Did someone delete the topic with all the rulings Ronway got out of Christopher at Kantcon? I can't find it anymore. Maybe I'm a complete idiot, or maybe the topic ended up eating itself with nerdrage over the infamous Ruling #15? ;)
It looks to be gone; I had linked to it via social media and the link doesn't work anymore.
I'm guessing it got purged either by Ronway or an admin; I'm not shocked, since it seems like the reaction it was raising was worth taking it down until Chris can clarify his intent in regards to the infamous #15.
The Infamous # 15 needs to be a card in Vengence, now.
I've also had a suspicion that they would rather not post a bunch of official rulings. Personally my main interest in this forum is getting more uniformity on how to enterpret the rules, but I've repeatedly gotten the impression that the designers would rather players just read the cards and played them the way that feels right at the moment.
For me, I would rather have an official ruling even if it goes a way I didn't expect. But some people in the thread were beginning to criticize the game in general for having errata, so maybe the more stand off approach is better.
... or maybe they tried to sticky it and some forum bug ate it, who knows.
Ruling #15 wasn't even that big of a change. Idk guys. Surprising? Sure. Is Ra still a damage powerhouse? Absolutely. I actually think that opens up more options for how to play Ra honestly. Every game was geared to get Ras one big combo out ya know?
The issue is, though, that the ruling doesn't affect just Ra. It affects a number of heroes who have cards that equate to 'take this bit of damage to do additional things".
And, while they're not game-breaking by any stretch, they're a nice reward for players who think ahead and work together at the table. Being able to drop Embolden on The Scholar in Flesh to Iron form opens up new ways to go about playing him. Why not allow Pushing the Limits to become an offensive weapon with Synaptic Interruption for a round or two? These are innovative, creative ways to play; a blanket ruling that says, "No, you can't play them this way. Damage must be taken," defeats the spirit of fun.
Plus, it really seems to fly in the face of a lot of the rulings that have come earlier…
I actually really liked Ruling #15, I thought it opened up some interesting choices and risk management scenarios. That said, I would not be surprised if somewhere between Christopher's brain and the post (which was not made by Christopher and not clarified by Christopher) there was a misinterpretation of the intent behind one or more rulings.
My criticism is not that the game has errata; all games do, it's pretty much inevitable. My problem is with the idea that we're using the same word for both an action and its result. "Dealing damage" in almost any other gaming context, refers to a total output by the actor, as distinct from "taking damage", referring to the amount actually incurred after defensive effects are applied.
This is the context in which the vast majority of us interpret the rules and cards, as evidenced by the most cursory scan of these forums. The overloading of the verb "deal" merges these concepts and causes more confusion than it solves.
In no way am I trying to be "mean" or say that the game sucks, or anything of the sort. I've stated that I love the game, and I do. I love my dog too, but that doesn't stop me from protesting his behavior on occasion.
I don't really have any problems with Rule 15. Yeah, it's kind of a bummer that you can't synaptic interruption Pushing the Limits or Flesh the solar flare, but essentially all the change really means is that if a card comes with a penalty you more or less have to take it. You can't just have the good with none of the bad. So even though I can understand people being disappointed, I can't really say the ruling is wrong or makes the game less fun.
You can still redirect the damage from pushing the limits. You just don't get to keep it after that. You can still gain +2 from solar flare, just not indefinitely. You can still have the good and none of the bad. But now you can't abuse those abilities through damage reduction.
Atlantean Throne Room became much more dangerous with this knowledge, and I don’t know that any gaming group will be able to clearly distinguish the nuance of this ruling on their own. Most of the forum has been playing this “wrong” for years now, and that is a bit of a bummer. Especially considering the ramifications of misunderstanding this rule for three expansions worth of playtesting.
I knew that 15 was coming before 15 came. The day before Kantcon Ronway asked me to tkae a look over his questions and see if he missed anything important. When he got back the next day he messaged me with rule 15, but didn't post it because it was such a big deal, Ronway want back the next day and asked Christopher again, to check he had it right.
I am condfident it was not accidentally misrepresented.
Pardon my insolence but what was Ruling #15? And what was the origional rule?
And yes, that does need to be a card. Someone should make it happen.
I think the fact 3 expansions seemed to have been based on this ruling is what is concerning. Now I guess we hope Christopher is able to tell the playtesters which ruling to go on.
Cause I am pretty sure unless people check the forums they will most likely interpret those cards incorrectly. And if we change it in the new version we generate more diverse wording between the expansions.
Just play the way you have always played if it bothers you so much. FFS guys
This.
The problem is not the ruling per se. The problem is that there is no way for a new player to know or intuit the ruling from the rules or cards.
Probably why they do not give official forum answers very often and allow the players to play how they interpret the rules, which I think is the way they would prefer you approach their games in the first place. Game rules are like legalese. Purposfully vauge enough to allow for interpretation. Do you all really not see that? Mountains out of mole hills people.
Eh close enough.
Still haven't gotten an answer to my question though.
I think people are (or at least I am) not stating it for fear that the great giant thread eater claims another
Well I don’t think we need to censor the forums to avoid complaints. Basically the idea was that cards like Pushing the Limits require the Hero to actually take at least the amount of damage specified to stay in play. In line with what Spiff had to say in this thread some time ago: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/question-about-deal-yourself-damage-or-card-destroyed
But lest people start up the argument again, I think the thing to keep in mind is that this is not errata published for us all to follow, just answers given when pressed.
Great point
I just saw this thread, and wanted to let you all know that we have no idea what happened to that topic! I think that the discussion on it was great, and am really disappointed that it went missing! I'm going to poke around the forum and try to figure out what happened and see if I can bring it back.
EDIT: I see now that Ronway deleted it himself, as is certainly his right as the thread starter :) However, we definitely support discussions of rules, etc., provided they are civil (which they appeared to be in the thread)
I think Ronway hinted that he deleted it himself in the playtester forum. He would have to confirm though.
I also think there were some good things in that thread (complaints about "errata" aside). Honestly, it couples well with the numberous topics on about keywords and consistant wordings. If talking about ruling 15 can lead to a more consistant wording on the cards for not only for future SotM products, but for GSF and beyond, I think that is a very worthy discussion to continue.
Yup. looks that way.
I am not a fan of Rule #15, but it makes sense. I don't like the implication it has for Legacy + Fanatic teams, Legacy Fanatic is so good, but now he'll crush Embolden on most champs. Used to love Tempest with Embolden, but keeping it on him will be tricky now, actually, as I'm typing this I'm kind of excited to try this rule out.
And here's my Infamous #15 card, probably an Environment card.
Any player unable to take required damage may make up the difference (and avoid destroying the card) by posting one thread on the official forums complaining about the rule for each point of damage.
Embolden is a much more interesting choice now. Instead of trying to sqirm your way out of the damage, you know must approach it as "Do the benefits outweigh the costs here?". Its a gamble. One that may or may not pay off. Try and tell me that does not make for much more engaging gameplay over "let me just get this combo set up and never worry about it again".
it's not just that, but the cards might actaully see a lot more play, since you aren't waiting for the combo to play them.
I think the biggest difference this makes is with playstyle. Some people like to take risks and bring their heroes' health real low, and some don't. With the combo, both styles would played the card, but now, only one will.
I'm slightly concern about the statistics project. in the 4000-ish games recorded so far, how many has #15 violated?how valid is the data now? what is the effect of #15 in terms of statistocs and team synergy?
That could be said of every rules disagreement that comes up on these forums. Regardless of where official rulings fall, we've always known that not everyone enterprets the card interactions the same way.
That is why I never contributed to or looked at the statistics, but thinking about it now I'm not sure that should matter. In some ways, the value of statistical analysis over other terms of evaluation is that it takes that into account. It is a judgement of how these characters perform as they are actually played, as opposed to how they would perform according to a single enterpretation of the cards which is not always used in practice.
Yeah, the stats should not be affected much at all. I'd guess that a rule 15 situation comes up in maybe 10% of games and probably only 10% of those would change from win to loss with rule 15. So maybe 1%? Also, 58% of stats are made up.
i see what you did there. LOL.
I definitely wouldn't worry about the impact to the stats. There's probably a higher percentage of games that are impacted by just simple incorrect understanding of the rules than "#15". 
Or simple cases of "shoot, I missed that..."
Exactly! 
That sounds like a free-form roleplaying game rather than a rulebook.
I think the frustration is over the fact that this official ruling is a very specific way of reading the text. It isn't clearly conveyed, and I was informed by Christopher to read text in "the most rules lawyer-y way that you can" at Kantcon. The issue is that these cards were misunderstood for a reason. 4 Psychic damage is the same as 5 Fire damage is the same as 17 Radiant damage as far as paying the cost of Solar Flare, but 3 Psychic damage isn't. If I was reading it in the most literal way possible, it's either 4 Psychic damage on the nose or none at all. There are nuances to this ruling that were not expressed on these cards. Regardless of personal feelings on this matter, this is a ruling that has failed in its conveyance. The argument "interpret it how you want" is fine for groups that don't care about the nuances of these rulings, but certain players (especially playtesters) want to do their best in understanding the rules as intended.
I agree that this is a discussion worth having, but please don't mistake confusion and frustration for obstinance and whining. I know that I'm personally quite disappointed to find out after playtesting for a year or so that my group and I have been giving glaringly inaccurate data during our entire playtesting experience.
If you're not invested in this discussion of understanding this ruling and its conveyance, I can respect that. But a lot of people are. Just because your interpretation of >G ruling's is "group subjectivity decides it" doesn't mean that others' confusion or concerns are out of line.
Yes, exactly!
Glaringly inaccurate? You do not think that is a gross over exageration of the actual effects of the ruling?
I get the confusion. I am right there man. But are you going to tell me that everyones "the sky is falling" attitude is going to lead to the constructive dialoge that we obviously both would like to see? Once we stop blowing the effects ruling 15 out of proportion I think that dialoge can happen. Because really, gameplay wise, it changes very little.
What we can do now is take the ruling in stride and apply this new knowledge when we go over the wording of Vengeance cards as playtesters and beyond. That to me is the solution. Quite honestly, it is the only one. So, if you guys want to keep bickering and over blowing this thing, go on ahead I guess, it is your right as a forumite.
But if you want to look at the ruling, talk about what changes we can make in our gameplay, talk about new and viable strategys, and discuss how things like this should be worded in the future, I am all in for those. We want the same things here. I am just advocating a more pragmatic approach to the entire situation.
You don't get to make the decision of if it is a big thing or not for every person.
For you it might be small but for me… I think it's going to have a huge change on the way I play. Tachyon is my first choice, and being able to keep out Pushing the Limits while redirecting the damage to others was a huge part of the charm of it, now, not so much love for the card.
Will I adapt to the ruling? Yes.
Does that mean I don't want to talk about it and how every game I have played up until this point is "invalid" as a data point for my know how to play the characters? Nope.
EDIT:
I just thought about it, and there, large as life, is a heading called THE COMBO under Flamethrower49's Ra guide. Not a single person disagreed with the interpretation of it (and it's been up for about 10 months). Looks like we need to re-write some of the guides!
Let us please have some understanding in being shocked at the ruling.
I've taught about 30 people (who have gone to teach others), and Ra is one of my primary heroes for teaching combos and team interactions...and the Flesh/imbue/solar flare interaction is one that I have used time and time again to specifically show how heroes can support each other and use card interactions to create opportunities.
We can and will adapt. But it is certainly an unpleasant shock to find out that I've been seriously misinterpreting the intent of the designers, and teaching others the same way. I would ask not to casually dismiss or mock that.
No you are correct. However, I can sure tell when something is being blown way out of proportion, and by and large, that is what has been happening on the forums since Ronway first posted it.
Fact is, core gameplay of characters like Ra and Tachyon are uneffected. They play the exact same way and still try to do the same things. Trying to argue that having and keeping out Solar Flare and Pushing the Limits for multiple turns is key to their core mechanics would certainly be an uphill battle.
But it seems my ultimate point has been lost. I am critiquing the over exageration of the reactions, not the reason for those reactions. The fact that you think all of your knowledge of how to play Tachyon is now "invalid" now is exactly my case and point.
I agree 100%. But honestly, what will be more usefull moving forward? The "Rabble Rabble Rabble. Mutiny Mutiny Mutiny" approach? Because thats been the reaction. This is not a case of a really good combo being taken away in a malicious and callous manner. It is a case where the wording clearly did not convey the intent of the card, and that finally had the chance to be addressed. So, now we know we have all misunderstood the intent, the constructive thing to do is talk about how to word card instructions so that players do not run into that same confusion again. It will be a valuable lesson learned.
But saying that this changes everything and it will have such a huge impact on gameplay is pure nonsense.
No, I can see your point, it's right there, I just don't think it's an over-reaction. I don't see Tachyon as a person who trades HP for cards, perhaps now I will. It certainly changes my understanding of the characters at a base level.
EDIT:
You do see the other thread where people have done just that, right?
There are quite a few threads that touch on this. There was a lot of good talk in the original thread that was deleted. This was also the crux of the thread about adding set Keywords into the game. It all has to do with moving toward a more consistant format for wording and language and how we as players should and do interpret what we read. Those are constructive and worth while to probably re-read. That is insainly more constructive than "GAHHHH EVERYTHING SUCKS NOW!" if I may do some over exagerating myself 
.
If your favorite part of playing the game was finding cool combos where you could squeeze out a little more advantage than you'd get from the cards individually (perfectly legit), then I see how Ruling #15 would herald Dark Times, especially if playing by the game's stated rules (not house rules) is important to you. I say let them mourn. My games won't be affected much by the ruling, but I have sympathy for those who will.
Clearly, Miss Information is sitting at her desk infiltrating these forums.
On another note… amusingly enough, "ruling 15" is actually my group has always played because that is how we read the cards and just assumed it was how everyone always played. So I'm surprised by the responses on it. Not surprised that there are responses, but just surprised that my group apperently had such a different take/reading on the cards than the majority of other players did.
Damage redirection effects, damage immunity effects, damage reduction effects, and "you cannot deal damage" effects (which, granted, the forum seemed to come to a consensus that if your hero was literally incapable of dealing damage then they couldn't fulfill that requirement) have all been revealed to have a riding effect of "If you cannot pay the minimum damage price on your own cards then they will be destroyed" (whether granted by hero, villain, or environment) when the difficulty of the game has been spiking upward with more damage prevention effects, Ongoing/Environment destruction, and damage reduction effects.
No. I do not think glaringly inaccurate is an exaggeration.
Wait, are you saying that Solar FLare and other cards like that destroy themselves if I am immune to the damage i am dealing myself?
Yes, or if you have damage reduction or a damage penalty.
Yes. That's why heads are asploding in some quarters.
From all of the Psychic damage that is being converted to Fire, you see.
In my head, I am shouting "NO FAIR" partialy becuase I have asbergers, and partialy becuase I pay MTG and thus, half of the fun is pulling crazy stuff off like this.
Something was just brought up in the PT forums that I think is well worth noting.
Fixed Point allows you to skirt rule 15.
You can choose not to take the damage and Fixed Point prevents the card from destroying itself! Fixed Point just becames SO much more interesting
This has always been a combo for Fixed Point. No change with or without #15.
But the context around it after 15 is what makes it interesting. Usually it was a non factor anyway because you will have set yourself up to mitigate the damage from those types of cards to keep them out.
You know what really bothers me?
The simple fact that I've been getting it wrong, even if only just a little bit. I HATE that. Okay, so I'm totally responsible for my own feelings and everything, but my reaction to this is basically annoyance purely because of the wrong.
But anyway. We have to determine whether the mistake was made as a result of us being munchkin-y and trying to milk every last bit of benefit out of a card or whether it happened because of the way the cards/rules are worded. Or both. And what can we do about it?
I feel the same, but based on the wording of the rules and cards, it was impossible to get right. The best that can be said is that it completely slipped by QC.
But anyway. We have to determine whether the mistake was made as a result of us being munchkin-y and trying to milk every last bit of benefit out of a card or whether it happened because of the way the cards/rules are worded. Or both. And what can we do about it?
Half the fun of card games is looking for cool combos. That's not munchkin-y (unless you're playing Munchkin), it's just playing card games.
Indeed! I'll add that I'm also annoyed because I've been teaching it wrong, especially since I use Ra's combo as an example!
Now I'm back in a more analytical frame of mind, its time to start adapting…
It's not impossible to get right. Ever play the Scholar and used his Elementals? They are worded just like the other cards in question, but the Elementals rely on discard instead of damage. If you have an empty hand, can you avoid discarding? No, so the wording on the other cards are perfectly able to being read right.
While i appreciate the example, there is a difference in perspective between the scholar's elements and the cards which rely on damage dealt.
Cards that are powered by discards:
There has never been any confusion about what "discard" means. its in the rulebook, explicitly stated, and very easy to wrap your mind around.
Cards that are powered by self damage:
First of all, there has been substantial confusion about the exact meaning of "damage dealt". Questions still come up on this forum about if damage reduction to 0 counts as damage dealt- and while they are answered swiftly, the fact that the questions arise means that confusion exists.
Secondly, there is the question of damage immunity and damage dealt. If you are immune to damage or redirect it, is it "dealt"? judging by Spiff's guides, the amount of confusion on this topic (and the fact that you had to ASK this question), I would say that this was not a clear cut example!
Thirdly, there is the damage threshold. We're grappling with the idea that damage reduction can cause these sorts of triggers to fail, despite the willingness to "take" the damage- that global/environmental/villain effects could prevent you from dealing yourself enough damage to keep these cards around.
Fourthly, there is the problem of going OVER the threshold- the cards specifically list an amount of damage that must be dealt…its not "at least" that much. We could easily say that if Tachyon (for example) doesn't hit EXACTLY 2 damage on the nose for her Pushing the limits, that it would be destryed exactly as if she failed to do that much to herself.
We're all trying to wrap our minds around some new rules and concepts. The last thing we need is to casually dismiss each other!
Where in the rules or cards will you get the idea that the damage listed is a minimum (but not a maximum), and that the type of damage doesn't matter? I can see claiming that the card must be read strictly – 4 damage, must be psychic – or that it can be read with the damage dealt/damage taken interpretation that most of us have been using. I cannot see how it is possible, given the language, to split the two and correctly arrive at the text of the ruling, which is essentially "the card means exactly what it says, except where it doesn't".
And this is my major problem with the "official" rules interpretation. It bugs me to no end that the verb "deal" is overloaded to mean both "attempt to apply some amount of damage" and "total damage taken after modifiers".
Adding to the confusion are cards in the game which have clauses like "if all heroes take damage in this way…" which can easily lead any gamer to believe that the deal damage/take damage paradigm is endemic to the Sentinels game system.
A whole lot of confusion could be eliminated if the two concepts were clearly separated by different terms and the terms applied consistently throughout the game.
before going on further, please check out #15 again.
https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/answers-to-debated-questions-3871I'd agree that part of the confusion on the official ruling for me is that since the wording does not say or imply at least, damage modifiers up would be allowable but damage miodfiers down would not. I don't see how that can be argued as consistent. Also, as someone who has made a couple of posts about the ruling in a "negative" light, I resent the implication that we're making "sky is falling" posts. I have pointed why I don't feel that card wording is clear and why I feel that errata is needed for this, as well as mentioning in another thread that this has major implications for 1 character's deck in particular (Fanatic). It doesn't change me loving to play this game and it doesn't make me or anyone else expressing similar sentiments whiners.
My comment was that is isn't impossible, not that it wasn't as clear as it could be. Could it be better worded on the card? Yes, but it can still be read as it is intended.
Why does Pushing the Limits stick around if she takes 3 damage? As she has also taken 2 damage, as taking 3 damage is still reducing her HP by 2, it just happens to go a little further than that.
Edit: Also to toss in about the type of damage. Christopher did think about it for a little bit, debating whether or not to rule one specific way over the other. So if people's main problem is the type should count as well to the destruction effect, than he could re-rule it to just that.
Hear, hear!
Being a fan does not mean "I will never criticize" or "the product/designers can do no wrong". Our criticisms are not "this game sucks, I'm gonna go play gin rummy". We love this game and we want it to be the best superhero card game it can be. That means when something strikes us as being logically, internally, or thematically inconsistent, we're going to say something about it. Dissent is patriotic. Or something like that.
[quote=Ronway]
My comment was that is isn't impossible, not that it wasn't as clear as it could be. Could it be better worded on the card? Yes, but it can still be read as it is intended.Why does Pushing the Limits stick around if she takes 3 damage? As she has also taken 2 damage, as taking 3 damage is still reducing her HP by 2, it just happens to go a little further than that.
[/quote]
The problem is that you could easily say:
Why does it go away if I'm immune/reduced? I DEALT that much damage...outside forces just acted upon it and changed it.
Without Ruling 15, how do you arrive at the conclusion that the amount of damage is mandated, but the type of damage isn't?
I made the "sky is falling" comment. It was not directed at the confusion coming from the wording though. Yes, the wording on the card does not do a good job at conveying the intent of the card. The dialoge around that topic has been very good.
Now, all the posts about "nerfs" and "drastically effecting gameplay" and "making cards useless"? Those have been not only unfair but utterly baseless and I stand by the comment.
I disagree with your assesment about the impact it will have on Fanatics deck as well. Realistically, ruling 15 will only come into play when you have chastise/embolden out AND DR to prevent the option of taking the damage. Fanatic does not get DR very often. In fact, giving her any sort of DR is usually counter productive to her deck. The situations where Fanatic is going to have DR and want to keep out one of those cards are going to be so few that you can not possibly levey the "this drastically effects her" critisism. It is wonderful hyperbole, but has no real basis.
Once you start playing the games and adapt (and it is obvious some have not yet), you will see that there is little impact to gameplay and win/loss ratio.
That would at least be mostly consistent, and something someone could arrive at after being told to "interpret the card as strictly as possible", though I'd still argue the amount of damage would have to be exact. I wouldn't enjoy the ruling, but I could accept it as logical.
Why would it have to be exact? As I had said, if Tachyon takes 3 damage, she still would of taken 2 damage, thus the condition has been met. So I am not seeing why it would have to be that exact damage.
Although I see your point, the wording "Source X deals Target Y Z damage" has always included the ability to increase/reduce/redirect/negate damage.*
If the Voss's fire minion attacks a character immune to fire or that has damage reduction the action is resolved, it isn't considered to have not happened just because the damage was reduced. Likewise if the damage is redirected the minions text is considered to have been resolved. Players don't say "Oh this was redirected so the action wasn't resolved, I guess he attacks again"
Because the wording of the cost on these cards is the same as the wording used for a standard attack, the ability to increase/reduce/redirect/negate the damage and still consider the cosst paid was almost universally accepted.
This is why there wasn't much debate in (what is now known to be the incorrect) interpretation of how these cards worked, and most people were in aggreement that this was the correct interpretation. You are right in saying that it isn't IMPOSSIBLE to get right, but if so many were so wrong on something that seemed as straight forward as this it makes it much more difficult to have confidence in future rule interpretations.
Edit for clarity:
*Here I mean if you look at the wording on any power or one-shot that is an attack the wording in the template "Source X deals Target Y Z damage"
The difference is that these were all hold overs from the first printing of the game. Subsequent printings have gotten much better (EE cleared a bunch of stuff, but obviously missed one or two in the cracks) and each expansion has been getting much tighter with regards to wording.
To that end, I think you can feel at ease about future rule interpretations. Our current stable of PTs have been doing a sick job of catching and clearing up confusing wordings, and ruling 15 has made that a priority to check for.
The wording is actually different. As it says "Either Tachyon deals herself 2 sonic damage or destroy this card." The either clause is what makes the card destroy itself if she doesn't take 2 damage.
We're obviously not going to agree on this, so I'll make a couple of final points. One: you don't get to be the final arbiter in what is baseless hyperbole and what isn't. Two: Divine Focus is one of the best cards in Fanatic's deck and her most consistent damage dealer and is also affected by this fuling, so it is actually a potential change in many of her games.
Its hard to call a card "consistant" when you A) cant search for it and B) theres only 2 in the deck.
And the ruling would only take effect if A) it was in play and B) she had DR and C) she would have chosen to take the damage.
Is she impacted in that situation? Sure. But does that come up often? No. It doesn't. It is an outlier situation. I am open to arguments that it a very common senario that happens just about every game with Fanatic. But I have been playing that deck since the first printing and even when Chastise was only 1 damage penalty, that senario above was still a once in a blue moon type of deal. This is not even mentioning the overestimation of how often you will have enough excess cards in hand to use Divine Focus for more than one full turn to warrent taking the damage in the first place.
Dont. Give. Fanatic. DR. Issue gone.
Immunites.
As I said in the deleted thread, Legacy becomes the jerkiest jerk who jerked, he can cause people who want their cards to stick around to be discard, that impacts the cooperative nature of the game.
My intention with these cards is that damage must be dealt to the hero in order to get the benefit. If I were to reword them to make them more explicitely clear on the cards, they would look a little different. Let's take a look at Fanatic's "Embolden":
Current Wording:
Play this card next to a Hero character card. That Hero may use an additional Power during their power phase. At the end of that Hero’s turn, either Fanatic may deal them 2 radiant damage or destroy this card.
So, to rephrase this to make it clearer, I need to make sure people know that you MUST take damage in order to keep this card around.
Proposed Rephrasing:
Play this card next to a Hero character card. That Hero may use an additional Power during their power phase. At the end of that Hero’s turn, Fanatic may deal them 2 radiant damage. If no damage is dealt to that hero this way, destroy this card.
So, in order to make this work elegantly, we're saying that at least some damage has to be done, but not necessarily a total of 2 damage. So, if that damage is redirected or prevented entirely (or if Fanatic chooses to not deal the damage at all), the card will be destroyed, but if the damage is reduced by one, the card survives. This is a bit different than my original intent, but I feel that it satisfies the thematic intent, and also is probably not quite as rage inducing, as a bit of DR won't destroy your cards. The phrasing gets a little wonky with the "no damage is dealt to that hero this way" part, but I want to make it clear that the hero benefitting must pay some cost. There is a price for greatness.
Let's give Pushing the Limits the same treatment. Someone (I think Matchstick Man, maybe?) said something about not considering Tachyon a cards for damage machine. I absolutely consider her that way, both mechanically and thematically. In Pushing the Limits mode, she is running SO FAST that she hurts herself. For her to be getting all these extra resources, she has to be getting the negatives as well. If she manages to throw that damage to someone/something else, well, good, but that means she's not getting the resources - she's getting an alternate benefit (specifically, dealing damage).
Let's see how this goes:
Current Wording:
You may play an additional card during your Play phase and draw an additional card during your Draw phase. At the start of your turn, either Tachyon deals herself 2 sonic damage or this card is destroyed.
And now, let's make it clear that there's gotta be damage or this card goes away.
Proposed Wording:
You may play an additional card during your Play phase and draw an additional card during your Draw phase. At the start of your turn, Tachyon may deal herself 2 sonic damage. If no damage is dealt to Tachyon this way, destroy this card.
Ok, so, you probably saw that coming. Same thing as the last time, but this time Tachyon herself is called out as the one having to take the damage. Embolden has to be a bit more versatile in its targeting, since it can be played on any hero. Same thing here, though: Tachyon is getting extra stuff. She's gotta take the extra damage to keep getting extra stuff. Not necessarily all two of it (and this also frees us of the damage type requirement), but she MUST take SOME damage.
Does that help? I realize it's a bit of a revision of Ruling 15, but it also nicely bridges the gap between my original intent and the desire for making these cards still "viable". That said, I've been playing it "right" from the start (go figure), as have all of my in-person playtesting groups, and Legacy and Fanatic are still great friends. Tachyon is almost always Pushing the Limits. Ra is absolutely a damage-crazed powerhouse. I'm not too worried about anyone being broken by this ruling. But I do apologize for any confusion. That is no fun at all, and I totally get the upsetting nature of having a core understanding broken like this. Thanks for sticking with me through this! Hope this write-up helps!
That version makes more sense to me than the "you must take at least this much or lose the card". Randomly getting hosed by a villain or enviroment reducing hero damage is just an unpleasant feeling. Makes me want to change Scholar and Legacy somehow to stop them from blocking/redirecting it. Not sure how, though.
I've been playing for a few months, and have been using the following logic:
So, given that, let's look at the issue regarding Tachyon' Pushing the Limits:
"...either Tachyon deals herself 2 sonic damage or destroy this card."
I interpret that as Tachyon puts out 2 sonic damage before DR/modifiers affect it.
After looking at rule 15, I believe the text on the card should be changed to:
"...either Tachyon takes 2 sonic damage from herself or destroy this card."
I would interpret this as Tachyon taking the damage no matter what effects are on her. It would ignore damage reduction as it's already being "taken," but it would still get the damage modifiers she has as it's "from herself."
Now about Fanatic's Embolden:
At the end of that Hero’s turn, either Fanatic may deal them 2 radiant damage or destroy this card.
Proposed text:
At the end of that Hero’s turn, either that Hero takes 2 radiant damage from Fanatic or destroy this card.
Again, the damage would be modified by Fanatic's damage modifiers as it's coming "from" her, but since the damage is being "taken" by the other Hero, it's already beyond any damage reduction effects.
This would preserve the consistency of deals/dealt vs. takes/taken. Of course this means every other card in the deck should be looked at for similar inconsistencies.
But that's just my humble opinion of playing this outstanding game.
Thanks for taking the time to write your clarification on the subject. It is greatly appreciated.
@Soonerwolf - I think the only issue with the way you have written it is that there is no indication that the damage taken was dealt specifically to fulfill the card's condition. For example, with Pushing the Limits, if Tachyon dealt herself 2 sonic damage or more due to other events, then it could be argued that she already met the conditions of Pushing the Limits and thus she can keep the card for free... which is not the intent of the card (per Christopher's explanation).
I think Chrostopher's clarification of "if no damage is dealt this way..." makes it clear[er] that this damage is specifically the cost of keeping the card and should be assessed on top of any other damage dealt for any other reason.
I can definitely live with this clarification without having my multiverse implode (so glad I didn't burn all my cards in a rage by now...)
Wait, we weren't supposed to do that?
BRB
I'm guessing Ra's Solar Flare's proposed rephrasing is "If no damage is dealt to Ra this way, destroy this card" as well?
These proposed rephrasings clearly convey the intention of the cards, are not overly punishing to hero or villain interactions, and pretty much follow the way I've understood the game (redirection and immunity aside). The biggest change will be Solar Flare and Ra's "THE Combo" that has been spoken of for months. I can live with that, but Solar Flare seems INCREDIBLY specialized now that we have this understanding.
It is probably for the best when you think about it. Ronway brought up the great point that everyone played Ra one way and one way only. There was a clear "right way" and "wrong way" to play Ra. Anything you did that was not working toward "THE" combo was considered poor play.
That is pretty much exactly the opposite of how any hero deck should work.
Yes, Solar Flare is more situational than it was. But isn't that one of the big design goals, that there is not one best move for every situation? Ras combo was like that.
I personally don't mind Solar Flare at all, it's only 4 damage after all. It'll be a nice boost in damage until a get Imbued Fire out.
In all honesty, I think the combo could sometimes limit Ra's plays quite a bit. There were games where players really WANTED the combo out, but Imbued Fire against cards that have Fire Immunity or Omnitron's Adaptive Plating Subroutine were vicious, and Fire heavy environments/villains or self-damaging cards could really tear chunks out of heroes when Ra wanted to deal damage rather than FotSG. Often times it was more valuable to the team that he deal immediate damage rather than setting up.
I always felt that the combo was AN option, but not THE option. Even playing it the "invalid" way, I would still argue that anyone who said Ra's Combo was the best move for any situation were really pigeonholing Ra and not seeing the other options he brought to the table. I was always much more fond of his AoE possibilities with Drawn to the Flame and Scorched Earth, to be honest. This won't affect my playing of Ra as much as it will others, but I'm still quite surprised at how many people viewed "The Combo" as the end-all-be-all "why would you do anything else?" thing that Ra did.
All the same, it was an interesting quirk of the game to notice while it "lasted", and I'm sure there will be other fascinating combos to observe in the future. I'll probably use Heroic Interception even less now, and Alchemical Redirection can really cramp a few heroes' styles, but I'm happy to hear that these cards can actually be played against villains like Advanced Voss.
I'm assuming that if a hero skips their turn then they cannot pay their effects? I wouldn't wanna be in the front line-up as Fanatic when a Meteor Storm gets played.
I wish this forum had someway of +1'ing a post, I hate to add posts which just say "Thanks" but
Thanks for explaining your thought processes Christopher, it makes it easier to see what direction you were thinking about when creating the game.
Also, I find it hilarious that you're talking about punching yourself in the face... and then to have it end with your signature!
I wish there was less generalizing on this forum/thread. I didn't play Ra that way.
Same here.
Here's the situation for Ra that I use Solar Flare:
Do I have more than 15 hitpoints? Are all of my enemies on fire? If the first answer is "yes" and the second answer is "no", then it's time for me to burn myself down a bit and drop a PILE of damage. Now, of course, it's a bit more nuanced than that. I like to have a couple staves lying around, a Blazing Tornado in play, a Flame Spike and/or Inferno in hand, but given at least half that amount of stuff, I can take full advantage of a well-timed Solar Flare for at least a round or two.
That said, anyone who has played a game with me knows that I hate having HP. Get rid of those things!
That definitely makes sense. If you had the right number of targets, Solar Flare with an Inferno would deal an extra 12 damage. If those six targets were still in play (somehow), a Drawn to the Flame would act as a great burny version of Grievous Halestorm (at minimum, of course) for another 12+ damage.
This is satisfying to me, because I've always loved that Ra has a lot of AoE potential that may not be that great on its own (Environments with cards that blow themselves up frequently, villains with no Ongoings, etc.), but can easily be boosted by his Staff/Solar Flare/Imbued Fire.
Sounds like MY combo is staying the course!
My apologies if you've already considered these. Both questions are mitigated by only neededing to take one damage, so perhaps they are moot.
I think that it's pretty well known just how much I love cool card combinations and team cooperation. Those things are right up there with thematic mechanics!
As for game balance, YES game balance is thrown off if Ra can just ultimately live in Solar Flare mode indefinitely. That's ridiculous. No wonder you crazy people love Ra so much. That was definitely never the intent of that card.
Same with Tachyon - Pushing the Limits is HUGE for her, because more cards in hand and in play means more Bursts in the trash. Great to do, but not free.
So, yes, I had considered, "Eh, what if I just let them do that?" I considered it long and hard. But, no, I prefer interesting choices to over-powered combos. This way, you have to make a choice about what matters more to you, HP or damage/resources/etc.
Were those choices also expected when other heroes do effects such as redirect damage from other heroes or make them immune to damage? Are you worried that this may actually encourage a lack in team cohesion or encouraging certain players to not only play selfishly with their decks, but selfishly with other heroes cards?
I am with Chris on this one. I vote we got with "At end of turn, X may do this much damage to X. If no damage was dealth this way, destroy this card". It's very elegant with it's wording and it gets the point of the card across: either I do this much to my self, and if I can't/won't, then I lose my card. The other wording was a little ambigous becuase of the choice factor. To me, because I was presented the choice of hitting myself OR destroying my neat card, and if I was immune to the damage I dealt my self, in my mind I would still keep my card becasue I choose to deal damage to myself (not my fault I didn't take any damage. I alreayd choose to take it so HA).
That beign said, I still think that without Solar Flare/Inbuned Fire/Flesh of the Sun God Ra is still a powerhouse. His job is not deal tons of damage, his job is to deal continous streams of damage, and if he gets +1 damage boosts, hey goodie for me.
It depends on the hero in my opinion. Legacy and Ra are great buddies becuase Legacy lets him do more damage with Galvanize/Inspiring Precence. Fantaic and Ra are great buddies because of Embolden. Team Leader Tachyon and Ra are great together becuase Tachyon lets Ra draw more of his Fire Blasts and Flame Spikes (although, TLT is good friends with everyone so my point might be moot).
And if memory serves, most redirect effects I can think of only work on specific sources: Legacy's Lead from the front only works if the damge is comming from a Villain source, Haka can rediriect enviroment damage (and it is mandatory), and Wriath's Smopke Bombs only work by sending damage from the least HP hero to the highest HP hero.
I think that all falls under interesting choices/sacrifices. If it's always correct for Legacy to Heroically Intercept but sometimes more correct, given what damage is incoming, fine, that's fine, but a little boring. But if Legacy says, "I'm going to Intercept in a Heroic manner!" and Tachyon, Ra, and Fanatic all say, "Wait, no! We appreciate it, but how about we focus on damage for now and save that for when we're in more dire straits? Right now, we'd rather NOT be immune to damage, due to what we're rockin..." Or even, Ra saying, "Hey, guys, I can Flesh of the Sun God all of us, which would be helpful because of that volcano, but it'll mean my damage rampage from Solar Flare will have to end..." Thus, making a choice which best benefits the team, rather than a single player.
If anything, I see these choices as more interesting. And, as I said before, I do apologize for the paradigm shift.
Thanks. While I thought it likely you'd thought of these things, it's comforting to hear it explicitly and fun to hear your thoughts about the game.
Thank you for the explanations!
My only qualm is this kind of stuff is what leads to arguments and turns the game from a fun co-op experience to "NO, I might die if we aren't immune," "Well, I'm fine and don't want to lose these cards and am about to use this to it's full effect." and so on. Creating tension and making more interesting gameplay is nice, but adding greifing possibilities isn't really so much.
But isn't that the whole point of cooperation? Figuring out which actions will have the most benefit for a team? If the choices were all obvious and easy, this game wouldn't be quite as fun.
That seems like an issue between players, though I see what you are saying
Thank you for the explaination, Christopher.
If it okay if I'm happy dancing because my proposed text in the "Answers to debated questions" is very similar to Christopher's proposed text?
Reckless
In all honesty, I think the combo could sometimes limit Ra's plays quite a bit.
[/quote]
I 100% agree which was what I was getting at. Of course it wasn't the best thing to do always, but I think it was a pretty clear "definitive" setup for a majority of situations.
If we sit and try to figure out which actions are the best for the team, we tend to have one player play the rest do what that person tells them. If each player plays their character, we work together and win. It's much more compelling for us to have the group not be a hive-mind and picking out the best possible action each turn.
OK. I see your point and I suppose it depends a lot on the group.
I almost feel that the ruling kind of opens up play more rather than restricts it... but I suppose that is based mostly on how my particular group played the game. Freeing ourselves from the "obvious combo" in certain situations will make the individual decisions more crucial, and interesting in my opinion.
I'm totally fine getting rid of Ra's super combo. My only complaint is that He and Legacy and Scholar can end up greifing other players and pop their ongoings without them having to the option to go "Uh, I'm doing this to myself here, you can't protect me from that."
But we have situations like that already where Ra turns everything into fire damage and screws up Wraith's targetting or AZ's healing. Or Legacy's boosts end up hurting the team more than the villain because of all the self-damage and we never had a choice in the matter there either. So, it isn't a new element really, just some more to consider while playing.
It certainly is more puzzle pieces to consider, but Ido t know that it'll change the game (or the level of fun) substantially.
Oh it will. It gave a whole new perspecitve on an odler character. Am I the only one dying to use him again and see what happens?
Ha. Now that we have Christopher's official word what I am dying to do is explain it to my group this weekend (they don't use the forums). That should spark a good hour+ debate...
I did this the other day. Enjoy! Haha
Well you do still have a choice with legacy. You can opt not to take the extra damage, or you can take it. The other ones offer no choice and actually limit gameplay. The Ra example is an issue too. I've seen games devolve into Ra putting it out, AZ blowing it up and the players getting into a heated argument, which man, that is not fun in a co-op game. Should be a fix for that too, imo.
That personally sounds like a group issue rather than a game issue. If they can't come to an agreement as to what they should have in play than maybe they shouldn't play those two heroes in the same game. Or the players shouldn't play a co-op game together.
Yeah, we just don't have Ra and AZ sit in the same game. But it's awkward that we're going to have to potentially add a lot more heroes in the "don't play together" list, now.
AZ and Ra play perfectly well together, it comes down to how well the players can play together.
Pretty darn well when they don't have cards that actively screw over the others.
As a Magic player, I'm used to situations like this, where i have to give up the optimum play in order to not die. Case in point: One game I tried to cast Fiend Hunter to exile my opponents Giest of Saint Traft, but I forgot the Giest had hexproof. I still did it to buy some time for me. Next turn I dropped a second Fiend Hunter, and the ghiest was stopped cold. So, different game,same idea.
I like to think of it as changing the way to play. Imbued Fire makes Null-Point and Focused Apertures obsolete. While it is still increasing AZ's damage by one. Lets do some searching of how much it truly effects the AZ player.
The only thing effected by it is Thermal Shockwave, while everything else is either the same or an increase in damage. Sure AZ will no longer be able to heal, but that is countered by the less damage taken in Thermal Shockwave, thus he isn't going to be nuking himself for lots of damage. This also allows Coolant Blast to really shine, as he is now taking increased fire damage, thus anyone with multi hits can target AZ and fuel it even more.
Doesn't screw him over, just a new way to play.
Now if Ra is feeling screwed over by not playing Imbued Fire, than play Solar Flare instead.
Well, it screws him over if AZs plan wasn't explode himself in the biggest ball of fire he can asap.
Still incorrect. Going Cold Snap, Imaples, Isothermic Transducer, and Thermal Shockwave, he will take only 1 fire damage from all that if Imbued Fire is in play. He'll take 4 if her plays either Frost-Bound Drain or Hoarfire. Toss in a Cryo Chamber he will instead take no damage from Thermal Shockwave, 3 from Frostbound, and 2 for HoarFire. So he will at most take 3 damage on his turn, how is that making himself explode in the biggest ball of fire?
Uh, maybe blowing up the cryo chamber?
...and yet Visionary can sidestep Wrest the Mind.
Hoarfire is dealing himself 7 with Imbued.
With cryo it's less, sure, but then he's dealing way less. He's actually further behind than Imbued in most of your examples if we have Cryo out.
For the sake of consistency, can we use Polyphoric Flare's sentence structure instead?
Play this card next to a Hero character card. That Hero may use an additional Power during their power phase. At the end of that Hero’s turn, Fanatic may deal them 2 radiant damage. If they take no damage this way, destroy this card.
You may play an additional card during your Play phase and draw an additional card during your Draw phase. At the start of your turn, Tachyon may deal herself 2 sonic damage. If she takes no damage this way, destroy this card.Any nuances lost this way?
It'll only be 7 if you chose for AZ to take the 3 fire damage, that could of been dealt to another target instead.
I'm at a loss at this point. How about you tell me how is it that AZ and Ra don't work well together. As I have given two viable options and your responses are "he's taking too much damage, he's not doing enough damage".
Allow me to prove how AZ and Ra work well togheter. For the sake of arguement, we must assume that AZ is set up with his gear so he doesn't just sit there. And for asumption Ra goes first, then AZ
Situation 1:
Now lets make this fun.
Situation 2:
Situation 3:
Situation 4:
See, two routes, same end.
To save time, I am going to go to Magical Christmas Land where your every hand is your God Hand.
Magical Christmas land Situation.
Now lets have Coolant Blast already be in play!
Now granted, this is really flashing. Usually, it's better for Ra to just Ping AZ with his base power or BT, than set up but if you can go for it.
Personally I have never been a fan of filtering damage into AZ. Now if it is extra target damage then it is a different story. Such as Inferno, hit the main target first and hit AZ with one of the other hits. Even with Coolant Blast there isn't a big reason for it. Sure you filtered 10 damage, getting an extra 2, than doing 11 with Coolant Blast. So 23 damage to someone, great. However Thermal Shockwave would deal 3 targets 2, so 6 cold damage total. Not AZ will take 6 to do another 7 damage. That's 13 damage right there, so Ra did 10 and AZ does 13, that's still 23 damage with AZ taking 4 less damage. It is 4 less damage to a single target, but hitting multiple targets is always a good thing.
Of course you could combine the two, deal AZ the 10 damage that he'll turn into 12. Then on AZ's turn he'll hit 3 for 2, 6 fire to himself, to do 7 cold. That's now 25 damage they dealt out together. That's only an increase in 2 damage, with AZ taking 10 more than before. Plus AZ will now have to start healing, taking away from damage next turn.
Imbued Fire in play changes it though, as now filtering multiple heroes damage makes him rack up more in a single turn, thus using Coolant Blast acutally becomes worth it.
Like I said, it's flashy. ANd it works best as a finishing attack. But part of the fun of games like this is to find absurd impractical combos like not becuase they are effective, not because they can deal crap tons of damage, but becaue it's fun.
If you really want it to be flashy, than toss in Fanatic with Embolden.
Also lets assume by some miracle AZ is at full HP. Lets keep going by what you did, instead of AZ healing that 7 and 9 HP, he instead deals that to the villain. Also Fanatic plays Embolden on AZ and Absolution's him for 3 fire, which he will shoot at the villain for 4 cold. So he will be down to 10 health and have taken 17 fire.
Now on his turn, Hoarfire 3 cold the the villain (3 cold), 2 fire to himself (19 fire), 3 cold to the villain (6 cold), 2 cold to self, 1 fire to self (20), 2 cold to villain (8 cold). Now use Thermal Shockwave for 2 cold to the villain (10 cold), and 2 cold to self. At this point he should have 11 HP. He will now deal 10 fire to himself (30 fire) and deal 11 cold to the villain target. Now he can use Coolant Blast for 31 cold damage to the villain target. The total of damage dealt to that target is, 7+9+4+3+3+2+2+11+31=72. With AZ at 1 HP.
A bit of long text. Took a bit more time reading Christophers rulings.
If someone already mentioned this sorry for repeating.
But I think with this ruling, it sort of makes it now situational when Ground Pound/ Greasegun may be better than Heroric Interception.
(ie. They want to keep their things out maybe Fixer or Haka can toss that out so they can still damage their stuff and keep it out.)
This gives a new light to those 2 cards as I always thought Heroric Interception seemed better cause Enemies that caused you to hit yourself aren't affected by them. At least I see a new way of it.
@Christopher
Would those cards see a reprint when you reprint EE like Chastise. Maybe offer it as a Errata pack similar to the Oversized Boss. Since there are more cards this time.
Kingofsouls: One of your premises looks wildly wrong. Situation 2 is the most obvious example, because this power use does absolutely nothing. AZ healed 3, yes, but before that he took 3, leaving him with exactly as much health as he had before. Likewise, 3 will only heal him for 1, while 4a will heal him for 2 and 4b will heal him for 3. Which is not much to spend a whole turn's resources on.
If he added Focued App. it would end up being +1 health for AZ. /Shrug
It's working it's way up to get to a point where you can use Coolant Blast to do massive amounts of damage. Which is why early it is quite insignificant, but later it becomes a better option. Early situations also bring up dealing damage instead of healing, which will kind of give a +1 to Ra's damage. He drops it off when adding Coolant Blast, but the option is still there.
Like I said, this is magical Christmas land, where AZ will always be at full. But now that I think about it, if you wanna be insane about it, throw in Legacy. Just one galvanize is actually +2 (rather does a extra point, and Az will do an extra point).
I have read through this article, and taking into account Chris's assertion that these abilities should have some cost, I would like to assert that, in the case of the Pushing The Limits combo for Tachyon, there IS still a cost.
Assuming that you have damage boosted somehow, Tachyon would deal herself 3 damage at the beginning of her turn in order to keep Pushing The Limits around. If you have Synaptic Interruption in play, it allows you to redirect 3 or more damage that would be dealt to Tachyon to another target, then destroy SI. I would argue that there IS an inherent cost in that redirection, as using SI to protect yourself from the damage forces you to NOT use it to defend against another threat that may hit you during the environment/villain turns. So, there is a "cost" to Tachyon keeping PTL around, just not a HP cost.
Unless it can be, for example, Smoke Bombed to Mr Fixer with a Driving Mantis. Synaptic Interruption is only one possible way to avoid the damage from Pushing the Limits.
It's damage you're dealing to yourself, not from a villain target so it can't be smoke bombed away, but I agree there are other ways to redirect/not take the damage.
Christopher's assertion was that there was meant to be an HP cost, not just "a cost". You could argue that Ra's god combo did have a cost before, that of the time it took to set it up (time is definitely a cost in my book, not just in games) and the fact that relied entirely on ongoings, which are very easy to destroy, and not multiple types that could still be beneficial if only part of it was destroyed, but that's a slippery slope.
And Tachyon's SI is also a benefit at the same time, it does damage to a target you want it to, prevents damage to you and fuels your Lightspeed Barrage all for a single 'action', is the playing of SI and losing it to PtL ultimately a cost or a benefit? Both sides can be argued, very convincingly, and we will never get a definitive answer, because it subjective not objective.
I think for ease of play we stick with what we've got, some HP must be lost to keep the cards around and not re-open this can of worms so soon after the lid has been placed by the designers.
Christopher,
Had you considered wording the damage in such a way that it is clearly a cost? Maybe something along the lines of:
You may play an additional card during your Play phase and draw an additional card during your Draw phase. At the start of your turn, Tachyon must either sacrifice 2 hit points or destroy this card.
I think adding some phrasing like "sacrifice" and making that un-modifiable (or irreducible/non-redirectable/whatever-it-needs-to-be-for-this-to-work-the-way-you-want-it-to) would remove the ambiguity. Make sacrifice a thing, a cost to use the power/keep the card in play. Of course, if you want it to be modifiable, then things need to stay the way they are.
Tegulus, I'm trying to find the advantage of your wording to the one Christopher posted earlier:
You may play an additional card during your Play phase and draw an additional card during your Draw phase. At the start of your turn, Tachyon may deal herself 2 sonic damage. If no damage is dealt to Tachyon this way, destroy this card.
This seems to allow movement up or down without introducing a new keyword into the game - sacrifice. If you want to make it a sure minimum of 2 points, then you just call Irreducible.
I agree with the "Sacrifice" idea. Just make it clear in the rules that the hp lost is unalterable in any way--cannot be increased/decreased/redirected/negated/etc.
That said, I still don't like the ruling (even the revised one) and still think it's a corner case that's inconsistent with how damage works throughout the game.
It's not just about cost, it is also about card combinations.
Imbued and FotSG is supposed to destroy the combo. Legacy is supposed to make it hurt more. Right now it works as intended, and these are the choices you have to make.
With the proposed rewording, I don't think there will be an inconsistency. Now you may deal the damage (triggering all the effects which normally modify/react to damage), then if the intended target did not take damage the card is destroyed.
This is definately different from what the cards originally said, but with this wording I think the damage will work the same throughout the game.
As for whether it would be better for gameplay to let the cards function as many of us enterpreted them, or to introduce some new terminology for direct HP loss, I can't say.
I have to say, that second example doesn't seem like much of a choice. Apparently he already has Imbued Fire and Solar Flare down, so he's taking 7 damage a turn for +2. Now he's debating between keeping that going or protecting all the heroes from 8 damage? Sure things like Sheilding Winds and just what the +2 damage can accomplish may even out the choice, but it definately seems weighted towards dumping Solar Flare.
If you want to make it a sure minimum of 2 points, then you just call Irreducible.
Irreducible damage can still be redirected, yes?
Yes, and blocked by immunity.
Both redirection and immunity exist, but the last sentence of the proposed text resolves this issue:
If no damage is dealt to Tachyon this way, destroy this card.
It requries that damage be done to Tachyon for the card to be maintained. Damage redirected or otherwise not decreasing Tach's HP does not satisfy the requirement.
Played a game yesterday as Ra and started with most of the (former) "Power Combo" in-hand - the rest came out over the next two or three turns. But I spent the whole game holding on to both Solar Flares and never played either of them. I was a bit sad :(. I understand the ruling adding in "If no damage was dealt..." which takes immunities into account, but I do like feeling incredibly uber and being able to totally blast everything in a really epic way (you know, more so than usual, considering it's Ra) ;).
I suppose we have to hold with this ruling, but I feel that Solar Flare has become another "I'll play it if I have nothing better" card, like Wrathful Gaze. Don't get me wrong, WG isn't horrible or useless, but considering all the other cards I normally have available to play, WG is the last on the list between Fire Blast, Living Conflagration, The Staff, etc. Why would I waste my one play of the turn on Solar Flare for a +2 damage, when I can play Living Conflagration, get the same 2 damage, but at a different target than my other powers. Sure it helps with DR, but RA has better ways around DR than dealing himself 4 damage a turn (Read as: doing >1/8 of the villain's job for her!). I rarely played SF before unless I managed to get the combo out, or had a spare play that turn, now I don't feel like I'll ever be using it except as discard fodder. "Oh, another Oxygen Leak? A Solar Flare ought to patch that hole right up!"
If you have a lot of HP, then taking the 4 damage might end up being worth while early on. Later in the game, it will probably be played more like a One-shot, giving whatever power you use an extra big boost in damage to punch through DR or land that killing blow, and scrap it without taking the penalty.
Christopher - someone already suggested it, but it would be a good thing, I think, to officially make a difference between "damage dealt /deal damage" and "damage taken/takes damage" in the rules - with "damage taken" being the actual >0 HP loss you suffered.
I know it would mean rephrasing a lot of cards - and so probably should be kept for a future 3rd edition - but it would make things clearer. "if you don't take at least 1 damage this way, destroy this card" seems clear enough.
And, after all, we already have different tokens for "damage dealt" and "damage taken" bonuses/penalties 
I think the Sacrifice suggestion was the best one
It makes it easy to calculate, it doesn't punish combo's and it makes it easy on the understanding of the rules
