I am a bit unsure about that.
Let say I deal 5 damage to a 3 HP target, did I dealt 5 or 3 damage ?
If I did 5 damage and they are prevented I did 0 damage, if they are reduced by 2 I did 3 damage, if the target is immune I did ?
It is even worse with AB and his transformation of damage, are thoses cold damage transformed dealt or not ? If so, what amount ?
Let me see if I can answer these...
If you deal five damage to something with 3hp, I'd say you still did five damage - some cards refer to stuff happening "if X would be reduced to 0hp or fewer" - the only way you could be reduced to fewer than 0hp is if you got hit by any amount of overkill (ie more damage than you have hp remaining).
If you deal five damage and it's prevented, you did zero damage because, well, because it was prevented ;). If it was reduced by two then yes, you will have dealt three damage. If they are immune, then you dealt the damage, but their hp didn't go down. You still dealt the damage.
I presume by AB you mean AZ (Absolute Zero). If you're referring to his Nulpoint Calibration Unit module, which converts cold damage to healing when he gets hit by it, I'd say the damage is still dealt, but then the module goes "Hmm, you have been hit by cold damage...I convert that to healing...ping!". Or something.
If I'm wrong about any of these, i'm sure some of the more experienced folks will hop in and correct me :).
I agree w/ Ameena on all counts.
BUT, I think there are really two questions here hiding as one -- how much damage was dealt and how much damage was taken.
Deal 5 damage to a 3 HP target: 5 dealt, 5 taken
Deal 5 damage to an immune target: 5 dealt, 0 taken
Deal 5 damage, reduced by 2: 3 dealt, 3 taken
Deal 5 damage that are transformed to healing: 5 dealt, 0 taken
Yeah, that is all the trouble : are Damage Dealt even when they are not taken by the target ? Because there is a valid argument that you dealt no damage to a target that is immune because he took none.
That is why I found the notion of Damage Dealt ambivalent, and semantically unsatisfying.
And AZ card text say " he regain that many HP instead", the instead seems to mean that the damage were never dealt.
for the purposes of AZ, i feel he falls apart if he isnt delt the damage when he heals.
And damage delt to immune targets is still delt, they just have Perfect Soak
And these both stem from teh fact that it is far more fun to have AZ start throwing around a ton of damage and healing himself,a nd to be able to become immune to damage but still redirect it, or use damage delt to an immune enemy to pull off other stunts.
Because setting up craazy combos like that is part of what makes the game fun, and as ive said elsethread - its coop, so don't get too hung up on the exact way something should be done, fake it or fudge it if its more interesting and fun!
If you deal damage to a target who's immune to that damage, you've still dealt the damage- it's just that the target's hp didn't go down as a result. It'd be like punching someone on the chest when they're wearing a metal chestplate - you still punched them on the chest. It just didn't hurt them because the armour protected them (and you probably broke your fist doing so ;)).
Same with Ab' Zero - say you chuck five points of cold damage at him. You've dealt five cold damage. But when it hits him, his NCU then converts it to healing. You still dealt five damage - it just ended up healing him instead of harming him.
Christopher has stated that damage dealt = hp reduced. If the target is immune, no damage was dealt. That's the ruling I've got in my Clarifications doc, and while I've seen people on these forums have a philosophical problem with that, I've never seen Christopher take it back or modify it.
If there are more shades to this, I'd love to get something official, because mostly what we do is talk about how we think it should work rather than how it does.
Hum, that's what I thought too Spiff. BTW kudos on your game aids, really well done and helpfull.
I would also loved to have an official position on thoses questions.
And the Absolute Zero card specifically say that he get healed "INSTEAD" of being dealt damage, so for me it is clear than the damage aren't considered dealt.
I know it is a cooperative game, but I just like rules and playing as stricly by them as possible. For me rules provide balance and balance provide fun.
I can't argue with that. Fun is the most important factor!
But as this is coop, 'balance' is less of an issue, because its not one actual live person getting the better of another, actual live person through some quirk of the rules or inbalance in the game. It is a bunch of people against an automated deck - the deck is not going to have its feelings hurt when the balance is in the player favor 
What my point is, play by the rules, most certainly. Keep the structure intact and by all means, debate all the little points therein - just don't let following the rules to the letter of the law become so intense that the game is not fun anymore! 
What I learned from other cooperative and solo games (Ambush, Arkham Horror, B17, Pandemie,...) is that if you dont follow the rules then the game 'break' as it became too easy and fail to provide the challenge it should have. Solo/coop game are usually harder to win than standard game and thus the balance is usually set toward the opposition.
The trick is that when every people win together it is hard to be fair for the system and not cheapen the experience by misplaying some of the most constraining rules (cards order and player order being the main point of contention in SotM, IMDNSHO). Damage allocation is also somewhere you can tweak the systema to your advantage.
The bad thing is that the bad guy cant do that, he is dead set on the rules, cards orders, damage allocation and all that. It is only fair to try to play by the same rules.
I also like to know the more precisely how the designer think the game should be played, to be the most true to their design.
Hmm, I could have sworn that Christopher posted an example somewhere of playing AZ, and he mentioned that you could select AZ as one of initial targets for Thermal Shockwave to get a bigger bang on the end. Now, he could have just been absent minded, and I don't have the example at hand, but that's what I remember. I generally agree that damage dealt = 0 for immune target, but I thought the damage -> healing of AZ was somehow special with regards to "damage dealt".
No idea if it is a valid approach, but I tend to consider "damage dealt by" and "damage dealt to" as two different things. "Damage dealt by Absolute Zero" means, for me, the damage that he "emmited", whatever could happen to it, while "damage dealt to Absolute Zero" would be the HPs AZ really lost. But I am not sure I do it consistently. Also, it means that if a card says "whenever a target does damage to you" works even if you are immune or reduce the damage, while "whenever you are dealt damage" means whenever you lose HPs.
In brief, I consider the damage you deal, and the damage the target is dealt, to be two different values.
That is probably a very common house rule, TheSoundOfTrees.
I completely agree Lkerensky - Breaking the rules certainly quickly leads to the game no longer being fun. I'm more refering to nitpicking - Like the Order of Cards rule - The way its written, you activate your cards in certain situations in the order they hit the table. Useful for the villian, so its always set in the same way, who doesnt have an intelligent persona behind it. could be really bad for the hero, who had a choice to play this card or that card, and because he made the wrong choice a certain combo wont work anymore. Thats no fun, because 5 turns ago you made the wrong choice.
Well, if you allow the Heroes to alter the order of play for the start of turn effect, it is only fair to allow it to Vilain too.
So this mean that the Reinforcement card of Great Warlord become an insta-win as you dont have the luxury of an extra turn to lower the minion count under 10. A few other effect become quite deadly too.
i can see where you are coming from that. I dissagree however - As villan cards are played in a specific order and there is zero choice in how you play those cards. They will come out one at a time from the deck, and only random chance has the ability to make them in any order. Even more than one card played a turn will still only come out in the order that the deck decrees. Even 'stacking' the deck, such as with many of Visionary cards, is only a psudo choice. At best stacking the deck simply is skipping a card in the preditermened order of the deck - and that order /is/ predetermined the moment you stop shuffling and set the deck down on the table.
Unlike heroes, whom have 4 cards in their hand to start with, and depending on how card draw is with your heroes (Leader tachyon ftw!) can be many many more. A mistake at turn 2 because you did not play your cards in the right order (or didnt have a choice and had to play a card in order to make some effect happen) that could ruin a combo 3 or 4 turns down the line? Not fun in my book, and really a big downer. Nothing I could do to prevent that happening in my /play area/ is not a feeling I enjoy. In fact it really ruins my enjoyment of the game were that to come up. Hence why we play with that modified rule. The villian has no feelings to hurt, he is not a person controlling it. If it were a PvP game, then I would most certainly not have that sort of house rule. However, the villian deck and the environment decks are both automated machines, and will continue to show a predetermined order of cards (even if we do not know what that order is) -- And note, the uncontrollability of the hero deck being is a different subject for me. thats what keeps the game interesting, not knowing what your going to get next. But in my play area, where these are the choices -I- get to make, if that suddenly is not in my control because I didnt play my cards in the right order several turns ago before a situation arose that it would actually matter... that is not cool. Not fun at all. To be denied a combo because I couldnt see the situation in the future and my Choice of play order was a poor one is unfun. Not a poor choice of what powers to use, causing more damage to the heroes or to me, or a poor choice of which card to skip in the Enviroment deck with a stacking power... those are just oops. Poor choice over something you have no control over in the future is not an oops.
Its not that it comes up often. In fact I honestly cannot think of any situation off the top of my head where play order of the Heroes card in their play area is important. The closest I can come right this second is Absolute Zero, perhaps? And maybe Visionary if she has Twist the Ether on her and the redirect damage cardon something else in her playfield (could that even be /possible?/) ... and even those both dont apply, really. AZ might, i dont recall his cards well enough. But the way he bounces damage around might indeed matter for card order, and if thats the case then he becomes entirely usless if you do not play your modules in the correct order... if thats even the case (and im not certain it is)
In fact I can't think of a single hero that has a ton of 'Start of Turn' or 'End of Turn' triggers (as I believe those are most likely the situations where Card Played oder will come into effect) that are not 'destroy this card' where it would come into play. The majority of hero cards I can think of are triggered abilities, and card order played means nothing in that situation because they trigger off whatever happens, not hapening simultaneously. And anyways, isn't there a ruling that when something happens simultaneously, Players get to choosethe effect? (Wrath of days vrs certain cards, for instance) - meaning start of the turn destruction effects (or end of the turn) would get to be chosen by the player anyways.
So honestly? I cannot think of a single situation where card order comes into play for a hero. So this may all be a moot point. Or im just missing it.
"So honestly? I cannot think of a single situation where card order comes into play for a hero. So this may all be a moot point. Or im just missing it."
http://sentinelsofthemultiverse.com/forum/topic/tempest-and-bblade-electrical-storm-elemental-subwave-inducer-vs-elemental-redistribution-2603
The reason why I started checking on cards play order.
Another example of how card order can be important: Unity Golems.
Let's imagne Voss has a genebound guard and two other minions. As long as the guard is alive, minions takes one less damage.
Unity has two platform and a raptor bot out. If they play in this order, they can at the best kill two cards from Voss : first platform only does 3 damage reduced to two, so can't kill the guard.
If the order is irrevelant and Unity can "activate" her golems in the order she wishes, all three minions are dead : raptor does 4 damage, enough to kill the guard, and then the platforms can each kill a minion.
ANother reason why I houseruled that hero cards play in the order hero choses, not in the order they entered the game.
An another reason I will always insist for them to be played with the same constraint as the Vilain cards :)
Or the next time you play Voss if he manage to get 10 minions you instantly lose :)
The villain deck is a machine, an algorythm, because it has to play itself. The hero decks are meant to be played by humans, and give you choices - there is no reason for hero cards to play themselves automatically without giving choice to the players. It's reason enough for me to be very precise with order for villains and environment, and give the choice to players for their heroes.
Being limited in what you can do because cards were not played in the optimal, but unpredictable, order is not a good thing to impose on players, in my opinion.
It's a valid opinion, as long as you understand that your heroes are getting a clear advantage over the Villain deck (and it appears you do, so cool). It seems like a reasonable house rule, but it's in favor of the players so I understand.
Thats exactly what I'm saying.
I completely understand where others are coming from. But man, it is no fun to have /my choices/ taken away from me because I played something in the wrong order. That ruins the game for me, and generally ruins any prechance of a good time. If it doesn't for you, then hey! Don't do that. No one says you have to play this way, just that (For Sound of Trees and I) in our play environments we want to do it this way.
Im not quite sure how you figure this. His Ten Minion Win condition is a Start of Villian action, is it not? At the STart of the Villian turn, if he has 10 minions in play, the game ends. – So that has already been checked by the time 10 minions enters plays on his turn, or is not checked if they enter play during some other turn of the round. So I'm not sure how your arguement actually works?
(keep in mind I dont have direct acess to the game, so can't go look at the card right now :P)
I think the argument is that in order to be consistent, you would have to have the villain deck choose start and end of turn effects in the order that would be most advantageous to it to counteract the heroes choosing what order their cards go off at the start or end of the turn. However, if you're changing the rules purely to suit the players and have more fun rather than playing with alternate rules all around, you wouldn't have to do that. The argument is about consistency more than anything.
lynkfox, it's because of the Forced Deployment card : at start of turn, this card ressurects all the minions in the trash. So, if you play cards in order, you first check if there are ten minions,then resurect the trash, because vass was the first card in play. If you don't play in order, you could resurect ten or more minions, and then check the victory condition, and immediately lose.
But you had the choice of what order they would be played in when you played the cards.
It sounds like the general frustration is playing cards early on and getting cards later that would be more efficient earlier in the turn order. I can understant this frustration, as it really sucks getting an Imbue Fire right after Visionary just played a Twist the Ether on someone. If people house rule in favor of the players, I am all for that. However, it's important to understand that it isn't a "better" system improving a broken or flawed one, it's just a different way to play. It's less consistent, but as long as everyone is having fun, right? Play order helps the players a lot more than it hurts them (I'm looking at YOU, Forced Deployment!), but there are times that it just makes the experience less awesome than it could be.
But I don't wanna disregard the order cards are played in.
Me? I play by the rules as much as I can. I'm no game designer, and I'm not gonna try to change the beautiful sand castle the metaphorical sandsmiths at >G have created for me to play with. But I totally get why people wouldn't want to be tied down by play order. It's an interpretation in favor of the players that does nothing but benefit them. There will be times when that will change the course of the game (and possibly make one's intangible Sentinels Points on the forum null and void in the eyes of one's Sentinels peers), but I've heard MUCH worse interpretations of how to play Sentinels than that.
When playing Solitaire, it sucks when cards you need are buried because they came out in an order you didn't like, too. Of course, you can invoke a "house rule" to rearrange the cards into a more convenient order, and if that makes the game more fun for you, there's no harm. But it's still cheating. ;)
thats exactly what he's saying. Why should we be punished for having a choice, about something we had no idea of what was to come in the future? Where as the Villain/Environment deck will always play the cards in it int he same order it was shuffled in. There is no choice. None.
Also, my other major argument against player card order is the entire issue of cards easily getting rearanged on the table, keeping things in oraganizational ways to make it understandable better (Ill put all my start of turn effects here so I don't forget, all my end of turns here…, all my powers here, all my ongoings here…) — but thats a little thing, a cosmetic thing, which is understandably disregarded XD
And like I said, I completely understand where the other side is coming from. And i understand why (coughspiffcough) would call it cheating, but personally I call it making sure that the game remains fun to play. Cheating implies that one person is getting an unfair advantage over another - and in this case, no /humans/ are getting an unfair advantage over any other. Don't start getting all philosophical on if the mechanical processes of the villian/environmental deck is getting taken advantage of or not It doesn't have feelings!
No, but in DnD DM's can give their players special treatment and allow them to cleave through Beholders and Driders at level 1. It's still cheating regardless of no human player being slighted. But do the players have fun? Yeah, most of the time they do. It sounds like you've found a way to play the game that you and your group enjoy. You're not following one of the rules, and it is technically cheating. It doesn't make you a bad guy, it doesn't make the way you guys are playing the game bad or evil, and it's enhancing your playstyle. It's still cheating. But you're group is playing the same way and everyone is having a good time, so who cares? Play the game however you want! No judgement here.
But you're giving yourself an advantage over your opponent (human or no). Technically cheating.
The way I play it, it will "suck" too 
To make my houserules clear : player choice is only used for the cards of a gven hero that could activate at the same time, everything else is in strict order, positive or not. So yes, Unity can chose if Platformbot or Raptor Bot will damage a target first, and Legacy will choose wether Fortitude is applied first, or Superhuman durability, but that's all. I just consider cards of one player activating at the same time as an "ambiguous situation" like tied HP, and give choice to the players.
I choose to play this way because it makes more sense to me than "order cards were played rounds ago", and because it gave me serious headaches when I began trying to apply the official rules.
Yes, it is a houserule. I am not following what Tric Trac TV reviewers would call the International Championship Rules This is not the only point that makes my games different from the "norm" : for instance, I don't consider cards under omnicannon or savage mana as cards but just as "non card" ammunitions, for better or worse. And I have my own "walkthrough" of how "damage dealt" works. It's a personal choice, for the sake of simplicity, but still personal !
If it gives an advantage to the heroes, it compensates the fact that I only play random heroes in random order of play in most of my games
It's only the way I play - when answering a rule question, I give the official answer. The official answer has to be consistent, and has to be "deduced" from the rules as written. I am playing an unofficial, personal, variant.
My mistake is to discuss possible variants here in this part of the forum
Note for non-french speakers : Tric Trac TV is a french language video review website, known for the crazyness of its hosts, their humor, and the full length "let's play the game" videos they post for most game they review. Don't watch it at work unless you can get away with irrepressible laughter.
It's not a mistake. Alternate interpretation can spice up a game. It's just an alternate interpretation.
How do you play Imbue Fire and Twist the Ether?
I continue to respectfully dissagree with you on if it is cheating or not. A House Rule is not cheating. One purposely not taking damage when you are supposed to is cheating. Stacking your deck is cheating. A house rule for an unclear section of the rules that can be debated as Read as Written or Read as Intended is a clarification to the way we see things should be done.
Yes RaW is the only /fair/ way to interpret rules. I played Warhammer 40k for many many years, and understand that RaW is the only way you can truely interperet the rules, especially where competition comes forth. However, I favor the understanding of RaI when you have an inclinking that the game should be played in a way that is more intuitive, as Sound of Trees states
And honestly, I play it the same way as Trees does - Same time activation, player chooses. And this is not to far from the rules already posted - Look at regards to the clarification of End of Days and Forced Deployment. Simultaneous actions the player chooses. Start of Turn actions, for instance, are Simultaneously occuring at the the start of the turn. In truth, so are the Start of Turn actions of the Villian, so technically that should be able to - other then the fact that the rule book is directly against this. There is evidence to support that when it benifits the player, it can indeed be chosen in the best order. The ruling
"Simultaneous" actions do not actually occur simultaneously, but rather occur in the order of the players' choosing; thus, the players choose the order in which cards are destroyed by End of Days.
So there is a conflict now, because the EE rulebook clearly says differently. The end of turn or the start of turn is not a phase. It is a timing trigger point. Start of turn - Follow Any instructions on any cards in play wich occur at the start of this heroe's turn -- these happen all at the same time. Simultaneously. --- the word Simultaneously being used in the Conflict Resolution of the section of the rulebook, and then the examples are both Start of Villain turn or End of Villain turn effects.
Read as Written is clear, yes - as it says -In All Situations Card effects that happen simultaneously...-
But right there in the quote is a line from Paul which is clearly not -all situations-. They are both simultaneous actions.
My take? Read as Intended - Villian actions happen in card order, Player actions (End of Days being the card pulled in this case, a player action) happen in Player Choosing.
Except that the rule reads in which "multiple effects would occur simultaneously or have competing effects." In whichever order you destroy things with End of Days, you are resolving the End of Days effect at the start of the Environment turn. That is a single card effect. Now, if a Pteradactyl came into play before EoD and deals some Sonic damage, it would apply first, then End of Days goes off. This is how you resolve cards in the order they are played. Dawn attacking and then being followed by her Citizens since she was in play first? Multiple card effect. An Imbue Fire being played after a Twist the Ether, trumping TtE's ability to change damage type? Multiple card effect.
Again, there isn't anything wrong with how you're playing this game. It's just a different interpretation of the rules than as written, as you've said. But it gives an advantage to the players that they don't normally have. If you're not fond of the word "cheating," I understand and will stop making that claim. But it's a benefit for you and your team over the villain that isn't given to you by the standard rules.
Damn I was sure you were talking about Wrest the Mind So no, it doesn't suck.
For me : Imbue fire works as if the damage type on any card/power played by a hero was erased and replaced by "fire", by default. But then the "whenever" of Twist enters in action, and you can change damage type if you want, losing the bonus to damage if it is not fire. Let's say that intuitively, I apply general effect "all damage is fire" before the specific "whenever this target deals damage". But again, it is not how it works by the rules, but my own interpretation.
Edit : as I said, I have my own "algorythm" for the steps of "damage dealing" 
I had problem with Imbued with Fire too, because this card is not triggered nor linked to a specific phase. The "all damage is fire" ir on the same line than the "+1 damage to everyone" as a permanent change.
So I can see both interpretation that TtE switch the damage from fire to anything else (or even fire) and the one that Imbued instantly change the damage type back to fire.
BTW I found that Imbued Fire is far more too powerfull a card, when coupled with immunity to fire, it made some of the villain nearly toothless (Plague Rat I am looking at you), and thus I think it is very hard to balance vilain because the presence of RA make such a large difference.
Now that I think about it, Imbued Fire describes it's change of making all heroes deal fire damage as that of a static one, and not a triggered one, and Twist the Ether is a triggered effect. Thus, no matter the order played, Imbued Fire would first say the damage is fire, as it is a static modifier, and Twist the Ether would always trigger after Imbued Fire, resulting in Twist the Ether always having the say. Only cards like Rooftop Combat, which changes all damage to type of melee, would have a play order interaction with Imbued Fire, as it also specifies it's modification as a static effect.
After redacting my answer to Reckless, I thought about it and re-explained it along the line of "twist the ether only happens when the damage is done, so always after Imbue Fire", if the Imbue Fire card can be "activated" only once for each damage instance - but it can be counter argumented, because all damage is all damage. That's why simple rules like "when in doubt, apply effect according to order cards entered play" are useful even if some results can be strange.
Another point is that many different "ordering" factors are used. For instance, even if Targeting Computer was played before Imbue Fire, the projectile attacks of the Wraith don't gain the +2, as the ruling seem to be that damage bonuses to apply are determined only after the damage type is "stabilized"…
This is a very rich game, with an incredible amount of possible interactions : the only way to produce rules that leave no doubt are either to write rules as if they were meant for a computer, with a very precise resolution algorythm ( what you are trying to describe, TheJayMann ) or chose a very human-friendly conflict resolution rule ( as "order cards entered play" and " player choice" ) and apply it consistently in every case where there is a doubt.
If you add the fact that new expansions possibly introduce new card interactions that were not foreseen, keeping a simple rule is very important (even if said rule changes in the future). In an expansion about time travel, who knows, maybe we will see cards that change the order cards are resolved 
Were all "border effects" of the "order the cards were played" rules meant to be ? Was the fact that End of Days can never prevent a Volcanic Eruption a design choice, or just the result of applying the rules ? Officially, we have to apply the rules, as written. At our own personal table, well, we may use our own personal rulings and conflict resolution preferences.
I think that is what everyone is saying. There isn't anything wrong with personal rulings or conflict resolution preferences that are variants from the written rules. They're just how you play the game. Other people prefer to play the game as close to the rules as possible (which can cause some headaches, but such are rules lawyers). Play the game however you like and we'll do the same.
As an aside, the 'end of turn' and 'start of turn' portions of a turn actually are phases just as much as the draw, power, and play portions of a turn are phases.
Do you mean Twist the Ether is far too powerful? Because Imbued Fire doesn't change the type of damage inflicted by Villains.
Imbued Fire and Flesh of the Sun God can be a very useful combo if you get Infected (hence, probably, the reference to Plague Rat), since then you're damaging yourself. If buffed with both of the aforementioed cards, you'll deal yourself fire damage which yo're immune to. Won't help at all against the attacks Plague Rat himself deals out, but it still helps :).
I dissagree with that. I consider it a point of fixed time - it happens, regardless. Start of turn -------play phase-------- XXXXXXpower phaseXXXXXXXX Draw End of turn*
(* being a point, ---- or xxx being a preriod of time)
where as both the Play phase and the Power phase can be skipped, fixed points in the turn cannot. – Given that the rule book never actually uses the word 'Phase' (just Turn Order! Start, Play, Power, Draw, End!) its certainly open for interpretation.
Also. On Multiple
How is that different? Either a) All the Start of Turn effects go off (Multiple simultaneous effects) or b) End of Days and Forced deployment are in conflict (Multiple simultaneous effects)
… they are both the same thing. With conflicting rulings. Rule book says Order in which cards are play. Clarifications on forum says Player Determines Order. Both for Multiple Simultaneous effects. So i'm not sure where youre coming from on this.
Edit.
nevermind. I see where you are coming from. EoD and FD are simultaneous effects that are happening becaues of the other trigger, where Start of Turn effects are happening because of the /same/ trigger.
Well, by RaW, i still beleive I stand as correct because they use the same words chuckles But i get the RaI where you are coming from in that regard.
and oh, yeah. I also realize it gives a slight advantage to the players. I believe (excepting perhaps in Unitys case) it is very slight, and rarely has an effect, other than making sure the game remains fun.
Perhaps. My evidence for how the game works comes from playing with the creators more than anything in the rule books.
I would interpret this in a completely different way…
Start of turn and end of turn are phases, because multiple effects happen at this specific time of the turn, and never simultaneously. Play a card, use a power, draw a card are not phases, but "points in time", a given event with no duration.
You could say that the player's turn is made of three "phases" : start, actions, end, each with (possibly) multiple events happening in a given order.
Don't remember where it is on this forum, but I think I remember seeing that when ruling that cards saying "at the start of turn you may decide to skip your turn", you could chose when exactly in the order of event you decided to stop the start of turn resolution and skip.
Correction : you don't "choose" when to skip, you skip when the order cards were played activates the card that gives you the choice. It still means that the "start of turn" phase ends then, and other effects "stacked" to happen, don't.
By default, the "action" phase has three different actions that always happen in the same order : play card, use power, draw card, but individual cards and powers can cause other events/actions to happen, you can play a card that has you use a power or draw a card, etc.
You seem to see "start of turn" and "end of turn" as triggers with no duration, while I understand them as a sequence of event. Funny how the same rulebook can lead to very different way to understand what happens
While I understand the use of house rules by some player I think the use of such alteration should be made perfectly clear when speaking with other players, simply because it alter play experience and game balance.
For some player some combination of cards become far less or far more potent than for the other players, wich alter the way they perceive gaming difficulty and some heroes/vilain balance. So when discussing rules and game balance on the forums people could have different experience of the same situation and thus opposite opinion. The trick is that house rules usually generate other house rules ro re-balance things they alterate, the more house rules appear the less we are playing the same game and the harder we are to communicate.
Also the game is balanced by designer with the official rulebook, using house rules just mean you cant participate on the debate on game balance and rules because you are technically not playing the same game than the others.
i have yet to see a signifigant power change with this interpretation of the rules. this House Rule then, though i still see it as an interpretation and not a House Rule.
The trick with House rules is not that you need others, it is making sure any House Rule is there for a specific purpose (in this case, as it is commonly seen as a house rule and Ill admit im in the minority in my interpretation, this house rule is to ensure the player maintains choice) so that you do not end up with a 1001 house rules. They must be very carefully considered so you don't have to make additional rules, and if you find that you do, then you need to go back and adjust the first rule not make new ones.. We have no other house rules and play the game pretty consistantly across the board with everything else - the forums are ourmajor source of rules interpretation for most things.
I can only recall a few times when any card order would have been important, and that is one of the example thats been pointed out to me - Tempest and his start of turn elemental damage stuff. And even then I don't think that having it card order vrs not card order would have changed the game in any meaningful manner (i think it was even played in card order).. in fact I am pretty sure it was against a villian who doesnt care what kind of elemental damage you do, and so it didnt really matter which order they were activated in. - so its rather a moot point that we'd be unable to discuss balance.
See, lkerensky, thats why I call this an interpretation not a house rule - because you're right. Excessive house ruling quickly leads to you not being able to even play the game with other players outside your playgroup because you're so used to special rules that you try to use them in other settings. Only this a) comes up so very rarely and b) i for one would have no problem in a group of others going 'Oh crap, youre right,c an't do it that way' if it was pointed out to me. Its such a very minor thing in terms of how often it actually comes into effect for heroes that the choice to interperet it this way (via the above posts ive made) makes very very little difference in pretty much every concievable situation. Tempest is still super powerful in terms of raw damage output, no matter if he always gets to use the good way of comboing genebound shackles and whatever the other card is against Baron Blade, or if he screwd it up and didnt get to do it. That one little situation doesn't change how much raw damage he can output.
Seriously, I've had a blast in this conversation, and its pretty much to the point where we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. I for one have no problem with our interpretation (Duh!) and in fact have very little problem with your interpretation because there have been so far 3 places this comes up - in Tempest (who is not played all that often in our group) and a 2 hero combination (Imbued fire and Twist the Ether) That again, is probably a rare occurance. -- The last being the order of Unity's bots, but 9/10 i can think of where Unity has gotten enough bots off in our games for it to have mattered, its been against single target villains, in in that case it doesnt really matter if Platform bot or Raptor bot goes first. The damage is going to be done anyways, and if its reduced or not its going to be reduced the same way. I can think of no other times it would have mattered.
So thank you for the great converation, and I will bow out now.
(on other topics though, you are correct Sound! What one person interpets a written word is different then what another person does, which is why Read as WRITTEN is soooo much more important in rules discussions then Read as Intended - because we all interpret the rules differently. Which also ties into arenson9's comment - he has played with the creators, so he knows there Intention with the rules, but for the rest of us unforunate souls who do not have that glorious oppertunity as he, we cannot know their Intent, only their Written Word. If we all would be so lucky to know their Intent, then rules debate as this last one would rarely (if ever) occur :P)
I've got something that might be interpretation-related that I may as well check here. it came up in a game today during which we were fighting Spite, and I was playing Nightmist. The situation never actually happened but I wondered what would occur if it did. So, having not got out enough drugs in order to flip, Spite was still lifetapping every time he hit anything. It specifies that he heals every time he "deals damage". If he'd hit Nightmist, who had discarded two cards in order to redirect that damage and redirected it back to Spite, would he deal himself the damage but then immediately heal it back, thereby simply nullifying it? He's still dealt the damage, even if it ended up being to himself, and it says he heals back any time he "deals damage", so no target is specified. As I said, I ended up not bothering to try redirecting as it was only a couple of points, I think, and he probably had less than 20hp left (we finished kicking his arse not too long after that, if I remember rightly ;)).
If Spite damages himself on the front side, he would heal back the damage afterwords. This would generally be effectively the same as nullifying the damage, but technically he would deal the damage, then heal as two separate steps.
Lynkfox, it seems that you're assuming that your house rule being classified as such is somehow bad or undesirable. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't see a problem with house ruling. But the rules as written play different from your house rule (as I mentioned earlier about End of Days being a single effect that allows for player choice, like Tempest's Squall or a Gene-Bound Firesworn's Fire attack). Again, not a big deal as you clearly are favoring your players and want to improve your fun with it. But it's a house rule and not an alternate interpretation. It's not because "too many house rules are bad" or "if you don't play the game as written you're dirty, evil, and wrong."
But I see no problem with your house rule. It sounds perfectly reasonable and looks like it could really simplify a lot of games. It's just that it is technically classified as a house rule, and different from the rules as presented in the rulebook.
@ Ammena & Dypaca :
I would have it happen a little differently, but it is not important : what is important is that he does not care who the target is, and so will have the healing even if he damages himself.
Dypaca, what would happen if he had his protection drug active ? Would he heal 0 hp because he reduced the damage to 0 ?
If the damage is reduced to zero or less, then he does not heal at all. It has been ruled in the past that HP must actually go down for cards to react to damage that is dealt. If his HP is reduced by any amount, then he heals for whatever amount it actually went down (which can then be boosted to more by Atlantis).
So if his own damage is redirected to him, does he take damage first and then heal it back, or does nothing happen? The only time I can see this mattering at all is if the damage would be enough to kill him, but it's still nice to know :).
He takes damage first, then heals. This matters if the damage kills him. Also if the environment is boosting healing. Also if he is damaged again that turn and has the drug which reduces the first damage each turn. Also if the damage is 4 or more and he has Collateral Damage and a Victim in play.
This makes me realize how incredibly prepared Spite is for murdering.
He is far more dangerous with the way I "rule" this, as I have him heal himself as soon as he attacks, whatever happens to the damage… But this is is so different from the consensus that I think I'd better lurk than make things more confusing.
Dypaca, another question, if you don't mind, about a specific situation :
The Operative deals 2 damage (unmodifed by nemesis) to Mr Fixer, and Mr Fixer has the style to redirect attacks that do 2 or less active. What happens ? Does he take 3 damage, or can he redirect 2 ?
Same situation, but the Operative does 1 damage before Nemesis bonus : does he redirect 2, or 1 ( 1, if I understood your posts) ?
This situation was the seed that had me choose a way to play very different from what I read here - the answer may help other players.
The verb tense on Spite's healing ability is different from other damage reaction abilities, so you wouldn't be completely out of line to argue another interpretation. But I think it makes the most sense to do the damage first, then the healing which is triggered by it.
For your new questions, now we are getting into the territory of abilities which react when something would be dealt damage and redirection (which is different from reacting to damage which is dealt). I'm a bit less confident that my answers are backed up by official rulings here.
For the first question, Mr Fixer takes 3 damage.
For the second question, he could redirect the damage. She would do only 1 damage to the new target, assuming there are no other modifiers. (There was an interesting ruling that ANY two cards which share nemesis icons are nemeses, meaning she would have the damage boost if it is redirected to the Chairman).
More generally, when damage is redirected resolve it as though the new target were the original target. (The only exception to this is smoke bombs which redirects and modifies the damage). Like I said, I don't know of a statement directly from the designers supporting that, but I think it is the correct way to play.
I am going to necro this thread for a specific and related question with multiple in game applications: When you have a card that requires you to deal so much damage each turn (Fanatic) or deals you damage based on how much damage you have dealt (AZ) and you strike a target with reduction, does that change the amount of damage you have dealt for the purposes of satisfying the heroes' cards? To make that less confusing, let me give you the specific examples:
1) Fanatic has a card that lets her prevent 2 nonheroes from dealing damage each turn so long as she deals 3 or more damage. If I deal 2 radiant and 2 melee to Omnitron but he reduces each by one and only takes 2 damage total between the two attacks, do I still satisfy the requirement for the card? In other words, as far as her card is concerned, did I deal 4 damage or just 2 damage?
2) Absolute Zero has the card in play ( I think Thermal Shockwave) that lets him hit three targets for 1 cold damage each and then deal himself X fire damage where X is the amount of cold damage he has dealt this turn. He targets Omnitron and 2 drones dealing each of them 2 cold damage but they all have reduction 1 and he damages all of them only 1 cold damage. When he hits himself with fire damage is he dealing himself 6 fire damage (2x3) or 3 fire damage (1x3)?
Is "damage dealt" what was actually dealt or what was actually received in these scenarios? I have been playing it using the initial damage dealt (plus all modifiers from the initial source) and not what was ultimately received by the intended target. I am curious how others play this out.
In both of these cases, the targets need to actually lost hit points.
So you would use the lesser amount? Fanatic would have only dealt 2 damage and her card would be destroyed.
I sort of get that but thematically it doesn't make sense. AZ lets out a big burst of cold and takes damage related to how much cold he released since it is a thermodynamic principle. That should be independent of how much it actually affected his enemies. For example, if he just blasted nothing he should still take fire damage, but based on using "damage taken by targets" he would actually suffer no damage for this maneuver which seems illogical. Then again that is putting reality into a sci-fi/fantasy card game so maybe I just need to suspend disbelief a little longer.
Maybe think of it as AZ being a rebel and not trying hard enough because he really doesn't want to be there? It would make some sense considering his personality.
Actually based on the rules clarification and errata that updated some of those cards, as long as they still take at least 1 point of damage the card does not get destroyed. So you may still meet the requirements of the card as long as the damage is only reduced to 1 or more.
Hate to be that guy, but none of the cards that were discussed in this topic were the cards that recieved the recent errata (Embolden, Chastise, Solar Flare, and Pushing The Limits. Divine Focus is also there, but was overlooked in the errata). So it doesn't really apply to the discussion.
I feel that it contradicts the general "keep it simple, super-stupid" design ethos of SOTM for there to be a distinction between "damage dealt by" and "damage dealt to". If someone is immune to damage, then damage was not dealt to them. In a game like Magic the Gathering, you draw distinctions between those kinds of things, but MTG is a game where you can "combo out" to deal functionally infinite amounts of damage by exploiting a rules loophole; SOTM should not function the same way.
While players are within their rights to "cheat" for their own amusement, I believe that they should not be permitted to claim the bragging rights for a victory which they achieved by playing fast and loose with the rules. In order for their win to be meaningful, it should have been strict-RAW-legal. And in particular, I don't believe it should be possible to report victories on the Statistics Thread which were in any way "tainted" by laxity in enforcing the villain's (or environment's) destructive power against the players. Doing so distorts the perception of how powerful a certain hero or how difficult a certain villain really is.
I believe you mean Divine Focus. Divine Sacrifice is the face-me-and-tremble one-shot.
What on Earth are you rambling about? Nothing in the last few recent posts had anything to do with a distinction between "damage dealt to" and "damage dealt by". The entire thing is a little contrived.
Rule of Thumb: If no HP was reduced, no damage was dealt.
Extrapolation of that turns into HP must be reduced to count towards effects that trigger off of damage dealt. Uncomplicated and simple. What is your issue here?
It was on the last page; I hadn't gotten a chance to reply to it back then.
The stuff thats well over a year old? Let sleeping dogs lie
Huh...so it is. The "new posts" link took me to that part of the thread and I didn't bother to look at the dates.