Fixer's Jack Handle/Dual Crowbars and increased damage (again)

There is a question over a BGG that we would like some additional clarification on:

Quote from BGG poster MrFettucine :

So I had not used Mr. Fixer or Parse too much but I got them in a game and they seem to be a very potent combo. With Parse's Critical Multiplier, she can increase his damage by however many card's she discards. My friend had that out twice and discarded 3 cards (from one of her one shots), triggering his next attack to be +6. I had Jack Handle out with Mr. Fixer. And so if I read it correctly, he would hit all non-hero targets with 7 damage on his Strike power.

From my understanding, this is different from other area attacks from other heroes because only the first hit to a target would be +6 and the rest would be normal. But since Jack Handle says whenever he would deal damage to a target, he deals that much to all non-hero targets resulting in 7 damage to everyone except for heroes. It looks like Dual Crowbars would cause that damage increase to both targets hit as well.

I think I am looking at it correctly and if so, Parse and Mr. Fixer are a match made in heaven.

http://boardgamegeek.com/article/16889206#16889206

The question has basically come down to the disconnect between "next damage" and "nothing is SotM is simultaneous"

Also, another bit that came up is how much damage would Fixer deal if he targeted himself with his Strike power with Bloody Knuckles and Jack Handle in play. Since he would deal himself 5 damage is that 5 damage to all non-hero targets?

I've actually asked Christopher about Jack Handle in person. How Jack Handle is intended to work is you read Strike (or really anytime he deals damage) as Mr. Fixer deals all non-hero targets 1 melee damage. So Fixer would deal 7 damage to the first target and 1 to the rest.

Here's a link to where I posted a few rules questions, the first being the relevant one.

https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/answers-to-debated-questions-3871

1st target struck only takes the damage. After that it's not the 'next attack'.

No because when he hits someone else, he's not hitting himself so Bloody Knuckles won't activate twice, doesn't matter that he tried to hit himself. New target=reassess the damage.

This isn't a card that has Errata to it that I know of and that seems like a big/unnecessary nerf to Jack Handle.   While I understand there was a ruling, I think in games I play with Mr Fixer with my friends I would play it like the card reads.  Which inthis case dealing the same seven damage to the other targets accounting for DR or immunity on those other targets if they have it.  

But that is your interpretation of what the card reads.

I read it like this:

Mr Fixer uses strike to deal 1 target 1 damage, instead he deals all targets that damage, then you modify it.

You are increasing the next damage dealt, but Fixer changes the target before the damage is dealt, so before the damage is alterred.

There is a big difference between nerfing something and a clarification of how something is intended to work. It's the latter in this case.

Then the card should read more like that.  It's not a very good ruling based on the text on the card.   It says he would have to deal damage and without that bonus damage he may not be dealing any damage at all this causing it to fizzle altogether.   For example, if for some reason he tried to attack a target immune to damage then I don't think Jack Handle should still allow him to deal all non hero targets damage based on the wording.  

it makes Jack Handle less desirable to play and that falls into nerfing.  Even if it is just a clarification.  

When something is nerfed, it is a change to the original intent of the card to make it weaker. This is explaining the original intent of the card, not altering that intent in the least.

Then the original intent was portrayed poorly on the card.   The original intent alters how the card works and does nerf what it does compared to what it says.  

That is what you interpret the card to say man.

This isn't a massive point of confusion, you interpreted the card wrongly.  That's why there is clarification.

If you think the card should be worded differently post the clearer wording. (it needs to stay under 250 characters with spaces)

Text on cards has been changed for future printings before.

It alters how your interpretation of how the card works. There are many who have always played it using the original intent, because that is how we interpreted the card. Since this card was able to be interpretted multiple ways, it needed a clarification. This makes the card only weaker from your interpretation, while the other interpretation and original intent has remained unchanged.

Things that alter the damage of your "next attack" only work for one target. Look at Haka of Battle + his big battle stick. Only the first of his two targets would get the increased damage from the haka.

Then how that work with a charge then?  Shouldn't that deal 2 damage to each non hero target.  It's not using the strike so it should not be dealing a base of one melee damage.

What about the Dual Crowbars?  I don't see that question answered. 

Dual Crowbars is the second question from Ronway's link.

That one I understand with Taiaha because it lists that you can deal up to two targets 3 damage.  It would be different if the on Haka of Battle it said until end of your turn or if Taiaha said deal a target damage and you may deal another target that same damage but they don't.  In cases of Embolden there was a card with errata and the intent at least seemed to be there that you are supposed to take damage.   With Jack Handle the intent doesn't seem to be that you only use your base strike as the damage for the other targets.  

The second question/answer from that doesn't really clarify anything for me.

Really? Fine if we really have to do this.

If Fixer has Jack Handle in play, and plays charge, read charge as "deal all non-hero targets 2 melee damage."

If Fixer has obtained the Rod of Anubis and uses it's power while wielding Jack handle, read it as "deal all non-hero targets 2 infernal damage."

If Fixer is facing Plague Rat and is Fixer is infected with Jack Handle, read the infection as "deal all non-hero targets 1 toxic damage."

If Fixer is facing Plague Rat and is Fixer is infected with Jack Handle and Afflicted Frenzy is in play, read the Afflicted Frenzy as "deal all non-hero targets X melee damage."

If Fixer is facing The Ennead and Osiris is in play, when an Ankh card enters the trash while Fixer has Jack Handle, read Osiris' card as "deal each non-hero target 1 infernal damage."

If Fixer is facing Iron Legacy a Demoralizing Presence is in play, then read it as "deal all non-hero targets 1 psychic damage."

Do I need to continue, or have you gotten the point?

Since apparently all I'm accomplishing is aggravating folks I'll just drop it then.   

I'd have played it like the OP did - Parse discards cards until Fixer has +6 on his next attack, then Fixer does Strike, which does 7 damage, and Jack Handle, which says "whenever Mr. Fixer would deal damage to a target, he deals that much damage to all non-hero targets" makes it so that all non-hero targets take 7 damage.  Seems pretty straight forward to me.

The +6 damage was to his Strike, which was his "next time he deals damage", so that's taken care of.  Then Jack Handle takes that 7 damage, which is the "whenever Mr. Fixer would deal damage to a target", and applies it to all non-hero targets.  The damage isn't being modified anymore after the initial Strike, so there's no more "the first time" to worry about.  It's 7 (minus any DR the targets have, of course).

If Jack Handles said "whenever Mr. Fixer would use a power to deal damage to a target, he uses that power to damage all non-hero targets", I'd see everyone's point and say that the 7 damage was for the first hit but the others were normal unmodified Strikes.  But it says you take the damage you would have dealt (7) and deal that to all non-hero targets.

Here's what I have in my FAQ about this:

lastly, what exactly does “that much damage” mean? it means that whatever amount of damage was dealt after taking into account all modifiers is what is dealt to all non-hero cards, with no further modification. so, If mr. Fixer would deal 1 damage plus 2 due to modifiers, 3 damage is how much is done to all non-hero targets, not the 3 plus another 2. 

Further, it says

Which makes it very clear that it's not the first damage is buffed but the others are not.  The first damage is prevented and is replaced by that same amount of damage to all non-hero targets. Unless that's now wrong somehow, that seems to cover it.

Your FAQ is wrong.

As I said, directly from Christopher was Jack Handle is automatic, you read the cards that have Mr. Fixer deal damage to a target as dealing damage to all non-hero targets instead.

The reason you would deal 3 damage to all non-hero targets with Bloody Knuckles and Jack Handle in play is not because you first declare a target then all non-hero targets take the damage instead, preventing the first target from taking the inital selection. You deal all non-hero targets 3 damage because you read Strike as dealing all non-hero targets 1 melee damage, then when you are dealing damage to them all, you add the plus 2 for BLoody Knuckles. This is why you cannot select Mr. Fixer as the target, thus dealing 5 damage to all non-hero targets instead.

Let me approach this from a different perspective that might make it easier to understand. Before we even start talking about jack handle, let’s go through the basic order of operations when you deal damage:

1) Determine attack type type (not relevant to this conversation.

2) Determine base attack (the number listed on the card that is dealing the damage).

3) Determine all modifiers, you can choose the order.

4) If the number is greater than 0, reduce hp by that amount (obviously, not if they are immune).

Let’s focus on step #3. In this step you take all modifiers into account: plus/minus of the attacker, and plus/minus of the defender. You can choose the order that all of these modifiers come into effect. For example, if the target has -1 damage reduction, and the attacker has +1 damage, you can either do +1 - 1 or -1 + 1. There will be many times will it simply will not matter, but sometimes it can. The point is that all modifiers are assessed at the same time.

Using this basic order of operations that is used in every situation in SotM, we can understand how Jack Handles work. There are essentially three options:

A) Only taking some modifiers into account:

1) Determine attack type.

2) Determine base damage.

3) Determine all modifiers that only apply to the attacker.

4) Calculate this damage and apply it to all non-villain targets

5) For each target, determine their modifiers (it makes no sense to ignore these modifiers and actually deal damage based on step #4).

6) If the number is greater than 0, reduce hp (if not immune).

I really don’t see how the card can drastically affect the order of operations, there is nothing in the card itself that says you only take certain modifiers into account first, then others later. To say this would be a big stretch.

B) Determine all modifiers, then change source:

1) Determine attack type type.

2) Determine base attack (the number listed on the card that is dealing the damage).

3) Determine all modifiers, you can choose the order.

4) If the number is greater than 0, ignore this attack, and deal that same hp that would be loss to all non-villain targets, modified for the individual targets.

In theory, this might be a good interpretation, except that we have a ruling that says it isn’t. If this was the way everything was handled, then Fixer could hit himself with Bloody Knuckles to deal everyone else 5 damage, but we know that he can’t. So, this one is out too.

C) Determine only base damage:

1) Determine attack type.

2) Determine base damage.

3) Calculate base damage and apply it to all non-villain targets.

4) Determine all modifiers for each target, you can choose the order.

5) If the number is greater than 0, reduce hp by that amount for each target (obviously, not if they are immune).

Essentially, by necessity, this is the only interpretation that fits. If so, only the first target would get the bonus damage.

It seems pretty clear to me. Here are the stages of dealing damage:

1. Decide to attack a target.

2. You now would deal damage - Jack Handle triggers and changes the target at this stage.

3. You now Deal damage. Parse's Critical Multiplier, Haka of Battle, and other buffs trigger at this stage.

Note that in all current cases, you cannot change the damage being dealt before Jack Handle activates, since 'would deal damage' must always come before 'actually deal damage'.

There has been a lot of talk about "would deal damage" triggering before "deal damage", but we know that isn't true, based on the old Superhuman Durability and Fortitude ruling. The original ruling said that card play mattered, but it shouldn't have if "would be dealt" triggered first.

If the info I have on Jack Handles is wrong, I'd love to update it.  I hate to completely reverse a previous ruling without something official I can link to though.  Maybe Christopher could chime in with something quotable?

What I find interesting is that there's no "instead" -- and on other cards, if there's no "instead" it should not be implied. For example, Police Backup ("Whenever a villain card would make a player discard a card, destroy this card") does not prevent the discard. 

I play Jack Handles as I read it - do the initial damage as normal. Take the actual damage dealt, and deal it to all non-hero targets as a new attack.

In any case though, I'm sure I'll be talking to Christopher about this soon enough =)

We have a ruling that the original damage is canceled.

There are plenty of cards that say to deal all other targets a set amount of damage after an initial attack, so why wouldn't Mr. Fixer's? His says to do "that" damage to all non-hero targets. It could have been that he does "1" damage to all non-hero targets (which would still be buffed from styles and whatnot)...but that is obviously not intended, as written. It's akin to AZ doing "that much" cold damage to a target; he makes an attack (against himself), it may get modified to be more, then he does "that much" damage back out, modified again, if possible. I'm surprised there is confusion here when these are such similar situations.

As I mentioned above, that would be a good theory, except that we know it isn't true. In AZ's case, and seemingly what should be in ours, all modifiers are taken into account (both of the attacker and target, which would both be AZ), and then he deals "that much damage." However, we know that Fixer can't hit himself with Bloody knuckles in order to deal all other targets 5 damage. If it was similar to AZ, that would have worked.

Jack Handle is not an X damage card.  The initial damage isn't dealt, the process alters it to instead hit all non-hero targets.

That step comes first, before you calculate modifiers to damage.

For example Twist the Ether affects Jack handle by each individual instance of damage, not treating it as one instance.  In the same way Galvanize will increase each instance individually, and Critical Multiplier will work the same, treating each instance as a seperate instance of damage, and thus only affecting the first instance.

It works the same as Crowbars, turning the initial deal 1 target 1 damage into deal 2 targets 1 damage.  It then increases both by 1.

Absolute Zero works differently because he takes damage, and then responds with X damage.

For Jack Handle to work the way people are saying it does it would be worded:  

When Mr. Fixer deals damage, deal each other non-hero target X damage of the same type, where X is the amount of damage Mr. Fixer dealt.

Gah. Can we have a sensible thread title here please, so people know what this thread's actually about? 

I suggest something like "Jack Handle/Dual Crowbars and increased damage"

Vague titles like this one aren't at all helpful for people looking for answers. Mods?

Gah?

Quack.

I am of the opinion (with no real way to back it up) that it is only the first target who takes the increased damage.

Expression of mild annoyance and frustration.

OK, so that is mild. What is the next expression going towards full annoyance and frustration?

Damn it, Ronway!

It seems to me that the problem is with the word "that" on the Jack Handle. "That damage" could refer to either (a) the unmoddified damage being dealt by Mr. Fixer, or (b) the total damage being dealt by Mr. Fixer.

If (a), then only the first damage dealt gets the boost.

If (b), than the damage dealt to all of the targets gets the boost.

As a professional in language and logic, I think interpretation (a) makes the most sense of the English language as written on the card, but as someone familiar with the way this game usually works, I'm willing to bet that (b) is the intended interpretation.

If (b) is the intended interpretation, I suggest the following change to the wording on the card: 

"Whenever Mr. Fixer would deal damage to a (non-hero) target, he deals damage to all non-hero targets instead."

The "(non-hero)" is in there because I'm not too sure about whether or not the intent is just to make the jack handle work against non-heroes.

Hey, Silverleaf! You’re “Gah” worked!

Just wanted to point out that if the combo does work, PW Haka and Mr. Fixer are very good friends. Hmmmm…is taking out all of the Ennead at full health with one Strike too powerful?

Considering the buildup needed for that to happen it seems fine.  

Yay! Thank you lovely moderator person.

Jackhandle is more like "When Fixer would make an attack, before applying any bonuses or reductions, decided the value of that attack.   Then attack each non-hero target for that amount adding in bonuses or reductions on a target by target basis."

Obviously this is very wordy and they were trying to keep the card from being wordy and instead made it somewhat ambiguous.  However it is meant to make strike hit everything for 1 (with individual bonuses) and Charge hit everything for 2 (with individual bonuses).

Crowbars work the same except you only pick one extra target.  Bonuses and redcutions are still target to target.

I understand the ruling better at this point it just doesn't sit well with me based on how I interpret the text.   

Welcome to the Rule #15 Club.

You said it, I was so disappointed in Rule 15.  All those combos I thought I was being clever with gone.

I understand how you feel about this, but luckily I think this was more common in the earlier sets. Maybe its from all the questions they got leading to practice but, at least to me, it seems like there are fewer of these issues in the newer stuff.

What is rule #15?

The ruling that cards like Solar Flare and Pushing the Limits would destroy itself if the hero does not take at least 1 point of damage from the "Deal yourself damage or destroy this card" effect.

Which I believe the latest version printed / errata removed the need for, right?

No, the lasted errata just changed the wording to fit that description. You still need to take at least one damage.

Ah - right!

It was devastating to fans of the Solar Flare, Imbued Fire, Flesh of the Sun God combo. (change the self damage to fire, which you are immune to so no self-damage)

And Tachyon with boosted damage redirecting her Pushing the Limits damage with Synaptic Interuption.

I can't tell if it's been resolved here, but the way I interpret it is as follows:

It doesn't work by calculating the final damage (including first-time damage buffs, like Multiplier) and then applying that to each other target; instead, it takes the initial value (usually 1 or 2, but can be more under certain circumstances) and applies that as a Squall effect.

So, maybe, it could work like this:

"Whenever Mr. Fixer would deal damage to only 1 target, he instead deals that damage to all non-hero targets, before you apply any increases or decreases to the amount dealt."

But if he's already dealt it, kind of hard to retroactively apply the increases or decreases.

I think introducing a term like base damage or initial damage amout would be very helpful.  It could be defined as the damage value of an attack before any modifiers are applies so you could see something like this:

"Whenever Mr. Fixer would deal a target damage, instead he deals all non-hero targets the same base damage."

But of course there are no such terms in the game so it would have to be a new terminology to introduce.

This is the worst ruling ever.

I don't know that it's the worst but I do know it is not one I'll go by while I'm playing with my group

Meh, Mr. Fixer doesn't need to get silly damage to be awesome.

With Grease Monkey Fist he can do Silly Damage.

Until I see something official, I'm choosing to believe that Ronway hallucinated the entire thing.

The more rulings I hear on Mister Fixer and his Tools, the more I'm convinced that his mechanics don't actually work in Sentinels of the Multiverse.  This forum could almost have an "Except Mister Fixer" trope.

We're all part of Ronway's hallucination? That makes complete sense.

I think the sane way to treat Duel Crowbars / Jack Handle is as "redirection effects" that instead of redirecting the original damage, add another attack on top of them

https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/dealing-damage-timing-clarification-6047

From thios thread, and the latter part of the discussion, it becomes apparent that when you apply redirection effects you start with the base damage and add modifiers target from target all over again without considering modifiers to the first attack

This is different from, for example, Isothermic Transducer and Sacrosant Martyr work because those consider damage taken to create new attacks to which modifiers are applied, creating situations where modifiers "get applied twice" (AZ deals himself 1+1 due to Galvanize, results in 2 damage taken, attacks for 2+1)

It was stated that this was not the intent of Dual Crowbar and, from comments, neither of Jack Handle I suppose

Also, I don't have the card right on me now, but does Jack Handle state "to all non-Hero targets" or "to all OTHER non-Hero targets"? Because I think it's the former, and as written it means that if you targeted a non-Hero first you would hit them with Jack Handle again

Okay, sorry about this, I missedthe card saying "would", so apparently it's a substitution… adding "instead" at the end of the sentence would make it clearer

If they want to change it, they need to issue a reprint for the card.

There is no ambiguity in it whatsoever. Their attempt to rewrite it in the errata to fit their intention is foolish.

Sorry if I'm just repeating something that's already been said/discussed, but the way I see it, there's one of two ways this combo works.

1) Mr. Fixer is about to deal damage to a target. Jack Handle then says "This is actually going to happen to everyone." So no damage is dealt before a single target instance turns into an AoE. This means you would apply the first instance in order, from target to target. So if you're about to damage a Gene-Bound target, Jack Handle kicks in. Then for each instance of damage, you apply the modifiers. For the first instance, you deal 1+x, where X = "additional modifiers the first time you deal damage."  Because damage is never simultaneous, you would break the combat down into instances.

2) You take the card more literally, and determine the first instance of damage, and then go on to apply the same amount of damage for everything else. This more closely follows the damage dealing order of operations. So first you apply the modifiers to his initial "strike" power. Let's say he does +3 damage for a total of 4. Next we confirm that he is in fact dealing damage; Jack Handle kicks in. Jack Handle then says "okay, we're doing this damage to everything now." So everything takes 4.

I'm leaning toward #2. The way Jack Handle is worded, it copies the first damage instance (which would still technically be the first target being hit) and applies it to all targets. Or does the game remove modifiers after moving on to check if damage is being dealt somehow?

Here’s the thing, we know #2 is wrong, because Mr. Fixer cannot target hinself with Bloody Knuckles to deal all non-hero targets 5 damage (ruling from Christopher).

That appears to be more due to the fact that Jack Handle is meant to apply among only non-hero targets. Since Fixer is a hero target, there would be a mismatch when you add villians and/or environments to the equation, because then you're dealing damage to "all non-hero targets and a good guy."

Not entirely sure what you mean, but I don't think who you targeted should matter. Mr. Fixer is great against The Rat, because all of that self damage and damage to other heroes gets redirected to The Rat (cancel that first attack, then hit all non-hero targets). If it mattered who you hit, that would never work. If you say that the "next damage" buff should apply to every target, then so should Bloody Knuckles. Mr. Fixer hits himself with Bloody Knuckles in play, base attack 1 damage, +2 for Bloody Knuckles, then another +2 for Bloody Knuckles. Now, that same damge should then apply to all other targets as the final damage modifications, but it isn't.

Let's go through how it would work if the "next damage" buff would work.

1) Mr. Fixer targets something.

2) Add in all modifications from the attacker and defender.

3) Determine if hp was reduced.

4) If no hp was reduced, then no damage would have been dealt, and it doesn't then hit all non-hero targets. If an hp was reduced, then we can hit all non-hero targets.

We have this strange word of "that" and there are two methods to go to from here:

A) We reevaluate all modifications, and start fresh with new targets (just like redirections). In this case, only the first one hit will get the buff.

B) We only take some of the modifications. Because of the Bloody Knuckles ruling, we know that damage modifications from the defender do not matter. So, even though we needed to calculate the modifications to see if any hp was reduced in order to see if we can hit other targets, we are now going to ignore those modifications, but keep others. Honestly, this is a stretch, and if true, the word "that" is one amazing word. It doesn't actually mean "that whole damage," but only "some of that damage."

I'd leanb towards A) myself, but that just brought to mind anotehr question:

If base damage is reapplied and re-evaluated entirely like redirections, and I have Grease Monkey Fist in play, can I change damage type for each Jack Handle attack?

Not entirely sure what you mean, but I don't think who you targeted should matter. Mr. Fixer is great against The Rat, because all of that self damage and damage to other heroes gets redirected to The Rat (cancel that first attack, then hit all non-hero targets). If it mattered who you hit, that would never work. If you say that the "next damage" buff should apply to every target, then so should Bloody Knuckles.

I'm assuming you're taking Driving Mantis into account here? If so, it's not exactly the same scenario because you're allowed to redirect damage when he is damaging himself.

Mr. Fixer hits himself with Bloody Knuckles in play, base attack 1 damage, +2 for Bloody Knuckles, then another +2 for Bloody Knuckles. Now, that same damge should then apply to all other targets as the final damage modifications, but it isn't.

I agree that's how it SHOULD work. I'm still trying to make sense of Christopher's thought process though, and based on how his answer was worded, he seemed to take issue with the fact that Jack Hammer has a special damage order than usual. Here's what specifically doesn't make sense to me in the Bloody Knuckles ruling: he adds "No, it is an automatic effect, so you will read strike as "do all non-hero targets 1 melee damage" or any other damage he can do pretty much."

See that last part there? It implies modifiers can occur across the board, but they're specific to the conditions in which the damage was applied. Jack Handle shouldn't care if it was only applicable to the first instance or not, it just spreads damage to everything evenly. Because it says "the same amount of damage

A) We reevaluate all modifications, and start fresh with new targets (just like redirections). In this case, only the first one hit will get the buff.

Here's where I disagree, and here's why: Jack Handle specifically deals the same damage as the first target received. In my mind, you share the same window of opportunity with two cards (I'll use Parse as an example): Critical Multiplier and Jack Handle. Critical Multiplier's damage is applied, and since it has been ruled that you can apply cards in the desired order, you can then say that Jack Handle would deal 1+X damage, before the first target is even hit.

B) We only take some of the modifications. Because of the Bloody Knuckles ruling, we know that damage modifications from the defender do not matter. So, even though we needed to calculate the modifications to see if any hp was reduced in order to see if we can hit other targets, we are now going to ignore those modifications, but keep others. Honestly, this is a stretch, and if true, the word "that" is one amazing word. It doesn't actually mean "that whole damage," but only "some of that damage."

Again, it's about how cards are worded. Jack Handle applies before damage is dealt, because of the "would deal" phrase. Errata could make this whole mess go away, or perhaps we can ask Christopher to re-evaluate the interactions.

Here's my best guess, after reading and interpreting these phrases for a good hour. The way I think Christopher intended Jack Handle to work is to ignore modifiers before determining applicable damage. In which case, there is a confliction with order of operations of damage. This is how I believe it SHOULD go:

1. Determine damage type

2. Determine if damage can be dealt (the condition of Jack Handle)

3. Identify and apply all modifiers to dealing (the modifiers applied afterwards)

4. Determine if damaged is dealt, and reduce hp

5. Apply effects based on damage being dealt

But since all targets can't take the same damage as Mr. Fixer, this leads me to believe modifiers are a case-by-case basis. In which case it's indeed an errata issue. And Jack Handle should read:

Whenever Mr. Fixer would deal Damage to a Target, he also deals Damage to all non-Hero targets.
When this card enters play, return any other Tool cards in play to your hand.

"That much damage" is the problem phrase here.

Why is this is still a thing? Hasn't this already been ruled on? It's not a hard concept.

Crow Bars turns Strike into a 2 target attack with +1 damage (It's like Haka's big stick with less damage. It works the exact same way). Jackhandle turns Strike into an AoE that hits all non-hero targets. It works the same way as any other attack that hits multiple targets.

It's simple. No need to over complicate the matter. The wording used on a bunch of cards from Rook City is wonky, so arguing from a semantics angle is not going to help you.

Has it been ruled, though? I’d like a link if possible.

Otherwise, there are specific inconsistencies with the bloody knuckles thing and the wording printed on Jack Handle, as I pointed out.

Sorry for beating a dead horse or reopening the same can of worms, but I feel there are some explanations that are left unanswered.

There is a bunch of inconsistencies with wordings with the older sets, especially the first edition of the base set and Rook City. Things were still being worked out with the game and the PTing wasn't nearly as comprehensive as it is today with so many more attentive eyes looking at things.  

I understand the need to argue semantics, trust me, just ask anyone here. I'm the king of that stuff. But at some point especially with the old cards sets, the intent of the card is a lot more clear than the actual wording used. And to that point, the intent of how Fixers weapons are supposed to modify his Strike ability is pretty clear cut when you take a step back.

CrowBars makes strike a 2 target attack. Handle makes it an AoE. They work like any other attack that would hit multiple targets from a modification standpoint. It's clean and consistent with the rest of the mechanics in the game.

Edit: I understand the confusion with the word "THAT". But I think its ultimatley a misinterpretation of what "THAT" refers to. It's not refering to the specific amount of damage, but rather the instance of damage itself that is going to be modified. Neither Crowbars or Jackhandle "snapshot" an amount of damage and apply it forward. There is no notion of "snapshoting" stats in SotM (which is something I brought up in another discussion somewhere). The closest thing to a snapshot mechanic is the "Use X were X = Y" wording, which is specifically not used with Fixer's weapons.

If base damage is reapplied and re-evaluated entirely like redirections, and I have Grease Monkey Fist in play, can I change damage type for each Jack Handle attack?

I suppose it's best to chalk this up as an inconsistancy thing and assume we continue to apply each instance of damage separately, then.

I do tend to argue semantics with card text, I'll admit.

I have recently observed this "no snapshotting" in the App, even with an X= mechanic.  Ra was fighting Omnitron, who had a number of Ongoing Components in play.  Ra used Drawn to the Flame, which does X damage to each non-hero target, where X is the number of Villain Ongoing cards in play.  I damaged Omnitron first, which put him over the threshhold to destroy his Components (which are also Ongoings).  The subsequent targets of Drawn to the Flame took less damage, because there were now fewer Villain Ongoings in play.

There shouldn't be a "snapshot" there, because you're updating the X value as you go along.

Just want to point out that this isn’t true. “Would deal” does not indicate a different timing, and that it happens before damage is dealt.

Except when you don’t like with Bloody Knuckles.

And this thread (https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/mr-fixer-jack-handle-and-damage-modification-4001) seems to say that you do NOT use snapshotting, but instead, as Foote says above, treat the original attack as if it never happened, instead giving Mr. Fixer an AoE of one against all non-hero targets.

Ah, so Mr. Fixer doesn't ever deal himself damage whenever Jack Handle is in play? That is interesting! That explains why he doesn't deal everything 5 damage with Bloody Knuckles. His self-infliction is cancelled, so the +2 doesn't apply. Everything would just take 3.

I do wonder how this works with Parse's Critical Multiplier, though. Does this mean the "snapshot" happens before or after the buff is applied?

Edit: I'm assuming before, in cases of "first damage dealt."

Ummm, no it doesn’t. To me, all it means is that if you use Charge, it will deal 2 to all targets.

Obviously, but Charge isn't among the card interactions in question.

Doesn’t matter. Christopher gave an example of Strike and said a straight plus 1, his second comment is meant to say that the same idea would apply to any other damage with the relevant nunbers, not that modifiers apply throughout.

Jesus.

They just need to reprint the whole deck.

Maybe they can make him fun to play while they're at it.

1) There is no snapshoting

2. Crit Multiplier would only modify the damage to the first target Fixer deals damage. 

3. Everything would take 3 damage with Bloody Knuckles in play not because 3 damage was dealt to the initial target, but because the initial target is being dealt an instance of 1 (base power) + 2 (BK mod), then the next target would then take 1(base power) + 2 (BK) ect. ect. Again, this goes back to the misinterpretation of the word "That", which is not refering to the amount of damage, but the instance of damage itself.

1) There is no snapshoting

My bad. I've seen the terminology ruled out, used, and dropped in the same page. I hope you understand my confusion :/

2) Crit Multiplier would only modify the damage to the first target Fixer deals damage. 

Fair enough. Thank you.

3) Everything would take 3 damage with Bloody Knuckles in play not because 3 damage was dealt to the initial target, but because the initial target is being dealt an instance of 1 (base power) + 2 (BK mod), then the next target would then take 1(base power) + 2 (BK) ect. ect. Again, this goes back to the misinterpretation of the word "That", which is not refering to the amount of damage, but the instance of damage itself.

That's more or less what I was trying to say.

<3

Just trying to help reach a concensus here. 

I do understand your confusion. It's totally warented. Hopefully there is more agrement now.

Yes it is, much appreciated!

I’ve had a great deal of fun with DW Fixer. If you don’t have that promo I would be happy to provide you with his power, hp, and incap abilities. I rarely have the frustrations with vanilla Fixer that I do with DW Fixer.

While I understand your frustration there are a lot of folks who love Fixer in his current iteration. I’m not the biggest fan, but it helps to not get too caustic about any of the characters. The dialogue breaks down pretty quick at that point.

That being said I’m still pretty convinced that Fixer’s mechanics with some of his cards don’t really work with SotM’s timing mechanics. He could have an entire rules supplement to himself on just how Dual Crowbars and Jack Handle work.

Also, everyone, while I understand that these may very well be resolved subjects I feel that it is somewhat dismissive and antagonistic to remark to anyone curious about it that it is simple or easy. There are pages and pages on these mechanics and it has taken us a good while to figure out what some of Fixer’s tools actually do. Don’t burn someone for having the same questions and concerns we had just in this last year or so. Way uncool.

Every hero has a role to play. Mr. Fixer's is "reliable damage in small but constant quantities"

Much of the frustration from playing this or that hero, I think, is that people have different ideas on what makes the game fun for them. I've heard people say that Legacy is not fun because he spends all the time tanking damage, drawing very little and almost never dealing damage; some people find Visionary's complete supportive role unfunny as well

It's just a matter of finding your niche then having fun playing it, I guess

Someone more rigorous than myself should write up a post that concisely summarizes some of these rambling discussions (cf. damage timing, isolated hero, imbue+cramped quarters, etc.). New players could just be pointed to said post rather than trying to dig through the back-and-forth arguments for final conclusions. That would definitely prevent some of the necromancy that occassionally gets practiced on these threads.

Isn't that what Spiff did with his FAQ?

It is, but the FAQ has gotten long enough (and technical enough) that a new/casual user could be turned off by it. I'm talking about just a couple of sentences each for these topics that have to be addressed on a regular basis. Sort of a tl;dr version of the FAQ, applying specifically to the edge cases that generate lots of discussion prior to being resolved.

Pre-Parse Fixer was the best way to beat heavy armor, with Tiger and Crane.  His redirection is the most persistant in the game until Writhe, Grease Gun is awesome, and Salvage Yard is insanely good.

Fixer has so many ways to have a big impact on the game:

Hoist chain + overdrive/charge to take 2 away from a target's damage.

Tire Iron giving you a persistent sucker punch effect that also deals damage.

Jackhandle/crowbars giving a boost when something causes you to deal damage to yourself or others.

Salvage yard explaoiting any hero ability that allows them to discard/destroy equipment for any effect.  (Haka, Bunker, Expat, KNYFE, Nightmist, Omnitron-X, Argent Adept all can exploit this effect).

The complaints I hear about Fixer usually go one of these routes:

1.  We don't play advanced:  If you don't play advanced Fixer loses a ton of value.  Most non-advanced games are a damage race, and Fixer doesn't win those.

2.  I wanted a certain setup and got other cards.  A lot of times a case where the player needs to be more flexible, but also a lot of times you get his situationally awesome cards in the wrong situation.

3.  There was a very specific situation that Fixer could have solved if I had the right cards:  This is always disappointing, but it happens for anyone, it is just that Fixer has ways to solve problems that other heroes can't solve, so it stands out more.

4.  Fixer is a damage dealer that doesn't deal very good damage.  This is because Fixer is a low build damage dealer, but moreso he is a utility hero that uses his attacks to help the team in ways other than just the number of health he knocks off the target.

Exactly.

I find Legacy insanely awesome because he helps the team as a whole, not just individually. Want everyone to draw? He can do it. Want everyone to heal while he's dealing damage? He can do it. Damage buffs? Covered. An insane immunity setup? Done. A whole round of no damage or no villian cards? You get the point.

As a leader, Legacy doesn't just help one guy out, he insipires the entire team to do their best. He has a couple cool one-shots here and there that do damage, but he really shines as a paladin who makes everything hurt.

Essentially, looking at each hero (like Fixer) as a damage dealer will cause you to perceive some of them as weak or useless.

What can players look for in a Post-Parse Fixer world?

What you still get with original fixer

• An extremely good time against plague rat as you keep giving him his damage back,
• A good time against apostate as you tiger claw ram your jack handle in all his damage reduced relics at once.
• Shennanigans of taping crowbars to the rod of annubis to take your martial arts high ennough to strike in space to strike two spaceships at once
• The ability to one shot a gene bound guard with tire iron and tiger claw
• the ability to bounce the chairman's retaliation damage in a 3 hero game on the operative and laugh as he gets nemesis bonus on his own henchman
• The ability to reduce Spites healing by wrapping him in a hoist chain, will combo well with neurotoxin and stun bolt
• A good partneraship with Argent Adept, Scholar and tempest who can just recycle rerun your best cards
• Good partnership with out of turn play as Overdrive will give 2 extra strikes instead of one and grease gun will have no cost when played
• The ONLY character who can recycle his Stop pretty much all damage card by himself with the Salvage Yard and Grease Gun. Even better Salvage yard can bring all your grease gun in hand at once if ever there was more than one in the trash
• A good candidate to help your setup heavy friends when destruction hits the field as you best potential needs very few cards and as much as you liked the crow bar not having it is not as crippling as getting Null-Point calibration unit destroyed
• The pleasure of having an elderly hero in a society that can fall in agism quite quickly

What you get with darkwatch fixer:

• The ability to feed your ability with other heroes dangerous cards: IE Chrono ranger has 5 bounty out and a Composite Bow would fear any source of damage in hunter and hunted but can put it safely for an extra 10 damage cause fixer will destroy his ongoing and keep him safe.
• Likewise you can remove some of the most dangerous card that can come out from Setbacks deck thus making risk relatively safe to use with your power
• You get one of the best AoE character as if fuelled by other characters he can go up to reliably do 5 damage to all non-hero targets
• 11 if you used charge in that turn
• You can finnally put your blood soaked fist in the villains face without fear of your own vulnerability
• If you play before other heroes with start of turn autodestoying ongoings you can milk a few extra damage out of them if you play before their hero

Could probably still make the list more exhaustive but Im pretty sure its enough to justify Fixers place in the hero roster.

I'm sure we'll have full clarification by the time the Rook City expansion is available for the video game.

The FAQ needs a FAQ.

Might be a good sign the game (and the cards) need to be rewrittne from the ground up!

I think the thing I find frustrating in my experience with Fixer is the number of times people talk about a specific villain being compromised by two to three specific cards in Fixer's arsenal when his only method of card accelleration/deck searching is Meditation and Tool Box (both fine cards).  But finding a specific Tool in his deck for a specific situation is something I have trouble with.

I completely understand the utility Fixer brings to the table.  I get the amazing things he can pull off.

I find that his deck doesn't allow him to get those combinations when he needs them.

I think that's why I'm so drawn to Dark Watch Fixer.  I don't experience as much of an issue with finding the right card combinations.  Riveting Crane can be used by itself with no need for a Charge or a damage buffing Tool!  I can benefit from Bloody Knuckles without taking all of that added damage!  The blown-up Equipment or Ongoing seems to be relatively easy to deal with by witholding Bitter Strike during key moments when the heroes can afford some set-up.  If that isn't an option then he can continue to break most of his stuff and continue fueling it through the sheer number of Tools/Styles he has in his deck.

I'm not trying to argue one version "sucks" or the other "fixes" the character, but I've just seen somewhat of a disconnect between Fixer afficionados and people who just can't get into Fixer.  I had a friend who nearly always had a great starting hand with Expatriette and he had very little context for the complaints many have levied against her for her lack of draw accelleration.  He always had exactly what he needed to effectively fight a baddie.  That's just not something that I've experienced.  When I rarely get that perfect hand?  Oh man, I have a blast!

My point is that with Fixer some folks seem to think that he sucks because they don't get his nuance, but others will assume frustrated players just "don't get it" when what they're really not getting are the appropriate cards to get the great combos Fixer can pull off.  And it's really disheartening to hear "Well you should have brought TL;DR Tachyon/Anthony Drake Argent Adept/Vanilla Visionary/The Scholar to accellerate his plays and/or draws."

I'm really excited to see what we learn from Fixer in the RC expansion for the video game, because I've felt that a lot of the things people have praised about Fixer in the past have been reappropriated to other heroes (Parse) or just outright ruled as an incorrect understanding of how the game plays (Dual Crowbars having damage be exactly the same but still being lowered if there is damage reduction or prevention, not getting double buffed by Bloody Knuckles when he targets himself with Jack Handle, etc.).

I'm not trying to change any minds here.  Well...actually I'm totally trying to get people who assume Fixer sucks to try him out a few more times and folks who assume that anyone who doesn't like Fixer can't comprehend his utility to figure out what someone's issue with this character is before assuming it stems from ignorance.  I'm just happy DW Fixer was made because I like having the opportunity for more players to enjoy this game with all of the heroes.

I've said this before, but I think that those of us who "play the hand" rather than "play the deck" are much more likely to appreciate Fixer.

If you spend the whole game lamenting your lack of Driving Mantis or whatever, then you're much more likely to get frustrated and think Fixer is useless and needs some kind of search effect. Sure, it'd be nice to always have the perfect setup for the situation, but I for one enjoy figuring out how to use the cards I actually have instead of wishing for ones I don't.

I've had games with both Fixer and Expat where my hand has sucked, and my drawing has sucked even more (as with all heroes). But I can still do stuff, and I still have fun. I don't need to be the star of every show, so I honestly don't mind if I have a few games where I'm less than optimally effective.

So the solution to a bad hand is "play the hand and stop being frustrated that you aren't having fun"?

What do you mean by "appreciating" Fixer?

It seems like what you're saying is that people who don't care for Fixer seem to dislike him due to a misunderstanding rather than just having an informed perspective that doesn't find him as satisfying as other heroes.  If I'm wrong I apologize, but I don't really understand why everyone brings up his combos with specific cards against specific villains being rewarding if the whole point of Fixer is to appreciate the hand fate gave you and stuff any frustrations you may have with it.

No, I wasn't prescribing any particular way to play, just noting that those of us who tend towards that kind of play style don't seem to complain about Fixer as much, and seem to enjoy him more. No value judgement there. It's like saying that people who like salami are more likely to visit a deli than people who don't.

Solution to a bad hand? Same as you'd use with Ra, or pretty much anyone else that doesn't have search (I include Ra because his search only pulls the Staff, and I'll also include Bunker (only searches trash), Fanatic, Haka, Legacy, Nightmist, Setback, Tachyon, Tempest, Visionary and probably some others I've forgotten). Get more cards, or figure out something useful to do with the ones you have.

I'm not saying that people who don't like Fixer don't know how to play him. That would be extremely arrogant of me. Just explaining how I play, and how that meshes well with Fixer. I like Fixer and don't find him underpowered or frustrating and I enjoy my games with him as much as I do the ones with other heroes (with the exception of a couple who just don't fit my style as well - although I enjoy all the heroes).

I would also point out that the fun in this game arrives in different packages. Like Silverleaf, I derive satisfaction from figuring out what to do with the cards I have in hand, and the fun comes from watching the impact this has on the game state. The other players might end up doing something different and unusual as a result of what I have just played, and the game set up changes again forcing a new challenge on a slightly different hand of cards. In that respect I have never not had fun with Fixer

I also think that the examples of Fixer's combos that circulate are just that - not an instruction of what you ought to fish out from the deck in any given game situation, but simply examples of things you can do with cards that might otherwise seem useless. It's difficult to prescribe a mode of play, telling people what cards they should play and when, because it's not that sort of game. I don't believe that there is ever a right or best move that you can make due to the large number of moving parts.

Not that we've had this conversation before , but yeah, I honestly think the difference in views on Fixer come from different play styles. Some folks enjoy him as he is and some folks don't. The folks who don't want him to work in a way that better suits their personal style (which I understand) and/or want to understand why other people enjoy playing him (which they won't - because it's not their style).

One of the great things about the game, for me, is how people with completely different interests and styles can play the game together, just by selecting heroes that fit them. There are some heroes that just won't interest some people, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Agreed.

But I do want to point out the difference between "Hero X doesn't fit my preferred play style" and "Hero X is broken/underpowered/needs search/borrowed £10 from me and never paid me back, and is a bad hero".

I think you can probably tell which side I try to come down on.

I mostly hate the mindsets of "We need TLT on our team or we'll lose" or "Where's our medic? We need a healer!". This only occurs when I play with a specific group, but it's disheartening nonetheless. Or assembling a team with perfect synnergy so nothing can go wrong. The only time where THAT'S warranted is against Iron Legacy. But other than that, I'd much rather play to have fun and use the heroes I enjoy playing, rather than turning this into a calculated metagame.

I mean, there are heroes I don't like either. But I don't discourage others from seeking that playstyle by saying they suck. Just because I have a hard time using heroes like Unity doesn't mean others don't excel marvelously at them.

Are you perhaps looking at post about Mister Fixer's best combos against certain villains? You can find that with any hero. Such as Legacy versus Chairman: Lead From the Front, 2 Next Evolutions, and The Legacy Ring. The Visionary versus Citizen Dawn: Precognition, Brain Burn, and Suggestion.

While these are examples of how well a good hand can shut down some villains, it is not the only thing they are capable of doing to defeat said villains.

A popular Mister Fixer one is Jack Handle, Dual Crowbars, and/or Driving Mantis against Plague Rat. While those are probably the best cards Mister Fixer can bring to the table against Plague Rat, they are far from his only cards that can be usable against him.  Hoist Chain is good just to reduce some of Plague Rat's damage, even better with Overdrive and/or Charge, as it'll reduce Ravage to 0 damage without any damage increases thus not bringing out any Infections. Grease Monkey and Pipe Wrench are good just because it offers more damage, never a bad thing. Pipe Wrench also reduces the damage Plague Rat will be dealing to Mister FIxer by 1, which can mean the difference between triggering Shadowy Ambush. Alternating Tiger Claw can be handy if Plague Rat plays his Bestial Vitality or gains any other DR from the environment. Rivieting Crane isn't bad to have in play if it's the only Style, as any hero before Mister Fixer in turn order will not have to worry about Bestial Vitiality or an environment providing DR for atleast 1 round, saving a Charge or Bloody Knuckles will allow the heroes to ignore it again for a second round. Grease Gun stops Plague Rat from dealing damage for a round, which can be much needed.

Note that the only Tool not mentioned is Tire Iron. Since the only target in Plague Rat's deck is Plague Locus, however Tire Iron may be useful in delivering the final blow to it. While not be specifically useful agianst Plague Rat himself, it may have a use taking out the ENvironment targets.

These are my favorite type of Ronway posts, where he brings in EVERY case to prove something.

I like using Blackout to have Writhe damage Fixer, when Fixer has Crowbars or Jack Handle in play.

If only there were more heroes that could cause allies to deal damage out of turn. . .

I play to have fun. If during the course of the game me and the people I'm playing with laugh, it's a good game.

So, if a clown walks by during Monopoly it’s a good game?

...you laugh at clowns?

yeah man, that's messed up.  Clowns are no laughing matter.

Only the funny ones.

There are funny ones?

Sometimes I laugh at class clowns…sometimes.

The frustration I have is when the conversation goes something like this:

“I love using these specific cards with Fixer against this specific villain.”

“That does sound like fun. I wanted to do that and every time I’ve played Fixer against that villain I haven’t had the opportunity. I’ve often had trouble getting the fun combos with him.”

“The thing about Fixer is playing his hand is better than playing his deck.”

I’m fine with either argument. Put them together and it sounds like the problem was that the player that didn’t get the combo (mutually agreed upon as useful and fun) is somehow in the wrong or ignorant, rather than just missing out on the fun.

Then it ends with “Fixer may not be the character for you.” That is also disappointing. The players both acknowledge the fun that could be had, but the player who didn’t have a good experience (an experience brought up by the player who had a good time) gets put in the same category as people who claim Fixer is underpowered or boring.

It feels like the player is the problem for not having the fun that he or she should have had, rather than a history of poor hands or bad games.

I think the ones of us that love him play him a lot.

We've had those awesome moments when things work out awesomely, and those are the great moments.

But we also enjoy the games where we are constantly struggling to get something done, because usually you end up playing a key part at some point in the match.

Fixer is not for you if you do not enjoy the struggling games, because he has a bunch of them.  He is rarely dominant, most of the time useful in some way that isn't the way you'd like best, and sometimes he just struggles to do anything.

Every deck is different, and not everyone enjoys every hero.  I personally don't enjoy Tempest, Ra, Chrono Ranger, Nightmist (non DW), Haka, Naturalist, The Sentinels, Scholar, Setback.  I will play them, but I'd rather play someone else.

It isn't the players fault if they enjoy certain heroes more than others, I think we all understand that.

What frustrates me is when players complain that X Hero is terribly made or needs to be changed because they don't understand the deck or just don't like the playstyle.  There are lots of heroes, we don't have to like them all.

Is it mutually agreed upon as being the only useful and fun combo? While I do think that Jack Handle is probably the most useful card going against Plague Rat, it is certainly not the only card I think Mr. Fixer has that would be useful. It is also certainly not the most fun option, infact due to the power Jack Handle has against Plague Rat, it probably slightly reduces my fun against Plague Rat since I will not be toying around with other things to try to win.

Lets say I had an opening hand that consisted of Hoist Chain, Alternating Tiger Claw, and Overdrive against Plague Rat. I would be "alright, got Hoist Chain, time to reduce his damage by 1, woo! If I am not infected and beating myself with the Hoist Chain next round, I will play Overdrive and reduce his damage by 2. If I am beating myself, I will instead play Alternating Tiger Claw and ignore the reduction to damage I have." 

Edited to repond to this:

Ha! For no reason whatsoever I was today thinking about Mr Fixer vs Plague Rat and remembering that I had more 'fun' with Dual Crowbars and Driving Mantis than Jack Handle.

Ronway:

1. Where did I say anything about only one fun combo against anything?

2. We are discussing a particular combo in this thread, and acknowledging Fixer’s many other combos. Why could my hypothetical conversation not involve only a single combo for a particular situation? The subject was not “The myriad of combos Mister Fixer can execute.” It was “A single player’s positive experience with Mister Fixer using a particular combo in a single game.”

3. My issue was not with Fixer’s mechanics, or the execution of them. It was entirely about the meta of players discussing him, ignoring the frustrations presented by one side, then the other side talking over players’ heads if they didn’t respond with an affirmative, agreeable reaction about something fun they did not experience themselves.

Thank you, phantaskippy. I’ve found that to be the case with Fixer as well. Though he is not my favorite I enjoy DW Fixer’s playstyle quite a bit. I am happy that we could have a civil, straightforward, and respectable conversation about a character we have a differing perspective on.

I actually enjoy the challenge of learning and getting the hang of rarely used or challenging heroes like AZ, Unity, and Nightmist. I don’t enjoy the challenge of dealing with bad hands, but that’s kind of the luck of the draw with or without said heroes.

Reckless, bad hands can happen to any of the heroes. Playing AZ on the app, his opening hand was all 4 of his Isothermic Transducer.

Fixer is more finicky/subtle than just bad hands = bad games.

I understand that.  What does my frustration have to do with bad hands?  My frustration is with how people are interacting with one another.

An example from what you've just said:

"I love it when Zero has both of his Modules, Cold Snap, and Impale against Omnitron when he keeps recycling his Components in Insula Primalis.  Your damage gets buffed and you can absorb a lot of fire damage to throw at him while you shred through Omni's field!"

"I've not had that opportunity yet.  It sounds like a lot of fun.  Last game I played I got all four of his Isothermic Transducers in my opening hand."

"Well people really need to stop playing Zero's deck and start playing his hand!"

No criticisms of deck mechanics or bad hands or individual characters.  My frustration is squelching conversation by implying that another person's bad experiences are less relevant or outright invalid compared to one's own good ones.

This isn't a great injustice and I'm not gonna attach a "-gate" to anything to start some overblown campaign about it, but if I've seen anything come from these Fixer discussions it's that we aren't even having the same conversation most of the time.  I feel like if people focused on talking to each other rather than over one another then we'd have a much more productive discussion.

I agree with what Reckless is saying. A lot of times I find a hero less fun or more fun based on how one imposes their opinion/play experience of a certain character. For example, based on this thread I have a dichoctomy of opinions between becoming discouraged from playing Fixer due to his unusual mechanics, and also due to not being able to have a decent team contribution because he needs better resources.

On the other hand, I'm itching to have a few games with Fixer (as well as some of my lesser-played character choices) because I want to learn them better and deal with their best and worst hands, so I can better guage their potential and know what kind of plays to expect. To understand them better.

I would say I've had some great games with Mr. Fixer and some lackluster ones.  A starting hand of overdrives and harmony is not much fun when the enemy has DR 1.  And I'd say Mr. Fixer, and AZ are the most prone to have stalling hands at various points in the game.  Those points are at the start and after board-wiping abilities.   The next two heroes on the stall-out list for me are Fanatic and Expatriette.  Each of these characters has some great cards and great combos but some cards are too particular or really work best with a combo.  I think this is why those characters are less often chosen in games with people I know. 

    Every character can get a stalling hand.  I think these characters just have a higher chance of it.

This is where Handelabra will help us.  We can eventually play a ton of games with each of these heroes with only a medium expenditure of time, on solo games.

I'd put Unity way up there, too.  I've seen lots of games where she either has no equipment, or no golems, for the first few rounds.