Am I the only one not super impressed by the AT-ST?

All of the figures are beautiful and I can't wait to really sink into this game, but the AT-ST just seems kinda stumpy to me. It doesn't seem to be in scale with the figures either.

Here are some pictures of it side by side with one of the AT-STs from WotC's old Star Wars miniatures game. The figures in that game were slightly smaller than the guys in IA, though the AT-ST is clearly bigger and doesn't look so... chubby.

The heads look close to the same size, but the legs on the IA figure seem much shorter, even after you account for how the joints are bent in each figure.

Maybe my eyes are just playing tricks on me. Is the IA At-ST true to scale with the IA figures? Are both of these guys pretty much the same size?

Maybe i'm going crazy.

They're not that much different in size overall, though the WoTC is skinnier. The WotC legs are posed differently (extended up) while the FFG version is hunched forward creating the illusion of a much bigger difference. As for the rest of the scale vs. figures, I'm ok with it. It's already the one model that I have to transport separately.

I'm more disturbed by the mega cannons they both added to the sides

I like the stubby one better: the gangley WOTC one has these very thin insectlike legs i don't like.

Looking at the comparison I think FFG have got it right, the larger one doesn't look right with the skinny legs

When I first saw the FFG one, I thought it looked stumpy. Now, after having played this game, I like the FFG one better. As for scale, though, I really don't know. But unlike X-Wing, FFG hasn't really made any mention of accurate scale in this game.

Actually, I spoke with one of the IA designers at GenCon this year, and he specifically said that the WotC version of the AT-ST was out of scale...it was too big, and that they specifically designed their AT-ST to be at the proper scale.

So yeah...don't compare a good apple with a bad apple and then complain that the good apple is missing the bruises and holes.

It looks awesome, has lots of detail, and fits the board well. I have no complaints. Don't see any reason behind others. The Gen Weiss model looks a little bananas but hell with it. BTW we played a mission last time where we got to drive one, when we do that we just ignore the players normal hero card, equipment and class deck upgrades right? Basically just give him the AT-ST card and he uses just that?

As long as the one that comes in the game is not broken, does not break, and lasts the life of the game (knocks on wood) I could care less.

I can assure you it is sturdy, it needs it getting the chin gun in place lol

I much prefer the IA AT-ST over the one from WOTC.

I have both, and the IA versions looks just right to me.

They both look about the same scale, the IA one is crouched. I love the IA one, it's a good model.

The wotc one was slightly too tall for he scale of their figures. I like how the crouched one in IA does not tip over when you look at it either.

I like how the IA one is playable......Yes Gen Weiss kind of out shines it but stil.

If you want even more AT-STs in the lineup

http://robjedi.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/imperial-assault-at-st-comparisons.html

If you want even more AT-STs in the lineup

http://robjedi.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/imperial-assault-at-st-comparisons.html

Wow. The FFG looks even better in comparison. The WOTC one is awful. FFG is only one looking remotely screen accurate.

I much prefer the IA AT-ST over the one from WOTC.

I have both, and the IA versions looks just right to me.

Agreed. At first the IA one looked wonky o me but I was just used to the WOtc one (I have 3 of them and the AT-AT)... but now I much prefer the IA one and think it looks fine, scale wise

If you want even more AT-STs in the lineup

http://robjedi.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/imperial-assault-at-st-comparisons.html

Wow. The FFG looks even better in comparison. The WOTC one is awful. FFG is only one looking remotely screen accurate.

I like the KFC happy meal one best. But then again i grew up with the Kenner AT-ST, so nostalgia is a factor here.

The AT-ST scale is perfect, IMO:

You can also see how tight it would be inside the thing.

No Endor Chili today, guys . . .

It's crouching so it can fit through all those hallways.

hee hee hee....crouching...

That isn't too far from the truth. The FFG one is basically at rest/in storage, while the WOTC one is in action:

http://img2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130903201709/starwars/images/6/6b/AT-ST_SWGTCG_art.JPG

Notice how the legs are extended above, but it should be noted this is an artist rendering, and not the scale movie models.

Here's an on-location AT-ST from the early 80s. Those things were monsters.

http://a5.mzstatic.com/us/r30/Publication6/v4/51/20/06/512006ee-b36c-0e12-ec5e-c0ffe647b759/9780345543585_ss_03.480x480-75.jpg

I'm so happy they're using less greenscreen for the new films.

Here's an AT-ST in movement on screen... so tiny, awwww, how cute.

Its not far off. This screen from ROTJ has its leg in a similar pose. I think the FFG one is a little too short and too thick of legs while the WOTC is too far the other direction. The cockpit shape isn't quite right on the trailing edge either. I think I still like the kenner version the best. At least from the comparison article posted above. Though I have to wonder if they had different models in different movies. I know the falcon changed all the time, etc.

Well, what I'm taking away from this thread is: I'm modding one of my AT-STs (when I get the General I'll have two) to be stood up straighter!

and give it forest camouflage!