Armor Stacking Question

[Heavycloud02]

I'm a new player building my first army and I'm trying to get the rules down pat.

So armor stacking. Not 100% clear on how it works. Question can be divided into parts A and B.

A: Does Sea dragon clock stack with heavy armor? Or can you only take one?

B: And does the CoKs mounts having thick skinned (like barbing?) contribute to armor beyond the usual +1?

The context specific A and B:

A; For a Dread lord, would SD cloak 5+, and Heavy armor that is also 5+ mean +4 armor modifier total?
And with shield and mount would the dread lord reach a 1+ armor save? If not is there such this as a 1+ armor save for dark elves?

B: CoKs; heavy armor 5+, shield +1, mounted +1, = 3+, does the mounts attributes make it 2+?

Also, is there any difference between a 1+ armor save and 2+ if the S of the attack is just 3?

Thank you very much ! Sorry for the noobiness

[Akholrak]

Sea Dragon Cloak does stack with Heavy Armour. You will find this under the Scaly Skin special rule in the BRB.

Cold Ones provide a +2 to the Riders armour save. Regular mounts only provide a +1. So, essentially, you can view a Cold One a barded mount save for the fact that they do not suffer a -1 movement penalty.

In that context, a Dreadlord with Heavy Armour, Shield, Sea Dragon Cloak on a Mount will have 1+ armour save, yes.

You are correct. Cold One Knights have a 2+ armour save.

No difference whatsoever as the roll of a 1 is always a fail.

[Calisson]

A. It stacks. Armour is explained BRB p.43. Scaly skin (conferred by SDC, see our AB p.43) is explained BRB p.75.
B. Thick skin stacks too, as it is explained in our AB p.42. Cavalry armour is explained BRB p.83, including barding.

Note that Thick Skin (for the CO) is not the same rule as Scaly Skin (for the SDC) even if they have similar effects, therefore they are allowed to stack together.
However, note that there was an erratum telling: "Page 43 – Saving Throws.
Change the third paragraph to “Note that a save of any kind
can never be better than 1+. This does not prevent a model
having items or special rules that would take the save even
lower, it simply caps the saving throw at 1+. Also, remember
that a roll of 1 is always a failure.”

The mechanics is the following:
Dreadlord
Heavy armour & shield: 4+
SDC & Heavy armour, no shield: 3+ (not 4+ as you mentioned)
SDC & Heavy armour & shield: 2+
Mounted & SDC & Heavy armour & shield: 1+
Mounted on CO & SDC & Heavy armour & shield: should be 0+, but remains at 1+ because of the erratum.

You can get 1+ on foot with magic objects, such as enchanted shield, dragonhelm, helm of discord, trickster helm or armour of destiny.
Note that spell Metal #3, Glittering Robe, grants Scaly Skin 5+. It cannot stack several times, and would have no effect on a model wearing SDC.


COK:
Mounted on CO & Heavy armour & shield: 2+

When there is no modifier, a hit against 1+ or against 2+ is the same. Having 1+ only serves against armour piercing hits or hits with S4 or higher.

[Heavycloud02]

Thank you very much both of you for clearing that up.

Another major mechanic I can now check off my list 'how the hell does this work' list.

[Heavycloud02]

I've sorta thought of a follow up question regarding Armor Piercing.

Rule book states you cannot have better than a 1+ armor, if you could the Dreadlord with SDC, HA, shield, and cold one mount would be 0+ armor save.

But say you are being attacked by something with a -1 armor save. Do you still retain the 1+ armor save if the DL is on a cold one or does the 'never better than 1+' rule mean you go down to 2+? Basically, is there an incentive to have +1 or +2 armor save better than 1+ with regard to stronger attacks than S3? or is it attacks stronger than S4 that are relevant?

[Amboadine]

You cannot have a 0+ any more regardless of stacking. Best it can ever be is 1+, any addition points you spend after that are basically wasted.
So you if attacked by a -1 modifier it would become 2+.

[Saintofm]

Tooling up our mundane armor only works if you are infantry?

[Calisson]

I've sorta thought of a follow up question regarding Armor Piercing.

Rule book states you cannot have better than a 1+ armor, if you could the Dreadlord with SDC, HA, shield, and cold one mount would be 0+ armor save.

But say you are being attacked by something with a -1 armor save. Do you still retain the 1+ armor save if the DL is on a cold one or does the 'never better than 1+' rule mean you go down to 2+? Basically, is there an incentive to have +1 or +2 armor save better than 1+ with regard to stronger attacks than S3? or is it attacks stronger than S4 that are relevant?

Let's see what happens when a 0+capped-at-1+ armour is attacked by AP after Metal #1 Plague of Rust has been cast.

Let' compute:
Starting armour = 7 (no armour).

Method A:
SDC (-2), HA (-2), sh (-1), CO (-2) = 0+, capped at 1+
Now we alter the armour: PoR (+1), AP (+1) = 3+

Method B: We just consider the CO at the end of the process rather than in the middle.
SDC (-2), HA (-2), sh (-1), PoR (+1), AP (+1), CO (-2) = 2+, at no point it has come below 1+ so no cap.

The two methods are both valid, there is no rule forcing the sequencing of armour measurement.
In that case, we use BRB p.10, bottom case "SEQUENCING".
It is the player whose turn it is who selects method A or method B.
Basically, in the dreadlord's turn, he would retain 2+ while in his opponent's turn, he would get 3+.

[Amboadine]

That is an interesting little loophole. Never considered the sequencing like that before.

[Calisson]

Well, some people might wish spending 3 pts for a shield just in case an opponent would hit with a strong armour modifier in the player's own turn.
Or spending 5 pts for an enchanted shield for same reason, and in case the opponent had an ability allowing to destroy a random item.

[Marchosias]

Interesting. But what happens when a modifier stemming from close combat jumps into the sequence? If my 1+ dreadlord is hit with S7 in my turn, can I apply the strength-of-the-attack modifier first (which will be wasted as I have no armour save at the moment) and then all modifiers for my armour, producing a 1+ armour save?

[Heavycloud02]

So your not strictly hard capped at +1, but there are diminishing returns to stacking since your opponent will ignore them half the time or so.

Interesting, you'd think there would be a more specific rule about this or something. Probably better going for a 2+ ward save though with armor retools?

Given what I'm learned I'd be tempted to take a dread lord like so:

DL; SDC, HA, Shield, Great weapon, Dark Peggy
Dawnstone, Cloak of Twilight, Talisman of protection

Expensive 303 pts, but 1+ armor save/ reroll, 2+ ward save, 4 S6 attacks with multiple wounds and killing blow rules. With first strike, murderous prowess built in he should kill a lot.

I feel like I could send him against anything and expect him to hold that unit up and do a lot of beheading in the process. Tempting option.

[Dalamar]

I think you got a bit about sequencing wrong Calisson.

Sequencing happens when two things are supposed to happen at the same time.

But armor doesn't "happen" every turn. You add it up during list creation and it stays that way unless affected by something.

You don't recalculate and sequence armor again every time you're supposed to make a save.

[Daeron]

I must agree with Dalamar. It wouldn't make sense to state the armour can't be improved beyond 1+ if redoing the armour calculation would allow to circumvent that rule. It also would imply the rule could have said "it can't be improved beyond 2+" without having any impact on the game.
It has been subject of debate with Skullcrushers too which, in theory, had/have a 0+ save.

The armour save needn't be calculated solely at the moment you build your list however. It can change throughout the game, say because a spell grants scaly skin, or because an item could be destroyed. For example, a master on cold one could have heavy armour and SDC. Then also equip a magical shield. The character has its armour capped at a 1+ save before modifiers. A S5 attack will leave a 3+ save. However, should the shield be destroyed, then the character's amour needs to be recalculated. And it would still be 1+ and the same S5 attack will still leave a 3+ save.
The armour is calculated first, before the modifiers are resolved. So the cap affects the save first.

If this wouldn't be the way to calculate it, then technically we can equip a Dreadlord with heavy armour, sea dragon cloak, cold one, shield and dragon helm for an armour save of (-1)+. You'd need a S6 attack with armour piercing before you even feel the dent in the armour save.

[Calisson]

@ Marchosias
Your objection about wasting the strength-of-the-attack modifier first cannot apply, as there is no upper cap, even if you reach at some stage 8+ armour save or more.
So no problem.

@ Dalamar & Daeron
As Daeron mentions, I see nothing in the rule telling that AS are computed during list creation.
Melee AS is defined p.51, which redirects to p.43.
P.43 defines what is an AS, based on the armour worn, and what is an AS modifier.

Even assuming, as Daeron does, that AS is computed first, following by AS modifiers, we have to observe that mounts and magic armours are modifiers, like high S or AP, and like some augment or hexes spells. The rule provides no hiearchy amongst modifiers.

One difference is that some modifiers are positive while others are negative modifiers. So what? It does not tell which ones are to be applied first, which leaves the SEQUENCING rule eligible.

Another difference which you could argue is that most modifers are permanent or quasi permanent (a magic armour can be destroyed, a monster mount can be killed, a spell has a definite duration), while others are ephemerous and linked with the hit itself (S and AP).
It could be argued that the S/AP modifier has to be applied last, after checking the -1 cap with all other modifiers. For the sake of common sense, and with the additional argument that the cap rule must be there for some reason, it seems reasonable.
However, the order in which you would calculate the long lasting modifiers is still undefined, and still, the SEQUENCING rule could be used.
Having reviewed all relevant rules, I still see no indication forcing to calculate the modified AS in a particular order.

Let's take an example, doing exactly what p.43 tells:
AS: HA + SDC + Sh = 2+
Army list modifiers:
magic helm (-1); CO mount (-2). If we computed the AS at this stage, we would find -1, capped at 1+.
During the game, the following events happen: plague of rust (PoR) hex (+1); later on, magic helm destroyed (+1).
At present, there is a hit made with attack modifier: S7 (+4)

The resulting modifed AS could be:
A. 7+ (no AS) because AS was 1+ when game started, then it was risen to 2+ with PoR, then helm protection was lost, and now +4 is applied (only arguable during opponent's turn).
B. 6+ because the helm's destruction forced to recompute the AS, capped at 1+ before modifying with PoR (not disputable during opponent's turn)
C. 5+ same except we consider that when helm is lost, PoR is already in effect, and PoR impacts the armour which becomes 3+, then we modify it for the CO and there is no cap (arguable during own turn).

A. is hard to argue in good faith.
However, B or C all follow rules and fluff. I see not why we would not use the SEQUENCING rule to sort out between B and C.


This might be a rule loophole, but anyway it is not significant:
our dreadlord will be hit most of the time during the opponent's magic phase, shooting phase and melee phase.
Only during our own melee phase and in very rare other events occuring during our own phase would this possible loophole have any relevance.
I see not that small possibility being worth the 3pts to spend on a shield.

[Daeron]

By that logic, what would prevent us from calculating all negative modifiers first, which have no effect since there is no armour, and compute our armor save afterwards?

You have the armour save of a model. That is capped. The modifiers come later, otherwise they aren't "modifiers" of something that already exists.

[Calisson]

By that logic, what would prevent us from calculating all negative modifiers first, which have no effect since there is no armour, and compute our armor save afterwards?

Well, it makes no difference. Modifiers will take effect only when you cast your die, and this will happen only after you summed up all negative & positive modifiers. The fact that positive modifiers would have had no effect at some stage during your computation does not cancel them, there is no upper cap.


For example, I take a magic user, no armour, mounted on a steed. My opponent casts PoR once.
Starting armour = no armour.
Modifiers = mount (-1, or here, providing 6+) and PoR (+1)
In the opponent's turn, he computes the mount's AS then cancels it with PoR, result is no armour.
In my turn, even if I start with PoR (+1 to no armour), I still have to make the total modifiers (-1 for mount) and find +1-1=+0, which results in no armour all the same.

As I mentioned, there is no upper cap.

You have the armour save of a model. That is capped. The modifiers come later, otherwise they aren't "modifiers" of something that already exists.

True, but...
But look again BRB p.43: mounts are not part of the armour save, they are listed as modifier.
Same p.502: magic armour is a modifier, not part of the original armour save.