Targeting is hard! Let's shoot barrels! (rule questions)

So I was fighting advanced Kismet in Silver Gulch, and raised a few questions.

Say Legacy plays "Flying Smash". His first target is Kismet, who has Inconcievable Obstruction out, and calls up a Stout Barrel and redirects the blow. Can you choose Kismet as your second target, since she never got hit? Can you choose the Stout Barrel as your second target, since it wasn't your original target the first time? Or do you need to name all three targets BEFORE you start smashing? (My instinct says no to the first, and yes to the second if the answer to the third question is no, but no idea about that third question, and I suspect I could be wrong on any of these.)

I agree with your instincts on all three points.

I think the only one with any ambiguity is the last question, but I'd be pretty surprised if we got a ruling that your couldn't pick your targets (and even whether you will continue) as you go with this.

I would say that all target have to be choosen at the same time. Kismet redirect damage you are trying to do so the new target is way after you can choose for it

I'd go with your instincts as well; Kismet's been picked as a target already, the barrel has not, and many precedents state that targets for multi-target attacks can be picked one at a time. I'd look at it as similar to if you'd attacked a Hayes brother while the barrel was already out, and so the barrel takes a hit but can be hit again.

I disagree, somewhat. You definitely can't hit Kismet again. But Flying Smash is one attack with mltple targets, not multiple attacks. It doesn't have the 'then' wording so it all occurs as simultaneously as things get in SotM. Thus I play it as all targets must be legitimate and on the field of play at the start. This is different from 'All' targets but I think its supposed to work that way.

So say Tempest uses his gail power that deals 2 damage to all non-hero targets. He kills a Cultist, which brings a zombie out wouldn't his attack still affect the zombie??

I assumed that rule applies to cards that require you to select multiple targets.

Yes because it affects all targets so you're just running through the villain list choosing the order. By the time you reach the end, you've got some more things on the list. Flying Smash and related hit a specific number of targets so you need to choose them right away. If they're not in play when you play the card, you can't choose to hit them but a global effect still does as they effectively walk into a blizzard, or in the zombie's case drags himself from the frozen ground to take a ball of ice to the face.

I disagree. It's 3 "simultaneous" attacks, and just like any other simultaneous attacks in the game it's actually 3 successive attacks, meaning that you could pick new targets just like anything else.

Yeah, I'd say the same as McBehrer - you can hit three things. You hit the first thing and a new target comes out, giving you an additional option for your second attack, so you can whack that one if you want to.

Regarding the redirect thing, as I understand it you declare what you're going to hit. Then, if that target redirects your attack, you hit the thing it was redirected to. But the original target still counts as having been attacked. A good example is probably Apostate - say he has his sword, a gauntlet, the Tome and the Orb out. You use an attack that hits everything (eg Grievous Hailstorm). You aim for the sword but oops, the Orb is out so that attack redirects to it. Then you try to hit the gauntlet. Same thing happens. And again for the Tome. So each of those things has been attacked but none has been hit because the Orb soaked it all up. Then it's the Orb's turn so you hit it as normal. Of course, if hitting the Orb directly first would mean that one of the redirects would finish it off before you'd finish hitting everything, that's probably a good idea - that way at least one of your attacks will get through to its intended target.

Posting here because Benhimself put this up for a rules question.

My opinion, so far, is that there is not enough dissension to require a ruling. I don't want to be a dick about it, though, so if you think I'm wrong, let's talk about it.

To me, it seems clear that you do not have to choose three targets that all existed on the field before the first attack is made, but I admit that my 'clarity' comes from my 'experience' in learning the game directly from Christopher, rather than an existing ruling somewhere.

So, can anyone else point to a specific ruling that covers this? 

Can they not also effectively walk into a flying fist to the face as easily as a ball of ice?

I agree with the concensus here that you can hit up to 3 different targets regardless of whether they were on the field before or after the one-shot was played

my feeling lines up with arenson9 - There is not supposed to be a “stack” of actions that resolve, things just resolve as they are played. so you resolve this hit, another target is presented, you resolve the hit ect ect. kismet ability to present a new target happens as soon as something tried to target her, and then other targets haven’t been assigned yet.

I /would/nsay you couldn’t hit the environment target after kismet redirected it. redirection has always completely changed the target, to take into new damage reduction and nemesis or other damage boosts that haven’t been applied yet (bloody knuckles for instance). so it would be my opinion that kismet was never targeted

Lynkfox, I never considered the implication of the redirection. I think you may very well be correct in that the barrel can't be hit again but Kissmet probably can

Well, I WAS okay, but now people have jumped in with opinions that conflict what was already established? Some people think it's obvious that you can target Kismet the second time but not the barrel, and some people think it's obvious that you can target the barrel the second time but not kismet?

I believe the Apostate example explains it best. So after Kismet redirects the damage, you can't choose her as your next target but you can choose the barrel and hit it again.

I disagree. As I said redirected attacks ignore then original target for things like nemesis and dr. that indicates that the original target was never a target too begin with, meaning you could hit kismet with the second Attack (or the third in the case of flying smash) but not the barrel.

I think that’s the real question to be answered here

Lynkfox, redirection may recalculate damage soaks/buffs for the new recipient of the attack, but after thinking about it for a bit, you still have to target Kismet in the first place to trigger the redirection effect correct?

yes, but in doing so she moves the target to a new card. It’s as if you target Her, go to put your ‘I targeted you’ ribbon on kismet but instead of ever reaching her, the ‘I targeted you’ ribbon ends up in, in this example, a barrel… no ribbon on kismet therefore she can still be a target.

If you get my drift with the ribbons. hard to type from a phone, heh

Totally follow your logic there and it is valid. But I am not sold that just because you reevaluate damage buffs/soak for the new recipient of the damage, that it must follow that it's considered a new initial target. 

By your example, Apostates Orb would become funky. Would you say that, with his sword, glove and orb in play, when Temest uses hail storm, the orb would only be hit once and only once? 

I think the interaction is much more intuitive if it remembers the thing you targeted with the damage, not the thing that received the damage. Otherwise, "all targets" can easily create an infinite loop. You try to hit Kismet, redirect to the barrel. Okay, still haven't hit Kismet yet, hit her, redirect to the barrel. Which is annoying and feels dumb, but at least it ends. Now imagine that with one point of damage reduction on the barrel. OOPS.

Also, we know that things that come out partway through a card resolving are valid targets for that card. We've known since the core set. End of Days + Forced Deployment.

I think normally you could target the barrel but not Kismet. This is how I interpret it working with Apostates Orb of Delirium, Unity's Stealth bot, Wraith's Smoke Bombs, ect. If you redirect damage to yourself you protect one target, but if you were also a target you get hit twice or more, that's why Jack handle can hit the Orb 3-4 times depending on the number of relics out. It seems like the same situation is applied here. Inconcievable Obstruction redirects to an environment target, but you can still target that environment seperately. You cannot target Kismet a 2nd thime though.

So,what do people think is the difference between Schizero of Frost and Flame and Hoarfrost? One says 'then' giving a clear distinction between the two events, the other doesn't. If what people are saying, that multiple damage attacks do not target simultaneously, is correct, why would these be worded differently? What is the difference between these cards? I grant the game isn't 100% tight in its card wording conventions, but this implies a greaer distinction to me.

I think it can be summed up simply like this:

Redirection changes the recipient of the damage (hence the need to recalculate DR/+dgm modifiers for the new recipient), but it does not change who was targeted.

Thoughts?

If you want me to tie this in thematically, think Dragonball Z real quick. Goku fires a blast at Vegeta. Vegeta slaps it away, avoiding the damage, and that ball of energy hits Nappa instead (work with me here). Vegeta was always the target of the attack, even though Nappa took the consequences

Choose 3 targets. A, B, and C. These are targetted by an attack. A is struck. B redirects the attack to A. C is struck. A was targetted once, but struck twice, while B avoided taking damage by using handy meat shield A.

@pwatson, not all multi-target attacks are simultanious, but there are some that are.

Hail Storm says "deal all non-hero targets damage" and that would imply the simultanious action.

Hypersonic Assult, on the other hand, says "deal each non-hero target damage". This implies that it is not simultanious.

Frost and Flame are two completley separate attacks. They can target the same target if Argent wishes. Maybe he can choose the order in which the fire/cold damage is delt, but I would not be in favor of that interpretation.

Hoarfire is kind of the same. They are separate attacks and can hit the same target if AbZ wishes. I think the word "then" indicates that the second mechanic of the card is dependent of the first happening. 

I agree completely and apprieciate the DBZ reference

Actually, there is no difference between ‘all’ and ‘each’ as there are no simultaneous actions. Any action which would imply simultaneous actions are resolved one at a time per the players’ choice, and multiple reactions which would occur simultaneously occur in card play order.

And since Nappa is a lower powerlevel than Vegeta, that same energy blast would potentialy hurt him more than it would have Vegeta, hence the need to recalculate the damage! Like Vegeta has a DR of 1 and Nappa has no DR in this senario.

Everything should be related back to DBZ. The world would be a better palce

Wouldn't there absolutly be a difference if, say, the action of doing damage has a secondary effect after it? It would drastically effect the timing of how the second effect resolves. Wouldn't a simultaneous multi-target attack apply all damage to its targets first before the secondary card effect, while "each" would imply the secondary effect is carried out before damage is calculated for the next target in line?

Obviously I am referenceing the Hypersonic Assult debate, and this is not the proper thread for that, but I think "all" and "each" do imply a difference in how that damage is resolved with other modifers and triggers in play.

Anytime I find myself disagreeing with Jaymann, I am usually very very wrong though, so let me aknowledge that

>G is not a huge company with a big editing and templating department. Sometimes little templating things like each/all will slip through. I would not necessarily say that there is an implication that they do different things because the wording differs slightly.

There are more people that go over the wording than you think.

If wording does not imply different effects, then what are half of these threads debating over? Common now

I get that. I would say howeve, that the redirection does not stop simply because the item has been targeted once.

Target First Artifact, Orb redirects it, and it hits. Target second artifact, orb redirects it and it hits.

Of course… with that logic, it technically be a never ending loop, of always targeting the artifacts until the orb was dead. So… in that case, with that logic, id have to re-evaluate as well, saying that you couldnt target Kismet a second time.

It seems there are two totally different questions here, and it might be best to get away from the Kismet example that hits both of them.

The first: If you are damaging multiple different targets and the first damage is redirected, is the final recipient of the first damage a valid target for the next damage and is the original target of the first damage a valid target for the next damage?
Example: Legacy plays Flying Smash and first targets Condemnation which is redirected to the Orb of Delerium. Can he now choose the Orb of Delerium or the Condemnation for the next damage?
-Personally I think it is really obvious that he can't choose Condemnation again, but can choose the Orb again. I'm surprised there is contention on this, as I feel the other way breaks down all kinds of things which go for the X targets with the highest HP and so forth.

The second: If you are damaging multiple targets (but not all targets of a type), and the first damage brings a new target into play, can you choose that new target for the next damage?
Example: Legacy plays Flying Smash and kills a cultist, bringing a zombie into play. Can he now target the zombie with the next damage?
-As I said originally I do think there is some slight ambiguity here, but I would be very surprised if he could not target the zombie.  Requiring players to choose all targets before resolving any damage just seems onerous for no benefit.

Also, PWatson asked about the difference between Scherzo of Frost and Flame and Hoarfire.  Scherzo's second damage just specifies a target.  Hoarfire's second damage specifies a second target and therefor cannot be the same as the first target.  I don't think the 'then' on Scherzo has any meaning, in that I would interpret the card exactly the same if it were removed.

If for example, a villain card hit the two lowest hero targets for x damage. Stealth bot and some other target are the two lowest with the same hp. When stealth bot redirects the damage to herself from the first target, would you consider her to not be the valid target for the second hit because of the redirect? 

The way i play it, is the targetting and actually getting hit are separate and not relevant to each other unless specified otherwise. So even tho Kismet was not actually hit by the attack and the barrel was, she was still the first target and the barrel wasnt. Therefore you would be able to target the barrel with the second, but not Kismet again. But thats just imo....

Thank you for this clear restatement. I am going to use it and put both questions into the 'pending rulings' section.

Peronsally, I have zero doubt as to what the rulings are, which gives me some pause as to whether or not I should bother >G with it, but I also want to be a fair gatekeeper.

I'd be cool taking your word for it! (But if you've got official playtesters disagreeing, probably best to get THEM all in order, y'know? (Lucky SOBs.))

I'm not taking his word for it!  I want straight dope directly from the designers, not dope cut with opinions and supposition.  Nothing else gives me the buzz I crave. ;)

We had a pending question of:

>

The first question turned out to be unnecessary, as only one person was arguing against everyone else, and that person changed their position.

The second question was answered in the KantCon rulings (https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/answers-to-debated-questions-3871)

>

8.When doing damage with a card that says “up to x targets” do you choose all targets you wish to hit before you deal damage?

Yes you can, such as if you are swinging a Taiaha to do a killing blow to a Cultist, bringing out a Zombie, you can choose the second attack to be that zombie.

Note: Though the wording of this answer is a bit odd (Why does it start with 'Yes you can'), I think the intent is clear.

Opps, yeah, sorry. I must of been thinking I had worded the question differently for that one. I should go fix it.