Arsenal pg 133


Arsenal errata


So a Manservant-3 can have 9 points of concealed armor or 9 points of standard armor and 9 points of smart armor. With either configuration the movement would be 4/12.
Of course the 9+9 armor configuration is very obvious in appearance.

Aha, that solves the problem of 'other' vehicle armor nicely: "A vehicle can either have normal armor or concealed armor." Therefore, it cannot have cyber, magical, clothing/personal, etc. types of armor. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) (No, English doesn't quite work that way, alas.)

oops, posted in the wrong place. dang it.

double post

If you put an armor jacket on this drone (since it can use most gear designed for a metahuman), would the armor stack with any armor modded to the drone (akin to regular armor over armored cyberlimbs)? Could the armor jacket act like a barrier?

That's what we're talking about. I say no, for various reasons:

• balance, and basic anti-foolery
• vehicles/vehicle armor aren't people/don't have people armor, and the rules don't exist to integrate them
• armor items are not barriers (this comes up with the Reinforce spell as well)
• "A vehicle can either have normal armor or concealed armor."
• vehicles have separate 'encumbrance' and strict armor cap rules, so it probably wouldn't matter. (These rules are arguably for vehicle armor, but vehicles arguably can't have any other kind, so it balances out. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) )

In terms of 'use metahuman gear'… they can. They can wear the armor/clothing, and they can wield weapons. It doesn't imply that they can benefit from the armor's Damage Resolution effects.

It is my belief that the designers intended the Otomo to wear armor and receive the benefits of that armor. Especially since the base model starts at 0 armor. There isn't really anything that states otherwise plainly.

The issue is does that normal armor stack with the vehicle armor, and I have always thought that it would. I have nothing to support this, just my opinion. So an Otomo with a lined coat 6/4 plus 6 vehicle armor would have 12/10 armor, but only 6 will work as vehicle armor.

Pretty much you just need to come to a consensus at your table.

It is my belief that they failed whatever their intention was regarding the vehicle/person integration, whether for armor, skills, whatever. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There *should* be good rules for it, if they want anthroform machines in the setting.

Off the cuff, I'd prefer anthroform machines to be a third (sub)category of vehicle, and their available vehicle mods should be explicitly laid out. For example, they'd be barred from vehicle armor entirely, but they can have cyber and personal armor; we'd also need to know how it works (vehicle armor has an explicit 'hardened' effect), but I'd be fine with simply saying 'they ignore stun'. Another option is that they can be like Warforged (heh): either cyber/personal armor, or vehicle armor.

Anything else requires rules for duct-taping flak jackets to cars.

Hmmm. Can you have a posession based mage summon a spirit to posess said android if it's a prepared vessel? Or perhaps even put a familiar into it? (I say a golem is cooler than an android!) Then add the armour!

Where are the rules for vehicle armor and the hardened effect? what page and book?

Vehicle armor does not have a hardened effect per se. Vehicles can merely ignore Stun Damage. Physical Damage not exceeding the modified armor value of any type is downgraded to Stun Damage. Vehicles can then ignore it. So de facto it has the same result.

The rules specifically state that any modified DV (Base + Net Hits) that does not exceed the vehicle's armor has no effect on the vehicle.

The rules ALSO state separately that vehicles are immune to stun.

The two rules are not intrinsically linked by the text of the books.



-k

Where is that point?

Discarding logic you're right.


Page 167, SR4A, last sentence of Vehicle Armor.

This is only a new rule, as opposed to just a reminder of a previous rule, if you ignore the first sentence of the same paragraph
If it functions like character armor, the damage is downgraded to stun if it does not exceed the armor value. Since it has already been established that vehicles do not suffer stun damage, it is ignored.

We don't disagree - that was my point. I was simply providing the attribution you were looking for.

While I quoted you it was actually meant as a rebuttal to KarmaInferno's stand point.

Ultimately they function the same for most purposes, but if something is immune to stun, A) why bother also mentioning that modified DV below the armor rating has no effect and B) why not state "because of A, you have B" instead of "You have A. You have B."



-k

Please an 18 armed spider-blimp with guns akimbo is way more fun.

Hm. Thinking about how cyberlimb armor would be used in defense, I propose this house rule:

You can have as much cyberarm armor as you want. Only one limb's armor can be added to the defense roll against any given attack.

What do ya'll think?



-k

Interesting, but I prefer the "average all the limbs to find the average amount" rules extension personally. It only requires you to broaden an existing rule as opposed to making a new one alltogether.

I was thinking he said that because you stick one arm up to block whatever attack. So someone swings that sword at you, you puts your giant Hellboy like arm in the way to take the hit while your slimmer more agile opposite arm slides the ceramic knife between a couple of ribs.