Hehe. Yeah, along those lines… it's just hard to imagine when you'd *need* PPP on your heavy milspec, nevermind how you even got milsepc in the first place. I certainly thing SR in more fun closer to the street level than the elite military level.

Because the Bear Suit is yesterdays business . .

Some ppl's idea of fun is to be at street level carrying elite military gear, though...

have you seen Jin-Roh?

True, snowRaven, but they're *them*. I think we can mathematically prove that's only fun for the first 3 seconds: power creep hurts everyone.

In other news, I managed to spell 'think SR is more fun' as "thing SR in more fun".

Oh yes. Definately *them*!

I almost cried when I read that, the semi-colon is so misunderstood I'm glad someone else knows how it is supposed to work.




















I was obviously doing something wrong to get the error, but...what.

This.

Again.

I really have to laugh about all that talk about semicolons making the parts entirely seperate (like they were completely unrelated in every possible way), when they are merged together by the word following right after the semicolon (and the encumbrance part is also in the part following the semicolon, anyways, by reference).

Bye
Thanee

Well, it is prohibited purely for balance reasons.

Bye
Thanee

Dumpshock Forums: Syntactics and Punctuation Discussion

The thing about RPG writing is that it's not like just regular day-to-day writing. There are certain expectations and internal structures, assumptions that are present. One of these being that once a general rule or definition has been established, it takes precedent unless specifically altered by an exception. It's a bit like programming, really.

There are some items that are noted as being not considered separate armor for purposes of encumbrance, unlike rules-standard armors.

At this point an exception has been created. They are "not separate armor" for this specific purpose. Under RPG writing structures, it does not HAVE to "specifically say that is the only way they are not armor", because you automatically fall back to the general rules for all other purposes.

Mil-Spec armor forbidding the wearing of all other worn armor is an "other purpose". If PPP is supposed to be "not other worn armor" for wearing with Mil-Spec armor, it needs to be specifically stated as being so.

Essentially, you establish a state where something is true. If you want to have a specific case where it is not true, you need to clearly and explicitly call it out. State changes need to be clearly defined, not extrapolated and guessed at from other text.

The whole "PPP is considered part of the armor it's worn with so doesn't count as 'other armor' when worn with Mil-spec" is a reasonable extrapolation of the text. However, extrapolations are not RAW.



-k

It's not that reasonable, either. It's *possible*.

And it is the same as 'normal' writing: 'for the purposes of encumbrance' does not imply for any other purposes in everyday communication, either. On the contrary, the fact that it's mentioned implies that it's the only purpose for which they're not *considered* separate.

Too bad I crapped all over grammar at the end of that post. I blame the nyquil and flu that's had me laid up the last couple of days and appears to be on track to ruin my weekend.



Eh, but it functionally does though. It's actually akin to a trick politicians like to use...forgive me for not remembering the proper name of this as it's been years since I was in a class for such, but the essence of it is where you stick to sentences side-by-side and allow people to assume that they are related, like
Republicans stood against this bill; I am a Republican.
Joining these sentences by way of a semicolon does not in any way change the meaning. These are actually two disjointed statements because even if the person saying this is a Republican and this person supported the bill in question, this sentence is still true. The lack of a conjunction or disjunction in the sentence leaves its meaning ambiguous. Reading the beginning of the second sentence as being more restrictive because of the leading "instead" is still a mistake because there's no indication that the cited example is the only, unique way it is different:
Frogs are not classified as birds; instead, these creatures have no feathers." (an awkward construction, I realize--but I also would have never written the original sentence in this form)
This statement does not imply that the only difference between frogs and birds is the presence of feathers, just maybe that an important difference between frogs and birds is the presence of feathers. By going any further, we find ourselves having to make assumptions, which takes us away from RAW and into RAI. The words themselves do us little help, especially considering the shifting of terminology with respect to what "armor", "separate armor", and "other armor" specifically means. Were the second sentence subordinated, or really any of these three phrases specifically defined or further clarified this would not be the case, but as is we've got to make assumptions to make an interpretation, which is RAI not RAW.

Balance, I don't think I actually believe in with a game like Shadowrun. Being rules consistent yeah, but balanced? Well...maybe just a different kind of balance, but that's probably a discussion for another time and place.


I actually agree with your overall point, but not your conclusion. My stance is that this internal consistency is not present at a precise enough degree to consider either interpretation not RAW. In rules, for conventions the likes of which you're referring, to be consistent the terminology must be used in a consistent manner. The modifiers "separate", "some", and "other" change the meaning of the term "armor" without doing so in a necessarily obvious manner. Moreover, "armor" itself is used in different senses. This isn't like Magic: The Gathering where you've got rigorously defined ruleswords, but one where we're forced to rely on context which we plainly do not have here.

thenightaflame - I like you.

OK, to all those forlornly clinging onto that darned semicolon as a reason to declare that helmets, shields, PPP and (according to some) FFBA are somehow not considered armour, a simple question:

Why does the description for Mil-Spec armour specifically mention that only a helmet can be combined with Mil-Spec armour?

If Mil-Spec armour cannot be used with other worn armour, and helmets, shields, PPP and FFBA are somehow "not armour", then the clause in the Mil-Spec armour description stating that only helmets can be worn with Mil-Spec armour is completely redundant.

With ever-present editorial considerations such as clarity (glitched often, obviously!) and word-count, the devs specifically expressed that helmets (and NOT "helmets and shields") could be worn with Mil-Spec armour.

Ergo, by RAW shields, PPP and FFBA are out.

(Side note: While common-sense would state that shields as a "held" item might stack with Mil-Spec, there is the in-game question as to why. Talk about bark being worse than bite, I have an insane picture in my head of a bad-ass soldier kitted out in mil-spec armour and riot shield with a pea-shooter of a heavy pistol in his free hand ... )

How often do you start (as in, having said nothing before it) to say something with "Instead..." ?

Bye
Thanee

Like I said, it says in the text that PPP is armor and that you wear it.

That alone should disqualify it for addition to milspec armor.

Well, that part doesn't fit with their interpretation, so it is fluff.

I'm not forlornly clinging to anything. To my mind the argument hinges on whether or not "armor" in the case of the milspec entry refers to the generalized "any item that provides x/y or +x/+y" or "any item that provides x/y". The items that act as armor modifiers are differentiated in the rules enough that the term "armor" is not clearly defined to the point where you can make a RAW determination.
Irrelevant. Trying to go down this path of reasoning is RAI, not RAW. With RAW, we can only look at specific usage in the rules and the grammar. Your post, as I was accused of earlier, making an extrapolation, which is not RAW. We might as well be asking why it did not say it could only be worn "by itself or with a helmet" and avoided all of this.

Except for the fact, it could have been made clear with a smaller number of words But again, your entire post is an attempt to seek out RAI, not RAW.


Quite frequently, although generally I immediately follow it with a prepositional phrase, but then again, I also use some pretty screwed up constructions too. In this respect, this is actually another example of how these sentences are poorly constructed for clarity.


I'm not saying it's not armor, just that it's not necessarily the same kind of armor as is referred to in the milspec, and we have no way of knowing whether it is or isn't as written.

If you pull back ever so slightly from the requirement of "as written" and allow just a little reasoning, I think that inferences can be made as to what is meant, but then that's still RAI and not RAW.

Since this board seemingly has a diverse group of nationalities, and by extension people who speak different languages: how are these rules handled in other language versions of the texts, just out of curiousity.

Also, under either interpretation (this debate's getting old and neither side will ever agree, just like basically any rules argument you ever come across), would it be possible for an elf to wear mil-spec, acquire a set of troll milspec, then get say, an air spirit to hold the troll milspec in place around (but not touching) himself?

And so, we're back to the actual point: there is no way of knowing if the RAW says they're armor or not, because the RAW simply doesn't say it. That's the absolute end of the RAW argument: no conclusion possible.

From that worthless endpoint, you go directly to RAI (nothing wrong with that): barring positive evidence that they're *not* armor, assume they are. Given that they're referred to as separate pieces of worn armor several times, it's just a slam dunk. You have to actively choose to believe that they're not.

Simple answer: it does not say that at all.



Since "are intended to" does not equal "can only," your argument falls apart. We also covered this a couple pages back.

What? No. 'Intended to' means *can be* used with a helmet. 'Cannot be combined with any other worn armor' is the part that adds up to 'can only'. You have to use both parts.

And, again, if you use both parts, you cannot wear helmets with MilSpec, under your interpretation. You can only wear helmets with MilSpec if helmets, like shields and PPP, are not considered "worn armor."

This is a very circular argument.

Not at all. One is an explicit exception, in the same paragraph. There's no reason to assume the writers were *that* bad.

And the equivalence of helmets, shields, and PPP for the purposes of 'other worn armor' is far from clear. They are only equivalent for the purposes of encumbrance. As before, I don't care if shields are allowed with milspec (I mean, seriously?), but there's ample reason to consider shields not-worn if you do. There is no problem: the helmet is okay, the shield is okay, and PPP isn't.

"Intended" does not make something explicit. We've covered this before. Intent does not mean exclusion.

It says milspec is intended to work with the helmet, period. That means it works with the helmet. It doesn't mean anything else about anything else. That's explicit, in the same paragraph; your other option is pretending it's fluff that actually contradicts the rules in the same paragraph. Whatever else happens, we know for a fact that the helmet works, or we start flat rejecting sentences.

If you take "works with helmet" and add "doesn't work with other worn armor", you get 'works with no other worn armor except the helmet'. Shields are fine if you make the simple and reasonable step that shields aren't worn.

PPP, however, would require a much bigger and less reasonable step: saying the PPP isn't 'worn', or that it's not 'other', or that it's not 'armor', or some combination of those.

We're back to this again.

Yup, and he was wrong then, too.

As I just said, pretending that the milspec rules do not allow helmets requires the assumption that the writers contradicted themselves in the same paragraph, and in a profoundly unreasonable way.

We're not dealing with what the rules should say, and SR doesn't treat helmets, shields, and PPP the same for all purposes… just encumbrance. Allowing helmets explicitly, does not implicitly allow PPP or shields. Pretending that 'for the purposes of encumbrance' secretly means 'for all purposes' does not make sense.

The problem is that it does not allow helmets explicitly - "intended" means intent, and intent is not explicit. That is the exact same difference as RAI vs RAW - which is what you are in fact arguing. You're confusing that point as one for encumbrance, which is wholly different and has also been proven.

What this boils down to is this: the RAI crowd functions one particular way, but the RAW crowd parses through sections of ambiguity to arrive at a different perspective. Do not confuse RAI as RAW. In this instance, the RAW is ambiguous at one part (the part that the RAI crowd is hanging on), but otherwise does in fact allow PPP, shields, and helmets (of any type) with MilSpec. The RAI crowd makes the argument that since the RAW is ambiguous in one section of one point of contention, you should completely ignore it and play the game as they believe it was intended.

The problem though is that RAI ≠ RAW in all cases - this being one of them.

EDIT:

Well let's see here.... When you stack armor, only two things matter: armor values and encumbrance. Since PPP, helmets, and shields all add to existing armor but are counted together for encumbrance, that actually makes them the exact same for all purposes, not just encumbrance - otherwise, PPP would not actually add to your worn armor values.

As I said, to pretend that it doesn't allow helmets is to assume instead that the writers are total morons. That's possible, but I prefer the easier explanation.

If you decide that the helmet sentence is mere 'fluff', that leaves you with RAW that disallows helmets and PPP entirely, because the RAW does not say that they are not 'other worn armor'. It says, at most, that they *count* as not-separate for the purposes of encumbrance.

We're not talking about stacking armor. We're talking about the milspec rule that says, "Cannot be used with other worn armor." Not 'cannot be used with things that count as separate for the purposes of encumbrance or armor stacking'. So, that's a different purpose right there.

None of this is RAI. If it were RAI, we'd skip all the argument and just say, 'obviously you can't use PPP'. (Which is totally valid, and was mentioned near the beginning.)

Really? You're still arguing about this, yahu? Neraph is citing specific examples and situations, clearly winning the argument. At this point, your responses are bordering on trolling.

But according to you the argument was finished and won over two hundred posts ago. I'm not sure who made you the official scorekeeper in the first place. The simple fact that things are still going this deeply into the thread should make it clear that things are -- obviously -- not as clear-cut as you may believe.

Which is to say, it's progressing just like the last handful of threads about this very rules question.

I appreciate your sustained sideline toadying (which totally doesn't "border on trolling"), almost normal, but I've been around and I know what I'm doing.

I have not decided the helmet sentence is "mere fluff" - my argument takes it to mean the literal use of "intent," which is a non-exclusive statement. It states that it is intended to be worn with a specific helmet, but that does not bar MilSpec from being worn with other helmets (and by extension other things which use the same rules as helmets).

We actually are talking about stacking armor. The way armor works in this game is slightly complicated, but at the same time very simple. They have many things that you put on that are considered armor, and when you wear multiples of them at the same the rules are designed in such a way that it further breaks down their interaction into two distinct areas: 1) armor stacking, and 2) encumbrance. You wear a Lined Coat and an Armor Vest and you get 6/4 armor that stacks as 6/4 and encumbers as 12/8. When you add PPP/helmets/shields into it, they only function as encumbrance - their numbers add on to the stacked armor, and are therefore not considered another standalone armor but a modification to the armor worn (most of that is nearly verbatim from the rules). PPP/helmets/shields ignore the armor stacking rule but follow the encumbrance rule, which is a property nearly unique of themselves.

The RAI camp is positing that PPP/helmets/shields stack for encumbrance and armor stacking, then trying to turn on their own position and say you have to ignore the armor stacking section because the armor is "armor worn" (which is actually a direct reference to the armor stacking section).

I invoke the Wizard's Sixth and Ninth Rules.

EDIT:


And I greatly appreciate your knowledge of the subject. As I've quoted before, "As iron sharpens iron, so a friend sharpens a friend."

High five, Neraph. Rude of him to butt into our sparring.

But:It's that extension specifically that's a problem for me. The line mentions helmets, not 'things that count as separate for the purposes of encumbrance'. Even if we decided that PPP were the same as helmets, that line would still have nothing to do with PPP.

But we're not talking about the stacking rules. We're talking about one rule specific to milspec: 'no other worn armor'. This has nothing to do with RAI. It specifically says milspec is incompatible with 'other worn armor'. So you have to argue that PPP isn't 'other', 'worn', or 'armor'… or you have to argue that all PPP is literally 'a helmet'. I don't see that any of those can be the case, based on arguments put forward here.

If I understand right, Neraph is claiming that PPP is some-unspecified-class-of-thing with the special property that it adds to worn armor for protection and encumbrance, but is not armor, whereas you are arguing that PPP is armor, with the special property that rather than following the normal stacking rules, it adds to worn armor instead.

That sounds right-ish. If you can conclude that it's not 'really' armor (or 'worn', or 'other'), then it doesn't violate the milspec ban.

The reason I don't believe that is because the description calls them 'pieces of armor', which also makes sense with my understanding of what they actually are: piecemeal armor, as opposed to Armor Modifications.

We have different and irreconcilable positions. Still fun though.

The problem is that that phrase is meaningless unless you look at the armor stacking rules. And that is the centerpoint of this debate - whether wearing other armor equates to the armor stacking rules. Show me any rule anywhere that talks only about wearing multiple pieces of armor and does not mention armor stacking.

Yes, the rules have rules about wearing armor.
Yes, the rules have rules about wearing multiple pieces of armor.
However, when the rules encounter wearing multiple pieces of armor they have two rules for that: armor stacking and encumbrance. PPP/helmets/shields all interact identically when it comes to those two rules, so if anything allows one, by implication it allows the others. Since the section of MilSpec suggests the use of a helmet, it implicitly allows anything else that follows the same rules. MilSpec also directly prohibits the use of any other worn armor, clearly indicating the armor stacking section of the rules, especially since it allows helmets. Therefore, extrapolating that to include PPP, shields, and gel packs is not difficult at all, since they all function similarly (substituting their own rule for standard armor stacking but still following the encumbrance rules).

I think we'll judge that, but thanks just the same. Mods have been following this thread for a while now (you guys do tend to go on). Despite the endless back and forth, it's actually been kept pretty decent. There's snarky, but there will always be a little snark. Hell I'm snarky half the time. If you have a serious issue with a post, please simply hit the Report button, and we'll check it out. Finger pointing is counter productive.

PPP is refered to as armor in its own description, several times, and it is worn, so it would fall under the crystal clear statement "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor." The whole argument of the other side seems to boil down to the fact that PPP uses the rules used by helmets and shields, adding to existing armor, which, somehow, magically negates the first two facts and makes it fall into some nebulous category that slips between the rules.

I just sneezed hard enough to pull a muscle in my neck. I shall now vent some of that frustration here. Nah, I don't think it's to the point of assuming that they're morons, just that they're not being 100% clear in their meaning. In fact, if you're going to attempt to combine those two seemingly contradictory statements in a manner that eliminates all internal contradiction, you'd be better off assuming that helmets are not considered armor in the same way as the armor mentioned in the last line prohibits using with milspec. As the rule governing helmets is linked, it follows that items using those rules are not necessarily armor in the fashion used, but that's all trying to divine RAI and not RAW.

I don't quite follow this line of reasoning because it begs the question of the variable definition of "armor". Additionally, as pointed out before, you've got to evaluate both of those statements separately as they are separate ideas. At most we know that one and only one aspect of how they are not treated as "separate armor" exists without knowing it to exclusion of all other manners in which it exists. I think here is another place where you're accepting definition of terms that Neraph and I (along with possibly others) dispute. The stacking of armor is important to this as it does show a differentiation of the items in question, at least at the level of some as yet undefined subclass of items that provide protection that we're given glimpses of in usage, but never have spelled out.
Or we just like arguing over some inane point that doesn't really matter

edit: really need to proofread before I post.

Which is all irrelevant when considering whether PPP is "ARMOR" for purposes of wearing it with Milspec. It is really hard to argue that it is NOT Armor, since it is, indeed Armor, by its own description. As such, it is not wearable with MilSpec Armor.

And MilSpec explicitely allows the wearing of MilSpec Helmets (Of which there is a specific entry as such in the tables, IIRC)... Nothing else.

EDIT: Yep, there it is... Military Helmet, 10,000 Nuyen. Easy Peasy and Done.
I think where people are getting hung up is the mention of Intended Helmets. If you actually look at the entire section, there are two types of MilSpec Armor. Each Type has a Helmet associated with it. Standard Military Grade Armor (which comes in Light, Medium and Heavy) has the Military Helmet as specific Helmet associated with them. There are two types of Oroyo Armor, Standard and the heavier Red Samurai Armor. These use the Kaburo Helmet.

Each of the Milspec Helmets (Military and Kaburo) are intended to be worn with the appropriate armor associated with it. The intent is NOT to allow other Helmets (Security, Swat, etc) to be used with the Military Grade Armors. It seems pretty well defined to me.

I'll not bother with the begging of the question and circular argument of the first bit, but:

"All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet to offer optimal protection, exploiting the armor's technical possibilities to their fullest extent"

Does the exact opposite of limiting it to solely milspec. The meaning of this sentence is just that choosing to wear a helmet that's not the milspec helmet (or not wear one at all) is to reduce functionality and protection of the system.

Again, Neraph, I don't see why you think the armor stacking and encumbrance rules are relevant. Milspec has its own specific rule: no other armor can be worn with it.

....

/sigh.

With that sentence that the three of you are hung up on, helmets cannot be worn with MilSpec either, especially since the latest rule posted is the one that takes precedence (this is also why the newest printing of rules [say, Running Wild's listing of Powers] and errata supersede other written rules) - in this case, no other armor can be worn with it.

You cannot have your proverbial cake and eat it too, which is the point of my last few posts. You gentlemen are saying that you cannot take X, but then arguing that you can have X at the exact same time. Unless, however, helmets (and by implication PPP and shields) follow a different set of rules (which I've pointed out ad nauseam).

And, for the last time, "All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet to offer optimal protection" does not mean the same thing as "All these armors can only be worn in conjunction with their appropriate helmet," so stop trying to make those two sentences the same. Please go look up the definitions of words such as "intent" and "explicit." Something is explicitly allowed when it is singled out as the subject to the exclusion of all others. Something is intended when the subject is meant to be used in a certain manner. These are two words because they are very different. For example: a crowbar is intended to be used as a lever. However, a crowbar can also be used as a club and a wedge. Intent does not preclude any other usage.

Helmets are allowed in the MilSpec rules because they function differently from other armors when worn simultaneously. In most instances, you follow the Armor Stacking rules; however, helmets, shields, and PPP all have their own definite rules for how they interact with other worn armor. As such is the case, and helmets are mentioned specifically (but not explicitly) in the MilSpec rules, PPP and shields would also be allowed by implication.

This is really an issue of syntax and logic (that is, logic when applied within the rules of the game but excluding knowledge of things outside the game construct - see also: vehicles/drones not being immune to toxins, Immunity [Fire] getting its protection halved from fire damage).

I suppose you mean Ragewind with "RAI camp" then, since he is the only one here, that says to ignore the armor stacking section.

Anyways, since it is rather apparant from the above-quoted text, that you did not understand the argument at all, here's a quick summary:

Every piece of armor (be it an Armor Jacket, FFBA, PPP, Helmet, Shield, or Military-grade Armor) is worn (Shields could be argued to be carried, and not worn, but there isn't really a rule about that). Also (this really is obvious, though), every piece of armor is armor (regardless of whether it is worn or not).

No piece of armor can be worn together with Military-grade Armor, except for the Military-grade Helmet (which is slightly RAI-ish here, since that part is not written very well, but the intent is 100% clear, so it is as close to RAW as it gets, really).

(Sidenote: If you want to insist, that the "intended to be worn in conjunction with" part is pure fluff and has no bearing on the rules (as written), that's fine... in that case no piece of armor can be worn together with Military-grade Armor, not even the Military-grade Helmet; and in that case the Military-grade Helmet cannot be worn together with any armor, i.e. Armor Jacket, either. This does not change how the rules work in regard to PPP and such at all, it only changes how the Military-grade Helmet can be used together with other armor, military-grade or not.)

The argument about Military-grade Armor actually ends here, nothing else is necessary for its effectiveness, but because the use of some specific armor pieces seems unclear, let's continue on with the second part.

When you figure out encumbrance/armor stacking (and only for purposes of encumbrance/armor stacking), you do not treat PPP/Helmets/Shields (any armor items with +X Ratings) seperately, but rather (or instead) add their ratings to your "worn armor rating" (aka "rating of armor worn", which is your effective, overall armor rating; these items never change the rating of a specific piece of armor). In all other cases, they are seperate armor pieces just like any other.

For example:

If you wear an Armor Jacket, and Forearm Guards/Shin Guards, your Armor Jacket is still 8/6. Your worn armor rating, however, is 8/8 (which means no encumbrance with Body 4+).

If you wear an Armor Jacket, a FFBA Half-suit, and Forearm Guards/Shin Guards, your Armor Jacket is still 8/6, your FFBA suit is still 4/1. Your worn armor rating, however, is 12/9 - or 10/8 for comparing with your Body to calculate encumbrance (which means no encumbrance with Body 5+).

Bye
Thanee

There are two Types of MilSpec Armor and 2 Types of Military Helmets.
The APPROPRIATE HELMET for the APPROPRIATE MILITARY GRADE ARMOR...
Military Helmet for the Military Armors, and the Kaburo Helmet for the Oroyo Armors...
Seems pretty obvious to me...

Not entirely true, but I'll go with it for now.


(emphasis mine) Absolutely incorrect. The parts that I underlined demonstrate how, like I stated above, you try to get your RAI interpretation included in the RAW. It's really like you don't even read my posts.


I don't believe that I've stated that that part is "pure fluff" - and if I have, my arguments the past few pages have been assuming that section to be as RAW as the part about no other armor being worn with it. See also below.


And here you complete your logical fallacy. You, on the one hand, say that separate armor pieces cannot be worn with MilSpec, but on the other say that helmets can be worn with it. This is a direct contradiction.

However, if you understand that PPP/helmets/shields fall into a different category (as spelled out in their descriptions), then there is no contradiction at all. Just as MilSpec helmets are not explicitly allowed by the rules but helmets are mentioned, that same mention of helmets implicitly allows the use of shields and PPP.

EDIT:


And INTENDED TO does not equal EXPLICITLY ALLOWED. It's that simple and obvious as well.

It does when the text says that it is...

When taken as whole text, the rules for military grade armor are pretty cut and dried as far as I am concerned. If you CHOOSE to read it in a more broad way to allow other potential abuses, that is entirely upon you, and is not really all that unexpected, as you often tend to use a much wider interpretation of the rules than I do. *Shrug*