22 minutes ago, Steck638 said:

I am pretty sure they said in the live stream they would have multiple pilot minis.

Satan willing, but the article suggests otherwise: "This expansion puts the might of an AAT battle tank at your fingertips, beginning with a beautifully sculpted, unpainted hard plastic miniature that can be assembled with its hatch closed or with a B1 Battle Droid operator on the lookout for new targets. "

1 hour ago, Mokoshkana said:

Where are High Velocity shells? All I can find are "Bunker Buster" Shells, High-Energy Shells, and Armor-Piercing Shells, none of which have suppressive.

My brain mentally corrected "high energy" to something less stupid. But they don't need suppressive, you just recover and shoot 2 targets every turn

11 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

My brain mentally corrected "high energy" to something less stupid. But they don't need suppressive, you just recover and shoot 2 targets every turn

Not sure you can do that. Barrage says you can perform two attack actions if you don't use Arsenal. Recover and 2x Attacks would be 3 actions.

Tactical droid feels like it does way to little compared to oom battle droid or Lok.

Lok feels balanced though since he is exhaust. I think the oom battle droid + hq uplink is gonna be a solid pick depending on rest of the list. Lok with bunker buster shells and no ai attack is gonna be fun as well.

9 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

Not sure you can do that. Barrage says you can perform two attack actions if you don't use Arsenal. Recover and 2x Attacks would be 3 actions.

It has Arsenal 2, you shoot the main gun at 1 thing and the High "whatever" shells at another

2 minutes ago, MasterShake2 said:

It has Arsenal 2, you shoot the main gun at 1 thing and the High "whatever" shells at another

Fair, assumed you were talking about using Barrage

1 hour ago, bllaw said:

For real! Taking away an action from this tank would be insane especially if it was planning on using Barrage that turn. You can limit it to one attack instead!

It would still be able to use Arsenal, though that would depend on range and loadout.

1 hour ago, Gridloc said:

Looks like Ion is going to be making a big come back!

Did anyone take it to begin with?

2 minutes ago, Lochlan said:

It would still be able to use Arsenal, though that would depend on range and loadout.

well unless you recover every round youll have to use barrage every other round unless you get 2 weapons which seems to me like a waste of points.

Just now, bllaw said:

well unless you recover every round youll have to use barrage every other round unless you get 2 weapons which seems to me like a waste of points.

The AAT has two weapons by default. The secondary weapon is only range 1-2, however, so there likely won't be tons of opportunity to use it.

41 minutes ago, GeneralChonk said:

Can't help but think the AAT is far superior than any other tank. The new saber tank seems pretty weak against this monster.

Have you seen the beam weapon? Saber tank can put a suppression on 3 different units a turn (4 units if you aim its other weapon at a different unit). The Saber is also way faster at speed 2. They are both pretty stellar.

51 minutes ago, buckero0 said:

Did anyone take it to begin with?

In the days of stormtroopers and atst as really only choices for imperials(first few months of game), faced a few ion capable rebel list.

Not sure if I overlooked it somewhere, but has there been any confirmation on base size? I know it's bigger than 100 mm, but that's all I've heard so far.

9 minutes ago, the eigensheep said:

Not sure if I overlooked it somewhere, but has there been any confirmation on base size? I know it's bigger than 100 mm, but that's all I've heard so far.

pretty sure its 150mm.

9 minutes ago, the eigensheep said:

Not sure if I overlooked it somewhere, but has there been any confirmation on base size? I know it's bigger than 100 mm, but that's all I've heard so far.

They said in the live stream it is just shorter than a range 1 stick and I think they had the measurement. I'm pretty sure that makes it the same size as the TX-225 just in a circle (and with 2 more notches) instead of an oval.

1 hour ago, Mokoshkana said:

Have you seen the beam weapon? Saber tank can put a suppression on 3 different units a turn (4 units if you aim its other weapon at a different unit). The Saber is also way faster at speed 2. They are both pretty stellar.

The issue to me is point cost. The AAT has 2 options to fire twice in a round without any upgrades - 2 weapons or barrage. The Saber has to pay a significant premium to even be able to fire twice at all. Sure the Beam Turret is geat, but it better be for 30 points.

In the meantime the AAT fires 4R twice with surge crit, essentially, and High Velocity for 170pt.

did they talk about strafe at all?

13 minutes ago, OneLastMidnight said:

The issue to me is point cost. The AAT has 2 options to fire twice in a round without any upgrades - 2 weapons or barrage. The Saber has to pay a significant premium to even be able to fire twice at all. Sure the Beam Turret is geat, but it better be for 30 points.

In the meantime the AAT fires 4R twice with surge crit, essentially, and High Velocity for 170pt.

I mean, you could just get an ordinance weapon to fire twice at a cheap cost (8 points), or 14 for the other hard point weapon.

The bigger problem is army composition. The Republic has high costed corps, they don't have the space for high costed vehicles unless they sacrifice points on their commanders (No Obi Wan).

CIS can easily fit an AAT into their list AND still run Grev or Dooku.

3 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

I mean, you could just get an ordinance weapon to fire twice at a cheap cost (8 points), or 14 for the other hard point weapon.

The bigger problem is army composition. The Republic has high costed corps, they don't have the space for high costed vehicles unless they sacrifice points on their commanders (No Obi Wan).

CIS can easily fit an AAT into their list AND still run Grev or Dooku.

19 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

I mean, you could just get an ordinance weapon to fire twice at a cheap cost (8 points), or 14 for the other hard point weapon.

The bigger problem is army composition. The Republic has high costed corps, they don't have the space for high costed vehicles unless they sacrifice points on their commanders (No Obi Wan).

CIS can easily fit an AAT into their list AND still run Grev or Dooku.

Good point on the army comp. The whole "no access to cheap troop" shtick may work for Warhammer, but Legion's order system is not as forgiving.

And it's true that munitions are a cheap way to fire twice.... but only every other round.

My point is that the AAT doesn't have to spend 8 or 14 or any point to fire twice reliably all game. I don't know why they didn't give the Saber a low range 2-3B weapon like they did the AAT, or reduce its point cost since it pretty much has to pay extra to fire twice.

3 hours ago, GeneralChonk said:

Can't help but think the AAT is far superior than any other tank. The new saber tank seems pretty weak against this monster.

saber tank being able to use dodge for crits ain't too bad, plus R2 is a nice way to keep the saber going

7 minutes ago, OneLastMidnight said:

My point is that the AAT doesn't have to spend 8 or 14 or any point to fire twice reliably all game. I don't know why they didn't give the Saber a low range 2-3B weapon like they did the AAT, or reduce its point cost since it pretty much has to pay extra to fire twice.

Sounding very similar to the Tauntaun v Dewback issue here. This kind of thing seems to be a blind spot with FFG.

25 minutes ago, OneLastMidnight said:

The issue to me is point cost. The AAT has 2 options to fire twice in a round without any upgrades - 2 weapons or barrage. The Saber has to pay a significant premium to even be able to fire twice at all. Sure the Beam Turret is geat, but it better be for 30 points.

In the meantime the AAT fires 4R twice with surge crit, essentially, and High Velocity for 170pt.

8 minutes ago, R3dReVenge said:

The bigger problem is army composition. The Republic has high costed corps, they don't have the space for high costed vehicles unless they sacrifice points on their commanders (No Obi Wan).

CIS can easily fit an AAT into their list AND still run Grev or Dooku.

Pretty much all this here. The AAt is pretty good at base cost of 170 and can take a lot of upgrade combos for cheap. As long as it comes in under 200 for the two droidekars it is replacing I think of it as a win. With OOM you can even transfer one HQ-uplink from a B1 to the tank to really help.

For the GAR tank I am not sold especially on that 30 point laser. The twin laser turret and maybe a pilot I think look way better, but I do not play GAR so I am really not sure. Maybe after they get cheaper options to throw on the table????

9 minutes ago, Bobmc said:

Sounding very similar to the Tauntaun v Dewback issue here. This kind of thing seems to be a blind spot with FFG.

Good catch on how to compare the situation. The Saber is good and can get the job done, but I do think that AAT a much better point investment for a faction that has a lot more wiggle room to just load the thing up with a lot of nice toys.

Also I rather this be a Tauntaun vs. Dewback issue over past comparisons like the AT-ST vs. Airspeeder or Deathtroopers vs. Pathfinders............................................... that airspeeder was one expensive paperweight.

It wouldn't be so disappointing if we didn't know these less valuable units were going to stay this way for a long time.

When your design philosophy for a competitive game is "try to balance it as little as possible", mistakes become ingrained quickly. I don't know why FFG didn't learn from X-Wing 2.0 with Legion.

Competitive games are difficult to impossible to balance, but trying to be right on the first try? That's just not being realistic.