New player here - and query about how Haka works

Hello all! I've only just been introduced to this neat lil' game a few months ago, and it's a blast - different each time! Lotsa fun. Now, with that said - what's the deal with Haka? I've played him twice now, and I just don't "get" what I'm supposed to be doing with him. I started by playing Ra and the Expatriette, and they're pretty simple - Ra lights stuff up, Expat shoots stuff dead. Easy, breezy beautiful, Covergirl.

Now Haka - I have all these cards that tell me draw, then discard, then block damage to myself... I dunno, maybe I'm dumb or something, but I just don't understand what I'm supposed to be contributing with him. I sorta almost feel useless with him. He doesn't, like, do anything, it feels like.

Now, obviously I'm wrong - so, hopefully one of you fine upstanding folks can clue me in as to why I'm wrong!

Thanks in advance!

Welcome to the game and the community! Glad you found the game and that you enjoy it!

I’ll let other folks provide you some of their thoughts, but I will point you to some of the guides that have been developed with thoughts on strategies and approaches for the various characters.

Always keep in mind that different people prefer different play styles, so some heroes just won't be as much fun to some players. Not saying Haka won't be one you enjoy, but that might be the situation.

Welcome to the forums!

Welcome to the forums! I'm glad you're enjoying the game. Haka can fill different roles depending on what the team needs him to be.

Primarily, he tends to be a damage dealer - Taiaha lets him deal consistent damage round after round. If the villain or environment have lots of targets, Haka can gobble them up with Savage Mana and spit them out later for a huge amount of damage. His damage output can be augmented by using Haka of Battle to increase the next damage he deals, which is nice for bringing down the villain (particularly villains with damage reduction, where lots of small attacks aren't very effective).

Haka can also tank pretty well. He's got a ton of hit points. Ta Moko reduces incoming damage, Haka of Shielding helps to block larger hits that you know are coming, and Haka of Restoration helps to keep you healthy. Enduring Intercession and Ground Pound help to protect your teammates.

You'll notice that some of his abilities require you to discard cards in order to use them (Haka cards and Ground Pound), so you have things like Dominion, Vitality Surge, and Mere to get more cards into your hand. Playing the Haka cards helps with this too; often, it's useful to play one just for the extra card draw and then discard one card that you don't need for a small bonus.

This is a simplified view of Haka, but I hope it helps a little. There are numerous strategy guides for the heroes here that might be useful for you.

I probably do him injustice, but I play Haka as a Savage Mana cannon when I can. But mainly I like him because he's consistent and reasonably predictable.

People say this, and I'm sure it can be true, after all between Haka of Battle and savage mana he has some big hits.  Rampage is a big AOE and his equipment gives him some nice consistent damage.  However mostly I seem him as an amazing tank.  When we play Haka, if we win he always ends with a million HP.  Between armor and healing and Ground Pounding and Enduring Intercession he is a great protector that splashes in some nice consistent chuncks of damage for us. I can't wait for the new Haka that will be able to heal other people via Haka of Regeneration.

BTW, did we ever get a ruling on how the new Haka works are far as does he draw and discard cards and then someone else can get the bonus attack/healing/armor?  Or does the chosen target do all of it including the drawing and discarding?

Haka discards, and the other target gets the benefit.

Thanks for the responses, folks. I did check the strategy guides suggested - I’m itching to give him a further shot now

Cheers folks!

Haka is big and tough.

Take hits, hit back, Haka is a very stable character, he hits solidly with few cards, and can drop huge single hits, or smash all the things a good amount.  He can also heal and shield to stay on top of HP to eat those Hgihest HP hero attacks.  He is very hard for villains to shut down, because he has a damage base power and good one-shots.

Then Ground Pound and Savage Mana give him some unique strengths.

Haka is also the wisest charactet in SotM.

He's also not able to get drunk.

And is - apparently - immortal...

He has inside him blood of kings.

And minions, fowl, chupacabras, electro-pulse explosives, battalion gunners,… He's very hungry.

He’s hungry, hungry for Hippos.

Let me spin you a little anecdote.

Earlier tonight, I was playing Haka versus the Chairman. Due to some kind of crappy draws, early on about all I was able to do was play two copies of Dominion. Every time an environment card got killed off, Haka drew two. During the final turn of the game, Fanatic was dead and Absolute Zero and Nightmist were at 5 HP or lower; the Chairman still had 26 HP.

However, because Haka had been drawing cards like mad, I had 24 cards in hand. One of them was Haka of Battle. Since Haka had his Taiaha out…yeah, that was it. All she wrote. 26 HP of damage in a single strike.

The point of this anecdote is, between cards like the various Haka of [activity], Healing Surge, Mere, and Dominion, Haka should always have lots and lots of cards in his hand to allow him to adapt to what the party needs. If big damage is coming at him, he should be able to mitigate it with Haka of Shielding. If he’s low on HP, he should be able to heal himself. If a bad guy absolutely positively had to go down right now, Haka should have an option available to him. If anyone ever needs to discard to prevent some awful effect, Haka should have plenty of cards in hand.

Haka is what I would call a passive board controller. He can’t control an enemy’s deck like Visionary or Parse, but he can handle whatever the villain telegraphs coming his way.

He has no rival, no man can be his equaw dammit, you sucked me in!

I like Haka because he's all about patience, but he's still quite useful in the meantime. You want him to build up his Savage Mana (which counters half the villians in the game), and also his hand size. Dominion helps with this a lot. Use it early and maximize your stockpile of resources later.

So what are you doing when you're not smashing things with charged up Taiyahas or Savage Mana piles? Well, some amazing cards include Rampage and Ground Pound. You can either do massive AoE, or negate damage from non-hero targets. Secondary support cards include Ta Moko and one of his weapons, Mere or Taiyaha. Haka doesn't have much trouble drawing into these resources, which makes him incredibly consistent. Eternal Haka is even better at tearing through his deck early. Prime Warden Haka will be good at lending his powers to his comrades, so someone else can heal up. Like Scholar!

I don't go for the huge hand insta-finish with Haka.

Haka of Battle is phenomenal for removing hard targets, ones with reduction or 5-6 HP that you want gone immediately.  I also don't play for Savage mana, although it is nice when you get it.  Even then I usually use it as soon as there is tangible benefit (like a Voss ship, Siege Breaker or nasty Apostate Relics.

Haka is a warrior, just pick the current biggest threat to your allies and knock it down.

As for Prime Warden Haka, my favorite moment so far with that power was Haka of Restoration when Scholar had three Energy forms in play to finish off the last three members of the Ennead in one shot.

ahem I have a hyphen. 

Yeah, I know this is going to be a popular combo.

By the way, has it been determined yet as to whether or not Haka discards for the target, or the target itself?

Haka discards, and he can choose who gets the benefit.

Cool, that works out well then.

Prime Warden Haka is also awesome to keep his fellow PW Fanatic and PW Tempest in play, play the underwhelming Haka of Shielding to draw (gives you more cards so yay) and give a magical soak of 2 so that Fanatics power destroys her less at least until she actually gets wrathful retribution.

As for Prime Warden Haka, my favorite moment so far with that power was Haka of Restoration when Scholar had three Energy forms in play to finish off the last three members of the Ennead in one shot.

Delicious!

And another thing to think about with PW Haka

Using shielding to reduce damage to fixer by 2, he then gets a shot of 4 damage sent his way, so it would deal 2, and mantis redirects it.  Because damage was redirected it wasn't reduced and the reduction stays.

Is that really how that works? Since Fixer would have been able to reduce the damage from 4 to 2, the damage can be redirected, and then the reduction, having not actually been used, is still available for the next damage to Fixer?

I know there have been discussions about this, so my apologies for having not grokked them and/or remembered them fully.

I disagree with Skippy. The damage was reduced by shielding or else Mantis would never be able to proc in the first place. Shielding is used up. 

Using the same logic, does this mean you can reduce damage with Platform bot, redirect it to Stealth Bot, and reduce it again?

It's certainly non-intuitive, but it might be correct (I'm honestly not sure).  The insanely-detailed-damage-timing schedukle we worked out last month (https://docs.google.com/a/funnybusinessponybetter.org/spreadsheets/d/tZfiNqJyV3rK-QAsuSFG33w/edit#gid=0) says, of redirection, "ALL changes to the damage prior to the Redirection are ignored. Recalculate from scratch with the new defender. "  Which does generate a seriously strange result in this case.  All prior instances (that I considered, anyways) of "recalculate all the effects" didn't involve an expendable effect.  Though if The Wraith had lowest HP and some Stealth and Smoke Bombs, that would be an interesting test case.  According to Skippy's inerpretation, Smoke Bombs would take effect, but Stealth wouldn't.  But only if there was little enough Stealth to not reduce the damage entirely, before it had a chance to redirect?

I've always thought so, but now I'm unsure.

You can't because once you change target, you reevaluate all the reductions, which means Platform Bot's DR is no longer applied.

No. When you redirect to a new target, you recalculate damage. Platform Bot's DR wouldn't be relevant because it isn't the target.

What pgrywatsonsqrl1974 said.

Exactly.  The damage is not reduced by Platform Bot.  So Platform bot did not reduce the damage.

Seems to be the same with Fixer and Haka of Shielding.  When redirected the damage isn't reduced by Haka of Shielding, therefore Haka of Shielding doesn't reduce the damage.

I mean if Wraith has Stealth on and Wrest the Mind or Lead from the front or Smoke Bombs directs the damage away from her does it consume stealth?

When damage is redirected you cancel all target based reduction and start over with the new target.  Why would you count reduction as not affecting the damage but used?  If the reduction was consumed shouldn't it still be applied?

So why is it different when you treat Fixer as the intended target, but change your mind when Mantis redirects it? Stealth only applies when wraith is actually taking damage. In the app, you can't choose to apply stealth before any other types of damage reduction. At least I don't think so.

Yeah, I remember a similar situation happening with Fright Train; there were some shenanigans that caused him to block or redirect the first damage he would have taken, and Christopher ruled that it did not use up his first-time-each-turn damage-taken buff.

So, I would argue that the DR does not apply to the 4 damage redirected by Fixer, and the next time he takes damage it will still be reduced by 2.

Redirection works as follows. (PW Haka, Mr. Fixer, 1-3 other heroes vs. Baron Blade)

1. PW Haka uses Haka of shielding on Mister Fixer to reduce damage by 2.

2. Baron Blade deals Mister Fixer 4 damage.

3. Haka of Shielding reduces this by 2.

4. Driving Mantis sees that Mister Fixer is taking 2 damage and gives the option to redirect it.

5. Fixer redirects it to Baron Blade.

----Damage modifers removed except those specificied by redirect cards---- (Smoke Bombs and Calignious Form)

6. Baron Blade deals himself 4 damage.

7. Backlash Field registers Baron Blade dealt damage to Baron Blade.

8. Baron Blade deals Baron Blade 3 damage.

End result - Baron Blade deals himself 7 damage, Mister Fixer still has DR 2 from Haka of Shielding. 

EDIT: Edited to adjust in ninja'd official position.

True.

Meh, still doesn't feel right to me.

My intuition is also that it doesn't feel right, but I have a way of looking at it that helps me, and perhaps it will help you.

For temporary reductions, it 'feels wrong' that they aren't used up in a redirection, because if you weren't reducing anything, how could you have redirected it? The real question to ask here, though, isn't 'Why aren't temporary reductions used before a redirection lost', but, rather, 'Why ARE continuing reductions lost?'

Imagine there is some effect reducing damage to Fixer down to two or less (perhaps Fixer would be dealt three damage but Argent Adept has chosen Fixer to have damage reduced by one). The only reason that Fixer can redirect this damage is because it would have been reduced, so if the damage is redirected, shouldn't it ACTUALLY be reduced? The literal reading of the cards (would have, as opposed to is/was reduced) argues against this, but logically it seems to me that either it is reduced and redirected or it couldn't be redirected.

Now, there is very well established precedent and rulings for how the game works, so I am NOT TRYING to start a discussion about changing how the game works. My point is that if you can accept that the damage isn't reduced for a continuing reduction effect, I think it's a relatively small step to accept that the damage isn't reduced for a one-time reduction effect.

PS I think it might be interesting to think through what a set of rules would look like in which a reduction required for a redirection was actually applied after the redirection, but I also know that Christopher et. al. put a lot of effort into creating a set of cards that work without undue complexity. I have heard about all of the complexity involved in understanding the precise order of what happens in MtG. I'm glad we don't have that.

Actually, MtG is fairly intuitive in all but the most complicated situations.  The problem is that while Sentinels has 3 years and ~2,000 cards worth of interactions, MtG has had over 20 years and over 13,000 cards worth of interactions, so a lot more complicated situations have come up.  And MtG is competitive - things that Sentinels can handwave under "the players decide the order" have to be explicitly deliniated.

Thanks for trying to clear things up for me, but I think my frustration on understanding the ruling of this rule hinges on a simple technicality. Instead of Fixer's Mantis card, let's use Nightmist's amulet for example. Baron Blade deals her 4 damage, and Haka can reduce it by 2. The order of play would be that Nightmist first chooses to discard 2 cards to redirect it, and there would be no need for Haka to attempt to save Nightmist, because no damage is actually dealt to her.

Fixer, however can't be dealt damage to begin with when using Mantis, so why should Haka's card reduce any damage? Because he's trying to get around the requirement for Mantis. The player chooses to either take 2 or redirect 2, not whether or not Shielding is actually going to apply to Fixer.

I get that continuous damage is removed, because it's the game's way of looking at ONLY the original target and the redirected target, as if there were no intended target. The problem I have with the Fixer situation is that Shielding only matters in order to save Fixer, and it's suddenly augmented to its full strength. Not only that, but Fixer can take advantage of it later. Yes, he didn't take damage yet, but it was expended to work with Mantis.

This is starting to remind me of Warmachine’s level of complexity, haha.

I would argue that the damage was reduced, there by allowing him to redirect it.  However after it is redirect it starts at its initial value and all new and relevant increases and reductions are recalculated.  After the redirection is done, the shielding is no longer relevant so I would think an attack of 4 would be reduced to 2 (using up the shield) and then get redirect and become an attack of 4 again going at the new target.

But I can see the other side of the arguement.

Let me make a few parallel arguments:

1.  Look at Twist the Ether, you reselect Twist the Ether entirely when it is redirected.  It isn't a new instance of damage, you already changed the type and increased or decreased it, but then when it gets redirected you cancel the initial application of Twist, as if it never happened and proceed to then use the effect.

That function makes no sense if on redirection the Twist effect still counts as having been used.  But you completely undo Twist's effect and re-apply.

To me that says that the effect would have taken place, but was cancelled before it resolved, and so had to start over.  Apply that to Stealth or a PW'd Haka of Shielding and it should work the same way, the amount is tentatively reduced, then redirected at which point the reduction doesn't resolve and isn't consumed.  The new target would recheck to see what effects can reduce or increase and find that Stealth/Shielding doesn't apply.

2.  Let's take DW Setback's ability and apply it to this same situation:

Damage being dealt to Fixer reduced by 2 and redirected, if Fixer targets a non-hero then it won't still be reduced.  If the redirection targets a hero target, would Setback's power still reduce the damage?  It should, because the reduction hasn't happened.  Yet we know that at the moment of redirection the reduction is undone and is re-checked, so only if the initial reduction didn't count as having resolved the reduction effect would it still be available to reduce the redirected damage.

I've done this before to trigger Cryo Bot.

With the way we now know Twist works on redirection and the DW Setback power I think redirection leaves a tentative reduction unresolved, and still "on the field."

It just seems like a silly way to use a single instance of reduction without expending it. Because the window of modifiers is too generous and things get reset and re-calculated. I guess play it how you see it, and I’ll do the same.

Here's a way to think of it: the text says whenever mr fixer would take 2 or less damage, so you aren't inflicting damage yet when resolving this card, you're just calculating how much he would take if hit. Since it doesn't hit him he hasn't taken damage so there is nothing to reduce so it isn't the next damage taken yet. 

Twist the ether only effects an instance of damage once.  The way redirection and TtE works officially is pretty clear.  The operative thing is that damage wasn't dealt to the target with the reduction, therefore damage wasn't reduced.

How would you resolve DW Setback's power and Mantis?

Guys, I understand how it works the way you're explaining it. I just have a problem with tricking the game into thinking that a hero is going to take damage, and a card is changing the damage value without actually expending the usage of that power. I feel that this trick is at odds with the intended card design. And saying "nothing was reduced therefore the effect stays", well, doesn't feel right.

I would resolve DW Setback the same, since it's really the exact same scenario. I would expend the usage of Mitigate when reducing to two damage and redirecting it. But that's just me. Like I said, I think when we disagree with things like this, we have the power to interpret it how we feel is correct, or rule it based on similar or "official" rulings.

The problem I have here, and the big difference between the expamples listed above, is that Mantis specifically redirects based on the amount of damage incoming and that the haka shield is not a continuous modifier but a single-use modifier.

If incoming damage has to be reduced to even trigger Mantis in the first place, than it seems to me that the single-use modifier has already acted. 

Frankly, I am not a fan of the idea of a high enough Haka Shield making Mr. Fixer nigh undamagable. Thats a broken interaction

As soon as Rook City is released in the game, we can incap Haka and use his ability to reduce the next damage the selected hero takes by 2 and see what happens.

Well the video game ruled a similar thing with Haka of Battle (the developers continually communicate with Christopher about card rulings like this).  If you play Haka of Battle then attack a target that has enough DR to negate the attack completely or is immune to damage/melee damage, Haka of Battle's boost will still apply to the next instance of damage you actually do.

My main goal is trying to find a consistent way to time redirection and prevention that account for the official rulings.

With how Twist the Ether works in the video game I just can't see any other way of resolving that kind of effect consistently.

Not even Rook City is safe from Ronway.

I would say there needs to be a different check in place when determining whether or not a single-use modifier has been spent. Instead of checking to see if the damage went through, I would suggest checking to see if damage is reduced.

The way I treat this in my personal games is that if the one-time DR is applied, then this means that I have chosen the final target, since the DR can only apply to the final target. I don't allow redirection after one-time DR. This makes the most sense to me. So I guess that puts me in Killswitch's camp.

Or you could consider that I am just choosing not to redirect after one-time DR is applied. :)

Mantis redirection is not an optional effect though.

There was an interaction I realized I wanted to try, that is similar but it is not redirection.

I had Haka become incapped (Awesomely the Mega Computer allows a heroes to start incapped, so that was easy), then I got into play Undaunted, later I eventually drew the card I needed, Divine Sacrifice. So after declaring that Fanatic would recieve a -2 from Haka, I played the Divine Sacrifice, since it is irreducible it could not be reduced, however it is one damage so it was prevented by Undaunted. I then had Fanatic Absolution herself for 3 damage, which it did get reduced to 1 and thus prevented. I then had LEgacy use Motivational Charge (boosted by 1 thanks to Surge of Strength) to deal 3 to Fanatic, it was not reduced.

The next round, I once again had Haka use his incap power to reduce the next damage Fanatic takes be 2 again. This time I played Concencrated Ground, dealing Fanatic 1 point of damage, then it was reduced by 2 and did not give the option to select Undaunted first. 

So it seems that if something that reduces the next damage a hero takes and that damage is irreducible and the hero is able to prevent it, the reduction is not used. If it succeeds in reducing damage and the hero has means to prevent the reduced damage, then the reduction is used. If the hero reduces the damage 0 or fewer, then prevention cannot trigger.

Of course this isn't redirection, so it's still a mystery how it will resolve, but it may help a bit knowing how it works with prevention.

All I read was Ronway was killing the heroes. So, what’s new?

I was doing it for science! I even had Baron Blade and Tachyon to help.

This was different because we were meant to learn something from the death of the heroes. Ok, i get it.

You're always meant to learn something from the heroes' deaths, don't mess with Ronway.

FTFY.

Thanks Ronway. Those examples are pretty useful.

And thus Ronway has no need to actually play the game anymore.

That sounds vaguely familiar, like I've been surprised by it before. It seems completely counterintuitive to me.

Really, cause it's intutively the opposite to me.

Twist the Ether modifies damage, all damage modifications are removed and reapplied when redirecting, therefore TtE is removed and reapplied, because it's reapplied you can alter the damage type and whether it's lowered or increased.

Sure. I get that.

Still, though it seems intuitive to me that modifers that affect one target wouldn't affect another, there's nothing about changing a target which suggests to me that the type of the damage being dealt would change. I mean, here are these bullets flying at Tachyon, BUT Tachyon is so fast that she's not really there and instead the bullets are flying at Baron Blade, and they're not bullets any more, they're a burst of energy … what?! why?!

Because The Visionary does whatever she wants. She doesn't even play Sentinels of the Multiverse. While other heroes are punching the bad guy, she is sitting there causing all the delicious chaos.

Pretty much this, don't forget it was the Visionary's younger self that caused the Time Cataclysm.

I don't know if she was the cause, but she was at the center of it.

Either way, it's worth pointing out that Visionary is powerful enough to travel through time unaided, so distorting reality, or at least peoples perception of reality, is a walk in the park for her.

Wow, this has gone off topic a bit!

And the Multiverse! Don't forget she's not from our/the core corner of the multiverse (or at least one of the ones that made it 'here' is).

Not that I don't enjoy random tangents, believe me I do…are we any closer to coming to a consensus about Haka's Shielding?

Random tangents? Who did that? That was absolutely on topic, as it was showing how Haka's Incap ability that works exactly as PW Haka's power would work if he only discarded one card for Haka of Shielding. But instead of Redirection, I was using Prevention, since the core set does not contain redirection that has to be under a certain amount. 

Lets for a moment think of what it would be like if redirection worked exactly as prevention in the scenerio

1. If the damage is irreducible and still 2 or under, Mister Fixer would be able to redirect the damage and not expend the next damage is reduced by 2
2. If the damage that would be dealt to Mister Fixer is reduced it to 2 or 1 thanks to the ability, than Mister Fixer would redirect the damage and no longer have the reduction.
3. If the damage would be reduced to 0, it would not be able to be redirected and no longer have the damage reduction. 

I am in agreement with you. But one quick note. Why wouldn't you be able to redirect an instance of 0 damage? It's still an instance of 2 or less damage in this case right?

Because if 0 damage would be dealt, that would mean no damage would be dealt. Driving Mantis triggers when 2 or fewer damage is dealt, if no damage is dealt, that would mean Driving Mantis could not trigger.

But 0 damage is still 2 or fewer damage. I see where you are coming from though.

I was referring to the "Ronway kills heroes" tangent. I quoted your post to direct the conversation back to Haka.

I have realized something, we may not have a hero that can redirect damage that is below a number, we do however have a hero that can redirect damage that is higher than a number. That hero being Tachyon. We also have a hero that can increase the next damage a hero deals, a dead Absolute Zero (Fanatic aswell, but I needed her base power).

So the goal was to increase Fanatic's next damage by 2, Fanatic is the easiest to use as she does 2 instances of damage, allowing for immediate knowing if the damage is increased. This would allow her to attack Tachyon for 3, who has Synaptic Interrutpion.  Now you may be thinking "but Ronway, if damage is redirected and she hits the damage to the other target, that will still apply the Damage Increase, making it useless." While person I am speaking on the behalf of, I thought of that aswell. This is why Baron Blade is so important, because he can become Immune to damage fairly easily, infact he starts the game immune to damage. So what happened?

Well, I launched the attack at Tachyon, doing 3 or more damage, triggering Synaptic Interruption. I redirected it at the mean ol' Baron's face, it of course did no damage. Fanatic then dealt 3 damage to Tachyon with the second instance, not triggering the Synaptic Interruption because it was destroyed by redirecting the first. I also tested it the next round, redirecting to a non-immune target, the first was able to be redirected, with Tachyon only taking 1 for the second hit.

Sadly it still isn't exactly as the Fixer scenerio and it raises more questions than answers. So... Guess time to wait for Rook City!

Could we use this with Bunkers Incap and buff someone to smack tachyon for more than 5 twice in a row?

Good idea! And I have just done it. The result? She kept the reduction. The only issue with this I can see is, that thanks to her having the ability to redirect it without the reduction mattering, so that may be why she was able to keep it. Rook City can't come out fast enough.

Has anyone used Twist the Ether to increase damage dealt to Tachyon to 3 to cause redirection, and see if it still resets to 2 damage waiting for TtE to increase or decrease it?

I ask because the relevance of the reduction and Undaunted vs. the increase and Baron makes me wonder if the only time those effects are consumed is if they are requisite to the damage being prevented/redirected, which might give insight into how Mantis should resolve vs. other redirection like Smoke Bombs.

There is the chance that Twist is it's own special case and nothing else works like it, but if it acts differectly than other redirection+Twist we will have a pretty clear answer.

Also thanks for digging into this Ronway.

I have, and it does. 

Current Thoughts:

1.  Prevention and immunity have a clear effect, that seem to save the +/- o damage, unless that change is necessary for the prevention (Undaunted).

2.  Redirection does not act the same way (Fanatic+2 v Synaptic), but the modifier reset and checked vs. the next target.

Want to do the +2 boost to activate Synaptic, and then redirect to Fanatic who would have a -2 from Bunker and Undaunted, and see what the effects do?

It's imperfect, but in that instance we would see a conditional redirection and prevention with 2 "next" effects.

I'm on pins and needles here. This is thrilling.

I know, best thread ever.

MigrantP might not agree, either way the game will confirm half the forums and deny the other.

It's like I've always said, the app is what truly helps puts ruling uncertainties to rest. It's my favorite part about it.

Incapped Bunker gives the next damage Fanatic reduction of 2. Incapped Absolute Zero gives Fanatic's damage next damage dealt a increase of 2.

Fanatic has Undaunted in play. Tachyon has 2 Synaptic Interruption in play.

Fanatic uses Exorcism to deal Tachyon 3 damage, Tachyon redirects it to Fanatic, who then reduces it by 2 and then prevents the 1 damage. The second instances of damage is once again increased by 2, allow Tachyon to redirect it with her second Synaptic Interruption to Fanatic again, which is once again reduced by 2 and prevented. Tempest then Lightning Slashed Fanatic, which was reduced by 2 from Undaunted, another 2 from Bunker's incap, and then prevent by Undaunted. Sadly I did not have Locallized Hurricane at the time, so I could not see if the reduction was still there and Baron Blade was low enough that he was killed by a Velociraptor that entered play on the environment. I suspect it was used, since it did need to be used to have it get to the prevention, much like when I had Fanatic stab herself with Absolution.

However, based on this, it appears that at least temporary increases in HP is not calculated in finding out if the damage reduction is needed… Which makes things very complicated… I shall replace incapacitated Absolute Zero with Legacy and see if a permenant increase will also not count.

Edit: And I have done it. So it seems it only factors in the base damage (unless brought to 0 or under) for deciding if it uses the reduction, as the same thing happened.

Awesome work Ronway.  Thanks for doing that.  I'll post some thoughts on it later.

You can see if temporary effects are still around by tapping on the lightning bolt icon at the top of the screen. Or on Mega Computer, with the view command to view the game.

While you're here MigrantP, what do you expect to happen in a situation where you have a temporary increase which is redirected (primarily, Haka of Shielding/Driving Mantis)? It seems much more straightforward to ask the developer who I'm sure talked to Christopher about these situations.

I haven't been following the thread in detail, but if I have some time I'll take a look. I'll run it by Jean-Marc too.

There are no doubt some situations that first come up in Rook City that we haven't looked at yet.

Thanks, we appreciate your help!

I've been trying to follow everything in this thread, but there's just too much for me to grok it all. Anyone care to summarize?

Starting from here: https://greaterthangames.com/comment/90731#comment-90731 the topic has become about reducing the next damage Mister Fixer takes and how would could interact with Driving Mantis.

Using the Video Game, I have run a few scenerios that would help determine how it currently would handle this situation. The following is the conclusion I have come to.

1. If the damage is reduced to 0, Mister Fixer would not be able to redirect it and the damage reduction is expended.
2. If the damage is reduced to 1 or 2 and Mister Fixer would not be able to redirect the base damage (it without any modifiers), then the damage reduction will be expended and Mister Fixer will redirect as normal.
3. If the damage is reduced to 1 or 2 and Mister Fixer would have been able to redirect the base damage (it without any modifiers), then the damage reduction will be still be avaliable for the next attack and Mister Fixer will redirect as normal.

And I believe that is pretty much it.

So I found an interaction for Haka I hadn't thought of in the app.  So I had Punish the Weak out and played Rampage the following turn in a game against Cosmitron.  When it came to damaging the heroes it was reduced by one due to Punish the Weak.  

Yeah, because they aren't non-Hero targets with the lowest HP. It's an good combo.

Thanks, Ronway. I'm left with a question. Am I correct that the only way for scenario three to occur is if the damage without the one-time reduction would be two and the one-time reduction is one?

It actually includes damage increases as well. So if the base damage is 2 and they have a +1 to damage, the damage reduction could be 2.

However, based on this, it appears that at least temporary increases in HP is not calculated in finding out if the damage reduction is needed... Which makes things very complicated... I shall replace incapacitated Absolute Zero with Legacy and see if a permenant increase will also not count.

Not following this thought, and what is meant by temporary increases in HP, assuming you mean damage instead of HP.  It is weird that the above Absolution would eat the reduction while being prevented, yet the boosted to 3, redirected and then reduced Exorcism would not.

Actually everything but the boost and reduction not consuming the effects makes sense, and leads me to think that maybe that isn't supposed to work that way??

I mean it is possible we are finding things that aren't right with the game.

Otherwise this just got really complicated.

Have you tried (really just for thouroughness) Absolution unboosted, redirected by Tachyon back to Fanatic with the -2 to next and Undaunted?  That would clear up if the Absolution vs. boosted Exorcism anomaly is because the damage was boosted, or because it was redirected.

I have a feeling it is because of redirection, and may not be working as intended right now.

Hmm... I did try it out redirecting Absolution, which the reduction remained afterwards. So I decided to let Fanatic use Absolution again against herself on the following round, and the reduction remained. Which is odd, since before when I did it, it was gone. I have no idea what's real anymore!!! I'm just going to wait for Rook City and see what happens.

Something I realized, I have switched from using Haka's incap to Bunker's. They both say the same thing, but perhaps they somehow got coded differently? I am tempted to go through testing it, but I am getting tired of facing Baron Blade and just clicking on cards until I draw what I need. This last one took 10 rounds to complete.

Edit: I couldn't resist, I had to make sure it was working the incaps are working the same. So I think I may have missed something when I tried stabbing Fanatic herself before. Not sure what exactly I did though. So it is far less confusing than what I it was seeming like. Sorry for the confusion!

They are coded with the same effect. Interestingly though, one selects a hero character card directly, and the other selects a player and then grabs their character card. We should normalize that =)

If you guys want, we can set up a test case for anything. Let me know exactly what you want to happen (with cards from EE).

Awesome! Though I cannot think of any other scenerios, I think I just missed something earlier.

Edit: I guess you could try having Haka incapped, give Fanatic the reduction of 2 for the next time she is hit, give her Undaunted, and have her get hit by an attack of 3 and see if that is working exactly as intended. As in the damage reduction still being there.

Let me make sure I have this right:

1.  Absolution straight up, reduced by 2 and prevented consumes the reduction.

2.  Absolution redirected back to Fanatic, reduced by 2 and prevented does not consume the reduction.

That is a bit bizarre.

Can we get an official response of "Yes redirection breaks the universe," or "Actually that isn't right?"

Because that doesn't seem to make sense.

No, actually Absolution just hitting Fanatic does not consume the reduction. I think I missed something the first time (not sure what), as I tried it again and this time the reduction was still there.

So it seems like there are only two things that can happen.

1. The damage is reduced to 0 or fewer and the damage reduction is consumed.
2. The damage is reduced to a point where it can be prevented/redirected and the damage reduction remains.

The damage is prevented and the temporary damage reduction remains in effect.

We'll double check with Christopher about this.

So there appear to be more than one instance where temporary reduction can stay as long as the attack didn’t reduce HP, but it reduced anyway. And that’s a technicality that kind of rubs me the wrong way.

Damage that wasn't dealt didn't happen.  That's not too hard to grasp.

I’m not having any trouble understanding the scenario. I just disagree how temporary reductions are ruled to work. That may be a personal standpoint but I think it feels cheaty to constantly reduce damage to meet redirection requirements, but not to cushion oncoming hits. And then still grant reduction after the fact.

I agree with xThe Killswitch, you get multiple reductions from what is worded as a one-time effect, not intuitive, not simple to remember.

But the damage is not reduced, it is prevented or redirected.

If you throat jab a villain and they try to attack you you wouldn't lose the one-time reduction you have.

Because the damage is prevented.

Same with Smoke Bombs redirecting it away from you.

Doesn't matter how it is prevented or redirected, if it is prevented or redirected it wasn't dealt, and the damage wasn't reduced.

To make prevention sometimes cost reduction and other times not is just as confusing, but to a different group of people.

To me it is counterintuitive to have damage that wasn't dealt cost you reduction to the next time you are dealt damage.

But you reduced it to get to the stage where you could prevent it, the reduction was a factor in the equation, straight out immunity or prevention of dealing damage does not even get to the stage of calculating how much would be dealt.

It's a kind of magic...

Reduction is always a factor in the equation, whether or not it is a defining factor or not.  Prevention is always prevention, whether it had qualifications or not.

Undaunted doesn't prevent 1 point of damage, it prevents damage dealt to her when that damge would deal 1 damage.

When that qualification of being 1 damage is checked if it is 1 damage the whole rpocess is prevented, the dealer never dealt damage, that is what prevention is.

It works the same as any other prevention, it just only works when its qualifications are met.

The samge with redirection, if damage would be dealt to a target and that damage, qualifications or not, is redirected the damage is re-targetted, and no attack is made against the initial target.

You don't reduce damage on attacks that were never made.  When an attack is prevented or redirected that original potential attack didn't happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-b7va6Sec5A

Connor MacLeod : Hey, it's a kind of magic!

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWf5BLUOhNM

If that were true, the redirection would never have been possible. That's precisely the point I'm trying to make. I'm taking issue with the fact that the game checks to see if the one-time reduction is expended if HP is reduced from its intended target, not whether or not it cushioned the blow, which it did. It feels like a giant loophole to benefit from the one-time modifier when it's convenient, but to remove its expendature when it's not.

Edit: Just to be clear, I have no problem with preserving a one-time modifier if there is no need to consume it. If Nightmist redirects 3 fire damage, and Haka chose to target Nightmist with shielding, then there is no need to worry about whether or not Shielding is consumed. However, Fixer NEEDS the damage to be reduced. So the reduction is applied but not consumed since it doesn't hit him during this instance and ANY instance after that, as long as the oncoming damage doesn't exceed 4. And if Haka discards even more cards, Fixer becomes a perfect shield with redirection, given his Mantis isn't destroyed, and that it is the first instance of damage each turn. That's more powerful than Flesh to Iron and Nightmist's pendant combined.

I may be a bit too adamant about this, but I feel for a fun and balanced gameplay experience, things like this should be addressed. That's what rulings and errata are for, right? And perhaps the majority of the problem lies with Fixer, perhaps we can forgive one-time modifiers.

Not to mention, the "would be dealt" on Mantis vs "dealt" text on Shielding makes for an interesting case on whether or not the interaction is even possible.

Sure! I just don't think the creators agree with you that this needs to be addressed. If they did, we would have seen a new ruling or errata by now. I suppose it's possible that they just haven't had time to think about this enough or this hasn't been brought to their attention, but I kinda doubt it.

Look, I am with you that it feels strange that when a one-time effect is necessary for redirection to occur, than that one-time effect should be used up. I certainly wouldn't mind if there were rulings and errata that went our way on this, but I'm not expecting them. 

On a tangent, I do think it's worth noting that the old standby of just house ruling how the game works if you don't like a ruling doesn't work as well anymore when people are playing the digital version of the game.

I'll admit, I AM hoping this thread gets a bit of attention to the creators, but you're right; it probably isn't a big priority right now. But the point you made about house rules being moot in the digital version. It does make an awkward situation where players may have a difference of opinion over something.

But that is how the game treats it.

The attack would have been made but it wasn't.  Look at Synaptic, They try to attack Tachyon, but they don't, they attack someone else instead.

If an attack is prevented the attacker was not able to make the attack they wanted to, they tied to attack, but were unable to.

That's how redirection and prevention are intended to work.

To be fair about Synaptic though, it is different because it doesn't have a maximum value that it can redirect. Just the opposite, it has a minimum value.  An interesting question would be if Haka shielded Tachyon for say 2, and then an attack of 4 came in, what would happen with synaptic?  Would the damage get reduced and then not be redirectable?

I won't be surprised at all if the shield for mantis does not get used up, but in my opionion it s hould be used up, however the redirected attack would start over so the reidrected damage would not be decreased from the original amount. 

I'm a big advocate of "When an attack is redirected start the attack over as if the original attacker had targeted the new target ." The question here is "when you start the attack over does that reset the shield?" To put it in your terms, the prevented attack is made, however the damage is never resolved. This does not necessarily mean that single use alterations to the damage are not used up.

In the break down that I have often seen of the substeps of doing an attack you modify damage before applying damage, secondly, damage modification has to happen before redirection or the redirection wouldn't work. I would think that would remov e the shield at the reduction step and therefore not be there post redirection. 

In summary, I guess it makes sense to me that at the moment that damage is reduced you remove the shield, not when the attack finishes.

Now hypathetically, if it does not get used up does Fixer become invulnerable?  No, nevermind he can only redirect once per turn so as long as he got attacked twice in the same turn it would eventually go away. Or of course if Mantis was destroyed in some way.

So if Fanatic is shielded for say 3 points and an attack of 4 comes her way, Undaunted would prevent it and she would keep the shield?

Looking at the more specific break down of attacks might be interesting in the same way that I described for the redirect although I don't know how official that is.

With damage reduced below 3 Synaptic would not redirect.

Also if Fixer was dealt 2 damage it would reduce to 0 and not redirect and be consumed.

This is of course assuming that in other cases prevention and redirection will continue to act similarly.

This thread reminds me of the days before it was ruled that one could apply hereo effects in what ever order you choose. Back when it was said you had to apply them in the order they we’re played. So if haka of shielding had been played /after/ Mantua, then the reduction would not apply and it could not be redirected. I was a very big component of saying that was silly and overly picky, and never played that way.

For what its worth, I agree with killswitch on the way the effects are applied. Just cause you can finicky some method of statement that makes it not go away, I feel does not align with the the /spirit/ of the game.

How is consistency finicky?  Whenever damage is prevented or redirected it does not count as being reduced by effects on a target that would have been attacked.

That's a very straightforward rule, that is not finicky.

Think about what you are saying, though. Being able to remove the modifier and reserve the shielding multiple times after redirecting attack after attack is pretty silly. The purpose of shielding is to reduce the blow of one attack. Otherwise it would be like Nightmist’s pendant, and you’d keep discarding. Luckily, you only have to pay that cost once.

Look, all we’re trying to do is put an ounce of sense into this situation. Consistency for rules is fine, but why not also be consistently vigilant of balance when looking at card interactions? The spirit of a one-of modifier shouldn’t function as a lingering, constant effect.

I agree with killswitch that if it influenced the outcome it should be used up, but that being said a villain would have to deal extremely consistent damage for it to persist very long. So lets assume you put a reduction of 2 if you would get struck by 1 or 2 damage no damage is dealt thus you can't redirect and lose your one time buff. If you get struck by 3 or 4 damage only ONCE in a turn then kudos you get to keep the buff for another day. If a kraken takes a bite on the way and you didn<t have the pipewrench then the five damage becomes 3 and you can<t redirect and thus lose your buff.

Conclusion for this to be all powerful and game breaking you need to consistently get struck only one per turn in a window of exactly 2 damage unless of course you throw twist the ether in the mix in wich case you now have a potential window of 4 damage. Like I said I would prefer the logic of if it influenced the outcome it is used up but I can see myself get on the bandwagon of keeping the buff becomes of simplicity and smooth game flow. In the end this really is not as game breaking as cocoon and smoke bombs if all the rest of the team have equal hps or even twist the ether and flesh of the sun god on villains that work alone.

Conclusion, I feel we are splitting hairs over a combo that is far from game breaking and just put a little power-up to a hero that is underwhelming to too many players. In the end as long as Rook City is not on the app play it the way that feels the most fun for you this is a coop game and has little way of being used in a competitive environnment.

And yet, as evidenced by the video game, in which MigrantP has commented a number of times of discussing with Christopher rules and interactions, this is exactly the way it works.

Once an attack is redirected ALL modifiers are reassessed.

Well, I do know MigrantP has stated that there are interactions in future expansions that haven't been assesed yet, and that he would double check with Christopher on certain things. Nowhere has he said that future rulings reflect current ones, and I'd be dissapointed if things were set in stone that way. That's why we're bringing this up now, so that these kind of things can be taken into consideration, and that the playerbase has noticed some strange happenings that feel wrong.

Are they game-breaking? Of course not. But it would be nice to have some kind of consensus.

Once an attack is redirected ALL modifiers are reassessed.

 That is 100% correct.

Now, on to a situation which has caused great discord:

If Haka reduces damage to Mr. Fixer, allowing Mr. Fixer to redirect that damage, then the damage gets re-evaluated as it hits its eventual target, as per the "once an attack is redirected, reassess all modifiers" law. However, Haka's reduction of damage dealt to Mr. Fixer is necessarily used up. It has to be, otherwise, Mr. Fixer could not have redirected the damage. So, even though Haka's damage reduction never actually reduced any final damage that was dealt, the effect was used up, as it allowed a trigger to occur.

Fantastic, at last this can be put to rest. Thanks for the final ruling on this.

The digital version will be updated with the ruling above, as well.

Hooray! Two rulings in one day!

(Note, yep. Glad to be confirmed that the view point i stood by was correct, as Christopher said)

Anyways, yeah, I did consider it finicky. Because every other effect is used up when it applies, but in this case you had to apply the effect in order to get the redirect, but then the effect wasn't used up so that means you couldn't have applied the redirect in the first place. Basically, i thought it was finicky to apply that level of 'consistancy' for the reasons christopher posted that it doesn't work that way.

same reason that i disagreed that heroes were stuck to their own card order, back before that was ruled otherwise. Because it doesn't make sense for the spirit of the game. <shrug> 

glad we got a ruling.

So...let me make sure I have it straight.

Baron Blade tries to hit Fixer for 4.  Fixer is shielded (from Haka for 2) and has the redirect card out.

The damage would be reduced by two if it hit Fixer, so it can be redirected, and the shield is used up.

Fixer chooses to redirect that damage to Blade, who is hit for the original 4 damage (and not 2, even though the shield is used up).

Right?

Correct. Damage is recalculated as normal, but we now learned that one-time reductions are consumed if they trigger an effect.

So, Blade hits Fixer for 4 Villianous Damage (because why not?). Haka's Shielding reduces it to 2 Not-so-Villianous Damage. Driving Mantis kicks in, causing a redirection, and resetting the damage values. The 4 damage then goes toward Blade.

We still have a nice combo here. Haka can cushion the blow for Fixer, but Fixer can still redirect the full value of the original attack due to recalculation rules. Even though the reduction is used up.

So, do temporary effects only get used up if they were "necessary" for the redirection, or in all cases?

Example: Haka has a Haka of Shielding effect on himself; Smoke Bombs is in play; Haka has the lowest HP.  When damage attempts to targte Haka, Smoke Bombs will definitely redirect it.  But is the HoShielding effect expended?

I'm happy with this ruling -- it matches my intuition -- but I also think it's perfectly reasonable for people to have had a different intuition about how all this should work.

On top of that I think it's valuable to recognize that there are tradeoffs in any game system in terms of simplicity of rules versus variety of situations that can be handled precisely. The latest ruling may move us towards more precision, but takes us away from simplicity.  

Like I said, I'm happy with this ruling, but it's a relativley small step, and I wouldn't have felt too put out if it were ruled the other direction.

Only if they were necessary for the redirection/prevention/etc.

OK, I've added a (very long) note covering this to our Damage Dealing Timing doc.

Remind me where that's being kept? I wanted to look it over again.

https://docs.google.com/a/funnybusinessponybetter.org/spreadsheets/d/tZfiNqJyV3rK-QAsuSFG33w/edit#gid=0

Follow up Questions:

Will this change the way Undaunted and a next damage reduction works against a damage of 1?

Can we choose to prevent the damage before it is reduced, or is reduction timed to be before prevention, but in a way that sometimes cancels reduction and othertimes doesn't?

Here's some situations, all with a next damage taken reduced by 2 effect.

1.  Tachyon would be dealt 5 damage, and has synaptic out, is the reduction consumed?

2.  Tachyon would be dealt 4 damage, is it able to be redirected?

3.  Fixer with Mantis would be dealt 2, can he redirect it?

4.  Fixer has Pipe Wrench and Mantis and would be dealt 3, can he redirect, and if he can would the temporary reduction be consumed?

As I see it, this ruling puts the mechanics of reduction and prevention one of three ways:

1.  Players choice of when to reduce and when to rediect/prevent, and temporary increases and decreases are only consumed if they are used.  This is hugely exploitable.

2.  Reduction and increase always occur before prevention or redirection, but then calculate what effects are necessary and considers those effects used while unecessary ones are teated as not used.

3.  We undo the ruling that effects on the dealer of damage and the target of damage have the same timing.  That way Preventionand redirection have two possible timings, one that is caused by an effect on the dealer of damage, and prevention that is caused by an effect on the target of damage.

Right now it seems we are going for #3, with prevention/redirection that is caused by an effect on the Dealer triggering befoe anything else, while prevention that is on a target happens last.

#2

1. redirected and reduction not consumed

2. not redirected and reduction consumed

3. Ronway says you can't redirect instances of 0 damage (though I'm not sure I agree). Going by him, damage is reduced and consumed. no redirect. Though I would argue you can redirect this and reduction is not consumed.

4. How is this any different than 3? Damage is being reduced to 0 before the redirect. It depends on if we can redirect instances of 0 damage (for the record, I firmly believe you can)

If a target were to be dealt 0 damage, that would mean that target would be dealt no damage. So if a target was dealt no damage, that would mean anything that would trigger on being dealt damage would no occur.

Null Point Calibration Unit, Isothermic Transducer, Flame Barrier, Combat Stance, Wrest The Mind, Amulet of the Elder Gods, Ultimate Target, Reactive Plating Subroutine, Driving Mantis, Infiltrate and Obfuscate, Stealth Bot, Lead From the Front, Wrong Time and Place, Human Shield, Hippocratic Oath, Offensive Transmutation, Throat Jab, Hypersonic Assualt, and many more cards all require at least 1 point of damage to be dealt to trigger, as anything below 1 is no damage.

You can't lump something like Reactive Plating and Driving Mantis in the same catagory at all. Things like Reactive Plating and Throat Jab actually require HP to go down before they trigger. Damage must be dealt first. Driving Mantis and other redirection effects do not fundamentally work that way. They trigger before damage is dealt. So to start, this list is very flawed. These trigger clauses are not similar.

Mantis is not dependant on damage being dealt. It is dependant on the instance of damage before 2 or fewer. An instance of 0 damage fall within it's explicit trigger clause.

Will this change the way Undaunted and a next damage reduction works against a damage of 1?

Only if the reduction was essential in order to reduce the damage to 1, as it would prompt a trigger.

Can we choose to prevent the damage before it is reduced, or is reduction timed to be before prevention, but in a way that sometimes cancels reduction and othertimes doesn't?

If we had a choice to prevent the damage, the ruling wouldn't matter. The entire point of the ruling is to provide a sensible way to handle when reductions should be used. In the case of Fixer, we can't choose to redirect, it's automatic. If it wasn't necessary to redirect, the shielding wouldn't be consumed.

Here's some situations, all with a next damage taken reduced by 2 effect.

1.  Tachyon would be dealt 5 damage, and has synaptic out, is the reduction consumed?

2.  Tachyon would be dealt 4 damage, is it able to be redirected?

3.  Fixer with Mantis would be dealt 2, can he redirect it?

4.  Fixer has Pipe Wrench and Mantis and would be dealt 3, can he redirect, and if he can would the temporary reduction be consumed? 

1. It is redirected, but not consumed as the necessary damage is still at least 3. It makes no difference if she was shielded.

2. It is not redirected, and the shield is consumed.

3. I would say this is a case where the shielding does not have to be consumed. The shield is not necessary for Fixer, so he keeps the reduction for a future attack and it goes away as usual.

4. Same as #3. No difference in scenario.

As I see it, this ruling puts the mechanics of reduction and prevention one of three ways:

2.  Reduction and increase always occur before prevention or redirection, but then calculate what effects are necessary and considers those effects used while unecessary ones are teated as not used.

This.

Also, for the record I'm in Ronway's camp for the inability to redirect 0. Cards like Isothermic Transducer can't react when no damage is dealt. The rule where HP must alter in order to have taken damage is similar; if you are immune to damage, you can't be dealt damage, but still laugh at the bullets. For this reason, in your two examples for #3 and #4. Fixer is not dealt damage, so he can't redirect.

So then, with sky scraper huge card being revealed to do 0 sonic damage to all hero targets, do you think still 0 damage is the same thing?

I can, I did, and will continue to lump them together. One may require the HP to actually be reduced to trigger, the other requires HP to would have been reduced. So the list works just fine, as 0 is not a damage that can be dealt nor is it an amount that would of been dealt.

Driving Mantis is dependtant on damage that would of been dealt. An instance of 0 damage would mean damage would no have been dealt.

It would be silly for it to trigger anything, in my opinion.

Christopher has already comfirmed that 0 damage can be increased thanks to cards like Drawn to the Flame. However this is completely unrelated, as this is dealing with what happens after you have calculated all modifiers. 

This is such a flawed argument.

Who says Isothermic isn't reacting to an instance of 0 damage? An instance of 0 damage would heal for 0. Thats pretty clear to me.

Throat Jab/Reactive Plating and similar cards trigger off of damage being dealt first and then triggering. Redirection doesn't happen after you reduce your HP, it happens before. Fundamentally different.

Immunity causes any of these things to stop working (as in the case with the Amulet) because you can't be dealt damage period.

An instance of 0 damage is still an instance of damage that can trigger effects, unless those effects nessesarily require HP to be reduced first.

Actually, Christopher did. Christopher proofed my Dealing Damage Timing Clarification post, and it specifically deals with this situation, and he confirmed that is how it works.

A value of 0 damage will not trigger effects such as Stealth (this is a change we'll be making in the app). It cannot be redirected. It is in many ways, no damage.

It's related because it shows than an instance of 0 damage is still an instance of damage that can be interacted with. A n instance of 0 damage is still an instance of damage that is 2 or fewer. This is the exact trigger clause for Driving Mantis. 

This is such a flawed argument.

I'd say that depends on the agreed upon definition of "damage." What's the difference between one's HP being unchanged and not being dealt damage, though? I'd say there isn't. It would only matter if it was increased later.

If we agree that 0 damage is relevant, then sure; my argument falls apart.

If we agree that 0 damage is irrelevant and does not trigger effects, then my argument stands. Reactive plating does not react to 0 damage because Zero has to hurt from the attack.

Edit: It appears I've been Ninja'd by many people, including MigrantP. It seems that is the closest to an official answer.

Hooray for Ronway being correct once again. 

Fine. Looks like I'm wrong. Not a fan of the conclusion but if its right its right.

Don't despair. You were agrueing with Ronway, who is right 90% of the time. This wasn't one of the 10% times I was wrong.

Usually disputes that occur on the internet result in sour feelings. I'm glad this community is not one of those environments in which that is the case. I think we all handled it well.

More corner cases, this time dealing with how damage increases are dealt with under this rule:

1. Mantis Fixer is hit by Fanatic's Sanctifying Strike (1 damage) while she's been pumped by Haka of Battle by +1.

My interpretation is that the damage is redirected, and the Haka of Battle is not consumed.

2. Mantis Fixer hit with Ra's base power (2 damage) while a Haka of Battle is pumping Ra +2 and a Haka of Shielding is protecting Fixer -2.

This could be seen as either both are consumed, or neither are consumed.  I think that both should be consumed, because although in total the effects aren't changing the result (whether or not redirection happens), each effect individually is changing the result, and the changes are just cancelling.

3. Mantis Fixer with a Pipe Wrench, while Shielding Winds is out.  Hit by the Tactical Shotgun (4 damage) pumped by Haka of Battle by +1.

My understanding of how we apply damage reduction/increases is that we can choose to apply the +1, then the Shielding Winds, then the Pipe Wrench reduction, which drops us to 2 damage, which can then be redirected.  Since the +1 is necessary to reach <=2, it is consumed.

5. I can't actually make the numbers work the way I want them to, so for this scenario, we're going to pretend that Mantis redirects on <=3.  Mantis Fixer with Shielding Winds and a Haka of Shielding (-2), while hit with the Tactical Shotgun (4) pumped by Haka of Battle (+1).

Here it gets tricky.  If you apply the Haka of Battle (5), then Shielding Winds (3), and then Haka of Shielding (1), then the Haka of Shielding is unnecessary, and should not be consumed.  However, if you apply Haka of Shielding (2) and then Haka of Battle (3), Haka of Battle is unnecessary, and should not be consumed.  So clearly one of them should be consumed, but which one depends on the order in which you apply the triggers.  I think that in this case, it should be the players' choice.  Obviously, this won't come up in the game (I had to use a fake Mantis to make this work because adding a Haka of Shielding Scenario #3 would have ended with 0 damage, which doesn't get redirected.) but I wanted to illustrate a scenario where two different paths arrive at the same redirection using different consumable shields.

And finally:  My interpretation of this ruling is that multiple shields are considered seperately.  So if one shield is necessary, but the other is not, then only one will get consumed.  My question is whether a Haka of Shielding with multiple cards discarded to it counts as one shield or several.

Example case:  Tachyon has Synaptic Interuption out, and is attaced for 1 damage which has been Haka of Battled to give it +5, will any of the +5 carry over?

Agreed

1. Mantis Fixer is hit by Fanatic's Sanctifying Strike (1 damage) while she's been pumped by Haka of Battle by +1.

My interpretation is that the damage is redirected, and the Haka of Battle is not consumed.

Agreed. The attack is independant of its increase in order to be redirected.

2. Mantis Fixer hit with Ra's base power (2 damage) while a Haka of Battle is pumping Ra +2 and a Haka of Shielding is protecting Fixer -2.

This could be seen as either both are consumed, or neither are consumed.  I think that both should be consumed, because although in total the effects aren't changing the result (whether or not redirection happens), each effect individually is changing the result, and the changes are just cancelling.

Neither are consumed, because the base damage still triggers mantis. When you remove the modifiers during the redirect, you pump out 2 damage. You did not need the modifiers to redirect, and you cam still redirect with them added. My stance is: they both stay.

3. Mantis Fixer with a Pipe Wrench, while Shielding Winds is out.  Hit by the Tactical Shotgun (4 damage) pumped by Haka of Battle by +1.

My understanding of how we apply damage reduction/increases is that we can choose to apply the +1, then the Shielding Winds, then the Pipe Wrench reduction, which drops us to 2 damage, which can then be redirected.  Since the +1 is necessary to reach <=2, it is consumed.

Yes, because the shielding was essential to cause redirection.

5. I can't actually make the numbers work the way I want them to, so for this scenario, we're going to pretend that Mantis redirects on <=3.  Mantis Fixer with Shielding Winds and a Haka of Shielding (-2), while hit with the Tactical Shotgun (4) pumped by Haka of Battle (+1).

Here it gets tricky.  If you apply the Haka of Battle (5), then Shielding Winds (3), and then Haka of Shielding (1), then the Haka of Shielding is unnecessary, and should not be consumed.  However, if you apply Haka of Shielding (2) and then Haka of Battle (3), Haka of Battle is unnecessary, and should not be consumed.  So clearly one of them should be consumed, but which one depends on the order in which you apply the triggers.  I think that in this case, it should be the players' choice.  Obviously, this won't come up in the game (I had to use a fake Mantis to make this work because adding a Haka of Shielding Scenario #3 would have ended with 0 damage, which doesn't get redirected.) but I wanted to illustrate a scenario where two different paths arrive at the same redirection using different consumable shields.

It should be player's choice, correct. Whichever modifier makes it necessary for the redirection to occur is dropped.

Edit: Then again, with your second example of +2 and -2, adding Haka of Battle in the situation makes what I said very contridictory....

Also, for extra funsies:

#6:  Tachyon with Synaptic Interruption is attacked for 3 damage which is being affected by a Haka of Battle for +2 and a Haka of Shielding for -2.

This is basically the same scenario as #2 above, but it's different because in #2, removing either the Haka of Battle or the Haka of Shielding will shift the damage away from redirection (Removing the Shielding alone puts the damage at 4, above Mantis, and removing the Battle puts the damage at 0 which is no damage).  In #6, removing the Battle puts the damage at 1, which is outside the range of Synaptic Interruption, but removing the Shielding puts the damage at 5, which is still redirected by Synaptic.

Anyways, I see three ways of handling multiple modifiers in situations like this (all examples refer to #6):

1.  Check for changes in situation after they are all applied.  In this case, damage was 3, applying Shielding and Battle placed it back at 3, so no change occured and they aren't consumed.  I don't this method because pretty much everything else in SotM checks game state after every individual action.  It's possibly okay here because we're not necessarily making changes, just determining what the outcome would be if things were applied differently, but I personally don't like it.

2.  Apply the one-use increases/decreases one at a time, and check if they're necessary.  In this case, damage is 3 and redirected.  HoB increases damage to 5, which is still redirected so HoB isn't necessary.  Now we check HoS, which decreases damage to 1, which isn't redirected, and is different.  Therefore, HoS is necessary, the damage is now 1, and we have to check HoB again.  HoB increases the damage to 3, which brings back the redirection, which means that HoB is necessary as well.  So both HoB and HoS are necessary and will both be consumed.

3.  Remove the one-use increases/decreases one at a time, and check if they're necessary.  In this case, damage is 3 and redirected.  Removing HoB reduces damage to 1, which removes the redirection, so HoB is necessary, and we put it back.  Removing HoS increases the damage to 5, which is still redirected.  So HoS isn't necessary, and can be removed.  Now we look at HoB again, and removing it brings the damage back down to 3, which is still redirected.  Thus HoS isn't necessary, and neither HoB or HoS will be consumed.

So as far as I can tell, methods 2 and 3 are equally valid, but produce opposite results (this is why I switched to scenario #6 rather than #2, because they produce the same results for #2).  So now what do we do?