People are too literal with these game, if FFG wants it then it will be, if not they won't. People say we won't get Qui-Gon or an AT-TE but they have no idea. We may get all these different things or none of them its up to FFG.
Do you think we will get the AT-TE ?
I mean it'd only cost between $200+ be half the width of a field unless they shrunk in down. If they made it smaller then 80% of it's actual size it would start to look way too undersize because of the gunner on top.
19 hours ago, TheHoosh said:People here seem more obsessed with the cartoons though
The Saber is not from the cartoons either, for that matter. It's from the games (also with appearances in the comics) initially appearing in 02's The Clone Wars , later becoming famous in the Battlefront games, and mobile games.
Personally, I love the Saber. I've had one on preorder since about the time it was announced. I have no idea if it'll be good or not, really depends on it's cards (just like the games, it's main firepower will be its rockets/missiles). Personally, it's origins in the Expanded Universe are one of the most appealing aspects of it. Spent a lot of time flying one in The Clone Wars back in 02 and 03, and later in Battlefront.
As for the Gunship, yes, the "canon" size is quite overly large, and stems from them using the cargo variant's length for the infantry version. It simply doesn't match what we see on screen, and should be ignored. Still though, the LAAT/i would be a very large unit, and I hope they don't do it for a while. Besides being top heavy, it would probably a few new mechanics to work out, and be a massive point sink. Not the best option for the GAR at the moment.
Other vehicles that come to mind are the Jedi Starfighter (both the Delta-7 and Eta-2 Actis-class) and the AT-AP. All would offering interesting mechanics, and fit into the scale of Legion much better than the AT-TE. The Attack Pod would especially offer the desired elements of the AT-TE without the ridiculous scale problems, nor the need to shrink it much to fit.
On 11/22/2019 at 9:21 AM, Alpha17 said:The Attack Pod would especially offer the desired elements of the AT-TE without the ridiculous scale problems, nor the need to shrink it much to fit.
Funny you say that. I always though AT-PT was bigger that AT-TE. I am pretty sure they are taller.
It could be in the game if the scale was smaller/bigger ( never get that right). Sadly for the current scale it would be huge, just like the at-at would.
Don't get me wrong it would be cool, but it dosen't work for a game like this unless we get a half size version
On 11/22/2019 at 1:48 AM, TheHoosh said:People are too literal with these game, if FFG wants it then it will be, if not they won't. People say we won't get Qui-Gon or an AT-TE but they have no idea. We may get all these different things or none of them its up to FFG.
Qui-gon is plausible cause of the fact that he is an infantry model. The at-te would be the largest model in the game if released so it's less plausable
On 11/22/2019 at 8:47 AM, ArcticJedi said:When I said as bad as the SSD looks in armada, I meant that it looks terrible while you are playing. I've seen it on boards and it looks terrible. It looks thinner than an ISD-II.
Not sure what you're talking about mate. Have them both here and the SSD is almost twice as wide as an ISD and ~3.5 times as long. Looks great IMO.
19 hours ago, ChuiSaoul said:Funny you say that. I always though AT-PT was bigger that AT-TE. I am pretty sure they are taller.
*AT-AP
Taller, sure, but the footprint of the AT-TE is the problem, not its height. The AT-ST is 9 meters tall, the AT-AP is 11. (using Legends figures) that's not a particularly huge increase, and probably doable. The AT-TE is somewhere between 5-10 meters tall depending on your source, but 13-22 meters long. That'd cover up a massive chunk of the table, and be difficult to maneuver, whichever stat you go with.
The AT-AP in contrast could probably have its main legs on a AAT/Saber Tank base at least, or at most a Occupier tank base turned side ways. It's third leg could drop down as game mechanic and use another base if needed.
3 hours ago, Alpha17 said:*AT-AP
Taller, sure, but the footprint of the AT-TE is the problem, not its height. The AT-ST is 9 meters tall, the AT-AP is 11. (using Legends figures) that's not a particularly huge increase, and probably doable. The AT-TE is somewhere between 5-10 meters tall depending on your source, but 13-22 meters long. That'd cover up a massive chunk of the table, and be difficult to maneuver, whichever stat you go with.
The AT-AP in contrast could probably have its main legs on a AAT/Saber Tank base at least, or at most a Occupier tank base turned side ways. It's third leg could drop down as game mechanic and use another base if needed.
The Occupier tank base does not have movement notches on the sides.
18 hours ago, arnoldrew said:The Occupier tank base does not have movement notches on the sides.
Which would be a far, far easier change to make than to introduce a whole new unit anywho, and not really a problem for FFG.
I personally have zero problem with a AT-TE or an AT-AT. I play legion next to a group of armada players and the SSD definitely takes up a good chunk of the table and the game is interesting because a lot of game the opponent especially if they have the lower point cost is trying to hamper its mobility so it can flank it. Part two of the strategy is fighter screen to keep bombers, etc. away. It disrupted a lot of their Meta too according to those players. Definitely showed large scale vehicles can work to me.
I don't even worry about terrain at all, if it takes up a lot of space, that is to its detriment. Plus this game already has a pretty decent counter in ion weapons.
1 hour ago, Uetur said:I personally have zero problem with a AT-TE or an AT-AT. I play legion next to a group of armada players and the SSD definitely takes up a good chunk of the table and the game is interesting because a lot of game the opponent especially if they have the lower point cost is trying to hamper its mobility so it can flank it. Part two of the strategy is fighter screen to keep bombers, etc. away. It disrupted a lot of their Meta too according to those players. Definitely showed large scale vehicles can work to me.
I don't even worry about terrain at all, if it takes up a lot of space, that is to its detriment. Plus this game already has a pretty decent counter in ion weapons.
Ion weapons are not a "decent" counter, or Ion weapons would be more common to deal with vehicles (and/or droids, but CIS is still rather new). They are very niche and cost the attacking unit an action as well (if they want to attack more than once a game), on top of meh odds of whiffing against red defence die since they only have Impact 1.
Armada's terrain all consists of 2D cardboard pieces, and significantly less of the board is covered by terrain than what is supposed to be used for Legion. Additionally, IIRC it has a set deployment area, while with Legion having such a huge model would make Disarray pointless for one side.
I could see such models being part of "Epic play" like X-wing, with a bigger play area and battle cards (like the new "skirmish" mode), but personally I wouldn't expect them to be part of the "standard" game.
11 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:Ion weapons are not a "decent" counter, or Ion weapons would be more common to deal with vehicles (and/or droids, but CIS is still rather new). They are very niche and cost the attacking unit an action as well (if they want to attack more than once a game), on top of meh odds of whiffing against red defence die since they only have Impact 1.
Armada's terrain all consists of 2D cardboard pieces, and significantly less of the board is covered by terrain than what is supposed to be used for Legion. Additionally, IIRC it has a set deployment area, while with Legion having such a huge model would make Disarray pointless for one side.
I could see such models being part of "Epic play" like X-wing, with a bigger play area and battle cards (like the new "skirmish" mode), but personally I wouldn't expect them to be part of the "standard" game.
Ion weapons are niche because non-creature vehicles are rarely played with. However, when I have an ion weapon and my opponent has a vehicle it costs my opponent usually 2 activations a game for me losing one. Then when you compare the costs of the units losing the activation they work just fine. Maybe slightly over costed but that is a different conversation.
Legion already has rules for ground vehicle and repulsor vehicle movement. It has rules for terrain by unit type. I fail to see how having terrain on the board is a major issue here. If you are going to bring an AT-AT and your opponent boxes you in or you have difficulty moving around, that is what I usually call balance. For instance disarray is simple in my mind how the AT-AT has to be positioned by the rules.
Standard games and how we define this can and will change. So I am not concerned that there could be change in a year or two, keeps the game from getting stale.
5 minutes ago, Uetur said:Ion weapons are niche because non-creature vehicles are rarely played with. However, when I have an ion weapon and my opponent has a vehicle it costs my opponent usually 2 activations a game for me losing one. Then when you compare the costs of the units losing the activation they work just fine. Maybe slightly over costed but that is a different conversation.
Legion already has rules for ground vehicle and repulsor vehicle movement. It has rules for terrain by unit type. I fail to see how having terrain on the board is a major issue here. If you are going to bring an AT-AT and your opponent boxes you in or you have difficulty moving around, that is what I usually call balance. For instance disarray is simple in my mind how the AT-AT has to be positioned by the rules.Standard games and how we define this can and will change. So I am not concerned that there could be change in a year or two, keeps the game from getting stale.
If you take an Ion weapon, then the squad is likely only attacking with Impact 1, so unless crits are rolled you are relying on your opponent rolling blank on their defence die. These bigger vehicles probably make sense to have red defence die, so that's a 1/2 chance of blocking the Ion, putting it to 1 action to cost your opponent 1 action on average. That's assuming you don't whiff on the attack, which is made more likely by splitting fire. As well, infantry squads are generally more suited to attacking other infantry squads, so you're also putting a whole lot of shots into a unit just to remove one action. Plus, with the increase of Suppressive units, suppressing/panicking ion units is easier, keeping them from getting two actions in a turn.
The reason terrain is an issue is because it is three dimensional. Placing the unit on the terrain that by the rules it ignores, but it constantly falls over due to the rather high center of balance in the AT-AT's case isn't "balanced" gameplay. It's annoying, especially since the "standard" AT-AT works out to Range 2 in height iirc, so should probably ignore many small terrain pieces. Per the rules: "While performing a standard move, a ground vehicle can move onto or over a piece of a terrain that has a height that is equal to or less than half the height of the unit leader’s mini." So for the AT-AT, by the rules it can freely move on top of Range 1 terrain, BUT it's covering such a large portion of the board it now has to by the rules, be placed on multiple pieces of disparate terrain, which will make it less stable.
"Standard" games for X-wing haven't significantly changed despite the creation of "epic" gameplay.
I’m totally hoping they do the AT-TE, and I don’t care if they have to play with the size. It would just look too cool on the table with the clones and opposite the CIS and their tank. 😎
3 hours ago, JediPartisan said:I’m totally hoping they do the AT-TE, and I don’t care if they have to play with the size. It would just look too cool on the table with the clones and opposite the CIS and their tank. 😎
However it won't look as cool to me if they have to shrink it down too much. If it is drastically out of scale it will be a bit obvious given it is one of the few ground vehicles whose interior had been featured on screen. Plus the top canon is often depicted as having a gunner, so if they go that route it will be REALLY obvious.
Edit: I'd still like to see one for Epic play though.
Edited by Caimheul131312 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:However it won't look as cool to me if they have to shrink it down too much. If it is drastically out of scale it will be a bit obvious given it is one of the few ground vehicles whose interior had been featured on screen. Plus the top canon is often depicted as having a gunner, so if they go that route it will be REALLY obvious.
Edit: I'd still like to see one for Epic play though.
Yep, exactly. I don't mind a slight fluctuation of scale (going from 1:48 from 1:46 or something like that) but a big one would be very noticeable with the gunner up top.