Talk:All Terrain Tactical Enforcer/Legends

"Expanded Universe-material shows AT-TE transports to be a part of Imperial ground forces, twenty years after the Clone Wars." -- can we get a source? --SparqMan 22:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know the precise issue, but they were seen in Star Wars: Empire on the homeworld of the Amanin. JSarek 22:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to add that the Official Site seems to have added the AT-TE´s affiliation with the Empire last year (can´t remember that link being there before late summer 2004), so that´s been part of continuity for some time. The walker seen on the Amanin homeworld probably doesn´t qualify, since it was modified to be a transport walker. In fact, if a proper name is given to the transport walker in ROTS and its article is written, I´ll make sure to mention this vehicle, which seems to use a AT-TE chassis for the same purpose as that other walker. VT-16 11:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Empire: 16 to 18, and though the walker featured in the issues appears to be built on the same frame as the AT-TE, it is stripped of most of its heavy weapons, and serves and a C&C vehicle. Also featured in the issues are Juggernauts.--Eion 16:00, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, it definitly serves a different purpose, but they still refer to it as an AT-TE. If anything we could make a subsection on that variant. VT-16 11:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don´t cramp the article
Please do not do that again. I don´t care if the code looks strange with big holes inbetween paragraphs, the article looked better for it. Changing it back. VT-16 12:47, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: Fixed the image problem. VT-16 12:58, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Misprint or forgotten info?
In my copy of the Complete Locations of Star Wars there's an interesting bit of trivia in the Index-section. Under the AT-TE it says page 142-143 in addition to the pages where it can be found. Now, page 142 and 143 talk about the Battle of Hoth, and there's no mention of the AT-TE there. I sent an email to DK Publishing's complaint department in an effort to find out if this was a misprint or if someone forgot to add the corresponding info. Have any of you with the CLOSW book noticed if the same Index-error occurs? Or if any additional info on the Hoth battle has been written, because it's not in my copy. VT-16 17:58, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll go check right away. Admiral J. Nebulax 22:22, 25 Dec 2005 (UTC)

AT-TE Size
I don't the exact information on the AT-TE height and length but i'm pretty sure its wrong on this page. First thing's first, there's no way that the AT-TE is shorter than the AT-AP(listed at 10.97m tall). Secondly, given the picture on this page of an AT-TE with stormtroopers and assuming that the average stormtrooper is a little under two meters tall, the AT-TE is at the least eight meters tall and fifteen meters long. Is the AT-TE's height and length listed in the New Essential Guide to Vehicles and Vessels? If so, someone should point this out to the editors. =)
 * The AT-AP is supposed to be taller than the AT-TE, I believe. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 12:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The AT-AP is taller, but I do believe the AT-TE is bigger than noted. Can't remember what it says in Prequel Chronicles, but I found a poorly made photo showing different heights of the models from that book. VT-16 13:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the Fact File article on the AT-TE says 12.4 m long, so I'm pretty sure that's correct. As to the height, that's listed in the Databank as 5.02 m. I don't have the NEGVV, so I'm not sure about that, but I'll see if I can find somebody who can check for me. RMF 16:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll check. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Height: 5.02 meters. Length: 12.4 meters. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess that confirms it. Out of curiosity, where does the 5.32 m width currently in the article come from? RMF 23:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It could just be calculations made by applying the length and height to a 3D model. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

AT-TE speed
This article states that the AT-TE's average speed is 60 kilometers per hour. I'm not very good at metrics, but I think that translates to about 40 mph, which is a little faster than a really speedy horse. From the scenes that show the AT-TE in Episode II, move much slower. Also,the clones in the movie could outrun the walkers pretty easily. I don't know very much about this, so I'm probably wrong, but I'm feeling confused. Any help/explanation? Darthstar Runner 22:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe the AT-TEs didn't want to go so fast. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really make sense. They don't seem that fast to me. &mdash; Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log) [[Image:NewRepublic.png|20px]] 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because we've never seen them going that fast doesn't mean they can't. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Data file) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 20:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tanks can also roll quickly when need be, but in a combat situation and facing the enemy like in AOTC, keeping a distance would be more important than running head-on. They were protecting their heavy artillery. VT-16 21:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent point. Fleet Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) (Data file) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Turret gun
What says the top turret was a mass driver? At least some of them shot blue blaster/laser bolts, the one that shot down Boga and Obi-Wan clearly did. &mdash; Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log) 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You see them arcing in mid-air, only projectiles would be affected by gravity like that, energy bolts go straight on. And the shells and their assembly inside an AT-TE were detailed in the AOTC:ICS. They most likely encase the shells in an energy field when firing, like the proton torpedoes in ANH and ROTJ, the proton grenades in ESB and the ST2 and HM-6 concussion missiles in ROTJ. It helps preserve the explosive inside the shell until after penetration of the target. You also see the same thing in ROTS, when the Providence internal gun batteries fire. They have giant mass-driver cannons being loaded from huge overhanging belts, and the shots come out like blue, glowing balls (which also arc in flight).
 * Also, for blasters and lasers, notice that their bolts are thin, almost like lines. Some have small periodical bulges, where there's a concentration of energy (the DS superlaser is like this). The projectiles that are incased in energy, however, always have a bulge up-front (because that's a shell or warhead) with energy trailing it. VT-16 21:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, makes sense. I thought it might be that. A lot of GAR blasters shoot blue. &mdash; Aiddat (Holonet) (Contribs Log) [[Image:NewRepublic.png|20px]] 23:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Long-legged AT-TE"?
How is the AT-TE in the fifth picture a "long-legged AT-TE"? It looks normal to me. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) 22:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because its legs are longer...  Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks Whine Here 22:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. If you look closer at the image, the legs are just extended a bit more than normal. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Which makes them longer.. . Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks Whine Here 22:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No. Having its legs extended a little further doesn't make it a "long-legged AT-TE". Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No seriously compare it to the other picture, it has longer legs.  Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks Whine Here 22:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't. Those are the same legs that the AT-TEs at Geonosis had. Notice how the AT-TE's legs are bent. They were simply extended in that picture. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Look at the angles the knees are bent at: they are almost the same so only a small change in percieved length would occur, however, factoring in the angle of the knees you can see that they are slightly longer.  Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks Whine Here 22:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And how can you say for sure that they aren't the standard legs? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * BECAUSE THEY'RE LONGER!  Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks Whine Here 23:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugluk, you don't know that for sure. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In fact, I'd prefer you not to say that until you have an actual source to back it up. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You provide a source that says it cant be long legged.  Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks Whine Here 23:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also this has gone passed discussion and you are trolling.  Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks Whine Here 23:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. This is called having a discussion, Ugluk. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No its a typical Nebulaxian war starter and i have had enough, just admit that you may be wrong for a change.  Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks Whine Here 23:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probably just an art error. -LtNOWIS 00:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's actually based on concept art from ROTS where they were supposed to show an intermediate between the AT-TE and the AT-AT that had long, thin legs. They copied one of the pieces (by Ryan Church) and modified it for the comic adaption, so it looked like a regular AT-TE with long, thin legs like the concept art (the original art was more a combination of UT-AT, AT-AP and AT-TE attributes). Similar to how they copied the pose of a two-man, open-top scout walker. concept art comic adaption versus the stock version VT-16 07:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * VT-16: Are you so sure about that? I've compared the images side-by-side, and they look like normal legs. Ugluk: You're the one that started the "war". I started this topic to have a discussion, not for you to constantly tell me I'm wrong without providing any evidence whatsoever. Then, you accuse me of trolling. And if you had enough, then why didn't you just leave this discussion? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 11:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The distance between the lower and upper joint on the front legs is bigger on the concept art and the rots comic. The middle legs are also thinner in the comic panel, like on the concept art (you can see it best on the right side of the walker). That's what happens in comic adaptions etc. they reuse some concepts that ultimately didn't make it in the films, because they don't get access to all the new material that the film crew has. VT-16 12:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we be so sure that this actually was a long-legged variant, and not just a mistake done by the artist? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Jack, please your wrong and this is exhausting. now there is a source, and the math to back it up, so drop it.  Everybody is wrong sometimes.  Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks Whine Here 20:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Had you provided a source in the beginning, Ugluk, there would have been no need for this to continue. You're as much as fault as I am. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 22:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm convinced it's a drawing error. Actually, it's not even an error, it's a minor variation in drawing style, or an attempt by the artist to draw a movie adaptation before the special effects are finalized, or something.  Not enough evidence to support another variant, anyway. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While there is the possibility of a long-legged variant, I'm also not convinced that this is it. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, there simply is not enough evidence to begin talking about a variant. Jedi Dude 23:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So, do I have permission to remove the "long-legged variant" stuff for now? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * NO!  Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks Whine Here 23:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You're not an administrator. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Last time i checked, neither were you.  Ugluk: Destroyer of Redlinks Whine Here 23:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

It just looks like someone has drawn it a bit "off" to me to be honest. Much like how the comic drawings of Anakin Skywalker never look *exactly* the same as Hayden Christensen. I certainly don't think that it's supposed to be "another variant".... (Ulicus 16:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC))
 * I suggest neither of you edit this particular article, or one another's talk pages, for a bit. You're both starting to get too angry over this, it seems to me. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But Silly Dan is, Ugluk, and I was asking him. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 23:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not to say I'm ruling it out though... (Ulicus 16:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC))
 * Of course. Nonetheless, it should be removed. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 19:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I object. In cases where familiar characters or vehicles or locations are drawn incorrect, it's easy to dismiss as an error. But when there's room for actual variation and in this case, the well-used LFL method of copying and/or modifying concept art (which is done for alot of things, most recently the MC30 frigate), it doesn't hurt to at least note it. Another part of the comic also had the open-top scout walker, which was another recycled concept art for ROTS, so there's a precedence. I've also read enough articles on armored vehicles to know militaries love to make modifications or cut corners by reusing the same vehicles for new purposes. Having longer legs on an AT-TE (which they explicitly planned in ROTS concept art) would make sense, in terms of clearing obstacles and improving line-of-sight. :) VT-16 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's unsourced. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What's unsourced? The information? That's true, but I would think that would be the main reasons for having longer legs on the walker to begin with. :) VT-16 21:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What? Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 21:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked "what was unsourced"? The artwork is reproduced by the artist, based on Ryan Church's original production art, but the info on why they would have such a model was just conjecture. ^^;;; VT-16 21:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Therefore, we don't know whether it's a long-legged variant or not, but since none exist so far, we have to take it as a standard AT-TE. Grand Admiral J. Nebulax (Imperial Holovision) [[Image:Implogo.jpg|20px]] 00:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The source is Ryan Church's artwork, which depicted a new generation of AT-TEs that had longer and thinner legs. The exact same pose as this picture, even on the same planet, Felucia. VT-16 01:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)