[Ultra Violet]

Okay - that is a little bit comforting, but it is only one part of my nightmare... still it isn't clear what that one Mental attribute in place of one Physical attribute for "any" tests means.
i.e. a weapon does (STR/2) +X DV and this DV is part of a test.

[Chaemera]

Okay - that is a little bit comforting, but it is only one part of my nightmare... still it isn't clear what that one Mental attribute in place of one Physical attribute for "any" tests means.
i.e. a weapon does (STR/2) +X DV and this DV is part of a test.

I interpret that as the threshold, not a test.

I think we're safe if we use the following:

You determine what your character does in a situation and how well she does it by making a test - rolling dice and dtermining the outcome by how well or poorly you rolled.

That, to me, defines a "test" as the act of rolling dice to determine success or failure. Further:

When a player makes a test, she rolls a number of dice equal to her dice pool.

Between those, I feel very comfortable saying that a reference to a test is a reference to a dice pool. It'd be nicer if they had said dice pool, but them's the breaks.

[Chaemera]

Soft weave just raises the limit to Body + Body + Strength (although it says so it a very roundabout way). I don't think it'll make that big a difference in practice. Heavy hitters tend to have Body high enough that they can already wear anything, while other folks have medium-low Strength.

Not quite Body + Body + Strength, look at how they worded it again:

For purposes of armor allowance (see Armor and Encumbrance, p. 161, SR4A), reduce the highest armor rating of worn armor by the wearer’s Strength

So, for example, a troll with Body 8 and Strength 7 (9 from cyber) wearing a Full-Body FFBA (6/2, treat as 3/1 for encumbrance, Arsenal, pg. 48), SWAT Armor (12/10, Arsenal, pg. 49) with SWAT Helmet (+2/+2, Arsenal, pg. 49).
He's got an Armor of 20/14, but effective armor for encumbrance is only 17/13. He's taking penalties, and he can't wear any PPP-Tech or carry a shield.

If he SoftWeaves just the SWAT Armor, that reduces his effective armor for encumbrance to 8/13. Big bad troll could add a Ballistic Shield (+6/+4, SR4A, pg. 327) and be right back at the same penalty he was before, since his effective armor for encumbrance would become 14/17.

The wording in SoftWeave is vague enough to argue that he could SoftWeave each piece of worn armor and get his strength taken out of every other opportunity, too. It doesn't tell me "the highest rating of each piece of worn armor", but neither does it say "the highest rating of the total worn armor". I think they meant the latter, it reads that way, but who knows?

Edit
The biggest reason I have doubts they meant "total worn armor" is they don't tell me I have to buy it for every piece of armor to gain the benefit. And if I don't, what stops me from buying it for the cheapest piece of armor to game the system? These kinds of questions are only logically answered by the idea that SoftWeave applies its benefit to the specific piece of worn armor, implying that the benefit applies to every piece of armor individually.

[Bradd]

I hadn't considered what happens when you softweave add-ons like helmets and PPP.

There's one other ambiguity: When it says to reduce the highest armor rating, does it mean that literally or in the context of the encumbrance rules? Let's take that troll in SWAT for example: Strength 9 with 12/10 armor. Does that mean you only reduce the higher of the two ratings, so that it's 3/10 for encumbrance? Or does it really mean to reduce the rating that counts toward encumbrance, such that the armor counts 3?

I suspect that the latter is what they intended, it's just naive and doesn't work well for complicated mixes of armor. I also wonder whether they intended softweave to work for things like FFBA, helmets, and PPP.

[Chaemera]

Based on the wording of the SoftWeave (as quoted above), I think it's pretty clear for a single piece of armor, it goes to the higher of the two values, such that before determining encumbrance, you look at it as though it were 3/10 and pick the 10 (assuming nothing else modifies your encumbrance, such as wearing helmets and PPP).

If it was supposed to directly reduce encumbrance, it should have been worded differently than "reduce the highest armor rating".

[FastJack]

Since you only use the higher armor value to figure out encumbrance, you'd only apply the Strength score to that value.

[Bradd]

@Chaemera: Perhaps. It just seems really weird to me that softweave makes no difference for some items (like 11/11 samurai armor) and a big difference for others (like a 2/7 chain shirt). It's also weird that it helps armor that is mostly Impact (like the chain shirt), and armor that is mostly Ballistic (like a 6/2 body armor bag), but it doesn't help balanced armors at all. Clearly they can make both kinds of protection light and flexible, just not when they're used together? That doesn't make any sense to me.

It makes more sense the way FastJack just said, that they mentioned the "highest armor rating" because that's the one you use (in simple cases) to figure encumbrance. It just falls apart in more complicated cases. I also think it works better if you apply it to the total armor rating and not to individual pieces. With mix & match armor, simply limit the amount of encumbrance reduction to the amount of softweave armor. For example, if your only softweave is an armor vest, you can't reduce encumbrance more than 6/4.

[Chaemera]

Since you only use the higher armor value to figure out encumbrance, you'd only apply the Strength score to that value.

This is an order of operations question, you say it goes as follows:
After reading the actual rules for determining encumbrance, you actually use and compare both. People simply short-hand to the higher value, since that's usually all that matters.

Body 4, Strength 6, wearing SoftWeave SWAT Armor (12/10)

12 > 10, therefore encumbrance is based on Ballistic (12)

12 - Str (6) < Body (4) x 2; therefore, no encumbrance.
10 > Body (4) x 2; therefore, encumbrance.

If this was what was intended, why didn't they write "Add your Strength to your Body x2 when determining encumbrance" or "Compare SoftWeave armor to Body x 2 + Strength instead of Body x 2 when determining encumbrance" and be done with it?

Instead, they said "for purposes of encumbrance, reduce the highest armor rating of worn armor by the user's strength" (actual quote below). This sounds a lot like how FFBA is written:

When determining encumbrance, however, add only half the rating (round down) of form-fitting body armor to the ratings of other armor when comparing them to the wearer's Body x 2

Which suggests to me:

Body 4, Strength 6, wearing SoftWeave SWAT Armor (12/10)

12 > 10, therefore subtract Strength (6) from Ballistic (12), giving 6/10

6 < 10, therefore, use Impact (10) when determining encumbrance.

10 > Body (4) x 2; therefore, encumbrance.

@Bradd: Here's how I see it helping equal armors (such as 11/11 Samurai). You apply your SoftWeave (Strength = 5) to make it (for encumbrance only) 11/6.

Now, add in PPP Forearm Guards (+0/+1), Helmet (+0/+2), and Shin Guards (+0/+1). So you've got armor 11/15, but you still only take encumbrance as though it were 11/10.

EDIT

To account for the following:

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.

Which basically means, order of operations is not a question.

[Bradd]

My objection to the 11/11 armor wasn't because of game utility, but because it simply doesn't make sense to me as a material. (Also, note that you can't combine military armor with other pieces, so there's still a utility problem too.)

I think softweave makes much more sense, for both realism and simplicity of play, to say that it reduces encumbrance by your Strength, but only up to the highest softweave armor value (after adding softweave pieces together). That's almost exactly what the rule says to do, too.

[Chaemera]

The problem with trying to make sense of SoftWeave as a material in relation to its impact on Ballistic vice Impact armor is the attempt to mesh rules concepts (Ballistic and Impact armor) with real world concepts (kevlar, ceramic plating, etc). And, given the corrected reading of encumbrance, consider the following:

Samurai Armor (11/11) worn by a guy with Body 3, Strength 2. Okay, we know this is a bad idea on this guy's part, but bear with me.

Without SoftWeave, he's looking at the following:

If either of a character's armor ratings exceed 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.

Modified by:

the character wearing the armor is only encumbered if either armor rating esxceeds the character's Body x 3.

So, Body x 3 = 9
Ballistic Encumbrance = (11 - 9)/2 = -1 Penalty to Agility and Reaction
Impact Encumbrance = (11 - 9)/2 = -1 Penalty to Agility and Reaction

The book says if either causes encumbrance, he takes a penalty for that one, so I conclude that these are cumulative, for a total -2 penalty to Agility and Reaction. That sucks for him.

Now, apply SoftWeave as written:

Pick either Ballistic or Impact, it doesn't matter which since this is pure crunch and should not be confused with fluff, and reduce by 2. I choose Ballistic.

Ballistic (11) - Strength (2) = 9
Ballistic Encumbrance = (9 - 9)/2 = 0 Penalty to Agility and Reaction
Impact Encumbrance = (11 - 9)/2 = -1 Penalty to Agility and Reaction
For a total encumbrance penalty of -1 to Agility and Reaction.

Let's try it your way:

Strength (2) gets added to Body x 3 (9) for a total of 11.
Ballistic Encumbrance = (11 - 11)/2 = 0 Penalty to Agility and Reaction
Impact Encumbrance = (11 - 11)/2 = 0 Penalty to Agility and Reaction
So now, he has no encumbrance penalties at all, whatsoever. He could wear the helmet and be back where he was without SoftWeave.

Me, I think "as written", SoftWeave works nicely, it lets the guy get out of some of the penalty without ignoring it completely. I think the argument regarding SoftWeave more evolves out of the idea that you only compared the higher of your armor values to your Body x 2 (or x 3 for mil-spec). Given that you make both comparisons, it only makes sense that the penalties are cumulative (or else they'd only ever tell you to look at the higher of the two) and thus, SoftWeave helps you out even when you're just looking at it modifying one of the two Armor ratings.

By modifying the higher rating, they ensure that it helps you even in situations where you only had encumbrance from a single rating. If they take it the route you suggest, Bradd, it would still work, but at double the (IMO) design-intention effectiveness.

[Bradd]

The book says if either causes encumbrance, he takes a penalty for that one, so I conclude that these are cumulative, for a total -2 penalty to Agility and Reaction. That sucks for him.

Hang on, I don't interpret the rule that way. That's the trouble with words like "either": It's ambiguous as to whether it means one or all. I've always read it to mean that the higher one is all that matters, and I suspect that the author of the softweave rule did also. I don't think it's doubly effective, I think you're applying double penalties.

[Chaemera]

The book says if either causes encumbrance, he takes a penalty for that one, so I conclude that these are cumulative, for a total -2 penalty to Agility and Reaction. That sucks for him.

Hang on, I don't interpret the rule that way. That's the trouble with words like "either": It's ambiguous as to whether it means one or all. I've always read it to mean that the higher one is all that matters, and I suspect that the author of the softweave rule did also.

I agree that it may be ambiguous, plenty of rules are. That's when I apply literalism, "either" is non-exclusive, therefore, if both conditions are met, both conditions apply.

Barring an official errata, both interpretations are legitimate; however, I feel that mine better fits the system, SoftWeave, and the wording of encumbrance.

[Bradd]

Either your way is correct, or mine is! ("Either" is often used to clarify that a choice is exclusive, so I disagree that it's necessarily non-exclusive.)

Also, let's consider a variation on your example. Suppose our guy has Body 3 and Strength 4. Going with your ruling: If he wears 11/11 samurai armor, the additional Strength doesn't help him at all. He still suffers a -1 penalty. However, if he wears 13/9 armor, it becomes 9/9 and he suffers no penalty at all. It's because of weird game artifacts like this, that I don't think it's what the author intended.

[Chaemera]

It's because of weird game artifacts like that that are why I think the existing encumbrance system is simply borked.

You are correct, "either" is often used connotatively to infer exclusivity, I'm used to dealing with the engineering world where "either" is viewed as a two-way "or" statement.

As in A OR B with the logic table:

A	B	A OR B
0	0	0
0	1	1
1	0	1
1	1	1

In the analog case, you sum the results of the two conditions if both are true.

[Bradd]

I'm a computer engineer, I know how it goes.