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]

I still maintain the intent of the rule is as an Armor equivalent. It lacks the necessary verbiage to function properly as you interpret it. 

 

There's nothing in the text of the rule to indicate it's supposed to modify the damage the action is doing to any model other than this one.

 

Without some part of the ability referencing that it effects damage dealt to other models or how to handle the minimum of one clause in relation to other models this cannot be considered to be the way the rule is supposed to be played.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Re: No blast description, didn't Myyrä's comment just show precedent for modifying blast damage without specific reference to blasts?

 

Re: Minimum 1 per model vs. through the group, it's definitely not there, but I can't think of any game precedents where you choose how damage is distributed among a group, so think the easy assumption to make is it works like normal (per instance a model takes damage). It does take an assumption, but RAW is ambiguous enough (I don't think there are signs particularly pointing either way) that I'd fall back on RAI and assume consistency.

 

Again, not a mind-reader, just going off of precedent... There's a good chance it is just weird armor, but I don't think it's certain- I never felt like I was rules-lawyering a technicality when I had Metal on Metal's blast protection in mind (I don't think I've ever actually taken advantage of it in a game...)

[mythicFOX]

Re: No blast description, didn't Myyrä's comment just show precedent for modifying blast damage without specific reference to blasts?

 

Only in so far as it amends the damage track.  The blast rules allow that damage track to be applied to multiple models.  

 

There's nothing that says because a model amends the amount of damage an attack does when targeting it that will automatically apply to other models being damaged by the same attack. That's a significant assumption.

 

Re: Minimum 1 per model vs. through the group, it's definitely not there, but I can't think of any game precedents where you choose how damage is distributed among a group, so think the easy assumption to make is it works like normal (per instance a model takes damage). It does take an assumption, but RAW is ambiguous enough (I don't think there are signs particularly pointing either way) that I'd fall back on RAI and assume consistency.

 

The problem here it is the interpretation that this works unlike an Armor equivalent that leads us in to territory where we have to make these kinds of assumptions. In other words the rule doesn't actually WORK if you use this interpretation. 

 

Or you could use the interpretation where it's an Armor equivalent and the rule actually works without needing to make a bunch of extra assumptions.

 

So my point is not so much that I'm 100% sure its Armor equivalent, more that the other interpretation doesn't actually work in the rules as written. Therefore arguing that it should be played that way is to argue that the rules should be played in a way that doesn't work without a pile of assumptions. 

[SpiralngCadavr]

Re: The modified damage, I disagree: It's the difference between modifying damage input (once a model is hit with damage, it reduces the model's suffered damage) vs. modifying the attack's damage output (the damage an attack causes). The closest equivalents I can think of are Ice Gamin's modified damage track or hard to wound, both of which affect the entire attack (damage track and likelihood of causing more blasts, which effectively modifies the likelihood of other models suffering incidental damage). I don't think there's an assumption necessary there, just a close reading that matches already established rules.

 

Re: Necessary assumptions on 1 per model vs. group as problematic, I agree, however, I'd argue that saying it works like armor is also an assumption of intent.

 

This creates a tricky situation where you're needing to either assume a rule works the same way as other rules despite differences in language (armor equivalent), or assume how the rule works as written (blast damage reduction and how it's distributed), which I think makes both sides rather incomplete and inconclusive, since they both require an assumption.

[mythicFOX]

I think that's about as close to an understanding on the matter as we're going to get.

 

Unless anyone has anything major to add I think we can leave this here.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Yup, at least we're in agreement over the question