While I agree that a strict reading of the rule in question does lead to toturi's interpretation, what I have not yet seen from anyone supporting it is a good justification as to why that interpretation is *reasonable*. I find Doc F's extrapolation/analogy using barrier ratings to be rather appropriate, and would like to hear a good counterargument that doesnt simply fall back on "well thats what the book says."

I use the optional Armour Degrdation rules in CC, so bear this in mind.

You have 4 pieces of armour.
Only the best 2 are effective.
You take a moderate wound, the best 2 armour are degraded, therefore the next best 2 come into play.

Also the layering rules do not reduce the effectiveness of armour modifications, so you may wear a few layers of armour with a lot Fire Resistance.

And around and around and around we go...

I believe two things are (or should be) abundantly clear here:

1) Everyone still posting has read the relevant rules.
2) Everyone still posting is rather firmly planted in their interpretation of those rules, and will not be swayed by quoting them here repeatedly.

Furthermore, Doctor Funkenstein has made his reasons for choosing one interpretation over the other very clear - he does not believe that it makes any sense at all for a particular piece of armor to somehow lose all of its protective value by the addition of another layer of armor. The barrier analogy he gives for this, while somewhat ridiculous, is not just a "straw man" - the idea that three layers of kevlar and/or ceramic plates are no more protective than having two layers is essentially the same exact thing as saying that three brick walls are no more protective than two. Theres an extra barrier for a bullet to pass through in both cases, and in both cases (apparently) that extra barrier doesn't matter.

What is not clear is whether the proponents of the alternate interpretation have their own justification, aside from a strict reading of the rules themselves, as to why they find that interpretation to be reasonable. If thats where the argument stops - that its the correct book interpretation, and no further justification is needed - thats fine. This is a game, and theres nothing wrong with simply wanting to play by the rules. However, if any of the proponents of that interpretation have a rational argument to present concerning why that third layer *shouldn't* provide any extra protection, I would like to hear it.

Again, I think it is not a matter of whether the extra layer provides extra protection, but whether it provides additional effective protection is another matter. It is a case of diminishing returns, somewhere along the line the returns aren't substantive enough to warrant an effective increase in armour value. And the writers decided that 2 layers was the limit.

Note that I have not, at any point, attempted to make any argument that Doc's house rule is a bad one, or even that the rule in the book is a good one. My assertion has simply been that Doc's rule is a house rule. So, yes, my position is based entirely on the rules in the book, because all I'm addressing is what those rules are.

If you want to debate whether they're good rules, feel free. I won't take part in that because I really don't care enough. I use the rules as written because, while they may not be entirely realistic, I don't think they're broken enough to worry about.

I'd say there are several reasons to interpret it as only the two highest armors should count for protection.

1) Earlier armor layering rules listed rules for the first 3 layers, one at full, a second at half, and a third at one quarter. Dropping any listing for a third layer implies, that in the new version of the rules the third layer provides no additional protection.

2) As a game balance issue. If only the first to layers of armor count, then it's easier for PCs or NPCs to be wounded by attacks.

3) As a bookkeeping issue. It's much easier to keep track of only two layers on armor and calcualte it all out.

4) There are already rules for additional armor layers providing less than their full protection, regardless of interpretation. If you're going to complain about a third layer not providing it's full armor rating, why aren't you also complaining about the second layer not providing its full armor rating in protection?

After all, throwing that Lined Coat over the Formfitting Body Armor didn't make the FFBA thinner and less capable of protecting you. Obviously, layered armor is not treated like multiple walls in the game system.

It is NOT a house rule. The rules are sufficiently vague as to go either way. Let me break it down word-by-word.

Layering Armor

I've always gone and read it as Dr F and Shadows inturpretation since before i joined these boards.

I really can't see why Having 3 layers of armour (Say, Jumpsuit, Vest, Long coat) wouldn't get me extra protection. It would weigh a bit, and slow me down. But thats why you take the FULL value of ALL of them to determine quickness and Combat Pool Penalties

I read next as being able to wear as many pieces as you want, but only the highest and next highest applying. But as you have said Shadow, it is obvious you apply every piece of armour, but to me, it is also obvious you do not. Why don't we ask the writers what they intended? Failing that, why don't we ask Shadowfaq instead?

Well of course it doesn't say pieces. That would be bad grammar (look who's talking). The context is taking one piece at a time, and halving the rating. Not adding all your armor together and halving that.

I would like to point out that I still think it is open either way. Taken as John advocates doesn't make a lot of sense though. Why would you only get the effectiveness of two pieces of armor?

I think your interpretation of one word in the entire rule set, does not out weigh what everything else says. They say more, not two. At no time do they put a limit on the armor you can use.

This isn't a case of saying "well the rules don't say you can't do it." This is a case of the rules saying you can. The first sentence isn't irrelevant, it is part of the rules as a whole. If you ignore it I can certainly see why you think only the top two pieces go together. But then that would be ignoring a part of the rule simply because you don't agree with it.

In my neck of the woods we call that a house rule.

You have 2 points on the Armour effectiveness graph, one is for the first piece, one is for the second piece, the first piece is 100%, the second piece is 50%. Extrapolating from the graph, I have 3rd piece 0% effectiveness. I thinkthe intent is that the effectiveness of the additional armour are reduced for every extra piece you layer. From the 2nd Ed rules, it seems that way(1, 1/2, 1/4) and in the 3rd Ed, the rules simply ended it at two pieces.

Shadow, you may layer as many layers of armour as you like as per the rules. But only the best 2 are effective. If you want to ignore that only the highest and next highest are applied, then that would be ignoring a part of the rule simply because you don't agree with it.

In my neck of the woods we call that a house rule.

If the rule said "only the highest two pieces of armor apply" I would agree with you.

But it doesn't.

It specifically says More than one... not two. Not one + one. Or three minus one. It says More than one.

Where does it say two?

Quote me the rule where it says only two pieces of armor apply and I will bow down and worship you as a god.

But that isn't gong to happen, why? Because the rule says (all together class) More than one.

Nice attempt on the woods thing, but it only works if you are right.

You are correct, but the rules also stop at next highest rated armour, quote me something that says you can continue with the next next highest rated piece of armor apply and I will bow down and worship you as a god.

But that isn't gong to happen, why? Because the rule says (all together class) Next Highest rated piece. Period. No mention of your mystery 3rd piece.

Nice attempt on the woods thing, but I am right.

EDIT: It says Highest rated piece and Next Highest rated piece. Can you count? One piece, two pieces.

toturi: Your extrapolation *assumes* a linear function. Maybe its sinusoidal and the third piece adds its full value again! Maybe its PARABOLIC and the 4th piece adds even MORE than its base value!

We dont know! The rules dont specify explicitly! (I'm going with parabolic, m'self)

I assumed the Law of Diminishing Returns. Extrapolated from the 2nd Ed rules where the 3rd piece offers 1/4 of its armour value. In any case, the more you layer, the more the additional layers aren't as efficient.

For sure T, for sure.

<secretly hopes that he is really right >

What the designers were attempting to do was make the game more lethal. Which i agree with to an extent.

However in real life if I am attempting to shoot through three layers of kevlar the bullet doesn't go all the way through one, then tells the second layer that it is only half effective, then tells the thrid layer to get the hell out of the way. No it has to punch through all three. not an easy task.

now I agree with layer full value of the outermost layer and half of each layer underneath.

The Truth is out there...on the official FAQ...why don't you guys go and ask what the exact intent behind those oft-quoted lines was?
That would prevent irony and lack of courtesy from sneaking into the thread...
Thanks , it was enlightening anyway.

Just to answer for ShadowFAQ, I always believed as Doc Funk did. I had a character with a ridiculous Quickness that wore Camo 5/3, FFBA 4/1, Armor vest w/plates 4/3, and a merlin cloak 2/2 for a whoping 10/5 plus a helmet for a 10/7. There was a previous argument about layering and most people disagreed with me so I asked and was given the literal interpretation that agrees with Toturi that only the two highest from each category. In this case, the armor value woul;d drop to 7/4, 7/6 with the helmet. Do I agree, no, but my group tends to stick with the FAQ, lumps and all. As long as everyone has the same handicap, its makes no difference in the end.

My group has always done allowed multiple pieces, trusting the combat pool and Quickness penalties to keep it reasonable. If you're penalized at full value and getting the half benefits after the first layer, it adds up quick.

Yes. Yes it does. As long as you use that and common sense (ie, not wearing two jackets or other retardedness), it's perfectly fine.

No where in the rules does it say "use common sense".

Personally, if a character decided not to worry about having combat pool or using quickness-linked skills and wanted to wrap himself in ballistic cloth until he look like the little brother from A Christmas Story, I'd have a hard time caring.

On a related note, I've always found the "penalty to quickness related skills" to be a little arbitrary. So a character is so encumbered by armor he can't lift his arm to fire a pistol without difficulty, but he can box just fine? No penalties to fencing. He can't sneak, but he can climb a wall just fine. All very odd, quite frankly. I'd consider making it a penalty to all "movement related skills", and reducing it to +1 per 2 points or leaving it 1 for 1.

Re: Shadow: They do, just not in so few words; read the first two sentences of the third paragraph in the Layering Armor section of page 285, SR3.

Re: Mercer: Personally, I don't mind the penalty to Quickness and Quickness-linked skills. However, I think Strength should determine the threshold for when that happens.

I buy into the argument that encumbrance rules factor in strength and body.

Now this board has assigned reading? This place is worse than college.

Thanks, Funk, I'll look it up. I've had about a year break from SR and just started running again last weekend. About the only thing I haven't forgotten is the Matrix rules, which I never learned to begin with.

Ack, you got me before I edited. My first line was in response to Shadow.