Three Questions from my Latest Session

(Disclaimer:  I feel like I ask questions after every session, so I feel bad, but I swear I check the Rules Doc all the time and it doesn't always answer my questions exactly.)

I just played a solo game Absolute Zero, The Scholar, and Tempest vs. Gloomweaver in The Block.  I hear that Gloomweaver is a pushover, but he still gave me a run for my money.  At one point I was overwhelmed with three Cultists, a Relic, four Zombies and every villain target taking -2 damage.  Scholar got nailed with two pins that made him randomly discard 2 cards a turn and it just demolished his hand.  For a long time, I was chipping away and just healing when I could and when I finally managed to clear the board with a Fueled Freeze (fueled by 2 player ongoings, eek!) the third Relic came into play and Gloomy flipped.  He isn't really that tough on the flip side, but it just took forever.  Anyway, on to the questions:

1)  I know in the Rules doc it says that if you're supposed to reveal the top 5 cards of a deck and there's only 4 cards, you just reveal 4.  Well what happens when you have a card that says "Reveal cards until...".  The specific card was Prison Riot and it came up twice when there were one or zero inmates in the deck, so I just put into play what I could, and stopped when I ran out of cards to reveal.  Did I play that right?

2)  I love love love Absolute Zero.  I am a chemistry teacher, so I like the scientific aspect of the character, plus I'm an Iron Man fan, so double bonus.  (I also love the Scholar for the alchemy aspect and, boy, do I just love this game in general.)  Any way here's the scenario that I would like to make sure I played right, because as much as I love the character, I'm still getting used to the math:

AZ has out NPCU, IT, and FA.  Gloomweaver has 2 Impales on him.  That's 6 cold damage at the start of my turn.  I also have out Cold Snap which deals 2 to Gloomy and 2 to a Cursed Acolyte who has three HP left.  I use Thermal Shockwave to deal 2 cold to myself, 1 cold (because it kills her) to the Cursed Acolyte, and 2 cold to the Zombie that comes into play as a result of the Cultist dying.  I have dealt 15 Cold damage this turn (even though 2 of it went towards healing me), so I take 15 cold damage, so I then turn around and blast Gloomweaver for 16 and then win (he was down to 11).  Was that all played correctly?  I always get confused about whether the damage I deal to myself counts as damage dealt since it ends up as healing.  The final fire blast would've let me win either way, but I still like to know for the future.

3) Finally, I still have trouble wrapping my head around Cryo Chamber.  If I use Thermodynamics when CC is out, I can deal myself 2 cold damage or 0 fire damage, right?  When I use the power of CC, I deal myself 4 fire damage (5-1) which if I have my other three equipment cards out means I can heal myself for 6 or deal 5 to another target, right?  If I want to use the power of CC just for healing, it's a net gain of 2 HP if I have out all three of my other equipment cards, correct?

Thanks as always for the help, guys.  This is such a wonderful helpful community to be a part of.

1) If there are not H-1 inmates in the deck, it just puts all the ones that are in the deck into play, then discards the deck and destroys itself at the end of the turn.

2) Personally I've always played that AZ healing himself does not count as cold damage dealt, so you lose 2 from the cold damage dealt there.  However, dealing two damage to a target with one HP will put them at negative one HP.  So you gain one cold damage dealt there.

3) Sounds like you played that right to me.

I agree and play it this way as well.  I think the reason is because is says that if he would take cold damage he is healed that amount INSTEAD.  I take this to mean the cold damage was not delt or taken.

No joke, I was about to reply and say the same thing, and when I read your post, I though, "Man, that sounds just like how one of the guys I play with puts it." And then I saw your screen name. (Hey, it's Dave. How's it going?)

So, can hp  go negative?  as discussed in the Fixed Point discussion.

I didn't realize that HP could go negative until it was pointed out. I checked the rules doc to verify, I googled, but I came up empty. Then I checked the rulebook and every mention of a target being destroyed or a hero being incapacitated says "0 or fewer HP". The "or fewer" part implies that HP can definitely go negative. 

I think I need to re-read the rulebook. It's so easy to post a question or look at the rules doc that it has made me overlook stuff right from the original rules. 

You didn't miss anything in the rulebook.  There was a recent discussion about the Time Cataclysm card "Fixed Point" which makes everything but itself indestructible, and the question came up, what if a hero's hp went negative while it was indestructible -- could it be healed back above 0 before "Fixed Point" went away and thereby avoid being incapacitated.  Christopher ruled over on BGG that while that didn't match the original wording for how a hero gets incapacitated, that was a more awesome way to do things, so he amended the wording to allow it.  My Clarifications doc has the details.

Last night I played a game on the Mars base, and Meteor shower came up. If AZ healing himself does not count as damage, his being immune to damage doesn't prevent his heals, correct? (The card says everyone is immune to damage, not unable to deal damage.) It ended up being inconsequential, but I thought I would ask.

Also, if cold damage becomes heals and stops being damage dealt, must card order come into play when gauging how much healing is done? For instance, if the cold healing module is played first, the cold damage would become heals before the incoming damage is increased by 1 by the other card (I'm not quite familiar enough with all the names, sorry).

He would not get healed, since he is immune to damage he would not take any damage. Since it is when he would take cold damage he heals it would instead do nothing to him.

The relationship between damage immunity and things triggering on 'would be dealt damage' has been hotly debated.  Since AZ's Null Point Calibration unit uses the actual amount he would be damaged, I've always said that if he is immune to the cold damage, that amount is zero and he does not heal.

Based on the official ruling for fortitude/superhuman durability: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/same-or-different I've always been concerned that a strict enforcing of order of play for Absolute Zero would have this effect.  I would never actually play him that way though, and I always heal him for the final amount of damage he would have actually taken factoring in all cards which modify/redirect damage.

Occasionally strict order of play might actually benefit you since it could bypass things like Smoke Bombs, Imbued Fire, or Cramped Quaters.  Much more commonly it would render Focused Aperature and Cryo-Chamber useless for healing though, since you will frequently play Null Point Calibration Unit first.

This touches upon probably my only problem with this game:  I feel like the timing rules are nothing but a hindrance to the pace of the game and they often leave me scratching my head. 

I understand the need for timing rules for villain and environment cards since those decks need to play themselves, but I don't think it makes sense for the order of cards played by players to determine the effectiveness of the cards.  The AZ example is a perfect example:  most AZ players will probably play or fish for a NPCU or IT before Focused Aperture.  AZ can already be a mathematical nightmare without having to also factor in the order in which cards were played.  I'm weirdly OCD about house rules (i.e. I won't use them), but I would love to see the official ruling changed to one of the following:

1)  Cards are resolved in the order played for villain and environment decks only.

2)  Cards are resolved in the order played for "Start of turn" and "End of turn" effects only. 

Either of those would solve the problem with complicated timing situations, and the latter suggestion would ensure that Omnitron X didn't become overpowered, while still maintaining the current level of simplicity for villain and environment decks.   

I tend to think of this game practically as a work of art.  Everything the designers do is so well thought out and purposeful.  Some of the ways that different decks work (AZ, for example) are just beautiful.  It just seems strange to me that AZ's deck, which functions like nothing I've ever seen in a boardgame before, would be a slave to the order of cards played sometimes several turns in advance.

Then do you count damage dealt to himself from healing as contributing towards Thermal Shockwave? If he can be made immune to his own heal via cold damage dealt to him, it strikes me as incongruous that healing is not considered cold damage dealt to him for the second effect of the card.

No, as I mentioned in my first response I don’t count it as damage dealt. A) strictly reading the card it is definately regaining HP instead of dealing damage. B) thematically it makes sense to me that absorbing cold damage doesn’t cause him to build up self-heat damage for thermal shockwave.
The part where I’m likely not in line with official rulings is that I always resolve NPCU last after everything that affects him taking damage.

The way I try and figure out the cards with "would" clauses in them is to add in "If" statements. It may not always work with official rulings with card play order, but I think most times I come to the correct conclusion. Using AbZ as an example:

Lets say that NPCU was played first, with FA played second and CryoChamber thrid. We consider using his Thermodynamics power. The way I look at it is "So if I chose to have AbZ deal himself that 1 cold damage, I would actually be dealing myself 3 cold damage" (I am under the impression that all static damg modifiers get considered before an attack "launches" and is calculated per target. At least thats what I got from the Crowbar/Jackhandle conversation. But I am wrong a lot haha) then "So if I choose to deal myself 3 cold damage, I would regain that much HP 'instead' due to the wording of NPCU. If AbZ is immune to damage, I say "So if I choose to deal myself this 3 cold damage, I would actually be dealing 0 because I am immune to damage. I decide to deal it, so NPCU triggers. I would be dealt 0, so I instead gain that much hp".

This would also lead to the conclusion of the official ruling for the Superhuman Durability/Fortitude example Dypaca referenced. Example:

Fortitude played first. Then SD. Blade Batallion activates at end of turn to try and attack someone for 5. In my mind I hear "So if Batallion targets Legacy for that attack, it would actually be dealing him 4 because of Fortitude" The attack then launches b/c Legacy is indeed its target, and SD does not trigger. Now Paul made it seem like, for this specific example, that if SD was played before Fortitude, then SD would trigger for the innitial attack, and fortitude would happen afterward, but with this interpretation it would not matter in the end, as the Batallion would not be dealing that 5 damage either way.

Again, it probably is not consistant with official rulings, but just the way I have been doing things

With regards to self-damage-turned-healing via NPCU counting for the self-fire damage of Thermal Shockwave, I found this in Spiff's Rules Doc:

"For example, if Absolute Zero dealt himself 1 cold damage using his "Thermodynamics" power, but then used hit "Null-Point Calibration Unit" to heal from that damage instead of be damaged by it, he hasn't really dealt damage that turn.  If the Rook City environment card "Blighted Streets" were in play, which reads in part, "At the end of each hero's turn, if that hero dealt no damage this turn, their player may discard 2 cards to destroy this card", Absolute Zero could discard 2 cards to destroy the card."

That ruling makes it pretty clear to me that damage absorbed via NPCU doesn't count as damage dealt for Thermal Shockwave.  It also makes sense mechanically as let's imagine AZ has out all of his non-Cryo Chamber equipment cards and uses Thermal Shockwave just on himself: 

That would be 2 Cold damage (turned into 2 healing), he would deal himself 2 Fire damage and then can blast himself for 3 Cold damage with IT (turned into 3 healing).  That's +3 HP net ignoring the fact that it would be quite unusual for AZ to damage only himself with Thermal Shockwave.  I think that would make the card a little overpowered. 

So, going off of Spiff's clarification that healing off of damage received is not actually receiving damage, being immune to damage (eg from Meteor Shower) would not make AZ immune to his heal.

The only point I'm trying to make is that we can't treat it both as damage for the sake of Meteor Shower and also as not-damage for the sake of Blighted Streets, Thermal Shockwave, etc.

I think it makes things in general a lot less messy when static effects (like all damage modifications including immunities) are calculated before conditional effects.

If AbZ is immune to damage, the conditional effect of NPCU would (in my eyes) happen after the static immunity is taken into account, meaning he would be dealing himself in essence 0 damage, then instead of taking that 0 damage, he converts it to that much healing, in this case 0.

But if that's the case, I feel like it's treating the same effect two opposite ways for two different cards. If he's immune to damage and thus can't be healed from the damage he deals himself, then abilities using (to his gain or detriment) how much damage he deals should factor in the damage that eventually becomes healing. If the damage he deals stops being damage dealt when it becomes healing, then immunity to damage should be irrelevant to the heals he receives.

Think of it this way: if Meteor Strike read, "Nothing is able to deal damage," he wouldn't be able to attempt to damage himself in the first place (in effect reading it as, "Nothing is able to [attempt to] deal damage."). Whereas I feel like "immune to damage" has the connotation of "unable to receive damage." So AZ can successfully attempt to deal himself damage, but since it's not being taken as damage (according to the ruling Chromium_Man cited above), it's not nullified.

I fully understand that it's murky, but I go back to what I said a post or two ago: it feels wrong to have it treated as damage sometimes and not-damage other times. (Completely random, off-topic aside: why is 'sometimes' one word and 'other times' two?)

I definately won't deny that it is murky.  I think the key to realize is that it is damage until you resolve NPCU and it isn't damage afterwards.  So the only real question is whether you do NPCU first or Meteor Shower first.

It seems like the official ruling is probably order of play, but my personal decision is that NPCU is always the last card I resolve since that seems most likely to cause the intended effect of the cards.  I would encourage you to just play the way that feels right to you and not worry about it too much.  Some times the rules are clear cut, but othertimes you just need to make a judgement call.  (Though I guess that's a bad example because the dictionaries are pretty clear on what is and isn't a word).

Persoanlly, I coded it as the following steps:

1) Determine target.

2) Determine type of damasge deatl going through all changes in order.

3) Determine all damage boosts that apply to the originator in order. Here's where Meteor Swarm stops damage occurring.

4) Check for redirect effect that don't depend on damage (Lead from the Front, Smoke Bombs, Sewer Fiend and the like). If they exist, change the target, but nothing else need change. If multiple redirects apply, apply them in turn order.

5) Determine nemesis bonus

6) Change the damage based on the target (Fortitude, Pipe Wrnch, Hunter and Unted, etc)

7) Check for damage amount based redirects (Driving Mantis, Synaptic Interruption etc). If these apply, go back to the start with the new target.

8) Apply 'would be dealt damage effects'. At this point, the NPCU changes the damage to healing resulting in 0 damage.

9) Apply damage.

10) Apply after damage effects such as Backlash field or Combat Stance. At this point you add the cold damage to how much cold damage AZ dealth this round.

So that seems to resolve any ambiguity for me. It starts as damage and Meteor Swarm prevents it, thus it's never converted to healing. But by the time it's got to "Was damage dealt?" the NPCU has made it isnto something that wasn't damage so no damage is applied.

That's the logic I apply during the game, but obviously the steps are a bit less explicit.

Edit: This also resolves the ordering issue on Superhuman durability and Fortitude. Fortitude is always applied first which makes SHD even more useless.

So, just to be clear, you would apply Superhuman Durability (or Undaunted or Punish the Weak) in step 8?  Presumably again in turn order as you said with 4?

Also, if you apply a redirect in step 4, do you start over checking for other redirects?  (That is, if Wraith comes after Visionary and Smoke Bombs redirects the damage to Visionary, would you then apply the Decoy Projection redirect?)  And if you do start over, how do you resolve a Smoke Bombs/Decoy Projection loop?

And do you apply damage type changes in play order (official ruling) or play order as you said with step 4?

I like these steps as a house rule.  Seems like they will handle card interactions in a fairly predictable way.

Everything is in play order. And yes, "would be dealt" is handled in step 8. Would be dealt only applies to the final damage total and would be in turn order, But that really only applies to Tempest's Shielding Widns interacting with the other 5+ reduction cards.

As for redirects it would go in turn order, which avoids the loop. So, if you had Decoy Projection and Smoke Bombs in play, in that order, Visionary would redirect to Decoy and then Smoke Bombs would redirect to the highest, which could be Visinoary.

Hrm… I have a few things that don't sit totally well with me.

If Meteor Swarm said it prevented damage from being dealt, I would totally agree with this. But Meteor Swarm makes all targets immune to damage, implying that it would be applied immediately before your step 9.

I understand why you moved the nemesis bonus to after redirects, but would the nemesis bonus logically align with Step 3? e.g. villain decides to damage its nemesis, so damage increases by one along with other originator-side damage changes, and the attack is then redirected. (Though I could see this rationalized either way; this is one reason our group doesn't play with nemesis bonuses… it adds one more thing to keep track of, and we feel like removing it doesn't take away from the game. [Not that I'm saying nobody should use nemesis bonuses; I'm just saying we don't and why.])

So do you reapply, say, obsidian fields after Fixer redirects an attack that's already been reduced to 1 or 2? I was under the impression that redirects do not reapply damage bonuses, but if you go back to the start, do you just skip that step?

Does Decoy Projection use redirect language or "would take" language?

I'm not trying to be a pain about this, but it just seems like strict adherence to play order is worthwhile for some things (start of turn/end of turn) but cumbersome for others (this entire conversation ).

I can't remember exactly when I apply Meteor Swarm. It may be in step 6 and I got confused with another card.

I use nemesis after target because it depends on the target adn so I want o make sure the target is a'correct' before I apply the nemesis bonus rather than trying to apply and then deapply the bonus.

By start again, I mean remove all modifiers and start the whole process from scratch, so the bonus is only ever applied once.

Both Decoy Projection and Smoke Bombs use the whole "Whenever dealt damage" but it's easier to put all the redirects that don't need to calculate damage numbers in the same place. If they're not being dealt damage, there won't be a problem with redirecting anyway.

does this mean that if something was increasing his healing, zero ciould heal from the buff? i think "would be dealt damage" doesn't trigger when the damage is 0.