7 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I guess if you want to bog down the game....basically it would double the length of combat with out real benefit.

How so?

The jedi would always know how many dice oppose. And the attacker just picks up those dice with his attack roll. How does that bog down anything?

If anything it makes reflect seem more rewarding and closer to what we see in the movies.

It also makes jedi dangerous to attack unless you have numbers.

30 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

How so?

The jedi would always know how many dice oppose. And the attacker just picks up those dice with his attack roll. How does that bog down anything?

If anything it makes reflect seem more rewarding and closer to what we see in the movies.

It also makes jedi dangerous to attack unless you have numbers.

Every additional die roll slows down the game. If you are making characters roll for every defense that doubles the time of combat.

Just now, Daeglan said:

Every additional die roll slows down the game. If you are making characters roll for every defense that doubles the time of combat.

Your mistaken. There is no additional dice roll. Just additional dice when attacking aLightsaber weilder who uses the reflect talent.

2 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Your mistaken. There is no additional dice roll. Just additional dice when attacking aLightsaber weilder who uses the reflect talent.

Will still slow things down as it is additional adjudication. What we have is faster to adjudicate.

Just now, Daeglan said:

Will still slow things down as it is additional adjudication. What we have is faster to adjudicate.

I hope you're not serious.

Its exactly the same as using dodge.

"Hey Gm I'm gonna dodge, pick up X many dice"

"Hey Gm I'm gonna use reflect, pick up X many dice"

Except with the chance to send the attack back. If something like that would bog down your game I dont know what to say to you, lol.

I don't really think the assembling of the dice pool will add that much time to combat. But nerfing ranged vs Lightsabers would make the saber monkeys very tricky to deal with, meaning longer combats if anyone has a lightsaber. It also sort of lets every specc shine at what Shien is supposed to be the best at. Also how would it work for different range bands? Am I suddenly easier to hit for someone shooting from extreme range if I try to reflect and only have two ranks of reflect? What about vehicle weapons, are those a total no? Because we see people in rebels reliably reflect shots from Tie-fighters without any real issues.

1 hour ago, Darth Revenant said:

I don't really think the assembling of the dice pool will add that much time to combat. But nerfing ranged vs Lightsabers would make the saber monkeys very tricky to deal with, meaning longer combats if anyone has a lightsaber. It also sort of lets every specc shine at what Shien is supposed to be the best at. Also how would it work for different range bands? Am I suddenly easier to hit for someone shooting from extreme range if I try to reflect and only have two ranks of reflect? What about vehicle weapons, are those a total no? Because we see people in rebels reliably reflect shots from Tie-fighters without any real issues.

I have no idea. I was just thinking on the spot when Ronin said his players where often dissatisfied with Reflect.

It would be a more expensive talent than what it currently is, and perhaps would have a higher strain cost. So it wouldnt be an indefinite thing a Lightsaber user could do. Also against more than one or two opponents their strain would drop fast. So you'd have to be selective with it.

Your other concerns could certainly be remedied some way.

1 hour ago, Darth Revenant said:

Also how would it work for different range bands?

What do you mean? Hitting someone from a longer range is harder to do in general. The GM could either narrate a failure as a miss or a deflection off of the lightsaber. Maybe on a despair roll the bolt is coming back at them.

1 hour ago, Darth Revenant said:

I suddenly easier to hit for someone shooting from extreme range if I try to reflect and only have two ranks of reflect

No, it would be harder. And I was thinking only one Reflect Talent. No more "ranks in". Make it at the bottom of Lightsaber focused trees, similar to Dedication.

1 hour ago, Darth Revenant said:

also sort of lets every specc shine at what Shien is supposed to be the best at.

Make it cheaper and obtainable earlier in the Shien tree. Or some other kind of benefit.

1 hour ago, Darth Revenant said:

What about vehicle weapons, are those a total no? Because we see people in rebels reliably reflect shots from Tie-fighters without any real issues.

I dont, yes, no? That's not very realistic to what we see in the movies though.

On 1/30/2020 at 8:42 PM, Jedi Ronin said:

Yes he was burning through “strain” but his parry’s prevented him from taking any actual wounds unlike the actual hit that made contact with him which injured him. This scene perfectly shows the completely different effects of parry (may tire you but you don’t take any damage) and the effects of actually being hit. It took a hit to drop him, he didn’t drop from parrying.

And I suppose you concede on reflect now.

On 1/30/2020 at 8:51 PM, Jedi Ronin said:

Good point. But parry/reflect and the “multiple narrative strikes” still have issues I’ve mentioned. Not to mention I don’t think anyone plays it this way (seriously does anyone narrate attacking for a whole minute and the defender doing defense stuff for a whole minute then taking their turn to attack for a whole minute...; the minute length is typically only applied narratively for non combat skill checks).
Which is why I think the RAW says not only that a round is a minute but also it’s adjustable and it just means time to move somewhere and do something so it scales to what you’re doing.
And while I do like your sudden use for the narrative description it renders your armor argument a bit ridiculous where you obsessed over making contact and a hit is a hit and the physics over it when all along it’s a minute of being attacked and the armor’s effect is the aggregate of that whole thing (meaning RAW is perfectly suited to your conception of armor because RAW doesn’t describe a particular attack but “narrative minute of attacks” so the armor behaved exactly as you want somewhere in that minute but has an aggregate effect mechanically).

On 1/30/2020 at 9:27 PM, Jedi Ronin said:

To play off what Tramp and Daeglan have said, immersion might be much better improved if players regularly narrated attack checks as multiple attacks and defenses to that like armor/parry/reflect as being effective for most of the attacks but “one” or more “get through” resulting in what ever damage is left over (if any). Though this may make narration tiresome.

On 1/31/2020 at 6:50 AM, micheldebruyn said:

Come to think of it, real-world armour, real-world weapons, basically real-world anything isn't applicable to any of this.

On 1/31/2020 at 10:48 AM, BrickSteelhead said:

I can't speak for Daeglan, but I've got thousands of hours of armored combat experience and I definitely have had that armor deflect a hit without me being hit.

Tramp, I truly would be curious for more info about your experiences in armor, because it seems like it's _so_ different from mine.

If the armor deflected a hit, you got hit . Just because the attack didn't touch your flesh , doesn't mean you weren't hit.

I served in the US Army in Operation Desert Storm. I was also a member of the SCA for several years. In Basic Training, we tok part in Pugle stick training wearing relatively heavy padded armor, and a helmet, and beat each other with big padded staves trying to knock each other off a log. In the SCA I was a combat archer, also wearing padded armor and a helmet, I got hit several times there too, by arrows.

On 1/31/2020 at 10:57 AM, Daeglan said:

I dont have thousands of hours. but I have hundreds and I have had a lot of hits that just not get purchase on the armor and thus not transfer any energy to me.

But you were still hit.

On 1/31/2020 at 1:15 PM, micheldebruyn said:

I think it's less about experience in armour, and more about what subjectively constitutes "being hit".

Pretty much. Or more accurately, what objectively constitutes a hit.

On 1/31/2020 at 1:33 PM, Daeglan said:

that is because he refuses to recognize the fact that the same symbol on different dice can mean different things narration wise. IE a failure on difficulty dice can mean you missed entirely. a failure on a setback die can mean you hit the cover or skipped off the armor or missed because of darkness or whatever which i believe is part of the design intent.

Because it's not a "fact". Especially when the RAW itself specifically uses the terms " Hit " and " miss " in regards to Successes and Failures respectively for Combat Checks.

On 1/31/2020 at 1:41 PM, Jedi Ronin said:

That's a fantastic point - I think it's even brought up in the GM section on narrating the dice.

Though to be fair I think I've landed in somewhat of the same situation as Tramp - he with armor and me with Reflect/Parry. The narrative and abstract aspects of the system mean it's workable but it still feels off to me (for the reasons we've been discussing).

Well, there are at least two instances from canon which clearly show a successful parry which still resulted in injury to the defender. One of them being Finn's fight with Kylo Ren in TFA, when Finn parries Ren's attack, and they end up blade-locked, and one of the quillions on Ren's Saber burns Finn's shoulder. Finn stopped Kylo's main blade from cutting him, but didn't stop the quillion. The other example is Kanan Jarrus' battle with Maul here:

Kanan brings up his saber to parry, Maul's thrown lightsaber (this could also be considered Reflect), He parries the attack, but his blade is knocked back onto his face, burning his eyes, permanently blinding him (Critical Injury).

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If the armor deflected a hit, you got hit . Just because the attack didn't touch your flesh , doesn't mean you weren't hit.

I served in the US Army in Operation Desert Storm. I was also a member of the SCA for several years. In Basic Training, we tok part in Pugle stick training wearing relatively heavy padded armor, and a helmet, and beat each other with big padded staves trying to knock each other off a log. In the SCA I was a combat archer, also wearing padded armor and a helmet, I got hit several times there too, by arrows.

But you were still hit.

Pretty much. Or more accurately, what objectively constitutes a hit.

Because it's not a "fact". Especially when the RAW itself specifically uses the terms " Hit " and " miss " in regards to Successes and Failures respectively for Combat Checks.

Well, there are at least two instances from canon which clearly show a successful parry which still resulted in injury to the defender. One of them being Finn's fight with Kylo Ren in TFA, when Finn parries Ren's attack, and they end up blade-locked, and one of the quillions on Ren's Saber burns Finn's shoulder. Finn stopped Kylo's main blade from cutting him, but didn't stop the quillion. The other example is Kanan Jarrus' battle with Maul here:

Kanan brings up his saber to parry, Maul's thrown lightsaber (this could also be considered Reflect), He parries the attack, but his blade is knocked back onto his face, burning his eyes, permanently blinding him (Critical Injury).

What part of you can be hit on a failure do you not understand?

To what extent is a hit equal to a physical touch, and how far out from a character's body do we measure before we start saying an attack hit/touched the armor/clothing/cover and not the character?

4 hours ago, BrickSteelhead said:

To what extent is a hit equal to a physical touch, and how far out from a character's body do we measure before we start saying an attack hit/touched the armor/clothing/cover and not the character?

This is why i use success and failure as my gauge. Not hit or miss.

3 hours ago, Daeglan said:

This is why i use success and failure as my gauge. Not hit or miss.

Yes. I think that's why FFG used it as their gauge too?

22 hours ago, Daeglan said:

What part of you can be hit on a failure do you not understand?

No, you can't . A failed attack is a miss . You fail to hit your target period. No contact, no anything. The shot misses completely.

8 hours ago, BrickSteelhead said:

To what extent is a hit equal to a physical touch, and how far out from a character's body do we measure before we start saying an attack hit/touched the armor/clothing/cover and not the character?

There is no difference from hitting the character and hitting the armor. The only caveat being robes, since they tend to be large, flowing, and billow out, rather than being form fitting, and obscure the silhouette of the body. If an attack hits armor, it's likely going to have an effect on the person wearing the armor, even if there's no injury. For instance, being knocked off you feet by the force of a blow while wearing heavy plate armor that still prevented the hit from getting penetrating.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, you can't . A failed attack is a miss . You fail to hit your target period. No contact, no anything. The shot misses completely.

There is no difference from hitting the character and hitting the armor. The only caveat being robes, since they tend to be large, flowing, and billow out, rather than being form fitting, and obscure the silhouette of the body. If an attack hits armor, it's likely going to have an effect on the person wearing the armor, even if there's no injury. For instance, being knocked off you feet by the force of a blow while wearing heavy plate armor that still prevented the hit from getting penetrating.

No it is not. The rules clearly state otherwise.

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

No it is not. The rules clearly state otherwise.

No, they don't . There are quite a few instances in the core rules which specifically equate a failed attack as a miss. and Success as synonymous with Hit. Nowhere in the book does it say that a failed attack still hits .

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

No, they don't . There are quite a few instances in the core rules which specifically equate a failed attack as a miss. and Success as synonymous with Hit. Nowhere in the book does it say that a failed attack still hits .

And maybe you should reread the desciption of defense where it describes deflecting attacks which general involves hitting and the attack being deflected.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And maybe you should reread the desciption of defense where it describes deflecting attacks which general involves hitting and the attack being deflected.

The issue is that he disagrees with those rules, so bringing that up just brings the argument in a circle.

8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And maybe you should reread the desciption of defense where it describes deflecting attacks which general involves hitting and the attack being deflected.

4 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The issue is that he disagrees with those rules, so bringing that up just brings the argument in a circle.

There's also the fact that it's contradicted in other parts of the book itself.

27 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The issue is that he disagrees with those rules, so bringing that up just brings the argument in a circle.

I don't know how he can site the rules in one place and ignore it in another, however. That's a little hypocritical.

24 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

There's also the fact that it's contradicted in other parts of the book itself.

Then what stops us from pulling a @Tramp Graphics and saying that we disagree with you, quote the parts we like in the book that support the narrative (heh, anyway.) and say that its your stance that is the contradiction? That the parts you cite from the rule-book are the contradiction? Nothing. Ergo, you cant be right if you're also wrong. You cant claim fact when the fact is also the opposite. It then become an Opinion. Plus Its not like you cite them from the actual combat rules but you cite from talents and side notes.

6 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Then what stops us from pulling a @Tramp Graphics and saying that we disagree with you, quote the parts we like in the book that support the narrative (heh, anyway.) and say that its your stance that is the contradiction? That the parts you cite from the rule-book are the contradiction? Nothing. Ergo, you cant be right if you're also wrong. You cant claim fact when the fact is also the opposite. It then become an Opinion. Plus Its not like you cite them from the actual combat rules but you cite from talents and side notes.

I also cited directly from the combat rules as well. Not side notes.

28 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I also cited directly from the combat rules as well. Not side notes.

Alright. Anyway, moving on.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

There's also the fact that it's contradicted in other parts of the book itself.

Except it isnt contradicted in other parts of the book. Your extremely narrow view is what is contradicted. Having talked to the designers on many occasions there intent is very clear. Your narrow view is the issue. Not the rules.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I also cited directly from the combat rules as well. Not side notes.

As did I. I quoted a core mechanic. That you dont like because you cant wrap your head around the fact that failure can mean different things on different dice.