4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

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.

And yet Pablo said he was not Mandalorian. Should I believe your claim over that of the authority who gets to make these calls?

5 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And yet Pablo said he was not Mandalorian. Should I believe your claim over that of the authority who gets to make these calls?

Which is true from a certain point of view .

Jango Fett is not from Mandalore . He does not have Mandalorian blood ancestry. By t hat criteria , he is not Mandalorian. But t he canon of the time did still establish that Jango was adopted into and raised in Mandalorian ways, and was born on a colony world (Concord Dawn) of the Mandalorians. This was revealed in Jango Fett: Open Seasons . That has not been officially changed , as far as anyone knows. Pablo's reference to Jango claiming to be from Concord Dawn was a direct reference to that story. He was acknowledging that history .

From this point of view , Jango Fett can still be truthfully considered Mandalorian, just as Din Djarin from The Mandalorian, is only Mandalorian as a result of his also being adopted into that culture as a Foundling , just like Jango Fett in Open Seasons .

1 hour 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.

Meanwhile, LFL has stated, in no uncertain terms, that Jango isn’t Mandalorian. Period.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

Citation needed, re: the source of “the criteria GL was implying.”

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not only that, but, until specifically proven otherwise in canon , Jango Fett is still from Concord Dawn, a Mandalroian colony world .

No, he’s not.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

I don’t think you understand how the continuity reset worked. Everything other than the movies and Clone Wars (up time that point) was wiped off the slate. From that point forward, the new material would comprise the new canon, with the option to take elements or inspiration from what was now classified Legends. So, as it stands, here’s what we know about Jango: he’s a bounty hunter who wore Mandalorian (or Mandalorian-styled) armor, and apparently claimed to be from Concord Dawn. And, per LFL, he’s not Mandalorian. (Since being from Concord Dawn would, as you point out, make him Mandalorian, the classification that he’s not Mandalorian would put the lie to that claim.)

Listen, Tramp, as a lifelong comics fan, I can relate. DC’s rebooted their continuity several times just since 1985, and in some of those, character elements (or even entire histories) that I’ve been fond of have gone by the wayside. I’d much prefer that those still be intact. But...they’re not. And DC is who gets to make those calls. Not me. On the plus side, those earlier stories are still there for me to read and enjoy, and there’s usually something good in the new continuity, too.

The same principle applies here. Per LFL, Jango isn’t Mandalorian. You can prefer it when he was all you like. Go back and revisit those stories, and enjoy them all over again.

But, I’ll ask the straight question again: are you at all capable of acknowledging that, according to LFL, Jango is not Mandalorian without doing backflips to try invalidating that decision?

38 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

"The active character" means, somewhat unironically, "the character who is acting." It doesn't say anything about the threat/despair/advantage/triumph has to be directly related to the action taken. All it says is "something happens".

So since you can't actually produce rules quotes that backup what you think is gospel truth, I will take this as a concession to my superior rules knowledge.

(which is my way of saying I'm done bashing my head against this here brick wall so I will only be checking in occasionally to posts memes and gifs!)

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Which is true from a certain point of view .

Jango Fett is not from Mandalore . He does not have Mandalorian blood ancestry. By t hat criteria , he is not Mandalorian. But t he canon of the time did still establish that Jango was adopted into and raised in Mandalorian ways, and was born on a colony world (Concord Dawn) of the Mandalorians. This was revealed in Jango Fett: Open Seasons . That has not been officially changed , as far as anyone knows. Pablo's reference to Jango claiming to be from Concord Dawn was a direct reference to that story. He was acknowledging that history .

From this point of view , Jango Fett can still be truthfully considered Mandalorian, just as Din Djarin from The Mandalorian, is only Mandalorian as a result of his also being adopted into that culture as a Foundling , just like Jango Fett in Open Seasons .

“The Fetts are not Mandalorian.” What other point of view could there be?

28 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

“The Fetts are not Mandalorian.” What other point of view could there be?

I think it may have actually been some autocorrect issue in Aurebesh that lead to the confusion. The Fetts were actually supposed to be Man deloreans , not Man dalorians .

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Which is true from a certain point of view .

Jango Fett is not from Mandalore . He does not have Mandalorian blood ancestry. By t hat criteria , he is not Mandalorian. But t he canon of the time did still establish that Jango was adopted into and raised in Mandalorian ways, and was born on a colony world (Concord Dawn) of the Mandalorians. This was revealed in Jango Fett: Open Seasons . That has not been officially changed , as far as anyone knows. Pablo's reference to Jango claiming to be from Concord Dawn was a direct reference to that story. He was acknowledging that history .

From this point of view , Jango Fett can still be truthfully considered Mandalorian, just as Din Djarin from The Mandalorian, is only Mandalorian as a result of his also being adopted into that culture as a Foundling , just like Jango Fett in Open Seasons .

No it is not. People can claim many things are true. That does not make them true. It makes them a ckaim with no basis in fact.

4 hours ago, Daeglan said:

No it is not. People can claim many things are true. That does not make them true. It makes them a ckaim with no basis in fact.

Ice ice baby.

this ******* thread LOL

15 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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 .

You might want to take a look at Pablo's post again. Particularly the date. (Spoilers: January 29, 2016.) Well after the conversion of the old material to Legends.

21 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

Are combat checks attacks? If they are then you can deal damage on a failed combat check. Even if you think that a combat check and an attack is not the same, then there is still the fact that you didn't add the qualifier of doing damage with the weapon. You never said weapon in the original statement, since we are not telepathic we cannot infer that you're talking solely about weapon damage in your statement that combat checks can't deal damage unless they're successful or using blast. The qualifier about the weapon dealing damage is something you have added now. This is pretty much the definition of moving the goal post.

Now onwards to the last point where you're accusing me of doing the same.

On 2/28/2020 at 2:37 AM, Tramp Graphics said:

a collapsed floor or wall only staggers or immobilizes the target for one round. None of them inflict damage .

This is what you said. As we can see you're stating that a collapsed floor or wall only staggers or immobilizes for a turn. None of them inflict damage according to you. Lets go again. None of them inflict damage . These are your words, we can see them here. Now there is nothing in my claim about the damage coming from the weapon. All I did was point out that falling a short or medium distance does indeed inflict damage.

I said nothing about that damage coming from the weapon. The attack though did cause the floor to collapse, I guess you could argue that it's gravity doing the damage, not the attack. Much like you could argue that pushing someone off a skyscraper wasn't actually murder but at the highest assault, since you only pushed them and gravity as well as physics then took over. But that's neither here nor there.

You said a collapsed floor doesn't inflict damage. The collapsed floor causes the target to fall a short or medium distance, something that inflicts damage. Hence you're wrong in your statement that a collapsed floor doesn't cause damage. That was the point I was making. So no, I will not try again. Your statement was that the collapsed floor doesn't inflict damage. This is wrong. And that is a fact.

On 2/29/2020 at 12:52 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

No Tramp, that's now how this system works. It does not require that. Please cite actual rules on narration (which you have YET to do despite claiming repeatedly what the rules repeatedly say you avoid the actual relevant rules like the plague), otherwise you're talking nonsense. I know you won't ever do that, I've asked several times for you to produce the narration rules and where they mention limitations or to even list out the narration rules you use, etc, but you haven't. Your evasions are tiresome at this point. A very narrow section of the rules - which you cannot claim are The Rules when there is a whole rules set and you're ignoring core parts of it - is all you cite and care about and anything outside that is invisible to you. Fine, choose to play and argue that way but it's your choice to ignore relevant facts. But it's ridiculous and comes across that way.

On 2/29/2020 at 3:22 PM, Nytwyng said:

“The Fetts are not Mandalorian.” What other point of view could there be?

Tramp vociferously disagreeing with definitive statements from LFL really does shed a light on the ongoing RPG discussion.

26 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

No Tramp, that's now how this system works. It does not require that. Please cite actual rules on narration (which you have YET to do despite claiming repeatedly what the rules repeatedly say you avoid the actual relevant rules like the plague), otherwise you're talking nonsense. I know you won't ever do that, I've asked several times for you to produce the narration rules and where they mention limitations or to even list out the narration rules you use, etc, but you haven't. Your evasions are tiresome at this point. A very narrow section of the rules - which you cannot claim are The Rules when there is a whole rules set and you're ignoring core parts of it - is all you cite and care about and anything outside that is invisible to you. Fine, choose to play and argue that way but it's your choice to ignore relevant facts. But it's ridiculous and comes across that way.

Well that would be because if proves him wrong...

51 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Tramp vociferously disagreeing with definitive statements from LFL really does shed a light on the ongoing RPG discussion.

TIL that "vociferously" is a word. And what it means. Thanks, @Jedi Ronin for teaching me something new!

22 minutes ago, c__beck said:

TIL that "vociferously" is a word. And what it means. Thanks, @Jedi Ronin for teaching me something new!

Vociferously is fun word. It's even fun to say. Vociferously... vociferously... Heck, it's fun to type!

1 hour ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Tramp vociferously disagreeing with definitive statements from LFL really does shed a light on the ongoing RPG discussion.

That’s exactly why I brought it up in the first place.

I'm honestly curious if Tramp actually cares about any of this or just is so far up his own ***, he can't give up and admit he's wrong.

2 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

I'm honestly curious if Tramp actually cares about any of this or just is so far up his own ***, he can't give up and admit he's wrong.

he strikes me as the latter unfortunately. he can get things right on occasion. but when he is wrong he never admits it. which is really annoying.

On 2/28/2020 at 1:31 AM, Tramp Graphics said:

That background has not been expunged .

That's not how it works. Everything not explicity included as canon was expunged. Even if newer stuff makes similar references doesen't mean the old stuff becomes canon again; just because Thrawn shows up in Rebels doesen't mean that anything about him or the Chiss established in the EU is canon.

Likewise, anything and everything about Jango and Boba is expunged, unless it's explicitly repeated in canon.

Legends info means nothing aside from the occasional easter egg. You don't have to like it, but if you're going to talk about canon, you have to accept it.

5 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Everything not explicity not included as canon was expunged.

I think this is what you meant?

On 1/3/2020 at 3:50 PM, KungFuFerret said:

My issue is that some items in this game, provide BOTH, which just doesn't make sense, and also causes conflicts on how different defense sources interact, if at all.

I haven't read very much of this thread at all, but this statement just triggered me into a, probably somewhat constructive, reaction, even if I don't fully agree with your reasoning. (Which in no way is meant to say you can't implement the house rule as you presented it, of course, and I have seen house rules which are far more off-setting to game balance than yours).

I have had a little dabble in Rolemaster and Space Master. Interesting to see there is, that lighter armor often caused a character to have a better 'defense against being hit at all' and as such the various weapon tables didn't provide damage at all, untill the attacker rolled reasonably high, however, the damage table also started to add ever severe types of criticals to those damages real soon. Heavy armor was more of a hindrance on mobility (the attacker only had to roll reasonably low to start doing damage), but the criticals stayed away much longer (until really high attack rolls). In short, light armor meant not much damage, but the rare hit had a fair chance of hitting nasty, and heavy armor caused your character to hit often, but by 'soft blows'and it kept your innards safe.

Translating that to Star Wars, I was kind of surprised to see Soak (sheer capacity to block incoming damage from a connecting hit), and Defense (sheer capacity to negate a hit all together by reducing success margins), on the same article of armor. Especially the heavier and more rare / expensive armor starts having both.

Intuitively I would say light armor (and no armor at all) would add to defense, while heavy armor would increase Soak (even lowering Defense).

However, there is a minor flaw in that intuitive thought. The Setback die. It does not only have Failure symbols (possibly negating hits). It also has Threat symbols (cancelling Advantages, and with that lowering the chance for "true wounds", a.k.a. Critical Hits). In that way, the Setback die from Defense from heavy armor tends to do what we expect from heavy armor; either deflect a hit completely (negate successes) or absorb damage by spreading the incoming energy (lower Crit chances through Threat symbols).

If anything, with the way the dice work I would even be inclined to say Defense and Soak from most armor items should be switched. Now, almost every armor does Soak, and a few do Defense... Turn that around. Every armor does Defense, and only the strongest armor also adds Soak. Every armor can stop a hit or mitigate severe damage, and heavy armor might even bear the brunt of destructive energy from incoming attacks by soaking it up.

5 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I think this is what you meant?

Yeah. Multiple nots ties the entire sentence up in knots.

Only page 36, and it's slowing down around here, eh? I thought for sure we'd hit an even 50.

1 hour ago, BrickSteelhead said:

Only page 36, and it's slowing down around here, eh? I thought for sure we'd hit an even 50.

Maybe Tramp realized he was beaten and disappeared from the thread.