I recently finished a conversion on the Rebel Assault Frigate and ran into a bit of a question: what bridge looks best?

While the question still stands, it gives rise to several others:

• What is the defining rebel aesthetic?

• While the base is the only thing that matters size-wise, is there an unspoken limit on the size of conversions relative to the original model? (The Assault Frigate Mk.II is supposedly 700 m long, this conversion would be the equivalent of 1,057m and incidentally it falls into another 'in universe' ship-category. The baseline for the MC80 is 1,200m and it's a large ship; would you feel comfortable if a conversion would make a ship larger than an MC80 on a smaller base? Or conversely, what if the model was smaller than the original)

• Why don't we have collective photo-threads for individual ship types?

B, it has a natural flow to the overall design of the ship without looking like something was slapped on.

D personally.

C for sure, it fits in with the design philosophy of the rest of the ship. Though I like D too.

I prefer D as well

I've got to go with B. C is a close second.

Haha, this was a helpful poll, eh? Narrowed it down to b, d, c or a!

Oh, and as to your other questions:

Rebel capital ship design aesthetic. Hmm. Words that spring to mind: bulbous, cobbled together, protrusions, rough, curves, dual-sectioned.

As for a limit on size of conversions - wouldn't really bother me. They're not tournament legal are they? In casual games I don't think many people would care about the size difference, but I'm just guessing there.

Buy the way, I like them all and can't pick a favourite!

Thanks to everyone who's given an answer, I do appreciate it.

-chuckles- it's not so far from what I expected Mazz0, mate I ran a bit of a 'pop quiz' thing here in person as well and I got about the same response: A, B, C, or D. Now it's a matter of how many people like what and gleaning the reasons why. It's a question I had because when I was putting it together I had no idea either. I just wanted something to keep it from looking like a porpoise.

Models can be converted/painted as it makes ownership clear, but the base can't be altered in any way, shape, or form if I recall from the tournament rules PDF.

Post Scriptum: You might very well be right Mazz0, the new V.11 rules state under legal products that components may only be modified according to page 4's rules (which delightfully leave out ship conversion, but mention proxies. Does one mean the other to them, even if it includes the original parts? And does that also include everyone who's flipped the fin of their frigates? I'm going to send off a query to FFG about that one, not so much for me [i'd like to work with the frigate at a tournament, but the 2 Neb 2 corvette list has served me well thus far and I won't use a frigate that looks like a leprous leapfrog], but for posterity.)

My compliments on the painjob, its awesome. As for the bridges, I don't like A. It gives it a gothic cathedral vibe which doesn't fit imho, reminds me of the Imperial 40k ships.

I do like B, C & D Which is't helpful. B & D I Iike, as they have the exposed superstructure vibe many rebels ships have. Both of them really look good with D being closest to the original bridge, and B giving it a more sollid look. Bridge C has a nice Old Republic vibe to it, though because its so large the different bridge paint scheme detracts a bit from the rest of the ship imho.

As for the size, really doesn't matter. It's the base that counts. There is also a good lore explanation should anyone for some bizar reason need it: Assault Frigates were basically mismatched parts of other ships stuck together (mosty using the old Dreadnought class as its base) and different shipyards made different versions. It's very reasonable to assume that there are many size differences between various assault frigates in the same way that there are size differences between Mon Calamari ships.

I like C. It all feels like 40k though.

I really like D.

I like C because of the Tau Drone topper.

Nice mods! I'd say C, but I'm getting more of an AWACs-y vibe than a bridge vibe.

I like C as well, but well done on all 4

B or D for me. A looks too Gothic, and C looks too obviously like a drone (to me)....i cant lose it in the lines of the ship like the other 2.

B or D.

As for the size, Medium is still fine. It's not too far off a VSD's 900m, and it's no bulkier than a regular AF2.

I would say C only for gallant haven titles

C for me for sure !

Always fascinating mates, it's great to hear people's thoughts on stuff.

I hadn't thought of C like an AWACs, Maturin. Now I don't think I'll be able to get that image out of my head. Tempted to use something like that for Gallant Haven, like Corellian said.

Aye, DiabloAzul, I didn't think there was a problem with the length either. However, I remembered the whole Interdictor thing (figured you'd have a real good take on it so I'm glad you stopped by), and I wondered if there was some unspoken rough limit or estimate on when one broached that line, and if a conversion made a difference given that it's like having 2 separate frames of reference.

Thanks in particular Lord Tareq, good answers. It struck me that we don't often see elevated bridges on many rebel ships. The more iconic ones are underslung like the Nebulon B and likely the regular Mk.II Assault frigate, or in-line like the dreadnaught and CR90. The Mon Cal ships tend to be a bit on the slight side and unremarkable while the others as far as I recall are mostly older Republic/Empire designs. So cobbled together/eclectic is kind of what I thought as well, but then there's the whole Mon-cal theme that's pretty strong in peoples' minds. The MkII feels hard for me to categorize.

Thanks to everyone who's given an answer, I do appreciate it.

-chuckles- it's not so far from what I expected Mazz0, mate I ran a bit of a 'pop quiz' thing here in person as well and I got about the same response: A, B, C, or D. Now it's a matter of how many people like what and gleaning the reasons why. It's a question I had because when I was putting it together I had no idea either. I just wanted something to keep it from looking like a porpoise.

Models can be converted/painted as it makes ownership clear, but the base can't be altered in any way, shape, or form if I recall from the tournament rules PDF.

Post Scriptum: You might very well be right Mazz0, the new V.11 rules state under legal products that components may only be modified according to page 4's rules (which delightfully leave out ship conversion, but mention proxies. Does one mean the other to them, even if it includes the original parts? And does that also include everyone who's flipped the fin of their frigates? I'm going to send off a query to FFG about that one, not so much for me [i'd like to work with the frigate at a tournament, but the 2 Neb 2 corvette list has served me well thus far and I won't use a frigate that looks like a leprous leapfrog], but for posterity.)

I think in X-Wing it says repaints are fine, but changing the shape isn't allowed, I just assumed it was the same in Armada. That bit in the rules is a bit ambiguous though - it says you may paint them, then it says you may not modify the base. So is this a white-list of things you can do, or a blacklist of things you can't do? I wouldn't worry about it - so long as it's obvious what kind of ship it is who'd complain?

Aye, that's the question. I'm very much in the 'no conversions allowed' presumption camp as I think it's a white-list, but I'd like to be sure about it for other players. Semi-draconian modification rules is nothing new to me. I'd have never purchased the Assault Frigate before, given my strong opinions on the original design. I wanted to get to know and use every single ship, so if I'm going to put one in my campaign for myself (rather than one of my opponents) then I'm going to have to stare at it for a long time. I just made it into something I like. If I can't use it at a tournament, I'm okay with that

I'm far more worried that it will extend to people who enjoy the tournament experience and who have done something really minor (like flipped around the tail, added a few engine nozzles, or removed the pendulous bit from the bottom. I think we can admit that Armada isn't a big 'conversion/hobby' game, but of the examples that exist, the Mk.II has the most cosmetic work done. And in no insignificant number, either). What I fear is that a TO would feel obliged to follow the rules to the letter and disqualify a participant because a vindictive player made a complaint to avoid a loss, or in retaliation for being handed a thorough tactical drubbing by a skilled opponent.

On the more measurable side: a shapeway piece would be a proxy as it takes the place of the original thing, but does an altered original model count as a proxy by definition? If it does, then is that because pieces were added/subtracted, or because the silhouette was changed? (which is a thing in some legal settings, and I'm merely assuming that's why the addendum was added under 'Legal Products' and not 'Component Modifications'. Going out on a limb, but that does feel like a different department memo).

It also feels rather odd that it mentions under 'Legal Product' that “Components can be modified only as described under 'Component Modifications' on page 4”, and that reads that the personalization of fleets is permitted and encouraged: painting is good, base changing is bad, and ship modification is -fades to crickets chirping- conspicuously absent. Of course, pursuant of P.4, “the head judge is the final authority on any component's eligibility in the tournament.”

For now, I guess it's best to just ask before time. What's the worst they can say? “Nope, can't use that here”? In my case, I don't have to go; it's gas money and an entry fee saved that I can put towards more ships. It's almost as if I won the tournament already Win-win (seriously, gas prices+rural gamer=measurable cost. Traveling to the nearest likely spot for the Massing at Sullust event will cost me more than buying an ISD first place prize outright. It's not the same for everybody, naturally, so you have to like the spirit of the competition. To avid that disappointment, all you need to do is check before hand,)*

Aye, DiabloAzul, I didn't think there was a problem with the length either. However, I remembered the whole Interdictor thing (figured you'd have a real good take on it so I'm glad you stopped by), and I wondered if there was some unspoken rough limit or estimate on when one broached that line, and if a conversion made a difference given that it's like having 2 separate frames of reference.

Anyway, the general rule of thumb I would use is:

<25m: Multi-ship squadron

25-50m: Single-ship squadron

50-100m: Here be dragons*

100-500m: Small ship

500-1000m: Medium ship

1000+: Large ship

...with borderline cases being shifted up or down depending on bulk and looks.

In the case of your modified AF2, I figure that although it extends far beyond a Medium base in terms of length, bulkwise it still belongs in its previous category.

*: This is where the current discussion is for the GR-75 and Gozanti, where the three options under consideration are a new Tiny Ship class, a new Large Squadron class, or a regular Small Ship unit representing a few ships.

I like C personally, but all look great!

Man if some folks are bothered by this level of conversion, they're going to flip out over mine...

I like C personally, but all look great!

Man if some folks are bothered by this level of conversion, they're going to flip out over mine...

Indeed. That Assault Frigate looks like it's scared and/or needs to go to the toilet.

As to the original multiple-choice option, I favor C & D.

Also, are those really bridges or are they conning towers?