46 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

If a Venator can't fit between the cargo ring we riot 😁

If we didn't get this...we don't get that either 😆

4 hours ago, SithLrd88 said:

If we didn't get this...we don't get that either 😆

Ya screw the Lucrehulk getting the right size. If the Blockade Runner is twice (three times?) its real size (or everything else is half their size) then the PT and ST can make due.

I wonder what is the worse sized ship? Hammerhead is pretty bad as well based off of Rouge One. Don't really think the SSD can count because that is just way too big.

On vacation at the moment, but I actually have Mel's Lucrehulk, that he scaled for a large base in Armada. Mel has been almost dead on with his scaling when you look at the models he created before FFG, even his SSD.

When I get home, I'll take a few side by side pictures of the Lucrehulk.

Any requests for side by side comparison shots anyone would like to see?

49 minutes ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Any requests for side by side comparison shots anyone would like to see?

Hmmm the Malevolence and any ST ships to see how they would look in comparison to the OT since Armada may have a size problem. If they did it with the Lucrehlk, then FFG should have no problems.

1 hour ago, cynanbloodbane said:

. Any requests for side by side comparison shots anyone would like to see?

I think the most sensible would be a Pelta since we will get to see that in the flesh sooner than later, we will have a good idea of that at home, and it's in the same era matchup/pairing whatever you want to call it. Using an ISD as a comparison would also work as it should be close enough to a Venator.

Like I've said previously I don't think it would be a terrible idea to just keep it at a large, but personally size discrepancies between ships are easier to justify when going between different base sizes then when staying in the same base size. It's easier by far for me to forgive the difference between a TIE, a CR-90, and an ISD, and SSD since the base size is more indication of size/battle space/whatever than the model is. It's harder when I have two ships in the same base size that look like they should be on wildly different ones.

3 hours ago, cynanbloodbane said:

Any requests for side by side comparison shots anyone would like to see?

A Starhawk, if possible. That would really help me understand how big it might be. 👍

4 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

I think the most sensible would be a Pelta since we will get to see that in the flesh sooner than later, we will have a good idea of that at home, and it's in the same era matchup/pairing whatever you want to call it. Using an ISD as a comparison would also work as it should be close enough to a Venator.

At 1155m vs 1200m, a Venator is almost exactly the same size as the Liberty - width and length, anyway - not an ISD (1600m long)

2 minutes ago, xanderf said:

At 1155m vs 1200m, a Venator is almost exactly the same size as the Liberty - width and length, anyway - not an ISD (1600m long)

Even better! I figured the ISD shape would be easier to kinda blur your eyes and imagine a Venator shape wise. But if we're going for scale specific to that's a good point.

On 8/20/2020 at 8:23 AM, RyantheFett said:

I wonder what is the worse sized ship? Hammerhead is pretty bad as well based off of Rouge One. Don't really think the SSD can count because that is just way too big.

The two that come to mind, personally, are the MC30c and Quasar-Fire carrier. In Legends, the MC30 was nearly 600m in length, and it's depicted as a Small. The Quasar was 350m in Legends (and looks to be about the same on Rebels ) and is a Medium. Those two make me scratch my head a bit.

So here is @>kkj and my go on the Lucrehulk from our own Clone Wars Set...

In fact this design was made for a large base but I totally agree it should be made as a huge ship on two large bases side by side.

In this case it would give the Lucrehulk also 6 different arcs. Two out front (ideally with a blind spot in the middle due to the front gap), one each left & right and two out the back.

But point and stat wise it would still match the huge variant.

30 minutes ago, M0N0LITH said:

In fact this design was made for a large base but I totally agree it should be made as a huge ship on two large bases side by side.

In this case it would give the Lucrehulk also 6 different arcs. Two out front (ideally with a blind spot in the middle due to the front gap), one each left & right and two out the back .

This would be perfect, because not only is there a gap in the front of the ship, but you could easily argue that there should be a gap where the engines are as well. So long as the cardboard doesn't overlap the edges of the plastic, as illustrated elsewhere in this thread, you could easily include six shield dials for six different hull zones. And the problem of the protruding lips on the base could be solved with punchouts in the cardboard, as previously stated. Man, a side-by-side Huge base would give the Lucrehulk such a cool, unique personality.

That front gap does have some pretty big guns covering it though. I don't see why it would have a blind spot. Particularly with all the guns that are on the command sphere thingy.

Even with the lip punch-out, you still have a plate that covers the front and rear dial indicators though don't forget. And unless you make it considerably wider at the front and back edge(making the shield dial problem worse), you'll create a weak spot where the plate will bend quite easily. Looking at the sketch provided earlier, the punch-out would leave four points about as thin as the frame border you punched the plate out of and discarded. And we all know how easy it is to bend and crease those with as many ships as we've opened. That 'particle board' they use can be pretty tough but it does have a limit when you start making it too thin.

As I wrote earlier, the Lucrehulk would benefit from being a Huge ship, particularly having 6 arcs and 3 attacks. Any less than that and I think the Lucrehulk would be too unwieldy and basically would just be a punching bag for enemy ship and squadrons. If FFG created a new "Extra Large" category, presumably it wouldn't use Huge ship rules or they'd have to invent similar rules for Extra Large ships.

I don't think that a ship needs to be as large as the SSD to be classified as a Huge ship. It just needs to be significantly larger than a Large ship. Perhaps the Starhawk could've been a candidate for an "Extra Large" ship category, but it seems to work fine as a Large ship.

In terms of bases, I think there are 2 good solutions:

1) FFG creates a new large/huge square base for the Lucrehulk that uses two (or three) support fins so the Lucrehulk model is mounted securely. This would be the most elegant solution IMO, but could be difficult to justify creating a new base unless FFG could use it for other ships in the future.

2) FFG could customize 2 medium or large plastic bases by removing the raised "lips" on the interior sides so that a large/huge square cardboard ship base could be mounted and spanned between the two bases.

I think either of those would be better solutions than a modified plastic support fin that will accommodate either a raised cardboard ship base or doubled-layered cardboard ship base. If they tried either of those options, I think the fins would leave deep indents in the ship cardboard and the lips on the plastic bases would inevitably cause bends or deep creases in the cardboard. (This can happen to the SSD's cardboard if you're not careful.)

7 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

That front gap does have some pretty big guns covering it though. I don't see why it would have a blind spot. Particularly with all the guns that are on the command sphere thingy.

Even with the lip punch-out, you still have a plate that covers the front and rear dial indicators though don't forget. And unless you make it considerably wider at the front and back edge(making the shield dial problem worse), you'll create a weak spot where the plate will bend quite easily. Looking at the sketch provided earlier, the punch-out would leave four points about as thin as the frame border you punched the plate out of and discarded. And we all know how easy it is to bend and crease those with as many ships as we've opened. That 'particle board' they use can be pretty tough but it does have a limit when you start making it too thin.

I wonder if it would be best to just use two large bases with no connection (separate cardboard), and gray-out the inner arcs. A small base ship could potentially pass between the large bases without collision, so maybe a blank zone doesn't obstruct an opponent's LOS (but the Lucrehulk can't shoot through its own blank zones). A corvette (or squadron) could go right down the center and shoot the rear arcs despite approaching from the front, rather thematic considering Episode I.

The front arcs could be asymmetrical, going to the outer corners but being "wide" arcs on the inside, such that you don't want to approach it head-on and get double-arc'd but given the size it would be fairly easy to stay on one side or the other. The rear arcs would be the reverse, with the inner arcs being narrow (obstructed by the engines, meaning you could get into a blind spot from behind) with the outer arcs being wide.

4 hours ago, FreakinUnoriginal said:

I wonder if it would be best to just use two large bases with no connection (separate cardboard), and gray-out the inner arcs. A small base ship could potentially pass between the large bases without collision, so maybe a blank zone doesn't obstruct an opponent's LOS (but the Lucrehulk can't shoot through its own blank zones). A corvette (or squadron) could go right down the center and shoot the rear arcs despite approaching from the front, rather thematic considering Episode I.

The front arcs could be asymmetrical, going to the outer corners but being "wide" arcs on the inside, such that you don't want to approach it head-on and get double-arc'd but given the size it would be fairly easy to stay on one side or the other. The rear arcs would be the reverse, with the inner arcs being narrow (obstructed by the engines, meaning you could get into a blind spot from behind) with the outer arcs being wide.

That presents a few different problems too I'm afraid. Trying to place ships underneath the model in the gap would be a tight squeeze for even small young hands let alone most of us adults. Then measuring to and from the middle, around the two stand pegs, and under the model to boot. And the central ball gets in the way obscuring any top down look for even an estimate. Then when the thing moves you have to mark everything under it somehow.

And it gets worse. With out any low cross member between the two bases moving it becomes a three hand operation. This is difficult to explain via text but I'll give it a shot. One to hold down the tool, and one on each base to prevent any stress or warping from the movement, or differences in friction on your play surface (even on the screened silk covered neoprene the base catches from time to time) stopping one base while you move the other. And if say you grab the left base to swing it around in even a 1-speed 1-click left bank, and the outer part of the turn supported on the right base snags and sticks, you risk it popping off and collapsing sideways as the right base gets stuck while you turn the rest of the left base and the model. Probably wouldn't cause any real damage, but would risk scattering anything nearby around. It's a quality of life concern to be sure, but it would be a potentially big one.

You could fix that by making the plastic flight peg-stands themselves 'linked' with a crossbar. But even that would be an additional piece, more design work, new manufacturing, etc. At which point why not go full monty and just make a new base? But then you still have the just bizarre measuring of going to two bases seperated, which will have a bubble dip between them both ways shooting and being shot. It would be cute to have the gap, for all the reasons you point out, but in all practicality all the problems taken together just don't collectively make sense I feel.

5 hours ago, Revan Reborn said:

Perhaps the Starhawk could've been...

1) FFG creates a new large/huge square base for the Lucrehulk that uses two (or three) support fins so the Lucrehulk model is mounted securely. This would be the most elegant solution IMO, but could be difficult to justify creating a new base unless FFG could use it for other ships in the future.

2) FFG could customize 2 medium or large plastic bases by removing the raised "lips" on the interior sides so that a large/huge square cardboard ship base could be mounted and spanned between the two bases.

I hope you don't mind me going backwards here. But seems to me if your going to go to the trouble of making a modified pair of bases that are left and right specific in your second option, with new molds and everything included, perhaps even intentionally equipped with only 3 shield ports per their side, and these won't really ever have another reason to be used (well, Supremacy I suppose but that's whole other size magnitude. So again we're back to scale differences.) Then you may as well have just made one more universal extra large base instead anyway. It'd probably use less plastic. It's probably way easier to produce in the grander scheme in general really.

And then if you go with that number one option, you would have at least four ships for it: Raddus, Finalizer, Lucrehulk, Mandator. Plus any nonsense the D tries to make in the ST again. Plus the future option to maybe move the Star Hawk to it in your Second edition, much like they shuffled sizes around for X-wing in it's 2e. Considering the current large base only goes to 5(did I miss one?) hulls itself, and only recently at that, I think for 4 hulls you'd be pretty justified to make it.

It's very possible they wanted the Hawk to be an extra large too, but couldn't swing it back then. They would have been started in development like what, 3 years ago or so almost? Many thought the game was dead back then lol 😂

Since release it took them 4 years to come up with a new ship size category. Do you really think they will release another ship size only short after?!
I think most likely is that FFG will keep it as simple as possible and will use the available and new implemented size. As the Starhawk is almost to big for a large base already, the Lucrehulk will be a huge ship for sure as it is at least twice as big!

9 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

Trying to place ships underneath the model in the gap would be a tight squeeze for even small young hands let alone most of us adults. [...] Then when the thing moves you have to mark everything under it somehow. [...] One to hold down the tool, and one on each base to prevent any stress or warping from the movement [...]

Using ISDs and a Raider (since those are what I've got out right now), the large ship pegs hold them high enough that I have room to put my hands one above the other above the Raider; so even someone with hands three times as large as mine should be able to reach from above, or more practically to grab the peg below the model. Coincidentally, the ISDs overhang so much that even with the small base between them (and a little bit of clearance for the shield dials of all 3 ships) the back corners of the ISDs are only a centimeter apart. I'd guess few players would be crazy enough to fly a corvette between two ISDs moving so close together, but it's a tight fit that can already happen, and we have rules to accommodate such as removing the model from the base(s), and/or using the setup markers to mark corners of a ship while it's temporarily removed from the table. Maybe we could also do with optional rules like "if you don't plan to make any turns, use the range ruler to go straight", with the ruler aligned to one of the base's feet, so that marking and removing from the table isn't always necessary.

As for moving the Lucrehulk, perhaps this is heretical but most pegs fit snugly into the models and will lift up with it; and I have to admit to picking up my Starhawk from its spine since all its weight is in the front which makes picking up from the base unwieldy.

2 hours ago, M0N0LITH said:

Since release it took them 4 years to come up with a new ship size category. Do you really think they will release another ship size only short after?!
I think most likely is that FFG will keep it as simple as possible and will use the available and new implemented size. As the Starhawk is almost to big for a large base already, the Lucrehulk will be a huge ship for sure as it is at least twice as big!

I expect them to keep doing whatever they want and/or think is best for the evolution of the game and gives them some design room. though at times their decisions have been... Questionable. Lol 😅 . Especially when they are already going so hard into their 1.5 revision as it is. To me the timing would be better now, not worse, to do something new. The SSD was just a cardboard piece any how with some rules stapled too it, not even anything really new. In fact it's just what they did for the first Epic scale ships in X-wing modified to use in Armada. There's not but a few errata and a piece of plastic between them and the future now. And while true, a SHawk is half a LuHulk, the SSD is still five times even bigger then that. That's a really big jump. Really, if you make the l'hulk a huge, your only taking away from what makes the SSD special, and your future Supremacy too.

51 minutes ago, FreakinUnoriginal said:

Using ISDs and a Raider (since those are what I've got out right now), the large ship pegs hold them high enough that I have room to put my hands one above the other above the Raider; so even someone with hands three times as large as mine should be able to reach from above, or more practically to grab the peg below the model. Coincidentally, the ISDs overhang so much that even with the small base between them (and a little bit of clearance for the shield dials of all 3 ships) the back corners of the ISDs are only a centimeter apart. I'd guess few players would be crazy enough to fly a corvette between two ISDs moving so close together, but it's a tight fit that can already happen, and we have rules to accommodate such as removing the model from the base(s), and/or using the setup markers to mark corners of a ship while it's temporarily removed from the table. Maybe we could also do with optional rules like "if you don't plan to make any turns, use the range ruler to go straight", with the ruler aligned to one of the base's feet, so that marking and removing from the table isn't always necessary.

As for moving the Lucrehulk, perhaps this is heretical but most pegs fit snugly into the models and will lift up with it; and I have to admit to picking up my Starhawk from its spine since all its weight is in the front which makes picking up from the base unwieldy.

Sincerely and respectfully, I fear your mock up model may be leading you to a false visualization. Putting two ISDs beside each other creates an arch effect as the hulls taper up away from the base mounting peg. On the l'hulk the central sphere will bottom out somewhat below the height of the peg, effectively inverting the measurement. As I have no reason to doubt your two hand measurement, though if you could share some pics we'd all enjoy them as discussion points I'm sure, it's then easy to conclude that the bottom of the l'hulk sphere would be scraping your poor raider. All that besides which I'm less concerned with a small ship trying to sail gloriously into the beach as I am a pile of squads doing so. And marking a doggie pile in the gap just sounds atrocious.

I wouldn't say heretical at all though. But your much luckier than many I know. I don't know of many who don't have a few models whose slots just don't seem to fit right. I've been told it's a by product of the mold being occasionally refurbished and replaced, leading to minor variances. Really we should all be getting some mock up pics in here to demonstrate our points though. I'll to and make up some mock ups at work this week if I get a chance. @cynanbloodbane I don't suppose you got something by way of 3d printer? I don't know if you need to print your own Mel's or not? I've never used em? Or if anyone else does, please, chime in.

I do have a 3d printer, but it is for or small resin printing. I get my Mel's from Shapeways. Fortunately most before the price hikes.

I honestly think most will be pleased with the large base scaled Lucrehulk. Mel has only ever been off by a couple percent when scaling ships that Armada eventually produced.

I also have a couple of his Venators, and other Clone Wars ships, so I can show the relative scaling difference there as well.

Regardless of what FFG comes up with (Extra Large, Huge, something altogether different), hopefully they can bring it in at around the $100USD mark, because I’m considering buying two (assuming you can squeeze two in a 400pt game). Any more than $100 and I will probably just pick up one. It’s definitely my most anticipated ship for Clone Wars though.

Hello my fellow Armada enthusiasts, and plastic-cra ck addicts! I'm home, so without further ado, the large base Lucrehulk.

vs ISD.

vs Starhawk.

vs VSD, & Mel's Venator.

vs Mel's Providence & Munificent (because he is really good at scaling for Armada).

vs Mel's Acclimator & Core ship.

vs the SSD.

vs Mel's Mandator IV.

Now, just to show how close Mel gets on his scaling to Armada, Mel's SSD vs FFG SSD.

Mel's Liberty vs FFG Liberty. (Very early Mel design, before he figured out panel lines on rounded surfaces.)

Hope that helps.

As a bonus...

What the real Eclipse would look like in Armada scale, and...

Mel's take on a large base Malevolence, ( the one I most hope he got wrong, I want that beast as a huge.)

In closing, yes, I know I have a problem. Enjoy!

I’d be very happy with that.

@cynanbloodbane I'd still like to see it next to some traditional smalls like the Pelta too, if you get a chance. It's a great looking model to be sure, but next to that Venator it does look super odd to me. Next to the FFG SSD, it's very feasible they could make it bigger, product box size wise and all those considerations. As it is in those pictures the scale it's at is way closer up the slide too SSD then it is close to the cluster of current ships. @Rune Taq Taq any guesstimate where that Mel model would sit on your chart?

11 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

@cynanbloodbane I'd still like to see it next to some traditional smalls like the Pelta too, if you get a chance. It's a great looking model to be sure, but next to that Venator it does look super odd to me. Next to the FFG SSD, it's very feasible they could make it bigger, product box size wise and all those considerations. As it is in those pictures the scale it's at is way closer up the slide too SSD then it is close to the cluster of current ships. @Rune Taq Taq any guesstimate where that Mel model would sit on your chart?

Not a prob. I'll snag a few more pictures this afternoon. Pelta, Arquintens, CR90, Gladiator.

1 hour ago, ForceSensitive said:

@cynanbloodbane I'd still like to see it next to some traditional smalls like the Pelta too, if you get a chance. It's a great looking model to be sure, but next to that Venator it does look super odd to me. Next to the FFG SSD, it's very feasible they could make it bigger, product box size wise and all those considerations. As it is in those pictures the scale it's at is way closer up the slide too SSD then it is close to the cluster of current ships. @Rune Taq Taq any guesstimate where that Mel model would sit on your chart?

Give me the measurements in inches or mm and I can plot it as long as the actual length is on line somewhere.

I did update it btw.