Bunker's incapacitated side question

I'm a little fuzzy on the wording of Bunker's 2nd incapacitated ability.  "Select a hero, prevent the next 2 damage dealt to that hero."

Does this mean prevent the next 2 instances of damage dealt?

It means the next time Bunker is dealt damage, reduce that damage by 2.

Which version of the game do you have? Other instances of the use of the word 'prevent' have been revised. That one may have been at some point, too.

I have the Enhanced edition of the game.

Is there an official ruling somewhere for this?

If you're reading Bunker's Incapacitated abilities, arenson, he's beyond having damage dealt to him reduced.

The target of that power has the next damage directed at him/her reduced by 2 points. Not instances of damage. Just the very next damage they would take is reduced by 2.

However, as it's prevent that damage rather than reduce it, it also works against irreducible damage.

You can also stack it - if your chosen target hasn't been attacked by the next time your (Bunker's) turn comes around again, you can apply the damage prevention again to the same target, meaning the next time they get hit, they instead get to ignore (up to) four points of damage. Note that if they were going to get hit for less than four, you prevent all of it but don't get to keep any spare "prevention points" (as with Wraith's Stealth, though that's only reduction, not prevention). Also, it's only one instance of damage - say they're going to be hit by Apostate's end-of-turn damage (H-2 Infernal and H-2 Mélee I believe), the prevention would only apply to the first hit, not the second.

That seems strange that you can 'prevent' a portion of damage dealt to a hero.  For example, if a Villain was dealing 3 irreducible damage to a hero that had used Bunker's power, then that hero could 'prevent' 2 of that damage and only take 1 damage.  That logic sounds like a broken game mechanic that could potentially cause issues.

Why is it any worse than reduce?

I've played other games where the wording on cards is very critical.  If the intention of the text is to reduce damage, then it should read reduce. 

I don't know if anyone remembers the Star Wars Customizable Card Game by Decipher?  That game ran into issues with wording on cards when additional expansions were released.  Because in the earlier expansions they would use 2 or 3 words to mean the same thing, then later on they had to go back and make special rulings on each word used so that the card played as intended.  It became a little confusing and messy.

Reduce cannot reduce irreducible damage. Prevent does. They therefore do differnet things and use differnet words.

Also you said it was broken. I would like to hear how you think it is broken, which usually means spectacularly ovber or under powered compared to other options.

There are cards that use the term reduce, prevent is another type of reduction with its own special interaction with irreducible damage.

If it says "Prevent", then its intention is to prevent instead of reduce. Preventing damage can affect irreducable damage.

I don't think anything is broken yet.  My Spidey sense was just tingling, after the above conversation, finding out that a portion of an instance of damage can be prevented even if it's irreducible.  That just sounded weird.

I'm just wondering if, in future expansions, cards will need extra additional wording if it wants to get around preventing a portion of damage and reducing damage? 

I'm not quite sure what you are you talking about, do you mean damage being irreducible even by prevent effects?

If so, I highly doubt it. We already have irreducible damage and having a second level of irreducibility seems redundant when prevention effects are few and far between.

I don't see why there would be a need. "Prevention" is not very common and usually has restrictions (think Fanatic's Undaunted)

Thanks for all your responses!  I'm glad to see that most of you who responded are playtesters.

That way in future expansions we won't see on a card: "Avert the next prevention of irreducible damage."

Ha. That's just silly, we all know that the next expansion will include "unpreventable" damage, which can still be reduced...

fixed that for you.

I don't get the logic behind this part, can someone explain it to me? If Bunker used incapacitated ability twice and a hearo gets attacked for 3, than it seems to me like he should still have 1 damage prevented in the future, since nothing says "the next time a hero would be dealt damage" or anything like that.

I just figured it worked the same as Stealth, in which all points of it are lost the minute you'd take damage (so if you redirect, it stays as the damage is no longer attempting to apply itself to you), regardless of how much damage you would've taken (so if you'd stacked your Stealth up to six points but only got plinked for one, it doesn't matter - you still lose all six points rather than getting to keep five of them).

The wording is different though. Stealth reads

"Reduce the next damage that would be dealt to the Wraith by 2"

This is clear that the next 1 instance of damage would be reduced by 2.

The ability being discussed reads

"Prevent the next 2 damage dealt to that hero"

As the OP pointed out, its really ambugious compared to other similar abilities. Doesn't say that it only activates the next time a hero would be damage, just "the next 2 damage". Sounds to me like it could prevent 1 damage from 1 attack, and then another 1 damage from another attack as those would be the next 2 damage dealt to that hero.

I would have to agree that the way it is written it prevents the next two damage whether they come in a single instance or in different instances. It also doesn't seem like it would be stackable. Only the next 2 damage would be prevented regardless of how many times the incapacitated power was activated

Hmm, but any time something affects "the next X damage" it always stacks - Stealth, DW Expatriette's incap, etc...

Hmmmm. I think that may be the difference between "reduce by" (which I think of as subtract from) and "prevent" (which I see as imagine it just doesn't exist)... Although since nothing really happens simultaneously in this game the I imagine 3 instances of "Prevent 2" applied in succession could logically be equivalent to "Prevent 6"... so I guess the argument could go either way...

I mean... NO, YOU ARE WRONG!!!

Forgot my internet forum etiquette for a second. 


I am as confused as ever to how this power would work, I'm actually on the fence on both how many times it will prevent damage (either just the next instance or until it presents everything promised) and how much it will prevent (always 2 or 2 for each time it was used since).

Got this game about a month ago.  I'm really enjoying it, but struggling with a couple of issues.  Reading through the forums helps some, but it's obvious this game is pretty new by some standards.

Was there ever an official ruling on this?  Is it the next two damage, as in the next two damages, or the next two damage on the next instance of damage?

The other night I had 3 heroes and Bunker and Haka both bit the dust.  So I had Bunker's incapacitated power of "Prevent the next two damage dealt to that hero" along with Haka's "decrease the next damage ... by two."

What would be a good pragmatic way to track both of these powers as they stack?  And how is each one dealt with differently?  I took a "Immune to Damage" token and stacked counters on top of it for Bunker's, and then I took a "Takes -1 Damage" and stacked counters on top of that for Haka's.  In what instances are each one "wiped" and in what instances do counters come off individually?  Thanks in advance.

Doesn't matter how much you have stacked. The first instance will wipe the pile.