I'd be happy to see an FFG AT-AT model regardless of how they integrate it into the game...providing they stay far, far away from the "sliding scale" concept they've used in X-Wing and Armada. There are multiple options out there already if someone wants a "meh, it's taller than an AT-ST, close enough" model - most of them substantially cheaper than any FFG version could end up being no matter how compromised the scale - and a grand total of zero options if you want one that's "correct".

That said, it's not something that would likely do well in regular play, you'd have to design scenarios around it - but that's doable. There was a great fun scenario for GorkaMorka that featured "rolling terrain", ie you picked "front" and "back" edges to establish a direction of travel, and every turn all the terrain shifted a given number of inches towards the "back" edge, with "new" terrain being randomly placed at the "front" edge. Something similar could work for an AT-AT, make it a "fixed" feature around which the terrain shifts.

44 minutes ago, Alino said:

TIE-Crawler or I'll riot

I'm happy with the WotC one I lucked out in getting.

Hmm. AT AT would be hard to pull off. I personally think a sliding scale would be okay, I mean the X-Wing epic ships look pretty decent side by side with the regular ships. So if the AT AT is slightly smaller scale it should be fine.

I just don't know if it would be interesting to play. Move slow, then roll dice, etc. It would be a lot more fun to play as the rebels to attack it, have to have different ways to approach it, different ways to disable it, etc.

What if the AT AT is not a vehicle, but more of an interactive terrain piece around which objectives could be based?

___________

AT ATs could work in a different sort of miniatures game. What if there is a higher level strategy game? IE what Armada is to X-Wing, have this new game be to Legion? Have Stormtroopers be Risk-sized pieces, you could easily have AT ATs.

1 hour ago, Alino said:

TIE-Crawler or I'll riot

As someone previously mentioned, I feel like they've already designed the AT-AT to not be included as a playable unit for the Imperials due to Veers' "maximum firepower" command card.

BUT, if it isnt a "playable" unit, then I can definitely see it still coming to the game as an objective piece like. Sort of like "Walker Assault" in Battlefront, the Imperial player would need to defend it and be able to shoot with it. Just one of many objective possibilities.

Since FFG is no stranger to a sliding scale, I think they do a great job of keeping things in proportion even when they aren't to "exact" scale. Id rather things be proportioned better for gameplay than to a perfect scale and I think they could totally make the AT-AT work in the game.

---------------------------------------

It would be cool to have a 4 legged Imperial walker made specifically for this game so something like the AT-AT makes an appearance, like how the Raider was for X wing? I've been looking at the various walkers on wookiepedia and can't find anything that would fill that spot, but maybe something like a shorter and less powerful AT-AT that could transport troops... The AT-ST could be maybe 3/4 the height of the legs of this new one...

It seems like Im describing the AT-TE.. might be a better fit of this game but not sure if it would work for GCW.

9 hours ago, Indy_com said:

They're 2 entirely separate vehicles.

This is a Juggernaut:

This is a Clone Turbo Tank (HAVw A6 Juggernaught):

Ah. I see. In that case...

17 hours ago, Indy_com said:

They're 2 entirely separate vehicles.

This is a Juggernaut:

This is a Clone Turbo Tank (HAVw A6 Juggernaught):

Also: The Juggernaut is a lot smaller than the HAVw A6.

The HAVw A6 is taller than an AT-AT and nearly twice as long.

20 hours ago, Indy_com said:

They're 2 entirely separate vehicles.

This is a Juggernaut:

This is a Clone Turbo Tank (HAVw A6 Juggernaught):

The term Juggernaught also applies to the HAVw A5 turbo tank. It's closer in size to the AT-AT, and would follow the trend of giving Clone Wars leftovers to the Rebellion, so it would make sense in the game.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/HAVw_A5_Juggernaut

I wonder if a turbo tank would be on two bases because it is so long? Like, two AT RT bases, or even two AT ST bases. Use the front for front moving, and back for back moving.

It could have multiple fixed arcs. Maybe like the Raider in X-Wing: front base has a fixed front arc, and then the back base has the side arcs to shoot out or something.

It makes sense for the AT-AT to be in game. I think they should scale slip them a little to make them more playable.

I'd buy one. I'd play one. Its not to big. Its not unprecedented in Miniature games.

Arguably it makes more sense than the T47 air speeder does. Something that should be off board and only contributing staffing passes.

If they ever did add an AT-AT, I imagine it would be used for special scenarios, like how the Tantive IV was played in X-Wing.

EDIT FOR ALL THE STICKLERS IN THE AUDIENCE

...But I am not holding my breath.

3 minutes ago, Xiervak said:

If they ever did add an AT-ST , I imagine it would be used for special scenarios, like how the Tantive IV was played in X-Wing.

...But I am not holding my breath.

1 minute ago, Indy_com said:

bla bla bla, you know what I meant

For the Empire, we could *maybe* get the HCVw A9 turbo tank from Rogue One? It looks if anything a bit smaller than the A5, so while it'd still be a pretty HUEG model it could fit for bigger games.

@Yodhrin WHEN (not if) they introduce the TX-225 Occupier, I hope they do it with interchangeable "snapfit" propulsion systems and two unit cards, so that you can assemble/field it either as a GAVw (variant with tracks seen in R1) or as GAVr (repulsorcraft variant seen in rebels).