Body armor

[InFerrumVeritas]

The point of the Aspects is to give the character choice.

If there is an aspect I can compel, the player gets a chance to use a fate point to say "Oh, well that cop was looking the other direction when I went by.  He didn't notice my armor."

The whole point of the FATE system is that the gm is not in total control.

For games where the GM wants to be in total control, other systems work better. Just imo.

I'd have the opponent make a declaration about it.  They get a free tag (so not fate point for the player), but the player can spend a FP to resist.  Still in control, but they've already gotten the bonus.

To avoid armor, you can do a maneuver to say that you're aiming at their face, etc.  They system supports it, but only when it's relevant.  Not necessarily optimal, but maneuvers and spending FP...

[devonapple]

Ultimately, when rolling to set up an Aspect to take advantage of a defect or weak spot in an opponent's armor, you aren't necessarily making a Declaration/Assessment that it exists (though you are, somewhat) so much as giving it narrative importance as a source of plot advantage.

And no, in the RAW, "Armor" (the abstract mechanism, usually provided by physical armor but also by other things depending on context, which reduces a successful attack by X shifts of stress) does not stack with other sources of "Armor" (the abstract mechanism, usually provided by physical armor but also by other things depending on context, which reduces a successful attack by X shifts of stress).

[noclue]

To avoid armor, you can do a maneuver to say that you're aiming at their face, etc.  They system supports it, but only when it's relevant.  Not necessarily optimal, but maneuvers and spending FP...

A maneuver just gives you an aspect. It doesn't bypass armor benefits. Of course, the invoke gives you a +2' which could be considered the effect from avoiding the armor. So it works fine.

[BumblingBear]

A maneuver just gives you an aspect. It doesn't bypass armor benefits. Of course, the invoke gives you a +2' which could be considered the effect from avoiding the armor. So it works fine.

Indeed.  The abstract concept behind the rules is that armor makes one more resistant to taking stress, so one has to be "better" at causing harm to cause more stress.

It makes plenty of sense to me.

[EldritchFire]

A maneuver just gives you an aspect. It doesn't bypass armor benefits. Of course, the invoke gives you a +2' which could be considered the effect from avoiding the armor. So it works fine.

If you tag that manoeuvre for a +2, that represents aiming at an arm, leg, etc not covered by the Kevlar. Kevlar is Armour:2, so a +2 negates that. If they had heavier armour, the +2 could represent aiming at a weak point, for example. The heavier the armour, the longer it takes to aim for an unarmoured location (stacking aspects for one massive tag).

Just my [-2].

-EF