I know, we'll find out when we find out. But I can't help myself

Based on the new pics of the ISD and MC80 from Team Covenant's Twitter feed here.

I think the angle of these pictures makes them better for scaling. We know that the base is 129mm, so I drew one line to measure the pixel length of the base, then another through where I estimate the center line of the mini to be. This gives a ratio that can be used to estimate the size of the miniature.

Here's the numbers I got:
ISD Base: 234 px
ISD Mini: 362 px
ISD Ratio: 1.54
ISD Estimate: 199mm / 7.8"

MC80 Base: 206 px
MC80 Mini: 294 px
MC80 Ratio: 1.42
MC80 Estimate: 184mm / 7.2"

The results are in the neighborhood of previous estimates, maybe on the low side. I don't think the ISD is going to make the 10" mark though, it just does not look twice as long as that base.

Here is an updated graph of how these would fit into a logarithmic scale, with the known ship lengths.

So your suggesting the ISD is 7.8 inches long? Or put another way, its only a little over 2 inches longer than the VSD?

That would be truly disapointing.

2 inches is fairly significant at these sizes, however just looking at it with no actual analysis, I would say it is going to be more than 2 inches longer.

2 inches is fairly significant at these sizes, however just looking at it with no actual analysis, I would say it is going to be more than 2 inches longer.

Maybe, but what Im saying is this: that 7.8 inches is exactly 2 inches short of being in the same scale as the VSD. If they used that stupid sliding scale to reduce the ISD's size by 2 inches, that would be very disappointing.

Even if only 2" longer the added physical bulk of the miniature will make sure it looks far more intimidating on the gaming table.

I am presenting findings based on new evidence. Scaling things off a photograph is inherently inaccurate, so take it with a grain of salt. For instance, using this same technique with the picture of the ISD model alongside the VSD, I get an estimate of ~210mm - still in the same range, but different enough to notice.

Edit: Also, my "mini center-line" estimates could be off. Paint.net is free and it's pretty easy to do if people would like to try on their own.

From the ships that are already out, we know that they are each at a different scale factor, that factor is not linear, and that larger ships are scaled down more. 248mm/9.8" is what the ISD would be if it had the same scale factor as the VSD, so I think it is safe to say it will be smaller than that. Otherwise, the ISD would essentially be breaking the scale rules that they have already established.

From the ships that are already out, we know that they are each at a different scale factor, that factor is not linear, and that larger ships are scaled down more. 248mm/9.8" is what the ISD would be if it had the same scale factor as the VSD, so I think it is safe to say it will be smaller than that. Otherwise, the ISD would essentially be breaking the scale rules that they have already established.

Would it? Which way are we assumeing the sliding scale is... sliding? Is it to make the small ships bigger or the big ships smaller? And if it is the make the smaller ships bigger, will there be a point (like in X-wing) where ships of nearer sizes (medium and large bases) will not slide much, if at all? I'm not exactly sure we have enough evidence for that either way yet.

Huge models are going to be extremely cumbersome on the table, so I would put my bet on two-way sliding scale to make smaller ships still look okay (enlarged) and to make huge ships less troublesome from the game perspective. Having a 10" ISD on a 3ft table could really be problematic and it'd be almost as uncomfortable to maneuver as epic ships in X-wing whereas slightly reduced in size it'll still be visibly larger than Victory while remaining fairly easy to use on the table.

Huge models are going to be extremely cumbersome on the table, so I would put my bet on two-way sliding scale to make smaller ships still look okay (enlarged) and to make huge ships less troublesome from the game perspective. Having a 10" ISD on a 3ft table could really be problematic and it'd be almost as uncomfortable to maneuver as epic ships in X-wing whereas slightly reduced in size it'll still be visibly larger than Victory while remaining fairly easy to use on the table.

On a 3'x3' table, I think your right, but on a 3'x6' table, I dont think a 9.5-10" ship is that problematic. But I think the difficulty manuevering is part of the game. In WWII battleships were difficult to maneuver and get into exactly the right place for any engagement. The problems of a very large model that equates to the roles of a WWII battleship would mirror that nicely. Also, it makes tactics important, not just the card and upgrade builds.

The ships we know for sure (measurements taken from my Core Set):
CR90 - 150m - 58mm - 2.6

NebB - 300m - 93mm - 3.2
VSD - 900m - 140mm - 6.4

The scale factors are all different, and they increase as the ship size increases. The change in the scale factor is also increasing with ship size. I'm sure artistic license comes into play here, so I don't expect every ship to conform exactly. Ship sizes might also be adjusted in order to fit onto a certain size base properly.

The logarithmic scale accounts for all known data and the new ship estimates, so it seems reasonable to me based on the current evidence.

The MC80 looks to be 1 1/4 bases long. So at 129mm. This means the MC80 is roughly 172mm

The MC30c looks to be 1 1/8th MC80 bases long (large bases), roughly 145.125mm

From the ISD picture it looks to be 1 1/2 large base. So roughly 193.5mm

It looks like our estimates are pretty close.

FFG has said the ISD and MC80 are on large bases. They define a large base as 176mm long. That makes the ISD about 9.5" and the MC80 about 8.25" by finger scaling.

Current ships are on small and medium bases

. . .

FFG has said the ISD and MC80 are on large bases. They define a large base as 176mm long. That makes the ISD about 9.5" and the MC80 about 8.25" by finger scaling.

FFG has said the ISD and MC80 are on large bases. They define a large base as 176mm long. That makes the ISD about 9.5" and the MC80 about 8.25" by finger scaling.

The current RRG states 128mm.

Going by this image:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-65JC08Wex9U/VQ-7YK1FClI/AAAAAAAADB0/0JcD6O2qvgg/s1600/Dice%2Btower%2Bstar%2Bwar%2Barmada%2Bwave%2B2%2Bships.jpg

And using my own FFG Death Star mat as reference, 128 mm is the size of the large base.

EDIT: or 129 mm, see below.

There was a misprint in the first edition of the Rules Reference and the initial pdf released online that listed the large base as 192mm instead of 129mm. The newest version of the official pdf (from here) lists 129mm.

The ships we know for sure (measurements taken from my Core Set):

CR90 - 150m - 58mm - 2.6

NebB - 300m - 93mm - 3.2

VSD - 900m - 140mm - 6.4

The scale factors are all different, and they increase as the ship size increases. The change in the scale factor is also increasing with ship size. I'm sure artistic license comes into play here, so I don't expect every ship to conform exactly. Ship sizes might also be adjusted in order to fit onto a certain size base properly.

The logarithmic scale accounts for all known data and the new ship estimates, so it seems reasonable to me based on the current evidence.

My problem with this is we are making a lot of deductions from three models. I'm not a mathmatician, and honestly when you start talking logerithmic scales and such it might as well be gibberish to me. I just dont understand it. However, here what it seems like to me: In X-wing there is a sliding scale. It is clearly demonstrated. For one class of ships (fighters and apparently a few medium size ships, such as the Falcon, Tyderium, etc) the scale is constant. From that point it slides for the much bigger ships.

So far, there is not a sliding scale for Armada. Frankly, I dont know what it is. All I can say for certain is that ships that should be really small are not and ships that should be much bigger are not. It's more like a scale roller coster. I'm looking for FFG to demonstrate a point from which the scale is sliding from. Will the medium and large ships be roughly in scale with each other with a sliding scale to make ships that would be very very small larger? I dont know, but I'm waiting to find out. The two medium ships coming in Wave 1 should help with that, but we will only know with relative certainty once both Waves 1 and 2 are out and we have more than just 3 models from 2 size classes to gather data from.

The ships we know for sure (measurements taken from my Core Set):

CR90 - 150m - 58mm - 2.6

NebB - 300m - 93mm - 3.2

VSD - 900m - 140mm - 6.4

The scale factors are all different, and they increase as the ship size increases. The change in the scale factor is also increasing with ship size. I'm sure artistic license comes into play here, so I don't expect every ship to conform exactly. Ship sizes might also be adjusted in order to fit onto a certain size base properly.

The logarithmic scale accounts for all known data and the new ship estimates, so it seems reasonable to me based on the current evidence.

My problem with this is we are making a lot of deductions from three models. I'm not a mathmatician, and honestly when you start talking logerithmic scales and such it might as well be gibberish to me. I just dont understand it. However, here what it seems like to me: In X-wing there is a sliding scale. It is clearly demonstrated. For one class of ships (fighters and apparently a few medium size ships, such as the Falcon, Tyderium, etc) the scale is constant. From that point it slides for the much bigger ships.

So far, there is not a sliding scale for Armada. Frankly, I dont know what it is. All I can say for certain is that ships that should be really small are not and ships that should be much bigger are not. It's more like a scale roller coster. I'm looking for FFG to demonstrate a point from which the scale is sliding from. Will the medium and large ships be roughly in scale with each other with a sliding scale to make ships that would be very very small larger? I dont know, but I'm waiting to find out. The two medium ships coming in Wave 1 should help with that, but we will only know with relative certainty once both Waves 1 and 2 are out and we have more than just 3 models from 2 size classes to gather data from.

You are right, you are not a mathematician. You seem to misunderstand what sliding scale means.

X-Wing does not have a sliding scale. Everything not the CR90, Rebel Transport, and Raider is at a 1/270 scale. In other words, all the standard ships (not relegated to Epic Play) are on the same scale. Those other ships are on a sliding scale, but they are the exceptions to the rule and meant for a more casual format.

Armada is on a sliding scale, 100%. Every ship is scaled differently. The CR90 is on a ~1/2600 scale while the Nebulon B is on a ~1/3200 scale and the VSD is on a ~1/6400. It is sliding in that the bigger the ship gets, the smaller the scale gets. So it depends on which ship you pick as the focal point, but every ship smaller than it should be smaller and every ship bigger than it should be bigger, if the game was using a true scale.

Based on the base size, I do hope they have special collions rules. These things are going to hit obstacles and crash into other ships. A lot.

Based on the base size, I do hope they have special collions rules. These things are going to hit obstacles and crash into other ships. A lot.

Lots of hull and shields and the ability to repair yourself means that big things like the ISD or MonCal won't mind hitting the occasional obstacle.

You are right, you are not a mathematician. You seem to misunderstand what sliding scale means.

X-Wing does not have a sliding scale. Everything not the CR90, Rebel Transport, and Raider is at a 1/270 scale. In other words, all the standard ships (not relegated to Epic Play) are on the same scale. Those other ships are on a sliding scale, but they are the exceptions to the rule and meant for a more casual format.

Armada is on a sliding scale, 100%. Every ship is scaled differently. The CR90 is on a ~1/2600 scale while the Nebulon B is on a ~1/3200 scale and the VSD is on a ~1/6400. It is sliding in that the bigger the ship gets, the smaller the scale gets. So it depends on which ship you pick as the focal point, but every ship smaller than it should be smaller and every ship bigger than it should be bigger, if the game was using a true scale.

That opening line seemd a little unnecessarily snarky and hostile. I'm not a mathematician. It is not where my strength lay. I'm a historian with an MA working on a PhD, focusing on maritime history. We all have different talents. Math is not mine.

That aside, your explanation does not quite make sense to me. You seem to contradict yourself almost immediately. You say X-wing does not have a sliding scale and then you say it does, suggesting a sliding scale works in exactly the same way I did. The regular play ships serve as the anchor from which the scale slides so that the epic ships can be reasonably sized for play, yet look right alongside the regular play models. That seems to be the idea of the model sizes in Armada. However, later you seem to be saying a sliding scale does not have an anchor point from which the scale slides.

If that last is true, then there would be differing scale for each and every ship, correct? For example, lets say you have two ships. One 150 ft long and one 165 ft long. Under your definition of a sliding scale, would each of these be a different scale?

The scale is how big the mini is compared to how big a "real life" version is (obviously real life is fictional here). It isn't how big the minis are to other minis.

X-Wing, as a whole, does not have a sliding scale, in that there are 3 exceptions that are not even intended for standard play that break the established scale. Every other ship is on a strict 1/270 scale. Essentially, the big ships don't count.

A sliding scale is a flexible scale adjusted to the needs of individuals. So each individual ship is considered separate of others, unless those others are the same size. As the ships get bigger, the scale will get smaller while still keeping them bigger than other ships that are, in (fictional) reality, smaller than them.

You can pick any ship you want as the anchor point, it doesn't matter. If there is a linear progression, we don't have enough data to plot it. Ships smaller than the anchor will be bigger than they should be, and ships bigger than the anchor will be smaller than they should be. Doesn't matter which ship you choose.

To answer your question as to the 150 and 165 ft ships, it depends. Is 15 feet significant enough to require a difference? In other words, do you want the 165 foot ship to look bigger than the 150 foot ship? If you do, then you will keep their scales nearly identical, if not outright identical. If you don't, but you want to make sure the 165 foot ship is dwarfed in a similar fashion as the 150 foot ship to your 300 or 900 foot ship, the scale for the 165 foot ship will be smaller than the 150 foot ship, to the point where their minis might be the same exact size.

But a 15 foot difference is a poor example because it is so small.

My gut tells me FFG starts with tiers. Ships in range X-Y will be at scale Z, however that is probably just the baseline and they adjust from there. Then again, perhaps once more ships are released we can find some type of progression.

The Raider is the same "real life" size as the CR90, so their models should be at the same scale, one would think.

My gut tells me FFG starts with tiers. Ships in range X-Y will be at scale Z, however that is probably just the baseline and they adjust from there. Then again, perhaps once more ships are released we can find some type of progression.

That is exactly what I'm trying to get at. I'm not sure I trust the math based on pictures, because I do understand something of photography. Angles, foreshortening etc could all be radically distorting the math. Having said that, I do think it is reasonable to say this:

The two small ships we have in hand are not even close to in scale with each other or the medium ship. They definitely slide between each other.

The Gladiator, Victory and MKII look roughly, VERY ROUGHLY, in consistent scale with each other. In photos anway. We wont know for sure untill all three are in hand. The same can be said of the ISD and MC-80; they look roughly in scale with each other. To me the question is are the large and medium ships in a consistant scale with small ships made larger for marketing purposes, or is each each size class (small, medium and large) a tier on the sliding scale?

Honestly, I think it is not possible to know until we have multiple models from each size group in hand. It's a question until Wave 2 is drops. Till then, call Robert Stack... It's an Unsolved Mystery!