15 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Which means it missed . An unsuccessfull attack is a missed attack. If I throw a punch at someone , and I fail to land it, the punch misses . If I shoot at a target and I fail in my shot, it misses . It's that simple. A success is a hit a fail is a miss.

Or you could succeed in landing your punch but because of the way your opponant was moving and how well you threw the punch do no damage. That is not a miss but it certainly was not successful.
If I shoot a target and dont aim well enough the attack could clance off doing no damage. not a miss but also not successful.
You veiw is super black and white. The real world is not so black and white. I know cops who have shot people and had bullents glance of the persons skull doing no real damage.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

Or you could succeed in landing your punch but because of the way your opponant was moving and how well you threw the punch do no damage. That is not a miss but it certainly was not successful.

No. If you do no damage, that simply means that your target's Soak took it all. That's what Soak is for.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

No. If you do no damage, that simply means that your target's Soak took it all. That's what Soak is for.

The real world is not so simple. and this game system is not so simple.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

The real world is not so simple. and this game system is not so simple.

Yes, it is . Soak is what reduces damage, potentially to zero . Successes are needed to hit , a failure is a miss . Soak takes the damage. Any damage left over after soak is applied to wounds. It is that simple. You're trying to overcomplicate things. KISS: Keep It Simple Stupid. That is one of the most fundamental rules of life, gaming, etc. Don't make things more complicated than they have to be .

Mechanically, a failure is a failure , and a success is a hit. That failure can be narrated as any number of things. PERIOD.

8 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Mechanically, a failure is a failure , and a success is a hit. That failure can be narrated as any number of things. PERIOD.

Sure. A blade could just miss the tip of your nose, or swing by just over your head as you duck, for example. Both are failed attacks, both are misses, each narrated differently. A failed shot can fly by your ear or past your arm, between your legs or at your feet, or miss by a mile. All are failed attacks, all miss , but each narrated differently.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Sure. A blade could just miss the tip of your nose, or swing by just over your head as you duck, for example. Both are failed attacks, both are misses, each narrated differently. A failed shot can fly by your ear or past your arm, between your legs or at your feet, or miss by a mile. All are failed attacks, all miss , but each narrated differently.

Or it could skitter across the armor doing nothing to the wearer. You are so rigid in what a failure is. this system is not ment to be so rigid.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Sure. A blade could just miss the tip of your nose, or swing by just over your head as you duck, for example. Both are failed attacks, both are misses, each narrated differently. A failed shot can fly by your ear or past your arm, between your legs or at your feet, or miss by a mile. All are failed attacks, all miss , but each narrated differently.

And a miss could also be narrated as a shot glancing off a pauldron because it didn't hit squarely, or a knife sliding uselessly off an armor plate. Both of those are options whether defense is involved or not. I don't understand why you are so hung up on a matter of narration. The way they fluff-text the Defense quality makes sense for how they statted it.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

Or it could skitter across the armor doing nothing to the wearer. You are so rigid in what a failure is. this system is not ment to be so rigid.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

And a miss could also be narrated as a shot glancing off a pauldron because it didn't hit squarely, or a knife sliding uselessly off an armor plate. Both of those are options whether defense is involved or not. I don't understand why you are so hung up on a matter of narration. The way they fluff-text the Defense quality makes sense for how they statted it.

Nope. That would be Soak reducing the damage to zero.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. That would be Soak reducing the damage to zero.

Not according to RAW. Maybe you should read defense again. The rules say you are wrong.

RAW Defense. EotE CRB page 168:

Quote

The armor's defense adds Setback equal to the rating directly to the attacker's pool. this represents the armor's ability to deflect damage away from the character's body.

Note "deflect away" not absorb.

16 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Not according to RAW. Maybe you should read defense again. The rules say you are wrong.

Frankly, I don't care how you interpret what RAW says. I interpret it differently . A failure is a miss . Period. How you narrate that miss is up to the situation, but a failure is a miss and success is a hit. Advantages/Triumphs, and Threats?Despairs modify those but a succes is a hit and a failure is a miss. It is that simple . Don't overcomplicate things.

10 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

RAW Defense. EotE CRB page 168:

Note "deflect away" not absorb.

Wear armor some time . Get hit in armor some time. Even a "deflected" hit is still a hit. IT can still potentially do some damage. Luke's hit against Vader's shoulder is a prime example of that. Vader's pauldron deflected the hit, but Vader still cried out in pain. some damage still got through. That's Soak taking the majority of damage, deflecting the majority of hit thus reducing the amount of damage.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Wear armor some time . Get hit in armor some time. Even a "deflected" hit is still a hit. IT can still potentially do some damage. Luke's hit against Vader's shoulder is a prime example of that. Vader's pauldron deflected the hit, but Vader still cried out in pain. some damage still got through. That's Soak taking the majority of damage, deflecting the majority of hit thus reducing the amount of damage.

I have. And it could do damage or it could do no damage. and again the rules tell you your interpretation is incorrect.

13 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I have. And it could do damage or it could do no damage. and again the rules tell you your interpretation is incorrect.

Yes, and even if the hit did no damage, you're still hit . The armor simply reduced it to zero. It's still a successful hit .

15 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, and even if the hit did no damage, you're still hit . The armor simply reduced it to zero. It's still a successful hit .

And maybe there are different ways of reducing damage to 0.

3 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

And maybe there are different ways of reducing damage to 0.

Sure, the damage is either absorbed or deflected. Either way, it’s still damage reduction , and that’s covered by Soak .

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Sure, the damage is either absorbed or deflected. Either way, it’s still damage reduction , and that’s covered by Soak .

Except that the game says that deflection is covered under Defense.

4 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Except that the game says that deflection is covered under Defense.

Which is BS . It’s a cop-out. Deflection is not a miss. A deflected hit still hits, it’s not a failed attack. Deflection is the primary means for how hard armors reduce damage from a hit. And, typically, the armor takes some damage when doing so. In the last debate we had on this armor issue, I posted a video of arrows being shot at plate armor, showing that quite clearly. All of the shots which hit the breast plate were deflected. However, they still rocked the target back , from the force of the strikes , and the arrows all dented the armo r. They weren’t misses, they weren’t failed hits. They hit home. They were successful hits , but the armor took all the damage, deflecting the arrows. That is Soak , not Defense.

A success is a hit, a failure is a miss. It is that simple. Armor reduces damage from a successful hit. It does not make it harder to land a hit. It does not make you harder to hit.

40 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Which is BS . It’s a cop-out. Deflection is not a miss. A deflected hit still hits, it’s not a failed attack. Deflection is the primary means for how hard armors reduce damage from a hit. And, typically, the armor takes some damage when doing so. In the last debate we had on this armor issue, I posted a video of arrows being shot at plate armor, showing that quite clearly. All of the shots which hit the breast plate were deflected. However, they still rocked the target back , from the force of the strikes , and the arrows all dented the armo r. They weren’t misses, they weren’t failed hits. They hit home. They were successful hits , but the armor took all the damage, deflecting the arrows. That is Soak , not Defense.

A success is a hit, a failure is a miss. It is that simple. Armor reduces damage from a successful hit. It does not make it harder to land a hit. It does not make you harder to hit.

Which is RAW. Get over it. And RAW matches the reality of armor no matter how much you insist it doesnt. A failure means failure tk accomplish your goal. That does not necessarily mean you mmissed.it means you didnt succeed.

In this case RAW is wrong and doesn't make sense. Why making deflecting blows under defence when it's belong to soak ? From a narrative pov it's absurd. It works a lot better to narrate a deflected blow with soak than defence. And it's a lot better to narrate a missed hit because failures from setback dice by defence.

40 minutes ago, WolfRider said:

In this case RAW is wrong and doesn't make sense. Why making deflecting blows under defence when it's belong to soak ? From a narrative pov it's absurd. It works a lot better to narrate a deflected blow with soak than defence. And it's a lot better to narrate a missed hit because failures from setback dice by defence.

except that is not how armor deflecting things works. Soak is absorbing a hit. Defense is defecting a hit away from the target.

21 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

except that is not how armor deflecting things works. Soak is absorbing a hit. Defense is defecting a hit away from the target.

At this point and after so much explanation from TG if you still refuse to understand how armours work irl, there's nothing more to say. But you could accept that for some people the way SW FFG rules handles armours isn't right and they feel the need to house rule it. Which was the purpose of this thread'OP.

1 minute ago, WolfRider said:

At this point and after so much explanation from TG if you still refuse to understand how armours work irl, there's nothing more to say. But you could accept that for some people the way SW FFG rules handles armours isn't right and they feel the need to house rule it. Which was the purpose of this thread'OP.

Having worn armor in real life I know for a fact he is wrong.

There have been two methods in RPG's to deal with armor. One is damage absorption, which Soak falls into. The other is a modifier to hit, which Defense falls into. I believe due to differentiation problems (see my post above), FFG tried to use both damage absorption and hit modifiers together. This causes problems in the narrative description. Systems using damage absorption simply described a successful hit which was completely reduced by an armor's "soak", as the attack hitting, but getting absorbed or completely deflected. Systems using hit modifiers described a miss as a complete miss, or if it came within the armor's modifier, a hit which was absorbed or completely deflected. The problem of mixing the two is the confusion it entails when trying to explain or describe what is narratively happening. It's easier to get your mind wrapped around using one system then mixing both in my opinion.

Solution? If you are using the mixed Soak/Defense of FFG, describe some failed attacks against defense armored opponents as deflections, especially ones that almost succeed. If the attack actually does succeed and the target has Soak armor, then simply describe the attack as being successful, but the armor absorbed some or all of the hit.

18 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Which is RAW. Get over it. And RAW matches the reality of armor no matter how much you insist it doesnt. A failure means failure tk accomplish your goal. That does not necessarily mean you mmissed.it means you didnt succeed.

And I say BS. IF you think that deflection equates to making someone harder to hit then you are clearly misinformed if not deluding yourself. A deflected hit is still a hit . it is a successful attack which was stopped by the armor preventing penetration . That does not mean the attack failed, and it does not mean that there won't necessarily be other effects. If you fail on an attack roll you missed . Period, end of story. The attack roll is to determine whether or not you hit your target. A sucess mean you hit, a failure means you miss. It's pretty black and white.

4 hours ago, WolfRider said:

In this case RAW is wrong and doesn't make sense. Why making deflecting blows under defence when it's belong to soak ? From a narrative pov it's absurd. It works a lot better to narrate a deflected blow with soak than defence. And it's a lot better to narrate a missed hit because failures from setback dice by defence.

Exactly.

4 hours ago, Daeglan said:

except that is not how armor deflecting things works. Soak is absorbing a hit. Defense is defecting a hit away from the target.

Yes, it is. A deflected hit still hits, and still has a potential effect on the target being hit even if no damage is done. it is still a successful attack. That means, in game terms, beating the difficulty to hit . It means rolling at least one net success . IF you get no net successes, or fail to beat the difficulty to hit, you miss . It is that simple.

3 hours ago, WolfRider said:

At this point and after so much explanation from TG if you still refuse to understand how armours work irl, there's nothing more to say. But you could accept that for some people the way SW FFG rules handles armours isn't right and they feel the need to house rule it. Which was the purpose of this thread'OP.

Exactly.

3 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Having worn armor in real life I know for a fact he is wrong.

If you've worn armor and actually been hit while wearing it, you'd know just how wrong you are. Armor does not make you harder to hit. It makes you easier to hit. It makes you harder to damage . Damage is taken care of be Soak/Damage Reduction. This covers all forms of damage reduction, be it absorption or deflection. A deflected hit is still a hit and can still do some damage or have other detrimental effects on the person being hit.

Case in point:

9 minutes ago, Sturn said:

There have been two methods in RPG's to deal with armor. One is damage absorption, which Soak falls into. The other is a modifier to hit, which Defense falls into. I believe due to differentiation problems (see my post above), FFG tried to use both damage absorption and hit modifiers together. This causes problems in the narrative description. Systems using damage absorption simply described a successful hit which was completely reduced by an armor's "soak", as the attack hitting, but getting absorbed or completely deflected. Systems using hit modifiers described a miss as a complete miss, or if it came within the armor's modifier, a hit which was absorbed or completely deflected. The problem of mixing the two is the confusion it entails when trying to explain or describe what is narratively happening. It's easier to get your mind wrapped around using one system then mixing both in my opinion.

Solution? If you are using the mixed Soak/Defense of FFG, describe some failed attacks against defense armored opponents as deflections, especially ones that almost succeed. If the attack actually does succeed and the target has Soak armor, then simply describe the attack as being successful, but the armor absorbed some or all of the hit.

Or, better yet, just get rid of armor defense bonuses across the board , and all systems use damage reduction . Problem solved.