Amulet of the Elder Gods in Mist Form

Question from today's game.

With Amulet of the Elder Gods in play and then Mist Form in play, can Nightmist redirect damage?

Amulet of the Elder Gods: The first time Nightmist would be dealt damage each turn, you may discard 2 cards. If you do, you may redirect that damage to a target of your choice.

Mist Form: Nightmist is immune to damage. etc etc.

So if Nightmist is immue to damage, then she would not have been dealt damage, so Amulet will not trigger?

Confused.

You can only redirect damage if you were dealt damage, since you are immune to damage while in Mist form, you can not redirect damage from the amulet since no damage was actually dealt. You would essentially be discarding two cards to redirect zero damage.

I would think the amulet WOULD trigger.

The act of dealing damage is different from the act of taking damage.

If a card says "deal a hero with the highest HP 5 damage" it's checking to see who a valid target would be.  At that point the damage "would be assigned" to nightmist, where upon the amulet triggers to redirect.  If you don't activate the amulate, nightmist would take 5 damage, however since she is immune Her health would not decrease.

There was a long discusion about this here: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/condemnation-and-orb-of-delirium-2528

For cards that trigger "when [some target] is dealt damage", there are official rulings that they need to actually have their HP reduced.  However for cards that trigger "when [some target] would be dealt damage" we don't have such rulings and I feel the game plays much better if it just triggers when they are the target of damage, regardless of whether that damage could reduce their HP.

So I allow Amulet of the Elder Gods to work when she is in Mist Form.

I can see the logic in that, but the wording on Amulet states "The time Nightmist would be dealt damage each turn," If she is in Mist Form, she can not be dealt damage which would negate the condition necessary for Amulet of the Elder Gods to activate since she would need to be in a position to take damage before she can redirect it.

I agree with dypaca. It would also apply to Mr Fixer's Jack Handle. Even if the initial target is immune, you would still activate the ability and attempt to deal damage to all non-hero targets.

Similarly, if Citizen Tears were in play witgh the Police Backup, even if the hero did not have any cards in hand to discard, the Police Backup would still be destroyed, even if no card would be actually discarded.

I tend to view the procession as this:

• Subject decides on action.
• "Would be" actions that are relevant to the decided action trigger.
• Original action occurs if possible.
• Actions that depend on the outcome occur, such as Wraith's Throat Jab.
• Original action is finisehed.

Yeah, you can still deal Nightmist damage when she's in Mistform, it's just that nothing will happen because she's immune to it. Just as you could use the Wraith to target the unflipped Chairman with a Stun Bolt - he wouldn't take damage at this stage because he's immune to it, but the damage reduction part of the Stun Bolt would still take effect (because that isn't dealing damage) and do you a favour if an Undivided Attention card came out.

Stun Bolt doesn't say in its description that damage has to be dealt in order for the effect to take place. Amulet specifically states that its effect goes off when Nightmist would take damage. That doesn't read to me the same as whenever she's the target of an attack.

I say that, if a target is immune to damage (or can reduce it to zero), anything that says if that target would be dealt damage, it is ignored (as that target would never be dealt damage), but, anything that says if a source would deal damage to a target (even if that target is immune or reducing damage), it would still have it's effect.  It's the same difference I noted earlier (with reguards to Pushing the Limits and Embolden) where one is an action, and the other is the result of the action.  In the case of Mister Fixer and the Jackhandle, dealing damage is an action, which triggers on that action, even if the result doesn't occur.  In the case of Nightmist taking damage, that's a result of an action of some other source dealing damage, but the immunity prevents the result from occuring, thus no redirection would occur.

And, even if redirection could occur, it would not be a redirection of 0 damage, as, when damage is redirected, the static modifiers are reapplied (e.g., if Mister Fixer would be dealt 3 damage when he has Pipe Wrench and Driving Mantis, Pipe Wrench static modifier would make the damage 2, Driving Mantis would redirect the 2 points of damage (redirects damage of 2 or less), at which point Pipe Wrench static modifier would no longer apply as Mister Fixer is no longer the target of damage, and the full 3 damage (assuming no other static modifiers apply to the new target) would be dealt to the new target).

Once again, the ambiguity of what it means to be 'dealt damage'. I'm with dypaca on this. I think the meaning here is 'targeted', not 'taken'.

The thing to do here is look for a precedent with other, similarly-worded cards.

For instance, the Null-Point calibrator has almost the exact same wording. Whenever AZ WOULD be dealt cold damage, he instead regains that much HP. If we were to follow dypaca's opinion, then if AZ would be targeted by an attack for 3 cold damage but were immune to cold damage, he would still regain 3 HP. (by contrast, the Isothermic Transducer is worded differently; it says whenever he IS dealt damage, so by dypaca's ruling if he doesn't take damage, he doesn't deal damage.)

To clarify, dypaca's ruling here means that "would be dealt damage" and "is dealt damage" are different, in that the first still triggers even if the target is immune to damage, and the second does not. However, I think the common-sense ruling is that Null-Point Calibrator does NOT trigger if Absolute Zero is immune to cold damage, and therefore neither should other cards that say "would be dealt damage" also do not, so the amulet does NOT trigger in conjunction with Mist Form.

(also, on the topic of Jack Handle, that doesn't matter whether the target is immune to damage or not, because the nature of it means that it activates when Fixer initiates the attack and before it is resolved.)

So, does Citizen Tears destroy Police Backup if the hero has no cards? That's another "would be" that can be impossible from circumstance. It would be fairly contrived, I grant you but its possible, even if less likely than NightMist hiding out in mistform with the amulet.

EDIT: So "would deal damage" triggers even if no damage is dealt owing to immunity but "would be dealt damage" doesn't trigger if no damage is dealt. That seems to be splitting grammatical hairs with a very fine razor.

right, which is why I said that it was an incorrect conclusion.

Isn't there a precedent from Plague Rat? When he has Sewer Fiend in play, and an Environment card would deal him Toxic damage (which he's immune to), he still redirects it to an Infected Hero.

Katsue,

Does he? That's the question. I'd say he does for the same reason I'd say NightMist does. McBehrer's interpretation says no. As long as you're conssitent, it probably doesn't matter much.

I see it like this, then. You can use the amulet. Since you would be dealt damage, just like Plague Rat would, and once it's redirected to someone who isn't immune, they take the full amount, since it isn't reduced or anything.

Absolute Zero, on the other hand, can not regain HP if he has cold immunity, since he regains the amount he would be dealt, which is 0 as long as it's directed at him.

So, I guess that makes sense. Counter-examples are the best way to make an argument.

Now that McBehrer is right, i.,e. agrees with how I think, I support him 100%. ;-)

I agree that Null Point Calibration is different because he heals by the amount of HP he would otherwise lose, which is nothing.  For even more of an edge case we could have Atlantis boosting all healing and Absolute Zero immune to cold damage, but I would still be inclined to not let him heal.

I'm having trouble finding the thread where Sewer Fiend is discussed, so if someone could link that, I would be interested in reading it. The other reason I'm uncomfortable with redirection occuring with damage immunity are cards like Hypersonic and Throat Jab. Those cards specifically state that they have to deal damage in order for their effect to go off. If they hit a target that's immune to damage, then under the same logic as Amulet, shouldn't their effects still go off since damage is still being dealt and then reduced. The only difference with the wording of these type of cards is that one is used for an attack while the other is used as defense.

I think in the AZ case the key phrase is “they instead gain” in that case I think the immunity would be irrelevant, because instead of dealing damage that would then be reduced to zero, they instead gain the full amount

The difference with throat jab and hyper speed is that they have to deal damage to trigger, no damage is taken thus no effect triggers, “would deal” is a step before “dealt”

The ruling itself is in Spiff's excellent collection of rules and clarifications: http://spiffworld.com/sotm/ .  Unfortunately, while I trust him to have transcribed it accurately, I can't find the source either and it may have been eaten in one of the forum reworkings or not even have been from the forum.

The key difference between Amulet of the Elder Gods and Throat Jab is 'would' versus 'is'.  Amulet of the Elder Gods triggers when damage would be dealt and alters it before that damage affects her.  Throat Jab triggers when damage is dealt, and causes additional effects after the damage affects the target.  I admit it is kind of arbitrary to say that one cares about immunity and the other does not, I just think it makes for better gameplay.

That's one of the things I've had trouble wrapping my head around with AZ.  Cryo Chamber increases cold damage dealt to AZ by 1 and decreases fire damage dealt to AZ by 1.  If I use Thermodynamics to deal myself 1 cold damage with Cryo Chamber and NPCU out in the absence of any other buffs, do I heal myself for 1 or 2? 

The case for 1:  Cold damage dealt to AZ is increased by 1, but NPCU prevents AZ from actually being dealt damage.

The case for 2:  Cold damage dealt to AZ is increased by 1 the second it's directed at AZ, but then converted to two healing by NPCU.

I feel like 1 makes logical sense by a strict reading of the rules, but I also feel that if that's the case then Cryo Chamber is a terrible card that kind of neuters AZ's base power. 

Do you think the developer's intent was that some cards kick in when damage is targeted and others only when it is dealt?  That seems complicated to me.

For Absolute Zero it is definately case 2.  Whatever amount his HP would go down, Null Point Calibration Unit heals him that amount instead.  There are alot of different ways to define how static and triggered effects interact, but ultimately I'm sure the whole point of Cryo Chamber is to boost his healing.

Redirecting damage has to kick in before the damage is dealt, because the original target is not hurt by it.  Whereas reactions to damage that is dealt are resolved after the target has actually been hurt by it.  (For example, Absolute Zero can't take a lethal dose of fire and use both modules to survive, because taking the fire damage incapacitates him).

That makes more sense to me now.

Unfortunately, while I trust him to have transcribed it accurately, I can't find the source either and it may have been eaten in one of the forum reworkings or not even have been from the forum.

I'm slightly embarrassed about the lack of links in my doc. I've always known that the lack of citations in my doc is a weakness, and I'd want links proving the truth of each clarification too, if I were someone deciding whether to trust my doc as authoritative.  But at this point, hunting down and adding citations for each and every clarification in there would (a) be a giant pain in the keister to do, and (b) clutter up the doc, reducing its readability.

I suppose if someone were to do all that research and present me with links for the rulings, I could be shamed into adding them and then maintaining that going forward, but that's unfortunately probably the only way it's going to change. 

I'm sorry Spiff that I don't have the time to hunt those citations down for you, but you are a very reputable source and I trust your rulings 100%.

I am still against the idea of redirecting damage intitally dealt to an immune target.

Another point I'd liek to throw out, linking back to the old "Imbued Fire vs Close Quarters Combat" thread, it was stated that the effects given by Imbued Fire are static, i.e. always in effect.  Since the damage immunity cards do not have any trigger wordings (i.e. 'when'), then it is a static effect, and always active.  Thus, attempting to deal damage to one who is immune, the immunuity is always in effect, and there would not be any damage dealt.  Same with conditional immunity.  For instance, if some card would react to if The Chairman would be dealt damage, and an environment card attempts to deal damage to The Chariman, The Chairman is immune to environment damage (regiardless of which side he's currently on), and he would not be dealt damage, thus failing to activate the "would be dealt damage" portion of that card.

I would agree.

Although I would say that "would take damage" is similar in operation to the phrase "a card taking damage this way."

Would take damage requires that the damage would be taken.  Not reduced to zero or not taken through immunity.  The difference is simply timing.  if the damage will be taken, then "would take damage" has been met, and the effect goes off before the damage is actually dealt.  If the damage would not be taken, then its condition is not met.

The only problem is that the wordings don't seem to be used consistently enough to make this rule stick.

For example wrest the mind's effect takes place "Whenever (the) target deals damage" but the effect of the card takes place before the initial damage is dealt (that would seem to be required for the redirect to take place).  This would be a prime spot for would deal damage to be used if following this definition.  But it isn't used.  I'd like to see an official clarification on the usage of would.

Being able to redirect damage done to an immune target doesn't sit well with me because I'm already not super comfortable with the confusing templating on "dealing damage" versus "being dealt damage." It takes a simple, intuitively understandable ruling, "Damage dealt = HP reduced," and makes it more convoluted.

However, if Plague Rat can redirect damage from environment cards he is immune to, then Nightmist can definitely redirect in this case. I was actually completely unaware of that ruling. Not really sure how I missed it because I've been reading these forums closely for some time now but oh well. Also, it means that I've been doing damage redirection for AoE attacks against Apostate's relics wrong in his favor, so I'll have to remember to fix that next game.

Maybe immunity shouldn't be viewed as static modifier? I look at it this way, "When you need to remove HP counters from this target, do not do it."

This way, immunity takes effect as a separate event from other modifiers and triggers, and acts at the last possible moment before HP reduction.

I like it.

I think an important point to consider is that villains already fundamentally work different from heroes. Spite is the only deck in the game with victim cards and only villain decks have devices. It wouldn't be too far fetched if the villains could do some things that heroes couldn't, in reference to Nightmist and Plague Rat.

That's different though; having cards with unique descriptors is entirely different from having different mechanics for the exact same word and concept.

My point is that something intended for a villain to be able to do, may not have also been intentioned for a hero. Chastise has gone through multiple errata because of deadly combinations it had with other cards such as stealth bot that were unseen at the time. It's possible that the ruling with Plague Rat and sewer fiend was made without taking Nightmist and the Amulet of the Elder Gods into consideration.

Is there some concern that allowing the Amulet to do this is overpowered?  With Chastise and Stealth Bot the combo is allowing two separate effects to do something much bigger than either could do on their own.  Allowing the Amulet to redirect when Nightmist is immune is just allowing it to do what it would normally.

If the problem is just that this seems unintuitive to you, I get that.  But if you think it is hurting gameplay somehow, I'm not seeing that.  I guess it makes it more viable to wear a villain down while you hang out in Mistform, but really if a villain can't destroy ongoings, things like Mistform or Telekinetic Cocoon are going to be a big problem for them regardless.

I can agree that at the moment, allowing NM to use the amulet while in Mist Form isn't horribly game breaking, I think it has the strong potential to be. Visionary's Demoralization only happens once at the start of her turn, after that, she has to wait another turn to do anything. NM with the Amulet can have her effect go off at the start of every turn. Also, she draws an extra turn, so even though she could get really low on cards and not be able to use it on multiple turns, she will always have fuel for it, and someone else like the Argent or Visionary could give her extra cards. So right now, there's nothing too horribly game breaking, but I'm not sure that's a door we really want opened.

I for one think it's very important that it functions the same way for Villain or Hero cards, and do not think there are any worrisome balance implications at this time. It's difficult to think of a situation where such an ability would be game-breaking. I think it's confusing in light of previous rulings, but otherwise it seems fine.

Tag-on question: Tachyon has Synaptic Interruption (if she would be dealt 3 or more damage from a single source, redirect it) in play and is immune to fire damage. Some effect tries to deal her 4 fire damage. Does this trigger Synaptic Interruption? It seems to me that one logical way this could function is immunity means that you essentially set the damage to zero, and that zero damage still triggers "would be dealt damage" effects. This could mean that Wraith's Stealth would pop even if you're immune.

EDIT: Upon further consideration this is extra awkward, becuase card effects that trigger on "is dealt damage" don't proc here. So it's a property of "would be dealt damage," or worse a property of redirection, and not a general principle that would allow it to trigger on packets of zero damage.

My concern is that Mist Form/Amulet combo could really produce some rather unfortunate results in shortsighted players.  I have had players in the past in various games that needed some extra assistance in understanding the team play aspect of the game, and I worry that this could be oversimplified into a "power combo" that certain players would focus on rather than teamwork.  I know that some players can do this with Bunker already, by putting out Heavy Plating, then his Repair Unit, then Ammo Drop, and put their Flak Cannon and Grenade Launcher on last with a Turret Mode finally played after the field has already been overrun with mooks and targets that needed to be eliminated three rounds prior.  This wouldn't be the case with everyone, I know.  I just worry that it is a combo that is a little too easy to pull off that results in Nightmist being a very passive, loner player in a game about teamwork.

The thing is, this isn't even a power combo. It's more work than Visionary's immunity + damage because you still have to sac cards to get the redirect, and anything that eats ongoings or equipment will break it. The worst part is, if you're redirecting with AotEG you're not taking the damage anyway so it's inefficient from a use-of-effects standpoint.

If a player's going to make problems for the team chasing this combo, they're going to make problems for the team playing characters that are actually combo-heavy like Wraith, Absolute Zero, or Argent Adept. They'll also make problems for the team playing support characters and only buffing themselves. Shortsighted players will find something to be shortsighted about.

It's true, but the difference is that Nightmist can always redirect damage once or twice, draw three cards on her turn, and she suffers little to no consequence for it.  It is a simple combo that can easily refresh itself if it needs to.

Yeah, I'm not trying to say it's useless, especially if you have damage from a lot of different sources. It's a simple combo I might use as a stopgap if I'm low, or to hang on for victory if I'm the last hero alive. It's just that it's not the sort of combo I'd expect to see players chasing every single game, and it's no worse than other stasis-and-passive combos in the game.

When using Amulet of the Elder Gods and  redirecting damage, +1 damage dealts are not added (Nightmist currently has +3 when dealing damage), correct?

The amulet just redirects the damage that would have been taken?

Right, redirecting damage isn't an opportunity to re-boost it.  It just changes the target of the damage.

Thanks, Spiff!

But an ongoing like The Scholar's Mortal Form to Energy ('Whenever The Scholar reagins HP, The Scholar also deals 1 target that much energy damage.') will allow him to supplement the attack with whatever damage bonuses me may be receiving from heroes like Legacy, correct?

Yes. That's not redirection. It's like Fanatic's Sacrificial Martyr or Zero's Isothermic transducer. It's a second instance of daamge that just happens to be based on the original set of damage, or healing in the Scholar's case.

Thanks for confirming, pwatson!

There is no reason that things like DR and +dmg boosts are static but damage immunity is not. It is just not consistant.

Ultimatly, if it was ruled that the Rat can redirect damage he is immune to, then Nightmist can as well.

That would seem to mean that every other card that works off of the wording "would deal" is taken into account before all other static modifers. And in the name of consistancy, that would really make AbZ and NPCU extreamly shitty, for a lack of better words as it could not make use of his apetures or cryo chamber.

Something is not right. I strongly dislike the sewar fiend ruling and what it implies for AZ

I'm not following this logic. Immunity is considered after everything else. That doesn't mean that other 'static' modifiers are always applied after 'would deal' modifiers.

Do you really need a different ruling on Sewer Fiend to see how NPCU works, or do you just need a ruling that when NPCU say “that amount” it means the amount his HP would change? (Which we have tons of examples, plus common sense, to say that it does take focused aperature or cryo-chamber into account).

I don’t think the logic needs to be that “would deal” takes effect before other modifiers. Just that you don’t stop applying effects to damage just because the currently applied effects have reduced it to doing nothing. (We have rulings that effects which go off AFTER damage takes effect only go off if that damage actually reduced HP. I just think that we don’t need to put the constraint to things like redirection which modify damage before it takes effect.)

Immunity is not a modifier - so it is not Add all Dmg+, add all dmg- ... any left? Add Dmg - until damge =0. 

Immunity is a seperate condition outside the dmg+, dmg- track of 'Is there damage being delt? Ignore it'

at least thats how i see it  - so you are still a valid target, you are still being 'hit' you just take no damage. And then you can still redirect it.

Well quite frankly after re-reading it, there was none to follow. Hasty, not thought out, un-constructive. Everything that a post should not be. The only thing not consistant there was me.

Lynkfox, explaining it that way made a strange amount of sense to me. My current train of thought is that since the amulet and sewer fiend do not specify a damage threshhold for its trigger (like say, Fixers or Tachyons redirects do for example), that it would trigger for any amount of damage that "would be" delt, even if that amount is 0. Would that be a more correct reading?

Ooooooh, I like that phrasing, "that it would trigger for any amount of damage that 'would be' dealt, even if that amount is 0."  Then it becomes a case like Driving Mantis/Pipe Wrench.  You redirect the 0 damage, then, because the target changed (and the new target isn't immune) it blossoms back to whatever its original value was, much like the Driving Mantis/Pipe Wrench interaction.  That seems really clear to me, and utterly consistent with other rulings.

yes. in like that. and bringing it into the fixer redirect makes it consistent with other similarly though process cards on redirection.

Using my trusty DBZ thematic analogies:

Master Roshi fires off a Kamehameha wave targeted at Ultimate Freeza. Freeza, even though he could let the attack hit him and be no worse off (although he might strain a muscle rolling his eyes too hard), decides to knock the attack away. It drills into a nearby mountainside, destroying it (the standard dbz environment target, if you will).

I think using DBZ to explain redirection rules works perfectly

By that logic, would an Ultimate-Targeted villain attacking a damage-immune (via soak or styraight immunity) hero not let Chrono Ranger use a power, then? In another thread the general consensus was no, because the target's hp didn't decrease. So surely if a target with redirection is taking no damage, it can't redirect it because there's nothing to redirect?

@Ameena

I do not think so, but I can see where you are coming from.

I think a difference might be that the bounty triggers on a target dealing damage, while in the case of the Amulet, it is triggered off when a target (her in this case) would be delt damage.

I would say that generally, if the trigger is dependent upon dealing damage, then the common rule of "no HP reduced = no damage delt" probably applies.

Recently it is looking like the Redirection mechanic might be the exception to this common rule. Thoughts?

Ultimate Target does require HP to be reduced, because it is an ability which is triggered by the damage, not a modification to that damage.

Basically, when the target next to Ultimate Target deals damage, that damage happens exactly as it would if Ultimate Target were not in play.  Then, assuming the damage actually happens (meaning it actually reduces HP), Ultimate Target triggers and allows Chrono Ranger to use a power.

On the other hand, Amulet of the Elder Gods actually modifies damage before it happens.  Some damage modifying effects use the term "would" (Amulet of the Elder Gods, Superhuman Durability, Punish the Weak), and others do not (Micro Targeting Computer, Fortitude, Divine Sacrifice).  I don't think anything which modifies damage should fail to do so just because the unmodified damage would have been unable to reduce HP.  I think the use of "would" in some cases and not others is just a quirk of how some of those effects have conditions that can be summed up with an adjective, while others are easier to describe as a conditional phrase.

From the KantCon rulings (https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/answers-to-debated-questions-3871)

9.Can a target immune to damage or reduced it to 0 still redirect damage?

No, as that would have not been able to deal damage. The ruling about Plague Rat being able to redirect toxic environment damage is incorrect and will be reviewed.

Very happy with this ruling. It makes thematic sense and isn't broken. I like to think that Night Mist shouldn't be able to play two cards against her nemesis and auto win.

Plus you could say that Sable Pin forces you to destroy a card when you can't take the damage.  I don't think it is meant to, but everyone is always looking for house rules to beef up Gloomweaver anyway.

You can't pick an option you can't fulfill, so this might be the correct ruling even if you aren't doing it just to make gloomweaver better.