Rail Worker's Metal on Metal?

[SpiralngCadavr]

So, Metal on Metal differs from just about every damage reduction rule around. As worded, it looks like it's modifying the attack to cause less damage, rather than reducing the amount of damage a model suffers. The reason this distinction is relevant is that Metal on Metal, unlike most damage reduction abilities (such as Armor or Incorporeal) which only modify a model's suffered damage, affects incidental damage (notably blast damage) also... I think.

 

I did a text search of the wave 2 beta files. The only only other references to damage caused are:

-stuffed piglet: damage flips caused by (modify the attack)

-a few "immune to damage caused by blast/AOE/condition" sorts of things

 

I also did a text search of the wave 1 cards, I don't have the final version, but cross-referenced these with the rulebook and the only earlier instances there were:

-ototo, rail worker (also on its 0): damage flips caused by (modify the attack)

-mcmourning/upgrade, hard worker: damage caused by (modifies the attack to ignores abilities)

-again, some "immune to damage caused by"

 

The instances all modify the attacks, except those that specifically state a model ignores the damage. 

 

All other damage reduction abilities work by referring to damage suffered by a model, rather than damage caused by an attack. Damage caused by an attack exclusively refers to modification of the attack, with the exception of things which are immune to a given source of damage.

 

 

 

...so, is this some weird inconsistency in the language and it's effectively just extra armor (that reduces how much damage you take), or does it work more like hard to wound, where it's affecting the damage output?

[mythicFOX]

...so, is this some weird inconsistency in the language and it's effectively just extra armor (that reduces how much damage you take), or does it work more like hard to wound, where it's affecting the damage output?

Personally I think it's the former and you're over reading a variation in phrasing.

The reading you're postulating is relevant in such limited situations that I cannot imagine it being intentional. If it was intended to work as you suggest I strongly suspect it would have been worded more specifically to apply in those circumstances.

[The Godlyness]

If an ability or condition ignores armor. The rail workers metal on metal would be unaffected. So if anything it adds it an additional layer of defense. Compare this to grind to a halt. Which just increases the armor of the defending model.

But outside of just reducing damage I don't see any significant things this is supposed to do. Since it works like any other reduction.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Well, the common situation it affects/would affect is blast damage, and the reason I'm thinking otherwise is the language is basically identical in virtually every other case of damage reduction, so it seems like it would have taken more work than just copy-pasting in the standard language.

[The Godlyness]

I can only assume you mean a blast that comes from an attack targeting a rail worker. And you are saying that the blast damage is reduced when it strikes a separate model?

[The Godlyness]

Df ()Metal on Metal: Reduce the damage caused by an Attack Action by 2, to a minimum of 1.

Well I guess it would.

Now to read deeper into it. It just says attack action. Why does it have to be the attack used by the attacking model. Why not any attack action on any card ? How long does this effect last Eot eog? Immediately goes away? (Yes I am being ridiculous) but for realsys why not any attack action.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Hmm, yeah, the lack of wyrd's usual emphasis on when penalties go away would suggest that wasn't intended...

[Seregon]

I don't see the problem here. Any damage caused by any kind of Attack Action will be reduced by 2, just like normal Armor+2. This includes blasts, pulses and auras as long as they were caused by an Attack Action and not a Tactical Action or Ability.

The only difference is that attacks that ignore Armor will not be able to ignore Metal on Metal.

If the attack specifically prevents damage reduction (damage from this Attack may not be reduced) then you do not get the benefit from Metal on Metal.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Just double-checking, are you arguing that it does reduce all damage from the attack?

[Seregon]

Just double-checking, are you arguing that it does reduce all damage from the attack?

Reduced by 2, down to a minimum of 1, just as it is stated in the ability. Noone has stated anything else.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't very clear there (or maybe I'm still not understanding your response)- I'm talking about whether it modifies the entire attack (i.e blast damage, too) or if it's just equivalent to but technically different from armor.

[Seregon]

I don't really understand what you mean.

 

If you are attacked directly and should suffer 4 damage, you'll instead take 4-2 = 2 damage.

If a model nearby is attacked and you suffer a of 3 damage, you'll take 3-2 = 1 damage.

If someone nearby deals a or damage of 2 damage, you'll take 2-2 (to a min 1) = 1 damage.

 

The only time you may not reduce the damage is when the attack specifically states that you cannot reduce damage from it, or when it's damage caused by either an ability (such as a defensive trigger) or a Tactical Action.

[Ausplosions]

He is asking if it reduces the damage from the Action for everyone hit.

I would say no, RAI but yes RAW.

[Twg]

I would argue ,that no matter what way you read it, that it doesn't reduce the damage caused by blasts on other models caught up in the same attack action. It states reduce the damage on the attack action, but not any residual damage resulting from blasts. So in effect a 2/3b/4bb attack on a moderate would only cause 1 wound on the model that has the metal on metal rule, but still cause 2 damage to surrounding models caught up in the blast unless they have armour or some other such damage limiting ability.  

[SpiralngCadavr]

I don't really understand what you mean.

 

If you are attacked directly and should suffer 4 damage, you'll instead take 4-2 = 2 damage.

If a model nearby is attacked and you suffer a of 3 damage, you'll take 3-2 = 1 damage.

If someone nearby deals a or damage of 2 damage, you'll take 2-2 (to a min 1) = 1 damage.

 

The only time you may not reduce the damage is when the attack specifically states that you cannot reduce damage from it, or when it's damage caused by either an ability (such as a defensive trigger) or a Tactical Action.

This is how I naturally read it, but it seems that it isn't the only way it's read (it might be an anomalous wording of Armor equivalent).

[mythicFOX]

I don't think anyone really believes this should work any way other than as an Armor equivalent do they?

[Myyrä]

I don't think anyone really believes this should work any way other than as an Armor equivalent do they?

I'd give it 80% odds that it should work similiar to armor. It's really impossible to know if it was written that way on purpose.

Unfortunately game can't really be played based on what should have been written in the rule book. (Or it can, but then it is a different game.) Currently the trigger reduces damage caused by an attack action, which would mean that the damage is reduced to all models damaged by that attack action.

[SpiralngCadavr]

"Should" is a stronger word than I'd use, but RAW points to it, and I don't understand why the language would have been changed vs. a basic copy-paste along the lines of "Metal on Metal: Reduce the damage suffered by this model by +2 for the duration of this Action, to a minimum of 1" or something like that, if the only intention was for it to not be ignored by things that specifically ignore Armor.

 

I'm completely willing to buy that it's a language inconsistency, but Wyrd's rules language is usually so specific and consistent that the variation in it made me think that it meant something else, so I brought it up here. Usually, if there's variation in rules language, I expect it's intentional. More than most games, unless something's really weird, I tend to trust Wyrd's RAW because of their consistency.

 

I don't mean to be argumentative, and I'm definitely not trying to claim it as RAI since there's obviously a split opinion here, but, IDK, that's how I read it.

[mythicFOX]

Currently the trigger reduces damage caused by an attack action, which would mean that the damage is reduced to all models damaged by that attack action.

 

Are we reducing the damage taken be each model by two? Or should we apply a reduction of two to the total damage being done? Can I reduce the damage taken by one of the models to zero so long as the action does the minimum of one damage in total?

 

Your interpretation doesn't answer any of the above questions.

 

As I said at the start. The rule given is only sufficient to function as an Armor equivalent. For it to function as anything else it would need additional verbiage in order to produce the effect you're trying to interpret.  Given two possible readings of a rule the 'can of worms' reading will not be the correct one.

 

Also keep rule five in mind, if you think a rule should work one way you can't argue it works another.

[Myyrä]

Are we reducing the damage taken be each model by two? Or should we apply a reduction of two to the total damage being done? Can I reduce the damage taken by one of the models to zero so long as the action does the minimum of one damage in total?

What happens when something increases the damage done by attack? (Ice gamin's aura for example.) I have always played that so that it increases the damage done to all targets by 1.

Also keep rule five in mind, if you think a rule should work one way you can't argue it works another.

There are many rules that I think should have been written differently and I don't agree with all the rulings in the FAQ. I think that the way the rule is written it works so that it reduces damage to all models suffering damage from the attack action. I'm not playing devil's advocate here. Devil is quite capable of taking care of his own interests.

[Math Mathonwy]

I'm not playing devil's advocate here. Devil is quite capable of taking care of his own interests.

I wish to note here that I have never seen Myyrä and the Devil in the same place at the same time. I'm pretty sure you can draw your own conclusions from this.

[mythicFOX]

What happens when something increases the damage done by attack? (Ice gamin's aura for example.) I have always played that so that it increases the damage done to all targets by 1.

Aura's specifically apply the given effect to all the models in the aura. That's not relevant to what we're discussing.

 

I think that the way the rule is written it works so that it reduces damage to all models suffering damage from the attack action.

 

Then how do you answer the questions I asked in my last post.

[Math Mathonwy]

Aura's specifically apply the given effect to all the models in the aura. That's not relevant to what we're discussing.

That's a bit of a non sequitur. Myyrä's point was that when something increases the damage done by an attack, it does affect, e.g., blast damage. So the same would apply when something reduces the damage done by an attack. Being applied by an aura has nothing to do with anything.

[Myyrä]

Aura's specifically apply the given effect to all the models in the aura. That's not relevant to what we're discussing.

Ice gamin's aura increases damage done by models within that aura.

[mythicFOX]

I misunderstood your point. I accept that re additional damage / reduction.

 

Still doesn't tell you how to interpret the minimum of one damage clause in this circumstance.  Per model or total?

[Myyrä]

I would interpret it as per model.