[X] My Assistant

[Neraph]

"You look great for your age."
"What can I say; I'm resistant to age."

[Badmoodguy88]

It is up to interpretation but it seems that wile possessed your magic attribute is replaced with the spirits attribute and your natural magic powers work at the possession spirit's magic rating, meaning either more or less power. This would not let them be a thor shot though because of the mana ebb. Other fool hearty uses of fire become more appealing though. Being able to recline on a hot barbecue grill is interesting if not very useful. It is slightly less interesting but more useful to be able to do this and not burn.

[Draco18s]

Firemen. They'd be able to run into burning buildings and rescue people.

[Neraph]

Firemen. They'd be able to run into burning buildings and rescue people.

Magic 1? That's basically a R1 Fire Protection, since their Immunity Armor would be 2, then -1/2 makes it 1 again.

[Yerameyahu]

I still don't think it makes sense for a possessing spirit to use host powers at boosted Magic.

[Neraph]

I still don't think it makes sense for a possessing spirit to use host powers at boosted Magic.

Oh. I had to go back and find where someone talked about possession. Actually, when things get possessed, their special attributes are replaced with the spirit's and their powers are not usable, only the spirit's.

[Yerameyahu]

Right. There's been some talk before about using a hellhound's fire breath, etc., but the rules seem pretty clear: you get the spirit in a physically-controlled body. Powers wouldn't apply.

[Draco18s]

Magic 1? That's basically a R1 Fire Protection, since their Immunity Armor would be 2, then -1/2 makes it 1 again.

Minus half? No. Fire does not halve the armor granted by fire immunity. That would be stupid.

[Yerameyahu]

That *would* be stupid. Electricity doesn't halve Nonconductivity, either. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

Minus half? No. Fire does not halve the armor granted by fire immunity. That would be stupid.

Orly? Can you show me the rule for that?

[Makki]

Treat Fire damage as Physical damage, but Impact armor only protects against it
with half its value (round up). The fire resistance armor upgrade (p. 327) adds its full rating
to the armor value.

SR4A p164 only Impact armor gets halved

[Yerameyahu]

Neraph, you so crazy. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I just said it was the same as Nonconductivity.

[Neraph]

Neraph, you so crazy. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) I just said it was the same as Nonconductivity.

Ok, and I asked for a rule. Not just stating it, I'd like to have a page number quoted saying that Immunities are not affected by elemental effects. As far as I can remember, Immunities are treated as armor equal to twice the magic rating of the creature in question, armor is both ballistic and impact, so your Immunity armor would be halved, since it's treated as impact armor.

[Mooncrow]

It's poorly worded, but there's no other reason to use the word "full" there unless the resistant armor is not halved.

[Yerameyahu]

Indeed, there isn't. Neraph, I assumed that telling you what it was constituted a reference; why can't you ever look up anything yourself? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Draco18s]

Ok, and I asked for a rule. Not just stating it, I'd like to have a page number quoted saying that Immunities are not affected by elemental effects. As far as I can remember, Immunities are treated as armor equal to twice the magic rating of the creature in question, armor is both ballistic and impact, so your Immunity armor would be halved, since it's treated as impact armor.

Treated as armor. Not "provides ballistic and impact armor." All its saying is, that it provides dice the same way armor does, but only against that type of damage.

Heck, Immunity (Gauss Rifle), should it exist, wouldn't even be halved when shot with that type of weapon even though it says "halve all armor that isn't smart armor." It would, however, be subject to the -10 (but as it would be stacking with your worn armor and not be halved, it would still be better than not having it) because the -10 is a separate modifier.

[Neraph]

No.

Immunity says it's treated as "hardened armor," and Hardened Armor states that it can be modified by armor penetration as normal. Your argument is based off the phrase "treated as," which is a very weak argument. When you treat something as something else, you use the rules for the something else, modified by the rules for the something.

[Yerameyahu]

It's an interpretation, one of two. The one that makes *sense* is the more valid; why would Fire Immunity be halved, and if it were, why would the rules mention 'full'? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Mooncrow]

No.

Immunity says it's treated as "hardened armor," and Hardened Armor states that it can be modified by armor penetration as normal. Your argument is based off the phrase "treated as," which is a very weak argument. When you treat something as something else, you use the rules for the something else, modified by the rules for the something.

Actually, it says, "This immunity armor is treated as "hardened" protection (see Hardened Armor above)" - SR4A p. 295 If they had meant "treat as Hardened Armor", it would have been easier to say that.

[Jaid]

hmmm... the "hardened protection" line might be the strongest argument for not reducing it. after all, if you buy fire protection on your armor, iirc it says specifically that it wouldn't be cut in half, doesn't it?

[Yerameyahu]

That's what Makki quoted, and yes. By twisting the words, it's possible to conclude that it doesn't say that, but that's silly. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

It's not silly. The game says you get armor. Next sentence says that protection (referring to the armor rating) is treated as hardened. That hardened protection line is just an adjective describing the armor.

[Yerameyahu]

But it goes way out of its way, as Mooncrow says, to say 'hardened' (instead of 'Hardened Armor'); this clearly puts the focus on the ability to ignore damage below a threshold, and off of all other aspects. But, I was referring to the 'full' part from before, actually. In order to say that fire/chem/etc. protection is halved, you have to use the premise that they added the word 'full' for no reason at all.

[Neraph]

But it goes way out of its way, as Mooncrow says, to say 'hardened' (instead of 'Hardened Armor'); this clearly puts the focus on the ability to ignore damage below a threshold, and off of all other aspects. But, I was referring to the 'full' part from before, actually. In order to say that fire/chem/etc. protection is halved, you have to use the premise that they added the word 'full' for no reason at all.

It said protection because otherwise it would have used the word Armor three times in two short sentences. Also I see no reference to "full protection."

[Yerameyahu]

*shrug* If your argument is that the writers chose a thesaurus over writing clear *game* rules, now you're the one with the "very weak argument". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Anyway, the 'full' bit is mentioned a few posts back. You were there. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)