The definitive answer to Spirits and Stun Weapons, Really. Options

[Lanlaorn]

Nah, slay/slaughter spirit/s is a much better idea (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Actually the dev FAQ says that Control Thoughts (and other mind manipulations) work on Spirits so IMO that would be the best choice. Even a Force 12 spirit is rolling only 12 dice on it's willpower check and once controlled it doesn't get another chance to break free for Force (of the spell) combat turns, so yea. Telling it to kill the mage that summoned it will probably be in line with its own desires too, heh.

And a Magician really should have at least one Combat or Manipulation spell, to go to the Matrix analogy again this would be like a Hacker without Exploit or Spoof.

[Walpurgisborn]

FYI: I was mistaken. Force 6 spirits (and up) are immune. Force 6 spirits are (generally considered) not that hard to summon.

oh

ummm

sorry.

[TommyTwoToes]

For me, its not so much about how the rules are written (and I know someone will yell "MOAR RAW!") but rather the fluff. I can't justify a SnS round affecting an Air Spirit any more than a baseball would. Nor can I see how a laser would harm a fire spirit, but thats just me.

[Traul]

Instead I guess it's more fun to:
1. Interpret the rules in a way that makes SnS rounds OP as hell.
2. Complain about how powerful SnS rounds are and ban them from your games.

You got it all wrong. Spirit zapping is the only case where SnS are not overpowered, but just fair. Your interpretation does not make SnS more balanced, it removes the only reason to keep it in the game.

As for SnS fixes, why not make it a shotgun round? After all, those batteries must take space, and once you cannot load it in pistols it sounds more balanced for its nuyen price.

[TommyTwoToes]

You got it all wrong. Spirit zapping is the only case where SnS are not overpowered, but just fair. Your interpretation does not make SnS more balanced, it removes the only reason to keep it in the game.

As for SnS fixes, why not make it a shotgun round? After all, those batteries must take space, and once you cannot load it in pistols it sounds more balanced for its nuyen price.

And when you glitch while firing, the rest of the players get to say "In Soviet Russia, Stick-n-Shock shocks you!"

[Shinobi Killfist]

This, to me captures the core of why I do not allow such weapons to have special dispensation against ItNW.

So you don't allow it because you want magic to be immune to the mundanes. Now only if the mundanes could be immune to magic..

Doesn't seem very balanced to me, I can make things that can effect you and which you have no defense against and you can't do anything about it. Oh and everything you can do I can both duplicate and defend against. Apparently the Spellslingers Union bribed the right officials.

[DireRadiant]

It has Skillz, Attributes, Armor and Damage Tracks.

I have Skillz, Attributes, and DV.

I can shoot It.

[Lanlaorn]

I think the idea was to have Drones be a huge hassle for Mages in the way Spirits are for mundanes. But it's a lot easier to beat the object threshold than to beat the ITNW so that didn't work out.

[BlueMax]

Apparently the Spellslingers Union bribed the right officials.

As a Member of Spellslingers local #42, Seattle, I deny these allegations. We would not now, nor have we ever bribed anyone. What our Aztlan brothers did to the officials families while on vacation has nothing to do with our union.

BlueMax

[biccat]

The one mentioned in the rules for Hardened Armor has, you know the rules ITNW tells you to see for how "hardened protection" wotks [sic].

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.

[Lucyfersam]

So you don't allow it because you want magic to be immune to the mundanes. Now only if the mundanes could be immune to magic..

Doesn't seem very balanced to me, I can make things that can effect you and which you have no defense against and you can't do anything about it. Oh and everything you can do I can both duplicate and defend against. Apparently the Spellslingers Union bribed the right officials.

I don't much care for balance actually, mundanes should not be balanced against magic. That's why it's magic, it's better than mundane. If I want a system bowing down to balance as all important, I'll go play DnD 4th ed.


Besides, A drone or vehicle system is mundane and will still raise hell with a magician even if it has spirits, as they are not going to be much more effective against a good drone than they are against the spirit, and the drone then is mostly free to focus on the mage.

[biccat]

There are a limited number of definitions of Armor in Shadowrun, each of which was treated in the argument. The statement you are making, if I have you correctly, is that Immunity to Normal Weapons is a new, special, and differently-ruled type of Armor?

No, it's the same armor as everything else, only a different type (much like an Armored Jacket is a different type of armor than Armored Clothing). ITNW has an "Armor" number and a "Armor rating" number. The "Armor" number is what you start with, "Armor rating" is the armor modified by the A.P.

Usually the book refers to either "ballistic armor" or "impact armor", but there are a few cases where it just refers to "armor", intending it to cover both.

[BlueMax]

I don't much care for balance actually, mundanes should not be balanced against magic. That's why it's magic, it's better than mundane. If I want a system bowing down to balance as all important, I'll go play DnD 4th ed.


Besides, A drone or vehicle system is mundane and will still raise hell with a magician even if it has spirits, as they are not going to be much more effective against a good drone than they are against the spirit, and the drone then is mostly free to focus on the mage.

Lucy,
I too don't care for balance. What does happen though, is that if its pointless to play something , nobody will play it. And if nobody plays it, page space for that aspect of the game is wasted. I know the problem, our group has a stack of mages and technomancers now, with one mundane.

How will a drone bother a mage? Cast force 9 combat spell, beat threshold 3(or 4) watch drone go boom. Right?

BlueMax

[Ascalaphus]

I think the Anniversary edition makes it even more obvious how ItNW works;

Hardened Armor
Hardened armor is even tougher than normal armor. 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.

Immunity
A critter with Immunity has an enhanced resistance to a certain type of attack or affliction. The critter gains an "Armor rating" equal to twice its Magic against that damage. This Immunity Armor is treated as "hardened" protection (see Hardened Armor above), meaning that if the Damage Value does not exceed the Armor, then the attack automatically does no damage. Additionally, this "armor rating" is added to the damage resistance test as normal armor.
Immunity to Age (...)
Immunity to Normal Weapons: This immunity applies to all weapons that are not magical (weapon foci, spells, adept or critter powers). If the critter has the Allergy weakness, then the immunity does not apply to attacks made using the allergen.

Underlines mine. These two paragraphs are literally right after each other on the same page, so I don't think there's any reason to say they weren't meant to refer to each other less than completely. The Hardened Armor passage is also in the Critter powers section, so I don't think they were confusing it with "real" hardened armor.

So yeah, if a weapon has AP: (-100%), that means it would bypass ItNW. Does that make SnS silly? Sure, but fixing that is a matter for house rules.

[SkepticInc]

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.

Your semantic argument is without flaw, and it's end result is that you are treating Immunity to Normal Weapons as a new type of Armor to go with the Armor, Hardened Armor, and Mystic Armor critter powers. You are presenting the exact argument that I was attempting to prove or disprove by making a mathematical-type proof. Basically, if what you say is the case (as I thought), then prove it by re-deriving it using the other rules in the books. This exercise lead me to a different conclusion, but if you don't agree with the concept of a proof-style argument holding weight here, that's fine.

[Lucyfersam]

Lucy,
I too don't care for balance. What does happen though, is that if its pointless to play something , nobody will play it. And if nobody plays it, page space for that aspect of the game is wasted. I know the problem, our group has a stack of mages and technomancers now, with one mundane.

How will a drone bother a mage? Cast force 9 combat spell, beat threshold 3(or 4) watch drone go boom. Right?

BlueMax

I'll grant that the threshold system is not quite as strong as I'd like it to be (though drones are defined on the table to be 5+, not 3 or 4, which is not trivial, and for combat drones I typically use that + to make them 6 as I figure they are designed with high tech materials in general and done even more so for the added magic protection).

However, running things the way I do, I have 1 full mage, 1 mystic adept, 1 adept, 3 mundanes with ware, and 1 otaku (I re-wrote the technomancer rules because I hate them with a passion). So I guess it comes down to group style at that point.

[Ol' Scratch]

Wait. People were assuming that spirits were either immune to stun damage based on fiction? (Sorry, I kinda skimmed over the original post. All those annoying spoiler tags were making me want to punch someone in the face.) Seriously. Stop assuming fluff text, stories, and badly written fiction equates to rules. They never, ever, ever do. And in far too many cases, those authors are pulling it all straight out of their nether regions simply because they think it sounds "kewl."

(And why, oh why, out of all those damn spoiler tags, is the reference to the Chicago text not cited?)

[Lanlaorn]

Your semantic argument is without flaw, and it's end result is that you are treating Immunity to Normal Weapons as a new type of Armor to go with the Armor, Hardened Armor, and Mystic Armor critter powers. You are presenting the exact argument that I was attempting to prove or disprove by making a mathematical-type proof. Basically, if what you say is the case (as I thought), then prove it by re-deriving it using the other rules in the books. This exercise lead me to a different conclusion, but if you don't agree with the concept of a proof-style argument holding weight here, that's fine.

Your argument is not "mathematical-type" and it's actually somewhat insulting to mathematical proofs to even insinuate that.

Rules must be interpreted as they are written not "derived" by linking unrelated other rules into a conglomerate that vaguely resembles what you want it to say. God I wish the image tags worked with Monday's XKCD comic. In exception based rules systems you can't even pretend to work on prior precedent like this.

[Doc Chase]

Rules must be interpreted as they are written not "derived" by linking unrelated other rules into a conglomerate that vaguely resembles what you want it to say.

Why?

The question here is simple enough - Do projectile weapons with special resistances to Impact armor (SnS, stun batons, firin' mah lazorz) affect spirits more readily despite ITNW?

One field says yes - that by definition of armor rules, combat rules, critter rules and spirit rules, these weapons stand a chance against spirits (albeit not fantastic ones).

One field says no - ITNW is a class all but separate from all other armors.

Which field is the correct one? Both have taken the rules as written and interpreted them differently.

[SkepticInc]

Your argument is not "mathematical-type" and it's actually somewhat insulting to mathematical proofs to even insinuate that.

Rules must be interpreted as they are written not "derived" by linking unrelated other rules into a conglomerate that vaguely resembles what you want it to say. God I wish the image tags worked with Monday's XKCD comic. In exception based rules systems you can't even pretend to work on prior precedent like this.

I read the xkcd comic, and it was quite funny. My arguments are certainly not rigorously mathematical, but the same type of if-than logic was what I was aiming for.

Rules, to be interperted as written, must use terms with specific meaning. These terms will refer to other rules, and once the logic governing those rules has been decided upon, their definitions can be applied to the rule in question.

The exception-based rule system argument you present is valid, so the outcome you are championing requires INWp to be a new type of "hardened" that is a self-enclosed exception. Given that it references Hardened Armor, and then summarizes that entry, it can be argued that it is not an exception, but a reference. If you accept that conclusion, then the proof holds out. If you don't, then your result holds out. I did my best to show why it should be treated as a reference.

[SkepticInc]

(Sorry, I kinda skimmed over the original post. All those annoying spoiler tags were making me want to punch someone in the face.)

(And why, oh why, out of all those damn spoiler tags, is the reference to the Chicago text not cited?)

Sorry, I used the spoiler tags to keep the entry from being gigantic. I didn't realize people found them annoying.

The reference to the Chicago text was not cited because I don't have Bug City.

[SkepticInc]

However, running things the way I do, I have 1 full mage, 1 mystic adept, 1 adept, 3 mundanes with ware, and 1 otaku

You have that slightly wrong. You have 1 full mage, 1 mystic adept, 1 adept, 1 otaku, 2 mundanes with ware, and 1 mundane with gear and no ware.

[Yerameyahu]

It seems clear that ItnW is anything not magical, regardless of being taser, laser, bullet, or blade. I'm not sure that AP affects it, but I can see why people might decide that it does.

I would prefer to say that you need to beat the immunity with Base DV + Net Hits, but if playtesting shows that to be inadequate, allowing AP would be reasonable. If further playtesting shows *that* to be problematic, you could consider capping AP (-3, or -half, etc?).

[Draco18s]

I don't much care for balance actually, mundanes should not be balanced against magic. That's why it's magic, it's better than mundane. If I want a system bowing down to balance as all important, I'll go play DnD 4th ed.

See, the idea of balance is an interesting one.* In the context of ShadowRun the fulcrum should be that each option (in this case: mundane weapons, spells, spirits, etc.) each have something that they're good at taking down (and is not itself) and is weak to something else.

E.G. Rock beats paper, paper beats scissors, and sc--

Er. Wow, my head is clearly somewhere odd. Let me try again.

E.G. Rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper, and paper beats rock.

Which means even if it takes paper 3 turns to beat rock, but scissors only needs one to beat paper, there's still balance. Paper beats rock and scissors does not.

Mages can beat spirits, yes, but they also summon spirits thereby invalidating the idea of balance that mages are good against spirits (in RPS terms its trying to argue that Rock beats Rock--it doesn't work that way). If mages are "weak" to drones, then what are drones "weak" to? Mundanes? Hardly! Drones are mundane, non-magical, lead-throwing machines, just like the cybersam! Except slightly more resistant to some classes of spells (and weaker to others).

Spirits are supposed to be the support a mage brings in in order to beat another mage. A mage can't throw spells at a mage very well, mundanes can't identify the mage (so can't geek him first). A spirit on the other hand is "strong" versus mages (due to having powers that mages can't counter). Unfortunately it's also "strong" versus mundanes, throwing our entire RPS model out the window.

*Alternatively we can make everything super-overpowered in such a way that it will take decades for people to figure out which combo is the most overpowered, at which point the game will have already died from natural causes.

[Mäx]

I'll grant that the threshold system is not quite as strong as I'd like it to be (though drones are defined on the table to be 5+, not 3 or 4, which is not trivial, and for combat drones I typically use that + to make them 6 as I figure they are designed with high tech materials in general and done even more so for the added magic protection).

Thats only a problem for direct combat spell, indirect ones fry droned nicely.