Mil-Spec Armor and Secure PPP-Tech Options

[Yerameyahu]

Of course. And I don't think I'm using non-RAW in my actual points, I just wanted to mention that I'm not 'really' suggesting no shields with mil-spec. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[KarmaInferno]

"Not armor" is still not the same as "not separate armor".

And that's not fluff. That's crunch.

Mil-spec makes no distinction between separate or not separate. To do so is to add something that isn't there.



-k

[almost normal]

"Not armor" is still not the same as "not separate armor".

And that's not fluff. That's crunch.

Mil-spec makes no distinction between separate or not separate. To do so is to add something that isn't there.
-k

Gel packs add armor, don't they? And they sure aren't seperate.

You being Old Man Jones however, makes me a bit afraid to argue against you.

[Thanee]

I believe the blurb in the PPP section is a synopsis, a headline, if you will, of the Helmets and Shields section.

Then why does it include MORE text than the helmets and shield paragraph. Way of a synopsis there! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

And if you go by the "synopsis" of the "reference" part, then please read my post again, especially the part about SR4A p. 161 (which happens to get referenced by that helmet and shields part). And then try your argument again with the rules found there.


And furthermore, your argument still only works if you ignore most of the text (as you demonstrate by removing all mentionings of armor, except the one that happens to be useful for your argument) from the paragraph and then present that as RAW. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Uhm... yeah, right?

Bye
Thanee

[Thanee]

...which is why I argue for RAW so fervently.

RAW = Rules As Written =/= Rules As you Wish they were (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

In every argument you make, you remove parts of the rules (because they invalidate your argument).

Nowhere in the rules does it state, that PPP is not armor.

It is completely irrelevant how they are added to what or whatnot and for what purpose. Whether they are seperate pieces of armor for calculating encumbrance or not.

They are armor. Period. That is RAW.

There is no rule that says otherwise.

In all relevant sections it is mentioned in the context of SR4A p. 161, the rules about armor and encumbrance. It is always mentioned in the context of "seperate armor" or "stacked armor" (which, likewise, refer to that section, because that is what it is all about, how the armor rating does or does not stack with each piece of armor worn).

Bye
Thanee

[Lantzer]

These discussions are always fun to read. They tend to go the same way:

a - "Can I do this?"
b - "Nah."
a - "It doesn't say I can't!"
b - "Yes it does."
a - "There's no good reason not to!"
b - "It's a silly idea."
c - "Technically, by a very careful selective reading of RAW, it's theoretically possible."
b - "Don't be silly. Use Occam's Razor. Use the KISS rule."
c - "Those are not RAW."
b - "RAW ain't perfect. It was written by gamers, not lawyers. They probably never considered reading it that way. The idea is ludicrus."
c - "No it isn't"
b - "Yes it is"
c - "No it isn't"
b - "Yes it is"
a - "But I want it!"
b - "So?"
a - "I want! My numbers get bigger!"
b - "That's why it's a bad idea."
a - "I think I can do it and I'll do it no matter what you say!"
b - "Then why ask our opinion?"
a - "Meanie!"
b - "Fine. Whatever. Just stay the heck away from my table."

[Yerameyahu]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[almost normal]

These discussions are always fun to read. They tend to go the same way:

a - "Can I do this?"
b - "Nah."
a - "It doesn't say I can't!"
b - "Yes it does."
a - "There's no good reason not to!"
b - "It's a silly idea."
c - "Technically, by a very careful selective reading of RAW, it's theoretically possible."
b - "Don't be silly. Use Occam's Razor. Use the KISS rule."
c - "Those are not RAW."
b - "RAW ain't perfect. It was written by gamers, not lawyers. They probably never considered reading it that way. The idea is ludicrus."
c - "No it isn't"
b - "Yes it is"
c - "No it isn't"
b - "Yes it is"
a - "But I want it!"
b - "So?"
a - "I want! My numbers get bigger!"
b - "That's why it's a bad idea."
a - "I think I can do it and I'll do it no matter what you say!"
b - "Then why ask our opinion?"
a - "Meanie!"
b - "Fine. Whatever. Just stay the heck away from my table."

I want to make this my Sig.

[The Jopp]

Oh well, at least no-one can tell me that my troll in Milspec cannot pick up a small car and use it as a shield. After all, its a vehicle, not armor. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[Thanee]

These discussions are always fun to read.

It would be so much easier if everyone had the same opinion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But I highly doubt that is something we should strive for. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Bye
Thanee

[Dr.Rockso]

It would be so much easier if everyone had the same opinion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

But then it wouldn't be a discussion, just an answer.

"Can I do X?"

"Yes/No"

"kthx"

[snowRaven]

But I highly doubt that is something we should strive for. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Bye
Thanee

It's what mankind has strived for since before we even became mankind... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Lantzer]

Oh well, at least no-one can tell me that my troll in Milspec cannot pick up a small car and use it as a shield. After all, its a vehicle, not armor. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

Technically, I'd call it a barrier.

A heavy one.

And if it has passengers, a FUN one.

What barrier rating is a metahuman strapped to your arm?

[Wiseman]

These discussions are always fun to read. They tend to go the same way:

a - "Can I do this?"
b - "Nah."
a - "It doesn't say I can't!"
b - "Yes it does."
a - "There's no good reason not to!"
b - "It's a silly idea."
c - "Technically, by a very careful selective reading of RAW, it's theoretically possible."
b - "Don't be silly. Use Occam's Razor. Use the KISS rule."
c - "Those are not RAW."
b - "RAW ain't perfect. It was written by gamers, not lawyers. They probably never considered reading it that way. The idea is ludicrus."
c - "No it isn't"
b - "Yes it is"
c - "No it isn't"
b - "Yes it is"
a - "But I want it!"
b - "So?"
a - "I want! My numbers get bigger!"
b - "That's why it's a bad idea."
a - "I think I can do it and I'll do it no matter what you say!"
b - "Then why ask our opinion?"
a - "Meanie!"
b - "Fine. Whatever. Just stay the heck away from my table."

So then we can conclude:
A = A Player
B = A GM
C = Dumpshock poster without a group

[Stahlseele]

Body==Barrier-Rating . . Or at least Armor-Rating, i think . .
I remember there having been a rule for shooting through people somewhere, but i ain't sure why . .

[Neraph]

In every argument you make, you remove parts of the rules (because they invalidate your argument).

Nowhere in the rules does it state, that PPP is not armor.

It is completely irrelevant how they are added to what or whatnot and for what purpose. Whether they are seperate pieces of armor for calculating encumbrance or not.

A) No, I quote the parts of the rules that are relevant to my argument, not parts of the section that are not clearly rules and do nothing but complicate the issue. I, if you will, eat the meat, and spit out the bones.

B) I am not debating that - I am asserting that they are not counted as separate armor, exactly like what their own description says.

C) It is the crux of the issue how they are added to what or whatnot and for what purpose. That is exactly what this debate is actually about.

The armor stacking rule on page 161 SR4A that you keep bringing up actually helps my position further.

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

(emphasis mine)
This tells me that armor, shields, and, with the addition of Arsenal, PPP are armor items that are not counted as stacked armor at all. If this supported your side at all then MilSpec could not be worn with even their own helmet either. PPP, shields, and helmets are inexorably linked in the way they interact with worn armor. Do not let the fact that you wear PPP and helmets fool you.

EDIT:

Then why does it include MORE text than the helmets and shield paragraph. Way of a synopsis there! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

And if you go by the "synopsis" of the "reference" part, then please read my post again, especially the part about SR4A p. 161 (which happens to get referenced by that helmet and shields part). And then try your argument again with the rules found there.

Please excuse my lack of clarity - I meant that only the part about them affecting encumbrance was a synopsis about the pertinent rules.

[Yerameyahu]

MilSpec could not be worn with even their own helmet either

Which is why there's an explicit mil-spec/helmet exception.

[Thanee]

B) I am not debating that - I am asserting that they are not counted as separate armor, exactly like what their own description says.

"they are not counted as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance"

See, you did it again! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

C) It is the crux of the issue how they are added to what or whatnot and for what purpose. That is exactly what this debate is actually about.

No, not really. The discussion is about whether they are "armor". Because if they are "armor" they cannot be used together with Military-grade armor (as its description quite clearly says).

The rest is just an attempt to circumvent a very simple question.

Q: Is PPP armor?
A: Yes!

The armor stacking rule on page 161 SR4A that you keep bringing up actually helps my position further.

This tells me that armor, shields, and, with the addition of Arsenal, PPP are armor items that are not counted as stacked armor at all.

Correct.

The important part here is to keep "stacked armor" together and not rip it apart and turn it into just "armor". It is one very specific application of the armor rules, where encumbrance is calculated. Only in that context "stacked armor" has any meaning at all.

"not counted as stacked armor" =/= "not counted as armor"

If this supported your side at all then MilSpec could not be worn with even their own helmet either.

Except, that MilSpec quite specifically allows that very Helmet (and nothing else, for that matter).

So, the conclusion is: MilSpec Armor can be combined with MilSpec Helmet. MilSpec Armor cannot be combined with anything else (including Armor Jackets, FFBA, PPP, other Helmets, and even Shields).

Glad you agree. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

PPP, shields, and helmets are inexorably linked in the way they interact with worn armor.

Erm... yes, of course. They all work in the same way.

You just add the Armor Ratings, that are not counted as seperate armor for purposes of encumbrance, to your base armor before comparing them to your Body Rating to determine Encumbrance, unlike normal "stacked armor", where only the highest value applies.

Oh, and before you ask... no, that "base armor" cannot be MilSpec (as it specifically forbids the combination with any other armor other than the MilSpec Helmet).

Bye
Thanee

[Neraph]

"they are not counted as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance"

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.

The important part here is to keep "stacked armor" together and not rip it apart and turn it into just "armor". It is one very specific application of the armor rules, where encumbrance is calculated. Only in that context "stacked armor" has any meaning at all.

No, the only context where "stacked armor" has any meaning is if you are wearing multiple items that have armor ratings. In that case, you have armor stacking, where you take the highest rating but add the ratings for encumbrance. HOWEVER, some items do not count as stacked armor and instead provide a modifier to the worn armor rating (all I did here was reorder the phrases from the RAW while maintaining the subject matter - explaining it by rewording it). This means that they are not in fact individual armor pieces and are not counted as separate armor, for purposes of encumbrance. By default, they would also not be counted as separate armor ratings to determine stacking, since they add their rating on to other armor and do not themselves have an inherent armor rating (IE: forearm guards on an armored vest is 6/5, not 6/5 and 0/1, taking the higher of 5 impact).

[Yerameyahu]

That's not relevant: milspec says 'no other armor'. PPP is undeniably 'other armor'.

[almost normal]

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.

It's fine Neraph. You made your point and clearly won the argument. Some folks just will refuse reality time and time again because it doesn't suit their argument.

[snowRaven]

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.

Not quite - they don't count as 'stacked armor' - see rules for 'armor stacking'. They are still armor.
They provide a modifier to the worn 'armor rating' - they aren't armor modifications. They are still armor.

[Yerameyahu]

And milspec says… "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor." (Appropriate helmet excepted, and saying shields aren't 'worn' solves that.)

[Ragewind]

Agreed 100%.

If worn armor adds to your ballistic or impact armor ratings, then it is very clearly armor, and doesn't stack.

It DOES, however, count towards encumbrance.

When you get into the nitty-gritty details of armor stacking in SR4, there are basically a list of specific things which DO and DONT stack - and they are spelled out pretty specifically as compatible or not.

I'm a bad person because I have not read the whole thread, however when it comes to Armor in Shadowrun you won't find anyone more knowledgeable than me.

PPP stacks with Milspec for a very specific reason and I quote...

"Each Piece is available in at least three styles: as discreet protection designed to be worn beneath clothing, as a obvious strapped addition to other visible armor, and as sports equipment."

"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.."
Page 49 Arsenal

"Helmets and Shields do not count as Separate pieces of Armor.."
Page 327 BRB

I will direct your attention to the bolded parts

Following Logic and Grammar they stack as the the Milspec armor is treated as the only thing being worn. Hence you get Milspec armor with a Modified Rating due to the addition of the PPP items, for game purposes it is a single suit of armor with no conflicting rules.

[Critias]

I'm a bad person because I have not read the whole thread, however when it comes to Armor in Shadowrun you won't find anyone more knowledgeable than me.

PPP stacks with Milspec for a very specific reason and I quote...

"Each Piece is available in at least three styles: as discreet protection designed to be worn beneath clothing, as a obvious strapped addition to other visible armor, and as sports equipment."

"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.."
Page 49 Arsenal

"Helmets and Shields do not count as Separate pieces of Armor.."
Page 327 BRB

I will direct your attention to the bolded parts

Following Logic and Grammar they stack as the the Milspec armor is treated as the only thing being worn. Hence you get Milspec armor with a Modified Rating due to the addition of the PPP items, for game purposes it is a single suit of armor with no conflicting rules.

Except you could also quote it as "Each piece of armor is available in at least three styles..." and then just turn the page to Arsenal p. 50, and look under Military-Grade Armor, and then quote again, with "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor." Even the write-up of the Securetech-PPP gear calls them "pieces of armor" (a part of the sentence, by the way, that you left out of your quote), and since that means they're armor, they clearly can't be worn with Military-Grade stuff.

See how this works? All you've got to do is highlight and emphasize certain things, read the appropriate passages a certain way, and suddenly it all comes out very different.

Which is why these threads just go in circles for pages and pages and pages. Both sides are right, by rules as written. None of you are wrong. It's poorly worded, it's not clarified anywhere, and that's all there is to it. Just like the last threads about this, volleying the same handful of quotes back and forth -- getting more and more frustrated each time, and less and less polite -- isn't going to change that.