Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So i was reading through lore of metal this morning and it struck me. Lore of metal counts as being a flmaing attack but also ignores armour, so if you cast it on a model wearing dragon armour (2+ wardsave for being in dragon armour against flaming attacks) do you get the wardsave? I would say no as your armour no longer exists, but whats dakkas vote on this?

ward save is a ward save. Lore of metal doesn't destroy your armor, it just ignores armor saves. Ward saves aren't armor saves.

Yes I understand that is does not destroy your wardsave...but it ignores your armour so would it ignore dragonarmours special rule as the armour is being ignored?

It does not ignore armor. There is just no armor saves allowed.

The ward save still applies.

OK then....dunno why my mind thought otherwise

Ralin Givens wrote:OK then....dunno why my mind thought otherwise

Probably because it LOGICALLY makes sense that LoM should ignore the effect of the armor if it ignores the armor itself, but alas, GW games don't always follow the logical path. Dragon armor is quite possibly the most ridiculous/idiotic item in the game:
"Let's make an armor that IGNORES a giant freaking Bloodthirster axe because it's covered in fire! The fans will love it!" Stupid idea. I suggest somebody who thinks it's awesome should wear a flame-proof piece of clothing and let me hit them in said clothing with an axe covered in fire-see how well it protects them from it.

Clothing is magic elven armor now?

My point is that it's something that's immune to fire- it shouldn't be immune to the strength behind it: if they get hit by an axe covered in fire, or a cannonball covered in fire, they shouldn't be able to say "Oops, it hit me, but it bounced off with no damage done at all." It's incredibly stupid. And yes, the clothing analogy still stands-we have flame-retardant clothing/material, but it doesn't stop the fact that physical weapons would still cause non-flaming damage.
I understand the armor making them immune to fire-based magic: hell, I support that. I don't support them being immune to a S10 cannonball or S7 Bloodthirster axe, simply because there is burny-stuff around it.
That's my problem with it. Most non-HE players will also agree it's idiotic as well. So yes, my analogy stands Streamdragon

1. The armor that makes them immune to fire is still ... ya know ... ARMOR.

2. It's MAGIC. There really doesn't need to be much more logic behind it I'm afraid. Sure, the axe still swings and hits, but it's MAGIC that's stopping it dead in its tracks. If that MAGIC stops the inertia of an axe along with the fire, so be it! Maybe it doesn't stop the inertia, maybe it makes whatever is on fire just pass right through the wearer. Who knows? It's MAGIC!



Really my whole point is that trying to apply real world physics to a fantasy setting and situation is fallible at best, head-ache inducing at worst!

It's just a game. Logic need not (and generally doesn't) apply.

The problem with this mindset is that the spell does NOT ignore the armor. All it does it make it so that armor saves (which are distinct from Ward Saves) can't be taken against their effect. Nowhere in the spell does it say to ignore the armor or its effects; Disallowing armor saves is entirely different.

Also remember, via the FAQs, that they are not immune to fire anymore, they get a 2+ ward save. Yes, the odds are pretty good they won't be hurt, but it is not automatic anymore.

While the merits of whether the idea of a flaming cannon ball being almost entirely negated has been debated for quite a while, that's how it is. The rules are quite clear.