Is Immunity to Normal Weapons (heretofore ItNW) really subject to Armor Penetration (heretofore AP)? Is this supported in the Rules As Written? Let's take a look now, shall we?

Starting from the top:






All underlined emphasis is mine.

As we can see, Materialization grants ItNW, which is treated as Hardened Armor and is specifically referenced for the rules about how to treat it (the rules are reiterated in simplicity in ItNW, but that does not overwrite the rules for Hardened Armor), and Hardened Armor is in fact affected by AP; therefore, ItNW is affected by AP. The only argument against this is "treat as" does not equal "is," but that is a very weak argument (and a semantic one).

If ItNW is "treated as" Hardened Armor, and Hardened Armor is subject to Armor Penetration, then ItNW should be treated the same way - subject to Armor Penetration.

Exactly my conclusion. Not Irion's, though..

Mine too

I'm glad that my current GM hasn't thrown any spirits at us yet. We're using a few house rules, namely that ammo other than regular, gel, or flechette has an availability of at least 16R. This means no SnS.
However, as long as spirits remain at normal Forces, and we don't fight any tanks, everything should work out well.
That is to say that as long as we play the way that the game developers intended, there won't be any problems. The rules work well when you keep things at a reasonable level, but when you go past that level things tend to fall apart.

Hell, S&S is no different in usage than gel rounds.It's self-defense/riot-control LtL ammo. That, also, has the interesting property of zapping things that are immune to your typical ballistic suggestions. Don't forget to bring that up next session.

Indeed, it can't be clearer, in my opinion.

Those are the rules given on this topic.

It is obvious that the fact of armorpenetration is not mentioned in the immunity section. It is refered to the hardend armor section but there are TWO major differances.
The first one is, that the hardend armor takes into account modified DV, immunity does not.
The second is the bracket refering to armor penetration is missing.

Since a specific rule always beats a general rule or the referance to another rule, the text in the immunity section is higher considering RAW.
As a matter of fact, there are no rules given in the hardend armor section not given or even contradicted in the immunity section.

Put non the less the hardend armor section is helping to understand the wording used in the immunity section.
If the hardend armor section talks about modified Damage value it is to assume, that mentioning only Damage Value is refering to the unmodified damage Value.
This results in the conclusion, that Net-Hits do not help against hardend armor.

The matter of AP is not that easy to resolve.
(The interpretation that it should be used can be supportet by arguing game balance the argumentation it should not be used can be supported arguing fluff/common sense)
Well, strictly speaking not using armor penetration is a bit closer, becaue everytime armor penetration is used, it is mentioned. As it should be, because there is actually no general rule given (There are only rules for impact and ballistic armor).

The wording is actually bad too, because it stated, that immunity is "treated as “hardened” protection", there is no mentioning of this phrase in the rules for "hardened armor".

So lets try do it really after RAW:
Specific rule overwrites general rule or "similar" rules:
So we have to go with:

Instead of


The section of hardend armor still gives us additional information, so the referance was nessesary.
This is vital, because we would not know to handle a damage resistant test involving ITNW otherwise.



So we end up with:

But since the AP information is brackets, it stays questionable.

So if we stick to RAW ITNW does not care about Net hits nor AP, if checking for damage/no damage.


I know why the other interpretation is commonly used. That is quite obvious. Not using AP would make spirits close to immortal. But a RAW interpretation can not care about that.

their is no true/false answer, because SR rules are just a mess.

Some other rules about armor :




So simple burst does not apply when comparing the DV to the armor rating. Narrow and full burst does apply or not ?

You want to know what is exactly the good answer ? Ask your GM, he have the final word.
You don't like is point of view and he don"t want to change it after you discuss about it? Be the GM next time.

@Irion

Whilst you clearly have accomplished rules lawyering skills (that's a genuine compliment from an ex-board-gamer) I believe they have led you to miss a less-fine detail of critical importance in this path of logical deduction.

Where the ItNW text says 'treated as' and 'meaning' there is ample scope for the literal phenomenon known as paraphrasing. Perhaps you'd consider allowing for paraphrasing to be sub-RAW, but nevertheless to refuse AP based on your reasoning would be at least a little arbitrary. Hardened armour does allow AP so banning it for ItNW would not be treating one as the other. Granted the problem line in the ItNW section doesn't match, but there is not 'but' and no 'except' to grant it an override quality. Further, whilst it does not say 'modified DV' it also does not say 'unmodified' and both are used throughout RAW as qualifying adjectives. Therefore to assume the absence of either strictly implies one of them is not logically-sound.

I believe in RAW interpretations going by the letter but I also believe that English cannot be read like computer code - authors will employ techniques such as paraphrasing and to not account for them as a reader is negligent.

@Aerospider

Yes, I left out the interpretation of the word meaning. Because I rested (and still rest) on the believe that it is more favorable.
You are not in need of a but or an except, because the word "means" just does this job.

And no I do not consider paraphrasing to b sub-RAW. And that is the problem here.
The paraphrasing IS RAW. To paraphrase one sentance with another sentance is something quite silly, I have to say.


It is not said, they are treated the same way. Actually it is not even said they work alike. The word hardened protection does not even come up in the paragraph to hardened armor.
But even if we would ignore it, we still had to attribute to the following text of the immunity.
Which simply explains how comparing attack damage to Armor, in order to find out if a damage resistance test is needed, works.


Yes it is. That actually quite simple.

@Minimax le Rouge
A very good example.
If you mean something you have to say it. Thats the old thing with flying trolls. Just because it is not said they do not fly, it does not mean they can.
Going with your intention would make it impossible to apply any logic at all/neither to read the rules.
If what I see is not true, how can I make any statement about the world? So we have to assume it is true.
And we even need to go further and assume that everything we do not see is not "true".

And by the way: "unmodified" is never used in the corebook refering to armor.
And the word is not used in neither arsenal or augmentation at ALL.
So what you say sounds reasonable, but it is simply based on false facts.
(I checked with the rules for armor and everytime it is exactly stated when and if you have to modify the armor value.)

Do not get me wrong: If I was to bet I would say it is just poor wording and those two rules should have been reread and rewritten. And the Rules should be like you argue they are.
But thats now beyond of RAW. As far as Raw is concerned I have to assume that every Word belongs were it is and every word missing is missing on purpose. (Short of obvious printing errors, like empty spaces)
It would, I guess, even go beyond rules as intendet. Because Intend could also be argued in the other direction without the need to assume bad wording.

So in order to make your argument look more valid you took a few quotes out of context. Exactly what I wanted you to admit. The only flaw in your logic is when the ItNW Power references Hardened Armor itself. Now that we have that, the paraphrasing of ItNW must be tempered with the more complete definition from Hardened Armor, otherwise what purpose does referring a different section of rules serve? Another example is Called Shots on page 157 of SR4A. Without reading the referenced section Called Shots in melee combat are meaningless and have no rules whatsoever.


This is cherry-picking inside of rules to bring out a favorable outcome for your argument.

Shall I quote the hole paragraph? Would not change a thing. But I guess you have the book yourself.


RAI, yes. But this already assumes the authers of the book failed to write the rules correctly. Honestly, I can't call it RAW if my assumption is: The rules are wrong.


Don't you think I would have found several examples in the book? Here in the thread is an even better example for RAW Vs what most people rule at their tables.
The book is full of such things. You read them realise them(or not) and forget about them.
So why would I need to do that?
It is quite easy. The rules say it works like hardened protection (Which is by the way never mentioned in the hardened armor section. But never mind in RC, free spirit powers, they also mention adept points. Not that you would need it for anything) and than explains what this means.
Yes, this sentance was sloppy written, but non the less it is RAW. Non the less it is the direct rule for immunity. (As a matter of fact, I did not find it, someone asked it and I was quite shocked as I realised it myself. I would have never thought that RAW would be like that)
And since direct ruling trumps general or referance..
You are trying to overwrite a direct rule with an indirect(general) rule. Thats cherry-picking.
Yes, nobody would play it after RAW, because of the results.
Well, guess what: Thats true for a lot of rules.
Here [url]http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=35746[/ulr] is mentioned that after RAW you are able to grow your own bioware for free, if you meet some requirements.

Raw natural armor counts full against the limited for encumbrance, because it is never stated it does not and in the paragraph where the rules are is named armor and encumbrance. The sentance in question does not mention that the armor they talk about has to be worn. (Maybe this was fixed in SR4A)
Or lets take a look at movement: Change the movementrate in the terrain it controls?
Wait what? No spirit is ever mentioned to able to "control" terrain (as far as I know, but I could have missed it). So this power would RAW just do nothing.

Just to give some examples for rules were RAW is more than strange.
And it goes on and on.

You do think RAW means take whats in the book and filling out the gaps as fitting. No, it is not.
Raw is taking whats in the book and live with it. If some things do not work, they do not work.
If some things are useless, they are useless. If some things just break the balance, they break the balance.
To deal with those problems (which are bound to oocure) there is the GM standing above RAW.

I don't know what your point is, though. We've had this discussion a hundred times: yes, it is possible to read a set of rules so narrowly that it's impossible to use them. Yay?

It is pointless to argue about RAW, because RAW is simply the Rules as Written. By RAW, I can factually state that the rules for Immunity are:

However, I cannot claim anything more than that based solely on the Rules as Written. However, RAW doesn't do much good in a game because it is only the Rules as Interpreted that matter. Ideally, all the players in the group and the GM should read a rule, and agree on what they think it means. This usually involves substituting terminology that was defined elsewhere in the text, and considering what a fair and reasonable interpretation is. However, once the step is taken from the Rules as Written to the Rules as Interpreted, no claims of certainty can be made - only opinions can be stated. It's good to be able to discuss how we interpret the rules for ItNW, and it's nice to see what the general consensus is, but there is no right way to interpret the rules other than in a way that your personal group agrees upon. I've already stated how I interpret that which is written for Immunity, and I've said why. However, that's simply my opinion, and others are free to agree or disagree, but cannot justly claim that their interpretation is right and that mine is wrong.

Oh, and Irion, how did you come to the conclusion that net hits on an attack against a defender with ItNW don't get added to the attack's DV when comparing to the armor value to determine if the attack is shrugged off or not?

As a side note, I'm really enjoying the Metaphysics and Epistemology course that I'm taking this semester.

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.

2) That's the very definition of cherry picking. You'd be quoting the whole thing, but emphasizing exactly the pieces that support your argument.

@Draco18s
Ok, for you the whole section (this time I hit the w key).


So we know it only counts against certain typs of attacks.

This only stats that how much armor is "granted"


This explains how it is handled in general. From what we know till now the DV could be reduced, it could give rating*10 percent resistance or anything thinkable.

Now that the general direction has been stated the only thing left would be to state in which ways it is different and how it functions precisely

And here we go. Here we are.
The rules are only talking about damage Value (@bobbaganoosh if net hits are applyed it is called modified. The word damage value is used to describe the base damage of the weapons or increases made due to ammunition) not the modified one.
There is also no mentioning of AP, so it is to assume it is not used. (Because it is always stated, if and when you have to use it)

And nothing written in an other paragraph is able to change this, because direct rules overwrite everything else.
As a matter of fact you can not even arguee intend, because if you would intend that it functions exactly as stated under "hardned armor" there would have been no need to write this sentance. So the only option is to argue, that the rules have been screwed up. But this is beyond RAW and RAI.

I could now start an argument about "does cyber and natural armor count against encumberance" most would again disagree. Telling that it is not stated in the section in question and the general rules do not apply, because they talk about how different layers of armor stack in the paragraph before. Thats far more than I am arguing here. Telling direct rule overwrites general or similar rules.
Of course you could say my approch is wrong and that general rules or linked rules would need to be contradicted directly(which I would consider to be silly, because nobody writes "normal rules do not apply, instead use XXX) to not apply. But please, argue that way all the time and not just if seen fitting.

Here is exactly where your argument comes unstuck. 'meaning that' cannot be read as 'except that' or even as 'specifically', especially when the preceding text contains 'treated as' and not 'treated similarly to'. The paraphrasing of the Hardened Armour text is an illustration to draw attention to the key aspect of the power, and that is not an interpretation - it's what it is.

For me (and I hope/suspect most here) RAW is more than a series of dictionary definitions. It is subject to all the machinations of the language in which it is written, not just a word-by-word decoding of the text.

Well, but thats not what it is about.
We have no disagreement on that.

So how should it be read?


Here you get the definition of "meaning"
Verb http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mean
Noun http://www.thefreedictionary.com/meaning

After the verb meaning you always write the conclusion of all facts given. The sense/true intent/conclusion of what said or have written above/before.
Immunity is not hardened Armor. It works like it, thats not contradicted by phrase stated. It is only a bit different from it.
The point is: You are said to read the rules of hardned armor and in the end it is said what those rules mean for this power.

I didn't read every single sentence in this thread, as people tend to repeat themselfs quite often, especially in rule "discussions". But I think I get the general points here.

Irion already stated the single most important quote, but somehow nobody realized it or nobody wants to realize 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?

But even ignoring this obvious fact, they are even explaining it in the next sentence with "meaning that [...]".

I really don't understand how that is arguable.

Answered your own question, methinks.

Not really.
I brought it up once, but it was never addressed.
Amazeroths point has not been disputed in this thread.

So, what you say is, that if the BASE DV of a weapon does not exceed 2x FORCE, the spirit automatically takes no damage (regardless of the result of the attack roll)?

That is so obviously wrong, that it doesn't even require a book to figure that one out.

Bye
Thanee

P.S. Besides, the part after "meaning that" doesn't work as a rule, because it says "does not exceed the Armor" instead of "does not exceed the Armor rating". It is not possible to work out how that one is supposed to work without referencing the complete text under "Hardened Armor". It is - obviously - only a shortened reference to the whole rule, that covers the main aspects of the actual rule (which is listed in all its completeness under "Hardened Armor" and also referenced directly in the same paragraph (like, right before the "meaning that" part). Why else, do you think, the part in parantheses ('see "Hardened Armor", above') is there?

P.P.S. How '... is treated as "hardened" protection (see "Hardened Armor", above) ...' can mean anything different than '... works the same as "Hardened Armor" (see "Hardened Armor", above) ...' (just paraphrased differently for better reading flow), is completely beyond me.

It's not the base DV of the weapon, it's the DV of the attack.


Because the game uses the term 'hardened armor' and explains a set of rules for that. This rule references 'hardened' protection, and then explains how it works. It's either inconsistent/unclear (in SR? NO WAY!), or intended to work differently (or it would say 'hardened armor'.

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


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.

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.

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.



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



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.

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


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:
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.

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.

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



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


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

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

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.

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

@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:

I would totally end up with your interpretation.

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

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".

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

Looks like it...

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.

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")

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.

I am just shocked to hear confirmation of the obvious.

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

@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

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

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?)

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.


Interessant.


Still technically 33%.

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.

@Yerameyahu

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


@Amazeroth

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.

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.



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.



Monty Hall.

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