So after the Quasar Fire was revealed we could talk a bit about its conterpart: The Ton-Falk class.

For the Quasar fire we have:

6 Hull
S/C/E: 4/2/2
Anti-Sq: 1B for I 1R for II
Batteries: 3B / 2B / 1 B for I 2R1B / 1R1B / 1B for II
Defense: 2/2/1 and Redirect/Brace
Upgrade: Officer, Weapon Teams (2x for II), Offensive (2x for I)
Speed: II/I-I/0-I-I

for a ship with:

Technical specifications

Two words for the Ton Falk: Freakin' Ugly!

28 minutes ago, Green Knight said:

Two words for the Ton Falk: Freakin' Ugly!

I'm a sucker for anything from the old PC flight sims. I'd buy a flying toaster!

I bought a Ton-Falk from Mel. It's spent its life so far as a VSD, and is about to get repurposed.

1 hour ago, DScipio said:

For the Quasar fire we have:

6 Hull
S/C/E: 4/2/4

The Quasar only has Engineering 2.

And I agree, the Ton Falk is freaking ugly, yet oddly. . . not? It doesn't look like it belongs to the star wars galaxy, and indeed almost looks like the head of a short-eared rabbit (see the diagram drawing). . . and if we wanted a heavier carrier, we'd just use the Vic. Unless you plan to place the Falk in a point range between 61 and 73?

I see you used the stats for the Legends Quasar which was a 'converted bulk cruiser'. We know that the Imperial Light Carrier is based on the Rebels Show version.

Here are some example cards:

Mine /stuh42asl / cynanbloodbane

It's quite sad, that many of the old WEG and video games are quite uglylike Carrack, Tartan (okay that's okay-ish), Ton Falk and TIE defender.

24 minutes ago, LennoxPoodle said:

It's quite sad, that many of the old WEG and video games are quite uglylike Carrack, Tartan (okay that's okay-ish), Ton Falk and TIE defender.

Funny I only dislike the Tartan Out of this (Altough I was never a fan of the Defender (Gunboat and Avenger were just so much nicer))

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I love the aesthetics. Enough with the ‘imperial ships need to look triangular’ design philosophy already ?

Doubt we ever see it in armada as we have the Quasar already and I doubt they’d introduce a second imperial carrier, but I’m 100% in favor of using mel’s Ton Falk model as the Quasar.

Just now, Lord Tareq said:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I love the aesthetics.

Really? My problem with many of the older ships is that they often look like flying bricks or other... "toys".

27 minutes ago, LennoxPoodle said:

It's quite sad, that many of the old WEG and video games are quite uglylike Carrack, Tartan (okay that's okay-ish), Ton Falk and TIE defender.

Blasphemy! The TIE Defender is glorious in all ways.

11 minutes ago, LennoxPoodle said:

Really? My problem with many of the older ships is that they often look like flying bricks or other... "toys".

I quite like the "realistic" look more than any "everything imperial has to be a wedge, no matter who build and designed it, if its small put TIE-Wings on it"

1 hour ago, DScipio said:

Here are some example cards:

Mine /stuh42asl / cynanbloodbane

These are horribly over priced. I'll stick to my flotillas and put EHB on one and BCC on the other. And flotillas are more survivable and cheaper. And more activations. GH can provide FC and actually attack.

Or for Imp, the Quasar is already better in every way except defense tokens.

Just now, Undeadguy said:

These are horribly over priced. I'll stick to my flotillas and put EHB on one and BCC on the other. And flotillas are more survivable and cheaper. And more activations. GH can provide FC and actually attack.

Or for Imp, the Quasar is already better in every way except defense tokens.

What would you recommend?

Just now, DScipio said:

What would you recommend?

More dice to utilize the Ordnance and dropping the price. The problem is this ship directly competes with the Quasar and ISD I. It's hard to find a niche for it and that is likely via titles.

1 minute ago, Undeadguy said:

More dice to utilize the Ordnance and dropping the price. The problem is this ship directly competes with the Quasar and ISD I. It's hard to find a niche for it and that is likely via titles.

How many points would you recommend?

I remain curious if we will ever see any of the Imperial Bricks, ( Dreadnought, Carrack, Ton-Falk, Galleon, Lancer, etc.) I wish they would. They have a Brutish, boxy, utilitarian vibe that is very fitting for the Empire.

I seem to be the only one to not like the bricks. It is true that they can look utlilitarian but the problem is that they don't look intimidating. The empire is foremost a very ideological state which puts uniformity and scare tactics at the forefront. So a uniform space wedge design fits the empires ideological concept. Also the empire isn't so much into economical freedom/free market so it makes sense to only buy ships from two (state controled/owned) companies: Kuat and Sienar.

4 hours ago, DScipio said:

How many points would you recommend?

The more I think about it, the more I realize we don't need this ship. FFG killed all hopes of it with the Quasar since their roles are the same in Armada. You're better off proxying the model with the Quasar stats. You're already half way there with the stats you gave the Ton-Falk.

12 hours ago, Undeadguy said:

The more I think about it, the more I realize we don't need this ship. FFG killed all hopes of it with the Quasar since their roles are the same in Armada. You're better off proxying the model with the Quasar stats. You're already half way there with the stats you gave the Ton-Falk.

I will do in most games.
But I think the Ton Falk still has its role. Its a tankier carrier slightly better at controlling fighters, which also need less relay because it can (and perhaps should) go nearer to the action than the Quasar. While its worse at long range fire it can handle fast attack vessel better at close range.