I don't know about that. It's one of the few suits of armour that can take a full chemical seal and is still street legal. For a body 4 character with FFBA it's almost perfect, stat wise.

In theory, a Full Suit of FFBA could take the Chemical Seal as well. *shrug*
Bike Armor is very nice, I just do not like it for Tactical applications. Personal Choice I guess. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

It's very easy: since the section in Attitude mentioned SR4A explicitly and did not include Arsenal, then yes.


You say "dumb," I say "RAW."


See above: since Arsenal was not explicitly mentioned then it is not allowed wholesale without House-Rules.


As has been pointed out many times before, an FAQ is not Errata - it is simply a list of accepted House-Rules.


In theory, the Evo HEL suit has a full chem seal when the mask is applied, although the rules don't state that it does.

Nope. I consider this reference to include "clothing and armor clothing," not the specific item Armor Clothing, since the rules for all clothing and armor clothing in general are found on that page. Arsenal clearly expands this category; Arsenal is clearly included.

And this kind of thing is exactly why I called the ruling rules lawyering.

I agree. I think the modification should be banned on all clothing with an inherent armor rating or allowed for all types of clothing with armor. I also believe that neither is the intention of the developers; I don't think they thought through this section very well...

Actually, yes. What you just said after the word "consider" is all outside the purview of RAW and is considered a House-Rule. The reason Arsenal doesn't work is because it also points at SR4A, SR4A doesn't point to it. If two streams flow into the same lake you cannot say that the water from one stream flows into the other stream because they are connected by a lake - both currents flow to the same point.


You call it "rules lawyering," I call it "RAW." What you and the others are declaring are nothing more than House-Rules - not bad, just don't expect to have your House-Rules followed at every table you play at.


I don't see the same problem with it. It allows you to get a maximum armor class of 7/1 for a value of 800 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) . This is hardly game-breaking.

I completely disagree with your interpretation here. It would be like saying "this modification only works with light or heavy pistols (SR4A 317)," and then trying to claim that would exclude the Ruger Thunderbolt.

Yours is also an interpretation.

I see we are at a draw.

I see two people, each holding one gun, engaged in a mexican standoff. I shoot them both with my underbarrel grenade launcher.

You know, it occurs to me to ask whether a weapon with an integrated underbarrel weapon (such as an Ares Alpha) can have another underbarrel weapon strapped to that.

and maybe another strapped to that, daisy chaining indefinitely...

Fortunately the weapon mod for Underbarrel Weapon specifically says that, "You cannot attach an underbarrel weapon to another underbarrel weapon."

Not really. My interpretation has been confirmed by the designers to be correct, so there you go.

I'd like to see that errata. Otherwise it's simply hearsay.

When you move into the realm of interpretations, not all are equally valid. In cases where intent is impossible to construe, RAW is all we can go by; fortunately, we have a case where intent has been clearly stated and supports a position that does not contradict the RAW. So basically, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

Since you claim to have a case where the intent is clearly stated, then please do quote the person.

However, I must state that only when such an intent were to be made clear via published source, then would such an interpretation be RAW. Otherwise, absent such a clarification, then all possible RAW interpretations would still be valid RAW-wise.

The RAW on this matter is unclear. The best that can be said of it is that there are a number of possible interpretations. (As opposed to, for example, someone claiming that it applies only to the Urban Explorer Jumpsuit, which is clearly absurd.) The RAW does not distinguish between the quality of the available interpretations in this case, because both arguments are cogent and to a certain degree in line with common sense. (That is to say: While I disagree with Neraph, I understand how he arrived at the conclusion that he did given the text presented; I assume he feels similarly.)

So in a sense I agree with you.

But the intent has been clearly stated previous to this--or rather, linked to. Allow me to include the quote itself:

So while one can argue as to the various interpretations in an absence of a game itself, with any consideration of intent--and, therefore, in any gameplay scenario, including Missions--my interpretation is correct and should be followed if attempting to play without houserules.

Now, I would argue that Neraph's reading is incorrect in other ways; I believe it assumes a limiting factor not otherwise present. I do not, however, see the need to press the point home, as anyone who cares less for pedantry than for gameplay should already have seen that the matter is moot in the extreme.

And how does the "happy medium" not contradict the RAW?

Because it doesn't?
"Armored Clothing" is not "Armor" it is "Clothing". *shrug* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)
While you wear "Armor" is is never classified as actual Clothing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

My interpretation of how this is the case was offered some few posts ago.

Are you refering to post 54? If so, can you elaborate on how you come to that interpretation and how Jason's answer as well as your interpretation are both RAW.

Because the rules don't say something like "clothing and the 4/0 Armor Clothing armor." Basically, I see two possible readings of the RAW and the developer indicating which one is correct.

I also see 2 possible readings of RAW.

1) 4/0 Armor Clothing
2) Armor clothing in general

Developer's answer is that BOTH are incorrect with respect to intent, hence his going with the "happy medium".

SR4A "clothing" and "armored clothing". By description of the items (which is "RAW")


Arsenal is a bit much to copy/paste, so see pages 45 through 47 in the second printing.

Oh, I see what you're saying. That's not my interpretation, but I see how you got there.

I don't think that, as written, anything in the core book besides Armor Clothing counts as armor clothing, though I think that the leather jacket, lined coat, and Actioneer suit certainly should. (Feedback clothing is an add-on to regular clothing and therefore isn't any kind of armor at all, just a modification.) The vest and the jacket, however, are clearly not; that's a bulletproof vest and something like a motorcycle armor jacket, not regular clothing.