Just now, penpenpen said:

Armor ed clothing
Heavy battle armor
Armor ed robes
Wing Commander Armor ed Flight Suit
Mountaineer Armor
Armor ed Drop Suit
Mandalorian Armor

What to these all have in common? I'll tell you: a defense rating . Also they're armor. Like solid plates that are impacted by hits.

Of course, you could argue that all of these incorporate shield technology, or something like a threat-predicting droid brain that tells the wearer to duck or something like that. In fact, if you did, I'm sure you'd also back that up canon evidence to support it. I don't know where you'd find it, but I trust your mad wookieepedia skills.

Or, you could perhaps claim that this is different . As we're talking about shields, personal scale armor is irrelevant exceeeept... theres that pesky Personal Deflector Shield from EotE that also gives a defense rating. But no, maybe this is different- different, like that just because the rules mean one thing in one case (personal armor, in this case), doesn't mean that they apply the same way to every other case (like starship shields).

If you go for that argument, well then you've got me beat by pointing out the crucial flaw in your own logic way before I did. Well done!

Break out of your rigid thinking, man. Considering the mental gymnastics tricks I've seen you pull, you should be pretty limber in the old brainpan.

What they all have in common, and what all armor has in common , is a Soak value. Not every piece of armor has a Defense value, and IMO, none of them should have one. Every piece of armor has a Soak value, whether it be Heavy Clothing, up through the most powerful Powered Armor, they all have a Soak value. That is the primary stat for each piece of armor.

12 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

What they all have in common, and what all armor has in common , is a Soak value. Not every piece of armor has a Defense value, and IMO, none of them should have one. Every piece of armor has a Soak value, whether it be Heavy Clothing, up through the most powerful Powered Armor, they all have a Soak value. That is the primary stat for each piece of armor.

Oh, ok, I see, you're not arguing what is wrong but what, in your subjective opinion, should be wrong. I don't want to sound overly critical here, but that distinction doesn't always come across perfectly clear in your posts.

I'm gonna go away for away for a while and dream of a day when you realize that your interpretation of star wars canon is just as subjective.

1 minute ago, penpenpen said:

Oh, ok, I see, you're not arguing what is wrong but what, in your subjective opinion, should be wrong. I don't want to sound overly critical here, but that distinction doesn't always come across perfectly clear in your posts.

I'm gonna go away for away for a while and dream of a day when you realize that your interpretation of star wars canon is just as subjective.

No, I'm arguing what is wrong. Not every armor has a Defense rating, but they all have a Soak rating . Soak is the primary stat for every type of armor, be it personal or vehicular. Armor does not prevent you from being hit. Armor absorbs damage after you have been hit. That is how armor works. That is what we see in the lore and how it works in reality. By contrast, shields prevent you from being hit by deflecting or scattering the shot away before it can hit its target. They don't soak the damage, they block the hit completely .

Shield generator is an armor and it doesn't have a soak value.

So shields prevent you from getting hit. Baddie rolls to hit me, gets a failure on the setback die given for defense but had overall success. I take one less damage from the defense. It did not block the hit completely it soaked one of the damage.

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, I'm arguing what is wrong. Not every armor has a Defense rating, but they all have a Soak rating . Soak is the primary stat for every type of armor, be it personal or vehicular. Armor does not prevent you from being hit. Armor absorbs damage after you have been hit. That is how armor works. That is what we see in the lore and how it works in reality. By contrast, shields prevent you from being hit by deflecting or scattering the shot away before it can hit its target. They don't soak the damage, they block the hit completely .

Oh, I see. RAW is secondary to your subjective interpretation of lore! Does FFG know? Are you going to post a FAQ?

Or are you just correcting people for not using your house rules?

Well... whatever the in universe answer is supposed to be... in order to improve shield function to something more predictable in game mechanics terms, we treat it more like parry. Optional strain for a specific result. So far it's worked great in our fighter squadron campaign. I legit can't remember if *we* house ruled it, or stole it from someone else, though so I can't take credit.

20 hours ago, Jawa4thewin said:

Shield generator is an armor and it doesn't have a soak value.

So shields prevent you from getting hit. Baddie rolls to hit me, gets a failure on the setback die given for defense but had overall success. I take one less damage from the defense. It did not block the hit completely it soaked one of the damage.

The Shield generator is not physical armor. It creates an energy bubble , that surrounds the body and prevents hits from getting through, just like a ship's shields. The same is true of Holographic clothing, which obscures the body, thus making it harder for a shot to properly target you. Neither of these is actual physical armor .

5 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Oh, I see. RAW is secondary to your subjective interpretation of lore! Does FFG know? Are you going to post a FAQ?

Or are you just correcting people for not using your house rules?

No. First off, I'm not talking about just lore. I'm talking about how armor really works . In order for armor to do its job, you have to be hit. Armor does not prevent something from hitting you. It's actually easier to hit someone wearing armor than someone not wearing armor because armor is more restrictive. I know this because I have actually worn real body armor . All armor does is soak damage thus reducing or eliminating damage that might otherwise injure or kill you. That is what armor does. That is all armor does. That isn't subjective. That is objective fact.

41 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

Well... whatever the in universe answer is supposed to be... in order to improve shield function to something more predictable in game mechanics terms, we treat it more like parry. Optional strain for a specific result. So far it's worked great in our fighter squadron campaign. I legit can't remember if *we* house ruled it, or stole it from someone else, though so I can't take credit.

If a shield generator isn't armor how come it is under the armor category and you cant wear other "armor" and stack the benefits?

I enjoy your use of bold type. Makes it seem more true... seem....

2 minutes ago, Jawa4thewin said:

If a shield generator isn't armor how come it is under the armor category and you cant wear other "armor" and stack the benefits?

I enjoy your use of bold type. Makes it seem more true... seem....

It's not physical armor. It's a little device worn on your belt which generates an energy bubble around you. For the record, anything worn on the body in this system is classified as "armor", even normal clothing .

So if I wear another little device on my belt, say a communicator, does that mean it is also armor?

1 minute ago, Jawa4thewin said:

So if I wear another little device on my belt, say a communicator, does that mean it is also armor?

A comlink isn't worn. It's stored inside of a holder. And you're missing the point, or just being facetious. My point is that the personal shield generator isn't physical armor. It isn't plates or padding covering your torso, limbs, and/or head, that absorbs damage from hits. It's a small device that creates a 360 degree energy bubble that surrounds you by several inches preventing attacks from making any contact with you at all.

I find it a little ludicrous that there's an actual argument about whether the definition of armor is subjective or not. It's... really not. It's not a made up, Star Warsian concept. Armor is armor. The idea that defensive rating is a more significant aspect then soak is beyond ludicrous. If that were accurate, armored clothing and power armor would not have the same defense rating despite a 8950 credit cost difference. And the 'shield generator is actually armor' argument is ridiculous. You know what else is labeled under "armor"? A performer's costume. A utility vest. Diplomat's robes. A freaking hologram. There is a clear difference between armor in game mechanics terms and armor in gear classification terms. To claim otherwise is being intentionally contrarian.

A shield generator is neither armor, nor a shield, in a functional sense. It is a generator. It is a generator that generates... wait for it... a SHIELD. Not the most creative name, but apparently a little too creative for some.

If you think arguing with Tramp is fun, wait till after Rise of the Separatists hits. There will be plenty of people insisting that you do/don't have to start as a Padawan and invest Y XP in it before being allowed to play a Jedi. Get in on that.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. First off, I'm not talking about just lore. I'm talking   about how armor really works . In order for armor to do its job, you have to be hit. Armor does not prevent  something from hitting you. It's actually easier to hit someone wearing armor than someone not wearing armor because armor is more restrictive. I know this because I have actually worn real body  armor . All armor does is soak damage thus reducing or eliminating damage that might otherwise injure or kill  you. That is what armor does. That is all armor does.  That isn't subjective. That is objective fact.

Yes, that is all very true and completely beside the point in a narrative system abstracted to the point where chiseled pecs absorb twice as much damage as combat armor.

With that level abstraction, together with the established vast variety of things that provide defense rating, there really is nothing that say how shields must work in the rules. Soak, defense, it doesn't matter as it makes the shields fit whatever role the narrative demands.

Kind of how shields always have worked in star wars. Arbitrarely.

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I have      actually worn real body  armo   r . 

I'm just repeating this here because I think it's hilarious that you shout it out like it makes you some kind of expert on... I'm really not even sure anymore. Wearing body armor doesn't make you an expert. It mostly just makes you sweat. But if you want to go the route of bringing pointless military experience into this to prove your superior armor knowledge...

I served in an armored brigade.

You know, sometimes I wish you'd be reasonable, but then I'd might have start watching TV again.

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

Yes, that is all very true and completely beside the point in a narrative system abstracted to the point where chiseled pecs absorb twice as much damage as combat armor.

Really? 'It's broken but so are other things so we should just ignore it or make random things up instead of trying to find a useful system' is not a defense.

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

there really is nothing that say how shields must work in the rules  . Soak, defense, it doesn't matter as it makes the shields fit whatever role the narrative demands

Until I start trying to come up with plans around a specific set of rules. Then they had better be consistent or, as a player, why should I even bother. I say the shields hold, because I say so is not narrative demands, it's just lazy storytelling.

I'll be the first to say that FFG is consistent with how they present shields vs armor. That's not the point of the thread. The point is that the way they present it DOESN'T fit the narrative because the narrative isn't consistent. Hence the problem in the first place.

10 hours ago, Dunefarble said:

Really? 'It's broken but so are other things so we should just ignore it or make random things up instead of trying to find a useful system' is not a defense.

If we want to make a realistic simulation, yes, then it's broken.

If we want a narrative where big tough opponents like wookiees are harder to take down than armored storm troopers, it works as intended.

It's like saying a hammer is broken because it makes a terrible screwdriver. That is of course of little comfort if you want a screwdriver.

10 hours ago, Dunefarble said:

Until I start trying to come up with plans around a specific set of rules. Then they had better be consistent or, as a player, why should I even bother. I say the shields hold, because I say so is not narrative demands, it's just lazy storytelling.

I'll be the first to say that FFG is consistent with how they present shields vs armor. That's not the point of the thread. The point is that the way they present it DOESN'T fit the narrative because the narrative isn't consistent. Hence the problem in the first place.

Yes, shields are consistently portrayed as defensive dice, but it wouldn't break the system if a ship or ship attachment had a rule that gave it +1 soak or upgraded difficulty (like the droidekas) with its' shields up. The mechanics would still be consistent, but you'd apply other existing mechanics to the situation to adress the needs of that particular situation.

As stated multiple times in the thread, the films are very vague on how shields work, perhaps even inconsistent. You could call that lazy storytelling, but really, as far as ships goes, shields are just fluff. Words spoken in dialogue that could be cut without any effect to the story at all. The only shields that have any effect on the story are the big ones (the gungan shield and the planetary shields) which are more or less treated as impenetrable to conventional weapons and needs to be defeated in roundabout ways. You could call that lazy storytelling, and you'd be half right. It's storytelling, because exactly how they work doesn't matter.

A narrative game is the same. The rules mechanics needs to be consistent, but how and why these mechanics are applied can be given some wiggle room, depending on the needs of the narrative. For instance, the shield over Scarif doesn't work the same way as the gungan shield on Naboo, and perhaps the rules mechanics should reflect the difference in narrative there. And as both are portrayed as effectively impenetrable to weaponry, being "consistent" and portraying them by simply adding 4 setback dice wouldn't really fit the narrative, so you'd have to think of something else. And if you don't really want to bother with rules, its fine to say "you don't have any weapons that could penetrate the shield, you'll have to think of some other way", and have your players hatch plans like walking slowly through it and blasting the generators or disabling huge ships and crashing them into it.

18 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Yes, that is all very true and completely beside the point in a narrative system abstracted to the point where chiseled pecs absorb twice as much damage as combat armor.

With that level abstraction, together with the established vast variety of things that provide defense rating, there really is nothing that say how shields must work in the rules. Soak, defense, it doesn't matter as it makes the shields fit whatever role the narrative demands.

Kind of how shields always have worked in star wars. Arbitrarely.

I'm just repeating this here because I think it's hilarious that you shout it out like it makes you some kind of expert on... I'm really not even sure anymore. Wearing body armor doesn't make you an expert. It mostly just makes you sweat. But if you want to go the route of bringing pointless military experience into this to prove your superior armor knowledge...

I served in an armored brigade.

You know, sometimes I wish you'd be reasonable, but then I'd might have start watching TV again.

Yes, and? Tank Armor also absorbs damage to the tank from attacks. Your point? I've worn not only military armor, but I was also involved in Medieval recreation back in the day, and had a number of opportunities to wear plate and padded armor as well as a "combat archer". Even though the weapons we used weren't lethal, they could hurt you, and I had been hit on numerous occasions, and the armor I wore absorbed that damage. It didn't prevent me from getting hit.

17 hours ago, Dunefarble said:

Really? 'It's broken but so are other things so we should just ignore it or make random things up instead of trying to find a useful system' is not a defense.

Until I start trying to come up with plans around a specific set of rules. Then they had better be consistent or, as a player, why should I even bother. I say the shields hold, because I say so is not narrative demands, it's just lazy storytelling.

I'll be the first to say that FFG is consistent with how they present shields vs armor. That's not the point of the thread. The point is that the way they present it DOESN'T fit the narrative because the narrative isn't consistent. Hence the problem in the first place.

The FFG rules are also consisitent with how we see armor and shields function in the movies. Armor soaks up damage fro m direct hits to the target whereas we see energy shields stop shots from even coming close to the target.

6 hours ago, penpenpen said:

If we want to make a realistic simulation, yes, then it's broken.

If we want a narrative where big tough opponents like wookiees are harder to take down than armored storm troopers, it works as intended.

It's like saying a hammer is broken because it makes a terrible screwdriver. That is of course of little comfort if you want a screwdriver.

Yes, shields are consistently portrayed as defensive dice, but it wouldn't break the system if a ship or ship attachment had a rule that gave it +1 soak or upgraded difficulty (like the droidekas) with its' shields up. The mechanics would still be consistent, but you'd apply other existing mechanics to the situation to adress the needs of that particular situation.

As stated multiple times in the thread, the films are very vague on how shields work, perhaps even inconsistent. You could call that lazy storytelling, but really, as far as ships goes, shields are just fluff. Words spoken in dialogue that could be cut without any effect to the story at all. The only shields that have any effect on the story are the big ones (the gungan shield and the planetary shields) which are more or less treated as impenetrable to conventional weapons and needs to be defeated in roundabout ways. You could call that lazy storytelling, and you'd be half right. It's storytelling, because exactly how they work doesn't matter.

A narrative game is the same. The rules mechanics needs to be consistent, but how and why these mechanics are applied can be given some wiggle room, depending on the needs of the narrative. For instance, the shield over Scarif doesn't work the same way as the gungan shield on Naboo, and perhaps the rules mechanics should reflect the difference in narrative there. And as both are portrayed as effectively impenetrable to weaponry, being "consistent" and portraying them by simply adding 4 setback dice wouldn't really fit the narrative, so you'd have to think of something else. And if you don't really want to bother with rules, its fine to say "you don't have any weapons that could penetrate the shield, you'll have to think of some other way", and have your players hatch plans like walking slowly through it and blasting the generators or disabling huge ships and crashing them into it.

Yes, it would, because that is not how we actually see the shields work on screen or in the lore. And yes, the Gungan shield on Naboo does work the same as the one on Scarif. The only difference is the level of power each has.

8 hours ago, penpenpen said:

As  stated multiple times in the thread, the films are very vague on how shields work, perhaps even inconsistent. You could call that lazy storytelling, but really, as far as ships goes, shields are just fluff.

I never said the movie portrayal was lazy storytelling. In the films, the 'players' (characters) have a set of information that they make decisions based on. Do we, as observers, need a complete chain of thought explanation? No, we have other cues that let us know that some level of familiarity with the 'mechanics' are in play. BUT as PCs in our own campaigns? Yes, we need to know the specifics that our characters would know in order to make similar plans and decisions. Your example -

9 hours ago, penpenpen said:

if you don't really want to bother with rules, its fine to say "you don't have any weapons that could penetrate the shield, you'll have to think of some other way"

-is a perfect demonstration of why it's important. Why don't we have weapons that can penetrate it? What's the difference? How is the difference achieved? This information is important in order to come up with a plan, and 'because I say so' isn't useful to either the mechanical OR the narrative game play.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The FFG rules are also consisitent with how we see armor and shields function in the movies. Armor soaks up damage fro m direct hits to the target whereas we see energy shields stop shots from even coming close to the target.

I don't disagree with the basic principle, but I do disagree with the game play execution. I'm in the group that says full powered and present shields should demonstrably deflect attacks, not possibly deflect attacks.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it would, because that is not how we actually see the shields work on screen or in the lore. And yes, the Gungan shield on Naboo does work the same as the one on Scarif. The only difference is the level of power each has.

I could see the argument that one is a ray shield only and one is a combined ray AND particle shield, but I agree that power level is absolutely a factor as well. You don't expect your cell phone to operate the same as a building sized supercomputer.

12 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

I never said the movie portrayal was lazy storytelling. In the films, the 'players' (characters) have a set of information that they make decisions based on. Do we, as observers, need a complete chain of thought explanation? No, we have other cues that let us know that some level of familiarity with the 'mechanics' are in play. BUT as PCs in our own campaigns? Yes, we need to know the specifics that our characters would know in order to make similar plans and decisions. Your example -

-is a perfect demonstration of why it's important. Why don't we have weapons that can penetrate it? What's the difference? How is the difference achieved? This information is important in order to come up with a plan, and 'because I say so' isn't useful to either the mechanical OR the narrative game play.

I don't disagree with the basic principle, but I do disagree with the game play execution. I'm in the group that says full powered and present shields should demonstrably deflect attacks, not possibly deflect attacks.

I could see the argument that one is a ray shield only and one is a combined ray AND particle shield, but I agree that power level is absolutely a factor as well. You don't expect your cell phone to operate the same as a building sized supercomputer.

Well, that’s just it. Having shields apply a Setback die to the attack roll in this case does represent that very well since if the Setback die results in the attack failing to hit when it otherwise would have, then the shields deflected the attack preventing the shot from hitting the ship. This is what we see in the lore. The shot is either stopped by the shields or blows through and the armor has to soak up the damage as best it can.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, that’s just it. Having shields apply a Setback die to the attack roll in this case does represent that very well since if the Setback die results in the attack failing to hit when it otherwise would have, then the shields deflected the attack preventing the shot from hitting the ship. This is what we see in the lore. The shot is either stopped by the shields or blows through and the armor has to soak up the damage as best it can.

To me, it feels MUCH too random. Sure, it may prevent an attack... or it may do nothing at all. The lack of shields on the TIEs versus the presence of shields on the x-wing is portrayed as a massive difference in survivability, but with the mechanics as they are... its a little help, but not much, imo. To clarify, I don't necessarily think they should be stronger, just more predictable in performance.

44 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

To me, it feels MUCH too random. Sure, it may prevent an attack... or it may do nothing at all. The lack of shields on the TIEs versus the presence of shields on the x-wing is portrayed as a massive difference in survivability, but with the mechanics as they are... its a little help, but not much, imo. To clarify, I don't necessarily think they should be stronger, just more predictable in performance.

First off, an X-wing has more going for it than just shields. It also has stronger armor than a TIE fighter, and is more durabily built over all. Secondly, this is what we see on screen. The shields either stop the hit entirely or they get blown through or bipassed. As such, the rules having Shields impose Setback dice are totally consistent with the lore here. Your attack either manages to bias’s the shields (or overpower them) or it’s stopped cold. That’s what we see on screen and that’s best represented by Setback dice rather than Soak. Armor works best using Soak because that’s what armor does; it absorbs damage, though not necessarily all of it. This is because whereas with a shield which prevents the shot from even touching the target, with armor, there is still the potential for impact trauma simply from the force of the strike, even if the shot doesn’t penetrate the armor.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

First off, an X-wing has more going for it than just shields. It also has stronger armor than a TIE fighter, and is more durabily built over all.

Accurate, but the shields are what's emphasized time after time. It just sparks odd to me that, if the overall durability is the major aspect that they specifically call out the shields. That IS just in general lore, though, not specifically the movies.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Your attack either manages to bias’s the shields (or overpower them) or it’s stopped cold.

My main problem is the idea of shields SOMETIMES working, sometimes not. IMO the films are so vague that I don't feel they can offer a definitive answer as to HOW they reflect damage. SO the two obvious resources to me are the FFG books, or the lore. When my group played (a specific starfighter campaign) using the raw rules, we had balance issues. So we turned to lore and house ruled the shields. I offered our method for those who had run into the same problem. If you want to play with raw, be my guest, I don't care.

But, if you ARE going to house rule, I don't think being wishy-washy about shields vs soak is a good idea. Shields follow a different repair and destruction mechanic and, like I said earlier, knowing WHY things work a certain way is important to me, as a player. Having shields sometimes work this way and sometimes work that way and sometimes just randomly doing nothing at all would be incredibly aggravating, and illogical. THAT's what I was arguing against.

That and the idea that more shields can somehow equal more armor. There's no logical sense there. Sure, some armor can be more defensive for whatever reason (camo, slim profile, higher agility, whatever), but having a defensive rating on armor doesn't translate to having more armor.

That’s just it though. It’s not a matter of the shields only sometimes working. It’s a matter of whether the shot can manage to either overpower or otherwise bypass the shields, by hitting a weak point in them. The more Setback dice the shields impose, the harder it is for a shot to bypass them, and thus the less likely it is to actually hit its target, be it a starship, a Rebel Base, or a battalion of Gungans.

The problem with the idea that more shields equates to more armor is that, once again, the shields actually make it harder to actually hit the target be providing a barrier that is son distance away. Armor, on the other hand is directly attached to the “skin” or worn directly on the body to soak up damage that actually impacts the target. The shields actually prevent that shot from impacting completely.

19 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The  problem with the idea that more shields equates  to more armor is that, once again, the shields actually make it harder to actually hit the target be providing a barrier that is son distance away. Armor, on the other hand is directly attached to the “skin” or worn directly on the body to soak up damage that actually impacts the target. The shields actually prevent  that shot from impacting completely.

I don't know why you're implying that I disagree with this? I don't, I've never said I did?

20 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That’s  just it though. It’s not a matter of the shields only sometimes  working. 

When shields or no shields can have the same effect with the same amount of damage rolled, that to me feels like it sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. It'd be like having to roll for your armor working, imo.

9 minutes ago, Dunefarble said:

I don't know why you're implying that I disagree with this? I don't, I've never said I did?

When shields or no shields can have the same effect with the same amount of damage rolled, that to me feels like it sometimes works, sometimes doesn't. It'd be like having to roll for your armor working, imo.

Because that’s how they really work in the lore. The shot is either completely stopped by the shields or it completely bypasses it blows through them. They don’t soak the damage, they stop the hit or get blown through. It’s all or nothing when it comes to shields. That’s why they impose Setback to the attack roll rather than Soak. By contrast, armor takes impact and absorbs a certain amount of damage. And even if it manages to prevent a shot from actually penetrating, there is still blunt force trauma that can potentially get through, hence Armor absorbs damage rather than preventing hits, whereas shields actually prevent hits.

As for the comment about having to roll for Armor to work. That’s exactly how D&D has armor work, which is why I don’t play that game anymore. The key difference between armor and shields is that shields prevent hits , and thus the Setback dice to the attack roll, armored absorbs damage from hits, and thus grants Soak.