duplicate of Gameplay::Mechanical, should be merged, probably under that heading Klomer 06:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
In StarCraft I, the reaver is robotic and not mechanical (making it immune to broodling). It's probably the only unit where that's important (there are several robotic air units, but they're all immune to broodling anyway). As far as I can tell, this won't be important in StarCraft II. Kimera 757 (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
See a reference to it here - http://www.battle.net/scc/zerg/special.shtml. Aren't tanks and goons considered biological? Maybe the article should be amended to make this bit of confusing trivia clear. Klomer 18:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
No, there are three classifications:
- Biological. Except for the SCV, they're just biological. These units take damage from irradiate and can be popped by broodlings. They are immune to lockdown.
- Mechanical. These units do not take damage from irradiate, but are vulnerable to lockdown and spawn broodling.
- Robotic. These units do not take damage from irradiate and are immune to broodling. They are vulnerable to lockdown. (Also, there are several robotic air units, like interceptors and the shuttle, that are immune to broodling anyway.)
- "Ethereal", probably not a real category, applies to archons. They're immune to basically everything but took full damage from everything.
I believe in StarCraft II there are no "robotic" units, they're all called mechanical. If something like spawn broodling reappears in the game, I would expect the split to reappaer.
Do we have a citation for robotic?
Archon are none-of-the-above, right? I believe archons take full damage because they are almost all shields. A 4th category is probably "Floating", as in doesn't trigger spider mines (workers, vultures, archons).
Generally you don't need to cite an in-game stat (as the stat is just the game). If you try to use broodling on a reaver, it'll tell you that it doesn't work on robotic units.