Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?

[Wordmaker]

While that's likely the case in reality, the DFRPG rules, and FATE in general, make no distinction between armour types. The rules are relatively streamlined and generalised, so a piece of mundane Armor 2 is going to be Armor 2 against punches, knives, bullets and explosions.

[JDK002]

While that's likely the case in reality, the DFRPG rules, and FATE in general, make no distinction between armour types. The rules are relatively streamlined and generalised, so a piece of mundane Armor 2 is going to be Armor 2 against punches, knives, bullets and explosions.

I know they make a point to say that about blocks in YS, but is that explicitly stated to also be the case with armor?  I don't recall anything about all armorsmith being equal so to speak.  Though I also don't recall any mention of specific armor types either.  So I very well may be mixng up the narrative in YS together with the narrative of the source material.

[Wordmaker]

There's no mention in YS of there being different types of armor for different types of attacks, and it's not a common rule in most RPGs, so I would take that to mean the DFRPG rules treat all armor as protecting against all Physical Stress caused by any form of impact trauma (since obviously Stress caused by a poison gas or by being drowned won't be reduced by wearing a flak jacket).

[Mr. Death]

YS doesn't delineate different armor types, but it does say this, in response to whether armors stack:

No, they don’t (unless a power says otherwise). You take the highest rating. That
said, not all armor protects against all types of damage, so multiple forms may
get you broader coverage without providing a numerically higher armor rating.

[Lavecki121]

Which would seem to suggest that you could have different armor types

[Wordmaker]

You could, but it's up to each group whether they want to introduce their own rules to cover it, and how detailed they want it to be.

The base rules assume no difference between armor types.

[InFerrumVeritas]

The book states multiple times that armor only protects against specific types of damage.  Another example:

Tough stuff specifies that you only have Armor 1 against specific things.

The marginalia are part of the base rules, intended for clarification.

Based off of the wording of tough stuff, I have my players state what specifically their armor protects against (edged weapons, ballistics, blunt weapons, thermal, etc).

[Wordmaker]

Tough Stuff is a Stunt, which by their nature are only applicable in a limited set of circumstances. Therefore should not be taken as instruction for how the general rules work. Otherwise you'd have all kinds of limitations on skills and equipment, and if Tough Stuff is considered mechanically the same as wearing Armor 1 (since you make your players specify what damage their equipment-based armor protects against), not only would anyone with a spare Refresh be foolish not to take it, but it's actually superior to wearing armor that has a rating of 1, since you never have to take the time to put it on and can never have it taken from you.

I always interpreted the comment notes from Harry, Bob and Will as suggestions for different ways to use the core information, since almost all of the notes that clarify rules are in that vein. Remember that the conceit of the DFRPG is that it's a game written by Will. So the commentary notes do not form a part of the text of the final "product" that Will is setting out to publish.

If it was intended that the core rules only allowed specific armor to protect against certain types of damage, then the rules in the armor section would state that you have to specify what each item of armor protects against.

Your rule is fine, but it's a houserule. You could also allow declarations, maneuvers and compels to represent certain armor types being ineffective against certain attacks, given suitable circumstances.

[JDK002]

Tough Stuff is a Stunt, which by their nature are only applicable in a limited set of circumstances. Therefore should not be taken as instruction for how the general rules work. Otherwise you'd have all kinds of limitations on skills and equipment, and if Tough Stuff is considered mechanically the same as wearing Armor 1 (since you make your players specify what damage their equipment-based armor protects against), not only would anyone with a spare Refresh be foolish not to take it, but it's actually superior to wearing armor that has a rating of 1, since you never have to take the time to put it on and can never have it taken from you.

I always interpreted the comment notes from Harry, Bob and Will as suggestions for different ways to use the core information, since almost all of the notes that clarify rules are in that vein. Remember that the conceit of the DFRPG is that it's a game written by Will. So the commentary notes do not form a part of the text of the final "product" that Will is setting out to publish.

If it was intended that the core rules only allowed specific armor to protect against certain types of damage, then the rules in the armor section would state that you have to specify what each item of armor protects against.

Your rule is fine, but it's a houserule. You could also allow declarations, maneuvers and compels to represent certain armor types being ineffective against certain attacks, given suitable circumstances.

I agree that using a stunt as an example for general armor rules isn't accurate.  Since, as you pointed out, they follow their own sub-set of rules.

I also think handling different armor types via declairations is about as good a middle ground as you can get.  No matter what way you swing the armor rules, there's nothing stopping a player from declairing a Kevlar vest won't protect them from a sword.  Tagging for effect to negate the armor.

This makes for an interesting concept of "all armor protects you all the time, except when it doesn't."