On 12/7/2017 at 11:52 PM, Npmartian said:

Because they wanted maneuverability, and a large base does not convey that. Also, PTL/AS with boost-barrel roll on a large base would be ridiculous.

The firing arc would also be larger on a large base, no?

1 hour ago, Mep said:

My comment was thought out well

You are then claiming that FFG intentionally oversized the model, even though they generally try to avoid that?

That FFG intentionally used a package size where they are using way more storage and shipping space? Hence where they can‘t produce, ship and store as much as they could with a smaller blister? On a ship that they are certain, so you claimed, will sell very well due to the movie?

The profit of the 30$ pack needs to be more than twice that of the 20$ pack.

Let‘s say they can ship 1000 sizes at once. That‘s 1000*($20-production), or 500*($30-production). Because most else, marketing, shipping fee for a given volume etc is the same. But transport and storage cost are different between them.

So you really have to explain better to me how they win, not lose, money by making a larger pack. Where they also added in more cards, so production cost is even higher!

The only reasoning I barely see is if they were to expect lower sales, eg because hardly anyone will get more than one. But that directly contradicts the point you made, so you can‘t possibly use that as reasoning.

On 12/7/2017 at 10:50 PM, Vontoothskie said:

... how are we supposed to physically place ships near each-other on the board? consider a Silencer and Decimator vs a VCX100, Havoc, and ARC170... you cant even play with the models on their bases at close range.....

I just keep tons of extra pegs to adjust hights as needed.

TIE swarms are super-fun with varied hights on their stands.

It works.

2 hours ago, Bucknife said:

I just keep tons of extra pegs to adjust hights as needed.

TIE swarms are super-fun with varied hights on their stands.

It works.

i play swarms almost exclusively, and it doesnt work. ties or scyk swarms work, but the moment multiple wrong-based ships get close it fails. try flying a talon roll around a skurgg and landing in a legal spot under its wings 1/4 inch away... you physically cant. my group just started modding the ships to be large if they dont fit. makes way more sense fluff wise too, as the skurgg is yt-2400 sized

On 12/8/2017 at 8:41 PM, thespaceinvader said:

You say that like it's a bad thing. It's not a bug it's a feature.

Making them fit better on the bases is another.

Bigger base? Bigger firing arc, bigger movement area we've all seen the differences between large and small base.

In my opinion, the people who keep shouting 'medium bases!' aren't really thinking through that concept.

How would a medium base work? Would it be two bases wide but one base in length? If so then it changes nothing but bumping area and how far it can travel with a barrel roll (speaking of which if a medium ship could barrel roll which orientation would you put the template?) It also introduces the difficulty of a 90 degree arc on a very wide base which looks strange. They'd be a blind spot, say you were to end up on the right side of the ship nearly touching the front edge of the ships corner. You could shoot at it and 'see' the medium base ship but it quite possibly wouldn't have arc on you....even though you are in front of it...

If it was 2 long and 1 wide then it is now faster than most small ships since it jumps but has a slim profile. However a majority of the ships would still overhang not really solving the problem people seem to have with the K-Wing, Scurrg and ARC.

Okay...what if it was just square but halfway between small and large base. Brilliant!....but how do you keep it flying in relative formation to other ships? Now instead of keeping ships in the formation being simple, the medium base ship will always be slightly ahead or slightly behind formation every other move. It messes with the movement formula.

Honestly, a 'medium' base would cause much more headaches than it would solve.

6 hours ago, GreenDragoon said:

You are then claiming that FFG intentionally oversized the model, even though they generally try to avoid that?

That FFG intentionally used a package size where they are using way more storage and shipping space? Hence where they can‘t produce, ship and store as much as they could with a smaller blister? On a ship that they are certain, so you claimed, will sell very well due to the movie?

The profit of the 30$ pack needs to be more than twice that of the 20$ pack.

Let‘s say they can ship 1000 sizes at once. That‘s 1000*($20-production), or 500*($30-production). Because most else, marketing, shipping fee for a given volume etc is the same. But transport and storage cost are different between them.

So you really have to explain better to me how they win, not lose, money by making a larger pack. Where they also added in more cards, so production cost is even higher!

The only reasoning I barely see is if they were to expect lower sales, eg because hardly anyone will get more than one. But that directly contradicts the point you made, so you can‘t possibly use that as reasoning.

I don't think shipping is as bad as you think nor is production cost of a few more 3 cent cards and another at most dollar for the larger packaging going to break them. Bigger boxes are simply seen better and it looks better on the shelf. It is a movie tie in product. Have you seen many of them? Packing isn't kept to a minimum on those. They tend to be rather loud in fact. I don't think you understand how little these things are to actually make.

Anyone here actually think that ship is properly sized? Anyone look at that ship on the table and don't notice something is off? I am sure they did. Clearly they did nothing to fix it.

The ship looks amazing on the table

And because of the small base allowing precise movement around obstacles and other ships, it flies like a dream

That's really all that matters, especially compared to just wanting the base size to match because reasons. It just would NOT be the same ship on a larger base

Price tag is something else, but I'd sooner call it out on the U or Aggressor than this. A bigger plastic base doesn't justify a doubling in price

My guess is when we see the movie, the size will make plenty of sense. I’m sure we will see it against a T-70 and we will know for sure.

also it is large in Battlefront 2 as well so I think this is just what Lucas film made. From what I understand, a lot of these models are based on the movie models which aren’t necessarily the same as “canon” sizes. It’s how it’s represented in certain styles blah blah blah

just be glad our Tie Fighters don’t look like they were stepped on like in Rebels lol

7 hours ago, Ebak said:

Bigger base? Bigger firing arc, bigger movement area we've all seen the differences between large and small base.

In my opinion, the people who keep shouting 'medium bases!' aren't really thinking through that concept.

How would a medium base work? Would it be two bases wide but one base in length? If so then it changes nothing but bumping area and how far it can travel with a barrel roll (speaking of which if a medium ship could barrel roll which orientation would you put the template?) It also introduces the difficulty of a 90 degree arc on a very wide base which looks strange. They'd be a blind spot, say you were to end up on the right side of the ship nearly touching the front edge of the ships corner. You could shoot at it and 'see' the medium base ship but it quite possibly wouldn't have arc on you....even though you are in front of it...

If it was 2 long and 1 wide then it is now faster than most small ships since it jumps but has a slim profile. However a majority of the ships would still overhang not really solving the problem people seem to have with the K-Wing, Scurrg and ARC.

Okay...what if it was just square but halfway between small and large base. Brilliant!....but how do you keep it flying in relative formation to other ships? Now instead of keeping ships in the formation being simple, the medium base ship will always be slightly ahead or slightly behind formation every other move. It messes with the movement formula.

Honestly, a 'medium' base would cause much more headaches than it would solve.

Either. Some ships would be short and wide and some long and thin. The change in movement structure is a feature.

The most awkward bits would be barrel roll rules and 1 turn bumps.

Messing with the things you mention is part of the point.

On 12/8/2017 at 3:02 AM, kayarn said:

Gameplay, If the ship was on a large base it would be pretty crap.

i disagree. barrel rolling aces are better on large base

3 hours ago, Vontoothskie said:

i disagree. barrel rolling aces are better on large base

Pieces of evidence being Dash, who has an ability that makes rolling trivially easy, and Dengar, who has one of the most broken pilot abilities in the game. Both of whom are turrets.

AKA the only two native large base barrel rolls in the game.

Both of whom are excellent, even after one of them has been heavily nerfed.

32 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

AKA the only two native large base barrel rolls in the game.

Both of whom are excellent, even after one of them has been heavily nerfed.

missing the point there

these ships aren't good just because they have a barrel roll, but because they have turrets, busted maneuverability (Dash's ability to ignore obstacles, jm5k's best dial in the game) and because the jm5k is just so wildly under-costed for its capabilities that they had to remove half of its upgrade bar

Silencer has none of these advantages apart from good maneuverability, but without a turret it doesn't count for nearly as much.

On 09/12/2017 at 9:34 AM, GreenDragoon said:

The TIE Silencer is 17.4 meters long. 1/270 is 6.4cm. That's 2.4cm more than the small base. I don't know how long the Silencer model is, but I heard around 8cm? Which is clearly too long. To compare: a Silencere:Striker is 6.2cm long, a K-Wing is 8.9cm wide.

This raises the question why they went out of scale in the unusual direction. Why make the model so large? There are at least two options:

1. They wanted to grab as much money as possible and increased the size until it doesn't fit a medium blister anymore.
2. They had no knowledge of the actual size when they designed everything and went with what LFL/Disney told them.

The First Order TIE model is a lot bigger than its "canon" size would dictate, too.

It's only 1mm or so shorter than the regular TIE model, which was built to 1/270 scale, when its official length was 8.99m:

http://www.starwars.com/databank/tie-fighter

But its canon length is only 6.69m.

http://www.starwars.com/databank/first-order-tie-fighter

If the TIE Silencer was built to be exactly to scale with the First Order TIE Fighter model, then that might explain it being oversized compared to regular models.

After measuring one of each - the First Order TIE is 31mm long, the TIE Silencer is 79mm long. That puts them in the 1/215 scale and 1/220 scale respectively. Makes sense that, plus or minus a mm or so, the two are close to the same scale.

15 minutes ago, Ironlord said:

After measuring one of each - the First Order TIE is 31mm long, the TIE Silencer is 79mm long. That puts them in the 1/215 scale and 1/220 scale respectively. Makes sense that, plus or minus a mm or so, the two are close to the same scale.

Interesting, I didn't realize the Tie/FO's were supposed to be smaller - good catch! I got similar measurements on the Tie Silencer although you can make some arguments about whether the laser tips should be included (if being generous). The stranger thing is that it's even further off in the width dimension (~1/200), which means not only is it too large overall, but it's actually the wrong aspect ratio too?

I wonder how this all got screwed up... perhaps last minute changes from LFL or similar?

Why is everyone saying GUNBOAT is undersized? It’s perfectly scaled in comparison to x- and Y-wings. Just how big do y’all think GUNBOAT should be?

37 minutes ago, GrimmyV said:

Why is everyone saying GUNBOAT is undersized? It’s perfectly scaled in comparison to x- and Y-wings. Just how big do y’all think GUNBOAT should be?

I think a lot of people look at it and think it should be a Lambda, even though it really is a one pilot starfighter.

On 12/9/2017 at 10:24 PM, Mep said:

I don't think shipping is as bad as you think nor is production cost of a few more 3 cent cards and another at most dollar for the larger packaging going to break them. Bigger boxes are simply seen better and it looks better on the shelf. It is a movie tie in product. Have you seen many of them? Packing isn't kept to a minimum on those. They tend to be rather loud in fact. I don't think you understand how little these things are to actually make.

Anyone here actually think that ship is properly sized? Anyone look at that ship on the table and don't notice something is off? I am sure they did. Clearly they did nothing to fix it.

Double or more like triple the volume for the box doubles or triples your shipping costs, and your warehousing costs.

Basically flushing money down the drain for something that you say will sell really well. Lets add to the fact that basically every ship sells out anyways how on earth does bigger shelf presence help? Add to the fact that allot of small retailers would prefer smaller packs due to limited shelf space and therefore may only have 1 or 2 out on the shelves instead of a bunch on a pin rack thus lowering its actual viability in the store.

IF FFG wanted to extract the most money humanly possible out of us they would have designed the silencer small and at a point cost you wanted to spam 5 of them. The money in this type of thing is almost always made in volume, for every additional unit sold your cost per unit drops. Even if they make more profit per sale on the large boxes i would wager they make more money total on small ships due to volume.

The ship may be out of scale, but i am 99% sure that FFG would have preferred it in a small blister and had their hands tied by Dinsey and it may not even be Disneys fault, when Disney had to give FFG the dimensions for the ship a long time ago and the ship size may have changed since then.

3 hours ago, Admiral Deathrain said:

I think a lot of people look at it and think it should be a Lambda, even though it really is a one pilot starfighter.

Well these fools should know GUNBOAT in all HER glory! After all SHE will be the last sight they have before destroying their Rebel Scum fleets. GUNBOAT is no lumbering space cow, SHE is a powerful and capable fighter the demands the full attention of a single pilot with no one else to distract him.

We seem to have the same thing going with the Upsilon shuttle, if you look at the Silencer: Imagine it without it's "wings".

It becomes a much smaller craft. Nicely fitting with other small based ships.

First Order design: Big Wings!

Sure it looks nice on the photos. Specially on the first one.

Also, the GUNBOAT model looks amazing. Even though i think it needs a bit of colour...

Gunboats where 10m long, X-Wings are about 12.5.... put them next to each other... looks fine to me

Put it next to a kimogila, and suddenly it doesn't look so big.

The kimogila is also humungous compared to other typical small sized ships.

On 10.12.2017 at 5:57 AM, ficklegreendice said:

The ship looks amazing on the table

And because of the small base allowing precise movement around obstacles and other ships, it flies like a dream

That's really all that matters, especially compared to just wanting the base size to match because reasons. It just would NOT be the same ship on a larger base

Price tag is something else, but I'd sooner call it out on the U or Aggressor than this. A bigger plastic base doesn't justify a doubling in price

D*mn. Just- d*mn, that ship is sexy. I don't recall seeing a ship that looked that- Empire, for lack of a better description- in a long time.

It looks to me like an interceptor that's been squashed a bit. The wings are probably the best bit - the hull, I find a little underwhelming.