Let us say I am shooting a blaster that does 10 damage ay a vehicle thay has exactly 1 armor. If I hit with one success I do 11 damage personal scale. Using the 10 :1 rule I can treat the armor 1 as soak 10. 11-10=1 damage personal scale. Did i put one point worth of hull trama on the vehicle, 1/10th of a point or zero?

Zero Hull Trauma. If you want to score an actual "hull trauma" point, you're gonna have to roll 10 Success in your example. Not sure if the CRB says anything about fractions, and it might be something a GM could use as a factor (like if a bunch of people are just shooting the crap out of a speeder with blasters, eventually it will take damage), but if you want 1 Hull Trauma at Planetary Scale, you'll have to dish out at least 10 damage at personal scale.

You put none. Since the target is using Hull Threshold (planetary) rather than Wounds (personal) you convert up rather than down. So in your example the 1 damage is absorbed by the 1 armor, doing a net of 0 hull trauma.

Do i have the option of criting? Technically I did more damage then armor even though I didn't cause any hull trauma.

No, you have to do at least 1 point of net damage (after soak/armor) to inflict a crit.

Actually Doc... you just need to get one success past the armour, not one point of damage to inflict a crit. So as long as one success gets past the armour, a crit may be rolled on a vehicle, as long as enough advantage has been rolled.

Nope. I don't have my book on me at the moment but check out the description of Critical Ratings under the weapon listing in equipment.

“A Critical Hit can only be triggered on a successful hit that deals damage that exceeds the targets soak value.”

Yep. Got it, and I still come to the same conclusion. There's been discussions elsewhere on this elsewhere on the board. A Blaster that does exactly 10 points of personal damage to 1 point of armour does not exceed the target's soak value, but a blaster that does 11 points of damage does.

It goes both ways. A vehicle with 1 point of armour is considered to have 10 soak, so 11 points of damage would exceed the 10 soak, even if the final damage result is rounded down when converted back. It won't inflict any hull trauma, to be sure, but since it is considered to have gotten past the soak value of the target, the critical hit can still be triggered. It makes it so that a missile tube has a chance to actually do something to an AT-ST.

Remember, Critical hits aren't the same as Critical Injuries, and should not be used interchangeably. Just as Soak and Armor are 2 different things.

The actual quote on page 243 is

[...] Remember, an attack's damage also has to exceed a target's armor to deal a Critical Hit, which is important when firing small arms at something using armor instead of soak

Because of the added note about small arms and armor, I take that to mean that you must deal one point of Hull Trauma beyond the target's armor value.

This is one of those letter vs. spirit of the law situations. If you want to want to wordplay things around to allow 0 net damage hits to do criticals at your table, then go for it. It's pretty clear that the intent of the rules is that you can't.

Sent in a rules question, we shall see..............maybe.............sometime............or not..........

This is one of those letter vs. spirit of the law situations. If you want to want to wordplay things around to allow 0 net damage hits to do criticals at your table, then go for it. It's pretty clear that the intent of the rules is that you can't.

I think a further clarification to this would be if the critical hit is allowed, perhaps it would be -10 or so to the roll if no hull trauma was actually scored. As 25P1 mentioned, this is a good one for the FAQ. The wording simply says "exceed" the soak value of the target, not that it needs to inflict hull trauma to the target. It may be word play, but it allows for moments of awesome in a game where someone with a blaster pistol coolly shoots out one of the repulsorlift units in an oncoming speeder, causing it to careen out of control.

It also makes the Missile tube not useless against an AT-ST. It was actually a conversation around this where the topic first came up. As it stands, Missile tubes are not capable of harming an AT-ST (or anything with armor 3) at all. That strikes me as counter-intuitive.

That having been said, if the FAQ comes back saying that it has to be one point of Hull trauma inflicted in order to roll a critical hit, then I will stand corrected.

Read as written, the rules do *not* state that damage must be dealt, just that damage just exceed soak.

In a like vs. like scenario, which is going to be the most common, there is no difference between the two conditions. When dealing with character-scale damage vs. vehicle-scale armor, there is a critical difference between the two.

I'd be inclined to allow the critical, primarily because it allows a heroically-unlikely-but-cool result.

That said, I would certainly understand if this was simply an edge-case that escaped the play-testing and editing teams. (After all, they're familiar with how the rules are *intended* to work by the time the game reaches print, so wordings that can imply multiple meanings can clearly mean only one to the team when they're reading it.)

I'm tepted to allow it as well, because I imagine that's what Chewbacca was going for at the end of ESB, a lucky shot to stop Boba Fett from flying off. If one of my players managed to pull that shot off I would have a hard time saying "Nope doesn't count.".

I'm tepted to allow it as well, because I imagine that's what Chewbacca was going for at the end of ESB, a lucky shot to stop Boba Fett from flying off. If one of my players managed to pull that shot off I would have a hard time saying "Nope doesn't count.".

It could have just been frustration or him not thinking clearly. His best bud was on the vessel after all - a critical hit may not have been the best thing in the world (BOOM?). Even disabling a vessel's enjins while it's flying above a gas giant could be... well, very bad for all on board.

But, Chewie already know from C-3PO's line that Han is safely encased in carbonite and will probably survive.

Anyways, allowing criticals with hand guns against a vehicle... if scoring a Triumph and/or using a Destiny Point and netting 1 success above armour as in the example above (1 armour 11 personal damage = 0.1 damage), then I'd allow a critical hit. Perhaps. Depends on how cool the player narrates it, and how the player rationalise it.

I'd allow a blaster shot that exceeds a vehicle's Armor to do a critical hit if they rolled well enough, even if they didn't do any actual Hull Trauma. This is assuming that they surpass the Armor, of course, and that's likely only to happen in the case of a ship having 1 Armor. That makes sense to me. Blast the hell out of a speeder bike, you're going to damage it. And if you have a handgun that surpasses 2 or more Armor? Then hell yes that hand cannon of yours could do a critical hit.

Sent in a rules question, we shall see..............maybe.............sometime............or not..........

This is one part of the rules I just never thought any differently about. My first reaction, "so speeders are impervious to hand weapons?" And then I read about critical hits and I thought, "oh that's brilliant! Well done game designers." So to me it felt obvious that the intent (I.e. the "spirit of the law") was for crits to happen if you could just eke out 1 personal-scale damage over the vehicle's armor rating.

Just so y'all wouldn't think I was trying to word-play my way into anything

I can totally see the other point of view now. Just hadn't occurred to me to read it differently before reading it on the forums is all.

Sent in a rules question, we shall see..............maybe.............sometime............or not..........

I do hope this gets clarified soon.

This is one part of the rules I just never thought any differently about. My first reaction, "so speeders are impervious to hand weapons?" And then I read about critical hits and I thought, "oh that's brilliant! Well done game designers." So to me it felt obvious that the intent (I.e. the "spirit of the law") was for crits to happen if you could just eke out 1 personal-scale damage over the vehicle's armor rating.

Just so y'all wouldn't think I was trying to word-play my way into anything

I can totally see the other point of view now. Just hadn't occurred to me to read it differently before reading it on the forums is all.

I too hope this gets settled. I hate it when one reading gives you a different idea than what was intended. Like how I interpeted grenades to have an unlimited supply because Limited Ammo doesn't state it's a one use only item. It took a rules question to find out that it wasn't the designers being brilliant in a narritive system. (Then I found the ruling that grenades are one use only in the ammo sidebar. Really, who puts information like that in a sidebar and not on the weapon or specal rules stat blocks?)

It may be word play, but it allows for moments of awesome in a game where someone with a blaster pistol coolly shoots out one of the repulsorlift units in an oncoming speeder, causing it to careen out of control.

It also makes the Missile tube not useless against an AT-ST. It was actually a conversation around this where the topic first came up. As it stands, Missile tubes are not capable of harming an AT-ST (or anything with armor 3) at all. That strikes me as counter-intuitive.

At my (virtual) table, this is handled as a special result of using the Aim Maneuver. I let the player target a weak spot on the vehicle (and thus take some black dice), and bypass 1 or 2 points of Armor. If the target has no armor or the weapon would breach all by itself, I may instead give a +10 or +20 to any resulting crit roll.

Read as written, the rules do *not* state that damage must be dealt, just that damage just exceed soak.

But a single success doesn't allow damage to actually exceed soak, in this case.

Read as written, the rules do *not* state that damage must be dealt, just that damage just exceed soak.

But a single success doesn't allow damage to actually exceed soak, in this case.

It really depends on whether you see 1 Armor as 10 Soak (Personal Scale POV) or 1 Damage as 0 Hull Trauma (Vehicle Scale POV). Therein, I suppose, lies the conundrum. I would tend to err on the side of awesome, which in this case is my players getting shots off at fleeing vehicles in an attempt to disable them. Not starships, by any stretch (the armor is too high), but the occasional airspeeder could be knocked out of commission by an extremely well-placed blaster bolt.

One man's word-play shenanigans are another man's rules-as-intended, it seems

I absolutely have no dog in the fight and I see both sides of this as completely valid with the information we have. It really falls to a rules interpretation I think which is why I asked the question because flipping a coin in my mind is as good a way as any to resolve it at this point.