26 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

While the table for Spending Advantages and Triumphs in combat is not exhaustive, that does not mean you can spend them to damage a target without hitting them .

Uh, you’re ignoring the cited tables from the Soldier book that do precisely that.

Also still no bearing on narration or on GMs and players adding their own agreed upon options that “touch” the opponent and have some effect (even if it’s narrated as a “touch” but merely adding Setback or Downgrades to doing other things to the target like denying a Maneuver or most whatever they decide).
That’s the actual RAW rule reinforced on the narration sections and GM sections. That is the consistently and literally repeated principle in this game: GM and played working together to do what makes for a cool story and your narrow reading of the rules doesn’t change or override: the claim that a failed check cannot touch the target no matter what is not only not stated in the rules it’s certainly not the Only Rule, these things must be seen in whole and you miss that. This game is beloved for it’s possibilities (why I think you’re getting such a strong response to your stance) and you’re missing that is also part of the rules, even more central than anything you’ve cited.

17 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Pablo Hidalgo's statement does not say that Jango was absolutely not from Concord Dawn. He said that Jango claims to be from there, but, other than that, his background is a mystery. Whether or not Jango's claim is true has not been determined in the current canon . And, until it is, that still leaves room for interpretation whether you can consider him to be Mandalorian based upon that.

There you go again, ignoring the first half of Pablo’s post: “The Fetts aren’t Mandalorian.”

That’s a pretty definitive statement, that leaves zero “room for consideration” about his status as a Mandalorian. Because, y’know, it clearly states that, in no uncertain terms, he’s not.

But, because you prefer the notion that he is, you concentrate on the second half, bending your logic in ways that would make Auntie Anne jealous, zealously (and desperately) trying to create ambiguity in a statement that was simple, direct, and clear: “The Fetts aren’t Mandalorian.”

29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, we do have official lore , Whether or not it's current canon lore is another matter. Jango's original origins previously established before the Disney takeover, specifically established him as hailing from Concord Dawn, born to farmers, and orphaned when his parents were murdered by Death Watch who were hunting Jaster Mereel, leader of the True Mandalorians. Jaster Mereel adopted Jango as his son and raised him as a Mandalorian. That comes from officially published lore, albeit currently still Legends . The current canon alludes to that still possibly being the case. So, as far as we know , Jango Fett, is from Concord Dawn, and was adopted into the Mandalorian way.

That's not lore. At best it is apocrypha.

I mean, there is absolutely nobody disputing that at some point before 2010, Jango and Boba Fett were canonically the Mandalorianest Mandalorians that ever Mandoed, but all of that is no longer part of the lore. It has been excised from the canon. It is ex-lore. It has become fan-fiction. And this was way before Disney was even interested in Star Wars.

3 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

There you go again, ignoring the first half of Pablo’s post: “The Fetts aren’t Mandalorian.”

That’s a pretty definitive statement, that leaves zero “room for consideration” about his status as a Mandalorian. Because, y’know, it clearly states that, in no uncertain terms, he’s not.

But, because you prefer the notion that he is, you concentrate on the second half, bending your logic in ways that would make Auntie Anne jealous, zealously (and desperately) trying to create ambiguity in a statement that was simple, direct, and clear: “The Fetts aren’t Mandalorian.”

The Fetts are Stolen Mandalorian Valor. and viewed with the same contempt as those who claim to be a vet but have not served.

3 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

That's not lore. At best it is apocrypha.

I mean, there is absolutely nobody disputing that at some point before 2010, Jango and Boba Fett were canonically the Mandalorianest Mandalorians that ever Mandoed, but all of that is no longer part of the lore. It has been excised from the canon. It is ex-lore. It has become fan-fiction. And this was way before Disney was even interested in Star Wars.

It handily ignores the series of revisions and retcons to Boba’s history over those years, too. Even when “definitive,” the Fett family history was forced into ambiguity in 2002, having to be recast as tall tales told about the “legend of Boba Fett.”

But one thing’s for sure: if there was a problem, yo, Boba’d solve it.

7 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I'm not missing your point. Having layers of surface doesn't change the fact that for armor to work, the person wearing it must be hit. Whether or not the blow has any "purchase" is irrelevant . The person was still hit . He (or she) was still struck. That is what's relevant. Armor does not prevent a blow from hitting , It only reduces or negates the damage from the hit. It cannot prevent a hit from making contact. As for your assessment of Page 211 of F&D, I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. While the passage does say that the table itself (on page 212) is not an exhaustive list of the only options for spending Advantages and Triumphs, The rules do spell out that spending Advantages and Triumphs on Active weapon qualities , is restricted specifically to successful combat checks unless explicitly stated otherwise in that quality's description , as is the case with Blast and Guided . This is explicitly stated here (AoR page 168 and F&D page 161):

While the table for Spending Advantages and Triumphs in combat is not exhaustive, that does not mean you can spend them to damage a target without hitting them . Activating a weapon's Blast quality with three Advantages is the only way by RAW to inflict damage on a target on a missed attack. Guided simply allows the weapon itself to make a second attempt to hit the target on a missed attack, and continue to do so as long as the subsequent attempts roll enough Advantages or a Triumph to trigger the quality again. But to do that, the weapon in question must actually have that quality to begin with. You cannot activate a weapon quality that the weapon doesn't have, no matter how many Advantages or Triumphs you have. So, no, that rule does not contradict what I'm saying.

But things like the friction coating, which grants melee defense to armour, works by making sure that the attack doesn't gain purchase and can't penetrate when it's a hit. Even if that causes the attack to fail, but it can't cause the attack to fail unless it's narrated as a hit. So it has to be possible to narrate a failed attack as something that makes contact with the armour.

Anyway, it's not a active weapon quality. It's something related to the environment you're fighting in and has nothing at all to do with the weapon you're using. So again, not related to the weapon qualities. It's from the Soldier sourcebook. You can disagree with it all you want. It's not my interpretation of it. It's RAW . It's a fact. It's there in the book, printed by FFG. I sourced it from the pages in question as well. Now you either have to ignore the fact of it, or admit that it's part of the rules but you don't like that so you're going to ignore it.

14 hours ago, Edgehawk said:

Often, if a minion group rolls Threat while making an attack, I’ll just apply it as Strain. Since they cannot suffer Strain, this translates directly to Wounds, which I apply past Soak. I will narrate it as return fire, random ricochet, whatever. It is quick and simple, and minions are there to die. Threat = Wounds. Not game-breaking. Do others do this? Is it RAW? Just curious. I know this is a bit of a tangent, but... well, this thread...

I do that frequently as well, yes. And it is RAW since, as you say, 1 threat is 1 strain which minions (and rivals!) suffer as wounds. As long as the narrative fits it works!

20 hours ago, Edgehawk said:

Often, if a minion group rolls Threat while making an attack, I’ll just apply it as Strain. Since they cannot suffer Strain, this translates directly to Wounds, which I apply past Soak. I will narrate it as return fire, random ricochet, whatever. It is quick and simple, and minions are there to die. Threat = Wounds. Not game-breaking. Do others do this? Is it RAW? Just curious. I know this is a bit of a tangent, but... well, this thread...

I too use this often. It's one of my player favorite expenditure.

He even used a despair to do 1 strain to a rival just to finish him off. Lol

19 hours ago, StarkJunior said:

@Darth Revenant quoted from the Soldier book, which states otherwise... and contradicts what you're saying.

That's not an attack itself causing the damage. You cannot inflict damage with an attack if the attack roll itself fails to hit . Only the Blast weapon quality can do that. The table in the Soldier book is damage caused by an environmental hazard . That's not the same thing as an attack .

19 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

There you go again, ignoring the first half of Pablo’s post: “The Fetts aren’t Mandalorian.”

That’s a pretty definitive statement, that leaves zero “room for consideration” about his status as a Mandalorian. Because, y’know, it clearly states that, in no uncertain terms, he’s not.

But, because you prefer the notion that he is, you concentrate on the second half, bending your logic in ways that would make Auntie Anne jealous, zealously (and desperately) trying to create ambiguity in a statement that was simple, direct, and clear: “The Fetts aren’t Mandalorian.”

No, it isn't, not when you combine it with the rest of the statement, or with the actual lore regarding his background. It's all about what criteria you choose to use. If you want to use interviews and twitter posts by LFL staff as your sole criteria, more power to you. If you want to use the criteria that only someone from Mandalore itself, or of pure Mandalorian blood as criteria for discounting the Fetts as potential Mandalorians, more power to you, though, by doing so, you also discount Fen n Rau and Din Djarin. But, if you choose the criteria to include those from one of the Mandalorian colonies, adopted into their culture, raised into it, or those choosing to live according to that creed , That opens the door for them to potentially still be considered Mandalorian depending upon your point of view.

19 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

That's not lore. At best it is apocrypha.

I mean, there is absolutely nobody disputing that at some point before 2010, Jango and Boba Fett were canonically the Mandalorianest Mandalorians that ever Mandoed, but all of that is no longer part of the lore. It has been excised from the canon. It is ex-lore. It has become fan-fiction. And this was way before Disney was even interested in Star Wars.

Yes it is lore. It may not be current canon , but it was canon until the Disney Buyout, and it was canon at the time Clone Wars was airing. It was officially published under official license .

19 hours ago, Daeglan said:

The Fetts are Stolen Mandalorian Valor. and viewed with the same contempt as those who claim to be a vet but have not served.

The only one who held "contempt" for Jango Fett was Almec , who had his own political agenda . Almec wasn't a Mandalorian warrior; he was a pacifist New Mandalorian . If it had been Pre Viszla who had made that statement of contempt, then you would have a point.

12 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

But things like the friction coating, which grants melee defense to armour, works by making sure that the attack doesn't gain purchase and can't penetrate when it's a hit. Even if that causes the attack to fail, but it can't cause the attack to fail unless it's narrated as a hit. So it has to be possible to narrate a failed attack as something that makes contact with the armour.

Anyway, it's not a active weapon quality. It's something related to the environment you're fighting in and has nothing at all to do with the weapon you're using. So again, not related to the weapon qualities. It's from the Soldier sourcebook. You can disagree with it all you want. It's not my interpretation of it. It's RAW . It's a fact. It's there in the book, printed by FFG. I sourced it from the pages in question as well. Now you either have to ignore the fact of it, or admit that it's part of the rules but you don't like that so you're going to ignore it.

Friction coating doesn't make it harder to hit the target, though. It just makes it harder to gain purchase . All it does is make deflecting damage easier. The attack still has to hit in order to be deflected in the first place though. If an attack roll fails, narrate it as a near miss . By RAW, a failed attack roll cannot hit . It doesn't matter the source of the failure symbols, and as I said several pages back, some sources of Defense stack with each other, and, if yo have multiple stacking sources of Defense, there is no way to determine which, if any, of those sources of Defense contributed to the potential failure of a given attack roll . The rules are clear, a Failed attack is a miss.

7 hours ago, c__beck said:

I do that frequently as well, yes. And it is RAW since, as you say, 1 threat is 1 strain which minions (and rivals!) suffer as wounds. As long as the narrative fits it works!

47 minutes ago, Jareth Valar said:

I too use this often. It's one of my player favorite expenditure.

He even used a despair to do 1 strain to a rival just to finish him off. Lol

However, Spending the enemy's Threat or Despair is not your attack doing damage. It's the enemy injuring himself .

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes it is lore. It may not be current canon , but it was canon until the Disney Buyout, and it was canon at the time Clone Wars was airing. It was officially published under official license .

It actually became non-canonical long before Lucas sold his company (why does a person so obsessed by correct usage of words keep using "buyout" when it was nothing of the sort). Lucas was the one who has issues with the Fetts being Mandalorians. You do know Clone Wars seasons 1-6 wasn't made by Disney, right?

Anyway, if that is what "lore" is, then lore isn't relevant to the question in the slightest. That elevates the ramblings of Mike Zeroh to lore.

4 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

It actually became non-canonical long before Lucas sold his company (why does a person so obsessed by correct usage of words keep using "buyout" when it was nothing of the sort). Lucas was the one who has issues with the Fetts being Mandalorians. You do know Clone Wars seasons 1-6 wasn't made by Disney, right?

Anyway, if that is what "lore" is, then lore isn't relevant to the question in the slightest. That elevates the ramblings of Mike Zeroh to lore.

No, it didn't. At the time of Clone Wars, everything except Infinities was canon.

11 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it didn't. At the time of Clone Wars, everything except Infinities was canon.

for part of it. But not all of it.

14 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

for part of it. But not all of it.

No, everything not Infinities was canon. There were tiers of canon, yes, but it was all canon.

28 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it didn't. At the time of Clone Wars, everything except Infinities was canon.

Hah! No.

Thet bits Lucas said explicitly were not canon weren't even Infinities level canon. Like the Fetts being Mandaloreans. Plus, almost nothing from the EU was canon. Thrawn wasn't canon until Disney made him canon.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That's not an attack itself causing the damage. You cannot inflict damage with an attack if the attack roll itself fails to hit . Only the Blast weapon quality can do that. The table in the Soldier book is damage caused by an environmental hazard . That's not the same thing as an attack .

No, it isn't, not when you combine it with the rest of the statement, or with the actual lore regarding his background. It's all about what criteria you choose to use. If you want to use interviews and twitter posts by LFL staff as your sole criteria, more power to you. If you want to use the criteria that only someone from Mandalore itself, or of pure Mandalorian blood as criteria for discounting the Fetts as potential Mandalorians, more power to you, though, by doing so, you also discount Fen n Rau and Din Djarin. But, if you choose the criteria to include those from one of the Mandalorian colonies, adopted into their culture, raised into it, or those choosing to live according to that creed , That opens the door for them to potentially still be considered Mandalorian depending upon your point of view.

Yes it is lore. It may not be current canon , but it was canon until the Disney Buyout, and it was canon at the time Clone Wars was airing. It was officially published under official license .

The only one who held "contempt" for Jango Fett was Almec , who had his own political agenda . Almec wasn't a Mandalorian warrior; he was a pacifist New Mandalorian . If it had been Pre Viszla who had made that statement of contempt, then you would have a point.

Friction coating doesn't make it harder to hit the target, though. It just makes it harder to gain purchase . All it does is make deflecting damage easier. The attack still has to hit in order to be deflected in the first place though. If an attack roll fails, narrate it as a near miss . By RAW, a failed attack roll cannot hit . It doesn't matter the source of the failure symbols, and as I said several pages back, some sources of Defense stack with each other, and, if yo have multiple stacking sources of Defense, there is no way to determine which, if any, of those sources of Defense contributed to the potential failure of a given attack roll . The rules are clear, a Failed attack is a miss.

However, Spending the enemy's Threat or Despair is not your attack doing damage. It's the enemy injuring himself .

I narrate how i see fit, as per the guidelines given for narration.

I refuse to stick my head up my @$$ like you when it comes to this game.

As for the soldiers charts for advantage, yes, it's an environmental effect that causes the damage, but it's an attack roll that the advantage comes from. So, whether the shot missed but caused damage by exploding a terminal it the player decided to do so with a successful attack because his weapon is to wee weak to do anything normally it's entirely up to them.

How you want to interpret things for you is all well and good. You don't get to tell others they are wrong in how they run their game.

30 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, everything not Infinities was canon. There were tiers of canon, yes, but it was all canon.

No. Infinities was EXPLICITLY not canon as they were where the what if scenarios went. so not canon.

Just now, micheldebruyn said:

Hah! No.

Thet bits Lucas said explicitly were not canon weren't even Infinities level canon. Like the Fetts being Mandaloreans. Plus, almost nothing from the EU was canon. Thrawn wasn't canon until Disney made him canon.

Wrong. Until Disney bought Lucasfilm, Lucasfilm Licensing had three levels of canon: G: level, which included the movies and movie novelizations; C-Level, which included the novels, comics, games, etc; and S-Level which included older materials, such as the old Marvel run of comics which always didn't quite mesh up with the then current continuity. Jango Fett being from Concord Dawn did not contradict Almec's statement in the Clone Wars , because Almec's statement, was a single character's personal viewpoint . Not only that, but as I said before, Almec's statement is true from a certain point of view . Jango Fett is not Mandalorian by blood .

As far as we know , that is all GL himself may have meant as well. The same is true of Pablo Hidalgo's statement. J ango Fett is not Mandalorian by blood. That does not preclude him from being considered Mandalorian by upbringing or by creed . If that were the case, then Din Djarin and Fenn Rau could not be considered Mandalorian either. Fenn Rau is not from Mandalore, neither is Din Djarin. Fenn Rau is from Concord Dawn . Din Djarin was a Foundling. Neither has true Mandalorian blood ancestry . Yet both are considered Mandalorian. FYI, Jon Favreau still considers Jango and Boba Fett Mandalorian . He has even called them such in interviews.

Just now, Daeglan said:

No. Infinities was EXPLICITLY not canon as they were where the what if scenarios went. so not canon.

That's exactly what I said . Infinities was not canon, but everything else was canon .

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong. Until Disney bought Lucasfilm, Lucasfilm Licensing had three levels of canon: G: level, which included the movies and movie novelizations; C-Level, which included the novels, comics, games, etc; and S-Level which included older materials, such as the old Marvel run of comics which always didn't quite mesh up with the then current continuity. Jango Fett being from Concord Dawn did not contradict Almec's statement in the Clone Wars , because Almec's statement, was a single character's personal viewpoint . Not only that, but as I said before, Almec's statement is true from a certain point of view . Jango Fett is not Mandalorian by blood .

As far as we know , that is all GL himself may have meant as well. The same is true of Pablo Hidalgo's statement. J ango Fett is not Mandalorian by blood. That does not preclude him from being considered Mandalorian by upbringing or by creed . If that were the case, then Din Djarin and Fenn Rau could not be considered Mandalorian either. Fenn Rau is not from Mandalore, neither is Din Djarin. Fenn Rau is from Concord Dawn . Din Djarin was a Foundling. Neither has true Mandalorian blood ancestry . Yet both are considered Mandalorian. FYI, Jon Favreau still considers Jango and Boba Fett Mandalorian . He has even called them such in interviews.

That's exactly what I said . Infinities was not canon, but everything else was canon .

No not everything else was canon. In fact a lot of it was explicitly not canon because George said otherwise or produced something that said otherwise. So a lot of stuff was not canon.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That's not an attack itself causing the damage. You cannot inflict damage with an attack if the attack roll itself fails to hit . Only the Blast weapon quality can do that. The table in the Soldier book is damage caused by an environmental hazard . That's not the same thing as an attack .

Friction coating doesn't make it harder to hit the target, though. It just makes it harder to gain purchase . All it does is make deflecting damage easier. The attack still has to hit in order to be deflected in the first place though. If an attack roll fails, narrate it as a near miss . By RAW, a failed attack roll cannot hit . It doesn't matter the source of the failure symbols, and as I said several pages back, some sources of Defense stack with each other, and, if yo have multiple stacking sources of Defense, there is no way to determine which, if any, of those sources of Defense contributed to the potential failure of a given attack roll . The rules are clear, a Failed attack is a miss.

Read the tables in question. They're all related to combat checks, so lets go with attacks. They can all be triggered without succeeding on an attack roll. They're not simply environmental hazards that happen. They happen because someone triggers them. With their COMBAT check. Meaning that, without using blast or guided, it is indeed quite possible to hurt your opponent. Even on a failed attack roll. This is RAW. It's there in the books. It still remains a fact.

As for the coating, it makes it harder to gain a hit with any sort of impact. Again we have something from the books that functions in a way you claim goes against RAW. It's a narrative system, on that isn't always consistent in what terminology they use. It's fine to say you don't like the narration we offer. You don't have to like it. It's less fine to take an absolutist stance and say that others shouldn't narrate things in the way they and their groups like.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

No not everything else was canon. In fact a lot of it was explicitly not canon because George said otherwise or produced something that said otherwise. So a lot of stuff was not canon.

No . Unless a specific element of a story was explicitly contradicted in another canon source of higher level , it was still canon . Jango Fett being from Concord Dawn was never explicitly contradicted .

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it isn't,

Yes, it is simple, direct, and clear: "The Fetts aren't Mandalorian." What else do you suggest that means?

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

not when you combine it with the rest of the statement

"Though I suppose Jango claimed to be from Concord Dawn at some point."

The first half of the statement is declarative regarding both Jango and Boba's status as Mandalorians. (That status being that they're not.) The second half establishes an unsubstantiated claim that Jango is presumed to have made regarding his past. Now, as you've pointed out (ad nauseum), someone being from a Mandalorian world would, naturally, make one Mandalorian. The first half of Pablo's statement implicitly invalidates any such claim Jango may have made. (I'll just slip in a reminder here about Rob Van Winkle's claims of being from the "mean streets" of Miami when he actually grew up in a suburb of Dallas. Claims made to inflate one's reputation in one's chosen profession aren't always rooted in truth. If you'd like to hear the story my former co-worker also told me about the true origin of Van Winkle's "gang scar," just let me know.)

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If you want to use interviews and twitter posts by LFL staff as your sole criteria, more power to you.

Well, LFL's position on the matter is what sets the facts of the fictional universe, right? At least as early as 2010, the official stance is that he's not Mandalorian.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

But, if you choose the criteria to include those from one of the Mandalorian colonies, adopted into their culture, raised into it, or those choosing to live according to that creed , That opens the door for them to potentially still be considered Mandalorian depending upon your point of view.

Well, we discussed above how LFL's position invalidates Jango being from a Mandalorian colony. Nothing indicates that he was adopted into their culture or chose to live according to their creed.

So...as it stands, they're still not Mandalorian.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes it is lore. It may not be current canon , but it was canon until the Disney Buyout, and it was canon at the time Clone Wars was airing. It was officially published under official license .

Much of what had been published about the Fett family history had already become ambiguous by 2002, necessitated by Boba being established as being a clone of Jango. As you've pointed out, there were multiple tiers of consideration within LFL. One of the simplest ways of putting the priorities would be to say that it all "counted," until and unless contradicted on screen. There is precisely one on-screen statement regarding Jango's status as a Mandalorian, and that's that he isn't. Color it as "unreliable" all you want, but we also have record from behind the scenes as to why the line was to included, and that was to establish that Jango wasn't Mandalorian.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it didn't. At the time of Clone Wars, everything except Infinities was canon.

So...at the time of Clone Wars, Boba was somehow simultaneously--

• A Mandalorian supercommando who fought alongside Fenn Shysa during the time of the Clone Wars
• Jaster Mereel, disgraced Journeyman Protector from Concord Dawn who, in exile, took the name Boba Fett and somehow obtained Mandalorian armor
• A clone of Jango Fett created just 10 years before the Clone Wars

As we can see, you continue to do backflips on the subject. You could very easily say, "Yes, per LFL, Jango isn't Mandalorian. I liked it better when he was." That would be more than fair. But, it would also require you ceding authority on the matter to someone else (those who actually get to make such decisions about their characters).

Likewise (and the reason I brought it up in the first place), you continue to insist that it's not possible to narrate failed attack rolls with setback(s) due to armor defense as making contact but being completely ineffective due to that armor. But you've been shown how some actually use such narration. (That's also been expanded to include that wounds incurred by NPCs due to threat on their own attack rolls must be interpreted as self-inflicted wounds, or due to advantage on attackers' failed attack rolls must have some source other than that failed attack roll.) As above, you could very easily say, "That's not how I play. Have fun." But, doing so would require you to acknowledge you've been a bit inflexible on the subject, insisting upon the existence of requirements that just aren't there.

I remember one time when I was a kid, my dad commented that, listening to my friends and I play, I could sometimes be kind of insistent. ("Now, you do this," "OK, now say such-and-such.") I took it to heart, and I like to think that I've even carried that observation with me as I discovered RPGs. Sometimes, Tramp, you remind me of that observation my dad made about me all those years ago.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No . Unless a specific element of a story was explicitly contradicted in another canon source of higher level , it was still canon . Jango Fett being from Concord Dawn was never explicitly contradicted .

You mean like an on-screen statement that Jango wasn't Mandalorian superseding print stories that claimed he was?

7 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Yes, it is simple, direct, and clear: "The Fetts aren't Mandalorian." What else do you suggest that means?

"Though I suppose Jango claimed to be from Concord Dawn at some point."

The first half of the statement is declarative regarding both Jango and Boba's status as Mandalorians. (That status being that they're not.) The second half establishes an unsubstantiated claim that Jango is presumed to have made regarding his past. Now, as you've pointed out (ad nauseum), someone being from a Mandalorian world would, naturally, make one Mandalorian. The first half of Pablo's statement implicitly invalidates any such claim Jango may have made. (I'll just slip in a reminder here about Rob Van Winkle's claims of being from the "mean streets" of Miami when he actually grew up in a suburb of Dallas. Claims made to inflate one's reputation in one's chosen profession aren't always rooted in truth. If you'd like to hear the story my former co-worker also told me about the true origin of Van Winkle's "gang scar," just let me know.)

Well, LFL's position on the matter is what sets the facts of the fictional universe, right? At least as early as 2010, the official stance is that he's not Mandalorian.

Well, we discussed above how LFL's position invalidates Jango being from a Mandalorian colony. Nothing indicates that he was adopted into their culture or chose to live according to their creed.

So...as it stands, they're still not Mandalorian.

Much of what had been published about the Fett family history had already become ambiguous by 2002, necessitated by Boba being established as being a clone of Jango. As you've pointed out, there were multiple tiers of consideration within LFL. One of the simplest ways of putting the priorities would be to say that it all "counted," until and unless contradicted on screen. There is precisely one on-screen statement regarding Jango's status as a Mandalorian, and that's that he isn't. Color it as "unreliable" all you want, but we also have record from behind the scenes as to why the line was to included, and that was to establish that Jango wasn't Mandalorian.

So...at the time of Clone Wars, Boba was somehow simultaneously--

• A Mandalorian supercommando who fought alongside Fenn Shysa during the time of the Clone Wars
• Jaster Mereel, disgraced Journeyman Protector from Concord Dawn who, in exile, took the name Boba Fett and somehow obtained Mandalorian armor
• A clone of Jango Fett created just 10 years before the Clone Wars

As we can see, you continue to do backflips on the subject. You could very easily say, "Yes, per LFL, Jango isn't Mandalorian. I liked it better when he was." That would be more than fair. But, it would also require you ceding authority on the matter to someone else (those who actually get to make such decisions about their characters).

Likewise (and the reason I brought it up in the first place), you continue to insist that it's not possible to narrate failed attack rolls with setback(s) due to armor defense as making contact but being completely ineffective due to that armor. But you've been shown how some actually use such narration. (That's also been expanded to include that wounds incurred by NPCs due to threat on their own attack rolls must be interpreted as self-inflicted wounds, or due to advantage on attackers' failed attack rolls must have some source other than that failed attack roll.) As above, you could very easily say, "That's not how I play. Have fun." But, doing so would require you to acknowledge you've been a bit inflexible on the subject, insisting upon the existence of requirements that just aren't there.

I remember one time when I was a kid, my dad commented that, listening to my friends and I play, I could sometimes be kind of insistent. ("Now, you do this," "OK, now say such-and-such.") I took it to heart, and I like to think that I've even carried that observation with me as I discovered RPGs. Sometimes, Tramp, you remind me of that observation my dad made about me all those years ago.

I mean even in the 80s it was said Boba wore Mandalorian Commando Armor. but it never said he was Mandalorian. I dont recall any source from Lucas saying he was Mandalorian. Just that he wore that style Armor.

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I mean even in the 80s it was said Boba wore Mandalorian Commando Armor. but it never said he was Mandalorian. I dont recall any source from Lucas saying he was Mandalorian. Just that he wore that style Armor.

Fenn Shysa's first appearance (Marvel's Star Wars #68, on sale in 1982) said that he was. But, before sitting down to respond this afternoon, I pulled my copy of the first Essential Guide to Characters off the shelf. It doesn't say he's Mandalorian at all. It says he was originally Jaster Mereel, was exiled for the killing of a corrupt fellow Journeyman Protector, and that how he obtained the Mandalorian armor is unknown.

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

It says he was originally Jaster Mereel, was exiled for the killing of a corrupt fellow Journeyman Protector, and that how he obtained the Mandalorian armor is unknown.

And then Jaster Mereel became an entirely separate character from Jango's backstory, and Jango's original ship was Jaster's. And also Boba's armor ended up looking a lot like Jaster's armor?

My god, old EU was a crazy mess, wasn't it? 🤣