8 minutes ago, Ahrimon said:

Actually no. It doesn't hit you, you hit it.

It's both . The weapon in question still impacts you. There is physical contact and a transfer of force from the weapon to the target. So, yes, it still hits you, even as per RAW .

37 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Very funny, 😝

Have you ever actually parried a weapon? Have you ever tried to block an incoming hit? I have. It can hurt .

Describe this moment. In detail.

7 minutes ago, BrickSteelhead said:

Describe this moment. In detail.

Which time?

50 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Very funny, 😝

Have you ever actually parried a weapon? Have you ever tried to block an incoming hit? I have. It can hurt .

I have. It only hurts if you fail to do it correctly or the other person is able to power through your block. But then we already have accounted for that. You on the other hand have decided to use binary hit or miss in a system that is clearly not binary.

34 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's both . The weapon in question still impacts you. There is physical contact and a transfer of force from the weapon to the target. So, yes, it still hits you, even as per RAW .

Only if they powered through your parry. otherwise it only hits your weapon. But your binary hit or miss thinking doesnt cover that.

Just now, Daeglan said:

I have. It only hurts if you fail to do it correctly or the other person is able to power through your block. But then we already have accounted for that. You on the other hand have decided to use binary hit or miss in a system that is clearly not binary.

It's accounted for in the game by the ranks of Parry/Reflect reducing X amount of damage from the attack. The more ranks of Parry/Reflect you have, the better you are at reducing the damage being parried. It means that you can parry an attack better without injuring your hand or arm as much. It means the better you are at mitigating the impact of weapon against weapon as you parry.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

Only if they powered through your parry. otherwise it only hits your weapon. But your binary hit or miss thinking doesnt cover that.

No. Even if they don't power through. The impact of the parry against the weapon can inflict injury to your hand, wrist, or arm from shock waves . This is doubly true if you're parrying unarmed, and thus using your hand or arm directly to parry the incoming attack.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's accounted for in the game by the ranks of Parry/Reflect reducing X amount of damage from the attack. The more ranks of Parry/Reflect you have, the better you are at reducing the damage being parried. It means that you can parry an attack better without injuring your hand or arm as much. It means the better you are at mitigating the impact of weapon against weapon as you parry.

No. Even if they don't power through. The impact of the parry against the weapon can inflict injury to your hand, wrist, or arm from shock waves . This is doubly true if you're parrying unarmed, and thus using your hand or arm directly to parry the incoming attack.

That would imply that what I have been saying all along it true. and your Hit or Miss binary claim is not true.

7 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

That would imply that what I have been saying all along it true. and your Hit or Miss binary claim is not true.

Yes, it is true. A successful attack is a hit, a failed attack is a miss. You saying that this is not true doesn't actually make it not true.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it is true. A successful attack is a hit, a failed attack is a miss. You saying that this is not true doesn't actually make it not true.

Well except a failure does not necessarily mean you missed. The rules say so. You just dont like it because your view is binary. Which this game is not.

Blocking with a parry is the wrong way to parry an attack. You only do that when parrying in emergency, from pure reflex, an unanticipated attack. The right way to parry is by deflecting the incoming attack and not blocking it. That way you open your opponent for a counter-attack and your weapon is available for it because it isn't blocking your opponent's weapon.

It's even more important to not block with a parry when using a shield because the impact on the shield could easily broke your arm. By deflecting the blow the impact is defused and a lot less painful.

TG if you could abstain to bold my words when you quote me, I'll appreciate. If I want them to be emphasized, I know how to do it myself.

And is it possible for you and Daeglan to stop your pissing contest and to agree to disagree ? Seriously it's really annoying for the reader. Even if I agree that a success is hit and a failure is a miss and that's how I run and narrate fight at my table. Daeglan's a success = damage done and a failure = no damage done isn't wrong if that what works for him.

3 hours ago, WolfRider said:

And is it possible for you and Daeglan to stop your pissing contest and to agree to disagree ? Seriously it's really annoying for the reader.

I get your point, but you don't have to read it. I'm just here cuz I kinda like train wrecks that I'm not emotionally invested in (though it is better not to have train wrecks, hence my attempts at peacemaking).

2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I get your point, but you don't have to read it. I'm just here cuz I kinda like train wrecks that I'm not emotionally invested in (though it is better not to have train wrecks, hence my attempts at peacemaking).

The only problem with that is they hijack someone else's thread to do it.

Totally saying "screw your post buddy, our stupid endless argument is more important". Ride and inconsiderate.

Their mindless bickering means that someone asking for genuine advice has a much harder time with certain topics, all because of a drive to "win the internet".

Team is the worst, but Daeglan and Elias poke him into action.

If any of them gave a flying flip about anything but their own amusement and driving psychosis about having to be right, they'd move it to it's own thread and let the original post continue without constant. "member measurement".

I actually get Tramp's point, but you have to balance out the plausibility of "a hit is a hit" with the actual effects that interpretation would have on play if you ran with it. In this game, going with the Tramp interpretation, high soak characters are going to receive half a dozen or more grazing hits per combat. That's silly. The mental picture of "okay, this turn five different stormtroopers hit you but they all barely graze you" is stupid and uncinematic. I prefer to make the game more fun by interpreting wounds like RCR vitality points. Think of it as a house rule if you like.

1 hour ago, DaverWattra said:

I actually get Tramp's point, but you have to balance out the plausibility of "a hit is a hit" with the actual effects that interpretation would have on play if you ran with it. In this game, going with the Tramp interpretation, high soak characters are going to receive half a dozen or more grazing hits per combat. That's silly. The mental picture of "okay, this turn five different stormtroopers hit you but they all barely graze you" is stupid and uncinematic. I prefer to make the game more fun by interpreting wounds like RCR vitality points. Think of it as a house rule if you like.

I agree. Wind can be anything from actual cuts and blaster Burns to torn muscles and the like because you avoided the worst if it.

As for Tramp's point, he's made it so where I don't care anymore. His "I'm always right about everything Star Wars" attitude and his belligerent arrogant attitude has soured me on almost anything he has to post, even if it's a good idea.

Personally, I have no problem with defense on armor. It plays well and can be narrated early. That's not to say I don't have my issues with the rules, but I just change them for what fits best with our table. Never once do I ever consider my thoughts are right over others in how they run the game. Not do I concern myself with how I think real life works in a comparison to a universe where we have space wizards with energy swords, planet destroying space ships and resurrecting evil overlords.

Personally, if you can suspend your disbelief for that, sound traveling in space, surviving in a vacuum with nought but a breath mask and the like, then armor and that shouldn't even be an afterthought. But, YMMV, and apparently a few do. That's cool too, I don't have to agree. I also won't lose any sleep over someone not agreeing with me. 🤷

On 1/16/2020 at 4:19 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes. It is!!!! A Combat check is an attack roll. It is a roll made to hit a target. It is a roll to hit. That is what a Combat check is by its very nature. If you Succeed, you hit the target, if you fail, you miss the target. It is that simple.

Actually a combat check is a roll for a success . I can't find in the basic description for making an attack any mention of a hit . If you succeed, you affected the target. If you fail, you didn't affect the target. If you succeed (more successes then failures) you apply +1 damage per success. That is what it actually says.

ETA: So with this as the actual definition, I can think of four ways to interpret a failure: `1) It grazed the person with no in-game actual affect, 2) It struck the person solidly, but was absorbed by armor with no in-game actual affect, 3) It was a glancing blow that reflected away with no in-game actual affect, 4) It completely missed the target, with obviously no in-game actual affect.

If you want to compare each of the above to the various mechanics we have, then: 1) Character's Brawn Soak took the blow, 2) Character's armor Soak took the blow, 3) Character's defense from armor or weapons deflected the blow, or 4) the attacker's aim was ****.

37 minutes ago, Sturn said:

Actually a combat check is a roll for a success . I can't find in the basic description for making an attack any mention of a hit . If you succeed, you affected the target. If you fail, you didn't affect the target. If you succeed (more successes then failures) you apply +1 damage per success. That is what it actually says.

and if you effected the target you can do some stuff. If you damage exedes the soak you can crit.

On 1/16/2020 at 8:46 PM, Daeglan said:

Well except a failure does not necessarily mean you missed. The rules say so. You just dont like it because your view is binary. Which this game is not.

Yes, it does mean it's a miss. A failure is a miss, a success is a hit. All game systems are binary. The FFG system simply add narrative elements to that binary outcome through the use of Advantages, Threats, Triumphs, and Despairs. The Success or failure is still a binary outcome, and, when it comes to making an attack, a success means you hit your target, and failure means you missed it.

On 1/17/2020 at 2:51 PM, DaverWattra said:

I actually get Tramp's point, but you have to balance out the plausibility of "a hit is a hit" with the actual effects that interpretation would have on play if you ran with it. In this game, going with the Tramp interpretation, high soak characters are going to receive half a dozen or more grazing hits per combat. That's silly. The mental picture of "okay, this turn five different stormtroopers hit you but they all barely graze you" is stupid and uncinematic. I prefer to make the game more fun by interpreting wounds like RCR vitality points. Think of it as a house rule if you like.

Just because a high Soak can reduce most of the damage from many of the weapons in this system,does not mean it's always a "graze". The thing to remember, is that a direct hit, even one that doesn't manage to penetrate the armor can still leave severe bruising , and even broken bones . So, ,grazes, lacerations, massive contusions, minor fractures, etc. All of these can be the narrative results of hits.

22 hours ago, Sturn said:

Actually a combat check is a roll for a success . I can't find in the basic description for making an attack any mention of a hit . If you succeed, you affected the target. If you fail, you didn't affect the target. If you succeed (more successes then failures) you apply +1 damage per success. That is what it actually says.

ETA: So with this as the actual definition, I can think of four ways to interpret a failure: `1) It grazed the person with no in-game actual affect, 2) It struck the person solidly, but was absorbed by armor with no in-game actual affect, 3) It was a glancing blow that reflected away with no in-game actual affect, 4) It completely missed the target, with obviously no in-game actual affect.

If you want to compare each of the above to the various mechanics we have, then: 1) Character's Brawn Soak took the blow, 2) Character's armor Soak took the blow, 3) Character's defense from armor or weapons deflected the blow, or 4) the attacker's aim was ****.

And a Success on a combat check means you succeed in hitting the target, a failure on a combat check means you fail to hit the target. in other words, it means you miss . If you hit your target, you will affect it. You may not damage it, but it will be affected . In order for a target to not be affected at all, it means you failed to hit it. Only a complete miss will leave a target completely unaffected .

5 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And a Success on a combat check means you succeed in hitting the target, a failure on a combat check means you fail to hit the target.

Not according to the rules as written. Nowhere in the, "Perform a Combat Check" section (page 204-205 EotE) does it mention the word, "hit", or "hitting", or "fail to hit". What it says is "Success" or "Successful" like any other skill check. It then immediately says, to apply +1 damage for each success. So, the success directly correlates to damaging a target or not. Nowhere does it mention "hitting" a target or not. You may want it to refer to a "hit", but it doesn't. You may think of it as a "hit" if you wish, that is your prerogative, but it is not what is being described in the rules-as-written. Of course you can still do it this way and house rule armor as suggested by myself and others over 100 posts ago, but it is not described as written as a hit/miss at all. It's clearly described as a success/failure and directly describes the success/failure as applying actual damage being applied or not.

Edit: Removed smart-*** meme that didn't contribute to the topic.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

All game systems are binary. The FFG system simply add narrative elements to that binary outcome through the use of Advantages, Threats, Triumphs, and Despairs. The Success or failure is still a binary outcome, and, when it comes to making an attack, a success means you hit your target, and failure means you missed it.

No.

Nope.

Nuh-uh.

As usual, either you don't know what words mean or you're trying to pull a fast one.

Both are dishonest , making you a liar .

Binary means that there are only two states, meaning that while it comes close, not even good old D&D is binary, since it usually has at least three states; success, fail and crit.

Star Wars has fail varying degrees of success, and even if we disregard that, you still have success + advantage/triumph, success + threat/despair, fail + advantage/triumph, fail + threat/despair and just plain ol' success and fail. That's a bare minimum of six states, which is three times over the limit for a binary system.

Advantage/threat are not just mere narrative effects as they can have a direct effect on the outcome.

You have zero argument beyond trying to pointlessly twist the meaning of words to fit your narrow definition of reality.

I'd say you're delusional if didn't think you're fully aware that you're wrong, but too arrogant and pigheaded to admit it.

I don't know if this makes you feel like someone of pride and principle, but it makes you look dishonest and pathetic.

5 hours ago, Sturn said:

Not according to the rules as written. Nowhere in the, "Perform a Combat Check" section (page 204-205 EotE) does it mention the word, "hit", or "hitting", or "fail to hit". What it says is "Success" or "Successful" like any other skill check. It then immediately says, to apply +1 damage for each success. So, the success directly correlates to damaging a target or not. Nowhere does it mention "hitting" a target or not. You may want it to refer to a "hit", but it doesn't. You may think of it as a "hit" if you wish, that is your prerogative, but it is not what is being described in the rules-as-written. Of course you can still do it this way and house rule armor as suggested by myself and others over 100 posts ago, but it is not described as written as a hit/miss at all. It's clearly described as a success/failure and directly describes the success/failure as applying actual damage being applied or not.

Edit: Removed smart-*** meme that didn't contribute to the topic.

I kinda miss the meme but understand.

7 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I kinda miss the meme but understand.

I also miss that meme.

This thread is full of vitriol, but also full of people thinking hard and writing harder. I liked that gooey meme.

22 hours ago, Sturn said:

Not according to the rules as written. Nowhere in the, "Perform a Combat Check" section (page 204-205 EotE) does it mention the word, "hit", or "hitting", or "fail to hit". What it says is "Success" or "Successful" like any other skill check. It then immediately says, to apply +1 damage for each success. So, the success directly correlates to damaging a target or not. Nowhere does it mention "hitting" a target or not. You may want it to refer to a "hit", but it doesn't. You may think of it as a "hit" if you wish, that is your prerogative, but it is not what is being described in the rules-as-written. Of course you can still do it this way and house rule armor as suggested by myself and others over 100 posts ago, but it is not described as written as a hit/miss at all. It's clearly described as a success/failure and directly describes the success/failure as applying actual damage being applied or not.

Edit: Removed smart-*** meme that didn't contribute to the topic.

Yes, according to the rules as written , particularly when you read the full text for the Parry and Reflect talents, both of which begin with "When the character suffers a hit ..." Also, Circle of Shelter also begins with, "When an ally suffers a hit from a Combat Check..." These talents do not say "suffer from a successful combat check". They say "suffers a hit" . A successful Combat check is a hit . A failed Combat check is a miss . That is RAW .

22 hours ago, penpenpen said:

No.

Nope.

Nuh-uh.

As usual, either you don't know what words mean or you're trying to pull a fast one.

Both are dishonest , making you a liar .

Binary means that there are only two states, meaning that while it comes close, not even good old D&D is binary, since it usually has at least three states; success, fail and crit.

Star Wars has fail varying degrees of success, and even if we disregard that, you still have success + advantage/triumph, success + threat/despair, fail + advantage/triumph, fail + threat/despair and just plain ol' success and fail. That's a bare minimum of six states, which is three times over the limit for a binary system.

Advantage/threat are not just mere narrative effects as they can have a direct effect on the outcome.

You have zero argument beyond trying to pointlessly twist the meaning of words to fit your narrow definition of reality.

I'd say you're delusional if didn't think you're fully aware that you're wrong, but too arrogant and pigheaded to admit it.

I don't know if this makes you feel like someone of pride and principle, but it makes you look dishonest and pathetic.

I'm being none of the above. I am being truthful, and honest. Advantages/Threats and Triumphs/Despairs do not inherently change the binary outcome of success or failure, hit or miss. That binary element is still there. And it is something all RPGs have. Advantages/Threats, Triumphs/Despairs are narrative elements which enhance the binary outcome of success or failure, they do not replace that binary outcome. The binary outcome of success or failure, hit or miss, is still there. Yes, with Advantages or Triumphs, you could have a boon even if you failed in your attempted task, but the attempted task is still a failure . The same with a Threat or Despair on a successful task attempt. Yes, something bad also occurs, but the attempted task itself was successful . Success, Fail; Hit or Miss; that's a binary outcome. And that is the most important factor in any game: determining if a task attempt succeeds or fails.

You're also wrong about D&D, Crit is not a third state. Crit is short-hand for Critical success or even Critical failure (If you rolled a natural 1). In other words, it's still included in the binary Success/Failure state.

4 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, according to the rules as written , particularly when you read the full text for the Parry and Reflect talents, both of which begin with "When the character suffers a hit ..." Also, Circle of Shelter also begins with, "When an ally suffers a hit from a Combat Check..." These talents do not say "suffer from a successful combat check". They say "suffers a hit" . A successful Combat check is a hit . A failed Combat check is a miss . That is RAW .

So you found a hit reference in talents in later releases. That doesn't change what is described in the actual description of an attack roll in the rules-as-written. It is describing damage being applied or not. When you read over the attack rules description which is the best source of what we are discussing, didn't find the word, "hit", then moved on to trying to find this word somewhere else, what was the attack roll rules describing? Was it describing a hit or a successful application of damage?

OK, a question involving a real world hypothetical scenario.

Say that we have two tanks. One has flat armor and one has sloped armor. When hit by a particular AT gun, in controlled conditions, the flat armor tank is always destroyed. With the sloped armor tank 40% of the time the AT round deflects off harmlessly (for the sake of the hypothetical causing no damage or other effect), and the other 60% of the time the tank is destroyed.

To me the "all or nothing" benefit of the sloped armor would be Defense. As we are performing the test under controlled conditions there cannot, per the hypo, be better or worse hits on the tank. Therefore the benefit of the sloped armor cannot be Soak as the same net damage cannot sometimes destroy the tank and sometimes not.

So if my character has one wound left, and an attacking weapon will do at least 6 wounds if it hits, and my soak is otherwise 4, I have to think about what is the intent of the thing providing Defense. Is it meant to be like the sloped armor, i.e something that has the possibility to preserve me from harm, or is it meant to only (but beneficially) reduce the effect of being hit? If the intent is the former then it provides Defense, if the latter Soak.

Now a lot of the argument seems to be, as it relates to Defense, that "armor doesn't work that way". Aside from just disagreeing, even if I agreed with the premise I would have to amend it to be, "armor up to and including that produced in 2020 on Earth doesn't work that way." Considering that people at one time thought your heath was dependent on the your "humours", or that if you traveled 60 miles per hour your head would explode, I don't feel that applying 2020 physics to the Star Wars universe provides any useful guidance. It seems to me that if the game designer of the armor in question wanted it to have the ability to possibly completely negate damage then the game method was to provide it with Defense. No comparison with anything that exists in the real world is useful. If you had a suit of whatever Imperial Armor to do tests on, then OK, but no one does, so I feel we simply have to respect the intent of the designer, even if we don't yet have technology available to replicate that effect.