Mil-Spec Armor and Secure PPP-Tech Options

[Stahlseele]

/me can't believe this is still being argued about @.@

[toturi]

(yes, I see the referece - edited above)

I am not actually refering to the rules on p161. I was refering to the "just as helmets and shields do".

[Thanee]

Whatever the outcome of the above is, the correct answer to this question is "Yes, but under a stricter reading it is 'no'."

Well, if you mean by that, that the "intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet" part can be read as "Sure, PPP is totally fine!", then you do not need a very strict kind of reading to come to the conclusion that this is wrong. You would need a really lenient way of reading it into that part.

Bye
Thanee

[Thanee]

I was refering to the "just as helmets and shields do".

... which in turn references p. 161. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

And just to be sure, that reference is also included in the part you mentioned (right behind it, you only have to read the sentence to the end).

Bye
Thanee

[Yerameyahu]

Yes, Shortstraw, held-not-worn is a possible argument for shields. That point was make nearly over 275 posts ago, and several times since. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

I still can't understand these RAW flavors toturi's pushing: 'normal RAW', 'strict RAW', 'literal RAW'… and he says they contradict each other?

[toturi]

I still can't understand these RAW flavors toturi's pushing: 'normal RAW', 'strict RAW', 'literal RAW'… and he says they contradict each other?

RAW is any of the many different and differing manners that the Rules As Written can be read and be taken to mean due to imprecise wording, ambigious langauge, etc. Sometimes these differing meanings can contradict each other.

I use the term strict RAW to refer the strictly literal meaning of the Rules As Written.

[Yerameyahu]

I understand, but if there's ambiguity *neither* is RAW (or both, heh). I agree that there are different possible interpretations, which is nothing but a personal choice. Ambiguity is not sensitive to 'strictness'. Call them RAW-A, RAW-B, but my problem is the idea that they differ on some scale of 'literalness'.

[Neraph]

p. 161: "Note that some armor items, like helmets and shields, provide a modifier to the worn armor rating and so do not count as stacked armor."

Please define for me in the game terms an "armor item." Show me a listing of them. You will not be able to because that classification does not exist except in this one instance, making it a descriptive term and not a definitive category. Further, helmets/PPP/shields do not apparently have any armor value themselves: they have a modifier that they add to worn armor ratings. As such, they are not, by game rules, classified as "other worn armor," since they do not have and cannot grant an armor rating of their own - they can only modify an existing armor rating with their modifier.

This clearly does not include them in the MilSpec armor's caveat about any other armor, and clearly allows MilSpec helmets (as well as any other helmet/PPP/shield) to be used with MilSpec armor, regardless of encumbrance rules.

EDIT: Sorry for the lag, 56 hour work week.

[Halinn]

Are you seriously arguing that items referred to in their own description as armor, and mentioned to be worn, is somehow not worn armor? Because the rules do not have an exhaustive listing of what 'armor items' are?
How about this line of arguing: helmets/PPP/shields are bought separately from the MilSpec armor, so it is clearly not that armor. That leaves one with the fact that it is separate, and thus something else. Given that it is something else from MilSpec armor, and it is referred to as armor and being worn in its own text, it has to be other worn armor. Thus, it does not matter that it does not count as stacked, because the MilSpec rules do not make mention of that word in any place.

[snowRaven]

Please define for me in the game terms an "armor item." Show me a listing of them. You will not be able to because that classification does not exist except in this one instance, making it a descriptive term and not a definitive category. Further, helmets/PPP/shields do not apparently have any armor value themselves: they have a modifier that they add to worn armor ratings. As such, they are not, by game rules, classified as "other worn armor," since they do not have and cannot grant an armor rating of their own - they can only modify an existing armor rating with their modifier.

This clearly does not include them in the MilSpec armor's caveat about any other armor, and clearly allows MilSpec helmets (as well as any other helmet/PPP/shield) to be used with MilSpec armor, regardless of encumbrance rules.

EDIT: Sorry for the lag, 56 hour work week.

Armor pg. 326: "The following armor items offer tremendous damage resistance without slowing the wearer down or drawing too much attention." Then there's the list of all SR4A armor.

So, by that paragraph and the one you quoted me quoting above, everything that provides armor is an 'armor item', and regardless of what you think anything with an armor rating (regardless of +'s or not) provides armor. Just look at the trolls 'natural armor', with the same +. Or dermal plating, which 'gives a bonus to' armor. Or bone lacing. Or orthoskin. Or double elastin (the only thing speciically stating it's cumulative with other armor bonuses, no less...). Or dermal sheathig (wait...this doesn't state that it's cumulative with worm armor...what does it add to?).

That, and the fact that Military grade armor is clear on only allowing it's own helmet.

If it's armor and you wear it, it's worn armor. Quite simple.

[Yerameyahu]

Neraph, you're the one trying to invent 'armor item' as a term for what they're *not*. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If the term (or something like it) doesn't exist, then there's no reason to claim that +X items don't count. Of course, this is all beside the point, because the milspec rule doesn't say 'armor items', just 'armor'. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[KarmaInferno]

A problem is that Shadowrun does not use a comprehensive system of Defined Terms.

Seriously, it doesn't. It often makes some effort to use similar terminology for similar things, it even has SOME specifically defined terms, but for every one that is defined, there are twenty that are just kinda sorta thrown in and used in slightly different ways depending on who wrote the bit of rules you are reading.

So, in the absence of an all-encompassing comprehensive defined list of rules terminology, "other worn armor" means what it means in Plain English. "Armor", that is "worn", that is "other" than the mil-Spec armor you are comparing it to.




-k

[Shortstraw]

I just don't care anymore.

[almost normal]

I just don't care anymore.

Was it too many passive aggressive smileys for your taste?

I brought up shields about 10 pages ago for the following point; If you feel that strapping a shield to your arm while wearing Mil-spec is okay, the shield clearly being additional armor, then PPP should also be allowed. If you feel that "other armor" includes strapping a shield to your arm, and that magically the shield will be repelled from your person because the rules say it won't work, then PPP shouldn't be allowed in your game.

It makes me laugh when some jokers suggest that strapping a giant metal plate to your arm is A-okay, but a strap-on cup over your junk is completely unbelievable and implausible.

TL;DR : If shields = Yes, Then PPP = Yes.

[Yerameyahu]

Carrying a shield. But even if that were the choice, the answer would be 'neither'.

It's not about plausible; recall, this is a 'RAW discussion'. If were were going by 'makes sense', all bets would be off.

… (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[almost normal]

Carrying a shield. But even if that were the choice, the answer would be 'neither'.

It's not about plausible; recall, this is a 'RAW discussion'. If were were going by 'makes sense', all bets would be off.

… (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

It's the act of strapping the shield to your arm that activates it. RAW is just as ambiguous on whether a shield would work as whether PPP would work with Mil-Spec. Signs point to neither working.

[Yerameyahu]

Right. And that's fine, if that's the choice. Better to not use an incredibly niche item like a shield, than allow PPP to augment what's supposed to be the best, fully customized armor tech anyone could invent.

[Flaser]

So far I've seen the rules debated ad nauseum in this thread with hair-splitting focus on semantics.
Let's take a break and instead focus on something else: comparing stats.

The "best" armor one can get without Mil-spec is SWAT Armor (12/10)+ FFB Suit (6/2, counts as +3/+1 for encumbrance) + PPP (+2/+4) + SWAT or FBA helmet (+2/+2).
The net protection from this is 22/18, albeit it needs a BOD of 10 to wear (since it only counts as 19/16 for encumbrance). SWAT armor is also specifically mentioned to be often worn with extra protection, like PPP.
Heavy Mil-Spec Armor by comparison grant 18/16 with helmet worn.

If Heavy Mil-Spec Armor is supposed to be the "end all" of personal protection, something should be done to make it so.

If PPP can be worn with it, then it can grant 20/20 protection, still a bit less than the above described monstrosity... so I don't see the point in vehemently opposing this. The person wearing it would still need a BOD of 7.

As a GM, I wouldn't allow FBB to be worn with Mil-Spec armor, as the later already incorporates all the features of the former. PPP by comparison doesn't provide such a great bonus and allow Mil-Spec armor to be tailored a bit and brings it in-line with what its capabilities are implied to be.

The alternative is to prevent full body armors in some way from this Munchkin exploit, say by breaking them up into a bodysuit and added armor and stating that you can only swap out parts for either FBB or PPP, but not stack them.

[Critias]

...

Was it really necessary to bring back a thread that'd been dead over a year? Especially when your post starts off by complaining about other people debating ad nauseum?

[Flaser]

Damn! Knew I missed something... <looks at calendar> 2013... 13.

Puts on the funny hat.

I'll sit in the corner now.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Don't feel bad... for a brief minute or so, I thought that a topic had exploded and generated a ton of posts without me even knowing it. Then the date clicked with me. Good thing I had not actually started to read it. Happens to everyone.

[Critias]

Which is why everyone is fair game for gettin' a little crap when they do it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Mikado]

I fail to see how "Note that some armor items... provide a modifier to the worn armor rating and so do not count as stacked armor" equals "not counted as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance" for you. What that says is quite plain: helmets, shields, and, with Arsenal, PPP, do not count as separate armor at all and simply provide a modifier to existing armor ratings.

All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet to offer optimal protection, exploiting the armors’ technical possibilities to their fullest extent. Military armor is wireless enabled (automatically subscribed to the helmet’s commlink), and features a built-in biomonitor and several built-in security tags. Each can be equipped with any of the armor modifications described on p. 50 or p. 317, SR4, including chemical seal and environmental adaptation.
Dartguns, blowguns, needles, and other 0 DV attacks used to expose the target to injection-vector compounds cannot penetrate a full suit of military armor. No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor.

First -
All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet to offer optimal protection, exploiting the armors’ technical possibilities to their fullest extent.
Does NOT say that any helmet can be worn with millitary grade armor only that it is supposed to be worn with the millitary grade helmet.

Second -
No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor.
Does NOT say that armor that does not count as stacked armor or adds to encumbrance in a different way can be worn.
It says no other armor can be worn with millitary-grade armor. That is all it says.

[Thanee]

Puts on the funny hat.

Yeah, you are a few days late for the april fool! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Bye
Thanee

[Mach_Ten]

First -
All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet to offer optimal protection, exploiting the armors’ technical possibilities to their fullest extent.
Does NOT say that any helmet can be worn with millitary grade armor only that it is supposed to be worn with the millitary grade helmet.

Second -
No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor.
Does NOT say that armor that does not count as stacked armor or adds to encumbrance in a different way can be worn.
It says no other armor can be worn with millitary-grade armor. That is all it says.

can we lock it before it goes back round again for another 12 month cycle ? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)