[Chaemera]

Thought of an even better problem with interpreting it exclusively.

If it is to be exclusive, and both armors would cause encumbrance, which applies? SR4A does not say to choose the higher of the two penalties. It does not say to choose the higher of the two armors, either. It is simply that you have chosen, without rules-guidance, to select the higher of the two armors.

But, since it says "if either of the armor ratings" (to paraphrase), you are required to test both armor ratings against Bod x 2 (normally), which then precludes selecting the higher armor ratings. So you've tested both, and both indicate that you should have an encumbrance penalty, determined by the difference of the armor and Body x 2 (normally), divided by two.

Do you test ballistic and stop testing if Ballistic > Body x 2? What if you started at Impact? If I test both to preclude someone avoiding a higher penalty, then I have no guidance on which penalty to apply, except the general approach of applying both. This is the only solution which does not require putting words in the mouths of the authors about which armor to test.

I agree, it would be stupid to use the lower of the two armors if it was intended to be an XOR situation. However, the simpler solution is to address both possibilities and combine the modifiers. This is consistent with wound penalties (you don't take the greater of Stun wound modifier or Physical wound modifier, you take both).

[Bradd]

"If either of a character’s armor ratings exceeds his Body x 2, apply a –1 modifier to Agility and Reaction for every 2 points (or fraction thereof) that his Body x 2 is exceeded."

Consider 13/11 armor versus Body 5. If either 13 or 11 exceeds 10, apply a –1 modifier for every 2 points that 10 is exceeded. I find it natural to read that as a single comparison using the largest excess. The other way is awkward, at best. The possibility hadn't even occurred to me.

Also, there's a problem with reading it as two separate comparisons. Is that a –2 penalty (total of 4 points in excess of 10) or a –3 penalty (an excess of 3 plus an excess of 1)?

[Kontact]

I'm going to have to agree with Bradd that you sum the overages, not that it matters much.  Don't see this rule enforced often since sacrificing Rea and Agl for a point or two of armor is a bad call for anyone besides completely immobile characters looking to bundle up real tight... which is what a rigger cocoon is for.

[Medicineman]

both penalties are calculated for, so its a -3 (-2 for Ball. and -1 for impact)
This is how I read them by RAW
but with tailor made Armor (BOD x3) and the new and improveved Soft Weave Armor no Runner with a BOD and STR of 2 or More should ever fear these Penalties.....

Hough!
Medicineman

[Bradd]

I'm not sure who or what exactly you're agreeing with, Kontact. I see at least three ways to do this, but my interpretation didn't have any sums in it.

[Chaemera]

I'm not sure who or what exactly you're agreeing with, Kontact. I see at least three ways to do this, but my interpretation didn't have any sums in it.

And that's why I like the method that requires the least interpretation. 

Which is where I get the same solution that Medicineman lists out.

You compare each, and add the penalties. If people don't want to be immobile, they don't wear all that armor. 

[KarmaInferno]

All I know is that my Pixie can now wear even more ridiculous amounts of armor for her size.



-k

[Nomad Zophiel]

I can only say that prior to Softweave, everyone I have played with has based Encumbrance on the more offending armor rating rather than on both cumulative. I can see where it could be handled as Enc=({Ballistic-[2xBody]}+{Impact-[2xBody]})/2 or, in English, add up the total by which each value exceeds Bodyx2 and divide by 2. However, I've never seen it interpreted that way.

[Kot]

That would actually be a good way of resolving this. And to deduct the Softweave bonus from this value, to determine encumbrance.

[Chaemera]

I can only say that prior to Softweave, everyone I have played with has based Encumbrance on the more offending armor rating rather than on both cumulative. I can see where it could be handled as Enc=({Ballistic-[2xBody]}+{Impact-[2xBody]})/2 or, in English, add up the total by which each value exceeds Bodyx2 and divide by 2. However, I've never seen it interpreted that way.

Crazy thing is, I interpreted as "the highest single" to violate Body x 2, before reading over SoftWeave, too. However, before SoftWeave (and probably still), none of my players wanted any encumbrance penalty, so they set their highest armor rating to Body x 2, or lower. So it never came up. And I think that's exactly why most people reflexively say "the higher armor rating", because wanting to avoid penalties, they avoid ever reaching the point where they need to invoke encumbrance rules and so, never thought about how you implement the verbatim wording. For myself, now that I've read it over, considered the implications, and run the numbers, I see no other interpretation than cumulative penalties for exceeding on both Ballistic and Impact armors.

[Bradd]

So do you round up before or after adding the two penalties?

[Chaemera]

I do it like so (assuming penalties on both armors):

(Ballistic - Body x 2)/2 = Ballistic Encumbrance Penalty
(Impact - Body x 2)/2 = Impact Encumbrance Penalty

Ballistic EP + Impact EP = Final EP

So I suppose it would be before, since you would combine the penalties, not the armors, if we're to keep consistent with how other rules in the game work out (dice pool modifiers are calculated, then added or subtracted from the DP, IIRC).

[Nomad Zophiel]

[
Crazy thing is, I interpreted as "the highest single" to violate Body x 2, before reading over SoftWeave, too. However, before SoftWeave (and probably still), none of my players wanted any encumbrance penalty, so they set their highest armor rating to Body x 2, or lower. So it never came up.

Ditto, most of the time. Prior to this it could almost read "no one wants to wear armor with more that Bodyx2 protection" and be left at that. However, my Face does occasionally go one or two points over when he's expecting trouble.

[Kontact]

I'm not sure who or what exactly you're agreeing with, Kontact. I see at least three ways to do this, but my interpretation didn't have any sums in it.

I mean to sum the amount by which it goes over and then calculate the penalties, rather than calculate the penalties first and then sum them.  So 3 over Bodx2 and 1 over Bodx2 is added together to be 4 over Bodx2 before the penalty is calculated. 

At the same time, Chaemera's interpretation of the reading (re: the use of either) is more accurate from a strict RAW viewpoint.  I totally recognize that.  I just think that the underlying reason, that thick and bulky coverings are going to restrict movement in characters who are relatively thin, shouldn't logically make a strong distinction between impact or ballistic inflexibility, so why should the rulings?

But, anyway as we've already addressed, folk are all way too shy about encumbrance penalties to deal with any serious level of over-padding.