People keep saying stuff like "speartons are armored" and "arrows wont do much against armored juggers"
I was wondering, Is there armor as a factor? or is it just sheer health that makes archidons so ineffective against speartons?

The test
To test this we have to compare the damage done by normal attacks versus "armor piercing" attacks on armored and unarmored units.

Find the number of archidon arrows and blazing bolts it takes to kill a sword wrath, then compare that ratio to the number it takes to kill the spearton. If there really is armor, the the ratio of the second will be significantly larger than the first ratio. However, If there is no such thing as armor, then the ratios will be about the same.

Can anyone take the time to test this?

I think the "armor" is just a sound effect when taking hit, that's all. Armored units have more health than others.

Agreed with BladedFire. I'm not sure what you wanted to be tested, though.

There IS armor, a perfect example of armor being shown is 3 swordwrath(no rage) vs one spearton. In this duel, the swordwrath can win or the spearton can win. Make sure that the swordwrath are HITING the spearton at different times. You will notice that a few of the hits won't do any damage, while some hits do less damage than others.

Perhaps the bar itself is too small to see every little increment, as well as the lines between the bars cover some of the increments up.

There are two types of units, armored and unarmored. It doesn't get much more complicated than that. Armored takes less damage from certain attacks while also taking more damage from others. Unarmored is the exact opposite. It takes more damage from those un-armored-hurting-attacks and less damage from the armored-hurting-attacks.

There is no such thing as "armor". Armor doesn't protect a unit from arrows or anything like that. When people refer to armor, they are talking about their health. For example, Spearton have the most health for Order, not including Giants.

read my previous post. If there were no resistences, then the ratio of their "health" would be the same. Yet the ratio of their health subject to arrows and flaming bolts is different. Therefore, speartons do have a resistence to arrows.(or you could say that they are vulnerable to flaming bolts)

I was the one who tested it with jerrytt XD

Why does it matter if it's just a matter of health or if there really is armor? CrazyJay and Brock probably just put it so the armored units take less damage, doesn't matter if there's armor or not it's just the way it goes!

Quote from Tecness2

There are two types of units, armored and unarmored. It doesn't get much more complicated than that. Armored takes less damage from certain attacks while also taking more damage from others. Unarmored is the exact opposite. It takes more damage from those un-armored-hurting-attacks and less damage from the armored-hurting-attacks.

There are the facts, supported by the evidence of independent test play here;

Quote from jerrytt

... Results

arrows for swordwrath:7
Arrows for spearton:45
Ratio over 6

Blazing bolts for swordwrath:5
Blazing bolts for speraton:16
ratio over 3

conclusion: armor of some sort does exist, of which blazing bolts is a counter

/thread

I think there is ARMOR
Enslaved giants are anti-armor units
they kill an albowtross in 2 stones
they kill a wington in 3 hits

Notice that albowtross and wington's health are equal
albowtross has armor, so stones hurt more on them
while wington doesn't has armor, so stones don't do extra damage on them

So Tecness is right and armor exists

There should be a list on armored units, which units do more damage to armored units, etc.