5 hours ago, jcmonson said:there are 2 reasons that i don't think the Saber-Class tank will be the first release. 1) it is longer than the occupier and so it would need a new base as the occupier already barely fits its base. And 2) it is a rather obscure unit.
The Imperial/Republic tank of the Battlefront games is hardly obscure (the name maybe, but not the tank itself).
21 hours ago, jcmonson said:there are 2 reasons that i don't think the Saber-Class tank will be the first release. 1) it is longer than the occupier and so it would need a new base as the occupier already barely fits its base. And 2) it is a rather obscure unit.
It fits the scale better than anything else, and is hardly obscure in most circles. It appears in at least 4 games, several comics, and a novel or two. It might not have the screen time of other units, but again, it fits the game size far, far better than they do.
20 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:Do you have a source for this besides the original release pattern? We don't "know" this unless FFG has officially announced it otherwise. FFG has already broken the pattern of the original release schedule in that no Heavy units are being released at the same time, just individual boxes for the non-commander units. There could be a Special forces release instead as the next one out.
As already covered, they stated in the live stream that the heavy would not be out on release, but we should expect an announcement by GenCon, if not before. I was really hoping before, but that's looking less and less likely.
I want the fighter tank, but the CIS has extremely interesting options. Sitting here starring at my terrain pieces, I'd love to see the Snail Tank in the game, because it fits the scale, and it'd be quite different than the Fighter Tank, unlike the AAT.
56 minutes ago, Alpha17 said:It fits the scale better than anything else, and is hardly obscure in most circles. It appears in at least 4 games, several comics, and a novel or two. It might not have the screen time of other units, but again, it fits the game size far, far better than they do.
Fair enough about the obscure thing, I still think the ISP will be the first one due to it fitting on an already established 100mm round base.
On 7/25/2019 at 8:35 AM, arnoldrew said:The LAAT is huge. It's AT-AT sized. Even if they shrunk it to half-sized, getting it to balance on any of the Huge bases we have would be a bit precarious, to say the least. At half-size it would still be several inches longer than the Occupier base.
Size/cannon doesn't matter when lots of $$ lay on the table.
FFG will find a way to squeeze these iconic vehicles into the game.
14 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:Size/cannon doesn't matter when lots of $$ lay on the table.
FFG will find a way to squeeze these iconic vehicles into the game.
It does when Disney is the one holding the license.
FFG hasn't broken scale for Legion yet, they may not be allowed to depending on the license agreement.
8 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:Size/cannon doesn't matter when lots of $$ lay on the table.
FFG will find a way to squeeze these iconic vehicles into the game.
i would argue that it wouldnt be a squeeze. The only vehicle that i have a hard time seeing is the AT-AT, and that is because canonically speaking it is invulnerable. The only thing we see kill them is a towcable attack, a grenade, and several orbital strikes. The problem is that 2 of those are single dice attacks. The cause of this problem is FFG handling the chance to hit and damage on the same dice roll.
3 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:It does when Disney is the one holding the license.
FFG hasn't broken scale for Legion yet, they may not be allowed to depending on the license agreement.
When it comes to the decision of: if they should sell a product (AT-TE/LAAT/ETC) that will bring in lots of cash and not, I'm sure they will sell the product to bring in the revenue. Even (if it isn't exactly cannon).
3 hours ago, jcmonson said:i would argue that it wouldnt be a squeeze. The only vehicle that i have a hard time seeing is the AT-AT, and that is because canonically speaking it is invulnerable. The only thing we see kill them is a towcable attack, a grenade, and several orbital strikes. The problem is that 2 of those are single dice attacks. The cause of this problem is FFG handling the chance to hit and damage on the same dice roll.
"Invulnerable" is an abstract concept with lots of design space. They could allow the Rebels to purchase weapons that can damage the AT-AT, while traditional weapons cannot.
They can have the AT-AT have a 3+ or even 2+ save to represent it being invulnerable.
I don't see this as an issue.
8 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:"Invulnerable" is an abstract concept with lots of design space. They could allow the Rebels to purchase weapons that can damage the AT-AT, while traditional weapons cannot.
They can have the AT-AT have a 3+ or even 2+ save to represent it being invulnerable.
I don't see this as an issue.
My point was those weapons are already in game, and they roll only 1 attack dice for the most part. Coordinated bombardment represents the other thing that can kill it and that could roll a total of 6 attack dice, 3 sets of 2 dice against different targets. There is no other weapon that the rebels could have that could kill them without starfighters, and then how would you reconcile the only weapons that are seen killing them, not being able to damage it. I mean it would have to have more HP than the AT-ST, and it would need to be a significant amount more. That means 1 or 2 attack dice aren't going to kill it within the 6 rounds allotted. If they could then a couple of standard infantry squads would be able to do the same thing.
The way I see it the way the AT-AT should be implemented is in a mini campaign, like the down AT-ST, that has some special rules around it. Something like "If a T-47 successfully performs a tow cable attack against this unit and stays within range 1 for the next turn destroy the AT-ST."
2 hours ago, R3dReVenge said:When it comes to the decision of: if they should sell a product (AT-TE/LAAT/ETC) that will bring in lots of cash and not, I'm sure they will sell the product to bring in the revenue. Even (if it isn't exactly cannon).
An AT-AT would sell, where's that model? It's about the same size as the AT-TE.
If FFG started releasing products that don't have the right "feel" then people are more likely to complain and stop buying the game. And don't say people would still buy the models when Bandai makes cheaper versions of the models ($29 MSRP Bandai vs $50 MSRP for roughly the same scale of ATST). Releasing broken, poorly thought out units just to get a model into the game is a good way to lose money and kill a game, especially since FFG doesn't release updates very frequently. And changing the scale will make the units look "wrong" next to each other. How much have people complained about the E-Web only having Snowtroopers? How many more would complain about an AT-AT that was too fragile? Or an AT-TE that was way too small? The canon length is 3 times the length of the Occupier tank, so that's not a little bit of shrinkage. The LAAT/I in Legends (which has a shorter measurement) is still over twice the length of the Occupier.
(Also the shorter measurement on the LAAT/i is on the Star Wars Databank, the longer measurement is in a book which has multiple other continuity errors, just sayin')
I do think that we will see those units in some capacity down the line, they are too iconic not to show up somewhere but I think the AT-AT is going to be the hardest because not only is it significantly larger than anything else, it is also on a whole other level in terms of protection and firepower than anything we have. At least the AT-TE and LAAT don't have the same reputation for being impossible to destroy. I think that a lot of the larger vehicles will come out with an "epic" mode with a larger play area and a new set of deployment cards/rules, it could be as simple as moving to a 4x6 and the extra half inch on the long sides gets added to the current deployment zones.
5 hours ago, UnitOmega said:(Also the shorter measurement on the LAAT/i is on the Star Wars Databank, the longer measurement is in a book which has multiple other continuity errors, just sayin')
I recall that conversation, which is why I went off the Legends, smaller measurements 😛
5 hours ago, jcmonson said:I do think that we will see those units in some capacity down the line, they are too iconic not to show up somewhere but I think the AT-AT is going to be the hardest because not only is it significantly larger than anything else, it is also on a whole other level in terms of protection and firepower than anything we have. At least the AT-TE and LAAT don't have the same reputation for being impossible to destroy. I think that a lot of the larger vehicles will come out with an "epic" mode with a larger play area and a new set of deployment cards/rules, it could be as simple as moving to a 4x6 and the extra half inch on the long sides gets added to the current deployment zones.
I'd contend that the AT-TE and AT-AT were facing vastly different weapons though in the main examples seen. The AT-TE was facing weapons designed to defeat that kind of armored vehicle (roughly equivalent tanks, and later in the Clone Wars anti-tank weapons specifically designed to defeat the AT-TE), whereas the AT-ATs in ESB are being shot with light anti-tank weapons. Even there, the AT-ATs die rather quickly once the Rebels start using non-standard tactics.
Regardless, getting the "feel" right is a significant hurdle, especially since many players (myself included) would be disappointed if the AT-AT couldn't be tripped by a tow cable armed T-47, which makes balancing the unit an interesting proposition. Given the relative sizes of some of the vehicles in question, adding a half inch to deployment zones wouldn't be sufficient to fit the vehicles in without changing the deployment rules. The AT-AT is three times the length of the Occupier (and that same distance tall), which already doesn't fit in a Range 1 deployment zone. I don't remember the exact numbers, but iirc the numbers on one of the variant AT-ATs works out such that the in scale model would be between Range 2 and Range 3 long and about the same again tall ( 12-18 inches or 30.48-45.72 cm). The movement (as written front to back) would also be INSANE on these vehicles, even at speed 1, so even more rules that would require a re-write. I think we MIGHT see these vehicles in an "epic" format, but also wouldn't be surprised if FFG never gets around to stating them out or making models.
Edited by Caimheul13133 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:The movement (as written front to back) would also be INSANE on these vehicles, even at speed 1, so even more rules that would require a re-write. I think we MIGHT see these vehicles in an "epic" format, but also wouldn't be surprised if FFG never gets around to stating them out or making models.
My idea for that would be to simply have each foot have its own base, so front to back would be measured from a single foot. The AT-AT would then use 4 of the 100mm bases and have a speed of 1.
As for the invulnerability thing, that impression comes from Twilight Company and the Rogue One book where characters describe them that way. Even the AT-TE had to utilize unorthodox tactics to bring them down in Rebels, so I'm not entirely sure it was just due to the Rebels at Hoth not having enough firepower. To be honest though it makes for good story telling, but bad gameplay, which is why if we see it at all I would want to see it in a story mode.
2 hours ago, jcmonson said:My idea for that would be to simply have each foot have its own base, so front to back would be measured from a single foot. The AT-AT would then use 4 of the 100mm bases and have a speed of 1.
As for the invulnerability thing, that impression comes from Twilight Company and the Rogue One book where characters describe them that way. Even the AT-TE had to utilize unorthodox tactics to bring them down in Rebels, so I'm not entirely sure it was just due to the Rebels at Hoth not having enough firepower. To be honest though it makes for good story telling, but bad gameplay, which is why if we see it at all I would want to see it in a story mode.
That might be the answer for movement. It certainly isn't a bad one. The AT-AT would still delpoy such that their front edge is roughly at the halfway point of a 3' or 6" short of halfway on a 4' unless long March is the only deployment used, provided the allowance in Epic of big vehicles not having to fit in the deployment zone.
As to the direct AT-TE vs AT-AT encounter, it's important to remember that would be roughly equivalent to a WW1 tank fighting against an early WW2 tank. Generally, those encounters did not go well for the WW1 tank, since the WW2 tank had decades of technology and applied lessons learned from WW1 . That particular AT-TE likely hadn't seen a proper maintenance facility for 20ish years, which would further reduce effectiveness. Even then, we see the AT-TE survive at least one direct hit from the AT-AT's main weapon, more than can be said for any other target shown in canon. (Also of note, that scene used a specially created "early GCW" version of the AT-AT so they would be larger than the AT-TE).
Iirc, the AT-AT canonically can destroy another AT-AT without much difficulty. The aura of invulnerability is probably partially due to propaganda, partly the Rebels never really being shown with access to heavier duty ground weapons.
But that's also part of the story, plucky underdogs fighting for justice and everything good, much like the CIS being able to destroy the AT-TE and LAAT being story motivated. If they couldn't, there wouldn't be as much dramatic tension.
23 hours ago, jcmonson said:Fair enough about the obscure thing, I still think the ISP  will be the first one due to it fitting on an already established 100mm round base.
It might, but I'd say the ISP is far, far more obscure than any of the other vehicles we've mentioned. It is in a movie, but only for a couple of seconds, and has appearances in what, one, maybe two games? Additionally, it really does look interesting nor have anything neat that would sell it. I'm as big of a Clone Wars fan as you'll find, and I'd be hard pressed to muster up the cash to actually buy one.
Edited by Alpha1715 hours ago, Alpha17 said:It might, but I'd say the ISP is far, far more obscure than any of the other vehicles we've mentioned. It is in a movie, but only for a couple of seconds, and has appearances in what, one, maybe two games? Additionally, it really does look interesting nor have anything neat that would sell it. I'm as big of a Clone Wars fan as you'll find, and I'd be hard pressed to muster up the cash to actually buy one.
Seeing as the heavy slot is the one most frequently left vacant, sales are likely to be fairly low for whatever unit they release. Especially compared to Corps units or even some Supports.
Just let the imperials use the AT-AT's from rogue one. Those weren't as heavily armored.
7 hours ago, Lucasw42 said:Just let the imperials use the AT-AT's from rogue one. Those weren't as heavily armored.
Yeah but it was significantly larger as well.
8 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:Seeing as the heavy slot is the one most frequently left vacant, sales are likely to be fairly low for whatever unit they release. Especially compared to Corps units or even some Supports.
Which is true, and a reason why not to go with an unimpressive mini or one that doesn't really have that much interest.
13 hours ago, Lucasw42 said:Just let the imperials use the AT-AT's from rogue one. Those weren't as heavily armored.
At-act they are ment to haul cargo, and while yes they have less armor then an At-at they are much taller