idiot_terror: I will explain what's wrong about your anti-element weapon.
1 barbarians don't use spell thus element resistance wasn't a problem
2 if barbarian can wear a weapon with anti fire prot. what would be happen? as barbarians do only physical dmg (even with bloodlust) and his hit don't do any magical dmg.

It's better to have a new shield that gives spell resistance or a weapon that has a chance to do direct hit and ignore the armor of enemy.

exodus: My idea on that weapon is to triggers more damage. Without using any mana. Compare to bloodlust.

idiot_terror: Enemy's fire prot: 100%
Your weapon special: -20% fire prot.
Total: 80%

dude, no damage would occur. Lol i guess your pointing to water property weapon. That water can defeat fire, but if those weapon exist you have to switch weapons too. And elemental advantages wasn't in game yet.

exodus: When i red the post about this forum i'm bit depress. And theres no point for further explanation because this one doesn't count.
Since your reaction has been way too critic. I'll explain.

The anti-magic is somehow like a built-in spell. The weapon is enchanted.

It's not about whats the advantage on your element to what monsters protection is.

It's like striking fire with fire... But it's capable to hit more damage even though your hitting a fire property unit.

The 20% anti-magic is will be base on your base damage.

But this special feature will on takes effect on a elemental unit. Like Quest Unit. It's a sure hit.

I hope, your now enlightened.

zhypmk: then there is no point in challenging 100% prot. Quest they wont be that fun.

exodus: Don't worry zhypmk. If this one will happen there will be an anjustments. Just making others stop complaining and keep on saying that druids has the more advantage. It's because they can't cast a spell. Bloodlust is a great skill. If they only knew how to improve it.

Thank you guys for all of your reactions. But i doubt this one will happen. It's in the rules... Haist.