2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes. It is "necessarily" a miss. There are no examples in the books of Failures not being misses. A success is a hit. A failure is a miss. Period.

Not necessarily. It depends on what kind of hit it is - on how you narrate it.
you are free to narrate a failed attack check with Advantage/Triumph as piling in Setback or upgrades on an opponent as “hits” driving them back, knocking them down etc.

You can spend 2 Triumphs on a failed attack check to destroy a targets lightsaber. You can narrative that how you like. Doesn’t mean the character you targeted took damage but it can be narrated as some sort of “hit”.

Technically if you succeed on an attack check you’ve hit the target and they can use Parry to reduce the damage dealt to 0 and they also then counter attack with Improved Parry. So technically there was a hit bit no damage was done and players can narrate the exchange as they wish including there was no hit to there was a glancing hit or whatever.

EDIT

There is a difference between rules language/terms and narrative language. They are saying narrative play allows what they are saying, not that it’s a rules interpretation.

2 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

This board has the most tolerant mods I have ever seen.

There are actual mods, right?

I’ve seen plenty of “Tramp” argument threads locked down.
I’ve never - over the years - seen Tramp be mean or demeaning to anyone.
Frustrating? Yes. Intellectually dishonest? Sometimes (if we’re honest that describes all of us sometimes).
He argues things endlessly and the locked threads typically have devolved into people getting heated (at Tramp) and arguments repeating themselves (usually for the umpteenth time). And I don’t exclude myself.

15 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

This board has the most tolerant mods I have ever seen.

There are actual mods, right?

My guess is the mod team was part of the FFI team and are no longer employed by FFG…so we have no idea what the mod status is at this point…

22 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Go read the description of defense.

I have. That's part of what got this house rule thread started. Saying Deflection is a failed attack is part of why people are looking to get rid of Armor Defense, because it makes no sense. A deflected attack still hits . That's not simply game mechanics, or narrative. That's hard reality , and as demonstrated in the various videos, even a deflected hit can knock someone down, or cause a concussion, or disorient someone, all of which, in game terms , require a successful hit . That means at least one net success.

21 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I was saying hit and successful attack check are synonymous. Whether damage was done is a separate issue. I agree Defense is acceptable narratively as deflected.

I agree with the first part, not the last part regarding Defense, regardless of @Daeglan 's interpretation of RAW. Deflection requires the target to be struck successfully period. This is what we see in actual demonstrations of hard armor deflecting incoming attacks. The target is struck, often moved back, as the projectile or weapon is redirected or bounces off. This is better represented with the hard armor's Soak preventing all damage done. That is a true deflected hit.

21 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Not necessarily. It depends on what kind of hit it is - on how you narrate it.
you are free to narrate a failed attack check with Advantage/Triumph as piling in Setback or upgrades on an opponent as “hits” driving them back, knocking them down etc.

You can spend 2 Triumphs on a failed attack check to destroy a targets lightsaber. You can narrative that how you like. Doesn’t mean the character you targeted took damage but it can be narrated as some sort of “hit”.

Technically if you succeed on an attack check you’ve hit the target and they can use Parry to reduce the damage dealt to 0 and they also then counter attack with Improved Parry. So technically there was a hit bit no damage was done and players can narrate the exchange as they wish including there was no hit to there was a glancing hit or whatever.

EDIT

There is a difference between rules language/terms and narrative language. They are saying narrative play allows what they are saying, not that it’s a rules interpretation.

Yes, necessarily. Even in the example you give, that is more accurately narrated as the target being forced back on his heels to avoid being struck, thus putting him off balance , making his attacks harder. In the case of spending two triumphs to destroy his weapon, that only means that you miss the target himself, but managed to get a lucky strike against his weapon (as opposed to deliberately striking the weapon). No matter what, a failed attack never touches the intended target. A failure means you failed to hit the intended target, it's a miss .

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I agree with the first part, not the last part regarding Defense, regardless of @Daeglan 's interpretation of RAW. Deflection requires the target to be struck successfully period. This is what we see in actual demonstrations of hard armor deflecting incoming attacks. The target is struck, often moved back, as the projectile or weapon is redirected or bounces off. This is better represented with the hard armor's Soak preventing all damage done. That is a true deflected hit.

The problem is that is not how the system is actually designed. Since part of the design of defense is to represent deflection the armor causing a failure to mean that the attack was deflected. You may not like it but that is the design. They designed it this way probably for balance reasons and you dont really find any armor with more than 2 soak. they add defense which behaves a little different than soak and is not 100% effective.

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

The problem is that is not how the system is actually designed. Since part of the design of defense is to represent deflection the armor causing a failure to mean that the attack was deflected. You may not like it but that is the design. They designed it this way probably for balance reasons and you dont really find any armor with more than 2 soak. they add defense which behaves a little different than soak and is not 100% effective.

Except that yes, it is how the game is designed. Yes, the addition of armor defense was added to keep Soak values to a more "reasonable" level, but, the mechanics of the combat system is still hit or miss . A success is a hit an a failure is a miss . That is the mechanics . The "armors" that tend to have Defense bonuses tend to be ones that are large and voluminous , such as the Heavy Robes , and Jedi Temple Guard armor (which itself is robes with armor plates under them. It is the robes which provide defense by obscuring the shape of body , thus making the target harder to hit. That is acceptable "Armor" Defense. In fact, the one "armor" in the F&D CRB which doesn't have a Defense, but should have one, is Concealing Robes . This is because, like the Heavy robes, Concealing robes are large and voluminous, and obscure the body. Another garment that should have a Defense is the Thermal Cloak , for the same reason.

21 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Except that yes, it is how the game is designed. Yes, the addition of armor defense was added to keep Soak values to a more "reasonable" level, but, the mechanics of the combat system is still hit or miss . A success is a hit an a failure is a miss . That is the mechanics . The "armors" that tend to have Defense bonuses tend to be ones that are large and voluminous , such as the Heavy Robes , and Jedi Temple Guard armor (which itself is robes with armor plates under them. It is the robes which provide defense by obscuring the shape of body , thus making the target harder to hit. That is acceptable "Armor" Defense. In fact, the one "armor" in the F&D CRB which doesn't have a Defense, but should have one, is Concealing Robes . This is because, like the Heavy robes, Concealing robes are large and voluminous, and obscure the body. Another garment that should have a Defense is the Thermal Cloak , for the same reason.

No they are not hit or miss. No matter how many times you make that claim. This is not a binary system and when you ignore what raw says about deflection does not change the fact that they wrote deflection as causing a failure. If they didnt they would not have written the rules the way they did. I love how you ignore all the armors that are not voluminous and give defense. Like Laminate, Mandalorean armor, Armored clothing, Clone trooper armor and so on. It is like you ignore anything that doesnt fit your tiny little world view. Yes some armor has defense because it is large and flowing. But that does not apply to all armors that have defense. and a good number provide defense while having hard plates that conform to the body.

24 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I love how you ignore all the armors that are not voluminous and give defense. Like Laminate, Mandalorean armor, Armored clothing, Clone trooper armor and so on. It is like you ignore anything that doesnt fit your tiny little world view. Yes some armor has defense because it is large and flowing. But that does not apply to all armors that have defense. and a good number provide defense while having hard plates that conform to the body.

He's specifically saying that those armors shouldn't, so that is kinda irrelevant.

He was giving examples of armors that have Defense that he thinks should have Defense.

13 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

He's specifically saying that those armors shouldn't, so that is kinda irrelevant.

He was giving examples of armors that have Defense that he thinks should have Defense.

Well Deflection, Cover and obsurement are all covered by the exact same mechanic. Whether he likes it or not.

4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A success is a hit an a failure is a miss .

Show us where in RAW it says a failure is a miss.

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Deflection requires the target to be struck successfully period. This is what we see in actual demonstrations of hard armor deflecting incoming attacks. The target is struck, often moved back, as the projectile or weapon is redirected or bounces off. This is better represented with the hard armor's Soak preventing all damage done. That is a true deflected hit.

That's not how the dice system works. If your black defense die generates Failure then those can have one of several effects: reduce the damage taken from a hit or totally prevent a RAW hit (e.g., prevent a successful attack check). There's also the fact that black setback dice can be added to attack pools for various reasons - armor, talents, taking cover, etc. This is a game where things are necessarily abstracted. And in this case the abstraction is simply these dice make it a little harder for you to be "hit" and if you are hit you might take less damage (and/or in the case of setback dice generating threat less likely they can activate weapon qualities). There is a LOT of play in how players can interpret this basic part of the rules.

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, necessarily. Even in the example you give, that is more accurately narrated as the target being forced back on his heels to avoid being struck, thus putting him off balance , making his attacks harder. In the case of spending two triumphs to destroy his weapon, that only means that you miss the target himself, but managed to get a lucky strike against his weapon (as opposed to deliberately striking the weapon). No matter what, a failed attack never touches the intended target. A failure means you failed to hit the intended target, it's a miss .

More accurately narrated? That's YOUR interpretation, not what the rules demand in narration or what other players can do within RAW when narrating results. That's it, period.

Even in the way you tried to rebut my point about destroying a lightsaber you imposed your own narrative interpretation - the dice pool result is that you didn't succeed on an attack check but you've got 2 Triumph which can be used to destroy their "undestructible" lightsaber and that result can be narrated anyway you'd like from it was a lucky hit (your interpretation) to the target adjusted their stance to your attack and you saw the chance to deliberately strike their weapon and end this without doing any harm and you took it (a reasonable RAW interpretation). You don't get to dictate to others how they narrate/interpret their dice pool results - the only one who get's to push back on that is the GM at the table. This aspect of the game is why so many of us love it - each players gets to interpret/narrate their own dice pools to add to the action of the story. You don't get to dictate this aspect of the game and claim what you're doing is RAW.

The statement "No matter what, a failed attack never touches the intended target." is simply not true. A failed check with Triumph/Advantage can certainly be narrated as touching the opponent and having an effect on them - it could have pushed them putting them off balance, it could have pushed them out of cover, it could even knock them down, etc. The table is free to narrate upgrading the target's next check or additional setback dice to their next action any way they wish - that's RAW. Some interpretations may not be to your liking but the rules allow it.

@Jedi Ronin

Totally agreed. I think when it comes to narration. Nobody should be trying to enforce what a GM can and can't do.

3 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

That's not how the dice system works. If your black defense die generates Failure then those can have one of several effects: reduce the damage taken from a hit or totally prevent a RAW hit (e.g., prevent a successful attack check). There's also the fact that black setback dice can be added to attack pools for various reasons - armor, talents, taking cover, etc. This is a game where things are necessarily abstracted. And in this case the abstraction is simply these dice make it a little harder for you to be "hit" and if you are hit you might take less damage (and/or in the case of setback dice generating threat less likely they can activate weapon qualities). There is a LOT of play in how players can interpret this basic part of the rules.

More accurately narrated? That's YOUR interpretation, not what the rules demand in narration or what other players can do within RAW when narrating results. That's it, period.

Even in the way you tried to rebut my point about destroying a lightsaber you imposed your own narrative interpretation - the dice pool result is that you didn't succeed on an attack check but you've got 2 Triumph which can be used to destroy their "undestructible" lightsaber and that result can be narrated anyway you'd like from it was a lucky hit (your interpretation) to the target adjusted their stance to your attack and you saw the chance to deliberately strike their weapon and end this without doing any harm and you took it (a reasonable RAW interpretation). You don't get to dictate to others how they narrate/interpret their dice pool results - the only one who get's to push back on that is the GM at the table. This aspect of the game is why so many of us love it - each players gets to interpret/narrate their own dice pools to add to the action of the story. You don't get to dictate this aspect of the game and claim what you're doing is RAW.

The statement "No matter what, a failed attack never touches the intended target." is simply not true. A failed check with Triumph/Advantage can certainly be narrated as touching the opponent and having an effect on them - it could have pushed them putting them off balance, it could have pushed them out of cover, it could even knock them down, etc. The table is free to narrate upgrading the target's next check or additional setback dice to their next action any way they wish - that's RAW. Some interpretations may not be to your liking but the rules allow it.

exactly. you need to consider the whole of how the dice are spent and how you narrate the scene. should make sense for what happened.

20 hours ago, Daeglan said:

No they are not hit or miss. No matter how many times you make that claim. This is not a binary system and when you ignore what raw says about deflection does not change the fact that they wrote deflection as causing a failure. If they didnt they would not have written the rules the way they did. I love how you ignore all the armors that are not voluminous and give defense. Like Laminate, Mandalorean armor, Armored clothing, Clone trooper armor and so on. It is like you ignore anything that doesnt fit your tiny little world view. Yes some armor has defense because it is large and flowing. But that does not apply to all armors that have defense. and a good number provide defense while having hard plates that conform to the body.

Yes, they are hit or miss. Advantages, Threats, Triumphs., and Despairs add narrative effects to the Success or Failure of an attack, but do not change the base outcome of Success = a hit and failure = a miss.

20 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

He's specifically saying that those armors shouldn't, so that is kinda irrelevant.

He was giving examples of armors that have Defense that he thinks should have Defense.

Close. I'm saying that the examples I gave are ones that do not have Defense, but I believe should have it.

And, yes, I'm saying that armors like Laminate Armor, Mandalorian Armor, and Armored Clothing, should not have a Defense rating because they don't obscure the shape of the body , and therefore, do not make you harder to hit . This is also @KungFuFerret 's problem with the RAW regarding armor and is the very reason for this thread in the first place.

19 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Well Deflection, Cover and obsurement are all covered by the exact same mechanic. Whether he likes it or not.

That's wrong . Deflection is a part of Soak . Plain and simple. It is damage reduction , not failing to hit.

16 hours ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Show us where in RAW it says a failure is a miss.

The RAW says that for an attack to hit its target, you need at least one net success . Therefore, if you don't get at least one net success , you miss .

4 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

That's not how the dice system works. If your black defense die generates Failure then those can have one of several effects: reduce the damage taken from a hit or totally prevent a RAW hit (e.g., prevent a successful attack check). There's also the fact that black setback dice can be added to attack pools for various reasons - armor, talents, taking cover, etc. This is a game where things are necessarily abstracted. And in this case the abstraction is simply these dice make it a little harder for you to be "hit" and if you are hit you might take less damage (and/or in the case of setback dice generating threat less likely they can activate weapon qualities). There is a LOT of play in how players can interpret this basic part of the rules.

More accurately narrated? That's YOUR interpretation, not what the rules demand in narration or what other players can do within RAW when narrating results. That's it, period.

Even in the way you tried to rebut my point about destroying a lightsaber you imposed your own narrative interpretation - the dice pool result is that you didn't succeed on an attack check but you've got 2 Triumph which can be used to destroy their "undestructible" lightsaber and that result can be narrated anyway you'd like from it was a lucky hit (your interpretation) to the target adjusted their stance to your attack and you saw the chance to deliberately strike their weapon and end this without doing any harm and you took it (a reasonable RAW interpretation). You don't get to dictate to others how they narrate/interpret their dice pool results - the only one who get's to push back on that is the GM at the table. This aspect of the game is why so many of us love it - each players gets to interpret/narrate their own dice pools to add to the action of the story. You don't get to dictate this aspect of the game and claim what you're doing is RAW.

The statement "No matter what, a failed attack never touches the intended target." is simply not true. A failed check with Triumph/Advantage can certainly be narrated as touching the opponent and having an effect on them - it could have pushed them putting them off balance, it could have pushed them out of cover, it could even knock them down, etc. The table is free to narrate upgrading the target's next check or additional setback dice to their next action any way they wish - that's RAW. Some interpretations may not be to your liking but the rules allow it.

And that is the issue a number of players, including myself and the thread starter have. The RAW states that foir an attack to hit the roll must get at least one Net success. Success and Hit are synonymous , when it comes to combat checks, as you, yourself said. As such, "Failure" and "Miss" are also synonymous . Failure is the opposite of Success, just as Miss is the opposite of Hit. Therefore, armor, particularly form-fitting armor cannot cause an attack to fail. And that is where Armor Defense rating on these armors falls apart narratively, because armor does not make a person harder to hit, it only reduces damage.

As for the lightsaber analogy, a deliberate attack on a weapon is, by RAW , a successful attack (at least one net success) that you choose to target at the opponent's weapon. The use of 2 triumphs to destroy a lightsaber on a failed combat check is getting "lucky" after missing the intended target (the person wielding said lightsaber).

Also, I just checked the RAW, and you can't destroy a character's weapon with two triumphs on a failed check anyway, so, that scenario is moot. You can only do so while doing damage to the target. In other words, on a successful hit. From the table 6-2 from the AoR CRB (page 219) two Triumphs result:

Quote

When dealing damage to a target , have the attack destroy a piece of equipment the target is using, such as blowing
up his blaster or destroying a personal shield generator.

So, once again, this points to a Failure being a complete miss . In fact, all of the things you can spend Advantages and Triumphs one which don't require a success, also don't require you to have hit your target. You can force someone to drop his weapon without actually striking him. You can make it harder for them to attack you without actually striking them. You can negate their defenses without actually striking them, etc. None of those effects require you to hit your target. Destroying a weapon does require a successful hit . What it doesn't require is getting through the target's Soak . That is RAW . So, yes, a failed attack never touches a target. It is a miss .

10 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, they are hit or miss. Advantages, Threats, Triumphs., and Despairs add narrative effects to the Success or Failure of an attack, but do not change the base outcome of Success = a hit and failure = a miss.

Close. I'm saying that the examples I gave are ones that do not have Defense, but I believe should have it.

And, yes, I'm saying that armors like Laminate Armor, Mandalorian Armor, and Armored Clothing, should not have a Defense rating because they don't obscure the shape of the body , and therefore, do not make you harder to hit . This is also @KungFuFerret 's problem with the RAW regarding armor and is the very reason for this thread in the first place.

That's wrong . Deflection is a part of Soak . Plain and simple. It is damage reduction , not failing to hit.

The RAW says that for an attack to hit its target, you need at least one net success . Therefore, if you don't get at least one net success , you miss .

And that is the issue a number of players, including myself and the thread starter have. The RAW states that foir an attack to hit the roll must get at least one Net success. Success and Hit are synonymous , when it comes to combat checks, as you, yourself said. As such, "Failure" and "Miss" are also synonymous . Failure is the opposite of Success, just as Miss is the opposite of Hit. Therefore, armor, particularly form-fitting armor cannot cause an attack to fail. And that is where Armor Defense rating on these armors falls apart narratively, because armor does not make a person harder to hit, it only reduces damage.

As for the lightsaber analogy, a deliberate attack on a weapon is, by RAW , a successful attack (at least one net success) that you choose to target at the opponent's weapon. The use of 2 triumphs to destroy a lightsaber on a failed combat check is getting "lucky" after missing the intended target (the person wielding said lightsaber).

Also, I just checked the RAW, and you can't destroy a character's weapon with two triumphs on a failed check anyway, so, that scenario is moot. You can only do so while doing damage to the target. In other words, on a successful hit. From the table 6-2 from the AoR CRB (page 219) two Triumphs result:

So, once again, this points to a Failure being a complete miss . In fact, all of the things you can spend Advantages and Triumphs one which don't require a success, also don't require you to have hit your target. You can force someone to drop his weapon without actually striking him. You can make it harder for them to attack you without actually striking them. You can negate their defenses without actually striking them, etc. None of those effects require you to hit your target. Destroying a weapon does require a successful hit . What it doesn't require is getting through the target's Soak . That is RAW . So, yes, a failed attack never touches a target. It is a miss .

So you made a wall of text that amounts to Nu uh. And yet no where in that huge mess did you back of your claims with rules citations. As you have been asked to do repeatedly.

So where in RAW it says a failure is a miss.

As for example the description of Defense has the attack being deflected as an option. Which is RAW saying that a failure is not necessarily a miss but rather a deflection.

40 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The RAW says that for an attack to hit its target, you need at least one net success . Therefore, if you don't get at least one net success , you miss .

The rules may indeed talk about that for a success. But we are not talking about success. No one is disputing that if you make a combat check and its successful it means you hit the target. This whole discussion is regarding a failed combat check.

Show us where in RAW it says. Meaning. Physically written. That a failure is a miss. It dosen't. Because that all falls under interpretation and narrative flair.

25 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Therefore, armor, particularly form-fitting armor cannot cause an attack to fail. And that is where Armor Defense rating on these armors falls apart narratively, because armor does not make a person harder to hit, it only reduces damage.

As for the lightsaber analogy, a deliberate attack on a weapon is, by RAW , a successful attack (at least one net success) that you choose to target at the opponent's weapon. The use of 2 triumphs to destroy a lightsaber on a failed combat check is getting "lucky" after missing the intended target (the person wielding said lightsaber).

Also, I just checked the RAW, and you can't destroy a character's weapon with two triumphs on a failed check anyway, so, that scenario is moot. You can only do so while doing damage to the target. In other words, on a successful hit. From the table 6-2 from the AoR CRB (page 219) two Triumphs result:

First off, then on to the real substance, the F&D Core Table on spending Advantage/Triumph states you can spend 2 Triumph to destroy a lightsaber specifically. No requirement of a successful hit mentioned (as it is elsewhere in the same table for other results).

Now we're getting to your real issue - you don't like how armor works in this system and how it can be narrated. Fine, you're free to do so. But it's still in RAW that it works this way. Sounds like you prefer some sort of a house rule but you're still going to have issues because you'll be impinging on players ability to narrate their dice rolls (a core part of this system) all because you have strong and specific opinions on armor (you've also said this very issue is why you totally skipped the Saga Edition of Star Wars).

26 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

So, once again, this points to a Failure being a complete miss . In fact, all of the things you can spend Advantages and Triumphs one which don't require a success, also don't require you to have hit your target. You can force someone to drop his weapon without actually striking him. You can make it harder for them to attack you without actually striking them. You can negate their defenses without actually striking them, etc. None of those effects require you to hit your target. Destroying a weapon does require a successful hit . What it doesn't require is getting through the target's Soak . That is RAW . So, yes, a failed attack never touches a target. It is a miss .

Hit is both a mechanical term and a word that can be used in narrative description - are you really suggesting that you can't "hit" a target narratively unless you've also hit them mechanically in a attack check?

So you're basically agreeing with me - you want to control how action can be narrated. But you can't claim this restriction is raw. In fact it's contradicted by RAW - knocking someone down can be the result of missed attack check with Advantage/Triumph. Yeah, it could be narrated as not being from contact/hit/touch/<insert verb here> but it could also very well be from contact/hit/touch/<insert verb here> and RAW makes no demands on this. None - you are free to narrate as you want. In fact RAW seems to contradict this - otherwise Talent's like Knockdown become ridiculous: "So you knocked them down, but you can't touch them, so uh, you have to narrate it that way". So a failed check can in effect "touch" the target. RAW isn't forcing people to narrate dice pools this way. A player is free to narrate 2 Triumphs and 4 Advantage on a failed attack check as slamming their target in the face, knocking them down and across the floor out of cover. That is RAW. The GM is free to narrate back - he stares up at you uninjured but shaken by the strike, that's 2 Upgrades and 2 Setback on their next check - to indicate no damage and anything else.

To say that you're going to be piling up Setback dice and Upgrades on an opponent but you can't narrate it as a "hit" or a "touch" on a failed attack check is not mentioned or implied in the rules anywhere. This is something you might prefer or like or may make sense to you but it's not in the rules.

Before I stopt playing this game I was working on the idea that armours do not provide soak (that comes fron Brawn and talents) but prevent critical wounds. I never finished it.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

So you made a wall of text that amounts to Nu uh. Annd yet nop where in that huge mess did you back of your claims with rules citations. As you have been asked to do repeatedly.

So use where in RAW it says a failure is a miss.

The RAW says that for an attack to hit, you need at least one Net Success. That is what the RAW says. Therefore , if you do not get at least one net Success, you miss . And, yes, I have posted rules citations, numerous times. You just ignored them . And this includes citations from the Combat rules themselves, not just talents.

This includes the Step 4: Resolve Advantage and Triumph , as well as Step 6: Reduce Damage, Apply to Wound Threshold, and Apply Critical Injuries sections, both of which refer to successful attacks as Hits . So, yes, I did make numerous rules citations.

In fact, the section on Defense essentially contradicts itself given that it begins with:

Quote

"Defense, or more specifically, defense rating, is one of the factors determining how difficult it is to land a successful attack during combat.

The rules already specify that a successful attack specifically means a hit . As such, an un successful attack is a miss . Therefore, anything that makes it harder to " land a successful attack" means that it makes it harder to hit the target. Landing a successful attack is landing a hit. That is RAW . Therefore, failing to "land a successful attack" is failing to hit, and therefore missing .

A hit is defined as:

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?

And yet, a few sentences later it tries to include deflecting hits , and absorbing damage ? That is contradictory .That is wrong. Both of those fall under the purview of Soak . Soak is the mechanic for reducing damage from attacks. No. Defense is making a target harder to hit . That is all. Cover makes a target harder to hit. Shields make a target harder to hit. Form-fitting armor does not make you harder to it. The only "armors" that can make a target harder to hit are loose, flowing robes and cloaks, and excessively baggy clothing . That is because those types of garments obscure the shape of the body . And that makes you harder to target, since the attacker's weapon is likely to pass though empty folds of clothing without hitting the person wearing them.

1 hour ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

The rules may indeed talk about that for a success. But we are not talking about success. No one is disputing that if you make a combat check and its successful it means you hit the target. This whole discussion is regarding a failed combat check.

Show us where in RAW it says. Meaning. Physically written. That a failure is a miss. It dosen't. Because that all falls under interpretation and narrative flair.

No. it doesn't all fall under narrative flair or interpretation. Success or Failure determines hit or miss. If the RAW says that a successful attack equals a hit. The opposite of that (a failed attack) equals a miss. If you fail to land an attack, that inherently means you miss . That is fundamental reasoning and understanding of language. This is because the rules do specify what a successful attack means. Success and failure are opposites. Hit and miss are the corresponding opposites.

1 hour ago, Jedi Ronin said:

First off, then on to the real substance, the F&D Core Table on spending Advantage/Triumph states you can spend 2 Triumph to destroy a lightsaber specifically. No requirement of a successful hit mentioned (as it is elsewhere in the same table for other results).

Now we're getting to your real issue - you don't like how armor works in this system and how it can be narrated. Fine, you're free to do so. But it's still in RAW that it works this way. Sounds like you prefer some sort of a house rule but you're still going to have issues because you'll be impinging on players ability to narrate their dice rolls (a core part of this system) all because you have strong and specific opinions on armor (you've also said this very issue is why you totally skipped the Saga Edition of Star Wars).

Hit is both a mechanical term and a word that can be used in narrative description - are you really suggesting that you can't "hit" a target narratively unless you've also hit them mechanically in a attack check?

So you're basically agreeing with me - you want to control how action can be narrated. But you can't claim this restriction is raw. In fact it's contradicted by RAW - knocking someone down can be the result of missed attack check with Advantage/Triumph. Yeah, it could be narrated as not being from contact/hit/touch/<insert verb here> but it could also very well be from contact/hit/touch/<insert verb here> and RAW makes no demands on this. None - you are free to narrate as you want. In fact RAW seems to contradict this - otherwise Talent's like Knockdown become ridiculous: "So you knocked them down, but you can't touch them, so uh, you have to narrate it that way". So a failed check can in effect "touch" the target. RAW isn't forcing people to narrate dice pools this way. A player is free to narrate 2 Triumphs and 4 Advantage on a failed attack check as slamming their target in the face, knocking them down and across the floor out of cover. That is RAW. The GM is free to narrate back - he stares up at you uninjured but shaken by the strike, that's 2 Upgrades and 2 Setback on their next check - to indicate no damage and anything else.

To say that you're going to be piling up Setback dice and Upgrades on an opponent but you can't narrate it as a "hit" or a "touch" on a failed attack check is not mentioned or implied in the rules anywhere. This is something you might prefer or like or may make sense to you but it's not in the rules.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. You cannot hit a target narratively without doing so mechanically.

You cannot use the Knockdown quality without mechanically hitting the target. You cannot use the Disorient quality without mechanically hitting the target. You cannot use the Concussive quality without mechanically hitting the target. You cannot inflict crit without mechanically hitting the target. etc. The RAW specifically states this. Under Item Qualities, on page 161 of the F&D CRB says:

Quote

Active Qualities require two Advantages to activate unless otherwise stated in their description. Active item qualities on weapons can only trigger on a successful attack, unless specified otherwise.

Knockdown , Concussive , Disorient , are all Active Weapon qualities, and none of them make any reference to an exception to the above rule. None of them say you can trigger them on a missed attack . Therefore, all of them require a successful hit. So you cannot knock down a target without mechanically hitting him. The only active weapon qualities that do not require a successful hit to be triggered are Blast and Guided. The Former requires an additional Advantage on a miss, whereas the latter only triggers on a miss. In fact, specifically, Blast says:

Quote

However, the user may also trigger Blast if the attack misses by spending three Advantages. In this case, the original target, as well as every target engaged with the original target suffers damage equal to the Blast rating of the weapon.

(F&D CRB page 162)

Guided also states:

Quote

Guided projectiles, such as guided missiles, may benefit from course alterations after being fired. If a character misses while firing a Guided weapon, and if Guided is activated, he may make an attack check at the end of the round.

(F&D CRB page 163)

Both of these refer to a failed attack as a miss . And these are the only two weapon qualities which can be activated on a missed attack.

And, as pointed out in both examples . A failed attack is, specifically stated by RAW , in these two passages in particular, a miss . The Rules equate a failed attack to a miss .

A hit is, by its very definition, physical contact. If you fail to hit, you miss . Period. You make no physical contact with your intended target. Form-fitting armor does not make a person harder to hit.

Now, you are correct regarding the lightsaber in Table 6-2 of the F&D core rules. But, once again, it goes back to my point about it being a miss against the intended target, but a lucky strike against that weapon. This means you either struck the hilt just below the emitter, or, more likely , you forced him to drop the weapon, such as from a " bind " between the weapons, and the hilt smashed against the rocks , or other hard surface really hard, breaking it. The latter is probably the more appropriate scenario for a missed attack than the former. The former scenario of more appropriate for a successful attack. However, I would suggest clarifying that with the Developers since it basically contradicts the previous entry on the table.

What you can do on a missed attack is force your target off balance, thus denying him his Defense bonuses or upgrading the difficulty of his attacks , or force him to drop his weapon , (None of these requires direct contact with the target.), or you can increase your own Defense bonuses, and the like. Knockdown requires direct contact, Concussive requires direct contact, Disorient requires direct contact. They all require a mechanical hit . They require at least one net Success on the attack roll.

As for SAGA Edition, there was more to it than that, but, specifically when it came to armor, they went back to the old "Armor Class" system, where armor was all or nothing . It made you harder to hit and, worse still, did nothing to reduce damage from a hit. They scrapped the Damage Reduction system they had used in the RCRB, which was a much more accurate portrayal of how armor works, in favor of Armor Defense bonuses, as used in old-school AD&D 2nd Ed, which is not how armor works.

As I pointed out numerous times, this system's saving grace regarding their armor rules is the fact that the primary benefit armor grants is Soak , not Defense. Only a small handful of armors grant any Defense at all. Most only provide Soak, as it should be . And, I understand, mechanically , why they chose to grant some armors Defense bonuses, in order to limit Soak values to a more "manageable" level. And, while I don't like it, I can accept it on game balance reasons. That does not mean I accept any "Narrative" excuses which may try to claim that it equates to deflection or reducing damage. Because both of those are, mechanically, handled by Soak . And, like I said, there are some "armors" that really should have Defense bonuses, some of which don't. These being the Heavy robes (0 Soak, 1 Defense), Concealing Robes, Armored Robes (2 Soak, 1 Defense), Temple Guard robes, and Thermal Cloak. These items should grant Defense, because all of them are large, billowing, and obscure the body, which makes a target harder to hit. . and the Heavy Robes do.

18 minutes ago, Yepesnopes said:

Before I stopt playing this game I was working on the idea that armours do not provide soak (that comes fron Brawn and talents) but prevent critical wounds. I never finished it.

That would be completely contradictory to how armor really works. Soak ( Damage Reduction ) is specifically what armor does . That is all it does. Armor reduces damage from hits.

12 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The RAW says that for an attack to hit, you need at least one Net Success. That is what the RAW says. Therefore , if you do not get at least one net Success, you miss . And, yes, I have posted rules citations, numerous times. You just ignored them . And this includes citations from the Combat rules themselves, not just talents.

No you really havent. You cited a talen. but you have not shown where the rules say what you claim. Sturm did so and no hit in the description of an attack. just success and failure.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. You cannot hit a target narratively without doing so mechanically.

You cannot use the Knockdown quality without mechanically hitting the target. You cannot use the Disorient quality without mechanically hitting the target. You cannot use the Concussive quality without mechanically hitting the target. You cannot inflict crit without mechanically hitting the target. etc. The RAW specifically states this. Under Item Qualities, on page 161 of the F&D CRB says:

I was referring to the Talent Knockdown, not the quality. That negates your reasoning.

And yes you can "hit" a target narratively without doing so mechanically. That is nowhere in the rules (and as I said renders Talents like Knockback ridiculous).

I don't recall seeing dice interpretation rules adding these restrictions.

My simple example still stands: You've failed your attack check but got 1 Triumph, 4 Advantage and you say "I slam them in the face knocking them back out of cover, I want to spend the Triumph to upgrade their next check". GM response: "They reel from your blow as they step out of cover, a slightly glassy look in their eyes". Totally legit by RAW way of describing using 1 Triumph and 4 Advantage to remove cover and upgrade a check.

11 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I was referring to the Talent Knockdown, not the quality. That negates your reasoning.

And yes you can "hit" a target narratively without doing so mechanically. That is nowhere in the rules (and as I said renders Talents like Knockback ridiculous).

I don't recall seeing dice interpretation rules adding these restrictions.

My simple example still stands: You've failed your attack check but got 1 Triumph, 4 Advantage and you say "I slam them in the face knocking them back out of cover, I want to spend the Triumph to upgrade their next check". GM response: "They reel from your blow as they step out of cover, a slightly glassy look in their eyes". Totally legit by RAW way of describing using 1 Triumph and 4 Advantage to remove cover and upgrade a check.

The Talent Knockdown also doesn't allow you to knock the target prone without hitting him first:

Quote

KNOCKDOWN
Activation: Passive
Ranked: No
Trees: Commando, Infiltrator
After hitting with a melee attack , the character may knock the target prone by spending Advantage. If the target is larger than the acting character, it requires one additional Advantage for each silhouette larger.

So, you still need to hit.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The Talent Knockdown also doesn;e allow you to knock the target prone without hitting him first:

So, you still need to hit.

My mistake. My main point still stands. Narration by RAW is not restricted in the way you say it is. And my simple example above doesn't use Knockdown.

8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

No you really havent. You cited a talen. but you have not shown where the rules say what you claim. Sturm did so and no hit in the description of an attack. just success and failure.

Yes, I did. I cited and quoted from the rules on Spending Advantages and Triumphs , from the AoR CRB (also in the F&D CRB), and on applying damage, both of which specifically use the term hit in reference to successful attacks.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, I did. I cited and quoted from the rules on Spending Advantages and Triumphs , from the AoR CRB (also in the F&D CRB), and on applying damage, both of which specifically use the term hit in reference to successful attacks.

Doesn't apply to narration. Does this issue go away for you if we say "touch" instead of hit narratively? Or is your bare bones argument really that you cannot narrate in any way touching your target (or affecting them by being touched by anything else) if you failed the attack check?