Background
Deep water (SoB) forces a hero to pay fatigue according to his total Armour value (natural or otherwise, halved round down).

How does this work with skills or abilities that give armour bonuses?
How does this work with sources that give a variable bonus?

At first glance some things are easy - the variable skills are removed from SoB anyway and all SoB skill armour bonuses (Mage Cloak and Defender) are 'general' and therefore fall easily into the 'otherwise' category. So do the Ring of Protection (Shop, AoD) and Knights Ring (Gold, AoD).
However the 'variable' armours (eg AoDs Robe of Kellos) are not as easy to categorise. Technically they only give armour bonuses vs *attacks*, and there is no attack, so they seem to count as 0 armour - despite, in the case of Robe of Kellos, being a +1/+3!

With wet Robes actually being more dangerous to a swimmer than leathers, there isn't even a clear thematic answer for people to use!

Questions:
Q. Do Armour bonuses from skills, abilities and non-armour sources count for Deep Water?
A1. Yes. Any source that gives you an armour bonus will also count towards the armour value for deep water. It does not matter whether the source is a skill, an other item, a natural ability, natural armour, equipped armour or any other source.
A2. No. Only natural armour and 'armour' items count for Deep water.

Q. How do variable armours (eg the various Robes) work in Deep Water?
A1. The variable armours like Wizard's Robes count as armour 0 for deep water regardless of the bonuses they give, because their bonuses only count against 'attacks'.
A2. The variable armours like Wizard's Robes count as their lowest value for Deep water. For example, the Mage Robes (Copper, +0 vs melee, +3 vs Range/Magic) would add 0 to the hero's armour total.
A3. The variable armours like Wizard's Robes count as their highest value for Deep water. For example, the Mage Robes (Copper, +0 vs melee, +3 vs Range/Magic) would add 3 to the hero's armour total.
A4. The variable armours like Wizard's Robes count as their average value for Deep water. Add the lower and higher value together and divide by 2 (round down) to calculate the armour bonus conferred by these equipped armours when is deep water. For example, the Mage Robes (Copper, +0 vs melee, +3 vs Range/Magic) would add (0+3)/2= 1.5 rounded to 1 to the hero's armour total.
A5. The variable armours like Wizard's Robes count as their average value for Deep water. Add the value vs each type of attack together and divide by 3 (round down/nearest) to calculate the armour bonus conferred by these equipped armours when is deep water. For example, the Mage Robes (Copper, +0 vs melee, +3 vs Range/Magic) would add (0+3+3)/3= 2 to the hero's armour total.

Notes for us:
Are the answers too complex?
Is there a better way?
Is there any other option

For my part, I'm cool with any of A1, A2 or A3 in question 2. A4 and A5 are needlessly complex, IMHO. I can certainly see an argument for those options being "realistic" or "fair," but I don't think the other answers are so unfair or unrealistic as to make the extra math necessary. I know it's not hard math, but why introduce more calculations than you really need into a game that already requires several sessions to play to completion?

I know the rules are regrettably vague on this subject, but I would think any of the first three answers would resolve that ambiguity while keeping things simple and easy in the process. As far as which of those three to use, I'm cool with any of them, so it's mostly a question of Kevin's preference if we're putting that in the FAQ. Get a word from On High to silence the disputes. In the meantime, I'll happily play with whichever one the folks at the table prefer.

Steve-O said:

I don't see any reason to remove them just because they look complicated. FFG don't have to choose them. Should they really not be offered as options?Any other comments/suggestions before the original gets transferred to the FAQ proposal document?

I agree with Steve-O that A4 and A5 are needless. That sort of calculation technique might have found its place in a rulebook, but there's just no way that they're going to FAQ it in. Well intentioned, I know, but I would just take them out, to make the answering process less daunting for the negligent people who answer this stuff.

-pw

I see A4 and A5 too complicated too. If any, only A4 would be necessary. How about asigning to robes series the same values that the leather armor series has?

Shop -> 1

Cu or Ag -> 2

Au -> 3