Hey Joe!

Care to throw down some concept stats for your AT-AT?

I think we can all agree that it doesn't have any shields and giving it shields is a big no no.

Do you think it should just have heaps of hull or should it have a damage negating ability like an armor value? After all it's armor is "too strong for blasters".

Here is a pic of my ones for scale and they look about right.

Yeah I do and I agree that your models are just about wonderful. I had that HOTH Set too WAYyyy back in the day. I already made it clear that I went a little bigger because I wanted the critters to pop and look as cool as possible. My knowledge of the math is very strong, which is why I desregarded it. The numbers say so and such but my eye balls and do not agree. Prlolly cause I love The Empire Strikes Back. Battle Front made things huge and badass too... REASONS!

Anyhow your stuff is cool. But ideas? Yeah first of all my guys can fire 180 because they can roll their shoulders and sway to the left or right and of course they can move their heads and guns.

Next thing I am pretty sure I am unique in that my AT-AT's have no armor rating. They are just to hard to damage. However if you get a critical hit you do one structural Integrity point. When an AT-AT takes twelve of these you can hit it as normal. But they are still immune to Crit effects. Note that I do not allow special Crits either, nope you have to actually roll twelve of them on naked dice. After you have gotten past that you can chew down the next twelve points of actual hull, and that will kill the **** thing. So my AT-AT's take an absolute minimum of twenty four points to kill. Now I do have rules for messing them up of course. Like Tripping and Bombing kinda exactly like what we saw Wedge and Luke do.

If this is crazy sounding. Check it Brah. When wedge tripped dat one guy, he fell face first and stressed the hull, and so forth, this made the completely undamaged armor ***** and and it made a little spot where several blast hits could get into the body past that all mighty armor. The armor did not give, rather the metal it was attached to did.

Get them badass Rebel Commandos to work. Or fly the Tantive down, because just like in the lore, capitol grade weapons will buckle 'em up and blast them down.

For the AT-ST's... I give them one structural Integrity point, and when it is gone I treat them just like a very good heavy fighter with six hull. While they are affected by Crits at this point, you do still need to roll them all natural and no special funny business will work. My stomping little meanies can move well and they also have the 180 fire.

Now all of this is only for non capitol grade weapons.

Bombers... Dat Glory! Bombers work as normal. However I still make 'em roll crits to count until the twelve SIP's are chewed down. After that they can boom boom some Walker-asses, and even use their sneaky tricks to make Hits into CRITS!

So... except for Capitol Grade Weapons, you have to do twelve or one glorious natural Crit on Walkers. The exception being special Commando Tricks, and Bombers which can Gimmick Crit. Bombers are any ship that can take HEAVY Ordnance. I define Heavy Ordnance as doing four or more red dice all natural like, or causing auto damage.

There are a few of my game-joints... Have FUN!

Check this out, it is fun. Notice when the TIE zoom down and pass right by their AT-AT's ... they ain't half the size of the **** Walker...

Right...

Wrong...

:lol:

My two cents on scale and an x-wing compatible ground game.

Models on tall flight stems don't need to be the same scale as ground units. They are closer to the eye when on the table top.

My favorite ground scale for vehicles is 1/144. A common scale for small tank models. It's just large enough to be detailed with crew figures. You can also find f-toys models in this scale for the important stuff.

My two cents on scale and an x-wing compatible ground game.

Models on tall flight stems don't need to be the same scale as ground units. They are closer to the eye when on the table top.

My favorite ground scale for vehicles is 1/144. A common scale for small tank models. It's just large enough to be detailed with crew figures. You can also find f-toys models in this scale for the important stuff.

Right on Star Brah!

Dat 25 year old technical journal math wuz nevers right and it ain't even Proper Cannon now!

Good thing some of us can "Let go dat old junk!"

... look at the films, and Battlefront... they got it right.

I'm advocating for a different scale for all ground units. I still think the at-at is not that huge compared to space craft. It's just ground units make a much better toy when you can see the people in them.

It would have a similar visual range as armada. Tiny little trooper squads (that you can paint yourself), Medium sized painted speeders and huge armored transports.

I'm advocating for a different scale for all ground units. I still think the at-at is not that huge compared to space craft. It's just ground units make a much better toy when you can see the people in them.

It would have a similar visual range as armada. Tiny little trooper squads (that you can paint yourself), Medium sized painted speeders and huge armored transports.

I agree, this is kinda to taste sure. But there is close to right, then there is ridiculous. In no world can a fighter be half the size of an AT-AT... period.

The AT-AT Head with four or five guys in it, compared with a TIE CP with one guy in it... dat alone answers the scale thing. X-Wings can not carry twenty Rebel Commandos and a pair of Tauntauns... last time I checked on it.

I'd say give them 2 die to simulate the fact that it should be extremely hard to hit something with their almost-turbolaser grade heavy cannons mounted on the head, but then add a rule that all hits count as crits and crits as two crits. Or something like that.

I can't imagine a TIE fighter getting hit by it and not getting utterly devastated, so up to 4 crits per shot would make sense to me - either pop a light vehicle or seriously damage heavier ones (with a chance of 4 direct hits!). Maybe add a secondary shot at the same target the way Ghost works from the lighter armaments.

Battlefront needs Tauntauns....

VS

Battlefront needs Tauntauns....

VS

And now you: Where are these models from? ^^

@Joe: You have to look how large fighters are

Here a F-14 compared to an AT-AT

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/tubachris85x/AT-ATSCALE.jpg

@Joe: You have to look how large fighters are

Here a F-14 compared to an AT-AT

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/tubachris85x/AT-ATSCALE.jpg

I have had that in my folders for about three years.

@Joe: You have to look how large fighters are

Here a F-14 compared to an AT-AThttp://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/tubachris85x/AT-ATSCALE.jpg

I have had that in my folders for about three years.

You are not getting it. We are arguing that it doesn't matter, since we are talking about fictional things. We never saw an X-Wing and AT-At in relation to each other, so what feels right is a legitimate measure.

You are not getting it. We are arguing that it doesn't matter, since we are talking about fictional things. We never saw an X-Wing and AT-At in relation to each other, so what feels right is a legitimate measure.

Not to mention that and BATTLEFRONT... which is all legit and cannon and such.

@Joe: You have to look how large fighters are

Here a F-14 compared to an AT-AThttp://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y48/tubachris85x/AT-ATSCALE.jpg

I have had that in my folders for about three years.

And you are still agueing an X-Wing isn't half as long as the height of an AT-AT? ^^

Go look at the images I have posted and then ask yourself how do you believe that an X-Wing is that huge.

I'm getting it. I have no problem about people using the scale which feels right to them. But Joes posts suggestet that he has the opinion the AT-AT in the movies is bigger than 22,5m. It isn't

And yes we talk about fictional things. Fictional things which had 1:1 Models (X-Wing) and accurate Scale Models in the Movies. So we can exactly compare them to each other.

And thats what this discussion was all about: Would FFG, a company that propagates correct scale for X-Wing models, as long as they aren't too big (Capitals), make the AT-AT the right scale or scale it up (which is unlikely).

@Joe: Don't get me wrong; I don't wanna dictate how you have to see this or play that. I just wanted to point out what the right scale is

You are not getting it. We are arguing that it doesn't matter, since we are talking about fictional things. We never saw an X-Wing and AT-At in relation to each other, so what feels right is a legitimate measure.

Not to mention that and BATTLEFRONT... which is all legit and cannon and such.

And I would just suggest that Battlefront scaled the TIE down As it was scaled up and down and up and down in official canon within the last years. And Rebels is canon too, so the TIE should have smaller wings ^^

Btw: Which pictures do you refer to?

They didn't have accurate scales anywhere in the movies, that was allways an afterthought. The AT-ATs walking at the generators probably weren't the same scale as the one that tries to stomp Luke or the one at Endors landing platform.

Not to mention any cockpit in relation to any ship. A-Wings, TIE Fighters, the Falcon all make no sense at all. Be aware that the "accurate" scales you are talking about here were all added in more often than not conflicting and now legends source material.

I'm getting it. I have no problem about people using the scale which feels right to them. But Joes posts suggestet that he has the opinion the AT-AT in the movies is bigger than 22,5m. It isn't

And yes we talk about fictional things. Fictional things which had 1:1 Models (X-Wing) and accurate Scale Models in the Movies. So we can exactly compare them to each other.

And thats what this discussion was all about: Would FFG, a company that propagates correct scale for X-Wing models, as long as they aren't too big (Capitals), make the AT-AT the right scale or scale it up (which is unlikely).

@Joe: Don't get me wrong; I don't wanna dictate how you have to see this or play that. I just wanted to point out what the right scale is

It's all good Brah.

I know my Walkers are on the BEFF-Side... sure. But it looks great and it is close to what was good in the films and dat cannon new Battfront-joint-nik... so Boss is happies!

I mentioned about 100 post ago that I am using the cute little DZ monsters for troopers and they match up glorious like with my HUGE-Ass Walkers.

You are not getting it. We are arguing that it doesn't matter, since we are talking about fictional things. We never saw an X-Wing and AT-At in relation to each other, so what feels right is a legitimate measure.

Not to mention that and BATTLEFRONT... which is all legit and cannon and such.

And I would just suggest that Battlefront scaled the TIE down As it was scaled up and down and up and down in official canon within the last years. And Rebels is canon too, so the TIE should have smaller wings ^^

Btw: Which pictures do you refer to?

Actually.. Acording to Pablo Hidalgo, via Rebels Recon, the TIE wings in rebels are nothing more than a visual style, and are those TIEs are not any different to the ones from the film. He also shows a model based on the movie sets, and explains that the TIE cockpit only looks cramped because of the angle the interior was filmed at. It was only RPG/fiction writers that made the assumption about the size.

See how cute?

The question was never about the scale of the AT-AT, the issue was JBR7 saying that an AT-AT from an FFG X-Wing scale compatible ground game would be $75 apiece, because they would be so large. THAT'S where the scale issue came into it.

Those action fleet AT-ATs are really good options for home brew scenarios, and they look GREAT if your using the DZC figs for infantry (since the AT-AT is about 60% bigger than it should be and the 10mm figs are about 60% bigger than they should be).

But if (IF) FFG were to make a small scale ground combat game they would use the canon scale, which would have have the AT-ATs be about the size of the IG-2000, and most certainly NOT $75.

You are not getting it. We are arguing that it doesn't matter, since we are talking about fictional things. We never saw an X-Wing and AT-At in relation to each other, so what feels right is a legitimate measure.

Why does something being fictional or not make the scale no longer matter?

We see people getting in and out of X-wings so we can get a quite accurate size for the X-wing, same goes for the snow speeder. The we see the AT-AT's foot crush Luke's snow speeder and Luke scaling the AT-AT so we can actually get a close estimate of the size of the AT-AT.

I used to have the model kit from the mid 80's of the AT-AT, it also came with two snow speeders and two turrets.

That kit was was scale based on what we saw on screen. The snow speeder was only a little bigger than the AT-AT foot print was

The question was never about the scale of the AT-AT, the issue was JBR7 saying that an AT-AT from an FFG X-Wing scale compatible ground game would be $75 apiece, because they would be so large. THAT'S where the scale issue came into it.

Those action fleet AT-ATs are really good options for home brew scenarios, and they look GREAT if your using the DZC figs for infantry (since the AT-AT is about 60% bigger than it should be and the 10mm figs are about 60% bigger than they should be).

But if (IF) FFG were to make a small scale ground combat game they would use the canon scale, which would have have the AT-ATs be about the size of the IG-2000, and most certainly NOT $75.

You are wrong.....that is not what JBR7 is saying. He is saying three of the action fleet at-at on eBay is about $75. I bought two of them and they cost right around $45....

They are in good scale if you have them right next to xwing minis...

Haha another board game named after a classic Star Wars video game. They even put Cloud City on the front prominently; in Rebellion, the Rebel HQ was a dead ringer for Cloud City. Looks fun, though.

You are wrong.....that is not what JBR7 is saying. He is saying three of the action fleet at-at on eBay is about $75.

Another reason why... as if IMPERIAL ASSAULT was not clear enough about it.

https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/2015/11/3/star-wars-rebellion/

A few of the guys talk about this from time to time... and I say just do it yourselves gang.

Who is going to pay $75 each for the three (you know you want three) in scale AT-AT's anyhow... which is what it would be.

This new game looks fun... regardless.