[SquirrelDude]

Page 58. Mortimer of London's High Fashion Armored Clothing. Looking at the coats (Greatcoat, Ulysses, and Argentum). I'm not entirely sure what the armor ratings after the backslashes are supposed to indicate. Is that the armor bonus you receive when stacking with the coat with another suit, or something else?

Second question: Which concealability modifier would you use with stacked armor? The highest level available on the whole piece, or just the piece that you are hiding something in.

I.E. would a concealable holster in a Berwick suit gain an extra -1 to concealability while I was wearing an Argentum coat?

[PinkTrenchCoat]

Page 58. Mortimer of London's High Fashion Armored Clothing. Looking at the coats (Greatcoat, Ulysses, and Argentum). I'm not entirely sure what the armor ratings after the backslashes are supposed to indicate. Is that the armor bonus you receive when stacking with the coat with another suit, or something else?

Exactly.

Second question: Which concealability modifier would you use with stacked armor. The highest level available on the whole piece, or just the piece that you are hiding something in.

I.E. would a concealable holster in a Berwick suit gain an extra -1 to concealability while I was wearing an Argentum coat.

I would say that it stacks and that you're at a -5.

[Namikaze]

The number after the slash is the amount of armor (and encrumbrance) you gain when you wear the coat with another item of the Mortimer of London line.  Look up Custom Fit (Stack).

Concealability modifiers shouldn't stack.  Your Argentum provides 3 points of concealability, but putting it in a better holster isn't going to be better than what the coat can already do for you.  Otherwise, you'd be looking at taking the -2 from the Berwick Suit, -3 from the Argentum coat, and -2 from a concealable holster to get -7 concealability (aka, hiding a katana or assault rifle in plain sight).

[MijRai]

Except concealable holsters are explicitly only for pistols and tasers, and they only provide a -1.  So no, it won't let you conceal a sword or assault rifle like that, you're right. 

I'd personally let them stack if they can apply to the roll.  Sure, a long-coat will help you conceal your longarm or a bloody sword, but your suit isn't going to do much for that.  If you're going all-out with tucking a gun into a concealed holster and swathing yourself in fashionable weapon-camouflage to conceal it, it totally makes sense that it's harder to find.  That said, you're not hiding anything larger than a pistol/knife in that situation. 

[Imveros]

At my table the armors overlap and don't stack. As in you get the 3 from the coat not 5.  We reasoned that cloths can only be so baggy and still be fashionable. We do however let the concealable holster stack still bringing it to -5. The thought process being that the holster holds the gun to your body in a less conspicuous place and then the baggy coat covers it further.  Add that all onto the weapons inherent conceal ability and it makes holdouts almost invisible.

[Herr Brackhaus]

I see no reason why the concealability modifier would not stack; AV stack, and social modifiers surely stack, so why not concealability?

As MijRai points out, I think it's reasonable that anything the size of a pistol or a small blade could be concealed underneath the suit and in turn further concealed by the coat. A holdout pistol (-4) in a concealed holster (-1) worn under a Berwick Suit (-2) with a Ulysses coat (-3) on top would be at a -10 modifier to spot at a glance, and a -5 for physical searches. You'd still need the palming skill (unless your Agility was ridiculously high) to reliably pull off the 1 or 2 hits needed to ensure the weapon remained concealed more often than not.

Anything larger than can fit in a shoulder holster (my best guess would be a heavy or machine pistol and smaller) would only benefit from the overcoat.

[Imveros]

don't forget about the concealed holster's wireless bonus of an additional concealment point. Just run it silent, or better yet have the decker use wrapper to make them think its a comlink 

[Namikaze]

I see no reason why the concealability modifier would not stack; AV stack, and social modifiers surely stack, so why not concealability?

Why on earth would AV stack?  It only stacks under very specific conditions, and comes with the encumbrance rule to balance it out.  Also, why do you think social limit modifiers stack?

This would mean that someone wearing an Armante Suit, a Heritage Line kilt, and a Ulysses Great Coat get a +4 to their social limit.

[Herr Brackhaus]

AV stacks with the specific rule of Custom Fit. No such rule exists for other modifiers, so one can make two assumptions.

Either gear bonuses stack, or they don't.

To my mind, the easiest answer is that you gain the benefits of any equipped item unless a specific rule states that you don't. Some common sense has to be applied, to pre ent people wearing 15 greatcoats, but I don't personally have any issues in this regard.

[Novocrane]

Also, why do you think social limit modifiers stack?

I think you're confusing what he said for what you thought. There are social bonuses for armour that aren't limit modifiers.

[Namikaze]

AV stacks with the specific rule of Custom Fit. No such rule exists for other modifiers, so one can make two assumptions.

There's no reason to make any assumptions.  The rules don't state that you can stack other modifiers.  If you do decide to allow people to stack other modifiers from armor, such as Social Limit modifiers, then you have to apply common sense to prevent abuse.  Or the easiest, more foolproof solution is to not allow them to stack at all.

I think you're confusing what he said for what you thought. There are social bonuses for armour that aren't limit modifiers.

If you're referring to wireless bonuses, I have to ask the same question: why on earth would anyone assume that those would stack?  Let's pretend we're using our wirelessly-enabled Berwick Suit to get a +1 social test dice pool bonus.  How is that represented in the game world?  The way I think it would make sense is for your suit to be able to project some tips on posture, give you advice on how to prevent wrinkling the suit, etc.  I mean, it's not like the suit has little cameras and empathy software all over it.  So why would having a bunch of items on you that give you tips like this make you have multiple bonuses to your social tests?  It seems like the only thing that would matter is whatever you're wearing on the outside - so your designer underwear and socks might make you feel better about yourself, but they're not helping in social situations in which they aren't visible.

[Herr Brackhaus]

AV stacks with the specific rule of Custom Fit. No such rule exists for other modifiers, so one can make two assumptions.

There's no reason to make any assumptions.  The rules don't state that you can stack other modifiers.  If you do decide to allow people to stack other modifiers from armor, such as Social Limit modifiers, then you have to apply common sense to prevent abuse.  Or the easiest, more foolproof solution is to not allow them to stack at all.

The rules also do not state that you can not stack these kind of modifiers.

As such, one of two assumptions is needed, as previously stated. You asked why I thought modifiers stack; this is my answer.

I think it only fair that someone who spends over 5k on a Berwik Suit and an Argentum Coat, for example, get the benefit of all modifiers from said items. That would include AV under the Custom Fit rules, social limit and concealability modifiers, and social dice pool bonuses, in this case.

One specific mention by Aaron is that special protection does not stack; i.e. Nonconductivity 4 on one garment and Nonconductivity 4 on another garment for a total of 8 is not a valid option. I consider this scenario, along with AV rules and the Custom Fit rules, to be specific rules that only apply in specific cases and not a blanket rule that applies to everything.

You may of course choose to apply the rules differently, but I believe there is enough ambiguity for both interpretations to be valid.

I think you're confusing what he said for what you thought. There are social bonuses for armour that aren't limit modifiers.

If you're referring to wireless bonuses, I have to ask the same question: why on earth would anyone assume that those would stack?  Let's pretend we're using our wirelessly-enabled Berwick Suit to get a +1 social test dice pool bonus.  How is that represented in the game world?  The way I think it would make sense is for your suit to be able to project some tips on posture, give you advice on how to prevent wrinkling the suit, etc.  I mean, it's not like the suit has little cameras and empathy software all over it.  So why would having a bunch of items on you that give you tips like this make you have multiple bonuses to your social tests?  It seems like the only thing that would matter is whatever you're wearing on the outside - so your designer underwear and socks might make you feel better about yourself, but they're not helping in social situations in which they aren't visible.

I have a somewhat different and much simpler outlook on this.

to my mind, the wireless social modifiers of high-fashion armor is just a wireless broadcast of the brand in question. Others recognize that you are wearing high fashion clothing and have a (generally) more favourable response towards you.

It's the equivalent of modern men and women wearing certain brand clothing (Nike, Kangool, Gucci, Armani, whatever shoe brands are in today, etc) as a form of status symbol.

[Namikaze]

You may of course choose to apply the rules differently, but I believe there is enough ambiguity for both interpretations to be valid.

I believe you are purposefully ignoring the opportunity to present your argument with more than a "I feel this way, so there" response.  As I stated, if one is to make one assumption or the other, it makes substantially more sense to avoid possible loopholes by closing them off entirely.  Why get yourself into a situation in which you might have to create an arbitrary limit on bonus stacking?  Why would two items stack, but not four?  Why would three items stack and not thirty?  The easiest thing to do by far is to say that the character gets the highest of the bonuses.

The ONLY exception I might understand to this is two pieces of armor with the Custom Fit (Stack) policy, worn appropriately.  And the only reason I might allow this is because it is a VERY narrow focus and the precedent at least slightly exists in that the modifier for armor can stack (with limitations).

[8-bit]

I would rule that 2 items stack ... provided they are linked together with Custom Fit (Stack). At least one of them needs to have it, and trying to stack 3 items is impossible, as you can link 2 items, but not 3.

I wouldn't allow anything to stack if it didn't have the Custom Fit (Stack).

[Herr Brackhaus]

You may of course choose to apply the rules differently, but I believe there is enough ambiguity for both interpretations to be valid.

I believe you are purposefully ignoring the opportunity to present your argument with more than a "I feel this way, so there" response.

And you are entirely free to believe so. I have presented my views; I do not feel like I have to convince anyone of anything, nor obey some arbitrary debate style argument structure.

And with that, I am out.