30 pages, LOL.

5 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

30 pages, LOL.

Ironic. You say that as the first post on the 31st page!

On 2/20/2020 at 9:56 PM, Nytwyng said:

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.)

This then leads into the question of what makes one a “native Texan”?

Do you have to be born here? Then I certainly wouldn’t qualify, nor would my wife.

Do your ancestors have to be a member of one of the thirteen founding families at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidio_San_Antonio_de_Béxar ? If so, then I still wouldn’t qualify, but my wife would.

My wife’s entire family is from San Antonio and the surrounding area, going back many, many generations. Through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Antonio_Navarro and beyond. But she was technically born in a different state in this country.

I also live in Texas. In fact, I have now lived in Austin, Texas longer than any other place in my life. Does that make me a “Texan”, even though I will never be a “native Texan”?

We may think that certain statements or questions are simple, but everything in all of human communication is built on top of other things. And when you start looking into the definitions of those other things, that’s when conversations can start falling apart.

2 hours ago, bradknowles said:

This then leads into the question of what makes one a “native Texan”?

Do you have to be born here? Then I certainly wouldn’t qualify, nor would my wife.

Do your ancestors have to be a member of one of the thirteen founding families at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidio_San_Antonio_de_Béxar ? If so, then I still wouldn’t qualify, but my wife would.

My wife’s entire family is from San Antonio and the surrounding area, going back many, many generations. Through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/José_Antonio_Navarro and beyond. But she was technically born in a different state in this country.

I also live in Texas. In fact, I have now lived in Austin, Texas longer than any other place in my life. Does that make me a “Texan”, even though I will never be a “native Texan”?

We may think that certain statements or questions are simple, but everything in all of human communication is built on top of other things. And when you start looking into the definitions of those other things, that’s when conversations can start falling apart.

I've lived here longer than anywhere else, too. (almost 39 years). But I still wouldn't call myself a Texan. Texas resident, yes...Texan, no. The way I've understood it over those years, one has to be born here to be a "native" Texan.

I stand by my illustration in its context: if the folks who get to say "yay" or "nay" say "nay" about Jango being a Mandalorian, claims of "being from Concord Dawn" don't make him one, any more than I'm a Texan after 39 years.

Your forum statistician checking in again. I've put it in graphical terms this time. It looks like we may have hit a peek around week 4, but I'm sorry to say it appears the train wreck still has a full head of steam:

On 2/20/2020 at 10:56 PM, Nytwyng said:

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?

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?

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.

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...

If the attack roll fails , then yes, it always misses . That's what failing to hit means. The situation in Pulp Fiction is an example of a very bad roll of the dice on an attack roll; one probably a handful of Threat involved as well. Ther example of Back to the Future is a Succesful attack roll, not a failed one . The attack roll hit, but the armor stopped most, if not all of the damage through some combination of Soak and Defense. No matter what, It was not a Failed roll. A failed roll is a miss . Period, not "harmless contact" , not a deflected hit. It is a complete miss.

The game developers wrote the armor rules the way they did for game balance reasons. And they specifically wrote in the rules what armor Defense is " intended " to do. It wasn't intended to make the target harder to hit. This is why the Defense Armor Characteristic says that it reflects armor's ability to deflect damage , instead of its ability to deflect attacks .

As for Jango, yes it is a "point of View" issue because we do have conflicting canon information, as well as multiple different standards in canon of what it means to be "Mandalorian". That is a fact . However, this is not the place to discuss Jango's heritage.

16 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If the attack roll fails , then yes, it always misses . That's what failing to hit means. The situation in Pulp Fiction is an example of a very bad roll of the dice on an attack roll; one probably a handful of Threat involved as well. Ther example of Back to the Future is a Succesful attack roll, not a failed one . The attack roll hit, but the armor stopped most, if not all of the damage through some combination of Soak and Defense. No matter what, It was not a Failed roll. A failed roll is a miss . Period, not "harmless contact" , not a deflected hit. It is a complete miss.

The game developers wrote the armor rules the way they did for game balance reasons. And they specifically wrote in the rules what armor Defense is " intended " to do. It wasn't intended to make the target harder to hit. This is why the Defense Armor Characteristic says that it reflects armor's ability to deflect damage , instead of its ability to deflect attacks .

As for Jango, yes it is a "point of View" issue because we do have conflicting canon information, as well as multiple different standards in canon of what it means to be "Mandalorian". That is a fact . However, this is not the place to discuss Jango's heritage.

I dont have to narrate it that way. What are you going to do about it?

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If the attack roll fails , then yes, it always misses . That's what failing to hit means. The situation in Pulp Fiction is an example of a very bad roll of the dice on an attack roll; one probably a handful of Threat involved as well. Ther example of Back to the Future is a Succesful attack roll, not a failed one . The attack roll hit, but the armor stopped most, if not all of the damage through some combination of Soak and Defense. No matter what, It was not a Failed roll. A failed roll is a miss . Period, not "harmless contact" , not a deflected hit. It is a complete miss.

The game developers wrote the armor rules the way they did for game balance reasons. And they specifically wrote in the rules what armor Defense is " intended " to do. It wasn't intended to make the target harder to hit. This is why the Defense Armor Characteristic says that it reflects armor's ability to deflect damage , instead of its ability to deflect attacks .

And yet you’ve been shown several times how failed attack rolls can be narrated to include the setback(s) included by armor, without mechanically doing any damage, havent you?

Given that it’s been done, do you still wish to maintain your stance that it “can’t” be done?

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As for Jango, yes it is a "point of View" issue because we do have conflicting canon information, as well as multiple different standards in canon of what it means to be "Mandalorian". That is a fact . However, this is not the place to discuss Jango's heritage.

No, we don’t have any such conflict. What we do have is multiple concrete statements from LFL that Jango is not a Mandalorian. So, no “Certain Point of View (TM)” is in play. There’s no need to discuss Jango’s heritage, because it’s not Mandalorian. Period. End of line. Per LFL.

F&D page 211 end of section 4. Resolve Advantage and Threat

"There are other options for spending Advantage and Triumph as well. A list of the most common can be found on Table 6-2: Spending Advantage and Triumph in Combat. on page 212. 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 Advantage and Triumph, depending on the specific circumstances of the encounter. Any option that the players and GM agree upon can be viable."

Quite an omission by Tramp from the combat rules section - that pretty much settles it.

23 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

And yet you’ve been shown several times how failed attack rolls can be narrated to include the setback(s) included by armor, without mechanically doing any damage, havent you?

Given that it’s been done, do you still wish to maintain your stance that it “can’t” be done?

Failed attacks don't deal damage anyway. So your argument there is irrelevant. Only Successful attacks have any chance of dealing damage. The only exception to that is Blast . As I already pointed out, Setback Dice can come from many different sources, and, if there are multiple sources adding Setback to the attack roll, there is no way to keep track of what Setback Die comes from what source. Therefore, if an attack roll fails, regardless of the source of Setback dice, the attack misses . There is no "failed attack can be considered a hit." The rules explicitly say only a Successful attack can hit . A failed attack is a miss . It's not a "hit deflected off of armor", it's a miss . It does not hit the intended target. Period. That is by RAW.

23 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

No, we don’t have any such conflict. What we do have is multiple concrete statements from LFL that Jango is not a Mandalorian. So, no “Certain Point of View (TM)” is in play. There’s no need to discuss Jango’s heritage, because it’s not Mandalorian. Period. End of line. Per LFL.

Within the actual canon (not "authorial intent" ), we have conflicting information regarding Jango's history, By contrast, we also have statements regarding Jango's origins which say he's from a Mandalorian colony world. Not only that, but what exactly determines what it even means to be Mandalorian; what defines whether someone is Mandalorian or not? Is it being from Mandalor proper, and having pure Mandalorian blood ? If so, then Fenn Rau and Din Djarin are not Mandalorian either, because neither one was born on Mandalore, and neither one is a "pure blood" Mandalorian. Fenn Rau is from Concord Dawn, just like Jango, while Din Djarin is a Foundling , who was adopted into the Mandalorians. Is being Mandalorian defined as someone from any of the Mandalorian worlds (including colony worlds, like Concord Dawn), raised in the Mandalorian culture, or follows the Mandalorian creed and lifestyle? If that's what defines being "Mandalorian", then yes, Jango is Mandalorian, as are Din Djarin, and Fenn Rau. In the actual canon stories , we have one person (Almec) saying Jango is not Mandalorian. And we have other canon sources establishing Jango as being from a Mandalorian colony world, namely Concord Dawn . Not only that, but even going with statements from LFL, we have one source saying Jango is not Mandalorian, for )reasons" but another source from LFL ( Pablo Hidalgo ), saying he's at least believed to be from Concord Dawn, and there is nothing, canon or otherwise, which prevents that from being true . Thus, canon sources still say he's from Concord Dawn , a Mandalorian world, that he was adopted into Mandalorian culture, he's not a native of Mandalore, and never was. That is conflicting information . If you go by the definiton that a Mandalorian is someone from any of the Mandalorian worlds , or was adopted into Mandalorian culture , or follows the Mandalorian Creed and lifestyle , then, by that definition , Jango is Mandalorian. But, if you define someone as Mandalrioan only if they're from Mandalore, or is of pure Mandalorian blood , then, no, he's not. Accept it, deny it, I don't care. Just drop it. We're not going to agree on this subject, and I have no interest in further arguing over it in a thread which has nothing to do with Jango Fett.

5 hours ago, Jedi Ronin said:

F&D page 211 end of section 4. Resolve Advantage and Threat

"There are other options for spending Advantage and Triumph as well. A list of the most common can be found on Table 6-2: Spending Advantage and Triumph in Combat. on page 212. 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 Advantage and Triumph, depending on the specific circumstances of the encounter. Any option that the players and GM agree upon can be viable."

Quite an omission by Tramp from the combat rules section - that pretty much settles it.

Not at all, as that passage has nothing to do with whether or not a failed attack can be considered a hit . The rules do repeatedly say that only a successful attack hits in almost as many words. It requires a Successful Combat Check for an attack to hit . A failed Combat Chesk, by RAW, is a miss .

8 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Failed attacks don't deal damage anyway. So your argument there is irrelevant. Only Successful attacks have any chance of dealing damage. The only exception to that is Blast . As I already pointed out, Setback Dice can come from many different sources, and, if there are multiple sources adding Setback to the attack roll, there is no way to keep track of what Setback Die comes from what source. Therefore, if an attack roll fails, regardless of the source of Setback dice, the attack misses . There is no "failed attack can be considered a hit." The rules explicitly say only a Successful attack can hit . A failed attack is a miss . It's not a "hit deflected off of armor", it's a miss . It does not hit the intended target. Period. That is by RAW.

Who’s disputed the notion that failed attacks don’t deal damage? Certainly not me.

Some armor adds one (or more) setback die (dice) to the pool, which can contribute to the roll’s failure. As you’re so fond of “emphasizing,” that’s RAW. As simple narration, this can be described as an attack that makes contact that is negligible to the point that it doesn’t even scuff the armor and may as well have missed. Let me repeat the key worda there for you: narration, described. It’s not applying any sort of mechanical penalty...it’s just fluff, painting a dramatic picture of what happened.

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Within the actual canon (not "authorial intent" ), we have conflicting information regarding Jango's history,

No, we don’t.

And isn’t part of your entire point in this thread that authorial intent of the game’s rules trumps fluff application of narrative description of a dice pool’s results?

15 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If that's what defines being "Mandalorian", then yes, Jango is Mandalorian, as are Din Djarin, and Fenn Rau.

No, he’s not. Because what defines being a Mandalorian is LFL. And they’ve said he’s not.

16 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

In the actual canon stories , we have one person (Almec) saying Jango is not Mandalorian.

Which is the only On-screen statement that we have on the subject, with nothing to contradict it, plus statements as to why it was included in the first place, and other statements by those who get to decide such things reinforcing it.

20 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

LFL, we have one source saying Jango is not Mandalorian, for )reasons"

Several, actually.

21 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

but another source from LFL ( Pablo Hidalgo ), saying he's at least believed to be from Concord Dawn,

More accurately, Pablo said, “I guess he claimed to be from Concord Dawn.” He didn’t say he was from Concord Dawn.

22 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

and there is nothing, canon or otherwise, which prevents that from being true .

As I’ve said more than once, it’s possible for LFL to reverse their decision. At this time, they haven’t.

24 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Thus, canon sources still say he's from Concord Dawn , a Mandalorian world, that he was adopted into Mandalorian culture,

No, they don’t.

25 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If you go by the definiton that a Mandalorian is someone from any of the Mandalorian worlds , or was adopted into Mandalorian culture , or follows the Mandalorian Creed and lifestyle , then, by that definition , Jango is Mandalorian. But, if you define someone as Mandalrioan only if they're from Mandalore, or is of pure Mandalorian blood , then, no, he's not.

I go by the definition that the people who get to say whether he is or isn’t have said he isn’t.

26 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Accept it, deny it, I don't care. Just drop it. We're not going to agree on this subject,

As long as you ignore facts while saying you prefer facts, you’re absolutely right...we aren’t going to agree on the subject. But you understand why I brought it up, right? I just referenced the reason: you claim to hold to facts. Jango’s status as not being Mandalorian is a fact, as established by those who get to actually establish such things. And yet you continue to rail about how it’s a “fact” that he is. In truth, it appears that you only like facts that reinforce your personal preferences.

33 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I have no interest in further arguing over it in a thread which has nothing to do with Jango Fett.

And yet you spent more time, effort, and “emphasis” in your post on that subject, ironically emphasizing the reason that it was referenced in the first place.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not at all, as that passage has nothing to do with whether or not a failed attack can be considered a hit . The rules do repeatedly say that only a successful attack hits in almost as many words. It requires a Successful Combat Check for an attack to hit . A failed Combat Chesk, by RAW, is a miss .

The rule literally says you are wrong - GMs and players can do whatever that want and it’s valid. They can decide it affects them in some way including “touching” them. That’s a literal fact. One which is the entire basis of every RPG ever. They repeat this all over the place including in the narration sections because that’s the entire point of an RPG - telling a story that suites you. They never imply or state any restrictions to this rule. Never. In fact they even explicitly break your rule in “common suggestions on how to spend Advantage and Triumph” and “Threat and Despair” sections throughout the books (I.e., 3 advantage can remove a vessel entirely from the combat encounter, zero mention of needing a successful attack check).

This is why Nytwkng’s point about Jango is on point: you are obviously ignoring the clear intent of the authors and the publisher.
That’s why Jay Little himself describes this system as the “Yes, and...” system and not the “No, and...” system.

I'm waiting for an entire wall of text in bold, with cursive for extra special super duper emphasis.

On 2/21/2020 at 2:00 AM, 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 .

The shield prevents a hit much the same way as armour though. Since you're holding onto it it's still hitting your body, not to mention how the shield might twist and hit you if it's a boss gripped one. Might even hit you if it's a strapped on one due to the force of the attack. Also how would the shields work in regards to Linked and Blast? They're not cover and they don't really work by making a miss happen. A shield blocks the attack from hitting you, again much in the same way as armour.

It just feels like if you can accept shields narratively then armour shouldn't be that much of an issue. They both work in a pretty similar way. Add in the possibility of camouflage for the armour side of defense and they would have a higher chance of making an attack miss rather than a shield.

13 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Failed attacks don't deal damage anyway. So your argument there is irrelevant. Only Successful attacks have any chance of dealing damage. The only exception to that is Blast . As I already pointed out, Setback Dice can come from many different sources, and, if there are multiple sources adding Setback to the attack roll, there is no way to keep track of what Setback Die comes from what source. Therefore, if an attack roll fails, regardless of the source of Setback dice, the attack misses . There is no "failed attack can be considered a hit." The rules explicitly say only a Successful attack can hit . A failed attack is a miss . It's not a "hit deflected off of armor", it's a miss . It does not hit the intended target. Period. That is by RAW.

Page 89 in the Soldier Sourcebook. Three advantages or a triumph can explode something nearby, everyone engaged near it takes 10 damage. No need for a successful attack. 1 triumph can be used to make the floor cave in, dropping the target short or possibly medium range. No success needed. Page 91, three advantages or a triumph can again trigger an explosion, this time at a computer panel. Again 10 damage to anyone engaged, no wording about a success necessary. Page 94 in the same book, two advantages or a triumph, you can ignite the environment near the target and give it flame 2 which causes damage over time if they stay there. And hey, for 1 advantage you can inflict 1 strain to the target and everyone else within short range of the target. Look at that, ways to damage someone, without hitting them, all supported by RAW. Gee, looks like it can be done despite your bolded claim to the opposite. If only there was a word describing this situation.

11 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

I'm waiting for an entire wall of text in bold, with cursive for extra special super duper emphasis.

I forget which one, or how I found it, but I Recently stumbled upon one of his posts that had, in addition to bold, part of the post italicized, underlined, with the font size bumped up.

The only thing missing was a color change.

27 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

I forget which one, or how I found it, but I Recently stumbled upon one of his posts that had, in addition to bold, part of the post italicized, underlined, with the font size bumped up.

The only thing missing was a color change.

one of these days i should edit out all the bold text and tell him that is what I read. Perhaps if he wants to actually he should stop deleting half of his statement.

On 2/24/2020 at 5:49 PM, Nytwyng said:

Who’s disputed the notion that failed attacks don’t deal damage? Certainly not me.

Some armor adds one (or more) setback die (dice) to the pool, which can contribute to the roll’s failure. As you’re so fond of “emphasizing,” that’s RAW. As simple narration, this can be described as an attack that makes contact that is negligible to the point that it doesn’t even scuff the armor and may as well have missed. Let me repeat the key worda there for you: narration, described. It’s not applying any sort of mechanical penalty...it’s just fluff, painting a dramatic picture of what happened.

No, we don’t.

And isn’t part of your entire point in this thread that authorial intent of the game’s rules trumps fluff application of narrative description of a dice pool’s results?

No, he’s not. Because what defines being a Mandalorian is LFL. And they’ve said he’s not.

Which is the only On-screen statement that we have on the subject, with nothing to contradict it, plus statements as to why it was included in the first place, and other statements by those who get to decide such things reinforcing it.

Several, actually.

More accurately, Pablo said, “I guess he claimed to be from Concord Dawn.” He didn’t say he was from Concord Dawn.

As I’ve said more than once, it’s possible for LFL to reverse their decision. At this time, they haven’t.

No, they don’t.

I go by the definition that the people who get to say whether he is or isn’t have said he isn’t.

As long as you ignore facts while saying you prefer facts, you’re absolutely right...we aren’t going to agree on the subject. But you understand why I brought it up, right? I just referenced the reason: you claim to hold to facts. Jango’s status as not being Mandalorian is a fact, as established by those who get to actually establish such things. And yet you continue to rail about how it’s a “fact” that he is. In truth, it appears that you only like facts that reinforce your personal preferences.

And yet you spent more time, effort, and “emphasis” in your post on that subject, ironically emphasizing the reason that it was referenced in the first place.

No, it can't be narrated as bouncing off the armor because for it to bounce off the armor, the attack has to hit in the first place. You cannot hit on a failed attack regardless of the source of said Failure symbols. That is the problem with Armor having a Defense rating to begin with.

As for Jango, I'm not ignoring anything. We have contradictory canonical criteria on what it means to be Mandalorian, and Jango Fett still fulfills some of that criteria .

Pablo Hidalgo did not say Jango was not from Concord Dawn. He deliberately left it open to interpretation. Jango's origins have not been explicitly altered , where he's from has not been changed, how he grew up has not been specifically changed. Therefore, as far as anyone knows, he is still from Concord Dawn and was still adopted into and raised in Mandalorian culture. And until such time (if any) that the writers at Lucasfilm do decide to actually explicitly change Jango's origins, he is still canonically from Concord Dawn . As long as they leave that up in the air, there is still room to consider Jango Mandalorian by virtue of being from a Mandalorian co,lony and being raised Mandalorian, even though he is not Mandalorian by blood .

What defines being "Mandalorian" canonically , is:

• Coming from Mandalore or any of its colony worlds.
• following the Mandalorian creed ,
• being raised in , or adopting , Mandalorian culture,
• living the way of the Mandalorians.

This is spelled out in The Mandalorian.

Jango Fett meets that criteria .

However, he is not Mandalorian by blood , nor is he native to Mandalore proper.

So, if that is how you define whether he is Mandalorian, or if that was how GL was defining what being Mandalorian is, then no, Jango Fett does not meet that criteria.

On 2/24/2020 at 6:17 PM, Jedi Ronin said:

The rule literally says you are wrong - GMs and players can do whatever that want and it’s valid. They can decide it affects them in some way including “touching” them. That’s a literal fact. One which is the entire basis of every RPG ever. They repeat this all over the place including in the narration sections because that’s the entire point of an RPG - telling a story that suites you. They never imply or state any restrictions to this rule. Never. In fact they even explicitly break your rule in “common suggestions on how to spend Advantage and Triumph” and “Threat and Despair” sections throughout the books (I.e., 3 advantage can remove a vessel entirely from the combat encounter, zero mention of needing a successful attack check).

This is why Nytwkng’s point about Jango is on point: you are obviously ignoring the clear intent of the authors and the publisher.
That’s why Jay Little himself describes this system as the “Yes, and...” system and not the “No, and...” system.

No, it doesn't say I'm wrong. That rule is discussing strictly how to apply Advantages/Triumphs, not determine hits or misses on an attack roll. Whether an attack hits or misses is determined strictly by whether or not the Combat check rolled enough Successes to get at least one net Success. If you get at least one net success, it's a hit. If not, it's a miss. That is RAW .

14 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

The shield prevents a hit much the same way as armour though. Since you're holding onto it it's still hitting your body, not to mention how the shield might twist and hit you if it's a boss gripped one. Might even hit you if it's a strapped on one due to the force of the attack. Also how would the shields work in regards to Linked and Blast? They're not cover and they don't really work by making a miss happen. A shield blocks the attack from hitting you, again much in the same way as armour.

It just feels like if you can accept shields narratively then armour shouldn't be that much of an issue. They both work in a pretty similar way. Add in the possibility of camouflage for the armour side of defense and they would have a higher chance of making an attack miss rather than a shield.

No, they don't. The difference between Shields and armor is huge. Armor is worn by a person, like a second skin . By contrast, a shield (whether a physical one strapped to your arm, or an energy shield), is a barrier between the attacker and the defender. That is the difference. For armor to deflect or absorb damage from an attack, the person wearing that armor must first be struck physically . That requires a successful combat check. With a shield, even a hand-held one, you have a large surface area, which expands well away from the body, like a wall . This means that an attacker might hit the shield, potentially even penetrate it, and still not even come close to hitting the defender behind it .

13 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

Page 89 in the Soldier Sourcebook. Three advantages or a triumph can explode something nearby, everyone engaged near it takes 10 damage. No need for a successful attack. 1 triumph can be used to make the floor cave in, dropping the target short or possibly medium range. No success needed. Page 91, three advantages or a triumph can again trigger an explosion, this time at a computer panel. Again 10 damage to anyone engaged, no wording about a success necessary. Page 94 in the same book, two advantages or a triumph, you can ignite the environment near the target and give it flame 2 which causes damage over time if they stay there. And hey, for 1 advantage you can inflict 1 strain to the target and everyone else within short range of the target. Look at that, ways to damage someone, without hitting them, all supported by RAW. Gee, looks like it can be done despite your bolded claim to the opposite. If only there was a word describing this situation.

That's a blast weapon. I've already covered that. Blast is the only way weapons can do damage on a failed attack.

38 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it can't be narrated as bouncing off the armor

And yet it’s been demonstrated for you several times. “Can’t?”

38 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

because for it to bounce off the armor, the attack has to hit in the first place. You cannot hit on a failed attack regardless of the source of said Failure symbols. That is the problem with Armor having a Defense rating to begin with.

Narrative description, as opposed to game mechanics.

38 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As for Jango, I'm not ignoring anything. We have contradictory canonical criteria on what it means to be Mandalorian, and Jango Fett still fulfills some of that criteria .

And now you’ve shifted to “some,” so I guess that’s progress?

But, you are, indeed ignoring something: that the people who get to make the determination as to whether or not Jango is Mandalorian say he isn’t.

38 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Pablo Hidalgo did not say Jango was not from Concord Dawn. He deliberately left it open to interpretation.

What, exactly, is “open to interpretation?”
Rob Van Winkle claimed to have spent his youth on the mean streets of Miami, running with gangs. In reality, he is from a fairly affluent suburb of Dallas, where a former coworker of mine fired him from a pizza delivery job for flashing a customer. But, hey...if we follow your insistence that claims of personal history equal reality, I’m sure he’s glad that at least someone accepts the story he spun at the start of his career as the gospel truth.

That’s right...I just compared Jango to Vanilla Ice.

Who is also not Mandalorian.

38 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Jango's origins have not been explicitly altered , where he's from has not been changed, how he grew up has not been specifically changed. Therefore, as far as anyone knows, he is still from Concord Dawn and was still adopted into and raised in Mandalorian culture.

As seen above, he has been explicitly stated to not be Mandalorian.

38 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And until such time (if any) that the writers at Lucasfilm do decide to actually explicitly change Jango's origins, he is still canonically from Concord Dawn . As long as they leave that up in the air, there is still room to consider Jango Mandalorian by virtue of being from a Mandalorian co,lony and being raised Mandalorian, even though he is not Mandalorian by blood .

The writers at Lucasfilm have explicitly stated that Jango is not Mandalorian. No qualifiers applied. They’ve said he’s not Mandalorian. Full stop.

38 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

What defines being "Mandalorian" canonically , is:

• Coming from Mandalore or any of its colony worlds.
• following the Mandalorian creed ,
• being raised in , or adopting , Mandalorian culture,
• living the way of the Mandalorians.

This is spelled out in The Mandalorian.

Jango Fett meets that criteria .

However, he is not Mandalorian by blood , nor is he native to Mandalore proper.

So, if that is how you define whether he is Mandalorian, or if that was how GL was defining what being Mandalorian is, then no, Jango Fett does not meet that criteria.

What defines being a Mandalorian is LFL saying, “This character is Mandalorian.” They have specifically stated the opposite regarding Jango.

Even ignoring that simple, elegant truth, we have no evidence of Jango meeting the fictional criteria that you give more credence than you do the words of the people who get to make the decision whether he is or not.

Which brings us right back to why I brought it up: a practical demonstration of your tendency to see your personal preferences as the sort of facts you claim to adhere to when actual established facts don’t conform to your preferences. You have gone through some intense mental gymnastics to try working around a pretty concrete position from LFL.

Jango is not a Mandalorian. Fact.

Attack rolls that fail, in part, due to setback(s) imposed by armor can be narratively described as having made wholly ineffective contact (despite your claim that such narration is impossible). Fact.

43 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That's a blast weapon. I've already covered that. Blast is the only way weapons can do damage on a failed attack.

I’d just like to point out again that, in the narrative examples you’ve been provided, damage isn’t being done on the failed attack. It’s just dramatic fluff accounting for the failure coming, in part, from setback(s) imposed by some armor’s Defense rating.

As such, I’m not quite sure why you keep screaming ...sorry...”emphasizing” that damage can’t be done on a failed attack roll when no one is disputing that, or trying to impose damage from the failed roll...they’re just trying to paint a dramatic narrative picture of the events...including the setback(s) contributing to the failure.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it doesn't say I'm wrong. That rule is discussing strictly how to apply Advantages/Triumphs, not determine hits or misses on an attack roll. Whether an attack hits or misses is determined strictly by whether or not the Combat check rolled enough Successes to get at least one net Success. If you get at least one net success, it's a hit. If not, it's a miss. That is RAW .

Yes, RAW says you’re wrong. You’ve ignored all the supporting narrative sections and even instances cited that contradict you in spending advantage and triumph. I quoted verbatim what is the heart and literal written rules of the game: GMs and players can do what seems best to them. And that most certainly applies to narration.

EDIT

You can’t read one narrow section of the rules that say nothing about narration and claim they absolutely and literally restrict narration while ignoring all the sections about narration and the broad and open way this systems rules are consistently written and have any credibility.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

What defines being "Mandalorian" canonically , is:

• Coming from Mandalore or any of its colony worlds.
• following the Mandalorian creed ,
• being raised in , or adopting , Mandalorian culture,
• living the way of the Mandalorians.

This is spelled out in The Mandalorian.

Jango Fett meets that criteria .

We do not actually know how Fett was raised.

We also do not know if he lived the way of the Mandalorians. Nor do we actually know what that means, exactly.

We do know that just being borne there isn't enough to be a real Mandanorian.

1 hour ago, Nytwyng said:

That’s right...I just compared Jango to Vanilla Ice.

Yes you did; and I got a much-needed good laugh. Thank you.

3 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

Yes you did; and I got a much-needed good laugh. Thank you.

Now let's get outta here.

Word to your mother.

9 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, they don't. The difference between Shields and armor is huge. Armor is worn by a person, like a second skin . By contrast, a shield (whether a physical one strapped to your arm, or an energy shield), is a barrier between the attacker and the defender. That is the difference. For armor to deflect or absorb damage from an attack, the person wearing that armor must first be struck physically . That requires a successful combat check. With a shield, even a hand-held one, you have a large surface area, which expands well away from the body, like a wall . This means that an attacker might hit the shield, potentially even penetrate it, and still not even come close to hitting the defender behind it .

That's a blast weapon. I've already covered that. Blast is the only way weapons can do damage on a failed attack.

In my not huge experiance, armour is not like a second skin. It's like clothing, and not skintight clothing. It should in fact not be like skintight clothing, you should have layers underneath, to make sure that anything that goes through the first step gets slowed or even stopped before it gets to your body. They're also barriers between you and the outside, working much the same as the shield to block or deflect harm away from your squishy bits. The shield must also be struck to do its thing, same way that a parrying blade needs to be struck or a reflecting lightsaber.

It's not a blast weapon, which you would have known if you had checked the pages in question. It can be done with any weapon. It does something similar to blast, but it's not blast related to a weapon you're using. There are other ones in other books as well, I couldn't be arsed with finding them all yesterday. But then again I'm not the one claiming something cannot be done by RAW. The onus of proof is not really resting on me because I'm not using an absolut argument. The fact of the matter is that you can hurt an opponent even with a missed attack, a successful attack is needed to do damage to the target with the weapon you're using, but not necessary to do damage to the target. That can be done even with misses in the right circumstances, locations or with GM approval. Now that is a fact laid out in the Soldier sourcebook.