StarCraft II: The Big Picture

[Shadow Archon]

Apparently, the hardened mechanic doesn't works vs spells. Yamato and Nuke will deal full damage. It's likely that Psi Storm, and all other damage-dealing spells work the same.

Last I heard, mind you this being awhile back, Nukes only deal 10 damage to Immortals.

[The_Blade]

Last I heard, mind you this being awhile back, Nukes only deal 10 damage to Immortals.

Blizzard has updated the nuke and immortal relationship. Immortals now just die to a nuke, like most units.

[Crota]

The Immortal Shields work only when the unit has Shields left. The only difference, is that if the damage is higher than 10 after all the normal damage calculation (including Shield upgrades), it's reduced to 10.

So, Immortal Shields are going to last 10 attacks from any unit that deals more than 10 damage. After that, it's a normal unit.

I don't know what happends when the Immortal has less than 10 Shields left. I tend to think that the hardened mechanic doesn't works anymore, as otherwise Immortals regenerating even 1 Shield point would make a lot of difference vs heavy hitters, but maybe that's interesting in gameplay, so it's possible.

Shield upgrades makes the Shields harder to destroy by units like Marines, but make no difference at all vs things like Siege Tanks. A single Shield upgrade would make the Immortal Shields survive 20 Marine attacks instead of 17, and 34 attacks with the 3 upgrades, but i doubt we are going to see such numbers of Shield upgrades, as they're very expensive.

Apparently, the hardened mechanic doesn't works vs spells. Yamato and Nuke will deal full damage. It's likely that Psi Storm, and all other damage-dealing spells work the same.

Thanks for the clarification - Looks like Ghost EMP will pretty much render Immortals advantage moot.

[Nicol Bolas]

Immortals now just die to a nuke, like most units.

Actually, no. Nukes don't do that much damage. They only do 200 to units at most.

[flabortast]

Also the Siege tanks damage in Siege mode has not been 50+50 vs armored for the longest time. It just flat 60 to all targets.

[Norfindel]

Thanks for the clarification - Looks like Ghost EMP will pretty much render Immortals advantage moot.

You're wellcome.

At least, the AoE for EMP is small, and the Ghost is costly. They can always reduce the "damage" and the energy cost, if it destroy them too easily.

But yes, it looks like an EMP while the Immortals are taking several Tank hits could make them evaporate in no time, and they cost a ton of resources.

The Immortal worries me a little, i hope it's better on play from what it looks on paper. At least the damage is high: 20 +20 vs Armored.

[flabortast]

Even without the shields, Immortals still have high HP and armor. Siege tanks will be in smaller numbers and siege mode has quite a different usage now then it was before.

[Nicol Bolas]

But yes, it looks like an EMP while the Immortals are taking several Tank hits could make them evaporate in no time, and they cost a ton of resources.

No, they don't. Siege Tanks cost almost as much in minerals (200) and more in gas (150). And Immortals out-damage Siege Tanks against single, armored targets.

[Gifted]

No, they don't. Siege Tanks cost almost as much in minerals (200) and more in gas (150). And Immortals out-damage Siege Tanks against single, armored targets.

Indeed you are correct, but the splash damage of siege tanks can be efficient in scenarios that are different. I'm not saying that Immortals are better or worse, merely that they will suit likewise scenarios presented with different results.

An analogy, though a poor one, is to compare a sawed off shotgun to a rifle with armor-peircing rounds. Results will vary based on what (and how many) you're aiming at. I suspect that you never intended to discount this information, however. So don't view it as "shooting you down" merely adding to the conversation

[Kimera757]

Actually, no. Nukes don't do that much damage. They only do 200 to units at most.

300 damage, +200 vs buildings. (The first report, from Blizzard, was actually inaccurate. The CM had to post later in that thread stating the proper figure, but never edited the first post. Hence the confusion.)