18 minutes ago, jcmonson said:

yeah i see what you are saying. I was referring to the width at the point where it would touch the base, which as you can see from the picture you posted is smaller than the wheel is tall. You are probably right if you are talking about average width though. I also don't have an occupier so i am not entirely sure how much bigger it is than the ATST base.

Ah, I see, I was comparing the overhead the side view, which isn't quite the diameter, so that's on me. It's still really close, so is not that much smaller than the Occupier, if at all. The Occupier base is longer than Range 1 (6 inches) which means the Occupier's base is longer than 150 mm . The AT-ST base is 100 mm, so the Occupier is half again as long as the AT-ST base. A circular base with a diameter greater than Range 1 would not be able to deploy in most of the deployment setups without the change of the rules to allow overhang.

8 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Ah, I see, I was comparing the overhead the side view, which isn't quite the diameter, so that's on me. It's still really close, so is not that much smaller than the Occupier, if at all. The Occupier base is longer than Range 1 (6 inches) which means the Occupier's base is longer than 150 mm . The AT-ST base is 100 mm, so the Occupier is half again as long as the AT-ST base. A circular base with a diameter greater than Range 1 would not be able to deploy in most of the deployment setups without the change of the rules to allow overhang.

Ok, I didn't know that it was that much bigger. You are probably right then it might be too big, or even if it wasn't it would require a new base size.

I'd hope they'd fudge the of scale things to fit (the former Star Wars CMG Hailfire fits but overhangs a 3"x3" Huge base )... of course I also wish they had made the Occupier bed fit 2x3 27mm bases so that troopers could fit comfortably but instead they made it about 2 mm too narrow...

Either way, give me Hailfires for my Collections and Security Division...

I always find it funny when we debate the size of made up things.

I'm not sure what the issue is in making new bases, or the instance that they have to use existing bases as they are. A solid quarter of the heavy options we have now use a different base, and modifying that base to work with many of these units would simply be a matter of changing where the notch is.

20 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

I'm not sure what the issue is in making new bases, or the instance that they have to use existing bases as they are. A solid quarter of the heavy options we have now use a different base, and modifying that base to work with many of these units would simply be a matter of changing where the notch is.

And changing the arc. In some cases, if the base is too large, deployment isn't really possible.

24 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

And changing the arc. In some cases, if the base is too large, deployment isn't really possible.

Then all they need is either a keyword or a update to the rules reference that allows the vehicle to “stick out” of the deployment.

Or you make sure you can choose the deployment option you need. There are many times that an enemy has chosen a battlefield and denied a force some units. ****, the very first episode of Clone Wars, or at least first with Yoda, had an area the CIS tank couldn't go.

38 minutes ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

Then all they need is either a keyword or a update to the rules reference that allows the vehicle to “stick out” of the deployment.

Or you make sure you can choose the deployment option you need. There are many times that an enemy has chosen a battlefield and denied a force some units. ****, the very first episode of Clone Wars, or at least first with Yoda, had an area the CIS tank couldn't go.

The Occupier tank already is longer than Range 1, which led to the FAQ specifying the entirety of a models base must be inside the deployment zone, which in turn leads to the Occupier having to start most battles sideways, or at least angled. If FFG were considering adding some kind of rule, either in the book or as a keyword, to allow a base to overhang the deployment zone, the Occupier seems like it would have been a good candidate.

As well, 3/5 of the Deployment zones are only Range 1 in depth, meaning there will be times you don't even have the option of choosing a deployment zone where one of the larger vehicles would fit if kept to the current "official" scale. Terrain is used to represent areas tanks can't go, if selecting a certain deployment zone causes a vehicle to to not be included in the battle, it's essentially a turn 0 kill on an expensive unit. How many people would take Boba Fett if the majority of the deployment zones meant he couldn't be deployed but your points were still used to include him in the list? Vehicles already have a hard time justifying a place in many lists, between their inability to interact with most objectives and their high points cost, that would just completely prevent the unit being taken in even casual games.

We'll see what FFG does, I think it's unlikely they'll release miniatures with a larger footprint than the Occupier, but I could very well be mistaken. There are plenty of options though that fit the Clone Wars era and would fit onto bases that work with current deployment zones without any special rules.

21 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The Occupier tank already is longer than Range 1, which led to the FAQ specifying the entirety of a models base must be inside the deployment zone, which in turn leads to the Occupier having to start most battles sideways, or at least angled. If FFG were considering adding some kind of rule, either in the book or as a keyword, to allow a base to overhang the deployment zone, the Occupier seems like it would have been a good candidate.

As well, 3/5 of the Deployment zones are only Range 1 in depth, meaning there will be times you don't even have the option of choosing a deployment zone where one of the larger vehicles would fit if kept to the current "official" scale. Terrain is used to represent areas tanks can't go, if selecting a certain deployment zone causes a vehicle to to not be included in the battle, it's essentially a turn 0 kill on an expensive unit. How many people would take Boba Fett if the majority of the deployment zones meant he couldn't be deployed but your points were still used to include him in the list? Vehicles already have a hard time justifying a place in many lists, between their inability to interact with most objectives and their high points cost, that would just completely prevent the unit being taken in even casual games.

We'll see what FFG does, I think it's unlikely they'll release miniatures with a larger footprint than the Occupier, but I could very well be mistaken. There are plenty of options though that fit the Clone Wars era and would fit onto bases that work with current deployment zones without any special rules.

For the record I'm not actually advocating a larger unit be auto-defeated. I'm merely stating that there ARE lots of solutions, some better than others.

As to deployment zones specifically, I am certainly hoping that we DO get more variety. The objectives pack was an, in my opinion, a brilliant product, enhancing the game.

I think FFG will do larger bases as needed. Something like the AAT would likely need another size up, but the occupier base could work, but a lot of overhang - a circular base would be better.

2 minutes ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

For the record I'm not actually advocating a larger unit be auto-defeated. I'm merely stating that there ARE lots of solutions, some better than others.

As to deployment zones specifically, I am certainly hoping that we DO get more variety. The objectives pack was an, in my opinion, a brilliant product, enhancing the game.

I think FFG will do larger bases as needed. Something like the AAT would likely need another size up, but the occupier base could work, but a lot of overhang - a circular base would be better.

I agree that there are some solutions, I'm mostly pointing out that the Occupier would have been a good candidate for many of those solutions, yet nothing materialized. So whether or not we see any of those solutions anytime soon is unknown.

I also want more deployment zones (and agree with your assessment on the Objectives pack), but that doesn't prevent your opponent from exclusively taking deployments that prevent the larger vehicles from being placed. So if they win the bid, you need to hope they didn't select mostly small deployment zones.

I am of the opinion that the "larger" bases (i.e. ones that don't fit in the current deployment zone) are more likely to be released as a part of "Epic" gameplay, with different rules and points limits, akin to the huge ships for X-Wing, which I think is at least a year away if not longer. I also agree that the AAT would be better on a circular given the shape, and that the current 100 mm circular base isn't nearly big enough unless FFG decides/is allowed to make a smaller version of the AAT, similar to the different sizes of AT-AT created as needed to narrative reasons.

23 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

And changing the arc. In some cases, if the base is too large, deployment isn't really possible.

Turning the existing base sideways would work fine with almost any deployment. As for any bigger ones, it's a FAQ or RRG answer away from working. It would have made sense to be consistent and not change how things work, but that's hardly FFG's style anyway. "Jump" as a separate action/pretty much the same thing as a standard move being a perfect example of this. All they have to do is say that a vehicle must deploy completely within a deployment zone if possible. If not possible, it must deploy with its base touching the edge of the mat/board/whatever.

18 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

Turning the existing base sideways would work fine with almost any deployment. As for any bigger ones, it's a FAQ or RRG answer away from working. It would have made sense to be consistent and not change how things work, but that's hardly FFG's style anyway. "Jump" as a separate action/pretty much the same thing as a standard move being a perfect example of this. All they have to do is say that a vehicle must deploy completely within a deployment zone if possible. If not possible, it must deploy with its base touching the edge of the mat/board/whatever.

Yes, turning the existing base would work, but a round base of the same diameter as the length of the Occupier's base would not fit since you can't turn a circle sideways and make it thinner, which is what I was trying to convey.

Again, I agree FFG could add such a rule, but I personally am of the opinion that the best time to include such a rule for testing purposes if nothing else (ensuring it doesn't need to change the point cost of the unit) would have been with the Occupier tank, the first unit with a base that in at least one dimension is longer than most deployment zones allow. As it stands, it is possible for terrain to have been placed in such a way that deployment is impossible for the Occupier to fit inside the deployment zone. Highly unlikely, but possible. Might be worth a rules question to see how FFG intends for such a occurence to be handled, rare as such a situation might (currently) be.

3 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Yes, turning the existing base would work, but a round base of the same diameter as the length of the Occupier's base would not fit since you can't turn a circle sideways and make it thinner, which is what I was trying to convey.

Again, I agree FFG could add such a rule, but I personally am of the opinion that the best time to include such a rule for testing purposes if nothing else (ensuring it doesn't need to change the point cost of the unit) would have been with the Occupier tank, the first unit with a base that in at least one dimension is longer than most deployment zones allow. As it stands, it is possible for terrain to have been placed in such a way that deployment is impossible for the Occupier to fit inside the deployment zone. Highly unlikely, but possible. Might be worth a rules question to see how FFG intends for such a occurence to be handled, rare as such a situation might (currently) be.

The terrain part is perfectly valid, but that falls on players/even organizers to build their tables appropriately. I set up several tables for an RPQ this past weekend, and doing so in such a way that vehicles could maneuver around on the tables was a key part of how I did so. Even with that in mind, the tables had more than enough terrain, so it can be done.

1 hour ago, Alpha17 said:

The terrain part is perfectly valid, but that falls on players/even organizers to build their tables appropriately. I set up several tables for an RPQ this past weekend, and doing so in such a way that vehicles could maneuver around on the tables was a key part of how I did so. Even with that in mind, the tables had more than enough terrain, so it can be done.

Agreed, but it would still be nice to have a formal method for dealing with terrain in a deployment zone preventing units from being place. I'm going to send in a rules question and see if I get a response.

22 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Agreed, but it would still be nice to have a formal method for dealing with terrain in a deployment zone preventing units from being place. I'm going to send in a rules question and see if I get a response.

Good luck.

7 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:

Good luck.

Yeah, not really holding my breath, but still worth asking in my opinion.

I think there is an opportunity for a, in my opinion, VERY cool sculpt for a heavy;

these could seemingly operate in Space, underwater and on land. They deployed battle droids, and were not exceptionally tough.

If I cant have Umbaran units right off the bat, I would take the squid ship and field it every game because it is that cool.

15 minutes ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

I think there is an opportunity for a, in my opinion, VERY cool sculpt for a heavy;

these could seemingly operate in Space, underwater and on land. They deployed battle droids, and were not exceptionally tough.

If I cant have Umbaran units right off the bat, I would take the squid ship and field it every game because it is that cool.

The Trident-class assault ship is a starship with a listed canon length of 88.71 meters. Which is a bit large for table top. But I'm not sure if there's a version of it that is significantly smaller....

It is a cool design though, so hopefully they can make it work.

58 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The Trident-class assault ship is a starship with a listed canon length of 88.71 meters. Which is a bit large for table top. But I'm not sure if there's a version of it that is significantly smaller....

It is a cool design though, so hopefully they can make it work.

Well.. it will make a rather tall model.. really, standing it’s about half that. Maybe it might make a better scenery piece.

Just now, That Blasted Samophlange said:

Well.. it will make a rather tall model.. really, standing it’s about half that. Maybe it might make a better scenery piece.

Standing it then becomes really wide though since the tentacles are about 2/3rds the length. That would make for a really great scenery piece though, especially for a scenario game. There might be some CAD designs for 3d printing?somewhere?

23 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Standing it then becomes really wide though since the tentacles are about 2/3rds the length. That would make for a really great scenery piece though, especially for a scenario game. There might be some CAD designs for 3d printing?somewhere?

There does seem to be a smaller version alongside the larger.. so, who knows?