4 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Well, we have different opinions there. And you know what? That's OK!

On that we agree. 😎

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

All clothes are "thicker" than the body wearing them. However, that doesn't really affect anything, since most garments and pretty much all armor is specifically designed to be form-fitting, especially hard armors. They contour to the shape of the body for the most part. Robes, Cloaks, and the like are different. They don't typically follow the contours of the body. Rather, they're large, concealing , essentially formless , flowing, and billowing around the body and away from the body as the wind, gravity, or movement of the wearer take them.

As for the "floppy bits" you mention, those still are shaped to contour to the body. As for Tassets, not even Japanese Tassets are that large so as to deflect attacks that don'tr even come close to the thigh. They would make movement or riding a horse too difficult, because they'd get in the way of the samurai's legs. So, no. That doesn't work. At their widest , Japanese tassets will only extend out about a hand's-length from each thigh at best, not "several' inches.

Your problem is you're thinking in matters of inches of thickness. I'm talking about yards of fabric flowing around a body, often feet out from it, not inches or fractions of an inch. So, I'm talking large volumes of cloth, huge surface areas , that drapes from and completely obscures the shape of the body, or vital areas thereof. You can't target what you can't see.

Oh honey.

I now see what everyone else has been so upset about.

And I am _definitely_ no longer concerned about misapplying my prejudices against you for having been a combat archer in the SCA. Chaff and wheat were meant to be separated.

13 hours ago, BrickSteelhead said:

Oh honey.

I now see what everyone else has been so upset about.

And I am _definitely_ no longer concerned about misapplying my prejudices against you for having been a combat archer in the SCA. Chaff and wheat were meant to be separated.

He picks one description of defense and insists it is the only way it can work. In a narrative system that uses essentially the same mechanic.to represent several things because they are not interested in being a Phoenix command game and instead being a.Star Wars movie simulator.

6 hours ago, Daeglan said:

He picks one description of defense and insists it is the only way it can work. In a narrative system that uses essentially the same mechanic.to represent several things because they are not interested in being a Phoenix command game and instead being a.Star Ward movie simulator.

Yeah, m8. When ARE they going to do an episode of SYSTEM MASTERY on Phoenix Command? I need that in my ears pronto.

(I would also accept a FATAL & FRIENDS.)

17 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not really. They're not two separate things. The only difference between a "narrative" hit and a "mechanical" hit is the actual number of strikes, or shots , being narrated, since a Combat Check technically covers multiple blows or shots over the course of a full minute.

I don't get what you mean. A success means you get to narrate a certain number of strikes and a failure a different number? Do all those narrated strikes on a success need to hit? Do all those narrated strikes on a failure need to miss (not touch in any way) the target?

What exactly are the limitations on narration of a failed check with Triumph and Advantage affecting the target (where Downgrades/Setback are being applied to the target and/or Upgrades/Boost being added to allies against the target)?

6 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I don't get what you mean. A success means you get to narrate a certain number of strikes and a failure a different number? Do all those narrated strikes on a success need to hit? Do all those narrated strikes on a failure need to miss (not touch in any way) the target?

What exactly are the limitations on narration of a failed check with Triumph and Advantage affecting the target (where Downgrades/Setback are being applied to the target and/or Upgrades/Boost being added to allies against the target)?

What I mean is that, while a "mechanical hit", as @CloudyLemonade92 put it, is a single Combat Check, narratively, it consists of multiple shots or blows. And yes, all those "narrated strikes" on a failed Combat Check completely miss .

As for the limitations, just what's in RAW. namely, you can't activate weapon qualities (except the two previously mentioned), you can't Crit, you can't spend the Advantages/Triumphs on any effect that requires a successful hit. So, adding Setbacks to your opponent, or adding Boosts to your allies, is perfectly fine.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

What I mean is that, while a "mechanical hit", as @CloudyLemonade92 put it, is a single Combat Check, narratively, it consists of multiple shots or blows. And yes, all those "narrated strikes" on a failed Combat Check completely miss .

As for the limitations, just what's in RAW. namely, you can't activate weapon qualities (except the two previously mentioned), you can't Crit, you can't spend the Advantages/Triumphs on any effect that requires a successful hit. So, adding Setbacks to your opponent, or adding Boosts to your allies, is perfectly fine.

You've answered part of my question but didn't get to the heart of it (other than clarifying a bit): What are the limitations you see on the narration describing Setbacks/Boost/Upgrades/Downgrades etc on the target? And why don't you think that narratively it's not permissable to describe it as due to actually impacting (literally) the target in some way (because this is not in RAW)?

10 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

You've answered part of my question but didn't get to the heart of it (other than clarifying a bit): What are the limitations you see on the narration describing Setbacks/Boost/Upgrades/Downgrades etc on the target? And why don't you think that narratively it's not permissable to describe it as due to actually impacting (literally) the target in some way (because this is not in RAW)?

For one, RAW does establish a failed Combat check as a miss, particularly under Guided and Blast . Adding Setbacks to an enemy is basically forcing him to keep his head down, or lose focus, thus making his actions harder to accomplish. That doesn't require him to be hit. The same with Adding Boosts to allies, your actions are inspiring them, or giving them an opening, making it easier for them to act. This does not require your attack to hit.

As for why narratively, it can't describe impacts? Simple. If an attack impacts a target, realistically, there will be some effect, even if no actual damage was done. It's a simple matter of physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you get hit, the force of that hit will cause movement (by at least the part of your body that was struck) in the opposite direction from where the blow came from, proportionate to the force of the attack. A failed attack has no such effect, and no potential for such an effect. This is why weapon qualities, such as Knockdown , Concussive , etc, can only be triggered on a Successful combat check, since only successful Combat Checks hit the target. A failed Combat check, by RAW , cannot physically affect the target. That is because a failed Combat Check is a complete miss .

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

For one, RAW does establish a failed Combat check as a miss, particularly under Guided and Blast . Adding Setbacks to an enemy is basically forcing him to keep his head down, or lose focus, thus making his actions harder to accomplish. That doesn't require him to be hit. The same with Adding Boosts to allies, your actions are inspiring them, or giving them an opening, making it easier for them to act. This does not require your attack to hit.

As for why narratively, it can't describe impacts? Simple. If an attack impacts a target, realistically, there will be some effect, even if no actual damage was done. It's a simple matter of physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you get hit, the force of that hit will cause movement (by at least the part of your body that was struck) in the opposite direction from where the blow came from, proportionate to the force of the attack. A failed attack has no such effect, and no potential for such an effect. This is why weapon qualities, such as Knockdown , Concussive , etc, can only be triggered on a Successful combat check, since only successful Combat Checks hit the target. A failed Combat check, by RAW , cannot physically affect the target. That is because a failed Combat Check is a complete miss .

No it doesnt. it establishes it as a failed check. the description literally talks about a successful check and a failed check. but no where in that description does it say hit or miss. In other sections it will say you have to hit to do x y or z. But those are short hands for what was established in the discussion of how a combat check works. Then there is the GM section where it discusses adjudicating checks and describing them and they discuss failed checks deflecting off armor. The Defense section discusses attacks deflecting off armor. It is almost like you latched onto a very very narrow case and decided that is the only way things can work.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

For one, RAW does establish a failed Combat check as a miss, particularly under Guided and Blast . Adding Setbacks to an enemy is basically forcing him to keep his head down, or lose focus, thus making his actions harder to accomplish. That doesn't require him to be hit. The same with Adding Boosts to allies, your actions are inspiring them, or giving them an opening, making it easier for them to act. This does not require your attack to hit.

As for why narratively, it can't describe impacts? Simple. If an attack impacts a target, realistically, there will be some effect, even if no actual damage was done. It's a simple matter of physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you get hit, the force of that hit will cause movement (by at least the part of your body that was struck) in the opposite direction from where the blow came from, proportionate to the force of the attack. A failed attack has no such effect, and no potential for such an effect. This is why weapon qualities, such as Knockdown , Concussive , etc, can only be triggered on a Successful combat check, since only successful Combat Checks hit the target. A failed Combat check, by RAW , cannot physically affect the target. That is because a failed Combat Check is a complete miss .

So it’s not in RAW, it’s your preference and opinion. You are imposing your own preferences on Boost/Setback etc, not RAW.
Where in any of the narration sections of the game system is your approach stated? Skill checks in combat resolution rules aren’t narrative rules. You even broke your own preference/rule when telling how narration makes Reflect/Parry work (if I reflect damage to zero then according to you the narration must include it actually hitting).

So if I’m understanding Tramp, I can spend Advantage/Triumph to drive my opponent from cover on a failed combat check, I just can’t say it was because they were “hit/inpacted/touched”.

Tramp you still haven’t explained how the 2 Triumph to destroy on a failed check squares with your narration that the damage from reflect/parry being from the impact of the deflection and not actually getting “hit” necessarily (this was part of your narration making reflect/parry work arguments).

On 2/4/2020 at 5:34 PM, BrickSteelhead said:

Oh honey.

I now see what everyone else has been so upset about.

And I am _definitely_ no longer concerned about misapplying my prejudices against you for having been a combat archer in the SCA. Chaff and wheat were meant to be separated.

What I find amusing is his description of hard armors is not exactly accurate. For example later helmets were specifically much taller than the wearer so as to be shaped such that a downward stroke was unlikely to get enough purchase to damage the wearer. Maximilian plate was much thicker than the wearer because the ridges used to stiffen the plates needed space and those ridges were designed to channel thrusts away from the attacker. If your only experience with armor is as a combat archer well you dont actually really know anything significant about how armor works. My experience in wearing armor is in sword and spear fighting and so I have experienced hits where the shape of the armor resulted nearly no felt impact. Which by the way is what defense on hard armor is about.
Waffenracs are semi form fitting except around the legs.

28 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If an attack impacts a target, realistically, there will be some effect, even if no actual damage was done. It's a simple matter of physics. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If you get hit, the force of that hit will cause movement (by at least the part of your body that was struck) in the opposite direction from where the blow came from, proportionate to the force of the attack. A failed attack has no such effect, and no potential for such an effect.

I will sometimes narrate combat checks that failed due to defense as ricocheting off of an armor plate, knocking the player back a step, before he rights himself again. Or i'll have it glance off his shoulder causing his shoulder to move back a little.

So yeah, it causes movement, realistic movement with no consequence, damage or pain. But in your rule, the movement has to have negative consequence, like knockdown. Which can only be triggered on a successful combat check. But then you'll say that narration is covered by soak, when no damage is done. but then we're back at the start, trying to make a realistic narration of defense on armor. because its there. In RAW. So how do you narrate a failed check because of defense? cant be a miss, because some as you have said, don't obscure the target. SO, we narrate it the way that makes sense.

You therefore should not have an issue with narration of RAW. but rather, an issue with RAW in concern to defense.

34 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

What I find amusing is his description of hard armors is not exactly accurate. For example later helmets were specifically much taller than the wearer so as to be shaped such that a downward stroke was unlikely to get enough purchase to damage the wearer. Maximilian plate was much thicker than the wearer because the ridges used to stiffen the plates needed space and those ridges were designed to channel thrusts away from the attacker. If your only experience with armor is as a combat archer well you dont actually really know anything significant about how armor works. My experience in wearing armor is in sword and spear fighting and so I have experienced hits where the shape of the armor resulted nearly no felt impact. Which by the way is what defense on hard armor is about.

This guy gets it.

4 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

No it doesnt. it establishes it as a failed check. the description literally talks about a successful check and a failed check. but no where in that description does it say hit or miss. In other sections it will say you have to hit to do x y or z. But those are short hands for what was established in the discussion of how a combat check works. Then there is the GM section where it discusses adjudicating checks and describing them and they discuss failed checks deflecting off armor. The Defense section discusses attacks deflecting off armor. It is almost like you latched onto a very very narrow case and decided that is the only way things can work.

Yes, it does. Page 210 of the F&D CRB, under the rules on perfoming a Combat Check, part 4. Resolve Advantages and Triumphs, specifically refers to a Successful Combat Check as a "successful hit" in the second paragraph. I have already quoted that paragraph in previous posts. Likewise, part 6, Reduce Damage, Apply to Wound Threshold, and Apply Critical Injuries, also repeatedly makes use of the word "hit" , in reference to a Successful Combat Check. In fact, it does so twice in one sentence. "If a character suffers damage from multiple hits in an attack, he applies his soak value to each hit individually." This too is on page 210 of the F&D CRB. And, as I have already quoted, both Guided and Blast specifically refer to failed Combat checks as misses . That is in the RAW . A Successful Combat Check is a hit, a failed Combat Check is a miss by RAW.

2 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

So it’s not in RAW, it’s your preference and opinion. You are imposing your own preferences on Boost/Setback etc, not RAW.
Where in any of the narration sections of the game system is your approach stated? Skill checks in combat resolution rules aren’t narrative rules. You even broke your own preference/rule when telling how narration makes Reflect/Parry work (if I reflect damage to zero then according to you the narration must include it actually hitting).

Yes, it is RAW. And it is certainly RAI .

7 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

So if I’m understanding Tramp, I can spend Advantage/Triumph to drive my opponent from cover on a failed combat check, I just can’t say it was because they were “hit/inpacted/touched”.

Exactly.

8 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

Tramp you still haven’t explained how the 2 Triumph to destroy on a failed check squares with your narration that the damage from reflect/parry being from the impact of the deflection and not actually getting “hit” necessarily (this was part of your narration making reflect/parry work arguments).

As I have already demonstrated, a Parried attack can still potentially cause some damage to a target, as was demonstrated by Kanan being blinded despite parrying Maul's lightsaber, when it was thrown at him. Kanan's parry was not 100% successful. This is true of any real duel or melee. A parry is not necessarily an all or nothing thing. It can be partially successful. And, while we don't regularly see it with Reflect , this still holds true, especially if you're trying to stop projectiles , rather than blaster bolts.

And, when dealing with the shock of a blade on blade impact potentially causing damage to your hand from a "successful parry" vs destroying a lightsaber on a miss against the intended target, in the latter case, you're not impacting blade on blade forcing reverberations down the blade and into the hilt, or knocking the weapon to one side at a bad angle which could result in injury to the arm or wrist. You're sundering the weapon at fulcrum. As such, there is no leverage there to inflict injury to the wielder.

That being said, I concede that sundering the emitter just above the hand is not necessarily, the best example. The better one is

1 minute ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

I will sometimes narrate combat checks that failed due to defense as ricocheting off of an armor plate, knocking the player back a step, before he rights himself again. Or i'll have it glance off his shoulder causing his shoulder to move back a little.

So yeah, it causes movement, realistic movement with no consequence, damage or pain. But in your rule, the movement has to have negative consequence, like knockdown. Which can only be triggered on a successful combat check. But then you'll say that narration is covered by soak, when no damage is done. but then we're back at the start, trying to make a realistic narration of defense on armor. because its there. In RAW. So how do you narrate a failed check because of defense? cant be a miss, because some as you have said, don't obscure the target. SO, we narrate it the way that makes sense.

You therefore should not have an issue with narration of RAW. but rather, an issue with RAW in concern to defense.

Depends upon the source of the Defense. I look at Defense as making a target harder to actually strike. This is because, By RAW, the game mechanics establish Defense as adding Setback dice to the attack roll . The attack roll (aka the Combat Check), determines whether or not you hit your target, with any net Successes adding to the base damage of the weapon.

Cover, Energy shields, heavy robes, etc. all make a target actually harder to hit . They do this by either hiding the target, obscuring its shape, or creating a physical barrier that prevents an attack from getting to the target. All of the above can cause an attack to completely miss its intended target.

Armor does none of those things, therefore, the "Defense" that Armor provides realistically , can only be applied as a "deflected hit", if, and only if , the initial attack roll garnered at least one net Success even after factoring any Failures rolled on the Setback die . There is no "narrative justification" for armor Defense to be a deflected hit on a failed combat check, regardless of if it was the failure rolled on the Setback die which cancelled out the last possible Success symbol. What you have in this instance is a near miss . A shot or blow which passed by within fractions of an inch of the target.

And, no, my "rule" does not "have to" have negative consequence. I'm saying that it has an effect . That effect is proportionate to the force of the impact. This is demonstrable and testable . I've posted videos demonstrating this very fact. For an attack to physically have no effect at all on a target, then that attack would have had to completely miss its target. That's just basic physics . And, while Star Wars does play fast an loose with certain laws of physics (such as the speed of light, and sound in space), it doesn't throw the whole book out.

As for whether I should have an issue over narrating armor Defense per RAW, vs having an issue with RAW itself, I have an issue with both . However, as I have repeatedly said, while I fundamentally disagree with FFG granting most armors a Defense rating for the reasons I mentioned too many times to count, the saving grace of this system is that those Defense ratings on armor is completely secondary , and subordinate to the Soak rating granted by the armors, and only a few armors even have a Defense rating at all to begin with. And, there is currently only one (Heavy Robes) that grants Defense instead of Soak. However, in that case it makes perfect sense since such garments do indeed make the wearer harder to actually hit by obscuring his overall silhouette, and/or vital areas, making him harder to target effectively.

I also understand and accept that the reasons why the Developers granted certain armors a Defense rating was for game balance reasons , not narrative ones; not out of some misguided notion that armor somehow makes a person harder to hit (as is how D&D runs it-And I know this because I've questioned people from WotC about this very issue). They did it solely to keep Soak values down to a more manageable level. That I have no issue with.

42 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

What I find amusing is his description of hard armors is not exactly accurate. For example later helmets were specifically much taller than the wearer so as to be shaped such that a downward stroke was unlikely to get enough purchase to damage the wearer. Maximilian plate was much thicker than the wearer because the ridges used to stiffen the plates needed space and those ridges were designed to channel thrusts away from the attacker. If your only experience with armor is as a combat archer well you dont actually really know anything significant about how armor works. My experience in wearing armor is in sword and spear fighting and so I have experienced hits wear the shape of the armor resulted nearly no felt impact.
Waffenracs are semi form fitting except around the legs.

Yes, it is accurate. Hard armors do not make the wearer harder to hit. A sloped helmet, like you described doesn't prevent the wearer from being struck . The attack still strikes him, even if it doesn't get as much "purchase". It can still cause a concussion, it can still cause him to be knocked down, it can still stagger him, etc. I know because I've been hit while wearing a helmet. We also see it demonstrated on video. The helmet does not prevent the wearer from being hit . It simply keeps the potential damage to a minimum by turning aside most of the impact. The attack still hit . It was still a successful attack.

And, no, being a combat archer is not my only experience wearing armor. I've already clarified that. I've worn multiple types of armor, from medieval armors to modern military body armor. I'm a US Army Desert Storm veteran, or did you forget that.

As for your assertion that you've experienced hits that "resulted in nearly no felt impact", the key word there is nearly . And the fact is you were still hit . That is a successful attack. Regardless of how little damage was done, regardless of how little you might have felt it. your attacker still hit you , and you still felt it. That is a successful attack.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it does. Page 210 of the F&D CRB, under the rules on perfoming a Combat Check, part 4. Resolve Advantages and Triumphs, specifically refers to a Successful Combat Check as a "successful hit" in the second paragraph. I have already quoted that paragraph in previous posts. Likewise, part 6, Reduce Damage, Apply to Wound Threshold, and Apply Critical Injuries, also repeatedly makes use of the word "hit" , in reference to a Successful Combat Check. In fact, it does so twice in one sentence. "If a character suffers damage from multiple hits in an attack, he applies his soak value to each hit individually." This too is on page 210 of the F&D CRB. And, as I have already quoted, both Guided and Blast specifically refer to failed Combat checks as misses . That is in the RAW . A Successful Combat Check is a hit, a failed Combat Check is a miss by RAW.

Yes, it is RAW. And it is certainly RAI .

Exactly.

As I have already demonstrated, a Parried attack can still potentially cause some damage to a target, as was demonstrated by Kanan being blinded despite parrying Maul's lightsaber, when it was thrown at him. Kanan's parry was not 100% successful. This is true of any real duel or melee. A parry is not necessarily an all or nothing thing. It can be partially successful. And, while we don't regularly see it with Reflect , this still holds true, especially if you're trying to stop projectiles , rather than blaster bolts.

And, when dealing with the shock of a blade on blade impact potentially causing damage to your hand from a "successful parry" vs destroying a lightsaber on a miss against the intended target, in the latter case, you're not impacting blade on blade forcing reverberations down the blade and into the hilt, or knocking the weapon to one side at a bad angle which could result in injury to the arm or wrist. You're sundering the weapon at fulcrum. As such, there is no leverage there to inflict injury to the wielder.

That being said, I concede that sundering the emitter just above the hand is not necessarily, the best example. The better one is

Depends upon the source of the Defense. I look at Defense as making a target harder to actually strike. This is because, By RAW, the game mechanics establish Defense as adding Setback dice to the attack roll . The attack roll (aka the Combat Check), determines whether or not you hit your target, with any net Successes adding to the base damage of the weapon.

Cover, Energy shields, heavy robes, etc. all make a target actually harder to hit . They do this by either hiding the target, obscuring its shape, or creating a physical barrier that prevents an attack from getting to the target. All of the above can cause an attack to completely miss its intended target.

Armor does none of those things, therefore, the "Defense" that Armor provides realistically , can only be applied as a "deflected hit", if, and only if , the initial attack roll garnered at least one net Success even after factoring any Failures rolled on the Setback die . There is no "narrative justification" for armor Defense to be a deflected hit on a failed combat check, regardless of if it was the failure rolled on the Setback die which cancelled out the last possible Success symbol. What you have in this instance is a near miss . A shot or blow which passed by within fractions of an inch of the target.

And, no, my "rule" does not "have to" have negative consequence. I'm saying that it has an effect . That effect is proportionate to the force of the impact. This is demonstrable and testable . I've posted videos demonstrating this very fact. For an attack to physically have no effect at all on a target, then that attack would have had to completely miss its target. That's just basic physics . And, while Star Wars does play fast an loose with certain laws of physics (such as the speed of light, and sound in space), it doesn't throw the whole book out.

As for whether I should have an issue over narrating armor Defense per RAW, vs having an issue with RAW itself, I have an issue with both . However, as I have repeatedly said, while I fundamentally disagree with FFG granting most armors a Defense rating for the reasons I mentioned too many times to count, the saving grace of this system is that those Defense ratings on armor is completely secondary , and subordinate to the Soak rating granted by the armors, and only a few armors even have a Defense rating at all to begin with. And, there is currently only one (Heavy Robes) that grants Defense instead of Soak. However, in that case it makes perfect sense since such garments do indeed make the wearer harder to actually hit by obscuring his overall silhouette, and/or vital areas, making him harder to target effectively.

I also understand and accept that the reasons why the Developers granted certain armors a Defense rating was for game balance reasons , not narrative ones; not out of some misguided notion that armor somehow makes a person harder to hit (as is how D&D runs it-And I know this because I've questioned people from WotC about this very issue). They did it solely to keep Soak values down to a more manageable level. That I have no issue with.

Yes, it is accurate. Hard armors do not make the wearer harder to hit. A sloped helmet, like you described doesn't prevent the wearer from being struck . The attack still strikes him, even if it doesn't get as much "purchase". It can still cause a concussion, it can still cause him to be knocked down, it can still stagger him, etc. I know because I've been hit while wearing a helmet. We also see it demonstrated on video. The helmet does not prevent the wearer from being hit . It simply keeps the potential damage to a minimum by turning aside most of the impact. The attack still hit . It was still a successful attack.

And, no, being a combat archer is not my only experience wearing armor. I've already clarified that. I've worn multiple types of armor, from medieval armors to modern military body armor. I'm a US Army Desert Storm veteran, or did you forget that.

As for your assertion that you've experienced hits that "resulted in nearly no felt impact", the key word there is nearly . And the fact is you were still hit . That is a successful attack. Regardless of how little damage was done, regardless of how little you might have felt it. your attacker still hit you , and you still felt it. That is a successful attack.

Maybe stop contradicting.your self and perhaps talk to an armorer. It is clear you dont actually understand armor. I have friends who are Armorers. And you know...they dont describe armor like you do. They describe it like i do. Armor has multiple ways of preventing damage. You kind.of need to understand the mechanisms used to prevent damage. Your insistance on only one mechanism is just wrong. That is not how armor works in the real world.

35 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Maybe stop contradicting.your self and perhaps talk to an armorer. It is clear you dont actually understand armor. I have friends who are Armorers. And you know...they dont describe armor like you do. They describe it like i do. Armor has multiple ways of preventing damage. You kind.of need to understand the mechanisms used to prevent damage. Your insistance on only one mechanism is just wrong. That is not how armor works in the real world.

But he's an EXPERT! He said so himself, so it MUST be true. This is the internet.

Besides, he was a combat Archer in the SCA. Who could possibly know more than him?

He also wore armor in the military. He obviously knows more than the ones who design and make it!

Don't you understand anything? 🙄 🤪

12 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And it is certainly RAI .

Let's not make assumptions based on what the designers intended unless you specifically have a quote, that describes in detail this intention.

Also, you keep contradicting yourself post after post.

Tramp you're free to impose whatever limitations on yourself you wish. I get it that it's all logical and reasonable to you - and I understand your reasoning - but the system simply does not state what you are saying. You keep quoting resolving a skill check for success/failure (especially with a combat check) and quoting weapon qualities mechanics but what you have never done is quote any rules regarding the narration. Those rules are very simple and come with absolutely no restrictions depending on the players to do what seems best to them. You are doing what seems best to you and by RAW other players do the same even if it's not according to your preferences. That's my point - you can't quote a section of the book that actually says your approach is THE approach. You may be able to point out the logic of it but that doesn't preclude others from using a different rational approach within RAW. Don't quote the resolving and attack check rules and hit/miss rules at me again - I know them and they don't say what you claim. Sure, that's the lynchpin of your logic which is fine for you but no one else is beholden to that within RAW.

On 2/5/2020 at 4:06 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

As for the limitations, just what's in RAW. namely, you can't activate weapon qualities (except the two previously mentioned), you can't Crit, you can't spend the Advantages/Triumphs on any effect that requires a successful hit. So, adding Setbacks to your opponent, or adding Boosts to your allies, is perfectly fine.

On 2/5/2020 at 6:03 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it is RAW. And it is certainly RAI .

Going back to this there is no definition of something that "requires" a successful hit except for the weapon quality rules which is not a narrative description rule. The section on narrative description simply says one thing: there are thousands of possibilities and combinations and go for it. Nothing about requirements and prerequisites and all of that. You're piling on Setback/Downgrades and handing out Boost/Upgrades you get to decide what that means - no requirements, no prerequisites except for the basic social contract with gaming. That's it. Nothing added to it.

The designers clearly meant this to be as unencumbered as possible otherwise they would have said something about it and not - as you claim about RAI - hide their real intent in a rules section chapters later on weapon qualities and resolving combat checks and despite what you say if the real RAW was meant to be the crunchy part in weapon qualities crunch and combat check resolution crunch they would have said so. They did lay out the rules for narrative description and the fact you have not quoted them is very telling because if they indicated even RAI as you claim you'd have quoted them. The actual text on narrating results imposes no limitations and you might think it reasonable to read in all the limitations you are reading into it but that's not what's written and it's also not what anyone else here reads into it.

21 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Maybe stop contradicting.your self and perhaps talk to an armorer. It is clear you dont actually understand armor. I have friends who are Armorers. And you know...they dont describe armor like you do. They describe it like i do. Armor has multiple ways of preventing damage. You kind.of need to understand the mechanisms used to prevent damage. Your insistance on only one mechanism is just wrong. That is not how armor works in the real world.

The key phrase there is " prevent damage ". That's what Soak does within the game mechanics . Defense is applied to the attack roll , the Combat Check . The Combat Check determines whether an attack hits or misses , first and foremost. Soak is applied to the damage, and is what determines how much damage actually gets through to the target of the attack.

24 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The key phrase there is " prevent damage ". That's what Soak does within the game mechanics . Defense is applied to the attack roll , the Combat Check . The Combat Check determines whether an attack hits or misses , first and foremost. Soak is applied to the damage, and is what determines how much damage actually gets through to the target of the attack.

You are deliberately leaving out a major aspect of the combat roll that doesn't support your view...

Successes from the combat roll also are applied to damage. Failures from the same said combat roll are applied to damage in the form of reducing extra successes, therefore extra damage.

When are you going to get that not many, if any, either share your obsession with this pedantic nit picking nor do I think many care. Most are just tired of seeing your diarrhetic diatribe.

Get over yourself. No one wants to hear it anymore. You keep on like repeating yourself will do anything other than satisfy whatever need you have to "hear" yourself speak.

Just now, Jareth Valar said:

You are deliberately leaving out a major aspect of the combat roll that doesn't support your view...

Successes from the combat roll also are applied to damage. Failures from the same said combat roll are applied to damage in the form of reducing extra successes, therefore extra damage.

When are you going to get that not many, if any, either share your obsession with this pedantic nit picking nor do I think many care. Most are just tired of seeing your diarrhetic diatribe.

Get over yourself. No one wants to hear it anymore. You keep on like repeating yourself will do anything other than satisfy whatever need you have to "hear" yourself speak.

I'm not leaving out anything. Yes, Successes apply to the damage, but only after it has been determined if the attack hits or not . If you don't hit (no net Successes) you don't do any damage to begin with. And, I have already stated that it is at that point where Armor Defense values may make sense narratively as "deflecting" damage from a successful hit.

44 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm not leaving out anything. Yes, Successes apply to the damage, but only after it has been determined if the attack hits or not . If you don't hit (no net Successes) you don't do any damage to begin with. And, I have already stated that it is at that point where Armor Defense values may make sense narratively as "deflecting" damage from a successful hit.

So then, why continue on with re-posting old points that have no meaning ad nausem? Let the thread finally move on.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The key phrase there is " prevent damage ". That's what Soak does within the game mechanics . Defense is applied to the attack roll , the Combat Check . The Combat Check determines whether an attack hits or misses , first and foremost. Soak is applied to the damage, and is what determines how much damage actually gets through to the target of the attack.

How it is prevented matters. And has an effect.

While I am generally of the eye rolling "This again?" crowd, I am curious, how many other Scadians are actually here? I saw a couple posting. I'm another former crazy *** "stick jock" though the particular household I was part of was informally referred to as the Heavy Metal brigade given our penchant for steel.

At any rate, I really did take advantage of the way my plates were formed and layered to turn "hits" into glances.