Immunity to Armor Pierce?

Why not? (name explains it all)
Ok maybe the name doesnt explain it
So Cunning-resilient creatures with armor would take less damage BECAUSE… None or Not all of its armor was bypassed
So this applys to every cunning-resil with armor
the armor will withstand the armor-break
So real scenario
Say…Skoolasaurus vs Tyrannosaurus Gen 2
Tyrannosaurus Gen 2: (Dmg is 1800)
Skoolasaurus: at 1800 Hp
T.Rex g2: APR
Skoola: does not die bc of AP resistance

you know what? sure why not, if speed boosts exist why not this


No, no, no, please no.


As if tanks really need to be better, lol.


Please NO!!! Fierce creatures need a buff so please don’t nerf them. The only way this wouldn’t be terrible is if only cunning dinosaurs had this resistance and even then.

Nope !!
(10 characters)

1 Like

well, i see this as a cunning creature resistance if it reduces damage from armor piercing attacks.

but this cant be for pure cunning bc pure cunning dont even have armor
its for the…6 cunning-resilient dinos
so very scarce
so not that horrible anymore
only gets encountered with 6 dinos

1 Like

You don’t need to have armour to benefit from armour-piercing damage immunity/resistance.

1 Like

pretty much what i was thinking.
another damage reduction (tho a passive) that cunning creatures can employ to reduce the damage from fierce creatures, while not necessarily changing their math up against the majority of resilient creatures.

But imagine trying to takedown a smilonembys!

1 Like

Imagine how impossible the boss will be

1 Like

The boss would have 50% more health :disappointed_relieved:

I was actually thinking of something like this where armor piercing does better against armor than defense shattering my idea goes more like if a creature has armor of 30% and and Indom attacks it with armor piercing rampage it does 30% more damage it still wouldn’t do anything against shields but there needs to be some incentive to using armor piercing instead of defense shattering

that doesn’t mean all cunning creatures would get that passive. personally, i’d limit it to pure cunnings like erlidom, procerath, monomin, etc. to offset their lower health and do better against fierce creatures and abilities.

1 Like

you didnt read the post did you…

I agree with you BUT @anon28420136 did say that it would only be applied to the six cunning-resilient creatures. Which includes smilonembys. Also with @anon28420136 demonstration of the Skoonasaurus Vs Tyrannosaurus gen 2 it shows they would most likely have a 100% resistance. Which would mean smilonembys would have a grand total of 6300 health. Also Skoonasaurus would have 7410 health :grimacing: although like I always say it’s purely opinion what you think because you could say Skoonasaurus/Smilonembys are underpowered and this would be a needed buff. But like I always say It’s really up to opinion… one could say piercing resistance is OP while another could say Smilonembys/Skoona or underpowered so this is a well needed buff.

No! No! No no no! Just no!

1 Like

I do see where you’re coming from. But I feel like it’s easy enough to designate what armored creatures should be strong against by simply not giving certain dinos armor piercing moves.

I think there is a place for something like this though, if it was introduced with a new kind of armor-reducing ability. If they added a way for some dinos (probably fierce) to temporarily reduce armor over a period of time, it would make sense for some dinos to resist or be immune to this effect. For example, the new move could reduce your opponents armor by 50% for two turns. But some dinos (like turtles) could resist this effect.

Being immune/resistant to armor piercing just doesn’t make sense though. It would be like being immune to dodge bypass (precise).

1 Like
  1. NONE GET 100% RESIST was skoola, the armored salamander not skonora
    3. Here is a chart of resistance
    Eremoceros: 50% resist
    Skonora: 35% resistance
    Skoolasaurus: 20% resist
    Smilonemys: 15% resist