[X] My Assistant

[Yerameyahu]

Oh, I thought you were calling me nuts or something. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Thought I'd fallen into Bizarro Dumpshock.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Oh, I thought you were calling me nuts or something. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) Thought I'd fallen into Bizarro Dumpshock.

Naah... Your not nuts... not much anyways... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

I mean, nobody said vehicles had Hardened Armor in the first place, so I was confused to be argue with.

[KarmaInferno]

Because a Vehicle cannot take Stun, not because the Vehicle has "Hardened Armor."

The attack fails because the rules say so.

You may INFER that this is because of the rule that vehicles don't have a stun track. It's not even a bad inference. But it's not actually stated.

Two separate rules.

I, for one, call it Hardened Armor because it has the same net effect. Having two nearly identical rules items with different names just bothers my design sense.



-k

[Draco18s]

I, for one, call it Hardened Armor because it has the same net effect. Having two nearly identical rules items with different names just bothers my design sense.

Ah!

But what happens if you cast the Armor spell on a vehicle?
What happens if you cast the Armor spell on a drake (in drake form)?

Are they functionally different then?

I.e. does the "hardened" armor of the vehicle still work the same way? That is, will the vehicle begin to take stun?

[UmaroVI]

Draco has exactly why it matters. Someone with Hardened Armor 8 and then Armor 1 (say, from an Armor spell) will take (Stun) damage from a 9 DV attack. A vehicle with Armor 8 and then an extra Armor 1 (again, say from Armor - although remember the Object Resistance, QQ) would take nothing from a 9 DV attack.