Armor vs. Protection - question of piercing and negation

[PvK]

Protection is a combination of inherent protection (from toughness, thick skin, or whatever), and of external armor (from armor, helmet, and shield).

There are attack types that are armor-piercing(reducing armor effect by half).

There are other attack types that are armor-negating (no effect of armor).

My question is:
Do either or both of those attack types also reduce inherent protection?

PvK

(I think armor-negating, at least, probably ignores all protection, since it usually means a non-physical attack, like poison gas.)

[Norfleet]

I believe it does, because armor-piercing weapons are advocated as a solution to high-protection creatures, including those with no armor, and high natural protection: Also, this observation seems borne out by the fact that crossbows are effective against targets that normal arrows are not, despite the fact that the protection is "natural" in origin.

[Sheap]

The unit receiving damage has an aggregate protection value which is based on both its natural protection, and its armor/magical protection. If the unit has a lot of natural protection then the total protection will not be the sum, but rather computed by the formula in the FAQ.

The armor piercing/negating weapon will reduce this aggregate protection rating by 50% or 100%, respectively, before trying to do damage.

Of course in many cases even an armor piercing weapon will not do any damage (i.e. standard crossbows vs. ulmish knights for most dice outcomes). But an armor negating weapon will almost always do damage if it hits.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by tinkthank:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sheap:
The unit receiving damage has an aggregate protection value which is based on both its natural protection, and its armor/magical protection. If the unit has a lot of natural protection then the total protection will not be the sum, but rather computed by the formula in the FAQ.

The armor piercing/negating weapon will reduce this aggregate protection rating by 50% or 100%, respectively, before trying to do damage.

Of course in many cases even an armor piercing weapon will not do any damage (i.e. standard crossbows vs. ulmish knights for most dice outcomes). But an armor negating weapon will almost always do damage if it hits.

When will an armor negating weapon NOT do damage if it hits?

---

When you get really unlucky. There is still open ended d6 involved, even when you have zero protection from armor dur to AN damage.

[Maltrease]

The defender still gets a 2D6 roll to subtract from the damage regardless of protections values... right?


I was always wondering if Armor piercing worked like

(Wpn+Str+2D6) - (Protection/2 + 2D6)

or

(Wpn+Str+2D6) - (Protection + 2D6)/2

[PvK]

Seems like:

(Wpn+Str+2D6) - (Protection + 2D6)/2

where the /2 is the armor penetration, would not make sense, because for targets with zero protection, the damage would be:

(Wpn+Str+2D6) - (2D6)/2

meaning that armor penetration would do more damage against targets with no armor, making the base damage stat mean different things, even when no armor is involved.

PvK

[tinkthank]

Originally posted by Sheap:
The unit receiving damage has an aggregate protection value which is based on both its natural protection, and its armor/magical protection. If the unit has a lot of natural protection then the total protection will not be the sum, but rather computed by the formula in the FAQ.

The armor piercing/negating weapon will reduce this aggregate protection rating by 50% or 100%, respectively, before trying to do damage.

Of course in many cases even an armor piercing weapon will not do any damage (i.e. standard crossbows vs. ulmish knights for most dice outcomes). But an armor negating weapon will almost always do damage if it hits.

When will an armor negating weapon NOT do damage if it hits?

[Tris]

Etherealness?
Luck?

[ June 08, 2004, 12:46: Message edited by: Tris ]