Probably hell on Encumbrance, though.

I was responding but my gf said my comment wasn't funny enough

(she's a vegetarian too! get 'er!)

Heh...
It always pays to listen to the GF.

It is also ridiculous to equate PPP, shields, and helmets,

How so? It tells you they follow the same rules, how would you not equate it?
Last I looked same means =/=

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').

You can't allow one and not all, that's Cherry Picking

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.

I see what your saying, I really do, except its wrong. You do not have a 0/0 while naked, you simply do not have the score at all. You have to wear something that grants you those numbers in order to take advantage of it.
http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

we cannot make the damage resistance test

That's not how the rules work, you simply roll body in that case. Where are you getting your info>? If we take aside the idiocy of that statement I will also inform you the game actually does include just dashes (-) in the ratings, instead of a number or plus.

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?

Yes yes Neraph nailed me on that one, apparently helms are the only ones with a Capacity rating since you can throw Comlinks and other crap in it. However i assure you that you will not find a simlier example in the Shield or PPP department, and that doesn't mean they can have armor mods. simply capacity upgrades as detailed below.
Also, it took meanwhile but I simply couldn't remember armor being able to be modified with sensors, until i went over and pulled open a book. I think you are getting confused, there are TWO (count them TWO) seperate paragraphs on that page entitled Maximum Armor Modifications and Armor Suit Capacity which are two different rules that do different things. To answer your statement, yes..you can indeed place a Smart Link into your armor, please note that that is NOT a armor Mod, that is under a different rule-set for different things.

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?

Im not seeing the difference. it all tells you the same thing, keep in mind that Cyberware armor rules differ and have exclusions to the norm. In regards to the bonus there plenty of things in the game that provide a bonus to a dice pool, so I am not seeing what you are getting at.

"they modify the worn armor rating."
"modify the rating of worn armor"

I may be tired, but they say exactly the same thing.
TO-MAY-TO
TO-MAH-TO

I don't quite see what your arguing, can you reword it? The example you used is incorrect if you are trying to talk about how certain words mean different things depending on how they are used. It also doesn't refute anything I previously said, please reword.

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.

Page 347 is about Bioware, so I go look at page 327 (which is about armor) where it talks about modifacations, and there is no text concerning that which you speak.
If your talking about how the Helmet for the Full Body Armor and the Urban Explorer Jumpsuit is in the same sidebar thats because its giving you the prices to purchase the whole set. You'll notice how Helms and SHields have their OWN sidebar titled "Helms and SHield". Youll also notice that these are NOT included in the section entitled "Armor"

Also on that same page youll see where it gives "Clothing" a 0/0 rating...hmm...strange isnt it???? Strange that they would have to point out that something gives you 0/0. Please cite a page number that tells us you have a 0/0 while naked.

Did someone lie and tell you that constantly linking to the Billy Madison clip was funny and awesome? Because that's the third time you've done so, just off the top of my head, and whoever told you it was cool and/or constructive in the slightest was wrong.

Um, regular non-armored clothing has a rating of 0/0.

SR4A, page 326-327.

This would include a thong bikini. Which is next enough to naked that it wouldn't matter. And if you are attempting to claim there is a significant difference in a body's ability to resist bullets or blades when wearing a thong or not, well, this conversation is pretty much over.

And I will say this one more time:

Milspec Armor does not care one whit about separate or not separate encumbrance or stacking rules. It only cares about if you are trying to wear it with other worn armor. I see where it says certain items don't count as "separate", but not where it says they magically stop being either "worn" or "armor".



-k

Yes...but...if you are wearing a thong bikini...you are clothed. The exact opposite of naked, however because a thong bikini isn't "clothes" by the game terms it still falls outside of the 0/0 and does nothing

Here is a quote from Toturi that seems to sum it up better than what I have been saying.

How is PPP not separate armor or other? You attach it to yourself or whatever armor you are wearing. It's doesn't magically fuse into whatever you strap it to.

EDIT- How is a thong bikini not clothes?

That quote is specifically what I have a problem with. It doesn't make sense. I said why before, and Angelone just said it again. It's 'separate for the purposes of encumbrance' (for the zillionth time, heh) which is a mechanical calculation only. It has nothing to do with the nature of the piece of armor, just how it's *counted*.

And I utterly reject that.

Worn armor has two qualifying parts that make it "worn armor".

A) It's worn.

B) It's armor.

The encumbrance stacking rules for PPP make them "not separate". I do not agree that this makes them either "not worn" or "not armor". It's armor. It's armor that can be attached to other armor. But it's still armor. And it's worn.



-k

And it's 'other'.

That is not unambigiously clear and I have stated why previously. If it was clear that, as you claim, "other", then I would have said so. As it stands, there remains sufficient grounds to say that it is not "other".

I disagree. It's bought as a different item, it's described as a different item… there's no sense in which it's not 'other armor', except for the 'purposes' of the explicitly-excepted encumbrance calculation (which, again, implies by its very existence that they're 'other').

And, of course, if there is ambiguity… why on earth would you choose the power-creep option? If you're not even claiming that it's *clearly* one thing, it's just crazy to default to the worse choice.

Aha! Where exactly is that explained? Rules quote, please.



Ok, so how do you add a "dash" to a number?

And, if you manage to do so, then why can't you add a number to a "dash"?

And where does it say, that "naked" equals "dash", anyways?

Don't make stuff up!

Bye
Thanee

I know I'm being silly, but why would any of this matter? Things that are ridiculous can't be right, whether they're written in the book or not. It is ridiculous to say that a naked character can't make a damage resistance test (even if you thought the rules actually said that; I don't); and so on, for the other indeed hilarious examples. They're great as amusing novelties, but we know they don't matter at all.

I disagree. It may not be "other armor", due to the fact the explicit line about encumbrance calculations does not explicitly limit the not-seperation to only encumbrance calculations.

It is not about choosing the power creep option. It is pointing out, in this case (and in some other cases) that the power creep option is within the RAW due to certain ambigiuities. If a certain rule or certain rules interactions or even certain interpretations of those interactions lead to power creep, then so be it, I make no judgement or offer any opinion on which interpretation should be chosen. Only whether that interpretation is within the RAW or not. Disagreeing with me does not make it not so. I have already stated that within strict RAW, I would agree with you.

By the way, stating that it is crazy to default to the worse (which is in itself subjective) choice and thus by implication calling me crazy doesn't really help your argument. I have already admitted to being insane in my sig.

I think all of this would be more...palatable...if the thread had a "ridiculous rules-lawyering" tag or something. None of this matters in the slightest, except for a mental exercise in seeing how far words can be twisted out of their original meaning. It matters what the meaning of the word "is", is.

The thing that's really incredible is that the people arguing these ridiculous ideas seem to be taking themselves very seriously, instead of chuckling and saying "this is sooo stupid, I know, but I think if you look at it this way..."

If you check my original post in which I brought it up, you will see, that I totally agree with you.

It is simply the logical conclusion if you follow the "naked + helmet/shield/PPP = no armor rating" logic, which is equivalent to the "armor + helmet/shield/PPP = no other armor worn" logic.

I am merely saying just how ridiculous it actually is.

Bye
Thanee

I'm saying that if your naked body has armor -/- and you need 0/0 for things with a +1/+1 to apply, then you couldn't get an armor rating from Dermal Armor, Orthoskin, Bone Lacing or Dermal sheathing unless you also wore clothes. And where do you get that a 'bikini' wouldn't be classified as 'clothes' in shadowrun - there's no such exclusion anywhere in the text that I'm aware of.


Yes, my mistake - it's supposed to be page 327 SR4A, and I'll quote what section I meant:
"Shields may be upgraded with the chemical protection, fire resistance, and nonconductivity armor modifications. When combining armor and shield, only one of them provides the modification bonus (wearer's choice)"

So, if you argue that the armor modification limits of Arsenal doesn't apply to items which have their armor values listed as +/+ and they therefore can't take modifications, how do you follow RAW and add chem protection, fire resistance or nonconductivity to a shield?

Note, however, that the 6 or highest of B or I x1.5 limit is optional. Without that optional rule, there's no limit to how much modification you can add to one piece of armor.



If something modifies the 'worn armor rating' (as is stated on pg. 161) it modifies the total armor rating the wearer is wearing--not the armor itself.
- Example: Armor Jacket(8/6) + Formfitting Halfsuit(4/1) = 10/6, modified by (+2/+2) helmet to 14/9.

If something modifies the rating of worn armor (as is stated on pg. 327), it modifies the rating of the armor itself.
- Example: Armor Jacket(8/6) modified by helmet(+2/+2) to (10/8) + Formfitting Halfsuit(4/1) modified by the same helmet to (6/3) - then apply half the formfit for a total of 16/11.

Since pg. 327 references the rule on 161, the first example would be the correct one.

How does it not? It says that something that would normally be considered separate (e.g., a helmet) is *considered* not-separate "for the purposes of encumbrance". It takes unwarranted brainbending to make that say, 'is not considered separate for various purposes', or indeed *any* other purposes.

Because it does not make it clear whether it is simply making explicit a rules interaction (for purposes of encumbrance) or limiting it to such (only for encumbrance). It would take an additional word to make it clear - "is considered separate only for the purposes of encumbrance".

But there's no reason to think that. The default is that they're separate (cuz… they are), and the rule only says 'considered' and 'for the purposes of encumbrance'. If we wanna play the reading-tea-leaves game, they could've said any number of things instead, like "they are not separate" or "they are considered one piece of armor". Or even, "milspec is okay with PPP", given that they're in the same section of the same book.

Again, you have to go way out of your way to choose the less logical, less reasonable, and less balance optiond. Even then, the strongest claim you can make on a 'it's vague' argument is that the RAW says nothing, that we can't make a conclusion. There's simply no reasonable way to get to 'the RAW (or RAI, or anything) says they're not other worn armor'.

I disagree, there is not clearly explicit that the rule they are only considered seperate for purposes of encumbrance. It has not been established beyond a shadow of a doubt to my satisfaction that it is so.

Once again I must repeat that I am not choosing anything. It may seem "less logical, less reasonable, and less balance" but as far as I am concerned, it is the RAW, it may be RAW right at the edge of RAW but it is RAW nonetheless.

I never said 'clearly explicit' nor 'beyond a shadow of a doubt'. That's my whole point: it's just easier and more reasonable to go with the default (helmets, etc. are separate). It's more reasonable to assume they chose to say 'for the purposes of encumbrance' because they meant 'for the purposes of encumbrance'. You're saying they meant something else, based on nothing.

There is no way you can claim anything is RAW when your argument is that the RAW is too vague to decide, man. You're arguing that it's not explicitly A… that doesn't mean it *is* explicitly B. You can't say B is right based on that. You *are* choosing.

And lets not forget that NPC's cannot speak or interact socially, either, while we are at it... "Oook Oook"

Aha! Where exactly is that explained? Rules quote, please."

I think...I see what I have been up against.
http://monicks.posterous.com/saturday-morn...kfast-cereal-56

Ok, so how do you add a "dash" to a number?
And, if you manage to do so, then why can't you add a number to a "dash"?
And where does it say, that "naked" equals "dash", anyways?
Don't make stuff up!

See Above,
Also page 327 bottom left field ,it has a Explorer jumpsuit helm listed with a -/2.


I think all of this would be more...palatable...if the thread had a "ridiculous rules-lawyering" tag or something.

EDIT: By Thanee I meant "Toturi"
Just try thinking of it as "Characater Optimazation"
As Thanee mentioned I take his stance as I am not advocating one way over the other, I am simply trying to help you understand that one way is "correct" by RAW, that doesn't mean you have to follow what it says. If you don't want SHields/Helms or PPP to work with Milspec in your game that's your decision and I wont beat you over the head with it.

I'm saying that if your naked body has armor -/- and you need 0/0 for things with a +1/+1 to apply, then you couldn't get an armor rating from Dermal Armor, Orthoskin, Bone Lacing or Dermal sheathing unless you also wore clothes. And where do you get that a 'bikini' wouldn't be classified as 'clothes' in shadowrun - there's no such exclusion anywhere in the text that I'm aware of.

its a very rare game that a shadowrunner is naked in the most literal sense of the word. This simply almost never comes up, the +/+ from Bodyware functions just like every other +/+ item in that it stacks with whatever you wear, as for the bikini its technically "not clothes" in the fact that its a BIKINI, but yes there is no reason they can't have 0/0. The entry for Clothes simply says "Clothes" so whatever you consider to be clothes will give you 0/0.

Yes, my mistake - it's supposed to be page 327 SR4A, and I'll quote what section I meant:
"Shields may be upgraded with the chemical protection, fire resistance, and non-conductivity armor modifications. When combining armor and shield, only one of them provides the modification bonus (wearer's choice)"

So, if you argue that the armor modification limits of Arsenal doesn't apply to items which have their armor values listed as +/+ and they therefore can't take modifications, how do you follow RAW and add chem protection, fire resistance or non-conductivity to a shield?

Note, however, that the 6 or highest of B or I x1.5 limit is optional. Without that optional rule, there's no limit to how much modification you can add to one piece of armor.

I should think its self evident that the "Armor Modifications" from SR4A is not the same optional rule as "Armor Modification" from Arsenal. One gives you a way to add on "Slots", the other just adds the "effect" to the item in question for a nominal fee. As for the SR4A option, yes you can put it on anything you want, even "Clothes" but as for the Arsenal one you cannot put it on anything with a +/+ because they do not have a actual number value to derive the number of slots.

If something modifies the 'worn armor rating' (as is stated on pg. 161) it modifies the total armor rating the wearer is wearing--not the armor itself.
- Example: Armor Jacket(8/6) + Formfitting Halfsuit(4/1) = 10/6, modified by (+2/+2) helmet to 14/9.

If something modifies the rating of worn armor (as is stated on pg. 327), it modifies the rating of the armor itself.
- Example: Armor Jacket(8/6) modified by helmet(+2/+2) to (10/8) + Formfitting Halfsuit(4/1) modified by the same helmet to (6/3) - then apply half the formfit for a total of 16/11.

Since pg. 327 references the rule on 161, the first example would be the correct one.

A emphatic yes, and a big no at the same time. Once again Toturi is much more elegant on the matter.

For starters, please, please use the damn Quote function.



That's why it's there. Secondly, stop posting links in which you effectively call everyone idiots and , we'll say .... 'strongly suggest' that everyone is "dumber for having heard it". Fun movie. Not ok use.

1) The webpage only allows like 3 quotes, or I get a error

2) Very Well

1 - I'll ask someone smarter than me (Redjack) figure on that one. I'm not that kind of mod. He does the smart stuff. I mostly post in gold and make sarcastic comments . Someone has to. *shrug*


I'm sorry sir, this is a non-smoking section. But thank you for your cooperation in this time of transition.

Fixed that for you


Quoted just so everyone can see it

Laters yeh?

EDIT: By Thanee I meant "Toturi"

I was considering adding Thanee's name by the quote so people would know who's quote was who, but I abandoned it mid typing and I must've typed it in by accident. I HAVE FAILED YOU /Commit Sepaku

No worries, that actually wasn't why I was quoting you. I'll update your quote in my post if you'd like.

*edit* edited so only the relevant part of the quote is quoted

Primary sources when linking to webcomics, please. http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1863

By strict RAW, I agree. I am not saying that they mean something else, I am saying that there are certain area where it is not clear what they meant and when you take that alternative view of what is written, you can arrive at a different conclusion.

I am saying that by strict RAW, A is valid, but by RAW (only not as strict), B is also valid. I am not choosing anything. So if the question is whether B is RAW, my answer has to be "yes it is", because to my view, it is. But if you were to specify that you want to hold to a stricter reading, then the answer would have to be A.

That was my first reaction, too, Halinn. Worse, I initially thought it said Pinterest, not Posterous.

Ah, I see, toturi. You meant, 'B *and* A are both right, because it's ambiguous'. I apologize, then; that certainly explains my confusion, because I thought you were saying 'only B is right'. I can only blame Ragewind for causing my misapprehension.

I agree and at the same time disagree, which is strange because I am having trouble formulating how to write my response correctly.

I assume by "A" you mean foccusing on the word "Wear" or "Wearing", IMO that is more of a RAI argument than RAW, as say in the case of PPP you technically "Strap on" the items rather than "wear" them. Same thing with shield in that you "Hold" them. To me those arguments lack depth since it comes down to what that word >specifically< means to you, and how far down the rabbit hole you are willing to argue on it.

By RAI I could agree that you were not meant to "wear" anything at all with the Space Suit or the Milspec armor, by the simple fact that having "something else" could constituent as "wearing" no matter how you choose to phrase it (Hold/Strap on/Glue etc etc). As you said a very strict reading could come to that conclusion but as mentioned I think its a RAI and not a RAW argument.

However by RAW we are given explicit permission in the helms and shields section due to the fact it advises it is not considered "other" armor (no not just for encumbrance, the sentence is divided by a semi-colon) as you have put forth before Toturi if it doesn't count as "Other" obviously it counts as "itself" and thus doesn't break the convention that you would "Wear" something else.

I think I just confused myself

The limit is actually 10...

Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Like I said, I'm perfectly happy with milspec *not* allowing shields, but I think there's a strong argument that shields (and *only* shields) are carried-not-worn. Either way, really.

PPP, on the other hand, is worn. It makes no difference at all whether you wear it by strapping, gluing, whatever. That's all 'worn'.

I'm not sure that's what anyone was talking about, though. It seemed clear that everything (except maybe shields) is 'worn armor'. The issue was 'other armor'. This, too, seems pretty clear: anything that's not the suit of milspec is 'other', which the 'appropriate helmet' specifically allowed (unless you *choose* the route to silliness of deeming that 'fluff'). The argument that PPP/etc. metaphysically merge with the suit in order to specifically bypass this rule, even if possible by any RAW reading, is clearly inferior. It's counterintuitive, power-creeping, and overcomplicated.

Literally LOL'd!

I've been on OT and busy with getting ready to go into the Marine Corps and running errands with my wife being pregnant, so please allow me time to catch up...

EDIT:


"The ... PPP... System consists of padded densiplast sections that the wearer can combine to give additional protection to several body parts. Each piece of armor is available in at least three styles: ...as an obvious strapped addition to other visible armor..."

Seems pretty intuitive and simple to me, power-creeping or no.

See. Smart. Good job. Back to your lurking and waiting for Legacy posts now RJ.

...but the sentence on pg. 327 isn't the rule - the actual rule is on pg. 161, and the text on pg. 327 refers to it.

"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."

That's the rule: do not count as stacked armor.

Neraph, did someone say it's not additional? Why are you quoting that, then?

The question is whether it's 'other worn armor'. We know it's armor ("each piece of armor"), we know it's worn ("the wearer"), and the only way to not be 'other' is to invent some rule that the PPP merges with the rest for purposes *other* than encumbrance (which is nonsense by… reality; otherwise they'd be Modifications).

Semper Fidelis Neraph...

It is Intuitive. PPS is most definitely Worn...

Semicolons mean that the sentence following it not meant to be read separately, but in combination with the preceding sentence.

Heh...can't believe I missed that one...

Arsenal pg. 49: "The SecureTech PPP[...]System consists of padded densiplast sections that the wearer can combine to give additional protection to several body parts. Each piece of armor is available in at least three styles:" (emphasis mine)

If the person using PPP is a 'wearer' the PPP must be 'worn', and it is clearly stated in the next sentence that the pieces are 'armor'

Hence, the PPP system must by RAW and RAI be worn armor!

Might as well put on my anal hat and play in the mud for a bit:

Kinda, but not necessarily as you're thinking about it. There's not really an implication that the subjects of both sentences are joined. In this case, you're looking at two complete sentences joined by a semicolon. To illustrate what I'm talking about, you can write:
Bob likes potatoes; potatoes caused The Glorious Revolution.
This is entirely equivalent, both in terms of connotation and denotation, to:
Bob likes potatoes. Potatoes caused The Glorious Revolution.
One can theoretically argue that there is a connotative difference in that there can be a shift in emphasis; however, that's a specious stance to take as you only really experience the difference in the reading of the two joined independent clauses when speaking the line and not reading it. Were there the intention to fully join these clauses in such a way to inexorably link them, it would have been far better to have phrased the second one as some flavor of subordinate clause. As it stands, the two sentences are complete ideas unto themselves which is probably the heart of this argument.

In trying to figure out exactly what's being said by these two independent clauses, things do become a little bit hairier because the second does refer back to the first, but then we run into a similar issue to that which divides those of the strict constructionist and loose constructionist schools of thought with respect to the US Constitution: does the Constitution grant powers not specifically mentioned or forbidden to the Federal government or does it only grant those powers that are specifically mentioned.

In this case, it specifically mentions a single way in which this items are not considered the same as armor; however, it does not specifically say that is the only way they are not armor. One side appears to take this to mean they are exactly like armor in all other respects, and the other has taken the opposite stance. I'd argue that both sides are right via the current wording. You simply cannot do away with this ambiguity through the written rules that we have because of the inconsistency of terms and statting.

My personal stance would be that I'd let it stand because, well it just seems asinine to me that you can't strap additional pads on top of some kind of armor, but I wouldn't claim that stance as either RAW or RAI, then at some point where a player to carry this idea to ridiculousness, then they would enjoy all kinds of penalties for their ridiculousness: (want to wear 100 cups? Ok, your balance is severely screwed up, you're probably not going to be able to sneak up on anyone, and congrats, most ever map here on out will have 90 degree turns every 3 feet).

Well, that was fun.

*takes off hat*

That's a tricky argument. If it's 'reasonable' to strap pads on (usually, under) milspec armor, then it's also reasonable to wear a coat or vest over milspec armor, and so on. That's presumably why milspec specifically says, 'no other worn armor'.

Definitely agreed, but at the same time I'd personally rule that attempting to do so would lose some of the functionality of wearing the milspec, at the very least making it somewhat more encumbering, possibly going after some of the other functionality (if additional mods were chosen) with the stance that you're blocking off some kind of sensor or some such that's required for [insert whatever] to work. Yeah, you'll get more protection, but there's a price for that extra protection.

I dunno, I typically don't like outright saying no to something that, at least on the surface, seems reasonable. That said, nothing comes without a price. Nothing comes free of trade-offs.

Heck, I think I'd even be somewhat open to a player trying to apply the likes of synthskin to milspec. You might well screw it up after a bit by blocking some key heat diffusion ports or some such if you run it too hard and it will muck about with movement, but you want to try? Sure, why not, could be entertaining.

I definitely understand such an approach won't necessarily work for all tables, but it does for mine.

edit:
In my mind, it's only reasonable to strap the PPP onto the outside, not the inside. The way I read milspec, it's just too form fitting for anything like that, and even the thinnest of possible materials would have to have been figured into the design, which even then there's a major chance of some kind of binding in the articulated areas.

I agree. It *is* easier, though, to just let the rules stop player abuse, than having to come up with creative and hilarious ways to punish it! Hehe.

We play enough PARANOIA! together to know just how much of a glorious bastard each of us can be if someone tries to start munchkining/rules-lawyering too hard. It's a great way to turn a fun TT session into a FUN (Dwarf Fortress sense) TT session.

I think it also helps because a lot of the situations we run into generally aren't helped by being some sort of uber-powerful min-maxxed character. It's not that stats aren't important, just that generally we try to have things set up to put more emphasis on being clever about getting into or out of situations, so to speak. Style of play seems like it does a lot for discouraging or encouraging munckinism, you know?

...or it might just be that we're all getting older so our first instinct isn't 100% of the time BLOW IT UP/STAB IT INNA FACE...granted it still is about 90% of the time, but yeah...