Mil-Spec Armor and Secure PPP-Tech Options

[Yerameyahu]

Yeah, I'm fine with a 'carried' object (shield), and with a 'helmet slot'. This is why common sense is called for.

[Glyph]

I would have no problem with house ruling that a shield would stack with military-grade armor, although I would still have a problem with PPP stacking - I figure if you can't even wear an undersuit of FFBA with military armor, pads, even slimline ones, would be right out.

Worn armor is only one component of physical protection, though. Mundanes can get 'ware to boost their Reaction and durability (orthoskin, bone lacing, etc.), adepts can get powers such as combat sense or mystic armor, and mages can cast spells such as armor, combat sense, or deflection (or have a spirit possess them or a teammate, if they are a possession tradition).

[Thanee]

The paragraph under PPP, that explains how they do not count as seperate armor (emphasis on "seperate", not on "armor") begins with... "These armor pieces...". So how can anyone deny that they are, indeed, armor?

Military-grade armor says, that "no other armor can be worn with...".

Crystal clear to me, no ambiguity there, really.

The only thing that the seperate armor pieces paragraph does is removing the "stacking" rule (only highest armor rating counts), so their bonus is added directly to the otherwise highest armor rating to determine the worn armor rating (see SR4A p. 161 for details on Armor & Encumbrance).

Bye
Thanee

[Neraph]

Let's start here by defining some terms and quoting some rules.

Armor is any thing in the rules that has a Ballistic/Impact armor value. (SR4A, page 160)

Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor; instead, they modify the rating of armor worn by their rating (Armor and Encumbrance, p. 161).

These armor pieces do not count as separate armor for the purposes of encumbrance; instead, these items modify the rating of armor worn by their rating just as helmets and shields do (see Helmets and Shields, p. 317, SR4, and Armor and Encumbrance, p. 149, SR4).

See anything building up here?

No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor.

Ok, so we have it down that armor is anything that has a B/I rating, and that MilSpec cannot be worn with any other armor. However, we also have that shields and helmets, while they do have B/I ratings, are not considered armor at all and simply modify the ratings of armor worn. Therefore, MilSpec can benefit from not only helmets (like is affirmed in their own description), but also by PPP and shields (and gel packs). You cannot wear an Armor Vest with MilSpec, not even to add armor for encumbrance, nor can you wear Snake Mesh Socks (page 54, Arsenal), and you cannot wear FFBA with it, as FFBA is counted exactly like armor with some rules modifications. Helmets, shields, and PPP are specifically not treated as armor - simply modifiers to existing worn armor.

Do not be deceived by descriptive names: the rules above would work equally well if you replace "armor pieces" in the description of PPP with "cupcakes."

[almost normal]

Neraph wins. Well done.

[Neraph]

It's not my first time. Especially not on this subject.

EDIT: I particularly like the part where you can't wear a certain type of socks with MilSpec armor. And technically, you can't wear any clothes, as clothes are listed as armor in the Core Book (SR4A, page 327).

[Critias]

Neraph wins. Well done.

Or, conversely, other people who have quoted parts of the books have already "won." When canon is ambiguous, quoting canon at one another over and over again in a never-ending spiral of "yes huh" and "nuh uh" is the natural consequence (which is precisely why this, and several other common arguments, has been an issue in the past).

One could just as easily highlight a few select quotes from Neraph's own examples, and just start with the facts that PPP is called armor pieces, and that their exception is specifically stated as only being for encumbrance purposes. It all depends on which segments of text any given reader wants to really emphasize.

Because the rules are a tangled mess that can be read either way, the real answer is "I dunno. Does your GM say you can stack mil-spec armor and PPP stuff?" Because that's the only opinion that really matters to any given game.

[Warlordtheft]

And the petunia said "Oh no. Not again."


(IMG:style_emoticons/default/spin.gif)

I read milspec armor as already effectively having PPS and things like underwear armor as standard. As to the swat armors and PPS being able to get to that level, well it does casue significant encumbrance. Either of which a runner should never have a need to wear.

[Yerameyahu]

Yeah: until I got to the end, I assumed Neraph was arguing that helmets and shields were okay, and PPP *wasn't*. (Except, I know Neraph, so I knew he'd choose the munchkin/nonsense option. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ) Even then, there's no reason to think that mil-spec's specific ban *doesn't* include all armor, helmets, shields, etc. The helmet issue is specifically allowed, so there's no reason to think 'no armor' means helmets aren't armor.

I'm perfectly happy to conclude that you can't wear any FFBA, armor socks, normal sock, armor clothing, or normal clothing with your *custom-fitted mil-spec armor full-body suit*. Far from being evidence *for* PPP, that seems totally logical, appropriate, and balanced. The sole hitch is the shield, and that's effortlessly solved by saying, 'shields are okay'. They're certainly not 'worn' like clothing is worn, anyway. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) No one said the rules were perfect (on the contrary). So… what makes more sense: one tiny wart, or a huge twisted mess that also allows even more power creep?

[KarmaInferno]

All this depends on if you interpret the "no other armor can be worn" forbiddance of Mil-Spec to really mean just "no separate armor", or a literal "no other armor at all, regardless of separate or additive B/I ratings".



-k

[Thanee]

Ok, so we have it down that armor is anything that has a B/I rating, and that MilSpec cannot be worn with any other armor. However, we also have that shields and helmets, while they do have B/I ratings, are not considered armor at all and simply modify the ratings of armor worn.

If you can prove the highlighted part, which from my perspective you just made up because I cannot see that part in the text you quoted at all, I will consider believing you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

So, how is "These armor pieces do not count as separate armor for the purposes of encumbrance" suddenly shortened to "These armor pieces do not count as armor"? Esp. considering that "These armor pieces ..." are quite clearly called "armor" in their own rules. And how can you actually believe, that something that is armor, works like armor, protects like armor, and has no other purpose than to be armor ... is not considered armor (or is not treated as armor or whatever)?

It is also useful to note, that if you actually read the part that is referenced in both paragraphs (helmets and shields as well as PPP), namely SR4A p. 161, you will see further evidence that they are, indeed, considered armor (just not "stacked armor"; hence the text reading "seperate pieces of armor" or "seperate armor" and not just "pieces of armor" or "armor").

How about "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." for starters.


You seem to think (at least how I read it) of helmets/shields/PPP as armor modifications instead of actual armor. But I don't see how this is the case (apart from the simple fact, that they are not listed as armor modifications). They are armor pieces, just like any other, with the sole exception, that they are not counted as "stacked armor" and are not treated as "seperate armor pieces" when it comes to calculating your total worn armor rating and your encumbrance. For any other purpose they are armor. This includes the limits of military-grade armor.

Bye
Thanee

P.S. And besides, if it works like you say, I can wear an Armor Jacket, FFBA, and then add the PPP stuff and count it TWICE, because it adds to my armor worn (and since I wear two pieces of armor, and it does not say anywhere, that it only counts to one piece of armor, it works for both of them)? Yay PPP! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[The Jopp]

Now, Im all for limiting armour to the plausible level, but a few things jsut got to me.

Ok, milspec military armour allows no other armor to be WORN. Shields would in this case be allowed as the exception as they are CARRIED, regardless that they use the same rules as other armour that they modify a rating.

After all, you still have hands on your milspec armour. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Thanee]

Yep, that is quite reasonable. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bye
Thanee

[Midas]

It is worth noting that FFBA appeared in the rules before Mil-Spec armour, so once Arsenal introduced Mil-Spec, the devs forgot to edit the FFBA entry for the munchkins.

It is also worth noting that both FFBA and Mil-Spec armour are *both* contoured to the body, heavily implying that Mil-Spec armour is FFBA + normal armour + cutting edge military technology.

So yeah, I would be fine stacking Mil-Spec with helmets and shields, but not with FFBA.

[snowRaven]

It is worth noting that FFBA appeared in the rules before Mil-Spec armour, so once Arsenal introduced Mil-Spec, the devs forgot to edit the FFBA entry for the munchkins.

In SR4 they both appeared in Arsenal. In previous editions both existed, yet under somewhat different rules.

[Yerameyahu]

Yes, The Jopp, that's it exactly: it's so much easier to give shields an explicit pass, than wreck the whole system to accommodate them.

[Warlordtheft]

And helmets are a given since that is a seperate part of the armor that you are likely to take off at some point for some reason.

So with milspec you can add in a hemet and a shield but not the FFBA and PPS.

[The Jopp]

I could actually be inclined to allow the Second Skin Line as a viable suit of armored underoos to wear inside the Milspec Armor. Mainly because it is ultra-thin form fitting armor that is basically latex skin with armour plating. The second thing that comes to mind is COST. Second skin line is custom built for the user and horribly expensive compared to more regular armors.

I see it very much like something from Appleseed. *drools* (IMG:style_emoticons/default/love.gif)

Especially as the armour can come in any fashion you like...like transparent... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Heh. I still assume that FFBA is integral with mil-spec already.

[almost normal]

Ok, milspec military armour allows no other armor to be WORN. Shields would in this case be allowed as the exception as they are CARRIED, regardless that they use the same rules as other armour that they modify a rating.

After all, you still have hands on your milspec armour. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Which is why I brought them up. It seems resonable that they should be allowed, however, RAW count them as armor, and thus, illegal to use. You can argue for reason, which I agree with, but this argument isn't about what's reasonable, only game mechanics and rules. It's completely reasonable to suggest that mil-spec armor for a human could have an armored leather jacket on top of it designed for an orc/troll. You can't do that though. Neither can you have a shield.

[Neraph]

So, how is "These armor pieces do not count as separate armor for the purposes of encumbrance" suddenly shortened to "These armor pieces do not count as armor"? Esp. considering that "These armor pieces ..." are quite clearly called "armor" in their own rules. And how can you actually believe, that something that is armor, works like armor, protects like armor, and has no other purpose than to be armor ... is not considered armor (or is not treated as armor or whatever)?

You, like many others, seem not to be able to distinguish fluff from crunch. In a game of rules we pay attention to the parts that actually have rules in them. As an example, it's nice to know that guns fire bullets, but that is largely meaningless - you need to look at the damage code and statline for the weapon to figure out what it does. Like the gyrojet pistol, something can fire not-bullets, but as long as it has a damage code we can figure out how it interacts with other rules-and-numbers constructs of the game world.

This argument is one of semantics. Allow me to demonstrate:

The SecureTech PPP (Personal Protection Piecemeal) System consists of lightly-baked, fluffy cupcakes that the consumer can eat multiples of at a time to easier sate their hunger. These cupcakes do not count as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance; instead, these items modify the rating of armor worn by their rating just as helmets and shields do.

In fact, in order to reach the decision you and others have made about this, you need to completely ignore the section that explicitly notes the rules saying that this is not in fact armor but something worn that increases the armor value of other armors. I, however, am not ignoring the part that calls them "armor pieces" - it is just that that is a meaningless phrase when it has no rules attached to it.

EDIT:

You seem to think (at least how I read it) of helmets/shields/PPP as armor modifications instead of actual armor. But I don't see how this is the case (apart from the simple fact, that they are not listed as armor modifications). They are armor pieces, just like any other, with the sole exception, that they are not counted as "stacked armor" and are not treated as "seperate armor pieces" when it comes to calculating your total worn armor rating and your encumbrance. For any other purpose they are armor. This includes the limits of military-grade armor.

It would be easier to agree with this assertion except for:

Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor; instead, they modify the rating of armor worn by their rating (Armor and Encumbrance, p. 161).

(emphasis mine)
And, like I posted above, PPP is added into this. So yes, they would be armor, just like any other armor, except the rules for them specifically say they are not separate pieces of armor at all.

[Yerameyahu]

*shrug* It's "for purposes of encumbrance". Not 'for the purposes of mil-spec's specific ban on other armor'.

[Neraph]

I believe the blurb in the PPP section is a synopsis, a headline, if you will, of the Helmets and Shields section. It was intended to give you an idea of how it works while at the same time sending you to the location of the rules in order to find out specifically how it works. Otherwise, the rules for PPP would not have referenced the Helmets and Shields section at all, trusting that "for purposes of encumbrance" would be sufficient.

[Yerameyahu]

I know that's your position. But I'm saying that leap is into the realm of interpretation, not the unshakable RAW you claim. On the other side, I interpret mil-spec's ban as saying 'no other pieces of armor, period—except matching helmets, cuz we specific said so'. (Another alternative is that PPP refers to Helmets and Shields for comparison, but not as being *identical*.) So it all rests on our interpretations.

This is all just fun to me, of course, because making sense is much more important than RAW. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Neraph]

Don't get me wrong, I have quite a bit of house-rules. The thing is that on the internet, you have to make the case for RAW when you are discussing RAW. You can suggest house-rules and variants until you are proverbially blue in the face, but at the end of the day the most important thing to take away from an internet forum debating RAW is the RAW itself.

I take it to a place of philosophy.

EDIT: And while a consensus is a good thing to obtain, it cannot be used solely as a judge of what every table would do, which is why I argue for RAW so fervently.