The rules for Pierce state:

"An attack with the Pierce ability ignores 1 point of armor for each rank of Pierce it has. Thus, an attack with Pierce 3 ignores 3 points of armor. Shields are not affected by the Pierce ability."

This could be read one of two ways:

a) Pierce attacks subtract their pierce value from the target's armor value, then apply all the damage with the lower armor value.

b) Pierce attacks ignore the armor, and deal pierce damage up to the rank in Pierce, regardless of the target's armor value, and then apply the remaining damage modifed by armor, minus the ignored armor granted by Pierce.

Here are a few examples with each interpretation:

Damage Rolled: 5 (Pierce 2)
Target Armor: 3
Damage dealt: a) 4 , b) 4

Damage Rolled: 8 (Pierce 2)
Target Armor: 3
Damage dealt: a) 7 , b) 7

Damage Rolled: 3 (Pierce 2)
Target Armor: 3
Damage Dealt: a) 2 , b) 2

Damage Rolled: 2 (Pierce 2)
Target Armor: 5
Damage Dealt: a) 0 , b) 2

Damage Rolled: 3 (Pierce 4)
Target Armor: 5
Damage Dealt: a) 2 , b) 3

And for the *Coup-de-grace* attack situation:

Damage Rolled: 4 (Pierce 4)
Target Armor: 8
Damage Dealt: a) 0 , b) 4

As you can see, the interpretation makes a big difference against highly armored targets. Basically, since I am running with alot of skeletons with Pierce 2, regardless of the hero's armor value, our group interpretation "b" makes it so that I am assured that as long as I hit and get some hearts, at least 2 points of damage is going to go through.

What are your opinions/thoughts/<links to faq that clarify this>?

Well, syntax and semantic of the rules are only compatible with a).

One point of armor reduces damage by one for wounds. A point of ignored armor does not reduce damage for wounds.

b) would need to be written along the lines of "for each point of pierce, one point of damage is transformed to a wound of one point regardless of armor". Since by this reading, all the armor would need to be ignored for some points of damage. It's just not what pierce is.

Haslo is correct on all points.

Pierce is equivalent to a flat damage increase, except that it cannot exceed the target's armor.

I don't even see where you'd get the B interpretation, since nowhere in the definition of Pierce does it use the words "Wounds" or "Damage" to suggest that the pierce rating applies any damage itself.

Rajamic said:

I think the confusion comes from assuming Descent works like a pen & paper RPG, where an attack might do 5 points of slashing damage and 3 points of piercing damage; slashing and piercing damage are then handled differently when applying armor. This preconception makes people read "Pierce 3" as "3 points of piercing damage" even though, as you say, the rule-as-written seems pretty straightforward.

Yeah, after discussing it with my Descent group, we decided that interpretation B is not only harsh, but incorrect. We're going with A, because it's simple and correct.

Thanks for your opinions.

Personally, I think the confusing part comes from the word IGNORES, since the only precedent elsewhere in the game is "IGNORES all armor" with certain traps and effects. Treating Pierce as a simple armor subtraction modifier makes more sense and doesn't allow for wonky game mechanics.