So if a 6' tall soldier is 32mm in this game then an AT-AT would be 15.5" tall and 13.6" long that is about the same dimensions as...

https://shop.lego.com/en-US/AT-AT-75054

Awww yea....

5 minutes ago, flightmaster101 said:

So if a 6' tall soldier is 32mm in this game then an AT-AT would be 15.5" tall and 13.6" long that is about the same dimensions as...

https://shop.lego.com/en-US/AT-AT-75054

Awww yea....

Lucky for me, i already have 2. And one is the motorised mf from years back.

22 minutes ago, Jabby said:

Lucky for me, i already have 2. And one is the motorised mf from years back.

I have that motorized one too!

And check it out on Ebay! Now I'm thinking of selling mine...

I think AT-ATs are inevitable. It's too iconic not to happen, but when you look at it's closest analog in another FFG game, the CR90, it took a while before they got comfortable enough with the game to undertake a project of that size.

Would you rather it be "Just another AT AT" or "OMFG an AT AT!"?

Don't need for an AT-AT when your chicken walker can damage an airspeeder in one shot.

AT-AT will be like the SSD in Armada... it’s coming someday (or not)

The problem with the AT-AT is that it's not at all tactically interesting at this scale. If LEGION had been like 5mm scale (akin to like the old EPIC Warhammer 40k or something) then you could have ranks of troopers and walkers and speeders and fighters on a board, and out-maneuvering them and deciding where to commit a herd of AT-ATs would be interesting.

At this 32mm scale, I feel like an AT-AT would be as interesting as setting a shoebox onto the table, then having it not move or inch forward while enemy units either rolled piles of dice at it hoping for luck-shots or, more than likely, just ignored it entirely. At conventions I've seen people who play WotC's old 28mm Star Wars play Battle of Hoth scenarios. It's just five AT-ATs slowly lumbering in a straight line toward the Rebel base while the Rebel players roll piles of dice and slowly paper-cut them to death, hoping to beat the clock. It looks... well it looks beautiful on the table, but it seems utterly boring to play.


That being said, I'd be shocked if the iconic AT-AT didn't make an appearance.

1 hour ago, AllWingsStandyingBy said:

The problem with the AT-AT is that it's not at all tactically interesting at this scale. If LEGION had been like 5mm scale (akin to like the old EPIC Warhammer 40k or something) then you could have ranks of troopers and walkers and speeders and fighters on a board, and out-maneuvering them and deciding where to commit a herd of AT-ATs would be interesting.

At this 32mm scale, I feel like an AT-AT would be as interesting as setting a shoebox onto the table, then having it not move or inch forward while enemy units either rolled piles of dice at it hoping for luck-shots or, more than likely, just ignored it entirely. At conventions I've seen people who play WotC's old 28mm Star Wars play Battle of Hoth scenarios. It's just five AT-ATs slowly lumbering in a straight line toward the Rebel base while the Rebel players roll piles of dice and slowly paper-cut them to death, hoping to beat the clock. It looks... well it looks beautiful on the table, but it seems utterly boring to play.


That being said, I'd be shocked if the iconic AT-AT didn't make an appearance.

Depends on how they implement it. If they make it not 1-shot everything in sight but keep its cost similar to an upgraded Vader, you'd be able to include 1 AT-AT and still potentially have a sizeable army if you use a cheaper Commander. That way the AT-AT can become a centerpiece without the entire match being about the AT-AT. Remember its main function is a transport, so it doesn't really need to be a doomsday machine that can pop an AT-ST in a single round. If they give it slightly more base firepower than an AT-ST, slower movement and 5 more hullpoints + red defense instead of white, for around 225-275 points, it would (for me) be fine.

comparing this to IA is a disservice. I have IA, and while it's a very fun game, it is an incredibly different game, and I understand why they think the games can co-exist. Yes, AT-AT's, and larger scale vehicle combat would be truly and amazing and fun experience. I totally agree and would have loved that.

19 minutes ago, Lord Tareq said:

Depends on how they implement it. If they make it not 1-shot everything in sight but keep its cost similar to an upgraded Vader, you'd be able to include 1 AT-AT and still potentially have a sizeable army if you use a cheaper Commander. That way the AT-AT can become a centerpiece without the entire match being about the AT-AT. Remember its main function is a transport, so it doesn't really need to be a doomsday machine that can pop an AT-ST in a single round. If they give it slightly more base firepower than an AT-ST, slower movement and 5 more hullpoints + red defense instead of white, for around 225-275 points, it would (for me) be fine.

Should be like a CR90 in X-wing, which is 90 points out of a 300 point epic game, so an AT-AT would be 480 points naked.

Could make it worth it by giving it Armor, Cover 1 or 2, 2 Red Dice(yes 2!) for defense, Arsenal X (# of hardpoints or # of hardpoints -1) , 20 HP, 15 Damage threshold. Give it some long range anti-vehicle stuff, short range anti infantry.

Caveat being I dont know the balance of the game yet, but that seems like it could be fun.

6 hours ago, flightmaster101 said:

So if a 6' tall soldier is 32mm in this game then an AT-AT would be 15.5" tall and 13.6" long that is about the same dimensions as...

https://shop.lego.com/en-US/AT-AT-75054

Awww yea....

I think that it's also about the size of the old toy ones as well...