On 1/25/2020 at 2:14 AM, Sturn said:

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.

You could as well add a fourth category:

• Drop brawn-based soak, or reduce its weight in the equation to say a fixed value of 2 for Silhouette 1 creatures (I can't recall if humans were silhouette 0 or 1 in this game) and then increase the granularity of soak granted by armours. Like this you potentially avoid the uber-soak tanks.

I was not a fan of the defense die. Said that, for those who have problems with the concept, instead of thinking of it as a "deflection", you could think of the defense die granted by armours as a representation of the randomness of the body location where the hit has landed. Since, this system does not differentiate between body locations, now you may think that when the setback die comes out with a failure or a threat symbol, the hit has landed on a particularly well protected part of the body.

If the hit failed to inflict any damage (failure symbol in the setback die and more failure symbols than successes in the resulting dice pool), may be it was totally absorbed by the toughest part of the armour.

8 hours ago, Yepesnopes said:

You could as well add a fourth category:

• Drop brawn-based soak, or reduce its weight in the equation to say a fixed value of 2 for Silhouette 1 creatures (I can't recall if humans were silhouette 0 or 1 in this game) and then increase the granularity of soak granted by armours. Like this you potentially avoid the uber-soak tanks.

I was not a fan of the defense die. Said that, for those who have problems with the concept, instead of thinking of it as a "deflection", you could think of the defense die granted by armours as a representation of the randomness of the body location where the hit has landed. Since, this system does not differentiate between body locations, now you may think that when the setback die comes out with a failure or a threat symbol, the hit has landed on a particularly well protected part of the body.

If the hit failed to inflict any damage (failure symbol in the setback die and more failure symbols than successes in the resulting dice pool), may be it was totally absorbed by the toughest part of the armour.

That's an interesting suggestion - though I prefer the simplicity of the OP of just going with Defense adding to Soak and you're done - but Tramp will spend another 16 pages telling you that your suggestion is garbage because you dared to suggest that a "hit" failed to inflict damage because it resulted from a failed attack check (a narrative description of a failed attack check) instead of just reducing damage from a hit from a successful attack check.

The OP's suggestion seems to be the thing Tramp is really looking for because Soak is the only thing in this game that meets his criteria:

- Armor is only useful if you get hit (by a successful attack check, no narrating "hits" here because the mechanics dictate how literal your narration must be)

- Armor reduces the effect of that hit (may negate all the damage).

That's what Soak is. That's all he needs.

I can't even imagine the 200 page thread of Tramp trying to wrap his mind around Reflect/Parry where in the setting an attack that is Reflected/Parry does not do any damage because it's a miss ('mechanically' and typically narratively) but those Talents reduce damage from a hit (that thing that's not supposed to have happened because of the Talent) instead. Which is funny because Tramp avoided Saga Edition Star Wars because of how it modeled armor but it models Reflect/Parry more accurately to the setting than FFG.

In order to keep this threat interesting, educated, open for discussion and welcoming for everybody, I would suggest to ignore trolls, and not mention them neither.

With doing away with the Defense die for armor - does it stay for Talents which add it? Or is Defense dice done away with completely?

To deal with super Soak builds (with armor and even more Talents adding Soak) can Advantage/Triumph be spent on hits to reduce Soak? Do some weapons get more Pierce?

This is why I think the bare bones OP suggestion of just adding to Soak just for armor is the most sensible and letting Defense continue in other areas even if it's not as simulationist.

56 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

With doing away with the Defense die for armor - does it stay for Talents which add it? Or is Defense dice done away with completely?

To deal with super Soak builds (with armor and even more Talents adding Soak) can Advantage/Triumph be spent on hits to reduce Soak? Do some weapons get more Pierce?

This is why I think the bare bones OP suggestion of just adding to Soak just for armor is the most sensible and letting Defense continue in other areas even if it's not as simulationist.

the thing is defense on armor is a way to add a little more effectiveness to armor with out soak getting silly. it is like a dial. 1 soak 1 defense is better than 1 soak but not as good as 2 soak. and 2 soak 1 defense is better than 2 soak. it allows something to be in between soak levels. it also allows for more variation in armor.

21 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

the thing is defense on armor is a way to add a little more effectiveness to armor with out soak getting silly. it is like a dial. 1 soak 1 defense is better than 1 soak but not as good as 2 soak. and 2 soak 1 defense is better than 2 soak. it allows something to be in between soak levels. it also allows for more variation in armor.

Sure, it also adds the element of adding Threat to the pool so even if you get hit it's a hamper on weapon qualities being activated. I think the mechanic as written works fine, I'm just responding to those who don't like it (for whatever the reasons).

6 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

That's an interesting suggestion - though I prefer the simplicity of the OP of just going with Defense adding to Soak and you're done - but Tramp will spend another 16 pages telling you that your suggestion is garbage because you dared to suggest that a "hit" failed to inflict damage because it resulted from a failed attack check (a narrative description of a failed attack check) instead of just reducing damage from a hit from a successful attack check.

The OP's suggestion seems to be the thing Tramp is really looking for because Soak is the only thing in this game that meets his criteria:

- Armor is only useful if you get hit (by a successful attack check, no narrating "hits" here because the mechanics dictate how literal your narration must be)

- Armor reduces the effect of that hit (may negate all the damage).

That's what Soak is. That's all he needs.

I can't even imagine the 200 page thread of Tramp trying to wrap his mind around Reflect/Parry where in the setting an attack that is Reflected/Parry does not do any damage because it's a miss ('mechanically' and typically narratively) but those Talents reduce damage from a hit (that thing that's not supposed to have happened because of the Talent) instead. Which is funny because Tramp avoided Saga Edition Star Wars because of how it modeled armor but it models Reflect/Parry more accurately to the setting than FFG.

I've already discussed the ins and outs of Parry and Reflect in this very thread. I have no problem with them specifically because when you parry an incoming attack, this can cause injury to the hand or arm holding the weapon , or, in the case of a unarmed parry, you're using your hand or arm to do the parrying, if the parry is done poorly, or via a straight block . Either way, this can lead to some damage to the weapon hand or arm from the impact of the attacking weapon against the parrying weapon. Not only that, but a parrying weapon could potentially be forced back onto the defender by a particularly strong blow. This is also how you can rationalize more damage being reduced as you gain more ranks in these talents.

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I've already discussed the ins and outs of Parry and Reflect in this very thread. I have no problem with them specifically because when you parry an incoming attack, this can cause injury to the hand or arm holding the weapon , or, in the case of a unarmed parry, you're using your hand or arm to do the parrying, if the parry is done poorly, or via a straight block . Either way, this can lead to some damage to the weapon hand or arm from the impact of the attacking weapon against the parrying weapon. Not only that, but a parrying weapon could potentially be forced back onto the defender by a particularly strong blow. This is also how you can rationalize more damage being reduced as you gain more ranks in these talents.

That logic doesn't apply to Reflect - certainly as show in the films/animated stuff. You're also selectively dancing around hard stances you've taken before on what a hit is.

Specifically, the idea that if you Parry a lightsaber blade with your own that any damage you take is due to the parrying action causing force to be transferred to your body (parrying can cause injury as you say) is totally at odds with what you've been insisting for most of this thread: that a hit is a hit. Now you're saying that a successful attack check with a lightsaber (it HIT so it is making contact with the target) when Parried is now not hitting the target. Maybe you can get around this by saying the parry only partially succeeded and that the target is hit with the lightsaber but with less force because of the Parry (not the common scenario in the films which are almost always causing a complete miss). And again this logic doesn't apply to Reflect as it's shown.

4 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

That logic doesn't apply to Reflect - certainly as show in the films/animated stuff. You're also selectively dancing around hard stances you've taken before on what a hit is.

Specifically, the idea that if you Parry a lightsaber blade with your own that any damage you take is due to the parrying action causing force to be transferred to your body (parrying can cause injury as you say) is totally at odds with what you've been insisting for most of this thread: that a hit is a hit. Now you're saying that a successful attack check with a lightsaber (it HIT so it is making contact with the target) when Parried is now not hitting the target. Maybe you can get around this by saying the parry only partially succeeded and that the target is hit with the lightsaber but with less force because of the Parry (not the common scenario in the films which are almost always causing a complete miss). And again this logic doesn't apply to Reflect as it's shown.

Actually, yes, it does. Both Reflect and Parry rely on an attack striking the defender's weapon . That weapon, in turn is an extension of the defender's hand and arm. This means that impacts to the weapon can create reverberations down the weapon and into the weapon hand, causing injury. It also means that if the parry or reflect isn't 100% effective, some of the attack can still get through, but with less damage. It's not necessarily " all or nothing ". So, yes, it does work for both.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Actually, yes, it does. Both Reflect and Parry rely on an attack striking the defender's weapon . That weapon, in turn is an extension of the defender's hand and arm. This means that impacts to the weapon can create reverberations down the weapon and into the weapon hand, causing injury. It also means that if the parry or reflect isn't 100% effective, some of the attack can still get through, but with less damage. It's not necessarily " all or nothing ". So, yes, it does work for both.

This in no way addressed Reflect as it's shown. We don't see blaster bolts being deflected with any strain or physical exertion. There's zero visual indication of blaster fire having some sort of force/weight/inertia/etc - it just bounces off the lightsaber. Reflect and Parry as shown in Star Wars is presented as "all or nothing".

Also, as a side note, something I just realized, if armor is really to be Star Wars accurate it's actually useless unless it's Beskar armor and whatever Phasma's armor is.

I personally have no problem with someone not liking a rule and house ruling it, I've done it myself in this very game.

I, however, do have issue with someone trying to tell me I HAVE to play or narrate a certain way.

As for the whole defense on armor thing, if the OP doesn't like it and wants to change, good on them. Their game, their choice. I don't have to agree or use it in mine. So, 16+ pages of Tramp the Troll trying to beat everyone over the head with his bridge is idiotic and he's being obtuse thinking that repeated text and massive bolding will make anyone care. It doesn't matter if the internet doesn't after with you, because it will never happen.

Personally, I use it and like it. Mechanically, a Setback die MAY cause an attack to fail, but not usually.

It will come up blank 1/3 of the time

A Threat 1/3 of the time, which help mitigate a telling hit by reducing the number of advantage rolled. Thereby reducing the chance of a Crit, Knockdown, Distort etc.

And the last 1/3 it will come up a Failure which, mechanically speaking, is identical to a point Soak by reducing extra Successes (thereby reducing overall damage by one just like Soak) on a successful attack.

Where some seem to have an issue is when an attack fails and there was a Failure result in the Setback die. In almost 5 years of running steady and dozens and dozens (was going to say hundreds) this exact combination of effects (failed attack with a Failure on the Setback for) has come up early enough that it is a definite non-issue for our table.

As for how people say armor does it doesn't work in real life, I don't care. Anyone can claim to be an expert at anything and post video after video to support their claim. In the end, who cares. This is a game, games do not necessarily follow real life, not should they unless that's the game you at trying to play. If you think about game system does it better, either house rule it and move on it go play the other game and move on. YMMV.

Personally, it's not that big of a deal. We have two main rules at my table.

Rule 1: have fun

Rule 2: if rule 1 isn't being followed, adjust until it is.

It's really that simple.

3 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

This in no way addressed Reflect as it's shown. We don't see blaster bolts being deflected with any strain or physical exertion. There's zero visual indication of blaster fire having some sort of force/weight/inertia/etc - it just bounces off the lightsaber. Reflect and Parry as shown in Star Wars is presented as "all or nothing".

Also, as a side note, something I just realized, if armor is really to be Star Wars accurate it's actually useless unless it's Beskar armor and whatever Phasma's armor is.

Well, Storm trooper armor is indeed pretty useless, I agree with you there. But, Canonically, it's not supposed to be very effective against a direct shot from a blaster, but, rather, shrapnel, projectile weapons, and glancing hits from blasters. Of course, how effective it actually is against those types of weapons we never really see on screen or in the fiction, so we'll never really know. However, most Bounty Hunter armors seem pretty effective, not just Beskar'gam. The same with other "Nemesis" type characters' armors.

As for Reflect ? I disagree. While normal hand blaster bolts do seem to just "bounce off", we do see some effort involved, particularly when dealing with more powerful weapons. Also, the issue isn't simply reflecting direct shots, but also you need to take into account when the reflect attempt "isn't quite perfectly dead on" , which means the shot can potentially still partially get through at a different angle and graze the defender instead of hitting dead on .

23 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, Storm trooper armor is indeed pretty useless, I agree with you there. But, Canonically, it's not supposed to be very effective against a direct shot from a blaster, but, rather, shrapnel, projectile weapons, and glancing hits from blasters. Of course, how effective it actually is against those types of weapons we never really see on screen or in the fiction, so we'll never really know. However, most Bounty Hunter armors seem pretty effective, not just Beskar'gam. The same with other "Nemesis" type characters' armors.

As for Reflect ? I disagree. While normal hand blaster bolts do seem to just "bounce off", we do see some effort involved, particularly when dealing with more powerful weapons. Also, the issue isn't simply reflecting direct shots, but also you need to take into account when the reflect attempt "isn't quite perfectly dead on" , which means the shot can potentially still partially get through at a different angle and graze the defender instead of hitting dead on .

Ok, I'll humor you. We see extraordinarily few instances of armor being effective in Star Wars. So much so that you're lucky this system (or any system) gives much credence to it. Certainly this game gives Stormtroopers great armor amounting to a 5 Soak which is really good.

As for Reflect? You're talking your head cannon theory here - we do not see that on screen. Has that never happened on screen? You may be able to find a couple of instances but the overwhelming majority (99%) are Reflect effortlessly bouncing blaster bolts away. Even Zett Jukasa, a Padawan, effortlessly bounced close range shots from blaster rifles (and back into the troopers). It's when he totally failed to reflect that he died from a dead on shot.

1 minute ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Ok, I'll humor you. We see extraordinarily few instances of armor being effective in Star Wars. So much so that you're lucky this system (or any system) gives much credence to it. Certainly this game gives Stormtroopers great armor amounting to a 5 Soak which is really good.

As for Reflect? You're talking your head cannon theory here - we do not see that on screen. Has that never happened on screen? You may be able to find a couple of instances but the overwhelming majority (99%) are Reflect effortlessly bounding blaster bolts away. Even Zett Jukasa, a Padawan, effortlessly bounced close range shots from blaster rifles (and back into the troopers). It's when he totally failed to reflect that he died from a dead on shot.

Well, D20 didn't give much credence to armor at all, at least not with the OCRB (they were better with RCRB). WEG did, however.

I don't argue that fact. but, that's not the issue. The point is that it can happen, particularly if you're just learning (only have one rank in either talent). And, if you ever watched the Mythbusters special where they tested whether you could dodge a blaster bolt (using projectiles set at a speed equal to the average speed of blaster bolts throughout the trilogy), they also showed a stunt man actually reflecting those projectiles with a "lightsaber" (a shinai), though some attempts were not as successful as others, and some attempts to intercept the shots outright failed completely. So some shots he reflected completely, some he failed to reflect at all, and he got hit dead on, and some he was able to knock off target somewhat, but the shot still grazed him. Yes, I know, it's not the movies or shows, but it was a practical demonstration of if it was even possible to do, and how effective it could be. And, it was pretty effective, though not necessarily guaranteed to be "perfectly executed".

And that is where I see Reflect not always stopping a hit completely, but also not failing to at least partially redirect it either. It doesn't necessarily need to be all or nothing .

Not only that, but from a game mechanics perspective, in order for the damage from an attack to be redirected back upon the attacker, because the only time a weapon causes any damage , is via a successful attack. Therefore, in order for Improved Parry and Improved Reflect to be able to redirect an attack back to damage the attacker, they had to have Parry and Reflect work to reduce damage against "successful hits". That is why I have no problem with how Parry and Reflect are handled, in this system, especially after I had thought about it for a while.

34 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, I know, it's not the movies or shows, but it was a practical demonstration of if it was even possible to do, and how effective it could be. And, it was pretty effective, though not necessarily guaranteed to be "perfectly executed".

And that is where I see Reflect not always stopping a hit completely, but also not failing to at least partially redirect it either. It doesn't necessarily need to be all or nothing .

Ok, you concede it's not in Star Wars but your preference is for it to be brought into Star Wars.

34 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not only that, but from a game mechanics perspective, in order for the damage from an attack to be redirected back upon the attacker, because the only time a weapon causes any damage , is via a successful attack. Therefore, in order for Improved Parry and Improved Reflect to be able to redirect an attack back to damage the attacker, they had to have Parry and Reflect work to reduce damage against "successful hits". That is why I have no problem with how Parry and Reflect are handled, in this system, especially after I had thought about it for a while.

Uh, that's not true. By definition of what we see - literally - on screen is reflected and parried attacks MISSED. Not hits that have been diminished in effect, but completely missed. The Parry/Reflect caused the attack to miss. This has caused some cognitive dissonance with my Jedi players - they Parry/Reflect an attack but still get hit and take damage (something we simply do not see on screen) and Improved had the same cognitive dissonance for this very reason because while on screen we only see deflected attacks from a successful reflect/parry meaning you can typically only deflect a shot you've been damaged by (I'm ~2 years into my current campaign with ~2000XP characters and I think for the first time last session a Jedi finally got to Improved Parry/Reflect an attack that was reduced to zero damage - hours and hours of gaming and 2000XP and finally the game modeled what we see on screen).

You've gone on and on for pages about what a hit is and successful attack (it absolutely must hit/touch the target!) and with Reflect/Parry in Star Wars that is not the case - the attack does not hit, it misses. You are doggedly insistent that Star Wars armor comport with how real world armor works (a hit is a predicate) but when it comes to the in setting concept of Reflect/Parry (causing a miss is the point). It seems like you have preferences - which is totally fine - but have some need to make your preferences canonical and RAW.

35 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Ok, you concede it's not in Star Wars but your preference is for it to be brought into Star Wars.

Uh, that's not true. By definition of what we see - literally - on screen is reflected and parried attacks MISSED. Not hits that have been diminished in effect, but completely missed. The Parry/Reflect caused the attack to miss. This has caused some cognitive dissonance with my Jedi players - they Parry/Reflect an attack but still get hit and take damage (something we simply do not see on screen) and Improved had the same cognitive dissonance for this very reason because while on screen we only see deflected attacks from a successful reflect/parry meaning you can typically only deflect a shot you've been damaged by (I'm ~2 years into my current campaign with ~2000XP characters and I think for the first time last session a Jedi finally got to Improved Parry/Reflect an attack that was reduced to zero damage - hours and hours of gaming and 2000XP and finally the game modeled what we see on screen).

You've gone on and on for pages about what a hit is and successful attack (it absolutely must hit/touch the target!) and with Reflect/Parry in Star Wars that is not the case - the attack does not hit, it misses. You are doggedly insistent that Star Wars armor comport with how real world armor works (a hit is a predicate) but when it comes to the in setting concept of Reflect/Parry (causing a miss is the point). It seems like you have preferences - which is totally fine - but have some need to make your preferences canonical and RAW.

The reflected and parried attack hit the blade of the lightsaber, which in turn is held by the hand, and thus is an extension of the arm. The attack hits the parrying/reflecting weapon, which is an extension of the wielder of said weapon, and, as such is essentially a part of him, not apart from him, as is the case with energy shields, which are basically mobile cover . The attack doesn't simply pass harmlessly by . This is similar with armor, which is essentially a second skin . And, if you think about it, you don't parry an attack that's going to miss anyway, you parry an attack that will otherwise hit you directly. And, as I said, just because the characters we see on screen seem to pull of parries and reflects effortlessly, doesn't mean it really is that easy or effortless. Those characters have "plot armor" and are often the exception, not the rule.

Now, with Parry , we do see characters on screen parrying blows, but still getting knocked around, pushed back, and taking a pounding. This certainly falls under "taking hits", and at least getting the "weapon qualities" from said hits inflicted upon them. And I could say the same thing is probable with Reflect as well, to a certain degree. Think about it, Look at how hard it is for these characters to reflect really heavy weapon ( Gunnery ) attacks, such as E-webs, light vehicle weapons,, or even heavier firepower. They pull it off, but it certainly takes a lot more physical effort.

As for my "dogged insistence that Star Wars armor comport with real armor". That "dogged insistence" doesn't just pertain to Star Wars . It pertains to any RPG setting or system.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A s for my "dogged insistence that Star Wars armor comport with real armor". That "dogged insistence" doesn't just pertain to Star Wars . It pertains to any RPG setting or system.

And when are you going to get it through your thick skull that not everyone shares that opinion, not do they have to?

You keep repeating yourself like it's going to have everyone dancing to your tune. All it really does is make everyone else sick of seeing your posts. To the point that some don't even want to pose a question because you might take the whole thing over because someone offered something in a way that your pedantic sensibilities were somehow personally offended.

5 minutes ago, Jareth Valar said:

And when are you going to get it through your thick skull that not everyone shares that opinion, not do they have to?

You keep repeating yourself like it's going to have everyone dancing to your tune. All it really does is make everyone else sick of seeing your posts. To the point that some don't even want to pose a question because you might take the whole thing over because someone offered something in a way that your pedantic sensibilities were somehow personally offended.

I don't care about " opinions ". I only care about facts .

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

I don't care about " opinions ". I only care about facts .

And are we supposed to take your word your "facts" are correct? It because you link YouTube, that's makes you the authority? I can post a video on how you can turn a price of coal into a diamond/crystal by doing some funky stuff with peanut butter. Doesn't mean I believe it, regardless of how some may claim it's true.

Dude, call it what you will, fact, opinion, definitive reality, whatever. Repeating yourself and bolding everything does not make people listen to you any better, typically just the opposite. Just because you believe it to be fact does not mean everyone will agree with your representation of facts.

This very thing is where many legal cases get muddied in the U.S., the "Battle of the Experts". Both sides claiming "impirical proof" that they are right.

Even the laws of physics aren't as black and white as most of your posts here.

20 minutes ago, Jareth Valar said:

And are we supposed to take your word your "facts" are correct? It because you link YouTube, that's makes you the authority? I can post a video on how you can turn a price of coal into a diamond/crystal by doing some funky stuff with peanut butter. Doesn't mean I believe it, regardless of how some may claim it's true.

Dude, call it what you will, fact, opinion, definitive reality, whatever. Repeating yourself and bolding everything does not make people listen to you any better, typically just the opposite. Just because you believe it to be fact does not mean everyone will agree with your representation of facts.

This very thing is where many legal cases get muddied in the U.S., the "Battle of the Experts". Both sides claiming "impirical proof" that they are right.

Even the laws of physics aren't as black and white as most of your posts here.

And? That doesn't change the facts. So, deal with it how you will. It's not just that I posted videos from Youtube. I've worn armor. I've fought in armor. I’ve been hit in armor. I've researched it. I know the effects of armor from first hand experience . So, it't not opinion. It is fact .

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And? That doesn't change the facts. So, deal with it how you will. It's not just that I posted videos from Youtube. I've worn armor. I've fought in armor, I've researched it. I know the effects of armor from first hand experience . So, it't not opinion. It is fact .

And people who claim the same experiences as you disagree entirely.

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And? That doesn't change the facts. So, deal with it how you will. It's not just that I posted videos from Youtube. I've worn armor. I've fought in armor. I’ve been hit in armor. I've researched it. I know the effects of armor from first hand experience . So, it't not opinion. It is fact .

I have fought in armor and have experienced armor deflecting attacks. Armor is shaped the way it is to optimize this.

…...I guess not (refer to my last post).

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And? That doesn't change the facts. So, deal with it how you will. It's not just that I posted videos from Youtube. I've worn armor. I've fought in armor. I’ve been hit in armor. I've researched it. I know the effects of armor from first hand experience . So, it't not opinion. It is fact .

I'm happy for you.

It doesn't change the facts, as you claim them. Argue as hard as you want, that won't change the fact that people claim your facts are not what their facts are. And we're just supposed to take your word for it? HA! I can claim to have won the Nobel Prize, doesn't mean anyone would believe me no matter how much I could state otherwise.

I bet if someone posted an essay from an armor designer claiming you are incorrect, you'd say he/she was wrong too. No, as has been everyone's experience with your posts, you'll just twist things to still claim your perceived superiority.

The problem is, nobody cares about your "facts". You have poisoned your own well.

You say how armor functions is a big part of how you feel about a system. Cool. Good for you. Accept that not everyone shares your obsession. And that they are entitled to.

Say, for the sake of argument only, that things are as you say they are. So what? Did you win a prize or something? Want a cookie? The game is still what the game is and people will still disagree with you. You would have accomplished nothing other than pissing off allot of people whose main goal is to enjoy a game and probably don't really give a rats @$$ about real world anything. This is a game forum, not an armor design forum. Save your crap for those.

7 minutes ago, Sturn said:

…...I guess not (refer to my last post).

I admit, I'm just as guilty for falling for troll bait, but I agree whole heartedly.

Personally, the OP about adding Defense to Soak doesn't seem too awful, if it's only from the armor, IMHO.

Sixth Sense and the other one (can never remember that one) seem to be fine as is, especially since they are about training to avoid attacks. It would also solve the problem some have with Cover and armor Defense not stacking. I also don't see a problem with Defensive or Deflective as is either.

So trading the Defence of armor for extra Soak should usually net you an extra point, at most 2 for "of the shelf" armor. It may break down a little when dealing with crafted armor, but I haven't rum those kinds of numbers so I can't be sure.