 What should I Ban Outright |
  |
 Jun 10 2011, 02:53 AM
Post
#176
|
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli  Group: Members Posts: 13,994 Joined: 20-November 07 From: USA Member No.: 14,282  |
… Why would it make the AP *stronger*?
I mean, I assume the line about 'smart armor less effective' is a typo, but it doesn't really alter the more pertinent line, "Every hit is added to the firing weapon's AP value". |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 02:54 AM
Post
#177
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (sabs @ Jun 9 2011, 07:50 PM)  wow you're .. so wrong it's not even funny. You willfully misread that rule completely. DV 12, AP -6 becomes DV12 AP -8 because of the successes of the Smart Armor's roll (2 successes) THere was no glitch so the smart armor retains it's rating of 4. The smart armor has been used once What it represents is that the weapon does 'so much damage' that it's detonating some of the smart charges on the outside of the vehicle. Explain to me how adding +2 to -6 results in AP -8... Basic Math Comprehension... Yep, even My Computer and My Calculator come up with -4. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 02:57 AM
Post
#178
|
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli Group: Members Posts: 13,994 Joined: 20-November 07 From: USA Member No.: 14,282 |
Forget math. What kind of willful madness would assume that the armor *hurts* the protected vehicle?
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 02:59 AM
Post
#179
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jun 9 2011, 07:57 PM) Forget math. What kind of willful madness would assume that the armor *hurts* the protected vehicle? You Got me... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 03:02 AM
Post
#180
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 681 Joined: 23-March 10 From: Japan Member No.: 18,343 |
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 04:31 AM
Post
#181
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
And you know what?
You both forgot to add the smart armor's rating to the AP before the "If DV > 10" bit happened. Which rightly makes no sense, why are you adding the armor's rating to the AP value and not the vehicles armor value? (Even if mathematically they're the same). And if those hits on the test also added to / subtracted from the vehicle's armor rating there'd be no god damn confusion. QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 9 2011, 09:40 PM) The Smart Armor is now less Effective becasue it has used one of its "Charges" to protect the Vehicle. I'll point out again that "makes the SM less effective" clause is part of the "hits rolled" sentence. And "charges" expended (i.e. limited usability) has nothing to do with the armor being effective or not. You either have charges (100% effectiveness) or you don't (0%). It's a Critical Existence Failure in that regard. I shall also note that parentheticals are supposed to capable of being removed from a sentence without altering its meaning. If the intent was that the hits make the AP "bigger" (i.e. move it towards negative infinity) then this is true. If not, then this is not true (as it is a parenthetical is then referring to something other than the hits on the test or not making the armor less effective). |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 04:36 AM
Post
#182
|
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli Group: Members Posts: 13,994 Joined: 20-November 07 From: USA Member No.: 14,282 |
… Cuz it doesn't add to armor, it 'subtracts from' (adds to) AP. And why would it matter if you did it before checking DV>10? That check is unrelated, and obviously has to take place before anything else—it decides if the smart armor activates. It's really not hard: roll smart armor to hurt incoming AP. That's all.
That 'less effective' bit obviously makes no sense. It must be a typo. Let's ignore it, because there's no possible way of interpreting it to mean anything. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 12:08 PM
Post
#183
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,996 Joined: 1-June 10 Member No.: 18,649 |
Here is the deal:You get to choose when you're going to use Smart Armor.
IF an attack that is DV>10 hits the vehicle, then you roll the smart armor rating, and 'improve the AP of the attack by the hits' if you glitch on this roll, you lose a rating point. first you check the base damage of the weapon. If it's DV>10 then you trigger the smart armor is fuxored option. If it's DV<10 you don't, and you use Smart armor normally. Normal use of smart armor: DV8 -6AP attack shoots vehicle. Smart Armor 10 is used, damage is now DV 8 0AP, There are 9 charges left. Now you compare that 8DV+net hits vs regular armor, if it's less than, nothing happens, if it's more than, you now roll dv8+nethits+burstfiremodifiers vs normal armor+body. What you guys are missing is that the DV>10 note, is a 'weakness' of smart armor. Smart armor is not as good against explosive, or highly damaging attacks. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 01:09 PM
Post
#184
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 9 2011, 10:31 PM) And you know what? You both forgot to add the smart armor's rating to the AP before the "If DV > 10" bit happened. Because you do not do that... Look at the rules I quoted, that is NOT in there. I believe that you are working from an old edition of Arsenal. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 01:21 PM
Post
#185
|
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli Group: Members Posts: 13,994 Joined: 20-November 07 From: USA Member No.: 14,282 |
I don't understand that, sabs. You're saying that they meant to say 'subtract from' instead of 'add to' *just* for DV>10 attacks, because smart armor makes them worse? If true, that's stupid, and we should ignore it.
Here is what I understand to be the rules: 1. Smart armor reduces the effectiveness (adds to) incoming AP of all attacks DV≤10. (DV 8 AP -6 becomes DV 8 AP -0, Smart Armor Rating 6). In outcome #1, no roll is made, and the smart armor just loses 1 charge. 2. Smart armor 'less effectively' reduces the effectiveness (adds to) incoming AP of all attacks DV>10. (DV 11 AP -6 becomes DV 11 AP -6+Hits). In outcome #2, a glitch reduces the Rating of the smart armor, and the smart armor also loses 1 charge. So. against powerful attacks (DV>10), smart armor is obviously less effective (~1/3 as effective). It can also glitch. Done and done. Anything wrong with what I assume to be the correct reading here? Note how there are no completely stupid and backwards effects, like armor making incoming attacks stronger. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 01:38 PM
Post
#186
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 10 2011, 08:09 AM) Because you do not do that... Look at the rules I quoted, that is NOT in there. I believe that you are working from an old edition of Arsenal. Ahem. Quoting your post and bolding and underlining relevant section. QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 9 2011, 09:40 PM) I use the Text in the Book for my rules. So lets look at them again, shall we? Here they are... QUOTE Smart armor cannot be concealed, but is superior to normal armor in that it has armor-piercing defeating properties. Small explosives spaced throughout the exterior of the vehicle prematurely detonate/deflect incoming fire, reducing the AP value of attacks by the smart armor's rating. Individuals near the exterior of the vehicle while smart armor is being used may be hit by shrapnel or other detritus from the explosions. If the vehicle is rigged and has the proper sensors, the controlling players may be able to detonate exterior charges in order to deal physical damage to opponents, using the smart armor's current rating as the Damage Value. Every time a heavy ballistic weapon or explosive (usually any weapon that does more than 10 DV) hits a vehicle with smart armor, roll a test using the smart armor's rating as the dice pool. Every hit is added to the firing weapon's AP value (thus rendering the smart armor less effective). A glitch on this test reduces the value of the smart armor by one. You may use the smart armor as many times as its rating. Once the smart armor has been exhausted, it must be replenished with a Logic + Armorer (rating, 1 hour) Extended Test in order to be ef fective again, at a cost of 500¥ per rating point QUOTE ( @ Jun 10 2011, 08:21 AM) So. against powerful attacks (DV>10), smart armor is obviously less effective (~1/3 as effective). It can also glitch. Done and done. Anything wrong with what I assume to be the correct reading here? Note how there are no completely stupid and backwards effects, like armor making incoming attacks stronger. Mechanically that makes sense, but unfortunately, that's not what smart armor is supposed to be good for. In the real world the whole point of "smart armor" is to deflect the big shots (heavy weapons, attacks with DV > 10) so that they hurt less. The smart armor shouldn't activate on small arms fire and most definitely shouldn't be less effective against large arms fire. Secondly: QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jun 10 2011, 08:21 AM) 1. Smart armor reduces the effectiveness (adds to) incoming AP of all attacks DV≤10. (DV 8 AP -6 becomes DV 8 AP -0, Smart Armor Rating 6). In outcome #1, no roll is made, and the smart armor just loses 1 charge. That is exactly identical to adding the smart armor's rating to the vehicle's total armor. Watch Armor 4, SM 6 DV 9 AP -2 -2AP + 6 = +4 is DV 9 > 8? Yes. Roll armor (8 dice). Armor 4, SM 6 DV 6 AP -2 4 armor + 6 = 10 is DV 9 greater than (10 -2 AP)? Yes. Roll armor (8 dice). Sabs, your math is off: QUOTE (sabs @ Jun 10 2011, 07:08 AM) DV8 -6AP attack shoots vehicle. Smart Armor 10 is used, damage is now DV 8 0AP -6 plus 10 is not 0, it's +4. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 02:00 PM
Post
#187
|
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli Group: Members Posts: 13,994 Joined: 20-November 07 From: USA Member No.: 14,282 |
I didn't say it was different. I said it makes more sense conceptually to 'reduce' the AP 'directly'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
Yes: obviously, in real life, smart armor is only for DV>10. So? It may shock you that SR fails to emulate real life, sometimes quite a lot. My point was that there's no chance of smart armor ever being a *drawback*. I agree that it should work only for DV>10, and at full strength; that's a house rule. As long as it works for any DV>10 attack (and it does: sniper rifles, heavy weapons), that's all you'd really want to use it on anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 02:08 PM
Post
#188
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jun 10 2011, 09:00 AM) I didn't say it was different. I said it makes more sense conceptually to 'reduce' the AP 'directly'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Aside from being confusing (because AP is better the lower it is, terms like "reduce" and "add" become ambiguous as to the intent). QUOTE Yes: obviously, in real life, smart armor is only for DV>10. So? It may shock you that SR fails to emulate real life, sometimes quite a lot. My point was that there's no chance of smart armor ever being a *drawback*. I agree that it should work only for DV>10, and at full strength; that's a house rule. I know ShadowRun isn't real life, that's not the point. The point is that this armor add on (as interpreted by you) exists to make vehicles Even More Immune to small arms fire, when what is sounds like (and what it's attempting to emulate) is to make vehicles better protected against large weapons fire. That is: my point is that there is a cognitive dissonance between the implied use of the item and it's mechanical effect. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 02:09 PM
Post
#189
|
|
|
Advocatus Diaboli Group: Members Posts: 13,994 Joined: 20-November 07 From: USA Member No.: 14,282 |
No, the intent is never ambiguous. Armor always helps you defend against an attack, never making the attack better. Honestly. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) It literally takes intentional madness to conclude otherwise, whether I use single-quotes on 'reduce' or not.
Yes, it's a perfectly correct situation for a house rule. I said I agreed. In fact, it's far too expensive to waste on DV<10 anyway. It's just not what the book says, and we were talking about how some people (unbelievably) thought the book said smart armor *strengthened* incoming attacks. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 03:06 PM
Post
#190
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 10 2011, 07:38 AM) Ahem. Quoting your post and bolding and underlining relevant section. Mechanically that makes sense, but unfortunately, that's not what smart armor is supposed to be good for. In the real world the whole point of "smart armor" is to deflect the big shots (heavy weapons, attacks with DV > 10) so that they hurt less. The smart armor shouldn't activate on small arms fire and most definitely shouldn't be less effective against large arms fire. Secondly: That is exactly identical to adding the smart armor's rating to the vehicle's total armor. Watch Armor 4, SM 6 DV 9 AP -2 -2AP + 6 = +4 is DV 9 > 8? Yes. Roll armor (8 dice). Armor 4, SM 6 DV 6 AP -2 4 armor + 6 = 10 is DV 9 greater than (10 -2 AP)? Yes. Roll armor (8 dice). Sabs, your math is off: -6 plus 10 is not 0, it's +4. Again, you confuse Fluff with Mechanics. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 03:26 PM
Post
#191
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,996 Joined: 1-June 10 Member No.: 18,649 |
Y, I see where you're coming from. That makes a certain amount of sense. It's a badly worded rule with no example to explain it.
I am willing to agree with you that: DV<10 = AP reduced by Smart Armor Rating DV>10 = AP reduced by Hits of Smart Armor Rating Roll. Glitch lowers the Rating by 1. Here is my second question. I have a Smart Armor Rating of 10. The incomming attack has an AP of -6. Is the new AP +4? or 0? Smart Armor does not count as 'armor' for the armor roll.. I don't think. Otherwise I end up with: Armor 20 + Smart Armor 10, Body 16. First off, the AP gets dropped by 10, second off the armor rating gets increased by 10? So Smart Armor double dips? This would mean that I would need a DV/AP combo of 40 to get to hurt a Armor 20, Smart armor 10 vehicle? And then the vehicle gets to roll 46 dice to soak damage? |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 04:12 PM
Post
#192
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jun 10 2011, 09:09 AM) No, the intent is never ambiguous. I mean ambiguous in terms of determining the intent. The words are ambiguous, therefore the intent is unclear. QUOTE (sabs @ Jun 10 2011, 10:26 AM) Smart Armor does not count as 'armor' for the armor roll.. I don't think. It doesn't say it adds to armor, but the "reduces AP" ends up functionally identical to adding to armor, but it doesn't do both. QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 10 2011, 10:06 AM) Again, you confuse Fluff with Mechanics. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) "Reducing the AP value of attacks by the smart armor's rating" is mechanics, not fluff. Because the second part is additional mechanics that don't conform to that sentence ("roll rating, his reduce the AP value" is not "rating reduces the AP value"). The first part also makes no mention of large weapons, whereas the second part does. If the first part is fluff, it's not written as fluff. Fluff doesn't (or shouldn't) talk about AP values, armor ratings, and damage codes. Those are mechanics. (Also, you can't say "again" because you haven't accused me of it before. I can't have more tea if I haven't had any tea at all) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 04:13 PM
Post
#193
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Skipping replying tot he rest, as it seems enough of that was done already. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
QUOTE (sabs @ Jun 10 2011, 10:26 AM) DV>10 = AP reduced by Hits of Smart Armor Rating Roll. Not quite. You still reduce the effective AP of the attack by the smart armor's rating. You then increase it by the hits. So final AP = (AP + R - H). QUOTE I have a Smart Armor Rating of 10. The incomming attack has an AP of -6. Is the new AP +4? or 0? Unfortunately it's not clear. I think it shouldn't make the AP value go positive, but that's just me wanting balance.I've got no basis in the rules for it. QUOTE Smart Armor does not count as 'armor' for the armor roll.. I don't think. Otherwise I end up with: Armor 20 + Smart Armor 10, Body 16. First off, the AP gets dropped by 10, second off the armor rating gets increased by 10? So Smart Armor double dips? This would mean that I would need a DV/AP combo of 40 to get to hurt a Armor 20, Smart armor 10 vehicle? And then the vehicle gets to roll 46 dice to soak damage? This is how I see it to. It's worse than just having 46 dice to soak. It also means you have 30 hardened armor and reduce AP by 10, so they need around 40DV just to scratch you. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 04:40 PM
Post
#194
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 10 2011, 10:12 AM) (Also, you can't say "again" because you haven't accused me of it before. I can't have more tea if I haven't had any tea at all) Apologies... You are correct... Would you like some more tea? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 06:38 PM
Post
#195
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 10 2011, 11:40 AM) Apologies... You are correct... Would you like some more tea? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If I were a fan of tea, then I'd be delighted. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 06:42 PM
Post
#196
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 14,358 Joined: 2-December 07 From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada Member No.: 14,465 |
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 10 2011, 01:38 PM) If I were a fan of tea, then I'd be delighted. I'll take his tea. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 06:50 PM
Post
#197
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 189 Joined: 21-February 11 Member No.: 22,370 |
Having run one campaign pretty much laissez-faire, I have a short list of things I'd probably do differently next time:
If two or more emotitoys are within (device rating) meters of one another, the emotitoys negate the dicepool bonus of another emotitoy in use within (device rating) meters, rather than adding the bonus to its users' dicepool. Put two Furbys on the table next to each other and they instantly start communicating with each other, often to the exclusion of all other stimuli. This is just the logical extension of this into Shadowrun, and a solution that I feel works better than just adding six dice to the social dicepools of every NPC the face talks to. This would be independent of any notoriety penalties/worse starting attitudes for using an emotitoy in the first place. Tasers, Stick-n-shock ammo, and monofilament weapons do not add net hits to damage. Basically carrying over logic from capsule rounds and contact toxins to the other weapons that "just have to touch you". Prevents SnS from automatically being the best ammo type for every situation ever. Still on the fence about whether to move SnS to "large bore only", but I'll experiment with this and see if I like it better. I don't care if it's legal by the RAW, nobody starts with gear from WAR! I don't like to ban books outright, but player characters shouldn't be able to start play with top-of-the-line gear already. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 07:03 PM
Post
#198
|
|
|
Prime Runner Ascendant Group: Members Posts: 17,568 Joined: 26-March 09 From: Aurora, Colorado Member No.: 17,022 |
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jun 10 2011, 11:42 AM) I'll take his tea. It is a Blueberry/Raspberry Green/Black Tea Blend... Quite soothing actually. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 07:57 PM
Post
#199
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Members Posts: 10,289 Joined: 2-October 08 Member No.: 16,392 |
QUOTE (Loch @ Jun 10 2011, 01:50 PM) Having run one campaign pretty much laissez-faire, I have a short list of things I'd probably do differently next time: If two or more emotitoys are within (device rating) meters of one another, the emotitoys negate the dicepool bonus of another emotitoy in use within (device rating) meters, rather than adding the bonus to its users' dicepool. Question: How does it work if a R3 emotoy is 5 meters away from one that's R6? (Per how you wrote it, neither gets a benefit, but it's a very one sided conversation (the R3 is too far away to communicate with the R6)) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 10 2011, 08:12 PM
Post
#200
|
|
|
Prime Runner Group: Members Posts: 3,996 Joined: 1-June 10 Member No.: 18,649 |
My rule for Emotitoys is that they have to be touching the person whose mood they are sensing. Because they're designed as toys for kids. So they climb on the kid, and use complex biometrics to determine the mood of the child they are playing with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 6th June 2025 - 12:02 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.