I'm sorry if this has been asked before. I read in the book that defense from multiple sources does not stack. Does this mean that if you're wearing armor that gives you 1 defense, and you use advantage to gain +1 defense, that you still have 1 defense? Or is defense gained from advantage an exception because it is "+1" as opposed to "1"? For that matter, if you generate lost of advantage, can you get a +2 or theoretically even a +3 defense?

Also, can advantage generated from initiative be used to improve defense or add setback dice to opponents' actions? My thought is that this could be a way for characters to not get totally smoked if they fail initiative and don't get an opportunity to activate talents, take cover, or assume some other type of defense.

For the first part of your question, wow, I don't know. It seems like defense generated by advantages should stack, based on how you cited it, but I think that answer would need to come for a dev

MrBaldwin said:

I think its implicit that you can't activate the same effect more than once on a roll, except for the cause/recover one strain lines that state "this may be activated more than once", so, no, you cannot dump all that advantage into activating the defense multiple times.

MrBaldwin said:

I usually just use the advantages to break up order on the initiative track in the case of ties, though reading the text just says to use triumph. This one seems like dealers (read: GMs) choice. Very clever use, though!

-WJL

The way I read it ( something FFG should try to make clearer of course ), is that Defense dice gained from the same source don't stack . So if you were using a personal shield and laminate armor you would take the better defense dice and go with that. And if you tossed a setback die onto your opponent with advantage you can't necessarily stack on more with higher advantage ( though you could give yourself a boost ), or have another player push a setback die onto your opponent with Advantage after you go ( they could but it would still just be 1 setback die affecting them since it wouldn't stack ). It sounds limiting but I look at it from the standpoint of battle-field duality. It would suck to have a large cluster of enemies push a gob of setback dice onto one player just because the enemies rolled well. And on the flip side looking at threat, it would be crummy to have a GM push a dump truck full of setback dice onto a player for rolling a lot of threat ( at least in my opinion ). That being said I would still allow maneuver dice and talent effects to be pushed into a pool. So if a player has 2 defense from armor, takes guarded position for 1 more, and spends advantage to push another setback die onto their opponent's next attack, and activated dodge to upgrade the pool… that's legit ( from my reading of the rules anyway ). It also makes talents a good bargain since I see them as a separate source of adding/subtracting/upgrading/downgrading dice pools. Then again…it may just be wishful thinking on my part that it works this way.

WFRP has the same initiative system and that game suggests using Threat and Advantage ( banes and boons in WFRP ) on initiative checks to be spent as normal. The main suggestion in that game is to use the symbols on dice modifiers, fatigue/stress and extra in-place maneuvers ( like retrieving gear, taking guarded position, sometimes allowing for cover, etc ) before combat gets underway ( it's just a bit of extra tactical gamey fun to go around the table jockying for advantage, and modifying the starting odds a bit, all in my opinion of course ). It works fine in Warhammer, and it worked well in the couple of play sessions of Edge of the Empire I've done on Google+ with my far-flung game group. Everyone rolls initiative, we decide on order by successes ( separating by characteristics on a tie ). Then we go around spending advantage for our own side, and then spend threat against the opposition (PCs -> NPCs, and vice versa).

Callidon said:

I had some trouble following what you were saying, Callidon. If I'm reading what you're saying correctly, I think we've interpreted the rules slightly differently than you have.

First, adding setback dice to a targets next roll (Can be purchased for advantage) is not the same as increasing your melee or ranged defense (3 advantages, both from Table 6-2, pg 133). You mentioned guarded position and setback generated via advantage above; While these add setback dice, they do not affect the target's defense. Pg 134 explicitly states: " Defense rating represents the abilities of armor or other defensive systems to deflect attacks entirely, or absorb or lessen incoming blows". So environmental conditions (poor light, cover, stance, etc) should not be considered as methods to modify defense rating, since these are not "abilities of armor or other defensive systems". This means that we don't need to worry about how these stack with defense.

Second, I don't see any rules that prevent different characters from spending advantage to cumulatively add setback dice to an individual, or that state that setback dice from the same or similar sources aren't cumulative. So, yeah, if a bunch of 4 separate enemies do roll well and chose to each kick a setback onto the one character in the same round… well, sucks to be that guy's next roll, with 4 additional setback dice. You're right though: While it's legal, its hella douchey.

Finally, back to defense. The way the table 6-2 lists the provided bonus for defense:

"Gain +1 melee or ranged defense until the end of your next turn"

I don't read this benefit as equivalent to providing separate source of defense rating, such as activating shields. Instead, I read that this benefit increases (+1) the effectiveness of your current armor or protective gear's melee or ranged defense for [about] one round. Since this isn't a separate source of defense, again, we shouldn't worry about "stacking from separate sources".

And I'll add your excellent caveat: "This is how I interpreted the rules"

-WJL

From my reading of it:

If I have a talent activated - sidestep - and armour (1 defence) and gain a defence bonus from use of advantages and pick range for this defence bonus, armour is not included, so I get a ranged defence of 2, but in melee I only apply the armour defence bonus of 1.

Although I might be wrong.

Continuing on this notion. Now if I had used guarded stance (1 manoeuvre), the advantage bonus on melee and had a defensive 1 weapon - like a virbrosword - (taking strain to activate it or just not attacking this round) I would have a defence of 3 for melee ONLY. Ranged would either be 0 or 1 (if I had armour).

Now, if I'm beset by ranged and melee foes, I could use the advantage on ranged defence, but it would remain 1, since its specific and not general - as the armour adds general defence - so it would not be upped to 2 for ranged, I could still use guarded stance and the defensive quality to up the melee defence to 2. Or if I could, sidestep, and advantage on ranged, total of 2, and guarded stance or defensive quality for melee, but this would according to my reading not increase melee to 2 (specific does not increase general, so manoeuvre/talent does not increase armour)… so it would be pointless.

So (after rereading): considering general and specific defence notion armour is general defence, it does not stack with defensive quality and guarded stance since these are melee specific, or sidestep since its ranged specific. Advantages for use on defence, I would consider them to be specific - since you have to pick. So it does not improve armour defence, which is general defence. It can overall give you an improved "general" defence, if you only have guarded stance active and gain 3 advantages, which you can spend one ranged defence to make it more difficult for those snipers to hit you too…

I see your issues sort of. As long as defence is divided into three different categories - and if armour defence counts as general (which I assume) and advantages counts as specific and therefore not adding to the general defence of the armour - then wearing armour is better than hoping for advantages that can be used for one type of defence… additionally armour does not become über good, since they can only be improved through some talents (if I remember correctly) and attachments and mods. Advantages and talents on the other hand is based on luck (advantages) and cost (manoeuvre and possibly strain), but can overall give slightly better defence, but at a higher non-monetary cost.

I think this is the correct way to interpret it, but it does assume that armour adds general defence - which I have not triple checked, but seems logical - and that the defence gained from advantages counts as specific and does not increase the armour's (assumed) general defence bonus, which also seems reasonable to me. It makes combat deadly, but there is a nice balance there in my opinion which also sort of mirror what we see in the films.

Jegergryte said:

Yes, Ranged and melee defense are separate. Armor provides both, other sources typically provided on or the other.

Jegergryte said:

You need to be careful about how you've stated the situations above. There are at least 2 mechanics that you're referring to as "defense" that DO NOT provide bonuses do defense :

• "Guarded Stance" maneuver adds a setback die to melee attacks. It does not affect "Defense rating". Its never mentioned in the text of the maneuver
• "Sidestep" talent adds a setback die to ranged attacks for a maneuver. It does not affect "Defense rating".

They sort of look like defense in that they provide setback dice to all attacks, but they are not from armor or defensive gear and the bonus descriptions never mention "defense", so these are not Defense bonuses. Since they're not defense bonuses, there's no worry about them stacking.

The mechanics you mention that affect defense are:

• Armor
• Activating a combat advantage bonus
• Defensive weapon quality

Armor provides a static defense value. That's the easy part. I've stated by interpretation of the combat advantage bonus above. In brief, it says +1 to defense rating, so its modifying your current defense rating, not providing a new source of defense, so it stacks.

The defensive quality weapon quality may be a little hard to figure out, though. It can be considered as defensive gear, and therefore could be a source of defense that doesn't stack with armor. But the defensive quality reads: "… the Defensive quality increases [the character's] melee defense by the weapon's defensive rating." (pg 3 of week 3's beta updates, emphasis mine). So, by my reasoning above, this quality increases defense rating, and therefore would also stack with defense from armor. I think this needs clarification in the rules though.

After reading through all this, the only place where it seems that defense stacking is an issue is using a PSG with armor. And that's just ranged defense.

-WJL

First. My edit did not get updated before now, due to some browser issues it seems.

Good points about sidestep and guarded stance, although I do think they count as defence - but I assume that I can be wrong. If defence adds setback dice, does not a setback die count as 1 defence in the case of defensive talents and manoeuvres? I know its not stated anywhere clearly, but it is a fair assumption I think. Guarded stance says its a defensive manoeuvre, and sidestep does not mention defence anywhere in its desription, but it is a defensive manoeuvre in its nature I would argue, both the name and the description does insinuate a defensive stance/step. So unless there's been an official word regarding this that I haven't seen (which is more than possible) I will not be so quick as to say that this IS NOT a bonus to defence. Obviously its a clarification issue. Either they should add "defence" to the description of both, or they should clarify what counts as a defensive setback die, versus a "normal" setback die.

In addition to melee and ranged defence, you have general defnce, which counts or protects as both (according to page 134), but it is described as a third category of defence. I think it is there that the answer lies. You cannot add melee specific to general defence, as melee defence is a different source of defence than general or ranged. Therefore I assume that a 1 bonus to a specific defence from advantages is not added to general, which gives the armour wearing (and only two of the armours mind you - pluss the deflector shield) character a boost to spend advantages on something else. The character not wearing armour (any of those two or the shield) have to spend manoevres, possibly strain and advantages on defence, which the armour wearing character does not have to, to the same degree. Similarly the non-armour wearing character can accumulate a bit more defence through luck and manoeuvres than the armour wearing character can - rationalise however you want, or not.

I think this is how I will play it until other official words comes onto these boards at least. Only three (two really, the third is not armour as such, but shield) of the seven listed armours on page 113 lists a defence bonus, it seems rather the Soak is the main bonus from armour, which makes sense to me, if the rules is as I interpret them above. Armour is good for soak, and some are cool for defence if you have the cash and other stuff to spend adv on… I have a hard time seeing the scoundrel with sidestep wanting to wear heavy battle armour - although I can see armoured clothing and shield happen…

I'd like to avoid getting into a "Quote-Response" cycle, so I'm going not quote the parts that I disagree with on here. I would simply ask you re-read the entirety of the Defense section on pg 134 and concentrate on the sentences that address where defense comes from and what it is intended to represent. Then please re-read my posts above and try to understand why I don't think defensive stance and sidestep count as defense dice.

Further, I'd like to point out that this passage also states:

"A character adds a number of [setback] equal to his defense rating to all combat checks directed against him"

It does not read:

"A character's defense rating is equal to the number of [setback] applied to combat check against him"

I take this to mean that defense provides setback dice on combat checks, but not all setback dice on combat checks are from defense.

BUT!! I re-read the Defense section (as I've asked you to), and you have definitely taught me something about defense: There clearly 3 defense scores in play during combat:

• General (e.g. armor)
• Melee (e.g. defensive weapons)
• Ranged (e.g. PSGs)

Reading the final paragraph in this section armed with this knowlege makes it abundantly clear the dev's intention that it is these separate sources that do not stack, which clarifies a ton of confusion on my part with how these are supposed to stack.

The question to the devs is now:

Do individual sources of defense WITHIN each of these types stack? I'm guessing no, but there needs to be some unity of language when discussing if something "Increases a defense score" (e.g. the advantage purchase or defensive weapon quality) vs. "providing defense" or being a "source of defense".

This was great feedback, Jeg! This has been very educational and I appreciate it!

-WJL