Dermal plating isn't armor, it's a cybernetic enhancement, that's not an interpretation, that's what's written.

Is it specifically and explicitly written somewhere that they're different sources because dermal plating is cybernetics while heavy assault armor is armor, or are you implying that because of your interpretation of the rule?

Yes it is explicitly written in the rules. Dermal armor is listed under cybernetic enhancements in gear. Armor is listed under armor in gear.

You're not understanding my question. I'm not asking if one is cybernetics and one is armor. I'm asking if there is some place in the book that explicitly states that all armor is considered a single source.

You're using the example in a strict literal interpretation as the rule, it isn't. The previous sentence tells you the rule same sources of soak don't stack. A suit of heavy armor and subdermal plating are different sources of soak and therefore stack. A suit of armor represents a single source of soak and therefore you can't stack them. You're on the right page.

Can you show me where the rules say "all armor counts as a single source"? Can you show me where it explicitly says that heavy assault armor and heavy clothing are both from a single source?

Dermal plating isn't armor, it's a cybernetic enhancement, that's not an interpretation, that's what's written.

Is it specifically and explicitly written somewhere that they're different sources because dermal plating is cybernetics while heavy assault armor is armor, or are you implying that because of your interpretation of the rule?

Yes it is explicitly written in the rules. Dermal armor is listed under cybernetic enhancements in gear. Armor is listed under armor in gear.

You're not understanding my question. I'm not asking if one is cybernetics and one is armor. I'm asking if there is some place in the book that explicitly states that all armor is considered a single source.

You're using the example in a strict literal interpretation as the rule, it isn't. The previous sentence tells you the rule same sources of soak don't stack. A suit of heavy armor and subdermal plating are different sources of soak and therefore stack. A suit of armor represents a single source of soak and therefore you can't stack them. You're on the right page.

Show me where the rules say "all armor counts as a single source", please.

p. 207, right in front of you.

p. 207, right in front of you.

I think you're missing his point, and a valid one at that.

Dermal plating isn't armor, it's a cybernetic enhancement, that's not an interpretation, that's what's written.

Is it specifically and explicitly written somewhere that they're different sources because dermal plating is cybernetics while heavy assault armor is armor, or are you implying that because of your interpretation of the rule?

Yes it is explicitly written in the rules. Dermal armor is listed under cybernetic enhancements in gear. Armor is listed under armor in gear.

You're not understanding my question. I'm not asking if one is cybernetics and one is armor. I'm asking if there is some place in the book that explicitly states that all armor is considered a single source.

You're using the example in a strict literal interpretation as the rule, it isn't. The previous sentence tells you the rule same sources of soak don't stack. A suit of heavy armor and subdermal plating are different sources of soak and therefore stack. A suit of armor represents a single source of soak and therefore you can't stack them. You're on the right page.

Show me where the rules say "all armor counts as a single source", please.

p. 207, right in front of you.

But... it doesn't explicitly state that. You're interpreting it to get that rule, just as much as I'm interpreting it. Here's the quote again, right out of page 207.

"Different sources of soak stack, such as heavy assault armor and dermal plating. Multiple instances of the same source do not stack - a character cannot wear three suits of heavy assault armor and stack the soak bonuses of all three".

Do you see anything that says "armor is one type of source, and cybernetics is another"? No. the only thing is says is heavy assault armor is one type and dermal plating is another, and that three suits of heavy assault armor can't stack.

I give up.

I give up.

I wasn't trying to argue you to a standstill, man. I just want you to admit that the rule you think is hard and fast is really just an interpretation of the text. There's a difference between explicit and implicit , and what you're talking about is an implicit rule. (The notion that a "source" of armor is a specific armor type could also be an implicit rule, based on the text quoted.)

The dev's have clarified that, and I think a majority of the folks here interpret it as, all armor is considered one source. So laminate, battle armor, padded, etc are all considered one source "armor".

However I do concede that Simon's interpretation is a valid reading of the text as presented in the book. It does not explicitly state that all armor is a single source. But if you go down that path, you're going to have some very happy players that keep asking where X, Y, and Z are EXPLICITLY stated in the book, and a very frustrated GM that can't hold them back.

Simon I get what you are saying, but most (?) of us believe the most logical interpretation is all armors are one soak. The interpretation of "source" is implied to mean "category" im my opinion and apparently others.

Ultimately I believe this is a situation where the GM has to make the final call. Simon is completely correct in his statement about the rules being able to be interpreted in different ways. It's a valid argument. Nevertheless, I agree with most everyone that it SHOULD be interpreted as all armor is a source. That said, in my group I divide armor into two groups. Clothing and Armor and allow players to wear one of each. Whenever there is ambiguity, (Or even when there isn't) the GM is the one who gets to interpret it however they like and the players just get to roll with it.

Now... all that said, I wouldn't allow, willy-nilly, the stacking of a bunch of armor just because the game mechanics seem to allow for it. I'm in the "does it make sense?" group, myself. For instance, you might not be able to wear heavy clothing under laminate armor, because heavy clothing is, well... thick and bulky, and laminate is going to be a pretty tight fit. But that second-skin armor in Desperate Allies that someone mentioned earlier? I don't see why not. So no, having armor able to stack soak values doesn't mean the GM can't (and shouldn't) set limits, and reading one rule that way doesn't mean the GM has no power to interpret other rules as it fits his table.

You know you guys are beating a dead horse, resurrected, died again, resurrected once more and dead over again.... copy paste like a dozen times and each time it's the same thing...

You can wear seven layers of armor if you want, you can only get the benefit to soak and defense from only one armor : they don't stack. It has been confirmed by the Devs. You can send another e-mail to Sam and ask him this same old question once more and the answer will always be the same : they don't stack.

Every member of this community who has been around for some time has seen countless threads from players/gms asking this same question and it was always the same answer... it is not explicitly stated in the Corerulebook that all armors equal the same one source of soak, but it is.

The only soak that stacks is Brawn + Cybernetics + 1 piece of Armor + Talents , so those are the 4 sources of soak.

As a GM, if a player wants to wear 2 suits of armor, I would probably allow one piece to give the soak value, and the other the defense value... meaning the best combo would probably be : Personal Deflector Shield with Laminate Armor for a total of 2 Defense and 2 Soak.

For the other question about Custom Tailored Jacket with Regal Robes... I wouldn't allow it since I consider the Regal Robes to be a complete piece of clothing like a Tuxedo ; if you hide part of your Tuxedo, you can't benefit from the bonus it gives. You don't see nobles going chest naked to formal meetings, the formal jacket is part of the complete outfit.

Thinking about it, I might not even allow simple combos like wearing a smugglers trenchcoat over another armor for the concealement bonus. I think those combos could easily fall into a grey zone and be abused... Wear a Mountaineer armor over laminated armor to get Defense 1, Soak 2, +BB to climbing feels kinda weird since the laminated armor would make it more difficult to climb... I believe it's easier to disallow wearing multiple armors then allow weirds combos to be made. Anyway, the player can always carry another piece of armor in his backpack and put it on if he needs it. There are also other ways to get the same benefit from other pieces of gear.