Talk:Armour Sets (Level 81-100) Index

From Lotro-Wiki.com
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This page should list all of the various class-specific and non-class-specific armour sets currently available in the game.

NOTE: The level 50 Helegrod sets have been removed since those are no longer available (the barter vendors are still present in Rivendell, but you cannot obtain the old barter coins since Helegrod was revamped). --Gaerlin 14:26, 3 January 2011 (EST)

While (to my knowledge) they're no longer directly available from Helegrod, they appear to be available via the Sages of Eriador (Marks of Triumph -> Writs of Helegrod -> Level 50 Helegrod set pieces). Even if that weren't the case, they (and the truly unavailable Level 50 Moors sets for that matter) still exist in-game and their stats are still kept up-to-date with the latest revisions. JnK (talk) 07:37, 8 January 2012 (EST)

Currency Unification

Given as this page is an index, succinct explanations of acquisition are probably best, with full explanations on the armor-set pages. But ironically, as the game is unifying the currency, it's making such explanations start to trend longer to remain accurate. For instance, in the case of the Isengard instance armors, the actual pieces are bartered for with medallions and seals at class vendors in Nan Curunir. Since Seals mostly only come from level 75 instances, "Level 75 Instances" is what I used for simplicity. But what about when the cap rises? And further, what about things like the Helegrod sets, where there are multiple avenues? Perhaps a term like "Instance Currency" would do in such cases?

Another thing is that, as the currency is being unified, the direct ties between armor and the instance they're meant to be associated with are severed. Annuminas, Helegrod, Barrow-downs, and Tham Mirdain armor sets are all available at Skirmish vendors, but they don't require any actual play of their instances. The rare-grade Isengard sets are in a similar state. Yet, all are still listed as being from there. So how do we maintain that information on instance association, even if said association has no bearing on acquisition? Perhaps a new table column? -- JnK (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2012 (EDT)

Good points; I kind of wondered this when I clarified the Helegrod sets. I think your idea of an additional column might be the best solution, although I'm not quite sure what to call it - "Era," perhaps? At the end of the day, you're right that this should just be a quick reference for where someone could go to get the items, since each set's page explains in more detail. As nice as it is to have access to more armour, I think it's kind of sad that Turbine axed the instance-cluster associations (although I can see why they did it).
That said, if we split the "Helegrod," "Great Barrows," etc. info into a new column, how should we standardize the acquired-from column? The NPC where you barter the items? The materials used to barter them? Both? Sethladan 10:23, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Having gotten into the "sets" issue "backwards" -- after getting a number of the Great River pieces and finding them not anywhere obvious in the wiki except as individual items...
1- I started some comments at Category talk:Item Sets
2- The Dev diaries and release notes have mentioned the changes with all of the "historical" armour sets. There might be ideas on wording there.
3- There whole "item sets" category is "confused." The template automatically puts individual items in the top level category. Category:Item Sets resulting in a lot of stuff in multiple categories. Except that this is not always true... Armour of the Lady's Grace, for example appears correctly, only in the Category:Minstrel Armour Sets‎. Does this imply that the Item Sets template was changed recently?
4- Similarly, the categories in the Armour Sets Indexes were missing for "unrestricted" Light/Medium/Heavy I created them for the Items I added, but note that nothing else is located in them.
5- Then there is the issue of "non-set" sets, Lothlórien) "Dreamflower" pieces for example.
6- There are TWO ways that people usually refer to armour sets -- usually by source and then by class if speaking generally. Or if speaking as a class, by location.
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
I agree that the location is still relevant - we still refer to some sets as "Helegrod" or "Annuminas" armour, even if they can be acquired any old way. I guess from your last point (#6), you're suggesting we keep source info (Skirmish Classic Vendor, Ox-clan Merchant Camp, etc?) and a separate column for locations?
Regarding categorization (a mostly-separate issue), it looks like a lot of sets were manually added to Category:Item Sets and definitely should be moved down to their more specific respective categories. I'll head over to Category talk: Item Sets and we can continue the categorization discussion there and keep this discussion about this particular page. Sethladan 20:36, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
Not only do people generally refer to sets that way, but most of the vendors still list them that. The Skirmish Classic Vendor uses those distinctions to break up its pages, even for sets that were never directly linked to an instance cluster (such as the Barrow-downs and Tham Mirdain sets).
Unofficial sets are relatively rare, so a single page to detail them could work. Though, the question arises, what constitutes an unofficial set? There are complementary items that share a naming scheme, such as the many quest rewards of Dunland ('Nighshade ____', '____ of the Learned Stag', etc.). There are also complimentary items that share a cosmetic pattern (such as the Great River quest rewards), or a recurring reward pattern (such as the teal armor pieces from the Volume II Epic, or the armor rewards of the III.4 epic chain).
At any rate, I've put together a format proposal for this page, using the now-complete Champion armor section. Thoughts? -- JnK (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2012 (EDT)
No comment about the unofficial sets as I don't think they're worth any special attention, but I'll leave it to youse guys if you want to highlight them somehow. I'm very impressed with JnK's proposal, though - very nice use of the sorted tables and rowspan! The "Source" cells even duplicate themselves when the pieces go out of order, and "Content Theme" is a suiting title for that column.
The only quibble I have is the coloring of the rows. Because of the rowspans, it's a little visually jarring in some places, but I don't immediately know of an easy way to fix that. Well done! Sethladan 11:46, 18 July 2012 (EDT)


I disagree strongly about their needing special attention. I got started on this issue because I could not find any information on the WIKI about things which I knew existed. And then later discovered that they were "more or less" there, just very poorly classified. Much of it no doubt stems from my desire to be able to browse or walk through the Wiki without having to constantly resort to the search function -- especially when I have no idea what it is I am really looking for. I guess I'm very much "anti-Google" in that I really detest search engines that try to tell me what THEY think I'm looking for instead of what I'm asking about. I'm a heavy category user and appreciate greatly the work that Zimoon has done in that area.
The definition problem -- official vs unofficial -- is actually NOT primarily an in-game issue created by Turbine, but rather how we have chose to interpret those things. Long Ago, "Armour Sets" ?all? had the pop-up tool tips that gave bonuses for equipping multiple pieces. It was an artifact of the idea of "raid sets." That is no longer true. When Turbine got rid of "radiance" it was in response to the complaints about all of the grinding which had to occur to acquire these "end game" armour sets. They also were responding to the fact that NOBODY ran those old raids anymore -- things LIKE Helgerod and the Rift -- which were bypassed when the level cap was raised. Today there is more armour which is in fact designed to be a "set" but which does not have the multiple item bonuses.
This is especially true of crafted armour. Tailors have multiple different armour "sets" (medium and light) which they can create for characters at different levels. These sets tend to be "named" based upon their characteristics. They are found in the Tailor's Crafting window grouped as sets. (See: Tailor Recipe Index or Metalsmith Recipe Index) Some sets have "all" pieces, some only a few.
The only issue I have with JnK's table is the column headings -- "Source" and "Content theme" -- they make no sense to me. However, at the moment I don't really have any better labels. "How acquired" instead of "Source" and "Where Acquired" instead of "Content theme" maybe?
As a final aside, in the Developer Diary -- "Update 5: Instance Cluster Developer Diary" in discussing the Isengard Cluster:
"There are now three armour sets for each class, with each set corresponding to a different trait line. Each of these sets has a minor and a major version. The minor version has one skill affecting set bonus at 5 pieces while the major has two skill affecting set bonuses at 3 and 5 pieces. While the 5 piece bonuses are attractive, we see benefits from the mixing and matching of the various 3 set bonuses to create hybrid sets as well. (my emphasis added)
Put another way, -- by slavishly adhering to the "official sets" in the pop-ups, we don't document or imply the hybrids, the unofficial sets.
--Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 13:39, 18 July 2012 (EDT)


I had a whole argument typed out, then happened on Forge-crafted Armour Set by accident. In a case of "I have to see it on film," I suppose, I can see how that works very nicely. While I still maintain that "bonus-granting" (synergy?) armour sets are distinct from armour pieces that happen to have the same name, you have made convincing points about the value of collecting information on the latter. For myself, I still don't care too much as I'm more interested in the set bonuses, but the quote from the Dev Diary about mixing and matching is very interesting (when choosing crafted armour, I just grab the items with my class's stats regardless of elf/bree-land/dwarf-make flavouring).
Regarding "slavishly adhering to the 'official sets' in the pop-ups," are you suggesting that we should have armour set information in item tooltips for all such non-synergy armour sets? Like Item:Forge-crafted Armour and siblings? That's a lot more armour set pages and tooltips. Sethladan 15:40, 18 July 2012 (EDT)


We're probably at the point where we should branch off some of these discussions into their own sections on this page, but! Here goes.
(1) Unofficial sets: I can see the merit in having pages like Forge-crafted Armour Set. A number of official set pages do similar, tallying the combined stats of the entire (and, subsequently, pages that take those tallies and put them in a sorty table for comparing set bonuses). However, that's a crafted set. They tend to come as a set, (Westfold aside) and thus are not quite as ambiguously defined as others. Others could get a little more murky, so we should probably suss out some general guidelines on the matter.
(2) Mix-and-match sets: This is something I'm quite hesitant about. There are countless possible combinations of armor pieces. Say that you got the four lower pieces of Draigoch armor, but never got the head and shoulders. You could grab the head and shoulders of any of the six Isengard sets. Or swap out another piece and go 3/3. There's a lot of Captains that are currently sporting a 3/3 combo of Orthanc and PvMP armor because of the combined benefits for healing. Giving each and every combo a page would be a nightmare. However, this sort of thing does remind me of the aforementioned Set Comparison pages we have here, and some of the old player-written guides on the Lorebook. That is, have one page that proposes various combinations. If someone wants to take that one, more power to them!
(3) Back to the Template Proposal! Glad ya'll approve, and yeah, the coloring glitches are kinda odd. It mostly seems to occur with even-numbered spans, while odd-numbered spans tend to be fine. Perhaps it's because in, say, a three, you go B-W-B or W-B-W, starting and ending on the same color. In an even (such as a 2-row span), you start one one and end on the other (thus confusing the coloring algorithm?).
Anyway, I went back and forth on what terms to use. For instance, perhaps "Content Cluster" instead of "Content Theme", in the sense that the set is more or less a part of that cluster? At the time, it seemed that 'Content Theme' more directly referenced the aspect that it's an association, rather than a direct dependency. "Where Acquired" doesn't seem to fit, though - that more implies the location for actually picking up the set, which is almost always external to the instance. Still, the exact wording of the labels is a relatively minor thing to me - if anyone has something more eloquent or succinct, so much the better. :) -- JnK (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2012 (EDT)
Good idea about breaking up the discussion - moved "unofficial sets" to a separate section and continuing with the focus on the chart revision here. (I think the whole mix-and-match thing is a subject best left to class guides as suggestions of what the "best" options might be are entirely subjective and probably vary wildly by class and armour set involved.)
Back to the proposal. I'm very happy with the name for both those columns - Source and Content Theme. Obviously, it's trivial to change them if someone comes up with something better, but I think they capture the meaning nicely. Regarding the coloring, the Javascript just alternates rows with - after ignoring the first, which it presumes is the header, I guess - odd rows being white and even rows being dark. There are a couple of ways to work around this, of course, like using <br /> inside the cells or using nested tables, but both of these would destroy the sortability of the rows. Manually coloring each row is the best solution I can come up with, but obviously requires the most work.
To get a little more esoteric, it might also be possible to create another alternating rows table scheme, but using three colors and rotating through them as 1/2/3 instead of just odd and even. Ugh, scratch that. I just tried something along those lines manually and it looked disgusting. :-P Coming up with a nice manual color palette still seems like the best bet... Sethladan 16:43, 19 July 2012 (EDT)
A good suggestion Magill raised - 'Barter' instead of 'Source'. That makes sense, as pretty much all the sets are bartered for. 'Barter' could be taken as what you need to exchange, thus including deed and quest completions. The only sets with a conflict are the world drops, but 'World Drop' is clear enough an explanation, those sets are only in one section, and the term would fit fine in the other nine class sections. - JnK (talk) 13:56, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
I can live with "Barter" instead of "Source," even if it doesn't really capture everything that's in that column (upon further thought, neither does "Source" accurately cover it, so...)
Question: Do you need the Orthanc deeds completed to acquire the respective armour items, or just to equip them? If the latter, than I wonder if "Deeds" is appropriate for that column or if we need a "Notes" column to point out that you need to complete deeds in order to wear the set. If we did add such a column (not that we necessarily should) we could use it for which NPCs currency should be bartered to, I suppose. Sethladan 18:28, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Unofficial Sets

Spinning out and summarizing discussion from above
There are many pieces of armour and jewelry in the game that seem united by a theme, whether it be naming, source, or some other common thread. Magill has endorsed that they're worth documenting even if they don't have bonuses associated with wearing multiple items. How do we want to deal with these?
One possible example lies in pages like Forge-crafted Armour Set, which lists all the pieces that share the same naming scheme and level and summarizes the total stats and the total crafting materials required. As JnK points out, this is perfectly straightforward for crafted (Metalsmith/Tailor) sets, but there is likely to be significant ambiguity (and perhaps disagreement) going forward about what constitutes a "set" if/as we expand the definition beyond those that grant bonuses.
Other thoughts? Sethladan 16:43, 19 July 2012 (EDT)

What I'm plumping for (hows that for Tolkenese) is that the Category Page for Item Sets include sub-categories for those items which are in "named" sets. There should probably be a "summary page" for each set that lists the component pieces. I doubt that a comparison table is valid and simply making a table of which stats are involved is "cumbersome" to say the least. Mainly because we don't have a "prototype table" where the values can be easily plugged in. Tables are wonderful for the reader, but a ROYAL PITA for the writer and even worse for the maintainer.
I had not encountered the Forge-crafted Armour Set page. It's an interesting "start," but leaves much to be desired. It might be considered a "work in progress." A cross between partially explaining that it is a crafted set -- the "Full Set" table; and explaining what the benefits of it are. However, it is missing any reference to WHO crafts it, and what they are crafting (i.e. the pieces). I have modified and moved that page to include all of the above information ... Forge-crafted Armour Set (Level 20) The page name is now consistent with other sets, and it is out of the top-level category.
As for the column labels ... my main complaint was/is that they don't have any meaning. And, as I suppose is common with most readers, One immediately jumps to the table without reading the notes above it, which clearly explain the terms. I suspect it is just because the terminology is "foreign," that is not used elsewhere or in common Jargon usage. Maybe "Barter" is more informative than "Source" and is a header used in similar tables on the Wiki.
One other thing I would add, Turbine DOES consider these to be "armour sets" in their various developer discussions.
--Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2012 (EDT)
I just borrowed "unofficial sets" from your discussion above, heh.
About the forge-crafted armour, thanks for dusting it off and expanding it! I guess if you can model that page to reflect where exactly you want to go with all the non-bonus-granting set (now I'm not allowed to say "unofficial" anymore? Heheh.) then I/we might have a better idea of where you're coming from. Curious, though, why you moved it to "~ (Level 21)" - are there other forge-crafted armour sets at other levels? I also noticed that you grabbed the Elf and Dwarf-make varieties, too, even though they have different stats than the default Bree-land variety. I went ahead and updated the armour totals - those at least are the same across the board, but I'm not sure how you want to manage the differences between the various cultural flavors.
When you say "named" sets in your first paragraph, do you mean the original bonus-granting sets that we were dealing with before this discussion (those enumerated on Armour Sets Indexes now)? Otherwise, I agree with you that a comparison between most of the non-bonus-granting (Forge-crafted Armour type) sets would be useless, since they generally just get better as the level goes up and that's about all one needs to know. The caveat to that, of course, is comparison between Elf/Dwarf/Bree-land, which takes us back to my previous paragraph. Sethladan 19:48, 19 July 2012 (EDT)
P.S. And, of course - d'oh! - it turns out that Forge-crafted armour is wearable at level 20, not 21. How things change in a few years! Sethladan 19:54, 19 July 2012 (EDT)
I was just grabbing the text from the recipe pages... didn't notice that the other sets had different stats! One of those "3-in-1" recipe deals :) Although that is why I stared with the The Great River (Anduin) Jewellery Set Comparisons -- I suspect the same is true here. Each flavor has particular stats emphasized. That doesn't necessarily make one better than the other, but it does re-enforce the "mix-and-match" aspect of things.
If I remember correctly, the rep sets from Lothlorian are "named," but not with stacking bonuses. I'd have to go look at the pieces individually to find out. I.e. each piece has a similar "name" -- but they might all be jewellery pieces, don't remember. At first glance, Galadhrim implies both -- looks like both the "Lothlorian" and "Golden Wood" items. phew... what a can of worms.
The (Level 21) suffix seemed to be (becoming?) the standard in the sub-category pages. (And I just believed what was on the page before.) It turns out that, in the category section at least, it is more meaningful than simply a name. (Cross indexing issues and all that, sigh.) As for the level change from 21 to 20. I don't doubt that we have a LOT of incorrect information like that, since we have no way of checking/verifying except in-game which can be really time-consuming -- especially when you have no idea what to look for that changed, or when :) Seems that Craft XP is also wrong -- 12, not 10. (Changed the page name also.)
BTW, thanks for changing things over to "Reward" templates.
--Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
No problem - I get itchy when I see things that can be said/done in a more succinct way (which is silly considering how longwinded I am otherwise). You're definitely right about the challenges of updating things, which I guess takes us back to the need to improve our usage of transclusion and all that: Fewer pages to update = hopefully more up-to-date info! (points to Zimoon) Nice catch on the craft xp, too. Nothing constant but change, huh?
As for the level suffix, I thought they were just there in cases of armour sets with the same name (e.g., Helegrod sets have three versions of the same armour at 50, 60, and 65). I see what you did on the Anduin jewelry page, and that makes sense for the cultural armour flavors, too, especially if we find them to be consistent (I wrote down the stats for the Forge-crafted here and the patterns don't seem dramatically different; will need to compare bunches more, I guess). Sethladan 01:02, 20 July 2012 (EDT)
Phew... one issue after another...
1- I've created Category:Light Armour (The Riders of Stangard) and Category:Medium Armour (The Riders of Stangard). The two pages are intended for transclusion into the recipe pages and are "identical" -- except that the Light page has the Component Comparrison section completed. They are more complex than the normal recipe pages because of #3/4 below. And because of those issues, creating separate pages does not address the fact that they really are duplicates of each other, but you would never know it from the individual pages. That would be fine if you only ever wanted to know about "the thing," but anybody can look in their crafting panel and see that. The intent is to link together the related things in these sets. (And I guess there should be "matching" Category:Light Armour (guild) and Category:Medium Armour (guild).
2- I'm not happy with the "look" of the Component Comparison yet. I suspect I will need to hand-color each line to get rid of the humongus-blob-of-purple effect. And if you pull the headers, it becomes completely unreadable. (And the item names are too long to put in the table!)
I set the transclusion to skip it.
3- I suppose I should split the recipe details away from the component comparison to make life easier and more consistent.
4- In fiddeling with the Recipe pages For the Light and Medium Armour items, I realized that there are multiple problems.
  1. The names for the Recipes for the Leggins and Pauldrons are identical for both Medium and Light Armour versions
  2. The name for the Rep Recipes and the Guild Recipes are also the same
  3. The Rep Recipes and Guild Recipes are identical except for one component, and the fact that the Guild recipes auto-crit.
5- You (or Zimoon) said something somewhere about a find an replace option in the Wiki editor. I thought I saw a button once, but can't find it anywhere anymore.
--Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2012 (EDT)
It looks to me like you're trying to include much too much information there. Take a look at what you're transcluding and see if you can whittle down some of the duplicate/unnecessary information. For example, on Category:Light Armour (The Riders of Stangard) you list the craft and tier required for the recipes and the level required for the items, as well as the components needed: All of that information is already contained in the recipe and/or crafting template on e.g. Item:Great River Leggings Recipe.
I'm also somewhat confused about your approach - we're going from the "traditional" way of describing armour sets (one separate, fairly succinct page) to suddenly transcluding massive amounts of information onto the recipe pages, and it's a little jarring. I'll be patient and see how you develop your idea, but I'm still kind of skeptical, heh.
Also, the find-replace gadget is the last button on the right under the "Advanced" tab of the editing interface. I still find myself copying out to Notepad++ if I need to do extensive regex replacements, but it's definitely helpful in a pinch. Sethladan 11:13, 25 July 2012 (EDT)

Hunter armour sets

In trying to update/clean-up/complete and match -- Comparison of Hunter Armour Sets, Armour_Sets_Index#Hunter and the related individual sets, I have discovered that the Ettenmoors Hunter Armour is schizophrenic. (And who knows what they will look like after the Riders of Rohan update next month.)

The Hunter Barterer in the Ettenmoors, Tongdir, calls things in his "Filter by profile": "Studded Hlifherór Armour." However, the associated Armour set is called: Lesser Hlifherór Armour, while each piece is "Lesser Studded Hlifherór xxx." These pieces are all level 65. Three names for the same gear!

Tongdir calls things in his "Filter by profile": "Studded Hlifherór Armour (75)". However the items themselves are simply "Studded Hlifherór Armour zzz" and the set is called simply, "Hlifherór Armour".

And lastly, his "Filter by profile": "Armour Sets (Level 88)" in fact contains three level 75 sets: Arms of the Predator, Armour of Entrapment - 75, and Armaments of Precision - 75.

  • Misc - Summary of activities:
  1. I named some armour icons: "PvMP Hunter xxx (U6)-icon" for Arms of the Predator set items because that seemed to be what had been done with anther set, even though it wasn't in the icon index.
  2. I named some armour "PvMP Hunter Lesser Studded Hlifherór xxxx-icon.png" for the Lesser Hlifherór Armour set. So the names would sort together for whoever is working on "generalizing" the icons.
  3. Created "Stat tables" for the various armour sets I was working on with the ultimate idea of including the information in the Comparison of Hunter Armour Sets. This table format matches the one I was using with Comparison: Level 75 Light Armour (Tailor's Guild). In the process, updating and completing all of the various Lvl 75 Armour Sets.
    • Update Tegan to Barter Template -- completed
    • Update Tegan to Barter Template -- completed
    • Update Lugdagnir to Barter template - completed
    • more sets need to be created for Armour_Sets_Index#Hunter -- close to completion? Still missing all crafted sets.
    • "Acquired from" data has been changed to reflect where one REALLY gets the Armour set, not the generic activity. This is especially necessary now since "The Great Currency Revision," most Armour can be acquired by trading Marks and Medallions. Only a few sets still have Quest requirements, and those are noted on the Set's pages themselves.
    • Moved Hunter section to Category:Hunter Armour Sets and transcluded it into the main page -- completed
  4. In creating the Item:Sealed Insignia of the Nimble Huntsman, I found Item:Sealed Insignia of Onslaught. That "item" uses a "different" Item Tool-tip than is documented.
    It turns out that the Template:Item Tooltip contains 3 undocumented parameters for relics:
    • relic-name
    • relic-icon
    • relic-attr
    I added some verbiage to Template:Item Tooltip/doc -- to make a stab at describing their usage. Anyone with knowledge of the Relic "stuff" should verify it.
  5. The page Relics did not appear to include the relics available from the Ettenmoors. See Category:Relics.
    I Added the Ettenmoors index section to Relics#Ettenmoors Index
  6. Someone needs to acquire these relics which do not have their Atributes complete. The In-game tool-tip does NOT give you the info until you desecrate the relic.
Enough for tonight! Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 01:28, 19 August 2012 (EDT)
updates on today's work Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2012 (EDT)
Work continues. Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC (talk) 23:02, 21 August 2012 (EDT)

Hytbold Sets

The Hytbold Sets should be included in the List. After adding pages for the Guardian Sets I also included them. Will someone more experienced please verify if my usage of the templates is correct / the Sets are correctly added to this list?
- Heridan (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2012 (EDT)

I disagree. The Hytbold sets are level 85 and therefore do not belong in this list. Lifthil (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Minimally, one can say: This list is "confused." -- Or more charitably, It is work that was never updated.
  • Hytbold sets belong in the 76-85 list -- which did not exist at the time when the 1-84 list was created; and does not currently exist.
Assuming that this list is intended to be "complete" or "all-inclusive" then the Hytbold sets do belong here.
  • By that token, this list then should be renamed -- (Level 1 - Level-Cap) -- which is currently 150
OR it should be broken up into pieces. Which seems to be the current direction with a list existing for "Level 85" sets only.
  • However, the list Armour Sets (Level 85) Index should be renamed to be (Level 85 - 105) -- which is easy enough to do. Done.
(Check Armour Sets (Level 85) Index to get rid of the redirect.) Done.
Note this index of indexes...
Master Item Index • Weapon Indexes • Armour Indexes • Armour Sets Indexes • Jewellery Sets Index

Light Armour: 1-10 • 11-20 • 21-30 • 31-40 • 41-50 • 51-60 • 61-70 • 71-80 • 81-90 • 91-100 • 101-110 • 111-120 • 121-130 • 131-140 • 141-150 • Scaled
Medium Armour: 1-10 • 11-20 • 21-30 • 31-40 • 41-50 • 51-60 • 61-70 • 71-80 • 81-90 • 91-100 • 101-110 • 111-120 • 121-130 • 131-140 • 141-150 • Scaled
Heavy Armour: 1-10 • 11-20 • 21-30 • 31-40 • 41-50 • 51-60 • 61-70 • 71-80 • 81-90 • 91-100 • 101-110 • 111-120 • 121-130 • 131-140 • 141-150 • Scaled
Shields: 1-10 • 11-20 • 21-30 • 31-40 • 41-50 • 51-60 • 61-70 • 71-80 • 81-90 • 91-100 • 101-110 • 111-120 • 121-130 • 131-140 • 141-150• Scaled
Cloaks: 1-10 • 11-20 • 21-30 • 31-40 • 41-50 • 51-60 • 61-70 • 71-80 • 81-90 • 91-100 • 101-110 • 111-120 • 121-130 • 131-140 • 141-150 • Scaled
Armour Sets: 21-30 • 31-40 • 41-50 • 51-60 • 61-70 • 71-80 • 81-90 • 91-100 • 101-110 • 111-120 • 121-130 • 131-140 • 141-150 • Scaled
Missing is any reference to armour at the current level-cap 86-95. (Pages in red do not exist.)
One can easily argue that there should be one or multiple lists 76-85 and 86-95, based on what had been previous level caps. However, the Armour Sets list "is different."
Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 23:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Kicked lists up to 85-105. Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 22:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What to do with these new "sets"

Update 15 introduced a number of new low level (at least so far) "Armour Sets."


While not restricted, I assume these have been introduced for the Beorning, as "Might" is their primary stat. I'm only at level 28, so I also assume there will be another set at level 30/35/40

Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 05:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

now level 33.

Wm Magill - Valamar - OTG/OTC - talk 04:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
These do not have set bonuses do they? I think they are not really Armour Sets, if there is no bonus for wearing multiple pieces that come from these boxes. So I don't think we should list them here. --Tharondir (talk) 08:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm with Tharondir here - these might be thematically related pieces of equipment, but they're not really armour sets in the sense of giving set bonuses. This is going back to the discussion we had about "unofficial sets" a couple years ago way up on this page - I don't think we ever came to a resolution about them. Sethladan 17:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Also agreeing that a set listed here needs at least one bonus; if not, items are just regular quest rewards (here offered as a sub-choice via these boxes), or drops, or craft results. So they should not be listed too on Item Sets. -- Goingbald (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://lotro-wiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Armour_Sets_(Level_81-100)_Index&oldid=1376923"