[Falconer]

You guys are putting too much in and forgetting the abstraction... I see what you're saying.  But the point is someone shot at you and they whiffed... as long as the shot has no mechanical impact on the game... the reason why doesn't matter.

I don't think the game revolves around being neo and dodging bullets in flight.  I think it revolves around reacting to the other guy as he's swinging the gun in your direction to pull the trigger.  Whether that be jumping suddenly one way or another or positioning to present your best armor.  (who's to say the armor suit doesn't include a small ballistic plate of hardened 12 armor or likewise... which isn't reflected in the generic rating... but only serves to raise the armor from say 6/4 to 8/6).

[JoeNapalm]

We are saying that if armor had an effect on Defense rolls, armor would have an effect on Defense rolls.

It is not an abstraction. It is simply not a factor. If something is so abstract as to have no effect whatsoever, insisting that it is happening at all is completely baseless.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[inca1980]

first off you always get at least one dice for defense or a skill unless it says you can not default.  And yes to the second one.

I'm not sure where you're getting this rule....because if you look at pg. 61 SR4A at the bottom you see that indeed modifiers can take your dicepool to zero and that's an automatic fail unless you use Edge, it's called a Long Shot. 

I have a GM who also insists on this rule and I don't know where this rule is coming from....

[All4BigGuns]

We are saying that if armor had an effect on Defense rolls, armor would have an effect on Defense rolls.

It is not an abstraction. It is simply not a factor. If something is so abstract as to have no effect whatsoever, insisting that it is happening at all is completely baseless.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

I think what he meant was that if an attack didn't do any damage, whether from a miss due to no net hits or whatever, then describe the effect however you want whether it be nimbly diving behind some cover just in time or the attack glancing off a piece of protective gear. If this is the case, then it really is more of a case of description than anything else. If you think that the second one would put armor as part of the initial defense roll for it to be possible, then don't use it, but still understand that someone else may not give a rat's tush and still use that description--it's all a matter of style.

[Glorthoron]

I think what he meant was that if an attack didn't do any damage, whether from a miss due to no net hits or whatever, then describe the effect however you want whether it be nimbly diving behind some cover just in time or the attack glancing off a piece of protective gear. If this is the case, then it really is more of a case of description than anything else. If you think that the second one would put armor as part of the initial defense roll for it to be possible, then don't use it, but still understand that someone else may not give a rat's tush and still use that description--it's all a matter of style.

Another reason I prefer the threshold based ranged combat optional rule.

[JoeNapalm]

I think what he meant was that if an attack didn't do any damage, whether from a miss due to no net hits or whatever, then describe the effect however you want whether it be nimbly diving behind some cover just in time or the attack glancing off a piece of protective gear. If this is the case, then it really is more of a case of description than anything else. If you think that the second one would put armor as part of the initial defense roll for it to be possible, then don't use it, but still understand that someone else may not give a rat's tush and still use that description--it's all a matter of style.

He can describe it as the bullet being licked away by pixies for all I care.

My initial response was to the comment that armor works more by deflecting bullets than absorbing energy. That is absolutely the opposite of how it works. If the revisionism has now reached the "poetic license" stage, then fine - but in neither reality, nor in game mechanics, is it the case that armor works like Wonder Woman's magic bracelets.

-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate

[ArkangelWinter]

Except some does. Hardened Armor on vehicles, MilSpec Armor likely, and some modern ballistic plate attempts.

[Glorthoron]

I think what he meant was that if an attack didn't do any damage, whether from a miss due to no net hits or whatever, then describe the effect however you want whether it be nimbly diving behind some cover just in time or the attack glancing off a piece of protective gear. If this is the case, then it really is more of a case of description than anything else. If you think that the second one would put armor as part of the initial defense roll for it to be possible, then don't use it, but still understand that someone else may not give a rat's tush and still use that description--it's all a matter of style.

He can describe it as the bullet being licked away by pixies for all I care.

My initial response was to the comment that armor works more by deflecting bullets than absorbing energy. That is absolutely the opposite of how it works. If the revisionism has now reached the "poetic license" stage, then fine - but in neither reality, nor in game mechanics, is it the case that armor works like Wonder Woman's magic bracelets.

-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate

It doesn't absorb the energy, it disperses the energy.  There's a big difference there. 

[Xzylvador]

What is/where are the rules for Threshold Based Combat?

[Glorthoron]

What is/where are the rules for Threshold Based Combat?

Its in the Core Book, page 75.  But it's just threshold based ranged combat.

[JoeNapalm]

Except some does. Hardened Armor on vehicles, MilSpec Armor likely, and some modern ballistic plate attempts.

Except that isn't the whole story. This is the comment I was responding to:

Stop and think this through this way.  Every single shot that hits does damage + hits damage.  This is soaked with Reaction + Body + armor.

...(remember armor doesn't work only by absorbing damage... deflection is actually far more important than soaking!  reaction is used to position properly to deflect)....

I'm not saying a bullet can't bounce off any armor, ever. I am saying that, even if it does, the armor is a passive defense - you're not "blocking" bullets away, you're getting shot and the armor happens to be in the path.

Reaction isn't part of the soak roll. Even hard armors that can deflect a round aren't reactively positioned to do so.

- Jn -
Ifriti Sophist

[Falconer]

Joe:

You're wearing the latest in whiz gear... a ceramic armored vest with a hardened armor plate which covers the vest... unfortunately like most vest type armors... the sides are weak and only bulletproofed fabric and there's nothing covering the armpit at all.  But it's got a 8/6 rating compared to the normal 6/4 because of the heftier chest protection.


Do you square yourself to the target and fire from an isoscoles stance?   (presenting your hardened breastplate as the prime target which most bullets are simply going to bounce off of).

Or a weaver stance. where you turn sideways to present a narrower target... but leaving your soft squishy armor to protect on the chance they hit the smaller target?


This is especially true of the heaviest combat armors... the reason they have such high protective values is IMO because they include a lot of 'plate' and theres not a lot of vulnerable locations on them which is why their damage soak figures abstract themselves up.

So from a fluff/mechanics point of view... it makes no difference if the target 'reacts' to being attacked by squaring himself so that more shots bounce off his armor (no soak roll needed)... or if he's simply moving fast and keeping his profile small so that they simply miss him more often.  Higher reaction simply means you're better at reacting to one/multiple attackers and making best use  of cover/profile/armor.   Again it's all fluff description at this point with no mechanical impact.

[JoeNapalm]

Ten negative rep for pointing out that Reaction applies to Defense rolls, rather than Damage Resistance rolls?

Seems a bit excessive. If I had known someone would be that touchy, I would have earned it. For ten points, I could have composed some colorful metaphors...very colorful.

Instead, I pointed out the way the rules are actually written.

Such a wasted opportunity.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist