9 hours ago, Raicheck said:

At any rate, I really did take advantage of the way my plates were formed and layered to turn "hits" into glances.

To the point that you probably didn't even realize they were hits. Because they weren't. They were touches.

I literally cannot know the number of times that duct tape or rattan touched my armor, because some number of times were deflections that had no effect, and so were not hits, let alone "good" ones.

This debate we're having is an epistemological one, not a natural-scientific one.

On 2/4/2020 at 11:48 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

On that we agree. 😎

Blow it out your ear, you dishonest sack of dung.

You've spent page upon page yelling at people that they're wrong for not following your demented interpretation of the rules.

You don't get to turn around and say "everyone is entitled to an opinion" after 20+ pages of claiming that everyone but you is wrong!

If you want to go down that route, some apologies and retractions are a good place to start.

On 2/6/2020 at 9:02 PM, Daeglan said:

How it is prevented matters. And has an effect.

Not really, no, it doesn't. What matters, particularly in a RPG mechanic , is if the armor stopped the damage, and how much damage was stopped by the armor.

On 2/6/2020 at 8:36 PM, Jareth Valar said:

So then, why continue on with re-posting old points that have no meaning ad nausem? Let the thread finally move on.

It takes two people to debate an issue.

On 2/6/2020 at 11:22 PM, Raicheck said:

While I am generally of the eye rolling "This again?" crowd, I am curious, how many other Scadians are actually here? I saw a couple posting. I'm another former crazy *** "stick jock" though the particular household I was part of was informally referred to as the Heavy Metal brigade given our penchant for steel.

At any rate, I really did take advantage of the way my plates were formed and layered to turn "hits" into glances.

And yet, they were still hits. You still felt them, and could have been knocked down or otherwise moved by the blow.

On 2/7/2020 at 9:11 AM, BrickSteelhead said:

To the point that you probably didn't even realize they were hits. Because they weren't. They were touches.

I literally cannot know the number of times that duct tape or rattan touched my armor, because some number of times were deflections that had no effect, and so were not hits, let alone "good" ones.

This debate we're having is an epistemological one, not a natural-scientific one.

Which, by literal definition , are still hits. And if you hadn't been wearing armor, those hits would have caused injury. The armor prevented that injury , it didn't prevent the blow from making contact.

On 2/7/2020 at 11:55 AM, penpenpen said:

Blow it out your ear, you dishonest sack of dung.

You've spent page upon page yelling at people that they're wrong for not following your demented interpretation of the rules.

You don't get to turn around and say "everyone is entitled to an opinion" after 20+ pages of claiming that everyone but you is wrong!

If you want to go down that route, some apologies and retractions are a good place to start.

Just because you don't like what I have had to say does not mean I'm a liar. I stand by all of my statements. I don't care if you don't like them.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Which, by literal definition , are still hits. And if you hadn't been wearing armor, those hits would have caused injury. The armor prevented that injury , it didn't prevent the blow from making contact.

My broseph, I truly wish for you a more secure way to understand and interpret the world, one that allows for words to have non-literal meanings and for others to be allowed to be authorities on their own more and better and more relevant experience.

But also I am moving right now and don't have my kit accessible right now so I kind of also want you to stay salty.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not really, no, it doesn't. What matters, particularly in a RPG mechanic , is if the armor stopped the damage, and how much damage was stopped by the armor.

And yet you insist the RPG mechanic not model the real world accurately. Because you are hung up on damage can only be prevented in one manner even though in real life that is not how armor actually works.

20 hours ago, BrickSteelhead said:

My broseph, I truly wish for you a more secure way to understand and interpret the world, one that allows for words to have non-literal meanings and for others to be allowed to be authorities on their own more and better and more relevant experience.

But also I am moving right now and don't have my kit accessible right now so I kind of also want you to stay salty.

I'm very "secure" in my understanding of the world. I like being more "literal" in my speech and my intended meaning. And, yes, I expect the same thing with those I speak with, and in the rules of the games I play.

There is a difference between a hit and whether that hit was effective in doing damage. Armor reduces the effect a hit has, regarding potential damage. But, it does not prevent the attack itself from making contact. If it makes contact, that is, literally and technically , a hit.

20 hours ago, Daeglan said:

And yet you insist the RPG mechanic not model the real world accurately. Because you are hung up on damage can only be prevented in one manner even though in real life that is not how armor actually works.

Yes, But you're missing my point completely. I never said "damage can only be prevented on one manner." I said that the only thing Armor does is prevent damage . It doesn't prevent someone from being hit . Mechanically, Damage reduction in the game is handled by the Soak mechanic. Narratively , that covers both partial or complete deflection, and/or absorption of the damage from an attack by the armor worn.

Also, going by what we see on film, we never see "failed attacks" that don't miss the target completely . Any time a blaster shot hits its target, there is at least some effect, even if the target isn't killed outright. Even in the Mandalorian , when the main character is shot, and the blasts deflect off of his Beskar, he reacts to the hit. His shoulder (or whatever part of the body is hit) flinches from the impact. He is hit. It's not a failed attack. Any time an attack makes contact, even if the armor of the target prevents injury, there is always an effect; whether that effect is taking damage, reacting to the hit by flinching or rolling with it, or even just getting pissed off (like when Rose shoots Phasma in TLJ), there is always an effect when an attack lands. The only "failed" attacks we see in the canon are complete misses .

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm very "secure" in my understanding of the world. I like being more "literal" in my speech and my intended meaning. And, yes, I expect the same thing with those I speak with, and in the rules of the games I play.

There is a difference between a hit and whether that hit was effective in doing damage. Armor reduces the effect a hit has, regarding potential damage. But, it does not prevent the attack itself from making contact. If it makes contact, that is, literally and technically , a hit.

Yes, But you're missing my point completely. I never said "damage can only be prevented on one manner." I said that the only thing Armor does is prevent damage . It doesn't prevent someone from being hit . Mechanically, Damage reduction in the game is handled by the Soak mechanic. Narratively , that covers both partial or complete deflection, and/or absorption of the damage from an attack by the armor worn.

Also, going by what we see on film, we never see "failed attacks" that don't miss the target completely . Any time a blaster shot hits its target, there is at least some effect, even if the target isn't killed outright. Even in the Mandalorian , when the main character is shot, and the blasts deflect off of his Beskar, he reacts to the hit. His shoulder (or whatever part of the body is hit) flinches from the impact. He is hit. It's not a failed attack. Any time an attack makes contact, even if the armor of the target prevents injury, there is always an effect; whether that effect is taking damage, reacting to the hit by flinching or rolling with it, or even just getting pissed off (like when Rose shoots Phasma in TLJ), there is always an effect when an attack lands. The only "failed" attacks we see in the canon are complete misses .

Problem is you only except 1 method of preventing damage. Even though in real life there is more than one way.

18 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Problem is you only except 1 method of preventing damage. Even though in real life there is more than one way.

You mean “accept”; but no, that’s not the case. Armor prevents damage by either absorbing a hit, in the case of soft armors (and even most modern hard body armors), or deflecting the hit. In either case, however the armor does not prevent the attack itself from hitting . No armor prevents an attack from actually making forceful contact. All they do is either absorb the energy from the blow or redirect the force of the attack, or both, in some cases. But they don’t stop the attack from actually striking the target.

Whether the damage from an attack is absorbed or deflected, both effects are covered by a damage reduction mechanic in RPGs. In the case of the FFG SW RPG, that mechanic is Soak. Mechanically , Defense makes a target harder to actually hit , because it adds Setback to the original attack roll . It doesn’t subtract from the damage from a hit. That is the difference. It adds difficulty to the roll to hit, to the Combat Check, increasing the chances of Failure on the check . Failure on a Combat check means you miss the target; there is no potential for an effect from the attack on the target at all.

So, no, I never said that armor only has one way to prevent damage. I said that the only thing armor does is prevent damage, which is covered by the Soak mechanic. It does not make a target harder to hit, which is covered by the Defense mechanic.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

You mean “accept”; but no, that’s not the case. Armor prevents damage by either absorbing a hit, in the case of soft armors (and even most modern hard body armors), or deflecting the hit. In either case, however the armor does not prevent the attack itself from hitting . No armor prevents an attack from actually making forceful contact. All they do is either absorb the energy from the blow or redirect the force of the attack, or both, in some cases. But they don’t stop the attack from actually striking the target.

Whether the damage from an attack is absorbed or deflected, both effects are covered by a damage reduction mechanic in RPGs. In the case of the FFG SW RPG, that mechanic is Soak. Mechanically , Defense makes a target harder to actually hit , because it adds Setback to the original attack roll . It doesn’t subtract from the damage from a hit. That is the difference. It adds difficulty to the roll to hit, to the Combat Check, increasing the chances of Failure on the check . Failure on a Combat check means you miss the target; there is no potential for an effect from the attack on the target at all.

So, no, I never said that armor only has one way to prevent damage. I said that the only thing armor does is prevent damage, which is covered by the Soak mechanic. It does not make a target harder to hit, which is covered by the Defense mechanic.

And again you need to learn a failure does mean the attack did not touch the target. Your use of the wrong word is the source of all of your problems. You are literally usingnthe wrong word

But the setback dice from armor that is added to an attack roll, is not , RAW attempting to make the target miss. It is there that if upon a failed combat check due to those setback dice, the attack is deflected off the armor. That is RAW.

1 minute ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

But the setback dice from armor that is added to an attack roll, is not , RAW attempting to make the target miss. It is there that if upon a failed combat check due to those setback dice, the attack is deflected off the armor. That is RAW.

Exactly. He literally is humg up. Ecause he lis literally using the wrong word.

13 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And again you need to learn a failure does mean the attack did not touch the target. Your use of the wrong word is the source of all of your problems. You are literally usingnthe wrong word

Yes, it does. RAW explicitly refers to successful attacks as hits and failed attacks as misses . So, no, I am not using the wrong words. And, as I pointed out just a few posts ago, this is backed up by canon. All “failed” attacks we see on screen completely miss their intended targets. We never see an attack which “hits” but has absolutely no effect on the target. A successful attack hits and a failed attack misses. This is what the canon shows on screen and what the game mechanics establish. A Combat Check is a roll to hit the target. As such, if you fail to hit , you miss. That is basic logic.

12 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

But the setback dice from armor that is added to an attack roll, is not , RAW attempting to make the target miss. It is there that if upon a failed combat check due to those setback dice, the attack is deflected off the armor. That is RAW.

Yes, it is attempting to make an attack miss. A Combat Check is a roll to determine whether an attack hits the target or not. It is not a roll to determine if an attack damages a target or not.

At least one net Success means you hit , while no net Successes , or one or more net Failures is a miss . The RAW repeatedly uses the terms “hit” to refer to successful attacks ( at least one net Success), and “miss” to refer to failed attacks ( no net Successes on the Combat Check or one or more net Failures on the Combat Check).

Failures on the Setback dice can be attributed as Deflection of a hit in certain cases, or from certain sources . But not from Armor, and not when attack roll itself fails to generate even one net Success. Where the Failures are canceling additional Successes that would have added to damage, that can be attributed to armor deflecting an attack. But not in the case of a failed attack roll . A failed attack is a miss . It doesn’t even land. With sources, such as cover , or energy shields , these can deflect an attack well before it even comes close to the intended target . That is what RAW refers to as Defense “deflecting” an attack resulting in causing the attack to completely fail to hit. And this is supported by the fiction. Armor does not do that. Armor can deflect damage from a successful hit. It cannot cause an attack to fail to hit . It cannot cause an attack to miss . With garments, such as Heavy Robes, these do make the wearer harder to actually hit. They don’t deflect an attack. So the Setback dice from Defense do not always mean deflection of an attack. They do always make a target harder to hit . This is because they potentially add Failures to the attack roll, which, In turn can result in the attack failing to hit completely by cancelling all Successes rolled. Armor, particularly form-fitting armor cannot prevent an attack from hitting. It only reduces damage from an attack that does hit .

10 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Exactly. He literally is humg up. Ecause he lis literally using the wrong word.

No, I’m not. The RAW itself uses the terms hit and miss synonymously with Successes and Failure respectively more than once. And does so in the combat rules themselves. So, no, I am not using the wrong word. At least one Net Success on. Combat Check is a hit . No Net Successes, or one or more Net Failures on a Combat Check is a miss . That is RAW . I have quoted numerous passages where the RAW refers to this being the case.

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it does. RAW explicitly refers to successful attacks as hits and failed attacks as misses . So, no, I am not using the wrong words. And, as I pointed out just a few posts ago, this is backed up by canon. All “failed” attacks we see on screen completely miss their intended targets. We never see an attack which “hits” but has absolutely no effect on the target. A successful attack hits and a failed attack misses. This is what the canon shows on screen and what the game mechanics establish. A Combat Check is a roll to hit the target. As such, if you fail to hit , you miss. That is basic logic.

Yes, it is attempting to make an attack miss. A Combat Check is a roll to determine whether an attack hits the target or not. It is not a roll to determine if an attack damages a target or not.

At least one net Success means you hit , while no net Successes , or one or more net Failures is a miss . The RAW repeatedly uses the terms “hit” to refer to successful attacks ( at least one net Success), and “miss” to refer to failed attacks ( no net Successes on the Combat Check or one or more net Failures on the Combat Check).

Failures on the Setback dice can be attributed as Deflection of a hit in certain cases, or from certain sources . But not from Armor, and not when attack roll itself fails to generate even one net Success. Where the Failures are canceling additional Successes that would have added to damage, that can be attributed to armor deflecting an attack. But not in the case of a failed attack roll . A failed attack is a miss . It doesn’t even land. With sources, such as cover , or energy shields , these can deflect an attack well before it even comes close to the intended target . That is what RAW refers to as Defense “deflecting” an attack resulting in causing the attack to completely fail to hit. And this is supported by the fiction. Armor does not do that. Armor can deflect damage from a successful hit. It cannot cause an attack to fail to hit . It cannot cause an attack to miss . With garments, such as Heavy Robes, these do make the wearer harder to actually hit. They don’t deflect an attack. So the Setback dice from Defense do not always mean deflection of an attack. They do always make a target harder to hit . This is because they potentially add Failures to the attack roll, which, In turn can result in the attack failing to hit completely by cancelling all Successes rolled. Armor, particularly form-fitting armor cannot prevent an attack from hitting. It only reduces damage from an attack that does hit .

No, I’m not. The RAW itself uses the terms hit and miss synonymously with Successes and Failure respectively more than once. And does so in the combat rules themselves. So, no, I am not using the wrong word. At least one Net Success on. Combat Check is a hit . No Net Successes, or one or more Net Failures on a Combat Check is a miss . That is RAW . I have quoted numerous passages where the RAW refers to this being the case.

It also talks about defense deflecting away attacks. Soo basically you're literally need to expand you language because your claims ARE NOT RAW.

Tramp. All checks, whether that is a Discipline check, a Perception check, a Leadership check or Ranged (Light) check. All use the same words. Its Failure and Success.

That's how it is. Hit and Miss are not the first words used to describe ANY dice pool. It is always Success or Failure. With a Success you can hit the target. With a failure, generally it means you missed the target.

But then add Defence from armor, and it changes the narrative. Now the armor has defended the attack. For the armor to do that, it has to be narratively struck.

Whether you like it or not, wish it were not the case, cite the dictionary. That's how it is. And that, is a fact .

6 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

But then add Defence from armor, and it changes the narrative. Now the armor has defended the attack. For the armor to do that, it has to be narratively struck.

Whether you like it or not, wish it were not the case, cite the dictionary. That's how it is. And that, is a fact .

The problem is, that is what he is objecting to. You are using circular logic here. He says "I don't like X, I don't think it should be that way." and then you say "But it should be that way because it is X."

That is part of why everyone has gone in soooo many circles over this (22 pages pretty much entirely dedicated to this topic, I think?). Can we all agree to agree to think that those we disagree with are all woefully misguided fools and give up? I think it would be asking too much to just "agree to disagree" by now, since that has been tried.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The problem is, that is what he is objecting to. You are using circular logic here. He says "I don't like X, I don't think it should be that way." and then you say "But it should be that way because it is X."

That is part of why everyone has gone in soooo many circles over this (22 pages pretty much entirely dedicated to this topic, I think?). Can we all agree to agree to think that those we disagree with are all woefully misguided fools and give up? I think it would be asking too much to just "agree to disagree" by now, since that has been tried.

But that's not quite the case. I'm saying "This is the way it is." And he is saying "No it's not."

He isnt citing his opinion. He stating something which he believes is a fact.

Just now, CloudyLemonade92 said:

But that's not quite the case. I'm saying "This is the way it is." And he is saying "No it's not."

I was referring to the debate over Defense, but with the hit/miss/success/failure issue, you are looking at the same thing and coming up with different answers, both of which are kinda reasonable. I think that he is being too literal, but his conclusion is supported by his literal interpretation. For my money, I'd say that they used both interchangeably because they expected NO ONE to have this sort of debate. (also, it becomes kinda clunky to say "generates a successful attack" over and over again instead of "hits")

Generally, what he is saying is correct. Nobody is disputing that a success is a hit. And nobody is disputing that a failure is a miss.

But there is one exception, defence from armor. It changes the narrative. A failure while closely linked to the term "miss", changes entirely from a narrative standpoint.

We're not arguing that is SHOULD be that way. We're saying that it IS that way.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

also, it becomes kinda clunky to say "generates a successful attack" over and over again instead of "hits")

Oh for sure!

Everyone and their mother says "You hit." Or "You missed."

That's not the issue, that makes it easier for everyone. That's likely why the terms are coined in the rulebook. But it has exceptions on a failed combat check because of defence.

1 minute ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

That's not the issue, that makes it easier for everyone. That's likely why the terms are coined in the rulebook. But it has exceptions on a failed combat check because of defence.

That's what I'm saying. That is his issue. He doesn't think that should be the case, so saying that is the case isn't going to convince him.

Sorta like if I were to say, "I don't think this wall should have been painted chartreuse." and then you were to say, "but the wall is painted chartreuse."

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

That's what I'm saying. That is his issue. He doesn't think that should be the case, so saying that is the case isn't going to convince him.

Sorta like if I were to say, "I don't think this wall should have been painted chartreuse." and then you were to say, "but the wall is painted chartreuse."

But I don't actually think that's what he's saying. It seems to me more like

"This wall is painted blue."

Everyone else:

"Uh.. no that's actually red."

In any case, your right, he wont change his mind. So as you suggested it's better to peace out of this thread. No offence or hard feelings to @Tramp Graphics

19 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm very "secure" in my understanding of the world. I like being more "literal" in my speech and my intended meaning. And, yes, I expect the same thing with those I speak with, and in the rules of the games I play.

Dude! Gnarly use of scare quotes. I would totally agree with their deployment there.

Oh crap! Not to perturb you with my use of a work like deployment that has military connotations.

Oh crap! Not to annoy you with my discussion of connotations, which are non-literal interpretations or meanings of words.

Oh crap! Not to upset you with my use of the word "literal" in its modern sense (meaning factual or objectively truthful) instead of its older meaning of true in a literary manner.

Oh crap! Not to bother you with the notion that words have different meanings in different contexts.

And here I thought we were talking about playing RPGs but it looks like the only thing I played...

...was myself.

18 hours ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Nobody is disputing that a success is a hit.

Well, there's this quote from the Core Rules (AoR p.236, but I'm pretty sure it's in all three of them)...

Quote

Also, those "hit" by a planetary scale weapon might be on the periphery of the blast zone, explaining why they survived somewhat unscathed.

Wait, so people "hit" by a laser cannon might not actually be hit, as in physically touched by the bolt, nor being hit due to the Blast quality? Well, I never! It's almost like the rules don't use the word "hit" exclusively in it's most precise, exact and literal meaning!

23 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It also talks about defense deflecting away attacks. Soo basically you're literally need to expand you language because your claims ARE NOT RAW.

Yes, but not all forms of Defense do that, and, not all forms of "deflection" are "Defense" either. Armor "deflection" is covered by Soak, not Defense because armor doesn't prevent you from being hit .. Energy Shield deflection is Defense because Energy shields do prevent you from being hit. Defense provided by Heavy robes is concealment not deflection. Cover provides both deflection and concealment. These all prevent you from being hit. All form-fitting armor does is reduce damage . Thus, any "defense" from armor is exclusively to reduce the number of additional Successes that would go towards damage .

20 hours ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Tramp. All checks, whether that is a Discipline check, a Perception check, a Leadership check or Ranged (Light) check. All use the same words. Its Failure and Success.

That's how it is. Hit and Miss are not the first words used to describe ANY dice pool. It is always Success or Failure. With a Success you can hit the target. With a failure, generally it means you missed the target.

But then add Defence from armor, and it changes the narrative. Now the armor has defended the attack. For the armor to do that, it has to be narratively struck.

Whether you like it or not, wish it were not the case, cite the dictionary. That's how it is. And that, is a fact .

Except that the Defense rule text doesn't specifically state that these benefits are from armor . The text under Defense in the combat section lists how Defense bonuses can be granted from various sources . Different sources of Defense provide that rating through different means . Not all sources of Defense do so the same way. What all forms of Defense do mechanically , however, is make a target harder to hit . The problem is, that form-fitting armor cannot do that. A suit of plate armor cannot make an attack miss. It can only reduce the amount of damage that gets through after you have been hit. Therefore, narratively, the Defense rating from a suit of Mandalorian armor, for example, can only reduce the number of additional Successes that would otherwise be applied to damage . If the attack itself fails, with a roll that results in no net Successes, then the attack misses entirely, regardless of the source of said failures . That is the problem with Armor having Defense rating.

A set of Heavy robes (a form of "armor" in this system) does not deflect an attack. It hides and obscures the shape of the body, making the target harder to hit . Energy shields deflect an attack well before it ever comes close to the target, as do "Defensive" weapons. They block an attack before it can hit the target. Cover both hides a person and deflects an attack well before it can come close to a target. In all of these cases, the Defenses provide a means of making the target harder to hit . Armor does none of those things. In order for armor to "deflect" an attack, the target must first be hit . Thus, all the armor can possibly do is deflect the damage from a successful hit. It cannot prevent the hit from landing , as the other forms of Defense can.

20 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I was referring to the debate over Defense, but with the hit/miss/success/failure issue, you are looking at the same thing and coming up with different answers, both of which are kinda reasonable. I think that he is being too literal, but his conclusion is supported by his literal interpretation. For my money, I'd say that they used both interchangeably because they expected NO ONE to have this sort of debate. (also, it becomes kinda clunky to say "generates a successful attack" over and over again instead of "hits")

Amen.

20 hours ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Generally, what he is saying is correct. Nobody is disputing that a success is a hit. And nobody is disputing that a failure is a miss.

But there is one exception, defence from armor. It changes the narrative. A failure while closely linked to the term "miss", changes entirely from a narrative standpoint.

We're not arguing that is SHOULD be that way. We're saying that it IS that way.

It's not an exception though. Defense form armor does not change the narrative of hit or miss. If an attack fails to get at least one net Success, regardless of the source of the Failures , the attack misses . Another thing you have to consider is Defense from multiple sources, some of which do stack with one another .

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

Well, there's this quote from the Core Rules (AoR p.236, but I'm pretty sure it's in all three of them)...

Wait, so people "hit" by a laser cannon might not actually be hit, as in physically touched by the bolt, nor being hit due to the Blast quality? Well, I never! It's almost like the rules don't use the word "hit" exclusively in it's most precise, exact and literal meaning!

They're hit by the shrapnel and debris blasted off of the primary target by the attack. Another example, as demonstrated in TLJ, the beam itself has a large diameter beam and a heat radius that extends out a distance beyond the diameter of the beam itself, that the person is hit by. We see this when Finn is making a run at the Siege Cannon during the Battle of Crait. He's being hit by the periphery of the beam, which is several meters in diameter (and has a heat zone even larger still) damaging his speeder, and beginning to "cook" him.

Check out this video, particularly starting at the 2:00 mark.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Except that the Defense rule text doesn't specifically state that these benefits are from armor . The text under Defense in the combat section lists how Defense bonuses can be granted from various sources . Different sources of Defense provide that rating through different means. Not all sources of Defense do so the same way. A set of Heavy robes (a form of "armor" in this system) does not deflect an attack. It hides and obscures the shape of the body, making the target harder to hit . Energy shields deflect an attack well before it ever comes close to the target, as do "Defensive" weapons. They block an attack before it can hit the target. Cover both hides a person and deflects an attack well before it can come close to a target. In all of these cases, the Defenses provide a means of making the target harder to hit . Armor does none of those things. In order for armor to "deflect" an attack, the target must first be hit . Thus, all the armor can possibly do is deflect the damage from a successful hit. It cannot prevent the hit from landing , as the other forms of Defense can.

You mean like I have been saying for...Oh 20 pages or so.