Given the special nature of the armor spell I'd be tempted to apply it (ie, reduce the power of the attack by the rating), then let the new reduced power be the one that the character has to resist with any worn/natural armour and body.
And yes, I realise that makes it better than layering, but then, it is magic.
Full Version: Gel Packs
| QUOTE (noname_hero @ Apr 28 2004, 07:22 AM) |
| I know I'm repeating myself, but can you tell me *where* *any* *rulebook* says the Armor spell is armor? As far as I know, NO sourcebook claims this, and the spell's description *never* says it is a form of armor. |
Um, don't you think we're going a bit overboard here?
What is armor? Something applied to a character that directly reduces the power of incoming attacks by its rating.
What is an armor spell? Something applied to a character that directly reduces the power of incoming attacks by its rating.
If it is called a dog, and barks like a dog, perhaps its a dog?
Anticipating an argument, 'dermal armor' is not armor because it does not reduce the power of incoming attacks by its rating. So we can leave it out.
The advantage of the spell is that it layers better than worn armor. Instead of layering like worn armor, which can be bulky and inefficient, it layers like bonelacing, orthoskin, dermal sheathing, or the like.
The whole argument about the gel packs is due to the fact that folks miss the fact that the gel packs are a modification to an existing piece of physical, material, worn armor. Therefore, any benefit they provide applies to the armor that they are a part of. And that's it. Adding gel packs to your armor vest doesn't make your bonelacing hardened armor, and doesn't make your armor spell hardened armor, and the same goes for sheathing and orthoskin.
Oddly enough, adding gel packs to an armor vest hardens the armor for.... the armor vest. Go figure.
Really, people. Some of the arguments for stretching the rules around here are almost as bad as on the forums for "the other game". And the form of the arguments tend to be the same: "I want!" "Probably a bad idea." "But I waaant!"
I'm sorry for my choice of words, but when I've been fed personal opinions (and IMHO mistaken opinions) instead of rules by somebody who likes to (as I've recently seen in other threads) quote rulebooks word by word to prove his truth (even if he's often right), and when this somebody's posts seemed to suggest I'm an unthinking idiot , and this somebody didn't seem to put any effort into actually considering my arguments, I kind of got angry.
And yes, this somebody was Clockwork Lime; I'm not trying to insult him by being cryptical - anyone else would, for the same post, get the same reply.
And yes, this somebody was Clockwork Lime; I'm not trying to insult him by being cryptical - anyone else would, for the same post, get the same reply.
It's not my fault that you completely miss the name of the spell, or the fact that it adds Ballistic and Impact Armor. It's called armor and it does what armor does and the description even implies that it is a layer of armored protection, thus it is armor. So while you may like to delude yourself into thinking it's something that it isn't, feel free. Just don't try telling other people they're "wrong" and then acting holier-than-thou while you're doing it.
And yes, heaven forbid someone back their points up with actual rules quotes. What a horrible way to prove your point. Proof? Pfft. Screw that.
And yes, heaven forbid someone back their points up with actual rules quotes. What a horrible way to prove your point. Proof? Pfft. Screw that.
so it orthoskin. causes a problem eh?
Nope.
Like I said before, it's no fault of mine the authors are occassionally lazy and have a tendency to word things without thinking about what they're typing. They obviously meant to say that gel-packed armor isn't compatible with other layers of armor, not that it couldn't be worn with any. By that logic, you can't even wear a pair of leather pants, a helmet, or a shield while you have a gel-packed vest on, either.
Like I said before, it's no fault of mine the authors are occassionally lazy and have a tendency to word things without thinking about what they're typing. They obviously meant to say that gel-packed armor isn't compatible with other layers of armor, not that it couldn't be worn with any. By that logic, you can't even wear a pair of leather pants, a helmet, or a shield while you have a gel-packed vest on, either.
I'll tell you what, when you have your name on the writing credit on a soucebook, then you can definitively say what it was supposed to mean, until then it's just your opinion, which as valid as anyone else's.
Just because you say so does not make it correct.
Acting in a condescending fasion does not help your arguments. And detracts from the weight of what you have to say.
Just because you say so does not make it correct.
Acting in a condescending fasion does not help your arguments. And detracts from the weight of what you have to say.
And going off whining with a holier-than-thou attitude about the merits and flaws of how other people choose to write while simultaneously completely and utterly avoiding the topic at hand does jack shit for yours, either. So what's your point?
And out of curiosity, why do you automatically assume my name isn't on the credits of a book somewhere? Do you even have a clue as to what my name is? Of course you don't. But feel free to keep telling people how they should do things. You are, afterall, superior to everyone oh great and powerful one.
And out of curiosity, why do you automatically assume my name isn't on the credits of a book somewhere? Do you even have a clue as to what my name is? Of course you don't. But feel free to keep telling people how they should do things. You are, afterall, superior to everyone oh great and powerful one.
Mommy... Daddy... please don't fight.
Please do not resort to personal attacks. At no point in my previous post did I assume that I wwas better than anyone else, including you. Furthermore I went out of the way to say:
| QUOTE |
| It's just your opinion, which as valid as anyone else's. |
That is to say that your onion is equal to my opinion or that of anyone else on these boards. We are all equals here in my opinion.
I made an effort to make my post straightforward and free from sarcasm.
I have no desire to see anyone belittled or demeaned or treated as being less than other people. I would like to see discussions that treat posters as equal human beings, worthy of respect. That's all.
I made an effort to make my post straightforward and free from sarcasm.
I have no desire to see anyone belittled or demeaned or treated as being less than other people. I would like to see discussions that treat posters as equal human beings, worthy of respect. That's all.
| QUOTE |
| And out of curiosity, why do you automatically assume my name isn't on the credits of a book somewhere? |
I automatically assume that a poster here is not an official author unless it has been stated othewise. Several posters here are authors of past and present Shadowrun material and that's fairly common knowledge. If you are an author credited in an official shadowrun sourcebook then I stand corrected. Is that the case? Do you have an official writing credit?
Not for a Shadowrun product, no. Of course your original post didn't ask that.
Regardless, it doesn't take a writing credit on a Shadowrun product to read in context. And the context for gel-packed armor is pretty clear to me; it's not intended to be compatible with any other armor. In no way should you have to stop and take off your pants, helmet, or strip away your dermal sheath in order to put on a gel-packed vest. But the way some of you guys are choosing to read it, that's exactly what you believe it's supposed to mean. It just means that when you do put it on, you're only going to get the hardened benefit from that vest and that vest alone because...
...it cannot be layered with any other armor.
Regardless, it doesn't take a writing credit on a Shadowrun product to read in context. And the context for gel-packed armor is pretty clear to me; it's not intended to be compatible with any other armor. In no way should you have to stop and take off your pants, helmet, or strip away your dermal sheath in order to put on a gel-packed vest. But the way some of you guys are choosing to read it, that's exactly what you believe it's supposed to mean. It just means that when you do put it on, you're only going to get the hardened benefit from that vest and that vest alone because...
...it cannot be layered with any other armor.
BitBasher and Clockwork Lime, please stop that flaming. 
It's not going to help anyone.
It's not going to help anyone.
To completely disrupt the arguments:
If you have a gel packed vest, a FFBA full suit and an armor spell, do you get to choose which armor to use? If the gel packs cannot be stacked with other armor, does it ever say that they must be used to resist the damage?
(hypothetical situalion would give the wearer the option to go with the 5/3 hardened or with the 4+f/1+f soft)
If you have a gel packed vest, a FFBA full suit and an armor spell, do you get to choose which armor to use? If the gel packs cannot be stacked with other armor, does it ever say that they must be used to resist the damage?
(hypothetical situalion would give the wearer the option to go with the 5/3 hardened or with the 4+f/1+f soft)
Nope, that's the big problem with how they handle it. I treat it like a barrier or getting shot while inside a vehicle; if it makes it past the hardened armor, the Power is still reduced and your "normal" armor gets to help you resist what's left.
Do you have a page number for that "nope"?
You're asking for a rule listed somewhere that says you can. It's up to you to find the rule and reference the page. Until you do, "nope," there is no rule that says you can. The closest thing is the rule that says you can't wear it at all with any other armor whatsoever. <points back to the context discussion of the last few posts>
No, you are stating that the rules classify gel-packed armor as a different armor fom the normal stacked, magical, cybered, bioware armor combinations. By doing so, you create two armor values (gel-packed and other). Is there any rule that mandates the gel-packed armor as the line of defense?
<sighs>
Once again.
The rules for gel-packs (referenced and quoted repeatedly throughout the discussion) state that it cannot be worn with any other armor whatsoever. Any. None. Not a single piece.
So yes, the rules if read while you have your thumb up your ass instead of reading the context thereof do say you don't get to choose which one because you don't even get the choice.
Once again.
The rules for gel-packs (referenced and quoted repeatedly throughout the discussion) state that it cannot be worn with any other armor whatsoever. Any. None. Not a single piece.
So yes, the rules if read while you have your thumb up your ass instead of reading the context thereof do say you don't get to choose which one because you don't even get the choice.
That's more than enough of the personal attacks and rudeness.
LOL.
Clock is right about the way the rules are written. It is obvious what they meant, they just didn't word it right. Which is not their fault, I am sure creating a book like CC takes a lot of work. The way the rules are 'worded' says that you cannot wear it with other armor. Notice it doesn't say use (which I think would solve this issue). So going by the wording alone if you were to put on a longcoat with gel packs you could not physically put on any other armor. Some magical force would stop you.
I think what Lime said about this obviously is not what they meant is correct. What they meant (IMHO) is that you only gain the benefits of one or the other. Not both.
Which doesn't make sense in reality I know. However theres a little thing called game balance that the writers have to keep in mind. Something players never even think about.
Clock is right about the way the rules are written. It is obvious what they meant, they just didn't word it right. Which is not their fault, I am sure creating a book like CC takes a lot of work. The way the rules are 'worded' says that you cannot wear it with other armor. Notice it doesn't say use (which I think would solve this issue). So going by the wording alone if you were to put on a longcoat with gel packs you could not physically put on any other armor. Some magical force would stop you.
I think what Lime said about this obviously is not what they meant is correct. What they meant (IMHO) is that you only gain the benefits of one or the other. Not both.
Which doesn't make sense in reality I know. However theres a little thing called game balance that the writers have to keep in mind. Something players never even think about.
You don't have to have a "thumb up your ass" not to agree with this:
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| According to SR3 p. 285, "layering armor" simply refers to having more than one type of armor at any given point. No distinction is made between armored clothing, hardened armor, or magical armor. |
I believe that is what you're basing most of your argument on, right? For "cannot be layered with other armor" to mean that no other armor-giving modification can be on the character at the same time, the above quote must be taken to be the "correct" or "canon" reading of the Layering Armor section on p.285 of SR3.
I'm not going to argue that one reading is right or wrong here, but I will say that the Layering Armor section in SR3 could easily be considered to refer to "layering armor" as purely the wearing/carrying of physical pieces of body armor. There is a lot of room for interpretation there. The section does not explicitly state that magical or cyberware armor is excluded from these calculations, but it never mentions magical or cyberware armor in any other way either. The section itself mentions only "wearing" of multiple "layers" of armor. Additionally, magical and cyberware armor is exempted from the armor layering rules for most intents and purposes.
Thus, depending on the interpretation of that section, the rules for gel-packs do not necessarily state that they "cannot be worn with any other armor whatsoever". According to your interpretation of the Layering Section armor, it is correct. According to other people's, it isn't. No absolute right, no absolute wrong, and nobody should claim that others have thumbs up their asses simply because they don't agree.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| No absolute right, no absolute wrong, and nobody should claim that others have thumbs up their asses simply because they don't agree. |
What, and respect each other's opinions? I suppose you want me to consider what other people are saying, too! Jeez, what do you think this is, a forum for open discussion and exchange of ideas? Fascist.
SR3 p. 285, Layering Armor: "Characters can layer armor for more protection. When wearing more than one layer of armor..." it then goes on to explain the most common effect of having on more than one layer of armor. At no point does it specify armored clothing, only armor in general.
Form-Fitting Body Armor is another layer of armor. It doesn't have most of the normal side-effects of wearing more than one set of armor, but it is still another layer of armor.
Cybernetic armor is another layer of armor. It doesn't have most of the normal side-effects of wearing more than one set of armor, but it is still another layer of armor.
The Armor spell is another layer of armor. It doesn't have any of the normal side-effects of wearing more than one set of armor, but it is still another layer of armor.
By strict reading, gel-packed armor cannot be worn with any other layers of armor. It does not specify clothing anymore than the original entry for layered armor does. It says any layers.
Logically, allowing cybernetic armor or an Armor spell to "stack" with it makes no sense. The gel-pack does nothing to augment the cyberware or the spell; they're still providing the same benefit they always did. Putting gel packs in your pocket isn't going to spontaneously allow your bone laced skull to stop a bullet anymore than it did beforehand. Couple that with the fact that, by a strict reading of the text, gel-packed can't even be worn at the same time you're wearing a helmet or a pair of leather pants is simply ridiculous.
Again, I believe the context is clear. Gel-packed armor is not compatible with any other type of armor. No one has done anything to demonstrate otherwise beyond complaining about my references or reading thereof. Well, save for the "it's magic!" argument.
Form-Fitting Body Armor is another layer of armor. It doesn't have most of the normal side-effects of wearing more than one set of armor, but it is still another layer of armor.
Cybernetic armor is another layer of armor. It doesn't have most of the normal side-effects of wearing more than one set of armor, but it is still another layer of armor.
The Armor spell is another layer of armor. It doesn't have any of the normal side-effects of wearing more than one set of armor, but it is still another layer of armor.
By strict reading, gel-packed armor cannot be worn with any other layers of armor. It does not specify clothing anymore than the original entry for layered armor does. It says any layers.
Logically, allowing cybernetic armor or an Armor spell to "stack" with it makes no sense. The gel-pack does nothing to augment the cyberware or the spell; they're still providing the same benefit they always did. Putting gel packs in your pocket isn't going to spontaneously allow your bone laced skull to stop a bullet anymore than it did beforehand. Couple that with the fact that, by a strict reading of the text, gel-packed can't even be worn at the same time you're wearing a helmet or a pair of leather pants is simply ridiculous.
Again, I believe the context is clear. Gel-packed armor is not compatible with any other type of armor. No one has done anything to demonstrate otherwise beyond complaining about my references or reading thereof. Well, save for the "it's magic!" argument.
| QUOTE (A Clockwork Lime) |
| No one has done anything to demonstrate otherwise beyond complaining about my references or reading thereof. |
The point, of course, being that you need a certain reading of the references to reach the same conclusions as you. And regardless of whether you can see the other possible readings, they are there.
Under Bone Lacing, SR3 p. 300: "Armor gained in this fashion is cumulative with worn armor." No reference to layering, or any other reference to compatibility or other rules for the armor given by Bone Lacing.
Game Effects of Orthoskin, M&M p. 68: "[...] gives a character extra levels of both impact and ballistic armor, which is cumulative with externally worn armor." Again no reference to layering, only compatibility issues relate to cyberware (namely Dermal Armor & Dermal Sheath).
Armor for Cyberlimbs, M&M p. 35: "Cyberlimb body plating is cumulative with worn armor." It also notes that while it does not count toward layering(!), the average Body Plating value counts towards calculating the QUI modifier.
Note the apparent distinction between the extra armor given by Orthoskin, Bone Lacing and Body Plating, and the external armor that a character is "wearing" ("physical pieces of body armor"). It can be understood that the default is that cyber- or bioware do not count as "layering armor" at all.
You said earlier that "[The spell Armor] adds its rating to whatever the character is wearing. In no way does that mean it's not another layer of armor. It jsut has its own rules for how you apply it." You might understand it like that, and others understand it otherwise. Since phrases using "layer" and "armor" are never used unless referring to the Layering Armor rules on p. 285 of SR3, and obviously the Armor spell is exempt from those, it can easily be taken to mean that the Armor spell is not to be considered a "layer of armor".
[Edit]However, if I'm not correct on the last bit and there are indeed mentions of "layers of armor" or "layering armor" or something similar Shadowrun canon rules that do not refer in any way to the Layering Armor rules, then your interpretation certainly seems more appealing.
If there are no such mentions, then "cannot be layered" can very easily be taken to mean that Gel-Packed Armor simply cannot be used with any armor that does count as Layering in any way -- this includes Form-Fitting, because the ½ Ratings-rule does apply to it.[/Edit]
At the risk of fueling the fire, some quotes from page 285:
"Characters can layer armor for more protection, though even layered armor has limited effects."
There is armor whose effects are not limited by using them together, thus they must not be "layered armor". Layered armor, it says, has limited effects.
"When a helmet or shield is used, the armor bonus is added to other armor. This does not count as layering, but does count toward determining the quickness penalty."
An explicit mention of armor in the game that doesn't count as "layered", but is still literally a layer of protection.
"Characters can layer armor for more protection, though even layered armor has limited effects."
There is armor whose effects are not limited by using them together, thus they must not be "layered armor". Layered armor, it says, has limited effects.
"When a helmet or shield is used, the armor bonus is added to other armor. This does not count as layering, but does count toward determining the quickness penalty."
An explicit mention of armor in the game that doesn't count as "layered", but is still literally a layer of protection.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ch_body_armor_1
I don't know if anyone has posted this in here yet, as I haven't been following this thread, but it seems that someone has this working now.
I don't know if anyone has posted this in here yet, as I haven't been following this thread, but it seems that someone has this working now.
I'm not sure if it's in here, but that's the third time I've seen it on these boards.
~J
~J
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.