Lyran CA #4

Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Starline 2500 Miniatures: Lyran Ships: New Ships under Development: Lyran CA #4
  Subtopic Posts   Updated
Archive through February 29, 2012  25   02/29 03:11pm
Archive through March 01, 2012  25   03/01 05:10pm

By Troy Latta (Saaur) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 02:48 pm: Edit


I have to object to the statement that "SFB is not a miniatures game" as it has had hexless miniatures rules from very nearly the beginning. That fact that few players wanted to play SFB that way isn't my fault, just like the fact that many players are playing ACTA with counters isn't Matthew's fault.

Sure you can play them that way, but the focus is totally different. You could put a towing kit on a supercharged RoadRunner or take your F150 to the racetrack and I bet it'd be fun either way, but neither was really made for that purpose.
My point is that I never felt I needed minis to play SFB, whereas I think I'd be losing out on a lot of ACTA if I played with counters. There's a difference between a board game with optional mini rules and a mini game with available counters.

By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 03:00 pm: Edit

Troy: Actually, counters are quite fun in ACTA.

Can you imagine the Count from Sesame Street playing ACTA?
I fire my Phaser-1 at your C-8.
"That's one... one phaser-1."
"Two... two phasre-1s!"
"Three and four and five! Five phaser-1s!"
"Ah ha ha ha!":O

By Nick G. Blank (Nickgb) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 04:28 pm: Edit

Tony, out of curiousity, what do you use as the aiming point when playing ACTA with counters, the nose of the ship? Center of counter? Something else? If my rule book ever comes in I will be playing with Megahex counters (at least to start with).

By Dal Downing - Rambler (3deez) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 04:57 pm: Edit

Not Tony but I use the center of the counter so that the 4 corners mark the split boundary between the "4 cardinal firing arcs.

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 05:10 pm: Edit

[deleted by author - duplicate post]

By Will McCammon (Djdood) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 05:12 pm: Edit


I would be interested to know how many people commenting on these new designs are actually interested in acquiring them, and how many have chosen the 2400s and decided to stick with them.

I'm a unique case, since I was a rabid collector of 2400s but also did the "sculpt" for 3 of them.

Despite the huge investment I had in the 2400s (250+ minis), I saw the new 2500s as an opportunity to address some long-standing issues with certain ships. Some added detail level was a welcome side-benefit.

The timing for the line's launch put me in a bind (hard to justify presents for myself, when I'm supposed to be holiday shopping for friends and family), but my pre-order for a fleet box and some singles has been on the books since November of last year. Once things settle down, I fully intend to continue to switch my collection over to 2500s, over time.


Are you all going to trade in your 2400's for something that is just slightly larger? Are you going to trade in your 2400's, whatever happens to the 2500 range?

Actually, that was pretty much my hope.

I didn't intend to throw away my 2400s, but I did intend to eventually sell off my collection, once a newly-acquired 2500 collection achieved critical-mass.

The 2500 line being larger was peripheral to me. While I would have loved size-compatibility with the 2400s, I understood the need for a larger canvas to paint on for increased level of detail.

I was after unique minis for ships that never had them (like the Gorn war cruisers and most of the fast cruisers), better symmetry, less molding/casting deformation issues, and a consistent "look and feel", proportions of features, and level of detail, for each empire.

Personally, I was not interested in wholesale changes to ship designs and have done my level best to provide good reasons, in a reasonable and open-to-compromise way, for maintaining their traditional "form factors".

In some cases, like the SparrowHawk, I grudgingly saw a design I loved superseded and eventually came around to liking the change. In other cases, like the Condor and Kzinti frigate, I was instant with my praise for the massive improvements made.

For many ships, like the Fed BC, the new mini really is "just a larger version of the 2400", but it blows the doors off the old one. Clean, symmetrical, better detail, corrected features (added center engine and larger rear hull), etc. It's an outstanding representation of a classic (and iconic to SFU fans) design. The 2500 Klingon D-6 also puts the 2400 version to shame.

That holds true in varying degrees on all the ships currently approved and in-production.

Despite some occasional hard feelings on both sides of the ocean and some casting issues, the hard work by all involved shows in the product. They really are a nice line of miniatures.

By William Stec (Billstec2) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 05:14 pm: Edit


with regard to:
"I would be interested to know how many people commenting on these new designs are actually interested in acquiring them, and how many have chosen the 2400s and decided to stick with them."

I haven't played SFB in many years, and sold off my minis (to my later regret) in the mid-90s. Now that ACTA:SF has come along, I have great interest in the new SL2500 minis. I'm not so interested in the SL2400 minis, but would buy them if they were all that was available.

Being as there are the larger, more detailed SL2500 minis, no way would I buy the SL2400s if I had any real choice in the matter. :)

By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 05:15 pm: Edit

Nick: I am Tony... :)
When we use the mega hex counters, we use the center of hte counter as the aim point.
As previously stated, that gives us a good boundary begin the 45 degree arcs and the 180 hemispherical arcs.

By Greg Maynard (Gregarious) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 06:45 pm: Edit

I have a handful of very old 2200 series ships but am looking forward to investing in the 2500 series. I very much like the increased detail and the redesigns where they improve the look of the ship while maintaining a racial feel.

To use the example of the two recent offerings, I like that the Lyran turns a very flat plain ship into something a lot more interesting but agree that the centre section must look forward to the "historical" hull splitting for the DN.

I liked the earlier improvements to the Gorn ships and like some of the latest, but the engine mounts in particular rub me the wrong way. Gorns (sentient carnivorous dinasours) have always come across as solid, practical, unstoppable in their own way. The new engine pylons look graceful, flowing and that doesn't say Gorn to me.

Of course this is just my opinion, as are all these comments our individual opinions. For my own part I am glad of what is happening between ADB and Mongoose and hope it continues long into the future.

By Terry O'Carroll (Terryoc) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 07:46 pm: Edit


Sure you can play them that way, but the focus is totally different. You could put a towing kit on a supercharged RoadRunner or take your F150 to the racetrack and I bet it'd be fun either way, but neither was really made for that purpose.

Troy, I disagree. Movement tactics change slightly when playing SFB/FC on a non-hex map, since you have to figure out in advance where you want to be facing a few impulses from now rather than making sixty-degree snap turns, but that's about it. Everything else stays the same, I wouldn't say the "focus is totally different".

@Matt Sprange: I don't own many of the 2400s, and what I hoped for from the 2500s was a correction of what I saw as the 2400 line's under-detailing. Some of the 2400s also had other problems, like not being perfectly symmetrical. The Fed Old CL springs to mind here, flat as a pancake across the bottom (lack of detailing) and a bit shorter on one side than the other when seen from directly above. The new proposed designs for the Lyrans and Gorns seem to be adding gribbly bits for the sake of adding gribbly bits. I do want more detailed minis, but I want the details to make sense, to actually represent something.

I've read a lot of the comments on the Mongoose boards, and a lot of the complaints that the SFU ships "all look the same" seem to be coming from players who expect every different ship to have a different hull form from every other ship, and would not be satisfied even with the addition of lots of surface details because the hull form is more or less the same.

By Dixon Simpkins (Dixsimpkins) on Thursday, March 01, 2012 - 10:12 pm: Edit

I have invested in the 2400 line(and recently invested even more)so I am not simply going to abandon the 2400s in favour of the new Mongoose ones. That being said, I do plan to buy many of the new 2500s, particularly the Romulans, which are simply beautiful. I will not buy one of everything but will be selecting ones that I like (read "really cool") and some that are also useful in the different 2400 scale.

My main concern with the added detail, or changes in the "look" of ships, is one of quality. I have bought the Klingon squadron box and was disappointed in the number of voids present. Will McCammon made a good point in the "Wild Gorns" thread:


Those corners will be very prone to voiding and will be difficult to fill and fix...I've already seen this on similar things on the existing resin ships and would prefer that kind of thing to not repeat.

The new designs are great only if they can be cast.

By Steven Jones (Finlos) on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 01:12 am: Edit

With the exception of a number of Lyran ships I never really invested that much into the 2400 line. I see the 2500 line as an ideal opportunity to bring a new level of visual depth to my SFU games (ACTA included!) with some great models. As my credit card will attest, I have already bought into the 2500 line and I do wish it every success.

By Jean Sexton (Jsexton) on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 11:16 am: Edit

Gentlemen, please let's keep from making personal comments about the intellectual abilities of players or potential players.

By Tony L Thomas (Scoutdad) on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 11:22 am: Edit

Can we make impersonal comments? :)

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, March 02, 2012 - 11:26 am: Edit

That conversation moved to its own topic.

By jeffery smith (Jsmith) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 02:03 am: Edit

i will be purchasing 2500's when the relauch happens.

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 02:57 am: Edit

Could there perhaps be a difference between Lyran hulls built as "war" classes and those built as regular production; perhaps with one type or another sporting the hull panels from Adam Turner's 3D art?

While the two side pieces of a destroyer are the same as the outer two sponsons of a war cruiser in principle, those intended from the outset to be in CWs had various corners cut in practice. (It's said to be the reason why Lyran X-ships based on "war" designs had to be converted from surviving pre-war hulls, or built from the keel up to the pre-war standards; the "war" ships still in service were ineligible for the conversion process.)

That could help keep the likes of the CC and CW, or FF and DW, visually distinct on the tabletop, despite their shared design legacy. (And it would make it possible to later do trimaran variant minis which represented converted catamarans, if there was a demand for them.)

By Dan Ibekwe (Danibq) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 10:58 am: Edit

Thoughts about the render..

I'm a bit concerned that the warp nacelles appear to have 'less' detail than those on my old SL2200 Lyran CAs.

I like the extended bridge and more detailed impulse deck; not so keen on the lateral 'breakwaters' running across the hull.

I thought the little triangular greebles on the rear of the hulls were tractor beams, and the shuttle bay doors are either side of the impulse engine?

I like the idea of spherical ESG generators. Or hemispherical. Or at least circular.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 03:23 pm: Edit

There's some 3d art on the ADB Facebook page with Lyran ships. See "Aiming" in the Humor album of the photo section. That version has some nice "fluff" details. Has Mongoose seen that yet?

Garth L. Getgen

By Steve Zamboni (Szamboni) on Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 04:04 pm: Edit

Ooh, panel lines! I'd settle for simple panel lines on some of the more featureless ships, something that would at least make the mini worth an extra ink wash and highlighting instead of just spray-painting it with the base color.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Sunday, March 04, 2012 - 09:11 pm: Edit


it's always been a rectangle and i don't see much point in it being anything else, but I asked to be shown some ideas and never was.

Well, I'm no artist, but I tried this weekend. The only thing worse than my 3-D model is when I tried to sketch my idea in 2-D over Mongoose's render. So, here goes:
My Idea
(Not quite a sphere, I ended up stretching it in various directions in a 3/4/5 ratio; but then, the original was a rectangle.)
I'd had the thought that I could bring it to resemble the shoulders of a cat, but I have to admit to failure.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Monday, March 05, 2012 - 10:57 am: Edit

I'm more than a little concerned about going any higher due to getting the DN's phasers to work over the ESG.

By Jack Bohn (Jackbohn) on Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - 06:14 am: Edit

If the interior isn't fully defined, yet, the Lyrans could just not build the topmost deck around the ESG, the better to show it off.

Second Try

I've lowered the ball, and because the port, starboard, and aft hull are wider below, changed the stretch ratio to 3/5/7. Looking funkier.

By Mark Hutton (Trynda1701) on Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - 04:17 pm: Edit

Deleted, wrong thread!

By Gary Carney (Nerroth) on Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - 05:35 pm: Edit

The only thing I'd wonder about in making a spherical ESG emitter would be how that might effect models of ships from non-Lyran empires which may mount the system; be they Orion, WYN, or FRA.

(But, I suppose the actual emitter could be smaller, and the bulge in these proposed designs more for the actual casing; which non-Lyran ships would use some other mount type for, perhaps.)

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - 09:28 am: Edit

I found a good image that shows the hullpanels I mentioned up a few posts back:

I would suggest that Sandrine take a look and see if she can improve on the idea.

Garth L. Getgen

By Robert Hyrneson (Hyrneson) on Wednesday, March 07, 2012 - 07:40 pm: Edit

Good find Garth.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, April 05, 2012 - 02:52 pm: Edit

1. The forward phasers are blocked from their proper arcs. This may have been fixed on the DN, and differently on the CL, and either of those fixes would work for the CA heavy cruiser.
2. Those round things have to go. Matthew wants them for people to paint the Lyran emblem, but if so, they need to be on top, not on the sloping inboard panels. Few like the deep trough cut lines.
3. We still need to establish a common scale with the baseline Fed and Klingon ships.
4. The bridge is different from previous (2400) Lyran ships. I frankly would prefer the old way but this one isnít bad enough for me to insist on changing it. Most donít like it much and some have given it unflattering names like snowblower and dust devil. Maybe if it was a bit smaller and more solid (no boxy undercut on the front).
5. Warp Engines: Definitely needs to be detailed on the inner side as well.
6. most think that the ESG rectangles should be larger (longer, extend more forward).
Weíll need to see new renders with these changes made.--SVC

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page | Delete Conversation | Close Conversation | Move Conversation