Immunity to Normal Weapons, ... and Armor Penetration. Options

[Bigity]

The slightly different paragraphs use...

a) 'Damage Value' and
b) 'modified Damage Value'

If 'Damage Value' does not reference the 'modified Damage Value' from the "Hardened Armor" rule (and therefore the complete rule), then it must be the Base DV.



If so, then why does it directly reference the "Hardened Armor" rule (which, BTW, also means, that it does say 'hardened armor')?

Bye
Thanee

And another example of some issues with SR4A in general. A confusing section of text leads to another confusing section of text (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


Because it uses the same sub-rule(?) in that if the DV doesn't exceed, yada yada. Of course as we see above, both sections use different working and add some more mud to the water. If it were a direct reference, why repeat the next two sentences (about the DV vs armor rating and that the armor is added the same as normal armor?).



In my opinion this is one of those silly things that should have been caught in editing/proofing, or even playtesting. Sometimes they slip through.

Official errata being a concern for the current license holder would resolve alot of the issues the game currently has.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

And another example of some issues with SR4A in general. A confusing section of text leads to another confusing section of text (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)


Because it uses the same sub-rule(?) in that if the DV doesn't exceed, yada yada. Of course as we see above, both sections use different working and add some more mud to the water. If it were a direct reference, why repeat the next two sentences (about the DV vs armor rating and that the armor is added the same as normal armor?).



In my opinion this is one of those silly things that should have been caught in editing/proofing, or even playtesting. Sometimes they slip through.

Official errata being a concern for the current license holder would resolve alot of the issues the game currently has.

But see, I don't see the above, as you indicate. ITNW works JUST like Hardened Armor. Which means that AP applies. Don't shoot a Spirit with Flechettes, you will only cry. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Irion]

If so, then why does it directly reference the "Hardened Armor" rule (which, BTW, also means, that it does say 'hardened armor')?

Because the rules are similar. The same reason you are send from free spirit powers to adepts.

As a matter of fact, it is not stated what happens if the DV is higher than armor. This you only find in the hardened armor sections. So it does make sense to say so.

[Draco18s]

Alright, so if the reference to the other power (Hardened Armor) is to be referenced, then by taking the reference out, the rules should change, yes?
And that if the reference is superfluous, then it can be removed without harm to the section.

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, 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.

Simplifying a bit farther, as we don't need a reference to hardened armor at all...

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. If the Damage Value does not
exceed the Immunity Armor, then the attack automatically
does no damage. Additionally, this “armor rating” is added
to the damage resistance test as normal armor.

Here's two things I see:

If the base DV of the attack doesn't exceed the Immunity Armor value, it fails.
In addition to that it gains an armor value against ALL ATTACKS, regardless of if they're against the immunity type or not, to all of it's damage resistance rolls.

Oops. Something broke:
1) we no longer have a "modified" DV value (i.e. net hits) or a modified armor value (although Iron says there shouldn't be)
2) suddenly a critter that has Immunity (Fire) just gained twice its magic in armor dice against bullets.

[Neraph]

1) The whole hole was empty of dirt.
The word you're looking for is whole as in the whole pie not hole as in the doughnut hole.

I've given up trying to grammatize him. I just chew glass through it.

The armor you get through ITNW is treated as if it were hardened protection. It is not treated as hardened armor, because it isn't hardened armor. Just the armor points ("immunity armor") are treated as hardened. In my eyes that is pretty obvious?! Otherwise they would have written something like "ITNW is treated as Hardened Armor", right?

This is a false claim because the term "armor" is used to refer to ItNW 5 times - you're taking one place where they use the word "protection" and building an argument around a simple paraphrase.

EDIT:

Because it uses the same sub-rule(?) in that if the DV doesn't exceed, yada yada. Of course as we see above, both sections use different working and add some more mud to the water. If it were a direct reference, why repeat the next two sentences (about the DV vs armor rating and that the armor is added the same as normal armor?).

The next two sentences are there to add a general idea about how the Power works and it references the relevant rules for a complete understanding. It's called paraphrasing. You guys should seriously look up that definition.

[Adarael]

This discussion, like the "moving wards" discussion, has been gone over at LEAST five times during my tenure on these boards.

[Draco18s]

This discussion, like the "moving wards" discussion, has been gone over at LEAST five times during my tenure on these boards.

Indeed. At least two others have involved Iron and his unsupportable position.

[Irion]

@Draco18s
Yeah, the only thing you managed so far was finding one typo.

If the base DV of the attack doesn't exceed the Immunity Armor value, it fails.
In addition to that it gains an armor value against ALL ATTACKS, regardless of if they're against the immunity type or not, to all of it's damage resistance rolls.

No, read again.
Second sentance. If you do not get the armor, you do not have it. So the rule does not apply.

Oops. Something broke:
1) we no longer have a "modified" DV value (i.e. net hits) or a modified armor value (although Iron says there shouldn't be)
2) suddenly a critter that has Immunity (Fire) just gained twice its magic in armor dice against bullets.

1)Wait what? Im wrong, because I am right?
2)No, it does not. See above.

And by the way, you know that for my argument to be true the immunity rules need to have different outcomes than the hardened armor rules, you know?
(No net hits used and no AP used)
So your 1 does prove my point kind of, thank you for that.
@Neraph

The next two sentences are there to add a general idea about how the Power works and it references the relevant rules for a complete understanding. It's called paraphrasing. You guys should seriously look up that definition.

Paraphrasing? One sentance with one sentance, really?
And of course be leaving one word and one bracket out giving it a different meaning?
Really?

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

The point is, Irion, it does not give a different meaning. You seem to somehow miss this. Again; ITNW functions JUST LIKE Hardened Armor. Which is, guess what, Hardened Protection. It all means the exact same thing.

[Neraph]

@Neraph

Paraphrasing? One sentance with one sentance, really?
And of course be leaving one word and one bracket out giving it a different meaning?
Really?

Yes, it's called paraphrasing. And no, your attempt to insult my intelligence does not constitute a valid debate method.

[Irion]

@Tymeaus Jalynsfein
Considering game balance: Yes.
Considering streamlining: Maybe. (Bypassing immunity with a called shot does not sound like a good idea)
Considering common sense: Half/Half.

The point I am making is quite simple. There are rules given in the immunity section.
Since we all agree that rules given explicitly overwrite everything, if we are discussing RAW, there would need to be a good reason not to use them

And hardened Armor and hardened protection is actually used just this one time. So why use a different word, if you going to use the other word right afterwards?
What you make is just an assumption. I tried to give interpretation without assumptions I can not prove.
Without thinking about what was maybe thought or not. Just the rules as they are written.
And if you do that, you end up with my interpretation.

If it would say:

This
Immunity Armor is treated as “hardened” protection (see
Hardened Armor above).

I would totally end up with your interpretation.

The problem is, that I would need any saying in the rule that

,meaning that if the Damage Value
does not exceed the Armor, then the attack automatically
does no damage.

does not give me the meaning of the hardned armor rules for immunities.

Which you guess is quite hard, since they even used the word "to mean".

[Neraph]

And hardened Armor and hardened protection is actually used just this one time. So why use a different word, if you going to use the other word right afterwards?
What you make is just an assumption. I tried to give interpretation without assumptions I can not prove.
Without thinking about what was maybe thought or not. Just the rules as they are written.
And if you do that, you end up with my interpretation.

So basically your argument is based on your ignorance of the words "paraphrase" and "recapitulation."

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

So basically your argument is based on your ignorance of the words "paraphrase" and "recapitulation."

Looks like it... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

I mean, don't get me wrong Irion. I'm not trying to call you out or anything, but I simply disagree with your viewpoint from a mechanical and literary (which are the only two things that count in this discussion) viewpoint. Your view is theoretically possible, but it's such a stretch and requires an ignorance of simple literary devices it is made invalid.

[Draco18s]

1)Wait what? Im wrong, because I am right?

Yep, because my point was "if the hardened armor reference is removed, the rules must change." By removing the reference, the rule came out to exactly what you're saying it should be (no change). Thus you're wrong. ("Yes, I have no bananas")

[Amazeroth]

This is a false claim because the term "armor" is used to refer to ItNW 5 times - you're taking one place where they use the word "protection" and building an argument around a simple paraphrase.

You are starting to assume things about me, which you don't actually know. That is not how you discuss. Not that I fullfill all requirements for a perfect discussion, but I don't like when people start to assume stuff about me, they just don't know about.

You say I just take this one word and build an argument around a simple paraphrase. No, I don't, but I can see how one could perceive it that way. It is not like I am reading the text and going through the words 'til I find the wort "protection" and then I say "YES! Nailed it! Now I can get those suckers!".

No, I actually think they use the word protection here to show that they aren't talking about "Hardened armor" in general. They are just trying to describe Immunity Armor as some kind of hardened protection, because in a way it just works like hardened armor, but not as a whole. At least that is what I understand, when I read the text.

THAT SAID, I just looked up the german rulebook. I know, this maybe does not count as much for most of you guys, but the german rulebook seems to support Neraph's viewpoint. Because in the german rules Immunity is directly compared to Hardened Armor and not some kind of "hardened protection". There is no paraphrase here.
Still they forget to mention "modified damage value" or "modified armor rating", but as it is directly compared to hardened armor, it is probably safe to assume that they just forgot to mention it here.

[Yerameyahu]

I am just shocked to hear confirmation of the obvious. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Amazeroth]

I am just shocked to hear confirmation of the obvious. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I can't tell if you are being arrogant/ignorant or trying to be funny. No offense.

[Irion]

@Draco18s
No bananas but a flawed logic.
Why should the rule come out
differently?

Try talking out referances in other texts. Information will be missing, but the information given by the text will not change.
If I take out a referance and my interpretation changes than there are two possibilities:
1. The author made a mistake. (Not arguable in RAW)
2. My interpretation is wrong.

@Neraph

Your view is theoretically possible, but it's such a stretch and requires an ignorance of simple literary devices it is made invalid.

Thats where you are wrong. I do not even make a single assumption, exept that the author was capable/not wrong.
If you consider this a streatch it is you saying so, not me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Well, like I said I did not came up with it myself. I also was told the interpretation. Could not believe it myself. Thought how could somebody be that wrong about something that obvious?
Well, after I thought of it, turns out the guy wasn't. Reminded me of a mathematical riddle once published in a newspaper.

(Since I guess you want the riddle now, here it is:
You are in a game show. There are three doors. Behind one is a price, behind the other two is a nothing. You select one and the gamemaster opens an other one revealing "no price".
What is the propability for the price to be in your door now?)

[Neraph]

@Neraph

Thats where you are wrong. I do not even make a single assumption, exept that the author was capable/not wrong.
If you consider this a streatch it is you saying so, not me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I figure it is a stretch because the simplest answer is by following an understanding of literary devices to interpret it rather than a strictest-linguistics-possible exact reading of something - and the only reason I suggest it is because it directly references other rules sections. If that reference were not there the outcome would be different.

THAT SAID, I just looked up the german rulebook. I know, this maybe does not count as much for most of you guys, but the german rulebook seems to support Neraph's viewpoint. Because in the german rules Immunity is directly compared to Hardened Armor and not some kind of "hardened protection". There is no paraphrase here.
Still they forget to mention "modified damage value" or "modified armor rating", but as it is directly compared to hardened armor, it is probably safe to assume that they just forgot to mention it here.

Interessant.

(Since I guess you want the riddle now, here it is:
You are in a game show. There are three doors. Behind one is a price, behind the other two is a nothing. You select one and the gamemaster opens an other one revealing "no price".
What is the propability for the price to be in your door now?)

Still technically 33%.

[Yerameyahu]

Amazeroth, can't it be both? I've been around, and my experience is that this is one of the most settled questions in all of SR4 (which is chock full of interpretation fights). I'm not insulting anyone when I observe that the vast majority understand ITNW to be Hardened Armor, to suffer AP, etc.

Aw, you failed the Monty Haul problem, Neraph. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Irion]

@Yerameyahu

Aw, you failed the Monty Haul problem, Neraph.

If you consider using the word technically as failing...


@Amazeroth

Still they forget to mention "modified damage value" or "modified armor rating", but as it is directly compared to hardened armor, it is probably safe to assume that they just forgot to mention it here.

Mhm, need to check. I thought they fixed that too.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Mhm, need to check. I thought they fixed that too.

There was never any need to fix it. It was never broken in the first place. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Draco18s]

@Draco18s
No bananas but a flawed logic.
Why should the rule come out
differently?

By removing a rule, the outcome should invariably change.

1 + 2 + 3 = 6. But if you remove the "+2" the most it can ever be is 4.

Try talking out referances in other texts. Information will be missing, but the information given by the text will not change.
If I take out a referance and my interpretation changes than there are two possibilities:
1. The author made a mistake. (Not arguable in RAW)
2. My interpretation is wrong.

Really? So you've perfected the universal lossless compression algorithm? That works on random data?
That is, you can remove a reference and leave the same information, and do this repeatedly over and over again, and the meaning of the text will never change.

Aw, you failed the Monty Haul problem, Neraph. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Monty Hall.

[Yerameyahu]

No, it's Monty Haul, because this is an RPG forum. Duh.