8 hours ago, UnitOmega said:

Well, I noted this above, but a Tauntaun is almost definitely not a vehicle - it'd either be a new classification, or a variation on "Trooper" - this means that under the RRG guidelines, they'd tend to treat certain types of terrain (mostly barricades or trenches) as Difficult whereas the AT-RT treats them as Open.

But we both accounted for that with thinking Unhindered might be a good keyword for them to have, so they can keep up with and even out-pace ground vehicles in certain terrains. But it is a difference people should think about more between Troopers/Ground/Repulsor.

Can you point to where, in the force organization chart, there is a ‘vehicle’ classification? While there are vehicles, yes, the classifications do not limit heavy or support to being vehicles.

We have (mostly) immobile cannons in support, so why not cavalry? There is no need for a new classification of unit. I would concede that a new keyword could happen, but again there is not a need. A dewback or tauntaun as support just needs morale.

In terms of new gameplay elements you still could add the extra-cheap corps units for both sides. Which would be Rebel Guerrillas (from Rogue One) and the Imperial Army/Mudtroopers (from Solo). I'm sure FFG's rules designers might come up with novel ideas for rules which characters could then have. I think if that happens though it will still all be characters from the Original Trilogy. I don't expect to see Rebels characters or other extended universe stuff until this game reaches its Ted McGinley phase. Though maybe there's a lot more room for operatives to become a bigger thing in the game.

5 hours ago, frankelee said:

In terms of new gameplay elements you still could add the extra-cheap corps units for both sides. Which would be Rebel Guerrillas (from Rogue One) and the Imperial Army/Mudtroopers (from Solo).

OT Navy crew would make more sense.

Not everything needs a novel rule. The game can collapse under the weight of unintended interlocking synergies. It's happened to stronger ones than this.

On 2/4/2019 at 10:49 AM, NeonWolf said:

I'm not against having tauntaun units in the game, but can someone please explain how they would be any different from an AT-RT movement-wise? Same size base, same speed, give them Unhindered instead of Expert Climber. Say, Courage 2 and 4 wounds per model?

They wouldn't have a compulsory move and they wouldn't be Speed 3. Remember that a larger base moves "faster" even at the same Speed.

I assume they'd be on a medium base and not a large, but could be wrong. Probably 2 models to a unit, 2 or 3 wounds each. Unhindered sounds good, Courage 1 or 2 would work with a free move every turn. without the free move they would without a doubt be Speed 3. With it I could see Speed 2 justified.

21 hours ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

Can you point to where, in the force organization chart, there is a ‘vehicle’ classification? While there are vehicles, yes, the classifications do not limit heavy or support to being vehicles.

We have (mostly) immobile cannons in support, so why not cavalry? There is no need for a new classification of unit. I would concede that a new keyword could happen, but again there is not a need. A dewback or tauntaun as support just needs morale.

You're mixing up Rank (Support, Heavy, Corps) and keywords (Trooper, Vehicle, Emplacement Trooper). It doesn't seem like they would need a new Rank (and that's not what he was suggesting) but they would definitely need some sort of new keyword, probably something like Cavalry Trooper or Mounted Trooper, since none of the currently available ones would work without a complete revision of its RRG entry.

Great discussion about cavalry.

I suppose the definition is really either a) a fast moving glass cannon melee unit (lancers) or b) a mount for ranged infantry (dragoons).

The problem with larger models is they are hard to hide, and thus easy to focus down. I dont doubt for a second that we will see Tauntauns or Dewbacks, but I wonder what game mechanic they are going to fill.