I wrote something. Then remembered I dont want to get sucked back in.

Sorry dude, I just fundamentally disagree.

On 2/10/2020 at 11:18 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

They're hit by the shrapnel and debris blasted off of the primary target by the attack. Another example, as demonstrated in TLJ, the beam itself has a large diameter beam and a heat radius that extends out a distance beyond the diameter of the beam itself, that the person is hit by. We see this when Finn is making a run at the Siege Cannon during the Battle of Crait. He's being hit by the periphery of the beam, which is several meters in diameter (and has a heat zone even larger still) damaging his speeder, and beginning to "cook" him.

Except. We're talking about weapons as small as auto-blasters here.

But basically, you're saying that the "MUST TOUCH" rule does not apply when it's inconvenient for you. That makes perfect sense*, apart from it being somewhat.... dishonest.

*It does not, in fact, make any sense at all.

On 2/10/2020 at 11:18 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

A set of Heavy robes (a form of "armor" in this system) does not deflect an attack.

Indeed. there's no way loose folds of cloth could be of any use deflecting an attack.

Sure, it probably works the way you describe it as well regarding things like bullets and blaster bolts, but against thrusts, blunt trauma and non-powered slashing weapons, a good billowy robe can be excellent protection, even when not actively wielded.

Not really addressing any of the main talking points here, just pointing out that your very precise , exact and literal language is, like so many other times, wrong.

On 2/10/2020 at 11:18 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Except that the Defense rule text doesn't specifically state that these benefits are from armor .

And yet, everyone understood it. Except you.

I have the sneaking suspicion that you you quite often feel that you're only one in the room understanding something correctly while everyone else is wrong.

18 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Except. We're talking about weapons as small as auto-blasters here.

But basically, you're saying that the "MUST TOUCH" rule does not apply when it's inconvenient for you. That makes perfect sense*, apart from it being somewhat.... dsihonest.

*It does not, in fact, make any sense at all.

Indeed. there's no way loose folds of cloth could be of any use deflecting an attack.

Sure, it probably works the way you describe it as well regarding things like bullets and blaster bolts, but against thrusts, blunt trauma and non-powered slashing weapons, a good billowy robe can be excellent protection, even when not actively wielded.

Not really addressing any of the main talking points here, just pointing out that your very precise , exact and literal language is, like so many other times, wrong.

And yet, everyone understood it. Except you.

I have the sneaking suspicion that you you quite often feel that you're only one in the room understanding something correctly while everyone else is wrong.

It is almost like his understanding of armor in the real world is incorrect.

Just now, Daeglan said:

It is almost like his understanding of armor in the real world is incorrect.

Fixed that for you.

21 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Except. We're talking about weapons as small as auto-blasters here.

But basically, you're saying that the "MUST TOUCH" rule does not apply when it's inconvenient for you. That makes perfect sense*, apart from it being somewhat.... dsihonest.

*It does not, in fact, make any sense at all.

Indeed. there's no way loose folds of cloth could be of any use deflecting an attack.

Sure, it probably works the way you describe it as well regarding things like bullets and blaster bolts, but against thrusts, blunt trauma and non-powered slashing weapons, a good billowy robe can be excellent protection, even when not actively wielded.

Not really addressing any of the main talking points here, just pointing out that your very precise , exact and literal language is, like so many other times, wrong.

And yet, everyone understood it. Except you.

I have the sneaking suspicion that you you quite often feel that you're only one in the room understanding something correctly while everyone else is wrong.

Except that Autoblasters do kick up debris , which can hit people. As can the edges of a beam, which would be a graze , as opposed to a direct hit. Both are still hits. That is what the book is talking about. As for the image, he's parrying with that cloak. It's acting as a weapon , or shield , not armor. A robe or cloak being worn can catch a weapon, yes, but that's not the same thing as deflecting one, where the weapon bounces off . However, what a cloak or robes do most is obscure the shape of the body.

20 hours ago, Daeglan said:

It is almost like his understanding of armor in the real world is incorrect.

No. My understanding of armor is the real world is fine. IF you think that armor can prevent someone from being hit , I have to question your understanding of armor.

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

However, what a cloak or robes do most is obscure the shape of the body.

Isn't this one made up by Frank Miller to justify Batman's ridiculously oversized cape? It's certainly not a thing real life robes do.

28 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Isn't this one made up by Frank Miller to justify Batman's ridiculously oversized cape? It's certainly not a thing real life robes do.

Nope. It's demonstrable fact. If you want, I can provide some visual examples, of how a cloak or robe can obscure the shape of the body.

Here's a prime one:

Is that cloaked character, male or female; heavy-set, muscular or thin; young or old? What can you tell about the shape of this person's body? What parts of this character's body could you target with an attack effectively ? That is how a cloak or robe can provide Defense.

30 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. It's demonstrable fact. If you want, I can provide some visual examples, of how a cloak or robe can obscure the shape of the body.

Here's a prime one:

<snip>

Is that cloaked character, male or female; heavy-set, muscular or thin; young or old? What can you tell about the shape of this person's body? What parts of this character's body could you target with an attack effectively ? That is how a cloak or robe can provide Defense.

Can we pause for a sec, Trampus Graphicus, while you tell us more about the rich fiction you created for this rendered-on-iMac scene? Maybe, to keep it about armor, you can elaborate on how the heck that Mando figured out how to anodize beskar?

26 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Nope. It's demonstrable fact. If you want, I can provide some visual examples, of how a cloak or robe can obscure the shape of the body.

Here's a prime one:

Is that cloaked character, male or female; heavy-set, muscular or thin; young or old? What can you tell about the shape of this person's body? What parts of this character's body could you target with an attack effectively ? That is how a cloak or robe can provide Defense.

Real world cloaks don't do that and have to obey gravity. But I figure if I don't do something silly like aim for his hand or knee, and just go for the large area beneath his head, I'll do okay. Plus, I'm not interested if he's young or old or male or female.

If there was real combat value in wearing cloaks or capes, why don't modern soldiers wear them anymore?

8 minutes ago, BrickSteelhead said:

Can we pause for a sec, Trampus Graphicus, while you tell us more about the rich fiction you created for this rendered-on-iMac scene? Maybe, to keep it about armor, you can elaborate on how the heck that Mando figured out how to anodize beskar?

It wasn't rendered on an IMac. It was rendered in DAZ Studio 4.

6 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Real world cloaks don't do that and have to obey gravity. But I figure if I don't do something silly like aim for his hand or knee, and just go for the large area beneath his head, I'll do okay. Plus, I'm not interested if he's young or old or male or female.

If there was real combat value in wearing cloaks or capes, why don't modern soldiers wear them anymore?

If you want a better, real world example, how about this video:

In fact, if you pause the video at points 1:46, again at 1:50, and 1:53, you can see how well it obscures the shape of his body, and makes it harder to effectively target his body. Not only that, but he gets heavily into the utility (and potential pitfalls) of wearing cloaks in combat, both as protection, and offense. And this applies to robes too.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Except that Autoblasters do kick up debris , which can hit people. As can the edges of a beam, which would be a graze , as opposed to a direct hit. Both are still hits. That is what the book is talking about. As for the image, he's parrying with that cloak. It's acting as a weapon , or shield , not armor. A robe or cloak being worn can catch a weapon, yes, but that's not the same thing as deflecting one, where the weapon bounces off .

Oh, you mean a garment that catches a weapon and therefor prevents it from doing harm is not soak? Only deflection is? Then what in the name of St George Lucas would you call it when a bullet gets embedded in a soft kevlar vest? Deflection?
And as I pointed out by saying

22 hours ago, penpenpen said:

even when not actively wielded.

should cover that I meant not only when used to parry. Was my language not exact , precise and literal enough for you or are you just a sloppy reader?

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

However, what a cloak or robes do most is obscure the shape of the body.

Which does less than you think in close combat. Cutting through layers of billowy cloth on the other hand can be quite hard, even with a sharp edge.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. My understanding of armor is the real world is fine. IF you think that armor can prevent someone from being hit , I have to question your understanding of armor.

Literally no-one claims it does. But hey, good on you. You've at least won the point no-one's arguing against. You claiming that this is even a point is a little like resorting to the straw man fallacy, which as an argumentative tactic is stupid and/or...

(wait for it...)

dishonest.

But I'm not unreasonable. I feel that you could still make a good argument for simply being stupid. I'm willing to hear you out on this, considering the effort you've put into building your case.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If you want a better, real world example, how about this video:

That man seems to have a decent grasp on architecture and 3d modelling. That's as complimentary I can be about his forays into other topics.

16 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

If there was real combat value in wearing cloaks or capes, why don't modern soldiers wear them anymore?

I'm going to steal Tramp's answer and post this right away, so we can skip to the face palming immediately.

See, it's such an advantage in ranged combat that even bow becomes viable in a modern combat setting.

2 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Oh, you mean a garment that catches a weapon and therefor prevents it from doing harm is not soak? Only deflection is? Then what in the name of St George Lucas would you call it when a bullet gets embedded in a soft kevlar vest? Deflection?
And as I pointed out by saying

Yes, it is Soak, if it's catching a weapon that's otherwise going to pierce the target, not deflection . What it is not, is Defense , by game terms. The same with soft Kevlar.

3 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

should cover that I meant not only when used to parry. Was my language not exact , precise and literal enough for you or are you just a sloppy reader?

Which does less than you think in close combat. Cutting through layers of billowy cloth on the other hand can be quite hard, even with a sharp edge.

Considering that I'm talking about robes and cloaks as " armor ", yes.

9 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Which does less than you think in close combat. Cutting through layers of billowy cloth on the other hand can be quite hard, even with a sharp edge.

and yet, the Defense granted by Heavy Robes in Rise of the Separatists is specifically predicated upon the fact that the robes obscure the vital areas, and even the entire person's entire silhouette. The book itself establishes this fact.

7 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Literally no-one claims it does. But hey, good on you. You've at least won the point no-one's arguing against. You claiming that this is even a point is a little like resorting to the straw man fallacy, which as an argumentative tactic is stupid and/or...

(wait for it...)

dishonest.

But I'm not unreasonable. I feel that you could still make a good argument for simply being stupid. I'm willing to hear you out on this, considering the effort you've put into building your case.

That man seems to have a decent grasp on architecture and 3d modelling. That's as complimentary I can be about his forays into other topics.

Except that @Daeglan has claimed that deflected attacks equate to misses . He doesn't consider them to be hits .

17 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it is Soak, if it's catching a weapon that's otherwise going to pierce the target, not deflection . What it is not, is Defense , by game terms. The same with soft Kevlar.

Considering that I'm talking about robes and cloaks as " armor ", yes.

and yet, the Defense granted by Heavy Robes in Rise of the Separatists is specifically predicated upon the fact that the robes obscure the vital areas, and even the entire person's entire silhouette. The book itself establishes this fact.

Except that @Daeglan has claimed that deflected attacks equate to misses . He doesn't consider them to be hits .

Wow. No i have never equated deflections as misses. You do that. I equate them to Failures. I have gone to great length to clear this up with tou. You refuse to understand the words in the book that say defense can be a deflected attack which is a failure.

And that claim by you is dishonest.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Wow. No i have never equated deflections as misses. You do that. I equate them to Failures. I have gone to great length to clear this up with tou. You refuse to understand the words in the book that say defense can be a deflected attack which is a failure.

And that claim by you is dishonest.

And, Failures are Misses . And yes, you have said that "deflected" attacks don't qualify as a hit in your eyes, even in reality .

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And, Failures are Misses . And yes, you have said that "deflected" attacks don't qualify as a hit in your eyes, even in reality .

No they are clearly not according to RAW.Not in the way you are fixated on. Which is why you are considered dishonest. You keep moving the goal posts because heaven forbid you admit you were wrong.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

No they are clearly not according to RAW.Not in the way you are fixated on. Which is why you are considered dishonest. You keep moving the goal posts because heaven forbid you admit you were wrong.

Yes, they are. I've already posted specific direct quotes from the RAW which specifically refers to failed attacks as misses . And the RAW has specifically established Successful attacks as being hits . The RAW does equate net Success on a combat check as Hit and net Failure as a Miss .

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, they are. I've already posted specific direct quotes from the RAW which specifically refers to failed attacks as misses . And the RAW has specifically established Successful attacks as being hits . The RAW does equate net Success on a combat check as Hit and net Failure as a Miss .

And I have already posted the descritption under defense that says otherwise. Your whole problem your is your inability to differentiate the narrative from the mechanics. Eventhough you happily will call a hit with a starship weapon a miss. but not apply the same logic to armor. which is weird. Probably because it would require you to admit your narrow view is wrong.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

And I have already posted the descritption under defense that says otherwise. Your whole problem your is your inability to differentiate the narrative from the mechanics. Eventhough you happily will call a hit with a starship weapon a miss. but not apply the same logic to armor. which is weird. Probably because it would require you to admit your narrow view is wrong.

No, it doesn't say otherwise. And I did not call a hit with a starship weapon a "miss", nor did I cal a miss with a starship weapon a "hit". The question was asked to me how a Starship weapon could do minimal damage that doesn't kill a character outright , when described, by the book as getting hit with only the periphery of the blast zone . That is not calling a hit with a planetary scale weapon a "miss", not by a long shot.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It wasn't rendered on an IMac. It was rendered in DAZ Studio 4.

If you want a better, real world example, how about this video:

In fact, if you pause the video at points 1:46, again at 1:50, and 1:53, you can see how well it obscures the shape of his body, and makes it harder to effectively target his body. Not only that, but he gets heavily into the utility (and potential pitfalls) of wearing cloaks in combat, both as protection, and offense. And this applies to robes too.

"Obscuring your body shape" (it's not really obscured in a way that makes it more difficult to hit) like that does not in any real way make you harder to get hit. It's useful for disguises or subterfuge, not combat.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it doesn't say otherwise. And I did not call a hit with a starship weapon a "miss", nor did I cal a miss with a starship weapon a "hit". The question was asked to me how a Starship weapon could do minimal damage that doesn't kill a character outright , when described, by the book as getting hit with only the periphery of the blast zone . That is not calling a hit with a planetary scale weapon a "miss", not by a long shot.

How would you narrate a failure do to the hard armor giving a setback die that comes up a failure. Clearly the armor cause the attack to fail. How did it do so.

1 minute ago, micheldebruyn said:

"Obscuring your body shape" (it's not really obscured in a way that makes it more difficult to hit) like that does not in any real way make you harder to get hit. It's useful for disguises or subterfuge, not combat.

There is armor that does work this way. Waffenracs do that. as would jedi robes. but that is not the only way armor can make it harder to land a successful attack.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

There is armor that does work this way. Waffenracs do that. as would jedi robes. but that is not the only way armor can make it harder to land a successful attack.

Here's the thing: what do Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon do before they fight Darth Maul? They remove their "obscuring Jedi robes" and drop them on the floor. The Waffenrocs google shows me look about as obscuring as a tuxedo.

22 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

How would you narrate a failure do to the hard armor giving a setback die that comes up a failure. Clearly the armor cause the attack to fail. How did it do so.

Armor cannot cause an attack to fail, since it cannot cause an attack to miss . All armor can do is minimize the damage done . That is the inherent problem with granting form fitting armor a Defense rating. and why people, such as myself and @KungFuFerret have a cognitive dissonance with armor having a Defense rating to begin with.

20 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

There is armor that does work this way. Waffenracs do that. as would jedi robes. but that is not the only way armor can make it harder to land a successful attack.

Yes, it is. A succesful attack is an attack that successfully hits its target.

13 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Here's the thing: what do Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon do before they fight Darth Maul? They remove their "obscuring Jedi robes" and drop them on the floor. The Waffenrocs google shows me look about as obscuring as a tuxedo.

They drop their outer robes so that they don't get in the way or trip them up. However, even their inner robes (particularly Maul's) are very loose and flowing , particularly in the sleeves, skirts, and (in Maul's case), the pants. This leaves a lot of volume and empty space within the clothing that the limbs in particular can move through without giving away their exact position or shape. Also, if you look at Maul's first fight with Qui-Gon on Tattooine, they fight with their full outer robes on .

Look at how their robes (and Qui-Gon's poncho) flow around them, obscuring their individual silhouettes. Lok at Qui-Gon's guard stance, and how his poncho obscures where his arms, and even his torso is. It's a big shapeless mass of cloth. There's nothing to target effectively.

40 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Armor cannot cause an attack to fail, since it cannot cause an attack to miss . All armor can do is minimize the damage done .

You have read this, right?

Quote

Defense rating represents the abilities of shields, armor, or other defensive systems to deflect attacks entirely, or absorb or lessen incoming blows.

Page 206, EotE Core Rules. That should put a nail in the coffin whether RAW says Defense from armor only makes you miss.

Should , but I'm not holding my breath.