To all,

I write a weekly article for the d20 network generally around the Star Wars rpg lines. I was lucky and humbled to be asked to write an article for fun for the release of Rogue One and stat out the new vehicles seen.

Don't worry no spoilers!!

I am very anxious to hear what people think. I listened and read all the research I could before the movie to figure out what these new vehicles are and how they work. From interviews with the director to summaries about the toys, I used it all. I really hope I did them justice and I hope everyone enjoys them. But I really do want to know what people think.

It's meant to be fun and certainly they are not the official stats like we will get later from fantasy flight games. I have no doubt that one of the age of rebellion books to come, will have these in there.

But until then I thought I would take a crack at it. I would love comments and hope everyone enjoys this.

http://www.d20radio.com/main/the-gm-awakens-new-imperial-vehicles-to-support-our-troops/

... did you mean to make the AT-ACT that good? It's actually kinda better than the AT-AT the way you have it statted.

... did you mean to make the AT-ACT that good? It's actually kinda better than the AT-AT the way you have it statted.

According to the reading, interviews, toys, etc... yes. It is confirmed to be bigger than the AT-AT, with basically same armament. Made for transporting large amounts of cargo for research stations and such... or troops if needed. So yeah... I did. Gareth Edwards said the ones on Hoth are smaller/skinnier. So... *shrug*... yep.

... did you mean to make the AT-ACT that good? It's actually kinda better than the AT-AT the way you have it statted.

According to the reading, interviews, toys, etc... yes. It is confirmed to be bigger than the AT-AT, with basically same armament. Made for transporting large amounts of cargo for research stations and such... or troops if needed. So yeah... I did. Gareth Edwards said the ones on Hoth are smaller/skinnier. So... *shrug*... yep.

Suggestion: Since it's bigger, it could have a bit more HT/SS then the AT-AT. But, since it's a cargo vehicle, perhaps drop the Armor value when compared to the AT-AT. I think many of us wouldn't like the idea that the cargo version of the AT-AT is more madass badass then the combat version. Dropping the armor may help this with a sensible reason. It's designed to move heavy cargo, so weight has to be saved somewhere.

Rogue One also had a transport tank on Jedha you might want to consider statting. Just a suggestion, some other folks were looking for a good troop ground transport for their imperials.

Rogue One also had a transport tank on Jedha you might want to consider statting. Just a suggestion, some other folks were looking for a good troop ground transport for their imperials.

Yeah the hover tank is already in the game. Can't recall which book. I'm sure you're right and it's different.

... did you mean to make the AT-ACT that good? It's actually kinda better than the AT-AT the way you have it statted.

According to the reading, interviews, toys, etc... yes. It is confirmed to be bigger than the AT-AT, with basically same armament. Made for transporting large amounts of cargo for research stations and such... or troops if needed. So yeah... I did. Gareth Edwards said the ones on Hoth are smaller/skinnier. So... *shrug*... yep.

Suggestion: Since it's bigger, it could have a bit more HT/SS then the AT-AT. But, since it's a cargo vehicle, perhaps drop the Armor value when compared to the AT-AT. I think many of us wouldn't like the idea that the cargo version of the AT-AT is more madass then the combat version. Dropping the armor may help this with a sensible reason. It's designed to move heavy cargo, so weight has to be saved somewhere.

Good ideas. I was kinda stuck tho. Kennedy and Edwards said it IS bigger and IS tougher and not as thin. In game to me that translates to a few armor points but not much. They were saying the AT-AT is not necessarily the biggest and best walker. But hey salt to taste and drop the stats if you'd like the AT-AT to be better. I think any of those ideas is cool.

I've found its usually safer to stat based off observed performance over what people say (even people like the director and company Pres). Remember, they typically don't give a rats if what they are saying is accurate and works. They are saying what think will make money. "Bigger and better" often being one of those things...

I've found its usually safer to stat based off observed performance over what people say (even people like the director and company Pres). Remember, they typically don't give a rats if what they are saying is accurate and works. They are saying what think will make money. "Bigger and better" often being one of those things...

I do't know about that. "Word of God" is something I would hold pretty conclusive. They essentially created the thing after all.

Yeah, but they got chewed up hard , based on what we see on the screen. The word of god is meaningless if it's not actually consistent with the end result.

The word of god is meaningless if it's not actually consistent with the end result.

This is precisely why I'm an atheist.

Why lock? No one's being nasty.

Statting newly appearing material is probably one of the hardest things to do. Between conflicting information, limited observable performance, and the excitement, it's tough to make something that matches, and works.

The word of god is meaningless if it's not actually consistent with the end result.

This is precisely why I'm an atheist.

Wrong thread. And wrong forum.

I've found its usually safer to stat based off observed performance over what people say (even people like the director and company Pres). Remember, they typically don't give a rats if what they are saying is accurate and works. They are saying what think will make money. "Bigger and better" often being one of those things...

I do't know about that. "Word of God" is something I would hold pretty conclusive. They essentially created the thing after all.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not like the director was actually thinking of technical or RPG stats.

As in, what does "not as thin" exactly mean? Are they actually talking about the armor walls? Or just the dimensions?

In the end I need a justification for the AT-AT to be seen at Hoth and Endor instead of the AT-ACT. If the AT-ACT is superior in all manners, why are we seeing it only in this one place so far? Perhaps it's an expensive one-off built for this one purpose that we see in Rogue One? And/or, after the events of Rogue One it was deemed the more expensive, larger variant didn't give much of an advantage to cost ratio. Perhaps three AT-AT's cost the same as two AT-ACT's and strategic planners went with the former option as they did with their TIE fighter philosophy (more is better, go cheap).

I've found its usually safer to stat based off observed performance over what people say (even people like the director and company Pres). Remember, they typically don't give a rats if what they are saying is accurate and works. They are saying what think will make money. "Bigger and better" often being one of those things...

I do't know about that. "Word of God" is something I would hold pretty conclusive. They essentially created the thing after all.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not like the director was actually thinking of technical or RPG stats.

As in, what does "not as thin" exactly mean? Are they actually talking about the armor walls? Or just the dimensions?

In the end I need a justification for the AT-AT to be seen at Hoth and Endor instead of the AT-ACT. If the AT-ACT is superior in all manners, why are we seeing it only in this one place so far? Perhaps it's an expensive one-off built for this one purpose that we see in Rogue One? And/or, after the events of Rogue One it was deemed the more expensive, larger variant didn't give much of an advantage to cost ratio. Perhaps three AT-AT's cost the same as two AT-ACT's and strategic planners went with the former option as they did with their TIE fighter philosophy (more is better, go cheap).

If you pay attention to the battle, you can explicitly see an open AT-ACT crack in half from laser fire from the X-wings (the source of weapons fire may not be correct). That giant opening is an Achilles' Heel begging to be exploited all the time and I can't really see the AT-ACT deployed in a designated combat role. In terms of firepower, the AT-AT outguns the AT-ACT with the two chin mounted guns and the two side mounted guns. The AT-ACT seems to only mount weapons on the sides of the head.

I've found its usually safer to stat based off observed performance over what people say (even people like the director and company Pres). Remember, they typically don't give a rats if what they are saying is accurate and works. They are saying what think will make money. "Bigger and better" often being one of those things...

I do't know about that. "Word of God" is something I would hold pretty conclusive. They essentially created the thing after all.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not like the director was actually thinking of technical or RPG stats.

As in, what does "not as thin" exactly mean? Are they actually talking about the armor walls? Or just the dimensions?

In the end I need a justification for the AT-AT to be seen at Hoth and Endor instead of the AT-ACT. If the AT-ACT is superior in all manners, why are we seeing it only in this one place so far? Perhaps it's an expensive one-off built for this one purpose that we see in Rogue One? And/or, after the events of Rogue One it was deemed the more expensive, larger variant didn't give much of an advantage to cost ratio. Perhaps three AT-AT's cost the same as two AT-ACT's and strategic planners went with the former option as they did with their TIE fighter philosophy (more is better, go cheap).

If you pay attention to the battle, you can explicitly see an open AT-ACT crack in half from laser fire from the X-wings (the source of weapons fire may not be correct). That giant opening is an Achilles' Heel begging to be exploited all the time and I can't really see the AT-ACT deployed in a designated combat role. In terms of firepower, the AT-AT outguns the AT-ACT with the two chin mounted guns and the two side mounted guns. The AT-ACT seems to only mount weapons on the sides of the head.

This. Once the cargo pod/section is deployed you'd have a lot less structural integrity there. Same as how a chassis has to be reinforced differently if you make a car convertible.

If you have to have the disconnect between the word of the producer and director vs the AT-AT stats etc, then make a conditional weakness for when the cargo pod is deployed or assume the cargo pod section isn't armoured, adjusting stats accordingly. The AT-AT should be a more fearsome opponent in combat.

Start by giving it two Armor values, one for the forward and aft facings and a reduced value for the port & starboard facings.

I've found its usually safer to stat based off observed performance over what people say (even people like the director and company Pres). Remember, they typically don't give a rats if what they are saying is accurate and works. They are saying what think will make money. "Bigger and better" often being one of those things...

I do't know about that. "Word of God" is something I would hold pretty conclusive. They essentially created the thing after all.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not like the director was actually thinking of technical or RPG stats.

As in, what does "not as thin" exactly mean? Are they actually talking about the armor walls? Or just the dimensions?

In the end I need a justification for the AT-AT to be seen at Hoth and Endor instead of the AT-ACT. If the AT-ACT is superior in all manners, why are we seeing it only in this one place so far? Perhaps it's an expensive one-off built for this one purpose that we see in Rogue One? And/or, after the events of Rogue One it was deemed the more expensive, larger variant didn't give much of an advantage to cost ratio. Perhaps three AT-AT's cost the same as two AT-ACT's and strategic planners went with the former option as they did with their TIE fighter philosophy (more is better, go cheap).

If you pay attention to the battle, you can explicitly see an open AT-ACT crack in half from laser fire from the X-wings (the source of weapons fire may not be correct). That giant opening is an Achilles' Heel begging to be exploited all the time and I can't really see the AT-ACT deployed in a designated combat role. In terms of firepower, the AT-AT outguns the AT-ACT with the two chin mounted guns and the two side mounted guns. The AT-ACT seems to only mount weapons on the sides of the head.

That's correct they're made for cargo and transport with a couple guns in front. It's all they had on the planet. The hole in the side after deploying the cargo bed (which I wish we would have seen on film) caused a flaw. Now the gun the door gunner had was an Ion gun which was a nice touch.

But yep everything you said was bang on. It's a tad bigger just cuz of its role but other than that it's not "better" than a regular AT-AT.

Why lock? No one's being nasty.

Statting newly appearing material is probably one of the hardest things to do. Between conflicting information, limited observable performance, and the excitement, it's tough to make something that matches, and works.

No joke. When I was asked to try it's like firing a shot in the dark. Just thought it would be fun to take the first shot across the bow

I've found its usually safer to stat based off observed performance over what people say (even people like the director and company Pres). Remember, they typically don't give a rats if what they are saying is accurate and works. They are saying what think will make money. "Bigger and better" often being one of those things...

Absolutely... which is why after seeing the flick twice I'm not quite sure I learned any more than we saw. They were a tad bigger but other than that?

Maybe a fun stat is that if it loses it's cargo bed, it loses some armor points as it's now vulnerable? Just a thought.

It was just meant to be fun. It's not official.

Yeah, but they got chewed up hard , based on what we see on the screen. The word of god is meaningless if it's not actually consistent with the end result.

I didn't count what I saw on screen to mean they're weak. The Ion Turret had to take a few passes at a single leg. And then the other got hit hard after it deployed its cargo bed which is an interesting idea. I'm not really sure that means anything stat-wise. I mean because the original AT-AT's got beat by a large piece of string that doesn't mean they're no good

I mean... I'm puzzled as to this idea in folks' minds that the AT-AT MUST be the biggest baddest walker and nothing else could be better than it in any category. Perhaps the guns can do a tad less damage. I just went off all we were told for fun. I'm appreciative of the feedback for sure!

I'm glad the TIE Striker stats didn't cause a fuss

I've found its usually safer to stat based off observed performance over what people say (even people like the director and company Pres). Remember, they typically don't give a rats if what they are saying is accurate and works. They are saying what think will make money. "Bigger and better" often being one of those things...

I do't know about that. "Word of God" is something I would hold pretty conclusive. They essentially created the thing after all.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not like the director was actually thinking of technical or RPG stats.

As in, what does "not as thin" exactly mean? Are they actually talking about the armor walls? Or just the dimensions?

In the end I need a justification for the AT-AT to be seen at Hoth and Endor instead of the AT-ACT. If the AT-ACT is superior in all manners, why are we seeing it only in this one place so far? Perhaps it's an expensive one-off built for this one purpose that we see in Rogue One? And/or, after the events of Rogue One it was deemed the more expensive, larger variant didn't give much of an advantage to cost ratio. Perhaps three AT-AT's cost the same as two AT-ACT's and strategic planners went with the former option as they did with their TIE fighter philosophy (more is better, go cheap).

It isn't superior in all manners. It was just a tad bigger as indicated by several sources including StarWars.com and the director. I gave it a few more armor points. If that doesn't work for you, lower it that's cool. The special ability of the cargo bed makes it distinguished enough. I read the lasers on the sides of the heads were the same, but only one pair... not two. So it has less firepower. It's meant for projects like research stations and the like.

If you look at the AT-AT my idea was that it's identical, with less firepower, and a tad bigger and holds more encumbrance.

But if for your games that doesn't work... no worries tweak away. I'm sure we'll get the AT-ACT in a book in 2017 and it will be interesting to see what LFL says. This was just for fun.

I've found its usually safer to stat based off observed performance over what people say (even people like the director and company Pres). Remember, they typically don't give a rats if what they are saying is accurate and works. They are saying what think will make money. "Bigger and better" often being one of those things...

I do't know about that. "Word of God" is something I would hold pretty conclusive. They essentially created the thing after all.

I understand what you are saying, but it's not like the director was actually thinking of technical or RPG stats.

As in, what does "not as thin" exactly mean? Are they actually talking about the armor walls? Or just the dimensions?

In the end I need a justification for the AT-AT to be seen at Hoth and Endor instead of the AT-ACT. If the AT-ACT is superior in all manners, why are we seeing it only in this one place so far? Perhaps it's an expensive one-off built for this one purpose that we see in Rogue One? And/or, after the events of Rogue One it was deemed the more expensive, larger variant didn't give much of an advantage to cost ratio. Perhaps three AT-AT's cost the same as two AT-ACT's and strategic planners went with the former option as they did with their TIE fighter philosophy (more is better, go cheap).

It isn't superior in all manners. It was just a tad bigger as indicated by several sources including StarWars.com and the director. I gave it a few more armor points. If that doesn't work for you, lower it that's cool. The special ability of the cargo bed makes it distinguished enough. I read the lasers on the sides of the heads were the same, but only one pair... not two. So it has less firepower. It's meant for projects like research stations and the like.

If you look at the AT-AT my idea was that it's identical, with less firepower, and a tad bigger and holds more encumbrance.

But if for your games that doesn't work... no worries tweak away. I'm sure we'll get the AT-ACT in a book in 2017 and it will be interesting to see what LFL says. This was just for fun.

According to Star Wars: Rogue One: The Ultimate Visual Guide, though the AT-ACT is bigger than the AT-AT it is less armored and carries less weaponry. They also mention how the pilots are not as qualified or specialized as AT-AT pilots indicating IMHO that the AT-ACT is more transport than combat. YMMV.

Do you have anything on the U-Wing or cargo shuttle? It would be useful to have a Rebel shuttle that's not another stolen Lambda-class.