QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Oct 19 2010, 02:53 AM)

Uh oh, it's becoming multi-layered.

There is no way that you actually have a lower melee defense test than ranged, from a 'default' penalty. The universe would explode. And again, that's assuming that someone with zero skill is a relevant example.
Oh? Why is that? Does it say somewhere in the rules (since you're so fixated on a rule for everything) that there is no default penalty for melee combat defense?
QUOTE
They have about 1 sensor channel, and how many is a swarm? 25000¥? 50000¥

Even having a listed 0 in Impact should count as something to add that +1 to. No one is an unarmored target, so it's silly to even talk about it.
About 1 sensor channel, as in actually 2 sensor channels?
I conceded a 0 impact armor as adding the +1, though it seems silly as the entire point of most things with + AP on them is that they should be used against unarmored targets.
[edit]As for the swarm, it is an imprecise number. I don't see why you feel a need to quantify it.[/edit]
QUOTE
Actually, one sentence of the whole entry talks about swarms. Is that 'basically the entire entry'?
Given that it is talking about their use on targets larger than themselves, yes it is for any purpose in which we are talking about a target larger than a dragonfly.
QUOTE
Yes, you did invent the datasoft. The entry says nothing about a database of weak spots; you're inventing the rule that they have them. There's nothing wrong with that, but my point is that the HK requires many different fill-in-the-blanks rulings to actually do what the fluff claims it can do.
Sure, I did invent the datasoft, but only as a possibility, not as a fact. The actual fact is that I don't know how it works, or why it works, just that it works. Kind of like I don't know how or why many sports are so popular, but I know that they are popular, and my lack of knowledge about the how or why doesn't change the fact that they are popular. So, I don't know how or why a dragonfly can pick out weak points, I just know that it can because that is what the description says.
QUOTE
There is no logical reason for net hits to cause extra damage and you know it. It's a purely crunch thing. A minute ago, you were arguing that an attached HK would get increased DV from an unopposed attack roll: what weak spot could it be hitting (or failing to hit) then? It's attached, probably to an armor plate.
Okay, that lacks a point really. Unless it is that I'm using crunch to try and prove to you (Who requested crunch proof) that HK drones can do what they say they can do in fluff. By crunch I've proven that they operate as intended, and by fluff they automatically operate as fluff says they operate. I don't see a problem here.
QUOTE
Oops.

I was thinking of Body 0 drones, not Body 1. As long as we're inventing rules (because it's unavoidable), I still think anyone could slap their hand over the little bugger and squeeze, possibly smack it against a hard surface.

Even body 0 drones couldn't be crushed with bare hands by the rules. Weird, I know, but those are the rules. Unless I missed something special about body 0 drones being susceptible to stun damage. And so far, no, no rules have been invented yet.
QUOTE
So: if you do invent the many minor rules necessary for the HK to function, it can sorta pull some of things the fluff claims.
Like I said, no invented rules, unless you want to count landing on things as an invented rule (It isn't), or things which aren't moving in relationship to you not getting a defense roll as an invented rule (It isn't). I mean, is breathing an invented rule? Because breathing isn't actually in the rules anywhere. Holding your breath is, but breathing is not.