Mil-Spec Armor and Secure PPP-Tech Options

[snowRaven]

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

Armor add-ons are specified on p. 44 of Arsenal. They're not PPP, nor are they 'helmets and shields'.

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.

Ignore p. 327 when talking about PPP, please. Page 161 is the sentence to try and pick apart--it's referenced both by the PPP section, and the 'Helmets and Shields' section on p.327.

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."

- The section on PPP states clearly that is counted separate for encumbrance purposes only, referncing what I quoted above.
- The sentence I quoted above deals solely with 'armor and encumbrance', as it's title states.
- The section on milspec armor forbids all non-milspec armor.

The text on p. 327 can only apply to the three shields and the specific helmet mentioned in that section - everything else refers to the rule on p.161.

[Shortstraw]

@ Yerameyahu
Helmets and shields
Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor;

PPP
These armor pieces do not count as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance;

Note the difference. Edited: I would allow PPP as well as a house rule but that is from considerations other than RAW. Think of PPP as thickening the plating in the non-articulated sections of armour - for things like assaulting fortifications (the same way that extra armour was added to the front of siege tanks).

[Yerameyahu]

What are you talking about? I don't even understand what you're arguing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

That's not what PPP is, whatever you'd like to think of it as. It's pieces of piecemeal armor that you wear. It is not Armor Mods.

The only thing that matters is the milspec rule against other worn armor, nothing to do with stacking or encumbrance. PPP is other (not part of the milspec, bought and worn separately; not a Modification), armor ("pieces of armor"), and worn ("the wearer"). Helmets would be, too, except there's a clear exception.

The stacking and encumbrance rules are very useful… for anything except milspec. Milspec has its own rule against everything but helmets.

[toturi]

The stacking and encumbrance rules are very useful… for anything except milspec. Milspec has its own rule against everything but helmets.

That is incorrect. Milspec has its own rule against everything else. By strict RAW, IIRC, that rule makes no exceptions.

[Yerameyahu]

It clearly allows helmets in the same paragraph, unless you deliberately choose to write that line off as 'fluff' and embrace the nonsensical idea that milspec can't even use the milspec helmets that are right there in the gear listing, and that the writers contradicted themselves in this bizarre way in the same paragraph. This is obviously stupid, so it can't be true. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[phlapjack77]

That is incorrect. Milspec has its own rule against everything else. By strict RAW, IIRC, that rule makes no exceptions.

The problem seems to be that the RAW-ers want to look at one sentence in complete isolation from anything else that has been written.

If we look at the sentence "Milspec cannot be used with any other worn armor" in total isolation, then the problem is caused by ignoring other rules.

If you add in the other rule that's in the same damn paragraph, there's no problem.

Strict RAW does not mean you can pick one sentence (one word? one letter?) in complete isolation and call it RAW.

[toturi]

It clearly allows helmets in the same paragraph, unless you deliberately choose to write that line off as 'fluff' and embrace the nonsensical idea that milspec can't even use the milspec helmets that are right there in the gear listing, and that the writers contradicted themselves in this bizarre way in the same paragraph. This is obviously stupid, so it can't be true.

The problem seems to be that the RAW-ers want to look at one sentence in complete isolation from anything else that has been written.

If we look at the sentence "Milspec cannot be used with any other worn armor" in total isolation, then the problem is caused by ignoring other rules.

If you add in the other rule that's in the same damn paragraph, there's no problem.

Strict RAW does not mean you can pick one sentence (one word? one letter?) in complete isolation and call it RAW.

May I have a quote that explicitly allows for helmets to be worn from that paragraph then? Strict RAW also means that you apply a higher standard to all of the rules and not pick some sentences and apply a less strict reading to them.

I am not saying that by RAW, milspec helmets are not allowable with milspec armor. I am saying that by strict RAW, I do not think any part of that paragraph you are referencing actually allows it. This is not an issue with cherry picking which line counts as rules and what count as fluff. This is about how consistent you apply that stricter level of RAW to all part of the rules.

[phlapjack77]

May I have a quote that explicitly allows for helmets to be worn from that paragraph then? Strict RAW also means that you apply a higher standard to all of the rules and not pick some sentences and apply a less strict reading to them.

It's been said before:

"All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet"

You might not accept this as RAW. Seems most people here do, including me.

[Halinn]

"No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor." can be read as "no armor that is not military-grade can be worn with military-grade armor", which is a reading that is equally valid to yours. Military helmets are explicitly military-grade, and given that this reading does not flat out contradict the fact that it also says that the military helmets are intended to be worn with the armor, this reading does indeed become the more valid one.

[Yerameyahu]

That is another perfectly good, non-crazy interpretation. Personally, it's a little complex, and I'm fine with allowing any helmet, but either way. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

toturi, there is no 'RAW' and 'strict RAW'. What you're calling 'strict' is just ignoring immediate context. It's not even meaningful or worthwhile as a thought exercise, let alone for playing the game. It's like when a child is told to "go to bed", and then they smile and respond, "you didn't say *when* to go to bed!".

[Thanee]

I would allow PPP as well but that is from RAI considerations rather than RAW. Think of PPP as thickening the plating in the non-articulated sections of armour - for things like assaulting fortifications (the same way that extra armour was added to the front of siege tanks).

That is called "House Rules" not "RAI". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Bye
Thanee

[Shortstraw]

That is called "House Rules" not "RAI". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

You are correct Sir, edited.

[Thanee]

I would allow PPP as well as a house rule but that is from considerations other than RAW. Think of PPP as thickening the plating in the non-articulated sections of armour - for things like assaulting fortifications (the same way that extra armour was added to the front of siege tanks).

From my perpective, that is the difference between Light and Heavy Military-grade Armor, basically (one is reinforced for assaults like that, the other is more standard-issue).

PPP on the other hand is mostly sports-wear. They do not really fit together well, fluff-wise.

Bye
Thanee

[toturi]

toturi, there is no 'RAW' and 'strict RAW'. What you're calling 'strict' is just ignoring immediate context. It's not even meaningful or worthwhile as a thought exercise, let alone for playing the game. It's like when a child is told to "go to bed", and then they smile and respond, "you didn't say *when* to go to bed!".

What I am calling strict takes into account only the explicit literal reading of all the rules, it does not and cannot ignore immediate context because its immediate context is also being read. It does ignore any implications that may arise from the readings.

You might not accept this as RAW. Seems most people here do, including me.

I do accept it as RAW, but not as strictly literal RAW.

[toturi]

"No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor." can be read as "no armor that is not military-grade can be worn with military-grade armor", which is a reading that is equally valid to yours. Military helmets are explicitly military-grade, and given that this reading does not flat out contradict the fact that it also says that the military helmets are intended to be worn with the armor, this reading does indeed become the more valid one.

Strictly speaking, your interpretation would be valid if it was "no other type of armor can be worn with military-grade armor" without which is not a strict reading of that sentence.

[Thanee]

toturi, I'm afraid, but language isn't usually as precise as you would like it to be. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I'm perfectly fine (and also said so above) by saying that by RAW the Military-grade Armor cannot be worn with anything else (its own helmet, other helmets, shields, PPP, FFBA, etc).

So, let's call it RAI, that the Military-grade Helmet can be worn together with Military-grade Armor, and that it is the only exception (being just that appropriate helmet and all that).


That is not really the topic question, though, the topic question is "Can PPP be worn together with Military-grade Armor?" (by RAW).

So, whatever the outcome of the above is, the answer to this question is "No! But if you consider it reasonable, just make a House Rule."

Bye
Thanee

[Shortstraw]

Reinforced Material examples: densiplast, security door, armored glass, Kevlar wallboard - it's tough stuff.

As to the light vs heavy light is a panzer, heavy is a tiger and heavy with PPP is a jagdtiger - a specialized variant for a particular task.

Edit: What about shields? Held items (not worn) that don't count as other armour?

[phlapjack77]

What I am calling strict takes into account only the explicit literal reading of all the rules, it does not and cannot ignore immediate context because its immediate context is also being read. It does ignore any implications that may arise from the readings.
...
I do accept it as RAW, but not as strictly literal RAW.

You are toturi'ng the English language here (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

...


...


I'll see myself out.

[toturi]

That is not really the topic question, though, the topic question is "Can PPP be worn together with Military-grade Armor?" (by RAW).

So, whatever the outcome of the above is, the answer to this question is "No! But if you consider it reasonable, just make a House Rule."

Bye
Thanee

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

[snowRaven]

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

Not so.

PPP specifies in it's description that it doesn't count as armor for purposes of encumbrance, then it refers to a rules section that also only talks about encumbrance.

If you have to interpret what something means, it's not RAW.

The only section anywhere that suggests helmets and shields aren't counted as armor at all is on p. 327 in a section dealing exclusively with a gear category called 'helmets and shields', and to date only three shields and one helmet fall in that category. PPP is it's own category, and most helmets are in the category of the armor they are designed for (including the military grade one). Both the 'helmets and shields' category and the 'PPP' category refers to the rule of 161, which only talks about encumbrance.

not separate for purposes of encumbrance =/= not separate at all

[snowRaven]

As to the light vs heavy light is a panzer, heavy is a tiger and heavy with PPP is a jagdtiger - a specialized variant for a particular task.

Edit: What about shields? Held items (not worn) that don't count as other armour?

By a very literal reading of p. 327, yes shields and that single helmet would be allowed. But if you take such a literal reading, you can wear that helmet with any other helmet, which doesn't make sense either rules-wise, fluff-wise, or logically. If a rules-interpretation leads to a result that doesn't make sense in any way, that interpretation must be wrong if there's another interpretation that doesn't.

As for the light etc...no.

Light is a panzer
Heavy is a tiger
Heavy with Gel Packs is a jagdtiger

Putting PPP on the Heavy armor is like hanging a Modular Armor Kit on a tiger/jagdtiger...

[toturi]

Not so.

Not so. I have already stated by strictly literal RAW, it is so. But due to the ambigiuity of the rules, RAW can hold several differing and sometime even diametrically opposite meanings. This is one case of differing meanings being within the RAW.

[snowRaven]

Not so. I have already stated by strictly literal RAW, it is so. But due to the ambigiuity of the rules, RAW can hold several differing and sometime even diametrically opposite meanings. This is one case of differing meanings being within the RAW.

'For purposes of encumbrance' can never equal 'for all intents and purposes' by a literal (or even a liberal) reading.

EDIT:
I can buy the argument that milspec can't even be used with it's own helmet, though it is very far-fetched.
I can buy the argument that shields and a standard helmet can be used, though it can lead to weird situations.
I can't buy that you apply text that is in a section not referenced by, nor relevant to, PPP (that is, p. 327 SR4A), just because the two sections reference the same rule. <--- my mistake here, it is referenced, but both parts still refer back to the actual rule on pg. 161 'Armor and Encumbrance'.

[toturi]

'For purposes of encumbrance' can never equal 'for all intents and purposes' by a literal (or even a liberal) reading.

I can't buy that you apply text that is in a section not referenced by, nor relevant to, PPP (that is, p. 327 SR4A), just because the two sections reference the same rule.

Is that sentence you quote complete? I do not recall "for purposes of encumbrance" being the end of that particular sentence.

[snowRaven]

Is that sentence you quote complete? I do not recall "for purposes of encumbrance" being the end of that particular sentence.

PPP system, Arsenal pg. 49: "These armor pieces 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." (yes, I see the referece - edited above)

Armor and Encumbrance, SR4A pg. 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."

Note that the sentence on pg. 161 follows the rule about only the highest rating of worn armor applying if you wear more than one piece. This is the rule referenced both by 'PPP' and by 'Helmets and Shields', and the only interpretation of that rule that I can get from reading the entire section 'Armor and Encumbrance' is that helmets, shields and PPP pieces are the exception to the rule that only the highest armor rating counts if you stack armor.

All sections (except the part on pg. 327 that rewords the rule on p. 161 and refers back to it) talk about 'for purposes of encumbrance' and 'do not count as stacked armor'.