I have a strange idea for the AT-AT modle.

Could we get a model that is up to scale but is not the full modle? Something that ends a little past the shoulder of the front legs. The card would have the key word stationary to eliminate the need for figuring out movement. The idea the vehicle is so big and slow any movement during the 6 turns would be negligible. Having the figure fight from deployment also gives the feel of the long range attack against the shield generator on hoth.

I know I'll get some hate because the community wants a full modle to stomp on their enemies. I dont think a modle that big works in the same way with our current rules. Base size alone prevents clean deployment and movement on a table with normal amount of terrain for competitive standards.

Just my 2 cents.

31 minutes ago, PhoenixOfCopper said:

I have a strange idea for the AT-AT modle.

Could we get a model that is up to scale but is not the full modle? Something that ends a little past the shoulder of the front legs. The card would have the key word stationary to eliminate the need for figuring out movement. The idea the vehicle is so big and slow any movement during the 6 turns would be negligible. Having the figure fight from deployment also gives the feel of the long range attack against the shield generator on hoth.

I know I'll get some hate because the community wants a full modle to stomp on their enemies. I dont think a modle that big works in the same way with our current rules. Base size alone prevents clean deployment and movement on a table with normal amount of terrain for competitive standards.

Just my 2 cents.

it is an option but like you said i think there would be too many people that would not work.

Personally i think the only way to get an AT-AT in game is to get a broken one as a terrain piece.

7 minutes ago, 5particus said:

it is an option but like you said i think there would be too many people that would not work.

Personally i think the only way to get an AT-AT in game is to get a broken one as a terrain piece.

Ha my wife bought me a 3d printed one last year for Christmas after we went to a tournament. I was so happy.

Here's your Legion AT-AT

https://www.etsy.com/listing/708421119/imperial-walker-set-star-wars-legion?gpla=1&gao=1&&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=shopping_us_a-toys_and_games-games_and_puzzles-role_playing_games&utm_custom1=_k_Cj0KCQiA2af-BRDzARIsAIVQUOdMh3uBK4u_K6S_smwQ4fnTvy4lYO_3fmpwgBEDRfo9vMJ4HUKecvYaAoIPEALw_wcB_k_&utm_content=go_304504235_48377095825_233324495006_pla-321505258066_m__708421119_12768591&utm_custom2=304504235&gclid=Cj0KCQiA2af-BRDzARIsAIVQUOdMh3uBK4u_K6S_smwQ4fnTvy4lYO_3fmpwgBEDRfo9vMJ4HUKecvYaAoIPEALw_wcB

5 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@Ilostmycactus The base is used for some many of the rules that just removing it entirely causes complications. Especially since for the AT-AT you have to worry about firing arcs. If there is no base, there is no easy way to check the arcs when either attacking to or from the model.

40k and AoS have their "giant" units on bases (excepting some older forge world stuff). And in that case, the units are y'all, not tall and long.

@Geekboy75g Maybe? One big complication with either unit is the length, which works out in scale to roughly 18 inches, or Range 3.

Firing arcs are just an abstraction that anyone can make themselves by eyeball. The lines aren't this 3 dimensional cylinder. Just say that the AT-AT, which has obvious sides, has these arcs and let the players figure it out. The vehicle is large enough to have movement limitations anyway.

55 minutes ago, Ilostmycactus said:

Firing arcs are just an abstraction that anyone can make themselves by eyeball. The lines aren't this 3 dimensional cylinder. Just say that the AT-AT, which has obvious sides, has these arcs and let the players figure it out. The vehicle is large enough to have movement limitations anyway.

I dont think that would fly in this crowd. Just imagine if they came out with those rules for tournament play. People would be up in arms over it

the only firing arc that matters on the AT-AT is the front firing arc. Thats the only firing arc that would even need to be marked.

The AT-AT would work fine as a special objective for the other team to destroy. Similar to how the other terrain pieces have their own objective cards.

I think if you limited the AT-AT to destroy the AT-AT objective games and grand army games with the bigger table size it would be fine.

I also think it would be possible for FFG to include destroyed side panels so you could convert it into a wreck.

Its such an iconic vehicle it would be nice to see it represented in Legion.

3 hours ago, Ilostmycactus said:

Firing arcs are just an abstraction that anyone can make themselves by eyeball. The lines aren't this 3 dimensional cylinder. Just say that the AT-AT, which has obvious sides, has these arcs and let the players figure it out. The vehicle is large enough to have movement limitations anyway.

That doesn't fit with the rest of the rules regarding firing arcs though. In theory, the same thing you outline would work with the occupier, T-47, AT-ST, etc but that's not how the rules for Legion are set up. They try (with mixed success) to be less ambiguous than "eyeball it" hence the inclusion of the arcs on the bases in the first place.

Adapting the movement tool and firing arcs for an AT-AT doesn't have to be complicated. Since an AT-AT is big enough to go under, don't put it on a base at all. Put a notch in the front and back of one of the feet. Now the movement distance is only as big as a foot length. As for firing arcs, you could etch a V into the head of the walker or etch some lines into the front feet:

I kinda like the A-A5 speeder truck. The Rebels had to make do with what they could get their hands on. Repurposing an ugly heavy cargo transport fits perfectly. Sources disagree on just how big it is — one says it carries a complement of 12, another cites 25. This could actually give Legion the flexibility to size it appropriately for the game.

As for the AT-AT, I'd love to see it. But I think it's best reserved for special large-scale battles, not everyday play. This was a weapon system designed for planetary invasions. While sources vary, a single AT-AT could carry somewhere around 40 troops. And the Empire brought at least 6 of them to the Battle of Hoth, in addition to numerous AT-STs.

Below is the Star Wars Miniatures AT-AT from WotC on what looks to be a 4x6 table. The base of the AT-AT is 18" long. If it starts the game on table (it should pretty much be able to start firing from the next room), it's got practically nowhere to go.

I'd love an AT-AT too, even a slightly scaled down one (like what they did for the T-47) but seeing the picture above, you quickly realise how impractical it would be and probably not that fun either (as a playable unit that is). I think AT-ATs, at 1/144 scale (like Bandai's kit), could work well if this game had been done in 15mm.

14 minutes ago, Digitalfiends said:

I'd love an AT-AT too, even a slightly scaled down one (like what they did for the T-47) but seeing the picture above, you quickly realise how impractical it would be and probably not that fun either (as a playable unit that is). I think AT-ATs, at 1/144 scale (like Bandai's kit), could work well if this game had been done in 15mm.

The T-47 isn't scaled down, it really is that small in scale. Airspeeder in canon is 5.3 meters, which works out to 4.4 ish inches in 1:47 (roughly Legion's scale).

Besides its size on the game table, another thing to consider about the AT-AT is just how powerful it is.

The Rebels managed to take down several AT-ATs during the Battle of Hoth. But blaster fire from 2 squadrons of snow speeders (including up to 12 attack craft each), DF.9 turrets, 1.4 FD laser cannons and Rebel troopers was almost completely ineffective against the armored walkers.

Meanwhile, the AT-AT's quad laser cannons could destroy a speeder, turret or laser cannon with a single shot. They also blew up the deflector shield generator protecting Echo Base.

In other words, it's conceivable that a single AT-AT could easily handle an entire Legion army by itself (maybe even several of them). How would you balance this unit for gameplay? What would just one of them cost?

3 hours ago, Digitalfiends said:

I'd love an AT-AT too, even a slightly scaled down one (like what they did for the T-47) but seeing the picture above, you quickly realise how impractical it would be and probably not that fun either (as a playable unit that is). I think AT-ATs, at 1/144 scale (like Bandai's kit), could work well if this game had been done in 15mm.

1/144 is way too small. 1/72 is the smallest AT-AT that would feel right. 1/72 is a little smaller than the one thats on the rectangular base in the picture above. I think that ones 1/68.

Quote

Below is the Star Wars Miniatures AT-AT from WotC on what looks to be a 4x6 table. The base of the AT-AT is 18" long. If it starts the game on table (it should pretty much be able to start firing from the next room), it's got practically nowhere to go.

Yes its already been said it would require a new movement tool and cant use the existing ones. It would need a new movement tool similar to what armada uses that locks into recesses on the side of the base. Thats not an insurmountable problem.

The biggest problem is how it would move over terrain. Although I dont see a problem with it crushing terrain personally lol

It would presumably also get its own superheavy unit class and it would be limited to 0 in skirmish and standard and 1 in grand army. grand army would have a big enough board for it to move around on.

11 minutes ago, Khobai said:

The biggest problem is how it would move over terrain.

And just how large, well armored, and armed it is compared to the mostly small arms focused rules base of the rest of the game. It would be like if Bolt Action had rules for a B-17 Flying Fortress.

I agree with Khobai though, it could work as a scenario/terrain box where its either posed crashed, or it has to be destroyed (with your whole army shooting at it for 6 rounds)

26 minutes ago, Khobai said:

1/144 is way too small. 1/72 is the smallest AT-AT that would feel right. 1/72 is a little smaller than the one thats on the rectangular base in the picture above. I think that ones 1/68.

I said 1/144 if Legion was in 15mm. I think that would be a big enough AT-AT. Obviously for 28-32mm that's way too small - but again, I was thinking "what-ifs" and 15mm scale.

1 minute ago, Digitalfiends said:

I said 1/144 if Legion was in 15mm. I think that would be a big enough AT-AT. Obviously for 28-32mm that's way too small - but again, I was thinking "what-ifs" and 15mm scale.

I think a lot of us would be stoked if AMG launched a 15mm scale star wars game. Maybe start with clone wars era this time (since its better suited to huge armies and vehicles).

It's probably been posted here before, but this is a truly epic game table for the Battle of Hoth. Created by Beasts of War for the Salute 2015 convention in the UK. The game was designed for 10 players: 6 commanders on the Rebel side, 4 for the Empire. The forces included 4 AT-ATs, 8 AT-STs and 6 snow speeders. I think everything except the AT-ATs are WotC Star Wars Miniatures. I couldn't find the size of the table, but it looks like 4x12.

Wow! 😮

11 hours ago, Khobai said:

1/144 is way too small. 1/72 is the smallest AT-AT that would feel right. 1/72 is a little smaller than the one thats on the rectangular base in the picture above. I think that ones 1/68.

Yes its already been said it would require a new movement tool and cant use the existing ones. It would need a new movement tool similar to what armada uses that locks into recesses on the side of the base. Thats not an insurmountable problem.

The biggest problem is how it would move over terrain. Although I dont see a problem with it crushing terrain personally lol

It would presumably also get its own superheavy unit class and it would be limited to 0 in skirmish and standard and 1 in grand army. grand army would have a big enough board for it to move around on.

I agree. This is the simplest solution. Each AT-AT kit comes with one or two tools, probably on the sprue, that allow for whatever moves the player needs. Something in the shape of } would hook onto the outside of both feet. And once again, as has been stated, the AT-AT would need to be for a new apocalypse-style format. I'm thinking it could maybe be in standard games if it was like 80% of an army. Sure it's not practical, you can't capture objectives etc, but you get to have fun shooting stuff.

@Ilostmycactus Barring a rules change or a new unit type, the AT-AT would still be able to score half of the objectives in the game.

22 hours ago, NokDrayen said:

In other words, it's conceivable that a single AT-AT could easily handle an entire Legion army by itself (maybe even several of them). How would you balance this unit for gameplay? What would just one of them cost?

When Armada introduced the Super Star Destroyer they had 4 different versions. 2 were priced to work within the normal tournament points, and the other 2 were at a cost too high for the 400 point structure. Armada, like Legion, has rules for teams with larger point values than what is "tournament legal". Why not do the same with an AT-AT? Have a "prototype" edition that runs around 550 points, it's still a tough beast to take down, but not impossible. And there's not much more room to build a solid army around it. Then there's the "Assault" AT-AT, that runs 900 points. Can't be placed in a standard army, but can be used in grand army battles or other scenarios.

4 hours ago, thestag said:

When Armada introduced the Super Star Destroyer they had 4 different versions. 2 were priced to work within the normal tournament points, and the other 2 were at a cost too high for the 400 point structure. Armada, like Legion, has rules for teams with larger point values than what is "tournament legal". Why not do the same with an AT-AT? Have a "prototype" edition that runs around 550 points, it's still a tough beast to take down, but not impossible. And there's not much more room to build a solid army around it. Then there's the "Assault" AT-AT, that runs 900 points. Can't be placed in a standard army, but can be used in grand army battles or other scenarios.

900 points? Nobody would ever use an AT-AT at those point costs.

Even if it was effectively indestructible and instantly killed anything it hit. It would still be limited to 1 attack action a turn (and maybe not even get to attack on turn 1). That isnt worth 900 points.

I cant see an AT-AT costing more than 450-550 points with a power level slightly higher than two saber tanks.

So like speed > 1, 18-20 health, super heavy armor X (cancels all hits and cancels X critical hits), arsenal 3, closed transport (can transport troopers or speeder bikes)

dual heavy laser cannons (range 2-infinite, RRRBBBWW, impact 3, pierce 1, immune:deflect, front fixed)
dual medium blasters (range 2-3, RRBBBW, impact 2, critical 2, front fixed)
leg stomp (range melee, RRRRRR, impact 2)

@thestag Well.... One complication is that the "prototype" AT-AT is already canon.... At a larger size. So it depends on if Disney would approve a non-canon, identical size prototype.

3 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

@thestag Well.... One complication is that the "prototype" AT-AT is already canon.... At a larger size. So it depends on if Disney would approve a non-canon, identical size prototype.

That's effectively what they did with the Super Star Destroyer in Armada. There's the "prototype" class and the "Executor" class. The Executor was black with red engines while the "prototype" and all other versions of the SSD are standard star destroyer grey with blue engines. That didn't stop them from producing the 1 plastic miniature with 2 different card types. And in Armada's case, the plastic comes pre-painted in the non-executor colors.

I'm not saying it will happen, but there is precedence. And I really want to see an official AT-AT on the table (and on my display shelf next to my SSD).