Armor vs Toughness https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/t90375 Runboard| Armor vs Toughness en-us Fri, 29 Mar 2024 05:19:43 +0000 Fri, 29 Mar 2024 05:19:43 +0000 https://www.runboard.com/ rssfeeds_managingeditor@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds managing editor) rssfeeds_webmaster@runboard.com (Runboard.com RSS feeds webmaster) akBBS 60 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562764,from=rss#post562764https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562764,from=rss#post562764I don't disagree with what you've written, the ring of toughness (or whatever non-armour bonus item it is) adds to toughness at all times and always is deducted from damage taken unless toughness is ignored entirely. I just keep track of it separately because of the issue of lost/stolen/destroyed items and also to stop the "okay I have toughness of 8, but my natural toughness is 4 and I have a shield so where are the other two from?" issues that otherwise arise. I think this comes from my RPG background. as to having items of toughness boosting your toughness and enabling you to survive longer with plague...it's not come up in my game so far. the plague power doesn't destroy items, should a character with 6 +1 toughness items survive a bit longer due to this when afflicted with plague repeatedly? unsure. also poison and strength has the same issue. however at level 10 you're quite likely to face a Great Unclean One, it ambushes on a 5+ and unleashes spells, stream of corruption attack and then 7 attacks doing 6D6+7 damage per hit, if any attack reduces you to zero you lose a toughness point permanently due to plague. and it has large monster so can wade into another warrior or even 2! better save your luck to stop it getting those ambushes nondisclosed_email@example.com (Edquest)Sun, 31 May 2015 18:46:38 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562763,from=rss#post562763https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562763,from=rss#post562763Edquest, I like the way you keep track of the Toughness, bonuses from items, and armour bonus separately. I think that would help simplify things in many higher level games especially. As it relates to the Warrior's Toughness characteristic and plague and other effects which reduce the Warrior's Toughness, I interpret non-armour magic items which add to Toughness as adding to the Characteristic itself (though not technically to the starting value) as long as that item is currently equipped, because I do not read anywhere in the rules that the non-armour magic items are to be treated as armour in respect to damage. Howbeit, I am not saying that there is not an item or two that might say in their description something specific like "whenever your Warrior takes damage from..." a certain type of damage (for instance, fire, or magic) "then this item adds +1 to your Warrior's Toughness" against that type of damage. I just think that things like the Ring of Power (if the player chooses to have their Toughness increased by it, since the Ring of Power is a chosen Characteristic) increase the Warrior's Toughness all the time, while it is worn, and are NOT normally treated the same as armour in the official rules. I think edquest and I disagree a little on this point, which is okay by me. We are probably working under somewhat different assumptions about how the magical bonuses affect the Warrior's Characteristics. This might show that I need to reread all that has been written before. I might learn, or relearn something... Who knows, I might come out more confused though. lol.nondisclosed_email@example.com (OldWarrior)Sun, 31 May 2015 13:43:55 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562762,from=rss#post562762https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562762,from=rss#post562762quote:OldWarrior wrote:  I think it also important to keep track of Starting Toughness (see plague for instance). ah the way we keep track of this is on you sheet you keep track of "real Toughness" by putting what your characters toughness is with no bonuses from items next to it you have a +n with n being the bonuses from items etc. and a separate armour box. example: playing a barbarian with 3 separate items of +1 toughness and his level table shows Toughness of 4 while wearing Armour of Taakan and a shield would look like this: Toughness 4 +3 armour 7 (Taakan +5, shield +2) total T&A 14 because if your natural toughness reaches zero from plague, which it likely will when you hit level 9 and start facing greater daemons of Nurgle (ambush), you will die. you don't get to survive so long as you found enough baubles of +1 toughness! the other lethal trick is the necromancer spell that causes a warrior to lose 2 toughness until the necromancer is dead. if toughness becomes zero the warrior becomes dead. yay, more lethality!nondisclosed_email@example.com (Edquest)Sat, 30 May 2015 17:16:55 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562753,from=rss#post562753https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562753,from=rss#post562753This all seems to be just for argument's sake in much of the text of this thread. Either that or I am just missing the point? There are simply these classes: 1) non-magical armours: Armourer's products and any starting armours that do not say they are magical; this includes furs (notice they are sold by the armourer) and anything else like unto. 2) magical armours: the Magical Armour monster characteristic items and treasure card armours that say in either the fluff or the game text that they are magical. That is it. A ring of protection and anything else like unto that modifies the natural toughness of the character, but they are not worn like armour, which is an item worn that takes hits from weapons to protect the body. Am I missing something that accounts for the hoopla here? Armour is armour, magical armour is magical armour. What is the hang up really?nondisclosed_email@example.com (Warrior Monk)Thu, 28 May 2015 19:50:52 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562749,from=rss#post562749https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562749,from=rss#post562749Good to read this. Debate is always good as long as you have new arguments. In our games all item bonuses are actually counted as Toughness as well and are non-deductable by 'ignore armour'. As I was writing the post above I realised counting this all as armour makes all spells/skills ignoring armour much deadlier and left characters too vulnerable. There is no "syndrom of the naked dwarf" in this game, so warriors need some extra protection. I still wander about non-magical bonus armour from a magical armour though (Dargan or monster Magic armor). However it is a minor issue, as there are very little weapons and skills that make this distinction, at least ion our party. quote: Well, now I have gone on with one of my "let's exhaust the subject" posts. Never mind me. I get to pontificating once in a while. emoticonThe philosopher was always a reputable job nondisclosed_email@example.com (Aellea)Thu, 28 May 2015 15:52:24 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562743,from=rss#post562743https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562743,from=rss#post562743I mostly agree with Edquest's post. I especially agree with what he said about non-armour bonuses to Toughness. I like the idea of keeping a separate tally of current armour points and current Toughness. I think it also important to keep track of Starting Toughness (see plague for instance). Things which add to the Warrior's Toughness (like a Ring of Power), which are NOT armour points, can often assist with tests that are based upon Toughness, and might even save a Warrior's life when he/she is affected several times by plague. Armour points on the other hand can only add protection against the damage done by incoming Attacks and other physical sources of damage which do not say that they ignore armour. Some events, traps, and etc, might actually state that the Warrior can only deduct his/her Toughness from the amount of damage done. I see this as an implied "ignores armour". Well, now I have gone on with one of my "let's exhaust the subject" posts. Never mind me. I get to pontificating once in a while. nondisclosed_email@example.com (OldWarrior)Thu, 28 May 2015 14:00:22 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562740,from=rss#post562740https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562740,from=rss#post562740yay debate time! I agree mostly with littlemonk's last post and Aellea's post. except the elven helm: the weapon ignores the "toughness bonus" but not the ability. so, the way I see it, the ability to take a blow to the helm and risk it being destroyed is still good to go as written. (otherwise the ability of the helm has been bypassed) on my warriors character sheets I actually keep an extra characteristic box for "Armour" as an actual characteristic itself: when calculating damage you deduct your Toughness and your Armour (if any) along with any Warrior-specific abilities too. I treat armour pieces that happen to be magical armour (Dargan, Taakan, various magical shields) as magical armour bonuses. regular armour bought from traders would be non-magical armour bonuses. non-armour items that give a plus to Toughness I treat as a bonus to Toughness itself: rings, swords, crowns (Bograts Krown, a few Chaos Warrior crowns), cloaks, boots and whatever else. these are not armour but actual Toughness increases. actually the sword of Pain is the one and only deviance to the situation and I think one weapon is easy enough to say "specific versus general" and leave it there. many issues come about because many spells and skills states "ignores toughness and armour" but then ignore pain is introduced... some spells specifically say they ignore that too...dirty blow (pit fighter and witch doctor skill) and slayer skill both clearly stipulate they ignore the skills ignore blow and ignore pain when the skill is triggered. what about sword of vengeance? ignores toughness and armour, no mention of ignore pain but that rule is not introduced until later in the rulebook so it could be simply an oversight. (although the spells are introduced before these self same monster abilities and they do mention if they bypass it?!!?) also monsters do ignore magical armour points if they have Assassinate skill and roll high enough, but again I think things like elf helm ability, not armour points, are not ignored. nondisclosed_email@example.com (Edquest)Thu, 28 May 2015 05:02:05 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562736,from=rss#post562736https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p562736,from=rss#post562736Maybe an old topic, but the problem still exists IMO. They've really complicated things calling it all 'toughness'. After reading all I could find on the subject and applying some logic, I'd say: 1) Any toughness bonus from a common piece of armour, helmet or shield (standard starting equipment and bought from blacksmith) is a non-magical armour point. 2) Any toughness bonus from a non-armor magical item, potion or spell (or Event) is a magical armour point (?). Eg: Ring of Protection, Witch Hunter gorget. 3) Any uncommon Treasure Card armour is Magical (as per Roleplay book note under 'Weapons & Armour' dungeon treasure table). It still gives non-magical armor points (+X tougness) and can add some magical armor points, eg: 'absorbs X wounds' (effectively translating to magical Tougness bonus = armour point). 4) 'Ignore (magical) armor' weapon ability applies only to armour's toughness bonus, not other special abilities, unless see 3). 5) 'Ignore Toughness' ability applies only to innate creature Toughness (unmodified by items). It is the same for monsters. Said Bull Centaur with an armour rating of +2 and magical armor, say: quote: Armour of Cursed Iron. This armour adds the value of the attacker's Strength to the wearer's Toughness, effectively cancelling it out. If the attacker has a Strength of 5, for instance, the armour gives the wearer +5 Toughness. would have 2 points of armour and [Warrior's Strength] points of magical armour, and: - an armour bonus of [2 + Warrior's Str] against normal damage - an armour bonus of [Warrior's Str] agains hit that 'ignores non-magical armour' (eg Gromil Blade) - no armour bonus against spells/skills ignoring armour completely. My conclusion: All physical pieces of body armour, helmets and shields, magical or not, with a +X Toughness bonus give non-magical armor points. All magic item bonuses, potions, spells, effects and magic armour abilities which effectively rise toughness count as magical armor points. -------------------------------------- Nice and simple, but it also means that some magic abilities of an armour (absorbing) CAN be igored, if they apply while resolving damage and not before or after the blow was done. All skills, weapons and spells that ignore armour are therefore very powerfull. Elf helm damage absorbing ability could therefore be ignored, as it is a part of Warrior's effective armour bonus. (It doesn't matter if he tries to take the blow on the head, as any armourt would be ignored anyway by 'ignor armour' ability.) Elven armour on the other hand would still protect, as it ignores Damage Dice before the damage is calculated. quote:Roleplaybook [p. 22] It achieves this distinction by deflecting weapons rather than absorbing damage, and thus dissipating the force of a blow. There are yet skills that can negate the blow AFTER it was resolved, as all skills/abilities allowing to ignore the blow that put Warrior at 0 Wounds. I think it complies with the spirit of WHQ rules.  nondisclosed_email@example.com (Aellea)Wed, 27 May 2015 17:37:15 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560968,from=rss#post560968https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560968,from=rss#post560968Littlemonk, 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. 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 ) -- 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). 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.nondisclosed_email@example.com (OldWarrior)Sun, 28 Aug 2011 15:21:28 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560967,from=rss#post560967https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560967,from=rss#post560967I 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.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Littlemonk)Sat, 27 Aug 2011 17:17:13 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560966,from=rss#post560966https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560966,from=rss#post560966quote: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 . 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. nondisclosed_email@example.com (OldWarrior)Sat, 27 Aug 2011 16:53:05 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560965,from=rss#post560965https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560965,from=rss#post560965I'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?nondisclosed_email@example.com (Littlemonk)Sat, 27 Aug 2011 14:25:42 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560964,from=rss#post560964https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560964,from=rss#post560964quote: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! 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.nondisclosed_email@example.com (OldWarrior)Sat, 27 Aug 2011 12:38:43 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560963,from=rss#post560963https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560963,from=rss#post560963quote: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.nondisclosed_email@example.com (Littlemonk)Sat, 27 Aug 2011 06:53:30 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560962,from=rss#post560962https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560962,from=rss#post560962quote: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.nondisclosed_email@example.com (thecustodian)Fri, 26 Aug 2011 23:00:00 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560961,from=rss#post560961https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560961,from=rss#post560961quote: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. 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. nondisclosed_email@example.com (OldWarrior)Fri, 26 Aug 2011 17:19:51 +0000 Re: Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560960,from=rss#post560960https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560960,from=rss#post560960Good 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!nondisclosed_email@example.com (thecustodian)Fri, 26 Aug 2011 12:47:51 +0000 Armor vs Toughnesshttps://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560958,from=rss#post560958https://bwarhammerquest.runboard.com/p560958,from=rss#post560958Some 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.nondisclosed_email@example.com (lord mavik)Fri, 26 Aug 2011 04:45:09 +0000