I read the FAQ, and did check the rules, but did not find an answer.
So, let's say I have a recon vehicle of size 1. It's 1 armor on the front, and
thus, 0 on the sides, top, and bottom. It's not "open topped", it's just
small.
Is 0 armor on the non-front facing considered to be the same as a
softskin? Or, in other words, can the vehicle be successfully engaged by small
arms or APSW fire?
Thanks,
J
I've wondered about this one myself. We always counted it as being 1 armor all
around.
nick
[quoted original message omitted]
Well, I wouldn't call it "armor 1 all around" because clearly, it is not. That
is, in DSII a valid "0" chit will damage it.
However, that does not answer the question of what happens with infantry
weapons or APSWs. My take would be that it is counted as "armored" against
small arms, but is way easy to kill with vehicle killing weapons.
I'd love to see some kind of official ruling though.:)
J
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Nicholas Caldwell wrote:
> I've wondered about this one myself. We always counted it as being 1
> Nick wrote:
> I've wondered about this one myself. We always counted it as being 1
This isn't just a DSII question, it's also a SG2 question. I would let the
vehicle be 1 armour all around. I don't think I've created such a
beast, most of mine being 2/1, 3/2, etc.
Hmmm, didn't this question come up at the Con? I remember Jon T. saying
that it meant small arms wouldn't affect it, but, even zero chits of
appropriate colour would apply.
Or it could be that all the sheep puns have addled my brain... (8-)
JGH
> John K Lerchey wrote:
Well, I don't recall anyone asking Jon at the Con, but then, I didn't attach
myself to the sainted one since I was doing things like playing, but I do like
the answer since it makes sense to me.:)
Thanks!
J
John K. Lerchey Computer and Network Security Coordinator Computing Services
Carnegie Mellon University
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004, Jerry Han wrote:
> Hmmm, didn't this question come up at the Con? I remember Jon T.
saying
> that it meant small arms wouldn't affect it, but, even zero chits of