7 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I just cited the page numbers in the post you just quoted. So, I'm not the one ignoring swaths of rules. You are. You're ignoring the Defense armor characteristic. You're ignoring what it says under Two Weapon Combat. You're ignoring what it says under Linked, under the Base Damage weapon characteristic, under Blast, under Guided, etc. They all say the same thing . It requires a Successful attack roll for an attack to hit. And the rules explicitly say that Armor Defense "reflects the armor's ability to deflect damage away from the wearer's body" , not entire attacks. I'm not ignoring any of the rules; I'm looking at all of them, and none of them say the things you think they say. By contrast, several of them specifically say the same thing I have repeatedly said . And that is you can only hit on a Successful attack . The "generic" Defense rule intended to cover a wide variety of sources of Defense, does not say that "a failed attack can still hit." No rule in the book allows a failed attack roll to hit . In fact, the Blast quality is the only Weapon Quality to allow a missed attack to potentially deal any damage at all; and that is only because Blast is an area effect . So, no, It is not I who is wrong. It is not I who is ignoring "inconvenient" rules. It is you . The Rules are explicit: A Hit requires a Successful attack roll. You cannot hit on a failed attack roll. Period. A failed attack is always a miss . There is no rule in any of the books which allows a failed attack roll to count as a " hit ", be it mechanically, nor narratively. If you try to claim that a failed attack can potentially "still hit", because armor "deflected it", you run the risk of scenarios I mentioned above (where you have multiple sources of Defense being the potential source of the deciding Failure symbol), which break the system . Therefore, the rules are explicit. Only a Successful Combat Check hits at all. Hits that do no damage are handled by Successful attack rolls that had all of their damage reduced to zero by Soak , as well as by Failures provided by Defense that cancelled out extra Net Successes, but still leaving at least one Net Success . That is how a hit can deal no damage. That is a hit whose damage was deflected entirely. A Failed attack misses , though possibly by the slimmest of margins.

No. IT is talking both . The mechanics and narration are linked and must coincide . They cannot be contradictory . For damage to be lessened , the attack first has to hit both mechanically and narratively. If the mechanics say the Combat Check misses, then narratively, the attack misses as well. The general Defense rules says that an attack can be deflected so as to prevent a hit completely. And this is true of Shields , Cover , and defensive weapons. Likewise, various sources of Concealment can also prevent a ranged attack from hitting, by obscuring the target, and lying prone can make the silhouette of a target smaller , making it harder to effectively target, thus making it harder to hit. But this is not true of armor . Armor cannot make an attack miss, unlike other forms of Defense. The generic Defense rule covers a wide variety of possible sources of defense, with just as wide a variety of ways those sources of defense can defend a given target. The Defense Armor Characteristic rule , however, is specific to armor , and it explicitly states that armor only deflects damage , not the attack entirely. The generic Defense rule also says that damage can be lessened. This is true of Shields, Cover, Defensive Weapons, and armor , as this lines up with the rules under Defense Armor Characteristic . However,this requires that the attack hit in the first place since only a successful hit can even potentially deal damage. And, for an attack to hit , the Combat Check must be a Success. A Failed Combat Check cannot hit . A Failed Combat check is a Miss .

Secondly, the Defense Armor Characteristic is talking both Mechanics and Narration. The Mechanics are that Armor's Defense rating provides one or two Setback dice to the attack roll's dice pool. That is the mechanics. Mechanically, this can result in one or two Failures on the Setback dice, one or two Threats, one or two blank faces, or a combination thereof. Narratively , and Mechanically , this reflects the armor's ability to deflect damage from a hit . It is not to deflect an attack . A "hit", both narratively, and mechanically , is defined as, ( and requires by RAW ) a Successful attack. The narrative and Mechanics must align . The problem mechanically, is that if enough Failures are rolled, regardless of what dice those Failures are rolled on, the attack misses . Armor, by RAW , and by physics cannot cause an attack to miss . It can deflect or otherwise reduce damage , not an attack . Thus, there is a cognitive dissonance.

No. In the examples above, the attack doesn't hit at all . What House rules you use to narrate at your table, is not my concern. However, by RAW , it requires a Successful attack roll for an attack to hit at all. Mechanically, narratively, it doesn't matter . If the attack roll does not include at least one net Success, by RAW , it is a miss . It is not a "deflected hit", it is not "deflected damage". It is a miss . That is RAW . A hit has the potential to do damage. It does not mean that a successful hit will do damage. By RAW, a Successful hit does not always end up doing damage. This is because Soak can potentially negate all damage from a successful attack . if the total Soak rating of the target is higher than the damage done. That is a hit doing no damage. A failed attack roll caused by Failures rolled on Setback Dice is not a "hit that did no damage". By RAW , if an attack roll fails , that attack does not hit . The rules are explicit about that. Only a Successful Attack roll deals a hit . Only a Successful hit can potentially deal damage. That is what the rules say, and the rules say that Armor only deflects damage .

Yeah except you are reading more into sub rules than is there. You are welcome to prove us wrong by asking the devs.

What actually matters is success and failure. Not how you narrate it. And they specifically seem to have intended for armor to be able to cause failure and not only in the way you except. It is right there in the rules you keep ignoring. The hit or miss is clearly only relevant after yo uh have adjudicated success or failure.

5 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

several of them specifically say the same thing I have repeatedly said .

You're overusing bold so much that you now have to add both italics and underlining for emphasis.

2 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

You're overusing bold so much that you now have to add both italics and underlining for emphasis.

Coming soon: increasing font size, followed by color change (to red, almost certainly).

If we apply Tramp's logic, this is what every failed attack roll looks like.

(NSFW language, even in the title, so...spoiler tag)

@Tramp Graphics So I finally peeked back into this thread and you've not quoted anything relevant. Nothing. Only repeating the combat rules section and the crunchy part of weapon qualities etc. Absolutely nothing about narration rules. You've got nothing new to say. Neither do I. You've avoided addressing the issue I've put out there several times now. I don't know if you're purposely being obtuse or if your personality just won't let you confront the issue. Whatever the issue is once you've totally avoided the actual issue this many times, I'm done. Good gaming.

On 2/16/2020 at 4:57 PM, Nytwyng said:

Narration in a narrative system is not a house rule.

I’m skimming through the EotE CRB’s sections on the dice, dice pools, and interpreting them. I see plenty of use of the terms “success” and “fail(ure),” but not “hit” or “miss.” A failed attack does not, inherently, mean a “miss,” particularly with setback dice imposed because of armor.

Every rule I quoted and cited with page numbers, in my previous post linked below specifically say that a Success is required to hit , and explicitly use the terms " hit " and " miss" throughout. These rules include the Two Weapon Combat rule, Autofire rules, Linked rules, Blast Rules, Guided rules, Base Damage Weapon Characteristic, Defense Armor Characteristic, etc.

On 2/16/2020 at 8:23 PM, Daeglan said:

Yeah except you are reading more into sub rules than is there. You are welcome to prove us wrong by asking the devs.

What actually matters is success and failure. Not how you narrate it. And they specifically seem to have intended for armor to be able to cause failure and not only in the way you except. It is right there in the rules you keep ignoring. The hit or miss is clearly only relevant after yo uh have adjudicated success or failure.

No, I'm not reading more into the "Sub-rules" than is there. You're not reading into them at all. Success or Failure determines whether an attack hits or misses . That is RAW . And yes, how you narrate it is important . A Failed attack, by RAW, cannot hit . Period.

I'm not ignoring any of the rules. The generic Defense rules on page 220 of the AoR CRB is not the end-all-be-all of Defense. It's a general overview of how various sources might work to protect an individual. It is not "a one-size-fits-all" rule. Throughout the rest of the book it breaks down how each different source specifically applies Defense that is unique to that source of Defense. Each source of Defense has specific rules that are applicable only to that source . Cover has specific rules, Armor has specific rules, Concealment has specific rules, Shields have specific rules, etc. The book details specifically how each source provides defense, but mechanically and narratively . Yes, they all add Setback Dice to an attack, which has the potential to make the attack fail. However, each source of Defense explicitly has it limitations of what it can defend against and how it does so. Each also has specific narrative restrictions of what kind of defense they each provide, and how each specifically provides defense. Armor does not provide Defense the same way Cover does, nor how Concealment, Defensive Weapons, nor Shields do. Concealment does not provide Defense the same way Cover, Armor, Shields, or Defensive Weapons do. etc. None of these sources provide Defense the exact same way any other source does. Each is unique. Cover, Shields, and Defensive Weapons can deflect whole attacks. Armor deflects damage. Concealment, Cover, and Heavy Robes hide or obscure you, making you harder to hit, etc.

Most of these various sources of Defense explicitly say they are intended can make it harder to hit the defender. The one source of Defense which does not do so is armor . The Defense Armor Characteristic rule specifically says that it narratively reflects armor’s ability to deflect damage, not entire attacks. Thus armor Defense is not intended to make it harder to hit a target. It is intended to add a random element to armor’s existing Soak.

No matter what, though, if the attack roll itself fails, the narrative and mechanical effect is the same : the attack is a complete miss. That is RAW .

I’ve posted the rules backing this up. If you can’t accept that, that’s on you. If you think I’m wrong and that a failed attack roll can still count as a hit, post the exact rule that specifically says a failed attack can still count as a hit. There is no such rule. The rules are clear: it requires a Successful Combat Check for an attack to be a hit; mechanically, narratively, or whatever. Only a Successful attack hits. Failed Combat checks are always misses . That is by RAW .

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Every rule I quoted and cited with page numbers, in my previous post linked below specifically say that a Success is required to hit ,

Yes, a success is required to do damage. No one is disputing that.

By your logic, though, every single failed attack roll plays out like that Pulp Fiction clip I posted: shots sailing past targets, in defiance of all narrative logic. In a narrative game system. It worked for that particular scene (and to set up Jules’ crisis of conscience and faith), but is it right for every scenario?

Meanwhile, the Back to the Future clip could play out one of two ways: a successful attack roll that doesn’t get through the increased Soak due to Doc’s bulletproof vest, or an attack roll that fails, due in part, to the setback granted by Doc’s bulletproof vest. Given the scenario the GM would have presented (Doc is standing at the mercy of terrorists firing an automatic weapon at short range), which is the more dramatic narration of a failed check: someone shooting a stationary target just a few feet away and missing, or they connect, chase Marty but crash, with Doc okay because of his vest?

I must say, there's something about the way Tramp just confidently strides into the room and without blinking stares logic and common sense in the eye and goes "you're wrong".

I don't really know what to call that kind of gall. Chivalry?

Oh, no. It's just plain lunacy.

5 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The Defense Armor Characteristic rule specifically says that it narratively reflects armor’s ability to deflect damage, not entire attacks. Thus armor Defense is not intended to make it harder to hit a target. It is intended to add a random element to armor’s existing Soak.

Whether you think this is wrong or not. It's still the case. Its RAW as well. So, what now? Lol

6 hours ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Whether you think this is wrong or not. It's still the case. Its RAW as well. So, what now? Lol

His very sentence contradicts itself and disproves his point. You can't be damaged unless you're hit with something, so therefore deflecting damage is by extension deflecting hits, making you harder to hit.

13 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Every rule I quoted and cited with page numbers, in my previous post linked below specifically say that a Success is required to hit , and explicitly use the terms " hit " and " miss" throughout. These rules include the Two Weapon Combat rule, Autofire rules, Linked rules, Blast Rules, Guided rules, Base Damage Weapon Characteristic, Defense Armor Characteristic, etc.

No, I'm not reading more into the "Sub-rules" than is there. You're not reading into them at all. Success or Failure determines whether an attack hits or misses . That is RAW . And yes, how you narrate it is important . A Failed attack, by RAW, cannot hit . Period.

I'm not ignoring any of the rules. The generic Defense rules on page 220 of the AoR CRB is not the end-all-be-all of Defense. It's a general overview of how various sources might work to protect an individual. It is not "a one-size-fits-all" rule. Throughout the rest of the book it breaks down how each different source specifically applies Defense that is unique to that source of Defense. Each source of Defense has specific rules that are applicable only to that source . Cover has specific rules, Armor has specific rules, Concealment has specific rules, Shields have specific rules, etc. The book details specifically how each source provides defense, but mechanically and narratively . Yes, they all add Setback Dice to an attack, which has the potential to make the attack fail. However, each source of Defense explicitly has it limitations of what it can defend against and how it does so. Each also has specific narrative restrictions of what kind of defense they each provide, and how each specifically provides defense. Armor does not provide Defense the same way Cover does, nor how Concealment, Defensive Weapons, nor Shields do. Concealment does not provide Defense the same way Cover, Armor, Shields, or Defensive Weapons do. etc. None of these sources provide Defense the exact same way any other source does. Each is unique. Cover, Shields, and Defensive Weapons can deflect whole attacks. Armor deflects damage. Concealment, Cover, and Heavy Robes hide or obscure you, making you harder to hit, etc.

Most of these various sources of Defense explicitly say they are intended can make it harder to hit the defender. The one source of Defense which does not do so is armor . The Defense Armor Characteristic rule specifically says that it narratively reflects armor’s ability to deflect damage, not entire attacks. Thus armor Defense is not intended to make it harder to hit a target. It is intended to add a random element to armor’s existing Soak.

No matter what, though, if the attack roll itself fails, the narrative and mechanical effect is the same : the attack is a complete miss. That is RAW .

I’ve posted the rules backing this up. If you can’t accept that, that’s on you. If you think I’m wrong and that a failed attack roll can still count as a hit, post the exact rule that specifically says a failed attack can still count as a hit. There is no such rule. The rules are clear: it requires a Successful Combat Check for an attack to be a hit; mechanically, narratively, or whatever. Only a Successful attack hits. Failed Combat checks are always misses . That is by RAW .

Success or failure determine whether or not you do damage and if passive qualities have effects. advantage and threat determine secondary effects. Hit or miss is simply a shorthand for this. Nothing more. And the reason they only discuss success or failure in combat checks is because what makes sense narratively has a lot of factors. like what kind of armor are you wearing. are you using cover. Is there something obscuring the ability to see the target. What kind of weapon is the attacker using. there are hundreds of variations that can all play a part in how something is narrated. This game system is set up so that the mechanics help tell the story but is not restrictive about how it is narrated because the underlying mechanics can represent many things if they are less specific about what different die mean. IE Defense dice represent many different things. Narrate what is appropriate based on what the die is representing in the pool. If you have multiple die of the same type in the pool know why each die was added to the pool. Narrate the coolest outcome based on those factors.

5 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Success or failure determine whether or not you do damage and if passive qualities have effects. advantage and threat determine secondary effects. Hit or miss is simply a shorthand for this. Nothing more. And the reason they only discuss success or failure in combat checks is because what makes sense narratively has a lot of factors. like what kind of armor are you wearing. are you using cover. Is there something obscuring the ability to see the target. What kind of weapon is the attacker using. there are hundreds of variations that can all play a part in how something is narrated. This game system is set up so that the mechanics help tell the story but is not restrictive about how it is narrated because the underlying mechanics can represent many things if they are less specific about what different die mean. IE Defense dice represent many different things. Narrate what is appropriate based on what the die is representing in the pool. If you have multiple die of the same type in the pool know why each die was added to the pool. Narrate the coolest outcome based on those factors.

I already pressed him on what restrictions he places on narration and he backed off (didn't respond) except to say he's very very literal in what's allowed narratively and now he's making the exact same arguments he's been making for pages and quoting the exact same sections he just appended "and narration" to his rants about what a hit is. He thinks you absolutely must narrate in strict literal accordance with the mechanical rules (as he sees them), it's why he doesn't see he's obliterated how to interpret a dice pool (he'd never respond to me "that's my point!" if he got it). It's why I stopped engaging with him directly in this thread - many threads with him devolve to this point where he gets unresponsive to the core argument and endlessly goes on about things around it (that he's already said multiple times). The mechanics and narration are one seamless and integrated and coherent thing to him. He can't and won't quote actual narration rules (see "and narration" above), he's stuck in this mind set and he won't see it, to him adding Setback/Downgrades to the opponent and Boost/Upgrades to allies and the narration of it must conform to a strict adherence to his literal understanding of the mechanics: to him there is no difference between mechanics and narration.

For ****'s sake now I'm getting notifications when the two of you simply quote other quotes from my thread from earlier! This is ******* ridiculous!

19 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Yes, a success is required to do damage. No one is disputing that.

By your logic, though, every single failed attack roll plays out like that Pulp Fiction clip I posted: shots sailing past targets, in defiance of all narrative logic. In a narrative game system. It worked for that particular scene (and to set up Jules’ crisis of conscience and faith), but is it right for every scenario?

Meanwhile, the Back to the Future clip could play out one of two ways: a successful attack roll that doesn’t get through the increased Soak due to Doc’s bulletproof vest, or an attack roll that fails, due in part, to the setback granted by Doc’s bulletproof vest. Given the scenario the GM would have presented (Doc is standing at the mercy of terrorists firing an automatic weapon at short range), which is the more dramatic narration of a failed check: someone shooting a stationary target just a few feet away and missing, or they connect, chase Marty but crash, with Doc okay because of his vest?

Success is required to hit . This is explicitly stated in the rules I cited. Blast can do damage without a hit being struck, if you spend three Advantages to activate the quality. This is because it is an area effect, rather than a direct blow.

And yes, that Pulp Fiction scene is exactly accurate. If the attack fails, the shots do not strike the target at all. A failed attack is always a miss . Cover can make a ranged attack miss its intended target, as can concealment. Shields can make an attack miss its target. Cover and Concealment can do so by hiding the target, Cover and Shields can do it by blocking an attack before it can hit the target.

In the Back to the Future clip, it plays out strictly as Doc Browns Soak absorbing the damage from a successful hit, with any "defense rating" the armor might have (which is debatable, given that the equivalent armor to a bullet proof vest in this system doesn't have Defense), rolled Threats that negated the possibility of a Critical injury by cancelling out one or more needed Advantages. It's not a failed attack. A failed attack doesn't hit in the first place.

14 hours ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Whether you think this is wrong or not. It's still the case. Its RAW as well. So, what now? Lol

The RAW doesn't say that a "failed attack can still hit" though, Narratively nor otherwise. What the RAW says is that only a successful attack hits . What this means for when the Failure is a result of Setback Dice from Defense varies. But, no matter what, if the attack roll itself is a failure, the intended target of that attack does not get struck at all.

8 hours ago, StarkJunior said:

His very sentence contradicts itself and disproves his point. You can't be damaged unless you're hit with something, so therefore deflecting damage is by extension deflecting hits, making you harder to hit.

No. Deflecting damage is just that: deflecting damage from a successful hit . While mechanically , any source of Defense in general can indeed potentially make the attack more difficult, any given Failure symbol itself on any one dice does not necessarily mean the attack fails if there are more net Successes than there are Failures rolled . If this is the case, the Failures rolled on the Defense dice reduce the damage done by cancelling out excess net Successes that would add to the base damage. When combined with Soak, this has the potential to reduce the damage done to zero, resulting in the damage deflecting off the armor. However, if the net result of all combined Failure symbols, is a failed roll, either resulting from zero net Successes , or worse, one or more net Failures , then the attack as a whole misses completely. It isn't "deflected" off of the target's armor.

That is the inherent problem with armor having a Defense rating. How do you narrate an outcome that armor is physically incapable of achieving? The only logical answer is you don't. You attribute the miss to another factor, particularly when there are other sources of Defense involved.

Other sources of Defense, such as Cover might have deflected it (since Defense from Cover and Armor do not stack), Concealment might have caused the attack to sail over his head, or right by him, as could him lying prone, etc. A Defensive weapon or a shield, could have intercepted the blow, etc. Armor , however, cannot make an attack actually miss. Thus, if the net result of an attack is a miss, then, it misses , but, narratively , that must be attributed to sources other than armor. If there are other factors contributing to the Defense rating, attribute it to that other source or sources, if there is no other source of Defense rating, attribute it to the base Difficulty of the attack, or just a poor attack.

If the attacker only rolled a single Success on his positive dice, that's a pretty poor shot to begin with. If it still results in a hit, then it's going to do minimal damage, most of which, if not all, getting reduced by Soak. If it's canceled out, it's a miss. Period. Even if it's only cancelled out because of a single Failure symbol rolled on the Setback Dice from a Defense rating, It's still a bad shot ; just narrate it as a near miss that passed within fractions of an inch of hitting, and be done with it. If there are one or more net Successes , then the Failures on the Defense dice from armor can be attributed as deflecting damage.

If there are multiple Success symbols being cancelled out by multiple Failure symbols, chances are that most of those Failure symbols are coming from the Difficulty dice anyway, so, once again, narrate it as a miss and be done with it, because that's what it is. It's a miss .

6 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Success or failure determine whether or not you do damage and if passive qualities have effects. advantage and threat determine secondary effects. Hit or miss is simply a shorthand for this. Nothing more. And the reason they only discuss success or failure in combat checks is because what makes sense narratively has a lot of factors. like what kind of armor are you wearing. are you using cover. Is there something obscuring the ability to see the target. What kind of weapon is the attacker using. there are hundreds of variations that can all play a part in how something is narrated. This game system is set up so that the mechanics help tell the story but is not restrictive about how it is narrated because the underlying mechanics can represent many things if they are less specific about what different die mean. IE Defense dice represent many different things. Narrate what is appropriate based on what the die is representing in the pool. If you have multiple die of the same type in the pool know why each die was added to the pool. Narrate the coolest outcome based on those factors.

No, Success or Failure determine whether or not you actually hit . That is explicitly stated in the rules. They don't only discuss "success" or "Failure". They explicitly discuss hits and misses . All of the rules I cited above specifically use those terms. It's not "short-hand". It's a literal description of the result of any given attack. An attack either hits, or it misses. A hit has the potential to do damage, a miss does not, except when dealing with Blast weapons.

Secondly, while Defense dice can represent many different things. Each of those different things have their own specific rules that specify how they each work to provide that defense, what each specifically represents, and whether or not they stack with other forms of Defense. Most of the various forms of Defense explicitly state that they make it harder to hit a target with an attack. Thee include Cover (ranged ), Concealment (Ranged), Shields, Lying Prone (ranged), Deflecting weapons (Ranged), Defensive Weapons (Melee). All of these specifically say that make it harder for an attacker to hit the defender. Armor is the only one that explicitly says that it only deflects damage, while the others all talk about preventing whole attacks from landing. Regardless, the rules are specific that only a Successful combat check can hit . That is by RAW. and this is repeated in several different rules throughout the book. Page 224 AoR:

Quote

He then makes the check. If he succeeds, he hits with his primary weapon as normal. He may also spend two Advantages or Triumph to hit with his secondary weapon as well. If both weapons hit, he may spend additional Advantages or Triumphs to activate qualities from either weapon. Each hit deals its base damage, +1 damage per uncanceled success.

" If he succeeds , he hits ". Nowhere does it say that you can hit on a failed check. Nowhere in any of the rules does it say that you can hit on a failed check, nor is it implied anywhere. The rules are explicit, only a successful attack hits.

The Generic rules for Defense (AoR 220) beings as follows:

Quote

“Defense, or specifically, defense rating, is one of the factors determining how difficult it is to land a successful attack during combat. Defense ratings represent the abilities of shields, armor, or other defenses to deflect attacks entirely, or to absorb or lessen incoming blows.

To land an attack, to hit with an attack. Most sources of Defense do exactly that. They make it more difficult to hit with an attack.

By contrast, Defense Armor Characteristic (AoR page 183):

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.

The "narrative reflection" of armor defense is that when an attack actually hits , the armor's Defense rating reduces the Net Successes which would apply to damage , resulting in the damage being deflected . That does not mean that a "failed attack can still count as a hit " narratively. All it means is in the case of a failed attack roll, that " narratively " the armor is not what causes any potential failed attacks to miss. Other narrative factors are the ultimate cause of the miss.

Base Damage Weapon characteristic (AoR page 171):

Quote

The base damage the weapon inflicts. This is the minimum damage inflicted if the attack with this weapon hits . Each net Success generated during the attack check adds one point of damage to this base damage rating

This is an almost exact word for word copy of the Perform a Combat Check rule #3:

Quote

When making a combat check, if the check is successful , each uncanceled Success adds + 1 damage to a successful attack . If the attack affects multiple targets, the additional damage is added to each target.

Linked (AoR page 170):

Quote

Some weapons, like the laser cannons fitted to the X-wing, are designed to fire together at the same target. This increases the possibility of a hit as well as the damage dealt. When firing a linked weapon, on a successful attack, the weapon deals one hit. The wielder may spend two advantages to gain an additional hit , and may do so a number of times equal to the weapon's Linked rating. Additional hits from the Linked weapon being used may only be applied against the original target. Each hit deals the weapon's base damage plus the total uncanceled & scored on the check.

Once again the same thing is said. It requires a Successful Combat check for an attack to hit.

From Autofire (AoR page 168 Third Paragraph):

Quote

If the attack hits , the attacker can trigger Auto-fire by spending two Advantages. Auto-fire can be triggered multiple times. Each time the attacker triggers Autofire, it deals an additional hit to the target. Each of these counts as an additional hit from that weapon, and each hit deals base damage plus the number of uncanceled Success on the check.

Once again, it says the same thing. A hit is a Successful attack . A Successful Attack is a hit. They are synonymous .

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Failures rolled on the Defense dice reduce the damage done by cancelling out excess net Successes that would add to the base damage

Ok, finally I understand what you're getting at. And I can see it and understand your argument for it, you have a case.

Its slim, and I dont necessarily agree on it, I think it's way too literal and restricting on a narrative level. But you have a case.

1 minute ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Ok, finally I understand what you're getting at. And I can see it and understand your argument for it, you have a case.

Its slim, and I dont necessarily agree on it, I think it's way too literal and restricting on a narrative level. But you have a case.

That's fine. You may consider it "too literal" for your tastes, but I am a literal person to begin with. I like facts, I like things to make sense. I don't like cognitive dissonance. Armor making an attack "harder to hit" doesn't make sense (given that armor really can't make someone harder to hit, it can only prevent damage from a hit, which is why I don't like armor having a Defense rating in the first place), nor does saying "a failed attack can still hit" when the rules explicitly say otherwise.

The only reason why I can accept certain armors having a Defense rating at all in this system is first: because the Defense rating is secondary to Soak, and Secondly, because it is only there to keep Soak ratings from getting too high. That's the only reason why some armors have Defense ratings. If they didn't you could end up with a character with a 6 Brawn, with ranks in Enduring , and Armor Master, wearing Powered armor with Superior Armor Customization and Cortosis Weave with a total Soak in excess of 15 or more, making him virtually indestructible even against a lightsaber with a fully modded Mephite Crystal. By lowering the maximum Soak value for most armors to 2, and giving them one or two ranks in Defense, it adds a random element to the Soak of the armor. Any Failures rolled could reduce the net damage done by one or two wounds by cancelling one or two net Successes; any Threats rolled could cancel out one or two Advantages that could otherwise cause a Critical injury; or the Defense dice could come up blank , providing no additional benefit. Thus, in the case of the Powered armor example above, the chances of this character's total Soak getting above 10 or 12 is much less likely.

18 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

Ok, finally I understand what you're getting at. And I can see it and understand your argument for it, you have a case.

Its slim, and I dont necessarily agree on it, I think it's way too literal and restricting on a narrative level. But you have a case.

They also can make an attack do so poorly the attack does no damage. Just like armors shape in real life changed to enhance this effect.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That's fine. You may consider it "too literal" for your tastes, but I am a literal person to begin with. I like facts, I like things to make sense. I don't like cognitive dissonance. Armor making an attack "harder to hit" doesn't make sense (given that armor really can't make someone harder to hit, it can only prevent damage from a hit, which is why I don't like armor having a Defense rating in the first place), nor does saying "a failed attack can still hit" when the rules explicitly say otherwise.

The only reason why I can accept certain armors having a Defense rating at all in this system is first: because the Defense rating is secondary to Soak, and Secondly, because it is only there to keep Soak ratings from getting too high. That's the only reason why some armors have Defense ratings. If they didn't you could end up with a character with a 6 Brawn, with ranks in Enduring , and Armor Master, wearing Powered armor with Superior Armor Customization and Cortosis Weave with a total Soak in excess of 15 or more, making him virtually indestructible even against a lightsaber with a fully modded Mephite Crystal. By lowering the maximum Soak value for most armors to 2, and giving them one or two ranks in Defense, it adds a random element to the Soak of the armor. Any Failures rolled could reduce the net damage done by one or two wounds by cancelling one or two net Successes; any Threats rolled could cancel out one or two Advantages that could otherwise cause a Critical injury; or the Defense dice could come up blank , providing no additional benefit. Thus, in the case of the Powered armor example above, the chances of this character's total Soak getting above 10 or 12 is much less likely.

The problem with your thinking is you are so literal you lock your self in a box unable to see what is really happening. And the rules explicitly do not say otherwise. you taking the shorthand too literally is the problem.

Just now, Daeglan said:

They also can make an attack do so poorly the attack does no damage. Just like armors shape in real life changed to enhance this effect.

A Hit doing no damage is not a "failed" attack though, It is a Successful aattack where the Soak rating of the armor, as well as any Failures rolled on the Setback dice that cancelled out extra Net Successes on the attack roll, reduced the total amount of damage done to zero. And this is also explicitly stated in the rules (AoR page 221):

Quote

When taking damage from attacks (any actions involving a combat skill check) or other sources of physical damage (such as being struck by a falling rock or being hit by a landspeeder), the character may reduce the damage taken by his soak value. After calculating the total amount of damage inflicted, subtract the total soak value from that damage total. The result is the number of wounds the character suffers. If the soak reduces the damage to zero or less than zero, then the character takes no damage. If the character suffers multiple hits from a single attack (such as from a
weapon with Auto-fire), he may apply his soak to each hit separately.

A Successful attack can deal no damage if the total Soak rating of the target reduces that damage to zero. When you factor in any Failure symbols canceling out some of the net successes that would have applied to damage as well, this makes it more likely to be the case. That is how armor can deflect all of the damage from an attack. If the attack roll itself fails , then the attack misses . That is explicitly stated in the RAW. A Successful attack roll is required for an attack to hit; otherwise, it is a miss .

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

The problem with your thinking is you are so literal you lock your self in a box unable to see what is really happening. And the rules explicitly do not say otherwise. you taking the shorthand too literally is the problem.

No. I am not taking "shorthand" too literally, because it's not shorthand . It's the rules . The rules say it requires a Successful attack roll for an attack to hit . It says this multiple times in multiple different sections . There is no rule in the books that allows a failed attack to hit. A hit requires a Successful attack roll. That is the rules .

Blast allows a failed attack to potentially do damage because it is an area effect , it doesn't require the target to be struck directly by the weapon itself. However, Blast doesn't allow the attack itself to actually hit if the combat check rolled a failed result.

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A Hit doing no damage is not a "failed" attack though, It is a Successful aattack where the Soak rating of the armor, as well as any Failures rolled on the Setback dice that cancelled out extra Net Successes on the attack roll, reduced the total amount of damage done to zero. And this is also explicitly stated in the rules (AoR page 221):

A Successful attack can deal no damage if the total Soak rating of the target reduces that damage to zero. When you factor in any Failure symbols canceling out some of the net successes that would have applied to damage as well, this makes it more likely to be the case. That is how armor can deflect all of the damage from an attack. If the attack roll itself fails , then the attack misses . That is explicitly stated in the RAW. A Successful attack roll is required for an attack to hit; otherwise, it is a miss .

No. I am not taking "shorthand" too literally, because it's not shorthand . It's the rules . The rules say it requires a Successful attack roll for an attack to hit . It says this multiple times in multiple different sections . There is no rule in the books that allows a failed attack to hit. A hit requires a Successful attack roll. That is the rules .

Blast allows a failed attack to potentially do damage because it is an area effect , it doesn't require the target to be struck directly by the weapon itself. However, Blast doesn't allow the attack itself to actually hit if the combat check rolled a failed result.

Yes a successful attack can be completely soaked. but that results in a different narration than an attack that is deflected away by armor. As i have repeatedly said this system is not black an white as you treat it. an attack can be successful the target takes damage. an attack could be successful but the targets armor absorbs the attack. or an attack can be unsuccessful because the armor deflected the attack away doing no damage. Or the armor might only defect some of the attack letting the armor soak the rest.

47 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And yes, that Pulp Fiction scene is exactly accurate. If the attack fails, the shots do not strike the target at all. A failed attack is always a miss .

Always? Really?

So...every single time that a volley of shots is fired at someone barely more than an arm's length away (particularly by a minion group) - more specifically, when there's a setback included by armor's defense rating - every single shot harmlessly sails by, leaving Travolta and Jackson looking around incredulously at how improbable it was?

50 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

In the Back to the Future clip, it plays out strictly as Doc Browns Soak absorbing the damage from a successful hit, with any "defense rating" the armor might have (which is debatable, given that the equivalent armor to a bullet proof vest in this system doesn't have Defense), rolled Threats that negated the possibility of a Critical injury by cancelling out one or more needed Advantages. It's not a failed attack. A failed attack doesn't hit in the first place.

Strictly? Are you sure? Because I spelled it out for you, and even included pictures. Moving pictures. Courtesy of Robert Zemekis. If Doc's bulletproof vest gives a defense rating of 1 (and, you are, of course, continuing your trend of being far too literal for your own good with your tangent about finding a SWRPG equivalent to Doc's vest...we're illustrating to provide example here), tossing a setback into the pool, and that setback contributes to the failure...how did that work, exactly? Why did Doc wearing the vest suddenly make the terrorist a worse shot?

55 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That is the inherent problem with armor having a Defense rating. How do you narrate an outcome that armor is physically incapable of achieving? The only logical answer is you don't. You attribute the miss to another factor, particularly when there are other sources of Defense involved.

It's not an inherent problem, it's an intended feature designed to play into this being a more narrative than tactical system. A single attack roll isn't a single swing of the blade or single pull of the trigger. It's Leia firing down the cell block 4 times as she crosses from one side to the other. It's Obi-Wan's lunges and swings at Maul in the Theed reactor room. It's designed to be fast-paced, cinematic, and - most of all - exciting and dramatic. It's how a single roll can take out multiple minions. So those setbacks provided by defense open more possibilities for exciting, dramatic narration.

Look, when I first started playing this game, I had a hard time wrapping my brain around the same thing: "Why does some armor add setback dice? Why doesn't it just add to soak?" But then, at that same time, I hadn't quite gotten past the ingrained notion from previous systems I'd played that a single attack roll was a single swing, shot, whatever. Once I got past that (thanks in part to some great action narration by other players and GMs), the lightbulb finally came on...everything clicked into place. As a GM, it's the aspect of the game that I've found players used to other systems having the biggest trouble with, so I try to both coax it out of them and lead by example. Many's the time that I've told a new player who's just made an amazing roll, "OK, narrate it...tell me the story. What just happened?" That's why some armor gives a defense rating: to put more narrative tools in your toolbox.

40 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

but I am a literal person to begin with. I like facts,

Well...not always. (Pssst...Jango's not Mandalorian.)

8 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Yes a successful attack can be completely soaked. but that results in a different narration than an attack that is deflected away by armor. As i have repeatedly said this system is not black an white as you treat it. an attack can be successful the target takes damage. an attack could be successful but the targets armor absorbs the attack. or an attack can be unsuccessful because the armor deflected the attack away doing no damage. Or the armor might only defect some of the attack letting the armor soak the rest.

Except that Armor doesn't deflect attacks away. The RAW says armor can deflect damage away. That's not the same thing. To deflect damage , it requires a successful hit. Cover and Shields can deflect attacks away before they can hit, thus preventing the attack from hitting. Armor cannot do that, and the rules themselves explicitly denote that difference in the different sections. The general Defense Rating rules on page 220 of the AoR rules talk about various sources of Defense being potentially capable of reducing damage or deflecting whole attacks. Cover and Shields can deflect an attack , preventing the intended target from getting hit in the first place. Cover and Concealment can hide a target, making it harder to hit him, thus preventing the attack from hitting. By contrast, the Defense Armor characteristic explicitly says it reflects some armors' ability to deflect damage away, not whole attacks . Note the difference in the wording. "Damage" and "attack" are not the same thing. Damage is the result of a successful attack hitting its target. A failed attack has no potential to do damage at all (barring Blast). However, a Successful attack has the potential to do damage, but said damage from a successful attack can potentially be reduced to zero through Soak, as well as Defense. Defense helps with this by negating additional net Successes that would have added to the damage done. This is a deflected hit .

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Always? Really?

So...every single time that a volley of shots is fired at someone barely more than an arm's length away (particularly by a minion group) - more specifically, when there's a setback included by armor's defense rating - every single shot harmlessly sails by, leaving Travolta and Jackson looking around incredulously at how improbable it was?

Strictly? Are you sure? Because I spelled it out for you, and even included pictures. Moving pictures. Courtesy of Robert Zemekis. If Doc's bulletproof vest gives a defense rating of 1 (and, you are, of course, continuing your trend of being far too literal for your own good with your tangent about finding a SWRPG equivalent to Doc's vest...we're illustrating to provide example here), tossing a setback into the pool, and that setback contributes to the failure...how did that work, exactly? Why did Doc wearing the vest suddenly make the terrorist a worse shot?

It's not an inherent problem, it's an intended feature designed to play into this being a more narrative than tactical system. A single attack roll isn't a single swing of the blade or single pull of the trigger. It's Leia firing down the cell block 4 times as she crosses from one side to the other. It's Obi-Wan's lunges and swings at Maul in the Theed reactor room. It's designed to be fast-paced, cinematic, and - most of all - exciting and dramatic. It's how a single roll can take out multiple minions. So those setbacks provided by defense open more possibilities for exciting, dramatic narration.

Look, when I first started playing this game, I had a hard time wrapping my brain around the same thing: "Why does some armor add setback dice? Why doesn't it just add to soak?" But then, at that same time, I hadn't quite gotten past the ingrained notion from previous systems I'd played that a single attack roll was a single swing, shot, whatever. Once I got past that (thanks in part to some great action narration by other players and GMs), the lightbulb finally came on...everything clicked into place. As a GM, it's the aspect of the game that I've found players used to other systems having the biggest trouble with, so I try to both coax it out of them and lead by example. Many's the time that I've told a new player who's just made an amazing roll, "OK, narrate it...tell me the story. What just happened?" That's why some armor gives a defense rating: to put more narrative tools in your toolbox.

Well...not always. (Pssst...Jango's not Mandalorian.)

"Improbable" is not the same as "impossible". Improbable as it may be, it is certainly possible for a volley of gunfire to miss, even at relatively close range. Also, some "armor" (and I'm using that term loosely here), does make a target harder to hit, when says "armor" is loose, lowing robes, which conceal the silhouette of the body, as is the case with Heavy Robes . Those a ctually state that this is the case.

As for Doc Brown, as I said, that attack isn't a failed attack. He was hit squarely in the chest. That is a successful attack with multiple net Successes . IF Doc Brown's armor had a Defesne rating. That Defense rating cancelled out possibly one or two of those net successes, with the some or all of rest of the damage being handled by the armor's Soak. However, more likely, the Defense simply cancelled out a potential Critical Injury by cancelling Advantages rolled. leaving Doc Brown with some bruised ribs . Regardless, that attack roll was not a failed roll. It was definitely a successful roll with at least one Net Success.

Not only that, but it knocks him down , and staggers him ( Knockdown , and Disorient ). Both of those item qualities require a Successful attack to activate. Therefore, there is no way that the Doc Brown scenario is the result of a failed attack roll. He was hit squarely, knocked down , and knocked out . That's a Successful hit. his vest's Defense might have cancelled one or two of the net Successes, or one or two Advantages, or provded no benefit at all, with the some or all of the rest of the damage being reduced by Soak.

If a situation has Setback from armor adding a failure that contributes to the results in the attack failing, Narrate it as a near miss . No matter what, a failed attack cannot hit.

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

"Improbable" is not the same as "impossible". Improbable as it may be, it is certainly possible for a volley of gunfire to miss, even at relatively close range. Also, some "armor" (and I'm using that term loosely here), does make a target harder to hit, when says "armor" is loose, lowing robes, which conceal the silhouette of the body, as is the case with Heavy Robes . Those a ctually state that this is the case.

You didn't answer my question. Care to try again?

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As for Doc Brown, as I said, that attack isn't a failed attack. He was hit squarely in the chest. That is a successful attack with multiple net Successes . IF Doc Brown's armor had a Defesne rating. That Defense rating cancelled out possibly one or two of those net successes, with the some or all of rest of the damage being handled by the armor's Soak. However, more likely, the Defense simply cancelled out a potential Critical Injury by cancelling Advantages rolled. leaving Doc Brown with some bruised ribs . Regardless, that attack roll was not a failed roll. It was definitely a successful roll with at least one Net Success.

Not only that, but it knocks him down , and staggers him ( Knockdown , and Disorient ). Both of those item qualities require a Successful attack to activate. Therefore, there is no way that the Doc Brown scenario is the result of a failed attack roll. He was hit squarely, knocked down , and knocked out . That's a Successful hit. his vest's Defense might have cancelled one or two of the net Successes, or one or two Advantages, or provded no benefit at all, with the some or all of the rest of the damage being reduced by Soak.

As I said previously, what we see can absolutely be how a successful roll that doesn't get through the soak is narrated.

It can also be a way to dramatically narrate a failed roll that fails, in part, due to a setback die included because of the armor.

If, in a narrative system like this, you always narrate such failures as complete and utter whiffs...man, sorry to say it, but that's a boring game.

(And, of course, there are other dramatic, narrative factors in play with Doc. Namely, that in the original timeline, Doc wasn't wearing the vest. The clip that I showed had to appear to play out in the same way so that Marty - and the audience - thinks that Marty failed to get back early to prevent Doc's death...only to have Doc reveal the vest. Lookit that...it's narrative again.)

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If a situation has Setback from armor adding a failure that contributes to the results in the attack failing, Narrate it as a near miss .

Sometimes I will. But every time? When there's a more dramatic option available? Make me.

13 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No matter what, a failed attack cannot hit.

It can't deal damage, sure. But if armor's presence contributed to that failure, it can absolutely be narrated as making contact but doing damage of (pardon me, while I do the math here to get the precise fraction)

10 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Well...not always. (Pssst...Jango's not Mandalorian.)

Currently, he kind of is and he kind of isn't. There's sources that claim both, meaning that either, neither or both can be true. Schrödinger's Mandalorian if you will.

And to tie this in to the topic at hand, between the time the dice are rolled, and the result is narrated, it's essentially Schrödinger's hit/miss. Unequivocally stating that it is one or the other is the only wrong answer.