Hey guys,

as many of you know I've been working on a way to prolong the lifespan of the game. For those of you who don't, I've been developing acrylic ship tokens for casual play. By using these plastic pieces during casual matches instead of the provided cardboard pieces, I'm hoping to reduce the wear and keep the official pieces in tact for those of us that want this game to be around for a lifetime.

So far, I've done research on various production methods and materials. After deciding on a method and material I ran a test piece. This piece was designed to show me cut tolerances, materials thickness variances and perhaps provide insight on other flaws that could occur during production. It was a qualified success.



While the size, arcs, LoS dots, and thicknesses where all not designed from an official piece, they provided the information I needed to get started in earnest.

I started by getting a closer look at the pieces on PC.



After researching the sizes and shapes of each class size, I've been able to draw conclusions about how to design the acrylic piece to maintain the intended game state.

However, I've run into a snag.

While researching the the LoS dots on large base ships, I've determined that the dots are typically 54mm apart (center to center) centered off the center rectangular cut (which I'm regarding as the base point of design). I say typically, because it applies for the Mc80 and ISD, however, the Mc80L seems to have a flaw.

From center to center the side arc LoS dots measure 53.5mm(.15mm ±). When the offset is measured from the sides of the base cut the right side is off by .5mm, even though the actual outside cuts are perfect. It's actually visible if you take a close enough look....




So my question is this:


Is it a bug or a feature?

Did FFG just make a slight mistake while designing the Mc80L? Could this be a misprint, something they just didn't catch in QC? Or for some reason is the right hullzone's LoS .5mm-.75mm deeper in for a reason?

If people from across the country (or world if any of you kind folks not in North America area would) could take a moment to check the right and left hullzones on your Mc80L ship tokens, I'd greatly like to know if this is common, or maybe just a bad batch?

Thanks in advance to anyone who helps!

I think it's all those irregular bumps on the ships surface....

2 minutes ago, Darth Lupine said:

I think it's all those irregular bumps on the ships surface....

so one vote for intentional lol

In my opinion that's an error. That being said, I can't believe all the other ones are exact. If they are we're doing very well.

Just now, CaribbeanNinja said:

In my opinion that's an error. That being said, I can't believe all the other ones are exact. If they are we're doing very well.

Of the large bases I can confirm all of mine were 54mm within a tolerance of .015mm ± Which is why this stuck out so much. Of the mediums I couldn't visibly see any oddities other than the assaultboat's LoS dot's being visibly further in than the other ships, but it was uniform on both sides and all 3 tokens I had, so I suspect it's intentional. lol The smalls I only briefly skimmed, and all seemed to maintain similar distances... but we'll see

The error was the liberty in general trolololol

Just measured both of mine are the same, while my H1 base is fine.

Hope that helps

Well, no two Mon Cal ships are built the same... FFG is just being faithful to lore.

On 1/13/2018 at 2:21 AM, DrakonLord said:

Just measured both of mine are the same, while my H1 base is fine.

On 1/13/2018 at 2:21 AM, DrakonLord said:

Hope that helps

That is very helpful, thankyou!

My vote is for error. It's so slight as to be easily glossed over. My bet is a mess up on the printing side, possibly a file got messed up in the formatting. Checking my libs at home should provide a larger data set.

Also how old is your lib?

1 hour ago, Noosh said:

Also how old is your lib?

bought it on release lol

11 minutes ago, Darth Sanguis said:

bought it on release lol

Interesting I wonder....... Wasn't wave 3 really delayed?

So the takeaway is that the starboard side of the ship is slightly more difficult to hit?

16 minutes ago, TaeSWXW said:

So the takeaway is that the starboard side of the ship is slightly more difficult to hit?

If this "flaw" is universal, which it appears to be, then yes.... ever so slightly harder to hit.

28 minutes ago, Noosh said:

Interesting I wonder....... Wasn't wave 3 really delayed?

I don't remember if it was delayed, but I remember thinking at the time that wave 4 was probably rushed a little because they tagged it on to wave 3, seemingly in response to the overflow of negative feedback about a wave with only 1 small unit in it....

Maybe they had all the concept work done but the actual cards and tokens still needed to be drawn, could explain a rushed mistake like that... I guess?