Defensive Stance and Side Step both have "once per round" with an Activation time of "Maneuver," so that's at least a couple instances of talents specifically saying you can't trigger them multiple times at the same activation. Jump Up and Let's Ride both cite "once per round" as each talent lets the PC convert a course of action that would normally cost them a maneuver into an incidental. The various "Natural X" talents all limit them to "once per session" given how powerful a complete re-roll of the dice can be.

Otherwise, the designers were likely figuring that the reader would apply a dose of common sense and assume that a talent can, generally speaking, only be activated once per triggering event, be that an Out-of-Turn Incidental (such as Dodge or Parry or Reflect) or a Maneuver (Center of Being) or an Incidental on their turn (Quick Movement).

It's been said since the EotE Beta that unlike some other Big Box Company RPGs (like D&D and Pathfinder and Rolemaster), the designers for this system didn't feel it was necessary to spell everything out, and presumed the people reading and playing the game were fairly intelligent, and upon being lead to water wouldn't need additional encouragement to drink.

I think the fact that some Talents specifically have written limitations could easily imply those that don't say as much do not have those limitations. Otherwise why not just say it once?

In fact I asked once if you can activate the Stun quality of a weapon more than once if you have the advantage. The answer I got was that unless a weapon quality says you can activate it more than once (like autofire specifically does), then you can't. Very similar situation with Talents since they have specific individual rules.

And as for the vibe of the game, making rulings, saying what's overkill, and reading the devs minds, keep in mind that this is a beta board for people making observations about the rules. Maybe the devs want to know where their players can't read their minds. In my work that's the exact feedback I want.

Also, I can see a player that has paid for a talent tree specifically to get Reflect and then risked his life to procure a lightsaber and then spent 6 strain only to block some of the damage of an attack not thinking it sounds incredibly cheesy and too good to be true.

However, bear in mind that the fundamental rules have been in place since Edge of the Empire was published, and those are generally outside of the parameters of the AoR and FaD Betas.

I strongly doubt FFG is going make a serious change in the ruleset just because a couple of nobodies on the internet claim some part of that core ruleset that's been in place and working just fine since Day One isn't clear or concise enough for the unwashed masses to comprehend.

At most, the only thing that would need to be done where Parry and Reflect is simply add "once per hit" to stop folks from trying to use those talents more than once per hit. Particularly when one bears in mind that with the exception of lightsabers, an attack still has to go through the target's Soak Value. So a PC may not need to spend 6 strain to try and use their two ranks Reflect twice against a blaster rifle attack, since the one usage drops the damage by 4, and their Soak Value (at least a 3) is going to cut that down even further.

it's been said before, but bears emphasizing that Force and Destiny PCs are NOT the Jedi of the prequel films! They're not going to be able to effortlessly intercept attacks with their lightsabers and suffer no damage as a result every single time. Being able to say "yeah, I use Reflect and pretty much drop the damage to enough that it doesn't go past my character's Soak" is a pretty big deal, particularly since the cost of that ability (strain) is a fairly easy-to-restore resource.

But let's put it this way: Instead of it being a PC, how about it being an Inquisitor with Reflect 5? By what usagrandprix is suggesting, there's nothing stopping the GM from simply saying the Inquisitor activates Reflect twice (and it's even better for them as per RAW they don't suffer strain when using Parry or Reflect) and pretty much negates 14 damage from any and all ranged attacks using the same flimsy logic that's been suggested to let a PC use Parry or Reflect more than once against an attack. After all, if the PC gets to double or triple up on the damage mitigation of Parry/Reflect, why can't the NPCs do the same? Answer: Because it's ultimately a cheesy trick and twisting the general intent of the rules, much the same as the line of thinking from a while back that the Pierce quality meant the attack automatically did the listed damage value no matter what the target's Soak Value was rather than reducing the target's Soak Value vs. that attack, based on an overly literal interpretation of the how the Pierce quality was described to work.

Why does DM descend in every argument to condescension and arrogance?

It's a sign of depression.

For some, it's implicit. For me, it's obvious and...plicit. Bottom line, for me, it comes down to the mechanics:

1) The triggering event for Parry is a hit. Once Parry has been triggered, you need another event (another hit) to trigger it again.

1.5) "When the character suffers a hit from a [combat check], after damage is calculated, the character may take a [Parry or Reflect] incidental."

2) The damage reduced is treated as a finite number: "He suffers 3 strain and reduces the damage dealt by that hit from the attack by a number equal to two plus [ranks in Parry or Reflect]."

No multiple parries or reflect for one hit. It doesn't work like that. You hit, calculate damage, your opponent gets a parry incidental, and then you go on to resolving Threat, Advantage, Triumph, & Despair.

For some, it's implicit. For me, it's obvious and...plicit. Bottom line, for me, it comes down to the mechanics:

1) The triggering event for Parry is a hit. Once Parry has been triggered, you need another event (another hit) to trigger it again.

1.5) "When the character suffers a hit from a [combat check], after damage is calculated, the character may take a [Parry or Reflect] incidental."

2) The damage reduced is treated as a finite number: "He suffers 3 strain and reduces the damage dealt by that hit from

the attack by a number equal to two plus [ranks in Parry or Reflect]."

No multiple parries or reflect for one hit. It doesn't work like that. You hit, calculate damage, your opponent gets a parry incidental, and then you go on to resolving Threat, Advantage, Triumph, & Despair.

While you've summed it up perfectly, sadly there are people that apparently just cannot handle a having an RPG that doesn't make like 3rd edition D&D and spell out every single iota of how the rules operate. And so, unless word comes from on high, aka FFG itself and not random internet nobodies like you or me, they're going to just say "you're wrong!" and resort to childish remarks simply because they don't have a leg to actually stand on.

Why does DM descend in every argument to condescension and arrogance?

Why do you read into text condescension? I don't see any. I see pointing out various rules. I think you are reading your emotion into the text where there is none.

You're kidding right? Read the last paragraph of post #26 as an example. It's pretty much par for the course every time there's a lengthy disagreement.

I'm not seeing how Dono making fun of DnD and Pathfinder and such for over-complicated rules is him being condescending and arrogant. It's a fairly common opinion.

Now I can understand being annoyed by it if you're a fan of the games, but you probably shouldn't take it personally. Especially since this star wars system is so different from d20, these forums are going to have a lot of people who share the opinion.

I'm not a fan of them either, but that's not the issue. I'm not even in disagreement with DM over the subject of this thread. I guess I have to spell it out: when you say "presumed the people reading and playing the game were fairly intelligent", you're implying the target of your message is "not fairly intelligent" simply because they don't agree with your point.

Why does DM descend in every argument to condescension and arrogance?

Why do you read into text condescension? I don't see any. I see pointing out various rules. I think you are reading your emotion into the text where there is none.

That's pretty much what he does, as he seems to have taken a Nemesis Obligation and cited me as the subject of such. Frankly I don't give a frip, as I haven't seen him post anything that I'd honestly call "constructive" or "informative" or really even "useful" in the past few months. And if he's really that bent out of shape about my posts or his perception of my tone, he can go ahead and just add me to his Ignore list.

As for my remarks about D&D (particularly 3rd edition), Pathfinder, and Rolemaster, it's a simple fact that the companies producing said games have tried to create rules to cover every possible situation and thus reduce the GM to little more than a quoter of the rules and designer of the plot; I've heard past critiques that WotC tried to apply the same methodology behind Magic: the Gathering to D&D and that they really should have just called it "Magic: the RPG." And if the GM relies upon modules, then there's really not much difference between having a living GM running the game or a computer to oversee task resolution (particularly if the module is kept on the rails). Dig up the errata on D&D3e sometime for all the exceptions they tried to cover. If one is of the opinion that releasing errata means the company screwed up the product in question, then WotC really botched the job on 3rd edition, badly enough they had to do a re-print to incorporate the bulk of it into the core rulebooks, resulting in the 3.5 edition of the game... and even that spawned errata, and similar case with Pathfinder, which itself is a refinement of D&D 3.5, but it too has errata. Rolemaster is infamous for the sheer number of charts that you need to roll on to accomplish a given task (and per the RAW, you literally have to roll for everything , up to and including walking ).

And there is an assumption of intelligence on the part of ALL RPG designers. Maybe whafrog hasn't noticed, but the person of actual average intelligence is pretty frikkin' ignorant.

Jay Little is very much an "indy style" game designer, as the chances I've had to talk with the man face-to-face (and he is a hoot to talk to) have demonstrated. He's very much about the rules being as basic a framework as possible yet be workable, and then letting the GM and players worry about the exceptions, of which many veteran RPG designers and module authors will admit they never thought would occur. A cynic might deride that as being an example of "Ivory Tower Syndrome" but I see it more as a case as no matter how inventive or creative that person is (and many of the RPG designers I've had the pleasure of chatting with fit both those criteria with flying colors), there's hundreds if not thousands more players who are going to come up with some ridiculous scenario that leaves GM and RPG designers going "huh." At which point, you've got two approaches: Try to cover every single exception like 3rd edition and it's derivatives tried (and generally failed miserably at doing). Or, you give the GM enough of a functional framework and trust that the GM and their players will be able to come to an appropriate solution without having their hand held every step of the way.

Saga Edition tried moving in that later direction, but sadly was tied too much to d20 and the player base of the prior d20 systems (which were 3.X D&D in space really) to fully move into it. FFG made a clean break with their own system, and so can go the "set up the framework but don't need to spell everything out" direction, which they've done.

I'm not a fan of them either, but that's not the issue. I'm not even in disagreement with DM over the subject of this thread. I guess I have to spell it out: when you say "presumed the people reading and playing the game were fairly intelligent", you're implying the target of your message is "not fairly intelligent" simply because they don't agree with your point.

I don't see him saying that at all. That is your baggage. I see him saying that most likely the developers approached the games as if those who play it are fairly intelligent and do not require the developers to nail every possible permutation down. Nothing about making that claim says anything about the original poster. that is all your baggage.

For some, it's implicit. For me, it's obvious and...plicit. Bottom line, for me, it comes down to the mechanics:

1) The triggering event for Parry is a hit. Once Parry has been triggered, you need another event (another hit) to trigger it again.

1.5) "When the character suffers a hit from a [combat check], after damage is calculated, the character may take a [Parry or Reflect] incidental."

2) The damage reduced is treated as a finite number: "He suffers 3 strain and reduces the damage dealt by that hit from the attack by a number equal to two plus [ranks in Parry or Reflect]."

No multiple parries or reflect for one hit. It doesn't work like that. You hit, calculate damage, your opponent gets a parry incidental, and then you go on to resolving Threat, Advantage, Triumph, & Despair.

Thanks. I really appreciate your thoughts here.

In the spirit of thinking it through and thinking of the source and thinking of what's actually happening in this Talent here what does this look like?

A hit is reflected. If it does more damage than the character's "Reflect soak" it hits the character. If it does more damage than the character's "Reflect soak" and the player uses Improved Reflect somehow it hits the character and is also reflected to hit another character?

If you are hit can't you use reflect? It's almost the essential concept of reflect that you are not hit. Sort of paradoxical.

Some have a loosey-goosey notion of attack and hit in that they represent more than one attack and hit. If they do they you almost of have to be looser about interpreting this Talent's text.

Thanks. I really appreciate your thoughts here.

In the spirit of thinking it through and thinking of the source and thinking of what's actually happening in this Talent here what does this look like?

A hit is reflected. If it does more damage than the character's "Reflect soak" it hits the character. If it does more damage than the character's "Reflect soak" and the player uses Improved Reflect somehow it hits the character and is also reflected to hit another character?

If you are hit can't you use reflect? It's almost the essential concept of reflect that you are not hit. Sort of paradoxical.

Some have a loosey-goosey notion of attack and hit in that they represent more than one attack and hit. If they do they you almost of have to be looser about interpreting this Talent's text.

This is where you have to really start thinking narratively. So in the case of typical combat, players firing blasters don't just fire off single shots each round, they're constantly ducking in and out of cover, firing at opponents. And like-wise, melee characters don't just whack each other once every so often in-turn, they're constantly swinging, blocking, and dodging. So when you're firing a blaster off, you could decide that maybe it's just a single shot that hits the opponent for full damage, or maybe you're getting off a few glancing blows that equal the full damage; same for auto-fire weapons, maybe you just have 3 mechanical hits, but you really unloaded 30 shots in quick succession.

So in regards to reflecting and still taking damage; maybe you just blocked off some of the shots an opponent let off, the others scraping by you. Or maybe the impact of a blaster bolt - like from a sniper blaster - snaps the saber back straining the character's wrist, or it causes the lightsaber to push back towards your character and singe their shoulder.

This is where you have to really start thinking narratively. So in the case of typical combat, players firing blasters don't just fire off single shots each round, they're constantly ducking in and out of cover, firing at opponents. And like-wise, melee characters don't just whack each other once every so often in-turn, they're constantly swinging, blocking, and dodging. So when you're firing a blaster off, you could decide that maybe it's just a single shot that hits the opponent for full damage, or maybe you're getting off a few glancing blows that equal the full damage; same for auto-fire weapons, maybe you just have 3 mechanical hits, but you really unloaded 30 shots in quick succession.

So in regards to reflecting and still taking damage; maybe you just blocked off some of the shots an opponent let off, the others scraping by you. Or maybe the impact of a blaster bolt - like from a sniper blaster - snaps the saber back straining the character's wrist, or it causes the lightsaber to push back towards your character and singe their shoulder.

Thanks. I see what you are saying and the sniper shot idea is one I'll steal thank you very much. I really think your input is valid here.

But to give precise context what I'm saying, specifically regarding using Reflect more than once, is if you are being hit more than once why can't you use Reflect more than once? In one place a hit means exactly one hit and in another place it means multiple hits?

If you are hit by definition you did not reflect the hit unless you reflected it into yourself (or the sniper idea).

It might look as if I'm being obtuse here but if we're taking this discussion into the realm of what assumptions and intellect and perspectives of the source (most importantly) we bring to the table of this big-boy RPG in the absence of hand-holding rules then this is one.

I guess another way of saying it is a call to apply intellect or perspective to implement a vague rule to fit the story cannot be back up with a citation of specific rules that go against what would probably happen in that story. Or at the very least cannot be argued without saying the person is wrong about the source or the story itself or how to game.

Anyway, this horse died like at least 12 posts ago (Edit: I didn't mean to reference a specific post, admittedly I zoned out there for a while) and the thread is uncomfortable for me so I'll move on from this thread. I appreciate everyone's feedback. And we all have something pretty cool in common so let's focus on that.

In the end if the price of this game is some rules get implemented inconsistently, it's worth it becasue it's a great game.

I'll just say I don't see any reason why the RAW limits Parry and Reflect to once per hit, but I'm also fine with a GM saying it can only be activated once per hit if they so desired. It's open to interpretation, and can go either way. There are plenty of things that say once per turn, and plenty of things that say they may be used multiple times. This talent doesn't say either way, so the GM can make a call. Unless there's some hidden general limitation somewhere I'm not seeing, neither call has a textual justification for being the one true correct reading. It's not necessarily a "common sense" call, as some here have argued.

That's because I don't think it's particularly overpowered. I've been looking over this kind of character a bit over the past couple days; one of my players wants to do this. Even if you build a tricked out reflect-o-matic parrymaster (Int-based Soresu+Shien combo with around 200xp post-creation), you still don't have unlimited strain. I tend to find that my players run out of strain far more often than they run out of wounds. The amount of XP required to make multiple activations look overpowered could be applied to a dude that swings a vibrosword or shoots a gun, and that would probably be a far more combat-effective character. I just don't see how it's overpowered compared to doing other cool combat stuff with your character. Being able to negate damage by spending strain...then recovering strain with various methods so you can reflect more damage...does not equate to winning combat; you can't just reflect until you can run away in every situation. Even if it did turn out to be somewhat problematic, just throw some stun grenades at it. Reflect that!

I'd also note that my players are cool with the general concept that, if they can do it, so can I. I'm going to throw an Inquisitor at them with super-powered parryflects and strain recovery powers at some point in the next month or two. I'm thinking Soresu+Shien with both supreme parry and reflect using Harm as his primary attack to avoid making combat checks so he can keep using both supremes. After all, I don't want to make his mastery of the Force too great with Force lightning - he's just an Inquisitor after all, not a full-on Sith Lord. Also, of course, Force lightning is a combat check so it wouldn't work with the supreme talents, and Harm additionally recovers strain to do more super-powered parryflects.

I still feel this will be an underpowered encounter compared to a similar amount of XP going into a vibrosword and/or gun-shooting combat monster...but luckily as the GM I don't need to worry about XP limitations. I'll report back if I kill everyone, though I find that extremely unlikely.

The limits on Parry and Reflect being "once per hit" are there to keep the FaD PCs on roughly the same keel as the PCs from EotE and AoR, particularly in terms of combat in FFG's system being intended to be dangerous. Specifically, if you get into a fight that lasts more than a single round against reasonably competent opponents (such as stormtrooper minion groups of 3 or more), then odds are you're going to have PCs coming out with wounds and probably some strain as well, especially as it's much more difficult to upgrade/increase the difficulty of attacks and most weapons do a healthy amount of damage.

In terms of Parry and Reflect, they are ultimately are an extra level of soak, with the PC electing to suffer some strain (which is generally easier to recover) rather than wounds. Initially, the trade-off isn't that hot, but as the PC accrues ranks in those talents, the trade-off gets more and more favorable, to the point where suffering three strain to reduce the damage of an incoming attack by 5 or more points is a pretty good deal, and just gets sweeter from there.

There's also the very real concern that a lightsaber is a very dangerous weapon in this game, even the basic and shoto versions, simply due to the Breach 1 quality. Which in turn makes Parry even better, since Breach (as well as Parry) has zero effect on how much damage is mitigated; Parry 3 vs. a damage 8 lightsaber attack means you've only got three points of damage to worry about instead of the full 8, given the 'saber pretty much ignores any soak value of 10 or less (and it takes a very focused and hyper-specialized PC build to get a soak value that high). Similar process applies to Reflect, though character-scale ranged weapons with Breach or Pierce are far less common.

There's also various ways for a PC to quickly recover strain, either during a fight (Advantages from skill checks, talents such as Second Wind or Inspiring Rhetoric as well as talents that let you spend a Destiny Point to recover strain) or after (Balance, a high Cool or Discipline check). So even the "well, they'd have to suffer 6 strain instead of 3 to use Parry/Reflect twice against the same hit" isn't that much of a concern, particularly as the PCs gain more and more ranks in Parry/Reflect. And it gets worse still when you factor in Supreme Parry and Supreme Reflect, both of which reduce the strain cost of Parry/Reflect to 1 respectively. Suddenly, suffering strain for multiple activations is no big deal, and thus making it near impossible to actively hurt the Jedi PC with those talents since you'd have to bring vehicle-scale weapons to bear on them in order to do more damage than they can negate with Reflect.

For instance, a Shien Expert can easily pick up Reflect 3 and Supreme Reflect with just the 150 XP from Knight level, and enabling them to use Reflect multiple times on the same hit means they could reduce the damage from a heavy blaster rifle or light repeating blaster (two fairly beefy weapons) down to nothing for only 3 strain (3 activations at 5 points of damage mitigation = 15 points of damage mitigation). I'd call that pretty **** broken, and falls under the heading of "it it sounds too good to be true, then it's probably against the rules."

usagrandprix,

Based on your last post, it sounds like the major hang-up for you is the idea that Parry and Reflect are "all or nothing" effects. Admittedly, this was the case in Saga Edition, but for reasons I noted above (design intent to keep combat dangerous ) that's not the case here. It's fairly clear the designer's intent is "you get into a fight, you're not getting out completely unscathed!" in contrast to other RPGs where it is very possible to build a character up to a point where the NPCs need extremely high rolls to hit you; I play such a PC in a friend's Mutants and Masterminds campaign that is quite difficult to hit (I think I've only made two saves vs. damage for the several 3+ hour sessions I've played the character), and I've got a low-level D&D 5e "Sword & Board" Fighter that's incredibly hard to hit by enemies of a non-extreme challenge level; at 1st level he was able to go toe-to-toe with a brown bear and win due to the bear simply not being able to hit most of the time while I whittled away at it's hit points every turn.

I think it might also be a case similar to how many people view the usage of hit points in most RPG systems where "you're perfectly fine so long as you're above 0 hit points." Only here, it's wounds, which don't always reflect lasting injuries, but rather could be a collection of minor scrapes, cuts, bruises, and burns that may not look great but otherwise don't impair your character. The "lasting injuries" that require medical attention are instead covered by critical injuries. Case in point would be the films. Under the rules for this RPG, the Heroes of Yavin should have been covered in various minor burns and singed clothing given the amount of times they were shot at... and yet they're generally fine once the fight's over, with the only two notable exceptions being Luke's cybernetic hand during the Sarlacc Pit fight (though that was pretty minor since he was able to use the hand just fine afterwards) and Leia's shoulder injury during the bunker battle on Endor. Otherwise, their respective plot armor held up long enough for them to win or escape, particularly with Luke in RotJ as he was quite likely using Reflect all over the place to avoid getting shot up by the bad guys, along with the occasional deployment of Sense's defensive Control Upgrade against the more dangerous adversaries.

Perhaps what might help is that instead of viewing a PC's wound threshold as "how much damage they can sustain before they drop" might be to see it as a limited form of "plot armor." So that when a PC takes wounds, it's not that they're taking serious damage (unless a critical injury is sustained) but rather their "plot armor" is being weakened. In the example of the sniper you gave, the PC using reflect might still suffer wounds from a standpoint of game mechanics, but unless that damage exceeded their wound threshold, then it could be described in a more narrative sense as the PC managed to deflect the blaster shot, but that it took an extraordinary amount of effort on their part or that they were instead clipped by the bolt instead of grievously injured like a normal person would have been.

I would like to follow up Donovans post with an example of my own.

I had two players get into a gun fight a while back. Both players ran out of wounds fairly quickly. It was not until the the Criticals started to mount up that things started to get scary for them. The smaller crits only made them take cover for a moment (pinned down) to wait out the shock. As the crits got more and more serious actually started worrying about dying.

In short, no one really cared about the hit point loss. They were just numbers. the very real and easy to describe consequences of a Crit actually got them to take notice. And not only does the system support this, it encourages it.

Also remember that a player does not die until a 140+ is rolled on the Crit Table. The only thing having 0 wounds means is that you auto-crit.

I would like to follow up Donovans post with an example of my own.

I had two players get into a gun fight a while back. Both players ran out of wounds fairly quickly. It was not until the the Criticals started to mount up that things started to get scary for them. The smaller crits only made them take cover for a moment (pinned down) to wait out the shock. As the crits got more and more serious actually started worrying about dying.

In short, no one really cared about the hit point loss. They were just numbers. the very real and easy to describe consequences of a Crit actually got them to take notice. And not only does the system support this, it encourages it.

Also remember that a player does not die until a 140+ is rolled on the Crit Table. The only thing having 0 wounds means is that you auto-crit.

Excellent example, and I've found this to be true in my own game.

An aside, so readers won't get confused as to how the rules work: Wounds count up to your Wound Threshold , and only when your Threshold is exceeded (not just met) do you receive an automatic critical injury.

Example: You have a WT of 15. You start combat in perfect health, at 0 wounds.

You get hit by a lightsaber, Breach 1 ignores your Soak of 5, you receive 11 points of damage which translates to 11 wounds (so you're at 11 out of 15).

Then you get hit by a redirected blaster bolt, which carries a total damage of 9, but you apply your 5 soak, so receive 4 wounds. You are now at your Wound Threshold of 15, but you are still up and fighting (and you should probably apply a stimpak).

It's not til you hit 16 wounds or higher that you become unconscious and receive that automatic critical injury.

/aside

Excellent example, and I've found this to be true in my own game.

An aside, so readers won't get confused as to how the rules work: Wounds count up to your Wound Threshold , and only when your Threshold is exceeded (not just met) do you receive an automatic critical injury.

Example: You have a WT of 15. You start combat in perfect health, at 0 wounds.

You get hit by a lightsaber, Breach 1 ignores your Soak of 5, you receive 11 points of damage which translates to 11 wounds (so you're at 11 out of 15).

Then you get hit by a redirected blaster bolt, which carries a total damage of 9, but you apply your 5 soak, so receive 4 wounds. You are now at your Wound Threshold of 15, but you are still up and fighting (and you should probably apply a stimpak).

It's not til you hit 16 wounds or higher that you become unconscious and receive that automatic critical injury.

/aside

Good point, and the extra clarity always helps.

I know the book says to knock people unconsious when their WT is exceeded, but in my game I have not been enforcing that. I think of it more as "You have no more plot armor. Welcome to being like everyone else.". Considering there is an entry on the crit table for unconsiousness, I thought the auto-knockout was redundant and not as fun.

I know the book says to knock people unconsious when their WT is exceeded, but in my game I have not been enforcing that. I think of it more as "You have no more plot armor. Welcome to being like everyone else.". Considering there is an entry on the crit table for unconsiousness, I thought the auto-knockout was redundant and not as fun.

I don't think falling unconscious is redundant, the point is that you can't keep fighting when you exceed your wound threshold either, which could be just as lethal as rolling a 140+ on a crit roll, if the whole party drops.

But I think that's the main point, it could be . Your choice to ignore the rule changes the game significantly in ways that most groups would feel negatively about. First, it turns all combat encounters into races to score the most critical hits first, unless this is only for your players, in which case, you're sucking a lot of drama out of the combat.

You want to know why players don't care about wounds in your game? Its because you've taken away 90% of their meaning. The players can take 2, 3, or 4 more hits than the game is designed for, and then you're relying on a d100 with bonuses to take them out of the fight. Then you're chancing the players outright dying out of nowhere, because their odds of dying on the d100 are going to be similar to getting knocked out. So if the combat goes past the point where a pc would be unconscious under normal rules, things start to get deadly, and the player has no reason to quit fighting until the dice falls and they could have just lost their character. Alternatively, you can always make the encounters just easy enough that they win with only a couple of critical injuries, but most players will start to wonder where the challenge is.

Now, if you knocked players out when their wound threshold is exceeded, suddenly the fights get dramatic much more quickly. Players don't like being taken out of the fight, and when that wound threshold is close, the tension will rise. Tension is good for fun. Not only that, but you can throw difficult fights at the players, but you , the GM, will be in control of how deadly the encounter is. You don't have to trigger a critical injury every time you attack, you can be more creative with your advantage/triumph. Once you've been playing a long time, your group will probably start to prefer it too. When you let players fight over the wound threshold, you can't pull any punches, you just have to be prepared to kill them constantly and you've given up control on when the danger of death appears (which some groups might like, I guess).

Personally, I find the threat of character death a lot more meaningful if it isn't constantly present. That feeling, after a couple of easy fights get you to lower your guard, when a sith whips out a lightsaber and decides not to be shy about utilizing his crit rating of 1 is pretty intense.

This post is a bit of a mess, my thought process seems to be all over the place, but it's pretty late here, sorry

In responce t the original question, I don't think it's in the spirit of the rules to have multiple parry/reflect, the system is clearly designed around resource management to ramp up drama, that even an Jedi cannot hold people off indefinitely or come away completely untaxed. Thus one per attack as there are plenty of options avaible to tailor the encounters.

On the same token I don't believe it's game breaking either, since a player would only be able to pull the stunt off twice in a single encounter, leaving their stain painfully low. If a player can do it, an Npc could also do it. If the players disagree, then neither can do it.