I'm going to expand on this and say "proxy Z-95s as snowspeeders, remove shields".

They were armored though -- I remember all the toys and production stuff calling them "Rebel Armored Snowspeeders" -- so they'd probably have more hull points than a Z-95.

I'm going to expand on this and say "proxy Z-95s as snowspeeders, remove shields".

They were armored though -- I remember all the toys and production stuff calling them "Rebel Armored Snowspeeders" -- so they'd probably have more hull points than a Z-95.

This is a theoretical argument, so best of luck to us proving one way or another, but i doubt you are right The Z-95 was an atmo craft converted for space, armed with 2 sets of triple blaster cannons - this part is important, as the T-47 airspeeder (henceforth known as T-47) has but 2 blaster - not laser cannons. The T-47 is a 2 man speeder vessel literally half the size of the Z-95, with less of a ceiling altitude and markedly less engines. Where I hang my hat in terms of hull is the part where the T-47 is like half the size of a Z-95, in order to be space worthy you need a very solid hull, and while the Z-95's hull is notoriously fragile, it can still take a laser cannon blast or two without crumpling, unlike the T-47.

The T-47 is probably a really well armoured vessel for what it is, a mid altitude scout craft.

Here is the problem though.

Give me a set of 40K power armour, MKIII please. It's my favourite. Now shoot me with I dunno, an AK47 or something. I am probably fine. Next.. a laser cannon.

Ouch, smoking boots are all that remain.

This is where we get to the Z having 3 blaster cannons for every 1 of it's measly 2 firepower.

Remember that .303 machine gun comment I made earlier comparing with F-15s. It really is like that.

Sure, you are on a 2 seater world war I biplane, that .303 is brilliant, DAKKADAKKADAKKA. When you are fighting other world war 1 biplanes.

Alright, how will do you against an AMRAAM 120 missile fired from 8 miles away? Ohdear, not so well.

The T-47's inclusion is kinda like that.

Hull 1, Agi 3 Firepower 1 is what i'd give it. But really, I wouldn't. Because it'd be useless for all but specific missions made for a campaign. The mechanics of the game allow it to be included, all you need are stats and a dial afterall. - Just know that this thing would be massacred by TIE Fighters every time with it's saving grace being despite less agile, it is harder to actually hit.

Vorpal sword, sorry English is not my first launguage... I dont think Danish would be understood by to many in here?

But yes i have seen any threads about it, but if it tires you, why not ignore it?

I will say that I think X-wing thrives because it's a very thematic game with relatively simple mechanics. But those simple mechanics mean the game doesn't have a lot of resolution: as an example, we have just five "baskets" for Attack (0-4). That makes it difficult to find a way to represent something like a speeder in the game without compromising its theme--for instance, even an Attack value of 1 would mean a speeder could do meaningful damage to an armored and shielded Imperial patrol craft like the Decimator.

I think we need to add the Jawa Land Crawler. It's special ability would be to steal droids from ship *Take That Fat Han and Corran Horn!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJmkGYwovIo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJmkGYwovIo

Vorpal sword, sorry English is not my first launguage... I dont think Danish would be understood by to many in here?

Your English is indeed infinitely better than my Danish.

But yes i have seen any threads about it, but if it tires you, why not ignore it?

I was trying to explain why minds probably seem more closed than you expect, not to engage one way or the other on the merits.

I will say that I think X-wing thrives because it's a very thematic game with relatively simple mechanics. But those simple mechanics mean the game doesn't have a lot of resolution: as an example, we have just five "baskets" for Attack (0-4). That makes it difficult to find a way to represent something like a speeder in the game without compromising its theme--for instance, even an Attack value of 1 would mean a speeder could do meaningful damage to an armored and shielded Imperial patrol craft like the Decimator.

My counter argument in favour of the T-47 in this case would be that even Leia's sporting blaster could punch through the hull of a space craft.

Weak compared to a laser cannon, but the twin blaster cannons could justify a Firepower characteristic of 1.

Vorpal sword: Fair enough, I get that others has suggested this and some find this tiresome. Its like all the threads about broken ships, very tiresome to me, but I avoid them and don't comment. I was just surprised that so many people react with the "this is not possible attitude"! We are playing a cool game with its representations of a very fictive universe, stuff is already relative in a lot of ways. I guess I was just hopeing for a lot of positive ideas! I am sure FFG is not falling backwards out of their chairs from my/ others suggestions, but I find the possibility of discussing it... fun!!!

Vorpal sword: Fair enough, I get that others has suggested this and some find this tiresome. Its like all the threads about broken ships, very tiresome to me, but I avoid them and don't comment. I was just surprised that so many people react with the "this is not possible attitude"! We are playing a cool game with its representations of a very fictive universe, stuff is already relative in a lot of ways. I guess I was just hopeing for a lot of positive ideas! I am sure FFG is not falling backwards out of their chairs from my/ others suggestions, but I find the possibility of discussing it... fun!!!

Personally, I don't mind the discussion at all--at least, not today. Ask me again tomorrow.

As I sort of implied above, though, I think T-47 speeders, along with Endor-style speeder bikes, AT-ATs, AT-STs, infantry groups, and stationary turrets, could be part of a great game. That game just won't look exactly like X-wing, even if it employs many of the same mechanics, because it's on a different thematic scale: squad-based tactical combat, rather than skirmishes between relatively small spacecraft.

I'll say this: Why? What would this add to X-Wing? To me they would be a distraction from the dogfighting. It would be a totally different game and would require a completely different ruleset. So in X-Wing? NOPE.

I'll say this: Why? What would this add to X-Wing? To me they would be a distraction from the dogfighting. It would be a totally different game and would require a completely different ruleset. So in X-Wing? NOPE.

That's what I said, a Ground Assault game to go with the dogfights of X-Wing, the Capital ships of Armada and the skirmishes and spec ops of Imperial Assault. .

Who needs an RPG at that moment?

How well does Imp assault do non jedi spec ops?

Hexis: It seems you already have a lot of preconceptions on how this must be done, I don't know if you have discussed this to no end in another thread?

Anyhow...

It would add more cool models!!!

Why would it have to change the rulesystem? Debrie fields was added, they are not used in tourneys but they add diversity. If you buy a package with a scenario token you don't like, don't use it! The only thing that would not fit in atmospheric combat is a playmat with stars! The rest of the dogfighting could be flown as always.

Say you have a mission, the imperial players has 100pts to spend on Fighters AND 2 AT-ATs and say 3 AT-STs. The object is to destroy the shield generator/ Echo Base/ Transport what ever! You play the game as normal, just with some simple movement rules for ground units! When not playing a scenario, the inclusion of speeders would just mean this particular dogfight is not taking place in space!

How well does Imp assault do non jedi spec ops?

I'll tell you in a couple of weeks, I'm expecting delivery in a week or two. .

But not everything is Jedi of course.

Say you have a mission, the imperial players has 100pts to spend on Fighters AND 2 AT-ATs and say 3 AT-STs. The object is to destroy the shield generator/ Echo Base/ Transport what ever! You play the game as normal, just with some simple movement rules for ground units! When not playing a scenario, the inclusion of speeders would just mean this particular dogfight is not taking place in space!

This.

I've had my RPG group have to get their allied air support to take down obstacles in missions many times, I just put away my black ceramic tiles and break out the green or white mat.

This isn't an issue, this is playing missions on x-wing with a different mat and saying it's planetary. No problems here at all.

The T-47 is the problem.

Similarly, in our games I make them roll a D20 for each damage card on their deck at kill level / over. Example, a TIE Interceptor with 4 damage cards has to roll twice, basically on an 11+ the pilot ejects (but they have to roll it twice on the 4 damage).

Then, back on the ground you might have a tie pilot to capture/rescue.

Its like all the threads about broken ships

Did someone say broken ships?

Darious: Agreed, the challenge is to make Speeders feel like a valid part of the game! I don't know how, but maybe this tread could change thread and start making suggestions! (Remember we are not ordering FFG, to actually make this happen).

Here's an example on how i'd do it.

Landed Gozanti (I have the model tehehe) at a point ready to extract Rebel spec ops team(40K edition 1 with some modifications is what i am probably using, but D20, age of rebellion or imp assault could work). anyway, group needs to get to gozanti but OMG blocked by 4 ATSTs. Suicide to assault, too long to get around. X-wing Pink squadron to the rescue.

X-wing squad has to deal with TIE support while blatting the 2 Hullpoint 1 agi ATSTs.

If they beat them all great, if any crash see above, maybe have to rescue pilot.

They get to the Gozer, and shock horror, enemy ties! x-wings have to hold them off....

I should add that i've ran a campaign with D20 like this and it's really, really good. You want to rescue the shot down air support as well, as one of my players put it they are glorious bas*ards. Also pilots might gain XP for EPTs etc... My next campaign will be all 3, D20 for the main players, 40Ked1Modified for their spec ops team, x-wing for fighter operations. They'll have character rosters for pilots/trooper xp.

Needed a pause at work, so I quickly threw this together. I like the idea of a dual pack of speeders, with AT-AT and AT-ST cards packed together with simple movement rules for both. It could function as an expansion to the game, and could be completely ignored at tournaments!

Maybe some cardboard terrain, Ion cannon and Shield generator.

Also Ignore scales...

So I basically skipped over reading everything until this very last post, but the idea of a scenario/campaign pack is intriguing. It's optional, could field experimental/special rules without breaking the continuity of the game, and offer a different style of play. I'd be okay with flat, cardboard walkers/senators shuttles. If the pack was successful enough, maybe they could make little models, too. The LOTR card game has different style scenarios and rules within each of it's expansions. Why not xwing?

My thouhgts exactly. This could also be a way to get more use out of the epic ships, other than lengthy epic games. Trow a mission with the rebel transporter in the box etc.

So I basically skipped over reading everything until this very last post, but the idea of a scenario/campaign pack is intriguing. It's optional, could field experimental/special rules without breaking the continuity of the game, and offer a different style of play. I'd be okay with flat, cardboard walkers/senators shuttles. If the pack was successful enough, maybe they could make little models, too. The LOTR card game has different style scenarios and rules within each of it's expansions. Why not xwing?

We do get scenarios. I'm still watching carefully for an opportunity to play the one that came with Imperial Aces. I did play the one that came with the Firespray but my opponent made some very questionable decisions during list building and it was a very easy game.

I really think speeders would not work within the context of XWM, and not even within a ground assault scenario where true starfighers or atmospheric fighters can be used.

Ground assault scenarios are another matter. A new starter set could allow our current minis to be adapted for this type of gameplay, however I feel it would not be popular enough to be financially viable for FFG. Sorry to sound like a downer here but I think you're wanting to shoehorn a different game into XWM.

It's a nice idea, and sure, something to create yourself (and post up online, if you get it to work well!) but not something that I think FFG would ever do, simply because the battle is non-compatible with anything else in the X-Wing line.

If you read "Isards Revenge" (which I know is not definitive, it's just an illustration of my point) then Wedge mentions, and indeed demonstrates spectacularly, what would have happened if the AT-ATs had gone against X-Wings instead of Speeders - the result is equivalent to hitting an apple with a hammer, with the AT-AT being the apple.

It would make an interesting stand-alone game with a completely new ruleset (a Star Wars 40k, if you will), but there's no real way to make the current X-Wing rules work in it.

Sethis, why did the Rebels not use their x-wings against them then? Could have asked Luke to smash some apples before he took off or choose the poor snow speeder. Also the Empire must use AT-ATs on planets with enemy starfighters? What I am trying to say, is that there could be some leeway between the game and stories.

Rapscallion. This is just wishlisting and suggesting for my part, FFGs finances I have no insight into... I know they have a lot of my money

I believe there is some merit in the idea (as discussed in previous threads). However, as many people on the first 2 pages have stated; speeders just don't fit with the scale of the game. Add to that that movement speed of ATATs and ATSTs is so slow that they would only move 1 template every third turn or so.

I think we can reach a middle ground though that gives ground based warfare but doesn't break the game. In the X-wing novels we see plenty of examples of atmospheric engagements.

The solution may be to offer 'scenario packs'. These packs would offer a piece of terrain, rules and additional scenarios. For example, a Hoth pack may contain an Ion Cannon and an ATAT. Ion cannon may shoot once per [insert reasonable time frame here] and give double ion hits. An ATAT may fire 2 reds at range 2 max .. or something like that. Either can only be destroyed by a single hit from any ordnance. Victor is the first to destroy the opponents target.

In this game, players must consider both their list and their game strategy. Do you spend more points equipping more ships with ordnance or use your points buffing the escort of the sole ordnance carrying ship? If the latter, than you have to protect that single ship until it's bombing run is complete.

You can see in this scenario, the OP gets ground based combat, the rules are not broken or altered and the game offers an OPTIONAL element that offers welcome distraction from the standard 6 asteroid deathmatch. I would buy into that.