Have seen a few different actions cards that make the have the difference of saying "Ignore Armour Soak" or "Ignore Soak", I just want to make sure that I am ignoring the correct values.

If the card says its ignores armour soak then I would simply not add the soak value of any armour worn on body or shield to the characters toughness to soak damage? But in this case would any magic armour from spells also be ignored?

If the card says to ignore the characters soak value does this mean you would not add any any armour soak, spell soak to his toughness rating to lessing some incoming damage? Or does it mean that the character gets nothing to stop the damage, no armour soak or toughness at all?

Toughness is not ignored unless specified. It is not the same as Soak. The difference between Armor Soak and Soak is that Armor Soak comes only from armor, while Soak is the overall Soak ability, including things like talents and spells/blessings. So something that ignores "Soak" is generally better than something that ignores "armor soak", although it depends on the target. Most soak comes from armor, but there are some talents and spells/blessings that provide soak, and is not considered armor soak.

Toughness and armor is combined to give a soak value.

It doesn't say so in the section about calculating damage because they suddenly use "damage reduction" instead of soak.

But on page 61:

• This beastmans Soak Value is 6 (his Toughness 4 + Soak Value of 2 from his monster entry).

So. When a card says Armor Soak Value ignored it's just the soak value of the armor that is ignored, including the shield. If a card simply says ignore targets soak value then both armor, shield and toughness is ignored, BUT NOT effects from other cards or spells. A card can't cancel the effect of another card like that, so shielding winds and the troll slayer soak card will never be ignored, because cards that ignores soak are referring directly to the characters/NPCs own soak - not that from effects. That's how I understand it... but as with many rules they aren't very precise.

Soak Value is = Tou + Armor + others.

Very rare (like a couple) are the effects that totaly ignore Soak Value from what i've seen. The most common effect if to ignore Armor Soak Value.

The Bright Order "Shield" spell and Golden Order "body armor" spell both use magic to duplicate Armor effects. They should be taken as Armor Soak Value, even if not wearing armor. The Gold order spell clearly specifies "Armor Soak Value / Armor Defence Value" on the card, the Bright Order one just mentions "Soak Value", but from its name "Shielding Winds of Aqshy", you can take it as a "Shield" modifier. Both should be bypassed by such effects that ignore "Armor Soak Value", since you bypass all armor, being body or shield, physical or magic doesn't really matter (you hit where it is not)

I say "should" because it's my point of view

Looking into this a bit more I have found on page 82 of the Players guide under a heading called Combat Values.

"For the defender, the relevant values are defence value and soak value. The defence value indicates how many misfortune dice are added to any attack targetting that character. The soak value is added to the toughness to find the total damage reduction against each attack. Sometimes characters have defence or soak values for multiple sources, such as armour, shields and special abilities. These values are cumulative. If an effect ignores a characters's soak value, then the entire soak value is ignored. If an effect ignores only a character's soak value from armour ( often written as "armour soak value" to conserve space), then only that portion of the soak value is ignored. "

Looking at the way it is written here in the newest rules it seems that when all soak value is ignored they mean that all bonuses from all armour, spells and abilities are ignored in the reduction applied to the incoming damage. It sounds like Toughness is always applied to damage reduction unless it the spell says differently in some way.

Good finding.

When i said "a couple effect" that can ignore all, i was refering to a Necromancy spell (Curse of Undeath, Rank 2), which ignores Armor Soak Value and can also ignore Toughness.

I would still count Shielding Winds of Aqshy and the Gold Order armor spell to be counted as "Armor Soak Value", especially since it's written on the Gold Order one

Ryath said:

That's the same as the core book, but I am quite sure toughness is ignored (and is just part of the soak) because of the combat examples pointing very directly at that being the fact.

The example on pg61 is misleading/poorly worded. Even in the quote, it says the Soak Value is 2 from the monster entry. It really should read "This beastman's Damage Reduction is 6 (his Toughness 4 + Soak Value of 2..."

The total reduction is called "Damage Reduction" per the rules for damage on pg 59.

Damage Reduction is subtracted from Damage Potential.

Soak is anything that specifically says it has a Soak value, such as armor or the Trollslayer's career ability, etc. Soak adds to Toughness and any other damage reducing ability (that isn't called Soak) to total into Damage Reduction.

Toughness is not ignored by abilities that ignore soak, because it is not soak or part of soak.

I dont have the new PG, but from what Ryath quoted it sounds like FFG clarified it better there, and it supports that Toughness is not part of soak.

Well, checking the Guide (p82 & 102) clarifies that Damage Reduction is as you say = Soak Value + Toughness. Soak Value includes Armor Soak Value and other stuff that could go there.

I don't have the PG yet but in the whole book I don't see a single line of text supporting that toughness isn't part of the soak value. Just because it says soak value from monster entry in the example doesn't change the fact that the example very precisely states that toughness is part of soak. A lot of things add to your soak value... armor, effects, toughness etc.

The use of "Damage Reduction" seems like a slipup as it isn't really a game term used throughout the book. It's sloppy and not precise writing.

If you have any quotes please post them. The difference between the cards ignoring total soak and just armor soak would be very slim and not worth the effort if toughness wasn't part of the total soak.

Found the actual quote where I have the rule from.

GM KIT page 46:

• Soak / Soak Value: A characters soak value is generally provided by any armor he is wearing or special abilities he possesses.Along with the characters Toughness rating, each point of soak prevents one point of potential damage. Damage in exess of the target's ability to soak becomes wounds.

It doesn't contain the sentence that "Toughness is part of soak", but in no way does anything support the fact that it isn't. The above puts toughness right in there as part of the characters total ability to soak, thus making a destinction between the characters armor soak value and the total soak value, but in no way pulling toughness out of the total soak term. Nowhere is the term Damage Reduction mentioned in that list of game terms. The last sentence "Damage in exess of the targets ability to soak (armor+toughness) becomes wounds", very clearly puts toughness in there as part of the total ability to soak.

The above quote along with this one from the rulebook clearly points towards toughness being part of the soak and no something outside it:

Page 61 of the core rulebook:

• This beastmans Soak Value is 6 (his Toughness 4 + Soak Value of 2 from his monster entry).

Thus. Cards that ignore armor soak value ignore just that, while effects that ignore simply soak, ignores everything.

On page 65 of the new Player's Guide under a section called Action Card Language it says:

" Normal Damage " is defined as the sum of the key characteristics of the attack (Strength for melee attacks, Agility for ranged attacks) plus the Damage Rating of the weapon used. " Critical Damage " is calculated the same way, but one of the wounds suffered is critical. " Damage " is reduced by Toughness and soak value, but if an effect causes a character to suffer " wounds " directly, then Toughness and soak are of no benefit.

From this quote it seems like they are saying that Toughness is going to offer damage reduction even if soak is ignored, and if they wanted to ignore all damage reduction a creature or player had they would infict the damage by saying it caused the creature or player wounds.

It just says that both are ignored when dealing with direct wound effects and that does in no way support the idea of toughness always soaking in other situations. In any case the rules are not clear on this one and the only precise definitions we have puts toughness as a part of soak. To seperate the two we really have to interpret the rules to that effect, whereas the rules as they are worded to not support that to be honest. I don't know what context that quote is taken from, but I don't see how it seperates toughness from soak in terms of those action cards ignoring the total soak value (toughness, armor etc.) as opposed to those just ignoring armor soak.

The quote you pick has to do with damage types and a definition of damage and as such I don't expect the quote to be precise in terms of defining something entirely different.

The quote from the GM kit on the other hand deals specifically with soak/soak value and put's toughness as a part of the total ability to soak. The header is "Soak / Soal Value" which means the two are the same thing. The only think that is certain is that armor soak value is not the same as total soak.

Damage Reduction isn't even listed as a game term, so that supports the fact that they just used the words to describe the damage being reduced rather than introducing it as an actual rules term.

Some action cards ignore soak completely and others ignore armor soak. In most circumstances armor soak and soak would be precisely the same (if toughness wasn't part of soak), which also supports the distinction made in the GM kit about armor soak (just armor) and total soak (armor and toughness).

Perhaps FFG could clarify it in the next faq update, but with the quote from the GM kit plus the combat example I think it's clear enough.

It's easy enough to house rule though... that toughness always soaks damage no matter what, if you feel that those action cards ignoring total soak are too powerful. But in over 25 sessions with many of the cards that ignore soak in play I haven't really seen the issue with those cards. Combustion can be quite nasty if the BW builds up towards it... but not unbalanced. I haven't seen him trigger it more than a few times in all those sessions.

IF toughness always soaked on the other hand the card would be crap and it would be unbalanced that other cards could do the same on boons.

In EVERY quote listed here, toughness is listed separately from Soak and Soak Value.

GM KIT page 46:

* Soak / Soak Value: A characters soak value is generally provided by any armor he is wearing or special abilities he possesses.Along with the characters Toughness rating, each point of soak prevents one point of potential damage. Damage in exess of the target's ability to soak becomes wounds.

Notice, that "along with the character's toughness rating, each point of soak..." It separate toughness and soak, which DOES in fact support that they are separate.

Ryath quoted the new PG, which clearly differentiates Toughness and Soak.

To quote from the original rulebook (pg 59, 5th paragraph left side)
"The target's Toughness, the soak value of its armour or equipment, or the effects of special abilities or talents may reduce the damage it takes. These numbers are combined to calculate the target's damage reduction.

The target's damage reduction is subtracted from the attack's damage potential."

That's a CLEAR reference to the term damage reduction, as well as separating Toughness from Soak. In fact, the ONLY place where I have seen Toughness being included in Soak is that one combat example, which has been quoted. Even that example, however, also lists soak value separately from Toughness too. We know that some of the examples in the books had issues, and this seems to be one of them. The example is most likely incorrect by referring to the overall damage reduction as "soak value".

If you want to HOUSE RULE that toughness is part of soak, then you may do so ... however, per RAW I see nothing that supports it other than that one inconsistent combat example reference, while everything else, including the new PG rules, clearly separates Toughness from Soak. So, if anything is a house rule, it is including toughness as part of soak not separating them.

The GM kit quote ends up with describing toughness and armor soak value as the targets ability to soak. I don't see how that does not support that toughness is included in soak.

But in the end, I don't see why you want to seperate the two when in fact the balance of the cards in question aren't an issue, but would be rendered rather pointless if your statement was true.

If Damage Reduction value was a game term I am quite sure it would have been listed in the list of game terms in the GM kit. The damage reduction is as much an inconsistency.

Look at page 45 of the GM kit

• Damage: Many attacks have the potential to inflict damage to the target. Damage is a representation of the potential wounds the target may suffer from. In simplest terms, any damage not absorbed by the targets soak value become wounds

If toughness isn't part of soak then the above would mean that toughness does not prevent wounds since it clearly says soak value and not damage reduction or soak value plus toughness. If toughness is a part of soak then the above makes perfect sense. In any case cards that ignore soak value gets through without any reduction according to the above.

There is no rule term named damage reduction. They merely used the english words instead of precisely using the game terms. There is just one thing reducing damage. The targets soak value.

Dark Hand of Death card:

• Target uses WP instead of TO to soak the damage

Toughness is used to soak. It says soak and not damage reduction. There may be inconsistencies and toughness may be mentioned on cards having both the effect of ignoring the armor soak and the total soak (including toughness).

Tougness and armor soak values are seperate, but they are both soak values added together to get the targets total soak value.

On page 82 of the Player's Guide it says in the section for Calculate Damage:

"The target's damage reduction is subracted from the attack's damage potential. The damage reduction is calculated by adding the Target's Toughness and his Soak Value."

Looking at this and other I would have to thing that the rules they intended dispite some poor examples in the previous books was to have soak add to toughness to get a total damage reduction.

It looks like they have make this a lot more clear in the Player's Guide, and seeing as this is the most upto date publication the game has with the rules I think going with the information from it would be your best bet if you wanted to go with the rules as written.

Ryath that is the exact same information as in the core rulebook. Nothing new about it. I haven't got the GM guide to see if the GM kit text is there as well.

In any case nothing anywhere puts either view beyond doubt, so we'll have to wait for a faq update. The rules also state that if a text in books and on cards conflict, then the cards are right. And on some cards toughness is considered soak. I think it's just because they never imagined anyone would discuss it as intensely as we do in this thread. But if they had Damage Reduction Rating/Value listed as a game term I would certainly agree. But in the examples I can find it's all just soak or the ability to soak. Just that one paragraph mentions damage reduction rating.

But if we were to split it up, then you can have soak value from armor, shields, spells and effects.

Under normal circumstances the sigmars comet effect on some cards do not at all balance with the fact that merely two successes can ignore the targets armor damage reduction on some cards. For that sigmars comet you would get one extra damage in most circumstances and more when other effects and spells are in effect. It just doesn't seem balanced when you compare the sigmars effect with simple boon and hammer effects.

Yep, i already referenced p82 & 102 of the Player Guide that clarifies "Damage Reduction", which is in fact the sum of Soak & Toughness. The Core Book also say the same thing, it just isn't clear especially with some wording on actions/spells. I was thinking like Gallows at 1st, but it really isn't a big deal. It's not DD

For combustion it is a big deal against a troll for instance. Which is why we need a faq update to clarify. I don't know what they were thinking when writing the books, but I still think that effect that ignore soak, ignores everything and is applied as damage without any reduction at all.

But would be nice to get a clarification, because I can see how the different examples from the text suggests different things. I am indifferent about wether I am right or not... I just want to use the correct rules as it does have come consequences for the players.

i'll point some balance issue here about effects ignoring ALL Damage Reduction, they become far too powerfull. Action that ignore Soak Value are numerous indeed.

Hmmm ***** in the armor and combustion are the ones I remember that can ignore soak (and not just armor soak value). The mage in our group uses combustion a lot, but getting the effect to ignore soak requires a sigmars comet. Compared to other cards that add the weapon damage an extra time I don't see the imbalance because adding the damage rating of the weapon a second time will in most cases deal out more damage than ignoring toughness (+7 damage for a twohander whereas toughness rarely is more than that). In fact ignoring soak as well seems well balanced with that effect.

can we just make a protest and dont write on the forum until FFG makes errata and FAQ for all rules

skolo said:

I am sure it would be more productive than this thread

skolo said:

Are you kidding!?! An errata and FAQ for all the rules would ruin the beautiful mini-meta-solo-online-social game of figuring out how the rules work that FFG built into WFRP. It's a value added addition. It is also adding flavor and tone - it's like living in Talabheim...

-Thorvid

P.S. Sorry, this post added nothing pertinent to the conversation.

Found a new quote from the rulebook

Page 74:

Unreliable X: bla bla ... When this is triggered, the item inflicts wounds equal to it's unreliable rating to the wielder, bypassing the wielder's soak value and toughness.

That supports the fact that toughness is not considered part of the soak value. But who knows what they actually mean with their sentences, when there are conflicting statements so many places in the books. I'm giving up on comming to a true conclusion on this matter by reading the books. I hope perhaps the PG and GMG will have more clarity.