Mil-Spec Armor and Secure PPP-Tech Options

[phlapjack77]

Please go look up the definitions of words such as "intent" and "explicit." Something is explicitly allowed when it is singled out as the subject to the exclusion of all others.

Yeah....about that...maybe you're the one that needs to look those words up. Your example above pretty clearly shows you are adding your own biases to the meaning of the words. Something can be explicitly allowed without excluding all others.

And INTENDED TO does not equal EXPLICITLY ALLOWED. It's that simple and obvious as well.

I'm still not sure I understand your reasoning on this part.

If the armor is intended to be used with the helmet, then how can it not be used with a helmet? Did the armor manufacturers fuck up, they INTENDED to allow using a helmet but they built the armor wrong and a buckle isn't in the right place and now it's impossible to wear a helmet with the armor? Did the armor designers INTEND to allow wearing helmets, but they drew the designs wrong and so now it's not possible? Did the armor get broken somehow in shipping from manufacturing to retail, and now the helmet won't attach to the armor?

If it says the armor is intended to be used with a helmet, it is explicitly and implicitly allowed to be used with a helmet.

Next time I guess the writers should just say "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor.(except helmets of course, like we JUST mentioned, you morons)."

[Glyph]

"All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet" comes before "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor." Seems pretty cut and dried to me, hardly a case where you have to scratch your head and try to figure out the RAI.

RAI is for situations where the rules either blatantly contradict each other, or make no sense. An example would be the Thorns negative metagenetic quality, and the sentence: "Unfortunately, the character is in constant discomfort (+1 to all Physical Tests)". Obviously, they intended for this to be some kind of penalty, either a -1 to the dice pool or a +1 to thresholds. Purely by RAW, though, Thorns are essentially Essence-free enhanced articulation, except possibly giving you an even wider range of bonuses. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

Indeed. To ignore the 'helmets are intended' sentence as incorrect fluff, you have to assume the writers were crazy (and that they screwed up). It's not complicated: 'helmets are allowed' and 'no *other* worn armor is allowed'.

[Thanee]

And here you complete your logical fallacy. You, on the one hand, say that separate armor pieces cannot be worn with MilSpec, but on the other say that helmets can be worn with it. This is a direct contradiction.

No, I do not say that.

I say that, if you allow the part about "appropriate helmet" (which is a "subclass" of just "helmet") to mean "Military-grade Helmet" and the "intended to be worn in conjunction with" part to mean (what it only can mean; that's the "intent" part) that the Military-grade Helmet is the one and only exception to the "no other armor" rule, then you can wear these two together (and no other pair of two armor pieces).

It is an exception not a contradiction, not quite the same thing (though somewhat similar).

There is no way to extrapolate this to mean that everything can be worn with Military-grade Armor.
Now THAT would be quite the direct contradiction to "no other armor can be worn with Military-grade Armor".

However, if you understand that PPP/helmets/shields fall into a different category (as spelled out in their descriptions), then there is no contradiction at all.

Yes, that would be true, if one understands it like that, which is how you read it, of course.

What is completely wrong, however, is that it is "spelled out in their descriptions". Never does anything in the rules say that an armor piece is not armor (quite the opposite, really). And without that part, your conclusion just doesn't make any sense at all. You have to somehow make PPP/Helmets/Shields "not armor" in order to make them slip past the "no other armor" rule. But that "not armor" part simply isn't there, you make it up.

There are no different categories like what you think. Armor is armor is armor (see first part of my summary above).

They are all listed in the armor sections of the books, they are all listed in armor tables, they are called armor at numerous occasions. They are armor.

The differences are how armor is treated in regards to being "stacked armor" and "for purposes of encumbrance". How it is added to your "worn armor rating".

That's the difference between those two categories of armor pieces, and it has nothing to do with the subject of what armor can be worn in conjunction with Military-grade Armor (no other armor can, other than Military-grade Armor and the appropriate helmet, that is). What you do, however, is try to use a part of that difference to explain how they are not "other armor" (for the purpose of being worn in conjunction with Military-grade Armor). But that is simply not true. They are still armor, despite that difference. So they are still "other armor". They never lose that quality.

Just as MilSpec helmets are not explicitly allowed by the rules but helmets are mentioned, that same mention of helmets implicitly allows the use of shields and PPP.

No. That is a logical jump that is absolutely not supported by the rules in the slightest.

And it is not just "helmet", but "appropriate helmet".

Military-grade Armor
Military-grade Helmet

If there is any "appropriate helmet", than this is it!

And even if all helmets would be allowed (not just the appropriate helmet, see above), that still rules out shields and everything else (like PPP). Helmets and shields and PPP are not the same thing (even if they work the same for some purpose, namely encumbrance).

Bye
Thanee

[Yerameyahu]

Yes. Once again, I have no idea how you get from 'helmets specifically allowed' to 'things that are sort of like helmets, in terms of their encumbrance rules, are specifically allowed'. The rule simply doesn't say anything like that. It says 'no other worn armor' and 'except a helmet'.

[Thanee]

I don't believe that I've stated that that part is "pure fluff".

Ok, I see. My bad here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)



So let's go back to that statement of yours:

And, for the last time, "All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet to offer optimal protection" does not mean the same thing as "All these armors can only be worn in conjunction with their appropriate helmet," ...

This is absolutely correct!

It means "appropriate helmet" is ok. It does not say anything about any other armor (other than that aforementioned helmet, that is).

However, what is the problem then?

Ignoring this useless part of your statement here ...

... so stop trying to make those two sentences the same. Please go look up the definitions of words such as "intent" and "explicit." ...

... we come to the core of the problem:

Something is explicitly allowed when it is singled out as the subject to the exclusion of all others.

Bazinga! Err ... I mean ... Bingo!

And that is EXACTLY what the text does!

"the exclusion of all others"

-> "No other armor can be worn with Military-grade Armor."

"the singled out part" / exception

-> "All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet ..." (reads: Military-grade Helmet is allowed)

So, the "appropriate helmet" is explicitly allowed (we only have to make a very slight leap to see what an "appropriate helmet" is), while everything else is disallowed.

You just read too much into it. Nothing is implicitly allowed here. Nothing at all.

You needlessly extrapolate a mentioning of "helmet" to "everything that works similar to a helmet", instead of leaving it to that "helmet" (which works quite well, hence no extrapolation necessary; you only extrapolate if you need additional information, which is not needed here).

Bye
Thanee

[snowRaven]

And, for the last time, "All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet to offer optimal protection" does not mean the same thing as "All these armors can only be worn in conjunction with their appropriate helmet," so stop trying to make those two sentences the same. Please go look up the definitions of words such as "intent" and "explicit." Something is explicitly allowed when it is singled out as the subject to the exclusion of all others. Something is intended when the subject is meant to be used in a certain manner. These are two words because they are very different. For example: a crowbar is intended to be used as a lever. However, a crowbar can also be used as a club and a wedge. Intent does not preclude any other usage.

in·tend (n-tnd)
v. in·tend·ed, in·tend·ing, in·tends
v.tr.
1. To have in mind; plan: We intend to go. They intend going. You intended that she go.
2.
a. To design for a specific purpose.
b. To have in mind for a particular use.
3. To signify or mean.
(empasis mine)

The sentence basically says that milspec armor is designed to be used with it's own helmet, which is also milspec armor by the way.

Now to the next sentence:

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

But here's the kicker - the helmet referred to in the 'intended' sentence is military grade armor. This sentence doesn't exclude the wearing of any type of military grade armor. 'Other armor ' in this case is 'other than military grade'.

This tells us that the helmet can only be worn with military grade armor, and the various armor suits can only be worn with the helmet.

Looking at PPP armor, it says it doesn't count as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance. The milspec armor exclusion of 'other' armor isn't for purposes of encumbrance, it is for all purposes.

If you want to take your interpretation of intended, then the military grade suit could only be worn by itself, and it's helmet could only be worn by itself--no PPP; no shield; no form-fitting; no nothing. But since intented can mean 'designed for a specific purpose' it's really hard to take that interpretation.

Also, look at the rule regarding dartguns:
"[...]cannot penetrate a full suit of military armor."
What would a full suit be if it didn't include helmet? You can't separate the parts of the suit itself by RAW, after all.

[Shortstraw]

"Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor" SR4A p327. That is it's own statement with a related one about how to work out encumbrance.

[snowRaven]

"Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor" SR4A p327. Helmets and shields are wearable PPP is not.

First, read the entire sentence, and note the reference to the rule in question here:
"Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor; instead, they modify the rating of worm armor by their rating (Armor and Encumbrance, p. 161)"

Going to page 161, we then read the full rule:
"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." (emphasis mine)

The text in the gear section is an abbrevation of the referenced rule. Not also how helmets and shields are referred to as 'armor items'.

Then read the milspec armor description again:
"No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor."

You can't just look at half of a sentence and draw conclusions of RAW from that.

Now, if you still maintain that helmets and shields aren't armor, look on pg. 55 of Arsenal, in the spacesuit description.
"No other armor can be worn, but the suits can be equipped with armor add-ons and modifications[...]"
So you're saying that adding a second helmet to a spacesuit is RAW?

[toturi]

So you're saying that adding a second helmet to a spacesuit is RAW?

Adding what p161 refers to as a helmet to a spacesuit is RAW.

[Shortstraw]

1. My copy does not have a comma it has a semi-colon then the part about encumbrance. So while a helmet or shield is additional armour it is not "other" i.e separate armour.

2. From 161 it says helmets and shields do not count as stacked armour so yeah once again not "other".

3. They are items that enhance armor and there are only a handful why make an entirely new section for them? Edi: I was wrong they DO have their own section.

4. Should you be able to use a shield or add extra plating to a suit? Certainly, and if the helmet on the suit is as large as the ones of today sure.

[snowRaven]

My copy does not have a comma it has a semi-colon then the part about encumbrance.

Exactly. Never seen an edition with a full stop.

So while a helmet or shield is additional armour it is not "other" i.e separate armour.

Everything that talks about helmets etc not counting as separate talks about it in the context of Armor and Encumbrance.

Plus: 'do not count as' =/= 'isn't'

Military armor forbids all other (non-military grade) armor.

[Shortstraw]

Plus: 'do not count as' =/= 'isn't'

no it means 'for the purposes of the rules it isn't'

[snowRaven]

no it means 'for the purposes of the rules it isn't'

no, it means 'for the purposes of encumbrance it isn't'. The entire section on pg. 161 talks about Armor and Encumbrance, and only that. The text on p. 327 refers to 161.

Even if your interpretation was true, milspec armor is clear about not allowing it, since it still is armor.

If it wasn't armor in any sense of the wordm it would have been an armor modification.

If you take half the text on p. 327 to somehow be separate and stand on it's own, it would still only allow those three shields and that specific helmet. Not PPP, and no other helmet except the milspec ones. Only the things in the list 'helmets and shields'.

[Neraph]

We've argued circularly for pages now. Many of my points have been ignored. This is old.

in·tend (n-tnd)
v. in·tend·ed, in·tend·ing, in·tends
v.tr.
1. To have in mind; plan: We intend to go. They intend going. You intended that she go.
2.
a. To design for a specific purpose.
b. To have in mind for a particular use.
3. To signify or mean.
(empasis mine)

The sentence basically says that milspec armor is designed to be used with it's own helmet, which is also milspec armor by the way.

Now to the next sentence:

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

But here's the kicker - the helmet referred to in the 'intended' sentence is military grade armor. This sentence doesn't exclude the wearing of any type of military grade armor. 'Other armor ' in this case is 'other than military grade'.

This tells us that the helmet can only be worn with military grade armor, and the various armor suits can only be worn with the helmet.

Looking at PPP armor, it says it doesn't count as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance. The milspec armor exclusion of 'other' armor isn't for purposes of encumbrance, it is for all purposes.

If you want to take your interpretation of intended, then the military grade suit could only be worn by itself, and it's helmet could only be worn by itself--no PPP; no shield; no form-fitting; no nothing. But since intented can mean 'designed for a specific purpose' it's really hard to take that interpretation.

Also, look at the rule regarding dartguns:
"[...]cannot penetrate a full suit of military armor."
What would a full suit be if it didn't include helmet? You can't separate the parts of the suit itself by RAW, after all.

This is one of the best and most persuasive arguments from that side of the fence so far. I still disagree because you are inferring your own meanings onto it.

First, read the entire sentence, and note the reference to the rule in question here:
"Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor; instead, they modify the rating of worm armor by their rating (Armor and Encumbrance, p. 161)"

Going to page 161, we then read the full rule:
"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." (emphasis mine)

The text in the gear section is an abbrevation of the referenced rule. Not also how helmets and shields are referred to as 'armor items'.

Then read the milspec armor description again:
"No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor."

You can't just look at half of a sentence and draw conclusions of RAW from that.

Now, if you still maintain that helmets and shields aren't armor, look on pg. 55 of Arsenal, in the spacesuit description.
"No other armor can be worn, but the suits can be equipped with armor add-ons and modifications[...]"
So you're saying that adding a second helmet to a spacesuit is RAW?

Interesting find. What exactly constitutes an "armor add-on?" Is that a reference to PPP/helmets/shields? Looks like it to me.

Oh, and by the way: as brought up before, semicolons conjoin two sentences that can stand alone into one larger sentence. So the sentence "Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor," is completely correct, as is the separate sentence "Instead, they modify the rating of worn armor by their rating." This tells us in no uncertain terms that helmets and shields are not separate pieces of armor. It also tells us that their ratings are added onto worn armor. This would not be looking at just half a sentence - it is comprehending the whole sentences as grammar tells us it functions.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

We've argued circularly for pages now. Many of my points have been ignored. This is old.

Oh, and by the way: as brought up before, semicolons conjoin two sentences that can stand alone into one larger sentence. So the sentence "Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor," is completely correct, as is the separate sentence "Instead, they modify the rating of worn armor by their rating." This tells us in no uncertain terms that helmets and shields are not separate pieces of armor. It also tells us that their ratings are added onto worn armor. This would not be looking at just half a sentence - it is comprehending the whole sentences as grammar tells us it functions.

Yes, those 2 sentences can stand upon their own.
Helmets and Shields are not Seperate pieces of Armor, but are armor all the same.
Yes, they modify the ratings of the Armor they are WORN with. But they are still WORN.


But guess what, MilSpec armor does not allow you to wear just any helmet, only military helmets, and still keeps you from wearing any other piece of Armor, which PPP is. So....

You can wear a Military helmet with Military Grade Armor (And no other helmets whatsoever) and cannot wear any other armor with it at all (So PPP and FFBA are also out)....

Your arguments continue to make absolutely no sense Neraph.

We agree that PPP is Armor.
The text indicates that Military Grade Armors cannot accept any other Armor except the appropriate (and intended) Military Grade Helmet.
That really should be all that needs be said. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

It doesn't matter (for the main argument) whether milspec allows milspec helmets, or all helmets; the point is that the rules clearly, specifically allow helmets (a helmet) with milspec. This has the added bonus of being completely obvious from a common-sense position. Again, as far as I can tell, Neraph (et al.) is arguing that that sentence is meaningless just because it says 'intended'. To make that argument, you have to assume the writers managed to completely contradict themselves in the same paragraph.

Shortstraw, as you may have read in the thread, 'don't count as separate for encumbrance' does not mean 'are not other'. It means nothing except that, for the purposes of encumbrance, they don't count as separate. That's the 'PPP isn't other' argument.

The 'all PPP is actually a helmet' argument instead claims that, because helmets and PPP share encumbrance rules, they're magically the *same* thing. I'm not sure why anyone was able to say this with a straight face, but we can repeat: milspec allows *a helmet*, not 'things that use the same encumbrance rules as helmets'.

The 'PPP isn't worn' argument and 'PPP isn't armor', AFAIK, says that PPP is actually an armor modification that forgot what section it belongs in. This is pretty easy to reject, as the PPP section refers to "the wearer" of the PPP (again, an common sense, but I know that means nothing (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ). In the same section, it's also described multiple times as "pieces of armor".

So: milspec says 'no other worn armor' except 'a helmet'. PPP isn't 'a helmet', is 'other (not milspec)', is worn, is armor. At no point do encumbrance and stacking rules enter into this, because milspec has its own rule right there.

[Neraph]

Yes, those 2 sentences can stand upon their own.
Helmets and Shields are not Seperate pieces of Armor, but are armor all the same.
Yes, they modify the ratings of the Armor they are WORN with. But they are still WORN.


But guess what, MilSpec armor does not allow you to wear just any helmet, only military helmets, and still keeps you from wearing any other piece of Armor, which PPP is. So....

You can wear a Military helmet with Military Grade Armor (And no other helmets whatsoever) and cannot wear any other armor with it at all (So PPP and FFBA are also out)....

Your arguments continue to make absolutely no sense Neraph.

We agree that PPP is Armor.
The text indicates that Military Grade Armors cannot accept any other Armor except the appropriate (and intended) Military Grade Helmet.
That really should be all that needs be said. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

in·tend (n-tnd)
v. in·tend·ed, in·tend·ing, in·tends
v.tr.
1. To have in mind; plan: We intend to go. They intend going. You intended that she go.
2.
a. To design for a specific purpose.
b. To have in mind for a particular use.
3. To signify or mean.
(empasis mine)

MilSpec armor having a particular helmet in mind does not negate the ability for any other helmet to be worn with it. The reason I keep pointing at the rules for armor (including encumbrance and armor stacking) is because those are the rules to govern how interactions like this are handled. Those rules say that helmets and shields (and PPP is added to them in Arsenal) do not count as separate pieces of armor, which means they are not included in the caveat from MilSpec armor that states no other armor can be worn with them, regardless of whether or not they are "worn."

The problem is that helmets/shields/PPP are "other armor," and are "worn," and are "not milspec," but the rules do not consider them as separate armor, invalidating the majority resistance argument against it. This is really an argument over whether the rules are actually correct when it says that helmets/shields/PPP are not separate pieces of armor (as stated on pages 161 and 327 of SR4A and page 49 of Arsenal). I hold that those rules are correct.

EDIT: And again, TJ, the text does not specifically allow MilSpec helmets because "intended to be worn" is not the exact same as "can only be worn with." These sentences are different because they say radically different things.

[Yerameyahu]

Those rules say that helmets and shields (and PPP is added to them in Arsenal) do not count as separate pieces of armor, which means they are not included in the caveat from MilSpec armor that states no other armor can be worn with them, regardless of whether or not they are "worn."

This still doesn't make sense or follow logically, Neraph. The rule in no way states or implies that it applies to 'things that are not-separate for the purposes of encumbrance (or stacking)'. It only says 'use with a helmet'.

It also doesn't say *anything* about 'separate' armor (… for the purposes of encumbrance); that's not relevant. You would have to argue that 'not-separate' means 'not other/worn/armor'.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

This still doesn't make sense or follow logically, Neraph. The rule in no way states or implies that it applies to 'things that are not-separate for the purposes of encumbrance (or stacking)'. It only says 'use with a helmet'.

It also doesn't say *anything* about 'separate' armor (… for the purposes of encumbrance); that's not relevant. You would have to argue that 'not-separate' means 'not other/worn/armor'.

THIS ^^^^^ (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Neraph]

This still doesn't make sense or follow logically, Neraph. The rule in no way states or implies that it applies to 'things that are not-separate for the purposes of encumbrance (or stacking)'. It only says 'use with a helmet'.

It also doesn't say *anything* about 'separate' armor (… for the purposes of encumbrance); that's not relevant. You would have to argue that 'not-separate' means 'not other/worn/armor'.

It does follow logic.

1) Helmets/shields/PPP are rated items that give armor.
2) The rules do not consider them as other armor while being worn.
3) MilSpec does not allow other armor being worn with it.
4) Helmets/shields/PPP, since the rules do not consider them as being other armor can be worn with MilSpec.

The rules stating that helmets/shields/PPP are not considered other armor are listed on the pages I have provided. There is no logical dissonance here. The MilSpec rule against other armor does not affect helmets/shields/PPP because they are not considered separate armor.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

in·tend (n-tnd)
v. in·tend·ed, in·tend·ing, in·tends
v.tr.
1. To have in mind; plan: We intend to go. They intend going. You intended that she go.
2.
a. To design for a specific purpose.
b. To have in mind for a particular use.
3. To signify or mean.
(empasis mine)

MilSpec armor having a particular helmet in mind does not negate the ability for any other helmet to be worn with it. The reason I keep pointing at the rules for armor (including encumbrance and armor stacking) is because those are the rules to govern how interactions like this are handled. Those rules say that helmets and shields (and PPP is added to them in Arsenal) do not count as separate pieces of armor, which means they are not included in the caveat from MilSpec armor that states no other armor can be worn with them, regardless of whether or not they are "worn."

The problem is that helmets/shields/PPP are "other armor," and are "worn," and are "not milspec," but the rules do not consider them as separate armor, invalidating the majority resistance argument against it. This is really an argument over whether the rules are actually correct when it says that helmets/shields/PPP are not separate pieces of armor (as stated on pages 161 and 327 of SR4A and page 49 of Arsenal). I hold that those rules are correct.

EDIT: And again, TJ, the text does not specifically allow MilSpec helmets because "intended to be worn" is not the exact same as "can only be worn with." These sentences are different because they say radically different things.

WOW... "To have in Mind for a Particular Use".... This is the one you emphasized right? Just so I am not mistaken here.

So, You mean like the Military Grade Helmet for Military Grade Armors?
It is really simple. PPP is still armor that is worn, regardless of how it "Stacks/Adds" for purposes of Encumbrance. Military Grade Armors do not care about that, because ALL THEY ALLOW IS THE INTENDED HELMET. You know, the ones that they had in mind for that particular use?

Lets use the other meaning you so conveniently forgot to "emphasize"...

The one (Military Grade Helmet) that it was desinged to be used with (Military Grade Armor)... Check, that one works well too.

So, both your A and B definitions seem to work for Military Grade Armor and the INTENDED Military Grade Helmets; However, neither definition works for those things that Military Grade Armor is NOT DESIGNED TO WORK WITH (Namely ANY OTHER ARMOR). WOW, imagine that. A clear definition of what military grade armor is designed to work with, right there in black and white text, IN THE BOOK, and backed up by the Armor Guru himself. I am not sure how I missed that before. Thanks Neraph. Glad that you cleared that up.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It does follow logic.

1) Helmets/shields/PPP are rated items that give armor.
2) The rules do not consider them as other armor while being worn.
3) MilSpec does not allow other armor being worn with it.
4) Helmets/shields/PPP, since the rules do not consider them as being other armor can be worn with MilSpec.

The rules stating that helmets/shields/PPP are not considered other armor are listed on the pages I have provided. There is no logical dissonance here. The MilSpec rule against other armor does not affect helmets/shields/PPP because they are not considered separate armor.

There is extreme logical dissonance here. You just refuse to acknowledge that...
They are not considered other armor FOR PURPOSES OF ENCUMBRANCE ONLY, which MilSPec Armor DOES NOT CARER ABOUT. Since Encumbrance is off the table, you have to see whether they are considered Armor, which they are. At that point, they are disqualified by the MORE SPECIFIC entry for MILSPEC Armor.

[Mikado]

I have not decided the helmet sentence is "mere fluff" - my argument takes it to mean the literal use of "intent," which is a non-exclusive statement. It states that it is intended to be worn with a specific helmet, but that does not bar MilSpec from being worn with other helmets (and by extension other things which use the same rules as helmets).

I find it curious that you think "intent" in this context means that you can use other helmets with it. Or that "can only be used with the appropriate helmet" is a better sentence structure. You are potentially twisting the word "intent" to fit your own meaning when there are multiple ways you could interpret the use of "intended."

The writer of the paragraph could be using "intended to be used" in a context that indicates that the armor can be worn WITHOUT the helmet not that it can be used with any helmet. You know... like how in Warhammer 40K space marines run around without their power armor helmet sometimes.

Also, by changing the words to "can only be used with the appropriate helmet" you change the meaning of the sentence entirely. With that change it now becomes: "You can't use mil-spec armor ever if you do not wear the mil-spec helmet at the same time." Although I believe that someone else had suggested this.

In addition: Why do you think that, if your interpretation of the use of "intended" means that any helmet can be worn with mil-spec armor that you can use anything else that uses similar rules as helmets? That is NOT what that sentence says. Even if you are correct in thinking that you can use any helmet it does not say that you can use anything else. If it said something like "intended to be used with appropriate armor that uses the helmet rules" then you would have a valid argument. However it does not, it only says helmet for that sentence and nothing else.

[Yerameyahu]

Neraph, your step 2 there doesn't compute. The only thing the rules say about those items is that they don't 'count as separate for the purposes of encumbrance'. That neither says nor implies that they're not armor, 'other armor', or 'worn armor'. Per the PPP description, they're certainly armor, worn, and other.