 Barriers versus Indirect Spells |
  |
 Aug 3 2007, 08:17 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 27-October 06 Member No.: 9,726  |
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. |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 3 2007, 10:07 AM
Post
#2
|
|||
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
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:
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. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 3 2007, 11:03 AM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Mr. Johnson Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,148 Joined: 27-February 06 From: UCAS Member No.: 8,314 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 3 2007, 02:01 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 27-October 06 Member No.: 9,726 |
Cool, just wanted to make sure I wasn't going bonkers. This game has a ton of rules in it!
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 3 2007, 02:04 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
Actually, it might be better if you did go bonkers :silly:
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 3 2007, 02:13 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 32 Joined: 27-October 06 Member No.: 9,726 |
I got through about half of the matrix rules last night, so I think I am inclined to agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 3 2007, 02:43 PM
Post
#7
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 327 Joined: 28-January 06 Member No.: 8,209 |
It's certainly less painful. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 3 2007, 04:17 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Prime Runner Group: Banned Posts: 3,732 Joined: 1-September 05 From: Prague, Czech Republic Member No.: 7,665 |
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:
-Frank |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 3 2007, 05:02 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 472 Joined: 14-June 07 Member No.: 11,909 |
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. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 3 2007, 09:17 PM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Isn't 'Blast' considered an Elemental effect in SR4? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 3 2007, 09:18 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Technomancer Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,638 Joined: 2-October 02 From: Champaign, IL Member No.: 3,374 |
Yeah, but this is the spell actually named Blast, not a Blast Elemental Effect.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 4 2007, 12:24 AM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Immoral Elf Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 |
Ah yes! D'oh! :oops: :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 11th February 2025 - 12:22 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.