I know I'm dredging this back up again, but there is one added "fix" to consider. It requires a house rule though.

Why does any of the armor have a Defense value? Why isn't armor just limited to Soak, except for the Personal Deflector Shield? I think it could be a hold-over from FFG Warhammer which needed another defensive value to incorporate to further differentiate more and varied types of armor then we have in a Star Wars universe.

Vehicles and spaceships have both Armor (hull plating) and Defense (shields) ratings. If the craft doesn't have shields, it doesn't have Defense. So, why does personal armor without shields receive a Defense score? If the counter-argument is some armor can "deflect" away an attack, that is just some verbage to justify the use without much logic to it. Can I put some slanted hull armor plating on my X-wing to allow it to deflect away attacks and so gain a defense value without using shields? Armor soaks, shields deflect, is much more simple and believable.

Removing the Defense from personal armor only changes Armored Clothing and Heavy Battle Armor. They both still have Soak values, so they are still useful. You can compenstate by changing Price, Encumbrance, or Hard Points to fill in what they have lost and/or make them different enough from other armors to be a consideration. The Personal Deflector Shield would not change, it would keep it's 2 Defense, as it is of course a shield.

From a simplistic stand point it just makes sense to me. A knight in shining armor holding a shield should have a Soak value from his plate armor and Defense (setback die) from his shield. One absorbs blows, one makes it harder to be hit in the first place.

A bonus would be nearly removing the argument over environmental cover stacking with personal armor defense.

Yet, one could counter-argue that your knight's shield is actually just soaking damage like the armor.

Yeah, you can parry a sword with a shield. But, you can just as easily parry a sword with a thick steel gauntlet. That **** isn't getting through.

What is armor but just a giant body-shield?

Thick armor CAN deflect. If the attack is slowed down so much that it doesn't even bite into the armor, then there's no need for it to soak up anything. If you shot a mandalorian, soak wouldn't matter if the shot didn't even pierce the armor. It would only matter if you scored a major hit (and hitting despite that defense die). Then, your soak would kick in my slowing down the shot before it hits you, and by taking the heat so your body doesn't have to.

Planetary scale=/=Personal scale. While Shields and Defense work mechanically similar, they are not the same thematically. And, when approaching this system, I am a proponent of disallowing mechanics to overshadow thematic and narrative flair.

Which is why I'm letting armor and cover stack, since it only makes sense that it would be harder to shoot through thick armor while also trying not to hit the cover they are ducking behind than it would be to hit the target anywhere while they are behind cover (because they're naked or wearing no armor.) It only makes sense.

Yet, one could counter-argue that your knight's shield is actually just soaking damage like the armor.

Yeah, you can parry a sword with a shield. But, you can just as easily parry a sword with a thick steel gauntlet. That **** isn't getting through.

The analogy still holds. Armor soaks, shields parry (deflect). If a sword hits the armor, you've been "hit". If the sword hits the shield, you haven't been, "hit". This is Star Wars, so Shields equate with Starships Shields easily, while Plate Armor equates with Ship Hull Plating easily. I'm arguing that the simplicity of that could (not should, to each his own game) be translated into play.

Soak and Defense for personal armor started in version 1.0 of FFG's narrative system. Lets say you were assigning Soak values to (using D&D armors) Padded, Leather, Studder Leather, Chain Mail, Plate Mail, and Plate. If you assigned them in increasing values, Plate would have a Soak of 6 that would be game breaking. So, the designers started throwing in Defense along with Soak to differentiate that long list of armor and not have such high Soak values. I was arguing that perhaps, due to the varying weights and hard points (not found in version 1.0) in Star Wars, you can still get enough differentiation in armors without throwing in Defense. Keep Defense to shields and things that keep you from getting hit, not keep you from getting hurt once you are actually hit.

Thick armor CAN deflect. If the attack is slowed down so much that it doesn't even bite into the armor, then there's no need for it to soak up anything.

So you will be allowing starship armor modifications which allow their armor to do the same? And you said, "thick" armor could deflect. What about a "light vest" with "ceramic pads"? That's a description of Armored Clothing, which has a Defense. I could go with your argument for Heavy Battle Armor, or even Laminate (no Defense by the way), but not for the lighter armors.

Planetary scale=/=Personal scale. While Shields and Defense work mechanically similar, they are not the same thematically. And, when approaching this system, I am a proponent of disallowing mechanics to overshadow thematic and narrative flair.

It has nothing to do with scale, which I didn't mention in my argument. Personal and Planetary combat both use the same system. So, my desire to keep it equal for simplicity sake.

In the end, to each his own. Do with it what you wish. I didn't think my idea was so illogical though.

Which is why I'm letting armor and cover stack, since it only makes sense that it would be harder to shoot through thick armor while also trying not to hit the cover they are ducking behind than it would be to hit the target anywhere while they are behind cover (because they're naked or wearing no armor.) It only makes sense.

I've been struggling with the logic of this, too, but I may have an explanation that will help you out (though, I'm not sure it's perfect, but it's up for discussion).

At first, it seems logical that armor and cover would stack, after all you're behind two things capable of blocking shots. But look at it like this.

Say you roll 2 black dice for cover and armor (if they stack). In real life, if cover blocked the shot, then the armor did nothing, so it wouldn't be able to contribute (ie - adding a fail symbol) to the roll. If the shot missed cover (or shot through it) but was blocked by the armor, then the cover dice did absolutely nothing and would not be able to contribute to the failure of a roll.

Rolling two dice would kind of make sense if neither or only one of them were failures (ie - fail symbol: capable of blocking shots), but where it doesn't make sense is when they both come up as failures. You would think that BOTH forms of cover wouldn't contribute to blocking the shot...that the shot would only be blocked by one or the other. I guess the one argument you could make is that maybe it hit cover, but went through the cover, weakening the blast enough for the person's armor to block the rest of it. IMO, that'd be the only way rolling 2 dice would make sense.

I think in a lot of the analysis of this question people may be losing sight of just how abstracted these numbers are supposed to be, especially the Defense value. The rules describe it as an abstract combination of many factors that go toward preventing the character from being hit, rather than as a specific modeling of some exact real-world thing. It roughly represents the table you're hiding behind and the strength of your armor without being so specific.

When I first read about how combat works in EOTE I was surprised that it wasn't an opposing roll of some kind, or that agility didn't play more into keeping you from being hit. Now I think it's a good system, and I like how they've abstracted it to be a little less specific and more about the story.

I think in a lot of the analysis of this question people may be losing sight of just how abstracted these numbers are supposed to be, especially the Defense value. The rules describe it as an abstract combination of many factors that go toward preventing the character from being hit, rather than as a specific modeling of some exact real-world thing. It roughly represents the table you're hiding behind and the strength of your armor without being so specific.

When I first read about how combat works in EOTE I was surprised that it wasn't an opposing roll of some kind, or that agility didn't play more into keeping you from being hit. Now I think it's a good system, and I like how they've abstracted it to be a little less specific and more about the story.

Also, certain talents like "Dodge" help if you have high agility, so it can play a part if you want it to (ie - have bought the talent).

Which is why I'm letting armor and cover stack, since it only makes sense that it would be harder to shoot through thick armor while also trying not to hit the cover they are ducking behind than it would be to hit the target anywhere while they are behind cover (because they're naked or wearing no armor.) It only makes sense.

I've been struggling with the logic of this, too, but I may have an explanation that will help you out (though, I'm not sure it's perfect, but it's up for discussion).

At first, it seems logical that armor and cover would stack, after all you're behind two things capable of blocking shots. But look at it like this.

Say you roll 2 black dice for cover and armor (if they stack). In real life, if cover blocked the shot, then the armor did nothing, so it wouldn't be able to contribute (ie - adding a fail symbol) to the roll. If the shot missed cover (or shot through it) but was blocked by the armor, then the cover dice did absolutely nothing and would not be able to contribute to the failure of a roll.

Rolling two dice would kind of make sense if neither or only one of them were failures (ie - fail symbol: capable of blocking shots), but where it doesn't make sense is when they both come up as failures. You would think that BOTH forms of cover wouldn't contribute to blocking the shot...that the shot would only be blocked by one or the other. I guess the one argument you could make is that maybe it hit cover, but went through the cover, weakening the blast enough for the person's armor to block the rest of it. IMO, that'd be the only way rolling 2 dice would make sense.

An excellent point, but I remind you that one attack action is NOT just one shot. If both of those Setback dice rolled failure symbols, then perhaps the volley of shots grazed your armor and a couple hit the cover, but neither of them did any damage because one defense or the other prevented it.

Yet, one could counter-argue that your knight's shield is actually just soaking damage like the armor.

Yeah, you can parry a sword with a shield. But, you can just as easily parry a sword with a thick steel gauntlet. That **** isn't getting through.

The analogy still holds. Armor soaks, shields parry (deflect). If a sword hits the armor, you've been "hit". If the sword hits the shield, you haven't been, "hit". This is Star Wars, so Shields equate with Starships Shields easily, while Plate Armor equates with Ship Hull Plating easily. I'm arguing that the simplicity of that could (not should, to each his own game) be translated into play.

Soak and Defense for personal armor started in version 1.0 of FFG's narrative system. Lets say you were assigning Soak values to (using D&D armors) Padded, Leather, Studder Leather, Chain Mail, Plate Mail, and Plate. If you assigned them in increasing values, Plate would have a Soak of 6 that would be game breaking. So, the designers started throwing in Defense along with Soak to differentiate that long list of armor and not have such high Soak values. I was arguing that perhaps, due to the varying weights and hard points (not found in version 1.0) in Star Wars, you can still get enough differentiation in armors without throwing in Defense. Keep Defense to shields and things that keep you from getting hit, not keep you from getting hurt once you are actually hit.

Thick armor CAN deflect. If the attack is slowed down so much that it doesn't even bite into the armor, then there's no need for it to soak up anything.

So you will be allowing starship armor modifications which allow their armor to do the same? And you said, "thick" armor could deflect. What about a "light vest" with "ceramic pads"? That's a description of Armored Clothing, which has a Defense. I could go with your argument for Heavy Battle Armor, or even Laminate (no Defense by the way), but not for the lighter armors.

Planetary scale=/=Personal scale. While Shields and Defense work mechanically similar, they are not the same thematically. And, when approaching this system, I am a proponent of disallowing mechanics to overshadow thematic and narrative flair.

It has nothing to do with scale, which I didn't mention in my argument. Personal and Planetary combat both use the same system. So, my desire to keep it equal for simplicity sake.

In the end, to each his own. Do with it what you wish. I didn't think my idea was so illogical though.

Well, it seems to me that you are possibly getting too concerned with the rules and letting your prior experiences with DnD scare you into wanting to remove Defense. Neither Soak nor Defense needs to strictly be deflection or absorption, though it obviously leans in that direction. I think you're too worried about making the mechanics between planetary and personal scale match. I mean, if you start removing personal defense, you're going to make this game even more lethal than it is. And I believe it is quite lethal as it is already.

As for the starship armor deflecting shots, you also should remember that planetary scale weapons are usually powerful enough that they really can't be deflected by armor. And you should also remember that a vehicle isn't a person, so damaging it works a little differently than it does when hitting people. If an attack doesn't breach armor and defense on a starship weapon, then I might let it deflect off. Sure. Why not?

Preserve the narrative first, rules second, in my opinion.

You are obviously free to do whatever you want, but I feel like when you are about to modify or remove a feature in the game, you need to stop and think if it is really truly necessary. Do you REALLY want to, or need to, remove defense from armor? Would that enhance your gameplay that much? If you think so, then go for it. I won't stop you, and I couldn't if I wanted to. That's the same idea I'm taking about allowing cover and armor stacking. If YOU think it makes sense, then do it. Just make sure that you think about it a lot and play test both ways if it is a drastic change.

A lot of us have been tainted by our rules-necessity from D20 systems and the like. We just have to take a step back sometimes and remember that we're playing this for fun first.

Which is why I'm letting armor and cover stack, since it only makes sense that it would be harder to shoot through thick armor while also trying not to hit the cover they are ducking behind than it would be to hit the target anywhere while they are behind cover (because they're naked or wearing no armor.) It only makes sense.

I've been struggling with the logic of this, too, but I may have an explanation that will help you out (though, I'm not sure it's perfect, but it's up for discussion).

At first, it seems logical that armor and cover would stack, after all you're behind two things capable of blocking shots. But look at it like this.

Say you roll 2 black dice for cover and armor (if they stack). In real life, if cover blocked the shot, then the armor did nothing, so it wouldn't be able to contribute (ie - adding a fail symbol) to the roll. If the shot missed cover (or shot through it) but was blocked by the armor, then the cover dice did absolutely nothing and would not be able to contribute to the failure of a roll.

Rolling two dice would kind of make sense if neither or only one of them were failures (ie - fail symbol: capable of blocking shots), but where it doesn't make sense is when they both come up as failures. You would think that BOTH forms of cover wouldn't contribute to blocking the shot...that the shot would only be blocked by one or the other. I guess the one argument you could make is that maybe it hit cover, but went through the cover, weakening the blast enough for the person's armor to block the rest of it. IMO, that'd be the only way rolling 2 dice would make sense.

An excellent point, but I remind you that one attack action is NOT just one shot. If both of those Setback dice rolled failure symbols, then perhaps the volley of shots grazed your armor and a couple hit the cover, but neither of them did any damage because one defense or the other prevented it.

****, you're absolutely right lol.

Ladies and Gentlemen, step on up. I present to you the twin dead horses Cover and Armor. For just a few creds you too can beat one, the other, or BOTH! Yes for just 5 creds you can get 3 hits on one or for 10 creds you can get 8 on either/or. Step on up, step on up!

I finally got to this part of the book, and of course I was wondering the same as all of you. However since it clearly says that cover increases the defense by one then that's how we're going to play it.

That is, until FFG comes with an official errata stating otherwise, some guy who made the game talking to an un-official podcast isn't good enough in my mind as anything official. And as far as I know, there is no official errata yet, right?

Dear sweet Jesus, why did you have to ressurrect this thread? It was finally lying still in its grave.

Dear sweet Jesus, why did you have to ressurrect this thread? It was finally lying still in its grave.

I concur.

Seeing as the question is brought up once every other day in other threads, the topic is certainly not dead. The discussion has just spread to all other threads like a virus.

I have a related question. Vehicle scale htt and sst = x10 of character scale. Does vehicle scale defence in some way also scale up? Not x10 of course, but would you think adding another defence die against character scale attacks aganst vehicles makes sense?

As for the rest of the issue. Cover and amour stacking, the book contradicts itself, the devs have indicated that it should not, accept it or not, it is what has been stated, regardless of forum/media used. Nothing prevents anyone from ignoring this and refer to the other stated version of the rules. I'm sure good and bad arguments exists for both sides of the issue, but as the book says: Fun first! Rules second. Interpret as you and your group/GM will. The FFG Fun Police (thanks away) won't come and arrest you whatever your preference.

Sorry .to be a pain, but I am new to this discussion.

Does guarded stance , which gives melee defence 1, stack with a defensive weapon ( vibrosword) , which increases his defensive rating by its Defensive rating?

Also does the prone position, which gives a black dice to defence, stack with cover which gives a defence rating 1?

So being prone behind a crate, gives 2black dice?

I am afb but if it says increases ranged defense or +1 to ranged defense, then yes

I'm afb so cannot check proper wording of guarded stance and defensive quality, but perhaps? I'd expect so really.

When it comes to being prone and cover/armour I'd say they stack. One is defence the other is an environmental effect. So one (cover/armour) applies to you, whereas the other (being prone) applies to the enemy really, and is not defence as such... If that makes sense.

Yeah agree with prone and cover, but don't know enough about the other to say

They stack

I really don't like the idea that armor makes harder to hit the character. They should have more Soak maybe and no Defense at all.

Hmm....how about not having "defence" but threat triggered additional soak, to reflect the improved armour design instead. And a disaster soaking all damage bar 1 point.

Hmm....how about not having "defence" but threat triggered additional soak, to reflect the improved armour design instead. And a disaster soaking all damage bar 1 point.

Huh?

I really don't like the idea that armor makes harder to hit the character. They should have more Soak maybe and no Defense at all.

In that case increase the soak by 1 for armour with defence value. I think that would suffice. Heavy battle armour would then have 3 soak, armoured clothing would have 2, same as laminate but still hard to notice, could sort of make sense. I'd not remove the defence on the few amours that have got it, but that's my suggestion to you.

Hmm....how about not having "defence" but threat triggered additional soak, to reflect the improved armour design instead. And a disaster soaking all damage bar 1 point.

If I understand you correctly you're saying that any Threats rolled on the attack check increases the soak of the armour? So when I attack a player with an armour that has Defence and my attack roll produces 2 successes and 3 threats, his Soak increases by 3? But that is already what the failure symbols on the setback die represents, isn't it?

Nifty idea, should have a cap though. Still, not a solution I'd go with, but its nifty.

Hmm....how about not having "defence" but threat triggered additional soak, to reflect the improved armour design instead. And a disaster soaking all damage bar 1 point.

If I understand you correctly you're saying that any Threats rolled on the attack check increases the soak of the armour? So when I attack a player with an armour that has Defence and my attack roll produces 2 successes and 3 threats, his Soak increases by 3? But that is already what the failure symbols on the setback die represents, isn't it? Nifty idea, should have a cap though. Still, not a solution I'd go with, but its nifty.

Oh ok. How about armor soak upgrades the difficulty of the attack?