Right now, without a proper RA, all we can do is speculate. However, Hair10 has gone on the record as having discussed this with Seth, and says that the damage dealt is not intended to be modified at all. Not increased, not reduced. People who don't like this idea are not listening to Hair10 'cause they don't have to, but I have no good reason to think he's making the whole thing up. That's what I think.

To me, there seems to be a missing step in there somewhere when we try to think of damage reducing powers as modifiers. I've been trying to figure out where that is (besides the phrasing of damage reducers and penetrating damage descriptions that mention nothing about being 'modifiers'), and I think I may have found it.

On the Supernova map, when a fig occupies space terrain and doesn't get knocked back by a 'normal' roll of doubles, the character still gets knocked back "a number of squares equal to the damage dealt -2". Now, many good members of the 'Realms are quick to point out that you should pay attention to that, because 'normal' knockback would be equal to the number of clicks taken, while space terrain knockback comes from damage dealt(minus 2, of course).

If we treat damage reducing powers as nothing more than negative modifiers to damage dealt, wouldn't the damage dealt and damage taken end up being the same? I mean, after all 'modifiers' (plusses from the attacker's team, minuses from the target's damage reduction) are applied, we should arrive at what should be the final damage dealt total... which would also be exactly the damage taken. There would be no difference between the number of spaces normal knockback's damage taken would move the target and the number of spaces that the Supernova map space terrain knockback's damage dealt would move the target (before the -2 is applied).

So, even though it many would have us believe that damage reduction powers are nothing more than modifiers, it seems we've all probably been playing things differently, applying damage reduction to damage taken (which is a number like any other in the game) and therefore arriving occasionally at two different values - a damage dealt number that applies before damage reduction comes in, and the damage taken number, after damage reduction.

Of course, the desire is to try to take the card at face value and try to believe it was intended the way it was written. However, I must admit, I thought from the very first time I saw the Meteorite previewed that it was ridden with typos and mistakes. Modifying the damage value (instead of the damage dealt like every other object)? Making the parameters of that dmg value modification +1 to a possible +4 (which would be nerfed by the Rule of 3)? No further modifiers (killing the Critical Hit bonus)? It all seemed convoluted and in great need of immediate errata... which of course we didn't see.

I have no problem with something new coming into the game... but I do have a problem with its implications. Sure, in the very set that gives us 3 new characters with the Power Cosmic(4 if you count mail-away Doom) is a new object that, by the interpretation of many, allows it to bypass the un-Outwittable Impervious on those characters for a nice close combat hit. On the surface, this seems a good thing... and it seems to make some sense. A fiery ball of space rock entering the atmosphere could certainly do more damage than a regular heavy object... and it might also be radioactive, somehow bypassing the physical protection many characters have.

However, what is not good about Meteorite is that, if its damage dealt is finally officially ruled to ignore damage reducers, it allows the already nasty big damage HSS SStr figs to dominate even more than they did before. Take the Man of Steel (or any of the other 5dmg HSS bricks)... For no extra cost, he can pop an opposing Tuf/Inv/Imp for a minimum 6 (and possibly 8) unavoidable clix. Coupled with the ability to run and hide afterward, this puts Thanos' 4dmg PsyBlast to shame... and all for 67pts less than the mad Titan. This leaves plenty of room on a 300pt force for PC to make sure the Meteorite attack hits, and other help to gain the advantage over other characters who do not have the deadly HSS SStr combo. Sure, the Meteorite gets only a single use... but that use would be devastating. Also, let's not forget that, normally, HSS figs are barred from using attacks like Psyblast or EW. Since those are ranged/close actions and not basic attacks, their penetrating damage is not accessible to a fig who wants the move-&-attack advantage of HSS. For figs that have both HSS and PB or EW (Shazam, etc.), they've always had to choose: HSS or penetrating attack, not both. Should a free-to-use object be able to forget about those game-balancing ideas and allow already deadly HSS/SStr characters to also gain a penetrating damage option?

Personally, I'd like to see the card errata'd one way or the other, so there's no longer any argument. Editing it to 'penetrating damage' (the accepted term for what many think the "can't otherwise be modified" phrase means) would eliminate any further debate... but, of course, I'm hoping it will go the other way. A couple possible 'fixes':

1 - Change the modifier to damage dealt, & take away the penetrating: Since damage dealt is not a combat value, the Rule of 3 would no longer apply to such a modifer, so we'd be back to a possible 1 to 4 damage bonus from the object. With such a high bonus possible in addition to the SStr character's dmg, there would be no need for the damage to be penetrating.

2 - Make it penetrating, but only applicable to the damage the object deals itself: To avoid the HSS brick dangers outlined above, why not make only the object's damage penetrating, not the character's? In other words, the result of the d6 roll minus -2 (subject to Rule of 3) is all the penetrating damage you get... the rest of the character's 'normal' damage would still be subject to damage reducers.

No matter how the penetrating issue is ruled, I hope the Meteorite die roll is ruled that it cannot be affected by PC (logic similar to Earthquake - PC targets rolls made for characters, not the objects they might carry).

Uh.. yes. Which is the way it is handled. I take it by your post, you never say this little tidbit that Seth posted in the initial discussion over the Space Map rules (post #20 in this thread):

However, since you seem to be really hot on this issue (I am basing that assumption on the rather long, even for you , post) just remember that everything released in any given set doesn't always have to make sense for that particular set. Meaning, we didn't get a GL character until Cosmic Justice... but the GL TA was on the Hypertime PAC. Or why on earth should Seth Volker LE from Ultimates have Phasing when he's already got Serpent Society TA... and then along comes the Passenger feat in Mutant Mayhem about three months later.

Maybe, just maybe, the particular wording for the space rules (and Meteorite, for that matter) were chosen because the game designers already have something else in mind coming out in a soon to be released set. Or maybe they are just typos and errors that need errata. We don't know; we're not the game designers.

I could write a whole lot more on this, but it is late and I am tired. So how about I close with this:

Judges who are doing what they are supposed to be doing (reading the WK boards and keeping abreast of the current rulings) will have seen the posts about how Meteorite was handled at WWT... which, according to the same posts, was the way Seth wanted it. Hopefully, those Judges will then rule accordingly until an official E&C is released.

Meantime, Judges who either missed those posts (it happens) or don't ever bother going to the WK forums to look in the first place (You know who you are ) will rule however they see fit. Some of it may be in line with the WWT rulings, others not.

In other words, it won't be any different than any other newly released mechanic that people are unclear on. We've survived before, we will do so again

Hmmm, well it seems then the meteorite is still subject to interpretation. I guess the best thing would be to not use the meteorite until there is an official clarification. The only problem being that even if I don't use it, there is a good chance my opponent will use it, and be able to smack me for 8 penetrating damage! Ugggh!

Theorectically, the Supernova figs, cards, and objects won't be "legal" until like November 28, so maybe there will be some clarification before then. All I know is that if I see an opponent playing the meteorite, my first and most important objective will be to either grab it or destroy it!

Oh well - you can't blame a guy for trying. By the way, the map article to which Prophus refers in that thread still hasn't been edited to correctly reflect a clear understanding of the HC rules. And nope, never saw the 'tidbit' before you pointed it out. Really, though... should anyone have to try to find an obscure Realms thread to see that the game designer owned up to making a fairly common HC mistake? There are many out there (players and Judges alike), who play damage dealt and damage taken as two different numbers: 'dealt' as the max dmg the attacker achieves, and 'taken' as that dealt number minus damage reducing powers/effects. When the current designer of the game makes the same mistake, is it difficult to see how many out there can't agree that a 'no further modifiers' phrase (written by that same designer) somehow equals 'penetrating damage'? Couldn't the phrasing on Meteorite be another mistake by Prophus, or another misunderstanding of the rules that hasn't yet been pointed out to him?
Well, I have to admire your optimism there. What you might refer to as 'forethought and planning', I might refer to as 'attempting to make up for past mistakes'. For the record, though, I'm not a pessimist... I'm more of a realist. To me, the more likely, logical reality in the Seth Voelker example you pointed out is that Voelker was a screw up... and it's very easy for someone to say they planned something all along when no one can prove they didn't. Voelker/Sidewinder's ability to rescue his captured Serpent teammates was already represented by each of those teammates being given a Phase/Teleport TA (because those characters don't have Phase/Teleport powers). Passenger, as its pic indicates, was really designed for Cloak and other Phase/Teleport figs who regularly carry others (but are not Serpents, as that was taken care of already by the sharing of Sidewinder's abilities among his team). Saying Passenger had Voelker in mind would be about as believable as Prophus stating his wife, Morgan Fairchild, said it would be a good idea to put Voelker and Passenger out in separate sets.

Again, I'm admiring your optimism... thinking that every Judge who sees a forum ruling will follow it. Everyone seems to forget that a WK forum ruling, while considered 'official' in WK's vernacular, is not an enforceable ruling. Judges can decide, even after seeing what other Judges have ruled on the forum, whether they agree and want to rule the same way. Players out there cannot count on a ruling going a certain way at any particular venue until the ruling is published in a public document... and a player pointing out a forum ruling to a Judge might get nothing more than, "Yes, I know, and I don't agree. Here, it's ruled differently until an E&C or FAQ makes it official."

{By the way, with hair10 gone and no replacement coming in yet (as far as I know), who exactly is making the ruling regarding Meteorite on the WK forum? If that person does not hold RA status, I'd submit that the person's ruling holds no more weight than any other local Judge.}

Hey all,
Scholarx, nice commentary on the damage taken/damage dealt issue. I think it's so convoluted now, that WK might need to come out with a special errata to cover it, just so that issues like this Meteorite don't come up again.

I believe the rule book does reference "damage taken" though, so again, one more reason why WK may need to specifically address this issue! I think the major problem is the wording on the damage reducing powers, which specifically reduce damage dealt. I think the damage reducing powers should use the damage dealt value to calculate damage taken, but the damage reducers should not reduce damage dealt itself.

Here's an example of how I would officially make it:
Damage Dealt = Damage Value + Object Bonus + Critical Hit
Damage Taken = Damage Dealt - Damage Reducer (+ Armor Wars and/or Armor Piercing Damage if Damage is reduced or Damage Taken = 0 when applicable) + Ground Zero damage when applicable

Damage reducers should not act on Damage Dealt itself, period, but unfortunately, that is exactly what the PAC says!

I still am 99% sure damage reducers such as Imperv can and should be used when calculating damage taken when the Meteorite is used. I dread having the thing played against me using the "penetrating damage" ruling, and then finding out later that it was never supposed to be like that. If I was a judge at the current moment, I would ban the Meteorite (or ignore it's special rules) until an official ruling is given. I think we can do without the meteorite until an official ruling is made.

The only people who would want to rush the meteorite into play would want to do so because of it's cheesy flavor, and the possibility of doing 9 damage ignoring damage reducers. Uggggh.

Well, for those of (us) that realllly dislike the EW aspect of the card, there's a chance a 2007 PAC may change into a concept like brevard321 is describing...

I wonder if Meteorite was released in A DC set as "Krptonite" if it would have created such a stir as this.

Really, how much can one object (which works in limited cercumstances and can only be used once per game at that, unlike the Generator and Dumpster ) nerf any team or strategy?

Since what is currently being put out regarding this object by the PTB say the object modifies the Damage Value, this is only possible for Ultimates Hulk on his 6 Damage Value click 1 in 3 times he uses the object in a CC Attack. If any one pulls that off, they earned it as far as I can tell!

BoT

Hey all,
Clixer, I hope there is some change or at least clarification to the damage dealt situation, but it will probably be summer time by the new PAC comes out, huh?

Boot, you're right about the fact that it is kind of a difficult feat to pull off. I was thinking of Vet Supes using the Met. and rolling a 6. So now there is another confusion with the card, because I think that because it's an object, Supes should be able to use the +4 bonus, but you indicated that he should only be able to use a +3 bonus because of the Rule of 3.

Man, what a mess! That is two separate contested "issues" within one Feat card. It's more confusing than Lazarus Pit and ICWO combined!

It probably would if Supes was able to use it...
...which seems to be the primary worry about Meteorite as well. Allowing already high damage value HSS + SStr characters the added ability of doing a penetrating damage attack (something the use of HSS would normally prevent), with a +1 to +3 bonus to that big damage, is a bit of a giant leap for HC. It's not surprising that many of us think it's a leap in the wrong direction.

Does the EW-like effect work when using the object in a HSS attack?

Unlike all those powers that don't work with HSS because they require a separate actions, Meteorite is just an object (requiring SuStr) so it does work with HSS.