Agreed :-)
Pierce/Breach and the Application of Damage
I third that!
I already did. Sam is out of the office until tomorrow so no answer until at least then. I will post it here when I get it
IceBear did, now he's just waiting on a response.
While we don’t need another opinion here, I just can’t help myself.
We can all agree that: Wounds = Damage – Soak (to a minimum of 0 wounds)
So the question is, should Soak be reduced by Pierce giving us: Wounds = Damage - (Soak - Pierce) which shows if you don’t do enough damage even with pierce you may inflict 0 wounds.
Or should Soak be ignored by the Pierce value giving us: Wounds = (Damage - Soak) + Pierce where (Damage - Soak) can only go down to the minimum of 0… which will always do at least Pierce value in wounds.
The problem usually arises with melee weapons, as the non-melee weapons usually do enough damage that either option yields the same result.
Some examples…
Heavy Repeating Blaster vs Soak 8 (Brawn 4, Padded armor, Enduring x2). With two success. Option 1 we get 15 + 2 - (8 - 2) = 11 wounds. Option 2 we get (15 + 2 - 8) + 2 = 11 wounds.
Armor Piercing Grenade (AoR beta) vs Soak 8. With the same two success. Option 1 we get 16 + 2 - (8 - 3) = 13 wounds. Option 2 we get (16 + 2 - 8) + 3 = 13 wounds.
Now a Vibro-ax with Brawn 4 vs Soak 8. We did real well and got 4 success. Option 1: 4 (Br) + 3 (ax) + 4 - (8 - 2) = 5 wounds. Option 2: (4 + 3 + 4 - 8) + 2 = 5 wounds. Still no problem with either option since we are still dealing enough damage.
Vibroknife wielded by the Brawn 1 doctor vs that big Soak 8 rival. Only 1 success. A hit! Option 1: 1 + 1 + 1 - (8 - 2) = minimum 0 wounds. Option 2: (1 + 1 + 1 - 8) [minimum of 0] + 2 = 2 wounds.
In my games, I will probably use Option 2. My thinking is that if hit with a Piercing melee weapon, regardless of the toughness of the target, the wounds will occur. IMO, a character that is tough enough to go without armor (replace the padded armor with additional 2 ranks of Enduring) that gets hit by a vibroknife should suffer the wounds. I know… “But what about the trooper in full laminate armor?” I would still say take the wounds, the hit found the ***** in the armor. “Totally encased in an unbreakably sealed suit!” Then there should have been enough difficulty and setback dice to keep from finding that “unknown” weakness.
So what about Crits? Can you Crit with that Vibroknife example? No. “ A Critical Injury can only be triggered on a successful hit that deals damage that exceeds the target’s soak value .” The total damage was still just 3 in the example, so the hit still does the 2 wounds, but as the damage did not exceed the Soak value, no Crit is possible.
Regarding Breach… Personally, I would again use Option 2, provided the weapon was truly equipped with the right ammo... a missile tube purchased with anti-vehicle missiles vs anti-personnel ammunition (say a fragmentation round). If the attack was made directly against a vehicle using the right weapon for the job, the breach quality should mean something, even coming from a personal scale weapon. So the missile tube can consistently do 1 hull trauma. If the vehicle decides not to go after the attackers, or deploy troops to do so, it will get what it deserves. Same with those nice Jedi glow sticks, 1 point of trauma per attack. How about those AoR beta Anti-Vehicle Mines with a Breach of 4. In the description they are “ designed to destroy walkers, speeders, and other land-borne vehicles .” With personal scale damage base of 25, let’s set one for that approaching AT-AT.
With 5 success, we hit the 30 damage mark (3 vehicle scale). Against the walker’s armor of 6… Option 1: 3 - (6 - 4) = 1 Trauma. Option 2: (3 - 6) [minimum 0] + 4 = 4 Trauma. A weapon designed to destroy vehicles… without the 5+ success, Option 1 would do 0 Trauma. Option 2 still does 4 Trauma.
Once again, if the Walker keeps plodding on through the minefield without stopping to reassess the battlefield… that commander better hope he dies in battle today. And the Crit rule would still be true here. Without the 5+ success, there won’t be a critical hit.
Anyway… that’s my two cents. Since I’m in with the minority opinion, I expect to see my views proven wrong with Sam’s response. Which will also be okay. Option one is not bad. I just feel Option two better represents reality… which we all know doesn’t always belong in a game. And as the GM… I can bend the rules to fit my game regardless of RAW.
Pierce (Passive)
An attack made with this weapon reduces one point of soak for each rank of pierce. If the weapon has more ranks of pierce than the target's total soak, it completely reduces the target's soak.
But that is not what it states.
This is what it states:
An attack made with this weapon ignores one point of soak for each rank of pierce. If the weapon has more ranks of pierce than the target's total soak, it completely ignores the target's soak.
So crimson may be in the minority, but he is correct.
The key word is ignore: To refuse to take notice of.
If I'm attacking with a weapon with pierce 2, I'm ignoring 2 points of soak. If I hit a target with 10 soak, I ignore, refuse to take notice of, 2 of the 10. So I still take notice of 8 soak. Meaning, any attack that does 8 or less damage is ignored due to soak.
I agree with Voice's interpretation.
-EF
So lets take a look at that example.
If I'm attacking with a weapon with pierce 2, I'm ignoring 2 points of soak. If I hit a target with 10 soak, I ignore, refuse to take notice of, 2 of the 10. So I still take notice of 8 soak . Meaning, any attack that does 8 or less damage is ignored due to soak.
(the red is incorrect)
You forgot to ignore the soak value.
When you apply the 2 pierce damage it is applied as if the soak value never existed.
So you are not ignoring 2 points of soak value, you are ignoring the soak value completely and then applying damage up to the pierce value of the weapon. (2 in this example).
EDIT: (for clarity hopefully)
You can also think of it this way.
All piercing damage is applied first.
Since piercing damage ignores soak (all of it) those points of damage are dealt up to the pierce value.
Then the remaining damage is applied however the soak value is no longer ignored and is instead applied.
I disagree:
"An attack made with this weapon ignores one point of soak for each rank of pierce."
This doesn't even imply to ignore soak completely, apply damage equal to pierce value, then evaluate soak normally.
I think the interpretation you're quoting (about 8 out of 10 soak) seems to be the most logical when reading the wording.
I do see value in doing it the other way (chip damage on large vehicles like from a lightsaber), but going by RAW, "reducing soak by x_peirce" is what is intended here, imo.
The point of those weapons is that they are deadly. they are meant bypass armor (ignore armor if you will) and inflict damage on the target. When you simply reduce the soak value by ...2...it's not very threatening nor deadly.
But when you know you ARE going to be wounded...Even that Bothan with a vibro knife poses a threat.
Anyway, just waiting to hear an official response.
The point of those weapons is that they are deadly. they are meant bypass armor (ignore armor if you will) and inflict damage on the target. When you simply reduce the soak value by ...2...it's not very threatening nor deadly.
But when you know you ARE going to be wounded...Even that Bothan with a vibro knife poses a threat.
Anyway, just waiting to hear an official response.
Exactly my take on the issue. Why even carry a vibro-knife as a backup weapon? You can't hurt anyone with it.
Yeah, still waiting to hear back. I assume that Sam is busy catching up on his mail and possibly double checking their thoughts on this
I would be thoroughly surprised if this was different than the way it works in Warhammer (which reduces soak by pierce).
Agreed, but given the difference of opinions it would be good to get something official
Yeah, still waiting to hear back. I assume that Sam is busy catching up on his mail and possibly double checking their thoughts on this
Fair warning - I sent in some rules questions over a month ago and never heard back.
Ah, then I won't expect an answer. I had assumed they had a group of people but with just one I can imagine the flood
Yeah, still waiting to hear back. I assume that Sam is busy catching up on his mail and possibly double checking their thoughts on this
Fair warning - I sent in some rules questions over a month ago and never heard back.
I had a question I asked on July 13th answered on August 9th. He'll get around to it, but it will be a bit.
Ah, good to know.
Help me Sam Stewart, you're my only hope!
:-)
Pierce (Passive)
An attack made with this weapon reduces one point of soak for each rank of pierce. If the weapon has more ranks of pierce than the target's total soak, it completely reduces the target's soak.
But that is not what it states.
This is what it states:
An attack made with this weapon ignores one point of soak for each rank of pierce. If the weapon has more ranks of pierce than the target's total soak, it completely ignores the target's soak.
So crimson may be in the minority, but he is correct.
The key word is ignore: To refuse to take notice of.
If I'm attacking with a weapon with pierce 2, I'm ignoring 2 points of soak. If I hit a target with 10 soak, I ignore, refuse to take notice of, 2 of the 10. So I still take notice of 8 soak. Meaning, any attack that does 8 or less damage is ignored due to soak.
I agree with Voice's interpretation.
-EF
Obviously correct. Doesn't say "X points of your damage ignore all of your opponent's soak" which is the competing version.
EDIT: And it is still awesome. Up to 3 points or so of pierce is pretty much a flat damage increase, in any situation where it's going to matter at all.
Further edit in bold.
Edited by masonic
If you have soak 20 and get hit for 10 by a vibro knife which has pierce 2 you take 2 damage.
No. Pierce increases the likelyhood of doing damage on a successful hit, but it doesn't guarantee it.
Pierce reads as follows:
An attack made with this weapon ignores one point of soak for each rank of Pierce. If the weapon has more ranks of Pierce than the target's total soak, it completely ignores the target's soak. For example, Pierce 3 against a soak of 2 ignores 2 points of soak, but the extra "point" of Pierce has no further effect.
If you have a Soak of 5, and get hit for 4 damage with a weapon with the Pierce 2 quality, you take 1 point of damage.
5 Soak - 2 Pierce = 3 Soak
4 Damage - 3 Soak = 1 Damage
If you (somehow) have Soak 20, and get hit for 10 damage with a weapon with the Pierce 2 quality, you still take no damage.
20 Soak - 2 Pierce = 18 Soak
10 Damage - 18 Soak = 0 Damage
While the standard interpretation of Pierce and Breach would render your comment true, I saw a discussion on this board somewhere that suggested interpreting the weapon qualities a little closer.
They both say that they IGNORE soak equal to their various ratings, right? Well, what if that means that that damage truly IGNORES it, and can go right through?
If your damage was greater than their soak , it would work as normal. 10 damage to a dude with 5 soak does 5 normally, but if the weapon had Pierce 2 it would do 7.
However, if your damage was LESS than their soak , then damage equal to the Pierce rating could sneak through and possibly still crit if the attack is successful. So, if I was fighting a dude with 10 soak and I did 5 damage, nothing would happen. But, if my weapon had Pierce 2, 2 of my 5 damage IGNORES soak , so he still takes two damage and I can maybe score a crit with advantages.
I like this for a few reasons.
1. It says ignores soak , not reduces.
2. It doesn't make high soak high brawn high wound characters omfgroflstompOP and lets them have a weakness besides just strain damage.
3. It allows for a "Death by 1000 Cuts" strategy for people using weapons that might not deal a lot of damage, and it allows players and NPCs better deal with walking tanks.
4. It allows Lightsabers, Thermal Dets, and Missile Tubes to damage vehicles with Breach, since all of those weapons have been shown to be effective against vehicles in media (Luke vs. At-At, etc.) You wouldn't deal a lot of hull damage, but you can score critical hits, which are truthfully more important when facing vehicles anyways. It also adds to the deadliness of these weapons, which I think is very important.
I will be using this in all of my games because it makes everything way better and more balanced, and I almost feel like that's how the Devs wanted it to be played as. If not, then I am anyways!
Taken from a thread I started back in early Aug.
I think that I was the one that said this quote originally (and I'm totally fine with you using it!), and I still hold it true to this day. This interpretation makes it so super high soak people aren't roflOP. Obviously you guys are free to do what you want, but consider using it. It makes sense and it really balances the game. After all, I don't care how armored a vehicle is, an ANTI ARMOR Missile Tube should probably punch it for a little damage if it hits.
I do, however, think that you should be able to crit even with that little pierce damage that goes through. Death by 1000 cuts. A tiny cut can still be on a vital spot and slow you down more than a big wallop that just deals superficial damage. Basically, I would find it amazing to actually take down a massive rancor or something by just using a vibroknife and inflicting a butt load of critical injuries until you manage to roll a "You dead" result. I just think that would be so awesome and thematic, and that's basically the middle name of this system.
Edited by Endrik TenebrisI think it's a good rule to consider...thematically, it makes sense and could lead to fun combat encounters. But I still think, taking RAW, it's intended to just reduce soak by 2. But the alternative sounds like a fun way to play, too.
Here's an abridged version of something I posted elsewhere:
"Ignoring" points of soak to let damage slip through doesn't make sense, because even if you ignore one point of soak, that doesn't mean you get to ignore all the other points of it. Examples in pictures below:
This is an example where a character has a hypothetical (for sake of simplicity) weapon with 2 base damage (+ successes) and 2 points of pierce. The character rolled 2 successes, for four base damage.
With the "ignores" concept, points of soak are treated like discrete things - once you avoid one point of soak, the rest of the points don't matter: I ignored one point of soak, and it doesn't matter that there are still four other points, that damage got through. Example below:
With the "reduces" concept, soak is treated as a single mass. If you "ignore" one point of soak, great! There are still four other points to contend with. This is more logical to me, because soak represents things like thickness and sturdiness of armor. If I have a weapon that can penetrate 1-inch thick armor easily (Pierce 1, e.g.), then if I have two-inch armor, it ignores the first inch of it but still doesn't automatically grant damage, because there's still a whole 'nother inch to contend with. Example below:
Literally "ignoring" all soak treats soak as some weird set of discrete entities - instead of soak 2 armor being twice as thick as soak 1 armor, it's treated like soak 1 armor covers half a person while soak 2 armor covers two halves. It's an illogical construction borne out of a reasonable goal, but an illogical one nonetheless.
Edited by MaveritchellAfter a careful re-reading of the Pierce description, and after reading the many examples and arguments here, I think I'm going to change my mind and adopt what was originally the opposing point of view (from the one I had, anyway).
For me, the key element I had overlooked was the use of the phrase "one point of" in the first sentence. I had glossed over it before but now I think it's actually the key to understanding how this is supposed to work.
Of course, I would still like the official confirmation. Hopefully that will come along sooner rather than later.
One thing to consider if pierce is handeld as "Pierce damage always pierces the armor":
Such qualities always has to be symmetric.
Meaning, if Pierce was guaranteed damage, disregarding any soak, I as a palyer would probably try to get a Disruptor blaster, Jury rig it down to Crit on 1 Advantage and make is Superior. Even the Carbine can be brought down to crit 2 with superior, and make it potnetially Scary.
When there is no way to absorb a lousy hit (wich a hit with 1 net success basically is) from a modded holdoutblaster completely, while Wearing Armor DESIGNED to defelct Blaster fire, and then randomly kill you (wich can happen), it can get very frustrating, very fast, for both sides, because those random deaths can happen both to the players, as well to the well carfted arch nemesis. Lucky roll on crot? well the Sith overlord don't have a head anymore!
I really don't see where High Soak is getting Imbalanced that this interpretation would be needed anywhay.
The minimal Damage of Blaster Rifles/Carbines is 11, of Heavy Blaster Pistols 9. These three are Probably the most seen Weapons when it comes to Combat encounters, and can Easily be modded 13dam Accurate 3 Pierce 1 / 12dam Accurate 2 Pierce 2 without even considnering Talents, only with two attachemnts and their mods.
I don't really think a Heavy Armored Soldier should be afraid of someone with a Holdout Blaster (even though even then the lucky hit cann Occur) but evereything starting with a Blaster Pistol can be a threat, even with 10 soak, because with the accurate abd the resulting Dice pool, those crita are gonna happen, even without Pierce autodamage.
One thing to consider if pierce is handeld as "Pierce damage always pierces the armor":
Such qualities always has to be symmetric.
Meaning, if Pierce was guaranteed damage, disregarding any soak, I as a palyer would probably try to get a Disruptor blaster, Jury rig it down to Crit on 1 Advantage and make is Superior. Even the Carbine can be brought down to crit 2 with superior, and make it potnetially Scary.
When there is no way to absorb a lousy hit (wich a hit with 1 net success basically is) from a modded holdoutblaster completely, while Wearing Armor DESIGNED to defelct Blaster fire, and then randomly kill you (wich can happen), it can get very frustrating, very fast, for both sides, because those random deaths can happen both to the players, as well to the well carfted arch nemesis. Lucky roll on crot? well the Sith overlord don't have a head anymore!
I really don't see where High Soak is getting Imbalanced that this interpretation would be needed anywhay.
The minimal Damage of Blaster Rifles/Carbines is 11, of Heavy Blaster Pistols 9. These three are Probably the most seen Weapons when it comes to Combat encounters, and can Easily be modded 13dam Accurate 3 Pierce 1 / 12dam Accurate 2 Pierce 2 without even considnering Talents, only with two attachemnts and their mods.
I don't really think a Heavy Armored Soldier should be afraid of someone with a Holdout Blaster (even though even then the lucky hit cann Occur) but evereything starting with a Blaster Pistol can be a threat, even with 10 soak, because with the accurate abd the resulting Dice pool, those crita are gonna happen, even without Pierce autodamage.
It makes acquiring Cortosis that much more important. There is a reason why it's so rare and awesome and it's not just for defending against lightsabers.
Disruptors are Vicious, not piercing.
So far as I can tell there are no mods for disruptors.
There is no way to add piercing to a disruptor. I suppose you could jury rig it but at the expense of having easy critical hits.
Sure you can activate a critical easily but so what ?
You are absolutely right. Weapons are scary. They kill people. That's what they are designed to do.
Disruptors are also rarity 6 so they are a bit more difficult to acquire.
They are also restricted...having one in your holster would also be highly frowned upon by pretty much everyone.
Edited by Echo2OmegaDisruptors are Vicious, not piercing.
So far as I can tell there are no mods for disruptors.
There is no way to add piercing to a disruptor. I suppose you could jury rig it but at the expense of having easy critical hits.
Sure you can activate a critical easily but so what ?
You are absolutely right. Weapons are scary. They kill people. That's what they are designed to do.
Activating a crit with a disruptor weapon is an auto limb loss or higher on the crit table. There's a reason why disruptor weapons are illegal.