Runboard.com
You're welcome.
Community logo






runboard.com       Register for a free global account (learn about it) | Log in: (), globally (lost password?)

Page:  1  2 

 
lord mavik Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Hero

Registered: 08-2011
Posts: 45
Reply | Quote
Armor vs Toughness


Some monster abilities are listed as ignoring Armor (example assassins).

Lots of magical items are listed as granting Toughness. Problem is Armor is also listed as granting toughness.

Is there a list some where of what these bonuses actually are?

Example: Bograt's Crown: adds +1 toughness.

I think it can be worn with a helmet (sorry at work and goofing off, no books). So I'm guessing this would be added to Toughness and not armor. Problem is there's lots of other items like this that don't have a clear answer.
26/Aug/2011, 4:45 am Link to this post Send Email to lord mavik   Send PM to lord mavik Blog
 
thecustodian Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God

Registered: 04-2003
Location: The Temple
Posts: 809
Reply | Quote
Re: Armor vs Toughness


Good question. I don't think that there is a list. I'd probably count Bograt's Krown as Toughness, likewise any amulets or rings that give toughness bonus, and only count as armour things from the armourers; and treasure that is a helmet, shield or stated to be armour. I guess that also means that Bograt's Krown etc aren't vulnerable to Trollvomit!
26/Aug/2011, 12:47 pm Link to this post Send Email to thecustodian   Send PM to thecustodian
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1267
Reply | Quote
Re: Armor vs Toughness


quote:

thecustodian wrote:

Good question. I don't think that there is a list. I'd probably count Bograt's Krown as Toughness, likewise any amulets or rings that give toughness bonus, and only count as armour things from the armourers; and treasure that is a helmet, shield or stated to be armour. I guess that also means that Bograt's Krown etc aren't vulnerable to Trollvomit!



I agree. emoticon

I think a further, related question would be:

What should be considered as magical armour? (both for Warriors AND monsters)

It seems easier to answer this from the Warriors side of the issue, but the monsters have an armour value often with no clear indication of what type of armour they are wearing.



---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
26/Aug/2011, 5:19 pm Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
thecustodian Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God

Registered: 04-2003
Location: The Temple
Posts: 809
Reply | Quote
Re: Armor vs Toughness


quote:

OldWarrior wrote:
What should be considered as magical armour? (both for Warriors AND monsters)

It seems easier to answer this from the Warriors side of the issue, but the monsters have an armour value often with no clear indication of what type of armour they are wearing.


Really? That's much easier, I'd think. Monsters with armour points have armour points. If they have armour points plus Magic Armour special rule, they have Magic Armour.
quote:

The rules say:
Note that Warriors' weapons that bypass armour only ignore the Toughness bonus the armour confers, not any other magic qualities it may possess.
For example, a Bull Centaur Champion has Armour 2, and 'Magic Armour'. This means that as well as having armour that gives it +2 Toughness, the Bull Centaur's armour is magic too. If a Warrior using a sword that ignores armour hits the Bull Centaur, he ignores the Toughness bonus, but not any special magic abilities of the Monster's armour.

26/Aug/2011, 11:00 pm Link to this post Send Email to thecustodian   Send PM to thecustodian
 
Littlemonk Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2008
Posts: 423
Reply | Quote
Re: Armor vs Toughness


quote:

thecustodian wrote:

quote:

OldWarrior wrote:
What should be considered as magical armour? (both for Warriors AND monsters)

It seems easier to answer this from the Warriors side of the issue, but the monsters have an armour value often with no clear indication of what type of armour they are wearing.


Really? That's much easier, I'd think. Monsters with armour points have armour points. If they have armour points plus Magic Armour special rule, they have Magic Armour.
quote:

The rules say:
Note that Warriors' weapons that bypass armour only ignore the Toughness bonus the armour confers, not any other magic qualities it may possess.
For example, a Bull Centaur Champion has Armour 2, and 'Magic Armour'. This means that as well as having armour that gives it +2 Toughness, the Bull Centaur's armour is magic too. If a Warrior using a sword that ignores armour hits the Bull Centaur, he ignores the Toughness bonus, but not any special magic abilities of the Monster's armour.




Agreed. We only include Helmet, Shield, and Armour as "armour." We include everything at the Armourer's as thecustodian mentioned above (leather, furs, plate). We don't count bracers, gauntlets (although if they added Toughness i'd rethink this one), belts, cloaks, crowns, etc..

If you start trying to associate things that give "Toughness" with armour then you're going to have to include the Sword of Resilience (+1 Toughness) and other such items, which is totally incorrect.

The same applies to Strength. When does a Warrior have the Strength bonus applied? Just because they're wielding the Sword of Might, does it mean they have +1 Strength ALL the time, including trying to lift a trapdoor, etc.? We don't play as so, counting the +1 Strength only while actually using the sword. In addition to the obvious bonus in combat, we play that if you try to lift the trapdoor using the sword, it adds +1 to your Strength for the action.

---
Blessed are the curious for they shall have adventures.
27/Aug/2011, 6:53 am Link to this post Send Email to Littlemonk   Send PM to Littlemonk
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1267
Reply | Quote
Re: Armor vs Toughness


quote:

thecustodian wrote:

quote:

OldWarrior wrote:
What should be considered as magical armour? (both for Warriors AND monsters)

It seems easier to answer this from the Warriors side of the issue, but the monsters have an armour value often with no clear indication of what type of armour they are wearing.


Really? That's much easier, I'd think. Monsters with armour points have armour points. If they have armour points plus Magic Armour special rule, they have Magic Armour.
quote:

The rules say:
Note that Warriors' weapons that bypass armour only ignore the Toughness bonus the armour confers, not any other magic qualities it may possess.
For example, a Bull Centaur Champion has Armour 2, and 'Magic Armour'. This means that as well as having armour that gives it +2 Toughness, the Bull Centaur's armour is magic too. If a Warrior using a sword that ignores armour hits the Bull Centaur, he ignores the Toughness bonus, but not any special magic abilities of the Monster's armour.




Can you tell I did NOT read the rule about Magic Armour just before asking that question? My long term forget-er must be working well! emoticon

Well, in light of that answer, should we then consider the Toughness bonus of magical armour that the Warriors wear as NOT itself magical unless it is specifically stated? In other words, should we apply the same explanation given for the monsters to the Warriors in regards to magical armour?

It seems the Sword of Pain (monster Magic Weapon) at least implies a partial answer to this question -- Warriors WERE apparently intended to be treated differently than monsters in this regard.

quote:

Sword of Pain. This sword ignores any non-magical armour and up to 3 points of magical armour when determining damage.



I am just trying to sort this out, albeit with somewhat ulterior motives, since this might matter to my advanced rules project.

By the way, the reason I thought it might be easier to sort out from the Warriors' side is that the Weapons and Armour treasure table in the RolePlay Book says in its introductory remarks that those treasures are magical, whereas, I think it obvious that armour bought from the Armourer is NOT magical.

EDIT: I do think this is somewhat related to the original question, since it seems that they are treating a magical armour Toughness bonus for Warriors similar (in a way) to other magical Toughness benefits (from rings, spell effects, and etc...), though still as distinct from them.

Last edited by OldWarrior, 27/Aug/2011, 1:01 pm


---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
27/Aug/2011, 12:38 pm Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
Littlemonk Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2008
Posts: 423
Reply | Quote
Re: Armor vs Toughness


I'm just not following you. Especially in regards to the statement:

quote:

OldWarrior wrote:

should we then consider the Toughness bonus of magical armour that the Warriors wear as NOT itself magical unless it is specifically stated? In other words, should we apply the same explanation given for the monsters to the Warriors in regards to magical armour?

In other words, should we apply the same explanation given for the monsters to the Warriors in regards to magical armour?

It seems the Sword of Pain (monster Magic Weapon) at least implies a partial answer to this question -- Warriors WERE apparently intended to be treated differently than monsters in this regard.



I was thinking the exact opposite.

- If a Warrior is wearing Armour that is magical, then it is magical Armour.

- If a Monster is wearing Armour that is magical, then it is magical Armour.

Seems like the same standard to me. Am i missing something? Why would you ever not consider the Toughness bonus of magic armour as not magical?? Where are you reading that there is a difference for Warriors and Monsters in this regard?


quote:

OldWarrior wrote:
EDIT: I do think this is somewhat related to the original question, since it seems that they are treating a magical armour Toughness bonus for Warriors similar (in a way) to other magical Toughness benefits (from rings, spell effects, and etc...), though still as distinct from them.



I'm completely confused. Can you explain how where you arrive at this conclusion? In what way is it similar? In what way distinct?

---
Blessed are the curious for they shall have adventures.
27/Aug/2011, 2:25 pm Link to this post Send Email to Littlemonk   Send PM to Littlemonk
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1267
Reply | Quote
Re: Armor vs Toughness


quote:

Littlemonk wrote:

I'm just not following you. Especially in regards to the statement:

quote:

OldWarrior wrote:

should we then consider the Toughness bonus of magical armour that the Warriors wear as NOT itself magical unless it is specifically stated? In other words, should we apply the same explanation given for the monsters to the Warriors in regards to magical armour?

In other words, should we apply the same explanation given for the monsters to the Warriors in regards to magical armour?

It seems the Sword of Pain (monster Magic Weapon) at least implies a partial answer to this question -- Warriors WERE apparently intended to be treated differently than monsters in this regard.



I was thinking the exact opposite.

- If a Warrior is wearing Armour that is magical, then it is magical Armour.

- If a Monster is wearing Armour that is magical, then it is magical Armour.

Seems like the same standard to me. Am i missing something? Why would you ever not consider the Toughness bonus of magic armour as not magical?? Where are you reading that there is a difference for Warriors and Monsters in this regard?


quote:

OldWarrior wrote:
EDIT: I do think this is somewhat related to the original question, since it seems that they are treating a magical armour Toughness bonus for Warriors similar (in a way) to other magical Toughness benefits (from rings, spell effects, and etc...), though still as distinct from them.



I'm completely confused. Can you explain how where you arrive at this conclusion? In what way is it similar? In what way distinct?





First of all, I am sorry for my confusing manner. When I am trying to reason something out, my uncertainly often leads to confusing communications with others.

I think you partially missed a detail or two from Thecustodian's quotation of the RolePlay Book about how to handle the monsters' Magic Armour (I am adding color and larger text to help it stand out):

quote:

Note that Warriors' weapons that bypass armour only ignore the Toughness bonus the armour confers, not any other magic qualities it may possess.
For example, a Bull Centaur Champion has Armour 2, and 'Magic Armour'. This means that as well as having armour that gives it +2 Toughness, the Bull Centaur's armour is magic too. If a Warrior using a sword that ignores armour hits the Bull Centaur, he ignores the Toughness bonus, but not any special magic abilities of the Monster's armour.



Note the sentence above which says This means that as well as having armour that gives it +2 Toughness, the Bull Centaur's armour is magic too. makes it clear to me that the same armour is both magical AND gives the NON-magical Toughness benefit as well (providing the Armour value given in the monster table instead of the generic armour other monsters are wearing).

The point I am here emphasizing versus the way Warriors are treated is that the monster's Amour Toughness benefit is NOT considered magical, BUT the magic armour's abilities ARE considered magical even though it is the same armour that gives both benefits to the monster.

On the other hand, it seems to me that Warhammer Quest treats Warriors and their magical armour differently than the monsters' magical armour (reflected by the Sword of Pain quote in my more confusing post) -- though I was hoping for further comments from others besides my own thinking on this, before I become very certain about it emoticon.

My point about the Sword of Pain is that it DOES seem to apply a different standard to Warriors than the quote above applies to the monsters, because it says that sword ignores up to 3 points of magic armour, whereas the monsters' magic armour does NOT have 'points of magic armour'. I am assuming by points that it means the Toughness value a Warrior gains from wearing magic armour.

A more simple statement/conclusion perhaps:
The RolePlay Book seems to be saying that monsters do NOT have a magical Toughness benefit from their magic armour, but Warriors DO.

The comparison I am then making in light of my own question and the original question of this topic is that the Warhammer Quest rules then seem to show at least three different sources of Toughness bonuses (my own arbitrary classifications):

1. Common Armour
2. Magic Armour
3. Other magical Toughness Bonuses

1. Common Armour Toughness bonus can be ignored by anything that says it ignores armour.

2. Magic Armour Toughness bonus (for Warriors only) -- can only be ignored by weapons, spells, or whatever which say that they ignore magic armour.

3. Other Magical Toughness Bonuses -- like rings, spell effects, blessings, potions and etc... -- are NOT ignored by anything that ignores armour or magic armour, but only by those things that ignore Toughness.

As regards the similarity of Magical Toughness bonuses from other things to that of Magic Armour, I really mean that the monsters normally cannot ignore the Toughness bonus from a Warrior's magic armour NOR from those of other sources since both of these types of protection are NOT strictly from the physical properties of armour but from a magical (or at least metaphysical) source.

As regards there being a distinction, they are saying that some things will ignore magic armour Toughness bonuses but will NOT ignore bonuses from other magical sources since they are NOT armour.

NOTE: when I begin to give such extensive observations for my own questions, a certain friend of mine might say something like "I wish you just would have asked the question." -- and I think he is implying that I might do well to wait and see how others answer my question first before I give a 'treatise' on the subject. emoticon

---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
27/Aug/2011, 4:53 pm Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 
Littlemonk Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 07-2008
Posts: 423
Reply | Quote
Re: Armor vs Toughness


I think you're making this way more complicated than it actually is.

This means that as well as having armour that gives it +2 Toughness, the Bull Centaur's armour is magic too.

I believe that the WHQ rules are saying that if a Monster entry has an Armour value of (n) it gives them +(n) to their Toughness. And if the Special Rules also indicate that the Monster has Magic Armour, then it should now be considered Magic Armour with a value of the aforementioned (n). So yes - the Monster DOES have a sort of "Magic Points of Armour" which Warhammer Quest words as a "Toughness Bonus."

So either the Monster has Magic Armour or regular Armour. And that's pretty much it. There is no "both magical AND gives the NON-magical Toughness benefit as well." I think that is where you're first complicating the issue.

...he ignores the Toughness bonus...

I think WHQ used a confusing term "Toughness Bonus" to represent the Armour adding to the Toughness.

Armour is Armour and Toughness is Toughness. They're completely separate in concept and idea. They're just added together for a modified "Toughness" (or as the Bull Centaur example said, a "Toughness Bonus") when calculating Damage, but should be kept separate for everything else.

The Bull Centaur example (Toughness 4) that has Magic Armour has 2 points of Armour (a "+2 Toughness Bonus") and it is Magical (giving a cumulative Toughness of 6). What they're trying to say is that, in addition to being Magic Armour +2, the Armour may also have some other magical property (such as the Chaos Armour which gives Magic Resistance 5+).

Now, here's where i think you are also confused:

Note that Warriors' weapons that bypass armour only ignore the Toughness bonus the armour confers, not any other magic qualities it may possess.

If a Warrior using a sword that ignores armour hits the Bull Centaur, he ignores the Toughness bonus, but not any special magic abilities of the Monster's armour.


If the Warrior's weapon ignores Magical Armour, they're saying that it ignores the 2 points the Armour confers, but that it does not negate the other aspects of the Armour - in my example, the Magic Resistance of 5+!

And you are correct that when it says a Monster ignores the Warrior's Armour, it means only Armour (but that's the same with a Warrior too) and doesn't include any items which give "Toughness" - that's a separate aspect. But like there are some items for the Warriors that say "ignores Toughness" there are also things that Monsters have that "ignore Toughness."

So i believe your #2 above is wrong.

And if that is the case, then i don't see how Monsters and Warriors are treated differently in WHQ.

Last edited by Littlemonk, 28/Aug/2011, 12:45 am


---
Blessed are the curious for they shall have adventures.
27/Aug/2011, 5:17 pm Link to this post Send Email to Littlemonk   Send PM to Littlemonk
 
OldWarrior Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

God

Registered: 04-2006
Location: USA, Western hemisphere, earth
Posts: 1267
Reply | Quote
Re: Armor vs Toughness


Littlemonk, thanks for your patience and attempting to help me see my error(s). I am sure I do not yet see them all! lol

I am slightly more clear on your understanding of the rules AND slightly more confused now.

You have forced me to reread the Magic Armour special rule section carefully AND to do a thorough search of the RolePlay Book of many treasure weapons and common weapons. Both of these are good for helping my understanding. emoticon

So, after some more research, I now think I understand that they were mostly consistent in saying that weapons which ignore the armour's Toughness modifier do NOT ignore the magical abilities, AND that they do not usually seem to think that an armour's Toughness modifier should be handled any differently whether the armour is considered magical or not.

I have always gotten the part about NOT ignoring the magical abilities of the magic armour. It is their use of "magic points of armour" that is making me wonder what on earth they really meant AND, thereby, they have convinced me (still emoticon ) -- no matter what way I look at it -- that they are indeed treating the Warriors and monsters a bit differently relating to the armour modifier to Toughness when determining damage.

By the way, I did NOT find anything (not yet anyway) in the RolePlay Book which does ignore magic armour -- except this Sword of Pain ("up to 3 points").

Maybe the Obsidian Blade is the closest thing, because it can destroy the target's armour -- though I think that is only IF the armour's magical ability does not somehow prevent the sword from making contact (like rebounding the Attack for instance). emoticon

Can anyone give other examples besides this Sword of Pain which specify magical points of armour or similar? Maybe from Treasure Card Packs.

Why would they even need to mention "magic points" if any weapon that ignores armour ignores a magic armour's Toughness modifier?

I am not trying to be contentious at all, just trying to ferret out more info and I hope, get to the bottom of this little puzzle. My ultimate goal for the advanced rules is to treat both Warriors and monsters very much alike in regards to armour.

---
Old Warrior

Check out Bible Notes
It is one of my favorite places on the Internet.
God bless you, everyone!
28/Aug/2011, 3:21 pm Link to this post Send Email to OldWarrior   Send PM to OldWarrior Blog
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2 





You are not logged in (login)