50 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 . 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.

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

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.

You do know that it doesn't actually matter to a Jedi if they can even see who they're trying to hit or not, right? If Luke's little "training session" with Obi-Wan, and his Death Star killing shot are anything to go by, Jedi fight better when blindfolded and not trying to aim.

And no, what obi-Wan and Qui-gon are wearing under their robes isn't in any way at all concealing in a way that matters to a blaster or lightsaber.

10 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

You have read this, right?

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.

The key word in that passage is OR. not AND . The abilities of shields, armor, OR other defensive systems, to deflect entirely...

1 minute ago, micheldebruyn said:

You do know that it doesn't actually matter to a Jedi if they can even see who they're trying to hit or not, right? If Luke's little "training session" with Obi-Wan, and his Death Star killing shot are anything to go by, Jedi fight better when blindfolded and not trying to aim.

And no, what obi-Wan and Qui-gon are wearing under their robes isn't in any way at all concealing in a way that matters to a blaster or lightsaber.

No, but Maul's tunics do. That's why I specifically emphasized his .

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, but Maul's tunics do. That's why I specifically emphasized his .

If it had been even a tiny factor in the fight, he'd be missing bits of tunic after the fight from where a lighsaber aiming for his left elbow hit the tunic or something like that.

And these are moving people, not still pictures taken at a specific angle at a specific fraction of a second where smething is somewhat "obscured" (but only in the sense that you can't see it, not that you don't know where it is because you see the head, shoulder, and hands, so you pretty much know where the entire arm is, as well as the torso).

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

You have read this, right?

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.

I have Quoted that multiple times. Tramp cant wrap his mind around it. He was a combat archer in the SCA. Which means he has never really used armor so knows absolutely nothing about how it works. I have fought swords, axes spears etc in armor. And it absolutely can cause an attack to deflect harmlessly away. But in tramps mind if an attack touches your person in any way it is a hit. Never mind the rules and real life say otherwise. If an attack is successful it clearly hit the person. But the opposite is not true given the fact that the dice are meant to help tell the story of what happened. So if a setback from armor makes the attack unsuccessful it means the armor prevented the successful attack. Which could be your baggy robes made you miss judge you aim and your attack hits cloth and not the person. But it also could mean the attack skipped harmlessly off the plates do to the angle it hit the plates on. (I have had this happen many times )

@Tramp Graphics

For ****'s sake stop name dropping me in this insane rant of yours. You have personally continued this thread for like 20+ pages, and I stopped following it like 2 weeks ago. There is a point, that you have never actually learned it seems, of just letting a subject drop. I know you are apparently physically and psychologically incapable of just letting something go until you have bludgeoned anyone who dares say you might be wrong about something into silence or submission, but it's frankly sad to watch.

And I'm frankly getting tired of seeing the notification only to see it's you using my name to justify your continued rant on a subject that was simply a passing curiosity to me that I thought I'd share. Because I keep thinking it might be something productive and/or entertaining, but no, it's just you using my name to say "see i'm not the only one who is this obstinate and pig headed!"

Stop. You've already hijacked my thread for your personal crusade to make everyone admit you are right, don't keep dragging me back into it. Either shut up and let the thread die, or at the very least stop @ ing me in your posts.

10 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I can barely see anything in that picture. But that's more down to the lack of lightning than the cloak. As for the rest, I imagine the armour would make it hard to say with any degree of certainty.

13 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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

But what about the backstory, m'lord? I truly do want to know.

12 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The key word in that passage is OR. not AND . The abilities of shields, armor, OR other defensive systems, to deflect entirely...

You're kidding, right? The or is there to state that ALL of those things can make an attack fail completely - they all do the same thing. It just depends on the context of the thing being used - so, abso-*******-lutely armor can deflect whole attacks. It's right there, in the text. That's RAW.

Prove to us you're not being intellectually dishonest and concede this point.

2 hours ago, StarkJunior said:

You're kidding, right? The or is there to state that ALL of those things can make an attack fail completely - they all do the same thing. It just depends on the context of the thing being used - so, abso-*******-lutely armor can deflect whole attacks. It's right there, in the text. That's RAW.

Prove to us you're not being intellectually dishonest and concede this point.

I have come to conclude Tramp is incapable of being intelectually honest. because no matter how many time I point to the rules saying what you said he refuses to accept it.

18 hours 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.

hitting a moving target that has less contrast. It is similar to the dazzle paint schemes in WWII. We are not talking about static pictures. but moving peoples whos body shape is difficult to predict where it is going to be when you swing.

19 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The key word in that passage is OR. not AND . The abilities of shields, armor, OR other defensive systems, to deflect entirely...

While English is, in fact, my second language, I still feel confident telling you, a native speaker AFAIK, that's not what that sentence means . In fact, your claim is clearly utter manure and we both know it. Just because people who come to this forum like to pretend that the force exists doesn't mean that your pathetic attempt at gaslighting will suddenly become a Jedi mind trick.

Your claims only show that you have the reading comprehension of religious, disbarred lawyer running for office. That is not a compliment. Rather, you're willfully misinterpreting that text in order to support your wonky thesis. It seems that you're more willing to be be seen as an idiot and a liar than admitting you're wrong, and yet you've only managed to spectacularly prove to be all three. Well done, buddy.

21 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

If it had been even a tiny factor in the fight, he'd be missing bits of tunic after the fight from where a lighsaber aiming for his left elbow hit the tunic or something like that.

And these are moving people, not still pictures taken at a specific angle at a specific fraction of a second where smething is somewhat "obscured" (but only in the sense that you can't see it, not that you don't know where it is because you see the head, shoulder, and hands, so you pretty much know where the entire arm is, as well as the torso).

Not when a target is moving . This is one thing I can agree with @Daeglan on in this debate.

10 hours ago, StarkJunior said:

You're kidding, right? The or is there to state that ALL of those things can make an attack fail completely - they all do the same thing. It just depends on the context of the thing being used - so, abso-*******-lutely armor can deflect whole attacks. It's right there, in the text. That's RAW.

Prove to us you're not being intellectually dishonest and concede this point.

No, that is not what it means. The word "or" means that these are all alternatives of what can occur and establishes a true statement when at least one of its constituents is true.

Quote

or

conjunction (1)

Save Word

To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In

\ ər , ˈȯr , Southern also ˈär \

Definition of or

(Entry 1 of 😎

1 — used as a function word to indicate an alternative

coffee or tea sink or swim , the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases

lessen or abate , or approximation or uncertainty

in five or six days

2 archaic : EITHER

3 archaic : WHETHER

4 — used in logic as a sentential connective that forms a complex sentence which is true when at least one of its constituent sentences is true — compare DISJUNCTION

The rule for Defense does not say all of these things make an attack fail completely. It simply states that these are multiple possible outcomes , in which Defense can be granted, as well as how some of them might work to defend the target. It is saying that some of these defensive measures might stop an attack from hitting completely, some of these defensive measures might only reduce damage from an attack, some of these defensive measures might be capable of either . It is not saying all of them can do all of the above. It is saying shields, OR , armor OR other defenses can reduce damage OR possibly Defect an attack entirely. If it had said, "the capability for shields, armor, AND other Defensive measures to deflect an attack entirely..." then your interpretation of the rule would be correct. But that is not what the rule says at all. It lists multiple possible sources of defense, along with multiple possible ways in which some of them might reduce the effectiveness of an attack. It is not saying all of them will defend a target all ways.

Secondly, "Deflect" does not mean "make an attack fail". Deflect simply means "turn aside or cause to bounce off". For something to bounce off of armor, or for armor to turn aside a strike, the target must first be successfully hit . That is basic physics. Armor cannot make an attack miss . It cannot stop an attack from hitting a target. By RAW, it requires at least one net Success on a Combat Check for an attack to hit . And, yes, the RAW does explicitly equate* a hit with a Successful Combat Check. It uses the two interchangeably . Likewise, it uses Failure on a Combat Check and "miss" interchangeably . Success is equated to "hit", and Failure equated to "miss". That means at least one net Success on the die roll is needed for an attack to hit . Therefore, a net Failure on a Combat Check, or zero net Successes , is a miss . It is not a possible hit that bounced off or was reduced in damage. It does not hit the target at all. Period. It is a miss . Armor cannot make an attack miss . By contrast, Energy shields, cover, and the like can deflect an attack before it can hit the target. These items can make an attack completely miss the target. This is because all of these are separate from the target, and are interposed between the target and the attacker. Failing that, if an attack does manage to penetrate those defenses to still hit the target, those defenses can reduce the amount of net Successes that would otherwise have added to the damage done, thus reducing the damage , from the attack.

Armor is worn by a person. It is form-fitted to that person. It cannot prevent someone from being successfully hit. It can only reduce damage from a hit. This can be accomplished by "deflecting" the hit, yes; but that deflection cannot make an attack fail completely . Because, for an attack to fail completely, and thus have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the target, it must miss the target entirely . It cannot even touch the target. Armor cannot prevent an attack from hitting . And to hit , you must roll at least one net Success . Armor cannot prevent someone from being knocked down or knocked back by an attack. It cannot prevent someone from being concussed by an attack. Armor can lessen an impact, but it cannot prevent an impact from occurring in the first place. All armor can do is reduce the amount of damage sustained, potentially to zero . But it cannot prevent any of the other potential effects. Thus, in order for armor to "deflect" a hit, it must first be hit , and that means at least one net Success on the Combat Check dice.

That is the inherent problem with granting armor a Defense rating in the first place, because, mechanically , anything that potentially adds Failure symbols to an attack roll makes a target harder to hit . And that is something armor cannot do.

The only "armors" that can potentially make an attack actually miss are Robes . (this includes Heavy Robes, Temple Guard armor, Armored Robes, and a handful of other garments) And this is because, by RAW , those "armors" can all obscure vital areas of a target or even the entire silhouette . This can make a target harder to hit. This is explicitly stated as being the case with Heavy Robes.

*

Quote

e·quate

/əˈkwāt/

Learn to pronounce

verb

consider (one thing) to be the same as or equivalent to another.

"customers equate their name with quality"

Similar: regard as the same as , regard as identical to , identify, liken to, compare, bracket, class, associate, connect, pair, link, relate, ally, think of together, set side by side

(of one thing) be the same as or equivalent to (another).

"that sum equates to half a million pounds today"

Similar: correspond , be equivalent , amount, equal, be the same as

cause (two or more things) to be the same in quantity or value.

"the level of prices will move to equate supply and demand"

Success on a combat check is the same as a Hit . Likewise, a hit is the same as a Success . They both mean the same thing rules-wise. "Hit" and "Success" are both used to describe successful combat checks interchangeably in the Core rule books, including within the Combat rules themselves, as I have already cited and quoted multiple times . They are equivalent . Therefore, by RAW , for an attack to physically hit a given target, you must roll at least one net Success on the Combat check. Therefore, if a Combat Check fails , to get at least one net Success, it is a miss . You fail to hit , if there are no net Successes, or there are net Failures , therefore, you miss . This is because " Hit " is not the same as, nor is it equivalent to, " Failure ". Failure does not equate to hit. Thus, a Failed attack roll cannot be considered a "hit" under any circumstances. That is implicit in the RAW, because RAW is explicit in equating Hit with Success on a Combat check. And the RAW does, in at least two passages, explicitly equate Failure on a Combat check with miss . Thus, "failure" and "miss" are equivalent; "failure" and "miss" mean the same thing , according to the rules. That is RAW .

48 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not when a target is moving . This is one thing I can agree with @Daeglan on in this debate.

No, that is not what it means. The word "or" means that these are all alternatives of what can occur and establishes a true statement when at least one of its constituents is true.

The rule for Defense does not say all of these things make an attack fail completely. It simply states that these are multiple possible outcomes , in which Defense can be granted, as well as how some of them might work to defend the target. It is saying that some of these defensive measures might stop an attack from hitting completely, some of these defensive measures might only reduce damage from an attack, some of these defensive measures might be capable of either . It is not saying all of them can do all of the above. It is saying shields, OR , armor OR other defenses can reduce damage OR possibly Defect an attack entirely. If it had said, "the capability for shields, armor, AND other Defensive measures to deflect an attack entirely..." then your interpretation of the rule would be correct. But that is not what the rule says at all. It lists multiple possible sources of defense, along with multiple possible ways in which some of them might reduce the effectiveness of an attack. It is not saying all of them will defend a target all ways.

Secondly, "Deflect" does not mean "make an attack fail". Deflect simply means "turn aside or cause to bounce off". For something to bounce off of armor, or for armor to turn aside a strike, the target must first be successfully hit . That is basic physics. Armor cannot make an attack miss . It cannot stop an attack from hitting a target. By RAW, it requires at least one net Success on a Combat Check for an attack to hit . And, yes, the RAW does explicitly equate* a hit with a Successful Combat Check. It uses the two interchangeably . Likewise, it uses Failure on a Combat Check and "miss" interchangeably . Success is equated to "hit", and Failure equated to "miss". That means at least one net Success on the die roll is needed for an attack to hit . Therefore, a net Failure on a Combat Check, or zero net Successes , is a miss . It is not a possible hit that bounced off or was reduced in damage. It does not hit the target at all. Period. It is a miss . Armor cannot make an attack miss . By contrast, Energy shields, cover, and the like can deflect an attack before it can hit the target. These items can make an attack completely miss the target. This is because all of these are separate from the target, and are interposed between the target and the attacker. Failing that, if an attack does manage to penetrate those defenses to still hit the target, those defenses can reduce the amount of net Successes that would otherwise have added to the damage done, thus reducing the damage , from the attack.

Armor is worn by a person. It is form-fitted to that person. It cannot prevent someone from being successfully hit. It can only reduce damage from a hit. This can be accomplished by "deflecting" the hit, yes; but that deflection cannot make an attack fail completely . Because, for an attack to fail completely, and thus have absolutely no effect whatsoever on the target, it must miss the target entirely . It cannot even touch the target. Armor cannot prevent an attack from hitting . And to hit , you must roll at least one net Success . Armor cannot prevent someone from being knocked down or knocked back by an attack. It cannot prevent someone from being concussed by an attack. Armor can lessen an impact, but it cannot prevent an impact from occurring in the first place. All armor can do is reduce the amount of damage sustained, potentially to zero . But it cannot prevent any of the other potential effects. Thus, in order for armor to "deflect" a hit, it must first be hit , and that means at least one net Success on the Combat Check dice.

That is the inherent problem with granting armor a Defense rating in the first place, because, mechanically , anything that potentially adds Failure symbols to an attack roll makes a target harder to hit . And that is something armor cannot do.

The only "armors" that can potentially make an attack actually miss are Robes . (this includes Heavy Robes, Temple Guard armor, Armored Robes, and a handful of other garments) And this is because, by RAW , those "armors" can all obscure vital areas of a target or even the entire silhouette . This can make a target harder to hit. This is explicitly stated as being the case with Heavy Robes.

*

Success on a combat check is the same as a Hit . Likewise, a hit is the same as a Success . They both mean the same thing rules-wise. "Hit" and "Success" are both used to describe successful combat checks interchangeably in the Core rule books, including within the Combat rules themselves, as I have already cited and quoted multiple times . They are equivalent . Therefore, by RAW , for an attack to physically hit a given target, you must roll at least one net Success on the Combat check. Therefore, if a Combat Check fails , to get at least one net Success, it is a miss . You fail to hit , if there are no net Successes, or there are net Failures , therefore, you miss . This is because " Hit " is not the same as, nor is it equivalent to, " Failure ". Failure does not equate to hit. Thus, a Failed attack roll cannot be considered a "hit" under any circumstances. That is implicit in the RAW, because RAW is explicit in equating Hit with Success on a Combat check. And the RAW does, in at least two passages, explicitly equate Failure on a Combat check with miss . Thus, "failure" and "miss" are equivalent; "failure" and "miss" mean the same thing , according to the rules. That is RAW .

You excel at beimg dishonest. Because yoh just admited plate armor can cause an attack to fail per the rules. And yet are still actingnlike we are wrong for having come to that conclusion.

What the **** are you on, dude? Don't quote the dictionary at us, man. That's childish and makes you seem immature and patronizing.

You're wrong, give it up. Stop moving goal posts and twisting words to support your position. Don't be so obtuse. RAW gives armor defense, which can give a failure, which thus means armor prevents you from getting hit, according to your own words.

You're not arguing RAW, you're arguing some weird hybrid of house rules, your personal interpretation of what you think armor is or should do, and you're so far up your own argument at this point, you've proven yourself wrong like three times.

44 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

What the **** are you on, dude? Don't quote the dictionary at us, man. That's childish and makes you seem immature and patronizing.

You're wrong, give it up. Stop moving goal posts and twisting words to support your position. Don't be so obtuse. RAW gives armor defense, which can give a failure, which thus means armor prevents you from getting hit, according to your own words.

You're not arguing RAW, you're arguing some weird hybrid of house rules, your personal interpretation of what you think armor is or should do, and you're so far up your own argument at this point, you've proven yourself wrong like three times.

Like 20 times. He does so on most pages. Then moves the goal posts when you point it out.

Im still waiting for him to explain how a suit of hard armor with 1 defense caused a single success on positive dice with every other die except the one setback with a failure on it. How did the armor cause the attack to fail?

Tramp you've earned your Mastery badge for Troll Scouts of the Internet. You can wear it proudly now. Please end this discussion since I don't have the will power to keep myself from peeping in here daily.

8 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That is RAW .

2 hours ago, penpenpen said:

I'm gonna need some more context for this.

Still waiting on the backstory for Tramp's Anodize Mando, but in the mean time, wut up with dis gif?

5 minutes ago, BrickSteelhead said:

I'm gonna need some more context for this.

Still waiting on the backstory for Tramp's Anodize Mando, but in the mean time, wut up with dis gif?

Lier lier pants on fire

Hate to sidetrack this shitshow, but how about a starfighter firing on a capital ship from the inside? Would Armor and Defense work the same way as an attack from the outside?

24 minutes ago, Edgehawk said:

Hate to sidetrack this shitshow, but how about a starfighter firing on a capital ship from the inside? Would Armor and Defense work the same way as an attack from the outside?

I would say no. a good example is Anakin in the Phantom Menace.

2 hours ago, Edgehawk said:

Hate to sidetrack this shitshow, but how about a starfighter firing on a capital ship from the inside? Would Armor and Defense work the same way as an attack from the outside?

I'd play this more narratively (as it's called by this system) and not resort to dice rolling or ship stats - it would depend on the situation but if they have reasonable means and they want to blow up a large vessel from inside with a starfighter (or freighter) I'd just say it happens (maybe a check to see how much if any damage is done to their ship when escaping).

10 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:

I'd play this more narratively (as it's called by this system) and not resort to dice rolling or ship stats - it would depend on the situation but if they have reasonable means and they want to blow up a large vessel from inside with a starfighter (or freighter) I'd just say it happens (maybe a check to see how much if any damage is done to their ship when escaping).

upgrade the check a couple times. despairs mean backlash

How about if the fighter is specifically firing outward (toward a hangar bay door or the hull)? Trying to blast its way out to escape? Would that change things?

I'd say give the specific target an Armor/HT and you have to deal that much damage to destroy it and get out (possibly with crits increasing damage rather than actually dealing a crit).