Hi everyone,

I have a problem with stacking when wearing this suit ( http://swrpg.viluppo.net/equipment/armor/3392/ ) .

I am not talking about armor stacking, but the functionality of the suit itself when worn under any other armor.

Example:

I am wearing the karflo thinsuit (for comfort) and above that any other clothing or armor.

My GM said i could very well do that, but i would not have the benefits of the suit, not _any_ of them.

My PC realy dislikes sweating or shivering and thus the thinsuit would be more or less perfect.

but the GM said: if you want to have the benefits of the suit, you'd have to wear just that suit. Anything above the suit would stop it from working.

My PC is female and she would realy rather not wear just the suit.

it is a bodyglove and weighs just 1kg - it would just be to skimpy!

So, anyone have a referenceable opinion?!

Thanks a lot.

Yes, the Thin Suit can, and often is, worn under other clothes or armor. To quote:

Quote

The thinsuit , sometimes known as Karflo Corporation thinsuit or Karflo's Thinsuit, was a light body armor that protected users against hostile environments including radiation , chemicals, pressure, temperature and vacuum, although it did not provide air . It was ineffective against direct attacks such as blaster bolts, but a thinsuit was so thin than a user could don a second armor over it.

So, yes, the Thin Suit does retain its benefits even if worn under other armor or clothes . It is specifically designed for just that purpose.

Thank you!

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

. ..So, yes, the Thin Suit does retain its benefits even if worn under other armor or clothes . It is specifically designed for just that purpose.

Logic would command that type of thinking and i am still sure that it is supposed to be worn in addition to anything else on top of it.

But since it is in LEGENDS, i am quite unsure, wether he'll accept that.

5 hours ago, JackHL said:

Hi everyone,

I have a problem with stacking when wearing this suit ( http://swrpg.viluppo.net/equipment/armor/3392/ ) .

I am not talking about armor stacking, but the functionality of the suit itself when worn under any other armor.

Example:

I am wearing the karflo thinsuit (for comfort) and above that any other clothing or armor.

My GM said i could very well do that, but i would not have the benefits of the suit, not _any_ of them.

My PC realy dislikes sweating or shivering and thus the thinsuit would be more or less perfect.

but the GM said: if you want to have the benefits of the suit, you'd have to wear just that suit. Anything above the suit would stop it from working.

My PC is female and she would realy rather not wear just the suit.

it is a bodyglove and weighs just 1kg - it would just be to skimpy!

So, anyone have a referenceable opinion?!

Thanks a lot.

I guess I am completely lost as to what the issue is. What is you want to do, what is it that the GM is ruling that is contrary to what you want to do?

8 hours ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

I guess I am completely lost as to what the issue is. What is you want to do, what is it that the GM is ruling that is contrary to what you want to do?

me: i wear the suit for comfort and occasional protection. Some clothes and more effective armor or the holographic costume on top of that.

Him: won't work as intended, if there is any additional layer of chlothing on it. It would be just the suit without the benefits.

You'd have to dress down to it to be warmed up or cooled down.

Does that clear things up? - or am i realy bad at explaining?

9 hours ago, JackHL said:

me: i wear the suit for comfort and occasional protection. Some clothes and more effective armor or the holographic costume on top of that.

Him: won't work as intended, if there is any additional layer of chlothing on it. It would be just the suit without the benefits.

You'd have to dress down to it to be warmed up or cooled down.

Does that clear things up? - or am i realy bad at explaining?

Not fully.

I will simply add that I am absolutely baffled as to why the GM's ruling on this mostly narrative description is anything other than "OK".

Is there some mechanical benefit of the thinsuit that I am missing here that you are trying to get on top of other armor?

3 hours ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

Is there some mechanical benefit of the thinsuit that I am missing here that you are trying to get on top of other armor?

The Thinsuit removes two setbacks due to extreme cold or heat. The GM seems to be ruling that it loses that functionality if the PC wears anything on top of it.

5 hours ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

Is there some mechanical benefit of the thinsuit that I am missing here that you are trying to get on top of other armor?

Nope, no loophole i am looking for.

Just the non armor bonusses.

2 hours ago, SavageBob said:

The Thinsuit removes two setbacks due to extreme cold or heat. The GM seems to be ruling that it loses that functionality if the PC wears anything on top of it.

Indeed!

Thank you @SavageBob for clarifying.

So if you put a robe on over your thinsuit on Hoth you'll freeze to death because of reasons... Yeah, I think your GM is being a bit of a rule lawyer and pedantic towards the rules. I'd be leery of the rest of the game if I were you.

It seems, he making the point, that the suit could not bleed of excess heat it if covered.

Especially if covered with another armor.

Would you allow it in combination with heavy/armored clothing?

Actually i want the option to wear it as some kind of long underwear, - but in any situation. However armored or not.

Personally, I'd probably allow it, except with SEALED Armor, where it would be a bit more situational.

This is one of those logic puzzles.

When confronted with this kind of thing I first like to try is going back to the original source material. Authors and Wookieepedia are notorious for altering, misrepresenting, shoehorning, and diluting material to fit thier personal visions, so going to the original appearance can give insight into the intent of the item.

So... Galaxy Guide 8 says it's great for hazardous environment protection like chemical exposure, but only barely makes mention of temperature regulation in the sentence about using it as a make-shift vacuum suit (provided you can solve the breathing issue). GG8 also has the suit provide very limited physical protection.

Later, in Rules of Engagement by the same publisher for the same game system, we see the suit again, this time complete with illustration (hubba hubba). Here it talks about the chemical and temperature regulation, but interestingly drops the physical protection.

It's not until the arms and equipment guide, a different system under a different publisher, we see mention of it being worn under other armors.

Now in FFG we see limited physical protection, and all environment protection, but no mention of layering.

Now... Logically the thin-ness of the thinsuit should allow layering. Indeed in some cases it makes a heck of a lot of sense.

Aguy working in a potential hazardous environment will likely wear one under his heavy or banal clothing. In this case it also makes reasonable sense that it would still work and the environmental effect stack. Someone who's job has him running in and out of an industrial freezer or sub zero warehouse wouldn't take off his coveralls every time, and would still not freeze.

However FFG tosses an extra problem into the mess, which is where things go more in the OPs GMs ruling.

In this system armor already has a method of mitigating environmental effects in the form of tailored attachments.

Installing these attachments is fairly easy, only requiring a few minutes and an available hard point. So a player entering a situation with heat, cold, or vacuum, could easily apply the attachment to match.

By this, layering a thinsuit causes issues. If I can get the same benefit, for less total credits, and no hardpoint, why use the other options? What's the point?

And here we are now, where the GM has to decide what can stack and what can't, and how they interact.

Initially I was totally on board with JackHL. The GM was being obtuse. Now I break it down, I see the logical issue.

Resonable compromise?

The thinsuit can be worn with clothing and still generally work, but any stacking or cancelations will be entirely situational. So like pairing it with Banal Appearal might reduce the effectiveness of said Banal Appearal since you're now wearing something more identifiable, but the Banal Appearal likely would have little to no effect on the thinsuits ability to function.

Light and partial armors would be decided on a case-by-case basis, with the type of armor and number of available hardpoints being key factors. If the armor can support a temperature control and/or vacuum seal logically and has the hardpoints, then the thinsuit wouldn't work, or might work but come with an additional penalty. A catch vest can't logically take environmental attachments, nor does it have the HP to, and logically wouldn't seriously interfere with the Thinsuit. Something like a G-suit would cause issues, so you'd want the appropriate attachment. If you insisted, then I perhaps it will work, but with a setback on all Agility checks.

Heavy armors, buy nature, require the proper attachment. Stacking with a thinsuit would still allow logical limited function, but would also kick out a penalty to represent the thinsuit and armor undergarments bunching and not sitting quite right. So wearing it under laminate Armor would cause Agility issues, and might even reduce the thinsuits ability to properly regulate temperature, but in a pinch if you ditched the Laminate helmet and went with the thinsuit and mask might be fully protected from a chemical attack...though at that point a simple breathmask might make more sense...

On 4/16/2018 at 7:03 PM, JackHL said:

Thank you!

Logic would command that type of thinking and i am still sure that it is supposed to be worn in addition to anything else on top of it.

But since it is in LEGENDS, i am quite unsure, wether he'll accept that.

By that reasoning, he shouldn't even allow the Thinsuit because it is a Legends item. The Thinsuit was specficially designed to be worn under other clothes or armors.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The Thinsuit was specficially designed to be worn under other clothes or armors.

Eh... Maybe?

While it logically can be, it wasn't clearly identified as so until it's third appearance. Prior to that it was more just an ultra compact environmental suit.

That's a common problem when talking Star Wars. Stuff has been adapted and rewritten so many times it's hard to say with any certainty what something is like any more. Author A creates something, Author B reuses it with a tweak to better fit his story, Author C makes another tweak, Author D writes a wiki entry about it with multiple errors or odd interpretations, Author E writes it into his book based on the wiki entry but with further tweaks, Author F rewrites the wiki to match.

What's right anymore?

Without even thinking about it I can think of at least two other star wars things that started as one thing, and slowly evolved into something else entirely...

1 minute ago, Ghostofman said:

Eh... Maybe?

While it logically can be, it wasn't clearly identified as so until it's third appearance. Prior to that it was more just an ultra compact environmental suit.

That's a common problem when talking Star Wars. Stuff has been adapted and rewritten so many times it's hard to say with any certainty what something is like any more. Author A creates something, Author B reuses it with a tweak to better fit his story, Author C makes another tweak, Author D writes a wiki entry about it with multiple errors or odd interpretations, Author E writes it into his book based on the wiki entry but with further tweaks, Author F rewrites the wiki to match.

What's right anymore?

Without even thinking about it I can think of at least two other star wars things that started as one thing, and slowly evolved into something else entirely...

No, not "maybe. It was designed to be worn under clothing and other armor.

12 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, not "maybe. It was designed to be worn under clothing and other armor.

Galaxy Guide 8, and ROE make no mention of such, nor does FiB. Only the Arms and Equipment Guide says it can be, in literally the last sentence of the items game function description.

To claim it logically should be able to be worn under at least some armors would be accurate. To claim it was designed for it is speculation, unless of course you wrote that entry in GG8...

6 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

Galaxy Guide 8, and ROE make no mention of such, nor does FiB. Only the Arms and Equipment Guide says it can be, in literally the last sentence of the items game function description.

To claim it logically should be able to be worn under at least some armors would be accurate. To claim it was designed for it is speculation, unless of course you wrote that entry in GG8...

No, it isn't "speculation". And it doesn't require me to have written GG8 to say that either. The thinsuit is a type of body glove, much like what Stormtroopers wear under their armor. Specificlly, it is intended as a form of insulation , primarily against excess heat or cold. The fact that it doesn't provide any actual armor protection, and that it was heavily used by Alliance Scouts, Special Forces, Marines , and Wilderness Fighters ( who are all depicted as wearing other clothes and armor , thus hiding any Thinsuit they might be wearing underneath) also supports this use as being fully intended. Specifically, the Marines always wore either a blast vest and blast helmet or a full suit of armor, or armored space suit AND they also commonly wore the Thinsuit due to its utility. To quote:

Quote

Marines were generally armed with light weapons to avoid causing damage to the interior of the starship they were in, but did use heavier weapons when attacking an enemy vessel. Armor-wise, Marines wore either a blast vest and blast helmet , ^[4] or an armored spacesuit or battle suit. Marines also liked Karflo Corporation thinsuits due to their utility. ^[3] Standard weapons included blaster pistols , blaster rifles , ^[7] blaster carbines , ^[3] grenades , ^[7] —including fragmentation grenades ^[4] —and a vibroknife . Marines also had access to either a light or medium repeating blaster , although the weapons were generally impractical to deploy aboard starships, ^[7] and Czerka Arms flame carbines . ^[3] An encrypted comlink allowed the Marine to remain in contact with their unit. ^[4]

This also means that they wore the thinsuit under their other armor, further supporting that this is fully intended by the manufacturer.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it isn't "speculation". And it doesn't require me to have written GG8 to say that either.

Citing Wookieepedia doesn't prove original designers intent, only fan interpretation of multiple incarnations over several sources.

It's probable it was intended to be stacked with other armor and clothing, as WEG didn't get into that mechanical nitty gritty the way WotC did. The description and illustration certainly present a tight fitting protective suit that could be worn under loose outer layers with relative ease.

But the fact remains, out of the four appearances, only one states it could be, and the other three, including the current one, make no mention of it either way.

So ultimately it's going to be a GM call, and as I mentioned in my previous too long post, there's several factors that need to be addressed by the GM, the most basic being "why do armor environmental attachments exist if this does the job better and cheaper?"

If you like we can further delve into armor stacking by discussing where Han Solo kept his riding boots when he was disguised in stormtrooper armor...

1 minute ago, Ghostofman said:

Citing Wookieepedia doesn't prove original designers intent, only fan interpretation of multiple incarnations over several sources.

It's probable it was intended to be stacked with other armor and clothing, as WEG didn't get into that mechanical nitty gritty the way WotC did. The description and illustration certainly present a tight fitting protective suit that could be worn under loose outer layers with relative ease.

But the fact remains, out of the four appearances, only one states it could be, and the other three, including the current one, make no mention of it either way.

So ultimately it's going to be a GM call, and as I mentioned in my previous too long post, there's several factors that need to be addressed by the GM, the most basic being "why do armor environmental attachments exist if this does the job better and cheaper?"

If you like we can further delve into armor stacking by discussing where Han Solo kept his riding boots when he was disguised in stormtrooper armor...

I disagree. The very fact that even one official source states that it's to be used under other armor. means that it IS intended to be worn as such. It doesn't matter whether the other sources mention it. The fact is that they don't contradict it , And, given that we have at least one official source which says that this was done means that yes, it is done, and is intended to be done, and that the thinsuit does work under other armor.

1 hour ago, Ghostofman said:

So ultimately it's going to be a GM call, and as I mentioned in my previous too long post, there's several factors that need to be addressed by the GM

Not at all to long.

And thank you so much for your research! I can see a lot of sense in your words.

Yet still, i feel like the answer should be made on the information in the book.

If such problems exist, would't the have writtene somerung about that?

Like: if the suit is covered by another piece of cloth, the removed dice are only half.

Or something like that.

Btw. Your GM is way better, then he seems rn. This issue is just quite bad for me personally, because i really liked the idea of it.

It fits for my PC and it took her quite a while to get the credits and a seller.

Anyway. I'll ask him again and the we shall see.

Thank you very much everyone!

28 minutes ago, JackHL said:

Yet still, i feel like the answer should be made on the information in the book.

If such problems exist, would't the have writtene somerung about that?

Just to prepare you for this game system, if you are looking for the book to answer a question like this on a otherwise pretty obscure and minor item such at the thin suit, you will disappointed. There are much more commonly used systems in this game that get very little actual support in the book (like exactly what is encumbrance on a ship? what does it measure?). The expectation of the game designers is the GM should simply make a judgement call in these situations. If it supports the plot and the narrative the GM should typically allow it or at least make an effort to make it part of the plot.

My personal feeling is I have no idea why your GM is having any issue with you wearing the thinsuit + additional clothing and not giving you the 2 setback removal benefit (which only matters if there are set back dice to remove). I probably wouldn't let two armor/clothing type items remove setback dice, but I'd otherwise certainly allow the thinsuit to work.

Well, narrationwise he really is quite good. And i'll have to see, wether he can be convinced.

I will check again and you kind beings have given me ammo for the final confrontation about that.

Ps.

The last games i have played were Warhammer fantasy and long before that shadowrun ,- and both hat easier way to explain (magic and stuff ).

Welp, sadly nothing to gain here.

I have used the ammo you beings kindly gave me.

But he is the GM and he insists, that the Thinsuit is non functioning if worn below any other layer of garnment.

Hi reasoning is, that it is a slippery slope to wearing multiple layors of armor.

I'll have to find something else.

Does anyone of you know of a piece of clothing like the thinsuit but without any armor (soak or absorbtion).

Ideal would be just that.

I'd i have found the thermal cloak, but it is just that, a cloak (or blanket).

Some kind of suit or "climatising" underwear.

I don't buy your GM's slippery slope argument, but c'est la vie. There's an armor attachment called the Thermal Shielding System that does the same thing as the thin suit, but it also helps with Resilience checks to resist heat, so it's a tad better. It's in all three core rulebooks.

4 hours ago, JackHL said:

Does anyone of you know of a piece of clothing like the thinsuit but without any armor (soak or absorbtion).

Some kind of suit or "climatising" underwear.

Kaperdine Clothing Specialist Bodyglove, Galladiniums Fantastic Technology page 42. Translating it to FFG rules you'd get a boost to Survival and Resilience checks in or caused by harsh environments, which is good since it fills a similar role as the armor environmental attachments, but doesn't do exactly the same thing so it addresses that main rules conflict problem. Cost and rarity would translate directly at 700 credits and 3. Check the D6 Holocron.

If the GM gives you flak for referring to an old rulebook:

1) Point how how many other items from D6, and GFT specifically, have made it into FFG.

2) Enter the Unknown page 71. Whats on the datapad? Ohhhh yeah...