2 hours ago, CaptainRocket said:

How is it even remotely too big?

It could even fit on a ATST base and easily on the tank base...

I mean the AAT in that graphic you posted is too big at 9 meters.

7 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

I mean the AAT in that graphic you posted is too big at 9 meters.

Not according to the star wars.com database. 9.19 meters long.

8 hours ago, Zrob314 said:

I mean the AAT in that graphic you posted is too big at 9 meters.

42 minutes ago, joewrightgm said:

Not according to the star wars.com database. 9.19 meters long.

Either way it certainly looks like a plausible large-base vehicle 😁

3 hours ago, SpiderMana said:

Either way it certainly looks like a plausible large-base vehicle 😁

As a filthy clanker-lover, that’s my hope!

20 hours ago, choassassin said:

It is suppose to seat 2 in the compartment. Hold up 2 minis, does it look like if you could move their parts in such a way that 2 could fit in there, back to back mind you.

Yes they could. We've been over this before on the forums. Included is a diagram showing how the pilot and gunner sit. The feet of the pilot go almost into the very tip of the T-47.

I'm positive we will get the AAT. Is truly emblematic so it will be the AT-ST equivalent to CIS. I believe is even doable in a large base but it could come with its own base variant similar to what they are doing with the Occupier Tank.

I really think this is a non issue.

The AAT

Gunship

AT-TE

They're all too iconic to ignore, and unless its part of their contract, FFG can always scale the vehicles down slightly to suit.

On 4/13/2019 at 6:17 AM, SpiderMana said:

Either way it certainly looks like a plausible large-base vehicle 😁

and I had a whole breakdown of why the star wars databank is wrong.

On 4/14/2019 at 3:23 AM, lologrelol said:

I really think this is a non issue.

The AAT

Gunship

AT-TE

They're all too iconic to ignore, and unless its part of their contract, FFG can always scale the vehicles down slightly to suit.

The same can be said of the AT-AT, and many of the spacecraft which are far to large for standard games of Legion. So while they may eventually be released, I wouldn't necessarily expect them as part of "normal" Legion, nor any time soon (more like the SSD, released much later in development).

Oh the AAT and Gunship are totally doable in the base game. We already established in a previous thread that the sizes on the wiki are BS.

Pictures from the movies, the actual canon, show that the AAT is about 7 droids standing shoulder to shoulder long, and the gunship is about 10 clones standing shoulder to shoulder long.

It's up to FFG to decide. They'd be silly to ignore these iconic units.

16 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

The same can be said of the AT-AT, and many of the spacecraft which are far to large for standard games of Legion. So while they may eventually be released, I wouldn't necessarily expect them as part of "normal" Legion, nor any time soon (more like the SSD, released much later in development).

On 4/17/2019 at 4:44 AM, lologrelol said:

Oh the AAT and Gunship are totally doable in the base game. We already established in a previous thread that the sizes on the wiki are BS.

Pictures from the movies, the actual canon, show that the AAT is about 7 droids standing shoulder to shoulder long, and the gunship is about 10 clones standing shoulder to shoulder long.

It's up to FFG to decide. They'd be silly to ignore these iconic units.

Pictures and fan calculations don't really matter, neither honestly does what the wiki says.

What actually matters is what is in the official design documents from Disney, and what modifications Disney will allow to the size.

From the incredible cross sections book

That droid on the left outside the tank doesn't look quite to scale, but judging from the ones inside the tank they could do this on a Large base with the back overhanging or on a custom base like the tank.

On 4/12/2019 at 4:18 PM, Zrob314 said:

I don't see how they have much choice. There's only so many units that were seen in the service of the CIS and most of them are rather large.
They already shrank down the airspeeder, no reason they can't do it with this.

I've no idea how people keep coming to this conclusion...

On 4/12/2019 at 8:29 PM, choassassin said:

You're right. They are approximately 1" apart. My point still stands that the sizes are not exactly accurate for 1/56th (or around that) scale to the game and about their apparent lengths based on lore.

On 4/12/2019 at 8:51 PM, choassassin said:

It is suppose to seat 2 in the compartment. Hold up 2 minis, does it look like if you could move their parts in such a way that 2 could fit in there, back to back mind you.

Oh, that's why, people still insist on doing all this stuff "by eye" and with incorrect assumptions.

First, Legion is not 1:56 scale, it's roughly 1:46-1:48, so let's split the difference and say 1:47. The T-47 is listed at 5.3m in length. In 1:47 5.3m is roughly 112.8mm(rounded). The Legion T-47, measured from flap to blaster tip with digital calipers, is roughly 112.7mm.

As to fitting stuff inside:

Consistent with screen appearance. FFG seem to have put more effort into scaling their vehicles than many of the fancy model kit makers did. What people forget is that Legion is also somewhat "heroic" scaled, meaning there is slight oversizing of some features on the figures, in terms of their height they are a close match for the scale of the vehicles.

As to the topic of CIS vehicles and scaling - personally, I will be extremely disappointed if they begin to adopt a "sliding scale" for Legion as they have for their other Star Wars games. Both because if you pick a scale for your game you should stick to it(if they wanted to do bigger stuff than will fit in a "reinforced platoon" sized game system, they should have done the game at battalion size and 15mm), and because there are actually depressingly few kits out there that match the size of the Legion infantry and vehicles to-date so FFG will be the only source of most things.

I'm also not really sure it's necessary. I know it's not something the "organised play" crowd who dominate discussion of FFG games like to hear, but the fact is the vast majority of people playing tabletop games are pretty casual, and tend to value "cool factor" above almost anything else - as GW's recent antics have shown, for a lot of gamers if they have to choose between coherent rules, coherent setting, and Big ****** Stompy Stuff, they will choose the latter every time & I can't see why that wouldn't hold true for Legion as well, if they offer big models at exorbitant prices they'll sell, whether they're "practical" gaming pieces or not.

4 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

I've no idea how people keep coming to this conclusion...

Oh, that's why, people still insist on doing all this stuff "by eye" and with incorrect assumptions.

First, Legion is not 1:56 scale, it's roughly 1:46-1:48, so let's split the difference and say 1:47. The T-47 is listed at 5.3m in length. In 1:47 5.3m is roughly 112.8mm(rounded). The Legion T-47, measured from flap to blaster tip with digital calipers, is roughly 112.7mm.

As to fitting stuff inside:

Consistent with screen appearance. FFG seem to have put more effort into scaling their vehicles than many of the fancy model kit makers did. What people forget is that Legion is also somewhat "heroic" scaled, meaning there is slight oversizing of some features on the figures, in terms of their height they are a close match for the scale of the vehicles.

As to the topic of CIS vehicles and scaling - personally, I will be extremely disappointed if they begin to adopt a "sliding scale" for Legion as they have for their other Star Wars games. Both because if you pick a scale for your game you should stick to it(if they wanted to do bigger stuff than will fit in a "reinforced platoon" sized game system, they should have done the game at battalion size and 15mm), and because there are actually depressingly few kits out there that match the size of the Legion infantry and vehicles to-date so FFG will be the only source of most things.

I'm also not really sure it's necessary. I know it's not something the "organised play" crowd who dominate discussion of FFG games like to hear, but the fact is the vast majority of people playing tabletop games are pretty casual, and tend to value "cool factor" above almost anything else - as GW's recent antics have shown, for a lot of gamers if they have to choose between coherent rules, coherent setting, and Big ****** Stompy Stuff, they will choose the latter every time & I can't see why that wouldn't hold true for Legion as well, if they offer big models at exorbitant prices they'll sell, whether they're "practical" gaming pieces or not.

I play competitive legion and I want those vehicles. Most of the people I talk to do - why are you making stuff up? I have a table at home so I can crack open a beer and play with my friends. You’re allowed to do both.

We play a game with space wizards and lasers. I think we’ll be forgiving if the scale is off a bit.

That being said, I do think FFG will make an attempt to keep the size close. See our AT-ST vs the IA one.

On 4/13/2019 at 2:45 PM, Andreu said:

I'm positive we will get the AAT. Is truly emblematic so it will be the AT-ST equivalent to CIS. I believe is even doable in a large base but it could come with its own base variant similar to what they are doing with the Occupier Tank.

This is likely the case. Hopefully it can do cool things like strafe and hover over terrain

1 hour ago, TalkPolite said:

You’re allowed to do both.

I’m pretty sure that can’t be true.

21 minutes ago, Tayloraj100 said:

I’m pretty sure that can’t be true.

You’re right - just checked the RRG and it says you can’t be competitive and have fun at the same time. Guess I’ll die 🤔

26 minutes ago, Tayloraj100 said:

I’m pretty sure that can’t be true.

Who made you captain of the Fun Police?

16 hours ago, TalkPolite said:

You’re right - just checked the RRG and it says you can’t be competitive and have fun at the same time. Guess I’ll die 🤔

For someone so astute at reading the RRG, you're not so great at reading people's posts. I never set up competitiveness in opposition to fun, nor claim that competitive people wouldn't want cool vehicles, in fact if you look real close there I never even used the word competitive. I stated that casual players - ie, most of them, which is the bit that related to people who're into "organised play", who IME really dislike being reminded they're actually a pretty small group relative to the whole - very often don't care how "practical" a game piece is, and so while you might be happy to buy the cool vehicles with a wonky scale, a casual player will be more likely to buy it if it's as big and impressive as it "should" be.

19 hours ago, TalkPolite said:

We play a game with space wizards and lasers. I think we’ll be forgiving if the scale is off a bit.

We might be, but that doesn't mean the current license holder will. Remember that FFG has to get approval from Disney for their Star Wars releases, which includes approval for sculpts I'm sure.

9 hours ago, Yodhrin said:

a casual player will be more likely to buy it if it's as big and impressive as it "should" be.

My feeling is that casual players are just looking forward to sending the tank (and its valiant but flawed commander OOM-9) forth. They aren't doing size comparisons.

If FFG's scale doesn't work with a current base size, then they could release the AAT on a new base size as with the Imperial Occupier Tank.

As someone who would most likely be placed in the casual scene (I'll show up to events for Legion games, but I'm nowhere near being close to anything like LVO or Adepticon), I'm mostly interested in something like the AAT looking like a great dirty tank and playing like a great dirty tank.

If its dimensions are precisely accurate to cinematic depiction as well, then that's pretty cool too.

1 hour ago, FearofaBlankPlanet said:

My feeling is that casual players are just looking forward to sending the tank (and its valiant but flawed commander OOM-9) forth. They aren't doing size comparisons.

If FFG's scale doesn't work with a current base size, then they could release the AAT on a new base size as with the Imperial Occupier Tank.

The base would be as big as a dinner plate, and wouldn't fit around terrain in a normal game.

15 hours ago, arnoldrew said:

The base would be as big as a dinner plate, and wouldn't fit around terrain in a normal game.

Well, that's more than a slight exaggeration, but a tank not fitting due to closely packed terrain is entirely fitting. That's kinda the problem tanks have in built-up terrain or dense vegetation.

On 4/21/2019 at 9:02 AM, arnoldrew said:

The base would be as big as a dinner plate, and wouldn't fit around terrain in a normal game.

The tank could be made at approx 245mm long, or could easily be placed under that. I'd imagine they wouldn't need to make it any longer than the occupier.

40k has long had tanks that weren't at the correct proportions. And its the highest selling mini game at the moment. Money talks.