A few rules questions -- Redirecting and multiple effects on cards

Hi. I have a few questions about rules. I've already looked through Spiff's rules and clarifications and couldn't find an answer.

When damage between two targets is increased, but damage from one of those targets to the other is redirected, is the damage still increased? So if for example Progeny would deal 1 damage to Knyfe, but The Scholar redirected it to himself, would The Scholar take one damage or two?

If an effect on a card is unable to be completed, do subsequent effects on the card still activate? In a recent game I played, we came across Progreny's card Time of Tribulations, which reads "Increase damage dealt by Progeny by 2. At the start of the villain turn, destroy 1 equipment card belonging to each player, then destroy 1 scion card and this card." So if not every player can destroy an equipment card, does it still destroy a scion card and itself?

If effects can't be fulfilled completely, are they still fulfilled partially? So in the previous example would you destroy an equipment card in front of each player who does have equipment? Or if Setback plays "Plucky Break" with 1 unlucky token would he remove that token?

Thanks.

Redirected damage is not a new instance of damage, it just changes the target.  Thus it does not get boosted again unless the new target has a modifier that will increase or reduce it

The card effect in that case is fulfilled as much as possible.  So each player with equipment would destroy one, it would destroy a scion and then itself.  Unless the card has a condition on it, it does each thing as much as it can.  So in your Setback example he would remove 1 token.

I'll probably get ninjaed before I finish typing this out but here goes

For your first question, when damage gets redirected the damage is reevaluated.  I'm assuming in this case that Progeny is dealing two damages to all hero targets and that KNYFE has her shield out which reduces damage by one from the villain with the most health.   In this particular case when the damage is redirected to Scholar he would have two damage coming his way and you would need to evaluate what he has in play to see if it stays at two damage. 

For your second question that card and a scion card would be destroyed regardless of whether every hero has an equipment to destroy.  If the card read that the card and a scion card was destroyed if each hero destroyed one equipment card then it would remain in play.  Since it the text doesn't state it's dependant on the destruction of equipment from each hero it proceeds to destroy a Scion card in play and itself.  

For your next questions, in talking about the same card you would just destroy one equipment for each hero.  If your hero doesn't have an equipment card in play then you don't destroy one.  Again, Time of Tribulations is not dependent on all heroes have an equipment card to destroy for its remaining effects to happen. 

 In the Setback example you would remove the one unlucky token you have in your pool and only get the benefit of the health gained in the second line since you were not able to remove two total unlucky tokens.  

You forgot about the nemesis bonus between KNYFE and Progeny.

But just for clarity, the +1 damage from the nemesis bonus would not apply when redirected to Scholar because, as Powerhound said, all modifiers are reevaluated after a redirection.

"Plucky Break" - Yes, if you only had 1 unlucky token, you have to remove it. Since you did not remove 2 tokens that way, you do not get the conditional benefit of the card (drawing and dealing damage). You just lose your token, and most likely heal since you would have 0 tokens left in your pool.

Welcome to the forums!

Effects can be interrupted if the source is destroyed though. If you destroy a volcanic eruption then all of the remaining lava immediately vanishes or something.

Thanks Pydro!

Are there official sources for these? I argued for that interpretation of Time of Tribulations, but the people I was playing with disagreed. 

Which part of Time of Tribulations? If the effect was meant to be conditional, it would say “if you do…”, like other conditional cards.

I cast Summon Moderator! Here's another thread that needs a descriptive title so people can find it easily in future.

Welcome CharType! :)

I argued that the "then" clause happens whether or not the first part of the sentence is fully completed, but they said that they thought it had to destroy an equipment belonging to each hero for that to happen.

Thanks Silver! :)

So yes, it does happen automatically, otherwise it would have said “if you do…”

Thank you anonymous Mod, have a cookie. :)

Waaaaaait a minute! I’m getting turned around, here.
My premises are:

1. “Damage dealt” = “HP is reduced.”
2. “Redirecting” damage does not generate a new instance of damage, it just changes the target damaged.

I’m looking at the second edition rulebook to get those.

Suppose Scholar has Alchemical Redirection in play, and no other modifier is on the board. Progeny is supposed to deal KNYFE 1 damage according to the text on whatever card we just started resolving. Here’s how I think things should go:

• Apply modifiers to the damage, so Progeny now gets the nemesis bonus and he’s about to do KNYFE 2 damage.

• Now we know how much to reduce KNYFE’s HP, which means we know she “would be dealt” that much damage. We didn’t know this before the modifier!

• When a hero would be dealt damage, we redirect it to the Scholar. That switches the target of the original damage to the Scholar, it doesn’t make Progeny stop and start all over again.

• Scholar’s HP goes down by 2.

• (Now, if we had the opportunity, we could apply any defensive bonuses on the Scholar, like Flesh to Iron.)

I would think that if Progeny stopped and restarted, the door would open for all kinds of infinite redirect sorts of things.

If Scholar becomes the new target due to redirection you have to reevaluate the damage being dealt.   In the situation above with no other interactions, the Scholar would have one damage coming his way. 

That just doesn’t seem thematically in line with what is going on. Or consistent with the “damage dealt = HP reduced” principle, for that matter.

Progeny is TRYING to hit KNYFE. He hates her just as much as he ever did. The Scholar is stepping into the middle of things and doing something to interfere with Progeny’s actions. Progeny shouldn’t get the chance to, as his half-formed energy blast leaves his liquid fingertips, think “oh, wait, I’m going to hit somebody else by mistake. I just won’t try as hard.”

That's assuming the damage is because of hate, maybe it is because of experience. They fought so much, that they know of each other's weaknesses, which wouldn't apply to the next target.

Regardless, that's not how redirecting works. First you see if damage would have been dealt. If it has been, then you redirect, reassesssing all modifiers. However, you were incorrect in your assumption above, it does create a new instance of damage. The first instance was canceled, and a new one is being reassessed. It is as if the first one never happened, with a few exceptions.

Honestly, the other way simply doesn't make sense to me. BUnker is lowest with Heavy Plating, and Smoke Bombs redirect it to somenone else, why would the next target get the defense bonus for Heavy Plating?

You can play it that way if you like with the card game but damage always get reevaluated when the target changes.   I'll give two other examples that can be done the video game currently where a redirection causes changes.

Say Tachyon has Synaptic Interruption in play, Baron Blade has Backlash Field and Living Forcefield in play, and Baron Blade is about to deal Tachyon five damage.  Synaptic Interruption gets destroyed and Tachyon selects a new target of Baron Blade.  Baron Blade now deals himself five damage which gets reduced to four and Backlash Field will react causing Baron Blade to hit himself for three damage which gets reduced to two.  

Second example.  Legacy has Lead from the Front in play and Baron Blade is about to deal Tempest two damage.  Legacy chooses to take the damage from Baron Blade but is now dealt three damage due to the nemesis bonus.  

I initially thought this to be how redirecting works in the game, but I realized that this idea just doesn't fit into the mechanics. There is no case where something suddenly redirects something else (although there are times when you don't know if it will be redirected). Whenever somebody attacks somebody else, on both side, they know it will be redirected.

I think Smoke Bombs and Lead from the Front would be obvious counter examples to the idea that both sides know what’s going on.

I’ve always thought of redirects as something like one hero jumping in front of another target to take the damage, or maybe as confusion on the battlefield. Rules-wise, all the word “redirect” changes is the target of the damage - and we don’t know how much damage was going to happen until we count out how much HP to take away from the original target. I’ll offer up that >G seems to have called out generating a new damage instance as a special thing, which should be treated differently. For example, the Jack handle doesn’t say “redirect that damage to all non-hero targets.”

I agree that the Bunker example seems a little funny, but by the same token if we have Baron Blade hit Wraith, who is lowest, and Smoke Bombs redirects the damage to Legacy, who has Fortitude, I think that Legacy absolutely should get the benefit of both the confusing smoke and his own bulletproof pecs. Also, the Baron had no idea Legacy would be there, so he gets no benefit from his experience or hatred or whatever.

Is there a link to a ruling from >G?

It's in Spiff FAQ.

In your example wiht Smoke Bombs he would get the benefit of both Fortitude and Smoke Bombs reducing damage by two but the nemesis bonus would increase the damage by one.  So if Baron Blade hit Wraith for three and Legacy is the highest then Legacy would ultimately take two damage.  

I don't have an exact item form GtG but Spiffs FAQ should cover all this http://www.spiffworld.com/sotm/files/sotm_rules_and_clarifications.pdf

Mecahnically, you always know that a redirect will or can happen. When you redirect, you always reassess all modifiers from the attacker and defender. Does that always make sense? Maybe, maybe not. Sometimes mechanics trump theme to make the game steamlined.

I don’t see this “stop dealing damage, pick the new target, and start a new instance of damage” definition in Spiff’s document.

I do see this, however, under “Redirecting and Modifying Damage:”

Note: a target which is immune to damage or which has reduced incoming damage
to zero may not then redirect the damage, as there is no damage at that point
to redirect.

If the initial target was able to reduce the damage to zero, and that damage is not then redirected, then we seem to be applying the initial target’s modifiers before any change in target happens, as I suggested. That should be consistent in all situations, I would think. So in a case where there IS damage to redirect, the amount redirected takes into account the initial target’s modifiers.

Edit: By the way, I don’t mean to be argumentative, I just want to have a clear citation, since this definition of “redirect” doesn’t match my intuitive definition of the word. If a game needs such a new definition, it should be clear. While Pydro’s damage assessment guide is nice for clarity, now we get to have Pydro citing himself. That just doesn’t satisfy me. Not anything to do with Pydro personally!

Christopher proof read my post on timing before I posted it.

You are free to play the game however you want. But the official rule to redirection is that you totally reassess any and all damage modifiers. You are free to disregard it while playing your games if you wish

You look at target 1, and access all modifiers to see what damagw would be dealt, then if it qualifies for redirection you redirect it.

When you redirect the damage you start over as if the new target was the target from the beginning.  Access all modifiers, including ones that repeat, and excluding ones that applied to the first target, but not the actual target.

So nemesis bonuses, target specific increases and decreases are only going to apply when that specific target is being damaged.

The reason you apply modifiers then redo it all is because you only redirect damage that "would be dealt", if no damage would be dealt then you don't redirect.  However when damage is redirected, it isn't a new target taking the other target's hp loss, they use their own defenses, and own weaknesses.

If you redirect kryptonite damage from Superman to Batman, Batman isn't taking the +20 from kryptonite that Superman would have taken.

Ultimately you are free to determine what happens when damage is redirected when playing the tabletop game.  However, if you play this in the app it will enforce those rules as they were intended by the game creator.   For instance, my group rarely does anything with the nemesis damage but I know in the app I have to account for it.  

If you want more proof, Christopher confirms it here when asnwering a different question.

Okay. I’m still new enough around here that I don’t know who around here is authoritative and who isn’t. Please pardon my skepticism.

Interesting how we now have an algorithmic reference, huh? I don’t have the app because I like playing on a table better, but maybe that’s a reason to have it on hand.

You shouldn’t EVER trust me, that happens to an exception.

I'm totally the most authoritative one. No one else will admit it publicly though.

It’s all a question of how your authority benefits us. Can I have a cookie?

Guise is the Super Moderator Admin. I'd trust him for any rulings, especially ones that involve his own cards.

Go ask Silverleaf. She makes all the cookie-related decisions.

That’s a crummy thing to say.

Christopher's powers are broad

you can consider it word of God

he created the game

so consider his name

more authoritative than any one mod

Now THAT, I knew.

Basically you can go by their badges:

Admins are rare creatures, and Admin sightings are things to be treasured.

Moderators we largely ignore, unless it is behavior related, they can ban people and mess with your posts.  I think.  No one really knows the extent of their powers.

Playtesters generally act knowledgable, but mostly just like to argue amongst themselves, it's best to nod politely then find something else to do while they fight over minutiae.

Anyone with a unique badge is part of the inner circle, you don't have to listen to them, but try to make them think you will.  They are sensitive and prone to comedic violence.

Questions are usually resolved by the one known as "app", servant of the mighty mega computer, the source of truth and wisdom.

All hail mega computer

Watch out for mega bots disguised as mega computers, though.

Can that happen?

I think we need an official ruling on that.

Unity says yes.

Woah! I think our theory of Con’s origin is looking better!

Golem unity hides herself as the Mega Computer?  I like it.

Yep, you sure can. Glad to see someone recognizes genius!

I keep asking about that SMA badge, but they say they've been busy. Something about running a company or something - sounds boring to me. But I'm me, so anything else sounds pretty boring!

Mostly I'm surprised you just aren't more active.  

Yeah, it really takes the biscuit!

Damn it, that totally doesn't work for an American audience. IT'S FUNNY BECAUSE WE CALL COOKIES BISCUITS

We were thinking that the Freedom N uploads themselves into the Mega Computer.

The game engine for the App is called Unity im pretty sure

It is called Unity and even was listed in the last update http://handelabra.com/blog/2015/3/31/visiting-rook-city

onto Unity 5 in fact

Oh, I see.

Well, I'm glad Unity supports Futurama jokes!

Methinks they should have named the engine Omnitron.

Omnitron is the name of the thing that post the feedback from Mega Computer to the Trello boards.

Unity 5, hmm. . .

So 5 more before she can travel through time and become a villain?

What?! I'm very active!!! Jumping around, looking for people in distress, defeating evil-doers…

Oh, you mean here, on the forums? Eh, too much going on. Like I said, there's all that jumping around, looking for people in distress, defeating evil-doers… Besides, you people just don't play well. You're all engrossed in your game and assume I'm not me. Which is just weird - of course I'm me. Who else would I be? Who else would I want to be?!

It's important to remember that Christopher *can* be convinced to modify a ruling he's made.  It's pretty rare, but I've seen it happen.  So the picky arguments we have may occasionally lead to a change in the game, if we form persuasive enough arguments.

Huh, this thread really blew up in the last day. Thanks Pydro for posting the link to the ruling on how modifiers and redirection works.

I hope my gaming group accepts the consensus on Time of Tribualations and the argument that if that was what it meant it would have said "if you do". IIRC, I think their argument was that since it was all the same sentence it was all the same effect, so you treated it as all the same action, and if you couldn't do part of it you didn't do any of it.

Which I think brings up a more general disagreement we have about how the cards work. As best I can tell, they think that if you can't do an effect on a card completely you don't do it at all. For example, they thought that if you only have one token when you play "Plucky Break", you don't remove that one token. I, however, think that you're supposed to fulfill effect on cards as much as possible, unless they have a conditional like "if able" or "if you do (some other thing)".

So it would be really nice if I could get a ruling or evidence that it's meant to work the way I think it does, if that's the case.

Keep in mind the reverse, if a card says to destroy X equipment/ongoing cards, is someone really saying that if there are less than X in play you don’t destroy anything? Mad Bomber Blade just got MUCH easier.

I was expecting someone else.

I don't think you are going to get Christopher chiming in to give you the official ruling everytime.  We've been over situations like this already in the thread.   If you want to see official ruling then I would suggest looking up Spiff's FAQ that I linked earlier if you have questions.   It should cover quite a bit.   

I know, and I'm not expecting that. (Though that would be nice. ^.^) What I'd like is an official source that states or implies that it works how I think it does.

Yes, but that's just forumites saying how they think it works. It's not an official source and I don't think the people I play with would accept that as proof.

Then I have no idea what more we can do for you.   These forums have a lot of topics that are a bit too hard to dig into to give you anything official outside of Spiffs FAQ.  

Maybe this will help your argument, if they are correct, many cards should be reworded. Here are some examples:

If they are right, it should have said:

According to them, both cards work the same, yet, it actually has more words. It must be because without those words, you would activate the second part even without activating the first part. Here is another example:

If they are right, it should have said:

There are over 20 cards that say "if you do" that should not have said it if that was true. If this card didn't say it, it is because it is different.

Actually, we do have a ruling that you can Experiment with one card in the deck. It gets revealed, but then discarded because it doesn't match the second card.

The best way to think about it is that you should do everything on the card, literally, in the order it says.

So if it says to do one thing and then do another thing, you resolve the two things in that order. If you couldn't do the first thing, then you just go on to the second. It's almost like there were two separate cards, with two separate instructions on them.

If it says to do one thing and "if you do" to do another thing, then and only then is the second resolution conditional on the first.

Does your group play Dominion? That's a game where this sort of literal card interpretation is similarly important. There, as here, conditional actions are the exception rather than the rule, and as such they specifically say "if you do..." or something similar. But otherwise, you just do it like it says!

And Spiff's FAQ has links for each topic to official forum posts covering that information.  Thanks again, Spiff!

Thanks everyone. That was more or less what I was looking for.