[ShadowcatX]

Notice how anything that disagrees with him is semantics or fluff? Weird how that works, it's almost like he knows he's wrong but wants to persist in a bullheaded and ridiculous argument for no reason.

[firebug]

ShadowcatX, I understand how frustrating it can be on this forum sometimes, but please try to avoid directly insulting people.  If you're upset, try to avoid the thread and find something else.  That's what I do.

[Marcus]

Sounds like the reinforce spells pretty solidly answers that question.

[ShadowcatX]

Firebug, please learn the difference between an insult (eg. You're stupid) and pointing out holes in someone else's argument (eg. Ignoring everything that doesn't agree with him.) If you have trouble with that, there are online dictionaries.

[PiXeL01]

There’s no need for either since this is the internet.

[Rosa]

The "Fix" spell which is basically heal for non-living things including vehicles  (SG page 116 ) and "Protect vehicle " ( SG page 117 ) which allows you to protect a vehicle against hostile magic are both beneficial physical manipulation spells, and both require you to beat the vehicles OR, so it would indeed seem reasonable that an armor spell cast at a vehicle or drone would too.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Notice how anything that disagrees with him is semantics or fluff? Weird how that works, it's almost like he knows he's wrong but wants to persist in a bullheaded and ridiculous argument for no reason.

It may also be useful to remember that it was my point all along that the notion you can heal a truck is ridiculous.  Insisting on arguing over something everyone agrees is ridiculous is only serving to distract the thread from whether or not it's ridiculous to say a spell with no resist test called out should have one in certain circumstances.  Like casting Armor on a vehicle.

[ShadowcatX]

Notice how anything that disagrees with him is semantics or fluff? Weird how that works, it's almost like he knows he's wrong but wants to persist in a bullheaded and ridiculous argument for no reason.

It may also be useful to remember that it was my point all along that the notion you can heal a truck is ridiculous.  Insisting on arguing over something everyone agrees is ridiculous is only serving to distract the thread from whether or not it's ridiculous to say a spell with no resist test called out should have one in certain circumstances.  Like casting Armor on a vehicle.

Then might I suggest you don't put forward arguments that you know are ridiculous and incorrect?

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Then might I suggest you don't put forward arguments that you know are ridiculous and incorrect?

Well it was brought up to begin with because I also considered it equally ridiculous and incorrect to say that Armor never has a resistance test.

If it helps, feel free to consider the comparison between the two to be demonstrated as faulty in light of the text on page 282 being pointed out.  I wouldn't necessarily agree, but who cares because A) again my point was the Heal argument was always ridiculous anyway and B) continuing to argue that a ridiculous point has arguable merits only to ultimately be pointing out how those merits don't count anyway is only serving to confuse and/or annoy people.

There are plenty of other opinions in the thread about how an OR seems applicible/appropriate without bringing up the "well a GM's job is to adjudicate and if necessary interpret the rules" point.

[Marcus]

Firebug, please learn the difference between an insult (eg. You're stupid) and pointing out holes in someone else's argument (eg. Ignoring everything that doesn't agree with him.) If you have trouble with that, there are online dictionaries.

Oh for goodness sake Shadowcat, Firebug was trying to be nice, and help you, at the very least you could have the good grace to grasp this fact,
Failing that understand this is the internet if all the other side in a discussion is ignore all contravening evidence, the conversation is actually probably going pretty well.
Chill out a man, it's really ok. Everyone who stays on here long enough will get temp banned for something or other, usually going to far, but save it for those whom truly have it coming. Just try to learn whom your friends are.

[Jack_Spade]

Sounds like the reinforce spells pretty solidly answers that question.

Comparing the Reinforce to the Armor spell shows that the former is pretty superior in nearly all ways to the later:
Not only does a vehicle/drone or personal armor gain armor and structure it also doesn't turn you into a highlighted target on a battlefield and all for just one point more drain more - which can be pretty handily ignored through the use of reagents

As for the question if Armor can be used offensively:
Manipulation spells have a pretty clear description: "Physical: These spells affect physical forms and are usually defended against with a living target’s Body + Strength or an inanimate object’s Object Resistance dice pool."
So if you don't want the spell to apply to you, you can break it with a Body+Strength test.

On the question if Armor can be used on non-living targets: "This spell creates a glowing field of magical energy around the subject that protects against Physical Damage."

That seems to be a strong indication that it's meant only for living things, since non-living things a very, very rarely seen as subjects, but consistently called objects throughout the rules.

In contrast the Reinforce spell clearly says: "Reinforce allows the spellcaster to increase the structural integrity of an object no larger than caster’s Magic in square meters."

If subject and object became interchangeable, Reinforce would be the go to spell for every combat character.

[ShadowcatX]

Firebug, please learn the difference between an insult (eg. You're stupid) and pointing out holes in someone else's argument (eg. Ignoring everything that doesn't agree with him.) If you have trouble with that, there are online dictionaries.

Oh for goodness sake Shadowcat, Firebug was trying to be nice, and help you, at the very least you could have the good grace to grasp this fact,
Failing that understand this is the internet if all the other side in a discussion is ignore all contravening evidence, the conversation is actually probably going pretty well.
Chill out a man, it's really ok. Everyone who stays on here long enough will get temp banned for something or other, usually going to far, but save it for those whom truly have it coming. Just try to learn whom your friends are.

I was every bit as polite to firebug as firebug was to me. Nor did I, in any way, attack Rat. What people need to do is learn to not be so thin skinned that correcting someone or an attack on their argument is seen as an attack on their person.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Nor did I, in any way, attack Rat. What people need to do is learn to not be so thin skinned that correcting someone or an attack on their argument is seen as an attack on their person.

Well to be fair speaking as the target of the comment made upthread:

Notice how anything that disagrees with him is semantics or fluff? Weird how that works, it's almost like he knows he's wrong but wants to persist in a bullheaded and ridiculous argument for no reason.

It DOES seem to be in the neighborhood of a personal attack.  But no offense taken, to be clear, because I've actually pondered whether or not I'm trying to have it both ways between this and the Suppressive Fire thread.

That being said, I'm copacetic if you are.  When it comes to being allowed to use the heal spell on a nonliving target we both agree you can't (maybe we disagree on WHY, but if so who cares about disagreement that minor).  When it comes to using Armor on nonliving targets, we can agree to disagree on whether it's a house rule or "rules-as-intended-but-not-explicitly-said" (RAI) that object resistance comes into play when the spell is a physical manipulation cast on a non-living object and that spell doesn't say there's normally a resistance test.

Peace

[ShadowcatX]

Copacetic, fair enough.

As to the object resistance I haven't made up my mind yet. My first reaction was that object resistance would apply, and my second thought was well done catalyst...

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

What do you think about the question of Armor getting a resistance test if cast on a living target who doesn't want the spell/would be harmed by the spell?

It's not exactly the case of casting on a nonliving target, but if a living target is allowed to get a resistance test on a normally unresisted spell used in a hostile way then it's setting the precedent that an "unresisted" spell is indeed sometimes resistable.