'Infantry' combat - So no AT-AT's?

By Lord Tareq, in Star Wars: Legion

I'd really like a AT-AT and I don't care how many basement dwellers it irks if they put on out.

34 minutes ago, Hawktel said:

I'd really like a AT-AT and I don't care how many basement dwellers it irks if they put on out.

Now we're down to the 'sweeping derogatory comments phase'. Very mature.

13 hours ago, VanorDM said:

I agree, although you can go too far the other way and make a game that's too simple. 40k 8th is close to this in some ways, like with the new vehicle rules. I like that they took away the penetration rules and charts and all so it's just effectively HP's. But taking away facing was a mistake.

But we shouldn't assume that rules to deal with a superheavy like an AT-AT would make the rules overly complicated. ....

In Legion we have facing, armour and armour penetration. This works at certain level of engagement.

ATST is a levelup. I guess we will see him and I'm not sure how. ATAT is another level up. It would be full of rule exceptions and special rules. And snowspeeder with special rule saying that he can destroy ATAT by making 3 circles around him is a joke.

Everything is possible, but it would not be healthy for the game.

Edited by Bohun242