Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Terry Amburgey <XANTH@****.UKY.EDU>
Subject: form fitted armor
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 12:44:15 EST
A number of recent posts about layering armor have mentioned combining the form
fitting [armored underwear] with something else such as a jacket or duster. My
copy [I don't have the ISBN number at hand] of the street samurai catalog
states very specifically that form fitted cannot be combined with any other
type of body armor. Is this a case of house rules superceding the by-the-book
rules or are there multiple [and conflicting] printings of the SSC? The recent
discussion of different [and conflicting] printings of the Shadowtech book
makes me wonder. Thanks. Terry
Message no. 2
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: form fitted armor
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 12:13:03 +0100
>Is this a case of house rules superceding the by-the-book
>rules or are there multiple [and conflicting] printings of the SSC?

There are two editions: the original one is from 1989, and has stats for SR1
-- i.e. the Ares Predator II is listed with a damage code of 6M2, to name
one thing, and the availability and street index figures are not in the
book. The second edition is from 1992, and has some items deleted (their
pages are virtually blacked out), and has the second edition stats (the same
as those in the back of the SR2 book).


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
And it rips my life away... But it's a great escape...
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 3
From: P Ward <P.Ward@**.CF.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: form fitted armor
Date: Tue, 7 Mar 1995 13:38:14 GMT
I never bothered with the Second Ed. Street Sammy book, so while we're
on the subject Mr Gurth, does it still mention the thing about not
being able to Layer Form-fitting?

___________________


Also, to reduce layering of armour, I reducde the concealability of
the top layer by -1 for every extra layer beneath it. People are more
likely to realise that you are wearing armour if you look _so_ much
larger than normal.

I also increase the target number for Fast Draws from concealed
holsters by +1 per layer of clothing; after all it's going to be
hard to drag that pistol out from Form-fitting, V+P, a shirt, and
an armoured jacket..

'...The final thing, Phil Ward
it's not a drill. Runs-With-The-Pack
It's how many people I can kill' UWCC -: COMMMA
- Slayer P.Ward@**.cf.ac.uk
Message no. 4
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: form fitted armor
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 12:55:25 +0100
>I never bothered with the Second Ed. Street Sammy book, so while we're
>on the subject Mr Gurth, does it still mention the thing about not
>being able to Layer Form-fitting?

I don't know :) I've only got the first edition... I looked into the second
edition once, and you have to blame it on my good memory that I remembered
the things I mentioned :)
Someone else have the answer?


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
I got 25 bucks and a cracker -- do you think it's enough to get us there?
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?
Message no. 5
From: Martin Steffens <BDI05626@***.RHIJ.NL>
Subject: Re: form fitted armor
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 15:53:48 +0100
On Wed, 8 Mar, Gurth wrote:

> >I never bothered with the Second Ed. Street Sammy book, so while we're
> >on the subject Mr Gurth, does it still mention the thing about not
> >being able to Layer Form-fitting?
>
> I don't know :) I've only got the first edition... I looked into the second
> edition once, and you have to blame it on my good memory that I remembered
> the things I mentioned :)
> Someone else have the answer?

My memory is even worse, its still in the 2nd ed. But that was long
before NAGRL (and FASA occasionally changes rules through the years
:), and I would say with the concealability of form-fitting it is
possible to layer them with other armour. It would have been nice,
however, if they also included in NAGRL a list of armour-types which
can be layered.

Greetings,

Martin




****************************************************************
Martin Steffens |"There is no stress like distress"
E-mail: bdi05626@***.rhij.nl |
****************************************************************
Message no. 6
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: form fitted armor
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 1995 14:16:54 +0100
>> edition once, and you have to blame it on my good memory that I remembered
>> the things I mentioned :)
>My memory is even worse, its still in the 2nd ed.

I was saying that my memory is pretty good, actually :) At least for things
I want to remember... Aha! That must be why I dropped out of college! :)

>But that was long
>before NAGRL (and FASA occasionally changes rules through the years
>:), and I would say with the concealability of form-fitting it is
>possible to layer them with other armour. It would have been nice,
>however, if they also included in NAGRL a list of armour-types which
>can be layered.

I'd say use a simple rule that says you if you put a soft armor under a hard
armor, you only get the rating from the hard armor. GM's call as to what is
hard and soft armor, of course.


Gurth@******.nl - Gurth@***.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
They're the self-appointed righteous pragmatists
And they know fifty ways to save the world
Geek Code v2.1: GS/AT/! -d+ H s:- !g p?(3) !au a>? w+(+++) v*(---) C+(++) U
P? !L !3 E? N++ K- W+ -po+(po) Y+ t(+) 5 !j R+(++)>+++$ tv+(++) b+@ D+(++)
B? e+ u+@ h! f--(?) !r(--)(*) n---->!n y?

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about form fitted armor, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!