Tymeaus: Where in the rules does it explicitly state that elemental weapons are exempt from ITNW?

The place where it says that ITNW is treated exactly like Hardened Armor

There is no such place. They say to treat it as "hardened" protection. You can pretend that said hardened armor in your House Rule though.

Just Sayin'

There is no such place. They say to treat it as "hardened" protection. You can pretend that said hardened armor in your House Rule though.

Just Sayin'

There is no such place. They say to treat it as "hardened" protection. You can pretend that said hardened armor in your House Rule though.

Just Sayin'

This Immunity Armor
We are talking about Immunity Armor, not hardened armor, not regular armor, but Immunity Armor.

is treated as
The armor is treated in a certain way. That means that some rules will apply while others will not. If the authors had intended this to be the same, they would have simply written "The Critter has Hardened Armor equal to 2 x Magic against certain attacks." Without more, we don't know what those limitations are, and therefore should apply the appropriate rules as written.

"hardened" protection
This is a reference to what the "Immunity Armor" is treated as. Interesting that the author uses quotes around the word "hardened" and writes "protection" instead of "armor," as it is used in the "Hardened Armor" entry. Quotes are often used to indicate that a word is being used in a nonstandard way (or for a variety of other purposes: indicating speech, citing materials, providing a nickname, use distinction, or irony. None of these apply). Therefore, we are left to assume that this isn't "Hardened Armor," but that the author intends to use it as illustrative of some elements.

(see Hardened Armor above),
A parenthetical, intended to explain or reference some other part of the book. In this case, the author is letting you know that you can see this rule immediately above the present one. Very convenient.

meaning that
The author is introducing an explanatory phrase, to clarify what he meant by "treated as". Lets read on.

if
A conditional statement, generally in the format "if...then" or "if...then...else".

the Damage Value
This appears to be the first element of the condition. We can look up Damage Value elsewhere, the author is assuming that this word, with unusual capitalization, has specific meaning to the reader.

does not exceed
If the Damage Value is equal to or less than some as-yet-unspecified value, some condition will be satisfied.

the Armor,
This is the value we are comparing to "the Damage Value". Note the presence of the comma, it indicates that this is either the beginning of a list or that the condition is at an end. Since the only other "Armor" we see in this sentence is "Immunity Armor", it very likely refers to that value. Note also the lack of the word "rating" to modify "Armor."

then
We now know that the condition is either met or not, if it is met, proceed. Otherwise, we'll have to look for an "else" or some other conditional context.

the attack
This is implicitly defined, however knowledgeable readers will know that "Damage Value" implies that there was an attack that occurred.

automatically
Without other action.

does no damage.
Will not damage the target, no way, no how.

In response I'll just quote biccat since apparently you lot don't know how to read.

The author would have written "treated as hardened armor (see hardened armor)" and not "treated as "hardened" protection (see hardened armor)" if he had meant your interpretation.

I'm not sure why it's hard to understand that rules can be similar and refer to each other as examples of similar effects without being identical.

the Armor,
This is the value we are comparing to "the Damage Value". Note the presence of the comma, it indicates that this is either the beginning of a list or that the condition is at an end. Since the only other "Armor" we see in this sentence is "Immunity Armor", it very likely refers to that value. Note also the lack of the word "rating" to modify "Armor."

The armor rating is modified by the attack’s AP value (see Armor Penetration, p. 162).

If the modified Damage Value of an attack does not exceed the Armor rating (modified by Armor Penetration), then it bounces harmlessly off the critter; don’t even bother to make a Damage Resistance Test. Otherwise, Hardened Armor provides both Ballistic and Impact armor equal to its rating.

In response I'll just quote biccat since apparently you lot don't know how to read.

The author would have written "treated as hardened armor (see hardened armor)" and not "treated as "hardened" protection (see hardened armor)" if he had meant your interpretation.

I'm not sure why it's hard to understand that rules can be similar and refer to each other as examples of similar effects without being identical.

Parenthetical examples are just parenthetical examples and the actual text in the rule trumps them. That second part of the sentence that you admit is contradictory to your interpretation? That's the actual rule.

In front of me is my LE SR4A book (#976) page 295:

Under Immunity to normal weapons it states that
1. Just like Hardened Armor if DV of the weapon does not exceed the Armor rating no damage is done.
2. This armor rating is treated normally for damage resistance checks.

While it does not say it is modified like hardened armor, it also does not state anything about modfied DV as opposed to the base DV of the weapon. However it makes sense not to repeat the rules, so in parenthis it says see hardened armor.


So what are arguing back and forth over again? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

I cannot agree with your interpretation in the least. If they wanted it it be different than the Hardened Armor Explanation, they would not have directed you to that section. Similar, after all, means they have much in common. Your interpretation continuously points out that they are not similar in the least, so how can you now say that they are similar, but not identical...

Just to poke my head in, in case anyone is curious about this, regarding Missions... Until their is a clear FAQ/Eratta that states it one way or another, we define "Normal" damage as "Non-Magical" damage. THis isn't official, this isn't a blanket CGL statement on the subject, but since folks may ask me about it down the line, as the current Coordinator, that's my own call on it.

Bull

Bull, that doesn't answer the question. The Question is "Does the -1/2 AP of Elemental weapons (Tazers, SnS and Laser) modify the Armor given by ItNW before checking to see if the Spirit takes damage."

Do other sources of AP have effect? Bullets, Gauss, etc?

You mean in Missions, correct?

Yes, it was an expansion on the question of the -half AP that elemental weapons have.