34 minutes ago, Deuzerre said:

Ok, let's look at it an other way: What would it bring on the table?

A cool model? Yeah, sure.

This is a Star Wars miniatures game. All the other points you listed are basically irrelevant. It's cool, it's Star Wars, it's iconic and much loved, and it would fit in this scale. There's no reason NOT to release one.

Having said that, there's no reason an AT AT would need to be boring or difficult to use. It's footprint would not be significantly larger than that of Huge ships in X Wing, and it could use a similar movement system.

It could even feature stormtroopers rappelling down to deploy on the table.

24 minutes ago, Chucknuckle said:

This is a Star Wars miniatures game. All the other points you listed are basically irrelevant. It's cool, it's Star Wars, it's iconic and much loved, and it would fit in this scale. There's no reason NOT to release one.

Having said that, there's no reason an AT AT would need to be boring or difficult to use. It's footprint would not be significantly larger than that of Huge ships in X Wing, and it could use a similar movement system.

It could even feature stormtroopers rappelling down to deploy on the table.

You are aware that the AT-AT would be like 2 feet tall right? And probably 2 - 3 feet long.
It'd have to be atleast like 800 points base (the thing would have like 25 - 30 wounds, ya know, with armor)
Also, considering the thing would be nearly the size of a Warlord Titan from Warhammer 40k (which is like $1500 bucks), I would assume, BEING GENEROUS, that an AT-AT for this game, to-scale with everything else, would be atleast $400

To stay in scale an AT AT would be 42cm tall. Using a flexible scale as FFG has done with X Wing and Armada, it could easily be more like 30cm or 35cm. Hardly 60cm! And they're taller than they are long so the base is likely to be 30cm or less.

Given that most of the height is in the spindly legs, I'd imagine the price tag to be around the $150 mark.

An AT - AT is 74 feet tall (a bit over 12 people tall) so, if they made it to scale instead of making it look ridiculous with a sliding scale, it would be around 24 inches tall, and would be absolutely massive.

Please stop trying to defend the addition of a really large vehicle, it won't happen. (and if it does happen, I'll eat my words, as well as one of the at-at models, although I don't want to spend several hundred bucks on something to eat)

Here's a good size comparison for AT-AT and AT-ST by the way -

This is a 35mm game. 12 times 35mm is 42cm. Not 60. It's completely feasible, especially with FFGs sliding scale meaning anything from 30-35 to 42 is possible.

I'm going to hold you to eating one of the models when they're released

I don't think that pic is right either, I thought the AT AT was taller than the AT AT?

The picture is right. If you recall, the AT-ST barely has enough room for 2 dudes to sit in it, but the AT-AT (only the HEAD PART) has enough room to comfortably stand in, probably being like 8 feet high just inside. (So the head, itself, would be bigger than an Airspeeder)

14 minutes ago, Alino said:

The picture is right. If you recall, the AT-ST barely has enough room for 2 dudes to sit in it, but the AT-AT (only the HEAD PART) has enough room to comfortably stand in, probably being like 8 feet high just inside. (So the head, itself, would be bigger than an Airspeeder)

Sorry, I meant to compare the AT AT and the AT ACT. I thought the latter was the taller of the two? At any rate, even staying true to scale the AT AT would be 42cm tall. A big model, but most of it is legs, and it's certainly feasible for a 6x3 or 6x4 table.

Just leaving a post here to remind everyone of the "Grand Army" rules, which has twice the mat size and a 1600 point limit.

8 minutes ago, Indy_com said:

Just leaving a post here to remind everyone of the "Grand Army" rules, which has twice the mat size and a 1600 point limit.

Ah, my apologies then. An AT-AT would certainly fit into that level of play, but even then I don't see it being possible to take more than 2. (They'd also probably need a new unit type for AT-AT sized models, something only able to be used in a Grand Army setting)

1 minute ago, Alino said:

Ah, my apologies then. An AT-AT would certainly fit into that level of play, but even then I don't see it being possible to take more than 2. (They'd also probably need a new unit type for AT-AT sized models, something only able to be used in a Grand Army setting)

Agreed.

The Rebels could get a Juggernaught for the same unit type.

5 hours ago, Kanawolf said:

FFG shot the ATAT in the foot when they decided not to do Legion in something like 6/15mm scale. 6mm is 1/285 scale. Xwing is 1/270. They could have easily merged the two. But they wanted a piece of the GW pie.

That assumes that a ground battle component for x-wing is not still a possibility.

I love the AT-AT, the original toy was awesome. The WotC mini is awesome too. But, it doesn't make sense for what this game is about.

If we ever get epic rules, maybe then. It might even behoove FFG to make it a Legacy type scenario.

Best scenario is FFG design it as a carrying case, fully in scale and function as a set piece.

Re: AT-AT

Why would anyone want to sink so many of their points into a unit that Luke can destroy with one swipe of his lightsaber and a cheeky grenade?

1 minute ago, ABXY said:

Oops

56 minutes ago, Indy_com said:

Just leaving a post here to remind everyone of the "Grand Army" rules, which has twice the mat size and a 1600 point limit.

It doesn't double the mat. It goes from 6x3 to 6x4. Additionally, when playing a Grand Army game, you are required to field on the short sides of the table as in Long March. This doesn't really effect the board much for deploying an AT-AT if the concern was the model being too large.

15 minutes ago, SeijiTataki said:

It doesn't double the mat. It goes from 6x3 to 6x4. Additionally, when playing a Grand Army game, you are required to field on the short sides of the table as in Long March. This doesn't really effect the board much for deploying an AT-AT if the concern was the model being too large.

It fits points wise, plus your terrain would need to be more spaced out anyways, so the AT-AT being to large to fit with terrain would be less of an issue.

I think that the AT-AT has already been designed out of the game. It would have to have 24-30 HP to kill with 16-20 HP to cripple to have an appropriate toughness against most of the regular units as compared to the AT-ST. If you look at what has killed them in the movies, you have Luke with a lightsaber and a grenade, a snowspeeder with a tow cable, and starfighters(AT-ACT). There are already two of those ingame, and neither of them is capable of producing the number of crits to cripple much less destroy one in a 6 round game. Is a starfighter command card is released at an appropriate damage level to kill it, it would auto-kill any other unit in the game. Neither of those would make for good gameplay.

4 hours ago, Indy_com said:

Agreed.

The Rebels could get a Juggernaught for the same unit type.

As much as I love the Juggernaut the i would prefer it for clone wars era

+1, we're never getting an AT-ST.
Those TIE-Crawlers doe...

50 minutes ago, Jabby said:

As much as I love the Juggernaut the i would prefer it for clone wars era

They're 2 entirely separate vehicles.

This is a Juggernaut:

This is a Clone Turbo Tank (HAVw A6 Juggernaught):

3 hours ago, jcmonson said:

I think that the AT-AT has already been designed out of the game. It would have to have 24-30 HP to kill with 16-20 HP to cripple to have an appropriate toughness against most of the regular units as compared to the AT-ST.

I have several Disney popcorn AT-ATs for terrain. The troop door is 30mm versus 35+ mm for troops to fit. It would fit okay on the table as terrain, but I think it would be impossible to fit in a deployment zone at start. There are a few other threads that have better size comparisons. I don't believe it would work for this game other than terrain.

3 hours ago, Xiervak said:

+1, we're never getting an AT-ST.
Those TIE-Crawlers doe...

I would love a TIE-Crawler. Those things are sweet

16 minutes ago, Alino said:

I would love a TIE-Crawler. Those things are sweet

My issue is TIEs are fighter craft, and the crawler is a tank. I would be happier with a redesign that gave it legs/wings like that of a Vulture droid.

3 hours ago, That Blasted Samophlange said:

My issue is TIEs are fighter craft, and the crawler is a tank. I would be happier with a redesign that gave it legs/wings like that of a Vulture droid.

TIE-Crawler or I'll riot