Shields are a exception, because they only add onto something else, they do not have a armor value by themselves. The same is with helms the bit in the Milspec entry about "being desinged to be worn with blah blah blah" is purely a fluff part and doesn't provide you with a exception or addition to the listed rules. Anything that provides a +/+ is not a actualy "worn armor" as "worn armor" is a Number/Number as per the stacked armor rule section

People. Calm down. We have reached the point where neither side will back down, for pride and stubbornness.

Very Well

How about Form-fitting? It's not listed as +/+, but in the description it says it adds the rating to other armor.

Space suits? Like military armor they state that 'no other armor may be worn' - can they stack with a helmet? PPP?

Same goes for Polar Survival Suits.

Would a Moonsilver Line Scarf (+1/0) stack with Milspec armor?

Form fitting has two different rules that govern it

It has 1 paragraph that details its use as stand alone Armor (Number/Number)
The second paragraph details its use in combination with something else (+/+, although its a fake +/+)

The rules that apply to each paragraph are different, since they are intended for different usage. You'll notice that instead of the normal use for encumbrance they have a special clause that treats only half of their rating instead of the full amount, that's part of why its so good, in addition to having a skin-tight layer underneath everything else. However because it doesn't actually work as a Helm/Shield i'm sad to say it wouldn't go with Milspec, as it doesn't refer us to a Helm/Shield section. That sucks

The Scarf would not stack for two reasons, 1) It only can be used with the other clothes in the same section 2) It does not have any clauses that it would function as a Helm/Shield.

Actually, the scarf is not part of a line in that way (no © on that group of items) - it stacks with any other stuff you use. If it was part of a line, there wouldn't have been a need for the '+' in front of it's armor, and evening gown and cocktail dress would've had * on their entries.

So, can you wear a military helmet and PPP system with a Space Suit? It has the same clause of 'no other armor' that the milspec armors do.

I don't agree, and I don't see that the rules agree. A piece of worn armor is any piece of armor that you wear. PPP is undeniably a piece of worn armor, regardless of how the numbers are added. It is not, for example, an Armor Modification. Milspec doesn't allow any other worn armor, specifically excepting the appropriate helm.

Indeed... not sure why this is so hard. If you WEAR it, it is WORN. Pretty Simple, actually.

Hey Yoko! Can Kamina and I borrow your scarf? Gurren Lagann needs more armor!

You don't wear a shield though, your Thinking RAI.

EDIT: That scarf is also interesting as it is a +1 but has no info on how to use it, its been a moment since I actually looked at it so I was running off of memory thinking it added like the rest. Considered we have absolutely no info on what to do with it you can let it add like any other +/+ or not, whatever works would depend on the person.

That little detail is why the 'shield problem' doesn't exist for milspec, either. It's perfect.

Historically, though, there's plenty of linguistic evidence that people 'wear' a shield. It all depends.

Regarding an armor scarf (wtf?), the answer is clear: delete the ridiculous thing.

I was not referring to a Shield, though, Ragewind, but to PPP, which is what this discussion has primarily been about as of late. Shields are easy, they are not worn, so are not restricted from being used with Milspec Armor, by the description in the Milspec Armor section (Only WORN Armor is restricted, with the exception of a Helmet). However, PPP is MOST DEFINITELY WORN, regardless of how you wish to explain it, and thus is NOT AVAILABLE to be used with Milspec Armor. This is where the comment was directed. It is so obvious that I have a hard time believing that there are some that do not quite grasp that concept. I have to agree with Yerameyahu; regardless of how the numbers are added, you are still left with the distinction that PPP is WORN Armor.

Mwa ha ha! TJ has to *agree* with me!

It does occur on occasion, Yerameyahu.

Ragewind just doesn't want to understand it.

So, just go and play your Military-grade Armor with PPP, while everyone else goes and plays by the rules.

Though, I suppose, you won't even choose such weak armor, if you can have multiple layers of PPP-enhanced FFBA protecting you!




Arsenal has been updated for SR4A, so it is equally recent (or even moreseo, since it was updated after SR4A; besides that text hasn't been updated in either book, except for page references).




Now I really have trouble staying on my chair here...


But I have to agree with Yerameyahu (yay, I can even type that correctly). Your performance here is quite entertaining.

But I guess it's time to do something useful now...

Bye
Thanee

I always figured you'd have to wrap yourself in it to get the protection...but yeah, it's a bit silly.

I still want an answer regarding Spacesuits and helmets - it says Space suits can't be combined with worn armor, so - PPP and a helmet?

Ragewind, if PPP and helmets don't count as armor and aren't worn can you use multiple of each to enhance your armor of choice?

If you can increase your armor rating by covering your forearms or shins with guards, you should be able to increase your armor rating by wrapping a much more vulnerable part, your neck, with some ballistic cloth.

and now for the crowning act of wtf armor?
can you add ballistic gel packs to the scarf?

Yes. And a full set of PPP, to go with your full-PPP'ed armor jacket, full-PPP'ed FFBA and full-PPP'ed motorcycle helmet.

You cant allow a Shield/Helm and not allow other things that follow the same rules, no matter how hard it is to wrap your head around. That's called Cherry Picking and if its something you do with rules I cannot help you.



You can do whatever the rules let you do, as mentioned before there is nothing (other than common sense, applied to a cyberpunk setting) that stops you, if you can do it at your table it will work.

A good point to consider is that anything with a +/+ can be "stacked" as it is not actually armor by the strict game definition, and has a clause that states it does not count as other armor. If it doesn't count as other armor what armor is it counting as? Obviously the "primary" you are wearing. As i have stated many time if you are wearing a Lined Coat that is 4/6 and add a helm you get a Lined Coat that is 6/8, not a Lined Coat AND a Helm for a total of 6/8, just a Lined Coat with a new rating of 6/8. The game does not make that distinction when following the rules for Helm/Shields, as far as the game is concerned you are only wearing 1 armor piece with a new modified rating.

I have read through the thread and agree with Neraph's reading of the RAW. While there is some ambigiuity to the armor rules, I feel that the parts that are not ambigiuous are clear enough on this issue.

I sure can, Ragewind. The milspec rules specifically allow the helmet, and (if one cared about the shield) it's simple enough to say it's not 'worn'. Personally, I don't care at all about shields, but it's fully consistent.

Actually its just a Fluff piece that talks about how its "deigned" to go with it, nothing in that section actually allows you permission to wear the helm. There are many examples of this sort of writing and sentence structure in the Shadowrun books. That's part of what makes it a fun read but very confusing for rules debates.

It seems to me that choosing what's fluff and what's crunch is the real cherry picking. So, it's tricky. I generally come down on the side of less broken.

Wow...do you see the contradiction here? If this is something you do with rules, noone can help you.


Stop using common sense man. That's no fun.

Umm..that paragraph says 'intended to be worn with the approperiate helmet', 'wireless-enabled', 'built-in biomonitor', 'can be equipped with any of the armor modifications' - the paragraph above talks about reduced encumbrance and the paragraph below talks of dart guns and the like not penetrating the armor.

How do you interpret that as 'fluff' and not rules?

Also, you still haven't said if you think a Space suit (Arsenal pg. 54) can be combined with Helmets and PPP?

Fluff = "rules I want to ignore."

That's it, pretty much, yep.

Bye
Thanee

I still don't get where in the rules it directly says that, just because a piece of worn armor is not "separate", that it magically stops being "worn armor".

It's just not separate. It's still armor, and it's still worn.

That last line from the Mil-spec armor rules does not care about stacking stats at all. It just says you can't combine it with other worn armor.




-k

I agree with what you have said. But I think the key here is not that "seperate" stops being "worn armor", but instead it is how you view "not seperate" and "other". Is a "not seperate" piece of armor an "other" piece of armor? To me, there is sufficient grounds that a "not seperate" piece of armor is not "other" armor.

This is like watching a panel of biblical scholars try to determine the meaning of the universe from Dick and Jane, right down to "the parts that tell me not to do stuff I want to do are meant to be interpreted metaphorically."

That kinda sounds preposterous, toturi. And they're not not-separate. They are pieces of PPP: a shinguard, a shoulder pad, whatever.

Fairly easy!

Just read the relevant parts of the rules and ignore the rest!



And, because we need to look at the whole picture, here's the Helmets and Shields part, too:





Bye
Thanee

That's not relevant. The encumbrance rules have a special (and unnatural/gamey) purpose for 'separate', but that doesn't mean anything else does. The milspec rule isn't related to encumbrance. It's easy to imagine other applications: can you not cast a spell on a PPP pad because it's 'unified' with a jacket?

The fact that there's a rule saying 'these separate things don't count as separate for encumbrance' very clearly implies that they *are* separate otherwise. If they weren't (like Modifications), the rule wouldn't be needed.

I perfectly see where you are coming from here.

Basically, if you look at the following part without its context, one could certainly come to this conclusion.

"Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor; instead, they modify the rating of worn armor by their rating."

So, basically, helmets and shields are not armor pieces on their own, but they "merge" together with whatever armor they are worn with, making it one armor piece with improved armor ratings in union. So, once you put them together, there is no "other armor" left, because there is only one, thus sidestepping the military-grade armor restrictions.


Where this utterly fails, however, is the context in which that part is mentioned, which makes it rather clear, that that part is not actually the full rule, but there is more to it (which is written on SR4A p. 161 under the topic of Armor and Encumbrance). In that paragraph we learn what the "seperate armor" part means. It means, that they are not like stacked armor, where only the highest value applies, but their armor ratings are added to whatever other armor they are worn with. Nowhere does it say, that they cease to count as armor. In fact, they are called "armor" in the very same sentence on multiple occasions, where the rules about modifying the armor rating of other armor are written.

The newer PPP text makes this even more clear by adding the "for purposes of encumbrance" part to it.

They do not "count as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance" - "for purposes of encumbrance" and for no other purpose.


Now, of course, if you ignore all those references to the encumbrance rules, you can follow that above logic and it works out just fine.

Bye
Thanee

I disagree. I understand your argument and I agree that under a strict reading of the RAW, you are correct. But as I see it, that particular line "for purposes of encumbrance" could only be making explicit the effect of PPP with respect to other armor for the rules regarding encumbrance. It is not ignoring the reference to encumbrance rules, but discounting it in particular due to the reference made to Armor and Encumbrance. If there was no reference to Armor and Encumbrance and only the reference to Helmet and Shields, then I'd be more inclined to agree with you on this particular subject.

By a strict reading you're right, but I think the spirit of the rules is for people to wear a suit of milspec armor and ten codpieces.

You have the right of it

As for the space armor, if it says it cant be worn with other armor its the same situation.

You mean, 'I agree with you'. Who has the right of things remains to be seen (perhaps never).

For my part, I don't see why 'not separate for the purposes of encumbrance' means 'is not other armor/an other piece of armor'. They're not modifications, they're helmets, pads, shinguards, etc. Perhaps they should be modifications (it's certainly resolve this), but we know they're not. When you don a helmet (or a codpiece) with your armor jacket, you're not wearing a single armor item consisting of (jacket+helmet). You're wearing 2 items that add their ratings, instead of encumbering you separately. The rule is entirely about calculation, and that's all.

B8tch please, I wear 15 codpieces...rules don't say I can't...

I quite like how Ragewind is treating FFBA and PPP as seperate in the Spell Stacking thread, but when it's advantageous to treat things as unified, that's what he does instead.

Not only was I using them as a example since the numbers were even (8/8, it makes for a clean example) but you can of course upgrade everything subject to the normal modification rules(in the spell stacking thread FFBA is a armor suit, with PPP add on), except for very technically PPP/shields/helms since they have no actual armor value of their own and have no mod slots.

Its funny really, if you take a riot shield (+2/+6), get naked and hold it you end up with a 0/0 Armor value, once you don a Shirt however (worn armor with a 0/0 value, the rules tell us even clothing has a value) then all of a sudden you have 2/6 armor.

To take this further you can equip a Helm/Shield/PPP System, and your armor value is still 0/0 (as long as your naked) because you have no armor to modify. Again once you equip a shirt you end up with 6/14 armor (shirt is 0/0)

Its funny really

I know you're the armor expert and all, but I think you've taken this to absurd levels already, no need to take it further. If you want to interpret the rules where having a helm and shield while naked offers you no actual armor protection, you do that. Realize that it's one of many interpretations, and yours makes a lot less sense than others.

Yeah, that's good old Rules As Stupid. PPP even says it can be standalone… but I guess that's mere fluff.

It's all pretty easily resolvable with a tiny bit of common sense, though. You have to actively choose the broken/silly interpretations, as is often the case.

Yes it says it can be used stand alone, I even mentioned it before. However the rules don't actually support it. Do you see what I mean? It will say something in the description but not actually back it up with the rules, hence the combination of fluff/crunch that shadowrun works on, in order to discern a lot of the more tangled paragraphs you need to apply sentence structure and grammar to see where things end and start.

If you point out where it gives you a 2/6 rating with all PPP items worn, I will concede the point.


That is a very strict reading of the rules. The problem is that the PPP system, Shield/Helms, ONLY modify other worn armor. They have no actual value themselves (hence the +/+), that is why when you are naked you get nothing. You need to put something else on for the items to modify.

That's why I said its funny, most people will allow you to do so, but that's not what the rule say.

No, I do see what you mean. I'm not saying they're *your* Rules As Stupid, just that the strictest RAW often leads to silliness; Neraph gets crap for this a lot, because he likes to express the RAW ('warts and all'). As you know, I'm one for whom the RAW stops mattering when it starts being broken (for good or ill). To be melodramatic and historical at the same time: 'The RAW is not a suicide pact'.

Here is a Example

In the Milspec description it says "All these armors are intended to be used with the appropriate helmet to offer optimal protection and allow use of the armor's technical possibilities to their fullest extent"

This does not actually tell you that you can ignore the rule that says you cannot wear anything else

This is the same as saying "In all civilized countries clothes are intended to be worn day to day"

These are both true statements, but are not entirely true at the same time. The intent of the sentence is to tell you that its "intended to be worn with the appropriate helmet' but doesn't mean it cannot be worn with any other helmet.
The nuance is very important.

What should have been said is that " All these armors can only be used with the appropriate military helm to offer optimal protection and allow use of the armor's technical possibilities to their fullest extent"

This structure explicitly disallows all PPP systems/Helms/Shields that are not listed in the military section. This is how it should have been worded to get the intended effect, but its not. This is why I say its only a fluff section

Shadowrun treats ALL helms/shields/PPP system the same, there is no difference from a rules perspective, since they are not treated separately and the sentence explicitly allows helmets, it therefore implicitly allows the others.

EDIT: Or just read what Toturi said, he says it better.

Bye
Thanee

Sorry, Ragewind. I refuse to believe that, in the same paragraph, the rules contradict themselves. Not when it's so easy to *not choose* to interpret it that way. Like I said, you have to actively decide to see the the illogical, confusing, and contradictory version. The straightforward and coherent version is right there in black and white, so why go out of my way to avoid it?

No one is saying the rules couldn't, shouldn't be written better. We know they suck, and we question the sanity of the writers. But that doesn't mean, given the choice, we take the *worse* interpretation.

It is also ridiculous to equate PPP, shields, and helmets, and I'm actually shocked that someone would argue 'because it allows helmets, it therefore allows all PPP'. They're not the same; they simply share one aspect of the encumbrance rules. Even if you allow any helmet (which many people do, under the influence of common sense), that implies nothing at all about PPP ('other armor').

Here's an alternative reading for you:

SR4A p. 161 (yeah, there it is again) says, that helmets and shields provide a modifier to the "worn armor rating".

That is a value, not an item (otherwise there would be a "'s" somewhere).

So, if you start out naked (worn armor rating of 0/0) and then add a helmet (+1/+2), which is a piece of (worn) armor, you end up with a worn armor rating of 1/2.


Also, you must have a 0/0 rating when naked, because otherwise you couldn't make damage resistance tests. In a damage resistance test you roll Body + Armor. If Armor isn't defined, then that sum is not defined either, so you would have Body + <UNDEFINED> = <UNDEFINED>, which is not a number of dice you can roll.


Or, if we apply your way of reading the rules, and only allow armor ratings when clothing or other armor is worn, then we come to the conclusion, that we cannot take damage at all while naked, since we cannot make the damage resistance test (undefined dice pool, as explained in the paragraph above) and therefore the whole process of resolving damage is aborted and we never get a final damage value to apply to our condition monitors. That beats all the armor setups for sure! Run naked!!

Bye
Thanee

Yeah, the rules are pretty clear that helmets and shield don't modify the worn armor; they modify the worn armor rating.

If they modified the actual armor, it would have said: modify the rating of worn armor. Nuances are important. (Yes, I know page 347 words it in a similar way, but it also references 161 - which is the actual rule). Note also the text below on pg. 347 listing what modifications are allowed on a shield, giving precedence for items with a '+' to their rating being able to have armor modifications.

Also speaking against your claim that helmets can't take armor modifications - the capacity list on pg.44 containing comm gear, vision enhancements, sensors etc. If a helmet doesn't have capacity, why have the vision enhancements as armor mods? Gonna put a Smartlink on your armor vest?

Note that Bone lacing also provides a +1 or +2 to armor (stating they are cumulative with worn armor), while Dermal Plating 'confers a bonus a bonus to both Ballistic and Impact armor equal to it's rating.' (but note that it doesn't actually say it's cumulative with worn armor). Orthoskin adds its rating to 'the character's Ballistic and Impact ratings (cumulative with worn armor). How does those fit with your strictest sense of RAW?