Well, we don't know exactly where the buck stops in that scenario.

I think it was in the S&V interview (talking about the Gunboat finally being released) that the X-Wing team said doesn't always get to pick when and how they release ships which tie in to major releases like the films. Is that a direction from higher up the corporate ladder, or is that from the licenser saying "Hey, we're doing a big merch push you need to push your share too"? And the point about somebody ostensibly supposed to be having some of the creative/quality control over the product having to at least look at it and say yes still stands. Even if FFG rushed it, somebody still said it was okay.

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 7:06 PM, Wondergecko said:

By the way, while the scale is right, the details on the bomber miniature are dead wrong. Like, beyond the overall shape, there's almost nothing right about it.

Alright, I looked at a couple of screen caps from the movie and at pictures of the film accurate model. I can see what you're saying. There's definitely some discrepancies. Nothing huge though.

I for one accept that FFG is not going to have perfect knowledge of the new ships and that they will try very hard to get as much correct as possible. Even though there's some differences in the details of their model it looks gorgeous on the table and its obvious what its representing.

Most non-film ships have had some 'liberties' taken to make them look better (adding detail to ships that only appeared in video games). This isn't much different than that.

Other than the paint color being red instead of blue, and the overall paint pattern being different, is anything else about the ship that much different from the one in the movie?

On 12/19/2017 at 5:12 PM, BVRCH said:

Solid argument.

Better than yours, to be fair. It's aesthetics. Some people care, some don't. If you don't be quiet.

Film accurate model for comparison. They're pretty minor differences, but they are there.

37 minutes ago, TheVeteranSergeant said:

Better than yours, to be fair. It's aesthetics. Some people care, some don't. If you don't be quiet.

Nevermind

On 12/27/2017 at 11:49 PM, KommanderKeldoth said:

Film accurate model for comparison. They're pretty minor differences, but they are there.

Obviously this is hardly scientific, but it helps illustrate how major the overall proportional differences are, in addition to literally every single panel line & detail being incorrect .

Yeah, like I said, its pretty much on par with what they have done with video-game to X-wing ships. Basically embellishing and filling in all of the greebles, except in this case it wasn't because it was based on a video game, it was because they didn't have full working knowledge of the ship they were releasing.

In a perfect world it would be more accurate, but it isn't. I bought 2 and I love seeing them on the table side by side slingin' bombs!

Looking through the Art book, the concept art that didn't make the mark actully was way better, and they call the Bomber a T-Wing all over in the book.

On 12/23/2017 at 6:35 PM, Vontoothskie said:

did you watch the film? they show 3 xwings flying in the foreground, background, and directly behind from multiple angles. using them as known quantities for triangulation, it absolutely proves that the bombers are bigger.

Its ineresting that the people who swear FFG is always right about scale say that the A-wing is correct and Bomber is correct. one disproves the other. If the A-wing is 30 feet and the bomber is 90, then why is the A-wing 1/10 the length in the film?

They had two different versions of Interceptor type just in ROTJ. The models show this as well, the ones used in the movie.

On 12/28/2017 at 0:43 AM, markcsoul said:

Other than the paint color being red instead of blue, and the overall paint pattern being different, is anything else about the ship that much different from the one in the movie?

yes. doors are in different places, proportions of keel and tail are different. mid section is rectangular on the sides for docking, cockpit has plating in different places.

honstly all that is less of an issue than the scale to me. im a sculptor and ive got an eye for scale, makes it hard not to notice when two ships have uniform airlocks but one is 4 times the size

On 12/29/2017 at 11:08 PM, KommanderKeldoth said:

Yeah, like I said, its pretty much on par with what they have done with video-game to X-wing ships. Basically embellishing and filling in all of the greebles, except in this case it wasn't because it was based on a video game, it was because they didn't have full working knowledge of the ship they were releasing.

In a perfect world it would be more accurate, but it isn't. I bought 2 and I love seeing them on the table side by side slingin' bombs!

and thats what matters! if you love em then great, glad they make you happy. i cant abide scale issues, so sadly wont be getting one. alas

Geez FFG has really spoiled you guys.

4 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Geez FFG has really spoiled you guys.

*Geez I wonder why we expect these miniatures to be accurate to to the source material when FFG had a short manifesto in their rulebook about accuracy and scale.

Fixed that for you. It's not a matter of spoiling, it's a matter of them misrepresenting their product. I buy these first and foremost as scale models, as I seldom play. I get a bit peeved when I find out that yet again that their claims of detailed and accurate models are tossed to the wayside at earliest convenience. A reminder:

"We also wanted to ensure that the miniatures representing those beloved ships were as detailed, attractive, and faithful to the source material as possible. [...] The next step was to get those details right. Accuracy was paramount to us, regarding both the fine details of the miniatures and the spirit of the gameplay. Naturally, we went straight to the source for both."

Trust me, I want them to get it right. CAD-ing this thing was not something I wanted to do.

16 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Geez FFG has really spoiled you guys.

Modeling and painting is another aspect of the miniature war-game hobby in general. Detail, scale, accuracy to source material and such are an important part of this side of the hobby to many, in addition to ideas such as game balance and rules.

If you are not a modeler, that is perfectly fine. But don't throw shade on those that are, please and thanks.

11 hours ago, Wondergecko said:

*Geez I wonder why we expect these miniatures to be accurate to to the source material when FFG had a short manifesto in their rulebook about accuracy and scale.

Fixed that for you. It's not a matter of spoiling, it's a matter of them misrepresenting their product. I buy these first and foremost as scale models, as I seldom play. I get a bit peeved when I find out that yet again that their claims of detailed and accurate models are tossed to the wayside at earliest convenience. A reminder:

"We also wanted to ensure that the miniatures representing those beloved ships were as detailed, attractive, and faithful to the source material as possible. [...] The next step was to get those details right. Accuracy was paramount to us, regarding both the fine details of the miniatures and the spirit of the gameplay. Naturally, we went straight to the source for both."

Trust me, I want them to get it right. CAD-ing this thing was not something I wanted to do.

Well, the model may have been accurate to what FFG was given, which would be almost a year ago. Things may have changed after they had started production.

3 hours ago, kris40k said:

Modeling and painting is another aspect of the miniature war-game hobby in general. Detail, scale, accuracy to source material and such are an important part of this side of the hobby to many, in addition to ideas such as game balance and rules.

If you are not a modeler, that is perfectly fine. But don't throw shade on those that are, please and thanks.

I'm not throwing shade. I'm saying that I'm seeing a hissy fit thrown over a non issue. And using a poor example at that!

Which model do you trust to be more accurate, honestly? The bad mockup model or the legit film model?

19 minutes ago, Captain Lackwit said:

I'm not throwing shade. I'm saying that I'm seeing a hissy fit thrown over a non issue.

You don't think that is insulting?

Just now, kris40k said:

You don't think that is insulting?

Maybe it is, but is it not without basis? If you're really the modeler you say, then you should use the 1:1 source material, not these convention mockups that are known to be not only kinda garbo, but inaccurate. Must I remind you of the awful TIE Striker model?

You can see where they just joned two pods for the purpose of the model. But I'm going to guess that its weirdly smooth surface and lack of proper detail or visual cues makes it way less accurate than, oh, the Bandai model kit that was made using the film's models?



Do you see where I'm going with this?

If you're going to complain about a detail and make a fuss, you need to have your facts straight. I've been dealing with discrepancy based concerns since I was 12, dude. I can tell you right now, that the FFG Resistance Bomber is twice as accurate as that expo mockup.

FFG made no mistake that LFL itself didn't already make.

4 hours ago, sf1raptor said:

Well, the model may have been accurate to what FFG was given, which would be almost a year ago. Things may have changed after they had started production.

this is highly probable. given how fast the film was done, a year ago the bomber might have been nothing but concept art!

1 minute ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Maybe it is, but is it not without basis? If you're really the modeler you say, then you should use the 1:1 source material, not these convention mockups that are known to be not only kinda garbo, but inaccurate. Must I remind you of the awful TIE Striker model?

<snip>

You can see where they just joned two pods for the purpose of the model. But I'm going to guess that its weirdly smooth surface and lack of proper detail or visual cues makes it way less accurate than, oh, the Bandai model kit that was made using the film's models?

<snip>

Do you see where I'm going with this?

If you're going to complain about a detail and make a fuss, you need to have your facts straight. I've been dealing with discrepancy based concerns since I was 12, dude. I can tell you right now, that the FFG Resistance Bomber is twice as accurate as that expo mockup.

FFG made no mistake that LFL itself didn't already make.

This is a reasoned argument, and a useful contribution. Sweet.

20 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Geez FFG has really spoiled you guys.

This is not.

Fair. But the latter (which is the former) was out of genuine exasperation. I figure, if one is to make such a barbed complaint about things, then clearly they must know of what they speak, right? Except so often that does not seem to be the case and that always really bugs me.

21 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

Maybe it is, but is it not without basis? If you're really the modeler you say, then you should use the 1:1 source material, not these convention mockups that are known to be not only kinda garbo, but inaccurate. Must I remind you of the awful TIE Striker model?
[...]
If you're going to complain about a detail and make a fuss, you need to have your facts straight. [...] I can tell you right now, that the FFG Resistance Bomber is twice as accurate as that expo mockup.

FFG made no mistake that LFL itself didn't already make.

Okay, so this is where you're getting hyperbolic. The expo bomber model is not a mock-up. It's an intentional display model based on the film resources done by an extraordinarily talented modeler named Alex Hutchings. Since you're going to be pretentious about getting facts straight, it's time for a little info dump on something you seem to know nothing about: the art direction process. Concepts obviously start with script needs, and then progress to their concept artists. James Clyne (my personal fave, and the one responsible for this design) and his coworkers then work up a bunch of concept sketches. When a direction gets approved, a first pass concept model is mocked up (by either Neil Ellis or Alex Hutchings), which then returns to be fleshed out in detailed 2D studies (if again, approved) and then proceeds to a final model. This last, in this case, was done by Alex Hutchings. When he's done, this physical plastic and chemiwood model is handed to the 3D modelers to make a digital version.

And it can be categorically stated that the expo model is more accurate than FFG's because A) every comparison of proportion and detail just shows this, whether it's from Incredible Cross Sections, the Visual Dictionary, the Bomber Command book, the perfect side view from the trailer released 8 months ago, the image you yourself posted (and a fairly cursory glance by a trained eye would tell you this); B) it's literally the source material for what the bomber looks like; C) FFG did in fact make many mistakes - they do it very frequently - and LFL literally cannot make any barring internal non-rationalized discrepancies, because they define what this craft looks like.

I think most people, yourself included, don't realize how hard it is to translate 2D imagery to an accurate, proportional, scaled 3D model. It's hard, and I don't want to understate that it requires a ton of effort. I know, because art direction and 3D modeling is my profession, and I've been doing it for fifteen years,along with scratchbuilding physical models. It's as simple as this: FFG rushed the model out without proper source material. Having a ton of concept art for this ship in hand, I can also tell you that the FFG model does not match earlier concepts for this ship, either.

21 hours ago, Captain Lackwit said:

I've been dealing with discrepancy based concerns since I was 12, dude.

Cool.

Not scientific, but also not even close.