Bike armor is okay, for some things. Not so good for tactical minded characters, in my opinion. *shrug*

I don't know about that. It's one of the few suits of armour that can take a full chemical seal and is still street legal. For a body 4 character with FFBA it's almost perfect, stat wise.

This all seems very silly. Are you trying to tell me that Light Armor Clothing and Heavy Armor Clothing from the Globetrotter line, in a section headed Armor Clothing, aren't Armor Clothing?

In order to say Armored Jacket, Armored Vest and Lined Coat aren't they would have to. Sounds pretty dumb, doesn't it?

I take you believe that since the Arsenal section introducing the clothing lines is titled armor clothing, that they are included? The Attitude entry appears to call out armor clothing by name and SR4A page number. It seems strange that the developers would exclude a Lined Coat, but include Mortimer of London's Greatcoat Line.

The reason people think the Armor Clothing lines from Arsenal count is that Jason Hardy said so. http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?s=&a...t&p=1055225

In theory, a Full Suit of FFBA could take the Chemical Seal as well. *shrug*
Bike Armor is very nice, I just do not like it for Tactical applications. Personal Choice I guess.

It's very easy: since the section in Attitude mentioned SR4A explicitly and did not include Arsenal, then yes.

It's very easy: since the section in Attitude mentioned SR4A explicitly and did not include Arsenal, then yes.


You say "dumb," I say "RAW."


See above: since Arsenal was not explicitly mentioned then it is not allowed wholesale without House-Rules.

And this kind of thing is exactly why I called the ruling rules lawyering.

Nope. I consider this reference to include "clothing and armor clothing," not the specific item Armor Clothing, since the rules for all clothing and armor clothing in general are found on that page. Arsenal clearly expands this category; Arsenal is clearly included.

And this kind of thing is exactly why I called the ruling rules lawyering.

I agree. I think the modification should be banned on all clothing with an inherent armor rating or allowed for all types of clothing with armor. I also believe that neither is the intention of the developers; I don't think they thought through this section very well...

Actually, yes. What you just said after the word "consider" is all outside the purview of RAW and is considered a House-Rule. The reason Arsenal doesn't work is because it also points at SR4A, SR4A doesn't point to it. If two streams flow into the same lake you cannot say that the water from one stream flows into the other stream because they are connected by a lake - both currents flow to the same point.

I completely disagree with your interpretation here. It would be like saying "this modification only works with light or heavy pistols (SR4A 317)," and then trying to claim that would exclude the Ruger Thunderbolt.

You know, it occurs to me to ask whether a weapon with an integrated underbarrel weapon (such as an Ares Alpha) can have another underbarrel weapon strapped to that.

and maybe another strapped to that, daisy chaining indefinitely...

Yours is also an interpretation.

I see we are at a draw.

Not really. My interpretation has been confirmed by the designers to be correct, so there you go.

When you move into the realm of interpretations, not all are equally valid. In cases where intent is impossible to construe, RAW is all we can go by; fortunately, we have a case where intent has been clearly stated and supports a position that does not contradict the RAW. So basically, you don't really have a leg to stand on.

The happy medium.

Jason H.

So while one can argue as to the various interpretations in an absence of a game itself, with any consideration of intent--and, therefore, in any gameplay scenario, including Missions--my interpretation is correct and should be followed if attempting to play without houserules.

Now, I would argue that Neraph's reading is incorrect in other ways; I believe it assumes a limiting factor not otherwise present. I do not, however, see the need to press the point home, as anyone who cares less for pedantry than for gameplay should already have seen that the matter is moot in the extreme.

And how does the "happy medium" not contradict the RAW?

And how does the "happy medium" not contradict the RAW?

My interpretation of how this is the case was offered some few posts ago.

Because the rules don't say something like "clothing and the 4/0 Armor Clothing armor." Basically, I see two possible readings of the RAW and the developer indicating which one is correct.

Feedback Clothing: This clothing modification creates feedback
and resistance in order to allow for a tactile augmented reality
experience. This technology is still rare, as full immersion solutions are
cheaper and also more effective.

Leather Jacket/Duster: Whether a basic jacket or a knee-length
duster the leather jacket never goes out of style and offers a modicum
of protection.

Actioneer Business Clothes: These discreetly armored “power
suits” are still très chic among Mr. Johnsons, fixers, and executives who
are looking for a little high-class protection with their neo-Japanese
style. Features a concealed holster (an additional –2 Concealability
modifier) inside the jacket.

Armor Clothing: The extra-resilient ballistic fiber in armor clothing
offers basic protection while being indistinguishable from regular clothing.

Armor Jacket: The most popular armor solution on the streets
comes in all styles imaginable. It offers good protection without catching
too much attention, but don’t think of wearing it to a dinner party.

Armor Vest: Modern flexible-wrap vests are designed to be worn
under regular clothing without displaying any bulk.

Lined Coat: Reminiscent of the long dusters worn in the days
of the Wild West, lined coats offer good protection and also provide
an additional –2 Concealability modifier to items hidden underneath.

Oh, I see what you're saying. That's not my interpretation, but I see how you got there.

I don't think that, as written, anything in the core book besides Armor Clothing counts as armor clothing, though I think that the leather jacket, lined coat, and Actioneer suit certainly should. (Feedback clothing is an add-on to regular clothing and therefore isn't any kind of armor at all, just a modification.) The vest and the jacket, however, are clearly not; that's a bulletproof vest and something like a motorcycle armor jacket, not regular clothing.

Calling them "Armor X" instead of "Armored X" implies, to me at least, "made of armor" instead of "reinforced." Also, in the case of the Armor Vest, the fact that it's supposed to be worn under one's clothing makes me think that it wouldn't count as clothing by itself.

As to the rest, well, it seems to be rather flimsy reasoning to say that merely because of...

I'm sorry, but you appear to have clicked the "post" button before actually typing anything meaningful.

Whereas I believe the intent would be for anything that isn't hard-plated armor (like Full Body Armor, Military Armor, Security Armor and the other full suits like those) to be applicable for the infusions. And hey look, all of those have the highest ballistic and impact ratings. Now, FFBA and the PPP stuff wouldn't be, but, well, there'd be little purpose in putting them on those anyway--just like I wouldn't bother with SoftWeave on those even if it were being allowed by the GM, so little encumbrance on those anyway.

Nope, had a post, but I decided against saying what I had to say, as it would just fall on intentionally-deaf ears.

(AFB Side note: I always thought that bioware, cyber, magic and natural armor don't count towards encumbrance)

(AFB Side note: I always thought that bioware, cyber, magic and natural armor don't count towards encumbrance)

They Don't.

Edit: Damn Ninja's...

They add in unnecessary apostrophes as well.

They add in unnecessary apostrophes as well.

That's just to distract you from the dropbears.

They do wha..aaaaah! They're in my face!

That's just to distract you from the dropbears.

And then agree that our disagreement is just one more mile-high-neon-letters sign pointing out that Catalyst's apparent pathological aversion to releasing, updating, and maintaining a useful errata and FAQ (and in downloadable format, no less) serves no other purpose than to perpetuate and exacerbate divisions like this one ...?

They do?

This. I mean, they can change the covers of the books, for crying out loud, but they can't errata stuff?

(I *liked* the old Augmentation cover....)

I also liked the original cover for Unwired. A lot.

Yes, apparently they do.

"Ninja's" = possessive form of Ninja; the ninja's shuriken hit the drunken pirate in the face.

"Ninjas" = plural form of Ninja; four ninjas snuck onto the pirate vessel.

^_^