So the preview # 4 states:
"Armor accessories, items listed with a “+” in front of their rating, add to the character’s Armor for the purpose of Damage Resistance tests. The maximum bonus a character receive from these items is limited to their Strength attribute. For every 2 full points by which the bonus exceeds the character’s Strength, the character suffers a –1 penalty to Agility and Reaction."

So if I read this correctly the following scenario should be true. Please bear with me I do not have the book so I am using generic numbers.

I have a Strength 4. I am wearing Armor A (12 armor), and have +armor item A (+4 armor) for a total of 16 armor and no penalties.
I now put on +armor item B (+2 armor). My total armor is still 16, and I now take a -1 penalty to Agility and Reaction.

Do I have this correct or is the total armor value 18, and a -1 penalty to Agility and Reaction?
The confusing passage is the one that says "(t)he maximum bonus a character receive from these items is limited to their Strength attribute."

The way I read it, you will have a total armor of 16, with a -1 penalty to Agility and Reaction.

So there is no reasson to put on +armor item B, since you are better of without.

I think the preview is not specific enough in it's language and should read "The maximum bonus a character receive from these items without penalty is limited to their Strength attribute." This interpretation, besides making the most sense (), also seems to hold with SR5's mantra of "risk vs. reward". You can opt for more +armor items (reward) but you are penalized in Agi/Rea (risk)

*edit* found the discussion on this in the errata thread. I (again) disagree with the ruling as presented by the devs.

*double edit* twilight zone stuff here - Daedelus, you're the very person who posted this question in the errata thread 4 days ago and were then answered by Bull...why ask it again in another thread?

Well, if the maximum bonus you get is limited by your strength attribute, the condition "bonus is higher than strength attribute" obviously cannot happen on a legal character. Clear case for the errata thread I'd say, and good catch

It also doesn't match the example provided in the rules
"particularly dangerous raid the team is planning. He
borrows Wombat’s riot shield (Armor +6) to hide behind
as they enter. He’s seen Wombat use it dozens
of times and thinks it shouldn’t be a problem. Caster
has a Strength of 2. Comparing the Armor bonus to his
Strength shows a difference of 4 full points, meaning
Caster receives a –2 to both his Agility and Reaction
while trying to use the riot shield.
When Caster eventually decides he can’t handle
hauling around the big shield, he gives it back to Wombat.
Wombat has a Strength attribute of 5. Comparing
his Strength to the Armor bonus of the shield gives a
difference of only 1. He doesn’t have a problem with it,
but he is also wearing a helmet (Armor +2). The total
Armor bonus needs to be compared to his Strength.
Wombat is now at a +8 Armor bonus with a Strength of
5, so he suffers a –1 penalty to his Agility and Reaction
while using both armor accessories."

Yeah, it seems obvious the intended wording was "the maximum unhindered bonus you get"...

Currently it reads like "the maximum speed possible in the universe is 2.998x10^8 m/s. For every 2 m/s you go faster than that..."

"...you shift one color in the color-spectrum. maximum velocity is plaid"

@Sengir

Honestly, I do not get how you can read it any other way.

By reading it straight, apparently.

To get in on the fun, "This car is only ever capable of going up to 88 mph. For every MPH over that you go, you will be fined 1 dollar."

I am but I was not clear on the answer and in light of that threads purpose I did not want to clutter it with more discussion. I too agree with you, but since we (my group) will be playing mostly in the missions campaign I wanted to get official clarification. The example helps me understand better.


I agree I think it "should" have "without penalty" added as stated by Phlapjack but it doesn't. and this type of interpretation is outside our groups operating standards. We play by RAW and ask for clarification. Hopefully a Dev will pipe in here and help lay this to rest.

The word "intended" is the problem. I am not comfortable adding that in unless I know empirically that is how the Devs wanted it to be played. Especially this early in a ...pre-release? I wantto give the system a chance as written before adding to it or houseruling it. There may be a reason for the decision I am unaware of.

The example following the armor section doesn't in anyway mention that the characters aren't getting the full bonus from the +armor items their using, it only notes whether or not they get penalties for any given amounts.
I would say that quite a good indication on how the devs wanted it to be played.

From the opposite side it does not say that you do either. A conservative reading would look at it that way. We are all aware of the proofreading issues that are rampant in all game systems. using fluff and examples for implied clarification is rife with problems. I, and my group operate under the rule that if it does not say you CAN then you cannot without clarification. It avoids player GM conflict at the table and reduces out of game GM overhead tremendously.

I have a question on armor:

If I wear an armor jacket (armor 12) and a helm (armor +3) and receive 14 physical DV (without AP). Are the damage changed from physical to stun because 14<15 or the damage are still physical because 14>12 even if I have 3 more dice to absorb the damage?

I don't have the book but armor should be armor, treating the +armor differrend from base armor would be really really weird ruling.

It would be a different ruling. (I guess it depends on what you are used to)