Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Noah Overton <NOAH_OVERTON@*************.OM.HP.COM>
Subject: Re: Another trick question.
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1998 12:20:09 -0700
Donald Arganbright wrote:


<Both Runners and Challenges may have Armor, indicated in parentheses
<as A and a number (for example, A2). Some Gear cards can be played on
<a Runner to modify his Armor Rating, or to provide unarmored Runners
<with Armor. Armor provided by Gear cards is indicated two ways. The
<first is as A + a number, for example, A + 1. In this case, a Runner
<with Armor increases the rating of that Armor by 1, and a Runner
<without Armor receives an Armor Rating of 1. Armor provided by Gear
<cards may also be indicated as A and a number (for example, A1). In
<this case, the Armor provided by the Gear is not cumulative with any
<other Armor. If a Runner has Armor of A1 and is holding a Vehicle
<card that provides Armor of A2, the Runner is protected by an Armor
<Rating of 2.

cards text
Play on a Runner with Sorcery. !A1) until end of combat to user and
all Runners on shadowrun with user. Bullet Barrier is not cumulative
with other armor.

O.K. I know the card says A1 but IMHO it should be A+1. why you ask?
well lets look at what a barrier. a wall is a barrier. if a runner
was behind a A1 wall with out armor and was attacked through the
wall, the wall would absorb 1 point of damage. correct.

now if the same runner was behind the same wall but had on a armor
vest a1. the same attack through the wall, the wall would absorb 1
point of damage then the vest would absorb 1 point of damage.

now before any one comes back with "but the card says". I know
what it says. but I think it should be A+1.
plus i think it should be good only against firearms and gunnery
attacks. But then there is the question how do you determine what
kind of attack a challenge is.

there is my thought on the deal. have at it


These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.