16 minutes ago, Church14 said:

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

How comes you think that!? Two out front, two on the sides and two at the rear!!

The red area is a blind spot between the two hull zones due to the gap at the front of the Lucrehulk...

22 minutes ago, M0N0LITH said:

How comes you think that!? Two out front, two on the sides and two at the rear!!

The red area is a blind spot between the two hull zones due to the gap at the front of the Lucrehulk...

In battlefront 2, there are weapons mounted in that gap. So there isn’t a blind spot.

Also, no mechanic exists in armada for a gap between hull zones. Can you not target that gap? If you don’t want to have to invent more new rules, you need to set the gap up like the rear arc of a hammerhead.

Why invent new rules?!? Each hull zone has corners and the yellow dot that has to be in line of sight.

And why not something that makes the Lucrehulk different & unique?!

3 hours ago, M0N0LITH said:

Why invent new rules?!? Each hull zone has corners and the yellow dot that has to be in line of sight.

And why not something that makes the Lucrehulk different & unique?!

You’re two front hull zones look exactly like the single front hull zone that the onager has.

There are plenty of other ways than adding a gap In offense that doesn’t normally exist.

Now, I do like the idea of the front being two hull zones split right dead center. The makes it feel unique

Yeah church is right, there are some pretty big guns in the gap area in all the sources I know of, and on the central sphere too. So a gap does not make sense there. Besides the fact at that size of gap, the only things that will fit in it at close are squads, and even at medium range nothing's likey to land there effectively, so all it loses is front double arc. Which just pushes it to be a broadsider even more, limiting play style.

It also doesn't matter that there are corners since range is closest point to point, which matters in parallel positions. The gap, were you to keep it, would require new rules to adjudicate what happens when you can get the blind spot in arc and range, but not the front two firing arcs. You could end up with range to the base but no instructions as to which arc you're shooting at.

I totally get your point...

my intention to create the blind spot had two reasons - No.1 due to its shape (ignoring the big guns ) but even more important No.2 having a double arc out front with simply flying straight would be too powerful...

It would be less powerful only in that the range control level of a forward facing double arc will be magnitudes worse than the side double arc. Consider, if the ship had a really poor maneuver chart, like no yaw clicks similar to the SSD, front double arcs won't be an issue as they will be easier to avoid as an opponent, and require serious play cost to aim for the user in commands and effects. I think you can just go ahead and give it the front double and be fine.

6 hours ago, M0N0LITH said:

I totally get your point...

my intention to create the blind spot had two reasons - No.1 due to its shape (ignoring the big guns ) but even more important No.2 having a double arc out front with simply flying straight would be too powerful...

You could move the yellow dots inward, as seen on the Starhawk side arcs. That would somewhat help in mitigating double-arc shots out the front (while representing "front" hull zones that actually face away from each other, to the left and right respectively).

3 hours ago, Rmcarrier1 said:

You could move the yellow dots inward, as seen on the Starhawk side arcs. That would somewhat help in mitigating double-arc shots out the front (while representing "front" hull zones that actually face away from each other, to the left and right respectively).

I would think if you move the yellow dots inwards that you don‘t alter so much the capabilty to attack, because you are allowed to draw line-of-sight over the lines of your own arcs. It should be more so that it is harder to attack a hull zone with an inward dot because your attack stops if you cross the lines of your opponents arcs..

Why not just balance the batteries around getting the double front arc? That would make for a very unique playstyle.

I think even with the blind spot and the angles in between, the two front arcs of the ship would be quite powerful as it has 3 attacks (huge base).

Even with a poor maneuver chart (for ex. l/--) it would be very difficult for your opponent to stay out of one or even both arcs.
But still your two front arcs would cover a large radius!

On 8/18/2020 at 2:20 PM, ForceSensitive said:

@Green Knight in 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.

@geek19 wouldn't it be large, extra large, and then since you need two pieces for the last one it's a large COMBO 😂 ... With fries 🤣

Alternatively you could have two ship cards with parts of the info and a connector piece that is secured to them with the speed dials connector pins and thus not having to reach all the way to the pegs. This way the only new thing they would have to use was Cardboard when done this way.

On 9/14/2020 at 10:43 PM, M0N0LITH said:

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

Nice idea, but instead of no rear zone and the front "blind spot", instead you give it a VERY narrow front and rear zone, with a small battery to reflect that some of the guns on the rim could still reach into the front and rear arc.

Then give it broad, even side and auxiliary arcs.

This means less special rules needed, as it complies with the current normal and huge ship rules.

As for movement, I would make it that you place the manoeuvre tool on the rear corner pegs at the start and end of the manoeuvre. This would better reflect the way a ship of this shape would pivot on its centre of gravity

On 9/14/2020 at 2:43 PM, M0N0LITH said:

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

That's pretty neat. Just widen the middle cutout to accomodate the entire base of the pegs and it's travel when hooking in, instead of only the hook. Then you can mount it on two almost regular large base cardboard pieces ,using the speed dial connectors I mentioned above, thus dealing withe the raised lip issue.

On 9/14/2020 at 8:43 AM, M0N0LITH said:

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

I give credit for the technical skill of creating this custom base for the Lucrehulk, but I don't believe this is how FFG will design the Lucrehulk.

Firstly, it doesn't address the problem of the raised edges of the plastic ship bases, so it will require the creation of new support fins and/or cardboard spacers. If FFG has to create new support fins just for the Lucrehulk, why wouldn't they take the next logical step and simply design a new base for it?

Also, having two large plastic bases side-by-side, without a gap like the SSD, I don't think that is an accurate scale for the Lucrehulk. Either the Lucrehulk ship mini would only be 5-6 inches in diametre, which would be far too small; or the ship mini would significantly overhang the base and cause a lot of problems with determining arc and LOS, and getting the range and movement tools under the ship model without nudging it.

I'd be very disappointed if the Lucrehulk ship miniature was that size -- and I think a lot of other Armada players would be disappointed too.

4 Shields per hull zone seems way too high, because that's 24 shields total. The Command and Assault Prototype Star Dreadnoughts only have 20 shields total, and they cost 220 and 250 points, respectively. We don't know how much the Lucrehulk Battleship will cost, but I'm guessing it will be between 180 to 240 points. I predict that it will have 2 Redirects and at least 1 Brace, so with 6 hull zones, taking down the Lucrehulk's shields will be incredibly difficult. If the Lucrehulk had 3 shields per hull zone, that would be more reasonable; but I think the rear hull zones should only have 2 shields.

Finally, I think having 2 "Front" arcs and 2 "Rear" arcs will be very problematic. The SSD kept it simple by introducing 2 Auxiliary hull zones on the sides, and clarified how upgrade cards like Enhanced Armament and High-Capacity Ion Turbines would work for only one pair of side arcs. But how would Spinal Armament work on this Lucrehulk design? (Assuming that it will have a Turbolaser slot.) It wouldn't be fair to add 4 red dice total; it would only add 2 red dice. But will one side's front and rear arcs get an extra red die, or are the arcs paired diagonally? And since technically all 6 arcs have "sides", does that mean any of them can use Enhanced Armament or HCIT?

On 9/14/2020 at 1:16 PM, M0N0LITH said:

The red area is a blind spot between the two hull zones due to the gap at the front of the Lucrehulk...

I don't see any justification for the Lucrehulk having a blind spot in front. In TPM and episodes of TCW, the Lucrehulk was able to fire on ships directly in front of it. If anything, the "blindspot" arc should angle inward rather than outward, so the blindspot only exists very close to the ship (similar to a horse's front blindspot).

On 9/14/2020 at 1:41 PM, Church14 said:

In battlefront 2, there are weapons mounted in that gap. So there isn’t a blind spot.

Also, no mechanic exists in armada for a gap between hull zones. Can you not target that gap? If you don’t want to have to invent more new rules, you need to set the gap up like the rear arc of a hammerhead.

I agree with Church14 and ForceSensitive, there are multiple sources that depict the Lucrehulk as having weapons mounted in the front gap, so there isn't a blind spot there.

On 9/15/2020 at 3:37 AM, ForceSensitive said:

Yeah church is right, there are some pretty big guns in the gap area in all the sources I know of, and on the central sphere too. So a gap does not make sense there. Besides the fact at that size of gap, the only things that will fit in it at close are squads, and even at medium range nothing's likey to land there effectively, so all it loses is front double arc. Which just pushes it to be a broadsider even more, limiting play style.

It also doesn't matter that there are corners since range is closest point to point, which matters in parallel positions. The gap, were you to keep it, would require new rules to adjudicate what happens when you can get the blind spot in arc and range, but not the front two firing arcs. You could end up with range to the base but no instructions as to which arc you're shooting at.

I agree with ForceSensitive that the proposed front blindspot would require numerous new rules to address, and they'd be confusing and counter-intuitive. There's no justification for the front blindspot so it should be omitted, thereby avoiding any possible confusion.

Since the Lucrehulk shouldn't have a frontal blindspot, I think the attack pools of the front arcs need to be changed -- or the side arcs reduced to match the front.

I appreciate the effort but it could use refinement.