Of course. And I don't think I'm using non-RAW in my actual points, I just wanted to mention that I'm not 'really' suggesting no shields with mil-spec.

"Not armor" is still not the same as "not separate armor".

And that's not fluff. That's crunch.

Mil-spec makes no distinction between separate or not separate. To do so is to add something that isn't there.



-k

Gel packs add armor, don't they? And they sure aren't seperate.

You being Old Man Jones however, makes me a bit afraid to argue against you.

Then why does it include MORE text than the helmets and shield paragraph. Way of a synopsis there!

And if you go by the "synopsis" of the "reference" part, then please read my post again, especially the part about SR4A p. 161 (which happens to get referenced by that helmet and shields part). And then try your argument again with the rules found there.


And furthermore, your argument still only works if you ignore most of the text (as you demonstrate by removing all mentionings of armor, except the one that happens to be useful for your argument) from the paragraph and then present that as RAW.

Uhm... yeah, right?

Bye
Thanee

RAW = Rules As Written =/= Rules As you Wish they were

In every argument you make, you remove parts of the rules (because they invalidate your argument).

Nowhere in the rules does it state, that PPP is not armor.

It is completely irrelevant how they are added to what or whatnot and for what purpose. Whether they are seperate pieces of armor for calculating encumbrance or not.

They are armor. Period. That is RAW.

There is no rule that says otherwise.

In all relevant sections it is mentioned in the context of SR4A p. 161, the rules about armor and encumbrance. It is always mentioned in the context of "seperate armor" or "stacked armor" (which, likewise, refer to that section, because that is what it is all about, how the armor rating does or does not stack with each piece of armor worn).

Bye
Thanee

These discussions are always fun to read. They tend to go the same way:

a - "Can I do this?"
b - "Nah."
a - "It doesn't say I can't!"
b - "Yes it does."
a - "There's no good reason not to!"
b - "It's a silly idea."
c - "Technically, by a very careful selective reading of RAW, it's theoretically possible."
b - "Don't be silly. Use Occam's Razor. Use the KISS rule."
c - "Those are not RAW."
b - "RAW ain't perfect. It was written by gamers, not lawyers. They probably never considered reading it that way. The idea is ludicrus."
c - "No it isn't"
b - "Yes it is"
c - "No it isn't"
b - "Yes it is"
a - "But I want it!"
b - "So?"
a - "I want! My numbers get bigger!"
b - "That's why it's a bad idea."
a - "I think I can do it and I'll do it no matter what you say!"
b - "Then why ask our opinion?"
a - "Meanie!"
b - "Fine. Whatever. Just stay the heck away from my table."

I want to make this my Sig.

Oh well, at least no-one can tell me that my troll in Milspec cannot pick up a small car and use it as a shield. After all, its a vehicle, not armor.

It would be so much easier if everyone had the same opinion.

But I highly doubt that is something we should strive for.

Bye
Thanee

But then it wouldn't be a discussion, just an answer.

"Can I do X?"

"Yes/No"

"kthx"

It's what mankind has strived for since before we even became mankind...

Technically, I'd call it a barrier.

A heavy one.

And if it has passengers, a FUN one.

What barrier rating is a metahuman strapped to your arm?

So then we can conclude:
A = A Player
B = A GM
C = Dumpshock poster without a group

Body==Barrier-Rating . . Or at least Armor-Rating, i think . .
I remember there having been a rule for shooting through people somewhere, but i ain't sure why . .

A) No, I quote the parts of the rules that are relevant to my argument, not parts of the section that are not clearly rules and do nothing but complicate the issue. I, if you will, eat the meat, and spit out the bones.

B) I am not debating that - I am asserting that they are not counted as separate armor, exactly like what their own description says.

C) It is the crux of the issue how they are added to what or whatnot and for what purpose. That is exactly what this debate is actually about.

The armor stacking rule on page 161 SR4A that you keep bringing up actually helps my position further.


(emphasis mine)
This tells me that armor, shields, and, with the addition of Arsenal, PPP are armor items that are not counted as stacked armor at all. If this supported your side at all then MilSpec could not be worn with even their own helmet either. PPP, shields, and helmets are inexorably linked in the way they interact with worn armor. Do not let the fact that you wear PPP and helmets fool you.

EDIT:


Please excuse my lack of clarity - I meant that only the part about them affecting encumbrance was a synopsis about the pertinent rules.

Which is why there's an explicit mil-spec/helmet exception.

"they are not counted as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance"

See, you did it again!




No, not really. The discussion is about whether they are "armor". Because if they are "armor" they cannot be used together with Military-grade armor (as its description quite clearly says).

The rest is just an attempt to circumvent a very simple question.

Q: Is PPP armor?
A: Yes!




Correct.

The important part here is to keep "stacked armor" together and not rip it apart and turn it into just "armor". It is one very specific application of the armor rules, where encumbrance is calculated. Only in that context "stacked armor" has any meaning at all.

"not counted as stacked armor" =/= "not counted as armor"




Except, that MilSpec quite specifically allows that very Helmet (and nothing else, for that matter).

So, the conclusion is: MilSpec Armor can be combined with MilSpec Helmet. MilSpec Armor cannot be combined with anything else (including Armor Jackets, FFBA, PPP, other Helmets, and even Shields).

Glad you agree.




Erm... yes, of course. They all work in the same way.

You just add the Armor Ratings, that are not counted as seperate armor for purposes of encumbrance, to your base armor before comparing them to your Body Rating to determine Encumbrance, unlike normal "stacked armor", where only the highest value applies.

Oh, and before you ask... no, that "base armor" cannot be MilSpec (as it specifically forbids the combination with any other armor other than the MilSpec Helmet).

Bye
Thanee

I fail to see how "Note that some armor items... provide a modifier to the worn armor rating and so do not count as stacked armor" equals "not counted as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance" for you. What that says is quite plain: helmets, shields, and, with Arsenal, PPP, do not count as separate armor at all and simply provide a modifier to existing armor ratings.


No, the only context where "stacked armor" has any meaning is if you are wearing multiple items that have armor ratings. In that case, you have armor stacking, where you take the highest rating but add the ratings for encumbrance. HOWEVER, some items do not count as stacked armor and instead provide a modifier to the worn armor rating (all I did here was reorder the phrases from the RAW while maintaining the subject matter - explaining it by rewording it). This means that they are not in fact individual armor pieces and are not counted as separate armor, for purposes of encumbrance. By default, they would also not be counted as separate armor ratings to determine stacking, since they add their rating on to other armor and do not themselves have an inherent armor rating (IE: forearm guards on an armored vest is 6/5, not 6/5 and 0/1, taking the higher of 5 impact).

That's not relevant: milspec says 'no other armor'. PPP is undeniably 'other armor'.

It's fine Neraph. You made your point and clearly won the argument. Some folks just will refuse reality time and time again because it doesn't suit their argument.

Not quite - they don't count as 'stacked armor' - see rules for 'armor stacking'. They are still armor.
They provide a modifier to the worn 'armor rating' - they aren't armor modifications. They are still armor.

And milspec says… "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor." (Appropriate helmet excepted, and saying shields aren't 'worn' solves that.)

I'm a bad person because I have not read the whole thread, however when it comes to Armor in Shadowrun you won't find anyone more knowledgeable than me.

PPP stacks with Milspec for a very specific reason and I quote...

"Each Piece is available in at least three styles: as discreet protection designed to be worn beneath clothing, as a obvious strapped addition to other visible armor, and as sports equipment."

"These armor pieces do not count as Separate Armor for the purposes of Encumbrance...instead these items modify the rating of armor worn by their rating just as Helmets and Shields Do.."
Page 49 Arsenal

"Helmets and Shields do not count as Separate pieces of Armor.."
Page 327 BRB

I will direct your attention to the bolded parts

Following Logic and Grammar they stack as the the Milspec armor is treated as the only thing being worn. Hence you get Milspec armor with a Modified Rating due to the addition of the PPP items, for game purposes it is a single suit of armor with no conflicting rules.

Except you could also quote it as "Each piece of armor is available in at least three styles..." and then just turn the page to Arsenal p. 50, and look under Military-Grade Armor, and then quote again, with "No other armor can be worn with military-grade armor." Even the write-up of the Securetech-PPP gear calls them "pieces of armor" (a part of the sentence, by the way, that you left out of your quote), and since that means they're armor, they clearly can't be worn with Military-Grade stuff.

See how this works? All you've got to do is highlight and emphasize certain things, read the appropriate passages a certain way, and suddenly it all comes out very different.

Which is why these threads just go in circles for pages and pages and pages. Both sides are right, by rules as written. None of you are wrong. It's poorly worded, it's not clarified anywhere, and that's all there is to it. Just like the last threads about this, volleying the same handful of quotes back and forth -- getting more and more frustrated each time, and less and less polite -- isn't going to change that.

Your argument defeats itself as no other armor is being worn with the Milspec, it is all treated as one unit and "Does Not Count As Separate Pieces of Armor"

Its almost like you didn't even read anything I typed, and yet quoted it.

@Ragewind: You make the very same mistake, that Neraph makes.

You assume, that "do not count as seperate pieces of armor for purposes of encumbrance" means that they are some sort of armor modification and not armor items themselves.

Yet, at several places in the rules they are quite clearly called "armor items" or "armor pieces" or "armor" (just read my posts in this thread here, they are not that many; even though they are more than should be necessary ).

The only part where the "seperate armor" or "stacked armor" references have any meaning, is on SR4A p. 161, where the rules for Armor & Encumbrance are listed (which is always listed together with those terms, i.e. in all the parts where you quoted from).

When you calculate encumbrance, you do not count them seperately, but as one "unit" (as you say).

The problem with your argument is, that you extrapolate from there and then somehow PPP suddenly is no armor item anymore, because it is not calculated seperately towards encumbrance.

That, however, is wrong.

They are still armor, and thus they cannot be worn together with Military-grade Armor (because they are not Military-grade Helmets, which are the only exception).


Also see my next post (two below this one).

Bye
Thanee

Except that you keep on only using partial quotes. The complete sentence that describes the SecureTech PPP System, the sentence you keep on only partially quoting, says "These armor pieces do not count as separate armor for purposes of encumbrance," according to my copy of Arsenal. See that bolded part early in my quote? That's the PPP stuff being called armor. See the second bolded part of my quote? That's the rule saying that PPP stuff only follows the rules for helmets and shields (which are mentioned after the semicolon) for encumbrance[i] purposes. Since the ban on wearing extra armor, from Military Grade Armor, has [i]nothing at all to do with encumbrance, the sentence fragment you keep bringing up can be interpreted as meaning absolutely nothing, for this conversation. For other conversations, about encumbrance? Conversations that have nothing to do with adding armor to Military Grade stuff? Yes, it is pertinent and good to know. But for this conversation, this entire passage can easily be interpreted as meaning nothing at all.

See how that works? Other people can pluck out a partial quote, too, is all I'm saying, and by just emphasizing a different part of the sentence, they can claim it says something completely different from what you claim it says.

You know why? Because it's two different rules, from two different books, about four different types of gear, all clashing. This is why these arguments happen. This is why these arguments are also never resolved, despite people from both sides insisting that they have resolved it (as the clear victor, naturally).

See my point? I'm not actually arguing for either side. I'm just saying both sides are doing nothing but quoting the text at one another (while taking turns highlighting different parts of the sentence, leaving out a few words, or otherwise making their point), just like both sides have been doing for 70+ posts, now. You'd know that, if you'd read the thread. You'd also know that, if you'd read any of the previous threads that have come up about this very topic, and been just as circular. You are not introducing new material to the conversation, nor are you making your point any differently than anyone else already has...unless changing the quote a little bit counts as making a new point.

I have no dog in this fight. I'm just the guy on the sidelines going "Man, I wish those dogs would stop fighting. Oh, look! A new dog just jumped in the fight, after barking very loudly about how it's the most knowledgeable dog here. Man, I wish those dogs would stop fighting."

Seriously, people. How many more dozens of posts do we need on this, before people will admit that the RAW on this is a tangled mess, and they'll just go ask their GM what he thinks his character can wear, armor-wise?

ETA: And to clarify, Ragewind, I apologize for singling you out like this. But you triumphantly announced your expertise on the subject, you threw yourself headlong into a discussion without bothering to see that your point had already been made, and in doing so you just poked the embers of a fire to make new sparks fly. I really wish that you hadn't, and I'm trying to make a point about how terribly repetitive and circular this argument is even with people that have read the whole thing. There can be no winners in this argument.

That is the very core of the "problem" with this "discussion", that you do not see that link.




That is (in other words) exactly what I said.


Like, when you wear an Armor Jacket and a Lined Coat, you have "stacked armor" (and only the highest value applies to your worn armor rating, i.e. 8/6 Armor Jacket, but both are added together to calculate encumbrance nonetheless, i.e. 14/10). These are both "seperate armor pieces" here, counted individually towards encumbrance.

When you wear an Armor Jacket and your PPP Armguards/Shinguards, you also have stacked some armor pieces together, but since PPP does not count towards "stacked armor" you just add the respective Armor Ratings together (i.e. 8/8 Armor Jacket+Armguards+Shinguards) and then see about your encumbrance. These are not "seperate armor pieces" here, counted individually towards encumbrance. But, and that is quite the important part, only for this purpose!

When you wear your Heavy Military-grade Armor with Military-grade Helmet and your PPP Arm... oh wait, that isn't allowed.


And why is that so?


Because that "stacked armor" part is only relevent when you calculate encumbrance. Only for that purpose the "merging" of multiple armor pieces takes place. Only then, the armor pieces are not counted as "seperate armor pieces". It does not remain like that, it does not mystically become one unit now. They are still all their very own armor pieces.

You never even come to the point, where Military-grade Armor and PPP armor pieces can be "not counted as stacked armor" or "seperate armor pieces for purposes of encumbrance", because you cannot wear them together. PPP is armor. Military-grade Armor cannot be combined with other armor (other than the Military-grade Helmet). Full stop.




That is correct. "... for purposes of encumbrance" not for purposes of figuring whether they can be combined with Military-grade Armor, or not.

Bye
Thanee

I have to reject that. It is pretty much my main argument, that you cannot just leave out a few words of the text, but have to take it all.

Bye
Thanee

That is not what I am assuming as the rules tell us to follow how Helms and Shields work. Nothing else matters but those rules, that is what we must follow.



They are indeed armor when used > by themselves <

This rule is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with how the Helm and Shield rules interact with Milspec armor



As I have quoted the realevant passage twice I don't see how I am extrapolating anything. Its says > very clearly < that they do not count as separate pieces of armor. What part of "Does Not Count as Separate Pieces of armor" is hard to understand. They simply modify the rating used, nothing more and nothing less, which ALSO as a BYPRODUCT increases encumbrance using the NEW total. Encumbrance is not important here

EDIT: I think I see the problem, I am quoting "Does not Count as Separate Pieces of armor" from the rules section in the BBB regarding Helms and Shields. You are Quoting from Arsenal which is a different sentence (and argument) altogether. I suggest you go read page 327 of the anniversary edition.

As above, they are only armor when worn separately



I only use the quotes that are realevent to the rules at hand. See what you did there? You quoted a rule that had nothing to do with what we are talking about. If i use a excerpt I am not arbitrarily pulling out info as you seem to be doing, I am reading the whole paragraph and using it in context, including the cross referenced realevent rules used.



I am > Assuming < you are reading the book when you are typing this. Instead the full sentence reads as thus..
" These armor pieces do not count as separate armor for the purposes of encumbrance ;(see this sign >;< this is important) [i]instead, these items modify the rating of armor worn by their rating just as helmets and shields do.
So the whole thing about encumbrance has >Nothing to do with the rule< about how they modify the rating of worn armor. It is two separate sentences divided by >;<. Grammar guys...Grammar...

I suggest you flip through the following..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicolon

http://cheezburger.com/View/5956330240

I see how that works when people quote the wrong things



Except a Lined Coat and a Armor Jacket are using a entirely separate ruleset than what we are discussing, and as already mentioned, has no bearing on this discussion as you are referencing...yet again... encumbrance.


Incorrect, as per the rules you have a Armor Jacket with a modified rating of 6/12 instead of 4/6. You do NOT have stacked armor as the PPP system DOES NOT follow those rules.



/bang head against wall

Stacked armor has NOTHING to do with how Helmets and Shields work, please stop referencing that rule.


Sorry for the multi post but Dumpshock only allows so many quote tags in a single post. I have to head out for the night, so we will continue making friends with each other on the morrow.

Ragewind, I think you would be well served to read the rest of the thread next time, instead of just barging in, declaring yourself the expert, and then slinging around a bunch of partial quotes and insulting smiley faces at people. At the very least, it would be nice of you to acknowledge that you're not sharing new information, only repeating arguments that are 60+ posts old (but doing so with a lot more underlining and bold text).

I'm doing my best to stay civil here, and you're not making it very easy. I'm not sure how to break this to you any more politely than this, but it would be great if you were aware that you are not some reading comprehension master that is taking a moment out of his busy schedule to give lessons to a bunch of Shadowrun beginners. Closing off your latest batch of posts with the "newbie" smiley at Thanee of all fucking people is just the icing on the smug little cake.


I'm not even sure how to respond to this in a way that won't come off as unproductively snarky and unprofessional, so I'm just going to go to bed.

PS, it's "relevant." Just so you know for next time.

That part is very clear, when read out of context. The problem with your argument, though, is the context it is put in by the rules.



No, they don't.

They tell us, that they work the same way as helmets and shields do, and they reference the section about helmets and shields AND at the very same time the section about Armor & Encumbrance.

So what we do know from that reference in Arsenal is, that PPP armor pieces and helmets and shields all follow the same rules. And that this is in the context of Armor & Encumbrance.

It does not tell us, that some (incomplete) paragraph on some page in the SR4A book (under the headline of helmets and shields) is the complete rule about all these items, and anything else anywhere else in this book or another is irrelevant.



And how does that work when they "do not count as seperate pieces of armor", as you claim?

It does not say that they "do not count as seperate pieces of armor" when worn together with other armor.

It says that they "do not count as seperate pieces of armor" for purposes of encumbrance (either directly, Arsenal, or indirectly, SR4A, via reference to SR4A p. 161).




I will get to this below.




Nah, I have read all the relevant parts.


So, to summarize... your argument is, that while PPP (how do you put it ... > very clearly <) says, that they only count as seperate pieces of armor for purposes of encumbrance (in Arsenal), you still claim that is not the case (the limit of that "seperate pieces" part to "purposes of encumbrance"), because they reference the (older) text for helmets and shields from SR4(A) (same text in both books), which does not have this addition. Right?

So, because some older text is less complete, it somehow makes the more complete text irrelevant (even though that text belongs right to the item in question, unlike the older text that is only referenced)?

That's your argument? Wow!


Surely, the text from the actual item in question (PPP) is more important than some referenced text of a similar item (helmets and shields) and is not superceded by it (esp. if that text is basically the same, but includes less information).


And even when you only look at the text from helmets and shields... how do you explain that it directly references the Armor & Encumbrance rule (the parantheses right behind that sentence about "seperate armor pieces"), where helmets and shields interaction with other armor is explained, and which as you so fiercely claim is completely irrelevant to the topic of how some armor pieces (PPP/helmets and shields) interact with others (Military-grade Armor)?



So, the reference at the end of this paragraph (direct quote from SR4A Helmets and Shields) ...

"Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor; instead, they modify the rating of worn armor by their rating (Armor and Encumbrance, p.161)."

... has nothing to do with it (that is surely why it is right there in the same paragraph), and I arbitrarily put it there (into the printed book?!?)?



Please... don't be silly. A semicolon seperates two parts of a sentence, it does not mean, that what is left of it is irrelevant and only what is right of it should be read.

I can also quote the paragraph from Arsenal, right from the PPP description (even completely; something you do not seem to be able to).

"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 (see Helmets and Shields, p. 327, SR4A, and Armor and Encumbrance, p. 161, SR4A)."

Wow! Look! It is the same reference here as well as under Helmets and Shields.

Notice that little "and" there?

Surely they put it there to tell us that the part that follows is irrelevant and these items do not (sorry, NOT) follow those rules referenced there!

And here is another quote from that part (SR4A p. 161), that seems relevant enough to me (because it mentions helmets and shields directly):

"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."

IOW, helmets and shields do not count as stacked armor, but they are armor items (and as such won't combine with military-grade armor).





Bye
Thanee

Wow! Have you stopped reading at the point where your quote ends? Try again, then. There is a little more written there (and everything together only makes a whole).



Now I begin to see why my explanations seem so fruitless and why you cannot read full paragraphs... you should stop banging your head against the wall! It hurts the brain cells!

Bye
Thanee

Once again, as simply as it can be stated:

Whether something is or is not "separate" armor has no bearing on whether it is worn armor.

Is PPP armor? Yes. Is PPP worn? Yes.

Separate or no is irrelevant as far as Mil-spec Armor is concerned.

The rule which states Mil-spec Armor may not be combine with any other worn armor makes no reference to separate or not separate. Just "worn".



-k

The argument there is, that it isn't armor, because it isn't seperate armor.

Once you put those armguards on, they are no longer armor, but just a modifier.

Yes, I know it does not make any sense.

Bye
Thanee

P.S. I think noone ever replied to my ingenious idea to count PPP bonuses twice (assuming they are not armor; which I do not agree with) with Armor Jacket and FFBA, since they add to the armor rating of worn armor (and both the Armor Jacket and the FFBA are worn armor and worn at the same time and stackable). Oh, and helmets, too, while we are at it. 20/19 armor without any security/military stuff (Armor Jacket, Full-Body FFBA, full PPP set w/o the Helmet, regular Helmet from SR4A). And only requires a Body of 5 to wear without penalties (custom-fit, of course, using the Body x 3 limit)! Perfectly fine equipment for starting characters!

P.P.S. No, that does not make any sense, either.

But then, this is Shadowrun. And sense is not often made.

The rules (which are not represented in my post two above this), in this case, actually do, though (apart from shields, I guess).

Bye
Thanee

And then you can have yourself possessed.
And your Armor.

Now THAT's a different, most ugly beast

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

1) People who want to wear strap-on shoulder pads and codpeices on the outside of their powerarmor.

and

2) Those who think the idea is stupid.


Rules really have nothing to do with this argument now. Because neither side really cares about RAW. (1) is looking for Rules as Desired. (2) is looking for Rules as They Think They Were Intended.

RAW was written without this sort of hairsplitting in mind. Considering how rules supplements are put together, it's quite possible the writers never considered this interaction.

Even if the writers for these sections weighed in on this argument, someone would be left unhappy - especially as the writers themselves often don't think about consequences from snap judgements (cough-FAQ-cough).

You forgot one group:

3) Those who think the RAW is completely unambigious on the matter.

For the record, I'm in category 5. I think it's stupid, *and* obvious that PPP are 'other worn armor'.

I think this side should win by default because of Ragewind's performance, though.

Erm. No.

I'm firmly in the camp (3) (as posted by snowRaven above).

Also, I think that shields should be an exception, but by RAW they are not.

Bye
Thanee

They are, if you decide that shields are not 'worn armor', but something like 'carried armor'.

In order to avoid Multi Posts my format will be slightly different (Bold being quotes)

That part is very clear, when read out of context. The problem with your argument, though, is the context it is put in by the rules.

There is nothing to read out of context, I am referring to page 327 of the BBB which tells how how Shields and Armor work. The enterty of the rules exisit within a single sentence and noting else is comming into play here.

No, they don't.

http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

They tell us, that they work the same way as helmets and shields do, and they reference the section about helmets and shields AND at the very same time the section about Armor & Encumbrance.

Im sure you undersand the concept of redundency, the rules about encumbrance is simply a copy/paste from the section in Helms and Shields.

And how does that work when they "do not count as seperate pieces of armor", as you claim?
It does not say that they "do not count as seperate pieces of armor" when worn together with other armor.

/shake head
As i've already mentioned (honestly I don't see how you can keep typing if you are actually reading the realevent sections) You can only wear the PPP system in 3 ways as described on page 49 of Arsenal. Unlike "Armor" as you keep referencing too they do not actually have a Balistic and Impact rating say as a Lined coat does. They (like helms and shields) have a +/+ instead of a Number/Number.Lets assumine we understand how sentence structure and garmmar works, so when we read the sentence this is what we get.
"These armor pieces do not count as spearate armor for purposes of encumbrance; these items modify the rating of armor warn by their rating just as helmets and shields do (see helms and sheilds, and armor encumbrance)
It tells us two things

1) They do not count as seperate armor for encumbrance (this is the part you wont let go)
** This means they ignore the normal rule for Armor Stacking, and since they ignore it, we can ignore it too.
2) They instead modify the rating of something already worn (hence the +/+, not a Number/Number
** This is resolved exactly how shields and helms are resolved.

I think the crux of the matter is do you think you can use a helm and shield with milspec armor? Sure you might say helm (even though it is a fluff entry and not a rules bit) but what about a Shield? If you don't allow someone to use shields while using Milspec then this whole debate is useless. If you do give them shields you have to give them PPP and Even FFBA as they are all worded the exact same way.

Nah, I have read all the relevant parts.

I highly doubt that, as is evidenced by your argument.

So, to summarize... your argument is, that while PPP (how do you put it ... > very clearly <) says, that they only count as seperate pieces of armor for purposes of encumbrance (in Arsenal)

Again I am astonished that you can even type that, as that is not the argument I have been making, and have repeatedly told you to stop using that bit. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

because they reference the (older) text for helmets and shields from SR4(A) (same text in both books), which does not have this addition. Right?

I am (and have) told/telling you to go read the aniversery edition that is fully updated and newer than arsenal. Which CLEARLY tells you how to use Helms and SHields. Where you are getting your interpetation of my page quotes and verbatium quotes is beyond me.

So, the reference at the end of this paragraph (direct quote from SR4A Helmets and Shields) ...
"Helmets and shields do not count as separate pieces of armor; instead, they modify the rating of worn armor by their rating (Armor and Encumbrance, p.161)."
... has nothing to do with it (that is surely why it is right there in the same paragraph), and I arbitrarily put it there (into the printed book?!?)?

http://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0
Let me ask you this...Do you know what a SemiColon is? Do you know how it works? When you can answer these two questions go back and reread what you just typed.

Please... don't be silly. A semicolon seperates two parts of a sentence, it does not mean, that what is left of it is irrelevant and only what is right of it should be read.

I almost had hope, and then i finished reading the sentence. Please see my two questions above

Wow! Look! It is the same reference here as well as under Helmets and Shields.

Its telling you to go read two seperate sections. The first one tells you how to apply the numbers, and the second tells you how to detirmine encumbrance. Why does the penalty I take to AGI and REA matter when detirming if the PPP system counts as a Armor with a Impact and Ballisitic value? You seem to be caught in a looping argument.

The rule which states Mil-spec Armor may not be combine with any other worn armor makes no reference to separate or not separate. Just "worn".

If it is not Stacked Armor, then it is not Armor. You cannot wear something that isnt. (ah Mr. CK)
This is extremly important, the only way you can follow the stacked armor rule is if you are indeed using "armor" Shadowrun has a bad Habit (just like how it describes immunity to (x)) of using the term armor is two different ways and them using them interchangably. One way is when they refer to a item that grants you a Balistic and Impact rating (I.E. A Lined Coat) another is when they refer to something that grants you protective benifets such as a Helmet. A Helmet is "armor" this is common sense to you and I, however the game does not make that distinction. To the game it a item that modifys the >rating< of something else. By itself it grants you no benifets, you cannot wear a Helm and be naked and expect to get a 2/2 Rating, that is not what it does (once again defined by the +/+ system)
By using the word "Worn" and Referencing the Stacked Armor rules we learn that any "worn" armor is something that grants you a Number/Number such as a Coat giving you 4/6. If the PPP system does not give you a number then it is not "Armor" as the game describes it, but as *Armor* in the term that is helps protect you.

P.S. I think noone ever replied to my ingenious idea to count PPP bonuses twice (assuming they are not armor; which I do not agree with) with Armor Jacket and FFBA, since they add to the armor rating of worn armor (and both the Armor Jacket and the FFBA are worn armor and worn at the same time and stackable). Oh, and helmets, too, while we are at it. 20/19 armor without any security/military stuff (Armor Jacket, Full-Body FFBA, full PPP set w/o the Helmet, regular Helmet from SR4A). And only requires a Body of 5 to wear without penalties (custom-fit, of course, using the Body x 3 limit)! Perfectly fine equipment for starting characters! biggrin.gif

This is actually a intresting take and I had to think about it for a second. The only way I see it not stacking twice is because of how FFBA is also worded. FFBA does two things
1) gives you a 6/2 BAllistic/Impact armor when worn by itself.
2) Ignores the above sentence when combined with something else, in the same way a Helm or Shield works.

So if you were to Wear FFBA (full) and then throw in the complete PPP system you would end up with 8/8 armor. However if you then (i assuming the ORDER to put on your clothes matters) put on a Lined Coat (4/6) first, and then put on the FFBA and PP system you would end up with a Lined Coat that provided you 12/14 Armor. It would be considered a single suit of armor, however for encumbrance purposes you are wearing 9/13 armor to detirmine if you take a penalty to AGI/REA.

But then, this is Shadowrun. And sense is not often made.

Truer Words..

And then you can have yourself possessed.
And your Armor.

Yup, crazy good numbers can be gained, dont forget Reinforce as well.

I think this side should win by default because of Ragewind's performance, though.

Yermameyahu we have not really agreed on anything in years, no need to start now /Brofist

EDIT: FFBA does not follow the Helms/Shields rule so is considered a separate armor when worn that has special rules contrary to the norm. Please ignore any references of FFBA not counting as a separate suit of armor, I am wrong and don't know why I typed that.