Jump to content

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, thespaceinvader said:

The scales don't match

is this documented somewhere? I'm pretty sure it was stated somewhere way back when,  that the Raider and the C-Roc were 1/270 and the Corvette and the transport were under sized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, PanchoX1 said:

is this documented somewhere? I'm pretty sure it was stated somewhere way back when,  that the Raider and the C-Roc were 1/270 and the Corvette and the transport were under sized.

You can see the Corvus parked next to a Gozanti during one of the Battlefront II missions. The Raider dwarfs the transport by a great margin.

1111035-700x574.jpg

The bright lights in the lower right corner come from a Gozanti's bridge. 

Edited by Ryfterek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PanchoX1 said:

is this documented somewhere? I'm pretty sure it was stated somewhere way back when,  that the Raider and the C-Roc were 1/270 and the Corvette and the transport were under sized.

If it was Vontoothski take it with a grain of salt.

Both the Canon CR-90 and Raider Corvettes are 150m. At 1/270 scale they should be a little under 22 inches or roughly 55.55 cm long

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

You can see the Corvus parked next to a Gozanti during one of the Battlefront II missions. The Raider dwarfs the transport by a great margin.

It is about twice the length. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, GuacCousteau said:

Is anyone else just a tiny bit sad not to see that Raider packaged with a TIE Advanced? Or better yet, a TIE Fighter with Inferno Squad markings?

Yeah, I am.

I know most of y'all looked at the fighter as a "fix in the box," but I saw it as "free repaint with your Epic purchase."

4 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

Regenning 2 shields a turn is a massive help for these things. Using the recover action was always a sign of rapidly approaching unavoidable doom.

And yet frustrating to see a ship that you could land crits on then Recover 5 shields all at one.  I do like the slow and steady approach as an improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ryfterek said:

150m vs 63.8m makes it closer to 2.5 times the length.

I must have been remembering the C-ROC variant of the Gozanti's 73.91m when I estimated that. (2 x Gozanti = 127.6m, 2 x C-ROC = 147.82m). :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, All Shields Forward said:

Two shield regen seems good at first glance, if they use 2.0 rules for the reinforce than they will be much more susceptible to chip damage.

They'll use the new rules. It keeps everything consistent and easy to learn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious for the sake of experimentation; how would you fly one of these in a 200-pt game? It seems trivially easy to just get behind it and then destroy it to death, so your only plan is to keep regenning for all you're worth to save points, but it's a losing battle in any case. I guess get points on something before they get there, and then bank as much as possible to get them in your 180° arc? Still seems awfully difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hiemfire said:

If it was Vontoothski take it with a grain of salt.

lol. for sure!

nah this was a few years back. Wasn't the Raider basically invented by FFG? I remember reading that the model was to scale. but that was long before things like Battlefront II. So it's perfectly reasonable to think that more recent Canon entries have changed the size of the ship to something different. Whether that's the case or not, the canon images clearly show what we put on the table is scaled differently than what a true to life one could be.  thanks for the references.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Curious for the sake of experimentation; how would you fly one of these in a 200-pt game? It seems trivially easy to just get behind it and then destroy it to death, so your only plan is to keep regenning for all you're worth to save points, but it's a losing battle in any case. I guess get points on something before they get there, and then bank as much as possible to get them in your 180° arc? Still seems awfully difficult.

180 is your Primary, but secondaries may be have other arcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Curious for the sake of experimentation; how would you fly one of these in a 200-pt game? It seems trivially easy to just get behind it and then destroy it to death, so your only plan is to keep regenning for all you're worth to save points, but it's a losing battle in any case. I guess get points on something before they get there, and then bank as much as possible to get them in your 180° arc? Still seems awfully difficult.

Setup in the corner, do a straight 1 or 2 then just do 0 banks back and forth like a salmon trying to get upstream to mate. Just make sure you have a turret that can cover your rear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PanchoX1 said:

lol. for sure!

nah this was a few years back. Wasn't the Raider basically invented by FFG? I remember reading that the model was to scale. but that was long before things like Battlefront II. So it's perfectly reasonable to think that more recent Canon entries have changed the size of the ship to something different. Whether that's the case or not, the canon images clearly show what we put on the table is scaled differently than what a true to life one could be.  thanks for the references.  

As I recall from when they announced the Raider, it is supposed to be roughly the same size as- and is scaled roughly the same as- the CR-90. Neither of those ships, nor the GR-75, are at the same 1/270 scale as the rest of the ships in the game. 

Which means you have it flipped: the Gozanti and the C-Roc are supposed to be on 1/270 scale and the Raider is not. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tervlon said:

Setup in the corner, do a straight 1 or 2 then just do 0 banks back and forth like a salmon trying to get upstream to mate. Just make sure you have a turret that can cover your rear. 

Also begs the question: Will huge ships finally get 45° turns? I don't see how ships with a 30° turn can stay on a 3'x3' board...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ClassicalMoser said:

Also begs the question: Will huge ships finally get 45° turns? I don't see how ships with a 30° turn can stay on a 3'x3' board...

Most likely no :

swz53_spread.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Punning Pundit said:

As I recall from when they announced the Raider, it is supposed to be roughly the same size as- and is scaled roughly the same as- the CR-90. Neither of those ships, nor the GR-75, are at the same 1/270 scale as the rest of the ships in the game. 

Which means you have it flipped: the Gozanti and the C-Roc are supposed to be on 1/270 scale and the Raider is not. :) 

This is correct. The raider has always been the same length as the corvette, and has always been at the different scale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure the two sets of numbers on the energy/shield dial is just Left side: current, Right side: maximum.  They are all the same tools, but each ship has different values.  It will just make it easier to not go over your limit when you regain them.

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, ID X T said:

I am pretty sure the two sets of numbers on the energy/shield dial is just Left side: current, Right side: maximum.  They are all the same tools, but each ship has different values.  It will just make it easier to not go over your limit when you regain them.

 

  

Why no "/" in between the numbers then? 

This friggin counter is the biggest mystery of the whole huge ship fuss. It's poorly designed, either because it's unreadable that it stores two different values for both shields and energy, or it's poorly designed because it overcomplicates counting up to low, 20ish double digits by introducing another dial. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, thespaceinvader said:

I wonder how the Armada executor compares size wise to what the raider would be in 1/270...

The SSD is 24.5” long.

So, a bit longer than the Raider should be. The SSD is really flat though.

Edited by Forgottenlore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...