I would hope that FFG would make Imperial Assault and Legion compatible, this would be a perfect opportunity for them to use the print on demand product line to allow us to buy stat cards for the Imperial Assault figures we have to make more varied and interesting armies at the outset of the game. It also allows those of us who have spent money on the other games to get more use out of them, and could spur sales of IA figures now that are un-purchased. If the two games were compatible I would have no thoughts about buying into this game as I would start off with a good sized army with the core and my current collection of IA figures.

If the two lines aren't compatible this is another product for my limited funds. I dropped the LCG long ago, am not into Destiny and I know many players at my FLGS that have dropped X-wing, or Armada, or Imperial Assault, or Destiny to focus on fewer games. If FFG made it so I could get more use out of the games I own I would buy more. As it stands if they aren't compatible I don't see myself getting this game as it is just another money sink.

10 minutes ago, Tiberius the Killer said:

I'm just sad it's not 10mm or 15mm. I don't know how we are going to see AT-ATs with this size.

To be honest, if they made it that small a scale, only AT-ATs would be of any real heft. There really aren't any rebel units to counter the AT-AT in size, so you would end up with one size filled with essentially infantry and little else.

As it is, they can easily do an AT-AT by just fudging the scale enough to make it look right. Granted if they do snow/airspeeders and AT-STs in scale the AT-AT will still have to be HUGE, but something just a little bigger than an Imperial Knight wouldn't be out of line. Expensive as ****, yes, but not impossible.

Also, to everyone saying "this is the same battle size as IA!!!!" We only have seen the core box minis. If it follows FFG traditions, that means more or less half a "standard play" army. I don't know what games you play, but I have never seen an IA game with 30+ models per side. Plus I think it's a fair bet that "full" games will be played on 6'x3', just like armada and Runewars, and much bigger than IA maps.

1 minute ago, FatherTurin said:

To be honest, if they made it that small a scale, only AT-ATs would be of any real heft. There really aren't any rebel units to counter the AT-AT in size, so you would end up with one size filled with essentially infantry and little else.

As it is, they can easily do an AT-AT by just fudging the scale enough to make it look right. Granted if they do snow/airspeeders and AT-STs in scale the AT-AT will still have to be HUGE, but something just a little bigger than an Imperial Knight wouldn't be out of line. Expensive as ****, yes, but not impossible.

Also, to everyone saying "this is the same battle size as IA!!!!" We only have seen the core box minis. If it follows FFG traditions, that means more or less half a "standard play" army. I don't know what games you play, but I have never seen an IA game with 30+ models per side. Plus I think it's a fair bet that "full" games will be played on 6'x3', just like armada and Runewars, and much bigger than IA maps.

You really don't understand how many units have been created on both sides of the conflict over the years. many of them are still canon.

and as FFG proved with the Imperial Raider...they can make up new things and make them cannon....

18 minutes ago, Tiberius the Killer said:

I'm just sad it's not 10mm or 15mm. I don't know how we are going to see AT-ATs with this size.

Sliding scale. An ATAT walker that's a foot tall is going to be absolutely gigantic on a table and you'll be able to spot it from the other side of the room. 40k does their big models like this and they look huge, and 28mm isn't much smaller than whatever this is.

Fair enough, should have specified that I wasn't aware of units on that scale.

1 minute ago, thecactusman17 said:

Sliding scale. An ATAT walker that's a foot tall is going to be absolutely gigantic on a table and you'll be able to spot it from the other side of the room. 40k does their big models like this and they look huge, and 28mm isn't much smaller than whatever this is.

If they do a sliding scale for this it will look bad. they get away with it in X-wing and Armada because those models are already at a very large scale.

At a heroic 32mm scale the eye will easily perceive how off everything is in comparison,

22 minutes ago, Herowannabe said:

Yeah, I'm firmly in the camp that wanted a game in the 10mm-15mm range. I want AT-AT s (note the plural) to be realistic to field- and I'm not just referring to physical size. My wallet is a consideration too. $40-$50 for an AT-AT would have been just about right, but at this scale I don't see AT-AT's happening for less than $90-$100 a pop, and very unlikely you'd be able to field more than one per battle- if they ever happen. They might end up being like the mythical Super Star Destroyer that has yet to appear in Armada.

Oh well, now I know. I'll probably be skipping this one. In fact, if anything, I'll probably pick up someone's IA collection on eBay instead- I'm sure there will be a few people who want to sell IA in order to dip into Legion. I've played the IA campaign mode with my friends a ton and it's a blast, and I've always wanted to try out the skirmish mode.

Well, I will be unloading my IA collection. If you are serious, send me a PM.

Soon we will have the FFG equivalent of Games Workshop stores in malls. I wouldn't be opposed.

10 minutes ago, thecactusman17 said:

Sliding scale. An ATAT walker that's a foot tall is going to be absolutely gigantic on a table and you'll be able to spot it from the other side of the room. 40k does their big models like this and they look huge, and 28mm isn't much smaller than whatever this is.

If they sell it at 1ft long (like the Raider and CR-90 in X-Wing ), then I think it would be about right in scale. Of course, those things are really tall, so the legs might have to be movable for packaging and subsequent storage.

I think it would be pretty awesome.

Still, I would have preferred an epic scale, in which you could have really grand battles - with the scale of the person-size miniatures from Rebellion .

5 minutes ago, FatherTurin said:

Well, I will be unloading my IA collection. If you are serious, send me a PM.

It won't be any time soon- at least not for me.

43 minutes ago, Mikael Hasselstein said:

Link?

It could just be a difference in the stance of the miniature, depending on how he's talking about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OVnCFq1j04&t=2s

It's in a question from James Wilks in the comments, Sorastro responds with:

" Sorastro's Painting 2 hours ago

I do believe according to the post on Beasts of War that this will be played on a 6x3 table and will run around 1000 pts, how many units that is - is still unknow. I think its smart that their sticking the starter box to a skirmish sized game, quick easy tutorial matches. You wouldnt want an IA skirmish tutorial to be max pts of of 100 diff mechanics no?

14 minutes ago, Wiredin said:

Soon we will have the FFG equivalent of Games Workshop stores in malls. I wouldn't be opposed.

hopefully not malls and hoepfully its a full cafe with beers.

that would be the dream

If the minis were the same size, I'd have totally bought this game just to have alternate sculpts for IA stuff.

As is, I have no reason to buy it.

Because FFG effed up the Imperial Assault thing so much, Hasbro is distributing it. That means Hasbro gets a little bit of money out of every Imperial Assault sale. All other things being equal, they have no incentive to sell IA figures over Legion figures.

14 minutes ago, Guest SRSn1per said:

I do believe according to the post on Beasts of War that this will be played on a 6x3 table and will run around 1000 pts, how many units that is - is still unknow.

Vader is 200, basic Stormtroopers are 11 a pop.

5 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

Because FFG effed up the Imperial Assault thing so much, Hasbro is distributing it. That means Hasbro gets a little bit of money out of every Imperial Assault sale. All other things being equal, they have no incentive to sell IA figures over Legion figures.

Ugh, I'm afraid you're right.

How did FFG "eff up" Imperial Assault?

9 minutes ago, skotothalamos said:

Because FFG effed up the Imperial Assault thing so much, Hasbro is distributing it. That means Hasbro gets a little bit of money out of every Imperial Assault sale. All other things being equal, they have no incentive to sell IA figures over Legion figures.

I'm not sure this is all that much of a factor. We don't know what the price points and profit margins are, so both of us are speculating. That HAsbro stuff has been a thing from the very start. It has not stopped FFG from pushing IA fairly aggressively.

Just now, Manchu said:

How did FFG "eff up" Imperial Assault?

Something about Hasbro having the license to produce particular games, and FFG infringing on that.

I have seen the speculation that FFG infringed Hasbro's license to publish Star Wars board games. I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support that speculation. How about Rebellion? And the expansion for Rebellion? Without even considering the loads of support for IA, including FFG talking about putting out digital support for IA (similar to Descent) at GenCon.

Rebellion is much more close to break Hasbro license than any other FFG published game. Having said that I start to doubt (since Rebellion) if theres really a line to be crossed around said license...

1 hour ago, Mep said:

Even if they were the same size, you would still need the cards included with the Legion minis to play with them. Also the base size is going to be very important as it interacts with the movement tool.

My guess is they went slightly bigger so the models could have more detailed and be more competitive in the miniature space.

If you are right with the scale, that means this game is going to be the most expansive game. Look at the IA prices... they are expansive, and Legions will provide squads, not 3 figs units... Your wallet is gonna blow up man!

I agree with most of you guys : I'm not happy with the scale... I wanted a flames of war style game, 3 or 5 AT-ATs walking to their target, throwing troopers trying to flank the Rebels defensive positions, preparing the AT-ATs arrival... Artillery from space, tanks, turrets, traps...

IA already provides a skirmish game, why would I spend money to this new game, only the rules change, I can make my own small battles with IA figs.

First, only the squad leader's base is important vis a vis interacting with the movement tool because only the leader's movement is measured. Every other fig in the squad is then moved to be within a certain distance of the leader. Second, the base size difference between the IA and Legion models looks minuscule. So in friendly games, like with everything in friendly games, it is just a matter of asking.

21 minutes ago, Manchu said:

I have seen the speculation that FFG infringed Hasbro's license to publish Star Wars board games. I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support that speculation. How about Rebellion? And the expansion for Rebellion? Without even considering the loads of support for IA, including FFG talking about putting out digital support for IA (similar to Descent) at GenCon.

Where I think FFG might have infringed Hasbro is the miniatures themselves. My son has several Hasbro mini sets that look very similar to the IA minis, just slightly larger. They may have a license for any figurines of a certain size, or style. The way the Star Wars licensing works sounds like a lawyer's dream. Work that pays well, and never ends.

This game just looks like skirmish-only IA with a bigger emphasis on upgrade cards and no board. There do seem to be some new and interesting parts (commanders and orders?), but it doesn't seem different enough to make me want a whole new system. Armada however, was different enough from Xwing in both scale and mechanics, that I did get both.

EDIT: That being said, if I didn't already own IA, then sure why not.