Question about how armor works.

[Scarletfox]

Hey i'm a new player and i'm trying to learn about how all the stats work, but I've read up on some forums and got a bunch of conflicting explanations. One explanation was that armor negates a percentage of the amount of pure physical damage (non armor-piercing) which is always half of the amount of armor a unit has. Another explanation was that armor is basically a "dice roll" so if lets say a unit has 30 armor, then that unit gets to roll a number between 0-30 and whatever roll comes up is how much damage they will negate. Which is it? is it a dice roll or is it a constant?

[Inardesco]

Afaik its a constant.

[Garatgh Deloi]

As far as i know its constant unless there is a ability or the like that lowers armor (like sundering).

[funkmonster7]

Armor basically rolls something between half of its value to 100% of its full value. Take for example, if there's 100 'normal' damage, and your unit's armor is 50, there's a chance for your unit to reduce 25% to 50% damage (half of 50, or 50). In this case, that one hit can become 75, or 74, or 70, or 65, or 50.

But this damage negation is just for non-AP damage i.e. non-armor-piercing damage. Armor-piercing damage complete ignores armor, it doesn't matter if you have 100 armor, 1 AP damage still deals 1 damage total.

Most weapons have at least 1 AP damage so even if you put the cheapest unit against a meat shield with 100 armor, eventually that meat shield will die (unless the meat shield killed that enemy unit first).

Armor over 100 sounds not as effective since damage negation cannot be over 100%. But this is all chance. There's still a big difference between 100 armor and 150 armor. 100 armor means for one hit, you can take 50% non-AP damage, whereas with the same 'bad roll', you can instead take 25% non-AP damage (150 armor). When this game isn't about surviving one hit but surviving several (unless you got hit by an artillery shell or something which is mostly AP damage), you'll really want to stack armor when you don't have other better options.

I really cannot imagine armor being a constant because I know Dwarf units can go above 100 armor. Heck, Steam Tanks have 150 armor, IIRC. If armor and damage negation is directly proportional, then theoretically any additional armor above 100 is utterly useless.

[Kapika96]

It's a dice roll. Any amount from 0-the amount of armour. I believe around 75% of the armour value is about the average result of said dice roll.

I believe there's also a minimum damage of 1 though, so you can't completely negate damage regardless of how good your armour is.

[funkmonster7]

Originally posted by Kapika96:

It's a dice roll. Any amount from 0-the amount of armour. I believe around 75% of the armour value is about the average result of said dice roll.

I believe there's also a minimum damage of 1 though, so you can't completely negate damage regardless of how good your armour is.

I know in WH1 it's not 0. The damage calculation is in the Wiki itself. But no one posted the damage calculations for WH2. However, 0 is kind of a bit too reliant on luck. I mean, if the dice roll keeps rolling at 0%, 15%, 10%, 21%, 11%... That Ironbreakers unit just got ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up.

[Fendelphi]

As funkmonster7 said, it is a % reduction of non-AP damage. If you have 70 armor, it reduces between 100% of armor value(70 armor is 70% reduction) and 50% armor value(35 armor, so 35%).

100 armor takes a 100 damage non-AP hit. It will reduce between 50% and 100%, rolled at random(always deals a minimum of 1 damage, no matter what, on a hit). So the unit will take anything between 1 non-AP damage(if rolled 100 or 99) and 50 non-AP damage(if rolled 50).

[Hieronymus]

Originally posted by funkmonster7:

Armor basically rolls something between half of its value to 100% of its full value. Take for example, if there's 100 'normal' damage, and your unit's armor is 50, there's a chance for your unit to reduce 25% to 50% damage (half of 50, or 50). In this case, that one hit can become 75, or 74, or 70, or 65, or 50.

But this damage negation is just for non-AP damage i.e. non-armor-piercing damage. Armor-piercing damage complete ignores armor, it doesn't matter if you have 100 armor, 1 AP damage still deals 1 damage total.

Most weapons have at least 1 AP damage so even if you put the cheapest unit against a meat shield with 100 armor, eventually that meat shield will die (unless the meat shield killed that enemy unit first).

Armor over 100 sounds not as effective since damage negation cannot be over 100%. But this is all chance. There's still a big difference between 100 armor and 150 armor. 100 armor means for one hit, you can take 50% non-AP damage, whereas with the same 'bad roll', you can instead take 25% non-AP damage (150 armor). When this game isn't about surviving one hit but surviving several (unless you got hit by an artillery shell or something which is mostly AP damage), you'll really want to stack armor when you don't have other better options.

I really cannot imagine armor being a constant because I know Dwarf units can go above 100 armor. Heck, Steam Tanks have 150 armor, IIRC. If armor and damage negation is directly proportional, then theoretically any additional armor above 100 is utterly useless.

Armor is also affected by fatigue, so having more will help in longer battles.

[Inardesco]

Makes no sense that you lose armour through fatigue. Like what, you get winded and suddenly your shouldpads are gone, you get tired and suddenly you lose the backplate?

Melee defence and melee attack I can understand, but armour is stupid. I'd have a hearty word with my armourer if I'd lose armour based on how fatigued I am...Rubbish quality that is.

[Hieronymus]

It gets damaged as you fight on, maybe some of the belts get loose. You could also assume a opponent has a easier time exploiting gaps when you are exhausted.

[Xajmai]

Originally posted by Hieronymus:

It gets damaged as you fight on, maybe some of the belts get loose. You could also assume a opponent has a easier time exploiting gaps when you are exhausted.

This. No armor completely incases you. If you're tired, chance is that the enemy can manage to stab you through the joints. The melee defence is what you manage to deflect/Dodge armor is what and where they manage to hit you.

[Skulker_S]

Originally posted by funkmonster7:

Armor basically rolls something between half of its value to 100% of its full value. Take for example, if there's 100 'normal' damage, and your unit's armor is 50, there's a chance for your unit to reduce 25% to 50% damage (half of 50, or 50). In this case, that one hit can become 75, or 74, or 70, or 65, or 50.

But this damage negation is just for non-AP damage i.e. non-armor-piercing damage. Armor-piercing damage complete ignores armor, it doesn't matter if you have 100 armor, 1 AP damage still deals 1 damage total.

Most weapons have at least 1 AP damage so even if you put the cheapest unit against a meat shield with 100 armor, eventually that meat shield will die (unless the meat shield killed that enemy unit first).

Armor over 100 sounds not as effective since damage negation cannot be over 100%. But this is all chance. There's still a big difference between 100 armor and 150 armor. 100 armor means for one hit, you can take 50% non-AP damage, whereas with the same 'bad roll', you can instead take 25% non-AP damage (150 armor). When this game isn't about surviving one hit but surviving several (unless you got hit by an artillery shell or something which is mostly AP damage), you'll really want to stack armor when you don't have other better options.

I really cannot imagine armor being a constant because I know Dwarf units can go above 100 armor. Heck, Steam Tanks have 150 armor, IIRC. If armor and damage negation is directly proportional, then theoretically any additional armor above 100 is utterly useless.

Great explanation, thanks!

[Inardesco]

Originally posted by Hieronymus:

It gets damaged as you fight on, maybe some of the belts get loose. You could also assume a opponent has a easier time exploiting gaps when you are exhausted.

So running from one edge of the map to the other damages the armour?

[Hieronymus]

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Originally posted by Hieronymus:

It gets damaged as you fight on, maybe some of the belts get loose. You could also assume a opponent has a easier time exploiting gaps when you are exhausted.

So running from one edge of the map to the other damages the armour?

Put on a suit of platemail and sprint for 2 football fields, then fight someone who didn't.

[Spidey19355]

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Originally posted by Hieronymus:

It gets damaged as you fight on, maybe some of the belts get loose. You could also assume a opponent has a easier time exploiting gaps when you are exhausted.

So running from one edge of the map to the other damages the armour?

It’s the logic that someone who is tired won’t be defending themselves as proficiently as someone who isn’t which makes it easier for the attacker to target the joints/weak points in the armor. It’s probably just in for game balance though.

[Inardesco]

Originally posted by Hieronymus:

Originally posted by Inardesco:

So running from one edge of the map to the other damages the armour?

Put on a suit of platemail and sprint for 2 football fields, then fight someone who didn't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-bnM5SuQkI

Never seen this one I guess

Plate armour isn't as immovable as people tend to think it is. Nor is any form of armour any decent if any bit of walking is going to move it apart and give an opening to the enemy. Might aswell stand without any armour if that's the case.

Originally posted by Spidey19355:

It’s the logic that someone who is tired won’t be defending themselves as proficiently as someone who isn’t which makes it easier for the attacker to target the joints/weak points in the armor. It’s probably just in for game balance though.

That would fall under melee defence, not losing armour.