 Actioneer, Fashionable armour |
  |
 Nov 15 2004, 08:25 PM
Post
#76
|
|
|
Old Man Jones  Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699  |
So this is a case where the text is worded badly.
Think about this. A rule that physically prevents a character from reaching out, grabbing his coat, and putting it on is patently silly. It is more reasonable that the rule is meant to apply to the game mechanics, not the actual physical act of putting on the coat. -karma |
 |
 
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 08:26 PM
Post
#77
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: 8-November 04 Member No.: 6,816 |
"Designerpanzerkleidung - Komponenten, die nicht gleichzeitig getragen werden können, sind mit einem kleinen doppelkreuz (#) versehen."
which part of "components marked with # cannot be worn together at the same time" didnīt you understand? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 08:27 PM
Post
#78
|
|
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
What part of "you are interpreting the rules FAR too narrowly" do you not understand?
It's okay. If you're the GM, you can go ahead and use the brain you were given to decide if something seems silly and make your own determination. There is no role-playing police that will haul you off to jail. -karma |
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 08:29 PM
Post
#79
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Cymophane: Once again, you're reading them out of context. You're reading a single line of text and ignoring what the rest of the section is talking about. Read the entirity of it. It's telling you that you can put all of the components together to form a single suit of armor, but those items marked with an asterick *can't* be worn together in that way. They are instead treated as seperate pieces of armor.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 08:32 PM
Post
#80
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: 8-November 04 Member No.: 6,816 |
hey buddy, i already said that it is quite clear that you may wear whatever layers you like, but this rules mechanically prevents the abuse of certain armor combinations which the developers deemed to powerful by saying that itīs effects donīt stack. itīs the same with hardened armor (like a suit w/gelpacks) and normal armor.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 08:35 PM
Post
#81
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
No, what you're actually saying (in effect if not intent) is that you can wear the Actioneer's long coat with any other type of armor *EXCEPT* the one type of armor it was *DESIGNED* to be worn with. That's not only blatantly wrong, it's also blatantly illogical and flat-out stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 08:37 PM
Post
#82
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 485 Joined: 25-October 04 Member No.: 6,789 |
Fails to see the abuse in the above combo. Besides if they wanted it not to stack they would have said "cannot be stacked" not "cannot be worn". But then again I do tend to try logic before knee jerk rules lawyerism.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 08:42 PM
Post
#83
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: 8-November 04 Member No.: 6,816 |
no doc, as i said long ago i think it canīt be used in conjunction with jackets like even the layering rules in the BBB say.
and i am trying to keep this conversation nice and clean and donīt imply that you or other people using this board are stupid. we may disagree but thatīs not a reason to get personal, ok? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 08:42 PM
Post
#84
|
|||
|
Old Man Jones Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,415 Joined: 26-February 02 From: New York Member No.: 1,699 |
WE'VE BEEN SAYING THE EFFECTS DON'T STACK, as far as the special benefits of the Actioneer line. The special benefit of the Actioneer line is that you can mix and match different pieces without losing half the armor value of any of the pieces. The whole package is treated as a single piece of armor. The only stated exception is that you cannot get the special benefit of BOTH that suit jacket AND the Long Coat at the same time. It is fairly obvious that this exception is meant to apply ONLY to the special benefits. So, without the special benefits, the rules default to the normal effects of layering armor - half the bonus from the next highest piece, rounded down. You have Rule A - layering armor. You have Special Rule B - Actioneer special layering. Since B is disallowed, the you default to Rule A. I don't know how much more detailed I can get. -karma |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 15 2004, 09:37 PM
Post
#85
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,133 Joined: 3-October 04 Member No.: 6,722 |
Well... actually there are, but they're too busy watching the Battletech forums to bother us... |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 15 2004, 09:49 PM
Post
#86
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 56 Joined: 5-October 04 Member No.: 6,729 |
Beating dead horse.
If I have the full actioneer line (with overcoat) I get 5/3 but it counts as 4/2 for layering. Does that 5/3 now count as 1 piece of armor. Thus I could stack/layer it with FFBA? Example: Actioneer w/ Overcoat = 5/3 FFBA3 = 4/1 = +2/0 FA Gaurds = 0/+1 Total 7/4 Armor Rating :eek: , but only 4/2 for Layering rules???? :D If thats the case then what's the best armor combination a character can get at chargen if he/she has a quickness 9 and doesn't want to suffer any penalties and still look cool??? |
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 09:50 PM
Post
#87
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
No, it counts as two pieces of armor. But like FFBA, it doesn't count for purposes of determining your layering penalty. Also, despite Toturi's desire for a literal reading of the rules, there's nothing stopping you from wearing more than two pieces of armor as long as it's reasonable (GM and player call).
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 10:33 PM
Post
#88
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,049 Joined: 24-March 03 Member No.: 4,323 |
Is it just me, or are the last three pages of this thread the exact same things being stated over and over with no real end in sight?
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 10:35 PM
Post
#89
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
It pretty much is.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 10:49 PM
Post
#90
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 993 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 313 |
And to think I kept checking all day long to see if it would go anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 10:51 PM
Post
#91
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,028 Joined: 9-November 02 From: The Republic of Vermont Member No.: 3,581 |
No, but any pieces of armor beyond the second-best have no effect on your armor rating. You can, of course, make a house rule to change that, as with any rule you don't like, but it'd still only be a house rule. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Nov 15 2004, 11:14 PM
Post
#92
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
And, once again, it's not necessarily a house rule. It's strict reading vs. reading intent. There is no right or wrong in this particular regard, but I'm going to side with common sense. Convince yourself that's what the intent is all you like and run with it in your games if you like... you'll just be the one gaming with a retarded rule that let's you wear an an Armored Vest (2/1) and Form-Fitting Body Armor Shirt (2/0) just fine, but the moment you throw on an overcoat (2/2) the Form-Fitting Body Armor mysteriously loses its ability to protect you in any way whatsoever, but doesn't seem to have any problem hampering your ability to move.
Hell, using that sort of asinine logic, someone only has to shoot threw two walls to kill anyone in a building no matter how deep inside a building they are. For some strange and mysterious reason, all those other walls magically lose their ability to protect him. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 11:30 PM
Post
#93
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,028 Joined: 9-November 02 From: The Republic of Vermont Member No.: 3,581 |
Or reading what the book actually says vs. making up some rule you like and insisting that it's what the book intended to say, but somehow mysteriously failed to actually say. Since I can't read the game designers' minds to determine their intent, I'm going to have to stick with reading what they wrote.
Would you care to point out the rule that describes this effect? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 15 2004, 11:30 PM
Post
#94
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 53 Joined: 8-November 04 Member No.: 6,816 |
quote doc: "Someone only has to shoot threw two walls to kill anyone in a building no matter how deep inside a building they are. For some strange and mysterious reason, all those other walls magically lose their ability to protect him. "
Thatīs the way we handle it, itīs fun because on wetwork-runs the sniper only has to penetrate the first two walls and if he shoots through a window in the first wall and a open door in the second we choose not to apply the blind fire modificator to hit the unseen target because it only does apply for the first two walls. The only problem is that the weaponīs powerlevel only applies to the first two walls too, so the target is hit with powerlevel 0 but as long as it doesnīt wear hardened armor it still has got to roll its body against TN 2, so with enough successes it will still be dead. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 15 2004, 11:38 PM
Post
#95
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,049 Joined: 24-March 03 Member No.: 4,323 |
Wow. Is there sarcasm involved here that I'm somehow failing to see? I hope so... |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 15 2004, 11:43 PM
Post
#96
|
|||||
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Feel free to point out the rule that says only two pieces of armor can be worn and have their ratings function together, keeping in mind that the quote about how to calculate the layered armor rating does *NOT* actually say that. Your claim that it does say that holds no more water -- you're just viewing it as a cup half empty vs. my cup half full. What it does actually say is that you take the highest rating armor and halve the rating of the next highest rating armor, all in the context of talking about wearing only two pieces of armor to begin with. You'll note a complete and total lack of continuation on that where it would, yanno, specifically state that no other armor functioned while worn beyond that point. That's the leap of logic *you* are making, which is why I said neither point of view is right or wrong. And like I said before, I prefer to take the road of common sense that states that it does continue to provide protection.
No, because it doesn't exist (and I never claimed there was a rule like that, only extrapolating from the logic you so desperately want to cling to as being a canonal rule) anymore than the one you think exists. And that's my point. It's equally as stupid. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 16 2004, 12:35 AM
Post
#97
|
|||||
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
The actual rule states (and I've quoted this at the start of this thread)
Yes, you can say that "more than one layer" is actually 2, but to me, 3 or 4 is still more than 1 layer. You may wear 10 layers, but only the 2 highest rating will be effective. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Nov 16 2004, 12:37 AM
Post
#98
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
I don't see "...and in no way, shape, or form does any other armor count" as part of that rule. That's your assumption. Hence no right or wrong interpretation of it.
|
|
|
|
|
Nov 16 2004, 12:42 AM
Post
#99
|
|
|
Canon Companion Group: Members Posts: 8,021 Joined: 2-March 03 From: The Morgue, Singapore LTG Member No.: 4,187 |
If armour>1,
armour = highest armour + 1/2 next highest armour I am not assuming anything, the assumption is yours. |
|
|
|
|
Nov 16 2004, 12:46 AM
Post
#100
|
|
|
Immortal Elf Group: Validating Posts: 7,999 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,890 |
Once again, show me where it says it stops there and that no other armor applies. You can't, because there's no such rule. Hence assumption. Argue it all you like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 11th July 2026 - 08:47 PM |
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.