2 hours ago, Ahrimon said:

Is it anything like this?

Pretty close yes! It doesn't have the ball pommel, and it doesn't have a secondary, small vestigial horn next to the blade. And the hilt is mostly white with purple main. But yeah pretty much the basic design!

So I did some counting and math on the ratio of posts here, counting Daeglan's and Tramp's posts. Ignoring the first post where they each established their arguments, there has been the following since arguing variations of the same:

Daeglan: 50 posts
TrampGraphics: 53 posts

There's been 175 posts total in this thread. That means almost 60% of this thread has been 2 posters arguing the same points back and forth at each other knowing they have no chance of convincing the other to change their mind.

I would ask it to stop, but it's kinda like watching the proverbial train wreck in front of you, knowing it won't, and being morbidly fascinated.

20 hours ago, Daeglan said:

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.

Facts don't have a point of view. Opinions do. It is a fact that armor does not make you harder to hit. It is a fact that armor reduces damage from successful hits. These are facts , not opinions . Ergo, "point of view" has no bearing.

It has already been pointed out by other individuals that the only reason why certain armors have a Defense value is to keep the Soak values of armor down to more "manageable" levels. The developers didn't want characters with total Soak values in the double digits because that would make characters too hard to damage without really heavy firepower, and thus it would slow combat down. And that is what we'd have if they went strictly with Soak. For example, a suit of Powered armor has a Soak 2 and a Defense of 2 . It's the most powerful armor in the system. If we changed the Defense value to additional Soak , it'd have a base Soak of 4 . Put that on a character with a 6 Brawn , and he has a base total Soak of 10 . Give that armor Superior , and his total Soak goes up to 11 . Give him Armor Master , and now his Soak is 12 . The only thing that's likely gonna hurt this guy is an E-Web (or an equivalent heavy weapon) or a lightsaber .

By giving armor a Defense value, in addition to Soak , it allowed them to reduce the base Soak value of even heavy armors, such as powered armor to 2 , and a max Soak of 4 (with both Superior and Armor Master), thus limiting the total potential Soak for any armor to a total of 4, and that of any character to a total of 10; thus ensuring that almost any given weapon can potentially wound any given character.

That is the only reason for the armor Defense values on top of Soak values , in this system. It was a compromise put in place in order to allow them to limit armor Soak values , while still making heavier armors better than lighter armors.

From a game balance standpoint , that makes sense. And that is the only reason why I can accept that mechanic in this system: The fact that it is a secondary stat, not the primary (nor only) stat armor uses, and that it was added as a compromise solely to keep the combats shorter , and thus more manageable by preventing certain armors from making characters potentially invulnerable to all but the most powerful weapons in the game. The "fluff text" reasoning given doesn't make sense, nor does it actually reflect how armor really works. Hence why this house rule was being proposed in the first place.

Ideally, it would probably have made more sense just to increase the base damage of the weapons or just accept that yes, some weapons are simply not going to penetrate certain types of armor.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Facts don't have a point of view. Opinions do. It is a fact that armor does not make you harder to hit. It is a fact that armor reduces damage from successful hits. These are facts , not opinions . Ergo, "point of view" has no bearing. ……….

54

35 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Facts don't have a point of view. Opinions do. It is a fact that armor does not make you harder to hit. It is a fact that armor reduces damage from successful hits. These are facts , not opinions . Ergo, "point of view" has no bearing.

It has already been pointed out by other individuals that the only reason why certain armors have a Defense value is to keep the Soak values of armor down to more "manageable" levels. The developers didn't want characters with total Soak values in the double digits because that would make characters too hard to damage without really heavy firepower, and thus it would slow combat down. And that is what we'd have if they went strictly with Soak. For example, a suit of Powered armor has a Soak 2 and a Defense of 2 . It's the most powerful armor in the system. If we changed the Defense value to additional Soak , it'd have a base Soak of 4 . Put that on a character with a 6 Brawn , and he has a base total Soak of 10 . Give that armor Superior , and his total Soak goes up to 11 . Give him Armor Master , and now his Soak is 12 . The only thing that's likely gonna hurt this guy is an E-Web (or an equivalent heavy weapon) or a lightsaber .

By giving armor a Defense value, in addition to Soak , it allowed them to reduce the base Soak value of even heavy armors, such as powered armor to 2 , and a max Soak of 4 (with both Superior and Armor Master), thus limiting the total potential Soak for any armor to a total of 4, and that of any character to a total of 10; thus ensuring that almost any given weapon can potentially wound any given character.

That is the only reason for the armor Defense values on top of Soak values , in this system. It was a compromise put in place in order to allow them to limit armor Soak values , while still making heavier armors better than lighter armors.

From a game balance standpoint , that makes sense. And that is the only reason why I can accept that mechanic in this system: The fact that it is a secondary stat, not the primary (nor only) stat armor uses, and that it was added as a compromise solely to keep the combats shorter , and thus more manageable by preventing certain armors from making characters potentially invulnerable to all but the most powerful weapons in the game. The "fluff text" reasoning given doesn't make sense, nor does it actually reflect how armor really works. Hence why this house rule was being proposed in the first place.

Ideally, it would probably have made more sense just to increase the base damage of the weapons or just accept that yes, some weapons are simply not going to penetrate certain types of armor.

The more you bold the more you prove your self wrong.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

The more you bold the more you prove your self wrong.

Wrong answer.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong answer.

When you start accepting that other views are valid more people might listen to you. But the more you bold your text the less i read your post as it demonstrates you are tryimg to force your opinion on others.

30 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

When you start accepting that other views are valid more people might listen to you. But the more you bold your text the less i read your post as it demonstrates you are tryimg to force your opinion on others.

View points don’t come into play when dealing with empirical facts. I’m not forcing an opinion. I’m stating facts. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. It is an absolute fact that armor does not make you harder to hit . It only makes you harder to damage . That is an absolute fact . It is not an opinion. It is a fact.

44 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

View points don’t come into play when dealing with empirical facts. I’m not forcing an opinion. I’m stating facts. Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. It is an absolute fact that armor does not make you harder to hit . It only makes you harder to damage . That is an absolute fact . It is not an opinion. It is a fact.

You keep saying that. It does not make it true. And every time you bold something i just delete that word from you statement. Because thatnis how much weight on put on things you try and emphasize.

23 hours ago, Daeglan said:

You keep saying that. It does not make it true. And every time you bold something i just delete that word from you statement. Because thatnis how much weight on put on things you try and emphasize.

It’s demonstrated to be true. The archer in the video is an expert archer. He’s hitting hit target dead on with force with every shot in that video. The armor takes all of the damage, the arrows are destroyed in the process of hitting the target, but the target itself takes no damage. It is still hit, the shots were still successful in hitting the target with force. Against an unarmored target, or more lightly armored target, the arrows would have penetrated into the target. The breast plate reduced the damage of the arrows to zero. The target was still successfully hit .

Here is more proof:

No it really is not. Slope armor exits for a reason. The shape of armor changednforna reason. Your inabilitt to except that does not make you right. It just demonstrates you inability to accept you can fail at a task while hitting a target.

On 1/3/2020 at 3:20 PM, KungFuFerret said:

*heavy sigh* Ok, so, I know this topic comes up a lot, and is a heated debate, I'm trying to avoid that, but I want to get some feedback on what I think is a fairly simple (and possibly already stated house rule) to govern armor.

Simply, the rules on armor and defense, are janky as *bleep*. It's all kinds of messy, and I frankly find it to be highly annoying. Partly because some aspects of the rules contradict basic logic about how damage functions, especially when compared to another character in the same situation, but with different armor/defenses. So, I propose the following.

Armor just gives soak. That's it. I know most just give soak anyway, but there are also some types that also give like, a single point of defense, which translates into a setback die for incoming attacks, and some other occasional rules of similar vein. I find this annoying, because it then runs up against the rule of "defense doesn't always stack, depending on source, time of day, if the PC is constipated, etc." So, since a setback die would most likely equate to a single failure, which itself would negate a single success on an attack role (and thus translate to a point of damage on an attack), I just say let it instead be an additional point of soak.

It doesn't help you avoid getting hit by adding negative dice to an incoming attack, but if you do get hit, the tough material/shield thingy that is between your squishy bits and the incoming attack, help to reduce the damage down, possibly negating it entirely.

That's really it. Just, soak, nothing more, nothing less.

So... ignoring most of the thread, I'm going to take a stab at this. And considering that when Star Wars is done with the laws of physics it usually leaves them sobbing in a fetal position on the shower floor, I'm pretty much going to drop any pretense of bringing realism or simulationism into this and argue purely from a game design standpoint.

If anyone wants to counterargue on the basis of realism, don't.

So, folding defense into soak will make soak levels of 3+ a lot more accessible, and considering how powerful soak is in this system, this means that the almighty soak tank is going to show up a lot more often. Heavy armor will become a lot more powerful, and will start becoming more of necessity to get an edge in combat.

I think this is why armor tends to only give you either the very easily attainable +1 soak or the barely exceedable +2. Because otherwise, armor becomes too much of deciding factor, and everyone will be inclined to put on the heaviest set of armor they can manage.

That is fairly realistic. It's not really what we see in Star Wars though.

In Star Wars, armor looks cool but isn't that effective unless you're the "armor guy", like the Mandalorian. Hence talents like Armor Master that work best with heavy armor as every additional point of soak tends to become exponentially better.

The system already struggles a bit as most characters can't do much to avoid getting hit and have to rely on soak and wound/strain treshold to keep them alive. Upping soak will exacerbate this.

Adding defense is fairly clever mechanic to add an element of chance to armor, and providing a base for building a narrative on. Defense is the bullet stopping pocket watch in old westerns. It's the "lucky I wore my armor today" effect. It's the kevlar vest that once in a while, for whatever reason, stops a bullet it's not rated for.

It's also very important to remember that a point of soak tends to be much more powerful than a point of defense. I'd say you should probably count a point of defense as a fraction of a point of soak. I dont have a setback die handy, but if I recall correctly it's something like 2 blanks, 2 threats and 2 failure, which works out to roughly half a soak. It's a relatively minor benefit that doesn't stack with soak, which gives you a bit of wiggle room to make heavy battle armor better than than laminate without adding that exponentially more powerful third point of soak.

Also, consider that since damage tends to be less random than most other systems, reaching a level of soak where you can start to fairly reliably completely stop attacks from doing damage is rapidly approaching where the system breaks down. Defense still gives you a shot at a "no sell" without requiring that regular blaster pistols become near useless.

In short, heaping on more soak to armor upsets an already shaky balance in the system, and pushes it closer to Warhammer 40K-style power armored space marines.

So, I'm not going to tell you it's a bad or good idea, but I am going to say that you will se even less people willing to drop their heavy armor armor to fight it out in their shirtsleeves and vest (or moisture farmer's tunic, if you prefer) than you already do.

It's a tonal problem inherent in the system that would be exacerbated by shifting to more soak.

So yeah, from a game design perspective, I'd advise against it unless you want a more heavily armored galaxy.

Personally, I like the Mandalorian to be the exception, not the rule.

20 hours ago, Daeglan said:

No it really is not. Slope armor exits for a reason. The shape of armor changednforna reason. Your inabilitt to except that does not make you right. It just demonstrates you inability to accept you can fail at a task while hitting a target.

And yet, Sloped armor doesn't make you actually harder to hit. It just redirects the majority of the impact from a hit. The attacker is still hitting the target. That is what you refuse to accept. The Video of the arrows bears this out. The slope of the breast plate doesn't stop the impact from the arrows. The arrows still hit their target, still knock the target around from the impact , still damage the armor, still break from the impact with the armor. And that is " sloped " armor. It doesn't make the target any harder to hit than if the armor was flat. In fact, all body armor is curved/sloped. There's not such thing as flat body armor. Even sloped Tank armor doesn't stop impact. It simply redirects most of it to reduce the damage done from the hit. It doesn't prevent the tank from being hit . That is what you're not getting. Armor does not make a target harder to hit .

Of particular note:

Quote

Definition of hit

(Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb

1 a : to reach with or as if with a sudden blow

His mom told him to stop hitting his sister.

b : to come in quick forceful contact with

the ball hit the window

He was hit by a car. The tank was hit by enemy fire.

c : to strike (something, such as a ball) with an object (such as a bat, club, or racket) so as to impart or redirect motion hit a fastball into the outfield

2 a : to cause to come into contact

She accidentally hit her head getting into the car.

b : to deliver (something, such as a blow) by action

c : to apply forcefully or suddenly

hit the brakes

Will someone hit the lights?

Further, here's another bit of proof involving modern plate armor against firearms up to 50 caliber.

The target is clearly hit , and clearly affected by the hits, even though only the 50 cal round actually penetrates the armor. In fact, the Desert Eagle he shoots knocks the dummy over from the impact of the shot, yet the armor stops the round completely. It is still a successful hit . The armor reduced the damage of the shots. It didn't prevent the shots from hitting the target. Even when they start shooting the plates alone directly on a frame (because they tore the vest's pocket), you see the plates (and the stand) getting knocked over by the shots. The armor isn't causing failed shots. The shots are hitting the target. They're just not penetrating the armor until he gets to the 50 cal. That is damage reduction . That is Soak .

Here's another.

Look at how much damage the armor takes, how much the dummy is knocked around even though the armor "deflects" the hits. The armor is not making the target harder to hit. It's reducing the damage . That is Soak , not Defense . A deflected hit is not a failed attack. It is a successful attack that simply did no damage because the armor took it all.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And yet, Sloped armor doesn't make you actually harder to hit. It just redirects the majority of the impact from a hit. The attacker is still hitting the target. That is what you refuse to accept. The Video of the arrows bears this out. The slope of the breast plate doesn't stop the impact from the arrows. The arrows still hit their target, still knock the target around from the impact , still damage the armor, still break from the impact with the armor. And that is " sloped " armor. It doesn't make the target any harder to hit than if the armor was flat. In fact, all body armor is curved/sloped. There's not such thing as flat body armor. Even sloped Tank armor doesn't stop impact. It simply redirects most of it to reduce the damage done from the hit. It doesn't prevent the tank from being hit . That is what you're not getting. Armor does not make a target harder to hit .

Of particular note:

Further, here's another bit of proof involving modern plate armor against firearms up to 50 caliber.

The target is clearly hit , and clearly affected by the hits, even though only the 50 cal round actually penetrates the armor. In fact, the Desert Eagle he shoots knocks the dummy over from the impact of the shot, yet the armor stops the round completely. It is still a successful hit . The armor reduced the damage of the shots. It didn't prevent the shots from hitting the target. Even when they start shooting the plates alone directly on a frame (because they tore the vest's pocket), you see the plates (and the stand) getting knocked over by the shots. The armor isn't causing failed shots. The shots are hitting the target. They're just not penetrating the armor until he gets to the 50 cal. That is damage reduction . That is Soak .

Here's another.

Look at how much damage the armor takes, how much the dummy is knocked around even though the armor "deflects" the hits. The armor is not making the target harder to hit. It's reducing the damage . That is Soak , not Defense . A deflected hit is not a failed attack. It is a successful attack that simply did no damage because the armor took it all.

Oh look you demonstrated examples of defections not fully deflecting the hit. Which is something I have said is a possibility from the beginning. But you can also have instances where the deflection FULLY mitigates a hit making the attack a fail. Just because you can show one end of the spectrum does not mean the other end does not exist. also notice some of the hits in your example have hits fully deflected doing nothing to the target.

O

M

G

We somehow got vids with Kult of Athena weapons. This thread is like a "Brick's Nerdery Bingo" card.

The countdown until a Cold Steel reference begins NOW.

1 minute ago, BrickSteelhead said:

O

M

G

We somehow got vids with Kult of Athena weapons. This thread is like a "Brick's Nerdery Bingo" card.

The countdown until a Cold Steel reference begins NOW.

Well he is desperate to have his way. But his video already has examples of what I am talking about.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Oh look you demonstrated examples of defections not fully deflecting the hit. Which is something I have said is a possibility from the beginning. But you can also have instances where the deflection FULLY mitigates a hit making the attack a fail. Just because you can show one end of the spectrum does not mean the other end does not exist. also notice some of the hits in your example have hits fully deflected doing nothing to the target.

Wrong. A deflection does not mitigate a hit . It mitigates the damage. In order for armor to deflect an attack, the attack has to actually hit the the target. It has to make contact with some force . The attack doesn't fail . The attack simply does no damage . Even then the target still gets moved around from the impact .

9 minutes ago, BrickSteelhead said:

O

M

G

We somehow got vids with Kult of Athena weapons. This thread is like a "Brick's Nerdery Bingo" card.

The countdown until a Cold Steel reference begins NOW.

I'm not worrying about who made the videos. I was looking specifically for videos of weapons vs plate armor to show the real effects of how armor works. Who made the video is irrelevant.

5 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Well he is desperate to have his way. But his video already has examples of what I am talking about.

Wrong again. They demonstrate successful hits that do no damage . They don't demonstrate a targe t not getting hit because the armor makes it harder to hit. A deflection does not mean a failed attack . It does not mean the attacker failed to hit his target. It means the damage was stopped. That is what it means. It mitigates the damage from a hit. It does not prevent the hit itself . That is where you are 100% wrong .

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong. A deflection does not mitigate a hit . It mitigates the damage. In order for armor to deflect an attack, the attack has to actually hit the the target. It has to make contact with some force . The attack doesn't fail . The attack simply does no damage . Even then the target still gets moved around from the impact .

I'm not worrying about who made the videos. I was looking specifically for videos of weapons vs plate armor to show the real effects of how armor works. Who made the video is irrelevant.

Wrong again. They demonstrate successful hits that do no damage . They don't demonstrate a targe t not getting hit because the armor makes it harder to hit. A deflection does not mean a failed attack . It does not mean the attacker failed to hit his target. It means the damage was stopped. That is what it means. It mitigates the damage from a hit. It does not prevent the hit itself . That is where you are 100% wrong .

And that is an example of your rigid clinging to the an incorrect definition is the problem. Even you link to the definition says you are wrong. And until you get that through your thick skull I cant help you. Because I never said it prevents the hit. I said it makes the attack fail.

15 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And that is an example of your rigid clinging to the an incorrect definition is the problem. Even you link to the definition says you are wrong. And until you get that through your thick skull I cant help you. Because I never said it prevents the hit. I said it makes the attack fail.

No. It is not an "incorrect definition" of a term.

Deflect :

Quote

de·flect

/ dəˈflekt /

Learn to pronounce

verb

1. cause (something) to change direction by interposing something; turn aside from a straight course.

   "the bullet was deflected harmlessly into the ceiling"

   Similar:

   turn aside/away

   divert

   avert

   sidetrack

   distract

   draw away

   block

   parry

   stop

   fend off

   stave off

   • (of an object) change direction after hitting something.

     "the ball deflected off his body"

     Similar:

     bounce

     glance

     ricochet

     turn aside/away

     turn

     alter course

     change course/direction

     diverge

     deviate

     veer

     swerve

     slew

     drift

     bend

     swing

     twist

     curve
   • cause (someone) to deviate from an intended purpose.

     "she refused to be deflected from anything she had set her mind on"

Note the underlined text. to change direction after hitting something. In other words, armor can only deflect an attack that successfully hits it in the first place . Therefore, the attack is not a failed attack, because it hits the target . As such, the attack is a successful attack. A "Deflected" hit is still a hit . As such, it is still a successful attack. Period.

You are the one using the "wrong definition".

11 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. It is not an "incorrect definition" of a term.

Deflect :

Note the underlined text. to change direction after hitting something. In other words, armor can only deflect an attack that successfully hits it in the first place . Therefore, the attack is not a failed attack, because it hits the target . As such, the attack is a successful attack. A "Deflected" hit is still a hit . As such, it is still a successful attack. Period.

You are the one using the "wrong definition".

how many times do I have to tell you that the key word is successful not hit? just because an attack hits does not mean the attack was successful.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

how many times do I have to tell you that the key word is successful not hit? just because an attack hits does not mean the attack was successful.

Wrong!!!!

A successful attack is an attack that hits its target . A failed attack is one that misses its target. If the attack hits its target, it is a successful attack . Period. A combat check determines whether or not the attack hits the target . Net success equals a hit. No net successes equals a miss. This is true of any game system. It is basic logic .

Depends - does successful mean 'hits' or 'damages'? (As in, subtracts wounds or strain.) If the former, then you're correct, but if the latter, you're wrong.

1 minute ago, StarkJunior said:

Depends - does successful mean 'hits' or 'damages'? (As in, subtracts wounds or strain.) If the former, then you're correct, but if the latter, you're wrong.

And given the way this system goes about things it considers a successful attack one that has successes left over on the die roll. Because the way defense works it takes away successes. Be it from cover, shields, the way armor is designed, darkness etc.

This thread would be less than a page long if some people would just be willing to entertain the thought that the purpose of an attack roll (and thus, what success or failure shows) might not just be to HIT an opponent, but to DAMAGE them.

This thread needs more cow bell.