Unless the Errata changed again, there is a -30 penalty to Move Silent when character is in Armor with a Defense Value of 7 or higher. I know, StormTrooper or Kasrkin Carapace isn't a 7, unless it's Good or Best qualities. We know at Good quailty it's only 7 on the first hit of the round and at Best quality it's 7 and half the weight.

On a pure number basis, BQ/GQ ST/K Carapace thus would inflict the -30. Am I being way too strict in my interpretation since why would a better model impose a penalty the base model would not?

phantomoftruth said:

Yes, I'd say you are. It is half the weight, masterfully wrought... and it suddenly clanks like a suit of frickin' Platemail or Power armor, in comparison to a straight-from-mass-production piece? Its almost worse for Good quality armor... you're clanking as bad as the best quality stuff, but you're suddenly as quiet as a church mouse for 5 seconds every time you get shot or stabbed. Worse, even with the -10 agility penalty for poor quality armor, good and best quality carapace is STILL has higher penalties.

*facepalm*

Nah. Assume the penalty is based on base AC, lest you run into something so obviously idiotic even a Feral Worlder would think it stupid.

Unusualsuspect said:

Keen, just wanted to make sure I was or was not off the deepend.

phantomoftruth said:

May I ask where is the RAW to this? I cant find it :S

In the errata...

I wouldn't hit good or best quality carapace with the penalty. They get the extra point of armor from how good the armor is, not it's extra bulk. Having common quality carapace at AP 6 be more stealthy than a best quality version is kind of silly.

Definitely should be based off the base AP. Personally I am not terribly keen on the whole "AP 7 or more gives a -30 to stealth". It is too sudden a change, and frankly means some things are less appealing than they should be (or more). I would prefer a more specific ruling on what armour gives what bonus. I would probably give Carapace a penalty anyway (it is made of solid plates that have a good chance of clanking off each other). Maybe -10, or even -20. Best or Good Quality would reduce or eliminate this penalty. At the moment there is no reason (aside from weight) for a stealthy assassin to choose something more flavourful like mesh armour, as they can dangle silently from the roof in their futuristic plate armour (which is what Carapace essentialy is). Power armour at a -30 is perfectly fine.

borithan said:

If you use the base AP, the only armours that give the stealth penalty are:

- All Power armours. The noise of the motors is likely to be a big problem there and it probably limits mobility in ways that matter if you try to sneak around. Larger suits also have to deal with the size increase

- Mecronid Armour (Radicals Handbook). It's possibly alive and does try to kill its wearer if he/she falls unconscious. It is described as looking like a liquid metal, which means it is very shiny, which is going to be a problem for sneaking around. Not sure why it messes with silent move though.

It would have been better to say that all power armour has the stealth penalty, then have a line or two about it under the Mecronid Armour.

I don't have the Ascension book handy, but doesn't the Stormtrooper ascended career allow a guardsman to wear carapace armour without any of the normal, associated penalties for doing so? Would that not include stealth as well? Or was the original question related solely to non-ascended use of carapace armour?

I was not taking Ascension into account when posing the question. In this particular case, Stormtrooper, while interesting rules for Carapace, does not apply just yet.

thank you all for the input.

Asgard4tw said:

That trait does two things:

- Carapace armour doesn't count towards his carry limit.

- It also counts as one level of quality higher than it really is.

Nothing about affecting stealth.

This is pretty much a textbook definition of authorial oversight.

Just use the base value on the armor, that's clearly RAI.

Bilateralrope said:

Technically, if given poor quality carapace armor, it would remove the penalty from its quality...

Isn't it funny that (some) people always complain about rules when it disadvantages them?

The superduper armour is better but wait...it has a disadvantage...That can't be right...I want it to be both shiny and gleamy...<excessive whining>

Seriously, why shouldn't it provide penalties? Maybe it uses different armour plating that may be lighter but make more sound?

There may be (technical) reasons galore but the main point IMO is that it provides better armour protection but inflicts a penalty on something else. Call it game balance, Karma or whatever. You can either take it or leave it. But some people want their cake and eat it too..., the "I wanna be a tank and a stealthy killer at the same time". Well, obviously that isn't meant to be in the game. They should be grateful that best quality doesn't mean its emblazoned with Imperial symbols and gilt inlay.

ranoncles said:

Who is complaining about a rule that doesn't suit them ?

The OP is asking about a rule that confuses him, which is fair enough.

Or do you just like seeing a thread title, guessing the contents, then jumping in to insult both sides without reading it ?

Bilateralrope said:

Actually, it would seem I read it and you didn't....

If you read the OP, he says the rules state that armour with AP7 or higher inflicts a penalty on stealth and he wants to know if this applies to all armour as he feels that seems too strict in his example of a particular armour. He knows very well how the rules works, he wants to know if it applies or not. Or better yet, if it should apply or not?

I question that. Why would it be too strict or wrong? Better armour gives you a stealth penalty. Seems simple enough. Why open this can of worms using the dreaded "that doesn't seem logical?".....

As a player, simply take it or leave it.

Other posters come up with reasons why this penalty shouldn't apply.

I say that shifts the balance in the game and allows players to cherry pick what they want and talk their way out of unwanted penalties. Sure, you can probably come up with sound reasons why something (as both a player and a DM I know all about player inventiveness and eloquence) should be different but that doesn't mean you should.

The basic assumption is that heavier armour provides better protection but less stealth. So if you want to go the stealth route, you trade protection for stealth.

If you want to go the protection route, just accept that moving silently will be more difficult with particular armours.

And pray your DM doesn't become too strict and considers the sound all your gear strapped to you might make, either by clanking about or because its all battery/engine operated.....Oh, isn't that covered in the rules? Well it should, it seems so logical!

Again, Game wasn't exactally proofread to any real effect....

if anything a better quality item (that costs 10x the base price) should be better.

So you're saying that "Good" quality armour,* with an AP of 6, gives the wearer a -30 peanalty to stealth against the first attack in any round?after they've been attacked it goes back to being more stealthy? It has to have drawbacks, right? Otherwise we're just complaining?

*Good: Well constructedbetter fitting, this armour is easier to wear. Against the First Attack in any round , the armour increases its AP by 1. Cost x3

And "Best" quality armour,* with an AP of 6, based on its description should just be less stealthywe are just complainers. 10 times the cost just isn't draw back enough.

*Best: Finely wroughtperfectly fitted Best armour is like donning a second skin. Best armour weighs half the normal amountincreases the AP by 1. Cost x10

I'm just sayin'...

I question that. Why would it be too strictwrong? Better armour gives you a stealth penalty. Seems simple enough. Why open this can of worms using the dreaded "that doesn't seem logical?".....

If you want to talk about logic, there are two things you are completely missing:

1 - The question only applies to goodbest quality armours with a base AP of 6. Their extra cost is also a balancing factor. Does it seem right to you that you pay more (3x10x the base price) for something that isn't better overall. Especially since this only applies to a small selection of armours.

2 - Good quality armour has a shifting AP value. That means that the RAW states that the stealth penalty should comego as the AP changes.

Our logic is simple:

- The stealth penalty cominggoing doesn't make any sense. We can't see how someone would implement it without encouraging the munchkin to punch himself every 5 seconds to keep the armour quietrules simple.

- Using the base AP for GQ removes that problem.

- To be consistent, we use base AP for the stealth penalty on all armours.

So how would you apply the stealth penalty to good quality Stormtrooper carapace ?

If you can't answer that question, yet still reply, then it's clear you haven't thought enough about the OPs question.

The basic assumption is that heavier armour provides better protection but less stealth. So if you want to go the stealth route, you trade protection for stealth.

Why should this assumption hold ?

In 40k, the really stealthy stuff is stealthy not because it's lightweight, but because it makes use of high technology and/or warpcraft to make someone harder to spot. In fact if you look at the Radicals handbook, page 154, you will see the armour upgrades Cameleoline CoatingPreysense Mask, both of which provide a concealment bonus to any armour it is applied to, the only downside is the price. So to me it is very clear that the RAW is saying that your assumption doesn't hold.

I assume that if you are paying 10 times the price for an armour described as fitting better than the common quality version, the BQ version should have it's parts move around less. At worst, move around the same amount as the CQ version. Thus it won't make any more noise.

Then we look at the poor quality armour, with a -10 to all AG tests. How do you explain badly fitting poor quality armour being more stealthy than perfectly fitting BQ armour ?

The OP asked if a particular rule should be applied. Some people responded with no, in his example it made no sense to apply the basic rule of heavier armour providing stealth penalties because it isn't actually "heavier" etc.

I say, it might make no sense in this particular example but in role-playing some things need to be fudged to keep it workable. The basic rule is simple (more effective armour provides more protection but incurs stealth penalties) and offers game balance so just go with it and let the players decide if they want to accept the trade-off or not. Don’t “fix it” because it might lead to other things becoming unbalanced and in need of fixing and that way lies madness.

The question you should be asking IMO is if the rule you are concerned about is a game breaker for you? If not, just let it go. There are a boat load of rules that could be argued about in DH but no system is perfects and often game balance trumps realism.

And strangely enough, you never hear people complain/question/wonder about strange rules or penalties when it favours them.....

Unless you decide to simply apply the RAW, there is no good or bad answer. Some people don't mind tinkering and do so with the best intentions. And sure, the arguments used to explain why the penalty shouldn't apply are perfectly reasonable and valid. Except that they might harm game balance. Others, including me, feel that once you start tinkering, its hard to stop. Firstly, because the rules need a lot of tinkering and secondly, because one change often leads to another.

If using this particular armour as written is such a harship, why use it? The good and best quality offer some advantages and some penalties. If the munchkin keeps hitting himself to lose the penalty, do you test him for the sound that makes too? And do you apply damage? Of course not, that would be beardy. But a player trying to circumvent the rules as written isn't???? What's so hard to accept that stronger armour provides a stealth penalty? Maybe the close fitting fabric is less flexible? And once shot, the extra hardened part is destroyed, allowing the player more flexibility. There could a thousand different reasons for this effect....The extra cost doesn't have to mean its better, just that its more expensive. Maybe for astethic reasons, maybe because its so much lighter and thus encumbrence will be less than the base model. Maybe so the noble can differentiate him from the common rabble. Seriously, I don't see the problem. But everyone plays the game their own way and if someone wants to change it, go ahead, houserule it as much as you want.

I sent an e-mail to Mack to ask him if the bonus AP from good/best quality shouldn't add to the AP in relation to the negative modifier to stealth skill tests when wearing armour of 7+.

His response was:

Yeah, that's how I would run it in my games. I'll also add it to my list of errata issues.

Mack Martin

So yea, Good/Best quality carapace, and any other good/best quality armour that, due to the increase in AP due to the quality, is now AP7, do not suffer from the negative modifier for stealth tests.

ranoncles, do you have anything that shows you have thought enough on this matter to make your opinion worth listening to ?

Answering this question would be enough for me: Do you apply any stealth penalty to characters wearing good quality stormtrooper carapace ?

It's a 'yes' or 'no' question. Anything else is just avoiding the question because you don't want to take a position.

it might make no sense in this particular example

Why do you talk about anything other than the example in the OP ?

The basic rule is simple (more effective armour provides more protection but incurs stealth penalties

It's a simple rule. However, is it a good rule when there are other factors like cost that you balance against ?

How does your idea of balance make a difference between:

- A rusty suit of armour.

- That same model of armour fresh off the assembly line.

- That same model, off the assembly line, after some serious customising for a user

- That same model of armour. But instead of coming off the production line, it has been custom built from the ground up with a specific user in mind.

That is the difference we are talking about here.

and offers game balance

Thoughts about game balance need to encompass the entire game. Or at least cover all the big issues. By ignoring my question about GQ armour, you are ignoring one of the big balance issues on this topic. Thus you aren't thinking enough about game balance.

Or do you consider it balanced when one set of armour performs worse on someone trained to wear it ?

Because that is what you get with a set of CQ Stormtrooper carapace on a Stormtrooper (who count carapace armour as being one quality step higher) and on someone else.

Don’t “fix it” because it might lead to other things becoming unbalanced

We are fixing it because the rules are broken. When I say broken I don't mean that something is overpowered or underpowered. I say something is broken in only two cases:

- The RAW allows players to do something. But they aren't clear on what happens when that thing is done.

- The RAW encourages players to do really stupid things. Like the munchkin who keeps hitting himself. Or the Stormtrooper who finds that his armour has become worse because he has had training in how to wear it properly . Which also has the even stupider part of saying that if you plan to sneak around in it (Stormtroopers do have a stealthy aspect to them), the best armour to get is a set that is worse than the set issued when they become a stormtrooper (when a PC becomes one, they get issued GQ armour, which counts as BQ for them).

And strangely enough, you never hear people complain/question/wonder about strange rules or penalties when it favours them.....

So which strange rules are there that people aren't questioning on this forum ?

I see people questioning how powerful psykers get in Ascension. Over in the Deathwatch forums, there are several threads talking about how overpowered bolters are. Rogue Trader has people question if the genetor can also take flesh is weak.

Unless you decide to simply apply the RAW, there is no good or bad answer.

In other words, you want us to shut up because we are trying to answer to a question you don't want answered.

the arguments used to explain why the penalty shouldn't apply are perfectly reasonable and valid. Except that they might harm game balance.

Might harm game balance is a worthwhile risk when the alternative is the stupidity of the munchkin who keeps hitting himself or the stupidity of training in how to use something making you worse at actually using it.

Others, including me, feel that once you start tinkering, its hard to stop.

A classic use of the slippery slope fallacy. If that link isn't enough I'll explain exactly why what you are doing here isn't a logical argument.

If using this particular armour as written is such a harship, why use it?

Your question can't be answered until we answer the question "Is this hardship a good idea ?"

Most people in this thread say no. You make a big deal about saying "I'm not sure, stop trying to answer the question".

If the munchkin keeps hitting himself to lose the penalty, do you test him for the sound that makes too? And do you apply damage? Of course not, that would be beardy.

Saying that the penalty doesn't apply avoids all that stupidity. Which is why we say the penalty doesn't apply.

If you want to say that it does, you need to answer these questions.

But a player trying to circumvent the rules as written isn't????

When the RAW causes something stupid, a good GM will house rule away the stupidity.

And in this case I would argue that the RAW is unclear enough that using the base AP is still following it.

What's so hard to accept that stronger armour provides a stealth penalty?

What is so hard to accept in that higher quality craftsmanship, which comes with a major price increase, is better to the regular version ?

Maybe the close fitting fabric is less flexible? And once shot, the extra hardened part is destroyed, allowing the player more flexibility

Then how does that extra point of AP come back for the next round ?

There could a thousand different reasons for this effect....

Give me one that makes sense.

The extra cost doesn't have to mean its better, just that its more expensive.

Then why would an Acolyte knowingly buy it if it's a waste of money ?

Then explain how the rules are consistent when every other item gets better as quality increases, except when we are talking about armour with a base AP of 6. In this special case, the piece of armour that has been sitting in a swamp for years lets you sneak around better than the suit you had custom made for yourself.

Maybe for astethic reasons,

That doesn't explain the Stormtrooper. Unless you want to claim that their military training in how to wear that armour had a major part in how to look good in it and training them so they think that looking good is always better than not being seen.

Maybe so the noble can differentiate him from the common rabble.

Why wouldn't the noble want something that looks better as well as actually being better ?

Actually, if you think about it, the "you don't include upgrades to the AP for whether you get negative modifiers for stealth" argument is, technically, also RAW. It never states you take it into account, and seems to suggest in itself that you take the standard AP costs into account. It never mentions taking the additional AP from better quality into account.

It's written in a way where both opinions work with what's on the page. However, as I posted above, Mack has cleared it up by agreeing that you only use the standard AP for figuring out if you suffer negative modifiers for stealth.

As the OP and generally rational and reasonable being, I wasn't whining about not having my cake and eating it. I'm sorry you chose to assume the nature of my quesion and not addressing the question itself. It appears that we have significantly different ways of reading and utilising rules when it comes to RAW/RAI. I'm sorry about your puppy, but next time perhaps you should have it on a leash around moving vehicles.

ranoncles said:

Obvious troll is obvious, ranoncles. I ain't even mad.

Now back to the depths of /tg/ with you, foul beast.

Bilateralrope said:

Any troll who goes to that much length to type up a page is failing at being a troll...

There is no award for being the one to shoulder the most penalties.

Armour and weapons have plenty of drawbacks as it is. Most notably weight (assuming your group cares enough to track it). When a character spends thrones to purchase an item of a quality different from common it refers to function alone. A poor quality is worse in function, good quality is better in function, and Best quality is best in function. It has nothing to do with it's appearance, now a poor quality item may look crappier and a best quality item may appear ornate; But that's not what your paying for.

And incase you dispute this, look it up. Page 126 Dark Heresy Core rule book.

"Craftsmanship... In the case of weaponry and armour, these are effects on the item's performance or weight (as detailed later), but in the cases of general goods and services, differences in quality are merely descriptive..."

if you where just paying for how ornate an item was there would be no limit to how much you can spend.

Lidhl Light Power Armour is a good example. It's power armour albeit its not that great, It's expensive and ornate, but doesn't provide the protection of other powered armours. and technically doesn't take the -30 penalty to silent move and concealment tests. But it should. On the positive it's powered so it's weight won't count against you.

Spirit of the rules is all that matters, Becuause rules only matter if you want them to. (As expressed by most players who don't seem to track their equipment weight)