18 hours ago, RickInVA said:

Well, I'll give you this...your consistent and dedicated to your view. I feel your view is too grounded in 2020 Earth physics and not open enough to the magic of Star Wars, but that is just my view.

However, given your stance on shields, what prevents a suit of armor from having a built in shield? Maybe that built in shield flickers on and off at some rate so that it might, but might not, be active when the potential hit occurs? Maybe it has a type of proximity sensor that tries, often unsuccessfully, to turn it on at the right time? Maybe it does all that because an "always on" mode would take too much power and be unsustainable? Maybe if you allow your imagination to play "what if" a little....

Star Wars "magic" has nothing to do with how armor works, including how we see it work on screen . Star Wars armor works just like real armor. You get struck by a weapon and the armor takes some, or all, of the damage, reducing the amount of injury you would have suffered. That's what we see on screen, that's what we see with real armor. We see hits that get deflected, yet still affect the person hit, either knocked bask, knocked down, yell in pain or shock, etc. That is how armor works. It doesn't make you harder to hit. It reduces the damage from a hit. That's how it works in Star Wars , that's how it works in reality. It's how armor works. The physics don't change. You don't see armor causing a blaster shot to veer off to one side before it even strikes . You see a blaster shot hit the target directly, and the armor take the damage, potentially being deflected, but still hitting and having an effect on the target. It doesn't change the physics, it doesn't make the target harder to hit. It just reduces the damage done.

The first thing that prevents armor from having built in energy shields is the sheer power requirements . The second is the radiation often given off by personal scale energy shields. The third is how shields work, vs what we see on screen when dealing with hits against armor. An attack against a shielded target dissipates against the shield almost a full meter from the actual target. Against armor, the hit strikes the target directly , and is either absorbed or deflected directly by the armor. So, it doesn't match up. A suit of armor with a built in energy shield would work like what we see with the Droidikas, and that's not what we see.

9 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Wow.

You've really done it.

What a profound statement.

"The simpler explanation the better."

You've managed to sum your argument up in a single statement that is in itself proof that it's wrong.

Because while a simple explanation is better in general terms, it's not when it makes the explanation incorrect. Simplification is a trade-off, but I guess it's too much to ask of you to grasp such nuances. You don't get play fast and loose with the definiton of the word "binary" and then quote the dictionary on the precise meaning of other terms.

The core of your dishonesty is that you pick and choose when it's ok to oversimplify and when to get in to excruciating detail. When you get called out on being flat wrong, you argue that if you simplify things enough, you are correct in principle, and then in the same breath you go into to nitpicky detail to defend your other arguments.

That makes you a lying liar that lies .

Wrong answer. The problem with that statement is that Armor isn't complicated . Being struck by a weapon or not isn't complicated . Whether you hit a target or not, and what a successful or failed attack with a weapon means, isn't complicated . You and @Daeglan are trying to make it complicated. It is extremely simple . A successful attack hits its target, while a failed attack misses. It is just that simple . That is not wrong, that is not over-simplifying. That is how things work. It's basic logic . It is also backed up by the RAW . Don't over-complicate things. A successful Combat check equals a hit. A failed Combat check equals a miss. That is simple. It is logical. It is also RAW .

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Star Wars "magic" has nothing to do with how armor works, including how we see it work on screen . Star Wars armor works just like real armor. You get struck by a weapon and the armor takes some, or all, of the damage, reducing the amount of injury you would have suffered. That's what we see on screen, that's what we see with real armor. We see hits that get deflected, yet still affect the person hit, either knocked bask, knocked down, yell in pain or shock, etc. That is how armor works. It doesn't make you harder to hit. It reduces the damage from a hit. That's how it works in Star Wars , that's how it works in reality. It's how armor works. The physics don't change. You don't see armor causing a blaster shot to veer off to one side before it even strikes . You see a blaster shot hit the target directly, and the armor take the damage, potentially being deflected, but still hitting and having an effect on the target. It doesn't change the physics, it doesn't make the target harder to hit. It just reduces the damage done.

The first thing that prevents armor from having built in energy shields is the sheer power requirements . The second is the radiation often given off by personal scale energy shields. The third is how shields work, vs what we see on screen when dealing with hits against armor. An attack against a shielded target dissipates against the shield almost a full meter from the actual target. Against armor, the hit strikes the target directly , and is either absorbed or deflected directly by the armor. So, it doesn't match up. A suit of armor with a built in energy shield would work like what we see with the Droidikas, and that's not what we see.

Wrong answer. The problem with that statement is that Armor isn't complicated . Being struck by a weapon or not isn't complicated . Whether you hit a target or not, and what a successful or failed attack with a weapon means, isn't complicated . You and @Daeglan are trying to make it complicated. It is extremely simple . A successful attack hits its target, while a failed attack misses. It is just that simple . That is not wrong, that is not over-simplifying. That is how things work. It's basic logic . It is also backed up by the RAW . Don't over-complicate things. A successful Combat check equals a hit. A failed Combat check equals a miss. That is simple. It is logical. It is also RAW .

That would be because it is not nearly as simple as you claim. Also Star Wars magic could be very involved in how armor works. For example medieval armor does not work the same as modern armor does. I mean yes they spread out the attack over a larger area and time period. But your attitude that Star Wars Armor works in the same manner is silly since the damage mechanism is clearly different.

I don't really want to wade through pages and pages and pages of Tramp v FFG Forums so what are the various actually house rules being argued? I've seen Kung Fu Ferrets original post and recommendation but what else is there being offered?

2 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I don't really want to wade through pages and pages and pages of Tramp v FFG Forums so what are the various actually house rules being argued? I've seen Kung Fu Ferrets original post and recommendation but what else is there being offered?

If you join in, a piece of self-indulgent righteousness?

Kidding aside, on house rules if you are of the all Soak, no Defense camp? Only a few things I can recall:

• Drop Defense, expand Soak, but at the cost of uber-soak tanks.
• Drop Defense, divide Soak into vs. Energy or vs. Kinetic to add more differentiation.
• Concede it's a game and accept the explanation that Defense represents the deflective nature of some hardened armors.

7 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I don't really want to wade through pages and pages and pages of Tramp v FFG Forums so what are the various actually house rules being argued? I've seen Kung Fu Ferrets original post and recommendation but what else is there being offered?

I posted this reply .

9 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Armor isn't complicated .

This is patently ridiculous considering how much thought, time and effort humanity has put into developing and designing armor.

9 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It is just that simple .

When you hear someone using this line to explain a complex issue, they usually mean "Don't look too closely at the details, just accept that it is what I say it is."

It's never that simple, and the person telling you that it is usually has an agenda.

You're demanding that something be simplified to the point where it's less accurate.

9 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It is logical.

I'd trust a toddler with nitroglycerin before I'd trust your judgement when it comes to logic.

8 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It is also RAW .

It is? Then please point out where it says so in the Edge of the Empire Core Rules. I'll accept Age of Rebellion as well, but to be fair, if it's an integral part of the system, it should probably be a rule that's in all three books.

But let's face it, considering your history of being willfully ignorant and dishonest when it comes to interpreting rules, not to mention you constantly failing to comprehend any and all nuances of human communication, you're just going to lie, deflect and/or try to move the goalposts again, because you've proven time and again that's the kind of person you are; a dishonest liar.

18 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Star Wars "magic" has nothing to do with how armor works, including how we see it work on screen . Star Wars armor works just like real armor. You get struck by a weapon and the armor takes some, or all, of the damage, reducing the amount of injury you would have suffered. That's what we see on screen, that's what we see with real armor. We see hits that get deflected, yet still affect the person hit, either knocked bask, knocked down, yell in pain or shock, etc. That is how armor works. It doesn't make you harder to hit. It reduces the damage from a hit. That's how it works in Star Wars , that's how it works in reality. It's how armor works. The physics don't change. You don't see armor causing a blaster shot to veer off to one side before it even strikes . You see a blaster shot hit the target directly, and the armor take the damage, potentially being deflected, but still hitting and having an effect on the target. It doesn't change the physics, it doesn't make the target harder to hit. It just reduces the damage done.

The first thing that prevents armor from having built in energy shields is the sheer power requirements . The second is the radiation often given off by personal scale energy shields. The third is how shields work, vs what we see on screen when dealing with hits against armor. An attack against a shielded target dissipates against the shield almost a full meter from the actual target. Against armor, the hit strikes the target directly , and is either absorbed or deflected directly by the armor. So, it doesn't match up. A suit of armor with a built in energy shield would work like what we see with the Droidikas, and that's not what we see.

Here is where I start to feel like a lot of other people on the thread. "...the sheer power requirements." Um, documentation of the power requirements for shields comes from where? Why are you the expert? "...the radiation...", again, documentation, source of your expertise?

Yes, there is an (one, singular) example of a shield in the scene with the Droidikas. Where is your proof that all shields work that way?

You may note that when I speak about the Star Wars universe I speak in terms of, what if, perhaps, and maybe. Your answer is a statement of fact, which, since these things do not exist, can have no basis. You are entitled to your opinion, and equally entitled to disagree with everyone else's, but facts about the mechanical, electronic, and physical attributes of Star Wars items you have not!

Does Star Wars even have radio-activity?

42 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Here is where I start to feel like a lot of other people on the thread. "...the sheer power requirements." Um, documentation of the power requirements for shields comes from where? Why are you the expert? "...the radiation...", again, documentation, source of your expertise?

Yes, there is an (one, singular) example of a shield in the scene with the Droidikas. Where is your proof that all shields work that way?

You may note that when I speak about the Star Wars universe I speak in terms of, what if, perhaps, and maybe. Your answer is a statement of fact, which, since these things do not exist, can have no basis. You are entitled to your opinion, and equally entitled to disagree with everyone else's, but facts about the mechanical, electronic, and physical attributes of Star Wars items you have not!

11 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Does Star Wars even have radio-activity?

Yeah, the Imps had Rad Troopers who were trained and specially outfitted to survive in radiation zones.

In the fluff-text for the PDS it says:

Quote

...Deflector shields use limited ray/particle shielding that deflects and blocks incoming projectiles. They are difficult to use because the power drain is extraordinary , meaning they only work for a limited amount of time...

...Modern galactic companies do not generally produce personal deflector shields. The technology to make one that does not emit enough radiation to kill an organic user is very rare...

45 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Quote

...Deflector shields use limited ray/particle shielding that deflects and blocks incoming projectiles. They are difficult to use because the power drain is extraordinary , meaning they only work for a limited amount of time...

...Modern galactic companies do not generally produce personal deflector shields. The technology to make one that does not emit enough radiation to kill an organic user is very rare...

Yet the item is still provided, meaning there are ways to mitigate the power drain and, while very rare, the technology does exist to limit the radiation. Therefore these cannot be exclusionary reasons, or the item would not be provided.

I would also say that the film example of the Droidikas is possibly/likely not the same level of technology, as the Droidikas shields preserve them from all harm in the scene, which would appear, IMHO, to be a level of protection far in excess of Defense 2.

22 minutes ago, RickInVA said:

Yet the item is still provided, meaning there are ways to mitigate the power drain and, while very rare, the technology does exist to limit the radiation. Therefore these cannot be exclusionary reasons, or the item would not be provided.

I would also say that the film example of the Droidikas is possibly/likely not the same level of technology, as the Droidikas shields preserve them from all harm in the scene, which would appear, IMHO, to be a level of protection far in excess of Defense 2.

I wasn't arguing with anyone, I was just telling what the book says. In fact, the book states that they are rare, and since galactic corporations do not produce them, often custom models, hence the very high cost and rarity.

If I remember correctly, it was said that since Droidekas weren't organics, they could have shields that would give radiation poisoning to any organic who used them. Therefore, they were able to have cheaper shields that may have been more powerful.

I think that 2 Defense is far too weak for Personal Deflector Shields period. My proposed fix was to give them 1 point of Armor on top of the user's Soak so that they can actually stop blaster fire rather than merely occasionally deflecting it. Droidekas would have to be rebalanced for this though as I believe they are as strong as they are health-wise to make up for the weakness of Personal Deflector Shields

22 hours ago, Daeglan said:

That would be because it is not nearly as simple as you claim. Also Star Wars magic could be very involved in how armor works. For example medieval armor does not work the same as modern armor does. I mean yes they spread out the attack over a larger area and time period. But your attitude that Star Wars Armor works in the same manner is silly since the damage mechanism is clearly different.

Yes, it is that simple. And, yes, medieval armor does work the same as modern armor. The only difference is the materials of modern armor are lighter and more effective at stopping higher powered weapons. The basic mechanics of how they work is exactly the same.

13 hours ago, penpenpen said:

This is patently ridiculous considering how much thought, time and effort humanity has put into developing and designing armor.

When you hear someone using this line to explain a complex issue, they usually mean "Don't look too closely at the details, just accept that it is what I say it is."

It's never that simple, and the person telling you that it is usually has an agenda.

You're demanding that something be simplified to the point where it's less accurate.

I'd trust a toddler with nitroglycerin before I'd trust your judgement when it comes to logic.

It is? Then please point out where it says so in the Edge of the Empire Core Rules. I'll accept Age of Rebellion as well, but to be fair, if it's an integral part of the system, it should probably be a rule that's in all three books.

But let's face it, considering your history of being willfully ignorant and dishonest when it comes to interpreting rules, not to mention you constantly failing to comprehend any and all nuances of human communication, you're just going to lie, deflect and/or try to move the goalposts again, because you've proven time and again that's the kind of person you are; a dishonest liar.

Yes, it is that simple. Armor has one job, prevent damage from getting through to the wearer . Different armors are more effective at doing this vs different types of weapons damage, and different levels of damage. However, they all do the same thing, they mitigate damage done to the target. Soft armors do that mainly by absorbing the impact. Hard armors do it mainly by dispersing the impact, or deflecting the weapon along a curved or angled surface. The result is the same, the damage is reduced or prevented entirely. However, other effects, such as the target being knocked back, or knocked down, stunned, or other effects can still occur. The armor doesn't prevent these results.

As for posting from RAW? I already have. Specifically I've posted various rules from the Force and Destiny Core Rule Book. These are also found in the other CRBs. In fact, here is further evidence, from the three Core rules (taken from AoR CRB pages 217-218:)

Quote

3. POOL RESULTS AND DEAL DAMAGE
Once the player rolls the dice pool for his character, he evaluates the results. As with any skill check, the check must generate more Success than Failure to be successful. When making a combat check, if the check is successful, each uncancelled Success adds + 1 damage to a successful attack. If the attack affects multiple targets, the additional damage is added to each target.

4. RESOLVE ADVANTAGE AND TRIUMPH
Just as they can be spent in a non-combat skill check, Advantage and Triumph can be spent in a combat check to gain incidental beneficial effects. However, just as the rules governing encounters are somewhat more regimented than the rules governing narrative gameplay, so some of the options governing the spending of Advantage and are more clearly defined. In encounters, the player controlling the active character determines how his character spends Advantage and Triumph, unless the GM has a specific reason to decide for him instead. The first and foremost way to spend Advantage and in an attack is to activate a Critical Injury or active weapon quality. As described on page 171 and page 230, each weapon has a critical rating that consists of a numeric value. The user can spend that many Advantages to inflict one Critical Injury on the target, in addition to regular effects and damage. Remember, a Critical Injury can only be triggered upon a successful hit that deals damage that exceeds the target's soak value. For more information on Critical Injuries, see page 230. Weapon qualities are special effects and abilities that apply only when a character is using that particular weapon—the vicious edge of a vibroblade, say, or the auto-fire capability of a heavy blaster rifle. Weapon Qualities come in two forms: active and passive. Active qualities require the user to spend a certain number of Advantage to trigger them. Generally this is Advantage Advantage, although some qualities may require more or fewer. Passive qualities always grant their effect. Some qualities may inflict effects on a target that, unless specified otherwise, are always applied in addition to other effects, Critical Injuries, and damage.

Further, under part 6:

Quote

6. REDUCE DAMAGE, APPLY TO WOUND THRESHOLD, AND APPLY CRITICAL INJURIES
When a character suffers damage, whether from a stormtrooper's blaster rifle or a rancor's massive claws, he reduces the damage received by his soak value. If any damage remains after this reduction, he suffers that
many wounds. If the net result is zero or negative, the character suffers no wounds; his toughness and natural fortitude, in conjunction with any armor he might be wearing, have saved him from being injured. If the character suffers damage from multiple hits in an attack, he applies his soak value to each hit individually. For more information on damage and wounds, see Wounds, Strain, and States of Health on page 229.

In the sample given, it says:

Quote

EXAMPLE: APPLYING SOAK
Tendaar is wearing padded armor, and with his natural Brawn, he has a total soak value of four. A successful hit with a blaster pistol deals nine points of damage. His soak value absorbs four points of that damage, resulting in five wounds.

Need I go on? A successful Combat Check is a hit . A failed Combat Check is a miss . So, yes, it is that simple, even by RAW.

4 hours ago, RickInVA said:

Here is where I start to feel like a lot of other people on the thread. "...the sheer power requirements." Um, documentation of the power requirements for shields comes from where? Why are you the expert? "...the radiation...", again, documentation, source of your expertise?

Yes, there is an (one, singular) example of a shield in the scene with the Droidikas. Where is your proof that all shields work that way?

You may note that when I speak about the Star Wars universe I speak in terms of, what if, perhaps, and maybe. Your answer is a statement of fact, which, since these things do not exist, can have no basis. You are entitled to your opinion, and equally entitled to disagree with everyone else's, but facts about the mechanical, electronic, and physical attributes of Star Wars items you have not!

3 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yeah, the Imps had Rad Troopers who were trained and specially outfitted to survive in radiation zones.

In the fluff-text for the PDS it says:

2 hours ago, RickInVA said:

Yet the item is still provided, meaning there are ways to mitigate the power drain and, while very rare, the technology does exist to limit the radiation. Therefore these cannot be exclusionary reasons, or the item would not be provided.

I would also say that the film example of the Droidikas is possibly/likely not the same level of technology, as the Droidikas shields preserve them from all harm in the scene, which would appear, IMHO, to be a level of protection far in excess of Defense 2.

2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I wasn't arguing with anyone, I was just telling what the book says. In fact, the book states that they are rare, and since galactic corporations do not produce them, often custom models, hence the very high cost and rarity.

If I remember correctly, it was said that since Droidekas weren't organics, they could have shields that would give radiation poisoning to any organic who used them. Therefore, they were able to have cheaper shields that may have been more powerful.

I think that 2 Defense is far too weak for Personal Deflector Shields period. My proposed fix was to give them 1 point of Armor on top of the user's Soak so that they can actually stop blaster fire rather than merely occasionally deflecting it. Droidekas would have to be rebalanced for this though as I believe they are as strong as they are health-wise to make up for the weakness of Personal Deflector Shields

As @P-47 Thunderbolt said, these items may exist, but they are extremely rare and prohibitively expensive to produce, further increasing their rarity because most companies can't afford the expense to do so. This is why you don't see them in common use built into personal armor.

I may have not noticed, but where does it specify a failed check is a miss?

3 minutes ago, rogue_09 said:

I may have not noticed, but where does it specify a failed check is a miss?

It does not. It also doesnt specify a successful attack is a hit.

17 hours ago, penpenpen said:

I posted this reply .

That was great. Thanks

5 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It does not. It also doesnt specify a successful attack is a hit.

I can’t tell if you’re trolling Tramp by trying to be as pedantic as he can sometimes be but I suspect you both know this isn’t true. A successful attack check is called a hit several times in the combat rules (see the critical injury section and the rules on Improved and base Reclect/Parry as well as the Knockdown Talent, Peerless Interception, Unmatched Protection, etc ) - even calling it a hit from a combat check
Of course you can narrate Advantage from a failed attack check as “hitting the target” giving them Setback but it’s not a hit that can trigger a Crit or any of the weapon qualities which require a successful check. Typically the term successful attack is used but hit or successful hit is also sometimes used to mean the exact same thing. Unless there’s a distinction in being able to Crit from a successful hit vs a successful attack check.

34 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I can’t tell if you’re trolling Tramp by trying to be as pedantic as he can sometimes be but I suspect you both know this isn’t true. A successful attack check is called a hit several times in the combat rules (see the critical injury section and the rules on Improved and base Reclect/Parry as well as the Knockdown Talent, Peerless Interception, Unmatched Protection, etc ) - even calling it a hit from a combat check
Of course you can narrate Advantage from a failed attack check as “hitting the target” giving them Setback but it’s not a hit that can trigger a Crit or any of the weapon qualities which require a successful check. Typically the term successful attack is used but hit or successful hit is also sometimes used to mean the exact same thing. Unless there’s a distinction in being able to Crit from a successful hit vs a successful attack check.

The reality is the criteria in the system is alk based on success and failure. It is not based on hit or miss. Once you have determined success or failure you can narrate what happened. The problen is Tramp is so stuck on hit or miss he cant wrap his head around things like an unsuccessful attack could have hit the target and had things other than damage happen to them. Like knocking them out of cover. Knocking them prone. Etc.

2 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Of course you can narrate Advantage from a failed attack check as “hitting the target” giving them Setback but it’s not a hit that can trigger a Crit or any of the weapon qualities which require a successful check. Typically the term successful attack is used but hit or successful hit is also sometimes used to mean the exact same thing. Unless there’s a distinction in being able to Crit from a successful hit vs a successful attack check.

I believe what we are trying to say, regardless of the lingo used, is the rules aren't saying the target's actual silhouette was hit or not, but was there a successful damaging of the target or not. When the term "hit" is used, it isn't actually saying specifically the silhouette was struck. By the mechanics of this system, a "hit" means the target received damaged, a "miss" means the target did not receive damage.....thus it could have been struck with no actual in-game effect. If that is accepted, then Defense for armor becomes more acceptable narratively - the attack deflected.

19 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Need I go on? A successful Combat Check is a hit . A failed Combat Check is a miss . So, yes, it is that simple, even by RAW.

Well, regardless if you need to go on, we all know you're going to anyway.

Let me upset your delicate balance with this quote (Fad Core Rules, page 212):

Quote

When dealing damage to a target, have the attack disable the opponent or one piece of gear rather than dealing wounds or strain. This could include hobbling him temporarily with a shot to the leg, or disabling his comlink.

Now, if you forgo causing damage to shoot someone's comlink... you're not really hitting them are you? But you're going to argue that you do in fact hit something they're holding at that totally counts, for some arbitrary reason that is only evident in your mind.

Hit and miss are not crystal clear. A hit can be a lucky miss that hits something else and a miss can be an ineffective hit.

Now go away and stop interacting with people. You're not equipped for it and whoever they are, they clearly don't deserve it.

22 hours ago, rogue_09 said:

I may have not noticed, but where does it specify a failed check is a miss?

21 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It does not. It also doesnt specify a successful attack is a hit.

Yes, it does, as @Jedi Ronin pointed out. It specifies that a Success is a hit many times throughout the CRBs.

16 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I can’t tell if you’re trolling Tramp by trying to be as pedantic as he can sometimes be but I suspect you both know this isn’t true. A successful attack check is called a hit several times in the combat rules (see the critical injury section and the rules on Improved and base Reclect/Parry as well as the Knockdown Talent, Peerless Interception, Unmatched Protection, etc ) - even calling it a hit from a combat check
Of course you can narrate Advantage from a failed attack check as “hitting the target” giving them Setback but it’s not a hit that can trigger a Crit or any of the weapon qualities which require a successful check. Typically the term successful attack is used but hit or successful hit is also sometimes used to mean the exact same thing. Unless there’s a distinction in being able to Crit from a successful hit vs a successful attack check.

15 hours ago, Daeglan said:

The reality is the criteria in the system is alk based on success and failure. It is not based on hit or miss. Once you have determined success or failure you can narrate what happened. The problen is Tramp is so stuck on hit or miss he cant wrap his head around things like an unsuccessful attack could have hit the target and had things other than damage happen to them. Like knocking them out of cover. Knocking them prone. Etc.

And, the CRB specifcially says that a Success on a Combat Check is a hit . It says this several times. Thus, if a Success is a hit, failure is a miss.

3 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Well, regardless if you need to go on, we all know you're going to anyway.

Let me upset your delicate balance with this quote (Fad Core Rules, page 212):

Now, if you forgo causing damage to shoot someone's comlink... you're not really hitting them are you? But you're going to argue that you do in fact hit something they're holding at that totally counts, for some arbitrary reason that is only evident in your mind.

Hit and miss are not crystal clear. A hit can be a lucky miss that hits something else and a miss can be an ineffective hit.

Now go away and stop interacting with people. You're not equipped for it and whoever they are, they clearly don't deserve it.

That doesn't upset anything, because, as you yourself pointed out, you are indeed still successfully hitting what you chose to target . You are hitting their comlink, or weapon, or whatever else you specifically targeted . So, yes, you are still hitting your target. and thus, a Success still equals a hit .

Therefore, yes, hit or miss is still crystal clear. Success is a hit , failure is a miss, not an "ineffective hit." An Ineffective hit would be a successful hit where you didn't do enough damage to get past the target's Soak, and didn't have any Advantages or Triumphs to trigger a Crit or other Weapon Quality, possibly having Net Threats or Depairs. That would be an " ineffective hit". A failure on a Combat Check is a complete miss . Try again.

43 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it does, as @Jedi Ronin pointed out. It specifies that a Success is a hit many times throughout the CRBs.

And, the CRB specifcially says that a Success on a Combat Check is a hit . It says this several times. Thus, if a Success is a hit, failure is a miss.

That doesn't upset anything, because, as you yourself pointed out, you are indeed still successfully hitting what you chose to target . You are hitting their comlink, or weapon, or whatever else you specifically targeted . So, yes, you are still hitting your target. and thus, a Success still equals a hit .

Therefore, yes, hit or miss is still crystal clear. Success is a hit , failure is a miss, not an "ineffective hit." An Ineffective hit would be a successful hit where you didn't do enough damage to get past the target's Soak, and didn't have any Advantages or Triumphs to trigger a Crit or other Weapon Quality, possibly having Net Threats or Depairs. That would be an " ineffective hit". A failure on a Combat Check is a complete miss . Try again.

except a failure is NOT necessarily a miss. as I have noted you can do things like knock them down or out of cover with advatages. Your Black and White view of things is just out right wrong per RAW which give several examples of failures that make contact with the target. This is not a binary system. no matter how much you insist it is.

8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

except a failure is NOT necessarily a miss. as I have noted you can do things like knock them down or out of cover with advatages. Your Black and White view of things is just out right wrong per RAW which give several examples of failures that make contact with the target. This is not a binary system. no matter how much you insist it is.

Yes. It is "necessarily" a miss. There are no examples in the books of Failures not being misses. A success is a hit. A failure is a miss. Period.

This board has the most tolerant mods I have ever seen.

There are actual mods, right?

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes. It is "necessarily" a miss. There are no examples in the books of Failures not being misses. A success is a hit. A failure is a miss. Period.

Go read the description of defense.

17 hours ago, Sturn said:

I believe what we are trying to say, regardless of the lingo used, is the rules aren't saying the target's actual silhouette was hit or not, but was there a successful damaging of the target or not. When the term "hit" is used, it isn't actually saying specifically the silhouette was struck. By the mechanics of this system, a "hit" means the target received damaged, a "miss" means the target did not receive damage.....thus it could have been struck with no actual in-game effect. If that is accepted, then Defense for armor becomes more acceptable narratively - the attack deflected.

I was saying hit and successful attack check are synonymous. Whether damage was done is a separate issue. I agree Defense is acceptable narratively as deflected.