Excelsior Entertainment Forums
Warzone => Game Questions => Topic started by: warzoneD on January 26, 2008, 02:40:31 AM
-
So, as I understand it... this just works vs. Natural (non AV) attacks.
SO even a pistol can harm a vehicle? Yes?
-
yes.
the only thing not working are, e.g. dog bites or catels agents kicks..
the childrens rattle however is a weapon -> no impenetrability
-
Yeesh - how useless. Kind of an inapropriate name for that SA, IMO. Should be called "Sorta resistant to puppies and toddlers." Since by those guidelines even a baseball bat could penetrate a Hurricane walker.
I think a some better choices might be--
1) non AV rated weapons are 1/2 damage???
Or
2) Impenetrable by non AV rated weapons that do less than 12 damage.
-
yes, that was all proposed.
problem: only HMG/AC/snipers/RL are able to damage the vehicle then (+ some special things or CC beasts)
-> it can pritty much encounter & destroy any squad..
-> most likely too powerful.
as it is, AR having ~30 % chance of a would to a big guy is ok..
another propose was -3 dam to non-av weapons
-
Yeah, that could work.
But at 1/2 Damage even an AR witha DAM of 10 could hurt a AR of 24.
Yes you'd need a 19 or 20, but isn't that the idea??? With 3 actions per trooper - even a Light Inf. unit of 10 guys has a good chance of taking down a Hurricane.
D
-
Impenetrability was not intended to mean indestructible.
Is it a bit confusing and/or "useless?" A little. However, what it represents is that a weak model cannot just rip panels off and kill it, bare-handed (I think that baseball bats would, logically, be considered natural attacks). Therefore, one needs a firearm to shoot holes, a melee weapon capable of finding a weakly armored area in which to throw the proverbial monkey-wrench, etc.
Impenetrability also represents a hardening of the model that certain weapons can take advantage of - like RL's and AC's. RL's and AC's are designed to punch holes through said targets, and gains bonuses to do so.
-
I see your point -
but then it seems that all this SA really does is make vehicles MORE vulnerable then even grunt normal troopers.
Whereas when my soft fleshy normal grunt trooper gets hit by an AC he takes 13(x2) Dam.
However, my big, armored, mamba jamba Hurricane actually suffers another +2 or +3 Dam just because he's a vehicle.
Okay, so my foe can't bite or claw through my armor, 90% of the enemies in UWZ have a gun/weapon.
I'm really better off NOT having the Impenetrability SA.
I'd rather take my chances against a K-9 units bite then an AC or Artillery barrage.
Poor little hurricane.
-
RL's and AC's are desiged to punch through armor. Hence, they get a bonus against said targets. They do not get the same bonus against the soft targets. Impenetrability gains the benefit of not having to deal with natural attacks of <12 (?), yet will suffer against armor-piercing rounds.
Further, Impenetrability imparts a larger AR to the model, without increasin the cost of the model (it is built in, you just don't see it, as it is done through the rubric).
-
well, the big vehicles _need_ more armor.
an AR20 hurrricane would be such a victim..
-> donīt see it as a ability, but as part of the vehicle rules. this way it makes more sense..
-
It also helps to counter-act some of the inherent power that people feel vehicles have. You know, the whole "moving and shooting" thing. Granted...I really wish those monstrous creatures could do the same!
-
not to forget the most significant +3 for not moving..
-> vehicles are strong, and impenatrability is just another word for "AV-pain to to you"
-
not to forget the most significant +3 for not moving..
-> vehicles are strong, and impenatrability is just another word for "AV-pain to to you"
Now THATS funny!!! ;D