[Medicineman]

Its not cheap, but Arsenal has several venoms from Awakened critters that can go in capsule rounds, supersquirt paintballs or injection darts. Ask your GM, but since its an unmodified venom from an Awakened paracritter power, I'd think it would ignore the immunity entirely. Damage varies from 6-12 and net hits don't add to that but it should put a dent in spirits.

But I wonder if Poison works on Spirits ?
(and by-the-Way ist a RailGUN or   GAUSS Rifle .Rail Rifle sounds so....Wrong to Me )

HokaHey
Medicineman

[Nomad Zophiel]

But I wonder if Poison works on Spirits ?
(and by-the-Way ist a RailGUN or   GAUSS Rifle .Rail Rifle sounds so....Wrong to Me )

HokaHey
Medicineman

Normal poison, no (or at least ITNW applies). However, ITNW specifically does not apply to critter powers. RAW that means that even cobra venom would work, since venom is a power. However, my personal take on it is that natural venom would not bypass ITNW but venom from paracritters would as would any Awakened drugs. Since there is a Toxin Immunity quality and spirits don't have that as a power, toxins should effect them based on magical/not magical in the same way weapons do.

[voydangel]

But I wonder if Poison works on Spirits ?
(and by-the-Way ist a RailGUN or   GAUSS Rifle .Rail Rifle sounds so....Wrong to Me )

HokaHey
Medicineman

Normal poison, no (or at least ITNW applies). However, ITNW specifically does not apply to critter powers. RAW that means that even cobra venom would work, since venom is a power. However, my personal take on it is that natural venom would not bypass ITNW but venom from paracritters would as would any Awakened drugs. Since there is a Toxin Immunity quality and spirits don't have that as a power, toxins should effect them based on magical/not magical in the same way weapons do.

That's how I see it as well.

[Mäx]

Thanks for the detailed explanation, but this is where I am confused.  Physical Spirits automatically receive the Immunity To Normal Weapons critter power, which is also treated as Hardened Armor.  The Hardened Armor part I get, but when reading the RAW for Immunity To Normal Weapons part under Immunity, especially the following:

This immunity applies to all weapons that are not magical (weapon foci, spells, adept or critter powers).

This for me says, anything that is not magical in nature, be it bullet, explosive, taser, battery acid, menstrual blood, cow's piss, photon torpedo, etc., does no damage.  But if I had a pair of chopsticks that are weapon foci, then just the Hardened Armor part applies.  Yes, no?

There is no distinct hardened armor part, the hardened armor is the "immunity" meaning in the case of ItNW that all non magical attacks have to get past the hardened armor provided by ItNW, magical attacks on the other hand bypass that armor.

[Major Doom]

A critter with Immunity has enhanced resistance to a certain type of attack or affliction. The critter gains an "Armor rating" equal to twice its Magic against that damage. This Immunity Armor is treated as "hardened" protection (see Hardened Armor above), meaning that if the Damage Value does not exceed the Armor, then the attack automatically does no damage.

What about that is not clear?

Immunity to [STUFF] provides Hardened Armor vs. any attacks made with [STUFF]. It has absolutely no effect whatsoever on attacks made with [NOT STUFF].

As Immunity provides the effects of Hardened Armor, it follows all the rules for Hardened Armor - including being modified by Armor Penetration & the half Impact effects of most Elemental damage & Gauss weapons.

As I said before, I understand the Hardened Armor part.  My concern was about the Immunity To Normal Weapon part.

Yeah, "Immunity" was poor word choice. When they say it has "immunity to non-magical weapons", they're talking about immunity as defined in the preceding sentence (Hardened armor equal to magic x 2).

They aren't talking about "immunity" as commonly understood.

It is worth noting that the Oxford English Dictionary defines immunity as follows:
"protection or exemption from something".

So this would fall under "protection", rather than "exemption". Personally, I'd have used a term like "Resistance to Natural Weapons". Less possibility for connotation to create confusion.

Okay that's what I am confused about, since I thought Immunity To Normal Weapons and treating Immunity like Hardened Armor were two effects of the same power.  So as I read it, if an Awakend character were to use a spell on the spirit, then only  the Hardened Armor part would apply, meanwhile mundane weapons are nullified due to the Immunity To Normal Weapons part.  Then add on top of that the use of word "immunity", which as you mentioned, is a poor way of explaining it.  But unfortunately this now sounds more like RAI instead of RAW.

[Mäx]

Okay that's what I am confused about, since I thought Immunity To Normal Weapons and treating Immunity like Hardened Armor were two effects of the same power.  So as I read it, if an Awakend character were to use a spell on the spirit, then only  the Hardened Armor part would apply, meanwhile mundane weapons are nullified due to the Immunity To Normal Weapons part.  Then add on top of that the use of word "immunity", which as you mentioned, is a poor way of explaining it.  But unfortunately this now sounds more like RAI instead of RAW.

Immunity is nothing more then a name for a general critter power that gives the creature having it a hardened armor equal to twice the creatures magic attribute against what ever the creature has immunity.
For example Immunity to fire  gives the creature 2*magic points of hardened armor against fire attacks
Immunity to cold give 2*magic points of hardened armor against cold damage
And ItNW gives 2*spirits force points of hardened armor against all non magical attacks, nothing else.

[Raventrickster]

For a bit of amusement, it occurs to me that attacking a fire elemental with a fireball will work just fine.  It will completely bypass it's ITNW and do full damage, at least by RAW.  That said, I doubt there's a GM in existence that would let that one work.

[Mäx]

For a bit of amusement, it occurs to me that attacking a fire elemental with a fireball will work just fine.  It will completely bypass it's ITNW and do full damage, at least by RAW.  That said, I doubt there's a GM in existence that would let that one work.

Well the indirect elemental spell are a little tricky when it comes to ItNW as they actually create completely normal fire/lightning/whatever so the fire hitting the enemy isn't really even magical.
Ofcource i cant really see why you would ever use a fireball against any spirit, as stun ball has a much lower drain as does slaughter spirit.

[Chaemera]

Okay that's what I am confused about, since I thought Immunity To Normal Weapons and treating Immunity like Hardened Armor were two effects of the same power.  So as I read it, if an Awakend character were to use a spell on the spirit, then only  the Hardened Armor part would apply, meanwhile mundane weapons are nullified due to the Immunity To Normal Weapons part.  Then add on top of that the use of word "immunity", which as you mentioned, is a poor way of explaining it.  But unfortunately this now sounds more like RAI instead of RAW.

Doom, the RAW is that Immunity grants Hardened Armor equal to Magic *2, as previously stated by several posters. Immunity to Normal Weapons (ItNW) is a specific form of Immunity (same power, specific application) that applies the Immunity power to any and all natural weapons, as I explain in my original post.

Immunity to Normal Weapons does nothing to magical attacks. A creature with ItNW gets nothing against a spell (from ItNW, anyways), direct or otherwise (note ItNW say "spells", not "direct spells", so fireball is not subject to ItNW).

It's not RAI, it's the definition of Immunity as specifically stated on page 295. As Gun Nut pointed out, this name is a hold-over from previous editions. Don't try to infer that when they say "immunity", they mean invulnerability, use the definition they provide for the Immunity power. If you do that, you'll be fine.

[Mäx]

A creature with ItNW gets nothing against a spell (from ItNW, anyways), direct or otherwise (note ItNW say "spells", not "direct spells", so fireball is not subject to ItNW).

Yes thats true by the rules.
It's just wierd that the completdly natural flame the mage conjured out of thin air by-passes that immunity, while the identical flame producet by the sammies flamer has to beat it
And thats why i said its a little tricky.

[voydangel]

A creature with ItNW gets nothing against a spell (from ItNW, anyways), direct or otherwise (note ItNW say "spells", not "direct spells", so fireball is not subject to ItNW).

Yes thats true by the rules.
It's just wierd that the completdly natural flame the mage conjured out of thin air by-passes that immunity, while the identical flame producet by the sammies flamer has to beat it
And thats why i said its a little tricky.

Where exactly are you getting the idea that magically conjured fire (from fireball/flamethrower spells) is mundane fire? The attack may be treated as a "mundane" ranged attack, but I don't see anywhere in RAW where it specifically states that the elemental effects created by indirect combat spells are considered non-magical.

[Mäx]

A creature with ItNW gets nothing against a spell (from ItNW, anyways), direct or otherwise (note ItNW say "spells", not "direct spells", so fireball is not subject to ItNW).

Yes thats true by the rules.
It's just wierd that the completdly natural flame the mage conjured out of thin air by-passes that immunity, while the identical flame producet by the sammies flamer has to beat it
And thats why i said its a little tricky.

Where exactly are you getting the idea that magically conjured fire (from fireball/flamethrower spells) is mundane fire? The attack may be treated as a "mundane" ranged attack, but I don't see anywhere in RAW where it specifically states that the elemental effects created by indirect combat spells are considered non-magical.

Where do you get the idea that the fire created by the flamethrower spell is anythink else then normal fire, or the lightning created by the similarry named spell is in any way different from a normal lightning.

[Nomad Zophiel]

Where do you get the idea that . . .  the lightning created by the similarry named spell is in any way different from a normal lightning.

The fact that it does physical and not stun damage in the same way as a critter power based lightning and unlike mundane electrical attacks of equal damage.

[voydangel]

Where do you get the idea that the fire created by the flamethrower spell is anythink else then normal fire, or the lightning created by the similarry named spell is in any way different from a normal lightning.

@Mäx: That's cute, and I totally understand where you're coming from, I really do (I even ran it that way for a while back in the day), but according to RAW there is absolutely no reason to assume that the effects created by indirect elemental magic spells are mundane. In fact, we have every reason to assume that the effects are magical in nature. Example 1 would be electrical damage from spells dealing physical rather than stun damage (as pointed out by Nomad), and example 2 would be flamethrower spells bypassing ItNW (as you pointed out). There are other examples per RAW as well, but I think it's fairly safe to say that magically created elemental stuff is magical, not mundane. Unless of course you can find RAW to contradict this. 

[Doc Chaos]

And its discussions like this that make me praise the day I showed a lot of RAW stuff the way to the door out