2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

@KungFuFerret , was your original topic ever resolved to your satisfaction?

As well as it ever can be on these forums. However once Tramp starts emboldening half the content of his posts for multiple pages, it's effectively a dead thread for anything close to the original topic, so I honestly haven't bothered to look at this thread in a while. Didn't help that work has been crazy.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

In order for an attack to be successful, it has to hit . That's what a "Success" means when the term is applied to a combat check . Success = Hit, Fail = miss. All "failures" of a combat check are failures to hit the target. Armor does not make you fail to hit the target. Cover potentially makes you fail to hit the target . This is because it is a large barrier and it also hides the target from view . A shield does the same thing, especially a large one. A large cloak or large, billowing robes can make you fail to hit a target because they obscure the shape of the body , they hide the body.

Armor does not. Armor does not conceal the target; it does not obscure the shape nor size of the target. It does not provide cover. It does not provide concealment . It does not make it harder to hit the target. Armor is a form-fitting garment made from some form of a variety of protective materials which reduce the damage from a successful attack, from a successful hit , by either absorbing the blow or deflecting it. In either case, the damage is reduced. The Target is not missed. It has no effect on whether or not the attack was successful in actually hitting the target. Ergo, it does not provide defense from being hit. It does not make it more difficult to attack the target. It does not make a combat check or more likely to fail, more likely to miss . It only reduces the damage done from a successful attack. That is covered by Soak .

Here's the thing. Don't like Defense? Don't have your characters user it. Simple. If you do, look up "hypocrite" in the dictionary. If you don't, good for you.

Others think it's fine, others don't. You are not the end all and be all of either armor design or game design.

Both you and Daeglan have made your points. If you want to keep this up, take it to it's own thread it use PM because most everyone else is probably fed up with this crap.

Can you two either move on or can we get this thread locked already so we don't have to deal with your pissing match that has completely derailed someones thread. AGAIN!

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

In order for an attack to be successful, it has to hit . That's what a "Success" means when the term is applied to a combat check . Success = Hit, Fail = miss. All "failures" of a combat check are failures to hit the target. Armor does not make you fail to hit the target. Cover potentially makes you fail to hit the target . This is because it is a large barrier and it also hides the target from view . A shield does the same thing, especially a large one. A large cloak or large, billowing robes can make you fail to hit a target because they obscure the shape of the body , they hide the body.

Armor does not. Armor does not conceal the target; it does not obscure the shape nor size of the target. It does not provide cover. It does not provide concealment . It does not make it harder to hit the target. Armor is a form-fitting garment made from some form of a variety of protective materials which reduce the damage from a successful attack, from a successful hit , by either absorbing the blow or deflecting it. In either case, the damage is reduced. The Target is not missed. It has no effect on whether or not the attack was successful in actually hitting the target. Ergo, it does not provide defense from being hit. It does not make it more difficult to attack the target. It does not make a combat check or more likely to fail, more likely to miss . It only reduces the damage done from a successful attack. That is covered by Soak .

In order for an attack to be unsuccesful it doesnt have.to miss.

14 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

As well as it ever can be on these forums. However once Tramp starts emboldening half the content of his posts for multiple pages, it's effectively a dead thread for anything close to the original topic, so I honestly haven't bothered to look at this thread in a while. Didn't help that work has been crazy.

An house rule you could use is adding the defence value of armours to their soak value, giving armours more protection against damages done by a successful combat roll but less protection against being hit.

Or you can change the defence value from a number to a bonus. So, it can add to other defence like cover.

I tested both and they doesn't unbalance the game. I prefer the first because it's more logical for me for armours to not have a defence value at all. Except the few armours with some kind of camo pattern and in this case it must be a bonus defence, not a number. I don't like that the soak value for most armours isn't better than 2 the average soak gained from a character's brawn attribute. That makes even heavy armours to look like being paper armours.

1 hour ago, WolfRider said:

An house rule you could use is adding the defence value of armours to their soak value, giving armours more protection against damages done by a successful combat roll but less protection against being hit.

Or you can change the defence value from a number to a bonus. So, it can add to other defence like cover.

I tested both and they doesn't unbalance the game. I prefer the first because it's more logical for me for armours to not have a defence value at all. Except the few armours with some kind of camo pattern and in this case it must be a bonus defence, not a number. I don't like that the soak value for most armours isn't better than 2 the average soak gained from a character's brawn attribute. That makes even heavy armours to look like being paper armours.

It is done this way because in universe most people dont wear much armor. so they made it a skill to use armor well. IE the armor master talents

18 hours ago, Jareth Valar said:

Here's the thing. Don't like Defense? Don't have your characters user it. Simple. If you do, look up "hypocrite" in the dictionary. If you don't, good for you.

Others think it's fine, others don't. You are not the end all and be all of either armor design or game design.

Both you and Daeglan have made your points. If you want to keep this up, take it to it's own thread it use PM because most everyone else is probably fed up with this crap.

The problem with that is if you're a player , and not the GM, you don't have that option . Also, if you're on a public forum playing by post, sticking to RAW keeps everyone on the same page without dealing with house rules. Like I said, the one saving grace about armor in this system is that the primary stat that applies to it is Soak, which is as it should be.

18 hours ago, Daeglan said:

In order for an attack to be unsuccesful it doesnt have.to miss.

Yes it does . A combat check is the check to determine whether or not you hit your intended target. If you fail, you miss. That's what it means. A failure on a combat check is a failure to hit . By definition, that is a miss .

5 hours ago, WolfRider said:

An house rule you could use is adding the defence value of armours to their soak value, giving armours more protection against damages done by a successful combat roll but less protection against being hit.

Or you can change the defence value from a number to a bonus. So, it can add to other defence like cover.

I tested both and they doesn't unbalance the game. I prefer the first because it's more logical for me for armours to not have a defence value at all. Except the few armours with some kind of camo pattern and in this case it must be a bonus defence, not a number. I don't like that the soak value for most armours isn't better than 2 the average soak gained from a character's brawn attribute. That makes even heavy armours to look like being paper armours.

The former is the only option I would use. In fact, if anything, If it were possible, I'd petition FFG to impliment that as RAW.

3 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It is done this way because in universe most people dont wear much armor. so they made it a skill to use armor well. IE the armor master talents

The Armor Master talents would work just as well with higher base Soak values on armors. And, it isn't exactly accurate to say most "people" don't wear armor. Most of the heroes don't, or, at least not heavy armor, or all the time. However, as seen in the Clone Wars, even the main Jedi characters (Anakin, Obi Wan, Mace Windu, etc) wore armor on the battlefield. And, most individuals in certain professions or cultures , such as bounty Hunters or Mandalorians, routinely wore armor as a matter or course . It was really only Stormtrooper armor which was pretty much useless.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The problem with that is if you're a player , and not the GM, you don't have that option . Also, if you're on a public forum playing by post, sticking to RAW keeps everyone on the same page without dealing with house rules. Like I said, the one saving grace about armor in this system is that the primary stat that applies to it is Soak, which is as it should be.

Yes it does . A combat check is the check to determine whether or not you hit your intended target. If you fail, you miss. That's what it means. A failure on a combat check is a failure to hit . By definition, that is a miss .

The former is the only option I would use. In fact, if anything, If it were possible, I'd petition FFG to impliment that as RAW.

The Armor Master talents would work just as well with higher base Soak values on armors. And, it isn't exactly accurate to say most "people" don't wear armor. Most of the heroes don't, or, at least not heavy armor, or all the time. However, as seen in the Clone Wars, even the main Jedi characters (Anakin, Obi Wan, Mace Windu, etc) wore armor on the battlefield. And, most individuals in certain professions or cultures , such as bounty Hunters or Mandalorians, routinely wore armor as a matter or course . It was really only Stormtrooper armor which was pretty much useless.

Your measurement of success is way too broad. As evidenced by the fact you think every thing that touches you is a successful attack. Regardless of how much for they imparted. Where is in reality you need to impart enough energy to the target to actually damage them. If your technique sucks you wont damage anything even if you successfully hit them. You kind of sound like a boffer larper who considers any contact a success. I don't I expect enough force to be applied before I consider it a success.

18 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The problem with that is if you're a player , and not the GM, you don't have that option . Also, if you're on a public forum playing by post, sticking to RAW keeps everyone on the same page without dealing with house rules. Like I said, the one saving grace about armor in this system is that the primary stat that applies to it is Soak, which is as it should be.

As a player you do have a choice. Only have your character wear catch vests, padded armor, etc that only give soak. It's called integrity. If you have such a soap box about defence associated with armor and you are playing in a game with RAW, stuck to your guns and make a conscious choice to only have your character associate itself with armor that does not include defence. Anything else is hypocritical.

8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Your measurement of success is way too broad. As evidenced by the fact you think every thing that touches you is a successful attack. Regardless of how much for they imparted. Where is in reality you need to impart enough energy to the target to actually damage them. If your technique sucks you wont damage anything even if you successfully hit them. You kind of sound like a boffer larper who considers any contact a success. I don't I expect enough force to be applied before I consider it a success.

If your technique sucks, you're not going to hit anything regardless, so that's a moot point. Secondly, depending upon the weapon in question, (such as firearms ) the force of the attack is predetermined . Technique has nothing to do with that. It's all about the accuracy of the shot and whether or not you hit the target. Your skill determines your accuracy and thus, whether or not you can land a blow. The strength of your arm in the swing, or the power of the projectile determine how much damage is done. And, as even the RAW points out, an attack doesn't have to do any Wound damage to activate the weapon qualities, such as Knock Down , or Concussive . You simply have to hit the target.

28 minutes ago, Jareth Valar said:

As a player you do have a choice. Only have your character wear catch vests, padded armor, etc that only give soak. It's called integrity. If you have such a soap box about defence associated with armor and you are playing in a game with RAW, stuck to your guns and make a conscious choice to only have your character associate itself with armor that does not include defence. Anything else is hypocritical.

No, you don't, especially if the campaign revolves around a specific theme or character type (such a Clone troopers or Mandalorians , for example), where characters are required to have a certain load-out, including a specific type of armor. And, no it isn't. What I do have a choice in as a player, is how I narrate hits or misses. And I always narrate any failed attacks as complete misses , as they should be. And pretty much all of the GM's I've dealt with in PbP games I've played on these forums do to.

To be clear, however, most of the characters I do have, don't have any armor Defense. The only ones that do are two of my Mandalorians . My first Mandalorian character (a Guardian/Armorer) has personally made Light Mandalorian armor ( customizable armor KtP Armor construction rules ) so no Defense bonus there.

Regardless, there is a difference between liking a rule and following a rule. You don't have to like a rule in order to follow it. You can still wish it were changed officially, and argue against it as not making sense. And, if the armor system in this game only garnered Defense (like it does in D&D), I'd probably drop it like a cheap prostitute. As I said, the saving grace here is that armor defense is an afterthought . It has little to no bearing , and can pretty much be ignored for the most part. Soak is the most important stat, and has the most impact in combat.

It makes sense for Heavy robes, or a cloak to grant Defense, since they obscure the shape of the body. It doesn't make sense for form-fitting armor to have a Defense (unless, as mentioned by @WolfRider ) it has a camouflage pattern or other concealment measures that allow the wearer to blend into his environment, making targeting him more difficult.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If your technique sucks, you're not going to hit anything regardless, so that's a moot point. Secondly, depending upon the weapon in question, (such as firearms ) the force of the attack is predetermined . Technique has nothing to do with that. It's all about the accuracy of the shot and whether or not you hit the target. Your skill determines your accuracy and thus, whether or not you can land a blow. The strength of your arm in the swing, or the power of the projectile determine how much damage is done. And, as even the RAW points out, an attack doesn't have to do any Wound damage to activate the weapon qualities, such as Knock Down , or Concussive . You simply have to hit the target.

Completely incorrect. I have seen people be accurate but because their technique was crap that accuracy didnt count for anything because they had no power. it was like they were swinging with a wet noodle. And with a firearm bad technique leads to inconsistency and poor follow through with results in misses even though they lined up the sights correctly.
But that is beside the point as all that matters is do you impart enough energy to the target. That is a success. If you didnt that is a failure.

8 hours ago, WolfRider said:

An house rule you could use is adding the defence value of armours to their soak value, giving armours more protection against damages done by a successful combat roll but less protection against being hit.

I'm pretty sure that was the entire point of my original post and this thread? Not being sarcastic I'm just reading this suggestion and it seems to be the very subject of the thread, so not sure if I'm missing something?

15 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, you don't, especially if the campaign revolves around a specific theme or character type (such a Clone troopers or Mandalorians , for example), where characters are required to have a certain load-out, including a specific type of armor. And, no it isn't. What I do have a choice in as a player, is how I narrate hits or misses. And I always narrate any failed attacks as complete misses , as they should be. And pretty much all of the GM's I've dealt with in PbP games I've played on these forums do to.

To be clear, however, most of the characters I do have, don't have any armor Defense. The only ones that do are two of my Mandalorians . My first Mandalorian character (a Guardian/Armorer) has personally made Light Mandalorian armor ( customizable armor KtP Armor construction rules ) so no Defense bonus there.

Regardless, there is a difference between liking a rule and following a rule. You don't have to like a rule in order to follow it. You can still wish it were changed officially, and argue against it as not making sense. And, if the armor system in this game only garnered Defense (like it does in D&D), I'd probably drop it like a cheap prostitute. As I said, the saving grace here is that armor defense is an afterthought . It has little to no bearing , and can pretty much be ignored for the most part. Soak is the most important stat, and has the most impact in combat.

It makes sense for Heavy robes, or a cloak to grant Defense, since they obscure the shape of the body. It doesn't make sense for form-fitting armor to have a Defense (unless, as mentioned by @WolfRider ) it has a camouflage pattern or other concealment measures that allow the wearer to blend into his environment, making targeting him more difficult.

You, as a player, always have a choice. Period. If you feel that strongly about it, which from the obnoxious attitude you give about it you do, you always have the choice to not play in those games which enforce rules you do not agree with it interpret then in a way you disagree with.

That would be the adult thing to do. Not childishly trying to convince the world you are right and they are wrong. The only thing you are accomplishing is making your word Mudd and making sure most won't even read when you do have something worth saying (which you have..... at times, lol). This argument is, and has been, like 2 two year olds on the playground going "Is too..... Is not..... Is too... Is not..."

Either way, people are with you, that's cool, I'm happy. However people disagree with you also, that's cool too... Get over it.

13 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I'm pretty sure that was the entire point of my original post and this thread? Not being sarcastic I'm just reading this suggestion and it seems to be the very subject of the thread, so not sure if I'm missing something?

As for that, yes. As a house rule, if that's what you and your table feel is the way to go, no one here can tell you is wrong. The same way using defense as is isn't wrong if it works for your table (which it apparently works for more than it doesn't since 4 iterations of the game still use it).

From a mechanics stand point, I personally don't see anything that will destroy the mechanics or balance. It will just make pierce and breach more important and the activation of weapon qualities more likely.

23 hours ago, Ahrimon said:

Can you two either move on or can we get this thread locked already so we don't have to deal with your pissing match that has completely derailed someones thread. AGAIN!

M8, if you walk over to a bonfire, it's on you if you forgot your marshmallows.

Me, I have strong feelings about this topic and am truly enjoying the debate.

Because it's b a n a n a s.

On 1/9/2020 at 7:54 PM, KungFuFerret said:

starts emboldening half the content of his posts for multiple pages

And when all of the text is bold, then none of it will be (which is apparently when he switches to giant font).

11 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I'm pretty sure that was the entire point of my original post and this thread? Not being sarcastic I'm just reading this suggestion and it seems to be the very subject of the thread, so not sure if I'm missing something?

I hoped to put back this thread on topic by suggesting house rules we could discuss. Sometimes I'm too optimistic. 😏

23 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Completely incorrect. I have seen people be accurate but because their technique was crap that accuracy didnt count for anything because they had no power. it was like they were swinging with a wet noodle. And with a firearm bad technique leads to inconsistency and poor follow through with results in misses even though they lined up the sights correctly.
But that is beside the point as all that matters is do you impart enough energy to the target. That is a success. If you didnt that is a failure.

A Firearm imparts the same force whether or not the aim is true. What matters is if the target is hit in the first place. So it all comes down to hit or miss. Success means he hits, failure means he misses. It is that simple. After that, it's a matter of where he hits. hits to certain parts of the body are more lethal than hits to other parts of the body. The same is true of melee combat. If your technique is good, you aim will be true, and you'll hit your target. How much force you impart is determined by the strength you put behind it. If you're "limp-wristing" a weapon, sure, there won't be much force behind the attack. That is reflected in low damage . It does not mean the attack didn't hit. It does not mean that the attack wasn't a "success". It means the attack didn't do much damage . Damage is handled by Soak . A low damage attack is more likely to be completely soaked by armor or by the target's natural fortitude. That does not mean the attack itself wasn't successful.

So, no. Imparting enough energy is not all that matters. What matters first and foremost is did you hit the target? That is what Success or Failure determine. Imparting enough Force into the attack is determined by the total damage done, based upon the weapon's base damage and the number of net Successes left over before Soak is applied. So, for the sake of argument, if your target has a total Soak of 6 (Brawn 4 in Soak 2 Mandalorian Battle armor for example) If I get at least one net success , I hit the target. However, unless my weapon has a base damage rating of 6 or more . I'm going to need more than one Net success to do any Wound damage to him at all. Regardless, I still hit. The Attack was still a success , and, therefore, if I have the Advantages or Triumphs, I could potentially activate other weapon qualities, or possibly Crit him regardless of the actual Wound damage inflicted by the attack, even if none is inflicted . The attack is still a success, even if there wasn't enough power to get through the target's Soak to actually wound the target.

The arrows vs Plate armor is a prime example of that. No matter how accurate the shot, how good the technique of the shooter, arrows cannot penetrate that plate armor. It's too thick, and too durable. It's Soak is too high. That does not mean the shots taken weren't successful. They hit their target. The "combat check" rolled at least one net success. However, the base damage of the arrows is simply not high enough to be capable of penetrating plate armor. The only shot that "penetrated" the armor to wound the target, bybassed the cuirass and penetrated the chain mail shirt beneath it.

Success or failure of an attack determines solely whether you hit or you miss . How much damage you do comes into play only after that has been determined. So hitting the target is what matters most. That is the primary consideration. That is what a combat check determines first and foremost . How much damage you do comes after that.

42 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A Firearm imparts the same force whether or not the aim is true. What matters is if the target is hit in the first place. So it all comes down to hit or miss. Success means he hits, failure means he misses. It is that simple. After that, it's a matter of where he hits. hits to certain parts of the body are more lethal than hits to other parts of the body. The same is true of melee combat. If your technique is good, you aim will be true, and you'll hit your target. How much force you impart is determined by the strength you put behind it. If you're "limp-wristing" a weapon, sure, there won't be much force behind the attack. That is reflected in low damage . It does not mean the attack didn't hit. It does not mean that the attack wasn't a "success". It means the attack didn't do much damage . Damage is handled by Soak . A low damage attack is more likely to be completely soaked by armor or by the target's natural fortitude. That does not mean the attack itself wasn't successful.

So, no. Imparting enough energy is not all that matters. What matters first and foremost is did you hit the target? That is what Success or Failure determine. Imparting enough Force into the attack is determined by the total damage done, based upon the weapon's base damage and the number of net Successes left over before Soak is applied. So, for the sake of argument, if your target has a total Soak of 6 (Brawn 4 in Soak 2 Mandalorian Battle armor for example) If I get at least one net success , I hit the target. However, unless my weapon has a base damage rating of 6 or more . I'm going to need more than one Net success to do any Wound damage to him at all. Regardless, I still hit. The Attack was still a success , and, therefore, if I have the Advantages or Triumphs, I could potentially activate other weapon qualities, or possibly Crit him regardless of the actual Wound damage inflicted by the attack, even if none is inflicted . The attack is still a success, even if there wasn't enough power to get through the target's Soak to actually wound the target.

The arrows vs Plate armor is a prime example of that. No matter how accurate the shot, how good the technique of the shooter, arrows cannot penetrate that plate armor. It's too thick, and too durable. It's Soak is too high. That does not mean the shots taken weren't successful. They hit their target. The "combat check" rolled at least one net success. However, the base damage of the arrows is simply not high enough to be capable of penetrating plate armor. The only shot that "penetrated" the armor to wound the target, bybassed the cuirass and penetrated the chain mail shirt beneath it.

Success or failure of an attack determines solely whether you hit or you miss . How much damage you do comes into play only after that has been determined. So hitting the target is what matters most. That is the primary consideration. That is what a combat check determines first and foremost . How much damage you do comes after that.

That is a long paragraph of trying to justify your wrong point.

I have already demonstratted how you are wtong.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

That is a long paragraph of trying to justify your wrong point.

I have already demonstratted how you are wtong.

Wrong .

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong .

I get you have a hard time accepting other points of view. That doesn't make you right. It just makes you unwilling to accept anything but your views. Even after repeatedly showing how you are incorrect.

I love lamp.

Sometimes, when I poop, I hear the sounds of screaming smurfs, begging for help from inside my butt. I'm afraid what must happen to....rectify this situation.

Why do cats who come up wanting pettins decide to flop onto the floor JUST outside of arms reach? Such a jerk move!

You know that family guy episode where Peter puts his junk into a mechanical pencil sharpener? Those things have a very small radius....just sayin.

I seem to be the only person who remembers the old Sci Fi channel show The Chronicle, about a tabloid magazine that investigated the paranormal stuff, but it was all real. The best show ever was the one with Elvis Impersonator Vampires that only fed on other Elvis Impersonators at conventions, that were hunted by an Elvis Impersonating Vampire Hunter that was possibly the real Elivs. The finale is like 50 people dressed like Elvis, getting into a massive battle in a hotel convention hall, using UV lights to reflect off the sequined jump suit of one of the protagonists, to make a disco ball of vampire death via multi-beams of UV light. Nothing is better than that. NOTHING.

I have a unicorn lightsaber. The handle is the neck of the unicorn head, the crossguard is the actual head of the unicorn, and the blade is the horn of the unicorn. It lights up in rainbow strobe effects.

@Tramp Graphics

Can you please get your bold text under control . You justify it being used to emphasize important points, yet no professional writer would ever use it like this. Because they dont need to, their words speak for themselves .

2 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

I have a unicorn lightsaber. The handle is the neck of the unicorn head, the crossguard is the actual head of the unicorn, and the blade is the horn of the unicorn. It lights up in rainbow strobe effects.

Is it anything like this?

3 hours ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

@Tramp Graphics

Can you please get your bold text under control . You justify it being used to emphasize important points, yet no professional writer would ever use it like this. Because they dont need to, their words speak for themselves .

I find i just ignore his bolded words. Cause i figure that is how much emphasis i am gonna put on them.