[Herr Brackhaus]

The Revolution is in Rigger 5.0; page 42 and 43.

[Gorstavich]

The Revolution is in Rigger 5.0; page 42 and 43.

YES!

*points at the old battered Dodge Scoot*  Soon, my arch-enemy... soon, you will be headed for the scrap heap!

[Dinendae]

The Revolution is in Rigger 5.0; page 42 and 43.

YES!

*points at the old battered Dodge Scoot*  Soon, my arch-enemy... soon, you will be headed for the scrap heap!

Wait, you showed up for meetings with Mr. Johnson on a Dodge Scoot? 
Wouldn't it have saved face if you took the bus instead? 

[Sendaz]

The Revolution is in Rigger 5.0; page 42 and 43.

YES!

*points at the old battered Dodge Scoot*  Soon, my arch-enemy... soon, you will be headed for the scrap heap!

Wait, you showed up for meetings with Mr. Johnson on a Dodge Scoot? 
Wouldn't it have saved face if you took the bus instead? 

Probably would have been awkward given his Johnson came and left on the bus.

Example 31 from "Signs that this might not be a good Run"

[Lucean]

Does standard equipment listed on the vehicles count as used modification slots?

Why do the rules on vehicle modification for armor tell us that the maximum you can add would be equal to BOD when you need at least Rating*2 in modslots?

So technically while being allowed to increase vehicle armor by the value of its BOD, the technical maximum is BOD/2 for standard armor. Which makes most vehicles worse in soaking damage than mil-spec armor.
Why has personal armor become more efficient than vehicle armor?

[Csjarrat]

Does standard equipment listed on the vehicles count as used modification slots?

Why do the rules on vehicle modification for armor tell us that the maximum you can add would be equal to BOD when you need at least Rating*2 in modslots?

So technically while being allowed to increase vehicle armor by the value of its BOD, the technical maximum is BOD/2 for standard armor. Which makes most vehicles worse in soaking damage than mil-spec armor.
Why has personal armor become more efficient than vehicle armor?

because; catalyst

[thePrimarch]

This is just my understanding, so take it with a grain of salt.

Does standard equipment listed on the vehicles count as used modification slots?

From my analysis of drones and vehicles that start with standard equipment, standard equipment is already included, and the mod slots available are the slots that remain *after* standard equipment (which occasionally means that some vehicles and drones may have started with extra slots). This is why many drones and vehicles start with fewer slots than their body would normally suggest.

Why do the rules on vehicle modification for armor tell us that the maximum you can add would be equal to BOD when you need at least Rating*2 in modslots?

So technically while being allowed to increase vehicle armor by the value of its BOD, the technical maximum is BOD/2 for standard armor. Which makes most vehicles worse in soaking damage than mil-spec armor.
Why has personal armor become more efficient than vehicle armor?

The maximum is actually (Vehicle's base armor) + (Bod / 2). Vehicle mods are aftermarket add-ons, and modify the existing vehicle, so any vehicle armor you add is in addition to what comes standard on there. This typically means that vehicles can have very high armor ratings -- like the Dodge Rhino, with its base 14 armor and 24 body, can theoretically be modified to carry a whopping 36 armor.

And the phrasing of "The most armor any vehicle can add is equal to vehicle Body" means that if for whatever reason you managed to get a vehicle with a lot of extra mod slots, you could not add more additional armor to the vehicle than equal to the vehicle's body (so a Bod 3 vehicle with +3 additional mod slots could still only have +3 armor added to it). It sounds unlikely, but this ruling covers their bases in case someone adds a very mod-able vehicle later on that could theoretically break this rule.

[Lucean]

The maximum is actually (Vehicle's base armor) + (Bod / 2). Vehicle mods are aftermarket add-ons, and modify the existing vehicle, so any vehicle armor you add is in addition to what comes standard on there. This typically means that vehicles can have very high armor ratings -- like the Dodge Rhino, with its base 14 armor and 24 body, can theoretically be modified to carry a whopping 36 armor.

Sorry, it's only 26 armor (14+12), where Heavy Milspec gets to a Hardened 23. Getting into the latter is more safe.
But at least vehicles give more protection than walls because of adding their armor to the passengers armor when getting attacked.

[Rift_0f_Bladz]

This is just my understanding, so take it with a grain of salt.

Does standard equipment listed on the vehicles count as used modification slots?

From my analysis of drones and vehicles that start with standard equipment, standard equipment is already included, and the mod slots available are the slots that remain *after* standard equipment (which occasionally means that some vehicles and drones may have started with extra slots). This is why many drones and vehicles start with fewer slots than their body would normally suggest.

Why do the rules on vehicle modification for armor tell us that the maximum you can add would be equal to BOD when you need at least Rating*2 in modslots?

So technically while being allowed to increase vehicle armor by the value of its BOD, the technical maximum is BOD/2 for standard armor. Which makes most vehicles worse in soaking damage than mil-spec armor.
Why has personal armor become more efficient than vehicle armor?

The maximum is actually (Vehicle's base armor) + (Bod / 2). Vehicle mods are aftermarket add-ons, and modify the existing vehicle, so any vehicle armor you add is in addition to what comes standard on there. This typically means that vehicles can have very high armor ratings -- like the Dodge Rhino, with its base 14 armor and 24 body, can theoretically be modified to carry a whopping 36 armor.

And the phrasing of "The most armor any vehicle can add is equal to vehicle Body" means that if for whatever reason you managed to get a vehicle with a lot of extra mod slots, you could not add more additional armor to the vehicle than equal to the vehicle's body (so a Bod 3 vehicle with +3 additional mod slots could still only have +3 armor added to it). It sounds unlikely, but this ruling covers their bases in case someone adds a very mod-able vehicle later on that could theoretically break this rule.

Wakashaani confirmed that the table is correct at the end of the book and the rhino section in the mil/sec section is wrong. It has lower body and armor than the RoadMaster.

[RiggerBob]

So it's 18+9 = 27 armor for heaviest possible armor on a truck then (Roadmaster, body 18 armor 18 base).

I'm still not able to construct a single realistic case where the "additional armor capped by body" rule is of any consequence with armor using rating x2 modification slots... 

[thePrimarch]

Sorry, it's only 26 armor (14+12), where Heavy Milspec gets to a Hardened 23. Getting into the latter is more safe.
But at least vehicles give more protection than walls because of adding their armor to the passengers armor when getting attacked.

You're correct, I can't math.

However, there's a line in Vehicle Damage on p205 of the 5th Edition Core Rulebook that states "If the attack’s modified DV is less than the vehicle’s modified Armor, no damage is applied." This is essentially exactly the same as Hardened Armor, and therefore any Vehicle with armor (including total armor after mods) of 23 or higher is equivalent or better than milspec armor.

So it's 18+9 = 27 armor for heaviest possible armor on a truck then (Roadmaster, body 18 armor 18 base).

I'm still not able to construct a single realistic case where the "additional armor capped by body" rule is of any consequence with armor using rating x2 modification slots... 

Like I said, if there are more mod slots than there is body (which is possible with low-body vehicles... but really, I think this is more of a 'just in case' rule), armor is still capped at the vehicle's body. So a body 1 vehicle with +3 slots would be capped at +1 armor rather than a theoretical maximum of +2.

[RiggerBob]

However, there's a line in Vehicle Damage on p205 of the 5th Edition Core Rulebook that states "If the attack’s modified DV is less than the vehicle’s modified Armor, no damage is applied." This is essentially exactly the same as Hardened Armor, and therefore any Vehicle with armor (including total armor after mods) of 23 or higher is equivalent or better than milspec armor.

No, it's exactly the same as the old Hardened Armor from 4th edition. In 5th Hardened Armor (the critter power referencend in the mil-spec armor) gives auto soaking hits for damage high enough in addition to ignoring low damage attacks.

[thePrimarch]

No, it's exactly the same as the old Hardened Armor from 4th edition. In 5th Hardened Armor (the critter power referencend in the mil-spec armor) gives auto soaking hits for damage high enough in addition to ignoring low damage attacks.

True, it does miss out on the half-armor auto soaking hits. I don't consider that a crippling difference (27 Vehicle Armor doesn't reduce all damage by as much as 23 Hardened Armor from a milspec suit would, but it does completely block more available weapons (as 28 damage is reasonably hard to reach)), but you're right, vehicle armor is less effective than milspec armor.

Maybe a solution would be a houserule for vehicles (or maybe just milspec vehicles?) that gives them the official Hardened Armor rule.

[Lucean]

It depends. With armor values near or above 20 Hardened Armor would have a huge impact on the effectiveness. Balance could become nigh impossible.
I think treating Mil-Spec armor as vehicle armor could be a better approach.

[RiggerBob]

To show this impact, let's do a demonstrative example 

An upgraded Ares Roadmaster (body 18, armor 27) getting hit by a 28 DV attack soaks on average (18+27) / 3 and takes 13 boxes of damage.

A normal metahuman (body 3) in heavy mil-spec battle-armor (+helmet) (armor 23) soaks 23 / 2 (hardened armor auto hits) + (3+23) / 3 and takes ~ 7 boxes of damage.

Of course these numbers are absurdly high anyway, so the impact on actual play is limited.


The damage to the roadmaster doesn't seem out of line (other than the usual problem we know from 4th edition: damage vs. hardened armor is miss-or-kill most of the time. something that the new hardened armor auto-hit rule in 5th edition should compensate for).
(Same roadmaster given the hardened armor rule would soak 28.5 damage on average btw...)

It's the mil-spec armor (giving an average metahuman more than 7 times his body in armor) that's completely ridiculous.