1 minute ago, StarkJunior said: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? 🤣
Shhhhh....
1 minute ago, Darth Revenant said: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.
They happen because a player triggers them, not a character . That is the difference. Narratively , they are environmental effects . They do not happen as a direct result of the character attacking the target.
3 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.
Except that claiming to be from Concord Dawn does nothing to boost Jango's reputation . He already had a solid rep in his own right, as a result of his abilities as a Bounty Hunter, and Concord Dawn is an insignificant backwater colony . How does that help to artificially boost anyone's reputation as a bounty hunter? It doesn't.
Other than stating his homeworld, Jango has always been tight lipped about his past.
As for your bulleted points? Those have all been explicitly covered in the old canon, already. The Clone Wars origin explicitly contradicted the Jaster Mereel origin for Boba Fett. And even before that, the Super Commando and Jaster Mereel origins had already been established, from the very beginning, to be among several possible identities Boba Fett may have used to add more mystery about his past.
Jango and Boba Fett are not Mandalorian by blood . They are not from Mandalore . Boba Fett is from Kamino . Jango is from Concord Dawn , as far as is currently known. As far as is currently known Jango was raised in Mandalorian culture and ways. That inherently makes the statement "Jango is not Mandalorian" only true f rom a certain point of view , that point of view being he's not a " True " Mandalorian from Mandalore .
11 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.
2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said: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.
This is correct. GL himself never said that Boba was Mandalorian. This was established by the various writers at Lucas Licensing. And it was established in the then canon fiction of the time. Even after AotC, all that did was force them to make Jaster a separate character.
1 minute ago, StarkJunior said: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? 🤣
Exactly. GL deciding to make Boba Fett a clone of the then new character Jango Fett required a retcon of the existing continuity. Thus, Jango was eventually established as being from Concord Dawn, orphaned, and adopted into the Mandalorian ways by Jaster Mereel, but Jango was never a " true " Mandalorian by blood. He was simply adopted into their culture. To use the term from the new series, Jango was a Foundling . That background has not been expunged . All GL's intent establishes is that Jango is not from Mandalore, which has never been the case to begin with .
6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:They happen because a player triggers them, not a character . That is the difference. Narratively , they are environmental effects . They do not happen as a direct result of the character attacking the target.
No, they happen because a character triggers them. This character may be controlled by the GM or another player. This character attacks a target, as a direct result of this character attacking the target, something happens. The ground beneath them gives out due to the attack, some explosive barrels/ammunition bin/fuel tanks nearby go off, a computer panel blows up in a spectacular fashion, stinging insects are awakened and attack everything in sight or something flammable catches fire. They are a direct result of the attack that a character just made. Narratively, they happen because a player elected that their character made it happen in relation to the attack roll they just did. And it's a direct result of the character that the player was controlling doing an attack against a target.
31 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:They happen because a player triggers them, not a character . That is the difference. Narratively , they are environmental effects . They do not happen as a direct result of the character attacking the target.
They couldn't be triggered if the character didn't attack. Hitting the power conduit beside an opponent and using Advantage to cause it to explode is the direct result of an attack. Narratively. the bolt missed the target (an attack, dummy) and hit something else which, luckily (due to advantage and/or triumph) caused damage to the originally missed target.
Geeze, you're a freeking idiot. You will try and twist anything and everything to keep from being "wrong" and the only thing you do is show everyone you're not even worth conversing with, much less gaming with.
I truly feel for anyone who has to tolerate your presence much less a conversation with you.
Edited by Jareth Valar9 minutes ago, Darth Revenant said:No, they happen because a character triggers them. This character may be controlled by the GM or another player. This character attacks a target, as a direct result of this character attacking the target, something happens. The ground beneath them gives out due to the attack, some explosive barrels/ammunition bin/fuel tanks nearby go off, a computer panel blows up in a spectacular fashion, stinging insects are awakened and attack everything in sight or something flammable catches fire. They are a direct result of the attack that a character just made. Narratively, they happen because a player elected that their character made it happen in relation to the attack roll they just did. And it's a direct result of the character that the player was controlling doing an attack against a target.
No. Mechancially , they happen because the player or GM triggers them. What they're not is damage from the character's weapon . No matter who triggers them, the actual effect is caused by the environment . Explosive barrels or ammunition bins are environmental hazards . The attacker's weapon does not directly cause injury to the target because it did not hit the target . And, once again, what that table is describing is a Blast effect. Blast is an area effect. Not only that, but it effects all characters engaged with the target . This includes the attacker, or his allies if any of them are in engaged range of his target. This is just like activating the Blast item quality. However, there has to actually be such an environmental hazard there \ for that to be a viable use of those Advantages.
No, there doesn't have to be. Character's shot hits some brick or a crate or something else near the enemy they were shooting at and the shrapnel from the explosion or a spark from the collision harms the enemy. No previous hazard needed. It literally states as such on the table.
It's not a Blast effect. It's a weapon - a character's weapon - causing that to happen. A character triggers it.
Edited by StarkJunior12 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:No. Mechancially , they happen because the player or GM triggers them. What they're not is damage from the character's weapon . No matter who triggers them, the actual effect is caused by the environment . Explosive barrels or ammunition bins are environmental hazards . The attacker's weapon does not directly cause injury to the target because it did not hit the target . And, once again, what that table is describing is a Blast effect. Blast is an area effect. Not only that, but it effects all characters engaged with the target . This includes the attacker, or his allies if any of them are in engaged range of his target. This is just like activating the Blast item quality. However, there has to actually be such an environmental hazard there \ for that to be a viable use of those Advantages.
Not all of them are area of effect. And since you love to argue mechanical RAW as you see them, there is no Blast effect to trigger. You can't say that it's effectively a Blast effect when the rules don't give it the Blast quality.
I think I'm going to narrate something in my next session that a failed attack ricocheted off of the bad guys armor (due to Defense) and hit a computer terminal near by causing damage to the bad guy. JUST FOR YOU!
In one post you argue your strict interpretation of things and the next you argue the effective semantics of things. I'd say you'd make a good politician, but I don't want to be that insulting to politicians.
Edited by Jareth Valar9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:No. Mechancially , they happen because the player or GM triggers them. What they're not is damage from the character's weapon . No matter who triggers them, the actual effect is caused by the environment . Explosive barrels or ammunition bins are environmental hazards . The attacker's weapon does not directly cause injury to the target because it did not hit the target . And, once again, what that table is describing is a Blast effect. Blast is an area effect. Not only that, but it effects all characters engaged with the target . This includes the attacker, or his allies if any of them are in engaged range of his target. This is just like activating the Blast item quality. However, there has to actually be such an environmental hazard there \ for that to be a viable use of those Advantages.
I am so glad I dont have to game with you. YOu are a terrible person to deal with because you can NEVER admit you are wrong. Even when you ARE wrong. and have been demonstrated to be so 34 pages. At no point is anyone here going to except your view. Because you view is demonstrably wrong.
1 minute ago, StarkJunior said:No, there doesn't have to be. Character's shot hits some brick or a crate or something else near the enemy they were shooting at and the shrapnel from the explosion or a spark from the collision harms the enemy. No previous hazard needed. It literally states as such on the table.
Which is still an environmental hazard . The damage is not a direct result of the weapon. IT is a direct result of the environment .
Just now, Jareth Valar said:Not all of them are area of effect.
Yeah, the one I'm looking at right now only happens to the target of the intended attack. In fact, 3 of them are that way.
Just now, Tramp Graphics said:Which is still an environmental hazard . The damage is not a direct result of the weapon. IT is a direct result of the environment .
No. It is a direct result of the weapon interacting with the environment. An environmental effect would be fog, or poison gas. This is a weapon interacting with something effect.
3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:Which is still an environmental hazard . The damage is not a direct result of the weapon. IT is a direct result of the environment .
It is a direct result of the weapon CAUSING the hazard, and in the case of some shrapnel or dislodged material, it's a single effect, not an ongoing effect.. You implied earlier that the hazard has to be preexisting. It does not. You can cause one, directly because of your weapon.
Edited by StarkJunior1 minute ago, StarkJunior said:Yeah, the one I'm looking at right now only happens to the target of the intended attack. In fact, 3 of them are that way.
It is almost like they didnt want to effectively make every weapon a blast weapon...
Just now, Daeglan said:I am so glad I dont have to game with you. YOu are a terrible person to deal with because you can NEVER admit you are wrong. Even when you ARE wrong. and have been demonstrated to be so 34 pages. At no point is anyone here going to except your view. Because you view is demonstrably wrong.
Because I'm not wrong. You're talking about an environmental hazard doing damage, not the actual attack . That's the very definition of "moving goal posts". Everything I have talked about is the attack itself . a blaster being shot at a target; a sword being swung at a target. If the weapon hits, which requires a successful combat check, it can potentially do damage. It cannot potentially do damage directly, if it does not hit, and it cannot hit if the atack roll fails.
Dude, are you seriously going to argue with official rules that say the opposite of what you're saying? My god.
You can do damage - Strain damage - on a failed attack by causing something to harm the target based on the table in the Soldier book. That's RAW.
It's okay to be wrong sometimes, which you are here.
Edited by StarkJunior1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:Which is still an environmental hazard . The damage is not a direct result of the weapon. IT is a direct result of the environment .
Which is the direct result of a failed attack roll (or successful).
Your claim was that there was no way to cause damage to an enemy on a failed attack roll. You were proven wrong on that statement. And as such, you are attempting to narrow your parameters. LOL Truly and totally pathetic.
Tramp, You are absolutely right in everything you say..in your own mind. Enjoy your headspace, because noone else here does.
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:Except that claiming to be from Concord Dawn does nothing to boost Jango's reputation .
It makes him "a Mandalorian."
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:He already had a solid rep in his own right, as a result of his abilities as a Bounty Hunter,
Really? Where do we have this established?
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:and Concord Dawn is an insignificant backwater colony . How does that help to artificially boost anyone's reputation as a bounty hunter? It doesn't.
As you keep pointing out (and I mentioned above), it makes him "a Mandalorian," and ties him to a "fierce warrior tradition." But, sure...I guess claiming to be from a pacifist world is much better at achieving that goal, right?
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:Other than stating his homeworld, Jango has always been tight lipped about his past.
Well, considering that (allegedly) "stating his homeworld" appears to have been a lie...yeah.
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:As for your bulleted points? Those have all been explicitly covered in the old canon, already.
But you said that everything was canon. By definition, "everything" would include those three contradictory histories.
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:The Clone Wars origin explicitly contradicted the Jaster Mereel origin for Boba Fett. And even before that, the Super Commando and Jaster Mereel origins had already been established, from the very beginning, to be among several possible identities Boba Fett may have used to add more mystery about his past.
So, you agree that it's possible for previous information about the character(s) to be invalidated by new information.
Such as the only on-screen information about Jango's origins invalidating his connection to Mandalore.
I think we're making progress.
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:Jango and Boba Fett are not Mandalorian by blood .
"The Fetts aren't Mandalorian." Period.
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:Jango is from Concord Dawn , as far as is currently known.
No, he has apparently claimed to be from Concord Dawn. But, as you've pointed out time and again, being from Concord Dawn would make him Mandalorian, and since we know that, according to LFL, he's not Mandalorian, that would indicate that he's not actually from Concord Dawn.
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:As far as is currently known Jango was raised in Mandalorian culture and ways.
We've seen no indication of this.
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:That inherently makes the statement "Jango is not Mandalorian" only true f rom a certain point of view , that point of view being he's not a " True " Mandalorian from Mandalore .
"The Fetts aren't Mandalorian." Period. No qualifiers included. This stance has been upheld in other comments, including remarks from both Dave Filoni and Jon Favreau, who together are responsible for the bulk of what has been established about post-Legends Mandalorian culture.
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:Exactly. GL deciding to make Boba Fett a clone of the then new character Jango Fett required a retcon of the existing continuity.
So, you accept Lucas' decision to make Boba a clone of Jango, but not his decision that the Fetts aren't Mandalorian, a decision that was put into play in Clone Wars?
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:To use the term from the new series, Jango was a Foundling . That background has not been expunged .
Ah, so you can show us where it's been established, referenced, reinforced, and retained in the post-Legends continuity, yes?
29 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:All GL's intent establishes is that Jango is not from Mandalore, which has never been the case to begin with .
"The Fetts aren't Mandalorian." Pablo Hidalgo, Twitter, 1/29/2016
"So the idea that Jango Fett is not a Mandalorian, that's something that comes directly from George. I think that when we first saw Jango in Attack of the Clones , that a lot of us, myself included, we assumed, 'Oh, he must be a Mandalorian. There he is in Mandalorian armor.' So, there was kind of this early assumption that Jango must be a Mandalorian, and that was interesting to see. But, that was never stated in the film. It was never stated he was Mandalorian. He was always just referred to as a bounty hunter." - Dave Filoni, "Creating Mandalore" featurette.
You keep trying to toss in qualifiers..."Mandalorian but not from Mandalore," "not Mandalorian by blood," etc. Now, you're reading into Lucas' intent with information that I've not seen established anywhere. No such qualifiers have been used by LFL. And they're the ones who get to make the decision.
Now, I've said a few times that there's always the possibility that they could reverse that decision, and there are a few ways they could do so. (And, personally, I'm fine with them either doing so or keeping the current status quo...ultimately, Jango's a minor character whose dual purposes fall apart if you examine them too closely...like, why would the Republic not be suspicious of a conveniently-ready clone army build from a template of a man who tried to kill a Republic Senator, a Jedi, was sitting all cozy in the royal box on Geonosis next to the Separatist leader, and then fought against the Jedi who came to the rescue?) Whether or not he's a Mandalorian doesn't matter to me. It's just useful in this particular thread to establish that, despite your claim to "like facts," there are some that you not only don't like, that you'll jump through a variety of logical hoops to claim aren't really facts.
Are you at all capable of acknowledging that, as it currently stands, Jango quite simply is not Mandalorian (in any sense of the term), even though you'd prefer it otherwise?
3 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:It is a direct result of the weapon CAUSING the hazard, and in the case of some shrapnel or dislodged material, it's a single effect, not an ongoing effect.. You implied earlier that the hazard has to be preexisting. It does not. You can cause one, directly because of your weapon.
That is what's known as indirect damage, not direct damage. The weapon itself is not causing direct damage to the target. An environmental hazard explodes causing the direct damage in question. The weapon is an indirect cause.
Secondly, the explosion is not itself the hazard. The barrel of fuel, the box of ammunition. Those are environmental hazards . They are things that have the potential to threaten the surrounding environment. the explosion is the result of said hazard being detonated. If that hazard is not there to begin with, then no explosion can possibly occur. Everything in that table about Urban Combat is an environmental hazard of some sort. pipes, windows, rubble, barrels of fuel, ammo boxes, even vehicles; these are all environmental hazards . All of them have the potential to threaten people nearby. A missed attack can potentially set that hazard off. But the attack itself is not directly causing damage to the target if the attack missed said target. It is the enviromental hazard triggered by the shot which inflicts that damage. It should also be noted that the only environmental hazards listed that actually cause wound damage are ones requiring three Advantages, that deal Blast to everyone in the vicinity . A ruptured pipe only creates difficult terrain, shattered transparisteel only inflicts strain (granted, that's a moot point with Minions and most Rivals, but still), rubble just staggers the target. a collapsed floor or wall only staggers or immobilizes the target for one round. None of them inflict damage .
Anyone else notice that both arguments (Armor/Jango) started with someone saying "I don't want to argue with you over this again"?
*facepalm*
Just say no .
Let your yes be yes and your no be no .
Just don't do it.
(or do it anyway while I look on and snicker at the people running around in circles yelling at each other XD)
1 hour 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 .
It doesn't matter where Jango Fett was from. Why do you cling to his place of birth that does not matter to his Mandaloraness? And the word of George Lucas supercede any level canon (or at least they did when he deMandaloraised the Fetts).
10 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:Anyone else notice that both arguments (Armor/Jango) started with someone saying "I don't want to argue with you over this again"?
*facepalm*
Just say no .
Let your yes be yes and your no be no .
Just don't do it.
(or do it anyway while I look on and snicker at the people running around in circles yelling at each other XD)
Honestly?
It’s just kinda fun to watch Tramp wind up and spin wildly around. He truly lives Adam Savage’s pithy catchphrase, “I reject your reality and substitute my own,” to an extreme.
1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:1 hour ago, Darth Revenant said:
They happen because a player triggers them, not a character . That is the difference. Narratively , they are environmental effects . They do not happen as a direct result of the character attacking the target.
Ha ha ha. Tramp seriously this is ridiculous and you have to know it.
5 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:Honestly?
It’s just kinda fun to watch Tramp wind up and spin wildly around. He truly lives Adam Savage’s pithy catchphrase, “I reject your reality and substitute my own,” to an extreme.
Yeah, we are definitely in to the phase of the thread where Tramp knows he’s wrong and he won’t admit it but he’s demonstrating he is which is own admission in his own special way.
6 minutes ago, Jedi Ronin said:They happen because a player triggers them, not a character . That is the difference. Narratively , they are environmental effects . They do not happen as a direct result of the character attacking the target.
Why do you woke so hard to ignore all the rules? You refuse to accept that the rules state GM and players can spend A/T to their liking with no restrictions. You are reading in restrictions that are not there. This the golden rule of the game oft repeated and emphasized in the narrative sections and even verbatim stares in the mechanics section. Your argument isn’t with us - it’s with English at this point.
17 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:It doesn't matter where Jango Fett was from. Why do you cling to his place of birth that does not matter to his Mandaloraness? And the word of George Lucas supercede any level canon (or at least they did when he deMandaloraised the Fetts).
to me after all the bloody retcons to this I say NO Han was the only one to shoot and the Fetts were Mando if not by blood then by culture