A few clarifications needed for Wrest the Mind about Visionary self damage

I was asked a couple of rulings in today's game. Just wanted to clarify that I gave the correct replies.

1. Wrest the Mind on Matthew Hayes. Matthew Hayes deals damage, get redirected to himself. Visionary deals Matthew Hayes damage for the redirection and kills him. Matthew Hayes leaves play, Wrest the Mind leaves play. Does Visionary still deal herself damage from Wrest the Mind? I replied no.

2a. Hairtrigger Reflexes on Explosive Wagon entering play. I replied just 1 damage since the text on Explosive Wagon isn't active yet.

2b. Hairtrigger Reflexes with Explosive Wagon in play on Granite Oni entering play. I replied 2, since +1 from Explosive Wagon, but no -1 from Granite Oni since its text isn't active yet.

Discussion for questions 2a and 2b split to new topic https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/static-modifiers-on-targets-that-trigger-hairtrigger-reflexes-3779

I think your call on Wrest the Mind is correct, but as soon as a card enters play its text is considered active. So 1) No, 2a) 2, 2b) 1.

For 2a and 2b, I was following the Positive/Negative Energy Field ruling that says triggers reacting to cards being played (or entering play?) acts first before resolving the card being played. (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/891542/argent-adept-music-and-discord-distortions)

Am I right to say that, with Negative Energy Field in play, when Haka plays Tamoko, he will take 1 damage? Because Negative Energy Field resolves before Tamoko.

So in 2a, HtR resolves before Explosive Wagon, hence 1 damage?

The difference is, a damage-altering effect is not resolving. If the played card has an effect that activates when it enters play then your ruling is correct, but always-on abilities are always active, from the moment they enter play. So Ta Moko blocks the 1 damage, and HtR hits the Explosive Wagon for 2.

It's not in front of me, but I'm pretty sure visionary deals herself damage before she redirects it with wrest the mind.

Visionary's self-damage is dependent upon redirection. Not whether or not the target is still in play at the end. The only thing dependent on if the target is still in play is if Wrest remains on the table.

So 1 is actually "yes".

Nope, other way around.

1. Redirect damage

2. Damage target of WtM

3. Damage self

I agree that you don't take damage if the target dies due to 2. above, WtM leaves play before 3. happens.

Also

https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/errata-wrest-mind

to see the text if you don't have your cards handy!

I didnt have the card in front of me to make sure. I have terrible memory off the top of my head. What Matchstickman said is correct.

I'm not too sure about that. Damage to Visionary and the target is simultaneous. On the card it is a single sentence. Then, if the target is removed is WtM destroyed.

There are no true simultanious actions in SotM however. For example, Fanatics Exorcism power. You do not deal that 1 melee and 1 radiant at the same time, they happen one after the other in the order the card states. The same applies in this situation.

If WtM redirects an instance of damage, you deal 3 damage to the Wrested target first, then 3 to Visionary. Because there are no simultanious actions, if the Wrested target is destroyed by that 3 damage, WtM goes with it instantly saving Visionary from having to take that extra damage.

See also: End of Days and Bee Bot. End of Days is midway through a series of simultaneous actions when Bee Bot destroys it, so the rest of those simultaneous actions don't take place.

From reading the text on the card, once Visionary commits to redirecting the target's attack, she's taking the damage. By that then, she would be the first damaged.

I completely agree with Greywind. Even though nothing happens simultaniously it is still in the same sentence and thus both things would occur with or without Wrest the Mind. As Visionary is still in play, the card has already sent the signal to Visionary to perform these damages.

The reason End of Days and Bee Bots prevents any more destruction is End of Days is the card destroying everything, if it said Fanatic did so than Fanatic would be able to at least carry out the rest of the destruction.

No multiple actions are simultaneous or future committed, even if within the same sentence. So, the first part has her (optionally) redirecting damage. Stop reading and redirect damage. Continue reading to she deals the target 3 psychic damage. Stop reading and apply appropriate damage. If this damage then destroys (or otherwise causes the target to leave play) then Wrest the Mind reacts to this trigger (adding to the stack, as dealing damage has not yet returned back to the damage redirection and damage dealing effects yet) and destroys itself. Now that the damage is finished, continue reading the card. However, at this point the card has been destroyed and no further action from the card can take place.

It doesn't read "deal that target 3 damage and then deal yourself 3 damage." it is "deal that target and yourself 3 damage." So you can't stop and start reading at different points.

Similar situation.

Say Fanatic targets Baron Blade(who has Backlash Field out) with innate, which incaps her. Does she still do the second instance of her attack?

No, as she is incapped and there is no longer a card named "Fanatic" in play, so no one can carry out the attack.

There is no mechanical difference in saying "do X and Y" and "do X then do Y". It is the same thing. Can you cite an example to support your stance?

You still must do the actions in the order the card states, and remember there are never simultanious actions. You cant deal Visionary and the target damage at the same time, it always happens one after the other. It also specifically states that when the target is destroyed that WtM goes with it.

Yes, but if you inflict the damage on the target you must then inflict the damage on Visionary without jumping to the end of the card.

It also specifically states that when the target is destroyed that WtM goes with it.

After you check whether or not Visionary is going to take damage from her own action.

The phrase itsself already started, even if you don't yet get to the words. The card says, "The Visonary deals this card's target and herself 3 psychic damage." "Herself 3 psychic damage isn't a complete sentence", and it must be attached to the previous words, i.e. it reads, "The Visonary deals...herself 3 psychic damage." If this was true, the phrase and action already started, regardless of if the target is KOed.

While I can conceivably understand the rules argument for her not taking damage, that's not how we played it when it came up.  It seems clear that the intention is for her to take damage if she chooses to redirect damage.  It simply doesn't make sense for her to not suffer any backlash if her target is destroyed.  Maybe Wresting isn't dangerous if it's fatal?

I'm aware of nothing is truely simultanious and i'm not agrueing that fact. However there is a slight difference between "do X and Y" to "do X then do Y" otherwise they would have worded things the same.

I may not have a way to cite my opinion on the matter, but can you cite yours?

Huh.

The offical errata thread needs updating as it doesn't have the same wording as on the card!

The plain fact that nothing is simultanious inherently implies there is no difference between "do x and y" and "do x then y". You can never do action X and Y at the same time, which is what "do X and Y" would normally indicate (a simultanious action). Because that can not happen, you must resolve the actions one at a time, so in effect you are actually doing "do X then Y" regardless of how the sentence is worded. There is no mechanical difference. There nessesarily can't be a difference within the structure of the game.

Regardless, I think I will change my stance. Re-reading Wrest the Mind, after Visionary redirects the damage, it is actually HER doing the 3 damage and NOT Wrest the Mind (like I originally thought). Regardless of whether Wrest the Mind and its target are destroyed, Visionary is still active and still the one doing the damage. So I do not think the wording of "do x and y" has any bearing in this after all. 

Thoughts?

That's what I had been saying the entire time. Visionary is still active. I was not agrueing any simultanious ruling at all.

The simulatanious thing I was getting at if Wrest the Mind was worded "Deal the target 3 damage and then deal Visionary 3 damage" if the target would be destroyed than Wrest the Mind would go with it then it wouldn't get to the "and then" section. So "then" being there or not being there does have an impact.

Hmm keep forgetting that (Edit: incapped) Heros do not have name. 

So then in theory:

You can have Haka Rampage and then incap himself to prevent the 2 damage to everyone else?

Yes you could, though if Haka is done to 2 HP than I don'tt hink that game is going too well.

This isn’t really the best evidence to back my statement up (given how much of the information was moved or lost during the transition), but it is the best I could find.
https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/destroying-source-effect

That's not really the same thing. As that is destroying the Rat that is doing the damage would stops it, which i would agree with.

Wrest the Mind has Visionary deal damage, so these are two different circumstances.

From Spiff's clarification document:

"when a card is destroyed before it can finish its effect, any remaining effect is cancelled."

Which does rather imply that if Wrest the Mind is destroyed mid-way through its effect resolving then any remaining part of the effect would not take place.

I think the arguments for both sides are pretty solid. Can we add this to the pending rules question thread?

The discussion about how this question is answered is hinging on the specific wording of Wrest the Mind. If someone is willing to quote Wrest the Mind exactly and rewrite the question above to point out the nuance of 'do this and that' versus 'do this then do that', I am willing to move this to the unanswered questions thread.

I might be willing to buy this argument (static effects of 'being played' card take effect immediately, while triggered effects do no), but I'm not sure. Anyone know of any precedent?

I think most of us are quite aware of that ruling. Which isn't where this discussion draws the line at. It is more of a timing and a card that is destroyed that is allowing another target to do damage.

Lets say Wrest the Mind is attached to Citizen Hammer (first card that came to mind that deals damage and has < three HP) so when it comes around to his turn to do an attack he'll try to do 3 fire damage to all hero targets however the first target he blast at Visionary redirects at Dawn instead.

Next Wrest the Mind says "Visionary deals this target and herself 3 psychic damage"  so she preps for these 2 attacks, since of course it is the same effect. The first going into Hammer, destroying him and cancelling the rest of his attacks to the other heroes. Now this will also destroy Wrest the Mind, but Visionary already has the message she needs to hit herself aswell, thus she will hit herself with the second attack she had prepped as Wrest the Mind had already told her to do before hand.

Now my opposition is taking the card to be more along the lines of "Visionary deals this target 3 psychic damage then she will deal herself 3 psychic damage." Which would mean she preps the first hit and hit Hammer with the attack, destroying Hammer and Wrest the Mind with it. Since they were two seperate effects Visionary will be able to escape unscathed.

I find it funny that you say a card which actually states it’s multiple actions as a single thing (End of Days 'destroy (approx.) all cards) as multiple interruptable things, while a card that states multiple things (that target and herself) as a single thing.

I'm not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean. Please elaborate?

It seems like if an effect that hits "every (blah)" does so one at a time, and can be stopped if the source is gone, then an effect that hits 2 things "this target and Visionary" can be inturrupted by the source going away as well.

However Wrest the Mind is not the source of the damage. Visionary is, and has she gone away? I think not.

Well to be fair, End of Days is the source of the destruction. I think what Ronway said previously is correct, that if End of Days specified that Fanatic herself destroys the cards, then the BeeBot combo would cease to work. 

To contrast, Wrest the Mind is not the source of the damage, Visionary is. 

Maybe we can go back to the "stack of resolving effects" idea. Once Visionary redirects damage, the next effect is triggered and added to the stack immediatly. The effect is Visionary dealing 3 damage to the target and to herself. Maybe this is where the importance of "and" vs "then" that Ronway and I were discussing, as the "and" could imply that both effects are added to the stack at the same time, where as "then" would add them to the stack separatly (important for timing). If you look at it this way, the destruction of WtM does not influence whether or not Visionary hits herself, as the effect is already in the stack waiting to be resolved.

But it is the source of the effect. The effect can't continue when the card is gone, even if it is damage.

That is not quite right. Visionary is the source of the effect (it says so on the card). WtM is the vehicle that enables her to use her psychic abilities. 

But that's sort of irrelevant, since we have nothing which specifies that the ruling about effects stopping once the card causing them has been destroyed only counts if it's not making other people deal damage; you've created an exception where none seems to exist. We have a ruling stating that when a card is destroyed, any remaining effects go away. Nowhere is it even suggested that this 'doesn't count' if it's making someone else deal the damage.

EDIT: How's this, arenson?

The Visionary's Wrest the Mind states that when it redirects damage, "the Visionary deals this card's target and herself 3 psychic damage each". The card also states that "if the target leaves play, destroy this card".

1. If the target of Wrest the Mind is destroyed by the first part of this effect, and thus Wrest the Mind destroys itself and leaves play, does the second part still damage the Visionary?

2. Would this ruling be different if the card read  "the Visionary deals this card's target 3 psychic damage, then deals herself 3 psychic damage"?

It is also not suggested that it does count as it is a different situation than the "End of Days" ruling. As End of Days is handling everything itself, where Wrest the Mind is using another card to do various things. The differences are great enough that they would need a seperate ruling.

So if you are performing an action on a card, you would stop in the middle of the action/line to see if a condition was filled later on in the card?

But I'm not trying to build my case on the End of Days ruling. In fact, the example given beneath it is Flame Barrier destroying an attacker before they hit other targets, which is a seperate ruling in which a card has no effect after it leaves play. It seems to me that it would be a lot more intuitive to have this case follow the general rule than to create a special case for instances in which a card which causes other cards to deal damage.

Or maybe just errata the card for the 18th time switching "this target" and "herself" thus allowing the card what it was meant to do without anyone comparing it to other rulings when it is a special circumstance that would greatly increase the potential of an already powerful card.

Greatly?  At its best, it's a loophole against one attack.  Maybe she can't experience psychic backlash if her target is catatonic/dead.  There are ways to rationalize it.  I don't really have a case for either perspective, but I wouldn't call it a huge boost in power.

Some of the semantics in this thread remind me of the particularly nasty one of Omnitron's Reactive Plating Subroutine that devolved into people pulling definitions out of the dictionary to justify their positions (I believe the word because started it all).  It was to the point that there were reductio ad absurdum arguments that you could never get rid of Legacy's Fortitude DR because it didn't state that it went away if the card was destroyed.  I think an official ruling would be great at this point to avoid too many arbitrary rules debates.

My thoughts on this are best described as a process flow.

Did the Target of Wrest the Mind deal damage?

If Yes, will Visionary redirect that damage?

If Yes:

1) The Target deals damage to a target of Visionary's choosing.

2) The Target takes 3 psychic damage.

3) Visionary takes 3 psychic damage.

If Visionary does not redirect damage then End.

Did the Target leave play?

If Yes, Destroy Wrest the Mind.

If No, Wrest the Mind remains in play.

At no point in a process do you skip unless you are specifically told to. Everything in it will happen as instructed.

Ronway, as for reversing the order, you'll have someone come along and "Hey, Visionary incapped herself with the three, so the target isn't going to take any."

The Redirection is the cause. The effect is 6 damage, of which the Target takes 3 and Visionary takes 3. If she redirected, she will take the damage. It has no bearing on the Target or Wrest the Mind at that point other than a reference as to why she's taking the 3.

Pair it with Mental Divergence and you got yourself a card that you can play eery other turn that can protect heroes from damage, destroy a target, and deal a little extra damage to something else. All you have to do is sit back and allow your fellow heroes ensure whatever you have Wrested is <3 HP.

Now pair it with a second Wrest the Mind and Mental Divergence and you have the same as above, but now it works every turn.

I edited the title of this thread to focus on Wrest the Mind (i.e. question 1) and create a new topic for questions 2a and 2b (https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/static-modifiers-on-targets-that-trigger-hairtrigger-reflexes-3779).

Assuming that the target will deal enough damage to destroy itself.  This strategy wouldn't work on a lot of La Capitan's Crew, Voss's ships, or many of The Dreamer's Projections.  Again, this strategy only works on tiny targets and only saves Visionary from 3 damage.  Your strategy would still work even if she took the 3 damage, so does that mean Mental Divergence and Wrest the Mind both have to be errata'd because they combo well in general?

Thank you. I have added this to the pending rules thread.

If anyone disagrees with the wording of this question, please let us know.

Here is my only question: do we know for sure that WtM is destroyed before the action finished, since the condition is stated after the action. Or as I said before, in the middle of an action, do we check the bottom of a card to see if that is fulfilled before we finish the top. I think the answer is yes, but why doesn't the phrase "If the target leaves play, detroy this card," appear before the damage phrase. It would actually make more sense to say, "Play this card next to a target, other than a character card. If the target leaves play, destroy this card. Whenever that target deals damage…"

Assuming this is a trigger effect, it would happen immediately, but would it matter if the card itself triggers the effect, in which case we go in order.

I do think it is destroyed, just looking for a confirmation.

Yup. WtM is destroyed instantly with the target. 

Im still sticking with the interpretation that both instances of damage that Visionary does are already in the "stack of resolving effects" before the first instance of damage (the one to the target) is actually delt. 

A related scenario happened in today's game.

Musaragni's Harp: Activate the Perform text of a Harmony card and the Accompany text of a harmony card.

If I used Musaragni's Harp to activate Perform of Cedistic Dissonant, then I destroy Musaragni's Harp to destroyed some other card, then do I still get to activate the second part of Musaragni's Harps (i.e. Accompany of a Harmony)?

As soon as you activate that power, both of those effects go into your "stack of resolving effects" before you have a chance to use Cedistic Dissonant. I think this comes back to what me and Ronway discussed above about the difference between "do x and y" and "do x then do y". I am convinced he is correct (and I was initially wrong) that there is a minor difference mechanically between the two.

The difference is timing and when you add those actions to the "stack". If it said, activate Harmony and then an Accompany, that would imply that you need to carry out the Harmony action fully before you even add the Accompany action to the stack. Because it says to active Harmony and Accompany, I believe this implies you add both effects to the "stack" and then start to resolve them.

This would be consistant with my current position on WtM as well.

Just a quick clarification on my point in regard to ‘skipping to the end and back to the middle.’ While that does appear to be what I’m saying, it’s not. What I’m saying is that the card has two triggers, one in the middle and one on the bottom. The trigger in the middle only applies the actions listed in the middle; it does not continue to the bottom. Rather, the middle trigger generates some actions, and those actions can fire other triggers, and itself as a card can be one of those triggers, in which case the same card at a different place can be in two parts of the stack at the same time. Argent Adepts instruments and songs are a perfect example of this.
As an example of what I’m explaining, using Wrest the Mind and two made up targets named X and Y, assume Wrest the Mind is played on X. X has the effect that the first time per turn it’s dealt damage by a target, it deals damage to that target, and Y has a similar effect, except it then deals damage to one other target. X attempts to deal damage (for some reason). Wrest the Mind triggers on this (first time). Visionary redirects this to Y. Y then reacts by redirecting that damage back to it’s source (X). X now reacts by attempting to deal damage back to the source (Y), but it triggers Wrest the Mind, and redirects to another unknown (in this story) target. Now, the stack is X deal damage (interrupted), Wrest the Mind redirects damage (first time), Y retaliates to damage, X retaliates to damage (interrupted), Wrest the Mind redirects damage (second time). X does not retaliate again, as I tried to word it in such a way as one retaliation per turn rather than one retaliation per turn per target, to keep it as simple as possible. Since no other triggers react, execution continues with the second triggering of Wrest the Mind, with X attack finishing, then Visionary dealing X and herself damage (assuming no triggers). With that finished, X is already finished with damage. Y now deals another target damage. Now that Y is finished, it goes back to Wrest the Mind again, which has Visionary dealing damage to X and herself.
The issue isn’t Wrest the Mind bouncing around (technically, it’s being inserted into the stack a second time at a different execution point, the original execution point of the card at the first insertion point is currently paused in place). The issue is whether a card can react to the destruction of the target before Visionary deals herself damage. That is all I have to say on this topic.
(That was a lot to write on a touchscreen keyboard on a phone…)

Let me explain why I asked the questions, and the answer that I assumed you would give to it. As we know, when youi play a card you follow the text in order. When I am looking for a response to the card, I will find another card and see if there are any actions to take. For example, a fowl card is played. At this point I got back to Matty's character card and begin reading it to see if ANY ACTION needs to take place. Obviously there is, and that action is performed. Another example would be if you play a card becuase of an end-of-turn effect that also has an end-of-turn effect. You play one card, then begin reading from the top of the other card to see if any actions need to take place. Technically, after each action you would have to read every card in played order to see if any actions need to take place. Practically speaking, we know which cards have actions and only scan those (this could be a mistaken assumption on my part).

Wrest the Mind is a little unique. You first deal damage to the target and kill it. The reponse would be to read WtM in order to see if ANY ACTION needs to take place. The answer would seemingly be yes, Visionary needs to deal herself 3 damage.

This was why I asked. The answer I assumed you would give, and confirmed by Foote's answer above, is that you don't look for ANY ACTION, but rather only a specific action that would be trigered based on the previous one. Therefore, you would skip all of the previous text, as if it wasn;t there, and only read the text that would be triggered by the action, i.e. WtM is destroyed.

Regarding ketigid's question, I'd suggest the opposite to what's been said - that is, don't use the accompany, because the instrument allowing you to activaate it has been destroyed. However, I'm less wedded to this idea than to my opinion on Wrest the Mind - it's a power, and there is precedent of powers lasting beyond the destruction of their source.

Is this enough of an issue to justify appending it to the pending Wrest the Mind question?

Besides your opinion, we have Ronway’s and Foote’s where they agree on WtM but disagree on this. Maybe it is 2 separate questions.

To clarify, Ronway and Foote came to the same ruling on WtM but for different reasons. The difference in those reasons create different rulings by the harp.

I think the Cedistic Dissonance case makes it even more evident that in these cases that there is no interuption. 

The card does not say:

"You may activate a Perform text and then you may active an Accompany"

You do not resolve the Perform text before you gain the ability to activate an Accompany as well. This is all a timing issue. When you go to resolve your Perform action, the "you may active an Accompany" part of the power is already in the "stack" waiting to resolve. 

The only time an action get interupted on cards is if an effect triggers the cards destruction before the next set of instructions. 

The Power on the Harp is one instruction. You do not start resolving effects in the middle of an instruction, only inbetween instructions. Instructions are spearated either by periods (Fanatics Sanctifying Strike. Wraits Stun Bolts) or by indicating through the use of "Then Do X" or "If so, then do X" (seen in the first part of WtM). Connecting that to the WtM more, the sentence of "Visionary deals the target damage and herself damage" is clearly one intruction. 

I think this can be applied universally. Breaking card actions into sets of "Instructions" that get added to Jaymann's "stack of resolving effects" is very usefull. But the key is that you do not start resolving until you complete an Instruction.

But doesn’t this go against the idea that End of Days stops when it is destroyed? That is undeniably one instruction, but each destruction is resolved in sequence and you stop following the instruction if End of Days is destroyed.

I think it’s a mistake to read alot of meaning into sentence structure anyway, since I think card space is a major factor in how things get worded.

Isn't End of Days destroyed when it is effectively the only card left in play?

I don't believe reading into the wording is a mistake, because there are a lot of wordy cards regardless of space.

End of Days is supposed to destroy itself after destroying everything else…but if Unity has a Bee Bot out and you make that the first hero card to be destroyed, you can have it then destroy End of Days and prevent any other hero cards from being destroyed.

That's an effect of Bee Bot and not End of Days.

Well no I think it still fits, but maybe not in the way you think. 

I didn't say you can't interrupt an effect in action. What in saying is you can't start resolving those effects mid-instruction.

End of Day, if you notice, is broken into two clear instructions. The first sentence instructions you to clear the board (noting exceptions). So now that you have the first full instruction, you carry out the action. 

Because EoD is the source of the destruction, when EoD is killed by Beebot, the instruction can no longer be carried out as the source of the action must be active. There is precedent to that notion in the chairmans deck, as the one shots that have the operative deal damage/heal can't take effect because the source is gone. 

In the case of both the Harp and WtM, the source of the actions were specified in the instruction. Those instructions have multiple actions within them. We know this can happen because EoD is also a single instruction with multiple actions for example. 

But I still maintain that you can't start resolving effects in the middle of an instruction. It's like starting a test before you read the rules if I can relate it that way. EoD is no contradiction to that

By that you can't with WtM either. The redirection, the damage to the Target and to Visionary is one instruction.

No that is two instructions. They are clearly separated with "if you do, then". As in "if you perform this previous instruction, then do [new instruction]." If it has to be triggered, you can be sure it's a new instruction in that sense. 

Redirection is cause. Damage to Target and Visionary is an unavoidable effect.

Right. The second instruction on the card is dependent on the first instruction being read, activated, then resolved.

Instructions, as I'm defining them, can be broken up as:

Do Action A.

Do Action B.

Do C and D

Do E. 

If you did E, then do F.

Do G, H and I.

Do X.

Then, Do Y. 

Those are all examples of separate instructions. 

I gave my breakdown of it in #48.

So there is someone who thinks that WtM isn’t destroyed until after she deals herself damage.

No, I'm saying in this case, it does not matter when WtM is destroyed. 

Say there is a hypothetical villain ongoing card that says "At the end of the villain turn, the villain character card deals all hero targets x damage." The first instance of that damage goes to Bee Bot who then destroys said hypthetical card, does the damage stop there? (since although the ongoing card is destroyed, the "stack" is already filled with damage coming from the villain character card who is still around.)

p.s. is there actually such a card in existence? I can't think of any right now. :)

It's not a villain card, however the environment card Judgement of Anubis is very similar.

Edit: Just thought of one, it's not the end of the villain turn though. It's Maria Helena's Revenge, which triggers when villain targets are destroyed and La Capitan deals damage to all hero targets.

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/31361#comment-31361

I was referring to Greywind.

I that case I'd say the damage would not stop since the source is still active and the instruction is already resolving

The only way I see Visionary avoiding the damage is if she is somehow, in the middle of all this, incapped.

Is there an official ruling with regards to Judgement and Bee bot? Or revenge, I suppose.

But how do you determine that EoD is the source of the destruction but the Harp isn't the source of the activation?  Grammatically I suppose they imply you, the reader, are the source.  With the exception of damage, I don't think any action specifies an in game source.

As far as the Harp goes, it's specifically states "You" as in "you, the player". In addition, I think there's an argument to be made about the player and their hero being interchangeable as a source (thematically, we assume the role of each hero after all). 

If a card has an effect but states no clear source for an action, the source then is the card itself. This is true of End of Days, as well as many environment cards (primas is full of them). Nothing is "sourceless" though. 

My copy of Musaragni's Harp reads "Power: Activate the Perform text of a harmony card and the accompany text of a harmony card".  As a command, the implied subject is 'you', but the same could be said of End of Days.  I do agree that sourceless damage should be treated as coming from 'this card' (though I think the official response is that it comes from 'the environment'), but I don't see where you draw a distinction between Musaragni's Harp and End of Days.

I'm pretty sure the only time cards explicitly specify 'you' is if they are optional, and that's just so they can get 'may' into the sentence.  Thinking a bit more about explicit actors, they are called out if the action is performed by 'one player' or 'each player'.  Also, when the action is regaining HP, the target(s) regaining HP are the subject of the sentence.  And of course most damage specifies what is dealing it.

With WTM it is Visionary that is doing damage to herself as a result of the card. Even if the card is destroyed, Visionary would still deal the damage to herself since she is still in play. The damage is also contingent upon the redirection, and so even if the target is destroyed, the redirection still occured and thus she would still be damaged.

I realize that Wrest the Mind specifies a source other than itself.  While I don't feel that should matter, it is at least something to distinguish it from End of Days and thus request another ruling.  It's the Harp and End of Days where I'm asking what distinguishes the cards to justify saying that the instruction continues past the card's destruction.

I see what you are saying here. I would think the difference here is that the Harp is a Power. The source of any effect from a Hero's power must be the Hero itself (it is their power ya know?). Having the Harp in play allows your Hero access to that power. Once you active that power, in the Harps case, it is one instruction with 2 non-optional effects. Look at it this way. Both of those effects have a common trigger with a common source. Any effects with triggers immediatly happen upon fullfilment of said trigger. Technically, they trigger simultaniously is really whats happening, which is why they are added to the "resolving stack" simultaniously as well. They do not resolve simultaniously, but they do infact trigger simultaniously. Since the Harp is not the source of the effect (Argent Adept himself is doing the performing/accompanying) the destruction of the Harp does not prevent the second effect of the powers sole instruction from resolving.

That is the difference between EoD and the Harp. The Power implies the Hero as the source. I do not see how you could make a convincing argument otherwise.

As to healing, there is a difference between the source of the healing and the recipient of the healing. Positive Energy Field, for example, is the source of the healing, while the targets it heals are the benifactors of the source.

With End of Days, I'd probably say that the effect is cancelled if it's destroyed midstream since it's all a single effect from one card, and it is destroyed before the effect is fully carried out. With Murasagni's Harp, I would say that both effects are activated before you actually activate any of your perform or accompany texts. You still have to resolve them in the set order on the card, but both effects happen before the card's destruction, and so both effects are carried out. That's probably how I'd rule it anyway.

That is almost right. Both effects do not resolve before the destruction of an intrument due to Cedistic Dissonance. Both effects trigger and get added to "the stack" simultaniously, yes, but they resolve independantly. In this example, the Harp would infact be destroyed before you resolve an Accompany text. Since the Harp is not the source of the effect, its destruction does not prevent the Accompany from happening.

I would probably argue that in order for effects to be completely canceled the source would have to be interrupted before it enters the queue for resolution, which is why you have things like Galvanizes that are still in effect until the start of Legacy's next turn even if he gets incapacitated before his next turn. That being said, I do think your view point is valid, and that at this point we probably need an official ruling.

Well the only reason Galvanize does not stop when Legacy is incaped is because the effect explicitly states a duration. Without that clause in the instruction, Galvanize would indeed stop upon Legacy being incapped.

If you could only interupt effects before they enter the que, then the EoD/Beebot interaction could not exist, as EoD had already entered the que and infact had already started resolving. So I do not think what you stated is quite right. It is quite the opposite. You can not interupt an effect from entering the que after it has been triggered. Once an effect is triggered, the only way to stop it is the removal of the source of said effect.

EOD is getting stopped during its effect activation, where as Murasagni's gets destroyed after the effect is activated. I would completely agree with you if the card said activate a perform and then an accompaniment text, but it says activate a perform and accompaniment text. Both actions would be completed before the Harp is actually destroyed, you have to resolve them in order, but both effects are still happening.

I really think we are saying the same thing using different words. When you say "both actions would be complete before the harp is destroyed", I read that as "both actions would be [resolved] before the harp is destroyed", which is in fact incorrect, as you also point out that "you have to resolve them in order" which is correct.

In a nutshell, the Harp is a Power, and power effects are sourced to the Hero using them. Activating the Power triggers the powers instructions. The Harp has [1] intruction with multiple effects. Both effects simultaniously and imediatly get added to our theoretical "stack of effects to be resolved" becuase they are contained within one intruction. Once there are no more triggered instructions to add, now you start to resolve in the order in which they appear in the stack (which correlates to the order in which they appeared on the initial instruction). Because of the Official Ruling where effects do not resolve simultaniously, the Perform text resolves first, destroying the Harp. Then the Accompany effect resolves as it was next in the stack and its source (Argent Adept) is presumably still active. Had any other intructions triggered in the middle of any of that, they would get added to the top of the stack instantly and resolving the stack continues with the newest effect added.

Again, I think we are saying the same thing here. There is no consistancy in the terms we are using however, as we both are defining certain words differently. Thats sorta why I am trying to refine my approach to resolving effects, and hopefully we can start talking in the same language here.

Sentinelese?

Well, the process for resolving complex effect interactions is not fully fleshed out in the rules, and I understand why. But when trying to boil down a systematic approach in resolving these interactions, a common language is critical so we are all on the same page as we talk through these things.

Nielzabub and I differed in our use of the word "complete" as in "both actions would be complete" in the post above. It is clear we are agreeing upon the outcome, but we have trouble discussing it coherently because we lack a shared definition of terms. 

Christopher has stated on various occasions that there is no stack in Sentinels of the Multiverse. I don't see how you can say that the part of the Harp's text that allows you to activate the Accompany text of a Harmony card is on the stack, waiting to be activated even though the Harp is destroyed, when there is no stack.

I've been waiting for a link to where it says there is no "stack" in Sentinels of the Multiverse. And maybe there should be a review on Snatch and Grab then if there really isn't any stack.

I don't see what the stack has to do with Snatch and Grab. You don't need a stack to remember things that were true in the past.

But it's kind of trivially true that there isn't a stack in Sentinels of the Multiverse. A stack (in programming or Magic: the Gathering terms) is a method of ordering events that could in principle occur simultaneously by making the last declared action resolve first, followed by the second last, and so on. That doesn't happen in Sentinels, which orders events in a different way, which I think could be classed as a queue but definitely isn't a stack.

Ok? So Visionary deals herself damage because she remembered something from the past even though the target is destroyed.

Oh, it's people complaining about "stacks" not being a proper word for it? So change the word "stacks" that everyone has been tossing around to "queue" problem solved.

I understand there is no stack. I am using the term in the abstract to demonstrate how to resolve complex actions. Yes there is no "stack" as far as the game is concerned, but that does not mean it can't be a usefull tool when trying to determin how these sorts of interactions resolve.

Edit: So just changing my terminology from "stack" to "que" fixes this? Again, I am very keen on developing a consistant vocabulary to use when talking about resolving interactions. If "que" makes more sense to everyone, I have no problem calling it that. 

It's a false analogy, because Snatch and Grab is in play when Ambuscade deals the second instance of damage, and Wrest the Mind is not in play when The Visionary would deal herself damage.

Well, a queue is a useful analogy because the thing about queues is that sometimes people get tired of waiting in line and leave, and sometimes the counter closes and everyone has to leave whether they want to or not.

So? Why does the card have to be there? She made the choice to redirect and has to accept the consequences of that action.

I'm not on either side on this, but what precedent is there in the rules for something mechanically happening because a hero needs to "accept the consequences" of their actions?  Tell that to Fixer with a Jack Handle when he's beating up Plague Rat with his own Infection.

The cost for redirecting should be paid before the redirected damage is ever inflicted.

It's clearly not a cost. Sentinels uses other phrasing when it wishes to denote costs.

You're missing the point. It's one action, total. Redirect, damage to Target, damage to Visionary. One action. Do not stop in the middle. Do not jump to the end of the card.

Agreed. The trigger condition for Visionary doing herself 3 damage has been met. It is not contingent upon Visionary damaging the target first or WtM staying in play. They just happen to share a common trigger. Remember, triggered effects happen instantly, and if multiple things seem to happen at once (like multiple effects working off a common trigger), they resolve seperatly and in order that they appear, which is why the "que" or "stack" imagery can be helpfull when dealing with multiple and intertwining triggers.

It is not about consequences. It is all about Triggers, the effects of those triggers, and the timing of when you resolve said effects. Thats what I have been trying to outline here.

What precedent are you referring to? Anyway, I'm pretty clear in my own mind that you don't trigger new effects on cards that aren't in play. If a card has already produced an effect with a specified duration (e.g. Next Evolution) then that effect remains until the duration expires regardless of whether the card leaves play or not (otherwise Mistbound wouldn't do anything), but in the case of the Harp, you haven't produced the effect of an Accompany activation. The effect is unresolved, and when the Harp leaves play it never gets to resolve, for the same reason that if you shoot the Hired Gun dead in the middle of his killing spree, the Hired Gun doesn't go on to shoot everyone else.

It's three effects, not one effect. And you stop in the middle of these effects in Sentinels all the time, otherwise cards like Fortitude would literally have no effect.

I can understand that argument.  My question was purely about terminology.  When we start talking about heroes accepting the consequences of their actions in a topic about hard mechanics there is a risk of arbitrary rulings and unfounded opinions flying around.  I just wanted to make sure I understood what the mechanical argument was in that statement.

Incidentally, and I don't think this has ever been relevant, but I don't think End of Days is the source of the destruction caused by the card End of Days. I think Fanatic is, based on the ruling that the Tomb of Anubis is the source of the damage inflicted by the card Spike Trap.

As for the argument that the last line is part of a process rather than a continually checked condition, I think that if it was part of a process, the correct wording would be "If the target has left play, destroy this card". The word "leaves" is in the present tense, and is therefore a continually checked condition.

Fortitude is an ongoing constant effect so long as that card is on the table and only effects damage Legacy would take. As such I do not see its relevance in this discussion.

Fortitude interrupts damage effects that target Legacy, and does so with a particular timing as well. In the same way, Wrest the Mind interrupts damage effects that have as their source the Target Wrest the Mind is played next to. It also has a self-destruct clause, which triggers when its timing condition is met.

A trigger that cannot be met without the cost of the prior trigger being met first.

Yes you have. That is the entire point. Hired Gun is not the same. I explained this with EoD. Hired Gun IS THE SOURCE of the effect (the effect in this case is the damage delt). If the source of an effect leaves play, it cannot continue carrying out the effect.

The harp IS NOT THE SOURCE of the effect. The Harp provides the Hero with additional effects that HE can use. The HERO is ALWAYS the source of the effects of its own powers. That just follows common sense here.

In regards to "not having produced the effect of an Accompany". All actions in SotM must be triggered. Whether that is by playing a card, activating a power, or an interaction of cards on the board, an effect has to be triggered somehow. The Harp has one Power. If you activate that power, that triggers the stated effect of "activate a Perform text and an Accompany text". Two effects stated. Now here is the thing, both of them have the same trigger! The Accompany text is NOT dependant upon the Perform text happening, only that the Power was activated in the first place. 

Straight from the EE rulebook, top of page 8: "…there are situations in which multiple effects would occur simultaneously" (like 2 effects having the same trigger like the Harp). "In all situations, card effects that happen simultaneously occur in the order in which the cards entered play". That last sentence has been extended in rulings to include the order in which effects appear on a single card, not just accross different cards.

The Harp is not the source of the Perform and Accompany effects. It is Argent. I do not see how you could argue that point otherwise.

That's not correct. If the Visionary plays Wrest the Mind on the Hired Gun, and Fanatic plays Final Dive on the Hired Gun, then Wrest the Mind leaves play.

Playing a card and making use of a card are not the same thing.

Could you possibly link this ruling? 

Fortitude is not an interrupt. It's a modification of damage.

The Accompany text is not dependent upon the Perform text happening, but it still happens after the Perform text. That's the reason Alacritous Subdominant shenanigans work. And Powers can be interrupted like any other collection of effects. I am aware of no ruling that allows you to continue resolving new unresolved effects on a card after that card leaves play. And if a Hero is always the source of the effects of their own powers (and I agree that they are), I see no reason that they wouldn't also be the source of the effects of any cards they might play, such as End of Days.

WtM shouldn't be removed until the prior sentence is carried out in full.

On a more interesting note about WtM. Lets use Ronways example with Visionary playing WtM on Citizen Hammer.

End of Villain turn. This triggers Hammer to deal damage. Visionary chooses to have Hammer redirect the 3 damage Hammer would have delt to himself. This kills Hammer. I think in this case, WtM would be destroyed before the 2nd conditional trigger is checked, as its trigger is dependant upon the first trigger fully resolving, which by that time, WtM would no longer be in play to check.

It doesn't use the "would be dealt" wording, but that doesn't mean it isn't an interrupt.

No. An interrupt is "stop doing this action and do this action, when completed resume previous action".

What happens if the target Wrest the Mind is played next to is killed by a Vat Explosion?

WtM leaves play as instructed. Again a moot point as it has nothing to do with Visionary's decision to redirect damage.

It has everything to do with it. The question is whether the self-destruct clause on Wrest the Mind is continuously checked or not. If it was strictly part of the redirection effect, and always happened only at the end of that paragraph, it would not be checked in any other circumstance. Since it can be checked in other circumstances, it should be checked in all other circumstances where it applies, e.g. if the Target blows up during the redirection.

Also, I can't stress enough that The Visionary taking damage is not a cost of the card. If it was, it would say "The Visionary deals herself 3 damage. If she does, …" If it was intended to be an unavoidable consequence of using the card, it would say "The Visionary deals this card's Target 3 Psychic damage. She then deals herself 3 Psychic damage, even if this card has left play". The card does not say that, or anything like it, which means that The Visionary's player is free to use shenanigans to avoid taking damage. Inflicting 3 damage on the Target and herself are discrete events. Per the card, they are ordered such that the Target takes damage first (and even if you disagree about that, she could clearly choose to order those events in such a way that the Target took it first). And if Wrest the Mind blows up, there's no card in play to say that she deals damage to herself.

Actually, no. The litmus test is "Did Visionary Redirect damage?"

Yes or no.

If yes, she will take the 3 damage.

The thing here is that the condition for both effects is met. You do both of them. Yes you do them in order, but you still get to carry out both effects.

If the power said "Active a Perform text. Then, Activate an Accompany text" then I would agree with you, that the destruction of the Harp in the first trigger prevents the next trigger from ever being checked. But thats not what the card says to do.

This is why I the idea of a "que" is so important here. Its one trigger with multiple effects that should happen simultaniously. They do indeed happen simultaniously is the key. They do not resolve simultaniously, but they indeed both trigger and get added to that "que".

The difference between Powers and a card like End of Days, as far as "source of the effects" goes, Powers simply imply the player/hero carries them out. It is their power that they are using. I understand what you are saying here, but I think that the EoD/Beebot ruling makes it very clear that EoD IS the source of the effect.

There are several tests. If she's immune to damage, for instance, she won't take damage, even though she may deal it. And if the card isn't in play, then she won't deal damage, because there is nothing to say she takes damage.

You're overthinking it just to get the end result you wish it to have.

I don't think there's any meaningful distinction between the wording of the card and the wording you're proposing.

No, it's actually the common interpretation of the card.

That doesn't mean that it's right.

I think we are getting to a point where we're overstepping the amount of authority we can actually wield with our arguments.  We should probably wait on an official ruling.

It implies one effect must fully resolve the first before you even consider the second. So yes there is a difference. They become two instructions with two triggers instead of one instruction and one trigger. 

I will add this:

Sentinels is not, and doesn't appear to be meant as as overly complex game. Playing the card as it reads without the acrobatic shenanigans to come up with a way to make Visionary impervious to her own damage is keeping it simple and straightforward.

It doesn't have to be worded that way for it to be a cost, because damage order can matter, and the cards wants Visionary to take damage last. You can still do a lot of shenanigans to avoid damage, e.g. with Ra making everyone deal fire and be immune to fire, even if it is not from the card itself.

One of the problems with saying, "it has to be this way, otherwise it would say this" arguement (not just you, but everyone), is that you can extend it almost every way. For example, to me at least, if the meaning was that WtM would be destroyed immediately and prevent damage it would say it in the following manner, "Play this card next to a target, other than a character card. If the target leaves play, destory this card. Whenever the target deals damage…" By putting above the redirection you are saying that the line always takes precendent. Furthermore, it makes a lot more sense to put the destruction condition by the sentnce where you place the card, you are talking about similar things. To purposely put it at the end of the card tells me that it should only be done after she takes damage.

But here is the thing, not every card has the real estate to say what it wants. In fact, in the PT forum Christopher was lamenting the fact that he can;t have a crd the way he wants becuase there isn't enough space. As gamers we want consistency, for a game like MtG you really need it. If you are building you deck, you really need flying to mean the same thing everywhere. However, SotM doesn't have the same restrictions. each deck has its own theme and mechanic. I can very easily see Christopher give non-consistent rulings between cards, because the theme of the deck demands this is how the character plays. You also have the issue that if it is so strict, you are really limiting the options for more characters if you are forced to say that the text has to work the same way every time (once again real estate issues). After SotM is done, I can see them releasing a final version that has consistent wording throughout based on all of the characters. (I do think many people will argue with this, but it is just my opinion.)

Now, I do say that we should argue and discuss, because that is all we can do. We do have to keep in mind, however, that it might be that not everything will make sense, or you have to look at it in a specific way. All we can do is discuss until we get an official ruling.

That's why taking into "spirit of the game" and "card intent" can be just as valid. The spirit of WtM, I'd guess, is that the actual intent is that, if you choose to redirect the damage, visionary takes damage. I think they tried to word it on such a way that this would happen. 

That I agree with, Foote.

Thinking out loud here - would A'B's limbs be an example that supports the interpretation that Visionary would still take damage from redirecting, even if the target is destroyed as a result?

Here's my thinking:  A'B's limbs all have text that do damage to A'B when the limb is destroyed.  However if the limb is destroyed, by the interpretation of folks saying WtM's damage can be avoided by destroying its target mid effect, that limb text that should damage A'B is no longer in play.  Thus A'B would never be damaged by her limb cards' destroyed triggers.

That's clearly not the intent.

Now let's consider that in regards to WtM.  We have a trigger of redirecting damage.  By the same logic that A'B's limbs uses, the triggered effect must fire off in full, even if WtM is destroyed as a direct result of the redirection or subsequent damage to WtM's target.

very good point. It also follows that it is AB that's the source of the damage and not the limbs to further your case. 

I think the argument's moved beyond this, but for the record I was referring to Next Evolution, which I believe remains active even after destroyed, in the same way as Galvanise works even if Legacy is incapped.

Octavian: The difference is that the limbs specify that they act when destroyed. As WtM doesn't, I don't think this is much of an argument to make.

So as we're clearly not going to get anywhere with this, I'm going to attempt to phrase the question needed to clarify the Harp situation:

3. The Argent Adept's Musarangi's Harp reads: "Power: Activate the Perform text of a Harmony card and the Accompany text of a Harmony card". His Cedistic Dissonant reads: "Perform: Destroy an instrument. If you do, destroy any one card in play, other than a character card". If The Argent Adept uses his Harp to activate the Perform text of Cedistic Dissonant, and destroys the Harp using that effect, does he still get to activate an accompany text?

If the limbs were the source, the damage would still happen.  Sonic Mines are the source of the damage which they deal after they are destroyed.

As BlueHairedMeerkat said, the difference is that both the limbs and Sonic Mines are causing the damage because they are destroyed.  I don't think it has much bearing on whether Wrest the Mind still causes its regular damage in spite of being destroyed.

I have added this to the pending questions.

For what its worth, my intuition is that Wrest The Mind can be interrupted, that if its target is destroyed before Visionary gets to the point of having to attack herself, she doesn't have to attack herself. This intuition comes in large part from what I remember of the very first game I played with Christopher and Paul, when one of the senses I got of the game was that if you did things in the right order, you could avoid negative actions. The intuition comes in a smaller part from a sense that except for actions that specifically list a duration, if the card that mentions that action is gone, the action doesn't happen.

Is that enough evidence to logically argue about how the card should work? No. I see where others are coming from. I just don't think that there's any sort of a stack or queue in which one time actions to be done get set in motion such that they are still done after the card that initiates the action is gone.

That's the crux of the debate, isn't it? If a card says to do THIS and THAT, but THIS causes the card to be destroyed, do you still have to do THAT?

Based on the different opinions in this thread (assuming it is based on the different opinions), how would you handle the following situation:

At the start-of-the-villain-turn, Mad Bomber Baron Blade is going to deal all non-villain targets damage. The first target hit has a counter attack that reduces MBBB to 0. So what happens?

Here are the cards for reference:

Front

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1444328/sentinels-of-the-multiverse-vengeful-baron-blade-v

Back

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1444327/sentinels-of-the-multiverse-vengeful-baron-blade-v

My take is that he flips, goes up to 40HP, destroys X cards, reshuffles his discard pile into his deck and hits the Hero character with the highest HP for 0 damage, modified by anything out there that modifies damage.

What is the relevance here? And I'd say Katsue is correct

Well, if you say that if a card's action continues if it leaves play but the source doesn't, when he flips, the original card leaves play, but the source, BB doesn't. This would mean that he still does everyone damage. Or maybe, since all his cards are taken away, he does everyone 0 damage, assuming we say that damage can be modified in the middle of an action. Unless we say that the front and back are different sources, but most cards say if BB does damage not MBBB. Or if we say that it follows card order, and since the check for flipping is on the bottom, he wouldn't flip until all damage is done. Of course nothing can be comparable, but this is why I asked the question.

I believe the intent is that baron stops everything he is doing upon his front side being destroyed.

I agree with Katsue here.  He stops dealing the damage of his bomber side, because I think that when the text leaves play you stop resolving it.  (I also believe Wrest the Mind can be interrupted).  However, since it is still the start of the villain turn, he will then immediately follow his Death Ray wielder start of turn instructions.

If he were instead flipped in the middle of resolving One-shot damage, that damage would continue after fully resolving his flip instructions.

One thing I will say, when Christopher said the game had no concept of a stack, he went on to explain a queue. Then when he explained how the game actually works, he explained a stack system. Though I could easily see someone using the word ‘stack’ to assume any kind of ordered listing.
Basically, if a game is queue based, when resolving a card, nothing else will happen until the card is finished. If anything were to trigger, the reaction is placed into a queue and does not have any of its actions resolved. Once the initial card is finished, the first action put into the queue is resolved. If there are any triggers activated for that card, they are added to the end of the queue of whatever else had been added. It’s a case of whichever reaction has been waiting the longest (no matter what triggered it) is the first action to take effect. (Christopher said this game is not this).
In a stack based game, when a card is resolving, if something triggers, the current card goes to top of the stack, and the reaction to the trigger resolves. If that reaction triggers other reactions, the current reaction goes to the top of the stack at its current instruction and the new reaction interrupts. When a reaction finally finishes, the top of the stack resumes at the instruction it left off. This is basically Christopher explained the game (without using the term ‘stack’ of course).
I thought I would provide this information just in case anyone was confused between the idea of a queue based game and a stack based game.

I found one, Entomb - Ongoing - At the start of the villain turn, Akash'bhuta deals all non-villain targets (H) psychic damage. If all active heroes take damage this way, destroy this card.

So Entomb activates, Bee Bot takes damage first, then destroys Entomb, does AB continue to deal damage?

We had the following pending rules question:

>

The Visionary's Wrest the Mind states that when it redirects damage, "the Visionary deals this card's target and herself 3 psychic damage each". The card also states that "if the target leaves play, destroy this card".

1) If the target of Wrest the Mind is destroyed by the first part of this effect, and thus Wrest the Mind destroys itself and leaves play, does the second part still damage the Visionary?

2) Would this ruling be different if the card read "the Visionary deals this card's target 3 psychic damage, then deals herself 3 psychic damage"?

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

>

5. If Visionary has Wrest the Mind on a target and redirects that target's damage, if that target is destroyed by the 3 damage she would deal to it and herself, would that prevent her from getting to the damage she would deal herself?

Yes it does, if that target is destroyed and Wrest the Mind leaves play she would no longer have to deal herself damage.

I believe that answers question #1 and makes question #2 moot.