if no one else has anything to say, I'll close it out with this:
A tauntaun was not used by the rebels in combat, not even as a scout unit. By the time of the galactic civil war all warfare was mechanized, and there was no longer any need for a weapon as archaic as a tauntaun. any mechanized unit filling the same role as the tauntaun would be easier to procure and would easily defeat a tauntaun in battle.
A T2B is inferior to a T4B, but you still use them.
Different role, different price.
although this is a somewhat valid point, there are several different reasons why this constitutes a fallacy in logic:
1. The T4-B comes much later in the game, so would logically be more powerful than a T2-B and fulfill a heavy armor role. unless you propose moving T2-B's out of tech 1, they will come about at the same time, and fill the same general role of scout, yet the tauntaun will be inferior.
2. The T4-B was overall stronger than the T2-B, but there were several characteristics, such as speed and shields, in which the T2-B was superior to the T4-B. There is absolutely
no attribute that the tauntaun has that is superior to an attribute that a mechanized unit has.
People seem to think the rebels are stupid, and used all kinds of outdated, archaic weapons. Although they used most everything they could get their hands on, they're not going t use something suicidally outdated. I mean, do you know of any army that still uses horse cavalry in battle? They fill a separate role from anything they use; so does that justify sending horse cavalry onto a modern battlefield?