Talk:Damage type

the image is still wrong. degeneration and life steal are not damage (i.e. will not trigger reversal), and no damage type intrinsically ignores armor, even if you consider holy/shadow different from light/dark. --Honorable Sarah 15:57, 1 August 2006 (CDT)

Heart of Holy Flame, Avatar of Balthazar
Neither of them cause your attacks to ignore armor. So can we finally kill the notion that Holy Damage = armor ignoring? -Savio 12:32, 22 September 2006 (CDT)
 * I have nothing further to contribut


 * But the pro-"holy is armor-ignoring"(pro-HIAI) people say that theres a DIFFERENT kind of holy damage which everything that doesnt ignore armor but is holy damage uses. So this wont prove anything to them. -Align
 * Wait, they actually made that claim? Might as well claim every attack has its own damage type then. Did some discussion happen somewhere that I don't know about? -Savio 12:42, 22 September 2006 (CDT)

Same argument they've always used for Judges Insight, as far as I know...


 * Skills that change your weapon damage type (see: Judge's Insight) do not cause said weapon to ignore armor. Direct-damage skills that deal holy damage (see: Smite, Banish, etc) *DO* ignore armor. By that same reasoning: the inital damage from Heart of Holy Flame would ignore armor, while the subsequent weapon-based attacks do not. Geblah187 13:08, 22 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Tested and confirmed the above by Savio. Thanks! Geblah187 13:45, 22 September 2006 (CDT)
 * So, is anyone going to make a counterargument or am I free to change the page? -Savio 13:33, 24 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Article edited. Let me know if you have a problem with the wording. - 04:34, 25 September 2006 (CDT)

Exception
That in no way "removes" the exception by rewording. It just removes the word "exception" and moves where the exception is described. --Fyren 04:38, 25 September 2006 (CDT)
 * Well, it says damage dealt by skills meeting a certain exception will ignore armor. Then it notes that damage dealt by weapons whose damage type are influenced by skiills do not meet the condition previously mentioend. - 04:49, 25 September 2006 (CDT)