Most likely the only representation the LAAT(Or similar things) will get is as part of a commanders command card "LAAT strike" or "Dropship reinforcements" or that kind of thing. Basically giving them a "deep strike" ability. I could imagine Commander Cody or some other well known Clone commander getting something like that, more focused on strategy than gun-slinging like Rex.

Yeah

While these would be cool models, they don't seem like they would be useful or feasible on the table. Most of them could fit but as was mentioned, they would be larger than the occupier which struggles in some deployments already.

I think there are other vehicles that we could see, but most should probably be kept in the background or on command cards.

Even the force organisation has less Heavy options by design.

18 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

So the base (arguably the part that is the effective in game size of the unit) is the same size though?

Yeah. At the end of the day, X-Wing is about pushing little squares around with templates.

Seems like things are getting off topic from the AT-RT leak

4 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

Yeah. At the end of the day, X-Wing is about pushing little squares around with templates.

My point was that while the model is larger, the base is not. So if they do the same thing for Legion, then outside of an epic version a model on a larger base than the tanks is unlikely.

4 hours ago, Applebottom said:

Seems like things are getting off topic from the AT-RT leak

Its been off topic for 4 pages

1 hour ago, Caimheul1313 said:

My point was that while the model is larger, the base is not. So if they do the same thing for Legion, then outside of an epic version a model on a larger base than the tanks is unlikely.

They could come up with a special way for a larger base to move, much like Epic Ships in X-Wing. The real limiting factor is terrain. One solution could be that the model cant move or rotate much throughout the 6 turns of the game (much like Epic ships in X-Wing) and it destroys terrain shorter that it that it overlaps (since we see big CIS vehicles plowing through the jungle on Naboo).

Its a long shot though. And big fliers would be a whole other problem (looking at you LAAT).

18 hours ago, KommanderKeldoth said:

They could come up with a special way for a larger base to move, much like Epic Ships in X-Wing. The real limiting factor is terrain. One solution could be that the model cant move or rotate much throughout the 6 turns of the game (much like Epic ships in X-Wing) and it destroys terrain shorter that it that it overlaps (since we see big CIS vehicles plowing through the jungle on Naboo).

Its a long shot though. And big fliers would be a whole other problem (looking at you LAAT).

I would be happier if it was a designated type of game like they have Skirmish, Normal and then Grand army sizes, like they have done epic. I always thought the campaign in armada sounded like a fun way to play, so I would be on board for something like that as well. You could buy your big oversized vehicle for a Siege campaign or something on Ryloth.

They used to do things like this in the bad old days with GW before all they cared about was moving boxes of plastic and it was a cottage industry designed for hobbyists and games that were fun and thematic instead of ultra-competitive.

On 6/5/2020 at 3:25 PM, Caimheul1313 said:

For some reason I'm under the impression that It was stated by FFG in a livestream or something that these tanks are the largest models planned for Legion.

FFG has said that before.

Originally, the AT-ST was on the largest base in Legion, but then the Occupier Tank was released and it used a larger base. Now the AAT has been released and it uses the largest Legion base.

On 6/2/2020 at 2:20 AM, Memorare said:

I honestly hope we don't get bigger models, as the AAT is already a pain to move and use on the table. Imagine how annoying moving anything bigger would be? The over hang of the AAT is a gaming nightmare.

I believe there is sufficient demand from Legion players for the AT-TE, even if it will be impractically large.

The problem is that Legion maps have become focused on "urban" environments with tons of buildings and large obstacles littering the map. That is very different than how Legion was originally presented, with a large, open map with only the barricade obstacles, which allowed the Speederbikes to move around properly. But then players started adding more obstacles and buildings to provide more cover for troopers and obstruct LoS. Consequently, obstacle-ridden maps have made using vehicles, particularly Speeders with Compulsory Moves, very difficult, to the detriment of the game.

I know that it's infeasible to go against the grain of the majority of Legion players who favour "urban" maps, so IMO FFG should introduce a new battle format or "league" geared toward vehicles, which would have rules against excessive obstacles and large obstacles.

I think having two competitive Legion leagues would make Organized Play more interesting, and it would be in FFG's interests because the "vehicle league" would encourage more Legion players to buy vehicle expansions.

Legion was never meant to be played with just the barricades from the core set. If I remember correctly when the game was released it was advised to have about 25% of the table covered with terrain. It is true that the amount of terrain has increased for most games, and I do prefer about 1/3 table coverage, but it was never meant to be wide open. Here is a picture from a demo game at gen con from 2017.

There is a lot of open space in the middle, but this was just a demo game, and still has more terrain than just the barricades.

3 hours ago, Reavern said:

FFG has said that before.

Originally, the AT-ST was on the largest base in Legion, but then the Occupier Tank was released and it used a larger base. Now the AAT has been released and it uses the largest Legion base.

I only heard it stated recently, I don't recall ever hearing from FFG that the AT-ST would be the largest base. I know some people on here made that claim at the time, but I don't recall FFG ever saying it.

6 hours ago, buckero0 said:

I would be happier if it was a designated type of game like they have Skirmish, Normal and then Grand army sizes, like they have done epic. I always thought the campaign in armada sounded like a fun way to play, so I would be on board for something like that as well. You could buy your big oversized vehicle for a Siege campaign or something on Ryloth.

They used to do things like this in the bad old days with GW before all they cared about was moving boxes of plastic and it was a cottage industry designed for hobbyists and games that were fun and thematic instead of ultra-competitive.

Yeah I would think that would be the best route. Release it for Grand Army format (and rules for using it as a scenario terrain piece for standard games). Tweak the Grand Army set up rules to allow for more open space and less big buildings. I would buy one.

4 hours ago, DFocke said:

Legion was never meant to be played with just the barricades from the core set. If I remember correctly when the game was released it was advised to have about 25% of the table covered with terrain. It is true that the amount of terrain has increased for most games, and I do prefer about 1/3 table coverage, but it was never meant to be wide open. Here is a picture from a demo game at gen con from 2017.

There is a lot of open space in the middle, but this was just a demo game, and still has more terrain than just the barricades.

Yes, I'm aware that the Legion Rules Reference refers to obstacles "cover roughly a quarter of the battlefield" but I've seen Organized Play battlefields that are ~50% obstacles and buildings, which are deployed in such a way that they deliberately restrict vehicles. That's why competitive armies rarely use Heavy units. That's also why Legion players say that there's no point in adding larger vehicles because the "META" for terrain and obstacle deployment has a prominent anti-vehicle bias.

I don't want to ruin the current META, because I'm used to it and have my own successful army builds without any Heavies.

That's why I think the ideal solution is to introduce new "Vehicle League" with new rules for obstacle and terrain placement, and ideally setup diagrams that both players must follow during obstacle/terrain deployment. Then we might see competitive armies using vehicles.

Now is the perfect time to do it since the AAT has finally been released.

1 hour ago, Reavern said:

I've seen Organized Play battlefields that are ~50% obstacles and buildings, which are deployed in such a way that they deliberately restrict vehicles. That's why competitive armies rarely use Heavy units.

No that's not at all the reason Heavies aren't used. Heavy units can't interact with most objectives and have had a hard time historically of being able to take out enough corp to validate their price tag. Vital Assets has definitely thrown a wrench into the mix, but it's too early to tell the long term effects.

7 hours ago, thepopemobile100 said:

No that's not at all the reason Heavies aren't used. Heavy units can't interact with most objectives and have had a hard time historically of being able to take out enough corp to validate their price tag. Vital Assets has definitely thrown a wrench into the mix, but it's too early to tell the long term effects.

what did vital assets do to change this though? They have a deployment that specifies "vehicles" but the objectives and conditions don't really benefit vehicles any. In fact, most of them still insist that troopers be used to capture the supplies or interact with the hostage or claim the bomb, etc.

33 minutes ago, buckero0 said:

what did vital assets do to change this though? They have a deployment that specifies "vehicles" but the objectives and conditions don't really benefit vehicles any. In fact, most of them still insist that troopers be used to capture the supplies or interact with the hostage or claim the bomb, etc.

Bombing Run. Vehicles can't reclaim dropped bombs, but they can start with them. Speeders with Speed 3 have crazy threat range with those bombs.

With the introduction of Vital assets,.there are now 4 objectives that allow for vehicle interaction: Key Positions, Breakthrough, Bombing Run, and Payload. Now there is the ability to make an objective set where vehicles matter, so we'll see if that shakes thing up at all.

15 hours ago, thepopemobile100 said:

No that's not at all the reason Heavies aren't used. Heavy units can't interact with most objectives and have had a hard time historically of being able to take out enough corp to validate their price tag. Vital Assets has definitely thrown a wrench into the mix, but it's too early to tell the long term effects.

I don't bring a Heavy unit to take objectives. The points spent on a Heavy unit could be used for troopers to secure objectives, but the reason why I bring a Heavy is to use its heavy fire power to provide suppressive fire and pin down enemy troopers while my troopers take the objectives. A Heavy can be worthwhile in that role.

The reason why Heavy units can't kill enough troopers to justify their cost is because of the congestion of excessive obstacles and buildings on the battlefield either hinders them from getting to where the action is, or blocks their LoS; or both .

IME the AT-ST can be deadly if it gets into range to use its Grenade Launcher, which has Blast. The problem is getting it there.

There's just no sense in trying to bring Heavy units into an urban environment, which is what most Legion battlefields look like. That's why I think a "Vehicle League" with more open battlefields and rules against excessive obstacles and buildings would be solve this problem.

I'll find out soon because I have my AAT assembled and should have it painted and ready by this weekend. I'm planning on having pitched vehicle battles between the Republic and Separatists. My roommate and I are designing a battlefield using the new Fortified Positions Condition card and we've agreed to no buildings or large obstacles in the middle of map to obstruct LoS. I anticipate I'm going to be at a disadvantage playing as the Separatists but I've been waiting months for the AAT and am eager to try it out!

Long-term, I think I will build elevated terrain with embedded emplacements, but I don't have the materials ATM or the time.