I don't think anyone ever said it was smart, just that it could be done.

The AT-ST is a rather rough example though, essentially being the outer space equivalent of a next generation armored vehicle. You can tackle one with a missile tube or flechette launcher, but if you don't back that up with skills, talents, and cunning you might as well be peeing on its leg.

Lighter vehicles are better targets. Airspeeders, landspeeders, that kind of thing.

Um...

The AT-ST is a "scout walker" so it's along the lines of armored cavalry. Something like a Stryker or even a Bradley is vulnerable to high-end man-portable weaponry.

Not exactly. It's a pretty complex situation though and comparisons aren't easy.

Compared to other vehicles available the AT-ST is serious business. Armor 3, three weapons on a turret head, and an HT and ST in the double digits. On a good day it'll take something like three consecutive synergetic crits to make it derp out of the encounter. Toss in how it typically won't be a minion vehicle, and yeah...

Most other vehicles, even combat vehicles are no where near that nasty. The L model repulsor tank, a vehicle that fills a VERY similar role to the AT-ST can be derped with one crit. And that minion piloted TIE is pretty easy pickings for someone with a missile launcher, even a relatively unskilled individual has a chance.

Walkers, when compared to repulsorcraft, are pretty next-gen when you consider how they work within an encounter.

A better comparison might be to hold something like an up armored humvee with the AT-ST as an MATV.

Even then the water is murky as a lot of modern shoulder fired missiles are big one-shot affairs, where the in game tube is an unholy hybrid of a javelin and an RPG...

I don't think anyone ever said it was smart, just that it could be done.

The AT-ST is a rather rough example though, essentially being the outer space equivalent of a next generation armored vehicle. You can tackle one with a missile tube or flechette launcher, but if you don't back that up with skills, talents, and cunning you might as well be peeing on its leg.

Lighter vehicles are better targets. Airspeeders, landspeeders, that kind of thing.

Or Anti-Vehicle Mines

How do Mechanics based weapons work anyway while we're on the subject?

It's a bit up to the GM really. The skill used is obviously Mechanics and it's an Action to set the device.

Beyond that there are a lot of ways to trigger a device; remote, timer, proximity. And for simplicity all explosives (mines, Thermal Detonators, grenades) can be triggered however the PC wants, although as is usual with this system common sense is always important.

As an example a character may choose that they would like to blow the foot off an AT-ST with an Anti Vehicle mine they have. At its simplest they use a maneuver to engage the walker, their action to set the charge, then another maneuver to disengage, with the device blowing up after they have moved away (basically at the end of their turn). From there it just comes down to Player/GM creativity.

It's a bit up to the GM really. The skill used is obviously Mechanics and it's an Action to set the device.

Beyond that there are a lot of ways to trigger a device; remote, timer, proximity. And for simplicity all explosives (mines, Thermal Detonators, grenades) can be triggered however the PC wants, although as is usual with this system common sense is always important.

As an example a character may choose that they would like to blow the foot off an AT-ST with an Anti Vehicle mine they have. At its simplest they use a maneuver to engage the walker, their action to set the charge, then another maneuver to disengage, with the device blowing up after they have moved away (basically at the end of their turn). From there it just comes down to Player/GM creativity.

If you or a player who deems himself an explosive expert is interested, I made some house rules covering these notions. I would say it's over complicated for most, but it sounds like it could be something youi would like?

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxzdHVybnNzdHVmZnxneDo3Yjc4OGFlZmY5ODQxMTQ1

It hasn't been play tested even by my group. So, if you do use it please let me know of anything you've done to improve on it, tweaks, etc.

I debated how the mines are supposed to work before, but never came to a satisfying conclusion. I submitted it as a question a while ago, but haven't yet received an answer. I wonder if it's a part of that fabled AoR errata.

My temporary solution is to treat them not as weapons, but as gear, using the rules of the electro snare in Enter the Unknown.

My temporary solution is to treat them not as weapons, but as gear, using the rules of the electro snare in Enter the Unknown.

Bloody good observation and solution!

My temporary solution is to treat them not as weapons, but as gear, using the rules of the electro snare in Enter the Unknown.

Bloody good observation and solution!

That's good. My rules in the link above were Mechanics to place the explosive device, Perception for a target to notice it (and thus avoid it), then finally (if set off) a Mechanics "attack" roll. Using the electro snare version it could be shortened to Mechanics to place then opposed Mechanics vs. Perception when it potentially goes off. That would combine the last two in one opposed roll and further simplify things. I may need to make some adjustments.

What about concealing the device though? That makes me think more of Survival (outdoors) or Skullduggery (urban) then Mechanics. But, that would mean those skills would directly affect how much damage was delivered and not the explosive expert's Mechanics skill. If you take the time to conceal the device, use another Concealment roll giving Bonus to the Mechanics vs. Perception check?

But, that would be reducing from 3 rolls to 2 then back to 3 again.

My temporary solution is to treat them not as weapons, but as gear, using the rules of the electro snare in Enter the Unknown.

Bloody good observation and solution!

That's good. My rules in the link above were Mechanics to place the explosive device, Perception for a target to notice it (and thus avoid it), then finally (if set off) a Mechanics "attack" roll. Using the electro snare version it could be shortened to Mechanics to place then opposed Mechanics vs. Perception when it potentially goes off. That would combine the last two in one opposed roll and further simplify things. I may need to make some adjustments.

What about concealing the device though? That makes me think more of Survival (outdoors) or Skullduggery (urban) then Mechanics. But, that would mean those skills would directly affect how much damage was delivered and not the explosive expert's Mechanics skill. If you take the time to conceal the device, use another Concealment roll giving Bonus to the Mechanics vs. Perception check?

But, that would be reducing from 3 rolls to 2 then back to 3 again.

You could flip those around a bit. Have the opposed roll first, be that Mechanics, Survival or Skullduggery vs targets Perception. This tool represents the placement of the device and concealment. Then a straight Mechanics "attack" roll (Average difficulty just like melee combat) to determine the quality of the explosion and hence the damage dealt. Personally I would never have the roll that determines damage being an opposed roll, the difficulty is just going to be too high in most cases.

I also think it's perfectly reasonable to have setting an explosives device be a straight Average difficulty that the results of which are held until the correct conditions are met for explosion, possibly triggering as an incidental or a Maneuver by the Demolitionist character... Spy book for better rules? I think in the long run using the basics of the Slicing rules could be where they build upon to create a segment in chapter 3 on using explosives.

Question: Using the "target specific part in order to disable" rules, wouldn't you be able to just target their engines and on a success they drop out of the sky and the ship takes falling damage, as well as being disabled?

Also, with a ground vehicle I could see something disabling it at least temporarily.

Question: Using the "target specific part in order to disable" rules, wouldn't you be able to just target their engines and on a success they drop out of the sky and the ship takes falling damage, as well as being disabled?

Also, with a ground vehicle I could see something disabling it at least temporarily.

The suggestion from Sam Stewart I have heard regarding this is to look to the critical injury/hit tables for "inspiration" as to the effect of targeting a specific part of a target. This kind of attack still doesn't cause a critical injury unless the requirements are met but the effects of a lower level (0-49) critical can be applied. If it was a partially good roll then consider choosing one of the higher criticals (50-100), but don't ever go over 100. The reason for this is the stacking effect of adding +10 to a roll on the critical tables for each critical a target is suffering. In this way you can have the narrative advantage of slowing the target without the increased chance of death/destruction.

So in your example of targeting the engines your more likely to reduce the top speed of the vehicle or affect its handling than stop it completely.