StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Could the AT-ST shown in the movies have a low level shield on them to help protect from small arms blaster fire?

No evidence that I know of, and not much of a reason to indicate that they would need any.

They have shielding in the Rogue Squadron games. Make whatever you want of that.

Lazy Raptor wrote:They have shielding in the Rogue Squadron games. Make whatever you want of that.

Game mechanics don't count.

Lord Pounder wrote:Game mechanics don't count.

You sure about that? This isn't being used to calculate damage or anything, it's simply saying wether or not they have shields.

In ROTJ, the first two shots of the captured AT-ST were simply absorbed by the one they then targeted and fired at. Only the third bolt came through.

Lazy Raptor wrote:

Lord Pounder wrote:Game mechanics don't count.

You sure about that? This isn't being used to calculate damage or anything, it's simply saying wether or not they have shields.

Game mechanics also have X-Wings that can hurt cap ships 30+ times the size of it. IIRC the only part of a game that counts is the story line and even that is the lowest form of official.

Luke was able to cut through an AT-AT's underside with a lightsaber so it is unlikely they are shielded.

"Their armor are too strong for blasters"

Dark Primus wrote:"Their armor are too strong for blasters"

And yet the AT-AT that was tripped didn't seem to take blaster shots too well after it fell down.

Darth Servo wrote:

Dark Primus wrote:"Their armor are too strong for blasters"

And yet the AT-AT that was tripped didn't seem to take blaster shots too well after it fell down.

Because they shot at a damaged neck segment, smartboy!

Lord Pounder wrote:

Lazy Raptor wrote:

Lord Pounder wrote:Game mechanics don't count.

You sure about that? This isn't being used to calculate damage or anything, it's simply saying wether or not they have shields.

Game mechanics also have X-Wings that can hurt cap ships 30+ times the size of it. IIRC the only part of a game that counts is the story line and even that is the lowest form of official.

Return of the Jedi also has A-wings that can hurt capital ships easily hundreds of times their own size. The B-wing was designed as a heavy assault fighter; attacking capital ships is its freaking job. Starfighters can hurt capital ships according to canon.

To a point, of course.

To a point, yes, but he seemed to be saying that they shouldn't be able to hurt capital ships at all.

Rogue 9 wrote:

Lord Pounder wrote:

Lazy Raptor wrote: You sure about that? This isn't being used to calculate damage or anything, it's simply saying wether or not they have shields.

Game mechanics also have X-Wings that can hurt cap ships 30+ times the size of it. IIRC the only part of a game that counts is the story line and even that is the lowest form of official.

Return of the Jedi also has A-wings that can hurt capital ships easily hundreds of times their own size. The B-wing was designed as a heavy assault fighter; attacking capital ships is its freaking job. Starfighters can hurt capital ships according to canon.

True but large number of fighters are needed to hurt a capital ship. One on one a X-wing is no match for a stardestroyer.

evilcat4000 wrote:True but large number of fighters are needed to hurt a capital ship. One on one a X-wing is no match for a stardestroyer.

Unless, of course... said Star Destroyer is heavily damaged and said X-wing pilot decides to kamikaze...

True but large number of fighters are needed to hurt a capital ship. One on one a X-wing is no match for a stardestroyer.

No, it isn't a match for a Star Destroyer, and I've never figured out how people can solo a Star Destroyer in any realistically reasonable amount of time in a single fighter in any mode harder than Easy, and usually not even then. Although to be honest with you its harder to whack a Nebulon B Mark 2 in XWA, or at least it is in the last fleet engagement I set up. Of course, I may have set the Star Destroyer on Strike and the frigate on Superiority. I'll have to check.

I would say the armor is merely resistant to low level blaster fire.

InnocentBystander wrote:I would say the armor is merely resistant to low level blaster fire.

No shit, really?

The point was whether or not does the AT-ST have any shielding...it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is resistant to blaster power rifles.

Now whether or not it's resistant to actual firepower on the magnitude of it's own shots and above is attributed to shields or armor.