Yeah....about that...maybe you're the one that needs to look those words up. Your example above pretty clearly shows you are adding your own biases to the meaning of the words. Something can be explicitly allowed without excluding all others.


I'm still not sure I understand your reasoning on this part.

If the armor is intended to be used with the helmet, then how can it not be used with a helmet? Did the armor manufacturers fuck up, they INTENDED to allow using a helmet but they built the armor wrong and a buckle isn't in the right place and now it's impossible to wear a helmet with the armor? Did the armor designers INTEND to allow wearing helmets, but they drew the designs wrong and so now it's not possible? Did the armor get broken somehow in shipping from manufacturing to retail, and now the helmet won't attach to the armor?

If it says the armor is intended to be used with a helmet, it is explicitly and implicitly allowed to be used with a helmet.

Next time I guess the writers should just say "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor.(except helmets of course, like we JUST mentioned, you morons)."

"All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet" comes before "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor." Seems pretty cut and dried to me, hardly a case where you have to scratch your head and try to figure out the RAI.

RAI is for situations where the rules either blatantly contradict each other, or make no sense. An example would be the Thorns negative metagenetic quality, and the sentence: "Unfortunately, the character is in constant discomfort (+1 to all Physical Tests)". Obviously, they intended for this to be some kind of penalty, either a -1 to the dice pool or a +1 to thresholds. Purely by RAW, though, Thorns are essentially Essence-free enhanced articulation, except possibly giving you an even wider range of bonuses.

Indeed. To ignore the 'helmets are intended' sentence as incorrect fluff, you have to assume the writers were crazy (and that they screwed up). It's not complicated: 'helmets are allowed' and 'no *other* worn armor is allowed'.

No, I do not say that.

I say that, if you allow the part about "appropriate helmet" (which is a "subclass" of just "helmet") to mean "Military-grade Helmet" and the "intended to be worn in conjunction with" part to mean (what it only can mean; that's the "intent" part) that the Military-grade Helmet is the one and only exception to the "no other armor" rule, then you can wear these two together (and no other pair of two armor pieces).

It is an exception not a contradiction, not quite the same thing (though somewhat similar).

There is no way to extrapolate this to mean that everything can be worn with Military-grade Armor.
Now THAT would be quite the direct contradiction to "no other armor can be worn with Military-grade Armor".



Yes, that would be true, if one understands it like that, which is how you read it, of course.

What is completely wrong, however, is that it is "spelled out in their descriptions". Never does anything in the rules say that an armor piece is not armor (quite the opposite, really). And without that part, your conclusion just doesn't make any sense at all. You have to somehow make PPP/Helmets/Shields "not armor" in order to make them slip past the "no other armor" rule. But that "not armor" part simply isn't there, you make it up.

There are no different categories like what you think. Armor is armor is armor (see first part of my summary above).

They are all listed in the armor sections of the books, they are all listed in armor tables, they are called armor at numerous occasions. They are armor.

The differences are how armor is treated in regards to being "stacked armor" and "for purposes of encumbrance". How it is added to your "worn armor rating".

That's the difference between those two categories of armor pieces, and it has nothing to do with the subject of what armor can be worn in conjunction with Military-grade Armor (no other armor can, other than Military-grade Armor and the appropriate helmet, that is). What you do, however, is try to use a part of that difference to explain how they are not "other armor" (for the purpose of being worn in conjunction with Military-grade Armor). But that is simply not true. They are still armor, despite that difference. So they are still "other armor". They never lose that quality.



No. That is a logical jump that is absolutely not supported by the rules in the slightest.

And it is not just "helmet", but "appropriate helmet".

Military-grade Armor
Military-grade Helmet

If there is any "appropriate helmet", than this is it!

And even if all helmets would be allowed (not just the appropriate helmet, see above), that still rules out shields and everything else (like PPP). Helmets and shields and PPP are not the same thing (even if they work the same for some purpose, namely encumbrance).

Bye
Thanee

Yes. Once again, I have no idea how you get from 'helmets specifically allowed' to 'things that are sort of like helmets, in terms of their encumbrance rules, are specifically allowed'. The rule simply doesn't say anything like that. It says 'no other worn armor' and 'except a helmet'.

Ok, I see. My bad here.



So let's go back to that statement of yours:



This is absolutely correct!

It means "appropriate helmet" is ok. It does not say anything about any other armor (other than that aforementioned helmet, that is).

However, what is the problem then?

Ignoring this useless part of your statement here ...



... we come to the core of the problem:



Bazinga! Err ... I mean ... Bingo!

And that is EXACTLY what the text does!

"the exclusion of all others"

-> "No other armor can be worn with Military-grade Armor."

"the singled out part" / exception

-> "All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet ..." (reads: Military-grade Helmet is allowed)

So, the "appropriate helmet" is explicitly allowed (we only have to make a very slight leap to see what an "appropriate helmet" is), while everything else is disallowed.

You just read too much into it. Nothing is implicitly allowed here. Nothing at all.

You needlessly extrapolate a mentioning of "helmet" to "everything that works similar to a helmet", instead of leaving it to that "helmet" (which works quite well, hence no extrapolation necessary; you only extrapolate if you need additional information, which is not needed here).

Bye
Thanee

in·tend (n-tnd)
v. in·tend·ed, in·tend·ing, in·tends
v.tr.
1. To have in mind; plan: We intend to go. They intend going. You intended that she go.
2.
a. To design for a specific purpose.
b. To have in mind for a particular use.
3. To signify or mean.
(empasis mine)

The sentence basically says that milspec armor is designed to be used with it's own helmet, which is also milspec armor by the way.

Now to the next sentence:

"No other armor can be worn with military grade armor."

But here's the kicker - the helmet referred to in the 'intended' sentence is military grade armor. This sentence doesn't exclude the wearing of any type of military grade armor. 'Other armor ' in this case is 'other than military grade'.

This tells us that the helmet can only be worn with military grade armor, and the various armor suits can only be worn with the helmet.

Looking at PPP armor, it says it doesn't count as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance. The milspec armor exclusion of 'other' armor isn't for purposes of encumbrance, it is for all purposes.

If you want to take your interpretation of intended, then the military grade suit could only be worn by itself, and it's helmet could only be worn by itself--no PPP; no shield; no form-fitting; no nothing. But since intented can mean 'designed for a specific purpose' it's really hard to take that interpretation.

Also, look at the rule regarding dartguns:
"[...]cannot penetrate a full suit of military armor."
What would a full suit be if it didn't include helmet? You can't separate the parts of the suit itself by RAW, after all.

"Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor" SR4A p327. That is it's own statement with a related one about how to work out encumbrance.

First, read the entire sentence, and note the reference to the rule in question here:
"Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor; instead, they modify the rating of worm armor by their rating (Armor and Encumbrance, p. 161)"

Going to page 161, we then read the full rule:
"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." (emphasis mine)

The text in the gear section is an abbrevation of the referenced rule. Not also how helmets and shields are referred to as 'armor items'.

Then read the milspec armor description again:
"No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor."

You can't just look at half of a sentence and draw conclusions of RAW from that.

Now, if you still maintain that helmets and shields aren't armor, look on pg. 55 of Arsenal, in the spacesuit description.
"No other armor can be worn, but the suits can be equipped with armor add-ons and modifications[...]"
So you're saying that adding a second helmet to a spacesuit is RAW?

Adding what p161 refers to as a helmet to a spacesuit is RAW.

1. My copy does not have a comma it has a semi-colon then the part about encumbrance. So while a helmet or shield is additional armour it is not "other" i.e separate armour.

2. From 161 it says helmets and shields do not count as stacked armour so yeah once again not "other".

3. They are items that enhance armor and there are only a handful why make an entirely new section for them? Edi: I was wrong they DO have their own section.

4. Should you be able to use a shield or add extra plating to a suit? Certainly, and if the helmet on the suit is as large as the ones of today sure.

Exactly. Never seen an edition with a full stop.


Everything that talks about helmets etc not counting as separate talks about it in the context of Armor and Encumbrance.

Plus: 'do not count as' =/= 'isn't'

Military armor forbids all other (non-military grade) armor.

no it means 'for the purposes of the rules it isn't'

no, it means 'for the purposes of encumbrance it isn't'. The entire section on pg. 161 talks about Armor and Encumbrance, and only that. The text on p. 327 refers to 161.

Even if your interpretation was true, milspec armor is clear about not allowing it, since it still is armor.

If it wasn't armor in any sense of the wordm it would have been an armor modification.

If you take half the text on p. 327 to somehow be separate and stand on it's own, it would still only allow those three shields and that specific helmet. Not PPP, and no other helmet except the milspec ones. Only the things in the list 'helmets and shields'.

We've argued circularly for pages now. Many of my points have been ignored. This is old.



This is one of the best and most persuasive arguments from that side of the fence so far. I still disagree because you are inferring your own meanings onto it.


Interesting find. What exactly constitutes an "armor add-on?" Is that a reference to PPP/helmets/shields? Looks like it to me.

Oh, and by the way: as brought up before, semicolons conjoin two sentences that can stand alone into one larger sentence. So the sentence "Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor," is completely correct, as is the separate sentence "Instead, they modify the rating of worn armor by their rating." This tells us in no uncertain terms that helmets and shields are not separate pieces of armor. It also tells us that their ratings are added onto worn armor. This would not be looking at just half a sentence - it is comprehending the whole sentences as grammar tells us it functions.

Yes, those 2 sentences can stand upon their own.
Helmets and Shields are not Seperate pieces of Armor, but are armor all the same.
Yes, they modify the ratings of the Armor they are WORN with. But they are still WORN.


But guess what, MilSpec armor does not allow you to wear just any helmet, only military helmets, and still keeps you from wearing any other piece of Armor, which PPP is. So....

You can wear a Military helmet with Military Grade Armor (And no other helmets whatsoever) and cannot wear any other armor with it at all (So PPP and FFBA are also out)....

Your arguments continue to make absolutely no sense Neraph.

We agree that PPP is Armor.
The text indicates that Military Grade Armors cannot accept any other Armor except the appropriate (and intended) Military Grade Helmet.
That really should be all that needs be said.

It doesn't matter (for the main argument) whether milspec allows milspec helmets, or all helmets; the point is that the rules clearly, specifically allow helmets (a helmet) with milspec. This has the added bonus of being completely obvious from a common-sense position. Again, as far as I can tell, Neraph (et al.) is arguing that that sentence is meaningless just because it says 'intended'. To make that argument, you have to assume the writers managed to completely contradict themselves in the same paragraph.

Shortstraw, as you may have read in the thread, 'don't count as separate for encumbrance' does not mean 'are not other'. It means nothing except that, for the purposes of encumbrance, they don't count as separate. That's the 'PPP isn't other' argument.

The 'all PPP is actually a helmet' argument instead claims that, because helmets and PPP share encumbrance rules, they're magically the *same* thing. I'm not sure why anyone was able to say this with a straight face, but we can repeat: milspec allows *a helmet*, not 'things that use the same encumbrance rules as helmets'.

The 'PPP isn't worn' argument and 'PPP isn't armor', AFAIK, says that PPP is actually an armor modification that forgot what section it belongs in. This is pretty easy to reject, as the PPP section refers to "the wearer" of the PPP (again, an common sense, but I know that means nothing ). In the same section, it's also described multiple times as "pieces of armor".

So: milspec says 'no other worn armor' except 'a helmet'. PPP isn't 'a helmet', is 'other (not milspec)', is worn, is armor. At no point do encumbrance and stacking rules enter into this, because milspec has its own rule right there.

in·tend (n-tnd)
v. in·tend·ed, in·tend·ing, in·tends
v.tr.
1. To have in mind; plan: We intend to go. They intend going. You intended that she go.
2.
a. To design for a specific purpose.
b. To have in mind for a particular use.
3. To signify or mean.
(empasis mine)

MilSpec armor having a particular helmet in mind does not negate the ability for any other helmet to be worn with it. The reason I keep pointing at the rules for armor (including encumbrance and armor stacking) is because those are the rules to govern how interactions like this are handled. Those rules say that helmets and shields (and PPP is added to them in Arsenal) do not count as separate pieces of armor, which means they are not included in the caveat from MilSpec armor that states no other armor can be worn with them, regardless of whether or not they are "worn."

The problem is that helmets/shields/PPP are "other armor," and are "worn," and are "not milspec," but the rules do not consider them as separate armor, invalidating the majority resistance argument against it. This is really an argument over whether the rules are actually correct when it says that helmets/shields/PPP are not separate pieces of armor (as stated on pages 161 and 327 of SR4A and page 49 of Arsenal). I hold that those rules are correct.

EDIT: And again, TJ, the text does not specifically allow MilSpec helmets because "intended to be worn" is not the exact same as "can only be worn with." These sentences are different because they say radically different things.

This still doesn't make sense or follow logically, Neraph. The rule in no way states or implies that it applies to 'things that are not-separate for the purposes of encumbrance (or stacking)'. It only says 'use with a helmet'.

It also doesn't say *anything* about 'separate' armor (… for the purposes of encumbrance); that's not relevant. You would have to argue that 'not-separate' means 'not other/worn/armor'.

THIS ^^^^^

It does follow logic.

1) Helmets/shields/PPP are rated items that give armor.
2) The rules do not consider them as other armor while being worn.
3) MilSpec does not allow other armor being worn with it.
4) Helmets/shields/PPP, since the rules do not consider them as being other armor can be worn with MilSpec.

The rules stating that helmets/shields/PPP are not considered other armor are listed on the pages I have provided. There is no logical dissonance here. The MilSpec rule against other armor does not affect helmets/shields/PPP because they are not considered separate armor.

WOW... "To have in Mind for a Particular Use".... This is the one you emphasized right? Just so I am not mistaken here.

So, You mean like the Military Grade Helmet for Military Grade Armors?
It is really simple. PPP is still armor that is worn, regardless of how it "Stacks/Adds" for purposes of Encumbrance. Military Grade Armors do not care about that, because ALL THEY ALLOW IS THE INTENDED HELMET. You know, the ones that they had in mind for that particular use?

Lets use the other meaning you so conveniently forgot to "emphasize"...

The one (Military Grade Helmet) that it was desinged to be used with (Military Grade Armor)... Check, that one works well too.

So, both your A and B definitions seem to work for Military Grade Armor and the INTENDED Military Grade Helmets; However, neither definition works for those things that Military Grade Armor is NOT DESIGNED TO WORK WITH (Namely ANY OTHER ARMOR). WOW, imagine that. A clear definition of what military grade armor is designed to work with, right there in black and white text, IN THE BOOK, and backed up by the Armor Guru himself. I am not sure how I missed that before. Thanks Neraph. Glad that you cleared that up.

There is extreme logical dissonance here. You just refuse to acknowledge that...
They are not considered other armor FOR PURPOSES OF ENCUMBRANCE ONLY, which MilSPec Armor DOES NOT CARER ABOUT. Since Encumbrance is off the table, you have to see whether they are considered Armor, which they are. At that point, they are disqualified by the MORE SPECIFIC entry for MILSPEC Armor.

I find it curious that you think "intent" in this context means that you can use other helmets with it. Or that "can only be used with the appropriate helmet" is a better sentence structure. You are potentially twisting the word "intent" to fit your own meaning when there are multiple ways you could interpret the use of "intended."

The writer of the paragraph could be using "intended to be used" in a context that indicates that the armor can be worn WITHOUT the helmet not that it can be used with any helmet. You know... like how in Warhammer 40K space marines run around without their power armor helmet sometimes.

Also, by changing the words to "can only be used with the appropriate helmet" you change the meaning of the sentence entirely. With that change it now becomes: "You can't use mil-spec armor ever if you do not wear the mil-spec helmet at the same time." Although I believe that someone else had suggested this.

In addition: Why do you think that, if your interpretation of the use of "intended" means that any helmet can be worn with mil-spec armor that you can use anything else that uses similar rules as helmets? That is NOT what that sentence says. Even if you are correct in thinking that you can use any helmet it does not say that you can use anything else. If it said something like "intended to be used with appropriate armor that uses the helmet rules" then you would have a valid argument. However it does not, it only says helmet for that sentence and nothing else.

Neraph, your step 2 there doesn't compute. The only thing the rules say about those items is that they don't 'count as separate for the purposes of encumbrance'. That neither says nor implies that they're not armor, 'other armor', or 'worn armor'. Per the PPP description, they're certainly armor, worn, and other.

Armor add-ons are specified on p. 44 of Arsenal. They're not PPP, nor are they 'helmets and shields'.


Ignore p. 327 when talking about PPP, please. Page 161 is the sentence to try and pick apart--it's referenced both by the PPP section, and the 'Helmets and Shields' section on p.327.

p. 161: "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."

- The section on PPP states clearly that is counted separate for encumbrance purposes only, referncing what I quoted above.
- The sentence I quoted above deals solely with 'armor and encumbrance', as it's title states.
- The section on milspec armor forbids all non-milspec armor.

The text on p. 327 can only apply to the three shields and the specific helmet mentioned in that section - everything else refers to the rule on p.161.

@ Yerameyahu
Helmets and shields
Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor;

PPP
These armor pieces do not count as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance;

Note the difference. Edited: I would allow PPP as well as a house rule but that is from considerations other than RAW. Think of PPP as thickening the plating in the non-articulated sections of armour - for things like assaulting fortifications (the same way that extra armour was added to the front of siege tanks).

What are you talking about? I don't even understand what you're arguing.

That's not what PPP is, whatever you'd like to think of it as. It's pieces of piecemeal armor that you wear. It is not Armor Mods.

The only thing that matters is the milspec rule against other worn armor, nothing to do with stacking or encumbrance. PPP is other (not part of the milspec, bought and worn separately; not a Modification), armor ("pieces of armor"), and worn ("the wearer"). Helmets would be, too, except there's a clear exception.

The stacking and encumbrance rules are very useful… for anything except milspec. Milspec has its own rule against everything but helmets.

That is incorrect. Milspec has its own rule against everything else. By strict RAW, IIRC, that rule makes no exceptions.

It clearly allows helmets in the same paragraph, unless you deliberately choose to write that line off as 'fluff' and embrace the nonsensical idea that milspec can't even use the milspec helmets that are right there in the gear listing, and that the writers contradicted themselves in this bizarre way in the same paragraph. This is obviously stupid, so it can't be true.

The problem seems to be that the RAW-ers want to look at one sentence in complete isolation from anything else that has been written.

If we look at the sentence "Milspec cannot be used with any other worn armor" in total isolation, then the problem is caused by ignoring other rules.

If you add in the other rule that's in the same damn paragraph, there's no problem.

Strict RAW does not mean you can pick one sentence (one word? one letter?) in complete isolation and call it RAW.

May I have a quote that explicitly allows for helmets to be worn from that paragraph then? Strict RAW also means that you apply a higher standard to all of the rules and not pick some sentences and apply a less strict reading to them.

I am not saying that by RAW, milspec helmets are not allowable with milspec armor. I am saying that by strict RAW, I do not think any part of that paragraph you are referencing actually allows it. This is not an issue with cherry picking which line counts as rules and what count as fluff. This is about how consistent you apply that stricter level of RAW to all part of the rules.

It's been said before:

"All these armors are intended to be worn in conjunction with the appropriate helmet"

You might not accept this as RAW. Seems most people here do, including me.

"No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor." can be read as "no armor that is not military-grade can be worn with military-grade armor", which is a reading that is equally valid to yours. Military helmets are explicitly military-grade, and given that this reading does not flat out contradict the fact that it also says that the military helmets are intended to be worn with the armor, this reading does indeed become the more valid one.

That is another perfectly good, non-crazy interpretation. Personally, it's a little complex, and I'm fine with allowing any helmet, but either way.

toturi, there is no 'RAW' and 'strict RAW'. What you're calling 'strict' is just ignoring immediate context. It's not even meaningful or worthwhile as a thought exercise, let alone for playing the game. It's like when a child is told to "go to bed", and then they smile and respond, "you didn't say *when* to go to bed!".

That is called "House Rules" not "RAI".

Bye
Thanee

You are correct Sir, edited.

From my perpective, that is the difference between Light and Heavy Military-grade Armor, basically (one is reinforced for assaults like that, the other is more standard-issue).

PPP on the other hand is mostly sports-wear. They do not really fit together well, fluff-wise.

Bye
Thanee

What I am calling strict takes into account only the explicit literal reading of all the rules, it does not and cannot ignore immediate context because its immediate context is also being read. It does ignore any implications that may arise from the readings.

I do accept it as RAW, but not as strictly literal RAW.

Strictly speaking, your interpretation would be valid if it was "no other type of armor can be worn with military-grade armor" without which is not a strict reading of that sentence.

toturi, I'm afraid, but language isn't usually as precise as you would like it to be.

I'm perfectly fine (and also said so above) by saying that by RAW the Military-grade Armor cannot be worn with anything else (its own helmet, other helmets, shields, PPP, FFBA, etc).

So, let's call it RAI, that the Military-grade Helmet can be worn together with Military-grade Armor, and that it is the only exception (being just that appropriate helmet and all that).


That is not really the topic question, though, the topic question is "Can PPP be worn together with Military-grade Armor?" (by RAW).

So, whatever the outcome of the above is, the answer to this question is "No! But if you consider it reasonable, just make a House Rule."

Bye
Thanee

Reinforced Material examples: densiplast, security door, armored glass, Kevlar wallboard - it's tough stuff.

As to the light vs heavy light is a panzer, heavy is a tiger and heavy with PPP is a jagdtiger - a specialized variant for a particular task.

Edit: What about shields? Held items (not worn) that don't count as other armour?

You are toturi'ng the English language here

...


...


I'll see myself out.

Whatever the outcome of the above is, the correct answer to this question is "Yes, but under a stricter reading it is 'no'."

Not so.

PPP specifies in it's description that it doesn't count as armor for purposes of encumbrance, then it refers to a rules section that also only talks about encumbrance.

If you have to interpret what something means, it's not RAW.

The only section anywhere that suggests helmets and shields aren't counted as armor at all is on p. 327 in a section dealing exclusively with a gear category called 'helmets and shields', and to date only three shields and one helmet fall in that category. PPP is it's own category, and most helmets are in the category of the armor they are designed for (including the military grade one). Both the 'helmets and shields' category and the 'PPP' category refers to the rule of 161, which only talks about encumbrance.

not separate for purposes of encumbrance =/= not separate at all

By a very literal reading of p. 327, yes shields and that single helmet would be allowed. But if you take such a literal reading, you can wear that helmet with any other helmet, which doesn't make sense either rules-wise, fluff-wise, or logically. If a rules-interpretation leads to a result that doesn't make sense in any way, that interpretation must be wrong if there's another interpretation that doesn't.

As for the light etc...no.

Light is a panzer
Heavy is a tiger
Heavy with Gel Packs is a jagdtiger

Putting PPP on the Heavy armor is like hanging a Modular Armor Kit on a tiger/jagdtiger...

Not so. I have already stated by strictly literal RAW, it is so. But due to the ambigiuity of the rules, RAW can hold several differing and sometime even diametrically opposite meanings. This is one case of differing meanings being within the RAW.

'For purposes of encumbrance' can never equal 'for all intents and purposes' by a literal (or even a liberal) reading.

EDIT:
I can buy the argument that milspec can't even be used with it's own helmet, though it is very far-fetched.
I can buy the argument that shields and a standard helmet can be used, though it can lead to weird situations.
I can't buy that you apply text that is in a section not referenced by, nor relevant to, PPP (that is, p. 327 SR4A), just because the two sections reference the same rule. <--- my mistake here, it is referenced, but both parts still refer back to the actual rule on pg. 161 'Armor and Encumbrance'.

Is that sentence you quote complete? I do not recall "for purposes of encumbrance" being the end of that particular sentence.

PPP system, Arsenal pg. 49: "These armor pieces do not count as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance; instead, these items modify the rating of armor worn by their rating just as helmets and shields do." (yes, I see the referece - edited above)

Armor and Encumbrance, SR4A pg. 161: "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."

Note that the sentence on pg. 161 follows the rule about only the highest rating of worn armor applying if you wear more than one piece. This is the rule referenced both by 'PPP' and by 'Helmets and Shields', and the only interpretation of that rule that I can get from reading the entire section 'Armor and Encumbrance' is that helmets, shields and PPP pieces are the exception to the rule that only the highest armor rating counts if you stack armor.

All sections (except the part on pg. 327 that rewords the rule on p. 161 and refers back to it) talk about 'for purposes of encumbrance' and 'do not count as stacked armor'.