after rereading some of the basic rules, i've come across some more rules, we played out wrong it seems. pierce always bugged us to some extend. we play it that way:

monster attacks with 10 damage, pierce 3 against 5 armor -> 5 damage go over the 5 armor and 3 pierce through, 8 wounds total.

monster attacks with 5 damage, pierce 3 against 5 armor -> 0 damage go over the 5 armor and 3 pierce through, 3 wounds total.

now the shield reads it cannot block damage that ignores armor, so we though it couldn't block pierce damage, but after reading through pierce again, i've come across that last part that says, that shields ignore pierce, which means you actually can use a shield to reduce piercing damage, right?

skull shield gives you +5 armor against breath. does that mean, that +5 armor cannot be pierced by a breathing hell hound either, but wouldn't apply to a normal attack from a hell hound at all, in which case you could only reduce the wounds by two by using the shield itself?

Pierce is an ability that simply reduces the figure's armor with the amount, pierce is not actual damage. Pierce also does not interact with shields in any way.

So for your first example, 10 damage with 3 pierce against a figure with 5 armor; substract 3 from the figure's armor, which means it only has 2 left. This means 8 damage would go through. This 8 damage can then be blocked with a shield if possible.

Second example, 5 damage pierce 3 against 5 armor means he also has only 2 armor left, which means the figure takes 3 wounds.

This is how we count it, your method seems to be just as good.

As for the issue with skull shield, the +5 armor against breath attacks it has, is simply added to your total armor value. Pierce will reduce this armor however. Note that breath is an optional ability, and if the hellhound chooses not to use breath (for instance when he can only hit one hero), you would not receive the +5 armor.

As a ground rule, I believe damage you receive can be blocked by a shield unless it comes from a direct effect that says cannot be reduced by armor. (Mostly this will be the case with traps and certain effects like Aura, Bleed, Burn etc.)

The way you have done it works in some cases, but pierce is meant to work an other way:

Each point in Pierce make the attack ignore one point of Armor:

• 5 Armor - 3 Pierce > Damage done has to go through the remaining 2 Armor (=> Damage = Wounds rolled -2)
• 6 Armor - 6 Pierce > Damage done has to go through the remaining 0 Armor (=> Damage = Wounds rolled)
• 0 Armor - 6 Pierce > Damage done has to go through the remaining 0 Armor (=> Damage = Wounds rolled NOT Wounds rolled + Pierce)

Shield works different from Armor, if you use a shield it cancel wounds you are taking, it doesn't count as +1 Point in Armor:

• 5 Armor - 6 Pierce > Damage goes through 0 Armor = Full Damage, then I use my start-shield to cancel 1 wounds of this damage.

BUT as described on the card, shields cannot cancel wounds from damage that ignores armor totally, for example pitdamage oder burn. (Elven cloak on the other hand cancels all wounds that are dealt to you). So the explanation of Pierce is a bit misleading, shields are simply not affected because they don't add armor and +X Pierce gives you the ability to ignore X armor.

Pierce
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.

Elven Cloak
+2 Armor
When you suffer 1 or more wounds, roll 1 power die for each wound suffered . Cancel 1 wound for each power enhancement you roll.

Shield of the Warrior
Exhaust to cancel 4 wounds being dealt to you. You cannot cancel wounds that ignore armor .

@Kerrigan "This is how we count it, your method seems to be just as good."

Not in the case when you have more pierce than armor.

This is the formula we use

(Rolled Damage + Additional abilities) - (Target's Armor - Pierce) = Wounds Inflicted.

What do you do if Pierce > Armor? I you use your formula mathematically correctly it would add Damage to the rolled Damage. (I assume you ignore it in this case)

ok different example:

3 damage, pierce 2 vs. 5 armor -> 0 damage go over the 5 armor, 2 damage pierce through the armor -> 2 wounds.

pierce is pretty powerful in our round, as you can see. since even normal copper skeletons will always inflict at least one wound on any target. same goes for pierce skills and weapons. you seem to play it like this:

3 damage, pierce 2 vs. 5 armor -> 5 - 2 = 3 armor -> 0 damage go over 3 armor -> 0 wounds.

i know that shields can CANCEL wounds, but we played it as if that didn't work for pierce. shields would be more useful now, but if YOU are right and we played it wrong all along, then pierce all of a sudden would lose lots of its current power, especially on low damage weapons against high armor.

eNTi said:

Extraterrestrial (second example) is playing it right, you (first example) are playing it wrong. Pierce 2 doesn't mean that 2 points of damage ignore armor, it means that the attack ignores 2 points of armor.

Pierce simply reduces/penetrates armor-one point for each rank. It never inflicts wounds.

So, for instance, an attack that deals one damage and has pierce 10 will only inflict one wound to both a hero with 10 armor and a hero with 0 armor.

extraterrestrial said:

- For completeness - I think my second post could be misunderstood (It was only a question about tundrra's way of playing):

--> What does your group do if Pierce > Armor? If you use your formula mathematically correctly it would add Damage to the rolled Damage.

And yes eNTI, with your incorrect rule of pierce, it's far more powerful. Normally weak Hellhounds for example do suddenly constant more damage.

pierce did never do damage on itself. you always needed the damage to support it. so 2 damage pierce 6 would always just do 2 damage, but i'm somewhat relieved, that pierce does not work as we played it, because that made certain types of monsters way too powerful. especially masses of skeletons...

So as i understand and someone should correct me if i am wrong but shield applies after armor has applied and wounds (if any) have been dealt. But i still don't understand why does the shield say you cannot use this to cancel wounds that ignore armor. Or does that only apply to stuff like aura, pits and the like?

A simple example is an attack that deals 3 damage and has 3 pierce and you have 2 armor can you cancel the remaining wound with your shield?

From what i have read you should be able to do so since the warding in the text of the shield was meant to not be used for traps and the like.

Drglord said:

Yes, wounds that say they ignore armor usually are not wounds that you will receive from an attack. Wounds that ignore armor are suffered from things like traps, falling in pits, aura, and lingering effects such as Burn, Bleed, etc.

The remaining wound from your example can indeed be canceled out by spending your shield.

Drglord said:

If an attack has 3 damage and Pierce 3, and the target has 2 armor, then the target is taking 3 wounds before using a shield (the Pierce negates all the armor). You could cancel one of those wounds with an Iron Shield, or use another kind of shield to cancel however many wounds the shield says it can cancel.

If an attack has 3 damage and Pierce 3 and the target has 5 armor, then the target suffers 1 wound from the attack (5 armor - Pierce 3 = 2 effective armor; 3 damage - 2 armor = 1 wound), which could then be canceled by an Iron Shield.

it is beyond my belief how people still don't understand how armor, shields and pierce works. i wonder if it is a concept from other games, that people apply to descent. having never really played other games like D&D it was extremely easy to discern this.

the most important thing to note is that shields don't give you armor unless they say so. you can use them once per turn to negate wounds being lost. this is AFTER armor has been applied.