My Search-Fu didn't give me any results for this question previously so I apologize if it's been discussed, but how is Soak meant to interact with Table 6-8 (p.214)? Does it reduce damage from standing in a fire or having the air contaminated by a chemical leak, etc.?

Falling specifically mentions Soak reducing damage, but Fire & Corrosives do not. I can see a case made for both reduction and no reduction.

soak works against fire and acid, but atmospheric damage is only ignored if their armor can allow them to seal them selves in and be used in a vacuum.

i house rule it that armor takes damage each round of 1 point, when the armor takes damage that exceeds it's hard points it is damaged permanently and suffers from the inferior quality. if it takes 2 more points of damage the armor is permanently destroyed.

I may treat it as a Sunder or something. I like the idea of it damaging the armor.

i find sunder happens to quickly, giving the equipment wounds equal to hardpoints and then allowing equipment to take 1 damage a round due to passive effects (lava might be 3 damage a round) then if they can escape from their dangerous surroundings then they have the opportunity to fix their equipment.

fixing equipment thats been damage should be handled by paying a material cost of: half cost of item x (damage/hardpoints)

with a skill check of mechanics, with difficulty equal to damage sustained.

Wow, most armors only have a hand full of hardpoints. Not sure that would be my way of doing it. I would by total encumberance. That way heavier armors are more resistant that lighter armors. Is laminate armor going to give you excellent protection from fire or acid? Yes. Will it last forever, nope. I`m not sure how I`d treat the damage though. I like the idea of giving the infeirior quality to the armor until repaired, or completely destroyed if it goes over twice the number. And I think exposure vs. immersion is an issue. Where you dunked in acid or did some monster spray you? So how does this fancey everyone:

- Armor can resist up to it's encumbrance in rounds of acid or fire/heat damage exposure (such as being splashed with acid, being in an acidic/fire enviornment but not direct contact, or hit with an acid/fire weapon). Repairs before the tolerance is reached are assumed to be minor and require no roll or funds and happen inbetween combat encounters. Once that is used up it gains the inferior quality until repaired costing 1/4th the cost of the armor and requiring a Hard difficulty (3 dice) mechanics check. If the armor is damage twice the encumbrance in rounds the armor is destoryed and new armor must be puchased.

*If an armor is immersed in acid or fire/heat double the rate of damage to it (Dunked in an acid bath, dropped into lava, swallowed by a Sarlacc, ect). Armor or equipment specifically made to withstand the enviornment it is placed in does not degrade.

Or we could simply keep it narrative and allow damage due to threats and despairs on rolls while the effect is a concern.

Are you sure fire and chemicals don't ignore soak? How would that work? The wookiee is on fire but he's all "Meh, I like the smell of burning fur in the morning!"? I would think they ignore soak.

You could take the encumbrance of the armor and treat it as ability dice rolled against a difficulty equal to the Rating of the fire/acid/corrosive atmosphere each full round of exposure. Each round it fails the armour moves down the the Repairing Gear damage track (Table 5-4: Repairing Gear). There is no roll when exposed to these hazards, just straight damage each round based on the Rating of it. The tougher the armor, the longer you can survive, potentially.

As far as applying soak, go ahead. But I would do one of two things. Either give the damage a Pierce quality equal to its Rating to show how damaging it is or have a Pierce quality that starts at 1 and increases each round by 1 to show an increasing threat as it burns/eats/corrodes.

You could take the encumbrance of the armor and treat it as ability dice rolled against a difficulty equal to the Rating of the fire/acid/corrosive atmosphere each full round of exposure. Each round it fails the armour moves down the the Repairing Gear damage track (Table 5-4: Repairing Gear). There is no roll when exposed to these hazards, just straight damage each round based on the Rating of it. The tougher the armor, the longer you can survive, potentially.

As far as applying soak, go ahead. But I would do one of two things. Either give the damage a Pierce quality equal to its Rating to show how damaging it is or have a Pierce quality that starts at 1 and increases each round by 1 to show an increasing threat as it burns/eats/corrodes.

I like the pierce idea.

The Wookiee standing in the campfire example is basically why I asked this question in the first place. It doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe only Armor soak should be taken into account? I like that option, but then it adds a complexity not used anywhere else, which I am generally against.

The Burn quality on a weapon works the same way, and seems to also apply Soak (though it also doesn't specifically call it out.)

Personally, I guess I'll just go with what feels realistic in each situation.

I do like the Pierce idea MouthyMerc came up with. I may say that:

Each round after the first burning agents have Pierce +1 (cumulative). If the Pierce gets higher than the soak value of armor, the armor is damaged one step.

I think the Burn quality would bring Soak into play, since it's related specifically to weapons and combat checks; but the ratings on table 6-8 would ignore soak.

My reasoning on this has to do with the flame projector. In the table, it's listed with a rating of 3-5. The weapon itself applies 8 damage over 3 rounds if the Burn quality is triggered. I think it would be safe to say that the average PC's soak is somewhere in the vicinity of 3-5, so that would bring the two paths to about the same net damage. Either 8 damage minus soak or 3-5 damage ignoring soak.

I'd probably only consider the hazard suits and high-end armor to be flame resistant enough to ignore a couple points of fire rating.

Good point Spjork!