29 minutes ago, Jawa4thewin said:

Are you sure? Can you explain that out a bit more?

WHYYYYY?????

Ahem. Excuse me.

This has been discussed at length throughout this whole thread, so in the interest of not further reviving this thread that desperately needs to stay dead, I am not going to counter Tramp's statement and simply suggest that you reread some of the thread.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, I’m sure. Armor only comes into effect when you are physically struck by an attack, be it melee or ranged. The attack must make direct contact with the armor; it has to hit the target. I’m game terms, this means a successful attack roll. Only then does the armor either deflect or absorb the damage from it. The armor does not make the wearer suddenly more nimble allowing him to dodge the incoming attack more easily. On the contrary. Armor actually restricts range of motion to various degrees and slows the wearer down. This makes it actually easier for an attack to land. Nor does armor magically create a field that causes attacks to bypass the target completely. No. For armor to be effective, the attack must first hit the target. Then, and only then , does armor have an impact on how effective the attack was. This is demonstrable fact.

This again. Thisnis not what the people who make the game say. And you have already clearly know nothing about armor as you have spent very little time fighting in it

3 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

This again. Thisnis not what the people who make the game say. And you have already clearly know nothing about armor as you have spent very little time fighting in it

Wrong on both counts.

Just now, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong on both counts.

you claim that. but you have demonstrated that as false since you still do not recognize that the shape of armor is changed in order to glance attacks away from the target. often resulting in an attack that makes contact but does so little the wearer doesn't even know contact was made. the armor caused a failed attack. And no that is not soak. that is defense. You are wrong. We all know you are wrong. Those of us who have fought in armor more extensively know you are wrong.

Is it an OCD thing? Or some kind of absurd performance art?

4 hours ago, Daeglan said:

you claim that. but you have demonstrated that as false since you still do not recognize that the shape of armor is changed in order to glance attacks away from the target. often resulting in an attack that makes contact but does so little the wearer doesn't even know contact was made. the armor caused a failed attack. And no that is not soak. that is defense. You are wrong. We all know you are wrong. Those of us who have fought in armor more extensively know you are wrong.

The shape of armor does not make an attack suddenly miss its intended target, preventing the blow from even coming into contact. All it does is turn or absorb the blow that has already struck the target and thus lessens the impact, and thus damage, that gets through to the target. The attack still hits . That is fact. That is not game mechanics. That is real physics. This was already demonstrated in multiple videos. Armor does not prevent an attack from hitting . It does not prevent an attack from making contact . The attack has to hit for armor to do its job ( damage mitigation ) in the first place.

And for the record, I’ve fought in armor in the SCA, as well as during training in the US Army, including Pugil-stick training in Basic Training. I’ve worn armor (flack vest and Kevlar helmet) during Operation Desert Storm. So don’t tell me I don’t know how armor works in real life. I have worn armor, I have fought in armor.

Alright, let's start a betting pool:

How many more pages will this go on?

1? 5? 38? Infinity? Don't know how you'd collect on that last one, but don't be shy. Place your bets, place your bets!

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The shape of armor does not make an attack suddenly miss its intended target, preventing the blow from even coming into contact. All it does is turn or absorb the blow that has already struck the target and thus lessens the impact, and thus damage, that gets through to the target. The attack still hits . That is fact. That is not game mechanics. That is real physics. This was already demonstrated in multiple videos. Armor does not prevent an attack from hitting . It does not prevent an attack from making contact . The attack has to hit for armor to do its job ( damage mitigation ) in the first place.

And for the record, I’ve fought in armor in the SCA, as well as during training in the US Army, including Pugil-stick training in Basic Training. I’ve worn armor (flack vest and Kevlar helmet) during Operation Desert Storm. So don’t tell me I don’t know how armor works in real life. I have worn armor, I have fought in armor.

Yes. We have been over this. It does not make you miss. It makes the attack a failure. The been says so in plain black and white. The fact you cant reconsile thatnin yourbhead is kind of sad.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The shape of armor does not make an attack suddenly miss its intended target, preventing the blow from even coming into contact. All it does is turn or absorb the blow that has already struck the target and thus lessens the impact, and thus damage, that gets through to the target. The attack still hits . That is fact. That is not game mechanics. That is real physics. This was already demonstrated in multiple videos. Armor does not prevent an attack from hitting . It does not prevent an attack from making contact . The attack has to hit for armor to do its job ( damage mitigation ) in the first place.

And for the record, I’ve fought in armor in the SCA, as well as during training in the US Army, including Pugil-stick training in Basic Training. I’ve worn armor (flack vest and Kevlar helmet) during Operation Desert Storm. So don’t tell me I don’t know how armor works in real life. I have worn armor, I have fought in armor.

Maybe you should reread the interprettingndice results page again.

I think all participants should lay out their basic premises and arguments again from the start just so we're all on the same page here. Really, best to go over it all again.

5 hours ago, Stan Fresh said:

I think all participants should lay out their basic premises and arguments again from the start just so we're all on the same page here. Really, best to go over it all again.

Agreed.

I think Tramp's point is that he has completely misunderstood the time he has spent in armor.

My point is that I want to fight Tramp in real life for purely demonstration and educational purposes.

Daeglan's point is that this "game" is for "having fun" and "telling stories", which means he is obviously set to be committed to an asylum.

Nytwyng's point is that HilariousChoiceOfTrollingImage.gif

Do I have that right?

20 minutes ago, BrickSteelhead said:

Do I have that right?

Your avatar is wearing some sort of helmet, so I'm inclined to agree with your assessment just based on that.

On 8/17/2020 at 9:49 PM, Daeglan said:

Yes. We have been over this. It does not make you miss. It makes the attack a failure. The been says so in plain black and white. The fact you cant reconsile thatnin yourbhead is kind of sad.

A failed attack, by RAW, is a miss . We have been over this time and again. Just because you refuse to accept that does not change that basic fact. A successful attack is required for an attack to hit . If the attack fails , it misses . Period.

On 8/18/2020 at 2:27 AM, Stan Fresh said:

I think all participants should lay out their basic premises and arguments again from the start just so we're all on the same page here. Really, best to go over it all again.

I have been very consistent in my premises and argument here. An attack must be Successful for it to hit its intended target, by RAW. A failed attack misses. Armor physically cannot make an attack miss it’s target. Thus, it cannot cause an attack to fail. It can only absorb or deflect the damage from a successful attack, from an attack that hits its target. That is what armor does. It does not make you harder to hit . Successes and Failures on an attack roll determine whether you hit. Successes hit and Failures miss. It is that simple.

I love the abuse of bold words in forum posts. It does so much for persuasion and precision it is astounding that these discussions are not over and settled by now ... may I suggest using some italicised words too ? For variation and decreased complexity ?

20 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A failed attack, by RAW, is a miss . We have been over this time and again. Just because you refuse to accept that does not change that basic fact. A successful attack is required for an attack to hit . If the attack fails , it misses . Period.

I have been very consistent in my premises and argument here. An attack must be Successful for it to hit its intended target, by RAW. A failed attack misses. Armor physically cannot make an attack miss it’s target. Thus, it cannot cause an attack to fail. It can only absorb or deflect the damage from a successful attack, from an attack that hits its target. That is what armor does. It does not make you harder to hit . Successes and Failures on an attack roll determine whether you hit. Successes hit and Failures miss. It is that simple.

again go read adjudicating a result. Because as it says under defense armor can deflect an attack away which in this system is represent ed by setback dice. which cancel out successes and and advantage. Your obsession with focusing on the shorthand of miss with out context causes a lot of problems. as demonstrated here. you REALLY need to read the section on adjudicating dice results.

18 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

again go read adjudicating a result. Because as it says under defense armor can deflect an attack away which in this system is represent ed by setback dice. which cancel out successes and and advantage. Your obsession with focusing on the shorthand of miss with out context causes a lot of problems. as demonstrated here. you REALLY need to read the section on adjudicating dice results.

General Defense can do that. That covers various forms of defense, each of which provides a different means of defending a target. Reread the rules specifically referring to Armor Defense from page 178 of theF&D CRB. It explicitly states that it reflects the ability of the armor to deflect damage away from the wearer, not “attacks”. You are trying to use a general rule to override a very specific rule when it is the specific rule that overrides the general rule. That is a very clear distinction. You are also completely disregarding the multiple statements in the RAW which explicitly state that an attack must Succeed in order to hit . A failed attack cannot hit. Period.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

General Defense can do that. That covers various forms of defense, each of which provides a different means of defending a target. Reread the rules specifically referring to Armor Defense from page 178 of theF&D CRB. It explicitly states that it reflects the ability of the armor to deflect damage away from the wearer, not “attacks”. You are trying to use a general rule to override a very specific rule when it is the specific rule that overrides the general rule. That is a very clear distinction. You are also completely disregarding the multiple statements in the RAW which explicitly state that an attack must Succeed in order to hit . A failed attack cannot hit. Period.

And how is defense represented in this system? You are almost there.

16 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And how is defense represented in this system?

By black dice, called setback dice?

Decreasing chance/amount of damage and/or critical injuries, by way of failure symbols decreasing extra damage and threat symbols by cancelling advantages... It's... Like a design thing...?

1 minute ago, Jegergryte said:

By black dice, called setback dice?

Decreasing chance/amount of damage and critical injuries, by way of failure symbols decreasing extra damage and threat symbols by cancelling advantages... It's... Like a design thing...?

you get it. I am hoping against hope it will click for Tramp. he is sooo close.

On 8/20/2020 at 12:57 PM, Daeglan said:

And how is defense represented in this system? You are almost there.

Defense in general represents multiple different factors that can affect the outcome of an attack. Mechanically, they all impose one or more Setback dice to the attack roll, but each form of Defense narratively functions differently , something you fail to take into account, because you ignore the individual entries for each type of Defense source in favor of the General Defense passage.

On 8/20/2020 at 1:10 PM, Jegergryte said:

By black dice, called setback dice?

Decreasing chance/amount of damage and/or critical injuries, by way of failure symbols decreasing extra damage and threat symbols by cancelling advantages... It's... Like a design thing...?

Setback dice also increase the chance that an attack can miss entirely if the total number of Failure symbols equal or exceed the number of Successes rolled. That is fine for shields, cover, and other environmental factors that can grant Defense because those can actually cause an attack to completely miss the intended target. Armor is not intended to cause an attack to miss, and physically cannot cause an attack to miss. As per RAW, it’s only “supposed” to deflect damage , as that is all armor is actually capable of doing. It cannot cause the attack as a whole to fail. It cannot cause an attack to miss, yet Setback dice do increase the odds of the attack itself missing.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Defense in general represents multiple different factors that can affect the outcome of an attack. Mechanically, they all impose one or more Setback dice to the attack roll, but each form of Defense narratively functions differently, something you fail to take into accounts.

Setback dice also increase the chance that an attack can miss entirely if the total number of Failure symbols equal or exceed the number of Successes rolled. That is fine for shields, cover, and other environmental factors that can grant Defense because those can actually cause an attack to completely miss the intended target. Armor is not intended to cause an attack to miss, and physically cannot cause an attack to miss. As per RAW, it’s only “supposed” to deflect damage , as that is all armor is actually capable of doing. It cannot cause the attack as a whole to fail. It cannot cause an attack to miss, yet Setback dice do increase the odds of the attack itself missing.

No i dont. In fact i jave been tellingnyou that fro. Page of this thread.

What you fail to grasp is that a failure caused by a hard armors defense means the attack failed. Which the only way that cannbe narrated that makes sense is the armor deflected the attack away. Which one way defense is described. You rigid insistance that a failed check must mean the attack hit nothing but air is your problem with your reading comprehension. You really ought to read the dice adjudication section.

By the way it very much can cause the attack to fail. Replace miss with fail. It fixes your issue.