Yeah, yeah, I've seen the million posts over the years clamoring for a ground-combat component of the game, but...I dunno, based on JUST 'Empire Strikes Back', it didn't seem like there was much overlap. X-Wings and TIE Fighters fought IN SPACE, and speeders and walkers fought ON GROUND.

So the last year has really completely shaken that up. In Episode VII, we see TIE Fighters *several times* doing ground strafing runs. Hell, [super minor spoiler warning], I don't think we actually see any *space combat* at all - every fighter-on-fighter action is in a planet's atmosphere, and usually quite low. Then pile onto that the last season of 'Rebels' - notably tonight's episode, where we found out that AT-ATs are perfectly capable of taking 4 or more proton torpedo hits before going down, and can fire at 'starfighters' in an atmosphere without much difficulty, and...

I dunno, the conclusion seems kinda inescapable. Given what we know of Star Wars NOW...ground units actually make complete sense. And given the cousin game (Star Trek Attack Wing) spun off a D&D version that *did* include ground units...I'd almost call the concept 'proven'.

Not sure ?quite? how I feel about that, but it seems like an obvious safe direction to go in. Gives FFG about two dozen more possible expansions, immediately.

But...could it be balanced, competitively? Units with nearly no movement ability (relatively), but requiring a STAGGERING amount of damage to actually kill? (I mean, four solid proton torpedo hits, along with several blaster hits from the Ghost...we are talking easily 20 hull points for a walker...) I dunno?

sounds great for epic, but ****, this game is complicated and takes a long time.

I'd probably be happy if they did it. But I might have to tell myself for sure not to buy it cuz I've spent so much on xwing as it is.

I think it would be really nice.

uh oh.

yeah. it would be really cool, flying through trees, and shooting at the turrets, and seeing little rebel guys run around the bases...

... and such a cool green background or snow or....

*sht. take my money.

I would love it to combine such 2 games, with AAA Tanks and ground units having to complete missions and both sides having air support.

It would be difficult to balance the squad point system, and a few ground units seem really small for X-Wing. Also apart from asteroids there would have to be ground obstacles affecting air and land units differently making the game challenging to realize.

Otherwise, i would not see D&D Attack Wing as a proof of concept. It seems to have very mild success at best!

I doubt they would try and integrate it with the regular game. Much more likely that it would be marketed as a third play format, next to standard and epic. That way the planetary elements can be easily isolated from the starfighters for tournaments and the like.

I doubt they would try and integrate it with the regular game. Much more likely that it would be marketed as a third play format, next to standard and epic. That way the planetary elements can be easily isolated from the starfighters for tournaments and the like.

Very much agreed, the only decently integrated theatre (land/sea/air) rule set I know of is dystopian wars (tiny boats are very fun too), and even that is balanced for matching core forces, and IMHO balanced more towards surface (naval even more than land) warfare. Well... Actually, have to give a tiny nod to the flyers in 40k as well - it is clunky, but does represent a fast mover trying to take a sustained role in a very localized conflict fairly well.

I could see the need for new templates or giving flying units multiple moves per turn with the existing to have any hope of equating the relative speed differences between an AT-AT and an A-wing... Designers nightmare, but it would be gloriously fun to actually fly a tow cable around a walkers legs on a tabletop!

I doubt they would try and integrate it with the regular game. Much more likely that it would be marketed as a third play format, next to standard and epic. That way the planetary elements can be easily isolated from the starfighters for tournaments and the like.

Very much agreed, the only decently integrated theatre (land/sea/air) rule set I know of is dystopian wars (tiny boats are very fun too), and even that is balanced for matching core forces, and IMHO balanced more towards surface (naval even more than land) warfare. Well... Actually, have to give a tiny nod to the flyers in 40k as well - it is clunky, but does represent a fast mover trying to take a sustained role in a very localized conflict fairly well.

I could see the need for new templates or giving flying units multiple moves per turn with the existing to have any hope of equating the relative speed differences between an AT-AT and an A-wing... Designers nightmare, but it would be gloriously fun to actually fly a tow cable around a walkers legs on a tabletop!

Or use epic energy rules... but all movement takes spending one energy for speed one... and you can only generate energy by staying still

I dunno, I think ground units remind me way too much of the WizKids stuff.

I could see the need for new templates or giving flying units multiple moves per turn with the existing to have any hope of equating the relative speed differences between an AT-AT and an A-wing... Designers nightmare, but it would be gloriously fun to actually fly a tow cable around a walkers legs on a tabletop!

A game of X-Wing represents a short dogfight of around 30 seconds realtime with ships that can travel in excess of 1000 mph.

Scale that to the speed even the fastest ground unit can travel and they become essentially static - and shooting at static targets will not an interesting game make.

Then again - if we can suspend our disbelief in space wizards with laser swords we can accept some mechanical inconsistencies too - as long as the game is fun, who cares if the core mechanic isnt especially realistic.

The Empire already had dedicated ground support squadrons of TIEs. Hence the nickname groundhog and why pilots from the Army and Navy had a bitter rivalry.

I don't watch Rebels and haven't seen FA, but that's a bit dissapointing.

Suggestion:

Get a playmat which has terrain features and looks planetary.

Play as normal.

Profit.

The Empire already had dedicated ground support squadrons of TIEs. Hence the nickname groundhog and why pilots from the Army and Navy had a bitter rivalry.

I don't watch Rebels and haven't seen FA, but that's a bit dissapointing.

Yes, very disappointing.

(That you haven't seen)

I doubt they would try and integrate it with the regular game. Much more likely that it would be marketed as a third play format, next to standard and epic. That way the planetary elements can be easily isolated from the starfighters for tournaments and the like.

Very much agreed, the only decently integrated theatre (land/sea/air) rule set I know of is dystopian wars (tiny boats are very fun too), and even that is balanced for matching core forces, and IMHO balanced more towards surface (naval even more than land) warfare. Well... Actually, have to give a tiny nod to the flyers in 40k as well - it is clunky, but does represent a fast mover trying to take a sustained role in a very localized conflict fairly well.

I could see the need for new templates or giving flying units multiple moves per turn with the existing to have any hope of equating the relative speed differences between an AT-AT and an A-wing... Designers nightmare, but it would be gloriously fun to actually fly a tow cable around a walkers legs on a tabletop!

Or use epic energy rules... but all movement takes spending one energy for speed one... and you can only generate energy by staying still

This is actually the best solution that I've heard so far to simulate the differences in speed.

If we kept this as simple as possible (for now) we could use the following rules:

-Play on a 3x3 mat

-No obstacles

-Ground units could have the following stats:

---Attack

---Energy

---Hull

---Shield

AT-ATs would be epic sized and use the epic maneuver template. Ships that landed on them would be destroyed and deal a face up critical to the section they first made contact with.

AT-STs would be on a hex tile, and would move using 1 straight templates. Each side would be labeled A-F on the dial, detailing which side you'd start with and what side you'd end with. There'd be an energy cost associated with each movement.

Example:

A-D-1 --- Place the template coming out of the A position, and move the model to the D position. This costs one energy.

So essentially

A-D-1 is a one straight ahead

A-C-2 is a one straight ahead, but turning 60 degrees

B-E-2 would be strafing up and to the right, maintaining your facing

B-C-3 would be moving forward to the right and turning to the right

A-A-4 is a U-Turn

You could just as easily do this with an octagonal base, but I think hex would add more flavor because their movement wouldn't be 45 degree intervals like everything else.

One of the named pilots could use the 1 bank template for an extra energy too, adding a lot more speed/maneuverability.

I doubt they would try and integrate it with the regular game. Much more likely that it would be marketed as a third play format, next to standard and epic. That way the planetary elements can be easily isolated from the starfighters for tournaments and the like.

Very much agreed, the only decently integrated theatre (land/sea/air) rule set I know of is dystopian wars (tiny boats are very fun too), and even that is balanced for matching core forces, and IMHO balanced more towards surface (naval even more than land) warfare. Well... Actually, have to give a tiny nod to the flyers in 40k as well - it is clunky, but does represent a fast mover trying to take a sustained role in a very localized conflict fairly well.

I could see the need for new templates or giving flying units multiple moves per turn with the existing to have any hope of equating the relative speed differences between an AT-AT and an A-wing... Designers nightmare, but it would be gloriously fun to actually fly a tow cable around a walkers legs on a tabletop!

I don't really think the ground units would move much at all compared to air units, honestly. Maybe use the '1-straight' template, sideways (kinda like how large ships barrel roll), and 'move' the ground unit by...well, sort of like the large ship barrel roll. From one side of the 1-straight to the other, than allow a facing change up to 90 degrees. And that's it. I think I'd even require that ground units which 'move' cannot also then attack on their turn.

That should do a reasonably good job showing them to be incredibly slow.

As to hit points - I think (per the Rebels episode, particularly - but, heck, also given how ineffective TIE Fighters strafing the ground were in TFA) - the implication would be that ground units have A LOT OF HIT POINTS. Maybe 0 native 'agility', though, but then an 'agility' bonus added based on covering terrain? Or...how about 'ground units cannot be attacked outside range 1' (reflecting difficulty in picking out targets from ground clutter)?

I dunno, it could work and be balanced against the regular game. The units would be radically different enough that it would certainly play completely differently.

I've been wanting this since I got into the game.

However, i argue it is done through scenario packs. In our current game, the battle can take place in atmosphere or space. It was said above, play on a different mat and profit. If a scenario pack provided an ATAT, some rules around its movement and some scenarios that utilise the model we have

a)optional atmospheric battle for those that want them,

b)new games that break up the death match style

c) some cool new models based on iconic and recognisable SW vehicles and objects.

Other ideas might include: turrets, shield generator, ion cannons, etc.

I maintain that any ground based vehicle smaller than at ATST should not be considered. It becomes an issue of scale/speed.

Additionally, to resolve the movement issue. I have thought that maybe ATATs would use a 1 straight but measure from front to front. That is, the vehicle only moves the length of the template. Very slow indeed.

I've stopped buying expansions for this game. I don't recognise the ships as we dig deeper into the EU dross. I'd buy into these expansions though.

I said it before and I'll say it every time ground combat gets brought up in X-wing. It wouldn't work for the simple reason that General Veers in an AT-AT would be too OP.

Homeboy was casually shooting down Rogue squadron pilots (Luke Skywalker!) in one of the most impractically designed AA vehicle ever conceived.

More on topic: I might get flamed for this, but the Clone Wars era might supply a more interesting game design space as there was a greater variety of units shown on screen in both the movies and the show. Given the general aversion of that era by the X-wing devs it would probably work better as a separate game. Otherwise once ship expansions slow down it would work best as a scenario pack as others have suggested.

3 units, Snowspeeders, AT-AT's and AT-ST's doesn't leave a lot of room for design shenanigans and dipping into the EU for ground vehicles doesn't inspire much warm fuzzy feelings of nostalgia.

The Empire already had dedicated ground support squadrons of TIEs. Hence the nickname groundhog and why pilots from the Army and Navy had a bitter rivalry.

I don't watch Rebels and haven't seen FA, but that's a bit dissapointing.

Yes, very disappointing.

(That you haven't seen)

I don't like movie theaters. I can wait for a rental or for HBO. The plot itself isn't interesting either, and I don't care at all about the new cast.

I said it before and I'll say it every time ground combat gets brought up in X-wing. It wouldn't work for the simple reason that General Veers in an AT-AT would be too OP.

Homeboy was casually shooting down Rogue squadron pilots (Luke Skywalker!) in one of the most impractically designed AA vehicle ever conceived.

More on topic: I might get flamed for this, but the Clone Wars era might supply a more interesting game design space as there was a greater variety of units shown on screen in both the movies and the show. Given the general aversion of that era by the X-wing devs it would probably work better as a separate game. Otherwise once ship expansions slow down it would work best as a scenario pack as others have suggested.

3 units, Snowspeeders, AT-AT's and AT-ST's doesn't leave a lot of room for design shenanigans and dipping into the EU for ground vehicles doesn't inspire much warm fuzzy feelings of nostalgia.

Ground combat needs a seperat game. You're going to ruin space craft to make them functionally balanced with ground vehicles and walkers.

Hm.

Some kind of full on game expansion for a ground-game that uses X-Wing stuff WOULD be super cool, tbh.

The speed scale is all wrong an AT-AT would move an inch in the time an x-wing match is complete.

You'd need to issue New manoeuvre dials that are alot more restrictive.

If FFG make it I'd most likely buy.

I'm already hoping for atmospheric combat (without walkers but speeders, skyhoppers, cloud cars etc) so why the smeg not!?

But if it doesn't happen I won't be upset. FFG do provide enough candy to put me into a diabetic coma, and I'm not diabetic.

I find the inclusion of a "Ground Assault" play format(in addition and compatible with, but separate from Standard, Epic, and Cinematic Play) to be a very fun and good idea. My son and I already play this regularly using some of his Star Wars Commands figures. They are way out of scale but they work just for fun. Several members on this forum have very close to scale models that they use in land based games. In my son's and my games, we generally use his ATATs, ATSTs, ATDPs(from Rebels) and a bunch of "troop squads" (which are just two figures taped together into a 1" x1" base. The ATATs are on bases that use 2 regular small ship bases attached together in the same way Epic ships have 2 large bases attached together with cardboard. They move very slowly. The ATSTs and ATDPs are each on a small base and move using the 2 speed template from the center of the base to center of the bade., and can pivot on the spot before or after they move.(I know it is to fast, but we tried slower and it wasn't very fun - it is just a game after all) and the guys move by pivoting on the spot, then moving using the 1 speed template center to center(they hardly move at all) As far as shooting goes, ATATs have 4 attack dice, ATSTs and ATDPs have 2. Troop units have 4 too, but can only shoot other troop units. ATATs have "Armor" which means they can only be hurt by secondary weapons and roll 1 evade for each hit they take(with no modification) so Armor stops about 37.5 % of hits they take, but no Armor roll is taken against Critical hits. The ATATs have 10 hits each. Shooting air to ground and vice versa give bonuses and penalties. A ground unit Targeting an Air unit grants one additional evade die and is measured at range +1. An Air unit shooting walkers gives no additional bonuses, but a ship shooting at troop units add plus one evade(ground troops are perpetually focused) Anyway, I have tons of other work in progress rules and scenarios that I won't get into, but the idea is fun to play, believe me.

I'd be psyched for it as long as they don't add any TIE tanks.

Because I'm obligated to own all TIEs but...I don't want any dumb TIE tanks...

Oh there'd be tie tanks.

Or you can play the FFG SUPER Star Wars epic....

Start with Rebellion.

Resolve all space combat with a game of Armada

Resolve all Armada small ship combat with X-wing

Back to Rebellion, resolve all ground combat with Imperial Assault.

5 years later, declare a victor.

Preferably TIE Maulers.

Because those are actually cool.

A game of X-Wing represents a short dogfight of around 30 seconds realtime

You have any evidence for that statement!

X-Wing is a highly abstracted game, there is no correlation like "one round equals X seconds" or anything. The closest example to an x-wing game in the films that I can think of is the falcon escaping the Death Star. That was what? 5-10 minutes.

Ground units will be slow compared to fighters, but mechanically there is no reason they can't use basically the same system.