9 hours ago, Sharatec said:

This thread would be less than a page long if some people would just be willing to entertain the thought that the purpose of an attack roll (and thus, what success or failure shows) might not just be to HIT an opponent, but to DAMAGE them.

But to have any chances to inflict damages you must first hit the target. That means a successful attack roll. Then and only then you add all the success left after cancelling to the weapon base damage. If there's no success left after cancelling it's a failed attack roll. That means you failed to hit the target, it's a miss. That's RAW. Damages are done only on a successful attack roll, or hit.

1 hour ago, WolfRider said:

But to have any chances to inflict damages you must first hit the target. That means a successful attack roll. Then and only then you add all the success left after cancelling to the weapon base damage. If there's no success left after cancelling it's a failed attack roll. That means you failed to hit the target, it's a miss. That's RAW. Damages are done only on a successful attack roll, or hit.

As discussed in the recent Wounds thread, a "hit" in game need not always equate to a hit in the narrative. So why must a miss in game always mean a narrative miss?

1 hour ago, WolfRider said:

But to have any chances to inflict damages you must first hit the target. That means a successful attack roll. Then and only then you add all the success left after cancelling to the weapon base damage. If there's no success left after cancelling it's a failed attack roll. That means you failed to hit the target, it's a miss. That's RAW. Damages are done only on a successful attack roll, or hit.

This is the same trap Tramp falls in. Hitting the target is the wrong criteria to consider. as you can successfully hit the target and do no damage because it is soaked or because it is deflected away. This game has 4 things that can happen.
You can miss entirely. IE rolled no success at all. failure on difficulty dice cancelling all successes. you can not activate qualities
You can Roll some success and have them canceled by setback from either cover, darkness, armor etc. you can not activate qualities
You can succeed but have some mitigation from set back and the rest soaked YOu can have qualities activated
Success but soaked you can have qualities activated.
Success and damage. You can activate qualities and crits.

This system has a sliding scale of success.

1 hour ago, WolfRider said:

But to have any chances to inflict damages you must first hit the target. That means a successful attack roll. Then and only then you add all the success left after cancelling to the weapon base damage. If there's no success left after cancelling it's a failed attack roll. That means you failed to hit the target, it's a miss. That's RAW. Damages are done only on a successful attack roll, or hit.

A failed attack roll might just as well be described as an attack that hit the target, but failed to damage her because of her awesome armor, impressive fortitude, or something else.

Especially considering the fact that in the movies, we almost never see anyone get hit unless it's a critical wound. The system is already designed to abstractify things, such that when you take one or two wounds, it might actually be represented by a near miss that showers the character with sparks. With that in mind, there's no reason that an unsuccessful attack can't be described as one that hits but bounces off a character's armor.

21 hours ago, StarkJunior said:

Depends - does successful mean 'hits' or 'damages'? (As in, subtracts wounds or strain.) If the former, then you're correct, but if the latter, you're wrong.

a Success is a hit . Period. A Failure is a miss . IF you roll at least one net success, you hit your target, if you fail to get at least one net success, you miss your target. It's that simple.

21 hours ago, Daeglan said:

And given the way this system goes about things it considers a successful attack one that has successes left over on the die roll. Because the way defense works it takes away successes. Be it from cover, shields, the way armor is designed, darkness etc.

And that all determines whether you succeed in hitting the target or not.

10 hours ago, WolfRider said:

But to have any chances to inflict damages you must first hit the target. That means a successful attack roll. Then and only then you add all the success left after cancelling to the weapon base damage. If there's no success left after cancelling it's a failed attack roll. That means you failed to hit the target, it's a miss. That's RAW. Damages are done only on a successful attack roll, or hit.

Exactly. A success=hit, fail=miss

9 hours ago, DaverWattra said:

As discussed in the recent Wounds thread, a "hit" in game need not always equate to a hit in the narrative. So why must a miss in game always mean a narrative miss?

Yes, it does, particularly in regards to attacking a target . When you attack a target (be it with a ranged weapon, melee weapon, bare hands), you are trying to hit the target.As such, a "hit" in game is a hit narratively. IF you're shooting at someone, the whole point is to hit him . If you swing a sword at someone, or throw a punch, you're trying to hit him . So, yes, narratively, it is either hit or miss. Success equals a hit, failure equals a miss. To say anything less is 100% counterintuitive .

2 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, it does, particularly in regards to attacking a target . When you attack a target (be it with a ranged weapon, melee weapon, bare hands), you are trying to hit the target.As such, a "hit" in game is a hit narratively. IF you're shooting at someone, the whole point is to hit him . If you swing a sword at someone, or throw a punch, you're trying to hit him . So, yes, narratively, it is either hit or miss. Success equals a hit, failure equals a miss. To say anything less is 100% counterintuitive .

To me, what's counterintuitive is the notion that it's possible for a 120 XP human Politico to take two hits from a lightsaber and still be standing, in fighting shape with no impairments to their skills and abilities.

25 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

a Success is a hit . Period. A Failure is a miss . IF you roll at least one net success, you hit your target, if you fail to get at least one net success, you miss your target. It's that simple.

That's your definition, but it's not the universal one, as this thread clearly is evidence of.

5 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

That's your definition, but it's not the universal one, as this thread clearly is evidence of.

yeah he refuses to acknowledge that. Despite the fact that evidence in real life doesnt even agree with him.

33 minutes ago, DaverWattra said:

To me, what's counterintuitive is the notion that it's possible for a 120 XP human Politico to take two hits from a lightsaber and still be standing, in fighting shape with no impairments to their skills and abilities.

Yeah, that's something I like much better about the lightsabers from AoR and EotE. That said, there are definite game-balance issues when you have a bunch of players who all expect to have lightsabers at some point, so I can understand FaD's aversion to the 10 dam, crit 1 variety. Sacrificing "realism" for game design (in this case, at least) was a good decision. Same Politico would be down or almost down in 1 hit, and would probably have a crit. You can always narrate those sorts of hits as grazes, though, rather than direct stabs or cuts.

52 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

That's your definition, but it's not the universal one, as this thread clearly is evidence of.

46 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

yeah he refuses to acknowledge that. Despite the fact that evidence in real life doesnt even agree with him.

Except that real life does agree with me. You can try and twist the evidence any way you want, but objectively , the evidence supports my argument, not yours. A deflected hit still hits. It is still a successful attack. It still affects the target (ie through Weapon qualities) even if the attack doesn't penetrate the armor. This is exemplified by the targets in question being knocked all over the place, even though the hits "bounce off" the armor and are deflected. There is still impact , the target is still hit . The attack is still a success .

1 hour ago, DaverWattra said:

To me, what's counterintuitive is the notion that it's possible for a 120 XP human Politico to take two hits from a lightsaber and still be standing, in fighting shape with no impairments to their skills and abilities.

That's true of any weapon in this game, or many other games.

33 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Yeah, that's something I like much better about the lightsabers from AoR and EotE. That said, there are definite game-balance issues when you have a bunch of players who all expect to have lightsabers at some point, so I can understand FaD's aversion to the 10 dam, crit 1 variety. Sacrificing "realism" for game design (in this case, at least) was a good decision. Same Politico would be down or almost down in 1 hit, and would probably have a crit. You can always narrate those sorts of hits as grazes, though, rather than direct stabs or cuts.

That's a matter of game balance , not a reflection of how they would really work. In all "reality", based upon what we see in the films, a hit with a lightsaber should be an automatic disabling, if not maiming or worse critical hit. And, as @P-47 Thunderbolt put it, a graze is still a hit , even if it isn't critical, and doesn't do a "lot" of wound damage.

This is also what we have with the armor rules. They sacrificed a bit of realism for the sake of game balance . The problem with @Daeglan , and a few others, particularly those who follow the D&D mentality, is that they interpret deflected hits as the target not getting hit in the first place. As one person on the old WotC boards tried to tel me was that "armor makes you harder to hit and damage." (emphasis mine). The problem with that statement is the word "And". In order for that statement to be true, both halves of the statement would have to be true. And this is not the case. Armor does not make you harder to hit, so the first half of the above statement is false, making the e ntire statement false.

39 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Except that real life does agree with me. You can try and twist the evidence any way you want, but objectively , the evidence supports my argument, not yours. A deflected hit still hits. It is still a successful attack. It still affects the target (ie through Weapon qualities) even if the attack doesn't penetrate the armor. This is exemplified by the targets in question being knocked all over the place, even though the hits "bounce off" the armor and are deflected. There is still impact , the target is still hit . The attack is still a success .

That's true of any weapon in this game, or many other games.

That's a matter of game balance , not a reflection of how they would really work. In all "reality", based upon what we see in the films, a hit with a lightsaber should be an automatic disabling, if not maiming or worse critical hit. And, as @P-47 Thunderbolt put it, a graze is still a hit , even if it isn't critical, and doesn't do a "lot" of wound damage.

This is also what we have with the armor rules. They sacrificed a bit of realism for the sake of game balance . The problem with @Daeglan , and a few others, particularly those who follow the D&D mentality, is that they interpret deflected hits as the target not getting hit in the first place. As one person on the old WotC boards tried to tel me was that "armor makes you harder to hit and damage." (emphasis mine). The problem with that statement is the word "And". In order for that statement to be true, both halves of the statement would have to be true. And this is not the case. Armor does not make you harder to hit, so the first half of the above statement is false, making the e ntire statement false.

You keep claining that and yet have never provided anything beyond you claim. I have privided history as well as the physics of sloped armor etc. All you have provided is a claim based on how you think a very complex thing should be abstracted as if your method is the only way. It clearly isnt.

Also i wont reas anything beyond the first line as it is a waste of time when you clearly cant see over the walls of the tiny box yo uh insist on being in.

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Except that real life does agree with me.

Does real life agree with a high soak person absorbing hits from blasters with no in-game affect at all? Per your definition of being hit, they are actually being hit by the blaster, it can't be described as a close call. If the rules being used in a narrative system must have some semblance with real life, how does the unarmored big guy actually being shot multiple times without even a single Wound or Setback being tossed in equate to real life? Or are you going to broker a change to personal (non-armor) soak also?

@Tramp Graphics , buddy, I'm not talking about real life.

I'm talking about the game.

12 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

a Success is a hit . Period. A Failure is a miss . IF you roll at least one net success, you hit your target, if you fail to get at least one net success, you miss your target. It's that simple.

Except for where it's not. This is a narrative game and with talents like Parry and Reflect a success can become a MISS. The attacker rolls 3 successess and hits but the defender spends 3 strain and negates all damage making the attack a MISS.

18 hours ago, Daeglan said:

You keep claining that and yet have never provided anything beyond you claim. I have privided history as well as the physics of sloped armor etc. All you have provided is a claim based on how you think a very complex thing should be abstracted as if your method is the only way. It clearly isnt.

Also i wont reas anything beyond the first line as it is a waste of time when you clearly cant see over the walls of the tiny box yo uh insist on being in.

Except that Sloped armor doesn't stop the target from getting hit in the first place. What Sloped armor does is make the target harder to penetrate . It does not make it harder to hit . The sloping of the armor doesn't go into effect until the target is actually hit . How does sloped armor stop the target from getting hit ? It doesn't . All it does is turn aside the blow, causing the weapon (or shot) to bounce off at an angle. Sloping the armor also increases the thickness of the armor that the round has to go through in order to penetrate compared to a direct 90 degree hit. In both cases, the target is still hit. It is still a successful attack. All the armor does is make it harder for the hit to penetrate . That is the physics behind sloped armor. Sloped armor does not prevent a hit . Try again.

16 hours ago, Sturn said:

Does real life agree with a high soak person absorbing hits from blasters with no in-game affect at all? Per your definition of being hit, they are actually being hit by the blaster, it can't be described as a close call. If the rules being used in a narrative system must have some semblance with real life, how does the unarmored big guy actually being shot multiple times without even a single Wound or Setback being tossed in equate to real life? Or are you going to broker a change to personal (non-armor) soak also?

Yes, you are. A graze is still a hit. A hit from a weapon can be anything from a scratch to a shot that blasts through your torso or blows off your head.

7 hours ago, Varlie said:

Except for where it's not. This is a narrative game and with talents like Parry and Reflect a success can become a MISS. The attacker rolls 3 successess and hits but the defender spends 3 strain and negates all damage making the attack a MISS.

Parry and Reflect work by intercepting the attack, though not necessarily completely . So, the attack can still hit you , though with a lot less force or energy. Not only that, but even if you parry an attack or reflect an attack. Those attacks still impart energy and force into the intercepting weapon, and thus down into the weapon hand and arm . That force itself can cause injury to the weapon hand or arm . This can take the form of inflammation of the palm of the hands, spraining or jarring of the wrists, etc. So, the hit from the attacker can still cause damage, and thus is a "successful" hit, even if it's Parried or Reflected. And, in the case of Unarmed Parry , you're taking the impact against your arm or hand directly, even if you're parrying by blocking the attacker's weapon hand, not the actual attacking weapon (I.E. parrying a sword attack by blocking the sword hand). So, no, he's not making it a "miss" in the truest sense of the word because the weapon he uses to parry is an extension of himself, and thus, the force of the attack can still cause damage or knock him down or off balance. So, technically , it is still a hit .

That being said, personally, I would prefer that those talents granted bonuses to Defense (as realistically, they do make the target harder to hit, rather than being a damage reducer). I think the reason why they went with them being damage reducers is to allow the damage from the attacks to be turned back on the attacker via the Improved talents, which can only occur of the original attack was a "success".

3 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Except that Sloped armor doesn't stop the target from getting hit in the first place. What Sloped armor does is make the target harder to penetrate . It does not make it harder to hit . The sloping of the armor doesn't go into effect until the target is actually hit . How does sloped armor stop the target from getting hit ? It doesn't . All it does is turn aside the blow, causing the weapon (or shot) to bounce off at an angle. Sloping the armor also increases the thickness of the armor that the round has to go through in order to penetrate compared to a direct 90 degree hit. In both cases, the target is still hit. It is still a successful attack. All the armor does is make it harder for the hit to penetrate . That is the physics behind sloped armor. Sloped armor does not prevent a hit . Try again.

Yes, you are. A graze is still a hit. A hit from a weapon can be anything from a scratch to a shot that blasts through your torso or blows off your head.

Parry and Reflect work by intercepting the attack, though not necessarily completely . So, the attack can still hit you , though with a lot less force or energy. Not only that, but even if you parry an attack or reflect an attack. Those attacks still impart energy and force into the intercepting weapon, and thus down into the weapon hand and arm . That force itself can cause injury to the weapon hand or arm . This can take the form of inflammation of the palm of the hands, spraining or jarring of the wrists, etc. So, the hit from the attacker can still cause damage, and thus is a "successful" hit, even if it's Parried or Reflected. And, in the case of Unarmed Parry , you're taking the impact against your arm or hand directly, even if you're parrying by blocking the attacker's weapon hand, not the actual attacking weapon (I.E. parrying a sword attack by blocking the sword hand). So, no, he's not making it a "miss" in the truest sense of the word because the weapon he uses to parry is an extension of himself, and thus, the force of the attack can still cause damage or knock him down or off balance. So, technically , it is still a hit .

That being said, personally, I would prefer that those talents granted bonuses to Defense (as realistically, they do make the target harder to hit, rather than being a damage reducer). I think the reason why they went with them being damage reducers is to allow the damage from the attacks to be turned back on the attacker via the Improved talents, which can only occur of the original attack was a "success".

Again it is you stuck in your box as to what failure is you insist failure is a miss. That is not necessarily true according to the rules and real life.

Okay... and when Parry or Reflect negate the damage entirely, then what? Is it a 'miss-hit' or a 'hit-failure' or what? Because hitting but doing no damage is exactly the same as the dice not giving you any successes. Like, we see Parries and Reflects in the shows and movies as being complete no-hits, so which is it, my dude?

You keep changing the goal posts, @Tramp Graphics , and not acknowledging the game itself doesn't function on a binary, since narrative systems largely do not adhere to them like other games.

43 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Again it is you stuck in your box as to what failure is you insist failure is a miss. That is not necessarily true according to the rules and real life.

Yes. It is!!!! A Combat check is an attack roll. It is a roll made to hit a target. It is a roll to hit. That is what a Combat check is by its very nature. If you Succeed, you hit the target, if you fail, you miss the target. It is that simple.

5 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Okay... and when Parry or Reflect negate the damage entirely, then what? Is it a 'miss-hit' or a 'hit-failure' or what? Because hitting but doing no damage is exactly the same as the dice not giving you any successes. Like, we see Parries and Reflects in the shows and movies as being complete no-hits, so which is it, my dude?

You keep changing the goal posts, @Tramp Graphics , and not acknowledging the game itself doesn't function on a binary, since narrative systems largely do not adhere to them like other games.

No, it isn't. This is because of the other effects that a hit can entail. These included weapon qualities which are activated by Advantages. These require successful hits on order to be activated, not necessarily damage to be done . A defender can still be knocked down even if he successfully parried an attack, simply from the force of the attack. Knock Down can only be activated by a Successful attack. It can only be activated by a hit .

Infact, both Parry and Reflect specifically state, "When the character suffers a hit ..." Both talents use this explicit language. The Weapon Quality Autofire also states, "If the attack hits , the attacker can trigger Autofire..."

A successful attack is an attack that hits its target. A failed attack is one that misses its target. You don't need to parry or reflect an attack that misses. A parrying weapon is a part of the defender. specifically, it is an extension of the defender, if not necessarily literally a part of the defender's body. As such, even if the defender parries an incoming attack, there is still the chance that some damage is done, or that other effects come into play. This is also true of armor. A hit which is deflected by armor, Parry , or Reflect , can still trigger Autofire , Knock Down , Concussive , etc. They still successfully hit the target. They're not failures , they're not misses . Cover can cause you to miss your target. Shields can cause you to miss your target. Larger, heavy robes which obscure the silhouette can cause you to miss your target. These are what can cause a failed attack. These are what can make a target actually harder to hit .

As for your assertion that this game doesn't function on binary? Yes it does. Like all games, it runs of success and failure . Hit or miss. These are binary outcomes . What this system does differently is that it adds other potential positive or negative narrative effects to that binary outcome. As such, you can succeed but have a complication (Threat/Despair), or fail with a secondary benefit (Advantage/Triumph). Regardless, the binary elements of Succeed or Fail, Hit or Miss, is still there. The game still functions on Binary outcomes. It just enhances those outcomes with other effects.

Yeah, except if you Parry or Reflect to the point it does no damage, narratively it never hits you... which is the exact same as a miss, so yeah. Enjoy your box.

And, no, it's not binary. Not like say, d20 games - you can still fail your roll but have beneficial outcomes and you can also succeed on your roll but have negative outcomes. A lot of d20 games are just "did you hit?" and then either yes or no with nothing else. That's binary.

This game doesn't function like that, at all.

1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes. It is!!!! A Combat check is an attack roll. It is a roll made to hit a target. It is a roll to hit. That is what a Combat check is by its very nature. If you Succeed, you hit the target, if you fail, you miss the target. It is that simple.

No, it isn't. This is because of the other effects that a hit can entail. These included weapon qualities which are activated by Advantages. These require successful hits on order to be activated, not necessarily damage to be done . A defender can still be knocked down even if he successfully parried an attack, simply from the force of the attack. Knock Down can only be activated by a Successful attack. It can only be activated by a hit .

Infact, both Parry and Reflect specifically state, "When the character suffers a hit ..." Both talents use this explicit language. The Weapon Quality Autofire also states, "If the attack hits , the attacker can trigger Autofire..."

A successful attack is an attack that hits its target. A failed attack is one that misses its target. You don't need to parry or reflect an attack that misses. A parrying weapon is a part of the defender. specifically, it is an extension of the defender, if not necessarily literally a part of the defender's body. As such, even if the defender parries an incoming attack, there is still the chance that some damage is done, or that other effects come into play. This is also true of armor. A hit which is deflected by armor, Parry , or Reflect , can still trigger Autofire , Knock Down , Concussive , etc. They still successfully hit the target. They're not failures , they're not misses . Cover can cause you to miss your target. Shields can cause you to miss your target. Larger, heavy robes which obscure the silhouette can cause you to miss your target. These are what can cause a failed attack. These are what can make a target actually harder to hit .

As for your assertion that this game doesn't function on binary? Yes it does. Like all games, it runs of success and failure . Hit or miss. These are binary outcomes . What this system does differently is that it adds other potential positive or negative narrative effects to that binary outcome. As such, you can succeed but have a complication (Threat/Despair), or fail with a secondary benefit (Advantage/Triumph). Regardless, the binary elements of Succeed or Fail, Hit or Miss, is still there. The game still functions on Binary outcomes. It just enhances those outcomes with other effects.

Again I have covered all of this but because of your stead fast refusal to listen and insistance on your narrow view results in you not getting how the system actually works. not how you want it to work but how is actually works. because a Failed attack does not necessarily hit miss the target. And really based on how wounds work a successful hit does not actually hit the target till you get a crit..

16 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Yeah, except if you Parry or Reflect to the point it does no damage, narratively it never hits you... which is the exact same as a miss, so yeah. Enjoy your box.

And, no, it's not binary. Not like say, d20 games - you can still fail your roll but have beneficial outcomes and you can also succeed on your roll but have negative outcomes. A lot of d20 games are just "did you hit?" and then either yes or no with nothing else. That's binary.

This game doesn't function like that, at all.

Technically, yes , it does. It may not hit your body . but it still hits you . It hits your weapon, which is an extension of your hand. Or, if you're doing an unarmed parry. the attack is hitting your arm or hand . So, it is still hitting you.

15 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Again I have covered all of this but because of your stead fast refusal to listen and insistance on your narrow view results in you not getting how the system actually works. not how you want it to work but how is actually works. because a Failed attack does not necessarily hit miss the target. And really based on how wounds work a successful hit does not actually hit the target till you get a crit..

And your "covering" is flat out wrong . It's BS . A failed attack is a miss. IF I fail in my attack when shooting at a target, I miss the target. If I swing at someone with a sword and I fail i my attempt, I miss the target. IF I succeed, I hit the target. IT's that simple. It's black and white binary . Succeed equals a hit, failure equals a miss. That is hoiw all game combat systems work. I'm not the only one who has said this , even after you said otherwise, among them being @WolfRider . to quote:

On 1/15/2020 at 8:30 AM, WolfRider said:

But to have any chances to inflict damages you must first hit the target. That means a successful attack roll. Then and only then you add all the success left after cancelling to the weapon base damage. If there's no success left after cancelling it's a failed attack roll. That means you failed to hit the target, it's a miss. That's RAW. Damages are done only on a successful attack roll, or hit.

(emphasis mine)

By RAW, a failed attack is indeed a miss . That is what it means to fail an attack . An attack is an attempt to hit a target in order to potentially inflict damage. You fail to hit your target . That is what a failed combat check means by RAW.

12 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Technically, yes , it does. It may not hit your body . but it still hits you . It hits your weapon, which is an extension of your hand. Or, if you're doing an unarmed parry. the attack is hitting your arm or hand . So, it is still hitting you.

1 minute ago, StarkJunior said:

Very funny, 😝

Have you ever actually parried a weapon? Have you ever tried to block an incoming hit? I have. It can hurt .

19 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Technically, yes , it does. It may not hit your body . but it still hits you . It hits your weapon, which is an extension of your hand. Or, if you're doing an unarmed parry. the attack is hitting your arm or hand . So, it is still hitting you.

Actually no. It doesn't hit you, you hit it.