Ignoring armor vs irreducible damage

[yerati]

How works the Hoffman trigger "Temper Steel", that says armor cannot be ignored, against Pale Rider trigger "Devastation", that says suffer irreducible damage.

We play irreducible damage is not the same that ignores armor, so for example in the trigger of Rifleman with tome "Armor Piercing" says exactly "ignores Armor", so in last match we play the model suffer all the damage of Pale Rider, even if the model had the trigger "Temper Steel" (in this case, a Peacekeeper).

Are you agree? Thanks a lot

[mythicFOX]

So one of the original threads is here;  LINK

I'm also going to post the actual rules relevant to the discussion;

• 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."
• P3: "If two special rules directly contradict each other, rules that prevent something happening take precedent over rules which allow something to happen."

 

My train of logic on the topic, which no one (to my knowledge) has yet rebutted;

1. Armor is damage reduction, which is why it's in the scope of Irreducible damage to begin with.  
2. 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.  
3. Either Irreducible damage is a core rule and Temper Steel is a special rule, so temper steel has precedence, or alternatively it is preventing something and so takes precedence.  Either way Temper Steel wins.
4. The argument that Irreducible damage is not ignoring Armor falls on the wording of Irreducible damage quoted above, which says;  "Irreducible damage ignores damage reduction from all game effects."

 

I actually think the rules are really clear on this subject, once people take the time to read them.

[Adran]

3 hours ago, solkan said:

 

Even though Armor's only effect is to reduce damage, there is a difference between "ignores Armor" (which various effects explicitly say) and damage being "irreducible".

Irreducible damage is NOT ignoring Armor.  Irreducible damage is damage that Armor cannot reduce.

 

That's one argument.

The other is that all irreducible damage actually does ( By the word of the rules) is allow it to ignore damage reduction. And in the war between ignore and can't ignore, can't ignore wins. 

The two sides seem firmly trenched, but I'm on my phone so I can't link to the older threads with the argument. 

Best suggestion is to agree with opponent beforehand  how you will play it if Hoffman is on the table. 

 

[CD1248]

I think it's the other way. Armor is just a damage reduction from a specific game effect, and the definition of irreducible damage is that it "Ignores damage reduction from all game effects".

If the armor, which is damage reduction from a game effect, can't be ignored, then it follows that a rule which ignores damage reduction from game effects won't work.

[solkan]

For the record there have been at least two previous threads about this topic, and I can't at the moment produce links to them.

Even though Armor's only effect is to reduce damage, there is a difference between "ignores Armor" (which various effects explicitly say) and damage being "irreducible".

Irreducible damage is NOT ignoring Armor.  Irreducible damage is damage that Armor cannot reduce.

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

Agree with Adran, if something is ambiguous like this, best to talk to your playgroup.

[Ogid]

I'm with @Adran reading in this one, irreductible damage ignores all damage reduction by default (pg24); it doesn't say it cannot be ever reduced (irreductible damage is just a name; it could had been called "piercing damage" for example; what matters is the description of what it does, not the name of the type of damage).

"Temper Steel" makes that one damage reduction source (armor) cannot be ignored, for me makes sense "Temper Steel" is there to counter ignore armor and irreductible damage... but it's not 100% clear.

However this went through a beta, how was it played there?

[EnternalVoid]

This is going to have to be a FAQ ruling I believe in the end.  Like mentioned both sides are entrenched and both sides have valid arguments.  It is just a somewhat gray spot in the rules that can be taken certain ways depending on how you view it.

@Ogid as for the Beta, I believe it was debated there as well at one point and I do not think a true answer was given or reached.  I think part of the problem was it did not come up right away and thus went for a while before one person asked the question.  Then both sides popped up saying they have been playing it this way and found that they did not all agree.

[Ogid]

3 hours ago, EnternalVoid said:

I believe it was debated there as well at one point and I do not think a true answer was given or reached.  I think part of the problem was it did not come up right away and thus went for a while before one person asked the question.  Then both sides popped up saying they have been playing it this way and found that they did not all agree.

Ty for filling me about it. I'm a bit surprised the developers didn't answer questions about rules like that one in the beta... Rules played well are kind of important to get accurate feedback imo.

[EnternalVoid]

Oh they did answer a lot of questions, normally by making things clearer in the next update.  But you are also sort of dealing with only so many people shifting through the threads and they made it clear early on they put priority on battle reports as they supplied the most feedback.  Got to remember also is that as a forum threads could be knocked into the back burner and forgotten or overlooked.  Should it have gotten dealt with, yes in hindsight this one got past the net, but I am not surprised considering the posts involved through everything.

[Ogid]

3 hours ago, mythicFOX said:

My train of logic on the topic, which no one (to my knowledge) has yet rebutted;

1. Armor is damage reduction, which is why it's in the scope of Irreducible damage to begin with.  
2. 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.  
3. Either Irreducible damage is a core rule and Temper Steel is a special rule, so temper steel has precedence, or alternatively it is preventing something and so takes precedence.  Either way Temper Steel wins.
4. The argument that Irreducible damage is not ignoring Armor falls on the wording of Irreducible damage quoted above, which says;  "Irreducible damage ignores damage reduction from all game effects."

I agree with your reading on this topic, the only thing with I disagree is the point 3 about preventing something. Temper steel prevents the armor from being ignored but irreductible damage prevent the damage reduction from working in that damage, so it's a "tie" there. However as Irreductible damage is a core rule and Temper Steel is a special rule, so Temper steel should override the core rule.