Claw vs AV 6

[emeyin]

On the Claw skill description it says any armor roll of 8 or more after modifications breaks armor. Could this be a bad thing if the target had AV 6 or below or could you ignore the Claw even though it's a mutation and break on a roll of 7?

[Mootaz]

Claw is a skill and you are not forced to use a skill unless the skill's description says so.
Claws does not have such a wording, so you can chose not to use Claws against a Halfling.

[Wylder]

Good grief. Either you or someone in your league has a REALLY bad case of rules lawyer syndrome.

[TeamTræls]

If you roll for Armour versus an AV6 player and roll a 7 (you have Claws), you would still break. Claws is a not a liability, it is an advantage. You would still break the AV 6 guy, but had he AV 9 and you rolled 8, you would have broken through anyway (bye bye Treeman).

[Darkson]

If you roll for Armour versus an AV6 player and roll a 7 (you have Claws), you would still break. Claws is a not a liability, it is an advantage. You would still break the AV 6 guy, but had he AV 9 and you rolled 8, you would have broken through anyway (bye bye Treeman).

You're missing what he's saying. If I have AV6, and you use Claw, because Claw only breaks AV on a 8+, you're effetively making my AV7.
But as Mootaz pointed out, you just elect not to use Claw.

[TeamTræls]

I'm not so sure, why would it be a liability to use Claws vs an AV 6 player? We play like if you don't say you don't use it, you use it (in this example, since Claws is a passive ability, we'd just roll for it and on 8+, I would break armour vs a guy with arm 8-10 - that is how we have always played in games). If I were to use Diving Tackle (the one where I place my player prone and opponnent suffers -2 to dodge?) I would have to say it. Those are the criteria I built my post upon, apparantly assuming this was common, but no?

[Grumbledook]

you were right TeamTrawls, darkson just can't read properly ;]