57 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A missed attack can potentially set that hazard off.

But not a successful one? Nothing in there about that.
You still have not found or cited in any rule that it’s not valid on a missed attack check with A/T to do any of the following:

- bouncing off their armor unbalancing then (Upgrading their next check)

- being so forceful as they parry that they must move back out of cover and into advantageous placement for an ranged ally (remove cover, upgrade allies next check)

- slice into the grated metal walk way destroying a panel and causing them to plummet

These examples are all in RAW. You can’t credibly take a statement about attack checks and take “miss” as some unstated absolute when everything else in the system (even mechanics in the same section) goes against it. We all see the elephant but you will die insisting it’s a snake you have in your hand. You carefully connect some rules to each other, leave other repeated rules out. You don’t see the forest for your two trees.

7 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Yeah, we are definitely in to the phase of the thread where Tramp knows he’s wrong

I'm not sure about that. Usually when he's solidly backed into a corner he just disappears from the thread. The fact that he's still arguing makes me think that he still believes that he's right.

Tramp, I'm a fan of Boba too; I'll admit it. And I've actually established in my campaign that he is in fact a Mandalorian; but my campaign is around 90% head-canon, and I've never made any claim to the contrary. If you want the Fetts to have been / to be / to eventually be Mandalorian in your own campaign, that's fine; nobody's going to stop you. But this blatant refusal to acknowledge the very black-and-white statements made by canon authorities on the subject is... a little concerning.

5 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

I'm not sure about that. Usually when he's solidly backed into a corner he just disappears from the thread. The fact that he's still arguing makes me think that he still believes that he's right.

Yeah, I think you’re ultimately correct. This is usually what we see when he’s getting to that point.

54 minutes ago, Oldmike1 said:

to me after all the bloody retcons to this I say NO Han was the only one to shoot and the Fetts were Mando if not by blood then by culture

Mandalorians as a whole weren't even movie level canon (the only level that counted), nevermind the Fetts being part of them. Even today, the word Mandalorian still has never been even mentioned in the films?

11 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Even today, the word Mandalorian still has never been even mentioned in the films?

Filoni mentioned that earlier in that same “Creating Mandalore” featurette.

On 2/24/2020 at 11:14 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Failed attacks don't deal damage anyway. So your argument there is irrelevant. Only Successful attacks have any chance of dealing damage. The only exception to that is Blast . As I already pointed out, Setback Dice can come from many different sources, and, if there are multiple sources adding Setback to the attack roll, there is no way to keep track of what Setback Die comes from what source. Therefore, if an attack roll fails, regardless of the source of Setback dice, the attack misses . There is no "failed attack can be considered a hit." The rules explicitly say only a Successful attack can hit . A failed attack is a miss . It's not a "hit deflected off of armor", it's a miss . It does not hit the intended target. Period. That is by RAW.

Here is what you said. You said that failed attacks don't deal damage and only successful attacks or blast has a chance to deal damage.

7 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. Mechancially , they happen because the player or GM triggers them. What they're not is damage from the character's weapon . No matter who triggers them, the actual effect is caused by the environment . Explosive barrels or ammunition bins are environmental hazards . The attacker's weapon does not directly cause injury to the target because it did not hit the target . And, once again, what that table is describing is a Blast effect. Blast is an area effect. Not only that, but it effects all characters engaged with the target . This includes the attacker, or his allies if any of them are in engaged range of his target. This is just like activating the Blast item quality. However, there has to actually be such an environmental hazard there \ for that to be a viable use of those Advantages.

The table is not describing Blast. It's akin to blast, but it's not. Especially since some of the damage isn't even related to an explosion. The attack collapsing the floor under the target and dropping them short or medium distance is not a Blast attack and no explosion is mentioned in that text. Either way, per your original statement, the qualifier about weapon was not included. What you said was that failed attacks can't deal damage unless from Blast or Guided. As we can see from the quote above which I included again. Now we have proof, per RAW, that it is possible to deal damage without a successful attack. It's damage directly related to the characters attack since they're triggering it by using their weapons to attack someone. The damage might not be directly related to the weapon they're using, but it's still them causing it. But I see you're doing your usual moving goal posts in a ridiculous manner. I guess facts aren't as important as previously stated. Seems kinda intellectually dishonest to me.

7 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That is what's known as indirect damage, not direct damage. The weapon itself is not causing direct damage to the target. An environmental hazard explodes causing the direct damage in question. The weapon is an indirect cause.

Secondly, the explosion is not itself the hazard. The barrel of fuel, the box of ammunition. Those are environmental hazards . They are things that have the potential to threaten the surrounding environment. the explosion is the result of said hazard being detonated. If that hazard is not there to begin with, then no explosion can possibly occur. Everything in that table about Urban Combat is an environmental hazard of some sort. pipes, windows, rubble, barrels of fuel, ammo boxes, even vehicles; these are all environmental hazards . All of them have the potential to threaten people nearby. A missed attack can potentially set that hazard off. But the attack itself is not directly causing damage to the target if the attack missed said target. It is the enviromental hazard triggered by the shot which inflicts that damage. It should also be noted that the only environmental hazards listed that actually cause wound damage are ones requiring three Advantages, that deal Blast to everyone in the vicinity . A ruptured pipe only creates difficult terrain, shattered transparisteel only inflicts strain (granted, that's a moot point with Minions and most Rivals, but still), rubble just staggers the target. a collapsed floor or wall only staggers or immobilizes the target for one round. None of them inflict damage .

Ohh, I should have read everything else before I posted. Because here we have a prime example again.

The collapsed floor drops the target Short or Medium distance. Lets take out the part where you state an absolute again.

7 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

None of them inflict damage .

Hmm, seems like you have been proven wrong by RAW. Again. Because fall damage does exist, it does cause damage and not just strain. Not that you had any distinction between strain and wounds to start with.

11 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Because I'm not wrong. You're talking about an environmental hazard doing damage, not the actual attack . That's the very definition of "moving goal posts". Everything I have talked about is the attack itself . a blaster being shot at a target; a sword being swung at a target. If the weapon hits, which requires a successful combat check, it can potentially do damage. It cannot potentially do damage directly, if it does not hit, and it cannot hit if the atack roll fails.

You are very wrong and it is obvios in the black and white of the rules that you are.

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

However, Spending the enemy's Threat or Despair is not your attack doing damage. It's the enemy injuring himself .

It could be. There is no rule that says what the narrative has to be (see what I did there? I bolded a word!). The mechanic (look, another one! 😁 ) is that one threat is one strain, which is taken as a wound for those without a strain threshold.

A round is roughly a minute of time, and one roll doesn't equate to one swing of a lightsaber or one pull of the trigger, so there's a lot that can happen in that 60 seconds besides the "main event" of dice rolling.

I mean, the enemy decided to injure themself by getting in the way of my character's attack . That's my narrative and I'm stickin' to it!

13 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Anyone else notice that both arguments (Armor/Jango) started with someone saying "I don't want to argue with you over this again"?

*facepalm*

Just say no .

Let your yes be yes and your no be no .

Just don't do it.

(or do it anyway while I look on and snicker at the people running around in circles yelling at each other XD)

Mind if I join you?

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

However, Spending the enemy's Threat or Despair is not your attack doing damage. It's the enemy injuring himself .

If you narrate it that way only.

Seriously Tramp it's time to put up: where are the rules for narration you keep using? You keep imposing these rules on narration that I've never read. So lets have it - what are the rules of narration that you keep using to tell others how they must narrate things?

6 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

If you narrate it that way only.

Seriously Tramp it's time to put up: where are the rules for narration you keep using? You keep imposing these rules on narration that I've never read. So lets have it - what are the rules of narration that you keep using to tell others how they must narrate things?

I think it was from the old RCR d20 book Narration and Rules: The Great Intersection or something like that 🤣 🤣 🤣

Wow, I just found the real RAW. Female characters can't take attack actions. The section Perform A Combat Check explicitly factually literally says that "The character chooses to make an attack. He selects what skill he will use to make the attack, ..."

We've been playing it wrong all these years.

3 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Wow, I just found the real RAW. Female characters can't take attack actions. The section Perform A Combat Check explicitly factually literally says that "The character chooses to make an attack. He selects what skill he will use to make the attack, ..."

We've been playing it wrong all these years.

That's why I play Genesys and not SWRPG. I can play a female character who can perform all the actions a male character can!

" The character chooses to make an attack. They select what skill they use to make the attack and, if the skill requires a weapon to use, which weapon they use. They then declare the target of their attack. "

Thanks. Thanks a lot.

I’m now picturing Tramp as an angry Greg Brady from the episode when Greg decided to live by Mike and Carol’s exact words.

🤣

How is this thread still going!? I come back maybe about 1 a week sometimes less, expecting this thread to have fallen off the front page, but this thing just refuses to die.

6 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Wow, I just found the real RAW. Female characters can't take attack actions. The section Perform A Combat Check explicitly factually literally says that "The character chooses to make an attack. He selects what skill he will use to make the attack, ..."

We've been playing it wrong all these years.

Darn it. My little sister is going to be very disappointed when I tell her.

EDIT: Oh, wait... they can make attacks, they just need a male chaperone to tell them which skill to use. I think that's even worse.

45 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

Darn it. My little sister is going to be very disappointed when I tell her.

EDIT: Oh, wait... they can make attacks, they just need a male chaperone to tell them which skill to use. I think that's even worse.

Actually, it also suggests that he will be the one using the skill to make the attack, but hey. At least she gets to be bossy!

On 2/27/2020 at 8:44 PM, micheldebruyn said:

It doesn't matter where Jango Fett was from. Why do you cling to his place of birth that does not matter to his Mandaloraness? And the word of George Lucas supercede any level canon (or at least they did when he deMandaloraised the Fetts).

Yes , it does matter where he's from. It does matter how he was raised , especially given what's been revealed in the new TV Series The Mandalorian , regarding what it means to be Mandalorian, in that being Mandalorian isn't necessarily about having Mandalorian blood , or being from Mandalore , but that being Mandalorian is a creed . It's a way of life that people can be adopted into, or choose to follow . That is what makes someone Mandalorian.

Jango Fett is not Mandalorian by blood, nor is he from Mandalore. IF that is your criteria for being andalorian, then, no Jango does not meet that criteria, and that is the criteria GL was implying. Though, if that is the only acceptable criteria, then Din Djarin is not a Mandalorian either. He's not from Mandalore, and does not have Mandalorian blood ancestry. But, that is not the only way someone can be considered Mandalorian. That is why it comes down to point of view. Because Jango Fett was a Foundling , just like Din Djarin. Both men were adopted into the ways of the Mandalorians. Not only that, but, until specifically proven otherwise in canon , Jango Fett is still from Concord Dawn, a Mandalroian colony world .

On 2/27/2020 at 9:05 PM, Oldmike1 said:

to me after all the bloody retcons to this I say NO Han was the only one to shoot and the Fetts were Mando if not by blood then by culture

Exactly. I never said Jango was Mandalorian by blood . Nor do I claim he's from Mandalore . Neither of those has ever been the case anyway. I said he can be considered Mandalorian by culture and upbringing, just like with Din Djarin, as well as by being from a Mandalorian colony world . As far as what anyone knows, given what's currently published, that history has not changed.

On 2/27/2020 at 9:13 PM, Jedi Ronin said:

But not a successful one? Nothing in there about that.
You still have not found or cited in any rule that it’s not valid on a missed attack check with A/T to do any of the following:

- bouncing off their armor unbalancing then (Upgrading their next check)

- being so forceful as they parry that they must move back out of cover and into advantageous placement for an ranged ally (remove cover, upgrade allies next check)

- slice into the grated metal walk way destroying a panel and causing them to plummet

These examples are all in RAW. You can’t credibly take a statement about attack checks and take “miss” as some unstated absolute when everything else in the system (even mechanics in the same section) goes against it. We all see the elephant but you will die insisting it’s a snake you have in your hand. You carefully connect some rules to each other, leave other repeated rules out. You don’t see the forest for your two trees.

Bouncing off their armor is still hitting them, and that requires a successful attack roll. A failed attack does not hit . period. The rules repeatedly say that.

On 2/27/2020 at 10:02 PM, micheldebruyn said:

Mandalorians as a whole weren't even movie level canon (the only level that counted), nevermind the Fetts being part of them. Even today, the word Mandalorian still has never been even mentioned in the films?

Exactly.

On 2/28/2020 at 3:41 AM, Darth Revenant said:

Here is what you said. You said that failed attacks don't deal damage and only successful attacks or blast has a chance to deal damage.

The table is not describing Blast. It's akin to blast, but it's not. Especially since some of the damage isn't even related to an explosion. The attack collapsing the floor under the target and dropping them short or medium distance is not a Blast attack and no explosion is mentioned in that text. Either way, per your original statement, the qualifier about weapon was not included. What you said was that failed attacks can't deal damage unless from Blast or Guided. As we can see from the quote above which I included again. Now we have proof, per RAW, that it is possible to deal damage without a successful attack. It's damage directly related to the characters attack since they're triggering it by using their weapons to attack someone. The damage might not be directly related to the weapon they're using, but it's still them causing it. But I see you're doing your usual moving goal posts in a ridiculous manner. I guess facts aren't as important as previously stated. Seems kinda intellectually dishonest to me.

Failed attacks can't deal damage directly , no. The only exception being attacks with Blast. The example in Forged in Battle isn't the attack itself dealing damage directly to the target. It's the environment which may have been set off by a stray shot. But the weapon itself cannot deal damage without hitting the target.

On 2/28/2020 at 3:51 AM, Darth Revenant said:

Ohh, I should have read everything else before I posted. Because here we have a prime example again.

The collapsed floor drops the target Short or Medium distance. Lets take out the part where you state an absolute again.

Hmm, seems like you have been proven wrong by RAW. Again. Because fall damage does exist, it does cause damage and not just strain. Not that you had any distinction between strain and wounds to start with.

Falling damage isn't damage from an attack. Try again, and stop moving goal posts.

On 2/28/2020 at 10:24 AM, c__beck said:

It could be. There is no rule that says what the narrative has to be (see what I did there? I bolded a word!). The mechanic (look, another one! 😁 ) is that one threat is one strain, which is taken as a wound for those without a strain threshold.

A round is roughly a minute of time, and one roll doesn't equate to one swing of a lightsaber or one pull of the trigger, so there's a lot that can happen in that 60 seconds besides the "main event" of dice rolling.

I mean, the enemy decided to injure themself by getting in the way of my character's attack . That's my narrative and I'm stickin' to it!

see below

On 2/28/2020 at 10:38 AM, Jedi Ronin said:

If you narrate it that way only.

Seriously Tramp it's time to put up: where are the rules for narration you keep using? You keep imposing these rules on narration that I've never read. So lets have it - what are the rules of narration that you keep using to tell others how they must narrate things?

No. For starters, Strain from Threats rolled are a result of that character's action, not your attack, So, if I roll Threats on my action and get Strain, it's because I strained myself. By the same token, if a Minion rolls threats, and takes "Strain" (converted to wounds), then he has injured himself, you didn't injure him. I've actually done that in games before, where a bad roll caused me to seriously injure myself through my own actions . That is what rolling Threats and Despairs do.

33 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes , it does matter where he's from. It does matter how he was raised , especially given what's been revealed in the new TV Series The Mandalorian , regarding what it means to be Mandalorian, in that being Mandalorian isn't necessarily about having Mandalorian blood , or being from Mandalore , but that being Mandalorian is a creed . It's a way of life that people can be adopted into, or choose to follow . That is what makes someone Mandalorian.

Jango Fett is not Mandalorian by blood, nor is he from Mandalore. IF that is your criteria for being andalorian, then, no Jango does not meet that criteria, and that is the criteria GL was implying. Though, if that is the only acceptable criteria, then Din Djarin is not a Mandalorian either. He's not from Mandalore, and does not have Mandalorian blood ancestry. But, that is not the only way someone can be considered Mandalorian. That is why it comes down to point of view. Because Jango Fett was a Foundling , just like Din Djarin. Both men were adopted into the ways of the Mandalorians. Not only that, but, until specifically proven otherwise in canon , Jango Fett is still from Concord Dawn, a Mandalroian colony world .

Exactly. I never said Jango was Mandalorian by blood . Nor do I claim he's from Mandalore . Neither of those has ever been the case anyway. I said he can be considered Mandalorian by culture and upbringing, just like with Din Djarin, as well as by being from a Mandalorian colony world . As far as what anyone knows, given what's currently published, that history has not changed.

Bouncing off their armor is still hitting them, and that requires a successful attack roll. A failed attack does not hit . period. The rules repeatedly say that.

Exactly.

Failed attacks can't deal damage directly , no. The only exception being attacks with Blast. The example in Forged in Battle isn't the attack itself dealing damage directly to the target. It's the environment which may have been set off by a stray shot. But the weapon itself cannot deal damage without hitting the target.

Falling damage isn't damage from an attack. Try again, and stop moving goal posts.

see below

No. For starters, Strain from Threats rolled are a result of that character's action, not your attack, So, if I roll Threats on my action and get Strain, it's because I strained myself. By the same token, if a Minion rolls threats, and takes "Strain" (converted to wounds), then he has injured himself, you didn't injure him. I've actually done that in games before, where a bad roll caused me to seriously injure myself through my own actions . That is what rolling Threats and Despairs do.

we dont know where jango is from. Just what he claim he is from.

And where in the narration rules does it back up your claim? show me page number and paragraph,

16 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

we dont know where jango is from. Just what he claim he is from.

And where in the narration rules does it back up your claim? show me page number and paragraph,

The existing lore has him being from Concord Dawn. This has not been definitively overwritten as of yet.

As for the rest, I hav already given page numbers and quotes many times already. You've chosen to disregard them. So,As I also said before, show me where it explicitly says that a failed attack can still hit. There is no such rule.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. For starters, Strain from Threats rolled are a result of that character's action, not your attack, So, if I roll Threats on my action and get Strain, it's because I strained myself. By the same token, if a Minion rolls threats, and takes "Strain" (converted to wounds), then he has injured himself, you didn't injure him. I've actually done that in games before, where a bad roll caused me to seriously injure myself through my own actions . That is what rolling Threats and Despairs do.

But that's not what the rules say happens. That's what you say happens .

" Having one or more net Threat symbol indicates a negative side effect or complication. " AoR30.

Table 6–3: Spending [Threat] and [Despair] In Combat has this to say about one threat: " The active character suffers 1 strain. "

Nothing in the CRB says that it has to be a direct result of the active character's action. All it says is that the active character suffers 1 strain .

You sure do like to inject your own opinions into the game, don't you?

(also, I'm new at this "bold random words" thing. Am I doing it right?)

49 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The existing lore has him being from Concord Dawn. This has not been definitively overwritten as of yet.

As for the rest, I hav already given page numbers and quotes many times already. You've chosen to disregard them. So,As I also said before, show me where it explicitly says that a failed attack can still hit. There is no such rule.

The existing lore is HE CLAIMS to be from Concord Dawn that in no way makes him from Concord Dawn. Characters can lie.

The only page numbers you have given in no way address narration. We are looking for you to show in the narration rules.

8 minutes ago, c__beck said:

(also, I'm new at this "bold random words" thing. Am I doing it right?)

Not really, no.

Here's my attempt at it:

8 minutes ago, c__beck said:

But that's not what the rules say happens. That's what you say happens.

" Having one or more net Threat symbol indicates a negative side effect or complication. " AoR30.

Table 6–3: Spending [Threat] and [Despair] In Combat has this to say about one threat: " The active character suffers 1 strain. "

Nothing in the CRB says that it has to be a direct result of the active character's action. All it says is that the active character suffers 1 strain.

You sure do like to inject your own opinions into the game, don't you?

(also, I'm new at this "bold random words" thing. Am I doing it right ?)

Any better?

By the way Tramp, I saw a post of yours from a few years ago, and it wasn't bolded. It was quite good actually. Perhaps you could go back to that?

7 minutes ago, c__beck said:

But that's not what the rules say happens. That's what you say happens .

" Having one or more net Threat symbol indicates a negative side effect or complication. " AoR30.

Table 6–3: Spending [Threat] and [Despair] In Combat has this to say about one threat: " The active character suffers 1 strain. "

Nothing in the CRB says that it has to be a direct result of the active character's action. All it says is that the active character suffers 1 strain .

You sure do like to inject your own opinions into the game, don't you?

(also, I'm new at this "bold random words" thing. Am I doing it right?)

Yes, it is. The Threat or Despair is a result of the acting character's action. That player (or the GM) was acting, and is the one who rolled the dice. The dice are rolled to determine the success or failure of that action, as well as any additional positive or negative consequences, arising from Advantages, Triumphs, Threats, or Despairs. The table says the Active character suffers 1 Strain; " active " being the key word here. It's his action that causes the strain, not the target's . So, if it's a Minion who is the active character, and he rolls a threat on his action , it is his action that caused his injury, not the actions of his target.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

The existing lore is HE CLAIMS to be from Concord Dawn that in no way makes him from Concord Dawn. Characters can lie.

Except we have actual stories which were still canon at the time Pablo Hidalgo made that Twitter Post which actually show him being from there, and him being taken in by Mandalorians, and raised by them . We do not have an official change to that origin. So, as far as anyone knows, that claim is the truth. and there is no reason for it not to be, given that Concord Dawn is not some important place . It's an insignificant backwater of no importance in the grand scheme of things. Some of you have made the example of a man falsely claiming to be from the mean Streets of Miami in order to gain Street cred. Jango claiming to be from Concord Dawn is more like someone claiming to be from Hoboken New Jersey , or Allgood Alabama . There's no value in lying about that. Most people in the galaxy probably never heard of Concord Dawn.