So I'm seeing people are still claiming the "Twenty Two meter Long" Havoc is underscaled in X-Wing Miniatures, and how "FFG doesn't care about scale consistency anymore."

Stop. Just stop. Okay? Let's play with the idea that the Havoc is 22m long. That means the ship would have to be at least sixty-perhaps 70-80m wide. Now how do you expect that to fit in the Theed hangar widthways? Let's not stop there, let's talk about how you can practically see Nym right there in the cockpit that is only large enough for one man. Let's not stop there. We constantly see this bugger flying next to other ship's who's cockpits (THUS THEIR SCALE AND DISTANCE) can be determined, so we can't say "Well it's in space, it could be a hundred Light Years away."

Stop it.

Wookieepedia has constantly shown itself to be the #1 most unreliable source of canon Star Wars information. I've been here since the HWK-290 came out and I'm still occasionally having to tell people what's up with that. Spoiler: FFG got that one right.

So can we stop crying havoc over the Havoc?

Can it be large base?

can the U-Wing be small base?

thats all for me lol

5 minutes ago, Mackaywarrior said:

Can the U-Wing be small base?

thats all for me lol

Put your U-wing over a small base. Then put another small base in front/behind it. Those wings will still be sticking over that base. Blame Disney for giving the ship a huge wingspan, not FGG for that one.

Aggressor vs. Scurrg, though... I don't know why one is large base and 5he other is small.

As for the size discrepancy... I think somebody writing a technical manual confused width with length.

6 minutes ago, Squark said:

Put your U-wing over a small base. Then put another small base in front/behind it. Those wings will still be sticking over that base. Blame Disney for giving the ship a huge wingspan, not FGG for that one.

Aggressor vs. Scurrg, though... I don't know why one is large base and 5he other is small.

As for the size discrepancy... I think somebody writing a technical manual confused width with length.

I’d agree with the wing span argument if it weren’t for the K-wing or Kylo’s shuttle existed. There are some large ships on those small bases lol

the Bat wing is practically huge

40 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Stop it.

Wookieepedia has constantly shown itself to be the #1 most unreliable source of canon Star Wars information. I've been here since the HWK-290 came out and I'm still occasionally having to tell people what's up with that. Spoiler: FFG got that one right.

So can we stop crying havoc over the Havoc?

It wouldn't be the first time a ship's advertised length ended up being clarified as width. Look at the Supremacy Mega Star Destroyer.

35 minutes ago, Mackaywarrior said:

Can it be large base?

can the U-Wing be small base?

thats all for me lol

It shouldn't be large base. It's not exactly not-agile, honestly. The U-Wing is debatable in its need for a large base- it can move but it's slow enough in its movement that honestly, I can excuse a large base.

33 minutes ago, Squark said:

Put your U-wing over a small base. Then put another small base in front/behind it. Those wings will still be sticking over that base. Blame Disney for giving the ship a huge wingspan, not FGG for that one.

Aggressor vs. Scurrg, though... I don't know why one is large base and 5he other is small.

As for the size discrepancy... I think somebody writing a technical manual confused width with length.

They're always confused. Somebody said a two-man-vessel like the HWK-290 was not only a freighter of some sort but also capable of holding tons of tons. I have no idea how these things keep happening.

1 minute ago, Ironlord said:

It wouldn't be the first time a ship's advertised length ended up being clarified as width. Look at the Supremacy Mega Star Destroyer.

Which is an egregious mistake that, someday, must stop.

Take a look at the Shadow Caster and you will realize Scale is not that important in X-wing, especially for Scum. That faction has the widest variation in scale.

Just now, Marinealver said:

Take a look at the Shadow Caster and you will realize Scale is not that important in X-wing, especially for Scum. That faction has the widest variation in scale.

The Shadow Caster isn't improperly scaled either. But I don't think you watch Rebels.

34 minutes ago, Mackaywarrior said:

I’d agree with the wing span argument if it weren’t for the K-wing or Kylo’s shuttle existed. There are some large ships on those small bases lol

the Bat wing is practically huge

The U-wing isn't much larger than the K-wing, but the problem is how they sit on their bases. The K-wing (As well as the ARC-170) is mounted dead center, while the U-wing is essentially mounted at one end of the ship (and which end of the ship changes depending on how you set the wings). As a result, the K-wing and ARC extend about a half base-length over their bases' sides, but the U-wing's s-foils would stick out over an entire base length beyond the front of a small base, or a small base length beyond and to the side if you lock the s-foils in attack position.

You might be able to make a small base U-wing if the wings were locked in position, but you'd need a special stand sort of like the ghost's so that the ship didn't extend too far beyond the base in any one direction, and it'd still be obnoxious to use.

Just now, Captain Lackwit said:

The Shadow Caster isn't improperly scaled either. But I don't think you watch Rebels.

The thing about TV series is that Scale can also be adjusted to better fit the screen (as with many Star Trek ships if you ever watched Trekyards on YouTube). The Shadow Caster has no official scale but there are some things you can get for sizes.

http://www.rebelscale.com/scale-lists/fantasy-flight/

But Scum is still notorious for breaking scale in X-wing models. Canonically the Hound's Tooth is suppose to be larger than the Shadow Caster, but the Shadow Caster X-wing model is bigger than the Hound's Tooth model. So it doesn't matter if the Shadow caster is in par with X-wing scale or not, scale in X-wing has already been broken by so many other non-huge ships. It almost makes me wish they made the model just a bit smaller but keep the large base and everything. The demand for new ships has outweighed the demand to keep the 1/270 scale.

10 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

The thing about TV series is that Scale can also be adjusted to better fit the screen (as with many Star Trek ships if you ever watched Trekyards on YouTube). The Shadow Caster has no official scale but there are some things you can get for sizes.

http://www.rebelscale.com/scale-lists/fantasy-flight/

But Scum is still notorious for breaking scale in X-wing models. Canonically the Hound's Tooth is suppose to be larger than the Shadow Caster, but the Shadow Caster X-wing model is bigger than the Hound's Tooth model. So it doesn't matter if the Shadow caster is in par with X-wing scale or not, scale in X-wing has already been broken by so many other non-huge ships. It almost makes me wish they made the model just a bit smaller but keep the large base and everything. The demand for new ships has outweighed the demand to keep the 1/270 scale.

Actually, the YV-666 was scaled down in the Clone Wars tv series, and the X-wing devs used the new size since it's more practical for a model anyway.

That list has a tendency to not mention the canon sizes some of the time (A-Wing - it fails to mention that the official size at the time was 9.6m, and that the model was built then), and use late sizes (rather than the size that was being used at the time ) some of the time as well. TIE Fighter was not built when the 7.24 figure (Rogue One) was being used, but when the 8.99m (Databank) was being used - its size moves to "correct" when you use the appropriate source.

Hounds Tooth was shrunk for TCW, compared to its Legends size, so model was made to match TCW.

Similarly, YT2400 is not 21m long if you go by most recent source (Millennium Falcon Owner's Workshop Manual) - it is 18.65m long. That figure, when fed in, makes it much less "out of scale".

Do we have any reason to think FFG stopped going off the numbers Lucas is giving FFG?

I mean. We can squint and put tape measures up against the TV (or worse: comic books, lol) all day, but ultimately LucasFilm has the numbers. Wookieepedia often disagrees with LucasFilm's numbers, but that's not FFG's concern.

AFAIK, all the ships (except a few Huge ships) are on the same scale. I have seen no good evidence for believing otherwise.

Frankly, a lot of this scale stuff strikes me as needless whining about something that's a non issue even if true. So why are we doing it?

@Captain Lackwit Wow. Let’s not play games we’re bad at. In Starfighter and Galaxies the ship is rendered at 22x33m, in the technical guides it’s listed as such. Your horrible extrapolation skills at length and width more than doubled the width. Look at the cockpit on a F16 and scale the Havoc to size... matches almost exactly. Small cockpit and a big ship.

Its the size of a YT2400 and in shared games is such

It’s 22m long.. that’s tip to tip... I can’t even figure out what you’re measuring.

2 minutes ago, Lobokai said:

Its the size of a YT2400 and in shared games is such

It’s 22m long.. that’s tip to tip...

YT-2400, according to Millennium Falcon Owner's Workshop Manual (the most recent source) is quite a bit smaller than old sources (which Wookieepedia was using and didn't bother to change) say. 18.65m long, not 21m.

3 minutes ago, Lobokai said:

@Captain Lackwit Wow. Let’s not play games we’re bad at. In Starfighter and Galaxies the ship is rendered at 22x33m, in the technical guides it’s listed as such. Your horrible extrapolation skills at length and width more than doubled the width. Look at the cockpit on a F16 and scale the Havoc to size... matches almost exactly. Small cockpit and a big ship.

Its the size of a YT2400 and in shared games is such

It’s 22m long.. that’s tip to tip... I can’t even figure out what you’re measuring.

There is no way that thing is the size of a YT-2400. There's also no way that thing is 33m wide. Also, maybe be a touch less insulting.

20 minutes ago, Marinealver said:

The thing about TV series is that Scale can also be adjusted to better fit the screen (as with many Star Trek ships if you ever watched Trekyards on YouTube). The Shadow Caster has no official scale but there are some things you can get for sizes.

http://www.rebelscale.com/scale-lists/fantasy-flight/

But Scum is still notorious for breaking scale in X-wing models. Canonically the Hound's Tooth is suppose to be larger than the Shadow Caster, but the Shadow Caster X-wing model is bigger than the Hound's Tooth model. So it doesn't matter if the Shadow caster is in par with X-wing scale or not, scale in X-wing has already been broken by so many other non-huge ships. It almost makes me wish they made the model just a bit smaller but keep the large base and everything. The demand for new ships has outweighed the demand to keep the 1/270 scale.

Yeah, I know TV shows do that. However, they often do that with actual models. In this case we have, in case you missed it, a visible pilot. Which gives us a very good sense of scale.

I love how everyone gets all worked up about scale when the original movies were often off...

Yup - some sources suggest the full-scale Falcon model for TESB was as little as 80ft long. And the TFA Falcon was 115 ft long or so. Just goes to show how stretchable one ship can be.

6 minutes ago, Herowannabe said:

I love how everyone gets all worked up about scale when the original movies were often off...

The weird part is, thus far the cockpit scales have been pretty rough for Star Wars, in the sets. Even the TIE Fighters don't have their rear windows in the right spots, entirely for pserspective.

23 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

In this case we have, in case you missed it, a visible pilot. Which gives us a very good sense of scale.

Yes if you measure it out. Tip to nose, using a human being for scale, Scurrg barely fits in this pic... so 20 ish m long

Not this **** again

Guys, it doesn't matter if it is or isn't in scale exact scale is a pretty pointless thing to give a **** about

Physical limitations of models is going to make it impossible to perfectly emulate the proportions of fictional star ships. You are only ever going to get relative scaling, and that's all you should need to suspend your disbelief

As for base, that's an entirely GAMEPLAY feature

Why is the aggressor large base? Because a.) Large bases move faster and b.) Large bases are more difficult to avoid bumping into **** with. It makes the aggressor a fast and very manueverable ship but one that you can **** up with more easily

Why is it he U large? Because ffg wanted it to be a blocker (hence casss crew, heff pilot and ability to "kturn" without moving)

Why is the K/SCURRG small? Because we already know that large bases being four times the size of a small base makes it easier to overlap ships, obstacles and anything else and we therefore already know that large base bombers SUCK

Yes that's including the resistance Bomber. If it wasn't packing trajectory simulator we could call it DOA at a goddamn glance

The reason it's not in proper scale (22x33 meters) is because someone at FFG realized that scum had WAY to many large bases, so they scaled it down and called it a day.

FFG is not beyond changing things for the sake of change, look at Armada. The Interdictor cruiser in rebels is ~1200 meters, same as the large base rebel liberty cruiser (1200 meters.) Yet it's been scaled down in the game (no clue why, it could have easily just been the Imperials second large base ship) to a medium base ship.

FFG gets things wrong all the time, look at their upgrade card based economy and Errata/FAQ system, wrong all the time.

1 minute ago, Gadgetron said:

FFG is not beyond changing things for the sake of change, look at Armada. The Interdictor cruiser in rebels is ~1200 meters, same as the large base rebel liberty cruiser (1200 meters.) Yet it's been scaled down in the game (no clue why, it could have easily just been the Imperials second large base ship) to a medium base ship.

Its base size is scaled down. The model, however, is bang on, when compared to the ISD. Since the two are supposed to have the same size belly hangars, and the two models do have exactly the same size belly hangars.

15 minutes ago, ficklegreendice said:

Not this **** again

Guys, it doesn't matter if it is or isn't in scale exact scale is a pretty pointless thing to give a **** about

Physical limitations of models is going to make it impossible to perfectly emulate the proportions of fictional star ships. You are only ever going to get relative scaling, and that's all you should need to suspend your disbelief

As for base, that's an entirely GAMEPLAY feature

Why is the aggressor large base? Because a.) Large bases move faster and b.) Large bases are more difficult to avoid bumping into **** with. It makes the aggressor a fast and very manueverable ship but one that you can **** up with more easily

Why is it he U large? Because ffg wanted it to be a blocker (hence casss crew, heff pilot and ability to "kturn" without moving)

Why is the K/SCURRG small? Because we already know that large bases being four times the size of a small base makes it easier to overlap ships, obstacles and anything else and we therefore already know that large base bombers SUCK

Yes that's including the resistance Bomber. If it wasn't packing trajectory simulator we could call it DOA at a goddamn glance

Well I was going to say pretty much all of this word for word, but now I don't have to. Thank you fickle!

3 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

Its base size is scaled down. The model, however, is bang on, when compared to the ISD. Since the two are supposed to have the same size belly hangars, and the two models do have exactly the same size belly hangars.

Right, but still, why did they downsize the base? What difference would it make in the long run? It was change for the sake of change. It's something they do from time to time, Armada is sliding scale, X-Wing was static scale. Who says FFG hasn't changed their position and moved to a much slighter, but still present, sliding scale for X-Wing.