1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

Exactly.

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.

Exactly.

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:

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

I have been hit wearing armor. And I can tell the difference between a hit that has been soaked and a hit that was deflected. They feel very different. And look you just showed armor soaking a hit and armor deflecting a hit away. And I can also tell a hit that missed entirely. they are 3 different things that you keep insisting are the same.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

I can't believe I am jumping in on this but at least for this comment, the game included Concussive, Knockdown, and other options that could be activated with Advantages on a miss to represent this kind of thing.

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I have been hit wearing armor. And I can tell the difference between a hit that has been soaked and a hit that was deflected. They feel very different. And look you just showed armor soaking a hit and armor deflecting a hit away. And I can also tell a hit that missed entirely. they are 3 different things that you keep insisting are the same.

They're both still hits . Both are a case of the potential damage being reduced . A "deflected" hit didn't miss. It still hit. It is still a successful attack . That is what you either fail to understand or refuse to admit . A deflected hit is still a successful attack.

4 minutes ago, Varlie said:

I can't believe I am jumping in on this but at least for this comment, the game included Concussive, Knockdown, and other options that could be activated with Advantages on a miss to represent this kind of thing.

Knockdown covers several things from actualy being pushed or knocked to the ground by a successful hit, to losing your balance and falling from a haphazard attempt to dodge an incoming blow which barely misses. Concussive is much the same. it's a concussion wave. The source doesn't necessarily have to hit you to be hit by the concussion wave. Concussion grenades are a good example of this. These weapon qualities don't rely on having to actually make direct contact with the target. That is why they can be activated even on a failed attack.

28 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

They're both still hits . Both are a case of the potential damage being reduced . A "deflected" hit didn't miss. It still hit. It is still a successful attack . That is what you either fail to understand or refuse to admit . A deflected hit is still a successful attack.

You are still stuck on failure mean miss. It doesnt. You NEED to except a failure can have contact made but not successfully damage. This is in the rules yet you still haven't gotten through your head.

34 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

These weapon qualities don't rely on having to actually make direct contact with the target. That is why they can be activated even on a failed attack.

Edit: Daeglan beat me to it.

And what about Disorient of Brass Knuckles and a Gaffi Stick? By your argument, they can whiff and still disorient a person? Just getting close with brass knuckles disorients a person?

Actually your argument is a moot point due to a later clarification that active qualities normally need a hit before advantages may be applied to activate them. So, you win in that aspect, your above argument isn't needed.

@Tramp Graphics you and Daeglan disagree, that's obvious. But please look at his side of the argument. It does have potential. I think you are putting too much into "Hit" meaning an actual "Hit". Before you guffaw, let me explain. Starting with D&D when you attacked someone, it was called a "To Hit" roll. So, RPGs ever since have been calling it hits and misses without considering that a "hit" can mean many different things when converted into Hit Points, Wounds, etc, etc. Consider a person punching you and he actually only brushes your cheek with the side of his hand. Or barely nicks you on your elbow. Is that a hit? Your assailant actually did hit you, but for realistic and in-game purposes would you apply Hit Point or Wound damage, or go ahead and call it a miss? Most systems would be calling that a miss, because there isn't any actual effect.

Thus comes Defense. Defense helps negate a "hit". Can you consider that negating a hit can mean you were actually touched or struck, but there was no way to quantify it in-game? A blaster bolt comes at you from an angle and deflects off of your breastplate. It turns you maybe 5-degrees as it passes by. It leaves a darkened spot on your armor. But, you weren't Knocked-down, you weren't Disoriented, you weren't Stunned. You didn't take any Wounds obviously. So, no in-game affect. For simplicity, can we call that a miss instead of a hit? If so, hardened armors do have potential to deflect, not just absorb. So why is giving them some Deflect/Defense an impossible thing?

5 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You are still stuck on failure mean miss. It doesnt. You NEED to except a failure can have contact made but not successfully damage. This is in the rules yet you still haven't gotten through your head.

Yes, it does. A failure on a roll to hit to hit is a miss . If you fail to hit you miss. It's that simply. a Success is a hit a failure is a miss.

Just now, Sturn said:

And what about Disorient of Brass Knuckles and a Gaffi Stick? By your argument, they can whiff and still disorient a person? Just getting close with brass knuckles disorients a person?

Actually your argument is a moot point due to a later clarification that active qualities normally need a hit before advantages may be applied to activate them. So, you win in that aspect, your above argument isn't needed.

@Tramp Graphics you and Daeglan disagree, that's obvious. But please look at his side of the argument. It does have potential. I think you are putting too much into "Hit" meaning an actual "Hit". Before you guffaw, let me explain. Starting with D&D when you attacked someone, it was called a "To Hit" roll. So, RPGs ever since have been calling it hits and misses without considering that a "hit" can mean many different things when converted into Hit Points, Wounds, etc, etc. Consider a person punching you and he actually only brushes your cheek with the side of his hand. Or barely nicks you on your elbow. Is that a hit? Your assailant actually did hit you, but for realistic and in-game purposes would you apply Hit Point or Wound damage, or go ahead and call it a miss? Most systems would be calling that a miss, because there isn't any actual effect.

Thus comes Defense. Defense helps negate a "hit". Can you consider that negating a hit can mean you were actually touched or struck, but there was no way to quantify it in-game? A blaster bolt comes at you from an angle and deflects off of your breastplate. It turns you maybe 5-degrees as it passes by. It leaves a darkened spot on your armor. But, you weren't Knocked-down, you weren't Disoriented, you weren't Stunned. You don't take any Wounds obviously. So, no in-game affect. For simplicity, can we call that a miss instead of a hit? If so, hardened armors do have potential to deflect, not just absorb. So why is giving them some Deflect/Defense an impossible thing?

Yes, and it is those "overly convoluted work arounds" and other BS that made me boycott D&D. The best systems don't try to pull BS like that. A hit is a hit a miss is a miss. Keep it Simple. To answer your question about being punched or nicked. He hit you, but whatever armor or other damage reduction reduced the damage to zero.It's still a successful hit not a miss. A hit is a physical hit a miss is a miss, it makes no physical contact. So, yes , I would apply damage and then have it reduced by whatever armor or other damage reduction the character has. I would not count it as a miss.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it does. A failure on a roll to hit to hit is a miss . If you fail to hit you miss. It's that simply. a Success is a hit a failure is a miss.

Yes, and it is those "overly convoluted work arounds" and other BS that made me boycott D&D. The best systems don't try to pull BS like that. A hit is a hit a miss is a miss. Keep it Simple. To answer your question about being punched or nicked. He hit you, but whatever armor or other damage reduction reduced the damage to zero.It's still a successful hit not a miss. A hit is a physical hit a miss is a miss, it makes no physical contact. So, yes , I would apply damage and then have it reduced by whatever armor or other damage reduction the character has. I would not count it as a miss.

and yet if you soak all the damage out you can still apply some effects. But if deflect reduces the hit to a failure you can't apply those effects.

54 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

and yet if you soak all the damage out you can still apply some effects. But if deflect reduces the hit to a failure you can't apply those effects.

Exactly. And that is what's wrong with saying a deflection is a failed attack . It isn't a failed attack, It is a successful attack, it just failed to penetrate the armor . That is not a failed attack. The attack hit , and thus, there is the potential for other secondary effects even if the armor stops all of the actual damage. You should apply those effects on any successful attack. In other words, on any attack that hits . A deflected hit is still a hit . Therefore, yes, those effects should be applied . Just because an attack did no damage because it was "deflected", does not mean that other effects don't also occur. Watch that video I posted. Even though the arrows are all deflected, they all have a direct impact on the target and on the armor itself. The impact r ocks the target back and forth , and the arrows dent the armor . This demonstrates secondary effects from a deflected hit-- a successful hit which does no direct damage to the target. That is why a Success is a hit and a failure is a miss . Anything else is a lie .

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Exactly. And that is what's wrong with saying a deflection is a failed attack . It isn't a failed attack, It is a successful attack, it just failed to penetrate the armor . That is not a failed attack. The attack hit , and thus, there is the potential for other secondary effects even if the armor stops all of the actual damage. You should apply those effects on any successful attack. In other words, on any attack that hits . A deflected hit is still a hit . Therefore, yes, those effects should be applied . Just because an attack did no damage because it was "deflected", does not mean that other effects don't also occur. Watch that video I posted. Even though the arrows are all deflected, they all have a direct impact on the target and on the armor itself. The impact r ocks the target back and forth , and the arrows dent the armor . This demonstrates secondary effects from a deflected hit-- a successful hit which does no direct damage to the target. That is why a Success is a hit and a failure is a miss . Anything else is a lie .

and this is where you keep going wrong. I find it amusing you are using a video to try and back up your claim that I originally sent you demonstrating how a failure can still make contact with the target.

Alright, guys. You've been around this same circle umpteen times, and neither of you have gotten anywhere. I think you should probably just give your blood pressure a break and knock it off. This is pointless. Anyone reading has been given more than enough information to make up their minds.

Just now, Daeglan said:

and this is where you keep going wrong. I find it amusing you are using a video to try and back up your claim that I originally sent you demonstrating how a failure can still make contact with the target.

No. It is you that is going wrong. And you didn't send that video to me. I linked it to the boards myself having discovered it on Youtube. A failed hit is a miss. That's what it means to fail to hit . If you fail in an attack on a target, you fail to hit it. You miss .

1 hour ago, Varlie said:

I can't believe I am jumping in on this but at least for this comment, the game included Concussive, Knockdown, and other options that could be activated with Advantages on a miss to represent this kind of thing.

After rechecking the rules, I had to get back to this post. Knockdown requires a successful attack. It requires you to hit your target. The same is true of Concussive . Unless otherwise stated all active item qualities require at least one net success on the attack roll. The only Weapon quality I know for sure does not require a successful attack roll is Blast, since that is an Area affect . And even then, it requires three Advantages to activate in those instances, rather than the normal two Advantages. .

34 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. It is you that is going wrong. And you didn't send that video to me. I linked it to the boards myself having discovered it on Youtube. A failed hit is a miss. That's what it means to fail to hit . If you fail in an attack on a target, you fail to hit it. You miss .

After rechecking the rules, I had to get back to this post. Knockdown requires a successful attack. It requires you to hit your target. The same is true of Concussive . Unless otherwise stated all active item qualities require at least one net success on the attack roll. The only Weapon quality I know for sure does not require a successful attack roll is Blast, since that is an Area affect . And even then, it requires three Advantages to activate in those instances, rather than the normal two Advantages. .

I did in the last argument on this subject. your hang up it literally on one word. You need to make a successful attack. You don't need to hit you need the attack to be successful. This system does not use hit or miss really. It uses success and failure. And your hang up is why they dont use that word really.

59 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Exactly. And that is what's wrong with saying a deflection is a failed attack . It isn't a failed attack, It is a successful attack, it just failed to penetrate the armor .

In Best Joe Pesci Voice: Okay, okay, okay, I got this! TrampGraphics, when the addition of the Defense die causes a failure at your table, say, "It was a successful attack, but the attack glances off, you just failed to penetrate the armor ". All good?

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I did in the last argument on this subject. your hang up it literally on one word. You need to make a successful attack. You don't need to hit you need the attack to be successful. This system does not use hit or miss really. It uses success and failure. And your hang up is why they dont use that word really.

No. I did. I'm the one who posted the link to that video in the last debate on this subject. Success is a hit, failure is a miss. Period. Trying to say otherwise is deliberately obfuscating things. Don't make things more difficult for players. Keep it Simple. A success hits, a failure misses. It is just that simple.

1 minute ago, Sturn said:

In Best Joe Pesci Voice: Okay, okay, okay, I got this! TrampGraphics, when the addition of the Defense die causes a failure at your table, say, "It was a successful attack, but the attack glances off, you just failed to penetrate the armor ". All good?

No . Say it's a miss and be done with it. A failure does not connect at all . Deflection is covered by Damage reduction . The only "armor" that should have a Defense bonus is things like Heavy Robes , Cloaks , and the like; items which obscure the shape of the body and thus actually make you harder to hit . That is why armor should not have a Defense bonus . Armor does not make you harder to hit. Armor makes you harder to damage .

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. I did. I'm the one who posted the link to that video in the last debate on this subject. Success is a hit, failure is a miss. Period. Trying to say otherwise is deliberately obfuscating things. Don't make things more difficult for players. Keep it Simple. A success hits, a failure misses. It is just that simple.

No . Say it's a miss and be done with it. A failure does not connect at all . Deflection is covered by Damage reduction . The only "armor" that should have a Defense bonus is things like Heavy Robes , Cloaks , and the like; items which obscure the shape of the body and thus actually make you harder to hit . That is why armor should not have a Defense bonus . Armor does not make you harder to hit. Armor makes you harder to damage .

And this is where you keep failing in your argument. It isnt correct.

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And this is where you keep failing in your argument. It isnt correct.

Yes, it is correct. This is why most RPG systems use a damage reduction system exclusively . R.Talsorian Games' Fuzion system is a primary example of this. Armor provides stopping power. That's it. You subtract the armor's SP from the damage done. Period. That is the only benefit the armor gives, regardless of the armor . It is all Stopping power. It is all damage reduction. And, to be clear. the Fuzion system (and the Interlock system that preceded it), such as used in Cyberppunk and Mekton) goes out of its way to handle combat as realistically as possible in a game. As such, armor works as it really does, to minimize damage done after a successful hit. A successful attack is a hit and a failed attack is a miss . It is black and white, cut and dry. Armor does not make you harder to hit . It does not make it harder for an opponent to attack you. It makes you harder to damage after a successful attack . Success or failure determines whether you are hit or not. Armor has no effect on that. Damage is handled by Soak , by Damage Reduction, by Stopping Power . That is what armor provides. It provides protection from damage not from actually being struck by the attack.

Also, @Daeglan , as shown in that video, even though the arrows are deflected , they still knock the target back . If that target were a person, he (or she) would be knocked down by the impact. That's knockdown . That requires a successful hit, as per RAW. Ergo, Deflection is Soak .

Lotta y'all spittin' game about wearing armor in real life without posting pics of your leather LARP gear or tacticool airsoft swag.

Bros: DO YOU EVEN E-PEEN, THO?

We won't know the answer until we have photographic evidence. Pix or didnuh happen, as the prophets say.

52 minutes ago, BrickSteelhead said:

Lotta y'all spittin' game about wearing armor in real life without posting pics of your leather LARP gear or tacticool airsoft swag.

Bros: DO YOU EVEN E-PEEN, THO?

We won't know the answer until we have photographic evidence. Pix or didnuh happen, as the prophets say.

Nope i gave a set of brig.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Also, @Daeglan , as shown in that video, even though the arrows are deflected , they still knock the target back . If that target were a person, he (or she) would be knocked down by the impact. That's knockdown . That requires a successful hit, as per RAW. Ergo, Deflection is Soak .

That means the attack was Successful. Ergo deflection is not necessarily soak. You keep missing that the 2 combine. Deflection makes the attack less successful and soak prevents what is left.

1 hour ago, BrickSteelhead said:

Lotta y'all spittin' game about wearing armor in real life without posting pics of your leather LARP gear or tacticool airsoft swag.

We won't know the answer until we have photographic evidence. Pix or didnuh happen, as the prophets say.

I kinda hate to bring this back up, but here is the EotE Errata's section on Defense:

Quote

“Defense, or specifically, defense rating, is one of the factors determining how difficult it is to land a successful attack during combat. Defense ratings represent the abilities of shields, armor, or other defenses to deflect attacks entirely, or to absorb or lessen incoming blows. “A character adds a number of Setback equal to their defense rating to all combat checks directed against them. “No character can have a defense rating higher than 4.”

I'll just leave it at that. I don't want to get dragged back into this argument, nor do I want to restart this argument. I just figured this was relevant, and not in the CRB.

20 hours ago, BrickSteelhead said:

Lotta y'all spittin' game about wearing armor in real life without posting pics of your leather LARP gear or tacticool airsoft swag.

I don't think real life armour and how it functions is even relevant to the discussion.

19 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Nope i gave a set of brig.

That means the attack was Successful. Ergo deflection is not necessarily soak. You keep missing that the 2 combine. Deflection makes the attack less successful and soak prevents what is left.

Wrong. Deflection IS Soak. That's the point. A deflected attack is still a successful attack. It still hits. The damage done is simply less than if there were no armor.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I kinda hate to bring this back up, but here is the EotE Errata's section on Defense:

I'll just leave it at that. I don't want to get dragged back into this argument, nor do I want to restart this argument. I just figured this was relevant, and not in the CRB.

Yes, and that's a load of hog wash . This is because everythign in that statement is what Soak already does. The key phrae being boled below:

Quote

“Defense, or specifically, defense rating, is one of the factors determining how difficult it is to land a successful attack during combat. Defense ratings represent the abilities of shields, armor, or other defenses to deflect attacks entirely, or to absorb or lessen incoming blows . “A character adds a number of Setback equal to their defense rating to all combat checks directed against them. “No character can have a defense rating higher than 4.”

Absorb or lessen incoming blows ? That' is absolutely what Soak does in spades, and is Deflection. That is all covered by the Soak value. That is the biggest example of why Armor defense bonuses are bogus . Anything that lessens the impact of an incoming blow is Soak . It's damage reduction . Get rid of Armor defense bonuses.

2 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

I don't think real life armour and how it functions is even relevant to the discussion.

Yes, it is, particularly if you want armor in a game to behave as it really does . Ergo reduce damage from successful hits.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it is, particularly if you want armor in a game to behave as it really does . Ergo reduce damage from successful hits.

It's Star Wars, and the heaviest battle armour that exists offers marginally better soak protection than a leather jacket in the movies and in the game. This is not a universe that mimicks reality, by design