typo is another thing

From the (new updated version of the) RRG - "and large ships use the 76mm x 129mm base."

Must be a typo then.

The aspect ratio of 76x129 is about 1:1,7

76x192 is about 1:2,5

The bases don't have a ratio of 1:2,5

It must be 76x129 then.

Huh, looks like the Rules Reference guide was updated. Rules say out the 16th, the RRG is out the 17th. Could have sworn it said the 16th a while ago..

Measured my X-Wing epic scale GR-75 (194mm x 80mm) and CR90 (224mm x 80mm), and added for comparison.

I downloaded a copy of the rules reference guide the day it came out, and checked against the version that is live on the website now - it has been updated and changed from 192mm to 129mm. So yes, someone at FFG made a typo in the rules reference guide and has done a sneaky edit and re-upload.

Hope this finally settles the argument once and for all

I checked the pdf I downloaded from FFG right after the rules came out. It says 192. I just checked the current pdf on the website - 129.

Looks like there was a typo and they fixed it.

Im actually pretty happy with the large base size looking at it compared to the epic X-Wing ships. My worry with the larger Star Destroyers was that they (like the X-Wing epic ships) would just be too unweildy to manuver on a board that is only 3 feet wide (regardless of length). When flying the epic ships it feels like you have to be constantly turning to just stay on the board (not that you live long enough to cross the board, but hey, thats another issue). Looking at this size they will still be nice chunky size models, but will still be able to manuver strategically.

So, how large or how small is the ISD model then?

16 cm? 18? 20?

Huh, that difference between 129 and 192 mm is pretty significant. If the 129 number is the correct one, that means the large bases will only be a little bit bigger than the mediums, not nearly double the length as I previously thought. With that in mind, large bases DO make sense for the ISD.

And the best part about that to me is that it means there still is room for even bigger ships to be worked in later on.

Some great work there working that out. Pretty much confirms what we see in this photo:

https://twitter.com/AdamJ360/status/578350277364871169/photo/1

The ISD base is clearly bigger than the Victory's medium base. This was posted elsewhere so not sure why people are still debating the base size?

So, how large or how small is the ISD model then?

16 cm? 18? 20?

So have done some more analysis for you,

Based on this photo:

The blue line on the base represents the length of the Large base which we know to be 129mm.

The blue line on the ISD is a parallel line that I started on the base and then moved up onto the ISD and extended to the approximate length of the model (again, looks odd because its parallel to the base rather than to what look to be the end, but that would actually be distorted by the angle and give a longer measurement). I then made a copy of that line in green and put it next to the base blue line - this is the estimated length.

I then made a copy of the base length, in red, and put it on the end of the actual base - so what we can see is that the model size (in green) is just slightly shorter than the base x 2. So I would predict the model will be about 25cm long (250mm).

Edit, based on some new pictures that surhaced from different angles I am now predicting between 20 - 24cm, but most likely between 21 - 23 cm

Again if you want to do the same thing for width, its a bit more tricky with the angles, I placed the rear line an equal distance off each corner to try get an intermediate reading, lt works out again that the width is just under twice the base width.

So that would put an estimate at about 14cm (140mm) wide.

Which compaired on a sheet of A4 paper would look about this size (250mm x 140mm)

Some great work there working that out. Pretty much confirms what we see in this photo:

https://twitter.com/AdamJ360/status/578350277364871169/photo/1

The ISD base is clearly bigger than the Victory's medium base. This was posted elsewhere so not sure why people are still debating the base size?

Because the rulebook that we originally saw said that the length of a large base was 192 mm, not 129. And the base shown in the picture did not look nearly large enough to be 192 mm.

Some great work there working that out. Pretty much confirms what we see in this photo:

https://twitter.com/AdamJ360/status/578350277364871169/photo/1

The ISD base is clearly bigger than the Victory's medium base. This was posted elsewhere so not sure why people are still debating the base size?

Because the rulebook that we originally saw said that the length of a large base was 192 mm, not 129. And the base shown in the picture did not look nearly large enough to be 192 mm.

Yeah, glad we are all clear on that now

Too bad about the typo. The ISD is not nearly as impressive now with the size reduction. That does explain how the ship can be 1/2 the price of an X-Wing Epic though.

Which compaired on a sheet of A4 paper would look about this size (250mm x 140mm)

Not as impressive as I thought of at the first time - but hell, impressive enough.

Those guys will be the eyecatchers on any table.

Which compaired on a sheet of A4 paper would look about this size (250mm x 140mm)

Not as impressive as I thought of at the first time - but hell, impressive enough.

Those guys will be the eyecatchers on any table.

Yes, impressive enough!

Because the rulebook that we originally saw said that the length of a large base was 192 mm, not 129. And the base shown in the picture did not look nearly large enough to be 192 mm.

Ah I see, thanks for clearing that up

I wouldn't want it much bigger in any case. It would limit your ability to maneuver on the table.