Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Fire Immunity
Posted by: TommyTwoToes Sep 3 2010, 08:22 PM
Since Goblins are fire proof, they should survive re-enttry pretty well. Someone should market them as a self replicating source of amunition for Thor shots. You input dwarfs and get Thor. Sounds like a bargain.
Once the goblin population gets too high, you just have to fire off some shots to get back down to manageable numbers.
- Multitasking our way to a more human tomorrow.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 3 2010, 08:27 PM
All they get is armor based on their Magic (1). Alas.
Posted by: TommyTwoToes Sep 3 2010, 08:28 PM
Damn! Thats not Immunity to fire, thats Immunity to Matches.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 3 2010, 08:29 PM
SPAAACE goblins! Hehehe.
Posted by: Laodicea Sep 3 2010, 08:29 PM
debatable whether damage taken from entering an atmosphere would be fire or blast. Yes, things heat up quite a lot, but its due to the friction of the air at that speed.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 3 2010, 08:34 PM
There's also the problem of being out of the Gaiasphere. No magic in space.
Posted by: Mordinvan Sep 3 2010, 08:37 PM
Damn the rules for sucking all the fun out of such whimsical discussions.
Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 3 2010, 08:38 PM
I don't know, the thought of the first goblin to try it certainly brought a smile to my face^^
Posted by: Dr.Rockso Sep 3 2010, 08:44 PM
The goblin cannon lives again!
Posted by: Draco18s Sep 3 2010, 08:52 PM
Did someone say http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=48215 http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=45467?
Posted by: Dr.Rockso Sep 3 2010, 09:06 PM
Didn't know they finally made one,nice!<get off my lawn>Back in my day all we had were goblin grenades and we liked em'!</get off my lawn>
Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 3 2010, 09:22 PM
Shadowrun gets more Orky every day ^^
Posted by: CanRay Sep 3 2010, 09:25 PM
Needz moar Dakka.
Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 3 2010, 09:26 PM
NEVAR ENUFF! ^^
Posted by: Dumori Sep 3 2010, 09:55 PM
IDK if they ever made a snazzgun for planets I think the ork might reach the pinical of dakka assuming they fire worlds full of heavily armed Ork and massive Orky forts.
Posted by: Stahlseele Sep 3 2010, 09:58 PM
Well, they ARE close to that with their way of boarding Space Hulks and crashing them into planets from time to time . .
Posted by: Dumori Sep 3 2010, 10:04 PM
Yeah but they don't fire them via a wormhole at least not targeted. Oh Orks your simple nature and pysictech will always awe me.
Posted by: Draco18s Sep 3 2010, 10:05 PM
Oh yeah, they made a card called Goblin Cannon, and then one that shot Goblins (step 1: find your cousin...).
Posted by: CanRay Sep 3 2010, 10:25 PM
Fire immunity, however, does come in handy when you have an amorous Fire Elemental around...
Posted by: Mongoose Sep 4 2010, 12:30 AM
Or if you want to use flamethrowers and willie petes in close quarters combat. Be your own fire elemental!
Soffacation, toxic off gassing, and structural collapse might still be dangerous, though.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 4 2010, 12:33 AM
When all else fails, drop a building on it.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 4 2010, 05:09 AM
Yeah, Fire Immunity is one of those funny things that is not quite what it is supposed to be. In a related note, you can kill fire spirits and hellhounds with flamethrowers.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 4 2010, 05:13 AM
They should simply rename those powers to 'Resistances' instead of Immunities. Solved.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 4 2010, 05:21 AM
Immunity (Age, Normal Weapons, Toxins, Fire). That one would look wierd though.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 4 2010, 05:23 AM
All of them except Age *are* resistances, right? And it's odd to talk about 'Immunity to Age' in the first place; it really doesn't belong with them. 
Posted by: Neraph Sep 4 2010, 05:26 AM
"You look great for your age."
"What can I say; I'm resistant to age."
Posted by: Badmoodguy88 Sep 4 2010, 05:49 AM
It is up to interpretation but it seems that wile possessed your magic attribute is replaced with the spirits attribute and your natural magic powers work at the possession spirit's magic rating, meaning either more or less power. This would not let them be a thor shot though because of the mana ebb. Other fool hearty uses of fire become more appealing though. Being able to recline on a hot barbecue grill is interesting if not very useful. It is slightly less interesting but more useful to be able to do this and not burn.
Posted by: Draco18s Sep 4 2010, 03:04 PM
Firemen. They'd be able to run into burning buildings and rescue people.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 4 2010, 03:28 PM
Magic 1? That's basically a R1 Fire Protection, since their Immunity Armor would be 2, then -1/2 makes it 1 again.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 4 2010, 03:33 PM
I still don't think it makes sense for a possessing spirit to use host powers at boosted Magic.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 4 2010, 03:35 PM
Oh. I had to go back and find where someone talked about possession. Actually, when things get possessed, their special attributes are replaced with the spirit's and their powers are not usable, only the spirit's.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 4 2010, 03:38 PM
Right. There's been some talk before about using a hellhound's fire breath, etc., but the rules seem pretty clear: you get the spirit in a physically-controlled body. Powers wouldn't apply.
Posted by: Draco18s Sep 4 2010, 03:45 PM
Minus half? No. Fire does not halve the armor granted by fire immunity. That would be stupid.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 4 2010, 04:53 PM
That *would* be stupid. Electricity doesn't halve Nonconductivity, either.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 4 2010, 05:22 PM
Orly? Can you show me the rule for that?
Posted by: Makki Sep 4 2010, 06:23 PM
with half its value (round up). The fire resistance armor upgrade (p. 327) adds its full rating
to the armor value.
SR4A p164 only Impact armor gets halved
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 4 2010, 08:23 PM
Neraph, you so crazy. I just said it was the same as Nonconductivity.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 5 2010, 05:21 AM
I just said it was the same as Nonconductivity.Ok, and I asked for a rule. Not just stating it, I'd like to have a page number quoted saying that Immunities are not affected by elemental effects. As far as I can remember, Immunities are treated as armor equal to twice the magic rating of the creature in question, armor is both ballistic and impact, so your Immunity armor would be halved, since it's treated as impact armor.
Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 5 2010, 05:26 AM
It's poorly worded, but there's no other reason to use the word "full" there unless the resistant armor is not halved.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 5 2010, 01:30 PM
Indeed, there isn't. Neraph, I assumed that telling you what it was constituted a reference; why can't you ever look up anything yourself? 
Posted by: Draco18s Sep 5 2010, 03:05 PM
Treated as armor. Not "provides ballistic and impact armor." All its saying is, that it provides dice the same way armor does, but only against that type of damage.
Heck, Immunity (Gauss Rifle), should it exist, wouldn't even be halved when shot with that type of weapon even though it says "halve all armor that isn't smart armor." It would, however, be subject to the -10 (but as it would be stacking with your worn armor and not be halved, it would still be better than not having it) because the -10 is a separate modifier.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 5 2010, 05:21 PM
No.
Immunity says it's treated as "hardened armor," and Hardened Armor states that it can be modified by armor penetration as normal. Your argument is based off the phrase "treated as," which is a very weak argument. When you treat something as something else, you use the rules for the something else, modified by the rules for the something.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 5 2010, 08:19 PM
It's an interpretation, one of two. The one that makes *sense* is the more valid; why would Fire Immunity be halved, and if it were, why would the rules mention 'full'?
Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 5 2010, 08:26 PM
Immunity says it's treated as "hardened armor," and Hardened Armor states that it can be modified by armor penetration as normal. Your argument is based off the phrase "treated as," which is a very weak argument. When you treat something as something else, you use the rules for the something else, modified by the rules for the something.
Actually, it says, "This immunity armor is treated as "hardened" protection (see Hardened Armor above)" - SR4A p. 295 If they had meant "treat as Hardened Armor", it would have been easier to say that.
Posted by: Jaid Sep 5 2010, 11:58 PM
hmmm... the "hardened protection" line might be the strongest argument for not reducing it. after all, if you buy fire protection on your armor, iirc it says specifically that it wouldn't be cut in half, doesn't it?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 6 2010, 12:00 AM
That's what Makki quoted, and yes. By twisting the words, it's possible to conclude that it doesn't say that, but that's silly.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 6 2010, 03:23 PM
It's not silly. The game says you get armor. Next sentence says that protection (referring to the armor rating) is treated as hardened. That hardened protection line is just an adjective describing the armor.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 6 2010, 03:35 PM
But it goes way out of its way, as Mooncrow says, to say 'hardened' (instead of 'Hardened Armor'); this clearly puts the focus on the ability to ignore damage below a threshold, and off of all other aspects. But, I was referring to the 'full' part from before, actually. In order to say that fire/chem/etc. protection is halved, you have to use the premise that they added the word 'full' for no reason at all.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 6 2010, 03:39 PM
It said protection because otherwise it would have used the word Armor three times in two short sentences. Also I see no reference to "full protection."
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 6 2010, 03:52 PM
*shrug* If your argument is that the writers chose a thesaurus over writing clear *game* rules, now you're the one with the "very weak argument". Anyway, the 'full' bit is mentioned a few posts back. You were there.
Posted by: Mäx Sep 6 2010, 03:59 PM
It may have been, but it's nowhere to be found on the Immunity Powers description.
Never ever go by someone else's post unless they actually post quote from the relevant part of the book.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 6 2010, 04:13 PM
I find it relevant.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 6 2010, 04:13 PM
I'm not debating whether or not the word "full" has been used in this thread - I'm not seeing it in the rules. Also the sentence in question also mentions the Immunity as being armor, so your "protection" argument is invalid as it refered to the armor.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 6 2010, 04:17 PM
That's not what I said. I said that if they'd meant 'Hardened Armor', they would have written "Hardened Armor". The way they *did* write it makes it obvious what aspect is the focus.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 6 2010, 04:22 PM
Please see Page 327 of the SR4A book... Armor Modifications...
Fire Resistance, Nonconductivity, Insulation, and Chemical Protection add their FULL RATING when resisting Fire, Electricity, Cold, or Chemical attacks without a comensurate reduction in Armor Rating for hte Protection Listed... As such, If the relevant armor mod (in this case Fire Resistance) is rated at 6, then the target gets an additional +6 dice to its 1/2 Impact armor to resist such damage.
THAT is where the term "FULL" is listed, and why it is relevant. All armor (and by extension their mods) are treated the same way... Fire Immunity provides Fire Resistance like Hardened Armor (If damage does not exceed, it is ignored) and as the Fire Resistance Modification (If it is exceeded by the damage, the base Armor is halved, the Fire Resistance (Invulnerability) rating is added to the armor (as normal for all armors) and then resistance is rolled)... Pretty simple actually...
The goal of 4th Edition was to remove as many of the subsystems that were inherent in the game, providing a smoother interface to use... thus many of the rules work the same for various things... Many do not like this... I, however, really enjoy this... there is SO much less that is required to be learned in the course of a game. Take that how you will...
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 6 2010, 04:32 PM
I'm not saying you can't argue that Fire Immunity was designed stupidly (1/2 against fire); it just doesn't make any sense given the rest of the game. I'm saying it's the same argument as 'spirits can't manifest', or whatever: worthless.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 6 2010, 04:51 PM
Ok, so Fire Protection and other things similar to that say you add the full rating. But those are not what Immunities are.
Underline mine.
Trying to say that Immunities function like Fire Protection simply because they use the word "protection" once while describing the armor is flat-out wrong. You are forcing your misguided comprehension of a sentence on the mechanics of the game. If what you claim is right, the entire section would have been worded dramatically differently.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 6 2010, 04:55 PM
Underline mine.
Trying to say that Immunities function like Fire Protection simply because they use the word "protection" once while describing the armor is flat-out wrong. You are forcing your misguided comprehension of a sentence on the mechanics of the game. If what you claim is right, the entire section would have been worded dramatically differently.
You have your Interpretation and everyone else has theirs...
Or what they wrote, since it references the Armor sections pretty heavily, applies regardless... since you are not a Developeer, your opinion is just that, an opinion... And my opinion differs... I do not claim that you are WRONG, just that you have an interpretatin that differs from mine (and others it seems)... Please do not tell me that I am wrong in the face of inadequate explanations to the contrary...
Since Immunities Refer you to the Armor sections, and Immunities are treated like armor, then you must reference the Armor sections to obtain a complete picture... As such, I am pretty confident that treating Immunity to Fire as a Hardened Resistance (Like ITNW is treated) is within the realms of the intent of the rules. If you differ in opinion, that is okay...
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 6 2010, 04:58 PM
Nope, you're still wrong. The one and only aspect of Hardened Armor that is to be used is the 'hardened' part: "meaning that if the Damage Value does not exceed the Armor, then the attack automatically does no damage." That's all. There's no reason to think it's B/I, etc. Instead, it's an " 'Armor rating' " against (e.g.) Fire damage. Not Impact armor against Fire (halved). You know this is true, because why would Immunity be halved against the thing that it's Immunity against?
I'm not saying it functions as the armor modification *because* it mentions protection. I'm saying it because the other position is ludicrous, possibly "misguided". 
Posted by: Draco18s Sep 6 2010, 04:59 PM
/quit This is stupid.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 6 2010, 05:02 PM
But often entertaining... Look at the upside, I would love to use Goblins as Thor Shots... I mean really, an ammunition that breeds, Talk about effeciency...
Posted by: Draco18s Sep 6 2010, 05:04 PM
One last quip pointing out how stupid the "half" argument is:
"I am hitting a fire immune critter with fire so it only gets half of its immunity bonus."
Posted by: Neraph Sep 6 2010, 05:20 PM
Yes, and he still gets extra armor against it. And depending on the Magic rating of the creature in question, the creature can still ignore the attack all together. Hell, spirits with ItNW can still be killed with normal weapons anyways.
And by a strict reading of the rules for Immunities you would never interpret it as "protection" like the Fire Protection. There's simply no more than one single word that your entire argument hinges on, and even that word can't be valid because it was describing the word "Armor" that the sentence was talking about.
EDIT: For the Immunity Power to work like you gentlemen claim, it would have to be worded something like "The bonus granted by Immunity cannot be reduced by normal means, much like Nonconductivity or Fire Protection bonuses." Since it has absolutely no rules actually referencing those sub-armors, you cannot use those rules.
As written, a critter with Immunity (Fire) has Hardened Armor (subject to normal Armor Penetration) equal to twice its Magic rating, but only against attacks that deal Fire Damage.
EDIT EDIT: Also, the Armor section of the rules say nothing about Fire Protection or Nonconductivity. Those are specifically mentioned in the Gear Section, as a subset of rules, called Armor Modifications. Since neither the Immunity Power nor the Hardened Armor Power refer you to the Armor Modifications section, you cannot use rules from there in your argument.
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 6 2010, 05:36 PM
Tungsten doesn't talk back and you don't have to feed it.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 6 2010, 05:39 PM
Very true. Tungsten also doesn't go to the bathroom in your shoes.
Posted by: Neraph Sep 6 2010, 05:43 PM
It has its own couple of sentences in the Immunity section, which validates it.
So, does Armor Penetration from normal weapons apply against Spirits who have Immunity to Normal Weapons? If so, you're not being consistant. If not, you're not playing with the rules properly.
EDIT: Woah, the post I quoted disappeared...
Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Sep 6 2010, 05:56 PM
Ok, Goblins might be immune to fire and would survive the reentry, but HOW THE HELL will it survive the collision?
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 6 2010, 06:08 PM
It won't. That's the best part. Bye bye, goblin.
Like I said: Immunity to Age doesn't really fit. I didn't say it's not in that section, but that it shouldn't be. It's separate and different, that's all. It's not an important point.
Elemental damage (halving) is a whole different animal from 'Normal Weapons'; I don't see the connection.
Posted by: Brazilian_Shinobi Sep 6 2010, 06:25 PM
That's the best part. Bye bye, goblin.Like I said: Immunity to Age doesn't really fit. I didn't say it's not in that section, but that it shouldn't be. It's separate and different, that's all. It's not an important point.
Elemental damage (halving) is a whole different animal from 'Normal Weapons'; I don't see the connection.
I don't think the goblin would share the same sentiment
Posted by: Doc Chase Sep 6 2010, 06:27 PM
"Immunity" just needs to be replaced with "Resistance", IMO.
The way RAW states it is contra to the textbook definition.
Posted by: CanRay Sep 6 2010, 06:33 PM
Look, there's an easy way to find the solution to this...
Throw a lit Molotov at it. If it runs around, screaming in pain until it falls down dead, it wasn't immune to fire.
Posted by: Sephiroth Sep 6 2010, 06:35 PM
This seems lik its relevant to the discussion.
Immunity to [XXX] was clarified somewhat in Running Wild. Before anyone has a hissy cow (never underestimate the power of the hissy cow) over the fact that immunity does not grant, well, immunity, please keep in mind that these rules are descended from previous editions, which worked in basically the same way.
Anyway, fire. Fire does not actually have any armor penetration per se, it does modify the Impact armor value (yes, I know that sounds like silly semantics, but I had to deal with a Flaming Stun spell once and these things can be important). Immunity to Fire gives the critter the equivalent of Hardened Armor (Magic x 2) against Fire damage. That means that if the modified Damage Value of the fire attack is less than the critter's Magic x 2, it doesn't even make a test for damage. If the fire DV is greater, then the Hardened Armor is treated as Ballistic/Impact armor and you can apply the normal modifier from fire damage.
Okay, that sounds like a bunch of glass ninja stuff, so let's look at an example.
Zippo the fire rat has Magic 3 and Immunity to Fire. That means against fire damage, he has effective Hardened Armor 6. Running around in the volcanic vent that is his home, which normally deals 3 DV fire damage per turn, Zippo doesn't burn at all. If some nasty shaman throws a Force 7 Fireball at him, however, Zippo is in trouble, because at 7 DV it exceeds his (Magic x 2). Zippo still has an effective Impact Armor 3 (Magic x 2 / 2) when resisting the 7 DV attack, however.
Posted by: Yerameyahu Sep 6 2010, 06:43 PM
So, 1 net hit is all it's worth: ouch. Doesn't make sense. I guess it should be renamed 'Environment Immunity: Fire', to reflect the only thing it's useful for.
Posted by: Draco18s Sep 6 2010, 08:47 PM
Yeah, I don't agree with AH's take either, I'd still give Zippo 6 dice to resist.
Impact armor is halved for elemental effects merely to deal with the fact that a flak vest is really good at protecting you from being shot (8 armor!) not so good at keeping you from being stabbed (6 armor!) and downright awful (but not entirely useless) when being set on fire, electrocuted, or immersed in acid (3 armor).
"Fire Armor" is better than Impact armor for protecting you from fire (duh) therefore is not halved, but does jack diddly against electricity and acid.
Impact armor is the generic "catch all" solution that allows sheer bulk to protect you from the worst of an attack, it's not geared towards being good at it, it just helps, therefore its value is halved against elemental attacks (elemental attacks do not have "armor penetration: half"* they simply are resisted with half impact).
*How do we know this? Because all of the damage types are listed under "see page 154" where Electric (also fire, acid, cold, fatigue, and falling continuing onto page 155) says "resisted with half impact." It is not an armor modifier.
electricity—have a slightly different effect than standard types of
damage, as noted below.
Acid damage is treated as Physical damage
and resisted with half Impact armor (rounded up).
Cold damage is treated as Physical
damage and resisted with half Impact armor (rounded up).
Electrical damage is treated as Stun damage and resisted
with half Impact armor (rounded up)—metallic armor, however,
offers no protection.
Falling Damage
Use Body + half the rating of the
character’s Impact armor (round down) to resist this damage.
Fatigue Damage
this damage cannot be resisted.
Treat Fire damage as Physical damage, but Impact armor only
protects against it with half its value (round up).
Note how none of them say that the damage has armor penetration but that a damage resistance test is made using some value (typically half the target's impact armor).
Posted by: Neraph Sep 6 2010, 10:24 PM
Absolutely no.
Immunity to Fire simply gives you Impact and Ballistic Armor that happens to be Hardened and is equal to twice the Magic rating of the critter against attacks from fire.
Period.
Against other attacks, the critter's Immunity does not help at all, so your example of the flak vest is a strawman.
I'll just chock it up to you people intentionally misreading the RAW.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 7 2010, 12:09 AM
EDIT: Woah, the post I quoted disappeared...
Of course ITNW is affected by AP Modifiers... it is ARMOR... Fire Immunty is treated like Fire Protection (Assuming the damage is not affected by the Hardening itself), thus it does not reduce, as it is a MODIFICATION of the armor rules...
But hey, Your table, your rules...
Posted by: Neraph Sep 7 2010, 12:20 AM
But hey, Your table, your rules...
Unless stated in the SR4A or some errata somewhere, neither of which are actually quoted, I have quoted that you are flat wrong. It is armor. Period. Show me a hard rule where it says that the armor gained from Immunity is related to the Armor Modifications section, and not the sentence that uses an adjective to describe the armor as a protection. Quote for me, from a book, where it says it is an Armor Modification similar to Fire Protection, not some strange corollary that exists only in your mind.
It gives armor, just the exact same as ItNW, and it is affected by Armor Penetration (or similar effects), just the same as ItNW.
Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 7 2010, 12:26 AM
It gives armor, just the exact same as ItNW, and it is affected by Armor Penetration (or similar effects), just the same as ItNW.
Treat it as you like Neraph, the rules for it are written poorly enough that your interpretation is perfectly valid.
Treating others, who look for similar rules to see how to treat a poorly written one, as flat wrong, is pretty rude though.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 7 2010, 12:31 AM
It gives armor, just the exact same as ItNW, and it is affected by Armor Penetration (or similar effects), just the same as ItNW.
Sure Neraph... Because throwing out "You're Wrong" wins a lot of discussions...
Face it, the rules are written poorly... using the interpretation that I (and others apparently) use is perfectly valid, as it appears to fit the spirit, if not the absolute letter, of what is written... As I said before... Your table, your rules, but don't tell me that My interpretation of those rules are wrong when you know that the rules are ambiguous at best...
Pretty soon, you are going to try and convince me that a Physical Adept MUST be a female because that is how the rules books are written...
Posted by: Neraph Sep 7 2010, 12:35 AM
Saying that Immunity (Fire) is not affected by armor reducing effects while Immunity (Normal Weapons) is is simply hypocritical (I did not want to use this word, but I can think of no better word). Not to mention you're using a single adjective to hinge your whole argument on. Or that the rules tell you to refer to Armor, and not Armor Modifications. There is no hard rules corollary that links Immunity to Armor Modifications, and the rules for the section are not particularly poorly written.
That's why I say it's wrong.
In any event, Immunity (Fire) the way it's supposed to be played still is effective, just not overwhelmingly so as you'd have it.
EDIT: Also, thank you for proving my point by not being able to find an actual rule to support your claim.
This is not to say that it can't be houseruled that way, nor to say that I would be against that house rule. This is just me informing/educating you how the actual RAW is stated.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 7 2010, 12:37 AM
That's why I say it's wrong.
In any event, Immunity (Fire) the way it's supposed to be played still is effective, just not overwhelmingly so as you'd have it.
I disagree... so that leaves us in a Stalemate... you won't budge, and neither will I...
So... What do you think on the ideas of using Goblins asd Thor Shot ammunition? While difficult to keep fed and content, it is very funny to me, I am not sure why...
Posted by: Neraph Sep 7 2010, 12:44 AM
Eh, fair enough.
I think hellhounds would be better for it, as they are more than likely less expensive to upkeep and less likely to complain.
I also think goblins should be an ork or troll version, not dwarf. Orks and trolls are called goblins, their Awakening was called Goblinization, they have Goblin Rock - why are dwarves lumped into their category? I believe it to be a misnomer.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 7 2010, 12:50 AM
I think hellhounds would be better for it, as they are more than likely less expensive to upkeep and less likely to complain.
I also think goblins should be an ork or troll version, not dwarf. Orks and trolls are called goblins, their Awakening was called Goblinization, they have Goblin Rock - why are dwarves lumped into their category? I believe it to be a misnomer.
Misgnomer?
Okay, that was bad... Minus 2 Internets for me...
But I have to agree... A Dwarven variant was an odd choice in my opinion... Goblins should be an Ork Variant (That whole Goblinization thing you mentioned)... but I really do not have any issues with it myself...
Posted by: Neraph Sep 7 2010, 01:07 AM
The real question is: Would you hear one screaming while it is hurdling at you if he is going faster than the sound barrier?
And would it be considered a Death By Glomp?
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 7 2010, 01:20 AM
And would it be considered a Death By Glomp?
Hmmmmm...
I would have to say No to the First one... But for the 7-10 seconds that it takes to hit, you will likely see a pretty orange light hurtling towards you.
Death by Glomp? I am, unfortunately, unfamiliar with that terminology... what is Glomp?
Posted by: Neraph Sep 7 2010, 01:22 AM
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=glomp. http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&q=glomp&rlz=1R2GGLL_en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=rpOFTObsN8T7lwf7oMUP&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4&ved=0CC8QsAQwAw.
EDIT: Especially http://animewriter.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/glomp-10.jpg and http://fc06.deviantart.net/images/i/2003/38/e/7/Glomp_Inc_DevID.jpg.
Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 7 2010, 01:23 AM
I would have to say No to the First one...
Death by Glomp? I am, unfortunately, unfamiliar with that terminology... what is Glomp?
Someone needs to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glomp#G more^^
The term Neraph is referring to, is from fangirls' tendencies to glomp anyone playing as one of their fav bishies.
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 7 2010, 01:24 AM
The term Neraph is referring to, is from fangirls' tendencies to glomp anyone playing as one of their fav bishies.
Wow, this terminology is greatly confusing... Bishies?
And not sure what Cosplay is, will follow the link...
EDIT: Hmmmmmmm... Interesting...
Posted by: Mooncrow Sep 7 2010, 01:25 AM
It was kind of intended to be^^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bish%C5%8Dnen
You stand at the threshold of a new world
Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Sep 7 2010, 01:27 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bish%C5%8Dnen
You stand at the threshold of a new world
Ahhhhh... Pretty Boys, Got it...
Posted by: Neraph Sep 7 2010, 01:27 AM
http://browse.deviantart.com/photography/people/cosplay/. Especially well-done Samus is http://yukilefay.deviantart.com/.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)