2 hours ago, RyantheFett said:

Looks like the big event will be the massive Starhawk coming out and owning an ISD.

Lies! Deceptions! Rebel propaganda!

This pic shows that it's possible to support a Lucrehulk plastic mini from the core using a large base, but that doesn't mean it's the best solution. I imagine that checking firing arcs and range with that Lucrehulk on a large base would be tricky. A laser line wouldn't work because the model would block the laser from reaching the arc line on the cardboard base. It would probably be just as tricky to get the range tool under the ship mini and see what you're doing to measure properly. And the large base doesn't accurately represent the ship's footprint. Other ships have this problem, but the Lucrehulk would be the most extreme example of this problem.

I think that the ideal solution would be a new round base. A round base for the Lucrehulk should have a diametre at least the width as a large base's length, but probably should be an inch or two wider -- I'm guestimating from the photo. And I think it would be better if a found base had 2 or 3 support fins to hold the Lucrehulk ship mini by the sides and possibly stern, to ensure it was secure. And I think the a round base would be best for the Lucrehulk's firing arcs and hull zones.

If the Lucrehulk was classified as a Huge ship and had 6 hull zones instead of 4, a large base would not work. The SSD got around this problem by lining up 2 large bases and the huge cardboard base covered up the 2 extra shield dial mounts. But a Lucrehulk couldn't use a single large base if it has 6 hull zones.

I don't know what other ship could use a round base in the future (perhaps a Hapan Battle Dragon?), but I think it would be worthwhile creating it for the Lucrehulk.

5 hours ago, Revan Reborn said:

I don't know what other ship could use a round base in the future (perhaps a Hapan Battle Dragon?)

Omg, yes!

And because I like to dream, let's say the Sun Crusher, Centerpoint Station, and of course, the YV World-ship.

8 hours ago, Revan Reborn said:

I think that the ideal solution would be a new round base...

I don't know what other ship could use a round base in the future (perhaps a Hapan Battle Dragon?), but I think it would be worthwhile creating it for the Lucrehulk.

Ahem...

👍 👍

What does a round base accomplish that a square one doesn’t?

beingbthat a round base still needs a flat peg stand section for a maneuver tool

2 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

What does a round base accomplish that a square one doesn’t?

beingbthat a round base still needs a flat peg stand section for a maneuver tool

So you’re saying round basers must be misinformed?

That the base must, in fact, be flat?

4 hours ago, Drasnighta said:

What does a round base accomplish that a square one doesn’t?

beingbthat a round base still needs a flat peg stand section for a maneuver tool

Either way, it would necessitate the creation of a new base for Armada, which I think is the biggest hurdle to overcome. But I think it's the best option rather than trying to make 2 medium or large bases work with the Lucrehulk.

A round base would be a more efficient and stable than a square base because, logically, if a square base was the same width as the round base's diametre, its corners would extend further out than necessary. Wasted plastic = higher production costs. Or if the square base was smaller than the round base's diametre, it would be less stable.

I think stability will be a serious concern with the Lucrehulk because it will probably be one of the heaviest plastic ship miniatures in Armada because of its size and shape. A single mounting slot would break too easily or become loose over time, causing the mini to topple off whenever its moved (which is a common problem for Armada players who have been playing for years). The Lucrehulk will need multiple support fins, and I don't think a square base is as well-suited for that as a round base.

As for the notches for the maneuver tool, it would be simple enough to cut in those notches -- a round base doesn't need to be perfectly round (the shield dials would stick out from the base anyway, like they do already). A parallel pair of flat parts on the "sides" could have the notches for the movement tool. I think they'd have to be on the "sides" of the round base to prevent the base from overlapping the tool.

Also, a square base would probably have difficulty dealing with 6 hull zones and 6 shield dials -- assuming the Lucrehulk is a huge ship (which it should be).

Instead of creating a new round base it would be so much easier to simply modify the large base molds without the inner limitation.

Then you could use the two inner shied dials to attach a clip and fix the bases together.

Big brain play... HEXAGONAL BASE!!!

On 9/2/2020 at 8:56 AM, M0N0LITH said:

Instead of creating a new round base it would be so much easier to simply modify the large base molds without the inner limitation.

Then you could use the two inner shied dials to attach a clip and fix the bases together.

If two large bases were clipped together by their shield dial slots, the Lucrehulk would not be nearly as wide as it should be. Two large bases side-by-side would have less than 3 inches between their support fins. Presumably each support fin would slot into the ring of the Lucrehulk, which would mean the ship mini was only 4-5 inches in diametre, making it smaller than the ISD. If the Lucrehulk was as wide as it should be, the support fins would be position in the gaps between the core sphere and the ring. (Or, if the Lucrehulk was much larger than expected, it would have a core sphere more than 3 inches in diametre and both suppot fins would slot into it. But what would be the point of that?)

No, if FFG uses existing bases (which they shouldn't) they will be spaced apart with a cardboard base spanning them, similar to the SSD, except horizontally (most likely).

I don't think it would be significantly easier to modify the existing molds for large bases without the raised "lips" on the sides, from a production POV. Removing the "lips" on the sides of the large base would necessitate the creation of new casting molds -- because the alternative would be to somehow remove those raised lips from thousands of existing plastic bases, which would either be labour intensive or require new machinery, both of which would be expensive. And everyone seems to be obsessed with minimizing the cost of Armada production these days. 🙄

If they create new molds, why not take the extra step and make a new base?

If they modified the large plastic base with one or both raised edges removed, there could be all sorts of complications with that. What if they mix up the bases during production and put the wrong type of plastic base in the Lucrehulk boxes? Production errors have occurred recently in X-Wing, like the CR90's misprinted dial, and a lot of Armada players have encountered expansions with missing components. Introducing a modified large base without one or both raised edges -- especially when the plastic is clear so it's more difficult to spot an error -- is just asking for trouble. And a product recall or replacement component program to correct a production error would be significantly more expensive than creating a new type of base for the Lucrehulk.

Making an entirely new base for the Lucrehulk, regardless of what shape it is, is the better option.

4 minutes ago, Revan Reborn said:

If two large bases were clipped together by their shield dial slots, the Lucrehulk would not be nearly as wide as it should be. Two large bases side-by-side would have less than 3 inches between their support fins. Presumably each support fin would slot into the ring of the Lucrehulk, which would mean the ship mini was only 4-5 inches in diametre, making it smaller than the ISD. If the Lucrehulk was as wide as it should be, the support fins would be position in the gaps between the core sphere and the ring. (Or, if the Lucrehulk was much larger than expected, it would have a core sphere more than 3 inches in diametre and both suppot fins would slot into it. But what would be the point of that?)

Or they could just, y'know, use two curved support stands like the one on the AFMK2...

2 hours ago, Atromix said:

Or they could just, y'know, use two curved support stands like the one on the AFMK2...

That AFM2's curved support fin deflects maybe 10 mm at most, and FFG hasn't used it on any ship since.

And if FFG made a more extreme-curved support stand to make this terrible idea work, how would that be any different or better than them simply creating a new plastic base for Lucrehulk?

21 hours ago, Atromix said:

Or they could just, y'know, use two curved support stands like the one on the AFMK2...

Not to mention, you would need a curved support going in the opposite direction as a pair, still necessitating an additional production line. This only complicates the issues above. As I stated in an earlier post: any base missing one raised edge will need to be printed as a two directional base to simplify the production. This is in terms of both front and back will need a maneuver tool slot and the post slot will need to be capable of fitting a post both ways. If you want to stay using specialty stands, you will still need to double that as well.

2 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

Not to mention, you would need a curved support going in the opposite direction as a pair, still necessitating an additional production line. This only complicates the issues above. As I stated in an earlier post: any base missing one raised edge will need to be printed as a two directional base to simplify the production. This is in terms of both front and back will need a maneuver tool slot and the post slot will need to be capable of fitting a post both ways. If you want to stay using specialty stands, you will still need to double that as well.

I don't think they would need to remove the raised edge from the base. Since they have already done a curved flight stand that was only used on a single model shows that they are willing to modify flight stands for use on a single ship.

14 minutes ago, Atromix said:

I don't think they would need to remove the raised edge from the base. Since they have already done a curved flight stand that was only used on a single model shows that they are willing to modify flight stands for use on a single ship.

This had been discussed multiple times my friend. The reason for removing the 'lip' was so that the cardboard could make a straight run across the bases without bending.

From page two of this thread and myself: "...one of the threads that spawned this one, there was a nice discussion about that. Best we figured was the two bases side by side would each need a base plate 'blank' to fill the normal spot, then a bridge tile over that so you clear the two retainer rails on the inboard sides, but then a special peg stand that locks the top plate in place while accommodating the extra height of a second cardboard tile. To that I think the aforementioned dial-to-dial plate piece might* be of use to add some strength while making that weird turn, though not convenient for transportation."

39 minutes ago, ForceSensitive said:

This had been discussed multiple times my friend. The reason for removing the 'lip' was so that the cardboard could make a straight run across the bases without bending.

From page two of this thread and myself: "...one of the threads that spawned this one, there was a nice discussion about that. Best we figured was the two bases side by side would each need a base plate 'blank' to fill the normal spot, then a bridge tile over that so you clear the two retainer rails on the inboard sides, but then a special peg stand that locks the top plate in place while accommodating the extra height of a second cardboard tile. To that I think the aforementioned dial-to-dial plate piece might* be of use to add some strength while making that weird turn, though not convenient for transportation."

I see where you're coming from, I just personally don't think that the bridging cardboard is necessary for strength with the dial connector and the solid ship providing rigidity, but I think I will try and build a model when I get home to test this. As for transportation, I don't think it will really be very difficult, you would just need to disconnect the dial connector and then you would just have two regular large bases + the ship.

This is all just speculation however, and there isn't any way to tell until ffg actually announces anything 🤷‍♂️

@Atromix that's all well and good but it doesn't solve the issue of the cardboard base being needed for targeting and other range based effects. Without the bridging piece there will be a noticable dip in the front and back of the ship. If all you have connecting them is the clip, what's to stop you from flying a squadron between them and then pointing out that it's not targetable unless there are arcs facing in. Which would be kinda cute, but a heck of a good way to get all kinds of low risk bombing off by being obstructed outward.

If in your mockup you were to make a full size 'under bridge' that gets you in line with the front and back edges, that would be an option. You'd still need all three base tiles printed out though which is doable, but very odd.

4 hours ago, ForceSensitive said:

This had been discussed multiple times my friend. The reason for removing the 'lip' was so that the cardboard could make a straight run across the bases without bending.

From page two of this thread and myself: "...one of the threads that spawned this one, there was a nice discussion about that. Best we figured was the two bases side by side would each need a base plate 'blank' to fill the normal spot, then a bridge tile over that so you clear the two retainer rails on the inboard sides, but then a special peg stand that locks the top plate in place while accommodating the extra height of a second cardboard tile. To that I think the aforementioned dial-to-dial plate piece might* be of use to add some strength while making that weird turn, though not convenient for transportation."

I never liked the idea of a cardboard base placed over the raised edges of the plastic bases to horizontally span two bases, and using spacers and modified support fins. It seemed wildly impractical and wasteful, and a lot of hoops to jump through just to avoid creating a new plastic base for the Lucrehulk.

FFG hasn't shied away from creating new plastic bases for SW Legion units whenever they needed to, so I don't understand why FFG would be averse to doing it for Armada.

Personally, I would've preferred if the SSD had a single-piece "huge" plastic base, but two large bases ultimately worked fine. But I don't think there's a good way to workaround the Lucrehulk's unique shape, so a new plastic base is required to make it work.

Largely after this is brought up I think we have all left this idea behind due those reasons.

I too am still on the new base size being probably the better angle. But then again, if the card size thread is any indication... 🙄 FFG may not be up to such diversified production anymore 😕

So this would be my go on the Lucrehulk base...

4 minutes ago, M0N0LITH said:

So this would be my go on the Lucrehulk base...

I really like the arc layout, but 4 shield points everywhere is too much if the hull value is 18. The points cost would have to be almost as much as the ssd to balance the ship.

20 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

I really like the arc layout, but 4 shield points everywhere is too much if the hull value is 18. The points cost would have to be almost as much as the ssd to balance the ship.

I think you‘re right... maybe 4/4//3/3//2/2 would be better!?!

40 minutes ago, Piratical Moustache said:

I really like the arc layout, but 4 shield points everywhere is too much if the hull value is 18. The points cost would have to be almost as much as the ssd to balance the ship.

There's a rule-of-thumb that the cost for a ship is about Hull x10. SSD is 220-250 FP for 22 hull points plus 20 total shield points. Lucrehulk with 18 hull points would be at least 180 FP. With 24 total shield value would be 4 points higher.

I think you're right, that Lucrehulk's shields should be around 18-20 in total.

18 minutes ago, M0N0LITH said:

I think you‘re right... maybe 4/4//3/3//2/2 would be better!?!

I like better the equal values for the donut-shaped silhouette. 3 each would be 18 in total.

3 hours ago, M0N0LITH said:

I think you‘re right... maybe 4/4//3/3//2/2 would be better!?!

Definitely, considering the Star Dreadnought prototype has a shield value of 20.

4 hours ago, M0N0LITH said:

So this would be my go on the Lucrehulk base...

Just to nitpick, you have 5 hull zones, but 6 shields dials and dice pools.