- Jul 8, 2012
It's always possible to come up with an explanation for how things work in-game. However, all else being equal, I'd prefer they go with the rules that make the most physical sense. I guess the argument for armour being better against most kinetics is that it's what people expect, even if the physics doesn't work that way.
I think the physics does (or could) work that way . One can always make up explanations as you say.
If you look at the progression of stones vs leather, arrows vs plate, muskets vs tanks, bullets vs kevlar, sabots vs reactive armor, ablative armor, and even newer technologies like active defense systems, or presumable technologies like super-alloys, field enhancements, nuclear bonding, etc, would we ever say that the bounds of technology in this race has been reached?
Even magnetic rail guns ... presumably if a round can be magnetically accelerated, it can be magnetically decelerated.