The rules and tables for Smart armor have me a little confused, and it hasn't been addressed in the errata or Dumpshock. Would someone care to dumb it down for me please. For now I am just going to use house rule.

Ah well... i think it works that way: Smart Armor gets added to your vehicles armor. It cannot be disguised.

If someone is shooting at you with a heavy weapon (Rockets, missiles, grenades, Railgun, Assaultcannon etc.) basically everything which uses giant projectiles (Or as the book says DV10 and up) you roll Smartarmor rating dice and every hit changes the AP value of the incoming hit +1.

After that the real impact takes place and your smartarmor loses one application. A Glitch lowers its rating.

For example: you have a car with 10 body, 12 armor and 6 SmartArmor. Some shoots at you with a anti-vehicle rocket (LAW) and would hit 12 DV+(nethits) -6AP:
SmartArmor activates, you roll 6 dice (Say 3 hits, lucky you) the incoming damage is now 12DV(+nethits) -3AP. You can now resist it using armor and body as normal. Your Smartarmor will now only work 5 times until reloaded. (No worry you car will explode before that *g*)

EDIT: Just read it again... and it seems there is one thing more: Against smaller weapons it just lowers the AP value by its rating... without any loss of uses. Hm never used that... now i am puzzled too. How would that work? And for the love of GOD... would a rating 20 smartarmor system GIVE you 18 dice against a normal heavy gun AP-2...+20=AP+18.

Quick and dirty:

Smart armor has two applications beyond increasing your vehicle's armor rating:

1.) It reduces the armor piercing capability of ammunition used against it. In other words:

(E)AP = AP + SAR (where (E)AP= effective AP; AP=listed AP for the weapon; SAR=Rating of the smart armor modification)

2.) It can be used as a weapon against tarets in close proximity to the vehicle (as lon as the vehicle is rigged and has the "proper sensors", whatever that may mean). In such a case the damage value is determined by the current rating of the smart armor modification:

DV=©SAR (where ©SAR=current smart armor rating; DV=Damage value of the blast attack)

Unfortunately, the Arsenal fails to specify which skills to use for that effect, what the range of the blast would be or what they consider "proper sensors".


Extras:
Smart armor has problems with heavy weapons, though. So each time, it is hit by a heavy weapon (any weapon with a DV above 10), you roll a dice pool as large as the current smart armor rating improve the AP value of the attack by 1 for each hit scored on this test. If you botch that roll, subtract 1 from the effective rating of your smart armor.

To put this in a shorter formula:

(M)AP = AP - HS (where (M)AP=modified AP value; AP=the weaöpons listed AP value; HS=the number of hits scored on the "smart armor test".

So, for heavy weapons (DV>10) the total formula looks like this:

(E)AP=AP + SAR -HS


All at a glance:

IF DV > 10 THEN: (E)AP=AP + SAR -HS
ELSE: (E)AP = AP + SAR

Did that help, or were you looking for an answer to the weaponized application of smart armor?

It also reduces its full rating from heavy weapons' AP value. In the case of heavy weapons, the hits scored on the smart armor test actually improve the AP capability of the heavy weapon, thereby mitigating some of the effect of the smart armor.

It is somewhat plausible to an extend considering what the rules are trying to emulate, but it is still rather awkward to use in my opinion.

To illustrate:

Max rating for special armors 10, so just +8 AP...unless the weapon has a DV>= 10, then you roll the armor's rating and any hits improve the AP again

Smart Armor is not a special armor (Well, not by the definition of the book anyway). Maximum is 20.

Nope, Smart armour is limited to ten.

That is not in the errata... and my Arsenal states 1-20. Where did you find that limit?

Also... even if the text says it roll rating and ADDS to the AP... i think that is just weird... nothing else in the whole system does something like that. Wouldn't it be easier to average that? Saying it only counts half or 2/3? I think i will stay with my rule.

It rolls and adds to the AP and done. no substracting and such: so a Rating 10 smartarmor rolls 10 dice and just takes the AP of heavy projectiles down a notch. And small projectiles... shouldn't they take down "uses" of it too? Its just weird to have it effect but not being used.

It makes perfect sense, because ADD is "+" and a good penetrating weapon has NEGATIVE ap. APDS gives -4, not +4 you know! So, APDS -4 +10 smartarmor = +6 ap, just like shotguns.

negative ap is good for the weapon, adding to the ap means the penetrating effect is reduced not increased.

Of course, that means that "reducing the AP" makes the weapon better.

Honestly, Smart Armor is FUBAR. Personally, I only use the part for heavy weapons - reactive armor isn't triggered by everything, otherwise, it would be depleted in no time.

I know. But if you read the entry on Smartarmor one COULD think they want you to:

treat as normal and then let the armor roll against its own effect to diminish it. I think this can't be true and read it just as adding (so as you said +hits to lower the penetration).

But just as Rotbart said: The rules againt small arms are... weird. I even came to know it works against them when i read it again to reply (see my edit). Mixed about that: IF i let them work against it, it should use up applications. Smartarmor cannot just "be used" without getting fired (or get hit and destroyed).

I think you need to re-read that paragraph (or I simply misunderstood you here). Smart armor is in fact LESS EFFECTIVE against weapons with a DV>10. It does indeed lower its own performance by the numbers of hits rolled on the smart armor test.
I agree that the text is quite confusing, but it states the function right then and there: to lower its rating against heavy weapons.

Now, is the rule awkward? Most certainly, especially since no other armor or system works with a similar mechanic. Are the entire rules for smart armor awkward? Most certainly. But it does NOT ADD effectiveness through the hits scored on the smart armor test. It actually subtracts effectiveness.

The real kicker is the combination of "reducing the AP value of attacks by the smart armor’s rating." and "Every hit is added to the firing weapon’s AP value (thus rendering the smart armor less effective).":
That means, by RAW, smart armor makes attacks more effective first (reducing means substracting, AP will go down - which is good), then, for heavy weapons, less effective (by adding hits). As the hits on the rating test will never be more than rating, that means overall, it will make weapons more effective.

It's like someone missed the "Front Toward Enemy" label.

Nah, I find it natural the way smart armour works. It makes you virtually immune to small arms but you can still hit it with "big weapons". It's to get rid of silly street sams bursting through tank armour with hand-held small arms. It makes it possible to have an armour system that lets "anti -tank" weapons actually penetrate the armour they are supposed to penetrate without beefing up their damage or AP to levels where they are just silly. It's a band-aid to solve the massive problems with scaling in armour/damage system.

Armour 4, you ignore 1-3 but let 4 (reduced to 1-3 with body+armour) slip through. 3-6 attacks required to take you down.

Armour 30 ignore 1-30 but IF you get a hit that bypass armour you go from No damage (29 P is ignored by hardened armour) to instagib (30 P is only reduced to massive 20 boxes of damage). Small targets get hit, damaged and eventually destroyed while big targets take no damage until this ONE hit gets through and melt the entire target to a puddle. This is completely the opposite of how we think of stuff. A large battle ship needs multiple huge hits to get sunk while a tiny RC helicopter crashes as soon as it gets any damage while in SR it seems to be the other way around.

By RAW, it makes you much more susceptible to small arms, and still more susceptible to big weapons - see above.

Lets actually write out AP for a second:

"Reducing the Armor Piercing value of attacks by the smart armor’s rating." Grammatically this is read as "reducing the amount of armor piercing strength," EG, smart armor takes its value and has it added to the negative value of the AP (APDS of -4 and Smart Armor 8 gives an AP value of +4).

This happens all the time. The heavy weapons (DV > 10) is a special clause that takes effect only for those high-damaging attacks.

You roll the smart armor as a dice pool and take those successes...and add them to the AP? But +AP is good for the defender, but the Smart Armor is "less effective" which is bad for the defender...

You know, that section makes no sense.

By very strict reading and only using the mathematical understanding of the verbs it works like this:


11 DV, -4AP, 9 SmAr

-4AP -> -13AP ("reduce" = "subtract")
3 hits
-13AP -> -10AP ("add" ignoring "makes SmAr less effective")

End result: 11 DV, -10AP

Making smart armor completely worthless. Why would you add smart armor to your car if its only going to make attacks penetrate more?

I think what they meant was more along the lines of this:



Also, my book states that Smart Armor is limited to 10 (first printing).

*This makes smart armor effectively the same as normal armor, if you think about it. The second paragraph is what makes smart armor good.

**So heavy damaging attacks have their AP increased farther, making smart armor extra helpful, but it degrades quickly. This is what it was in 3rd edition, IIRC. You made an extra roll to get more dice to the armor test, smart armor counted as [its current rating] of armor as well, but as the SmAr got used up it had less and less dice to roll with and counted as less normal armor.

Thats common sense, but RAW it is APDS AP-4 with Smart Armor 8 -> AP-12.

It ist really bad written...

cya
Tycho

It is horribly written, but it obvious what they meant to say. I am baffled as to why we are still arguing even AFTER I posted the approriate formulae. After all, we all agree that an overly literal interpretation of the words (not the mechanics) leads to a blantantly absurd conclusion.

Also keep in mind that you can use words in more than just a mathematical sense (surprised you didn't know that). It is obvious that "Every hit is added to the firing weapon’s AP value (thus rendering the smart armor less effective)" does not talk about the numerical value, but the effective value (further emphasized by the paragraph in brackets). The same holds true for the general effect of smart armor on AP values of weapons used against it.

Of course you can argue semantics here, but what would be the point of that? Would arguing about semantics lead to a workable, sensible, or applicable rule interpretation? I highly doubt that. Especially, when the authors intent is glaringly obvious.

Arsenal, p 133:
The maximum armor rating of each armor
type a vehicle can have is twice its Body rating (or three times
its Body rating for drones of the micro, mini, small, medium,
and large size),up to a maximum of 20 with normal armor or
10 with concealed or smart armor.

@Sengir huh... you are right. Text says 10... just the table says 1-20... weird... but yeah teaches me to read ALL the damn text. Thanks

And back to the weird other stuff:

Doesn't matter what the author wanted to tell us. Even that comes off a bit weird. i will do it this way: Smartarmor ignores small weapons fire. Heavy weapon will get rolled against to lower their Armorpiercing effect. DONE. I will let people choose to enable it even for small weapons, but then it will use up applications for every damn stray .22 cal bullet. Also its effectively a short-range maximum choke shotgun for people in the vicinity of your vehicle.

Naturally, you are free to use whatever house rules you seem fit at your table. Bushw4cker wasn't asking about your house rules, though.