42 minutes ago, Edgehawk said:

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?

Well I would say an armored hanger door would be armored from inside. but the power reactor likely would not be...

1 hour ago, Edgehawk said:

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?

My general approach is sorta bare bones GM 101: the players wants their character to do something and I pick a skill check that fits that and go where the player decision and the dice take us. Now, some things the player wants their character to do are so easy/simple that no check is required and and some things are so unreasonable that they're impossible and so no check is required - they just fail/nothing of consequence happens. I prefer a Clone Wars/Rebels style game where the PC's "get away" doing wild stuff and pulling things off (also why I thought "This is a gaming session!" when seeing Rise of Skywalker). I might very well make skill checks hard appropriate to the challenge but they get to try (the suggestion in one of the more recent FFG books - one of Clone Wars ones - is that a high XP party should be running up against much higher difficulties and experience the requisite epic results for succeeding/failing).

Part of the trick is learning when obstacle and challenge is interesting to the story and players and when it's just annoying. GM <--> PC interaction isn't really adversarial if it's done right (in my opinion), it's collaborative (with push back from both sides to some degree) and the point is everyone has fun. I spend much more time as a GM asking myself "Ok, what's a good follow-up obstacle or consequence of this? What comes after failure or success?" than I do "Should I allow this?". I'm not trying to stymie or defeat the players, I'm trying to throw interesting and engaging (and sensible) obstacles and challenges in their way.

17 hours ago, Daeglan said:

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.

No, I am not admitting plate armor can cause an attack to fail; specifically, no armor can cause an attack to miss . Failure, on a Combat check, by RAW is a miss . Setback dice from Defense in general can cause an attack to miss, yes, b ut that's not the same thing as saying Armor can cause an attack to miss. Armor cannot cause an attack to miss. period. And Net Failures or zero Net Successes , on a Combat Check is a miss . That is the problem with granting most armors a Defense rating in the first place. By your argument that "a failure on an attack can still count as a hit" then weapon effects like Knockdown and Concussive could still be applied even if the attack roll itself failed because the rule say that those require a hit to activate. The same with Critical injuries. The rules say that it requires a hit to activate a Critical injury. Except you can't activate any of those without a Successful Combat Check. This is because a Successful Combat Check is required for an attack to hit . IF the Combat Check does not get at least one Net Success, the attack misses . And therefore, you cannot activate most Weapon qualities nor Critical injuries, all of which explicitly say that require a hit . And the rules use the word " hit " explicitly .

16 hours 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.

No, I am not wrong, and no I am not being dishonest, nor am I twisting words to support my position.

And secondly, I am not arguing some weird hybrid of house-rules. I'm arguing how armor really works and the inherent problem with most armors having a Defense rating in the first place. This is because, physically , armor cannot prevent someone from being hit . That is not how armor really works, nor how it's depicted in the canon. All armor can do is reduce or prevent damage .

Third, the argument is not whether or not, by RAW, Defense (regardless of the source of Defense) can cause an attack to " Fail ". The argument is what "Failure" on a Combat Check means by RAW . @Daeglan is arguing that a "failed attack still counts as a hit" and thus, why Armor can have a Defense rating. I am arguing that No Net Successes , or one or more net Failures , on a Combat Check means that the attack completely misses the target. That is the heart of our disagreement, not that "RAW" Defense ratings can cause a Combat check to fail . The argument is over what "failure" on a combat check means . And it is that disagreement that fuels the greater issue of how to handle Defense ratings, and Armor Defense ratings specifically .

The Rules as Written explicitly equate Success on a Combat Check as a Hit , and Failure on a Combat Check as a Miss . The RAW uses "Success" and "Hit" interchangeably , throughout the rule book, as well as "Failure" and "Miss" interchangeably . Success on a Combat Check means "Hit", Failure on a Combat Check means "Miss". The Rules as Written repeatedly use the terms " hit " and " miss " in direct reference to Success and Failure on a combat check respectively. Success equals Hit, Failure equals Miss. That is RAW. @Daeglan doesn't believe that to be the case, and is trying to use the wording of the Defense rules to support his viewpoint, and that is the heart of our argument. And the very fact that, yes, in general, Defense Ratings can cause an attack to miss , it inherently creates a problem, when it comes to armor, since, physically , armor cannot cause an attack to miss , and therefore, should not have a Defense Rating.

Like I said previously, however, the saving grace with this system is that most armors don't have a Defense rating, and that most of the ones that do, it is secondary to Soak . Not only that, but I understand the reason why the devs gave those armors a Defense rating. The developers' reasons for giving them Defense ratings was not to make the target harder to hit. It was to keep Soak values for characters lower in order to make combats run faster. It was a game balance reason. That I can accept. That I don't have a problem with.

Form-fitting Armor, such as plate armor, or a Bullet Proof vest cannot prevent an attack from hitting ; it's physically impossible . Armor only works after you have been hit. Heavy Robes, and they like, which are very loose fitting, and flow around the body, obscuring it ; those types of garments can potentially make a target harder to hit . Plate armor cannot physically do that.

Therefore, any Failure symbols on the Setback dice from armor Defense ratings from form-fitting armors only make narrative sense as " deflecting " the damage, or otherwise reducing the damage from an attack, if and only if the attack roll itself results in at least one net Success. If the attack roll itself rolls no net Successes, or rolls one or more net Failures, the attack misses entirely , and, narratively , that cannot be attributed to form-fitting armors, such as plate armor. It can narratively be attributed to loose robes . And the RAW does attribute the possibility for loose robes, such as Heavy Robes, to cause an attack to miss .

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

No, I am not admitting plate armor can cause an attack to fail; specifically, no armor can cause an attack to miss . Failure, on a Combat check, by RAW is a miss . Setback dice from Defense in general can cause an attack to miss, yes, b ut that's not the same thing as saying Armor can cause an attack to miss. Armor cannot cause an attack to miss. period. And Net Failures or zero Net Successes , on a Combat Check is a miss . That is the problem with granting most armors a Defense rating in the first place. By your argument that "a failure on an attack can still count as a hit" then weapon effects like Knockdown and Concussive could still be applied even if the attack roll itself failed because the rule say that those require a hit to activate. The same with Critical injuries. The rules say that it requires a hit to activate a Critical injury. Except you can't activate any of those without a Successful Combat Check. This is because a Successful Combat Check is required for an attack to hit . IF the Combat Check does not get at least one Net Success, the attack misses . And therefore, you cannot activate most Weapon qualities nor Critical injuries, all of which explicitly say that require a hit . And the rules use the word " hit " explicitly .

No, I am not wrong, and no I am not being dishonest, nor am I twisting words to support my position.

And secondly, I am not arguing some weird hybrid of house-rules. I'm arguing how armor really works and the inherent problem with most armors having a Defense rating in the first place. This is because, physically , armor cannot prevent someone from being hit . That is not how armor really works, nor how it's depicted in the canon. All armor can do is reduce or prevent damage .

Third, the argument is not whether or not, by RAW, Defense (regardless of the source of Defense) can cause an attack to " Fail ". The argument is what "Failure" on a Combat Check means by RAW . @Daeglan is arguing that a "failed attack still counts as a hit" and thus, why Armor can have a Defense rating. I am arguing that No Net Successes , or one or more net Failures , on a Combat Check means that the attack completely misses the target. That is the heart of our disagreement, not that "RAW" Defense ratings can cause a Combat check to fail . The argument is over what "failure" on a combat check means . And it is that disagreement that fuels the greater issue of how to handle Defense ratings, and Armor Defense ratings specifically .

The Rules as Written explicitly equate Success on a Combat Check as a Hit , and Failure on a Combat Check as a Miss . The RAW uses "Success" and "Hit" interchangeably , throughout the rule book, as well as "Failure" and "Miss" interchangeably . Success on a Combat Check means "Hit", Failure on a Combat Check means "Miss". The Rules as Written repeatedly use the terms " hit " and " miss " in direct reference to Success and Failure on a combat check respectively. Success equals Hit, Failure equals Miss. That is RAW. @Daeglan doesn't believe that to be the case, and is trying to use the wording of the Defense rules to support his viewpoint, and that is the heart of our argument. And the very fact that, yes, in general, Defense Ratings can cause an attack to miss , it inherently creates a problem, when it comes to armor, since, physically , armor cannot cause an attack to miss , and therefore, should not have a Defense Rating.

Like I said previously, however, the saving grace with this system is that most armors don't have a Defense rating, and that most of the ones that do, it is secondary to Soak . Not only that, but I understand the reason why the devs gave those armors a Defense rating. The developers' reasons for giving them Defense ratings was not to make the target harder to hit. It was to keep Soak values for characters lower in order to make combats run faster. It was a game balance reason. That I can accept. That I don't have a problem with.

Form-fitting Armor, such as plate armor, or a Bullet Proof vest cannot prevent an attack from hitting ; it's physically impossible . Armor only works after you have been hit. Heavy Robes, and they like, which are very loose fitting, and flow around the body, obscuring it ; those types of garments can potentially make a target harder to hit . Plate armor cannot physically do that.

Therefore, any Failure symbols on the Setback dice from armor Defense ratings from form-fitting armors only make narrative sense as " deflecting " the damage, or otherwise reducing the damage from an attack, if and only if the attack roll itself results in at least one net Success. If the attack roll itself rolls no net Successes, or rolls one or more net Failures, the attack misses entirely , and, narratively , that cannot be attributed to form-fitting armors, such as plate armor. It can narratively be attributed to loose robes . And the RAW does attribute the possibility for loose robes, such as Heavy Robes, to cause an attack to miss .

except for you argument for how armor actually works is completely wrong. Says people who have done significat actual fighting in armor beyond being an archer. And I am going to point out again I just delete every word you bold. So yeah you just said gibberish. The fact you cant grasp that armor uses multiple methods to reduce damage and those moultiple methods are actually considered in the game unlike how you consider armor where you think it only mitigates damage in one way. Which is patently wrong. says actual physic, the rules, and people who actually have done a fair bit of fighting in it.

As to your hang up on hit and miss. Yes the rules do equate success with hitting. but they do not equate failure with missing. YOu keep ignoring significant sections of the rules because they disagree with you. The fact you have this hang up does not change the fact that the rules say this. I dont believe your claims because the rules actually say otherwise. I suggest you go reread the narrating dice results section about a dozen times till you get it through your head a failure does not necessarily mean the attack did not in fact touch the target. It just means the attack did not contact in a manner that is able to transfer any energy to the target.

And at this point you are doubling down on refusing to actually learn how the rules work.

And again FAILURE DOES NOT MEAN THE ATTACK DID NOT TOUCH THE TARGET. It just means the attack was not successful.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

except for you argument for how armor actually works is completely wrong. Says people who have done significat actual fighting in armor beyond being an archer. And I am going to point out again I just delete every word you bold. So yeah you just said gibberish. The fact you cant grasp that armor uses multiple methods to reduce damage and those moultiple methods are actually considered in the game unlike how you consider armor where you think it only mitigates damage in one way. Which is patently wrong. says actual physic, the rules, and people who actually have done a fair bit of fighting in it.

As to your hang up on hit and miss. Yes the rules do equate success with hitting. but they do not equate failure with missing. YOu keep ignoring significant sections of the rules because they disagree with you. The fact you have this hang up does not change the fact that the rules say this. I dont believe your claims because the rules actually say otherwise. I suggest you go reread the narrating dice results section about a dozen times till you get it through your head a failure does not necessarily mean the attack did not in fact touch the target. It just means the attack did not contact in a manner that is able to transfer any energy to the target.

And at this point you are doubling down on refusing to actually learn how the rules work.

And again FAILURE DOES NOT MEAN THE ATTACK DID NOT TOUCH THE TARGET. It just means the attack was not successful.

No, it isn't wrong. Armor only works once it has been physically struck . It cannot turn aside an attack that doesn't hit it. It cannot absorb damage from an attack that doesn't hit it. That is the problem with your interpretation of how armor really works. Armor does not prevent someone form being hit. It only mitigates damage . It does that through absorption or through deflection. But in either case, the target must first be physically struck . \

Secondly, The rules do explicitly establish that a net Success is required for an attack to hit . and it uses the word Hit explicitly. It explicitly equates "Success" with "hit" and Failure" with "miss" and explicitly uses " Miss " in regards to Failures on an attack roll. So, I am not "hung up" on the terms "hit" and "miss". The Rules As Written explicitly use those terms to refer to Successes and Failures respectively. A Success on a Combat check is always a hit , Failure on a Combat check is always a miss . The terms Success and Hit are equivalent , they mean the same thing . Failure and Miss are equivalent , they mean the same thing . Otherwise Critical Injuries and Weapon Qualities, such as Knock Down and Concussive, could be applied on Failed Combat Checks, since the rules explicitly state that those qualities can only be activated on a hit . And the rules use that term specifically . I've cited that many times in this discussion, and you've chosen to disregard it. So yes, a Failure on a Combat check does mean that an attack fails to even touch a target. A failure on a Combat Check is a miss, by RAW . That means the attack does not make contact . That is what a miss means. It passes by, or is stopped before it can reach its target, with no contact nor affect. That is what it means for an attack to miss . And failure on a Combat Check is a miss by RAW .

again stop assuming failure mean the attack did not touch the target. And stop talking about success. It is not relevant and there is no disagreement there. so stop wasting everyones time talking about it. The rules clearly state that a failure can be a deflection. a deflection touches the target. that is how you get a deflection. Stop ignoring the rules just so you can be right. the rules clearly state defense can be by a deflection. So no a failure by RAW is not necessarily a miss.

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

again stop assuming failure mean the attack did not touch the target. And stop talking about success. It is not relevant and there is no disagreement there. so stop wasting everyones time talking about it. The rules clearly state that a failure can be a deflection. a deflection touches the target. that is how you get a deflection. Stop ignoring the rules just so you can be right. the rules clearly state defense can be by a deflection. So no a failure by RAW is not necessarily a miss.

Yes, It does mean that the attack does not touch the target. That's what it means to miss . That is not an "assumption". That is what it means to miss . The Rules as written explicitly refer to failures on a combat check as a miss, not as a graze, not as a barely touch, not as a bump, nor deflection. The rules call a failed attack a miss . Therefore, there is no contact at all if the attack roll fails.

A miss means there is no contact . A miss means there is no effect . A miss means no hit . Not as an attack hitting in any way . I'm not ignoring rules. You are . The rules explicitly call a Failed attack a miss . That is RAW . Yet you refuse to acknowledge that. Energy shields can deflect an attack without the intended target ever being hit . Cover can deflect an attack without the target ever being hit . Both of these defenses can cause an attack to completely miss its target. That is how a Deflected attack can miss a target. Armor can only deflect an attack if, and only if , the attack actually hits . That is basic physics . Therefore, narratively , if the attack roll as a whole fails to get at least one net Success, then the attack completely misses and does not touch the target at all, regardless of the source of those failures. That is the inherent problem with most Armors that have a Defense rating. The " mechanics " and " Narrative " are at odds . That creates cognitive dissonance and is the very reason why this thread started. Because, realistically, and within the canon , only a few specific garments can actually make someone harder to hit , and those are robes . Plate armor cannot make someone harder to hit . Armored clothing cannot make someone harder to hit . Mandalorian armor cannot make someone harder to hit . It is a physical impossibility .

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, It does mean that the attack does not touch the target. That's what it means to miss . That is not an "assumption". That is what it means to miss . The Rules as written explicitly refer to failures on a combat check as a miss, not as a graze, not as a barely touch, not as a bump, nor deflection. The rules call a failed attack a miss . Therefore, there is no contact at all if the attack roll fails.

A miss means there is no contact . A miss means there is no effect . A miss means no hit . Not as an attack hitting in any way . I'm not ignoring rules. You are . The rules explicitly call a Failed attack a miss . That is RAW . Yet you refuse to acknowledge that. Energy shields can deflect an attack without the intended target ever being hit . Cover can deflect an attack without the target ever being hit . Both of these defenses can cause an attack to completely miss its target. That is how a Deflected attack can miss a target. Armor can only deflect an attack if, and only if , the attack actually hits . That is basic physics . Therefore, narratively , if the attack roll as a whole fails to get at least one net Success, then the attack completely misses and does not touch the target at all, regardless of the source of those failures. That is the inherent problem with most Armors that have a Defense rating. The " mechanics " and " Narrative " are at odds . That creates cognitive dissonance and is the very reason why this thread started. Because, realistically, and within the canon , only a few specific garments can actually make someone harder to hit , and those are robes . Plate armor cannot make someone harder to hit . Armored clothing cannot make someone harder to hit . Mandalorian armor cannot make someone harder to hit . It is a physical impossibility .

the rules dont actually say that. you are equating a shorthand to mean more than it does.

Just now, Daeglan said:

the rules dont actually say that. you are equating a shorthand to mean more than it does.

It's not simply a shorthand. That's part of the problem. That "shorthand" as you put it has very explicit and wide ranging implications. It effects every aspect of the combat rules, as well as multiple talents , and weapon qualities , as well as Critical injuries . The guided quality only works if the initial attack never even touches its intended target on the first attempt. It requires a miss. The Blast quality requires three Advantages to activate if the attack misses its intended target; if the grenade does not make contact . An attack cannot activate other weapon qualities, such as Knockdown, Concussive, etc, nor can an attack inflict a Critical injury if it misses the target, if it does not even touch the target. The word "miss" is explicitly chosen, not "failed combat check". These qualities can only be activated if the attack hits . By your way of thinking, those qualities should all be able to be activated on a failed combat check if that failure was only the result of the armor. Except that is not what the rules allow. This is because the rules explicitly establish that a failed combat check is a miss , not a "graze" nor any other form of contact. The Defense rule itself does not even say that a "deflected" attack is a miss. All the Defense rule states is that various defensive measures can cause an attack to be deflected or otherwise reduce damage. Yes, mechanically , that may mean the Setback dice can cause a failed combat check, which narratively means the attack misses completely. But, more accurately, particularly in the case of most body armor with Defense ratings, those Setback dice normally only cancel out extra Successes which would otherwise be applied to damage . That is what the Defense ratings on armor are primarily intended to do, not make the attack miss . Making an attack miss is what cover , energy shields , defensive weapons , or the like are for. The only armor which the rules explicitly state may make it harder to hit the wearer is robes , specifically the Heavy Robes from Rise of the Separatists . This is because they specifically say:

Quote

These robes are little more than layers of reinforced fabrics, largely incapable of stopping incoming attacks, but the voluminous profile they provide can offer limited protection by obscuring vital areas or even a Jedi's general silhouette.

That is why Heavy Robes grant Defense instead of Soak . Jedi Temple Guard armor, and Armored Robes also create a voluminous profile which can obscure vital areas or the general silhouette of an individual, and therefore may make an individual harder to hit. Mandalorian armor, Laminate armor, Powered armor, armored clothing, et all, do not do this. They cannot make a target harder to hit . Therefore, while mechanically the defense ratings provided by those armors do go towards the total number of potential Failure symbols, and thus, increase the likelihood of a miss on the die roll, that does not mean that narratively , the attack still potentially makes contact if the attack roll itself ends up missing. No matter what the source of the failures, if the attack roll fails to hit on the Combat check, meaning there are no net Successes on the roll, or there are net failures on the roll, there is no contact at all . It is a miss . There is no contact, no effect, nothing . The attack completely misses its target. That is RAW .

Quote

PERFORM A COMBAT CHECK
page 204, EotE

A player makes a combat check when he uses a combat skill to attack a target. This is also referred to as an attack.

No reference to a "hit" on a net success. No reference to "completely misses" or "no contact at all" on a net failure.

Quote

PERFORM A COMBAT CHECK > STEP 4 POOL RESULTS AND DEAL DAMAGE
page 205, EotE

Once the player rolls the dice pool for his character, he evaluates the results. As with any skill check, the check must generate more (Success) than (Failure) to be successful. When making a combat check, if the check is successful each uncanceled (Success) adds +1 damage to a successful attack.

Again no reference to a "hit", only "successful" and whether damage is applied or not. In other places I give that "hit" is sometimes mentioned, but these are the specific rules above. Since D&D launched RPG's, "hit" has been synonymous with "successful attack". You would have to check the rules of the specific system for what "hit" actually means. Those are above. It means a successful combat check that causes damage. You of course may use the term "miss" also like most of us do. But, mechanically in THIS game system, the actual rule is whether the target took damage or not. Change the term if you like, or house rule the system if you like. But, as written hit or miss in this system means successfully damaged the target or not.

Quote

DEFENSE
page 206, EotE

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

The rules as written include defense for hardened armors, not just obscuring robes. Defense as written above actually includes that it deflects or absorbs a "blow" (hit if you must). So yes, as written, some attacks against hardened armors with defense means the blow "hit", but did not have any actual in-game result on the target since it was absorbed or reflected away.

Anyone may of course take issue with the rules and make their own. But you can't argue that the rules for this system are pretty clear. Change them if you want if you don't like it. But, it's unfair to tell others they are wrong (while quoting rules as written) if they wish to keep the defense and call it the deflective nature of the armor. That is obviously the intention of the authors of this system whether you like it or not. Argue all day if you wish (all month? all season?) that you don't like the authors' decisions, but its dishonest to say defense was not meant to mimic the deflecting or absorbing nature of some hardened armors in this system. It's there in their own words.

23 minutes ago, Sturn said:

No reference to a "hit" on a net success. No reference to "completely misses" or "no contact at all" on a net failure.

Again no reference to a "hit", only "successful" and whether damage is applied or not. In other places I give that "hit" is sometimes mentioned, but these are the specific rules above. Since D&D launched RPG's, "hit" has been synonymous with "successful attack". You would have to check the rules of the specific system for what "hit" actually means. Those are above. It means a successful combat check that causes damage. You of course may use the term "miss" also like most of us do. But, mechanically in THIS game system, the actual rule is whether the target took damage or not. Change the term if you like, or house rule the system if you like. But, as written hit or miss in this system means successfully damaged the target or not.

The rules as written include defense for hardened armors, not just obscuring robes. Defense as written above actually includes that it deflects or absorbs a "blow" (hit if you must). So yes, as written, some attacks against hardened armors with defense means the blow "hit", but did not have any actual in-game result on the target since it was absorbed or reflected away.

Anyone may of course take issue with the rules and make their own. But you can't argue that the rules for this system are pretty clear. Change them if you want if you don't like it. But, it's unfair to tell others they are wrong (while quoting rules as written) if they wish to keep the defense and call it the deflective nature of the armor. That is obviously the intention of the authors of this system whether you like it or not. Argue all day if you wish (all month? all season?) that you don't like the authors' decisions, but its dishonest to say defense was not meant to mimic the deflecting or absorbing nature of some hardened armors in this system. It's there in their own words.

Yes, there is. The rules explicitly use the terms "Hit" interchangeably with Success on a combat check. Sections 4 (Resolve Advantages and Triumph*s), and 6 (Reduce Damage and apply to Wound Threshold, and Apply Critical Injuries**) of Perform a Combat Check explicitly refer to Successes on a combat check as a hit . Therefore, Success and Hit means the same thing. They are interchangeable . They are equivalent . They are synonymous, even in this system. Likewise, the rules explicitly refer to Failure on a Combat Check as a Miss. And do so multiple times, most notably in the aforementioned Guided and Blast Weapon qualities, both of which are the only weapon qualities which can specifically be activated on a miss . And the rules explicitly use the term "miss" here, not "failed Combat Check". So no, a Failed attack can never "hit" a Hit is a Successful Combat check only . A failed Combat check, a Combat check with no Net Successes, or one with Net Failures, is a miss . That is RAW .

*

Quote

Just as they can be spent in a non-combat skill check,
Advantage and Triumph can be spent in a combat check to gain incidental beneficial effects. However, just as the rules governing encounters are somewhat more regimented than the rules governing narrative gameplay, so some of the options governing the spending of Advantage and are more clearly defined. In encounters, the player controlling the active character determines how his character spends Advantage and Triumph, unless the GM has a specific reason to decide for him instead. The first and foremost way to spend Advantage and in an attack is to activate a Critical Injury or active weapon quality. As described on page 171 and page 230, each weapon has a critical rating that consists of a numeric value. The user can spend that
many Advantages to inflict one Critical Injury on the target, in addition to regular effects and damage. Remember, a Critical Injury can only be triggered upon a successful hit that deals damage that exceeds the target's soak value. For
more information on Critical Injuries, see page 230. Weapon qualities are special effects and abilities that apply only when a character is using that particular weapon—the vicious edge of a vibroblade, say, or the auto-fire capability of a heavy blaster rifle. Weapon Qualities come in two forms: active and passive. Active qualities require the user to spend a certain number of Advantages to trigger them. Generally this is two Advantages, although some qualities may require more or fewer. Passive qualities always grant their effect. Some qualities may inflict effects on a target that, unless specified otherwise, are always applied in addition to other effects, Critical Injuries, and damage.
In addition to always counting as an additional Successes,
Triumphs can be spent to activate weapon qualities as well. A Triumph may be spent to inflict one Critical Injury (no matter what the critical rating of the weapon is). In addition, a Triumph may be spent to activate one weapon quality, no matter how many Advantages it would normally take to do so.
However, there are other options for spending Advantages and Triumphs as well. A list of the most common can be found on Table 6-2: Spending O and ($) in Combat on page
219. Keep in mind that these are not intended to be the
only options available. As always, players and GMs may
invent other ways to spend Advantages and Triumphs, depending on the specific circumstances of the encounter. Any option that the players and GM agree upon can be viable.

**

Quote

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

The rules explicitly equate Successful Attack as a hit . and a Failed attack as a miss .

42 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It's not simply a shorthand. That's part of the problem. That "shorthand" as you put it has very explicit and wide ranging implications. It effects every aspect of the combat rules, as well as multiple talents , and weapon qualities , as well as Critical injuries . The guided quality only works if the initial attack never even touches its intended target on the first attempt. It requires a miss. The Blast quality requires three Advantages to activate if the attack misses its intended target; if the grenade does not make contact . An attack cannot activate other weapon qualities, such as Knockdown, Concussive, etc, nor can an attack inflict a Critical injury if it misses the target, if it does not even touch the target. The word "miss" is explicitly chosen, not "failed combat check". These qualities can only be activated if the attack hits . By your way of thinking, those qualities should all be able to be activated on a failed combat check if that failure was only the result of the armor. Except that is not what the rules allow. This is because the rules explicitly establish that a failed combat check is a miss , not a "graze" nor any other form of contact. The Defense rule itself does not even say that a "deflected" attack is a miss. All the Defense rule states is that various defensive measures can cause an attack to be deflected or otherwise reduce damage. Yes, mechanically , that may mean the Setback dice can cause a failed combat check, which narratively means the attack misses completely. But, more accurately, particularly in the case of most body armor with Defense ratings, those Setback dice normally only cancel out extra Successes which would otherwise be applied to damage . That is what the Defense ratings on armor are primarily intended to do, not make the attack miss . Making an attack miss is what cover , energy shields , defensive weapons , or the like are for. The only armor which the rules explicitly state may make it harder to hit the wearer is robes , specifically the Heavy Robes from Rise of the Separatists . This is because they specifically say:

That is why Heavy Robes grant Defense instead of Soak . Jedi Temple Guard armor, and Armored Robes also create a voluminous profile which can obscure vital areas or the general silhouette of an individual, and therefore may make an individual harder to hit. Mandalorian armor, Laminate armor, Powered armor, armored clothing, et all, do not do this. They cannot make a target harder to hit . Therefore, while mechanically the defense ratings provided by those armors do go towards the total number of potential Failure symbols, and thus, increase the likelihood of a miss on the die roll, that does not mean that narratively , the attack still potentially makes contact if the attack roll itself ends up missing. No matter what the source of the failures, if the attack roll fails to hit on the Combat check, meaning there are no net Successes on the roll, or there are net failures on the roll, there is no contact at all . It is a miss . There is no contact, no effect, nothing . The attack completely misses its target. That is RAW .

actually a misslile that is deflected off the armor of a vehicle could use the guided quality.

Armored clothing has defense and is not necessarily voluminous. there is an attachment in ciphers and masks that is basically plates you add to armor and it gives you defense. It is almost like the devs do not actually agree with your assessment.

Quote

Yes, mechanically , that may mean the Setback dice can cause a failed combat check, which narratively means the attack misses completely. But, more accurately, particularly in the case of most body armor with Defense ratings, those Setback dice normally only cancel out extra Successes which would otherwise be applied to damage .

That line is really kind of dishonest. you sure do go through a lot of effort to try and claim something the devs would tell you is wrong is right....

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, there is. The rules explicitly use the terms Hit interchangeably with Success on a combat check. Sections 4 (Resolve Advantages and Triumphs), and 6 (Reduce Damage and apply to Wound Threshold, and Apply Critical Injuries) of Perform a Combat Check explicitly refer to Successes on a combat check as a hit . Therefore, Success and Hit means the same thing. They are interchangeable . They are equivalent . They are synonymous, even in this system. Likewise, the rules explicitly refer to Failure on a Combat Check as a Miss. And do so multiple times, most notably in the aforementioned Guided and Blast Weapon qualities, both of which are the only weapon qualities which can specifically be activated on a miss . And the rules explicitly use the term "miss" here, not "failed Combat Check". So no, a Failed attack can never "hit" a Hit is a Successful Combat check only . A failed Combat check, a Combat check with no Net Successes, or one with Net Failures, is a miss . That is RAW .

And yet per the RAW as noted by Sturm you are wrong. Because defense explicitly says otherwise. You dont get to selectively edit the rules so you are right. RAW means all of the rules. not just the part you like. you can house rule to ignore sections of the rules. but that is a house rule.

23 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

actually a misslile that is deflected off the armor of a vehicle could use the guided quality.

Armored clothing has defense and is not necessarily voluminous. there is an attachment in ciphers and masks that is basically plates you add to armor and it gives you defense. It is almost like the devs do not actually agree with your assessment.

That line is really kind of dishonest. you sure do go through a lot of effort to try and claim something the devs would tell you is wrong is right....

No. The Guided Quality explicitly states:

Quote

Certain types of projectiles, such as guided missiles, may benefit from course alterations after being fired. If a character misses while firing a Guided weapon and if Guided is activated, he may make an attack check at the end of the round. The difficulty of the check is calculated by comparing the weapon's silhouette of 0 to the silhouette of the target (see page 249), and the check's Ability Dice equal the weapon's Guided rating. If the test is successful, the weapon strikes the target, and damage is dealt normally. Guided requires Three Advantages to activate, unless otherwise specified in the weapon's description. Remember, the Guided effect can activate on its subsequent attacks, representing the projectile continuing to track the target. "Spoofing" is a countermeasure designed to work against a particular type of projectile, such as flares designed to draw off infrared missiles. Spoofing directly increases the defense of the target against attacks with the Guided quality.

Note the phrase key phrase there. "If a character MISSES while firing a Guided weapon. The writer explicitly uses the term misses , not fails the combat check. So, no, the attack can't be "deflected" in the literal sense. Guided can only be activated if the attack misses . Blast says the same thing:

Quote

The weapon has a large spread, an explosive blast, or similar area of effect, like the detonation of a grenade or a warhead fired from a missile launcher. If the attack is successful and Blast activates, each character (friend or foe) engaged with the original target suffers damage equal to the weapon's Blast rating (plus an additional wound per & as usual).
In a relatively small and enclosed area, the Game Master might decide that everyone in the room suffers damage. If the Blast quality doesn't activate, the ordnance still detonates, but bad luck or poor aim on the part of the firer (or quick reactions on the part of the victims) means the explosion may not catch anyone else in its radius. However, the user may also trigger Blast if the attack misses by spending Three Advantages. In this case, the original
target and every target engaged with the original target suffers damage equal to the Blast rating of the weapon.

Once again, the writer explicitly uses the term " misses ", not "fails", in reference to a failed combat check. The game repeatedly uses " hit " or " hits " in reference strictly to Successful Combat Checks, and " miss " or " misses " strictly when referring to Failed Combat checks. That is right there in the RAW . A Successful Combat check is always a hit and a failed Combat check is always a complete miss . A failed Combat check can never hit .

20 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And yet per the RAW as noted by Sturm you are wrong. Because defense explicitly says otherwise. You dont get to selectively edit the rules so you are right. RAW means all of the rules. not just the part you like. you can house rule to ignore sections of the rules. but that is a house rule.

No, it doesn't. All Defense says is that certain things can deflect damage or reduce damage from them. It technically does not say that it can make an attack miss . "Technically", it does not say it can make an attack fail . In fact, the Defense Armor characteristic on page 183 of the AoR CRB and page 178 of the F&D CRB, is slightly different than what the main Defense rule states in the Combat Section. The Defense Armor Characteristic says:

Quote

The armor's defense adds Setback equal to the defense rating directly to the attacker's dice pool. This reflects
the armor's ability to deflect damage away from the wearer's body.

Note the key phrase there. Armor Defense "reflects armor's ability to deflect damage" , not "prevent a hit". So, technically , by RAW, Armor does not make an attack fail, nor is it intended to.

Now, Mechanically , yes, the outcome of the die roll resulting from the addition of any source of Setback Dice may result in an attack missing, but the actual rule does not say that "certain blows actually hit even if the total result of the roll was a failure" because of Defense. It says no such thing . And, in fact, the Defense Armor Characteristic explicitly says that all armor does is reduce or deflect damage , not make an attack fail. The rules as a whole explicitly equate a failed attack as a miss and Success as a hit . You can only hit with a Combat check that rolls at least one net Success . Period, a Failed attack misses entirely , regardless of the total sources of the Failure symbols. If the total result of the combat check is no net successes or one or more net Failures, the attack misses entirely. That is RAW. Also, armor, by RAW , is not intended to prevent an attack from hitting, though, mechanically , that is a possibility with Setback Dice. All armor Defense is intended to do is deflect or reduce the damage from an attack. It is not intended to make the attack itself fail to hit . It is not intended to make the attack miss .

Buddy, deflecting the damage is making an attack fail - because failure means not doing damage.

7 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Buddy, deflecting the damage is making an attack fail - because failure means not doing damage.

No, it isn't. Failure on a Combat Check means the attack misses entirely . It means that an attack cannot affect a target at all. That means no Weapon Qualities , no Critical Injuries , nothing , no contact, no effect whatsoever. It does not mean "hitting but not doing damage." Failure on a Combat Check means the attack completely misses .

The damage from an attack can be deflected while the target of that attack can be knocked down, or back with the Knockdown quality. The damage from an attack can be deflected while the target can still get concussed , or dazed , etc. So, no, deflecting damage is not making an attack fail . Deflecting damage means just that, it is preventing damage from an attack from wounding the target. That is all it means. It does not mean that it is "making an attack fail". It is not making an attack miss . That is not the intent of the Defense Armor Characteristic. The purpose of the Defense Armor Characteristic is to basically add another layer of Soak, while still keeping the actual Soak values low . That is the intended purpose of the Defense Armor Characteristic. This has been stated by the Developers themselves .

42 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it isn't. Failure on a Combat Check means the attack misses entirely .

You know what? Since you're so dead certain on the intent of writers, why don't you shoot off an honestly worded question to the devs to prove us all wrong. I've seen Sam Stewart answer crazier stuff.

14 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

You know what? Since you're so dead certain on the intent of writers, why don't you shoot off an honestly worded question to the devs to prove us all wrong. I've seen Sam Stewart answer crazier stuff.

Because then he would find out he is wrong. Cant risk that....

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. The Guided Quality explicitly states:

Note the phrase key phrase there. "If a character MISSES while firing a Guided weapon. The writer explicitly uses the term misses , not fails the combat check. So, no, the attack can't be "deflected" in the literal sense. Guided can only be activated if the attack misses . Blast says the same thing:

Once again, the writer explicitly uses the term " misses ", not "fails", in reference to a failed combat check. The game repeatedly uses " hit " or " hits " in reference strictly to Successful Combat Checks, and " miss " or " misses " strictly when referring to Failed Combat checks. That is right there in the RAW . A Successful Combat check is always a hit and a failed Combat check is always a complete miss . A failed Combat check can never hit .

No, it doesn't. All Defense says is that certain things can deflect damage or reduce damage from them. It technically does not say that it can make an attack miss . "Technically", it does not say it can make an attack fail . In fact, the Defense Armor characteristic on page 183 of the AoR CRB and page 178 of the F&D CRB, is slightly different than what the main Defense rule states in the Combat Section. The Defense Armor Characteristic says:

Note the key phrase there. Armor Defense "reflects armor's ability to deflect damage" , not "prevent a hit". So, technically , by RAW, Armor does not make an attack fail, nor is it intended to.

Now, Mechanically , yes, the outcome of the die roll resulting from the addition of any source of Setback Dice may result in an attack missing, but the actual rule does not say that "certain blows actually hit even if the total result of the roll was a failure" because of Defense. It says no such thing . And, in fact, the Defense Armor Characteristic explicitly says that all armor does is reduce or deflect damage , not make an attack fail. The rules as a whole explicitly equate a failed attack as a miss and Success as a hit . You can only hit with a Combat check that rolls at least one net Success . Period, a Failed attack misses entirely , regardless of the total sources of the Failure symbols. If the total result of the combat check is no net successes or one or more net Failures, the attack misses entirely. That is RAW. Also, armor, by RAW , is not intended to prevent an attack from hitting, though, mechanically , that is a possibility with Setback Dice. All armor Defense is intended to do is deflect or reduce the damage from an attack. It is not intended to make the attack itself fail to hit . It is not intended to make the attack miss .

You know we have pointed out multiple places where it is ckear miss does not mean did not touch the targer. Now go ask the question to the devs if you are sure.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The rules explicitly equate Successful Attack as a hit . and a Failed attack as a miss .

Show me in the rules of this system, not a dictionary quote, the definition of a "hit". Page number and book please where it actually says, "a hit is...…".

I showed you the definition of a combat check from the rules*. It didn't use the word hit once although I completely agree in common gaming terms you can call a successful attack a "hit". I spoke of the references to "hit" you are speaking of. You failed to reference that in your reply for some reason. If you missed it, "hit" is just generic terminology in place of saying "success at a combat check" repeatedly. It's easier to say, "you hit" then "you successfully affected the target". Everyone should know what a hit means after learning the rules of this system.

Are you denying that "hit" is not a generic term in RPG's through the years that may mean, many, many different things depending on the system you are playing? In all of them "hit" or "miss" means the target was affected somehow or not. For how they were affected, you would have to check each system.

Nowhere in this system is there a statement that says something like, "a miss is a failed attack with the added caveat that this must mean the silhouette of the target was not struck and you are not allowed to explain, even in this narrative system, that the target was struck but the blow was deflected without affect......please ignore the description of armor defense we didn't really mean it". That's nowhere in there.

*Edit: Before you reply, what I'm referring to is the actual description of a combat check, as in a check for a success or failure on an attack roll. Yes I know the word "hit" is used in short hand elsewhere when applying criticals, etc.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, there is. The rules explicitly use the terms "Hit" interchangeably with Success on a combat check. Sections 4 (Resolve Advantages and Triumph*s), and 6 (Reduce Damage and apply to Wound Threshold, and Apply Critical Injuries**) of Perform a Combat Check explicitly refer to Successes on a combat check as a hit .

You are answering something I didn't actually say.

Read what I'm saying again. I'm not claiming the word "hit" is never used. I actually said that "hit" is used in the post you are referencing to. What I'm pointing to is "a hit, you struck the target's silhouette" is not in the actual definition of a successful attack. When you do "hit", it explains that you aren't just saying you struck the target a blow, but you struck the target a blow THAT CAUSED DAMAGE. That is what I'm pointing out. I'm not denying the word "hit" is there. What I'm trying to point out is what a "hit" actually means in THIS system. For that, you have to see step 4.

1 hour ago, Sturn said:

You are answering something I didn't actually say.

Read what I'm saying again. I'm not claiming the word "hit" is never used. I actually said that "hit" is used in the post you are referencing to. What I'm pointing to is "a hit, you struck the target's silhouette" is not in the actual definition of a successful attack. When you do "hit", it explains that you aren't just saying you struck the target a blow, but you struck the target a blow THAT CAUSED DAMAGE. That is what I'm pointing out. I'm not denying the word "hit" is there. What I'm trying to point out is what a "hit" actually means in THIS system. For that, you have to see step 4.

This is a great point.
Tramp has insisted (his word) on being as literal as possible with his definitions - purposely ignoring common vernacular usage (he also uses a particular kind of literal meaning that’s rarely employed and certainly not in this games usage).
His real complaint is that armor doesn’t work as he prefers (as it really is, he’ll correct me) and that just having defense add to Soak instead (as the OP offered) is a fine solution. But he seems determined to convince others that he’s correct about everything for some reason, even though he got what he wanted out of this thread dozens of pages ago.
For whatever reason he can’t say “I think armor works better as all Soak” and leave it at that.

6 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

This is a great point.
Tramp has insisted (his word) on being as literal as possible with his definitions - purposely ignoring common vernacular usage (he also uses a particular kind of literal meaning that’s rarely employed and certainly not in this games usage).
His real complaint is that armor doesn’t work as he prefers (as it really is, he’ll correct me) and that just having defense add to Soak instead (as the OP offered) is a fine solution. But he seems determined to convince others that he’s correct about everything for some reason, even though he got what he wanted out of this thread dozens of pages ago.
For whatever reason he can’t say “I think armor works better as all Soak” and leave it at that.

I think the sticking point is that he's been pissed about it since AD&D so he has to admit to getting it wrong for 30+ years...

Not that he'd admit to being wrong two seconds ago.

11 hours ago, StarkJunior said:

Buddy, deflecting the damage is making an attack fail - because failure means not doing damage.

No failure means not hitting the target.

Since the beginning of this thread some people seems to be unable to understand that a successful attack doesn't equal with doing damages but it equals with the possibility to inflict damages. Because of soak and / or talent like Parry / Reflect that can negate all damages done by the weapon.

That's why making deflecting hit part of Defence doesn't make sense and contradicts how the rules work for damaging a target.

1 hour ago, WolfRider said:

No failure means not hitting the target.

Since the beginning of this thread some people seems to be unable to understand that a successful attack doesn't equal with doing damages but it equals with the possibility to inflict damages. Because of soak and / or talent like Parry / Reflect that can negate all damages done by the weapon.

That's why making deflecting hit part of Defence doesn't make sense and contradicts how the rules work for damaging a target.

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

Defense rating doesn't necessarily means you miss, it can mean the blow was lessened, absorbed or deflected entirely. You or Tramp have yet to refute that quote.

You can have the opinion that this is a poor rules mechanic that doesn't make sense. You can not argue that RAW states that a failed attack unequivocally, with no exceptions whatsoever means that the attack misses without resorting to "alternative facts", ie lying through your teeth.