Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Barriers versus Indirect Spells

Posted by: Grayson7 Aug 3 2007, 08:17 AM

I found what appears to be a contradiction in the rules. I checked both the errata and the FAQ and neither addressed the issue.

According to page 196 in the core rulebook, "nonliving objects resist damage from an Indirect Combat spell with their Armor rating x 2 (see Barriers, p. 157)."

However, according to page 157, "against Indirect Combat spells and explosives attached directly, barriers roll only their Armor rating."

This is a pretty big error, assuming that it is an error, and I am sure that someone saw it before I did. Can someone please tell me which is correct? Thanks.

Posted by: Talia Invierno Aug 3 2007, 10:07 AM

Having a recent vested interest in some barrier destroying, I'd just been reading up on those sections.

You're right: it's a glitch, probably because the compiler missed that there was a second sentence on p.158 after:

QUOTE

Resolve the damage resistance test by rolling the barrier's Armor x 2.

which applied specifically to the Indirect Combat section and which happened to overrule the first sentence in that case.

I'd go with what it says on p.157-8, myself.

Posted by: Aaron Aug 3 2007, 11:03 AM

Yeah, page 196 seems to defer to page 157-8. But that's not a good logical argument.

One could say that there is no contradiction because barriers use their Armor x 2 and Indirect Combat spells are resisted with half armor, so we're back to using just their Armor Rating. But that's a bit cheesy.

Maybe we'll get something in the next errata.

Posted by: Grayson7 Aug 3 2007, 02:01 PM

Cool, just wanted to make sure I wasn't going bonkers. This game has a ton of rules in it!

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 3 2007, 02:04 PM

Actually, it might be better if you did go bonkers

Posted by: Grayson7 Aug 3 2007, 02:13 PM

I got through about half of the matrix rules last night, so I think I am inclined to agree with you.

Posted by: neko128 Aug 3 2007, 02:43 PM

QUOTE (Dashifen)

Actually, it might be better if you did go bonkers

It's certainly less painful.

Posted by: FrankTrollman Aug 3 2007, 04:17 PM

The needless confusion arises from the fact that virtually all indirect spells also halve armor. So you roll Armor * 2 / 2 = Armor. The key is on page 174:

QUOTE (SR4 @ p. 174)

objects targetted by Indirect Combat spells do get to resist the damage as they would any ranged attack, use only their Armor x 2 (or just Armor against spells with elemental effects)

-Frank

Posted by: Particle_Beam Aug 3 2007, 05:02 PM

So, to simplify:

All non-living objects resist with armor x 2 against indirect combat spells.

If the indirect combat spell also has an elemental effect, you only use armor for the non-living object.

There is only one spell (group) that is indirect, and has no elemental effect, the Punch/Clout/Blast-spells.

Every other indirect combat spell also has elemental effects, like Flamethrower/Fireball, Lightning Bolt/Ball Lightning and so on.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 3 2007, 09:17 PM

QUOTE (Particle_Beam)

There is only one spell (group) that is indirect, and has no elemental effect, the Punch/Clout/Blast-spells.

Isn't 'Blast' considered an Elemental effect in SR4?

Posted by: Dashifen Aug 3 2007, 09:18 PM

Yeah, but this is the spell actually named Blast, not a Blast Elemental Effect.

Posted by: Fortune Aug 4 2007, 12:24 AM

Ah yes! D'oh!