IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

14 Pages V  « < 11 12 13 14 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Mil-Spec Armor and Secure PPP-Tech
Stahlseele
post Mar 19 2012, 11:47 AM
Post #301


The ShadowComedian
**********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 13,646
Joined: 3-October 07
From: Hamburg, AGS
Member No.: 13,525



/me can't believe this is still being argued about @.@
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
toturi
post Mar 19 2012, 12:31 PM
Post #302


Canon Companion
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,868
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187



QUOTE (snowRaven @ Mar 19 2012, 06:07 PM) *
(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".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thanee
post Mar 19 2012, 12:31 PM
Post #303


jacked in
*********

Group: Admin
Posts: 6,520
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 463



QUOTE (toturi @ Mar 19 2012, 09:10 AM) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thanee
post Mar 19 2012, 12:32 PM
Post #304


jacked in
*********

Group: Admin
Posts: 6,520
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 463



QUOTE (toturi @ Mar 19 2012, 01:31 PM) *
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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Mar 19 2012, 01:55 PM
Post #305


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
toturi
post Mar 19 2012, 03:21 PM
Post #306


Canon Companion
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,868
Joined: 2-March 03
From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG
Member No.: 4,187



QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Mar 19 2012, 09:55 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Mar 19 2012, 04:03 PM
Post #307


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



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'.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neraph
post Mar 25 2012, 05:07 PM
Post #308


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,235
Joined: 30-September 08
From: D/FW Megaplex
Member No.: 16,387



QUOTE (snowRaven @ Mar 18 2012, 01:49 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Halinn
post Mar 25 2012, 05:45 PM
Post #309


Running Target
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,016
Joined: 3-July 10
Member No.: 18,786



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
snowRaven
post Mar 25 2012, 07:21 PM
Post #310


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,665
Joined: 26-April 03
From: Sweden
Member No.: 4,516



QUOTE (Neraph @ Mar 25 2012, 06:07 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Mar 26 2012, 01:15 AM
Post #311


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



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)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
KarmaInferno
post Mar 26 2012, 01:23 AM
Post #312


Old Man Jones
********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 4,245
Joined: 26-February 02
From: New York
Member No.: 1,699



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Shortstraw
post Mar 26 2012, 01:59 AM
Post #313


Moving Target
**

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 854
Joined: 3-May 11
From: Brisbane Australia
Member No.: 29,391



I just don't care anymore.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almost normal
post Mar 26 2012, 03:42 AM
Post #314


Running Target
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 23-August 10
Member No.: 18,961



QUOTE (Shortstraw @ Mar 25 2012, 08:59 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Mar 26 2012, 03:45 AM
Post #315


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



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)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
almost normal
post Mar 26 2012, 03:49 AM
Post #316


Running Target
***

Group: Banned
Posts: 1,105
Joined: 23-August 10
Member No.: 18,961



QUOTE (Yerameyahu @ Mar 25 2012, 10:45 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Yerameyahu
post Mar 26 2012, 04:00 AM
Post #317


Advocatus Diaboli
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 13,994
Joined: 20-November 07
From: USA
Member No.: 14,282



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Flaser
post Apr 5 2013, 12:41 AM
Post #318


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 28-March 13
Member No.: 85,198



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Apr 5 2013, 01:52 AM
Post #319


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,158
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



...

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?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Flaser
post Apr 5 2013, 12:03 PM
Post #320


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 95
Joined: 28-March 13
Member No.: 85,198



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

Puts on the funny hat.

I'll sit in the corner now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tymeaus Jalynsfe...
post Apr 5 2013, 02:42 PM
Post #321


Prime Runner Ascendant
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 15,924
Joined: 26-March 09
From: Aurora, Colorado
Member No.: 17,022



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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Critias
post Apr 5 2013, 02:46 PM
Post #322


Freelance Elf
*********

Group: Dumpshocked
Posts: 7,158
Joined: 30-September 04
From: Texas
Member No.: 6,714



Which is why everyone is fair game for gettin' a little crap when they do it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mikado
post Apr 6 2013, 05:21 PM
Post #323


Moving Target
**

Group: Members
Posts: 327
Joined: 1-September 06
From: LI, New York
Member No.: 9,286



QUOTE (Neraph @ Mar 9 2012, 05:50 PM) *
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.

QUOTE (Arsenal)
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Thanee
post Apr 7 2013, 10:01 AM
Post #324


jacked in
*********

Group: Admin
Posts: 6,520
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 463



QUOTE (Flaser @ Apr 5 2013, 02:03 PM) *
Puts on the funny hat.


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

Bye
Thanee
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mach_Ten
post Apr 7 2013, 12:39 PM
Post #325


Neophyte Runner
*****

Group: Members
Posts: 2,007
Joined: 24-January 13
From: Here to Eternity
Member No.: 70,521



QUOTE (Mikado @ Apr 6 2013, 06:21 PM) *
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)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

14 Pages V  « < 11 12 13 14 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd April 2014 - 07:41 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.