Unhallowed Halls states, in part: "Targets cannot do Radiant damage". Visionary has Twist the Ether on target X. X is doing some damage. Which of these is true:
A) Visionary can change X's damage type to Radiant. The damage is then prevented.
B) Visionary is not allowed to pick Radiant as the new damage type.
I’d say she can change it to radiant damage, the it would be prevented.
I agree with Ronway.
But...it doesn't say to prevent Radiant damage, or even that all targets are immune to radiant damage...but that one would not even be able to attempt to DO radiant damage. My vote's on B, and the sheer impossibility of radiant damage as a viable option. =P
But surely by the same logic Fanatic would then not be able to play e.g. Holy Nova, because it deals Radiant damage? My money is squarely on A.
I agree with Ronway and those who've posted in support of his argument.
If you consider Grease Gun from Mr. Fixer's deck, it states "non-hero targets cannot deal damage." This does not prevent villains (who are non-hero targets) from playing damaging one-shots; the damage simply doesn't occur.
Nothing stops anyone in this game from trying to do something they can't do to no effect.
I'm fine with conceding...but I will also say that if I'm told heros cannot play cards, I would not play cards...I would NOT play a card and them have that card basically be blank and go directly to the discards without effect.
You can try to play a card...but you won't be able to. :P
Neither would I. I could use Expatriette's Load power, however, even if I then couldn't play a card off of it.
Revisiting, because I played a game where this came up and it felt far too overpowered, so thought of a possible counter-argument:
Nothing stops anyone in this game from trying to do something they can't do to no effect.
If that is the logic for enabling TtE to change X's damage to Radiant, thereby nullifying damage attempted by X, couldn't you also argue that Visionary via TtE may attempt to change the damage type, but to no effect—because of Radiant's impossibility—allowing the original damage type to be dealt, despite "using" TtE for that instance?
So making an option C) Visionary chooses Radiant damage; the damage type does not change
I feel like for rulings like this not breaking the game trumps all else. I like your interpretation and will use it until I hear otherwise (if this situation comes up anyway).