While the OP's immediate concern seems to have passed, I was curious about something regarding anti-vehicle weapons.

What if such weapons (Anti-Vehicle Mines, Anti-Armor Rockets, etc.) had Vicious (or a vehicle-specific variant) applied to them?

Also, how much of a difference would it make if the GM allowed Aim maneuvers to target weak points, and either reduced the target's effective Armor or boosted Criticals?

Just an update, the AT Missile system worked as intended and the party got away with a pretty darn good haul of equipment. The first shot on the AT-PT missed due to the amount of suppressive fire coming in (I added a challenge die to the combat check and that tipped the balance that roll) and the guidance check failing to activate. The second shot connected and took out the AT-PT cleanly. The launcher also claimed a support landspeeder and two generators. Breach 2 really makes a huge difference on effectiveness, and limiting the ammo and enforcing lock kept the merc from going too nuts with it.

The tank didn't play a part since the mechanic check roll (Hard) went so bad (one success and 2 advantage vs. 2 failure and 4 threat) I said the Tech broke the tank to the point it would be even tougher to repair on the next go, so he gave up on it. This contributed to them blowing their cover as folks from the Imperial War Muesum on Imperial Center (aka Coruscant) looking to officially decommission the tank and take it to the muesum. I was so proud they actually listened to their contact for the job and tried, rather successfully for the most part, to take a subtle route rather blasting their way in. Their exit, however, was about as violent as I expected but they got away with a grav sled full of goodies with little damage to themselves. Now they're off to Ryloth to make the transaction for the weapons. I'm still deciding how they're going to get paid, since its not going to be all in credits like they want and they're not going to trust anyone a shady contact recommends for ship upgrades.

Since we're on the topic already, can someone do me a solid and explain silhouette and how it comes into play with vehicles vs. humans?

I've seen the sil difference table in both the humanoid section and in the vehicle section, but haven't seen anything about vehicle vs. human.

I'm going to be running a PT-ST (or whichever the walker is that's in the core book, I'm AFB at the moment) and the players will have two missile tubes to fire at it since they (I assume) will raid the nearby armory. I'm fine with them not being able to kill or even cripple the PT-ST, I have some narrative plans to take its attention, I just want to make it memorable. Given that 1 blast from the PT-ST's lasers will probably instantly incapacitate and cripple a player, what should the increase in difficulty be?

Also, the book suggests adding +50 to the crit rating when firing planetary weapons at people, but I'm thinking they meant large turbolaser batteries on ships, not the smaller lasers on the PT-ST's, so I was debating houseruling it at +20-30. Still enough to make everyone run for the hills should it hit. They've got a solid doctor and medical facilities back at their base so given that it's planned for the end of the adventure I'm fine with hitting a PC hard - I just don't want to kill them.

Pg. 224 explains it, anything roughly human size counts as silhouette 1 even on planetary scale, so a AT-PT at sil 2 would roll normally for attack since it's size is one step from a human sized target. Weapons do 10x the damage listed on a personal scale (the light blaster cannons) unless stated otherwise (the grenade launcher.) The point you mention about the +50 criticals; the box also stated that is at the GM's discretion to use to illustrate the enormous damage starship weapons can do. The light blaster cannons (the grenade launcher uses personal scale), in my opinion, do not fit that bill and the +50 to criticals can be safely ignored.

All that is why the AT-PT is such a deadly opponent against infantry and I went with purpose built weapons to take them down. Frankly, if your folks are going up against one, I'd suggest using environmental effects (cover, concealing smoke grenades, etc.) to their fullest advantage. If the AT-PT is unsupported, spread out and use hit and run tactics to the best of their ability.

The problem with the AT-PT though is the Armor 3. Even though it has a very low HT, with what amounts to 30 points of soak it's very very hard to take down with personal scale weapons. That's a big part of this thread's head banging.

Aye, but since Deus ex machina is going to end up lure it away at some point anyways the armor is less of a worry than the weaponry in this case. But otherwise you're right, armor 3 + its weapons = bad day for infantry. Can't wait for AoR to bring forth the AT-ST's.

And death did come upon spindly chicken legs...

I prefer the heavy stomp an AT-AT causes.

God, i can't wait for SW:BF3 to come out.

A javelin will explosively disassemble a T-72.

Saw a powerpoint review after this. Turret was blown 60 feet straight up. The engine landed over 400 feet away.

Only marginally related to the original topic, but was that demonstration against an actual T-72 or a Monkey model ? (Begging the question, how does the Javelin compare to a non-export T-90?)

It makes me wonder whether backwater planetary militias might be running around with "inferior" Imperial surplus. Sure, the planetary militia might get the AT-ST to aid in COIN operations, but it's not going to possess the high-quality armor, alloys, and electronics that Imperial troops' vehicles would be using.

Not an expert here but, in Clone Wars I saw a shuttle distroyed by just one shot of a missile tube. Also AT-PT and other vehicles seems that can hold some blasters but are "easily" destroyed by a heavier fire.

I'm in the line that Armore values are a bit to high, that's the reason we apply in our games that Vehicles Armor (or light fighters/ships) are scale x5 and heavy armored vehicles and starships are the x10. Haven't look after if ISSD are enough resilent but seems so.

Suggestions?

Not an expert here but, in Clone Wars I saw a shuttle distroyed by just one shot of a missile tube. Also AT-PT and other vehicles seems that can hold some blasters but are "easily" destroyed by a heavier fire.

I'm in the line that Armore values are a bit to high, that's the reason we apply in our games that Vehicles Armor (or light fighters/ships) are scale x5 and heavy armored vehicles and starships are the x10. Haven't look after if ISSD are enough resilent but seems so.

Suggestions?

It's not a bad idea, but it throws off everything else.

Pierce now works better against vehicles, Armor 5 can now be damaged by missile tubes, holdout blasters can tackle armor 1...

That's the challenge of house ruling, making a change that doesn't have a ripple effect throughout the rest of the system.

Giving anti-vehicle weapons higher breach or lowering the armor value of light vehicles would be less disruptive. Or as mentioned in this thread, adapting the mini-missile tube to a transportable weapon or stating more purpose built weapons like the Equalizer.

Hmm... I like the idea about increase Breach, thank you so much

I will study it and ask to my players.

Hmm... I like the idea about increase Breach, thank you so much

I will study it and ask to my players.

Might work better. Dangerous Cov. already introduces a pile of alternate missile loads for the missile tube. Making one that exchanges guided, blast, and Extreme range for Breach 2 and Medium Range might be enough to level things out without it getting too strange.

Hmm... I like the idea about increase Breach, thank you so much

I will study it and ask to my players.

Might work better. Dangerous Cov. already introduces a pile of alternate missile loads for the missile tube. Making one that exchanges guided, blast, and Extreme range for Breach 2 and Medium Range might be enough to level things out without it getting too strange.

Simply upping the Breach quality also has another side effect. The upgraded missile doesn't become even *more* of an insta-kill weapon against non-armored targets.

Seriously, the existing Breach converts to enough Pierce to effectively ignore all but the most soak-heavy characters, upping the Breach increases the effectiveness against armor while only *slightly* increases pain level against personnel. Mind you it goes from 'almost certainly dead' to 'slightly more certainly dead', but that's better than 'almost certainly dead' to 'your entire family line out 3 generations in both directions are wiped from the timeline'.

I think the thing about PLX launchers is that the loadout given in the book is an RPG/anti infantry load. Useful for taking out small transports and humvees, not armored vehicles or starfighters. Even in the Jedi Knight games where the PLX hails from, an AT-ST could take 5-6 shots before dying.

You could compare this by the Javelin just by looking at the cost. A Javelin costs ~76,000, and the launcher costs ~126,000. Star Wars usually uses 1980 dollars, so 34k and 63k respectively. That will net you a freaking Y-Wing with proton torpedo launchers. The US military is very effective at killing people, but I think even experienced soldiers would agree with me that we spend ALOT of money to do it.

I would say if you wanted to tackle serious armor like an AT-AT or starfighter, you would need to buy something like a personal proton-torpedo launcher, which is not listed in EOTE. I would say such a thing would just use the proton-torpedo stats in the book.

Remember, even at Hoth the Atgar towers and various emplacements had no chance at taking down AT-ATs. In TCW, it was turbolaser emplacements that could take down heavy armor.