10 hours ago, Andreu said:

The best walkers IMO are the classic ones, the prequel walkers only had one decent walker and is already in game. so Kudos to FFG
AT-ST is a must, is the best walker that fits in this scale (We will not see AT-ATs), maybe another classic EU walker could fit well if modeled properly, the AT-PT they are more or less the size of the "Warhammer Imperial Guard Sentinel" and I believe that is the coolest mini of the Imperial guard (Astra militarum now).

Nah, I already own one of those...^^

19 minutes ago, JohnnyTrash said:

Nah, I already own one of those...^^

Haha! This looks like a "Don't talk to me or my children ever again" meme.

Jokes aside, that's a lovely AT-ST and the AT-PT has some potential with a better model (I keep thinking how cool the 40k imperial guard sentinel looks) suro something starwarsy enough can come out of it.

The problem with the AT-AT is the Rebels need to have an answer for it. While awesome, if every battle is a losing Battle of Hoth scenario for the Rebels, the fun is gone quickly. If you start adding airspeeders or ships to combat it, you now moved from unit wargaming to vehicular wargaming.

21 minutes ago, VictoryLeo said:

The problem with the AT-AT is the Rebels need to have an answer for it. While awesome, if every battle is a losing Battle of Hoth scenario for the Rebels, the fun is gone quickly. If you start adding airspeeders or ships to combat it, you now moved from unit wargaming to vehicular wargaming.

Maybe the Rebels don't need a conventional answer to it. The WotC AT-AT had a rule that made it always move forward and it cannot shoot at anything outside it's front face. FFG could easily do the same thing. With such a large base, if it turns it will move its field of fire by quite a bit. Don't allow it to move backwards. Must activate last in each round. This allows for some reaction time.

I doubt it would be allowed for standard play, but there are a lot of things that can make an AT-AT playable. The biggest one is being maneuverable.

17 hours ago, lordkane995 said:

Could see them doing it in the future, for the interim I would imagine they will want to focus on "fast dynamic combat" rather than static support.

Very good point .... I'll just have to make some as terrain then

5 hours ago, Norsehound said:

AT-ATs aren't quite to the scale of jamming Star Destroyers into X-Wing, but close. If I were really a fan of infantry level combat, I wouldn't want to see them. The only way to destroy them is with other armor, specifically air support (X-Wings, inventive snow speeders). Baze took a shot at one with a rocket launcher that probably would have knocked out an AT-ST, but not an AT-AT.

My interest in this game however, is proportional to the number of armored units (not necessarily AT-ATs) in the game. Right now it's zero. When someday they roll/walk out tanks and walkers, then I'll be interested. It can't just be stormtroopers and speederbikes.

There will certainly be big armored units eventually, and they even mention in the interview that keywords already exist to combat them and that you can have two "Heavy Units" in your army. Important to note though, that you can only have two Heavy Unit deployments in your army anyway. So if an ATST is released and its 150 points, you can only have two, even though you could fit 5 into your 800 point army. The rules require at least 3 "Corps" units in every army, which right now is just Stormtroopers and Rebel Troopers, but will expand. I'm definitely excited to see what the heavy units turn out to be. Alex Davy specifically mentioned AT-STs and Snowspeeders when he was discussing Heavy Units, but didn't officially confirm that those units will exist. He just discussed them in broad strokes. I'd assume they're coming.

I was disappointed when I found out I'll only be able to run three pairs of Speeder Bikes. But it's okay, because I can still have three pairs of Speeder Bikes.

See personally, the AT-AT doesn't throw me off as far as realism goes as much as a snow speeder does.

The Snow Speeder is so fast it would cover the entire board and then some each round.

Having said that, i still want ffg to release both so i can buy both lol.

4 minutes ago, Engine25 said:

I was disappointed when I found out I'll only be able to run three pairs of Speeder Bikes. But it's okay, because I can still have three pairs of Speeder Bikes.

An Imperial version of the 40k White Scars or Ravenwing would be fun.

21 minutes ago, Wired4War said:

An Imperial version of the 40k White Scars or Ravenwing would be fun.

And that's a possible future. The games just getting started, once it's more established FFG can start monkeying with things like a speederbike commander that allows speederbikes to count as troops or whatever Legion is calling them so as not to so blatantly infringe.

3 hours ago, JoeVandal49 said:

The Snow Speeder is so fast it would cover the entire board and then some each round.

I keep seeing this and dis a bit of research. The 74-z speeder bike has a max speed of 500km/h, while the t-47 airspeeder has a max speed of 1100km/h. The board is going to be twice as big as the 3x3 boards they had for demo games, so while it would be faster, and keeping it on the board could be difficult, I don't think it would have to be quite that fast.

23 hours ago, JoeVandal49 said:

So i know everyone wants an AT-AT. We know there will likely be AT-ST, and even the creator mentioned snow speeders.

So the question is, what else would you like to see, or what else do you think we could possibly see?

Jabbas Sail Barge anyone ?

Maybe a bit to big, but I could definatly see those desert skiffs as troop transports.

11 minutes ago, Steck638 said:

I keep seeing this and dis a bit of research. The 74-z speeder bike has a max speed of 500km/h, while the t-47 airspeeder has a max speed of 1100km/h. The board is going to be twice as big as the 3x3 boards they had for demo games, so while it would be faster, and keeping it on the board could be difficult, I don't think it would have to be quite that fast.

The trade off with the speeder bikes is speed vs. firepower - they seem to hit really hard, but you need some effort to line them up. The Forward guns on the T-47 will likely be hugely destructive, but the trade off will be silly compulsory movement - but with a tail gunner.

59 minutes ago, Jedirev said:

The trade off with the speeder bikes is speed vs. firepower - they seem to hit really hard, but you need some effort to line them up. The Forward guns on the T-47 will likely be hugely destructive, but the trade off will be silly compulsory movement - but with a tail gunner.

I agree, I was just pointing out it's not to fast for the board. The speeders look really cool and I can't wait to get something equally fast for my rebels.

28 minutes ago, Steck638 said:

I agree, I was just pointing out it's not to fast for the board. The speeders look really cool and I can't wait to get something equally fast for my rebels.

I think the real trick with Snowspeeders will be keeping a target in arc. They might have to make a couple of compulsory moves before normal actions kick in. That's a lot of pace to contend with.

The AT-AT is big and lumbering, so in a game that centres around taking and holding objectives, in that there could be more than 1 objective point in games. That isn't exactly a unit that wins games by itself. The rules for ion weapons (decrease the number of actions you get from 2 to 1 in the next turn) also makes them rather vulnerable if they aren't supported by infantry.

48 minutes ago, Jedirev said:

I think the real trick with Snowspeeders will be keeping a target in arc. They might have to make a couple of compulsory moves before normal actions kick in. That's a lot of pace to contend with.

Conversely that means that it will be difficult to shoot them down with how they zip around the battlefield, especially when they will need to be attacked by units with Impact.

If ffg can make the Tantive IV work for x wing, and games Workshop can have knight titans on the shelves as regular stock lines, Im sure we will see At Ats eventually. But it'll come with a big price ticket, so not likely to be in wave 2, but later.

6 hours ago, Engine25 said:

There will certainly be big armored units eventually, and they even mention in the interview that keywords already exist to combat them and that you can have two "Heavy Units" in your army. Important to note though, that you can only have two Heavy Unit deployments in your army anyway. So if an ATST is released and its 150 points, you can only have two, even though you could fit 5 into your 800 point army. The rules require at least 3 "Corps" units in every army, which right now is just Stormtroopers and Rebel Troopers, but will expand.

Where did you find this info? I'd like to read up on Army construction.

8 hours ago, Omegaclone said:

Where did you find this info? I'd like to read up on Army construction.

Team Cov Demo video.

There's this image from it that's been doing the rounds

On 8/22/2017 at 9:02 PM, Vineheart01 said:

ATATs would be massive, unless they scale them down i dont even expect them for "Epic' play.

At 28mm scale, an ATAT would be 80cm tall. For imperial measurement people, thats just over 30 inches tall. It would be just about as long as well.
You have any idea how expensive a model that size with good detail would be? Lemmie put it this way, Forgeworld sells something called a Warlord Titan and its 22.5 inches tall and is 1250BP, or 1600USD with current conversions.

An ATAT with any real detail/structure integrity to hold such size firmly, even if done by a company that isnt a moneygrubbing snob, would still be several hundred USD, closer to 1000

I just got a revell AT-AT for about $100 that is 1:53 scale which is close. it is 24" tall and 24"roughly long. An AT-AT could be a reasonable cost at scale. the issue would be that on a 6x3 mat it would be fairly "unplayable". That being said I will use mine for terrain and if this does go the route of classic miniwargaming i will most likely get another for when I build my display board for tournaments. They could do a sliding scale for the AT-AT if they want. GW makes models that are 16" tall for $120 in the polystyrlene so a to scale at-at for $120 is not unreasonable in a lesser quality material. The issue with resin is that the more detail they add the more frequently they need to replace the molds, which is a big reason why forgeworld costs so dang much.

AT-ATs are not out of the question.

I do hope we eventually see dedicated transports like the one in rogue 1 and TFA, also U-wings.

If an AT-AT takes up two heavy slots it will work for 1500 point battles (presumably, 4 Heavy slots instead of 2): you can escort it with a pair of AT-STs to keep model count up, or take two AT-ATs and hope they don't have the firepower to deal with both. In many ways similar to the Land Raider in 40K, but even more so. People will field them because they're AT-ATs, but many people will probably pass in favor of something more flexible.

If you are going to do math based on Luke's height, remember Mark Hamill is 1.7m tall (about 5'7")

3 hours ago, Pyremius said:

If an AT-AT takes up two heavy slots it will work for 1500 point battles (presumably, 4 Heavy slots instead of 2): you can escort it with a pair of AT-STs to keep model count up, or take two AT-ATs and hope they don't have the firepower to deal with both. In many ways similar to the Land Raider in 40K, but even more so. People will field them because they're AT-ATs, but many people will probably pass in favor of something more flexible.

My desired core is an AT-AT, two-three AT-STs, maybe three troop units, possibly on Imperial walkers. One or two Fighter tanks.

Since this doesn't look easily possible in Legion my enthusiasm for the game is easily contained :\ *goes back to paining shapeways Imperial Armor*

I'm going to come down on the "no flying vehicles" side, and no AT-AT side. I'd rather it be limited to infantry and the smaller only ground-based armor, like AT-STs and hover tanks/ troops carriers

On 8/23/2017 at 4:17 AM, lordkane995 said:

Hi mate can you please spell out your maths here because I get a different conclusion.

So Wookieepedia puts the height of an AT-AT at 22.5m. so if we take Luke's height to be roughly 6" (1.8m) that means that an AT-AT is 12.5 times Luke's height. The number quoted for Luke's mini height that I have heard is 35mm ish. So this puts an AT-AT mini at roughly 44cm which is still large but with a sliding scale could definitely be usable.

Please point out any flaws in my logic.

Funny, I always thought the AT-At's were like 40 meters tall or something. If we go with 28mm stormtrooper figures, and assume this 28mm is equal to about 1.8 meter, the 22.5 meter tall & 20 meter long AT-AT should be 35cm tall and 31cm long as a model to be in perfect scale. That's actually very doable. I mean its a big model, but definitely doable. They could even scale it down by 10% or so and it would still look okey.