If you attack to damage the barrier, you only can damage the barrier. If you attack to shoot through it, you can only shoot through it. Certainly many GMs tweak these rules in logical ways, but that's the RAW. Hehe.
Full Version: What should I Ban Outright
You act surprised by the illogic of it. You have played SR before, right? If you attack to damage the barrier, you only can damage the barrier. If you attack to shoot through it, you can only shoot through it. Certainly many GMs tweak these rules in logical ways, but that's the RAW. Hehe.
If you attack to damage the barrier, you only can damage the barrier. If you attack to shoot through it, you can only shoot through it. Certainly many GMs tweak these rules in logical ways, but that's the RAW. Hehe.
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 8 2011, 04:24 PM) 
Which still gives you wonky effects. Poorly Worded to say the least. And for what it is worth, That is what I was saying it Should do. I have just seen it both ways, and the way I was "supporting", if you will, seems to be the most common I have seen...
No doubt about the wonkiness.
So, is that the way you see hardened armor working as well, or is the AP removing BR for extra armor dice something that just happens for barriers? I would think it would be pretty messed up if say, someone with hardened armor, lost dice due to AP. It basically makes it all or nothing.
After thinking about it a little more, I can see the logic both ways.
QUOTE (deek @ Jun 9 2011, 06:28 AM)
No doubt about the wonkiness.
So, is that the way you see hardened armor working as well, or is the AP removing BR for extra armor dice something that just happens for barriers? I would think it would be pretty messed up if say, someone with hardened armor, lost dice due to AP. It basically makes it all or nothing.
After thinking about it a little more, I can see the logic both ways.
So, is that the way you see hardened armor working as well, or is the AP removing BR for extra armor dice something that just happens for barriers? I would think it would be pretty messed up if say, someone with hardened armor, lost dice due to AP. It basically makes it all or nothing.
After thinking about it a little more, I can see the logic both ways.
Hardened Armor DOES lose effectiveness due to AP. If you have Hardened Armor 12, and you are hit with a Heavy Pistol (DV5, with APDS (-4 AP, for a Total of -5 AP), all you need is a few Net successes to get you to DV 8 to penetrate teh hardened Armor.
This is why the Force 6 Spirit is so susceptible to SnS Rounds. Any net hit allows the Damage to Exceed the Hardened ITNW of 6 (After reduction due to AP).
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 9 2011, 07:51 AM)
Hardened Armor DOES lose effectiveness due to AP. If you have Hardened Armor 12, and you are hit with a Heavy Pistol (DV5, with APDS (-4 AP, for a Total of -5 AP), all you need is a few Net successes to get you to DV 8 to penetrate teh hardened Armor.
This is why the Force 6 Spirit is so susceptible to SnS Rounds. Any net hit allows the Damage to Exceed the Hardened ITNW of 6 (After reduction due to AP).
This is why the Force 6 Spirit is so susceptible to SnS Rounds. Any net hit allows the Damage to Exceed the Hardened ITNW of 6 (After reduction due to AP).
So, really hardened armor is no different than regular armor other than the threshold needed to actually hit the target and cause a soak roll?
Other than being hardened, you mean? No. 
Exactly...
That's what Smart Armor + Vehicle Armor is for.
QUOTE (James McMurray @ Jun 9 2011, 09:17 AM)
Smart Armor
Smart Armor...doesn't work in SR4. The rules make no sense. See this post.
(Long story short: Smart Armor is either as effective as regular armor or less effective than regular armor, depending on what "adds to the AP value" means)
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 9 2011, 09:58 AM)
Smart Armor...doesn't work in SR4. The rules make no sense. See this post.
(Long story short: Smart Armor is either as effective as regular armor or less effective than regular armor, depending on what "adds to the AP value" means)
(Long story short: Smart Armor is either as effective as regular armor or less effective than regular armor, depending on what "adds to the AP value" means)
Then consider our group (an I'd guess practically every group) as having house ruled it, since that hyper anal interpretation is clearly not what was intended. YMMV
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 9 2011, 08:58 AM)
Smart Armor...doesn't work in SR4. The rules make no sense. See this post.
(Long story short: Smart Armor is either as effective as regular armor or less effective than regular armor, depending on what "adds to the AP value" means)
(Long story short: Smart Armor is either as effective as regular armor or less effective than regular armor, depending on what "adds to the AP value" means)
Well, Since ADDS to Negative results in reducing the Negative, IT IS BETTER than Regular Armor, as it can NEGATE AP. Which is its intended purpose.
Crazy interpretations aside.
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 9 2011, 10:16 AM)
Well, Since ADDS to Negative results in reducing the Negative, IT IS BETTER than Regular Armor, as it can NEGATE AP. Which is its intended purpose.
Just FYI
A + (B + C) == (A + B) + C
It's one of those magical properties of math that results in equalities.
(ARMOR + SMART) + AP == ARMOR + (SMART + AP)
[Where AP is either a positive (flachette rounds) or negative number (armor piercing rounds)]
In English this means that it doesn't matter one whit if Smart Armor adds to armor or adds to Armor Piercing, e.g. smart armor is no better than normal armor.1
And the other interpretation makes less sense, but it comes from the gramatical dissonance between:
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 9 2011, 10:16 AM)
ADDS ... NEGATE
NEGATion means to subtract, which is the opposite of ADDing.
1Excepting the fact that you then roll its rating and subtract that from it's rating, meaning that normal armor provides the same protection against the first attack, and more against each subsequent attack...
but Smart Armor can be stacked with Normal Armor.
Something nothing else can do.
Something nothing else can do.
Alright, here's where the confusion comes from:
Reducing AP means "add" or "subtract"?
Followed by:
Note the use of the word adds and what it's adding to, and compare with the previous quote.
If they both do the same thing (move the AP value towards positive infinity) why the two different words ("reduce" and "add")?
Followed by a parenthetical indicating that more smart armor is worse than less smart armor (hits = bad, more hits = worse).
QUOTE
reducing the AP value of attacks by the smart armor’s rating
Reducing AP means "add" or "subtract"?
Followed by:
QUOTE
Every time a heavy ballistic weapon or explosive
(usually any weapon that does more than 10 DV) hits a vehicle
with smart armor, roll a test using the smart armor’s rating as
the dice pool. Every hit is added to the firing weapon’s AP value
(thus rendering the smart armor less effective)
(usually any weapon that does more than 10 DV) hits a vehicle
with smart armor, roll a test using the smart armor’s rating as
the dice pool. Every hit is added to the firing weapon’s AP value
(thus rendering the smart armor less effective)
Note the use of the word adds and what it's adding to, and compare with the previous quote.
If they both do the same thing (move the AP value towards positive infinity) why the two different words ("reduce" and "add")?
Followed by a parenthetical indicating that more smart armor is worse than less smart armor (hits = bad, more hits = worse).
You're trying to parse an English (and not even technical English) set of paragraphs using mathematical terms. Good luck with that.
QUOTE (James McMurray @ Jun 9 2011, 01:39 PM)
You're trying to parse an English (and not even technical English) set of paragraphs using mathematical terms. Good luck with that.
Parse this sentence for me:
QUOTE
Every hit1 is added to the firing weapon’s AP value (thus rendering the smart armor less effective)
Mechanically are those hits1 good for the vehicle or not?
1Game mechanics for the test involving dice.
Now that you've done that, parse this and tell me what happens:
QUOTE
Small explosives deflect incoming fire, reducing the AP value of attacks by the smart armor’s rating. If DV > 10, make a test. Every hit is added to the firing weapon’s AP value (thus rendering the smart armor less effective)
Incoming fire: 11 DV, -4 AP, 10 points of smart armor (assume average roll of 3 hits).
Okay...
You roll the Smart Armors Rating and add the hits to the Weapon's AP...
Mechanically it works out. If you have a Weapon AP of -4 (your above example) and you roll and get 5 hits on your Rating 10 Smart Armor, your Weapon AP is now ony +1... See, You have just added the Smart Armor Hits to the AP. Oh, and you may now use your Smart Armor 9 More Times (It is less effective because of its prior use).
If that AP had been +5 for some reason, it would now be +10.
The quote about less effective is right in the text. You can only use Smart Armor a number of times equal to its rating. Each use renders it less effective. What is so hard about that?
You roll the Smart Armors Rating and add the hits to the Weapon's AP...
Mechanically it works out. If you have a Weapon AP of -4 (your above example) and you roll and get 5 hits on your Rating 10 Smart Armor, your Weapon AP is now ony +1... See, You have just added the Smart Armor Hits to the AP. Oh, and you may now use your Smart Armor 9 More Times (It is less effective because of its prior use).
If that AP had been +5 for some reason, it would now be +10.
QUOTE (Arsenal, Smart Armor)
Every time a heavy ballistic weapon or explosive (usually any weapon that does more than 10 DV) hits a vehicle with smart armor, roll a test using the smart armor’s rating as the dice pool. Every hit is added to the firing weapon’s AP value (thus rendering the smart armor less effective). A glitch on this test reduces the value of the smart armor by one. You may use the smart armor as many times as its rating. Once the smart armor has been exhausted, it must be replenished with a Logic + Armorer (rating, 1 hour) Extended Test in order to be effective again, at a cost of 500¥ per rating point.
The quote about less effective is right in the text. You can only use Smart Armor a number of times equal to its rating. Each use renders it less effective. What is so hard about that?
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 9 2011, 01:52 PM)
The quote about less effective is right in the text. You can only use Smart Armor a number of times equal to its rating. Each use renders it less effective. What is so hard about that?
"Every hit is added to the firing weapon’s AP value (thus rendering the smart armor less effective)."
"Thus" meaning "as a result."
Rewriting the sentence:
"As a result, each hit renders the smart armor less effective."
The parenthetical is a dependent clause to the rest of the sentence, where the primary noun is "hit."
Each use renders it less effective because you're limited to <rating> total uses. Each hit renders it less effective at that moment because the larger weapon or better aimed shot punched through it.
Whenever you're using Smart armor and get hit you:
1) reduce the effectiveness of the AP by [rating] (by moving it towards 0). So AP -6 and smart armor 4 means the AP for that shot is only -2.
2) test the damage value of the weapon, if > 10, roll [rating dice] and reduce the effectiveness of the smart armor by [hits]. So AP -6, Damage 12, Smart armor 4 (2 hits) has an end result of an effective AP rating of -4 (6 - 4 + 2). If you get a glitch, reduce the rating of the smart armor by 1.
3) tally the use and ignore the smart armor once you've used it [rating] times.
It's convoluted, uses too many dice, and is in no way how I'd have designed it. But it does indeed work as written as long as you're not trying to read it like a computer program.
Whenever you're using Smart armor and get hit you:
1) reduce the effectiveness of the AP by [rating] (by moving it towards 0). So AP -6 and smart armor 4 means the AP for that shot is only -2.
2) test the damage value of the weapon, if > 10, roll [rating dice] and reduce the effectiveness of the smart armor by [hits]. So AP -6, Damage 12, Smart armor 4 (2 hits) has an end result of an effective AP rating of -4 (6 - 4 + 2). If you get a glitch, reduce the rating of the smart armor by 1.
3) tally the use and ignore the smart armor once you've used it [rating] times.
It's convoluted, uses too many dice, and is in no way how I'd have designed it. But it does indeed work as written as long as you're not trying to read it like a computer program.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 9 2011, 11:58 PM)
Smart Armor...doesn't work in SR4. The rules make no sense. See this post.
Guys, can we allow the smart armor argument to go on in the smart armor thread and bring this list a bit closer to on topic? I hadn't posted this in some of the previous arguments as I hadn't seen links posted to threads already containing said arguments. This horse is being killed elsewhere...
If you think Smart Armor need hit with a Ban Hammer, just say so. *shrugs*
Thanks.
-D
QUOTE (James McMurray @ Jun 9 2011, 02:19 PM)
2) test the damage value of the weapon, if > 10, roll [rating dice] and reduce the effectiveness of the smart armor by [hits]. So AP -6, Damage 12, Smart armor 4 (2 hits) has an end result of an effective AP rating of -4 (6 - 4 + 2). If you get a glitch, reduce the rating of the smart armor by 1.
AH HA. So you admit that having more smart armor is not as good as having less smart armor!1 Every 3 dice you have (every 3 rating points) means that the hits on the Smart Armor test make the weapon shooting at the vehicle do more damage.
Effectively the same as "take your smart armor rating, divide by 3, multiply by 2. You have this much more armor."
1Excepting glitches.
QUOTE
1) reduce the effectiveness of the AP by [rating] (by moving it towards 0). So AP -6 and smart armor 4 means the AP for that shot is only -2.
Towards zero? So a weapon that has +4 AP firing on a vehicle with 8 smart armor gets -4 AP?
(Or same gun, against a 2 smart armor vehicle has +2 AP)
I think you meant towards positive infinity.
To bring the topic back on...err...topic, I suggest: Any character based on a television/movie/general pop culture reference. Really guys, it's been done before. 
Besides, in 'that other game', I once had a new player try to make a catfolk bard named (and I shit you not) Lolcat.
Trust me, banning is safer.
~R~
Besides, in 'that other game', I once had a new player try to make a catfolk bard named (and I shit you not) Lolcat.
Trust me, banning is safer.
~R~
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 9 2011, 03:16 PM)
AH HA. So you admit that having more smart armor is not as good as having less smart armor!1 Every 3 dice you have (every 3 rating points) means that the hits on the Smart Armor test make the weapon shooting at the vehicle do more damage.
Effectively the same as "take your smart armor rating, divide by 3, multiply by 2. You have this much more armor."
1Excepting glitches.
Effectively the same as "take your smart armor rating, divide by 3, multiply by 2. You have this much more armor."
1Excepting glitches.
WHAT??? You got some wierd Ideas there Draco18s...
Smart Armor's only function is to help alleviate or eliminate (in some instances providing more effective armor than would otherwise be useable; ie. when a Weapon's AP goes positive and continues to increase) a Weapon's AP capabilities. That is all it does. It does not increase any weapon's damage in any way, shape, or form.
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 9 2011, 08:57 PM)
WHAT??? You got some wierd Ideas there Draco18s...
Smart Armor's only function is to help alleviate or eliminate (in some instances providing more effective armor than would otherwise be useable; ie. when a Weapon's AP goes positive and continues to increase) a Weapon's AP capabilities. That is all it does. It does not increase any weapon's damage in any way, shape, or form.
Smart Armor's only function is to help alleviate or eliminate (in some instances providing more effective armor than would otherwise be useable; ie. when a Weapon's AP goes positive and continues to increase) a Weapon's AP capabilities. That is all it does. It does not increase any weapon's damage in any way, shape, or form.
You check the math here, then.
QUOTE (James McMurray @ Jun 9 2011, 02:19 PM)
2) test the damage value of the weapon, if > 10, roll [rating dice] and reduce the effectiveness of the smart armor by [hits]. So AP -6, Damage 12, Smart armor 4 (2 hits) has an end result of an effective AP rating of -4 (6 - 4 + 2). If you get a glitch, reduce the rating of the smart armor by 1.
Do you agree with it, or not? And if not, how would you do it?
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 9 2011, 07:18 PM)
You check the math here, then.
Do you agree with it, or not? And if not, how would you do it?
Do you agree with it, or not? And if not, how would you do it?
I use the Text in the Book for my rules. So lets look at them again, shall we? Here they are...
QUOTE (Arsenal, Vehicle Modifications, Smart Armor Entry)
Smart armor cannot be concealed, but is superior to normal armor in that it has armor-piercing defeating properties. Small explosives spaced throughout the exterior of the vehicle prematurely detonate/deflect incoming fire, reducing the AP value of attacks by the smart armor's rating. Individuals near the exterior of the vehicle while smart armor is being used may be hit by shrapnel or other detritus from the explosions. If the vehicle is rigged and has the proper sensors, the controlling players may be able to detonate exterior charges in order to deal physical damage to opponents, using the smart armor's current rating as the Damage Value. Every time a heavy ballistic weapon or explosive (usually any weapon that does more than 10 DV) hits a vehicle with smart armor, roll a test using the smart armor's rating as the dice pool. Every hit is added to the firing weapon's AP value (thus rendering the smart armor less effective). A glitch on this test reduces the value of the smart armor by one. You may use the smart armor as many times as its rating. Once the smart armor has been exhausted, it must be replenished with a Logic + Armorer (rating, 1 hour) Extended Test in order to be ef fective again, at a cost of 500¥ per rating point
So.. Back to James Example. Hopefully, with the Above Rules we shall have some coherence.
DV 12, AP -6. Smart Armor Rating of 4 (2 Hits on the Roll). That is the Relevant Data From James' Example that you highlighted.
Now we look at the Above Rule. Relevant Part is Highlighted and Italicized.
So...
DV 12, AP -6 becomes DV12, AP -4 because of the Successes of the Smart Armor's Roll. (2 Successes)
There was no Glitch, so the Smart Armor retains its Rating of 4.
The Smart Armor has been used Once, so it now has Three remaining Uses before the Smart Armor is totally depleted.
The Smart Armor is now less Effective becasue it has used one of its "Charges" to protect the Vehicle.
That is the sum effect of Smart Armor... In no way did this result in the Weapon's DV Increasing in any way whatsoever. It cannot ever have that effect, as it will ONLY EVER Add its effects to the AP of the Weapon. Note. You will always add effects, regardless of whether the AP is -100 or +100...
Why is this so hard to understand?
wow you're .. so wrong it's not even funny. You willfully misread that rule completely.
DV 12, AP -6 becomes DV12 AP -8 because of the successes of the Smart Armor's roll (2 successes)
THere was no glitch so the smart armor retains it's rating of 4.
The smart armor has been used once
What it represents is that the weapon does 'so much damage' that it's detonating some of the smart charges on the outside of the vehicle.
DV 12, AP -6 becomes DV12 AP -8 because of the successes of the Smart Armor's roll (2 successes)
THere was no glitch so the smart armor retains it's rating of 4.
The smart armor has been used once
What it represents is that the weapon does 'so much damage' that it's detonating some of the smart charges on the outside of the vehicle.
… Why would it make the AP *stronger*?
I mean, I assume the line about 'smart armor less effective' is a typo, but it doesn't really alter the more pertinent line, "Every hit is added to the firing weapon's AP value".
I mean, I assume the line about 'smart armor less effective' is a typo, but it doesn't really alter the more pertinent line, "Every hit is added to the firing weapon's AP value".
QUOTE (sabs @ Jun 9 2011, 07:50 PM)
wow you're .. so wrong it's not even funny. You willfully misread that rule completely.
DV 12, AP -6 becomes DV12 AP -8 because of the successes of the Smart Armor's roll (2 successes)
THere was no glitch so the smart armor retains it's rating of 4.
The smart armor has been used once
What it represents is that the weapon does 'so much damage' that it's detonating some of the smart charges on the outside of the vehicle.
DV 12, AP -6 becomes DV12 AP -8 because of the successes of the Smart Armor's roll (2 successes)
THere was no glitch so the smart armor retains it's rating of 4.
The smart armor has been used once
What it represents is that the weapon does 'so much damage' that it's detonating some of the smart charges on the outside of the vehicle.
Explain to me how adding +2 to -6 results in AP -8...
Basic Math Comprehension... Yep, even My Computer and My Calculator come up with -4.
Forget math. What kind of willful madness would assume that the armor *hurts* the protected vehicle?
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jun 9 2011, 07:57 PM)
Forget math. What kind of willful madness would assume that the armor *hurts* the protected vehicle?
You Got me...
*sigh*
Sorry Mr. S.
Sorry Mr. S.
And you know what?
You both forgot to add the smart armor's rating to the AP before the "If DV > 10" bit happened.
Which rightly makes no sense, why are you adding the armor's rating to the AP value and not the vehicles armor value? (Even if mathematically they're the same). And if those hits on the test also added to / subtracted from the vehicle's armor rating there'd be no god damn confusion.
I'll point out again that "makes the SM less effective" clause is part of the "hits rolled" sentence. And "charges" expended (i.e. limited usability) has nothing to do with the armor being effective or not. You either have charges (100% effectiveness) or you don't (0%). It's a Critical Existence Failure in that regard.
I shall also note that parentheticals are supposed to capable of being removed from a sentence without altering its meaning. If the intent was that the hits make the AP "bigger" (i.e. move it towards negative infinity) then this is true. If not, then this is not true (as it is a parenthetical is then referring to something other than the hits on the test or not making the armor less effective).
You both forgot to add the smart armor's rating to the AP before the "If DV > 10" bit happened.
Which rightly makes no sense, why are you adding the armor's rating to the AP value and not the vehicles armor value? (Even if mathematically they're the same). And if those hits on the test also added to / subtracted from the vehicle's armor rating there'd be no god damn confusion.
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 9 2011, 09:40 PM)
The Smart Armor is now less Effective becasue it has used one of its "Charges" to protect the Vehicle.
I'll point out again that "makes the SM less effective" clause is part of the "hits rolled" sentence. And "charges" expended (i.e. limited usability) has nothing to do with the armor being effective or not. You either have charges (100% effectiveness) or you don't (0%). It's a Critical Existence Failure in that regard.
I shall also note that parentheticals are supposed to capable of being removed from a sentence without altering its meaning. If the intent was that the hits make the AP "bigger" (i.e. move it towards negative infinity) then this is true. If not, then this is not true (as it is a parenthetical is then referring to something other than the hits on the test or not making the armor less effective).
… Cuz it doesn't add to armor, it 'subtracts from' (adds to) AP. And why would it matter if you did it before checking DV>10? That check is unrelated, and obviously has to take place before anything else—it decides if the smart armor activates. It's really not hard: roll smart armor to hurt incoming AP. That's all.
That 'less effective' bit obviously makes no sense. It must be a typo. Let's ignore it, because there's no possible way of interpreting it to mean anything.
That 'less effective' bit obviously makes no sense. It must be a typo. Let's ignore it, because there's no possible way of interpreting it to mean anything.
Here is the deal:You get to choose when you're going to use Smart Armor.
IF an attack that is DV>10 hits the vehicle, then you roll the smart armor rating, and 'improve the AP of the attack by the hits' if you glitch on this roll, you lose a rating point.
first you check the base damage of the weapon. If it's DV>10 then you trigger the smart armor is fuxored option. If it's DV<10 you don't, and you use Smart armor normally.
Normal use of smart armor:
DV8 -6AP attack shoots vehicle. Smart Armor 10 is used, damage is now DV 8 0AP, There are 9 charges left. Now you compare that 8DV+net hits vs regular armor, if it's less than, nothing happens, if it's more than, you now roll dv8+nethits+burstfiremodifiers vs normal armor+body.
What you guys are missing is that the DV>10 note, is a 'weakness' of smart armor.
Smart armor is not as good against explosive, or highly damaging attacks.
IF an attack that is DV>10 hits the vehicle, then you roll the smart armor rating, and 'improve the AP of the attack by the hits' if you glitch on this roll, you lose a rating point.
first you check the base damage of the weapon. If it's DV>10 then you trigger the smart armor is fuxored option. If it's DV<10 you don't, and you use Smart armor normally.
Normal use of smart armor:
DV8 -6AP attack shoots vehicle. Smart Armor 10 is used, damage is now DV 8 0AP, There are 9 charges left. Now you compare that 8DV+net hits vs regular armor, if it's less than, nothing happens, if it's more than, you now roll dv8+nethits+burstfiremodifiers vs normal armor+body.
What you guys are missing is that the DV>10 note, is a 'weakness' of smart armor.
Smart armor is not as good against explosive, or highly damaging attacks.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 9 2011, 10:31 PM)
And you know what?
You both forgot to add the smart armor's rating to the AP before the "If DV > 10" bit happened.
You both forgot to add the smart armor's rating to the AP before the "If DV > 10" bit happened.
Because you do not do that... Look at the rules I quoted, that is NOT in there. I believe that you are working from an old edition of Arsenal.
I don't understand that, sabs. You're saying that they meant to say 'subtract from' instead of 'add to' *just* for DV>10 attacks, because smart armor makes them worse? If true, that's stupid, and we should ignore it.
Here is what I understand to be the rules:
1. Smart armor reduces the effectiveness (adds to) incoming AP of all attacks DV≤10. (DV 8 AP -6 becomes DV 8 AP -0, Smart Armor Rating 6). In outcome #1, no roll is made, and the smart armor just loses 1 charge.
2. Smart armor 'less effectively' reduces the effectiveness (adds to) incoming AP of all attacks DV>10. (DV 11 AP -6 becomes DV 11 AP -6+Hits). In outcome #2, a glitch reduces the Rating of the smart armor, and the smart armor also loses 1 charge.
So. against powerful attacks (DV>10), smart armor is obviously less effective (~1/3 as effective). It can also glitch. Done and done. Anything wrong with what I assume to be the correct reading here? Note how there are no completely stupid and backwards effects, like armor making incoming attacks stronger.
Here is what I understand to be the rules:
1. Smart armor reduces the effectiveness (adds to) incoming AP of all attacks DV≤10. (DV 8 AP -6 becomes DV 8 AP -0, Smart Armor Rating 6). In outcome #1, no roll is made, and the smart armor just loses 1 charge.
2. Smart armor 'less effectively' reduces the effectiveness (adds to) incoming AP of all attacks DV>10. (DV 11 AP -6 becomes DV 11 AP -6+Hits). In outcome #2, a glitch reduces the Rating of the smart armor, and the smart armor also loses 1 charge.
So. against powerful attacks (DV>10), smart armor is obviously less effective (~1/3 as effective). It can also glitch. Done and done. Anything wrong with what I assume to be the correct reading here? Note how there are no completely stupid and backwards effects, like armor making incoming attacks stronger.
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 10 2011, 08:09 AM)
Because you do not do that... Look at the rules I quoted, that is NOT in there. I believe that you are working from an old edition of Arsenal.
Ahem. Quoting your post and bolding and underlining relevant section.
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 9 2011, 09:40 PM)
I use the Text in the Book for my rules. So lets look at them again, shall we? Here they are...
Smart armor cannot be concealed, but is superior to normal armor in that it has armor-piercing defeating properties. Small explosives spaced throughout the exterior of the vehicle prematurely detonate/deflect incoming fire, reducing the AP value of attacks by the smart armor's rating. Individuals near the exterior of the vehicle while smart armor is being used may be hit by shrapnel or other detritus from the explosions. If the vehicle is rigged and has the proper sensors, the controlling players may be able to detonate exterior charges in order to deal physical damage to opponents, using the smart armor's current rating as the Damage Value. Every time a heavy ballistic weapon or explosive (usually any weapon that does more than 10 DV) hits a vehicle with smart armor, roll a test using the smart armor's rating as the dice pool. Every hit is added to the firing weapon's AP value (thus rendering the smart armor less effective). A glitch on this test reduces the value of the smart armor by one. You may use the smart armor as many times as its rating. Once the smart armor has been exhausted, it must be replenished with a Logic + Armorer (rating, 1 hour) Extended Test in order to be ef fective again, at a cost of 500¥ per rating point
QUOTE
Smart armor cannot be concealed, but is superior to normal armor in that it has armor-piercing defeating properties. Small explosives spaced throughout the exterior of the vehicle prematurely detonate/deflect incoming fire, reducing the AP value of attacks by the smart armor's rating. Individuals near the exterior of the vehicle while smart armor is being used may be hit by shrapnel or other detritus from the explosions. If the vehicle is rigged and has the proper sensors, the controlling players may be able to detonate exterior charges in order to deal physical damage to opponents, using the smart armor's current rating as the Damage Value. Every time a heavy ballistic weapon or explosive (usually any weapon that does more than 10 DV) hits a vehicle with smart armor, roll a test using the smart armor's rating as the dice pool. Every hit is added to the firing weapon's AP value (thus rendering the smart armor less effective). A glitch on this test reduces the value of the smart armor by one. You may use the smart armor as many times as its rating. Once the smart armor has been exhausted, it must be replenished with a Logic + Armorer (rating, 1 hour) Extended Test in order to be ef fective again, at a cost of 500¥ per rating point
QUOTE ( @ Jun 10 2011, 08:21 AM)
So. against powerful attacks (DV>10), smart armor is obviously less effective (~1/3 as effective). It can also glitch. Done and done. Anything wrong with what I assume to be the correct reading here? Note how there are no completely stupid and backwards effects, like armor making incoming attacks stronger.
Mechanically that makes sense, but unfortunately, that's not what smart armor is supposed to be good for. In the real world the whole point of "smart armor" is to deflect the big shots (heavy weapons, attacks with DV > 10) so that they hurt less. The smart armor shouldn't activate on small arms fire and most definitely shouldn't be less effective against large arms fire.
Secondly:
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jun 10 2011, 08:21 AM)
1. Smart armor reduces the effectiveness (adds to) incoming AP of all attacks DV≤10. (DV 8 AP -6 becomes DV 8 AP -0, Smart Armor Rating 6). In outcome #1, no roll is made, and the smart armor just loses 1 charge.
That is exactly identical to adding the smart armor's rating to the vehicle's total armor.
Watch
Armor 4, SM 6
DV 9 AP -2
-2AP + 6 = +4
is DV 9 > 8? Yes. Roll armor (8 dice).
Armor 4, SM 6
DV 6 AP -2
4 armor + 6 = 10
is DV 9 greater than (10 -2 AP)? Yes. Roll armor (8 dice).
Sabs, your math is off:
QUOTE (sabs @ Jun 10 2011, 07:08 AM)
DV8 -6AP attack shoots vehicle. Smart Armor 10 is used, damage is now DV 8 0AP
-6 plus 10 is not 0, it's +4.
I didn't say it was different. I said it makes more sense conceptually to 'reduce' the AP 'directly'.
Yes: obviously, in real life, smart armor is only for DV>10. So? It may shock you that SR fails to emulate real life, sometimes quite a lot. My point was that there's no chance of smart armor ever being a *drawback*. I agree that it should work only for DV>10, and at full strength; that's a house rule. As long as it works for any DV>10 attack (and it does: sniper rifles, heavy weapons), that's all you'd really want to use it on anyway.
Yes: obviously, in real life, smart armor is only for DV>10. So? It may shock you that SR fails to emulate real life, sometimes quite a lot. My point was that there's no chance of smart armor ever being a *drawback*. I agree that it should work only for DV>10, and at full strength; that's a house rule. As long as it works for any DV>10 attack (and it does: sniper rifles, heavy weapons), that's all you'd really want to use it on anyway.
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jun 10 2011, 09:00 AM)
I didn't say it was different. I said it makes more sense conceptually to 'reduce' the AP 'directly'.
Aside from being confusing (because AP is better the lower it is, terms like "reduce" and "add" become ambiguous as to the intent).
QUOTE
Yes: obviously, in real life, smart armor is only for DV>10. So? It may shock you that SR fails to emulate real life, sometimes quite a lot. My point was that there's no chance of smart armor ever being a *drawback*. I agree that it should work only for DV>10, and at full strength; that's a house rule.
I know ShadowRun isn't real life, that's not the point. The point is that this armor add on (as interpreted by you) exists to make vehicles Even More Immune to small arms fire, when what is sounds like (and what it's attempting to emulate) is to make vehicles better protected against large weapons fire.
That is: my point is that there is a cognitive dissonance between the implied use of the item and it's mechanical effect.
No, the intent is never ambiguous. Armor always helps you defend against an attack, never making the attack better. Honestly. It literally takes intentional madness to conclude otherwise, whether I use single-quotes on 'reduce' or not.
Yes, it's a perfectly correct situation for a house rule. I said I agreed. In fact, it's far too expensive to waste on DV<10 anyway. It's just not what the book says, and we were talking about how some people (unbelievably) thought the book said smart armor *strengthened* incoming attacks.
It literally takes intentional madness to conclude otherwise, whether I use single-quotes on 'reduce' or not.Yes, it's a perfectly correct situation for a house rule. I said I agreed. In fact, it's far too expensive to waste on DV<10 anyway. It's just not what the book says, and we were talking about how some people (unbelievably) thought the book said smart armor *strengthened* incoming attacks.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 10 2011, 07:38 AM)
Ahem. Quoting your post and bolding and underlining relevant section.
Mechanically that makes sense, but unfortunately, that's not what smart armor is supposed to be good for. In the real world the whole point of "smart armor" is to deflect the big shots (heavy weapons, attacks with DV > 10) so that they hurt less. The smart armor shouldn't activate on small arms fire and most definitely shouldn't be less effective against large arms fire.
Secondly:
That is exactly identical to adding the smart armor's rating to the vehicle's total armor.
Watch
Armor 4, SM 6
DV 9 AP -2
-2AP + 6 = +4
is DV 9 > 8? Yes. Roll armor (8 dice).
Armor 4, SM 6
DV 6 AP -2
4 armor + 6 = 10
is DV 9 greater than (10 -2 AP)? Yes. Roll armor (8 dice).
Sabs, your math is off:
-6 plus 10 is not 0, it's +4.
Mechanically that makes sense, but unfortunately, that's not what smart armor is supposed to be good for. In the real world the whole point of "smart armor" is to deflect the big shots (heavy weapons, attacks with DV > 10) so that they hurt less. The smart armor shouldn't activate on small arms fire and most definitely shouldn't be less effective against large arms fire.
Secondly:
That is exactly identical to adding the smart armor's rating to the vehicle's total armor.
Watch
Armor 4, SM 6
DV 9 AP -2
-2AP + 6 = +4
is DV 9 > 8? Yes. Roll armor (8 dice).
Armor 4, SM 6
DV 6 AP -2
4 armor + 6 = 10
is DV 9 greater than (10 -2 AP)? Yes. Roll armor (8 dice).
Sabs, your math is off:
-6 plus 10 is not 0, it's +4.
Again, you confuse Fluff with Mechanics.
Y, I see where you're coming from. That makes a certain amount of sense. It's a badly worded rule with no example to explain it.
I am willing to agree with you that:
DV<10 = AP reduced by Smart Armor Rating
DV>10 = AP reduced by Hits of Smart Armor Rating Roll.
Glitch lowers the Rating by 1.
Here is my second question.
I have a Smart Armor Rating of 10.
The incomming attack has an AP of -6.
Is the new AP +4? or 0?
Smart Armor does not count as 'armor' for the armor roll.. I don't think.
Otherwise I end up with:
Armor 20 + Smart Armor 10, Body 16.
First off, the AP gets dropped by 10, second off the armor rating gets increased by 10? So Smart Armor double dips?
This would mean that I would need a DV/AP combo of 40 to get to hurt a Armor 20, Smart armor 10 vehicle? And then the vehicle gets to roll 46 dice to soak damage?
I am willing to agree with you that:
DV<10 = AP reduced by Smart Armor Rating
DV>10 = AP reduced by Hits of Smart Armor Rating Roll.
Glitch lowers the Rating by 1.
Here is my second question.
I have a Smart Armor Rating of 10.
The incomming attack has an AP of -6.
Is the new AP +4? or 0?
Smart Armor does not count as 'armor' for the armor roll.. I don't think.
Otherwise I end up with:
Armor 20 + Smart Armor 10, Body 16.
First off, the AP gets dropped by 10, second off the armor rating gets increased by 10? So Smart Armor double dips?
This would mean that I would need a DV/AP combo of 40 to get to hurt a Armor 20, Smart armor 10 vehicle? And then the vehicle gets to roll 46 dice to soak damage?
QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Jun 10 2011, 09:09 AM)
No, the intent is never ambiguous.
I mean ambiguous in terms of determining the intent. The words are ambiguous, therefore the intent is unclear.
QUOTE (sabs @ Jun 10 2011, 10:26 AM)
Smart Armor does not count as 'armor' for the armor roll.. I don't think.
It doesn't say it adds to armor, but the "reduces AP" ends up functionally identical to adding to armor, but it doesn't do both.
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 10 2011, 10:06 AM)
Again, you confuse Fluff with Mechanics.
"Reducing the AP value of attacks by the smart armor's rating" is mechanics, not fluff. Because the second part is additional mechanics that don't conform to that sentence ("roll rating, his reduce the AP value" is not "rating reduces the AP value"). The first part also makes no mention of large weapons, whereas the second part does.
If the first part is fluff, it's not written as fluff. Fluff doesn't (or shouldn't) talk about AP values, armor ratings, and damage codes. Those are mechanics.
(Also, you can't say "again" because you haven't accused me of it before. I can't have more tea if I haven't had any tea at all)
Skipping replying tot he rest, as it seems enough of that was done already.
Not quite. You still reduce the effective AP of the attack by the smart armor's rating. You then increase it by the hits. So final AP = (AP + R - H).
Unfortunately it's not clear. I think it shouldn't make the AP value go positive, but that's just me wanting balance.I've got no basis in the rules for it.
This is how I see it to. It's worse than just having 46 dice to soak. It also means you have 30 hardened armor and reduce AP by 10, so they need around 40DV just to scratch you.
QUOTE (sabs @ Jun 10 2011, 10:26 AM)
DV>10 = AP reduced by Hits of Smart Armor Rating Roll.
Not quite. You still reduce the effective AP of the attack by the smart armor's rating. You then increase it by the hits. So final AP = (AP + R - H).
QUOTE
I have a Smart Armor Rating of 10.
The incomming attack has an AP of -6.
Is the new AP +4? or 0?
The incomming attack has an AP of -6.
Is the new AP +4? or 0?
Unfortunately it's not clear. I think it shouldn't make the AP value go positive, but that's just me wanting balance.I've got no basis in the rules for it.
QUOTE
Smart Armor does not count as 'armor' for the armor roll.. I don't think.
Otherwise I end up with:
Armor 20 + Smart Armor 10, Body 16.
First off, the AP gets dropped by 10, second off the armor rating gets increased by 10? So Smart Armor double dips?
This would mean that I would need a DV/AP combo of 40 to get to hurt a Armor 20, Smart armor 10 vehicle? And then the vehicle gets to roll 46 dice to soak damage?
Otherwise I end up with:
Armor 20 + Smart Armor 10, Body 16.
First off, the AP gets dropped by 10, second off the armor rating gets increased by 10? So Smart Armor double dips?
This would mean that I would need a DV/AP combo of 40 to get to hurt a Armor 20, Smart armor 10 vehicle? And then the vehicle gets to roll 46 dice to soak damage?
This is how I see it to. It's worse than just having 46 dice to soak. It also means you have 30 hardened armor and reduce AP by 10, so they need around 40DV just to scratch you.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 10 2011, 10:12 AM)
(Also, you can't say "again" because you haven't accused me of it before. I can't have more tea if I haven't had any tea at all)
Apologies... You are correct... Would you like some more tea?
QUOTE (Tymeaus Jalynsfein @ Jun 10 2011, 11:40 AM)
Apologies... You are correct... Would you like some more tea?
If I were a fan of tea, then I'd be delighted.
QUOTE (Draco18s @ Jun 10 2011, 01:38 PM)
If I were a fan of tea, then I'd be delighted.
I'll take his tea.
Having run one campaign pretty much laissez-faire, I have a short list of things I'd probably do differently next time:
If two or more emotitoys are within (device rating) meters of one another, the emotitoys negate the dicepool bonus of another emotitoy in use within (device rating) meters, rather than adding the bonus to its users' dicepool.
Put two Furbys on the table next to each other and they instantly start communicating with each other, often to the exclusion of all other stimuli. This is just the logical extension of this into Shadowrun, and a solution that I feel works better than just adding six dice to the social dicepools of every NPC the face talks to. This would be independent of any notoriety penalties/worse starting attitudes for using an emotitoy in the first place.
Tasers, Stick-n-shock ammo, and monofilament weapons do not add net hits to damage.
Basically carrying over logic from capsule rounds and contact toxins to the other weapons that "just have to touch you". Prevents SnS from automatically being the best ammo type for every situation ever. Still on the fence about whether to move SnS to "large bore only", but I'll experiment with this and see if I like it better.
I don't care if it's legal by the RAW, nobody starts with gear from WAR!
I don't like to ban books outright, but player characters shouldn't be able to start play with top-of-the-line gear already.
If two or more emotitoys are within (device rating) meters of one another, the emotitoys negate the dicepool bonus of another emotitoy in use within (device rating) meters, rather than adding the bonus to its users' dicepool.
Put two Furbys on the table next to each other and they instantly start communicating with each other, often to the exclusion of all other stimuli. This is just the logical extension of this into Shadowrun, and a solution that I feel works better than just adding six dice to the social dicepools of every NPC the face talks to. This would be independent of any notoriety penalties/worse starting attitudes for using an emotitoy in the first place.
Tasers, Stick-n-shock ammo, and monofilament weapons do not add net hits to damage.
Basically carrying over logic from capsule rounds and contact toxins to the other weapons that "just have to touch you". Prevents SnS from automatically being the best ammo type for every situation ever. Still on the fence about whether to move SnS to "large bore only", but I'll experiment with this and see if I like it better.
I don't care if it's legal by the RAW, nobody starts with gear from WAR!
I don't like to ban books outright, but player characters shouldn't be able to start play with top-of-the-line gear already.
QUOTE (CanRay @ Jun 10 2011, 11:42 AM)
I'll take his tea.
It is a Blueberry/Raspberry Green/Black Tea Blend... Quite soothing actually.
QUOTE (Loch @ Jun 10 2011, 01:50 PM)
Having run one campaign pretty much laissez-faire, I have a short list of things I'd probably do differently next time:
If two or more emotitoys are within (device rating) meters of one another, the emotitoys negate the dicepool bonus of another emotitoy in use within (device rating) meters, rather than adding the bonus to its users' dicepool.
If two or more emotitoys are within (device rating) meters of one another, the emotitoys negate the dicepool bonus of another emotitoy in use within (device rating) meters, rather than adding the bonus to its users' dicepool.
Question:
How does it work if a R3 emotoy is 5 meters away from one that's R6?
(Per how you wrote it, neither gets a benefit, but it's a very one sided conversation (the R3 is too far away to communicate with the R6))
My rule for Emotitoys is that they have to be touching the person whose mood they are sensing. Because they're designed as toys for kids. So they climb on the kid, and use complex biometrics to determine the mood of the child they are playing with.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.