That would infringe on the area of defensive talents. I'd rather have the setback die, basically keep the system as is. I see no reason for change.

That would infringe on the area of defensive talents. I'd rather have the setback die, basically keep the system as is. I see no reason for change.

I agree I was just suggesting things for cranbrookdave

Thanks for comments. I was just thinking of house rules that addressed the problems, without being too grose. I was only thinking of 1 point of soak increase max, if threats were produced. Similar to previous idea but with a limiting variable, to reflect the varied results of deflective armour.

Just in case anyone need s to see the actual answer here it is strait from the horses mouth:

Q. On page 213 the rules for cover state they you increase a characters defense by 1, however pg 202 states that cover grants ranged defense of 1, which is correct?

"The cover action (page 202) is correct"

Q. Do you mind if I ask why the change from the Beta?

"The reason we changed defense slightly is we wanted to balance defense with, on the one hand, being useful to the players and allowing them to increase it, with, on the other hand, avoiding really bloated dice pools. We ret-conned the change in the Beta after we decided (post-Beta) to make Sixth Sense and Superior Reflexes not Force talents (leaving them potentially open to more characters in the future). Now armor and cover don't stack , but the "defensive" talents do."

Interesting, no one has ever pointed out the thing on page 202, everyone has been talking about page 207 vs 213. Now that I see that there actually IS a contradiction in the book, I guess I'll not let it stack.

They don't call me 'eagle eye Lupex' for nothing.

In fact nobody has ever called me that but I did find that discrepancy and take full credit for asking Sam Stewart about the contradictory rules, you are all most welcome