Just now, micheldebruyn said:

It's Star Wars, and the heaviest battle armour that exists offers marginally better soak protection than a leather jacket in the movies and in the game.

I disagree, particularly when it comes to armors such as Mandalorian battle armor. That is one of the best armors out there, and, when made of Beskar, can even deflect lightsabers, and certainly stops blasters. It should easily be Soak 4 or 5.

9 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Wrong. Deflection IS Soak. That's the point. A deflected attack is still a successful attack. It still hits. The damage done is simply less than if there were no armor.

Yes, and that's a load of hog wash. This is because everythign in that statement is what Soak already does. The key phrae being boled below:

Absorb or lessen incoming blows? That' is absolutely what Soak does in spades, and is Deflection. That is all covered by the Soak value. That is the biggest example of why Armor defense bonuses are bogus. Anything that lessens the impact of an incoming blow is Soak. It's damage reduction. Get rid of Armor defense bonuses.

Yes, it is, particularly if you want armor in a game to behave as it really does. Ergo reduce damage from successful hits.

No amount of bold text is convincing. THat is not how this game works or is designed.

5 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

No amount of bold text is convincing. THat is not how this game works or is designed.

And yet, that supposed rule contradicts itself and the rule about Soak. That's the problem. It covers the exact same thing that Soak covers. In other words, it's redundant and contradicts what Defense is really about from a game mechanics standpoint, which is making it harder to successfully hit the target. So, no, it is not how the game works. It's bogus, plain and simple. Defense makes you harder to hit, Soak makes you harder to damage. Armor makes you harder to damage. That is Soak. That is Damage Reduction. That is not Defense. Get rid of Armor Defense bonuses. They don't belong.

11 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And yet, that supposed rule contradicts itself and the rule about Soak. That's the problem. It covers the exact same thing that Soak covers. In other words, it's redundant and contradicts what Defense is really about from a game mechanics standpoint, which is making it harder to successfully hit the target. So, no, it is not how the game works. It's bogus, plain and simple. Defense makes you harder to hit, Soak makes you harder to damage. Armor makes you harder to damage. That is Soak. That is Damage Reduction. That is not Defense. Get rid of Armor Defense bonuses. They don't belong.

No it is not. the 2 are meant to work together. So yes it is how the game works. But you are so fixated on misunderstanding things to get it. That is why some armor has both defense and soak.

Just now, Daeglan said:

No it is not. the 2 are meant to work together. So yes it is how the game works. But you are so fixated on misunderstanding things to get it. That is why some armor has both defense and soak.

No. By that narrative text, they cover the same thing. Soak covers reducing the impact of a hit. That's what it does. It soaks the damage from a hit. And here Defense is saying it absorbs or reduces the impact from a hit. That's the same exact thing Soak covers. That is damage reduction. That is Soak. Mechanically, Defense reduces the chance of the target getting hit. That is what it does. It reduces the chance of hitting by potentially adding failures (or Threats) to the combat check. A combat check is a roll to hit with an attack. That is what it does. Defense applies Setback dice to the combat check. It applies Setback dice to the roll to hit. That is making the target harder to hit, not harder to damage. Armor does not make you harder to hit. It makes you harder to damage. Defense modifies how hard you are to hit. Soak modifies how hard you are to damage. As such, Armor should only apply Soak because it does not reduce your chances of being hit. It reduces the amount of damage you take from a hit.

Gee imagine that. cover provides a similar benefit to armor in a universe where people wearing armor tend not to use cover. It is almost like they designed the system to behave like the movies.

37 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. By that narrative text, they cover the same thing. Soak covers reducing the impact of a hit. That's what it does. It soaks the damage from a hit. And here Defense is saying it absorbs or reduces the impact from a hit. That's the same exact thing Soak covers. That is damage reduction. That is Soak. Mechanically, Defense reduces the chance of the target getting hit. That is what it does. It reduces the chance of hitting by potentially adding failures (or Threats) to the combat check. A combat check is a roll to hit with an attack. That is what it does. Defense applies Setback dice to the combat check. It applies Setback dice to the roll to hit. That is making the target harder to hit, not harder to damage. Armor does not make you harder to hit. It makes you harder to damage. Defense modifies how hard you are to hit. Soak modifies how hard you are to damage. As such, Armor should only apply Soak because it does not reduce your chances of being hit. It reduces the amount of damage you take from a hit.

Also Defense is not a sure thing but it provides benefits soak does not. like preventing active qualities from being available. Unlike soak. The 2 are designed to work together and compliment each other.

9 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Gee imagine that. cover provides a similar benefit to armor in a universe where people wearing armor tend not to use cover. It is almost like they designed the system to behave like the movies.

Cover isn't armor. It is a barrier that stands between the target and the attacker, that hides the target from view and shields him from attack. It makes the target harder to hit. Armor makes a target harder to damage, not harder to hit.

10 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Cover isn't armor. It is a barrier that stands between the target and the attacker, that hides the target from view and shields him from attack. It makes the target harder to hit. Armor makes a target harder to damage, not harder to hit.

Correct. But it uses the exact same mechanic on purpose.

Just now, Daeglan said:

Also Defense is not a sure thing but it provides benefits soak does not. like preventing active qualities from being available. Unlike soak. The 2 are designed to work together and compliment each other.

Defense does not belong as a function of armor. Defense makes you harder to hit. That is what the Setback dice from Defense do. They decrease the chances of you getting hit by an attack. Thus, Defense makes you harder to hit. Armor does not make you harder to hit. It does not decrease the chance of you getting hit in combat. All armor does is reduce the damage you take from a successful hit. That is what armor does. That is all armor does. That is covered by Soak.

Quote

A character's soak value determines how much incoming damage he can shrug off before taking real damage.
The soak value is subtracted from any incoming damage to the character. Any damage remaining after subtracting the soak value becomes wounds applied against the character's wound threshold

Armor helps a target shrug off damage. It reduces the damage he or she takes. Damage from weapons comes from the impact of the weapon hitting the target. In other words, in order for armor to have any effect, the target has to actually be hit in the first place. That means the benefit of wearing armor only comes into play after someone has been successfully struck by an attack. Armor "defense bonuses" do not reflect this reality. They don't do so from a narrative, nor, more importantly, mechanical perspective.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Defense does not belong as a function of armor. Defense makes you harder to hit. That is what the Setback dice from Defense do. They decrease the chances of you getting hit by an attack. Thus, Defense makes you harder to hit. Armor does not make you harder to hit. It does not decrease the chance of you getting hit in combat. All armor does is reduce the damage you take from a successful hit. That is what armor does. That is all armor does. That is covered by Soak.

Armor helps a target shrug off damage. It reduces the damage he or she takes. Damage from weapons comes from the impact of the weapon hitting the target. In other words, in order for armor to have any effect, the target has to actually be hit in the first place. That means the benefit of wearing armor only comes into play after someone has been successfully struck by an attack. Armor "defense bonuses" do not reflect this reality. They don't do so from a narrative, nor, more importantly, mechanical perspective.

again you seem to not grasp the difference between a successful attack and an unsuccessful attack. STOP using hit. It is not the correct word to use and it causing your problem. Everytime you use the word hit you are getting the rules wrong. That is why the sympols are called successes. not hits.

Also this is Star Wars. Not reality. It is meant to be cinematic. not realistic.

@KungFuFerret, was your original topic ever resolved to your satisfaction?

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

Correct. But it uses the exact same mechanic on purpose.

No. It doesn't. Armor primarily provides Soak. Cover provides Defense. It does so primarily by providing concealment. IT also acts as a barrier separate from the target; a larger wall, that hides and shields the target from view and from attack. It makes the target harder to actually hit. Armor does not make a target harder to hit. Armor does not shield a target from attack. It does not make a target harder to hit. It simply makes the target harder to damage from an incoming attack. That is why Armor should not have a Defense bonus. Only those items which conceal the shape of the body, or provide a large barrier between the attacker and target, that is apart from either should get Defense bonuses. Shields, cover, large cloaks, Heavy robes. These things conceal a target, they hide the shape and size of a target, and/or/ act as a large barrier between the target and attacker, and are apart from both. Even if you penetrate the cover, there is no guarantee you'll hit the target behind it. The same is true of energy shields. However, that is not true of armor. If you penetrate armor, you will damage the wearer. Armor is form-fitting. It does not make the target harder to hit since it doesn't obscure the shape or size of the target. Defense is all about making the target harder to hit from a mechanics perspective. Armor does not do that.

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

again you seem to not grasp the difference between a successful attack and an unsuccessful attack. STOP using hit. It is not the correct word to use and it causing your problem. Everytime you use the word hit you are getting the rules wrong. That is why the sympols are called successes. not hits.

A successful attack is a hit. a failed attack is a miss. end of story. The symbols are called successes because they're used for all types of skill check, not just combat checks. You don't hit when making a Mechanics check, or a Deception check, you either succeed or fail. In combat, however, you either hit your target or you miss your target. As such, Success equals a hit and Failure equals a miss. In combat, success is synonymous with hit. You successfully hit, which is what you are attempting to do in combat, after all. A combat check is an attempt to hit your target. IF you fail to hit, then, logically, you miss. Ergo, in combat Success equals a hit and failure equals a miss.

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

Also this is Star Wars. Not reality. It is meant to be cinematic. not realistic.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be both cinematic and realistic. In fact, some things need to be realistic for them to make any sense. Armor is one of them. The mechanics of what armor does in order to protect a target needs to be handled realistically. Visually, we see armor reduces the amount of damage done from an attack. It does this by absorbing the blow, or deflecting the blow, both of which reduce damage. And, in either case, other effects from getting successfully hit (such as getting knocked down or back, concussion effects, etc.) still come into play. The only time such effects don;t come into play in any visual media is if the attack doesn't physically hit the target. If the game is intended to reflect the cinematics we see on screen, then armor only provides damage reduction. All successful attacks are hits all failed attacks are misses. It's that simple.

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. It doesn't. Armor primarily provides Soak. Cover provides Defense. It does so primarily by providing concealment. IT also acts as a barrier separate from the target; a larger wall, that hides and shields the target from view and from attack. It makes the target harder to actually hit. Armor does not make a target harder to hit. Armor does not shield a target from attack. It does not make a target harder to hit. It simply makes the target harder to damage from an incoming attack. That is why Armor should not have a Defense bonus. Only those items which conceal the shape of the body, or provide a large barrier between the attacker and target, that is apart from either should get Defense bonuses. Shields, cover, large cloaks, Heavy robes. These things conceal a target, they hide the shape and size of a target, and/or/ act as a large barrier between the target and attacker, and are apart from both. Even if you penetrate the cover, there is no guarantee you'll hit the target behind it. The same is true of energy shields. However, that is not true of armor. If you penetrate armor, you will damage the wearer. Armor is form-fitting. It does not make the target harder to hit since it doesn't obscure the shape or size of the target. Defense is all about making the target harder to hit from a mechanics perspective. Armor does not do that.

A successful attack is a hit. a failed attack is a miss. end of story. The symbols are called successes because they're used for all types of skill check, not just combat checks. You don't hit when making a Mechanics check, or a Deception check, you either succeed or fail. In combat, however, you either hit your target or you miss your target. As such, Success equals a hit and Failure equals a miss. In combat, success is synonymous with hit. You successfully hit, which is what you are attempting to do in combat, after all. A combat check is an attempt to hit your target. IF you fail to hit, then, logically, you miss. Ergo, in combat Success equals a hit and failure equals a miss.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Something can be both cinematic and realistic. In fact, some things need to be realistic for them to make any sense. Armor is one of them. The mechanics of what armor does in order to protect a target needs to be handled realistically. Visually, we see armor reduces the amount of damage done from an attack. It does this by absorbing the blow, or deflecting the blow, both of which reduce damage. And, in either case, other effects from getting successfully hit (such as getting knocked down or back, concussion effects, etc.) still come into play. The only time such effects don;t come into play in any visual media is if the attack doesn't physically hit the target. If the game is intended to reflect the cinematics we see on screen, then armor only provides damage reduction. All successful attacks are hits all failed attacks are misses. It's that simple.

You really need to get your mind around the fact the 2 work together. and you need wrap your mind around the success failure as opposed to insisting on using hit.

Just now, Daeglan said:

You really need to get your mind around the fact the 2 work together. and you need wrap your mind around the success failure as opposed to insisting on using hit.

That's not the point. Armor does not make you harder to successfully hit. That is not how armor works. It is not what armor does. Armor makes you harder to damage. That is what it does. That is the only thing it does. It is exclusive. Armor does one thing and one thing only. It reduces damage from successful attacks. As such, Armor should never provide any modifier to an attacker's combat check. IT should only apply Soak to the damage of a successful combat check exclusively. Because that is what armor does. That is all armor does.

And I don't need to get my head around anything. I know what the success and failure symbols mean. In particular what they mean for whichever skill they're being applied to. Success or Failure on a Mechanics check will have a different meaning than Success or Failure on a Social check or Knowledge check. And all of them will certainly have a different meaning than when applied to a combat check. Combat checks determine whether or not you hit your target. Be it brawling, melee, ranged attacks, etc. The goal is to hit your target. That is what you are attempting to do. If I swing a sword at someone, or throw a punch, or shoot at someone, I am attempting to hit that target. As such, in a combat check, a Success equals a hit and Failure equals a miss. So I am not mistaken for using "hit" or "miss" when referring to combat checks because that is what success or failure results represent in this case.

STOOOOPPP using HIT. It is the wrong word. And it is why you are having such trouble. An attack succeeds or fails. making contact is irrelevant. Defense does not make you harder to hit. It makes you harder to successfully attack. It is an important distinction you need to wrap your brain around.

Defense makes you harder to hit in theory. What defense mostly does in practice is reduce incoming damage by taking away successes and stop weapon effects by taking away advantages.

1 minute ago, micheldebruyn said:

Defense makes you harder to hit in theory. What defense mostly does in practice is reduce incoming damage by taking away successes and stop weapon effects by taking away advantages.

Dont use hit. It is a trap.

7 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

STOOOOPPP using HIT. It is the wrong word. And it is why you are having such trouble. An attack succeeds or fails. making contact is irrelevant. Defense does not make you harder to hit. It makes you harder to successfully attack. It is an important distinction you need to wrap your brain around.

NO!!!!! I will not stop using the term "Hit" or "miss". That is because that is exactly what Success or Failure represent in a combat check. Success in a combat check represents a hit. You succeed in hitting your intended target.Failure represents you failing to hit your target. In other words, you miss your target when you fail a combat check. You Hit your target when you succeed in a combat check. That is what Success or Failure represent when applied to a combat check. so no, I will not stop using "Hit" or "Miss".

6 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Defense makes you harder to hit in theory. What defense mostly does in practice is reduce incoming damage by taking away successes and stop weapon effects by taking away advantages.

No. It makes you harder to hit in practice. The Defense dice are applied to the attack roll; to the combat check. That check determines the success or failure of the attempt to hit the target. Thus, in practice, Defense makes you harder to hit. Armor does not do that. That is not how armor works. Armor reduces damage from a successful attack. In other words, it only works after you have been successfully hit. It does nothing to prevent you from being hit. In fact, it makes you easier to hit because it weighs you down and restricts your mobility. In other words, it is encumbering. That is why Armor Defense bonuses will never make sense because that is not how armor works.

5 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Dont use hit. It is a trap.

No. It is not a trap. It is what Success or Failure represent when applied to a combat check.

15 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Dont use hit. It is a trap.

So you're saying, "Hit's a trap!" ?

39 minutes ago, BrickSteelhead said:

So you're saying, "Hit's a trap!" ?

yes

41 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

NO!!!!! I will not stop using the term "Hit" or "miss". That is because that is exactly what Success or Failure represent in a combat check. Success in a combat check represents a hit. You succeed in hitting your intended target.Failure represents you failing to hit your target. In other words, you miss your target when you fail a combat check. You Hit your target when you succeed in a combat check. That is what Success or Failure represent when applied to a combat check. so no, I will not stop using "Hit" or "Miss".

No. It makes you harder to hit in practice. The Defense dice are applied to the attack roll; to the combat check. That check determines the success or failure of the attempt to hit the target. Thus, in practice, Defense makes you harder to hit. Armor does not do that. That is not how armor works. Armor reduces damage from a successful attack. In other words, it only works after you have been successfully hit. It does nothing to prevent you from being hit. In fact, it makes you easier to hit because it weighs you down and restricts your mobility. In other words, it is encumbering. That is why Armor Defense bonuses will never make sense because that is not how armor works.

No. It is not a trap. It is what Success or Failure represent when applied to a combat check.

And this is why you are failing to convince me. There are many ways to fail to hurt a target. It could be the armor soaks up the damage. it could be the armor defected the damage. it could be the attack hit the cover next to the target. None of that matters. what matters is was the attack successful or not. Not whether the attack physically touched the target. You are focused on the attack touching the target as the measure of success or fail. That is not a good measure as it can be demonstrated many ways for a unsuccessful attack to still have touched the target. Which is why you are wrong. You are wrong because you are using the exact wrong criteria.

1 hour ago, Daeglan said:

Dont use hit. It is a trap.

"God, that phrase is never going to be useable again, is it?"

2 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

And this is why you are failing to convince me. There are many ways to fail to hurt a target. It could be the armor soaks up the damage. it could be the armor defected the damage. it could be the attack hit the cover next to the target. None of that matters. what matters is was the attack successful or not. Not whether the attack physically touched the target. You are focused on the attack touching the target as the measure of success or fail. That is not a good measure as it can be demonstrated many ways for a unsuccessful attack to still have touched the target. Which is why you are wrong. You are wrong because you are using the exact wrong criteria.

In order for an attack to be successful, it has to hit. That's what a "Success" means when the term is applied to a combat check. Success=Hit, Fail=miss. All "failures" of a combat check are failures to hit the target. Armor does not make you fail to hit the target. Cover potentially makes you fail to hit the target. This is because it is a large barrier and it also hides the target from view. A shield does the same thing, especially a large one. A large cloak or large, billowing robes can make you fail to hit a target because they obscure the shape of the body, they hide the body.

Armor does not. Armor does not conceal the target; it does not obscure the shape nor size of the target. It does not provide cover. It does not provide concealment. It does not make it harder to hit the target. Armor is a form-fitting garment made from some form of a variety of protective materials which reduce the damage from a successful attack, from a successful hit, by either absorbing the blow or deflecting it. In either case, the damage is reduced. The Target is not missed. It has no effect on whether or not the attack was successful in actually hitting the target. Ergo, it does not provide defense from being hit. It does not make it more difficult to attack the target. It does not make a combat check or more likely to fail, more likely to miss. It only reduces the damage done from a successful attack. That is covered by Soak.