Yeah, it does break down when you get to planetary scale damage, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense for personal scale damage.

2 hours ago, Vader is Love said:

I'd also say, that failure is a miss. Of course we can describe it otherwise and it's perfectly fine to interpret it like you want, but there's still the following problem (I brought this up before):

In case your character shoots a stationary laser CANNON at an enemy in short range, who wears a battle armor (defense 1) and gets one net success, he would deal 70 damage, so without doubt instant kill.

But what if the setback had shown a failure und so would have had canceled the success?

There's no way to argue, that the battle armor could absorb that amount of damage. The only realistic interpretation would be to state, that it was a miss.

And that leads to the point already made: an armor can mitigate the damage, but not make the wearer harder to hit.

You are right it wouldnt absorb it. But it could glance off of the armor. This is why tanks have slope armor.

19 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Not according to the devs.

And the devs are wrong like all other game designers who make armour preventing you to be hit. It's only relevant to do it that way in wargames, but in a RPG it's an absurdity. But in SW FFG it's easy to houserule armour to remove it.

4 hours ago, Daeglan said:

You are right it wouldnt absorb it. But it could glance off of the armor. This is why tanks have slope armor.

and even that, it's still a hit . This is true even with tanks. The tank is still hit, and the armor still takes damage as a result.

37 minutes ago, WolfRider said:

And the devs are wrong like all other game designers who make armour preventing you to be hit. It's only relevant to do it that way in wargames, but in a RPG it's an absurdity. But in SW FFG it's easy to houserule armour to remove it.

I'd say that even with war games, it doesn't make sense. This is why a majority of games I've seen and played (Whit Wolf, Palladium, R.Talsorian Games, GURPS, Shadow Run) don't use Armor Defense bonuses. They use Armor Stopping Power / Damage Reduction mechanics exclusively . FFG is really the only system I've seen that uses both, though, thankfully, the stoping Power mechanic is the dominant mechanic.

5 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yeah, it does break down when you get to planetary scale damage, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense for personal scale damage.

It breaks down even at personal scale. That's the problem. It never makes sense, particularly if you're someone experienced in actually wearing armor. This is also why real armors have a stopping power rating themselves, that rates how large of a caliber round, the armor is designed to stop.

I know I shouldn't wade into this. I'm smarter than this...but here goes...

Attack roll that hits, hits the target and damage is reduced by soak. Attack roll that misses regardless of black dice misses. Attack roll that misses because of black dice was deflected by a sword, hit the shield, hit the object the person was hiding behind, or hit some unimportant part of their armor.

A hit is a hit, a miss is a miss. Effects like knockdown require a hit. If advantages are used to knock a target prone, it's not from the attack, but from some other outside aspect (your missed shots chewed up some ferrocrete which splintered and flew at the target hitting him in the face and causing him to lose his balance and fall, or you shot out a support pillar causing part of the roof to collapse and the target dove away to avoid damage thereby ending up prone on the ground, or a few errant shots hit the ceiling causing a large chunk to break off and nail the target in the head causing him to collapse, your attacks were so close they startled one of the minions who then stumbled backwards and tripped over another minion, etc).

Armor reduces damage through soak. Defense is used to make a target harder to hit. Deflection of a melee weapon with a sword. Deflection of a ranged attack with an energy shield. Hiding behind something thereby making yourself harder to hit. A holographic costume has 0 soak, but has defense, why? Because the costume obscures your actual body shape. They may be shooting at you and hitting the costume but not hitting you. Same with a flightsuit. It's large, puffy, has all sorts of extra vests, hoses, control systems but none of it would actually stop a vibroax or blaster bolt if it actually hit you....however it may just hit that puffy suit, or the hoses.

Armor that has high soak and defense is trickier to explain under this system, but not impossible. Very heavy armor often obscures the actual outline of the target. The body armor is significantly larger than the target itself. On top of that, some armor has additional protective plates or accouterments that simply don't matter if they get hit. The shoulder pauldrons, the knee/elbow pads, the belt, the built in backpack, the noticeable wider form factor of the chest armor with the heavier plates of protection in various areas. These all operate like the flight suit, the sword, or the shield. These pieces can take a hit that from the attacker's prospective looks initially like a successful attack, but unfortunately did nothing to the attacker as it failed to hit the target or was deflected away.

So, again...Attack roll that hits, hits the target and damage is reduced by soak. Attack roll that misses regardless of black dice misses. Attack roll that misses because of black dice was deflected by a sword, hit the shield, hit the object the person was hiding behind, or hit some unimportant part of their armor.

2 hours ago, WolfRider said:

And the devs are wrong like all other game designers who make armour preventing you to be hit. It's only relevant to do it that way in wargames, but in a RPG it's an absurdity. But in SW FFG it's easy to houserule armour to remove it.

A no one hase said it prevents you from getting hit but you guys. Sooo maybe you guys should stop interlreting it that way. As failure to cause damage does not mean you missed. **** even D&D says this.

14 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

I know I shouldn't wade into this. I'm smarter than this...but here goes...

Attack roll that hits, hits the target and damage is reduced by soak. Attack roll that misses regardless of black dice misses. Attack roll that misses because of black dice was deflected by a sword, hit the shield, hit the object the person was hiding behind, or hit some unimportant part of their armor.

A hit is a hit, a miss is a miss. Effects like knockdown require a hit. If advantages are used to knock a target prone, it's not from the attack, but from some other outside aspect (your missed shots chewed up some ferrocrete which splintered and flew at the target hitting him in the face and causing him to lose his balance and fall, or you shot out a support pillar causing part of the roof to collapse and the target dove away to avoid damage thereby ending up prone on the ground, or a few errant shots hit the ceiling causing a large chunk to break off and nail the target in the head causing him to collapse, your attacks were so close they startled one of the minions who then stumbled backwards and tripped over another minion, etc).

Armor reduces damage through soak. Defense is used to make a target harder to hit. Deflection of a melee weapon with a sword. Deflection of a ranged attack with an energy shield. Hiding behind something thereby making yourself harder to hit. A holographic costume has 0 soak, but has defense, why? Because the costume obscures your actual body shape. They may be shooting at you and hitting the costume but not hitting you. Same with a flightsuit. It's large, puffy, has all sorts of extra vests, hoses, control systems but none of it would actually stop a vibroax or blaster bolt if it actually hit you....however it may just hit that puffy suit, or the hoses.

Armor that has high soak and defense is trickier to explain under this system, but not impossible. Very heavy armor often obscures the actual outline of the target. The body armor is significantly larger than the target itself. On top of that, some armor has additional protective plates or accouterments that simply don't matter if they get hit. The shoulder pauldrons, the knee/elbow pads, the belt, the built in backpack, the noticeable wider form factor of the chest armor with the heavier plates of protection in various areas. These all operate like the flight suit, the sword, or the shield. These pieces can take a hit that from the attacker's prospective looks initially like a successful attack, but unfortunately did nothing to the attacker as it failed to hit the target or was deflected away.

So, again...Attack roll that hits, hits the target and damage is reduced by soak. Attack roll that misses regardless of black dice misses. Attack roll that misses because of black dice was deflected by a sword, hit the shield, hit the object the person was hiding behind, or hit some unimportant part of their armor.

The problem I have with that is having armor getting any of those black dice. Even if a paldron or chest plate is designed to deflect an attack, the person is still getting hit, whereas with a weapon or shield, the object alone is parrying said blow preventing the blow from making any contact with the person.

Just now, Daeglan said:

A no one hase said it prevents you from getting hit but you guys. Sooo maybe you guys should stop interlreting it that way. As failure to cause damage does not mean you missed. **** even D&D says this.

D&D is the worst offender of the Armor Defense rules. It was the primary reason why I have BOYCOTTED that system. So, no , we shouldn't stop interpreting it the way we do.

24 minutes ago, kmanweiss said:

I know I shouldn't wade into this. I'm smarter than this...but here goes...

Attack roll that hits, hits the target and damage is reduced by soak. Attack roll that misses regardless of black dice misses. Attack roll that misses because of black dice was deflected by a sword, hit the shield, hit the object the person was hiding behind, or hit some unimportant part of their armor.

A hit is a hit, a miss is a miss. Effects like knockdown require a hit. If advantages are used to knock a target prone, it's not from the attack, but from some other outside aspect (your missed shots chewed up some ferrocrete which splintered and flew at the target hitting him in the face and causing him to lose his balance and fall, or you shot out a support pillar causing part of the roof to collapse and the target dove away to avoid damage thereby ending up prone on the ground, or a few errant shots hit the ceiling causing a large chunk to break off and nail the target in the head causing him to collapse, your attacks were so close they startled one of the minions who then stumbled backwards and tripped over another minion, etc).

Armor reduces damage through soak. Defense is used to make a target harder to hit. Deflection of a melee weapon with a sword. Deflection of a ranged attack with an energy shield. Hiding behind something thereby making yourself harder to hit. A holographic costume has 0 soak, but has defense, why? Because the costume obscures your actual body shape. They may be shooting at you and hitting the costume but not hitting you. Same with a flightsuit. It's large, puffy, has all sorts of extra vests, hoses, control systems but none of it would actually stop a vibroax or blaster bolt if it actually hit you....however it may just hit that puffy suit, or the hoses.

Armor that has high soak and defense is trickier to explain under this system, but not impossible. Very heavy armor often obscures the actual outline of the target. The body armor is significantly larger than the target itself. On top of that, some armor has additional protective plates or accouterments that simply don't matter if they get hit. The shoulder pauldrons, the knee/elbow pads, the belt, the built in backpack, the noticeable wider form factor of the chest armor with the heavier plates of protection in various areas. These all operate like the flight suit, the sword, or the shield. These pieces can take a hit that from the attacker's prospective looks initially like a successful attack, but unfortunately did nothing to the attacker as it failed to hit the target or was deflected away.

So, again...Attack roll that hits, hits the target and damage is reduced by soak. Attack roll that misses regardless of black dice misses. Attack roll that misses because of black dice was deflected by a sword, hit the shield, hit the object the person was hiding behind, or hit some unimportant part of their armor.

That section you talked about sheilds. Heavy armor works the same way it deflects some attacks away.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

That section you talked about sheilds. Heavy armor works the same way it deflects some attacks away.

The difference is that a shield isn't a conforming garment worn by the person. It is a separate object, with a large surface area which provides mobile cover. It's a separate held object used to parry an attack to prevent a hit from even reaching the intended target . Armor only works once you actually get hit . It does not prevent a hit from making contact.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The problem I have with that is having armor getting any of those black dice. Even if a paldron or chest plate is designed to deflect an attack, the person is still getting hit, whereas with a weapon or shield, the object alone is parrying said blow preventing the blow from making any contact with the person.

D&D is the worst offender of the Armor Defense rules. It was the primary reason why I have BOYCOTTED that system. So, no , we shouldn't stop interpreting it the way we do.

You keep interpreting an unsuccesssful attack as a miss. That is not always the case. A weapon can make contact with a target without doing anything to the target. This is what i would call a degense die causing a failure. The armor deflected the hir away.

You would call that a miss i wouldnt. And i would describe it narratively as a hit that did no damage because the armor deflected it away. And i would vary the description based on the armor they are wearing. Flowing robes it passed throigh the robe missing the target.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You keep interpreting an unsuccesssful attack as a miss. That is not always the case. A weapon can make contact with a target without doing anything to the target. This is what i would call a degense die causing a failure. The armor deflected the hir away.

You would call that a miss i wouldnt. And i would describe it narratively as a hit that did no damage because the armor deflected it away. And i would vary the description based on the armor they are wearing. Flowing robes it passed throigh the robe missing the target.

Yes, it is ALWAYS the case. A successful attack is a hit, a failed attack is a miss. It's that simple. Advantages and Threats Triumphs and Despairs add additional effects, but a success is a hit and a failure is a miss. It is that simple.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The difference is that a shield isn't a conforming garment worn by the person. It is a separate object, with a large surface area which provides mobile cover. It's a separate held object used to parry an attack to prevent a hit from even reaching the intended target . Armor only works once you actually get hit . It does not prevent a hit from making contact.

So what. Armor can still deflect an attack away. It is why armor changed shape to make it so more attacks would have their energy channeled away from the wearer.

For example pot helms with their flat tops meant it was easier to land a lethal downward strike than it is to do so on a conquistador helm. A pot helm has no defense just soak. A conquistador helm has defense it can deflect strikes away. Specifically melee defense.

2 hours ago, WolfRider said:

And the devs are wrong like all other game designers who make armour preventing you to be hit. It's only relevant to do it that way in wargames, but in a RPG it's an absurdity. But in SW FFG it's easy to houserule armour to remove it.

No, the devs are correct in how they designed armor to operate within the confines of this game.

It bears saying that this game is NOT A REALISTIC TACTICAL SIMULATION.

And that's simply because nothing is this game is delibrately designed to operate under real world considerations. Instead, it's designed to provide a cinematic experience. Heck, in this game wearing armor in this game at least provides some measure of tangible benefit, as opposed to the movies while folks wearing armor might as well be wearing tin foil and tissue paper for all the good it does most of them in a fight.

19 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yeah, it does break down when you get to planetary scale damage, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense for personal scale damage.

It's basically the same. I just used an example with a planetary weapon to emphasize my point.

18 hours ago, Daeglan said:

You are right it wouldnt absorb it. But it could glance off of the armor. This is why tanks have slope armor.

A bolt from a laser cannon certainly would not glance off, as a projectile shot by a tank and hitting a modern day soldier, would not glance off, but wreck him.

13 hours ago, kmanweiss said:

Armor that has high soak and defense is trickier to explain under this system, but not impossible. Very heavy armor often obscures the actual outline of the target. The body armor is significantly larger than the target itself. On top of that, some armor has additional protective plates or accouterments that simply don't matter if they get hit. The shoulder pauldrons, the knee/elbow pads, the belt, the built in backpack, the noticeable wider form factor of the chest armor with the heavier plates of protection in various areas. These all operate like the flight suit, the sword, or the shield. These pieces can take a hit that from the attacker's prospective looks initially like a successful attack, but unfortunately did nothing to the attacker as it failed to hit the target or was deflected away.

There's no problem, if clothes or armor really obscure the wearers silhouette, like robes worn by Luminara Unduli or Shaak Ti. But normal laminate armor simply does not. You are actually helping me argue, because you said armor can be quite large. So armor would make the target even more easy to hit. But we're not trying to shoot at the edges of the armor, but to shoot the guy wearing it. Of course, when a shoulder pauldron is barely hit, there'd be no damage. But there'd be no damage, too, if the character would not wear any armor at all, because then it would just have been a miss.

13 hours ago, kmanweiss said:

Attack roll that misses because of black dice was deflected by a sword, hit the shield, hit the object the person was hiding behind, or hit some unimportant part of their armor.

This is a perfect description of how to handle it ingame, but again, the setback provided by an armors defense can realistically not result in any of your mentioned points. OF COURSE can it be described this way and narratively it will sound good, but it is simply not logical.

13 hours ago, Daeglan said:

A no one hase said it prevents you from getting hit but you guys. Sooo maybe you guys should stop interlreting it that way. As failure to cause damage does not mean you missed. **** even D&D says this.

A failure to cause damage (at least with a bigger weapon) has to be a miss, because there's no way, a hit would result in no damage at all.

13 hours ago, Daeglan said:

A conquistador helm has defense it can deflect strikes away. Specifically melee defense.

Then it logically should come with the quality defensive 1, but not provide a defense of 1.

12 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

No, the devs are correct in how they designed armor to operate within the confines of this game.

It bears saying that this game is NOT A REALISTIC TACTICAL SIMULATION.

And that's simply because nothing is this game is delibrately designed to operate under real world considerations. Instead, it's designed to provide a cinematic experience. Heck, in this game wearing armor in this game at least provides some measure of tangible benefit, as opposed to the movies while folks wearing armor might as well be wearing tin foil and tissue paper for all the good it does most of them in a fight.

As I said, it's perfectly fine to use armor and defense, the way it was intended. No one can and hopefully will expect a realistic tactical simulation. I mean, it's star wars...

Points were made, so I just propose a house rule: Failures shown on Setback dice provided by an armors defense can reduce the successes of the positive dice only to a minimum of 1, if the setbacks would be the deciding factor. Further failures will convert to threats (one for one, or maybe one for two).

3 hours ago, Vader is Love said:

It's basically the same. I just used an example with a planetary weapon to emphasize my point.

A bolt from a laser cannon certainly would not glance off, as a projectile shot by a tank and hitting a modern day soldier, would not glance off, but wreck him.

There's no problem, if clothes or armor really obscure the wearers silhouette, like robes worn by Luminara Unduli or Shaak Ti. But normal laminate armor simply does not. You are actually helping me argue, because you said armor can be quite large. So armor would make the target even more easy to hit. But we're not trying to shoot at the edges of the armor, but to shoot the guy wearing it. Of course, when a shoulder pauldron is barely hit, there'd be no damage. But there'd be no damage, too, if the character would not wear any armor at all, because then it would just have been a miss.

This is a perfect description of how to handle it ingame, but again, the setback provided by an armors defense can realistically not result in any of your mentioned points. OF COURSE can it be described this way and narratively it will sound good, but it is simply not logical.

A failure to cause damage (at least with a bigger weapon) has to be a miss, because there's no way, a hit would result in no damage at all.

Then it logically should come with the quality defensive 1, but not provide a defense of 1.

As I said, it's perfectly fine to use armor and defense, the way it was intended. No one can and hopefully will expect a realistic tactical simulation. I mean, it's star wars...

Points were made, so I just propose a house rule: Failures shown on Setback dice provided by an armors defense can reduce the successes of the positive dice only to a minimum of 1, if the setbacks would be the deciding factor. Further failures will convert to threats (one for one, or maybe one for two).

Which doesnt fit with a lot of armors that obscure the wearers location causing a miss.

And why couldnt super science armor deflect super science plasma bolts

18 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it is ALWAYS the case. A successful attack is a hit, a failed attack is a miss. It's that simple. Advantages and Threats Triumphs and Despairs add additional effects, but a success is a hit and a failure is a miss. It is that simple.

I don't mean to offend you but as an outsider looking in and reading all of these posts. I feel you may perhaps be taking things a little serious. Especially because we're talking about how something should be narrated.

It doesn't seem like the people you are arguing with are going to be swayed. Especially because you state your opinion as fact with all the bold lettering and the 'this is the way it is' vibe you have given off so far.

The books say that a GM can change or omit rules as they see fit. It's not a hard set of laws that GMs must abide by. Its malleable and the end goal should always be fun.

In the end you're free to have your opinion and play the way you feel the rules should be interpreted. But don't force it down the throats of those who just dont agree.

On 10/10/2019 at 2:12 AM, Tramp Graphics said:

According to reality .

Look, you're (yet again) confusing the way the rules work with how you want them to work. As heavy battle armor can cause a miss because of its defense rating, the logical conclusion is that it's to symbolize a poor hit being deflected.

D&D (of which I am not a great fan) uses the same logic. It is not meant to represent plate armor being somehow being hard to hit, but hard to succesfully cause damage through. This is explicitly spelled out.

The easiest way to fix your problem with the rules might be to just stop calling an attack a hit or miss, and instead call it a success or a fail. An attack stopped by armor is failure, and some armors do take a little skill to get through.

But that requires you to rethink your argument, so I doubt that'll happen.

6 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Look, you're (yet again) confusing the way the rules work with how you want them to work. As heavy battle armor can cause a miss because of its defense rating, the logical conclusion is that it's to symbolize a poor hit being deflected.

D&D (of which I am not a great fan) uses the same logic. It is not meant to represent plate armor being somehow being hard to hit, but hard to succesfully cause damage through. This is explicitly spelled out.

The easiest way to fix your problem with the rules might be to just stop calling an attack a hit or miss, and instead call it a success or a fail. An attack stopped by armor is failure, and some armors do take a little skill to get through.

But that requires you to rethink your argument, so I doubt that'll happen.

I agree,

I watch Critical Role (not sure if that's taboo around here, lol) and Matt Mercer frequently narrates a failed attack as a hit but with no damage.

Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to miss. Especially if the target is huge like a rancor or some other large foe. They are easy to hit, but they are usually well armored or have thick hide. So it sometimes makes sense to say "you hit it, but it ricocheted off of it's tough hide and hit the cave wall, creating a cloud of dust."

On 10/10/2019 at 5:46 PM, Daeglan said:

So what. Armor can still deflect an attack away. It is why armor changed shape to make it so more attacks would have their energy channeled away from the wearer.

For example pot helms with their flat tops meant it was easier to land a lethal downward strike than it is to do so on a conquistador helm. A pot helm has no defense just soak. A conquistador helm has defense it can deflect strikes away. Specifically melee defense.

And a deflection is still a hit . It is not a miss , which is what a failed roll represents . As such, a deflection is still Damage reduction, which is covered by Soak . Defense does not belong on Armor.

On 10/10/2019 at 6:12 PM, Donovan Morningfire said:

No, the devs are correct in how they designed armor to operate within the confines of this game.

It bears saying that this game is NOT A REALISTIC TACTICAL SIMULATION.

And that's simply because nothing is this game is delibrately designed to operate under real world considerations. Instead, it's designed to provide a cinematic experience. Heck, in this game wearing armor in this game at least provides some measure of tangible benefit, as opposed to the movies while folks wearing armor might as well be wearing tin foil and tissue paper for all the good it does most of them in a fight.

And cinematically, a hit is a hit, and a miss is a miss. Armor does not prevent you from being hit, narratively or otherwise.

On 10/12/2019 at 1:27 AM, penpenpen said:

Look, you're (yet again) confusing the way the rules work with how you want them to work. As heavy battle armor can cause a miss because of its defense rating, the logical conclusion is that it's to symbolize a poor hit being deflected.

D&D (of which I am not a great fan) uses the same logic. It is not meant to represent plate armor being somehow being hard to hit, but hard to succesfully cause damage through. This is explicitly spelled out.

The easiest way to fix your problem with the rules might be to just stop calling an attack a hit or miss, and instead call it a success or a fail. An attack stopped by armor is failure, and some armors do take a little skill to get through.

But that requires you to rethink your argument, so I doubt that'll happen.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying that armor having a Defense rating is bad game design . Armor dose not prevent you from being hit. it only stops damage . That is what armor does. That is all armor does. The way they handle armor is the primary reason why I stopped playing D&D. The saving grace of this system is that the primary benefit of Armor under this game system is Soak , not Defense. Defense is an afterthought. Regardless , it doesn't belong as a benefit for armor. It only belongs as a stat on shields, certain weapons, and certain garments, such as cloaks, and heavy robes, which obscure the shape of the body.

An attack that does no damage because of the armor is not a failed attack . It is a successful attack that had all of the damage stopped. However, even if no direct damage gets through, there are still other potential effects that can get through. In this system, these are the special qualities (such as Knockdown, or Critical injuries) activated by Advantage and Triumph. And most of these require a successful hit. They don't require wound damage to be done, however.

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The way they handle armor is the primary reason why I stopped playing D&D.

What a weird hill to die on.

45 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And a deflection is still a hit . It is not a miss , which is what a failed roll represents . As such, a deflection is still Damage reduction, which is covered by Soak . Defense does not belong on Armor.

And cinematically, a hit is a hit, and a miss is a miss. Armor does not prevent you from being hit, narratively or otherwise.

I'm not confusing anything. I'm saying that armor having a Defense rating is bad game design . Armor dose not prevent you from being hit. it only stops damage . That is what armor does. That is all armor does. The way they handle armor is the primary reason why I stopped playing D&D. The saving grace of this system is that the primary benefit of Armor under this game system is Soak , not Defense. Defense is an afterthought. Regardless , it doesn't belong as a benefit for armor. It only belongs as a stat on shields, certain weapons, and certain garments, such as cloaks, and heavy robes, which obscure the shape of the body.

An attack that does no damage because of the armor is not a failed attack . It is a successful attack that had all of the damage stopped. However, even if no direct damage gets through, there are still other potential effects that can get through. In this system, these are the special qualities (such as Knockdown, or Critical injuries) activated by Advantage and Triumph. And most of these require a successful hit. They don't require wound damage to be done, however.

Then dont play. I mean you are super invested in it being a miss. Even though this same game design is in many systems. **** even super realistic GURPS has rules for armor soaking AND deflecting hits. And again we have told you a dwflected hit is NOT a miss. But you are super invested in it being a miss. Which is kind of a weird hill to die on.

17 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Then dont play. I mean you are super invested in it being a miss. Even though this same game design is in many systems. **** even super realistic GURPS has rules for armor soaking AND deflecting hits. And again we have told you a dwflected hit is NOT a miss. But you are super invested in it being a miss. Which is kind of a weird hill to die on.

What I'm invested in, is mechanics reflecting how things actually work. With Armor, that means granting Soak, not Defense. For the most part , that is how armor works in this system. Some armors have Defense tacked on , almost as an afterthought. However, thankfully, Soak is still the primary stat for armor under this system. It should be the only stat for armor, however.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

What I'm invested in, is mechanics reflecting how things actually work. With Armor, that means granting Soak, not Defense. For the most part , that is how armor works in this system.

Apparently you are not actually that invested in that because you can't seem to figure out a VERY basic thing about armor. Armor has 3 modes of stopping damage. Either spreading the force out such that it is no longer damaging. or redirecting the energy away from the wearer. or making it hard to discern where the person actually is. Those 3 methods behave differently in real life. So mechanically they behave different in the game. But you are so fixated on failure meaning miss that you haven't caught on to the fact that all failure means in MOST game systems is you did not successfully accomplish your goal. Which can EITHER mean you miss entirely or you made contact but failed to do anything useful. It is almost like you are still using the D&D mindset that by the way does not consider armor to make you harder to hit. It considers armor to make you harder to successfully damage. But teenagers always take that to mean you miss. Which is incorrect. And yes GURPS improves this by separating Damage Reduction and Deflection and general difficulty to actually hit. By your logic a failed computer check would mean the character couldn't get his hands on the keyboard. Your rigidity is a serious problem. Glad I dont have to play games with you. Because you fixate on the weirdest **** and skip over a large portion of the rules in that fixation. Like the fact that defense does not work the way you insist it does.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

What I'm invested in, is mechanics reflecting how things actually work.

This might not be the game for you then, as very few of any of the mechanics represent how things actually work.

52 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

What I'm invested in, is mechanics reflecting how things actually work. With Armor, that means granting Soak, not Defense. For the most part , that is how armor works in this system. Some armors have Defense tacked on , almost as an afterthought. However, thankfully, Soak is still the primary stat for armor under this system. It should be the only stat for armor, however.

And, how exactly, do things "actually work" in a universe that sound travels in space, people have been using a technology for centuries that beaches dimensional barriers and no idea HOW it works, has space wizards, etc.

If YOU want to play the game and hold to OUR world physics, go ahead. You will be only one of a small few I can imagine. Everyone else disagrees with you and no matter how you bold things or increase don't size I don't think you will convince anyone your way (an opinion, not factual physical law I might add) is correct.

This game is based on interpretation and description for a convention feel to the game. It's how it was designed. Is it bad design? No, not in my opinion. Do I have issues with some of its rules? Yes, I do. I also discuss then with my table and change then to suit our play style and game. I, however, will never take such an arrogant approach to say they are wrong and I am right. It's a matter of what works for each individual within the guidelines they have written.

So, for the record, you are right. For YOU that's how armor should work and does work. Kudos, I'll bake some cookies. For everyone else, they describe it for how things work best at their table. And guess what, THEY'RE RIGHT TOO!

if you think the rules are so crappy in certain regards, write your own. They make this great thing called Kickstarter. Means you can do something awesome without having to form out funds first.

If not, I would suggest checking yourself before you try to check other people and tell them they are wrong in how they play a make believe game in a make believe world.

You want real theoretical physics in gaming play Star Trek or Saganami Island (Honor Harrington).