While I deeply dislike the sequels the toy sale thing is just a myth. Toy sales in general decline and the sequels had trice the competition(mostly other Disney franchises) of the prequels and even those sold already not to good in general.(bar Maul)

32 minutes ago, Church14 said:

You make no sense. The MC75 fluff calls out that it is a very atypical Mon Cal design. One that a lot of Mon Cals didn’t like how it looked. So it should not be used as a benchmark for what a typical MCxx ship looks like.

MC95 is “authentically” mon calamari as well.

I don't even care what "MC75 fluff" means.

The MC75 absolutely looks like a Mon Calamari underwater "skyscraper" (seascraper? surfacescraper?) that blasted into space and then was modified into a warship with its distinctive ventral fin.

Whereas the MC95 looks some lazy hack barely modified the MC80 Home One stuck a bunch of distinctively NON-Mon Calamari fins on it. Those fins are straight and angular, like they were ripped off a non-Mon Calamari ship. Anyone can tell that the MC95's ugly fins are nothing like the rounded, organic-looking fins on the MC75 and MC80 Liberty, which distinguish authentic Mon Calamari designs.

9 minutes ago, Gräfin Zeppelin said:

While I deeply dislike the sequels the toy sale thing is just a myth. Toy sales in general decline and the sequels had trice the competition(mostly other Disney franchises) of the prequels and even those sold already not to good in general.(bar Maul)

Hold my beer.

How Much Money Does Hasbro Still Make With Star Wars?

Toy Executive Confirms Lack Of Demand For Disney’s Star Wars Sequel Trilogy Products

Star Wars Merchandise Sales Keep On Dropping For Disney

6 minutes ago, Revan Reborn said:

I don't even care what "MC75 fluff" means.

The MC75 absolutely looks like a Mon Calamari underwater "skyscraper" (seascraper? surfacescraper?) that blasted into space and then was modified into a warship with its distinctive ventral fin.

Whereas the MC95 looks some lazy hack barely modified the MC80 Home One stuck a bunch of distinctively NON-Mon Calamari fins on it. Those fins are straight and angular, like they were ripped off a non-Mon Calamari ship. Anyone can tell that the MC95's ugly fins are nothing like the rounded, organic-looking fins on the MC75 and MC80 Liberty, which distinguish authentic Mon Calamari designs.

You point out the straight, angular fins on the MC95 as a reason why it doesn’t look like a mon cal design. But the MC75 has 2 Straight, angular Fins As well. Larger and also looking like they were added after the fact (spoiler, they were).

The MC75 looks less “Mon Cal” with its complete lack of the modular blisters along the hull. The MC95 looks distinctly mon cal with the modular blisters and a hull reminiscent of Home One.

It’s okay to say you don’t like a design. You’ve got every right to not like it. I just find your judgement that the MC95 doesn’t look Mon Calamari to be based on nothing,

Yeah I said the sequel toys dont sell well.

Edit for prequel sequel confusion on my side. Oh how I hate those.

4 hours ago, Church14 said:

You point out the straight, angular fins on the MC95 as a reason why it doesn’t look like a mon cal design. But the MC75 has 2 Straight, angular Fins As well. Larger and also looking like they were added after the fact (spoiler, they were).

The MC75 looks less “Mon Cal” with its complete lack of the modular blisters along the hull. The MC95 looks distinctly mon cal with the modular blisters and a hull reminiscent of Home One.

It’s okay to say you don’t like a design. You’ve got every right to not like it. I just find your judgement that the MC95 doesn’t look Mon Calamari to be based on nothing,

The MC75's fins are straight, yeah, but only because they'd look strange if they weren't. By that "logic" all Mon Calamari ships are technically "straight", as opposed to circular, like a Lucrehulk. Regardless, the MC75's fins have numerous curved parts, the bridge pod in particular. The grid model shows that the fins are tapered in addition to having curves. Also, the added touch of the grating resembled fish gills, which was very clever and enhances the MC75's organic aesthetic.

The MC75 does have modular blisters, just fewer and less pronounced than on the MC80 models. That's understandable because the MC75 is the predecessor to the MC80 line and isn't as heavily armed as the Home One or Liberty -- at least in terms of Turbolasers and Ion Cannons.

Most importantly, the majority of Star Wars fans liked the MC75's design. Few, if any, real fans criticized it for not looking like a Mon Calamari ship. Part of its appeal is its distinctiveness from the Home One and Liberty types, which were duplicated multiple times in the Rebel Fleet at the Battle of Endor.

The fact that the MC95 closely resembles the Home One is one of my criticisms of it. The lazy hack(s) that designed it didn't even try to make anything original, like the MC75; they just modified the Home One and stuck some mismatched crap on it. Just like the lazy Xyston Star Destroyer, which was merely an upscaled Imperial-I design from Rogue One with a stupid cannon stuck to the bottom.

On 8/3/2020 at 8:56 PM, Piratical Moustache said:

Just needs a "wave motion" gun

My main issue with the MC75 design is the weird hanger at the front. I know there is something kind of similar on the MC80 (just a lot more subtle), and it is there for plot reasons, but it looks a bit weird. Also it could do with some more engines.

But I also like the MC95 design from what I've seen of it - the base version without any of the kit-bashed stuff. Maybe it takes the modular blob-iness a bit too far, but in terms of taking the overall shape of the MC80, making it bigger and a bit chunkier I think they've done a good job. It makes a bit more senses an upgraded version or newer design of an older ship, rather than the huge design jump between the 75 and the 80.

MC-95 from left to right: Base, D?, A, C, and E

MC-75 from left to right: Base, A, B, C, and D?

I find the base design for the 95 is fine. Funny enough looking at the design they combined the 75 and both 80 types for most versions. Like the 95D and 95E as well. Hate the 95C it reminds me too much of that ugly looking MC-140 (but that is just personal preference) https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/MC140_Scythe-class_main_battle_cruiser

Also really like the different versions of the 75. Sort of make the ship look more like a Mon Cal design. While I love the 75 (so happy it is the flagship in squadrons!!!!) I always thought it was just a bit off with its appearance. Too smooth maybe? Compare that to the 85 which I just love everything about it.

I continued to see two separate images ( here and here ) from what was clearly a larger panoramic (of ILM concept art), so I decided to put together this simple stitch.

Old news to @melminiatures , I know, but I thought you might like this wider shot. As far as I can tell, we can see in this image the following:

• Mandalorian fang fighter
• Wookie gunship
• YT-2400B freighter
• Hammerhead corvette
• Pelta frigate (opened and closed wings)
• Lothallian corvette (bottom-left - best guess)
• Sullustan cargo barge
• MG-100/SF-17 Star Fortress
• MC95E (wide body)
• MC95D (mid-ship wing with dorsal fin)
• MC95C (bow fin)
• MC95A (bow wing)
• MC85
• MC75
• MC75C (dorsal fin - best guess)
• MC75D (bi-plane wing - best guess)
• Vakbeor cargo frigate
• CR90 corvette
• Free Virgillia bunkerbuster
• Aurore freighter
• Razor assault ship
• Quadjumper
• D-wing fighter
• GR-75
• Coruscant freighter (bottom-right)
• New Gozanti

What can you guys spot that I might have missed?

EDIT #1: The MC95B is the tri-fin, as confirmed via Phil Szostak’s Twitter /James Clyne’s Instagram account (and ILM; see below). The version pictured at middle-left (background) appears to be the D-model, which has wings amidship along with a fin.

EDIT #2: The full image has been published by ILM (along with a number of other great pieces, including profile shots for the MC95A-D). See here: https://www.ilm.com/visual_development/star-wars-the-rise-of-skywalker-developing-a-heart-of-darkness/

That's nice I wish they released the full concept art shot that you can see here in the background. It even includes Poe's X-Wing



There are a few differences between that concept art and what we see on-screen. In that shot the Aurore Freighter have the classic Clone Wars design, while in the movie they are different. Also in that concept art you can see Gallofree transports and Corellian Corvettes when in the movie they are absent from the fleet.

On 8/3/2020 at 8:32 AM, Grumbleduke said:

Also that final screen counting them all up. Can anyone make out the pattern behind the font size, colouring and ordering?

None. I can make out no pattern or reason behind the color, font, or order. It appears to be totally random. haha

There is no such thing as Sequel Trilogy. There is an abomination that Disney created but fortunately all of us know that Timothy Zahn wrote the true sequels.

6 hours ago, Norell said:

There is no such thing as Sequel Trilogy. There is an abomination that Disney created but fortunately all of us know that Timothy Zahn wrote the true sequels.

🙄 😑 😖

13 hours ago, Norell said:

Timothy Zahn wrote the true sequels.

Who?

7 hours ago, Derpzilla88 said:

20 hours ago, Norell said:

Timothy Zahn wrote the true sequels.

Who?

Lol a man who wrote the greatest Gary Stu of all time according to some fans. The man who outsmarted the entire New Republic dozen of times, unified the Imperial remnants, and was the only one who knew the true threat to the galaxy. With literally getting stabbed in the back right before his moment of victory being the only way to stop him. 😥

It is actually interesting asking fans what they do/don't like in Star Wars since the answers are all over the place. I never knew about the true hate of the Vong until I got in these forums. I figure with 30 years of materiel and nothing being canon it allowed people to pick and choose what they thought was Star Wars. I know I am guilty of that.

13 minutes ago, RyantheFett said:

Lol a man who wrote the greatest Gary Stu of all time according to some fans. The man who outsmarted the entire New Republic dozen of times, unified the Imperial remnants, and was the only one who knew the true threat to the galaxy. With literally getting stabbed in the back right before his moment of victory being the only way to stop him. 😥

It is actually interesting asking fans what they do/don't like in Star Wars since the answers are all over the place. I never knew about the true hate of the Vong until I got in these forums. I figure with 30 years of materiel and nothing being canon it allowed people to pick and choose what they thought was Star Wars. I know I am guilty of that.

And I suspect a small (perhaps large) amount of wish fulfillment on the part of Timothy Zahn. Whenever I read Thrawn in print, I get the impression that Zahn thinks he *is* Thrawn.

On 8/6/2020 at 6:29 PM, RyantheFett said:

MC-95 from left to right: Base, D?, A, C, and E

MC-75 from left to right: Base, A, B, C, and D?

I find it interesting that seemingly none of the 75 variants doesn't have the weapons belt. IIRC that thing (together with the fin) was part of the Raddus's militarization modifications and not part of the "factory" design according to the R1 visual guide.

On 9/20/2020 at 7:56 AM, LennoxPoodle said:

I find it interesting that seemingly none of the 75 variants doesn't have the weapons belt. IIRC that thing (together with the fin) was part of the Raddus's militarization modifications and not part of the "factory" design according to the R1 visual guide.

The 75 variants, to me, seem far more haphazard than the 95 variants. Generally speaking, I like all of the 95 variants to varying degrees. The opposite is true of the 75 variants; I generally dislike them all (I think the A and C variants work best). Personally, I'd like to see the following two variants of the 75 (I've mentioned this elsewhere, so apologies for being redundant):

1. A version without the weapons belt -- the underlying ship is so clean and simple
2. A version with a more streamlined "fin keel"

On 9/20/2020 at 9:56 AM, LennoxPoodle said:

I find it interesting that seemingly none of the 75 variants doesn't have the weapons belt. IIRC that thing (together with the fin) was part of the Raddus's militarization modifications and not part of the "factory" design according to the R1 visual guide.

Canon wise they can just say its iconic and so they kept building them with the belt. GCW they had to use the belt to give them weapons in the first place. They do that with the Resistance Y-wing and why it does not have armor on like the Rebel version. Both I would say are mistakes, but I know that is based off of preference.

5 hours ago, Rmcarrier1 said:

The 75 variants, to me, seem far more haphazard than the 95 variants. Generally speaking, I like all of the 95 variants to varying degrees. The opposite is true of the 75 variants; I generally dislike them all (I think the A and C variants work best). Personally, I'd like to see the following two variants of the 75 (I've mentioned this elsewhere, so apologies for being redundant):

Hmmmmmmmmmm looking at it I agree with you. The 95s I sort of like all of them. The 75 I think I like the compact second one best? The only hesitation would be over how these models and the quick shots 9 do not do justice to the ships. A 95 we get a lot better look at in the new Squadron trailer and it looks way better then the model, and I like the model. Funny how a paint scheme really does wonders.

BTW, should the ST really come I'd like to see some of these variants to come for the resistance with the explicit permission to exchange the models with rebel ones both directions. Meaning it doesn't matter which 75 model you use for which card or faction. Only the card counts. Ideally we'll see an ISD I with the same rules applied.

On 9/25/2020 at 9:57 AM, LennoxPoodle said:

BTW, should the ST really come I'd like to see some of these variants to come for the resistance with the explicit permission to exchange the models with rebel ones both directions. Meaning it doesn't matter which 75 model you use for which card or faction. Only the card counts. Ideally we'll see an ISD I with the same rules applied.

The fact that both the 95 and the 75 have now at least five canon different versions has done a lot for the game. They can now throw out a lot more variants for factions that have not a lot of ships. Looking at you GAR!! Rebels can now just get another 75 with fins. And throw in the 95 is now a canon Rebels ship, so I could see some crossover.

.............. I mean they did do this with Empire with Thrawn's ships, but I wonder now if the ships will come with parts that can be switched out?

11 minutes ago, RyantheFett said:

The fact that both the 95 and the 75 have now at least five canon different versions has done a lot for the game. They can now throw out a lot more variants for factions that have not a lot of ships. Looking at you GAR!! Rebels can now just get another 75 with fins. And throw in the 95 is now a canon Rebels ship, so I could see some crossover.

.............. I mean they did do this with Empire with Thrawn's ships, but I wonder now if the ships will come with parts that can be switched out?

I don't think that's going to happen with Armada.

IMO the main appeal of the Chimaera expansion was the Cymoon and Kuat variants of the ISD, not the repainted ISD ship mini.

I don't think FFG will release cosmetic variants of MC-75 -- modders and 3D printers can handle that niche market.

As for the ugly and uninspired MC-95, I don't believe we'll ever see it in Armada because it was an unremarkable background ship, it didn't do anything on-screen in TRoS, and FFG will be focused on Clone Wars ships for the next few years. By the time FFG runs out of ships and squadrons for the Clone Wars, Disney's new Star Wars movies and series' will be released, and they'll be pushing products for them instead. And once we see new Star Wars ships, starfightes, vehicles, weapons, and characters, those will be what we want at that time. So you'll forget all about the mediocre-at-best ship-spam from the ending of TRoS.

Besides, there are far superior Rebel/NR ships from Legends that FFG could produce instead, like the MC-80C "Mon Ramonda", MC40, MC90, Nebula-class Star Defender, Republic-class Star Defender, Hapan Battle Dragon, Hapan Nova-class battlecruiser, or Bothan Assault Carrier.

After the amazing job that FFG did with the Starhawk and Onager, I'd like FFG to produce more new Imperial and Rebel ships -- or reimagine those Legends ships that I mentioned in their own style.

On 8/6/2020 at 9:29 AM, RyantheFett said:

MC-95 from left to right: Base, D?, A, C, and E

James Clyne recently posted the render for the ship second from left (top row) to his Instagram account, confirming it as the MC95B.