How tall is the Saber and AAT tank?

I’m building some terrain for a tournament and need to know the height of tank limiting terrain. I don’t have either tank and can’t find their height online anywhere so far.

Thanks for any measurement.

The AAT is approximately 122mm tall measured to the top of the antennae. This can vary slightly depending on how the tank is mounted to its base. And I'm fairly certain that the Saber is shorter by a decent amount, but I don't have one so I can't get a specific measurement.

On 7/13/2020 at 3:48 AM, drail14me said:

How tall is the Saber and AAT tank?

I’m building some terrain for a tournament and need to know the height of tank limiting terrain. I don’t have either tank and can’t find their height online anywhere so far.

Thanks for any measurement.

So are you building terrain to nerf them? Are you an imperial player with an ATST?

9 minutes ago, XR8rGREAT said:

So are you building terrain to nerf them? Are you an imperial player with an ATST?

No to both.

I’m building terrain that will stimulate strategic thinking instead of just parking a tank, or any other mini, in one spot. My hope is to make both players really think about how they are going to get units to an objective and how they will hold that objective.

33 minutes ago, drail14me said:

No to both.

I’m building terrain that will stimulate strategic thinking instead of just parking a tank, or any other mini, in one spot. My hope is to make both players really think about how they are going to get units to an objective and how they will hold that objective.

With the size base these tanks are doing anything with them is hard. I played and event over the weekend where most tables there was only really one place were you could put a tank. And with that it meant that combating a tank was easy.

39 minutes ago, XR8rGREAT said:

With the size base these tanks are doing anything with them is hard. I played and event over the weekend where most tables there was only really one place were you could put a tank. And with that it meant that combating a tank was easy.

Sounds like they weren't using the right amount of terrain. I've been playing around with the recommended amount of terrain in the tournament guide and haven't had any problems moving my occupier, saber, and aat around.

Honestly man, there's not a ton evidence out there that suggests Heavies are that much of a linchpin in GAR/CIS victories. At best, they can maybe cause a bit of grief with suppression or eliminate a badly-placed squad of rebs/B1s. I wouldn't put a ton of stock in trying to obscure their sights.

3 minutes ago, Cruzer said:

Honestly man, there's not a ton evidence out there that suggests Heavies are that much of a linchpin in GAR/CIS victories. At best, they can maybe cause a bit of grief with suppression or eliminate a badly-placed squad of rebs/B1s. I wouldn't put a ton of stock in trying to obscure their sights.

The only thing that bothers me about them is their ability to move onto or over terrain that is equal or less than their height of about 4.5”. That means they can simply fly right over a house. That ability in a tank takes the puzzle of most terrain out of the equation. A tank should need to maneuver around something not jump over it.

5 minutes ago, drail14me said:

The only thing that bothers me about them is their ability to move onto or over terrain that is equal or less than their height of about 4.5”. That means they can simply fly right over a house. That ability in a tank takes the puzzle of most terrain out of the equation. A tank should need to maneuver around something not jump over it.

I mean, that's a risk you take with the tank at that point. If you're spending one of the two actions to jump a piece of terrain vs biting the potential heavy cover every shot, you're not aiming, you're not dodging (for the Saber's Outmaneuver), and you can't Barrage (AAT). Furthermore, you're potentially putting yourself into swatting range of a lightsaber, which is always pierce/impact X, or of getting your weakpoint(s) shot at.

13 minutes ago, Cruzer said:

I mean, that's a risk you take with the tank at that point. If you're spending one of the two actions to jump a piece of terrain vs biting the potential heavy cover every shot, you're not aiming, you're not dodging (for the Saber's Outmaneuver), and you can't Barrage (AAT). Furthermore, you're potentially putting yourself into swatting range of a lightsaber, which is always pierce/impact X, or of getting your weakpoint(s) shot at.

I agree! Use that cover. I just don’t like the idea that a tank CAN jump the building.

1 hour ago, drail14me said:

I agree! Use that cover. I just don’t like the idea that a tank CAN jump the building.

With the alternative being... what? That a Heavy unit has to spend two turns doing nothing but repositioning into a better area? You think Vehicles don't get used much now... I know it's perhaps a bit scary facing off against a big-*** range 1-4 tank, but honestly they're more bark than bite. I'd rather they be able to jump a height 1 building than never get used.

2 hours ago, drail14me said:

No to both.

I’m building terrain that will stimulate strategic thinking instead of just parking a tank, or any other mini, in one spot. My hope is to make both players really think about how they are going to get units to an objective and how they will hold that objective.

Good thing tanks have nothing to do with many objectives.

Honestly, the easiest thing for movement is just to have "infinite" height trees. Thick trunks with a 2 inch diameter, roughly 6-8 inches tall to indicate the tree top being high above the battlefield. Similar to the forest moon of Endor or Kashyyyk. Then it affects all vehicles and infantry.

If the problem is LoS, then use area terrain. Simple to indicate, have a base (felt works great) and a couple of trees to indicate woods. Given how easy and cheap area terrain is to make, it surprises me how rarely it is used in Legion.

12 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Good thing tanks have nothing to do with many objectives.

Honestly, the easiest thing for movement is just to have "infinite" height trees. Thick trunks with a 2 inch diameter, roughly 6-8 inches tall to indicate the tree top being high above the battlefield. Similar to the forest moon of Endor or Kashyyyk. Then it affects all vehicles and infantry.

If the problem is LoS, then use area terrain. Simple to indicate, have a base (felt works great) and a couple of trees to indicate woods. Given how easy and cheap area terrain is to make, it surprises me how rarely it is used in Legion.

Thanks! That’s pretty much my plan. Some rock spires and some vegetation for LOS blocking.

2 hours ago, drail14me said:

Thanks! That’s pretty much my plan. Some rock spires and some vegetation for LOS blocking.

Yes, but height is irrelevant for infinite height terrain, and some area terrain, which renders your initial question moot is my point. If you put the vegetation on a piece of felt, it turns into area terrain, which allows you to move the vegetation (but not the felt), to facilitate movement of units and vehicles. The felt indicates where the area terrain rules apply for LoS, movement, and Cover.

27 minutes ago, Caimheul1313 said:

Yes, but height is irrelevant for infinite height terrain, and area terrain, which renders your initial question moot is my point. If you put the vegetation on a piece of felt, it turns into area terrain, which allows you to move the vegetation (but not the felt), to facilitate movement of units and vehicles. The felt indicates where the area terrain rules apply for LoS, movement, and Cover.

I understand. I’m not doing infinite height terrain though so I needed a minimum height.

41 minutes ago, drail14me said:

I understand. I’m not doing infinite height terrain though so I needed a minimum height.

Why not? By not including infinite height terrain (or at least terrain of height 3) you are taking " the puzzle of most terrain out of the equation" for the T-47 with Speeder 2. Not to mention the AT-ST has a variable height...
Why target Repulsor Vehicle tanks specifically? The huge base already makes deployment and maneuvering difficult, especially since bases can't overlap terrain that would put the angle above 45 degrees.
"Dense woods/Jungle" (or some equivalent) can have the same effect and be easier and cheaper to indicate. All you need is a single tallish tree. Heck, make area terrain that is a bunch of crystals that "happen to hinder repulsor movement and provide cover up to Height 1." Make the terrain however you want, then include a "cheat sheet" for any players indicating what units can get cover, and how each unit should treat the terrain for movement. Honestly, this is my preference when playing in a tournament anyway, since everyone who plays at the table will then be treating the terrain exactly the same.

45 degree angles actually give you a lot of leeway with terrain, for example I've had my saber sit on barricades before and be at less than a 45 degree angle. Area terrain is a good solution depending on the type and what rules you give it. I've got some with based fish tank plants on my game table, though I play it as light cover that is open terrain for all units. A cheat sheet that spells out exactly what each piece of terrain does is a really good idea.

That being said I agree with @Cruzer that vehicles have enough trouble in this game amd don't need terrain specifically built against them as well.

23 hours ago, KarlVonCarstein said:

45 degree angles actually give you a lot of leeway with terrain, for example I've had my saber sit on barricades before and be at less than a 45 degree angle.

Terrain like rock spires though (tall and thin) can make the angle more extreme though), depending on where the spike ends up under the base. Something as short as a barricade is unlikely to cause a significant angle.

On 7/13/2020 at 7:16 PM, Caimheul1313 said:

Why not? By not including infinite height terrain (or at least terrain of height 3) you are taking " the puzzle of most terrain out of the equation" for the T-47 with Speeder 2. Not to mention the AT-ST has a variable height...
Why target Repulsor Vehicle tanks specifically? The huge base already makes deployment and maneuvering difficult, especially since bases can't overlap terrain that would put the angle above 45 degrees.
"Dense woods/Jungle" (or some equivalent) can have the same effect and be easier and cheaper to indicate. All you need is a single tallish tree. Heck, make area terrain that is a bunch of crystals that "happen to hinder repulsor movement and provide cover up to Height 1." Make the terrain however you want, then include a "cheat sheet" for any players indicating what units can get cover, and how each unit should treat the terrain for movement. Honestly, this is my preference when playing in a tournament anyway, since everyone who plays at the table will then be treating the terrain exactly the same.

Here’s what I built. Since I never saw an AAT or Saber hover OVER the plants on Felucia, I wanted to make sure they were tall enough for the rules as written.