1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

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.

When you take statements by the people who get to make the decision into account...not really. I seem to recall his non-Mando status even being reiterated by Favreau and Filoni in an interview about The Mandalorian .

But I digress....

Back to waiting for the next wall o’ “emphasis.” (Say...if being ready for that adds a setback, does it increase the odds Tramp can’t use the bold button?)

I'm honestly curious how he plays any tabletop RPG - most of them don't function like real life, deliberately by design. Does he spend hours arguing with his groups IRL about why some minutiae of the system is wrong that ultimately doesn't matter? Like, really.

49 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

When you take statements by the people who get to make the decision into account...not really. I seem to recall his non-Mando status even being reiterated by Favreau and Filoni in an interview about The Mandalorian .

Well, with the Mandalorian out, we now have to think about what it means to be Mandalorian. It seems certain that you don't have to be born on Mandalore, and posdibly not even be human. The enclave we see seem to be more of a creed than an ethnic group. Is Mandalorian a title that canbe rescinded, even if you were born into it? Was Jango never a Mandalorian, or was he just not born one, or did he just get his Mando card revoked before he died (or perhaps even after)?

I don't recall the exact quotes, but I remember them leaving some wiggle room. But yeah, they were definetly leaning towards him not being one, although I got the distinct impression they decided to leave it somewhat open, either for future developements or to retain an air of mystique.

12 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

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.

I'll probably regret this quite a bit, but what about shields? Not the energy ones but the good old solid matter ones people hold in their hands. Those also grant ranged defense and can therefore, using your logic, make attacks completely miss. Or are they to not be counted as part of the defenders body so a hit against them isn't a hit on the defender?

2 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Well, with the Mandalorian out, we now have to think about what it means to be Mandalorian. It seems certain that you don't have to be born on Mandalore, and posdibly not even be human. The enclave we see seem to be more of a creed than an ethnic group. Is Mandalorian a title that canbe rescinded, even if you were born into it? Was Jango never a Mandalorian, or was he just not born one, or did he just get his Mando card revoked before he died (or perhaps even after)?

I don't recall the exact quotes, but I remember them leaving some wiggle room. But yeah, they were definetly leaning towards him not being one, although I got the distinct impression they decided to leave it somewhat open, either for future developements or to retain an air of mystique.

All of the story elements are well and good. But at the end of the day, LFL - at this point, anyway - holds the official stance that he’s not, as determined by Unca George himself. Doesn’t mean that they can’t reverse that at some point. But until and unless they do, all of that wiggle room is filled by their decision. And they’re the ones who get to make it, not us.

So...about that setback die for Defensive Stance against the random bold text.... 😏

2 hours ago, StarkJunior said:

I'm honestly curious how he plays any tabletop RPG - most of them don't function like real life, deliberately by design. Does he spend hours arguing with his groups IRL about why some minutiae of the system is wrong that ultimately doesn't matter? Like, really.

He takes only the rules literally in the making a combat check and weapon qualities section. The sections on narrating dice pools and interpreting the pool he not only doesn't take literally - he literally ignores it. He may hate it but they are part of the rules too and a fact in this game. (In fact it's how all of us play it).

Everyone is also playing into Tramp's ego and games when they focus on armor specifically. He's already admitted that you absolutely cannot narrate a missed attack touching or in any way physically affecting the target - you can have 2 Triumphs and 6 Advantage on a missed attack check and you absolutely cannot spend any of that to knock the target down, knock the target off of a walk-way, move them out of cover, move them towards an ally, etc - all the of things that adding Downgrades/Setback to the opponent could represent in addition to just generally affecting the target and giving Upgrades/Boost to allies can be represented as in the narrative. He's already said that according to The Rules you cannot do any of this because it was a "missed" attack. When confronted with disarm and using 2 Triumphs to destroy a lightsaber (on a failed attack) then that's ok because you hit the weapon and not "the target".

Tramp doesn't have a wholistic view of this game - he cherry picks the rules he likes and pretends the rest aren't really there (he literally ignores the rules on narration and how to spend Advantage/Triumph).

58 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

I'm honestly curious how he plays any tabletop RPG - most of them don't function like real life, deliberately by design. Does he spend hours arguing with his groups IRL about why some minutiae of the system is wrong that ultimately doesn't matter? Like, really.

Having seen some of his PbP here on the forums...probably. Arguing about any little thing he doesn’t like (including how others play their own characters) seems to be pretty standard for him.

I’ll say this for him. He’s passionate. And when he’s not all spun up, a fun conversation can be had. But when he gets hold of something and the right buttons are pushed...? Oof.

24 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

(including how others play their own characters)

48 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Years (?) ago Tramp and I were having an argument about Careers and character creation and progress/development, mostly about "How You Would Have To Create Yoda As A PC" and he took a very strict approach - Yoda IS a Consualar so he had to start in Consular. He had to. If a player was creating Yoda at his table the player MUST start Yoda in Consular. I even posed a theoretical character that was one entirely of my own creation - a Consular Healer who was a doctor but defied all of the fluff about what a Consular is (a nasty git drunkard, I think) - they just took Consular Healer to get the healing ability etc - and he told me that wasn't valid.

1 hour ago, penpenpen said:

Well, with the Mandalorian out, we now have to think about what it means to be Mandalorian. It seems certain that you don't have to be born on Mandalore, and posdibly not even be human. The enclave we see seem to be more of a creed than an ethnic group. Is Mandalorian a title that canbe rescinded, even if you were born into it? Was Jango never a Mandalorian, or was he just not born one, or did he just get his Mando card revoked before he died (or perhaps even after)?

This is based on Legends information, but that's the information we have:

You don't need to be born on Mandalore, be born to Mandalorians, or ever even see Mandalore. If you aren't born into the Mandalorian way of life, you can be adopted into it. I'm a little more spotty as to how self-styled Mandalorians work, as I don't think they were ever really addressed.

Mandalorian life is based around a code called the Resol'nare (Six Actions) which are the central tenets of Mandalorian life. If you are a Mandalorian and you cease to follow the Resol'nare, you are considered Dar'Manda, someone who has lost their heritage and thereby their soul. In the Mandalorian religion, when a Mandalorian died, their soul joined the Manda (the collective soul or heaven). Those who are considered Dar'Manda (lit. Souless [Dar=gone, no longer. Manda=soul]) are unable to join the Manda upon death.

In my headcanon, Jango is Mandalorian (because I like the Cuy'val Dar and the Mandalorian Civil War ) but Boba is Dar'Manda.

2 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

I'll probably regret this quite a bit, but what about shields? Not the energy ones but the good old solid matter ones people hold in their hands. Those also grant ranged defense and can therefore, using your logic, make attacks completely miss. Or are they to not be counted as part of the defenders body so a hit against them isn't a hit on the defender?

That scene in The Winter Soldier after the highway attack? When Cap advances with the rotary gun shooting at him? Instead of the bullets bouncing off of his shield, they totally missed, even when he got right up on it.

3 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

That scene in The Winter Soldier after the highway attack? When Cap advances with the rotary gun shooting at him? Instead of the bullets bouncing off of his shield, they totally missed, even when he got right up on it.

He'd probably say that they didn't actually hit cap, even though they did hit the shield.

8 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

He'd probably say that they didn't actually hit cap, even though they did hit the shield.

But doesn’t apply that same logic to, say, Doc Brown’s bulletproof vest. Yeah, I know.

Actually, Cap probably had Reflect.

I've stated my opinion on this in a dedicated thread, but I think that ranks in Reflect/Parry should be granted in addition to the Setback from Deflection/Defensive as that makes them more useful and reflect what we see in their use much more closely. Not sure I'd bother implementing it in-game, but that would make sense for Cap's shield.

Oh there’s a LOT going on with Cap’s shield. Between the absorption and dissipation of kinetic energy directed at it, its nearly-indestructible (not just bulletproof) nature, the aerodynamic nature of it as an offensive weapon, and more (like Spidey said in Civil War, “That thing does NOT obey the laws of physics at all!”)...it would have some pretty interesting stats. Just looking at the base nature of rolls failing due to Defense setback(s), though, that scene just seemed like a decent visual that most of us would probably be able to call up decently enough.

5 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

In my headcanon, Jango is Mandalorian (because I like the Cuy'val Dar and the Mandalorian Civil War ) but Boba is Dar'Manda.

The difference being, you’re coming right out and saying it’s your headcanon. Whereas Tramp will go on for days (with “emphasis,” of course) about all of the so-called “proof” that Jango is incontrovertibly Mandalorian in official canon. Despite much of the proof being either pure conjecture, supposition, and/or personal interpretation of events portrayed on screen; information that has been shifted to Legends status; or quite simply and succinctly invalidated by multiple LFL sources saying, “No, he’s not,” that is one of the hills Tramp has selected to die on.

And, at this point, I’m aware of possibly drifting into Tramp-bashing, which isn’t my intent. I’m sure there are aspects in life about which each of us just has a hard time...unclenching...about. When he has, I’ve had some genuinely enjoyable interactions with him.

9 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

So...about that setback die for Defensive Stance against the random bold text.... 😏

Ok, but he's also going to get an aim bonus for all the hours spent scouring books for the words 'hit' and 'miss'.

1 minute ago, Vorzakk said:

Ok, but he's also going to get an aim bonus for all the hours spent scouring books for the words 'hit' and 'miss'.

As many times as he’s done it, shouldn’t there be some strain imposed?

31 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

As many times as he’s done it, shouldn’t there be some strain imposed?

Yeah.... Ours. 🙄 😏 😉

22 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

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

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.)

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

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)

No, it can't be narrated as a failed attack, not only because the attack hit him squarely in the chest , but also because it knocked him down and unconscious . It probably bruised some ribs too. He was absolutely successfully hit.

As for the scene from Pulp Fiction , yes I did answer it, though maybe not to your liking . Yes, it is improbable, that shots at that close a range would miss, but it's not impossible . This applies to the game as well. Just because you're at a very close range does not mean that you're guaranteed to hit your target, "narratively" or "mechanically". The only way you're "guaranteed" to hit someone with a ranged attack is if you do so at point blank range, and the game does not cover that because it could lead to abuse.

11 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

When you take statements by the people who get to make the decision into account...not really. I seem to recall his non-Mando status even being reiterated by Favreau and Filoni in an interview about The Mandalorian .

But I digress....

Back to waiting for the next wall o’ “emphasis.” (Say...if being ready for that adds a setback, does it increase the odds Tramp can’t use the bold button?)

10 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Well, with the Mandalorian out, we now have to think about what it means to be Mandalorian. It seems certain that you don't have to be born on Mandalore, and posdibly not even be human. The enclave we see seem to be more of a creed than an ethnic group. Is Mandalorian a title that canbe rescinded, even if you were born into it? Was Jango never a Mandalorian, or was he just not born one, or did he just get his Mando card revoked before he died (or perhaps even after)?

I don't recall the exact quotes, but I remember them leaving some wiggle room. But yeah, they were definetly leaning towards him not being one, although I got the distinct impression they decided to leave it somewhat open, either for future developements or to retain an air of mystique.

10 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

All of the story elements are well and good. But at the end of the day, LFL - at this point, anyway - holds the official stance that he’s not, as determined by Unca George himself. Doesn’t mean that they can’t reverse that at some point. But until and unless they do, all of that wiggle room is filled by their decision. And they’re the ones who get to make it, not us.

So...about that setback die for Defensive Stance against the random bold text.... 😏

8 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

This is based on Legends information, but that's the information we have:

You don't need to be born on Mandalore, be born to Mandalorians, or ever even see Mandalore. If you aren't born into the Mandalorian way of life, you can be adopted into it. I'm a little more spotty as to how self-styled Mandalorians work, as I don't think they were ever really addressed.

Mandalorian life is based around a code called the Resol'nare (Six Actions) which are the central tenets of Mandalorian life. If you are a Mandalorian and you cease to follow the Resol'nare, you are considered Dar'Manda, someone who has lost their heritage and thereby their soul. In the Mandalorian religion, when a Mandalorian died, their soul joined the Manda (the collective soul or heaven). Those who are considered Dar'Manda (lit. Souless [Dar=gone, no longer. Manda=soul]) are unable to join the Manda upon death.

In my headcanon, Jango is Mandalorian (because I like the Cuy'val Dar and the Mandalorian Civil War ) but Boba is Dar'Manda.

2 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

The difference being, you’re coming right out and saying it’s your headcanon. Whereas Tramp will go on for days (with “emphasis,” of course) about all of the so-called “proof” that Jango is incontrovertibly Mandalorian in official canon. Despite much of the proof being either pure conjecture, supposition, and/or personal interpretation of events portrayed on screen; information that has been shifted to Legends status; or quite simply and succinctly invalidated by multiple LFL sources saying, “No, he’s not,” that is one of the hills Tramp has selected to die on.

And, at this point, I’m aware of possibly drifting into Tramp-bashing, which isn’t my intent. I’m sure there are aspects in life about which each of us just has a hard time...unclenching...about. When he has, I’ve had some genuinely enjoyable interactions with him.

Jango and Boba being Mandalorian or not really is a matter of point of view . There is canonical sources which still support them being Mandalorian in some fashion , depending upon your definition of what it means to be a Mandalorian. The biggest being that Jango is still stated in canon (not Legends ) as being from Concord Dawn , a Mandalorian colony world, and raised in Mandalorian culture. You also have canon "in universe" sources which say he isn't, mostly from an "unreliable narrator" with a political agenda who didn't want to be associated with a "lowly bounty hunter". So you have conflicting canon sources.

10 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

I'll probably regret this quite a bit, but what about shields? Not the energy ones but the good old solid matter ones people hold in their hands. Those also grant ranged defense and can therefore, using your logic, make attacks completely miss. Or are they to not be counted as part of the defenders body so a hit against them isn't a hit on the defender?

Shields can potentially prevent an attack from hitting the defender. It's specifically what they're designed to do. They're essentially mobile cover, but work against both ranged and melee attacks. Defensive and Deflecting Weapons do the same thing, They block attacks before they can hit. However, your arm (as in the case of trying to parry unarmed) is not. The trick with the Parry and Reflect talents , and why they have to work the way they do, is that they need to work against damage, rather than the attack as a whole, in order to potentially activate their Improved versions, and redirect the enemy's attack back in order to damage the attacker with his own attack . You can't damage someone on a failed attack. Not only that, but parry and reflect attempts can be only partially successful, especially given how attacks don't necessarily mean one shot or one swing with a blow, given that a round lasts an entire minute . So some shots are getting through, some aren't, some are only partially getting through (as evidenced with Kanan vs Maul).And, if you're parrying unarmed , then it's quite possible, and likely , for your arm to take damage, particularly if you're trying to parry a weapon unarmed. It's also possible for you to take damage (albeit probably at a lesser amount) while holding a shield, if the attack still manages to hit despite the shield or Defensive weapon. This is true of any source of Defense. This can be attributed to the shield only partially deflecting the attack, the shield getting penetrated by the attack, the shield arm being jarred from the impact , etc. It's not an all or nothing defense. No defense is.

But, only armor (not counting loose robes) explicitly requires a target to actually be hit before it can be of any benefit. Armor can deflect damage, armor can absorb damage , armor cannot make an attack actually miss .

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Shields can potentially prevent an attack from hitting the defender. It's specifically what they're designed to do. They're essentially mobile cover,

Y'all heard the man, folks! Protective gear you carry on your person by gripping it or strapping it to your arm counts as cover, but protective gear your carry on your person by gripping it or strapping it to your other body parts doesn't! Get it straight or you're benched!

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Jango and Boba being Mandalorian or not really is a matter of point of view . There is canonical sources which still support them being Mandalorian in some fashion , depending upon your definition of what it means to be a Mandalorian. The biggest being that Jango is still stated in canon (not Legends ) as being from Concord Dawn , a Mandalorian colony world, and raised in Mandalorian culture. You also have canon "in universe" sources which say he isn't, mostly from an "unreliable narrator" with a political agenda who didn't want to be associated with a "lowly bounty hunter". So you have conflicting canon sources.

So now a factual matter can be a point of view? Where there can be legitimate disagreements? And subjective definitions? Where was that 29 pages ago?

We don't have a lot of canon material about the Mandalorian culture ( 😢 ) so it is hard to say whether he fits that or not. It has been stated officially that Jango is not Mandalorian, so currently, that is the canon. If they want to change that, there is wiggle room in the lore, but as someone else said, that wiggle room is currently filled by official statements.

From Canon Wookieepedia:

Quote

Jango Fett was born in the years prior to the Invasion of Naboo. He claimed to have been born on the planet Concord Dawn , a Mandalorian world, but his exact history was unknown , much to Fett's enjoyment. While he did wear Mandalorian armor, officials of Mandalore disavowed any connection to Fett, claiming he was simply a bounty hunter who somehow stole an artifact from their planet's troubled past. However, Fett's armor itself was fashioned from durasteel alloy, while most Mandalorian armor was made from beskar. In most other respects it was the same as the gear that had been designed hundreds of years prior.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it can't be narrated as a failed attack, not only because the attack hit him squarely in the chest , but also because it knocked him down and unconscious . It probably bruised some ribs too. He was absolutely successfully hit.

As for the scene from Pulp Fiction , yes I did answer it, though maybe not to your liking . Yes, it is improbable, that shots at that close a range would miss, but it's not impossible . This applies to the game as well. Just because you're at a very close range does not mean that you're guaranteed to hit your target, "narratively" or "mechanically". The only way you're "guaranteed" to hit someone with a ranged attack is if you do so at point blank range, and the game does not cover that because it could lead to abuse.

Jango and Boba being Mandalorian or not really is a matter of point of view . There is canonical sources which still support them being Mandalorian in some fashion , depending upon your definition of what it means to be a Mandalorian. The biggest being that Jango is still stated in canon (not Legends ) as being from Concord Dawn , a Mandalorian colony world, and raised in Mandalorian culture. You also have canon "in universe" sources which say he isn't, mostly from an "unreliable narrator" with a political agenda who didn't want to be associated with a "lowly bounty hunter". So you have conflicting canon sources.

Shields can potentially prevent an attack from hitting the defender. It's specifically what they're designed to do. They're essentially mobile cover, but work against both ranged and melee attacks. Defensive and Deflecting Weapons do the same thing, They block attacks before they can hit. However, your arm (as in the case of trying to parry unarmed) is not. The trick with the Parry and Reflect talents , and why they have to work the way they do, is that they need to work against damage, rather than the attack as a whole, in order to potentially activate their Improved versions, and redirect the enemy's attack back in order to damage the attacker with his own attack . You can't damage someone on a failed attack. Not only that, but parry and reflect attempts can be only partially successful, especially given how attacks don't necessarily mean one shot or one swing with a blow, given that a round lasts an entire minute . So some shots are getting through, some aren't, some are only partially getting through (as evidenced with Kanan vs Maul).And, if you're parrying unarmed , then it's quite possible, and likely , for your arm to take damage, particularly if you're trying to parry a weapon unarmed. It's also possible for you to take damage (albeit probably at a lesser amount) while holding a shield, if the attack still manages to hit despite the shield or Defensive weapon. This is true of any source of Defense. This can be attributed to the shield only partially deflecting the attack, the shield getting penetrated by the attack, the shield arm being jarred from the impact , etc. It's not an all or nothing defense. No defense is.

But, only armor (not counting loose robes) explicitly requires a target to actually be hit before it can be of any benefit. Armor can deflect damage, armor can absorb damage , armor cannot make an attack actually miss .

I can narrate it anyway I want in my game.
https://images.app.goo.gl/HR9Z5V1aQpnkjsS99

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it can't be narrated as a failed attack, not only because the attack hit him squarely in the chest , but also because it knocked him down and unconscious . It probably bruised some ribs too. He was absolutely successfully hit.

Yeah, it can. I've demonstrated how. I tried to keep it as brief as possible, but you clearly want all the details. So, buckle up. When this narration hits 88 words per minute, you're gonna see some serious $#!t.

It's all about crafting a dramatic narrative.

At the start of the session, Marty watches helplessly as the terrorist makes his check. He rolls successfully, and (based upon the implication of the scene) even rolls a crit of 151+. For Marty's action, he jumps in the DeLorean to escape. He rolls a successful Piloting (Planetary) check, but with threat or despair, engages the time circuit, traveling back to 1955, where hinjinks ensue as he makes various subtle changes to the timeline. Before making the run at the charged cable, Marty fails a Negotiation check to try getting 1955 Doc to accept information about what happens the night he travels back in time, but gets a narrative triumph. He changes the settings for his return time to 1985, hoping to prevent Doc from being killed. A successful Piloting (Planetary) check gets him back to 1985, but he also got threat (or despair) that cause the DeLorean to stall after re-entry. Despite having a time machine, he's racing against the clock to get to the mall on foot before Doc is killed (again). He arrives just in time to see the terrorist make his check again, but what he doesn't know is that his narrative triumph from the failed Negotiation check prompted Doc to retrieve the pieces of the letter and read it. Now, he's got the vest, which throws a setback die into the terrorist's dice pool. The terrorist fails, due in part to the setback die.

Now...here's where there's a choice to the narration. Which is a more dramatic way to narrate that failure for the moment: Marty watching again as his friend is gunned down, convinced that he failed to save him...or watching as the bullets pass by Doc harmlessly, allowing Doc and the two copies of Marty that are now present to somehow subdue the terrorists, all of the tension evaporated?

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As for the scene from Pulp Fiction , yes I did answer it, though maybe not to your liking . Yes, it is improbable, that shots at that close a range would miss, but it's not impossible . This applies to the game as well. Just because you're at a very close range does not mean that you're guaranteed to hit your target, "narratively" or "mechanically". The only way you're "guaranteed" to hit someone with a ranged attack is if you do so at point blank range, and the game does not cover that because it could lead to abuse.

No, ya didn't. I didn't ask if it was possible for the shot to miss. (Contrary to what you seem to think, I quite consciously chose the word "improbable" rather than "impossible.") What I asked you was:

"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?"

The question remains unanswsered: Do you refuse to accept the possibility of narrating a failed attack with defense added in from armor to be narrated as completely harmless contact?

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Jango and Boba being Mandalorian or not really is a matter of point of view . There is canonical sources which still support them being Mandalorian in some fashion , depending upon your definition of what it means to be a Mandalorian. The biggest being that Jango is still stated in canon (not Legends ) as being from Concord Dawn , a Mandalorian colony world, and raised in Mandalorian culture. You also have canon "in universe" sources which say he isn't, mostly from an "unreliable narrator" with a political agenda who didn't want to be associated with a "lowly bounty hunter". So you have conflicting canon sources.

We have no such conflicting sources. We have confirmation that Jango claims to be from Concord Dawn. A claim does not reality make.

For example. I live in Texas. Does that make me a Texan? (Spoilers: Since I was born in Ohio, native Texans will tell you that it doesn't. I would agree with them.)

"Emphasize" all you like. As I've said numerous times, there are people who actually get to make the determination whether or not Jango is a Mandalorian. (Hint: You're not one of them.) They say he isn't. As such, this is not an Obi-Wan "Certain Point of View (TM)" moment.

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Shields can potentially prevent an attack from hitting the defender. It's specifically what they're designed to do. They're essentially mobile cover, but work against both ranged and melee attacks. Defensive and Deflecting Weapons do the same thing, They block attacks before they can hit. However, your arm (as in the case of trying to parry unarmed) is not. The trick with the Parry and Reflect talents , and why they have to work the way they do, is that they need to work against damage, rather than the attack as a whole, in order to potentially activate their Improved versions, and redirect the enemy's attack back in order to damage the attacker with his own attack . You can't damage someone on a failed attack. Not only that, but parry and reflect attempts can be only partially successful, especially given how attacks don't necessarily mean one shot or one swing with a blow, given that a round lasts an entire minute . So some shots are getting through, some aren't, some are only partially getting through (as evidenced with Kanan vs Maul).And, if you're parrying unarmed , then it's quite possible, and likely , for your arm to take damage, particularly if you're trying to parry a weapon unarmed. It's also possible for you to take damage (albeit probably at a lesser amount) while holding a shield, if the attack still manages to hit despite the shield or Defensive weapon. This is true of any source of Defense. This can be attributed to the shield only partially deflecting the attack, the shield getting penetrated by the attack, the shield arm being jarred from the impact , etc. It's not an all or nothing defense. No defense is.

But, only armor (not counting loose robes) explicitly requires a target to actually be hit before it can be of any benefit. Armor can deflect damage, armor can absorb damage , armor cannot make an attack actually miss .

And yet, in this system, some armor provides setback(s) to attack rolls. As such, some armor does, indeed, contribute to whether or not an attack succeeds or fails. It's up to the players and GM to determine how they want to narrate that failed roll. Sometimes, that may be to narrate as an attack that doesn't connect. Sometimes, (particularly in cases where the attack fails due in part to setbacks) that may be to narrate as an attack that connects but doesn't even scratch the armor. It's all about what the players involved (and, yes, the GM is a player, too) decide makes for the best story in that moment.

By the way...you do realize that no one is saying that you are required to choose the latter style of narration, right? Meanwhile, you're insisting that it's impossible to do so. When the fact that some of us have done so proves that...well...yeah, it is. You said that what you like is facts, right? Well, as I just noted...

18 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Jango and Boba being Mandalorian or not really is a matter of point of view . There is canonical sources which still support them being Mandalorian in some fashion , depending upon your definition of what it means to be a Mandalorian.

While it is nice to see you taking a somewhat less abosolute stance on things, as I've said before, this is not a position you get to take unless you're also prepared to apologize for acting like a complete and utter ****** on the topic countless times before or at least admit that your viewpoint has changed slightly.

And if you so much as try to weasel out of it by claiming that you've held this relativist position all along, you're just proving your intellectual dishonesty.

I'm probably setting myself up for dissapointment here, but I have a glimmer of hope that you'll walk away from this thread with a slight amount of increased self awareness and insight into human interaction, because, and I'm telling you this without a trace of sarcasm, malice or mockery, you desperately need both.

Because, let's face it, you've been a complete a-hole to people in this thread and multiple others, but unlike other people who do to get a rise out of people, you don't seem to do it with any intentional malice, rather it seems to come from stubborn pride. That's why I'm telling you that if you want to soften one of your previously absolute positions, you need to, at the very least, admit to doing so.

And in the future, if you want to keep using exact and literal language, how about replacing the phrase " You're wrong. " with " I think you might be wrong. " in your vocabularly and thereby both avoiding backing yourself into a corner should you run onto a convincing counterargument and not coming off as an obnoxious know it all by showing just the minimum amount of ******* humility.

Because only who deals in absolutes..?