Fikealox Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 Hi guys I just have another rules question that has been bugging me...Say someone has an attack with the Armor Penetrating extra, and the Burning extra. The initial damage is easy enough to work out, but how about on subsequent turns?Say the initial attack dealt 6 damage, and denied the target any soak. I would then assume subsequent turns would deal 3 damage (without any re-rolling). That seems simple...Now, the book says that damage "may be soaked as normal". Of course the Burning extra isn't written with AP in mind, but to your minds does that mean the target will still be denied soak, or no?I lean toward denying the target soak, personally. Mainly because I visualise the attack as a flaming arrow that sticks into the enemy (maybe I've watch Men In Tights too many times). Plus, if someone's got AP for an attack, presumably it's mainly designed to be used against hard targets who would otherwise easily soak said attack... and if their soak were allowed vs the burning, it'd be entirely useless.Thanks again guys!-Liam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave ST Posted June 25, 2007 Share Posted June 25, 2007 I've always used the 'burning' extra at what ever the statistics were when the wound was inflicted. So if the wound was caused at 0 soak then the burning would bypass the armor on subsequent turns.So, if you had a soak of 20, and AP lowered it to 12, then the 'burning' would effect you with an effective soak of 12 for the continuation of its duration.Others may disagree, but the above has always made logical sense to me. It illustrates grievous injuries that are affecting the character on an internal level or in a manner that armor just wasn't meant to deal with (internal bleeding, something jagged twisting betwen armored plates, incredibly low temtratures counter acting a character made of fire).The list goes on, the point is that armor can be, and should be bypassed from time to time, if it makes sense roll with it, and have fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fikealox Posted June 25, 2007 Author Share Posted June 25, 2007 Thanks Dave, that's a massive help :-) You actually answered two things that were bugging me in the same breath.Cheers!-Liam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave ST Posted July 1, 2007 Share Posted July 1, 2007 Glad I could help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.