M3e irreducible damage vs Hoffmans temper steel buff

[katadder]

I have a question regarding irreducible damage against hoffmans temper steel buff.

hoffmans buff says: Temper Steel:Friendly Construct only.Target Heals 1 and until the End Phase, its Armor Ability cannot be ignored.

there are rules that ignore armour, such as: Armor Piercing:When resolving, damage from this Action ignores Armor.

and specific weapons that state they ignore armour and in these cases hoffmans buff would work but what about against irreducible damage? As written I believe that irreducible damage still cant be reduced by armour as its not ignoring the armour as such.

[wizdom]

It seems to me that Hoffman's ability is definitely designed to turn off irreducible damage in this way.

Armor is damage reduction per the rules in the example given on page 24 of the rulebook.

Irreducible damage ignores damage reducing effects of all types.

Hoffman's ability says armor can't be ignored.

Hence, irreducible can't ignore it.

Hoffman wins. 

[Adran]

15 minutes ago, Kolath said:

Irreducible does not ignore armor, it ignores damage reduction. While this is usually mechanically equivalent to ignoring armor, in this case of Hoffman the nuance matters. Because irreducible doesn't mention armor at all Hoffman's ability doesn't work.

Now, if Hoffman's ability had said something like "Models always get their armor reduction regardless of any other effect" then we'd have a conflicting case where probably it would stop irreducible, but that's not the wording the designers chose.

The design intent of "irreducible" from the start has been "really, no kidding, this damage is going to happen to you." 

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think it holds out.

"Irreducible damage ignores damage reduction from all game effects." Is the current exact wording. It doesn't mention Armour specifically, but it does mention that it will ignore the effect.

Hoffmans ability says that you can't ignore the effect of Armour. Irreducible is trying to ignore the effect of armour according to its rules, so it can't.

[Adran]

9 minutes ago, Sol_Sorrowsong said:

So for full clarification then, since:

Then, Hoffman's Temper Steel does work. (Y/N?)

In my opinion yes Hoffmans temper steel does allow armour to reduce Irreducible damage. Because, as written, Irreducible damage ignores the damage reduction part of the armour ability to do its damage without being reduced, and its not allowed to when tempered steel is in effect

[Nikodemus]

1 hour ago, Sol_Sorrowsong said:

So for full clarification then, since:

Then, Hoffman's Temper Steel does work. (Y/N?)

"Irreducable" is a way of ignoring.

Hoffman says you can't ignore.

Hoff wins.

[wizdom]

12 minutes ago, Kolath said:

Irreducible does not ignore armor, it ignores damage reduction. While this is usually mechanically equivalent to ignoring armor, in this case of Hoffman the nuance matters. Because irreducible doesn't mention armor at all Hoffman's ability doesn't work.

Now, if Hoffman's ability had said something like "Models always get their armor reduction regardless of any other effect" then we'd have a conflicting case where probably it would stop irreducible, but that's not the wording the designers chose.

The design intent of "irreducible" from the start has been "really, no kidding, this damage is going to happen to you." 

I disagree.

I think you'll find that "Irreducible" doesn't actually mention anything, including armor, in the rules, so that doesn't really make sense to say "irreducible doesn't mention armor at all". It doesn't mention any specifics. It only says, per page 24:

"Irreducible damage ignores damage reduction from all game effects."

Let me emphasize that last part: "ALL GAME EFFECTS".

Armor is a game effect that reduces damage per page 24 of the rulebook which states:

"Armor +1: Reduce all damage suffered by this model by +1.”

Now, we've established that Armor is in fact a game effect that reduces damage. That is not disputable. It's clearly in the rulebook.

Let's break it down... "Irreducible IGNORES DAMAGE REDUCTION from ALL GAME EFFECTS".

That means Irreducible ignores Armor.

Hoffman's ability reads... "Temper Steel:Friendly Construct only.Target Heals 1 and until the End Phase, its Armor Ability cannot be ignored."

Emphasis: "Armor Ability CANNOT BE IGNORED"

Irreducible IGNORES damage reduction (which we've defined Armor as one type of).

Temper Steel makes it so Armor CANNOT BE IGNORED.

Irreducible tries to IGNORE a damage reducing game effect (Armor) that CANNOT BE IGNORED and therefore fails.

In addition, card rules win over core rules per Page 3.

I understand you're fighting for the "spirit" of the rules here, but I believe you to be completely wrong on this one. Hoffman's ability is using the same language - "ignore". Unless Wyrd rewords this to define "ability" and "effect" differently, which they use interchangeably throughout the rulebook, Hoffman's Temper Steel applies Armor, even to irreducible damage.

[mythicFOX]

So relevant rules;

• P24:  "Irreducible damage ignores damage reduction from all game effects."
• Hoffman's Temper Steel: ... "until the End Phase, its Armor Ability cannot be ignored."
• "Armor +2: Reduce all damage suffered by this model by +2."
• P3:  When a special rule explicitly contradicts the core rules, follow the special rule rather than the core rule.

Armor is a game effect which reduces damage, which is why it's in the scope of Irreducable damage to begin with.  

Armor literally only does one thing, so to state that it cannot be ignored can only mean it's damage reduction cannot be ignored.  There is no other possible meaning of the Temper Steel ability.  

A reminder as well that Irreducible damage is a core rule and Temper Steel is a special rule, so temper steel has precedence. 

[wizdom]

3 hours ago, Sol_Sorrowsong said:

So for full clarification then, since:

Then, Hoffman's Temper Steel does work. (Y/N?)

My vote is yes, it works. Armor is clearly a damage reducing effect per the example on Page 24.

Temper Steel says Armor can't be ignored.

[TheOtherMichael]

I agree with @Adran. Under damage reduction it clearly says irreducible ignores damage reduction from ALL game effects, all includes Hoffman and anything else possible

[Adran]

34 minutes ago, katadder said:

I have a question regarding irreducible damage against hoffmans temper steel buff.

hoffmans buff says: Temper Steel:Friendly Construct only.Target Heals 1 and until the End Phase, its Armor Ability cannot be ignored.

there are rules that ignore armour, such as: Armor Piercing:When resolving, damage from this Action ignores Armor.

and specific weapons that state they ignore armour and in these cases hoffmans buff would work but what about against irreducible damage? As written I believe that irreducible damage still cant be reduced by armour as its not ignoring the armour as such.

Current beta rules state (Page 24) Damage reduction

"Irreducible damage ignores damage reduction from all game effects. "

 

So it is ignoring the armour

[Sol_Sorrowsong]

So for full clarification then, since:

53 minutes ago, Adran said:

Current beta rules state (Page 24) Damage reduction

"Irreducible damage ignores damage reduction from all game effects. "

 

So it is ignoring the armour

Then, Hoffman's Temper Steel does work. (Y/N?)

[katadder]

Not sure

Happy to be proven wrong but thats why I asked the question.

[Kolath]

Irreducible does not ignore armor, it ignores damage reduction. While this is usually mechanically equivalent to ignoring armor, in this case of Hoffman the nuance matters. Because irreducible doesn't mention armor at all Hoffman's ability doesn't work.

Now, if Hoffman's ability had said something like "Models always get their armor reduction regardless of any other effect" then we'd have a conflicting case where probably it would stop irreducible, but that's not the wording the designers chose.

The design intent of "irreducible" from the start has been "really, no kidding, this damage is going to happen to you." 

[Franchute]

3 minutes ago, Kolath said:

Irreducible does not ignore armor, it ignores damage reduction. While this is usually mechanically equivalent to ignoring armor, in this case of Hoffman the nuance matters. Because irreducible doesn't mention armor at all Hoffman's ability doesn't work.

If you interpret armor as a subcategory of damage reduction, then @Nikodemusand @wizdom are correct.

5 minutes ago, Kolath said:

The design intent of "irreducible" from the start has been "really, no kidding, this damage is going to happen to you." 

Not sure, when did that happen? My impression is that the intention  was actually to make things more homogenous rulewise. In this sense, when hoffman decides you cant ignore the armor of his guardian then you can never go through armor, whether the damage is irreducible or not.

Hoffman wins.

It's not the first time I have read about this question though. It sounds like @Kyle and @matt should give an answer soon.

[BaronDG]

Funny, when I clicked on this thread I thought Hoffman would win, but now I have completely changed my mind. 

[Adran]

1 hour ago, BaronDG said:

Funny, when I clicked on this thread I thought Hoffman would win, but now I have completely changed my mind. 

What caused you to change your mind?

[Alerteddonkey42]

5 hours ago, Kolath said:

Irreducible does not ignore armor, it ignores damage reduction. While this is usually mechanically equivalent to ignoring armor, in this case of Hoffman the nuance matters. Because irreducible doesn't mention armor at all Hoffman's ability doesn't work.

This. irreducible damage doesn't ignore armor, only the reduction. 

4 hours ago, wizdom said:

"Irreducible damage ignores damage reduction from all game effects."

Even this direct quote from the rulebook backs up this perspective. It does not say it ignores the damage reduction ability (armor), only that it ignores the damage reduction. Hoffman says that "its armor ability cannot be ignored." Hoffman doesn't say anything about preventing you from ignoring reduction.

[Franchute]

1 hour ago, BaronDG said:

Funny, when I clicked on this thread I thought Hoffman would win, but now I have completely changed my mind. 

I dont understand. Which issue did you find in the the proof by @wizdom and @Adran? It seems pretty convincing to me.

[BaronDG]

Armour is one thing, irreducable damage is another. 

A ronins daito ignores armour but obviously Hoffman would trumph that. 

Marlena websters ability to take a wound for nonminion team members, soul tether, has to clarify that it works even on irreducible damage. 

I think that they would have included that in Hoffmans ability if they meant it to change such a foundamental rule. 

[BaronDG]

You do make a good case and I admit that I am far from certain. I hope they clarify things. 

 

However, the ability have uses against ”ignore armour” triggers even if it doesn’t work on ”irreducible damage”. 

[BigStick]

I feel that this issue will turn on the nuance of the terms used on each card. I think MythicFox gave a very good break down but it does raise the question what happens when a card effect states that armour can not be ignored and another card states that damaged is irreducible.

Where I think that the nuance comes in is that the terms seem to be very specific. Armour reduces damage, ‘armour piercing’ (whatever the effect is called) effects negate the armour and armour can not be ignored prevents the ‘armour piercing’ effect. The point I’m trying to make is that irreducible damage or damage may not be reduced appears to negate the ‘armour can not be ignored’ as it does not specifically reference the armour keyword. I think that this is done on purpose to allow a very specific type of damage to be inflicted with no ability to prevent it. There does appear to be precedent for this in that many abilities allow for ‘this attack ignores armour’ which is different to ‘this damage is irreducible’. I’m inclined to agree with Kolath, that irreducible damage is simply that, irreducible. No game effect can stop it. One thing is obvious that I thing we can all agree on, is that we really need an FAQ on this matter.

Thanks for reading