I will begin by stating that I don't have any books with me at the moment, so won't be able to quote or give page references.

So, I'm scratching my head a little at the armor crafting rules mentioning damaged armor. Not the result where it is created damaged, but the result on the table that mentions it being damaged (presumably through combat) and getting a worse result due to poor crafting.

My question is: How, other than pure narrative fiat, do you damage armor? What mechanics clearly explain how to do so?

There was some discussion about if Sunder would work, but I think the result was "probably not."

So the simplest answer, at least until we get something in a supplement, is probably:

image: Despair symbol

I like the idea of armor being "narratively damaged" if a character takes a crit and there's Despair left over to use. For example, a PC in battle armor gets hit by a critical from a lightsaber and the result is that they're blinded. There's a Despair left over, so it's decided that the optical suite in the helmet is damaged. Or a vibroblade disabling a vacuum seal. Or grenade shorting out a strength enhancer. There are countless examples which are great, but even using narrative creativity, I feel damaging armor has never really been encouraged, at least before the armor crafting rules.

As far as using Sunder goes, I agree with those who disagree. The rules are clear about what can be sundered, and armor isn't listed.

For 2 Triumphs on a combat check you can destroy something the target you damaged is using. The two examples listed are blaster and personal shield generator. One of those is armor.

For 2 Triumphs on a combat check you can destroy something the target you damaged is using. The two examples listed are blaster and personal shield generator. One of those is armor.

I like the idea that tech-spec characters don't just mod gear, they maintain it and I'd like to see someone who's invested in Armorer get solid use of the spec.

For 2 Triumphs on a combat check you can destroy something the target you damaged is using. The two examples listed are blaster and personal shield generator. One of those is armor.

However, after thinking about this, this doesn't really help with how armor gets damaged , as doing this skips damaging the item and jumps straight to destroyed.

In response on how armor gets damaged, I'd say despairs. Or environmental effects like caustic or acidic or corrosive fumes/liquids/etc. For example: "The rains in this area of this planet are extremely caustic. While in unstructured play, I will have everyone roll 1 challenge die / force die at least once per scene or every 5 minutes in longer scenes. In structured play, it will be every round. If the die rolls a despair / 2 dark pips, your armor will be damaged one step. So try to stay dry folks."

Another thing I could see being done is using the Aim maneuver to hit a target's armor, with success damaging the armor one step instead of causing wounds to the target. Using triumphs or every 2 extra successes or 3 advantage to damage it one further step.

Found the section where it says despair on checks can damage weapons by one step. It's under the Weapon Maintenance section. I don't see any reason why this couldn't be inferred to apply to all gear, including armor.

For 2 Triumphs on a combat check you can destroy something the target you damaged is using. The two examples listed are blaster and personal shield generator. One of those is armor.

However, after thinking about this, this doesn't really help with how armor gets damaged , as doing this skips damaging the item and jumps straight to destroyed.

If we look at those as suggestions, it could work. It also keeps a player from immediately losing amor because of lucky NPC rolls. I don't see an issue with extending reason to do it the way you suggested.

Found the section where it says despair on checks can damage weapons by one step. It's under the Weapon Maintenance section. I don't see any reason why this couldn't be inferred to apply to all gear, including armor.

Now that you mention it, I think that's referenced in the armor crafting section. If so, there you go and it's appreciated!

Sunder ...

My issue with that response is that the question wasn't "Can you sunder armor?" Which is what it should have been. And with at least one dev question being "redesigned" I tend to take the dev responses with a grain of salt. Especially the one about committing force dice, but that's another matter. Sunder in the book makes no mention of being able to work on armor whatsoever. The three examples it gives of "wielded" items are a weapon, a shield, or an item on a belt. That is why cortosis never mentioned making armor immune to sunder, since it already is. I feel that the question asked of Sam was loaded, and received an inappropriate answer as such.

Take this for what it's worth. If you want to use Sunder to break armor at your table, go for it.

I personally don't allow it, as it seems ridiculously easy to do. While I don't mind breaking a weapon every now and then, I'm don't like to outright break players' armor. Mostly because I don't think of Star Wars as the kind of setting where the characters constantly get their clothing blasted/hacked off. However, weapons get busted all the time, particularly when lightsabers are being swung around.

As we know from experience, these games tend to state what's not allowed, not call out every little thing that is allowed.

Let's not get into the, "It doesn't say I can't, therefore I can," discussion. Rules do both things. They state what can and what can't be done in the frame of the game's setting. Besides, in the end, each gaming group will play the game how they want to, even if some rules have to be ignored/changed/etc, as long as they have fun together.

Lump me in with the "armor can be sundered" group. It just makes sense. You wail on someone with armor hard enough, the armor is going to get damaged.

Our group rarely uses Sunder, but I would tend to agree that armor should be sunderable. I don't care how badass your armor is. If somebody wails on it with something like a Saber or vibro axe, it's going to put holes in it.

Alternatively, armor is damaged whenever the person wearing it is injured and goes below zero, unless the injury was caused by poison, exposure or the Force.

Im all for armour being damageable, buckles breaking, seams coming apart, pockets getting torn etc. I like the idea that each stage of damage to armour adds to its encumbrance by 1, its hard to move in clothing thats torn, let alone battle armour that keeps falling off you.

I noticed in Rebels this season, Kanan's armor was damaged by an inquisitor's lightsaber and had remained damaged throughout the latest episodes. Thought the consistency was cool.

Having actually worn armor and having had that armor damaged by an attack....

Give armor a Health Threshold based upon the materials used in the construction. Cloth will have 1-2 HT while Heavy Battle Armor should have 10. For every attack that goes through the soak of the character, subtract that amount from the Armor's HT, in addition to the WT of the character. This will cause armor to degrade fast and need to be repaired by using mechanics and armor patches. I would say that only materials like laminate or other hard armors can gain the Hardened Mod which halves the damage that is applied to the armor to increase its longevity. I would make the Hardened Mod be like Encumbrance +2 and cost 5,000 credits while taking up two mod slots.

Give armor a Health Threshold based upon the materials used in the construction. Cloth will have 1-2 HT while Heavy Battle Armor should have 10. For every attack that goes through the soak of the character, subtract that amount from the Armor's HT, in addition to the WT of the character. This will cause armor to degrade fast and need to be repaired by using mechanics and armor patches. I would say that only materials like laminate or other hard armors can gain the Hardened Mod which halves the damage that is applied to the armor to increase its longevity. I would make the Hardened Mod be like Encumbrance +2 and cost 5,000 credits while taking up two mod slots.

that is way over complicating something we already have a system to handle.

Let's not get into the, "It doesn't say I can't, therefore I can," discussion. Rules do both things. They state what can and what can't be done in the frame of the game's setting. Besides, in the end, each gaming group will play the game how they want to, even if some rules have to be ignored/changed/etc, as long as they have fun together.

Generally that is true, but we also know from the developers' answers to questions concerning this game (in podcasts and emails) that they tend to call out what isn't allowed or possible in the rules, not the other way around. Also that they leave it open to interpretation just so that each group can do as they please - this is not changing or ignoring rules though, as you put it. Therefore it makes at least as much, if not more, sense to allow Sunder than not to. The fact that it was omitted from the examples really doesn't say anything other than that they didn't specifically state that armour can be sundered, that doesn't automatically mean it can't, due to some constructed logic of omission meaning "NO!" This isn't Pathfinder. Luckily.

So, clearly, the rules doesn't say one way or the other, or put another way: the rules says what you want them to say in this (and many other) instances. And what one wants the rules to say betrays one's philosophy and perspective on gaming, whether its cooperative, adversarial, or some other descriptor one feel fits one's gaming style.

To me allowing Sunder against armour just makes sense, of course armour can be damaged and destroyed, anything else makes very little sense. Also, the benefit from destroying armour isn't normally that great (removing some soak and perhaps defensive from the equation isn't bad in an EotE or AoR game, but of minimal concern in F&D, unless Cortosis of course...), damaging it on the other hand can apply another setback dice, perhaps even a difficulty die to actions while using the armour - if you just simply apply the rules on maintenance from the equipment chapters.

Cortosis not working against the Sundering of armour also makes sense, as armour is made up of many different component and layers, there will be joints and connecting areas that will serve as weak points where - arguably - the Cortosis quality won't apply.

Let's not get into the, "It doesn't say I can't, therefore I can," discussion. Rules do both things. They state what can and what can't be done in the frame of the game's setting. Besides, in the end, each gaming group will play the game how they want to, even if some rules have to be ignored/changed/etc, as long as they have fun together.

Generally that is true, but we also know from the developers' answers to questions concerning this game (in podcasts and emails) that they tend to call out what isn't allowed or possible in the rules, not the other way around. Also that they leave it open to interpretation just so that each group can do as they please - this is not changing or ignoring rules though, as you put it. Therefore it makes at least as much, if not more, sense to allow Sunder than not to. The fact that it was omitted from the examples really doesn't say anything other than that they didn't specifically state that armour can be sundered, that doesn't automatically mean it can't, due to some constructed logic of omission meaning "NO!" This isn't Pathfinder. Luckily.

So, clearly, the rules doesn't say one way or the other, or put another way: the rules says what you want them to say in this (and many other) instances. And what one wants the rules to say betrays one's philosophy and perspective on gaming, whether its cooperative, adversarial, or some other descriptor one feel fits one's gaming style.

To me allowing Sunder against armour just makes sense, of course armour can be damaged and destroyed, anything else makes very little sense. Also, the benefit from destroying armour isn't normally that great (removing some soak and perhaps defensive from the equation isn't bad in an EotE or AoR game, but of minimal concern in F&D, unless Cortosis of course...), damaging it on the other hand can apply another setback dice, perhaps even a difficulty die to actions while using the armour - if you just simply apply the rules on maintenance from the equipment chapters.

Cortosis not working against the Sundering of armour also makes sense, as armour is made up of many different component and layers, there will be joints and connecting areas that will serve as weak points where - arguably - the Cortosis quality won't apply.

There is also the fact that they say cortosis does not prevent sundering armor. IE they just said you can sunder armor as they said cortosis does not prevent it. If you could not sunder armor why didn't they say you can't sunder armor?

Well, yes, but apparently my question to the developers was loaded, and therefore their reply is invalid for some reason, because the developers ... oh I don't know... can't see a loaded question? Isn't smart enough to say that, "hey dude, you can't sunder armour!"? I don't know where whoever it was who said that wanted to go with it, other than to support his/her own position and try to invalidate a developer's answer because it doesn't suit/support his/her own position... so logically then, the reply doesn't imply what you just stated Daeglan, because my initial question to the developer was loaded... so does that mean you can only sunder armour with Cortosis ...? But not armour without...?

Meh.

Give armor a Health Threshold based upon the materials used in the construction. Cloth will have 1-2 HT while Heavy Battle Armor should have 10. For every attack that goes through the soak of the character, subtract that amount from the Armor's HT, in addition to the WT of the character. This will cause armor to degrade fast and need to be repaired by using mechanics and armor patches. I would say that only materials like laminate or other hard armors can gain the Hardened Mod which halves the damage that is applied to the armor to increase its longevity. I would make the Hardened Mod be like Encumbrance +2 and cost 5,000 credits while taking up two mod slots.

that is way over complicating something we already have a system to handle.

It's not over complicated. In fact, it's rather simple alteration that just means tracking the armor's health. It provides two benefits, one is that the armor will degrade over time and it becomes a money sink to keep the gear operational.