Anyone else wish this ship was medium size? Doesn't seem to fit in very well, especially compared to the quasar carrier (should be larger than the quasar?!!)

I like it as a small. Its narrow profile makes it harder to hit as it swoops in, unleashes a massive volley, and gets out of dodge. It’s very appropriate for the glass cannon that it is.

I was more referring to the cannon size and the model details. So my issue is more aesthetical and not gameplay related

1 hour ago, Uncrustable said:

I was more referring to the cannon size and the model details. So my issue is more aesthetical and not gameplay related

Personally, I couldn’t care less about canon sizes of ships. The scale is already wildly off, and has been since day one. If I had to choose between keeping relative sizes canon or making a better game, I would choose a better game every time. But to each their own.

EDIT: That cane out harsher than I meant. I realize for many this game is as much about collecting the models as the gameplay. That’s just not where my interests personally lie. I see it as a cool game with a Star Wars skin, so I would personally prioritize gameplay over all.

Make it a Medium with 6 hull and leave everything else the same, and I think it would feel very fitting and appropriate. As it stands, the ship is less MC30c and more CR90c. 😉

2 hours ago, bkcammack said:

Personally, I couldn’t care less about canon sizes of ships. The scale is already wildly off, and has been since day one. If I had to choose between keeping relative sizes canon or making a better game, I would choose a better game every time. But to each their own.

Someone else made this first, but it suggests that the model scale, while curved, probably does have a logical connection to canon...

9 hours ago, Uncrustable said:

Anyone else wish this ship was medium size? Doesn't seem to fit in very well, especially compared to the quasar carrier (should be larger than the quasar?!!)

I see the quasar argument. The counter point here is that while the mc30 is longer, the quasar beats it out on width.

It would be interesting to compare their weights.

10 hours ago, Uncrustable said:

Anyone else wish this ship was medium size? Doesn't seem to fit in very well, especially compared to the quasar carrier (should be larger than the quasar?!!)

Counterargument, the Quasar should be small

It does bug me quite a bit really, along with it's counterpart the Gladiator. Both are on the above chart and you can see they are both squarely in between two other mediums. It's a bit silly to play a game for all your big ships...only for the ships to not be appropriately, y'know, big.

Game play wise it's not been an issue. But that's because model scale and experience immersion have a thin line seperate them from gameplay itself. They were designed to be what they are, not what they were 'supposed' to be. I console myself that different and better size fitting ships are actually supposed to be there and the provided model is a proxy of sort.

It's also a bit sad that they weren't mediums just to spread out the curve. We have so precious few mediums as it is. Oh well, maybe in second edition.

im still not seeing why they need to be Mediums. They're pretty solid as smalls...

17 hours ago, Uncrustable said:

Anyone else wish this ship was medium size? Doesn't seem to fit in very well, especially compared to the quasar carrier (should be larger than the quasar?!!)

Yes.

And the Gladiator.

But water under the bridge.

5 hours ago, geek19 said:

im still not seeing why they need to be Mediums. They're pretty solid as smalls...

All of the ships would have been great as small ships silly! 😂 Boy wouldn't we love to have packed ISD or Mc80 or even more realistically a far more reasonable AFmk2, firepower into small bases and had the easier time of moving them around obstacles, leaving room for squads to move around them, getting that easier to concentrate fire zone layout with higher piece density, all the maneuvering tricks with the tool... Man that's just funny to think about, that'd be so weird.

If it was just a question of 'solid', they should've just made the quasar a small and then maybe it would do a bit better. Looking at just quasar cards side by side next to the glad' or the '30, it really makes you wonder why it isn't a small come to think of it. Small quasars would have also been pretty solid.

I think to help you out though the point of the thread seems to be more a thematic question then a effectivity one. The output of the game piece was not in question. But whether should the ship have been designed as a medium base and also such that it would still have effective output for that different size range. Still make it a solid ship, just a solid medium one 😁

5 hours ago, Green Knight said:

Yes.

And the Gladiator.

But water under the bridge.

... Until second edition 😜 fixed it 😁 lol

12 hours ago, Ginkapo said:

Counterargument, the Quasar should be small

It is only 340 meters long according to Wookieepedia so yeah I guess it should be. Not sure how wide it is or if the 340m length is a Legends to Canon assumption, it's possible that the new Quasar Fire is dramatically larger than the Legends version.

Quasar is a medium because of overall size, and to help Kons.

MC30 has not been recanon as far as I know. I think the sliding scale is not only base on length but does incorporate width and height... So basically girth I created the plot above. Maybe someday I will redo it with girth instead of just length but that may be a pain to track down all the info and figure out a proper way to encorparate it.

In the end I think that is why the MC30 and the AFMKII look off when compared to other ships.

A speed four medium ship? That would be unprecedented.

6 hours ago, LTD said:

A speed four medium ship? That would be unprecedented.

The Liberty is a large ship capable of speed 4. As is the Onager.

And not so strange there are no speed 4 medium ships...they made all of them small

And elephant in the room time. As it seems to come up every gee gosh goly darn time that anyone proposes a idea. No game change, in this case base size, is ever assumed to be able to be made as though it were in a vacuum. Any change to one thing would obviously necessitate tweaks on a bunch of the things it could impact. In this particular case it's speed might get reduced in a theoretical re-size. And likely far more then that besides.

In X-wing 2.0, which is probably the closest example we have, a new based size - Medium - was introduced between Small and Large. Stuff Like the ARC became Medium, for example.

Armada already has medium bases from launch. However, it's pretty easy to argue (though there are certainly counter-arguments to be made) that initial sizing was...not ideal, bc it made medium ships almost nonexistent.

The problems with resizing in Armada without a completely new edition includes: the actual bases, the stand, the ship token, ship stats (which were made ages ago anyway, but for smaller bases), numerous upgrade cards that interact with size, and more.

I just don't see any way to do it.

Theoretically, were they to do a second and resize the ships one way or the other, I'd really like to see them redo the models too to fit. And I have a sneaky cheeky idea how to do it without invalidating the old (current) models. If they were to reconcept the idea of a flotilla to be any small battle group, you could then make mixed 'supported' bases. So like a medium base with a Quasar and a 'escorting' Raider.

This would be like what Dropfleet commander and Halo Fleet battles did where a base uses two ships on it to represent a formation. If they made some new dual flight stands to hold two ships on medium and large bases the way they made the normal flotilla ones, maybe it wouldn't look so weird to have a smaller model on a shared base with something next to a larger solo model of the same ship. I'd like to see the flotilla concept either way. It would help drive the 'armada' theme by implying you have a lot more ships without necessarily having more game objects.

I think most of the models look great in context to the others. Just the mc30 seems way off (too small) of whatever relative scaling is being loosely used (and maybe the quasar being too big).

And here is the chart with SSD

Imo, I think while ffg calls it the ship size, the ship's base instead represents it's relative footprint on the board, how much it's silhouette matches up to other ships(to the extent that a rectangle standardization could match it's shape) plus the nimbleness and maneuverability compared to those of similar size(not ffg size). I.e. gladiator and mc30c are more nimble destroyers and thus more able to avoid collisions than a quasar, so their base footprint is small while the quasar is medium.