It's too bad I only have one WOTC AT-AT.

If I had a spare I'd convert one to be a case for my IA squad, then I'd have a reason to bring it to a tournament

Someone posted ages ago, they played a similar style miniature game which had a huge creature and it was represented as a footprint on the board. So, for example, an AT-AT migth be a 5x5 tile or 4x4, that shows up when the scenario (campaign specifically) calls for it. Sort of like a bombardment-esque rule. Maybe, every second turn, roll the blue die and a result of 5 means the Imperial player gets to place a footprint, anyone caught under it, is forced to move adjacent and is stunned or weakened for a round.

That'd be the best way to place an AT-AT in the game, I reckon.

Someone posted ages ago, they played a similar style miniature game which had a huge creature and it was represented as a footprint on the board. So, for example, an AT-AT migth be a 5x5 tile or 4x4, that shows up when the scenario (campaign specifically) calls for it. Sort of like a bombardment-esque rule. Maybe, every second turn, roll the blue die and a result of 5 means the Imperial player gets to place a footprint, anyone caught under it, is forced to move adjacent and is stunned or weakened for a round.

That'd be the best way to place an AT-AT in the game, I reckon.

I like that, but I think it's a little gimmicky to justify a mini. I like the idea someone suggested by placing neutral or Imperial mission tokens in a 3x3 or 4x4 grid for the leg, maybe just for one mission. Wouldn't mind seeing several stuff like that, really. Tie strafing, Bombers, ion canons, there's a lot that could still be represented in a more abstract way.

I'd love to see ATATs in the game. Just templates for the feet that have to stay a certain distance apart, squish you if you get under them, and have to move in straight lines. Maybe 2x2 square templates?

On September 22, 2015 at 5:30 PM, Animewarsdude said:

I won't lie this question has had a few forms in the other Star Wars miniatures forums. X-wing had the are Star Destroyers too big for the game, and we ended up getting Star Wars Armada. Which to point out the developers made the point that one of the goals of building the game was to have a game with Star Destroyers in the game. And in those forums the debate about whether the Super Star Destroyer would be too big for the game or not.

I would be willing to bet at some point in time, we will get a Star Wars Armada type game for Imperial Assault where the game focuses more on squad and large scale engagements rather than elite group taking on the Empire.

I could totally see this happening as a Runewars re-skin to a Star Wars ground game

I guess my biggest hangup with a "Armada"-style ground game is that I don't know if the Rebels would hold their own as well. In space, they at least had large Mon Cal cruisers, Nebulon frigates, and such. They couldn't match the Imperial Navy, but they still could go toe to toe with them for a short time if they concentrated their fire in small areas.

On the ground, though... I don't know. Sure, the Rebels have some tanks, and even some large vehicles (in Legends), plus there's always airspeeders. I just don't know that would make for as interesting of gameplay. Airspeeders are cool in all in a videogame, but in a tactical miniatures game, I think most players would always want to choose the walkers.

I don't know, though, maybe I'm wrong.

edit: What might work better (and I can't believe I'm saying this) is a prequel Armada style game. Clones vs droids would be a much more fair ground fight.

22 minutes ago, subtrendy said:

On the ground, though... I don't know. Sure, the Rebels have some tanks, and even some large vehicles (in Legends), plus there's always airspeeders. I just don't know that would make for as interesting of gameplay. Airspeeders are cool in all in a videogame, but in a tactical miniatures game, I think most players would always want to choose the walkers.

The other thing about walkers in a tactical game is that, tactically, they're pretty limited. Basically they've got one setting - walk slowly forward and shoot straight ahead.

I mean sure they kind of worked in the movies, but that's because the rebels used "attack pattern delta" which was apparently their code for "fly straight at them from the one direction where they can actually fire on us" . You'd think that the meta in any miniatures game would pick up on the "um... try attacking from the side?" strategy pretty quickly.

21 minutes ago, ManateeX said:

The other thing about walkers in a tactical game is that, tactically, they're pretty limited. Basically they've got one setting - walk slowly forward and shoot straight ahead.

I mean sure they kind of worked in the movies, but that's because the rebels used "attack pattern delta" which was apparently their code for "fly straight at them from the one direction where they can actually fire on us" . You'd think that the meta in any miniatures game would pick up on the "um... try attacking from the side?" strategy pretty quickly.

That's true as well. While fighters in X-Wing are generally pretty maneuverable, and ships in Armada have wide firing arcs, walkers kind of have the worst of both worlds. Not to mention, the sheer maneuverability of airspeeders would be comically overpowered when compared to walkers.

I guess that kind of contradicts my "everyone would want to be the Empire" statement from last time, but it really just tips the scale too far the other way.

I don't know, I think Imperial Assault does a pretty good job of giving us the battles we could see in the Original Trilogy. Sure, we don't have a great way to feature AT-ATs yet, but that's one single part of a ground battle (and technically, the airspeeder portion isn't arguably a "ground battle" anyway). I just don't think there's that big of a need for this.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a licensing issue with this as well? I think hasbro has the rights for ground based miniatures games, which is why FFG can't sell IA stuff on their web store and why it's marketed as a campaign board game with miniature components and Skirmish as an alternate play mode.

So until that gets cleared up, I don't see "ground Armada" happening.

No, Hasbro has the Star Wars boardgame license. FFG has Star Wars miniatures games, card games, etc. licenses.

The boardgame license was the problem for Imperial Assault, especially when it was marketed as a boardgame.

And, FFG and Hasbro has an agreement now (details of which are not known), which made Star Wars: Rebellion (clearly a boardgame) possible.

2 minutes ago, FatherTurin said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a licensing issue with this as well? I think hasbro has the rights for ground based miniatures games, which is why FFG can't sell IA stuff on their web store and why it's marketed as a campaign board game with miniature components and Skirmish as an alternate play mode.

So until that gets cleared up, I don't see "ground Armada" happening.

My understanding is that Hasbro has the rights to Star Wars board games, period.

There's a real difference, though, between the board games that Hasbro makes (Star Wars Monopoly: Rogue One edition!) and a full-on hobby game like IA. The markets for each are really quite separate - nobody is going to change their mind about purchasing Star Wars Twister because FFG released Rebellion. My guess is that it's this line of reasoning that allowed FFG to negotiate whatever deal they made with Hasbro/Lucasfilm that let them put out IA and Rebellion, but part of that seems to be that FFG can't sell these games directly.

In any case, though, I don't think that any of these licensing issues would matter with respect to an actual miniatures game like a "ground Armada". The bigger question to my mind would really be whether there would be enough interest in it to support an entirely new (yet very similar) line of products.

It's a little murky. Apparently FFG was (fortunately) able to make Star Wars: Rebellion, which is very much a board game. I guess the argument could be made that there are miniatures in the game, but the only thing that separates that from other games that Hasbro has made (like Risk: Star Wars Edition) is that FFG's minis are ususally much better quality.

Regardless, I'm sure that FFG would be able to relatively easily get the rights to a ground based vehicular combat game, if they saw a demand for it.

Duplicate post, mods please delete.

Duplicate post, mods please delete.

I know it's an old topic what with Return to Hoth already being out, but I hope we never see this. AT-AT's have been used in all the prior SW minis games and they always get the scale wrong. Like way wrong. If you really watch the movies closely you will see how tiny the WOTC one was. The toy ones were also way too small compared to the actions figures. Scale creep irritates me to no end.

We get a good sense of the size of AT-AT's when Luke is running around underfoot of one. Or when we think real hard about the scenes in the interior cockpit with general Veers.

To actually get the AT-AT scale done correctly, at 28mm gaming minis, you'd need something the size of Kenner's 3.75 inch action figure scale. Try fitting THAT onto a skirmish map! More likely we'd someday get a skirmish map that takes place INSIDE an AT-AT!

Attack pattern delta was dissected pretty well by WEG in the 90's. It's not a perfect explanation but it's way better than the internet snark that usually accompanies discussions of it.

AT-AT's do more than walk forward and shoot, tactically. But to do it, you need several of them, usually paired up with AT-ST's, and a belly full of stormtroopers in the AT-AT's. The AT-AT's are in a staggered formation so they cover each other's blind spots, with AT-ST's running around beneath them to keep saboteurs like Luke from causing problems. That being said the purpose of the AT-AT is not to be an attack vehicle, so it shouldn't be interpreted according to how well it functions in that role. It is an All Terrain Armored Transport. It's supposed to be able to cross weird terrain, not get blown up, and carry people. It does all those things in the movie, while incidentally serving as a heavy weapons platform. Discussions of it rarely take any of this into account, I find. Kinda like how internet Imperial apologists think that installing Leia as a ruler was the political goal of the rebellion.

Course the true discussion of the AT-AT has to be taken in terms of US film history. The "purpose" of AT-AT's was to wow audiences in movie theaters in 1980. Mission accomplished.

You dont really need an at-at just the feet of an at-at that you can shoot or attack and get squashed by!

On 3/11/2017 at 9:09 AM, TauntaunScout said:

Course the true discussion of the AT-AT has to be taken in terms of US film history. The "purpose" of AT-AT's was to wow audiences in movie theaters in 1980. Mission accomplished.

This