Han, Luke, and Leia don't wear armor in the films, except the Stormtrooper stuff and only while they were trying to disguise themselves and maybe Luke and Leia on Endor. The rest of the time they are in clothing.

Their "Armor" values for that clothing in the game is another balancing mechanic added to help avoid what I mentioned in my earlier post. The same goes with lots of things added into RPGs that don't match the source material, like Han's heavy blaster having a stun setting. It's just RPG number crunching.

Actually, Han is wearing a Catch Vest in ANH and parts of RotJ. Luke is wearing Adverse Environment Gear in ANH (specifically, to withstand hot climate) and the start of ESB, as is Han and Leia. And when they're all skulking around on Endor I'd say they're wearing Heavy Clothing with some camouflage ponchos over.

Actually, Han is wearing a Catch Vest in ANH and parts of RotJ. Luke is wearing Adverse Environment Gear in ANH (specifically, to withstand hot climate) and the start of ESB, as is Han and Leia. And when they're all skulking around on Endor I'd say they're wearing Heavy Clothing with some camouflage ponchos over.

I mentioned that the uniforms on Endor could probably count as "armor", we don't really get a good look at what the troopers were wearing under their ponchos but they do have helmets so I say "could". However they could easily have been just like any other soldier back then, fatigues and a helmet which isn't armor as described in the game. Regardless in the films none of your examples stand out as armor in any obvious sense (plates, Flack vest, whatever) or are called out as armor by any of the characters, it's all just regular clothing and any defensive value any of it may have in the game is a construct and has no basis in the films. I'm not saying it's wrong to attribute a defensive value to these items post hoc but thats exactly what's happening, adding it in after the fact for the RPG.

Look, you can say Luke's karate top is actually Adverse Environment Gear (hot climate) if you want but it'd be no different than saying your shorts and t-shirt are as well.

The clothing worn by the characters is not armor as we know it. Sure, it doesn't look big and bulky, but that doesn't mean it isn't armor. There is no scene in the films where the characters are discussing clothing. No one says that they are or are not wearing armor. This is a galaxy from a long long time ago. What they wear as armor may not look like what we think armor looks like.

I'm not well versed in Star Wars film dialogue, but do they ever refer to the outfits that Vader, Stormtroopers, or Fett wear as armor? Do they ever comment on them at all? If not, then why does everyone assume those outfits are armor while everything that looks like clothing is only clothing? Stormtroopers drop like flies. Their "armor" may just be a spacesuit for keeping out the cold and going on space walks. You can't assume it's armor just because their wear it in battle and has hard plates.

If I'm willing to believe a space wizard is going to cut off arms with a sword made of light, then I'm also willing to believe that fabrics that combatants wear are stronger and more protective than basic clothing. Especially compared to the jeans and shirt I'm wearing now.

Let's point to Boba Fett as an example. But he's wearing heavy plates someone might point out. What are the plates mounted on? Fabric. No one ever says that his shirt and pants are just fabric. Everyone says that it's bad ass armor. Then, why can't the fabric of his armor be the same as the fabric of the "clothing" other combatants wear?

/I'm trying to just look at what is currently considered cannon, not anything stated in the EU.

//If I'm wrong, please point it out. Like I said, I haven't memorized every line of dialogue in the films and haven't seen Clone Wars.

///I just don't understand why people are so anti-armor when the game designers worked hard to make it fit within context of the films.

Look, you can say Luke's karate top is actually Adverse Environment Gear (hot climate) if you want but it'd be no different than saying your shorts and t-shirt are as well.

There are differences in clothing that is worn in modern day. I have shirts made of many different fabrics and designs and thicknesses that are approperate to be worn for many different reasons. Heavy cotton t-shirts are a good base layer to help me stay warm on cooler days. Thin exercise shirts are designed to wick moisture away from the body and improve exercise results. Heck, I even have a black longsleeve shirt that is covered with vents and is super cool to wear under the hot sun. I'd prefer to wear it instead of any other t-shirt while rafting on a hot sunny July day. For me, that long sleeve black shirt is Adverse Environment Gear (hot climate). So no, I will not agree that any old shorts and t-shirt are just as good as Lukes "karate top" for wearing in a hot climate. I'm going to choose to believe that desert going people will be wearing clothing (gear) that is approperate for living in the desert (adverse environment).

Heavy cotton t-shirts are a good base layer to help me stay warm on cooler days.

Totally OT and hijack (sorry), but cotton is the *worst* thing you can wear for warmth. "Cotton kills" is a mantra up here in the great white north...

I think some of you are missing my point. I originally said that one of the reasons I believe Cover and Armor don't stack is to allow Players to create PCs like Han, Luke, Leia etc. who don't wear armor in the films and not be outclassed in Combat by those who do. I also believe thats why there are "Armors" that are essentially clothing but give some level of protection even though they look like ordinary clothing. This is all well and good because it's a game mechanic that works.

Then someone started listing off what armor the character's in Star Wars were wearing and those values in the game. I was responding that objectively they were not wearing anything but clothing and that their "Armor" values were only added after the fact for the RPG and that it didn't really matter and that you don't need to post hoc analyse what the characters in the films are wearing because one is a film and one is an RPG. But what you shouldn't do is use it as a basis for an argument to prove that it's okay for armor and cover to stack because the RPG added values to clothing seen in the films.

If you're going to spend 2,500 credits and pay a 2 encumbrance penalty to get heavy battle armor over laminate just for a 1 Defense, then you should get to use that Defense. Whether Han wore armor in ESB is irrelevant.

The Defense rules seem like just a shortcut for "adds a setback when attacked" so I don't see why it doesn't stack since every other time setbacks stack with each other. Forex, it's ok for a character to have two setbacks for wearing heavy battle armor in the rain but not ok when wearing heavy battle armor while in cover. Or why a character performing a Guarded Stance doesn't gain any benefit if he's wearing armored clothing but does if wearing padded armor. Inconsistency like that bother me because it forces players to do different things based only on these special circumstances. You're playing the rules, not playing the game.

Okay, as I see it the problem some people are having is that they are confusing the description, the fluff, of Armor and Cover with the mechanics of the game. If you only focus on the fluff it makes sense that you should gain a value from each Defence (Armor and Cover), mechanically however there is no such reason. Mechanically Defence is grouped into different types or classifications, each different Type of Defence adds to each other but not with themselves. Thats it, that the mechanic, the fluff is irrelevant. The Mechanic itself works and keeps combat within a certain range of dice pools so that PCs that use one Type of Defence (Cover or Armor) are consistent and manageable. Allowing the same Type of Defence to stack creates a broader range and unbalances the games Combat mechanics.

Because the game uses these special dice it's Scale and Granularity aren't as fine as other systems and as such a Setback Die is a significant change. So to keep Combat within a certain range the mechanic was designed to not have Defence of the same Type stack. It's not supposed to make sense fluff wise but it makes perfect sense mechanically.

I'll take some of the blame for derailing this thread. So, I'll jump back in and help right the ship back to the original track.

I agree with FuriousGreg above, that for the scope and scale of this game, the mechanics are such that they wanted to limit dice pools and made it so that cover and armor defences don't stack. Personally, I never gave it much thought because it's something I've run across in tactical war games before. It's as if the game designers must realize that a person would be better defended behind cover while wearing armor, but for the granularity of the system it's not a significant advantage so they didn't apply numerical values to it.

This is something that has been brought up before and I had been kicking myself for not linking one of the old threads. Below is a quote from a "Cover and Armor" thread last August. For me, Voice has a good explanation as to why cover and armor defense don't stack.

Link: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/86214-cover-and-armor/page-5#entry832937

Here's the thing about defense from cover and armor stacking. Logically it doesn't actually make sense.

When you're dealing with basic cover (a crate, or a table top, or the like), it offers defense in the form of the shooter not actually knowing where your body & limbs are behind that cover. Sure, they have a general idea, but there's a lot of leeway, and that table top certainly isn't actually stopping the blaster bolt. (No more than a table top would actually stop a bullet.*) The armor, on the other hand, involves deflecting or absorbing the shot if it does connect.

So, you have two bits of overlapping, not stacking, defense. If the shot punched through the table and it was off target, then your armor doesn't come into play. If the shot punched through the table, and was on target regardless, the table didn't do anything to protect you from that shot, so it's all up to your armor.

When you start getting into good cover (durasteel walls, etc) that grants 2 setback dice then you've got something that will actually stop the incoming fire, at which point, a shot that hits the wall doesn't involve your armor, and a shot which is deflected by your armor didn't intersect the wall in the first place.

* Even a wimpy .22LR fired from a handgun, will punch through a typical restaraunt table top and still put a hole in something on the other side. The slugthrower and blaster pistols are certainly more akin to actual combat-rated calibers, like 9mm, .40, or .45.)

The problem I have with the "limit the dice pool" logic is that it doesn't appear anywhere else in the book. In all other cases, things stack just fine with each other. Setbacks stack with Setbacks, Dodge stacks with Side Step which stacks with Destiny Points, and starships can take all their Defense and make one uber shield (that stacks with Evasive Maneuvers). Only in a couple fringe cases are the rules different.

Defensive Stance stacks with Defense but Guarded Stance doesn't

Dropping prone stacks with Defense but using cover doesn't.

I just don't see the justification for all the added complexity and inconsistency just to prevent one case of adding a die that only affects the chance of hitting or damage 1/3 of the time. If taking cover or Guarded Stance acted like dropping prone and gave out Setbacks instead of Defense, nobody would be complaining about how the game was broken.

If you are holding a shield and then hide behind a wall, the shield doesn't do much.

Now instead of shield you have protective plates in your clothes that deflect attacks. They don't do much for you behind cover.

If you are holding a shield and then hide behind a wall, the shield doesn't do much.

Now instead of shield you have protective plates in your clothes that deflect attacks. They don't do much for you behind cover.

There might be valid gameplay reasons why they don't want Armor and Cover Setback to stack. I get that.

However, arguing that "in reality" wearing Armor and being behind Cover, like a wall, wouldn't help you is being purposefully obtuse. If a bullet comes through that wall, I bet you'd much rather have a Kevlar vest protecting your squishy organs than a nice cotton t-shirt.

If you are holding a shield and then hide behind a wall, the shield doesn't do much.

Now instead of shield you have protective plates in your clothes that deflect attacks. They don't do much for you behind cover.

There might be valid gameplay reasons why they don't want Armor and Cover Setback to stack. I get that.

However, arguing that "in reality" wearing Armor and being behind Cover, like a wall, wouldn't help you is being purposefully obtuse. If a bullet comes through that wall, I bet you'd much rather have a Kevlar vest protecting your squishy organs than a nice cotton t-shirt.

There's no need to be rude.

I wasn't trying to make an "in reality" argument; I was explaining that the rule makes sense within the narrative. The assumption in this game is that the cover (or armor plating or ray shield) stops the shot.

If you are holding a shield and then hide behind a wall, the shield doesn't do much.

Now instead of shield you have protective plates in your clothes that deflect attacks. They don't do much for you behind cover.

There might be valid gameplay reasons why they don't want Armor and Cover Setback to stack. I get that.

However, arguing that "in reality" wearing Armor and being behind Cover, like a wall, wouldn't help you is being purposefully obtuse. If a bullet comes through that wall, I bet you'd much rather have a Kevlar vest protecting your squishy organs than a nice cotton t-shirt.

In that example, The Kevlar vest stopping the bullet before it wounds you would be a better example of soak rather than defense.

The problem I have with the "limit the dice pool"

It's not so much limiting the dice pool but limiting the dice pool range, the spread between unarmored or those with only a single point of Defence and those that are Fully armored. Cover is the mechanical equalizer making both styles of play viable in Combat. Unarmored or lightly Armored PCs can sacrifice Movement to gain protection from Cover to match that of Heavier Armor, while Heavily Armored PCs can move freely around the battlefield with the same level of protection.

Setbacks stack with Setbacks, Dodge stacks with Side Step which stacks with Destiny Points, and starships can take all their Defense and make one uber shield (that stacks with Evasive Maneuvers). Only in a couple fringe cases are the rules different.

Defensive Stance stacks with Defense but Guarded Stance doesn't

Dropping prone stacks with Defense but using cover doesn't.

I just don't see the justification for all the added complexity and inconsistency just to prevent one case of adding a die that only affects the chance of hitting or damage 1/3 of the time. If taking cover or Guarded Stance acted like dropping prone and gave out Setbacks instead of Defense, nobody would be complaining about how the game was broken.

Except that in these example this stacking comes with an Action and/or Strain cost or some other penalty (Prone has a Setback for making Melee Attacks and give a Boost when receiving Melee Attacks). Cover and Armor are essentially Passive once you're in them.

For what it is worth. After discussing the matter with our group we decided to go the way that the cover and armor defenses stack since we all felt that it makes a better and more believable story for us. If in the future we find out a game breaking combo then we will see.

Big thanks to every poster in this thread. It is nice to know that there's such a great community for this game.

For what it is worth. After discussing the matter with our group we decided to go the way that the cover and armor defenses stack since we all felt that it makes a better and more believable story for us. If in the future we find out a game breaking combo then we will see.

Big thanks to every poster in this thread. It is nice to know that there's such a great community for this game.

I don't think you will find anything game breaking. Combat encounters will probably last a round or two longer than they would otherwise, but I suspect that's it. I do wonder how you are running the talent Brace with this. Are you allowing it to negate Setbacks imposed by cover?

FWIW, cover is capable of providing more than just a single setback die. So hunkering down behind a truly hard obstruction may warrant more than Defense 1.

What I do:

I generally let my PCs easily grab a modicum of cover with a maneuver. This provides a basic Defense of 1 (which, per the rules, does not stack with armor, etc. as normal). Pretty standard stuff.

If someone wants more, they can spend another maneuver to "hunker down". This can significantly increase the amount of protection the cover grants, based on the quality of whatever they are hiding behind. However, while in this state they cannot freely interact with (read: attack) something on the other side of that cover. They must first spend a maneuver to "pop up" again. This reduces the benefits of the cover back to Defense 1.

If the cover in question requires it narratively, hunkering down may also require that the PC take on the prone state.

Example: a PC spends a maneuver to duck behind a waist-high plascrete barricade, gaining the basic Defense 1. They can still shoot over it as normal. For a second maneuver, they hunker down (and become prone) to gain, lets say, Defense 3. But they cannot freely act across the cover. If the PC subsequently spends a maneuver to pop up, they can shoot something as normal again, but are back to just Defense 1.

Yes. This means, in a single turn, an already hunkered down PC could spend a maneuver to pop up, their action to shoot, then spend 2 strain for a second maneuver to drop back down behind the full protection of the cover.

I've found that due to the nature of increases in combat capability due to weapon upgrades and skill levels, having stacking defense doesn't cause situations where two sides uselessly fire at each other. Offensive Capability far outstrips Defensivie Capability as characters advance, slowly closing the gap if a character goes dedicated defense through 2+ Specializations (making that character VERY linear and focused).

I say good idea to allow the stack.

I still run this with Rules as Written.

Bear in mind while you read this that I'm not an expert with the rules.... nor the dice, for that matter!

I just wondered if it might be possible to get the best of both worlds. Where cover and armor overlap (say both would provide one die), what if the player got to simply roll that die twice and take the better result? If there were 3 non-stacking conditions, he would roll them 3 times and take the best result. If one condition added two dice and the other only one, the overlap of one die is all that gets rerolled.

That would make it remain realistically worthwhile to take cover while wearing armor but it wouldn't create huge dice pools. I suppose the added time for a die to be rerolled would be an issue but, keeping in mind that someone else interprets my dice for me so I am far from an expert, I don't think it would be a hassle. It would also play nice with things like Brace.

Bear in mind while you read this that I'm not an expert with the rules.... nor the dice, for that matter!

I just wondered if it might be possible to get the best of both worlds. Where cover and armor overlap (say both would provide one die), what if the player got to simply roll that die twice and take the better result? If there were 3 non-stacking conditions, he would roll them 3 times and take the best result. If one condition added two dice and the other only one, the overlap of one die is all that gets rerolled.

That would make it remain realistically worthwhile to take cover while wearing armor but it wouldn't create huge dice pools. I suppose the added time for a die to be rerolled would be an issue but, keeping in mind that someone else interprets my dice for me so I am far from an expert, I don't think it would be a hassle. It would also play nice with things like Brace.

While I stick to RAW in this case, if my players ever gave me a big stink about this ruling, I think this alternative is nice and simple.

I just wondered if it might be possible to get the best of both worlds. Where cover and armor overlap (say both would provide one die), what if the player got to simply roll that die twice and take the better result? If there were 3 non-stacking conditions, he would roll them 3 times and take the best result. If one condition added two dice and the other only one, the overlap of one die is all that gets rerolled.

In the case where the player is wearing armor and in cover, it would be the GM rerolling the setback die. In the case where players are shooting at NPCs, the GM can just determine for that case whether one or two setbacks are warranted.

Another thing to consider that often gets left out of the discussion is Soak and the effect that that extra Setback die or two has when stacking Armor and Cover. PCs that wear Heavier armors tend also to be the PCs with greater Brawn and as such greater Soak. A Setback die doesn't just keep you from getting hit as often it also reduces potential Damage by canceling out more Successes, so even if an Attack hits it will average less damage. Less damage against PCs with more Soak means PCs with higher Brawn get an even greater advantage when House Ruling Cover stacks with Armor.

As I said before it may make sense if to Stack Armor and Cover if you only look at the Fluff descriptions and not pay too close attention to the numbers but if you pay attention to the mechanics and numbers it becomes much clearer as to why it's best to stick with the RAW.

Yes. This means, in a single turn, an already hunkered down PC could spend a maneuver to pop up, their action to shoot, then spend 2 strain for a second maneuver to drop back down behind the full protection of the cover.

How would you (this question is for everybody) handle the situation where a character uses maneuver to move (short disctance) to pop out from behind the corner, shoot and then take two strain to move back behind the corner???