10 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

This assumes the only time you are hit is when you take damage. But a lot of game systems, this one included, illustrate that the actual results of the dice roll can be a lot of stuff. Just because I "miss" on an attack, doesn't mean I didn't ever hit my target in our flurry of attacks. It just means none of them actually amounted to anything. Some would say "Well that's just soak, or damage reduction" if we're talking about D&D, but other schools of thought say it's kind of both. That if the armor doesn't actually provide soak or damage reduction (which most of them don't in game design)

So it's not unreasonable, based on the way armor is usually designed in games, to say that it's not preventing you from being hit so much, it's just making the hits you are taking, far less likely to actually hurt you. The idea of a "hit" being when your body actually takes damage.

Actually, no. It assumes that getting hit does not always equate to taking damage. That's what armor is for, absorbing the damage. That does not mean you can't be knocked down from a hit even if you don't take any actual damage. Systems like D&D and SAGA assume that a hit equals damage, when it doesn't. A hit simply means that the blow made solid contact, not that it necessarily penetrated the armor.

4 minutes ago, Darzil said:

There are certainly armors that use shape to deflect blows, which it could be argued provide defence. And shields make sense if they deflect rather than absorb hits. Could have armor that is ablative, and degrades whilst providing soak. Otherwise, just providing soak makes sense.

If anything, I think the biggest issue is not what the armor provides, but the lack if information it provides on why.

(Neglecting the confusion on stacking, of course)

Even being "deflected", the blow made solid contact. Thus, it's a hit. Any time a blow makes contact, you've been "hit". Whether it has been deflected or not is irrelevant. The only way something is a "miss" is if it does not make contact at all.

I'll disagree. A "hit" is an attack that has an effect. Narratively, an attack can be deflected by armor or completely miss (no successes or failure) or make contact, not be deflected, and then some of the damage is absorbed by the soak of the armor.

I would allow any character with armor that has a defense value to narrate any miss as being deflected by their armor.

3 minutes ago, Ahrimon said:

I'll disagree. A "hit" is an attack that has an effect. Narratively, an attack can be deflected by armor or completely miss (no successes or failure) or make contact, not be deflected, and then some of the damage is absorbed by the soak of the armor.

I would allow any character with armor that has a defense value to narrate any miss as being deflected by their armor.

Well, I'm talking from real world practical experience, not simply game mechanics. I've worn military flack armor, as well as medieval armor (in the SCA, and took actual blows in said armor). Even if the hit doesn't have an "appreciable effect" or do any actual damage, it is still felt, it still made solid contact. By definition, that's being hit. That is where I am coming from. That's why I do like that most armors in this system have little to no Defense. They all have Soak, though the Soak values for the heavier armors do seem a bit weak IMO.

Understand. I've worn level 4 body armor myself. Flack armor is pointless against ballistic weapons though. It might slow the bullet down but it doesn't stop it. You need level 3 or 4 plates if you want to stop a modern bullet. You are still going to feel the hit though.

I haven't worn durasteel armored clothing or Heavy Battle Armor though. In fiction, armor like that often deflects blows. Those blows make contact, but by the game rules, miss. They aren't absorbed by soak, they are absorbed. No one has said that the character never feels it, but we are saying that the armor deflects enough of the blow that the character takes no damage. Damage itself being an abstract

I think you are having an issue separating common english definitions from game definitions. Yes, getting hit means there was contact in plain english. However in game terms getting hit is something else. In game terms getting hit means that the attack roll was high enough to actually cause the character damage.

I do agree that the armors in the game don't have enough soak. Personally, I would like to see a larger range of soak in the armors and a greatly reduced amount of soak from brawn.

Being absorbed is the same thing as saying Soak absorbed it. That's what Soak does. It soaks up damage. This is one of the reasons why I love R.Talsorian's system so much. It's purely Stopping Power, as it should be.

If it helps, think of if this way. If an armor has defense then it has a deflect value that lowers the damage to the soak value. So the majority of the hit is deflected away and that little bit that isn't is fully absorbed by the soak. It's no different than a glancing blow on your SCA armor. The attack made contact, but the armor deflected the majority of the force away and what it didn't was taken care of by the armor. You still physically felt it, but it didn't hurt. Thats how defense works on armor.

12 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Being absorbed is the same thing as saying Soak absorbed it. That's what Soak does. It soaks up damage. This is one of the reasons why I love R.Talsorian's system so much. It's purely Stopping Power, as it should be.

But not every game system uses Soak or DR, or only uses them sparingly. Most just focus on a To Hit rating of some kind. Sure it might not make much sense, but it's a fairly common gaming convention in design. It minimizes the number of factors that have to be tracked, but still allows the armor to be effective mechanically.

I agree that in this system, with Soak being such an integral part, that armor should just provide more soak. But the didn't design it that way so, *shrugs* it's kind of weird. Which brings us back to the issue of Defense being a troublesome stat in this game.

5 minutes ago, Ahrimon said:

If it helps, think of if this way. If an armor has defense then it has a deflect value that lowers the damage to the soak value. So the majority of the hit is deflected away and that little bit that isn't is fully absorbed by the soak. It's no different than a glancing blow on your SCA armor. The attack made contact, but the armor deflected the majority of the force away and what it didn't was taken care of by the armor. You still physically felt it, but it didn't hurt. Thats how defense works on armor.

A glancing blow in the SCA is still a hit. It still hit you, deflected or not. And, given that they use rattan "swords" that can't actually penetrate the armor, means that no matter what, all you get is bruises at worst. It still counts as a "hit" in the battles, however, and it still did hit you.

1 minute ago, KungFuFerret said:

But not every game system uses Soak or DR, or only uses them sparingly. Most just focus on a To Hit rating of some kind. Sure it might not make much sense, but it's a fairly common gaming convention in design. It minimizes the number of factors that have to be tracked, but still allows the armor to be effective mechanically.

I agree that in this system, with Soak being such an integral part, that armor should just provide more soak. But the didn't design it that way so, *shrugs* it's kind of weird. Which brings us back to the issue of Defense being a troublesome stat in this game.

And I don't play those games. I only play games which give armor a Damage Reduction/Soak/Stopping Power. The fact that FFG only gives armor a Defense bonus sparingly , and instead focuses more on the armor's Soak value is a good thing. I'd scrap the Defense bonus for armor completely if I had my way. If you look more closely, not every armor has a Defense value, but they all have a Soak value.

Defence on armour can also be seen as say a cloak obscuring the individuals form

The cloak gets hit but the form doesn't so that's defence not soak?

just a thought

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A glancing blow in the SCA is still a hit. It still hit you, deflected or not. And, given that they use rattan "swords" that can't actually penetrate the armor, means that no matter what, all you get is bruises at worst. It still counts as a "hit" in the battles, however, and it still did hit you.

Yes but now you are talking about a game of tag and not life and death combat. The blow hit you, yes, but not enough to do damage with the lethal weapon that just hit you is mechanically a miss in RPG land. A blow that hit you and does damage is a hit in RPG land.

Trying to use SCA experience in life and death combat does not get anyone very far. The SCA does a good job of letting everyone feel like they are participating but there's no real danger and thus no real experience to be gained IMO.

19 minutes ago, Ahrimon said:

Yes but now you are talking about a game of tag and not life and death combat. The blow hit you, yes, but not enough to do damage with the lethal weapon that just hit you is mechanically a miss in RPG land. A blow that hit you and does damage is a hit in RPG land.

Trying to use SCA experience in life and death combat does not get anyone very far. The SCA does a good job of letting everyone feel like they are participating but there's no real danger and thus no real experience to be gained IMO.

No. It's a "miss" in Dungeons & Dragons, a game I boycott, partly for that very reason. It would still qualify as a hit in Cyberpunk, and Mekton, both of which use a Stopping Power system for armor not too dissimilar to Soak. And, for the record, even though Rattan can't penetrate plate steel armor, it does still leave nasty bruises, and can break bones if you're not careful. So, you can very easily still get hurt, just not cut. However, even a bullet hit that glances off the armor is still a hit, and can leave some nasty bruises as well. Those aren't "misses". IF the damage doesn't go through, it simply means the armor soaked the damage, which is what the Soak value is for.

It goes back to the old "AND, Or, If then, If and only If" logic tables they taught us in Algebra class back in high school.

People on the WotC boards used to argue that the Armor Defense bonus they switched back to when the switch was made from RCRB to SAGA, was meant to indicate that the armor stopped someone from both hitting and doing damage. This is false. For an "and" statement to be true, both parts of it must be true. Armor does not stop someone from being hit. Therefore the first part of the statement that the armor prevents you from being hit and taking damage is false, and therefore the whole statement is false. Armor only mitigates a certain amount of damage after you have been hit. . It does not stop you from being hit at all. That is not how armor works. A "glancing blow" on an unarmored person will still injure him, whereas on an armored person, the armor is likely to take at least most of it. Thus, a glancing blow is still a hit. It's not a miss.

After playing the system for nearly two years I think if I was going to change how Armor works I'd eliminate it's Defense quality then range Soak from armor to +1-4 (light, Medium, Heavy, Powered), and have a minimum of 1 damage with any weapon hit regardless of total Soak. I'd save Defense for Cover, abilities and Talents, and some very special equipment. I'm pretty sure that this change wouldn't break the current system and it would clarify the difference between Soak and Defense.

6 minutes ago, FuriousGreg said:

After playing the system for nearly two years I think if I was going to change how Armor works I'd eliminate it's Defense quality then range Soak from armor to +1-4 (light, Medium, Heavy, Powered), and have a minimum of 1 damage with any weapon hit regardless of total Soak. I'd save Defense for Cover, abilities and Talents, and some very special equipment. I'm pretty sure that this change wouldn't break the current system and it would clarify the difference between Soak and Defense.

I agree 100%. at least with the first part, not so much the minimum of one damage. That we don't need. Now, if only we could convince the developers to make that change to the actual system.

16 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I agree 100%. at least with the first part, not so much the minimum of one damage. That we don't need. Now, if only we could convince the developers to make that change to the actual system.

For most PCs a single point of minimum damage won't make a difference because most attacks will exceed their Soak anyway but it'll keep combat dangerous for Soak optimized combat monsters. Besides it is in line with your earlier point that even when armor stops an attack you still suffer some damage (keep in mind that damage in this system represents everything from a bruise on up). Also it works pretty well in Warhammer Fantasy RP 3rd Ed (the game that the FFGSW's dice system is based on).

7 minutes ago, FuriousGreg said:

For most PCs a single point of minimum damage won't make a difference because most attacks will exceed their Soak anyway but it'll keep combat dangerous for Soak optimized combat monsters. Besides it is in line with your earlier point that even when armor stops an attack you still suffer some damage (keep in mind that damage in this system represents everything from a bruise on up). Also it works pretty well in Warhammer Fantasy RP 3rd Ed (the game that the FFGSW's dice system is based on).

That's not quite what I said though. A hit CAN, still hurt you, though it doesn't necessarily have to. The potential is there for injury any time you're hit by any weapon. The point of armor is to mitigate and absorb some or, potentially, all of that damage. whereas a miss, is just that, the weapon didn't even touch you.