6 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Yes. In order for these qualities to inflict additional damage, they first must be involved in a successful attack roll. A successful attack roll is defined in the book as shown in the image I posted previously.

This does not alter the fact that armor with a Defense rating adds one or more Setback die/dice to the dice pool, which can impact whether or not the attack roll succeeds or fails. Which leads us to...

You’re getting sooooo close to a lightbulb moment. Of course armor doesn’t make attacks magically ever off. But, by insisting that all failed attack rolls absolutely, positively cannot, under any circumstances, make contact with their target, how, exactly, do you account for failed attack rolls due to failures on the Setback die/dice added because of armor’s Defense rating? That sounds a lot like insisting that the armor created some sort of “field” around the wearer that influences the incoming attack, causing it to miss.

The rules say that a hit requires a Successful Combat Check . It says this in the weapon qualities I mentioned above, along with others, it says it in the rule regarding Base Damage on page 165. A “hit” is a type of Success, a failed Combat Check cannot hit. A failed Combat Check is a miss . That is RAW.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No, it isn’t. Especially not @Daeglan , who insists that a failed attack roll can still count as a hit. The rules specifically say that a hit requires a Successful attack roll. It also states that even on a successful attack there is the potential that said attack may do no damage as a result of Soak and/or Defense reducing the damage to zero .

Armor has the potential to reduce the damage from a successful hit to zero by soaking it, along with any armor Defense value reducing the number of net Successes . If the total damage is less than the Soak as a result, then the damage was deflected harmlessly, however, that still allows for weapon qualities like Auto-fire, Linked, Knockdown to be triggered. If the attack roll completely fails , if the attack misses , these qualities cannot be triggered and the attack has absolutely no potential effect whatsoever on the target.

By contrast, things like cover, energy shields, etc can cause an attack to be deflected well before it can even reach the intended target. Other forms of Defense can hide or obscure the target making it harder to hit. Armor has to actually be successfully hit in order for it to deflect the damage. It cannot prevent the attack from actually hitting the target in the first place. So the issue is not whether the attack was effective, but whether it actually lands in the first place . The RAW requires that a Combat Check be a Success for the attack to land, for it to hit . That is the rule. That is covered in multiple passages in the book including the ones I mentioned above. The example of the bullet, might cover any number of scenarios. If it was some form of cover that deflected the bullet, then it means that the bullet didn’t even reach the target. In game terms, the Setbacks provided by the cover cancelled out all the Successes on the dice, resulting in a miss. If it’s the armor that deflected the bullet, it means that the armor’s Defense value of the armor reduced the number of additional Net Successes enough to reduce the total damage to below the target’s Soak value , resulting in no damage being taken. Thus, the bullet deflects off the armor “harmlessly”.

If the Combat Check as a whole failed, the bullet would simply pass by the target harmlessly without bouncing off the armor, or even making any other sort of contact at all. It’s a miss , not a deflection . That’s the difference.

your narrow minded definition of hit and miss are the problem. not the rules

We have repeatedly explained the game terms and the narrative terms are not the same thing. I am still waiting for you to explain how armor can result in a failed attack from defense from armor.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

a failed attack roll can still count as a hit.

Do you mean " hit ", " hit ", or " hit "? Those are three different things don't you know?

There's the game mechanical " hit " that signifies damage should be applied; the game narrative " hit " which signifies the bouncing and deflection off armour, walls, incredibly dense foreheads (represented by defence dice), and of course " hit " which signify the an emotional aspect often related to romance, but also friendzoning, becoming acquaintances, new colleagues hitting it off on the way to their first beer together...

1 minute ago, Jegergryte said:

Do you mean " hit ", " hit ", or " hit "? Those are three different things don't you know?

There's the game mechanical " hit " that signifies damage should be applied; the game narrative " hit " which signifies the bouncing and deflection off armour, walls, incredibly dense foreheads (represented by defence dice), and of course " hit " which signify the an emotional aspect often related to romance, but also friendzoning, becoming acquaintances, new colleagues hitting it off on the way to their first beer together...

I feel like I am talking to Drax the Destroyer

More complex versions include: " hit ", " hit ", " hit ", and " hit " ... but we're not covering them this semester.

"hit" on the other hand, is the vernacular, everyday understanding of the word, which rarely relates to actual playing roleplaying games, as that would certainly make the games problematic (and short lived, barring specific ... preferences), if players started to hit each other ... if they hit on each other ... well... that's a completely different can of worms.

@Tramp Graphics , let's see if I understand your position correctly:

Armor can deflect damage with Defense, but only if the Soak reduces the damage to 0 after the Setback from Defense generates a Failure. Only then can you narrate a shot/blow/whatever glancing off armor.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The rules say that a hit requires a Successful Combat Check .

Where? I’ve posted an actual image that shows the EotE CRB’s short and sweet instructions for determining a successful or failed attack roll. The terms “hit” and “miss” are nowhere to be found.

11 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

It says this in the weapon qualities I mentioned above, along with others, it says it in the rule regarding Base Damage on page 165. A “hit” is a type of Success, a failed Combat Check cannot hit.

Yes, to deal damage, a successful combat check is required. No one has said otherwise.

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A failed Combat Check is a miss . That is RAW.

Where?

Some armor adds Setback. Setback can lead to a failed attack roll. You yourself have said that armor doesn’t make attacks magically veer off. Yet, mechanically, the mere presence of armor can cause an attack roll to fail. How do you suggest that this occurs? Either the attack impacts the armor without inflicting any harm, or the armor makes the attack magically veer off.

8 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

@Absol197 , I respectfully disagree.

Okay, well, I tried.

Here's the thing, Tramp: you've made your position very clear. We all know the definitions of hit and miss. Every other person in this thread subscribes to the, as I'll call it, "loose narrative interpretation" of this mechanic. You clearly don't.

You will not be able to convince us that the rules are intended to be interpreted otherwise, and we obviously won't be able to convince you otherwise. So why don't we stop?

I'm gonna stop. But maybe everyone will be able to have a little less stress if we just agree to disagree?

25 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Yes. In order for these qualities to inflict additional damage, they first must be involved in a successful attack roll. A successful attack roll is defined in the book as shown in the image I posted previously.

This does not alter the fact that armor with a Defense rating adds one or more Setback die/dice to the dice pool, which can impact whether or not the attack roll succeeds or fails. Which leads us to...

You’re getting sooooo close to a lightbulb moment. Of course armor doesn’t make attacks magically veer off. (That’s what we’ve been saying all along.) But, by insisting that all failed attack rolls absolutely, positively cannot, under any circumstances, make contact with their target, how, exactly, do you account for failed attack rolls due to failures on the Setback die/dice added because of armor’s Defense rating? That sounds a lot like insisting that the armor created some sort of “field” around the wearer that influences the incoming attack, causing it to miss.

That is the inherent flaw with the armor Defense mechanic. That was what got this thread starting the first place: attempting to fix this flaw . Setback dice can potentially cause a miss . This is fine for cover, shields, etc. not for armor. That is the problem .

Armor cannot cause an attack to miss, but the armor Defense value can potentially cause the attack to miss. That is the unintended consequence of the Defense Rating. The RAW requires that a Combat Check be Successful for the attack to hit; not hit effectively, to hit at all . A “hit” is the result of a successful Combat Check. If the total number of Failures on the dice equals or exceeds the number of Successes, regardless of the source dice of those Failures, the attack misses . That is why the weapon qualities Blast and Guided explicitly use the term “miss” in their respective passages. It is why the passages Base Damage and Critical Rating on page 165 of the F&D CRB both use the term “Hit” in reference to successful attacks. It is why all references to hits refer to Successes on a Combat Check, not Failures .

11 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

@Tramp Graphics , let's see if I understand your position correctly:

Armor can deflect damage with Defense, but only if the Soak reduces the damage to 0 after the Setback from Defense generates a Failure. Only then can you narrate a shot/blow/whatever glancing off armor.

Exactly. That’s the intent of Armor Defense. It’s intended to add a random element to the armor’s Soak, by potentially reducing the number of additional net Successes, or by adding Threats to the roll, while keeping the actual Soak value to reasonable levels. It wasn’t intended to cause attacks as a whole to fail. It wasn’t intended to cause misses.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That is the inherent flaw with the armor Defense mechanic. That was what got this thread starting the first place: attempting to fix this flaw . Setback dice can potentially cause a miss . This is fine for cover, shields, etc. not for armor. That is the problem .

It’s not “the” problem, it’s “your” problem with the mechanic.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Armor cannot cause an attack to miss, but the armor Defense value can potentially cause the attack to miss.

You’re absolutely right and wrong at the same time.

You’re right that armor cannot cause an attack to “miss.”

You’re wrong in that Defense can, rather than cause the attack to “miss,” cause the attack to fail. “Miss” and “fail” are not inherently synonyms.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The RAW requires that a Combat Check be Successful for the attack to hit; not hit effectively, to hit at all . A “hit” is the result of a successful Combat Check. If the total number of Failures on the dice equals or exceeds the number of Successes, regardless of the source dice of those Failures, the attack misses .

No, if the total number of failures equals or exceeds the number of successes, the attack fails. The short, sweet passage explaining how to determine success vs failure from the dice results does not use the term “miss.” More comprehensively, the attack fails to do damage. The sources of the dice provide means to narratively describe how that failure came about.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

That is the inherent flaw with the armor Defense mechanic. That was what got this thread starting the first place: attempting to fix this flaw . Setback dice can potentially cause a miss . This is fine for cover, shields, etc. not for armor. That is the problem .

Armor cannot cause an attack to miss, but the armor Defense value can potentially cause the attack to miss. That is the unintended consequence of the Defense Rating. The RAW requires that a Combat Check be Successful for the attack to hit; not hit effectively, to hit at all . A “hit” is the result of a successful Combat Check. If the total number of Failures on the dice equals or exceeds the number of Successes, regardless of the source dice of those Failures, the attack misses . That is why the weapon qualities Blast and Guided explicitly use the term “miss” in their respective passages. It is why the passages Base Damage and Critical Rating on page 165 of the F&D CRB both use the term “Hit” in reference to successful attacks. It is why all references to hits refer to Successes on a Combat Check, not Failures .

only because of your rigid inflexible interpretation of the rules that by the way dont say what you claim anywhere. You have basically made up rules that you are rigidly adhering to. the rules say successful. and use Hit as a shorthand for that. But if you actually read the adjudicating dice results it covers things like attacks defecting uselessly off of armor due to defense.

13 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

It’s not “the” problem, it’s “your” problem with the mechanic.

You’re absolutely right and wrong at the same time.

You’re right that armor cannot cause an attack to “miss.”

You’re wrong in that Defense can, rather than cause the attack to “miss,” cause the attack to fail. “Miss” and “fail” are not inherently synonyms.

No, if the total number of failures equals or exceeds the number of successes, the attack fails. The short, sweet passage explaining how to determine success vs failure from the dice results does not use the term “miss.” More comprehensively, the attack fails to do damage. The sources of the dice provide means to narratively describe how that failure came about.

Yes, they are inherently synonymous. Hit is synonyms with Success, Miss is synonymous with Fail. Both Blast and Guided explicitly equate the two as the former is allowed to be triggered on a miss , while the latter requires a miss to trigger. And both Base Damage and Critical Rating , along with Auto-fire, Linked, and other weapon qualities all require a successful Combat Check to trigger, and explicitly refer to such as hits. They explicitly equate hit with Success . This is by design. A hit is a successful attack. A failed attack is a miss.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, they are inherently synonymous. Hit is synonyms with Success, Miss is synonymous with Fail. Both Blast and Guided explicitly equate the two as the former is allowed to be triggered on a miss , while the latter requires a miss to trigger. And both Base Damage and Critical Rating , along with Auto-fire, Linked, and other weapon qualities all require a successful Combat Check to trigger, and explicitly refer to such as hits. They explicitly equate hit with Success . This is by design. A hit is a successful attack. A failed attack is a miss.

You do understand what a mechanical shorthand is right? Because when they describe determining the results of an attack roll they do not say hit or miss anywhere in that description. and I get the distinct impression you have never read the adjudicating dice rolls ever.

21 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

only because of your rigid inflexible interpretation of the rules that by the way dont say what you claim anywhere. You have basically made up rules that you are rigidly adhering to. the rules say successful. and use Hit as a shorthand for that. But if you actually read the adjudicating dice results it covers things like attacks defecting uselessly off of armor due to defense.

Let's help out on this point: Tramp, Edge of the Empire page 206-207, the section on defense. As you do, I will bold the important pieces:

"Defense, or more specifically, defense rating, is one of the factors determining how difficult it is to land a successful attack during combat. Defense rating represents the abilities of shields, armor, or other defensive systems to deflect attacks entirely, or absorb or lessen incoming blows.

Defense rating is most commonly provided by shields, and as such is usually limited to vehicles and starships. However, characters may gain a defense rating either through talents that increase their ability to dodge and absorb blows, armor designed to reflect and diffuse shots , or even expensive personal shield generators."

So, attempting to fit this into your interpretation of the rules: generally a successful attack is a hit and an unsuccessful attack is a miss. However, in some circumstances, armor can require a different interpretation.

That's also important. Edge of the Empire, page 23, Interpreting the Pool. "After a dice pool is rolled, the players evaluate the results to resolve the outcome." Dice pools always need to be "interpreted." Maybe, 99% of the time, a failed combat check is a miss that never made contact. But, as indicated in the rules description of what Defense is and represents, that can occasionally not be the case. So, as instructed by the basic rules of how a dice pool is resolved, you have to interpret how the armor managed to make it different.

That's all I got. I'm out. For real, this time.

30 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Where? I’ve posted an actual image that shows the EotE CRB’s short and sweet instructions for determining a successful or failed attack roll. The terms “hit” and “miss” are nowhere to be found.

Yes, to deal damage, a successful combat check is required. No one has said otherwise.

Where?

Some armor adds Setback. Setback can lead to a failed attack roll. You yourself have said that armor doesn’t make attacks magically veer off. Yet, mechanically, the mere presence of armor can cause an attack roll to fail. How do you suggest that this occurs? Either the attack impacts the armor without inflicting any harm, or the armor makes the attack magically veer off.

I’ve already said where. I’ve said so multiple times.

As to how do I suggest that the armor caused the attack to fail narratively? The answer is I don’t. I simply narrate it as passing by with the armor itself playing no part. That’s how I handle it.

2 minutes ago, Absol197 said:

Let's help out on this point: Tramp, Edge of the Empire page 206-207, the section on defense. As you do, I will build the important pieces:

"Defense, or more specifically, defense rating, is one of the factors determining how difficult it is to land a successful attack during combat. Defense trading represents the abilities of shields, armor, or other defensive systems to deflect attacks entirely, or absorb or lessen incoming blows.

Defense rating is most commonly provided by shields, and as such is usually limited to vehicles and starships. However, characters may gain a defense rating either through talents that increase their ability to dodge and absorb blows, armor designed to reflect and diffuse shots , or even expensive personal shield generators."

So, attempting to fit this into your interpretation of the rules: generally a successful attack is a hit and an unsuccessful attack is a miss. However, in some circumstances, armor can require a different interpretation.

That's also important. Edge of the Empire, page 23, Interpreting the Pool. "After a dice pool is rolled, the players evaluate the results to resolve the outcome." Dice pools always need to be "interpreted." Maybe, 99% of the time, a failed combat check is a miss that never made contact. But, as indicated in the rules description of what Defense is and represents, that can occasionally not be the case. So, as instructed by the basic rules of how a dice pool is resolved, you have to interpret how the armor managed to make it different.

That's all I got. I'm out. For real, this time.

Yes, but the Armor Defense rule on page 165 of the F@D core rules specifically say that armor Defense reflects armor’s ability to deflect damage , not attacks . That’s the difference. The former is a general overview which covers many different potential sources and how they all might provide Defense. The latter is very specific to how armor provides Defense.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, but the Armor Defense rule on page 165 of the F@D core rules specifically say that armor Defense reflects armor’s ability to deflect damage , not attacks . That’s the difference.

Tramp, that section is in Chapter V: Gear and Equipment, not Chapter VI: Conflict and Combat. It's a simplified description so you can understand the stats you're reading before you get to the chapter that more fully explains them.

You should know this: always read the full description. The full description of what Defense is is in the Combat chapter, in the section on defense.

(Also, it's page 178, 165 is only weapons.)

The description of defense in Force and Destiny, on page 213, still mentions armor deflecting attacks.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, they are inherently synonymous.

No, they’re not. To you, obviously, they are inextricably linked. But they’re really not.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Hit is synonyms with Success, Miss is synonymous with Fail.

Hit can be synonymous with success. Miss can be synonymous with failure. But they are not always interchangeable.

5 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Both Blast and Guided explicitly equate the two as the former is allowed to be triggered on a miss , while the latter requires a miss to trigger. And both Base Damage and Critical Rating , along with Auto-fire, Linked, and other weapon qualities all require a successful Combat Check to trigger, and explicitly refer to such as hits. They explicitly equate hit with Success . This is by design.

See above, re: “can be.”

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A hit is a successful attack.

I can generally agree with this. In this instance they are being used for the same purpose.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A failed attack is a miss.

This, however, I can’t agree with. A failed attack fails (see that word, there?) to harm the target. Mechanically, various sources can contribute dice to the pool that results in a failure. It is possible to take those sources into account to narratively describe that failure. Did the attack miss entirely (as you insist all failed attacks must do)? Of course - no one has said otherwise. If one of those sources is armor’s Defense rating, is it possible the attack glanced off the armor doing nothing? Of course - but you demand otherwise.

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, but the Armor Defense rule on page 165 of the F@D core rules specifically say that armor Defense reflects armor’s ability to deflect damage , not attacks . That’s the difference.

So how do you interpret a mandalorian standing in the open who is shot at. the only success is on the skill die and the only failure is on the setback die. The only setback die in the roll is from the armor.

How do you describe what happened @Tramp Graphics ?

33 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As to how do I suggest that the armor caused the attack to fail narratively? The answer is I don’t. I simply narrate it as passing by with the armor itself playing no part. That’s how I handle it.

The armor itself played no part? So you don’t apply the Setback(s) provided by armor’s Defense?

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Armor does not create some sort of “field” around the wearer that influences the incoming attack to cause it to miss. Armor deflects the attack when the attack collides with the armor . The attack has to strike the armor for deflection to occur; it has to hit . That requires a Success on the Combat Check by RAW.

Bruh, this is literally, physically, in the human world we inhabit, what armor does.

This kind of goofiness is what I'm here for, all day, erryday.

3 minutes ago, BrickSteelhead said:

Bruh, this is literally, physically, in the human world we inhabit, what armor does.

This kind of goofiness is what I'm here for, all day, erryday.

Tramp can you explain why helmets went from this

https://www.amazon.com/Armor-Venue-Templar-Helm-Faceplate/dp/B07HJ2G8GB

to this?

https://www.amazon.com/Spanish-Morion-Medieval-Helmet-Replica/dp/B00X84WHRO

Because the first one provides just soak. The Second also provides defense.

33 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

So how do you interpret a mandalorian standing in the open who is shot at. the only success is on the skill die and the only failure is on the setback die. The only setback die in the roll is from the armor.

How do you describe what happened @Tramp Graphics ?

I think we covered this months ago when I posted the Pulp Fiction clip.

Tramp explicitly stated that all failed attack rolls looked like that.