[Warwraith]

Is there a list of what armors will stack with each other? I don't even see a list of the Zoe armors. In the stat boxes it goes from Vashon to Executive, skipping right over Zoe... Am I missing something?

[ProfGast]

Using past sources such as Arsenal, and general formatting, Zoé Armors are Executive Suite, Heritage, Nightshade and Second Skin lines.

Stacking armor is generally only within the same manufacturer, though stuff like ballistic mask, forearm guards, PPP can stack with any armor.

[JimmyCrisis]

Armor that has the Custom Fit (stack) quality only stacks with other armors of the same maker and tailored to fit the individual.

What makers make what isn't explicit, but should be. 

Mortimer of London coats stack with their suits.   (Although it's better for your encumberance to just snag the Argentum great coat and pair it with some other armor adds and a regular suit.

Vashon Island's Synergist Business Line Longcoat stacks with everything from Ace of Cups to Sleeping Tiger. 

Zoe's Second Skin stacks with Executive Suite, Heritage and Nightshade.

And that's it for the Custom Fit (stack) items.  All other + armor accessories stack interchangeably.

[Booze]

But look out for the limit, as it is quite strict. If i remember right [as always I'm AFB] you can not get more bonust from stackable armor [noted with '+' ] than your STR, and for every two points above it you loose 1 REA & AGI.

So yea, shields are for trolls

[Michael Chandra]

But look out for the limit, as it is quite strict. If i remember right [as always I'm AFB] you can not get more bonust from stackable armor [noted with '+' ] than your STR, and for every two points above it you loose 1 REA & AGI.

So yea, shields are for trolls

Correct, but I don't think Custom Fit (Stack) actually is Armor Accessory. It's not a +4 item, it's a 12/+4 item and that notation may mean something different entirely. If we then look at the description of Custom Fit (Stack), it notes you add the stack value to the armor it's fit to stack with, not to your general armor value (which is what Armor Accessories do). So I myself read that as that an 8 Armor custom-fit to combine with a 12/+4 armor becomes (8+4=)12, not 8+4. It's in the list of controversies because it's not 100% clear, but I myself side against the Armor Accessory interpretation.

[JimmyCrisis]

Interesting interpretation,  but I don't read it that way.

SR5 Core, page 169
Armor accessories,  items listed with a "+" in front of their rating, add to the character's Armor for the purpose of Damage Resistance tests.  The maximum bonus a character can receive from these items is limited to their Strength attribute.

SR5 Run&Gun, page 59
The Custom Fit combination then allows the character to use either the base armor or add on the stack bonus for that set of gear.

Seems to me that if you choose the stack bonus, it is a "+" bonus, making it an armor accessory.  I'm sure we'll get clarification when the next errata comes out, shortly before the heat death of the sun.

[Michael Chandra]

I understand your reasoning, and it's somewhat plausible, but as I said, they say it adds to THAT set of gear, as in the armor value is added to the armor it combines with. This is not at all like Armor Accessories.

[JimmyCrisis]

The definitions are loose enough that RAI is obscured.  It does say "add on the stack bonus for that set of gear" which could be implying the paired custom fit items are a set, and an armor set has no game definition, nor does a stack bonus.  Yay!  Ultimately, It's completely ambiguous.  I'm going to stick with the definition of armor accessory being any armor item with a "+" and custom fit (stack) items have a "+" when they're stacked.

My reasoning is that you are layering two larger pieces of armor, encumbrance is expected to come into play.  Although I could totally understand how an armored business suit paired with an overcoat would have no additional encumbrance when compared to just wearing the overcoat over a regular business suit.  Especially considering that choosing to take just the armor rating from the coat and ignoring the other armor adds no encumbrance while also having no in-fiction effect or justification.  Although for some reason, neither does stacking armor until you look like the SoyPuff Marshmallow Man, despite being specifically mentioned in the book.  So, um this armor abstraction sucks.  Better rules please?  I mean, there are four other editions that dealt with armor stacking with each other.  Would kinda be a shame to let those go to waste.

What I really don't like is the idea that someone can combine the Sleeping Tiger with the Synergist Business Coat (they are both from the same manufacturer) for a 16 armor bonus before adding accessories, in a completely corp-friendly costume.  It's as good as full body armor and the face has no problem wearing it to the run/meet/going out for donuts/sitting in the coffeeshop.

All the runners are already wearing Sleeping Tiger in my group, it's just that good. <sigh>

Armor being the abstraction that it is, verisimilitude really doesn't come into play.  After all, I can't wear an armored coat over an armored vest for extra protection, or get anything out of throwing my Argentum Greatcoat over my stealth suit.  I'll suppose I'll settle for a half-assed game balance justification. 

Ultimately, I feel that my interpretation is right, and that's all I've got (or anyone's got) to back that up.

[Namikaze]

The problem - again - seems to boil down to not having a glossary for these kinds of things.  "Armor accessory" is used interchangeably to mean a couple of different things here.  It should probably be more like this:

Armor provides an equipment bonus.
Armor accessories provide an accessory bonus.
Custom fit stacking armor provides an equipment bonus.

Your accessory bonus cannot exceed your Strength without receiving an encumbrance penalty.

[Michael Chandra]

What I really don't like is the idea that someone can combine the Sleeping Tiger with the Synergist Business Coat (they are both from the same manufacturer) for a 16 armor bonus before adding accessories, in a completely corp-friendly costume.  It's as good as full body armor and the face has no problem wearing it to the run/meet/going out for donuts/sitting in the coffeeshop.

A single abusive case should result in a slight adjustment to that case, though, such as "this specific case won't stack". It shouldn't be used as argument to make the other combinations, which are far less good, worthless. 13 armor instead of 12 hardly sounds that game-breaking when it costs 6x as much.

As for your better rules, that's kinda silly. SR4 had B vs I and encumbrance on everything, which was the reason you had a billion different combination options for each suit line, so you could tailor your exact ratings to fit best with your encumbrance. Throwing that away and going with an easier system was the right move to make, the R&G stack-rule works much better than an SR4-conversion.

Now you state you feel your interpretation is right, and that's all you or anybody has to back them up. I disagree, which you should know since I already stated exactly how the rules conflict with your interpretation. I feel like you're overfocusing on the + notation, which solely depends on them using 12/+4 instead of 12/4 (which would have caused a different confusion), a single abusive case and a deliberate ignorance of the explicit difference in way things are stated. So you got your feel and the +, I got the actual phrasing of the rule to back me up, so I wouldn't say all we have is feelings as support. Even though I may be wrong, as things are written I actually have the definition to back me up, and all you got is slightly-reasonable doubt on it, and a single abusive case. I'll grant you that RAI isn't clear, but I don't believe you got any solid base for your argument, when literally the only thing you have is the claim that 12/+4 means the same as 12 Armor or +4 Armor Accessory, while the Stack definition doesn't support that claim.

If you want to continue this debate, I strongly suggest you grab the exact definition of how Armor Accessories work, and explain how to unify that definition with the extremely-different-phrased Custom Fit (Stack) rule. I already explained exactly why I don't think the Stack Armors count as accessories, so unless you're willing to fight that by actually going into what the rules say in detail, rather than just the "it's a +" argument, I really wish you wouldn't bother. It really sucks to be reasoning based on what's written and have emotions thrown at you as a counter-argument.

[JimmyCrisis]

Okay, first, I'm not using "emotions" as my argument.

Second, my argument is "the rules aren't clear enough to support EITHER argument."  Which means we both have no ground to stand on in the rules.  The only call you can make is your own interpretation, which is exactly why I conceded the point, if you would reread my last post.

If you really really really want to be right bad enough, fine, you go ahead and be right.

[Namikaze]

Okay, first, I'm not using "emotions" as my argument.

Second, my argument is "the rules aren't clear enough to support EITHER argument."  Which means we both have no ground to stand on in the rules.  The only call you can make is your own interpretation, which is exactly why I conceded the point, if you would reread my last post.

If you really really really want to be right bad enough, fine, you go ahead and be right.

Wasn't this from like...  3 days ago?  By posting that you've already conceded the point, you're making Michael look like the better man in this argument.

[JimmyCrisis]

I check my replies when I check my replies.  As far as I'm concerned, it's fresh to me.

[prismite]

While I think that both interpretations could be seen as valid, I'm inclined to agree with Jimmy here. While its not documented 'as so' anywhere in the text, it would stand to reason (in my mind) that the "+" designates an armor accessory, regardless of its functionality, and would be subject to encumberance.

Now, I do see where you are coming from Chandra, and I can easily see why someone could come to that hypothesis, so I'm not saying you are 'wrong' per-se. Just, in my mind in makes more sense the other way.