Answers to Debated Questions

Here is a list of answers I had recieved from Christopher during the few days at KantCon. Back by popular demand.

1. Do you choose a target while using Jack Handle?

No, it is an automatic effect, so you will read strike as "do all non-hero targets 1 melee damage" or any other damage he can do pretty much. So targeting Fixer when he has Bloody Knuckles doesn't cause Fixer to deal out 5 melee damage to all non-hero targets.

2. Is the second damage from Dual Crowbars modifiable?

Kind of. The damage isn't supposed to be increased however damage reduction would apply separately to each target. There will be look into future printings to clear that up.

3. Using Hypersonic Assault on Matriarch first then the fowls, would that stop Matriarch from dealing damage from the destruction of fowls?

Yes, the second line is meant to modify the damage, not an order of actions.

4. Using Hypersonic Assault, Throat Jab, Offensive Transmutation, ect. on Sonic Mine, does that prevent it from dealing damage?

It does, as with the case of question 3.

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.

6. Omni-X using Bio-Engineering Beam on Toxic Seaweed, would that mean Omni-X doesn't have to take the damage?

That is correct, as Toxic Seaweed is not there to tell something to do damage anymore.

7. Does Negative Energy Field and Positive Energy Field effect the target that has just been played?

Yes it does, as soon as that card hits the table it is now a target, so it is free to be hit or healed, even though it was the card that triggered it.

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

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

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

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

10. Does Advanced La Capitan redirect damage first or does she prevent damage until she can no longer do so, then redirect?

You would continue to go by the order of the card, so she would prevent damage as long as she could and then redirect damage when she could no longer prevent it.

11. Is damage dealt from Mortal Form to Energy modifiable?

Yes.

12.If Bee Bot is in play and Judgement of Anubis is played, if Anubis destroys Bee Bot, making Bee Bot destroy Anubis, will Judgement of Anubis still get destroyed?

Yes it will, Anubis isn't actually the one destroying Judgement of Anubis.

13. Do One-Shots remain “in play” if Fixed Point is in play?

No, one-shots are a special exception to this rule.

14. Does Final Evolution trigger during setup?

Yes it does.

15. If a hero does not take damage from an effect, such as Pushing the Limits, Solar Flare, etc. does the card remain in play?

No, they have to take the damage listed on the card. If Tachyon does not recieve at least 2 damage from Pushing the Limits, than it is destroyed. So if she is immune, redirected it, or reduced it to 1 damage, the card card has not fulfilled the condition and thus is destroyed. This applies to Solar Flare as well, so no Imbued Fire + Flesh of the Sun God tricks. However the damage type can be anything, just as long as the amount of damage listed is taken, the card will remain.

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/33371#comment-33371 A new ruling has been proposed by Christopher.

16. How does Dual Crowbars and Jack Handle react to one another if they are both in play?

You would essentially deal all non-hero targets the damage twice.

17. Can you redirect damage from Sonic Mine with Wrest the Mind?

Yes, as it is still in play to deal the damage before it exits.

#15 rabble rabble rabble

Anyway, to make the wording clearer to the casual player, I think something along the lines of

"(hero) deals themselves X whatever damage. If (hero) does not take atleast X damage in this way, destroy this."

Might work.

There's a glitch in the Matrix.  I'd swear I've seen this somewhere before... ;)

An option for people who don't like all those combos getting destroyed:

Treat cost damage as seperate from normal damage, Let Ra take 4 psychic damage even if he can't deal psychic damage, don't reduce the damage as damage dealt, or increase it, just label it cost damage and make it a seperate thing.  I mean thematically it isn't like Ra is actually attacking himself, he's dealing extra damage at the cost of his own mental strength.  For Tachyon, she takes damage because she really is "pushing the limits" of what she can do, and she's paying for it.  She doesn't punch herself in the face, and the pain from that lets her do more to the point that if she hits herself too hard or too light it ruins the effect.  This way cost damage couldn't be redirected (sorry Bold Mr. Fixer) or countered (Ra chastising himself with fire for pushing himself too far, or Wraith smacking Fanatic for helping her)  Now if they are immune to damage, that's a different story.  If Legacy is immune to radiant damage then he probably is resistant to whatever Fanatic does to Embolden him in the first place, and she can't keep it going.

Other non-cost cards that deal damage to yourself or allies is actual damage, Haka's Rampage has collaterar damage, and external combustion blows up some of bunker, that damage can be modified, even Wrest the mind you take the damage afterwards, like the forced alterring of that target's actions by taking over their mind also damages them, and when they survive it, she shares that damage.

You want Super Ra of ultimate destruction, just pay the cost.

The new big question becomes "Is your heros DR optional?" In other words, if my hero has DR, can I choose to ignore that DR and take the full brunt of whatever damage is coming to me?

You could say DR/damage amp only works on non-cost damage at that point.

That is rather convoluted and inconsistent however. 

True.

How about, you change the cards to say the cards themselves deal the damage (so nothing gets amped) and also make it irreducible. Though that doesn't fix redirecting it…

I'm not sure there is a non-convuluted way to do it unless you want to change the core rules so people can opt not to use DR if they don't want to.

In regardes to my question, the non-convuluted answer is "yes" or "no". It is not a question in regards to house ruling something. It was a question about whether it is legal and viable strategy to ignore your own DR or if it is compulsory, especially when the damage source is yourself.

I personaly dislike house ruling things and try and avoid doing so like the plauge(rat). I would much rather play and work within the confines intended by the designers as I have always derived more personal enjoyment out of it that way.

I think you want a ‘may’ in there. Otherwise it really does become a game changer!

That would be a nice boost to AZ in the Cryo Chamber. I think its safe to say that at least in the general sense, damage reduction should not be optional.

Finally, a reason to use ongoing destruction on your own cards.

I would agree with you. But then again, I would have agreed that you could fully negate the damage from Solar Flare and still keep it out. So I am just trying to cover some bases here haha

The idea behind cost damage is that it wouldn't be effected by any of the different modifiers.

If Legacy made himself immune to toxic damage would bad sushi still make him sick?  I'd say yes, and I'd say that Tachyon being inspired by Legacy doesn't make pushing herself hurt more.  

It's not because you are allowing the damage, it is creating a seperate category of damage, a damage that isn't dealt, it happens because of what you are doing to yourself.  Punching myself in the face is a very different hurt than lifting something too heavy and pulling a muscle.  I could wear a helmet and not hurt myself punching, but full body armor won't do anything to prevent a pulled muscle.

These cards damage the hero for exhertion, something they take to do something beyond what they can safely do.  A very different type of damage than damage dealt to you as an attack.

Cryo chamber AZ is a very different matter, as again, that is being dealt to you.  These damages are not being done to you, so much as tehy are the cost of something you are doing.

It is rather convoluted, I came up with it as an option to get around #15.  There are only a few cards affected, and I like the way it works, you just make that damage unnafected by anything but immunity, it's irreducable, uncounterable, unredirectable, unincreasable, un-change the type of damage-able.  You just take it.  It allows for combos to work without allowing the twinking of getting the bonus without paying for it, or the hassle of trying to balance all pluses and minuses to damage.  Do the combo, take the cost.  Nice and simple.

It also works (IMO) thematically better than the idea that Ra has to somehow deal himself exactly four damage that can be alterred by anyone to keep his card out.  This rule has major implications for allies that boost damage or take damage for you, or players with cards that reduce or increase damage, let alone environment decks.

Instead of creating a whole new catagory of damage arbitrarily, it would be just as easy and much cleaner to say you can ignore your own DR if you deal yourself damage. I doubt that this will be a legal action, but it acomplishes the same goal you want in much less words.

Yeah, if you're going to make up new rules to get around #15, may as well just ignore #15 completely instead. ;)

The damage can be increased, just not decreased. They have to take at least that amount of damage.

 why not just add the word irreducible then?

Elegant.

Because calling it Irreducible changes the nature of the damage, Irreducible already has a function, and this is not it. I would prefer a new keyword like.... unchangeable maybe.

Unchangeable damage cannot be increased, decreased or have its type changed.

You could go further and say it is not effected by Immunities either, thus sidestepped the Legacy/Meteor Swarm interactions.

Why not just say “decrease Ra’s current hp by 4” and not even use words like damage?

Because then you would get into questions about retaliation damage, from Ra's Flame barrier in your example.

Which we do or do not want to work with the card? As it stands you will take 8 damage total for having both cards out. Is it supposed to be a choice between one or the other?

A reduction in HP does not have to be the same as damage.

And that's the point, merely saying "reduction in HP" leaves it ambiguous

I don't know. When the Ra "God combo" was possible this was never a factor, he was immune to his own psychic damage (as it was changed to fire with Imbued Fire)… I guess he still can be immune to the Flame Barrier damage as having Flesh of the Sun God out is not prohibited, he just takes the psychic damage and not the fire damage.

We are now discussing the nuances of Damage and Life Loss...

This is getting dangerously close to Magic:  The Gathering.

I like the "irreducible" solution.  Let the flame barrier burn where it may.

In this game the phrase "Source deals Target X damage"  usually means that the source is going to attack the target with a base damage of X, this damage can be increased, decreased, negated, or redirected by other effects.

Perhaps the wording on these could be some thing like "Tachyon takes 2 sonice damage or destroy this card".  My Idea here is that there is no source, and "takes" versus "deals herself" is basically trying to make the damage static ie it can NOT be increased, decreased, negated, or redirected by other effects.  Its either take the damage outside of the normal rules of an attack, or destroy the card.  The wording "takes" could have its own sperate rulings from "deals"

Just a thought.

i like this solution, it addresses the issue without overly complicating the "deals" vs "is dealt" situation already in the game. 

My only concern would be if there is some other active source of damage acting on Tachyon at the same time. Could one argue then that she has already taken 2 damage and the condition has been met? or would she have to take two additional damage for the specific purpose of keeping the card?

EDIT: Just thought of one complication. The damage modifier tokens already use the terms "damage taken" as a modifier… It might confuse things if "taken" is to mean that it can't be modified…

What if the wording was "Reduce Tachyons HP by 2 or destroy this card"

First, there is clearly no source of damage. In fact, there is no damage being delt at all! No need to introduce damage that is sourceless (as that could get messy). Since it is not damage, it also can't be increase, reduced, redirected, or made immune to. I think wording it this way is short, clean, and leaves no room for mis-interpretation of how the card is supposed to work.

The big issue there is that it is not subject to damage increases, which I think is part of the actual intent of the card. Given that, a possible wording could be "At the start of turn, Tachyon may deal herself 2 irreducible damage. If you do not, destroy this card."

Keep in mind that the concept of "irreducible damage" was not around until Rook City. Had Tachyon been printed post RC, maybe her card would have said just this. Same for Ra. Food for thought.

Is irreducible damage still subject to redirection? 

Irreducible can be redirected, and you can be immune to it

Great minds think alike!

I was thinking that if you would have to create a new glossary term anyways, it might be better not to have the word "damage" in there, so that it is obviously a different and unquie situation. Any restrictions tio the term can be in the glossasy.

There were numerous fixes during EE, which could have easily changed it to irreducible, The keyword Relic didn't exist in the orginial, but was only added to Fanatic when the idea was added to Apostate.

A very fair point. Quite possible that the real intent is that DR hard limits your ability to keep those cards in play. In which case, the "reduce HP" thing would have to be thrown out.

It's neither different nor unique. It's on multiple cards, and the intent is that it can be increased or decreased, or you can be immune to it, or it can be redirected.

It is damage.

The only card in the game (at present) where damage comes from an unspecified source is Horrid Cacophony, and that's because it's misprinted.

EDIT: What's the solution?   There are plenty of good suggestions in this thread so I'm now  I'm throwing my hands up and leaving it to Christopher, Adam and Paul

This suggestion was based on the assumption that it shouldn't be able to be modified in anyway, and therefore create a new term. If it is meant to stay the same, then there really is no discussion about changing the word, just clarifying the card.

I read the ruling again and, it seems to me,the intent of the card is as follows:

1) At the beginning of the turn, the card will DEAL certain upkeep damage. 

2) This damage is no different than any other damage dealt in the game. It is modifiable, transferable, etc. 

3) This damage amount also indicates the minimum amount of damage, dealt by this card, that must be taken by the hero in order to keep the card. 

4) The type of damage is not part of this upkeep requirement (i.e. it can be changed to some other type without impact to the upkeep condition). 

So there are really two semi-independent parts to the upkeep:

A) The card deals damage. 

B) A minimum amount of damage must be dealt to the hero by the card in order to keep the card. 

Based on this set up, and the rules as the exist, I believe the wording on the cards should be:

[Card] deals [hero] X [type] damage. If [hero] is dealt less than X damage by [card], destroy [card]. 

I think that should be clear enough. 

I think the issue wasn't with the the current unedrstanding of the rule, but whether or not certain random events should destroy the card for you. For example, if an environment card comes out and reduces damage, the card has to be discarded. This also means that you can't play Ra's combo or the card will be discarded. If the intent is for an upkeep, then maybe you should at least have the choice or ability to avoid these circumstances.

EDIT: To calrify the card with the current ruling, your suggestion works very well.

Oh OK. My only real concern was with the conflict between the ruling and the wording on the card.

While I agree that the change is a bit shocking and will change the game a bit, I'm OK with it. Nerfs happen.

You can still play Ra's combo. You can still have DR, play Solar Flare, and benefit from the +2 dmg on your power phase. You just do not get to keep it out indefinatly. Thats it. DR will just mean that you have no choice but to trash the card, as why would you take the 3 damage and destroy it anyway. The only difference is how long Solar Flare stays on the board. Nothing else changes.

But you also don't have any choice to destroy cards. If Imbued was out and I put out FotSG, there is no way for me to keep out Solar Flare even if I wanted to. You now have to make a decision early in the game about which cards you want to play, because you will lost the option with the other. There are heores that play like this, e.g. Bunker, but they at least have the option to destroy their previous cards. Maybe make his Ongoings "Auras" that give you the option to destroy an "Aura" when one is played.

EDIT: Imbued can be destroyed (right?), but you would very rarely choose Solar Flare over Imbued.

Yes, fantastic, this is exactly what I was trying for but better thought out.  No new vocabulary, and clearly isn't modifiable IF not being modifiable is what they are going for.

You make it sound like it limits your ability to play the card which is just not the case. You do not have to make a choice early about "man, I really want to make sure that if I do get Solar Flare in my hand, I want to keep it out for at least 2-4 turns". Yes you might lose the option to take the damage and keep Solar Flare out, but you do not lose out on being able to benefit from the +2 damage for the one turn that it IS in play. Too married to the old playstyle. You have to think about Solar Flare as a one-shot now with a possibility to extend its effect through a penalty.

I am not saying it is limited, but it is limited in a way that you have no control over it. Also, you only benfit from the +2 to the power, not card plays. There are many more cards in his deck that would deal more than 2 damage with a card play. Yes, you can still use it, but you have to realize early in the game that your actions will severly limit this cards potential, to the extent that there will most likely be a better card to play, and thereby making the card useless (in many but not all situations).

EDIT: On a realted note, if this combo doesn't work, how useful is FotSG. I haven't done a study to see how often fire damage is done, but it seems very sitautional. Not such a problem with the combo, since it could always be used in the combo, but after realizing it, how much play will it really get?

So you are saying that because the card is now situational instead of a no-brainer-must-play, that it is useless? Fanatics entire deck would like a word with you. Not to mention the fact that I have never once, in my years of playing this game, have I played nor used, Wrathful Gaze. Ra has a ton of extremely situational cards, but they are not drawing the same sort of ire (the excavation card, the one that does damage per number of villain ongoings, ect.)

Edit: FotSG has sooo many useful aplications it is not even funny. Volcanos. I don't even need to list more (though I certainly could go on)

Edit2: added stuffs

I will talk with it later.

My point is simply this: you shouldn't be inherently limited by a card that already carries a huge penalty. You should always have the option to take that big penatly without any other considerations.

EDIT: That's why I said I didn't do a survey, but for every situation it can be useful, you will also have one where it is pointless. However, there are a bunch of cards like this already.

EDIT2: Actaully I was going to bring it up, but didn't want to. Ra already has a ton of situational cards that I don't think he needs another one.

EDIT3: One thing I have found interesting is that nobody has said that now you have a bigger puropse for having duplicate staffs in your hand. The ruling actaully gave some cards purpose.

That is a very valid point. One that I might even agree with. 

Play Solar Flare. Use Power on Staff to throw it. Take the 4 damage to keep Solar Flare. Play new Staff to gain 3 life.

Great combo! Thanks for sharing.

I would only add that you would want Imbued in play, otherwise the Staff wouldn't get the damage bonus. This way, you can deal 7 damage a turn at the cost of 1 life, or take the full 4 if you have a great One-Shot to play. This might not sound great, but the ability to keep SF out longer without taking damage, and giving a purpose to all those Staffs and Summons in your hand, can really help out.

Ah yes, Imbued does need to be out for the staff to benefit from Solar Flare. Good catch.

Technuically 4 damage. The damage from Solar Flare would be boosted by Imbued Fire, and then itself as it's now fire as well.

No wonder nobody mentioned this combo. It doesn't work.

Ok. I am all for the ruling that the 4 damage cannot be modified in any way. If it is a choice between Imbued of SF, I can rarely see when somebody would choose SF (+1 damge for 4 hp), and it is too dangerous to have both out (+3 damage for 7 damage). With Imbuied and the Staff, you have +2 with very little penalty. SF has +2 with 4 damage. Hmmm. Having all 3 in play menas you have +4 while taking 8 damage. That +4 better be really worth it.

Looks like Advanced Voss just gained Ongoing destruction, since he automatically reduces all hero damage by one.

BLAST! You are right. Imbued Fire only makes the penalty much worse. Without it, taking 1 damage to deal three in the senario I had posed ealier seems very underwhelming. 

Drawn to the Flame would be a useful power to use.  At that point you have five cards in play to use a slightly stronger version of Bunker's External Combustion (with six extra damage to yourself added on…).

Very interesting point.  How many cards are now very difficult (potentially impossible) to keep out with A Voss?  I suppose if you are lucky enough to have a +1 from Galvanize or Imbue Fire or an environement etc you could still keep them out.

I know that I have had Fanatic lose her card that stops targets from doing damage ( Something Offensive ) because ann enemy came out giving everything DR 1 and she only had one-shots that did 1 damage and her sword in play so it was impossible to pull off the necessary 3 damage.  

I used to think that was a very different case, but its actually quite similar if ALL damage is reduced by the villian or an environment.

Assuming you have Imbued Fire and the Staff of Ra out, if you play Solar Flare you would deal +4 damage for 1 turn while taking  -8HP. If you left SF in play and threw your staff on the second turn you would deal a total of +12 damage (assuming a one shot was played) and take -15 HP, not a trade I would take. 3 turns is +20 and -23.

Without Imbued Fire in play you would deal +3 damage and take -5 HP, throwing your staff on the second turn (and assuming one shot again) would be a total of +7 for -9 HP. 3 turns is +13 and -14

EDIT: Wonky maths

I think you've been hanging around Ronway too much if doing 2/3 your hit points to yourself sounds like a good deal.

Solar Flare, Flesh of the Sun God, and Flame Barrier is still a pretty nifty combo. You can keep Flame Barrier out without it hurting you when you attack yourself. Sure he'll deal himself 4 damage every round, however anything else that touches him will be burned for 4 damage.

There are still a lot of good combos out there for heroes to do. Alchemical Redirection and Herioc Interception will also essentially make Legacy immune to damage for the round. Driving Mantis and any hero attack that hits multiple people for 2 or less damage still works just fine. Mist Fueled Recovery and Know When To Turn Loose is a lot of damage and some recovery for NightMist.

The only real hero this will effect on a regular basis is Ra, which isn't so bad considering he can already pump out so much damage. Plus now he doesn't have an ideal set-up, it's all about maximizing damage round by round. I find this the most entertaining part, because whenever I had played Ra before I was always looking for those cards. Now when I play him it doesn't matter what cards I play, as it isn't working towards the supreme combo.

Here is an interesting thought. Ruling 15 will no doubt lower Ras average total damage per game. Not by a whole lot, but it will be effected. Might this allow us to look at, say, the damage output of Expatriot in a new light by comparison?

Damn!

Does this mean Golem Unity doesn't get to use her base power on rounds she is immune to damage now?

EDIT On checking the card Unity's power is two separate sentences, so rule15 probably doesn't have any affect on her.

Since there's no "Or" or "If you do…" on the card, you can get around this.

Which is funny, because Bunker with FoTSG/IF and an External Combustion can deal all nonhero targets 4 Fire damage and himself no damage.

Bunker is the new God of the Sun.

Edit: Anyone else not able to delete post anymore?

No, because there's no link between do damage and use a golem. It's just deal damage. Separate sentence: Put a golem from hand. There's no "Unity may deal herself 4 damage to put a golem into play"

No. As far as I can tell, the ruling affects 5 cards, Embolden, Solar Flare, Pushing the Limits, Chastise and Divine Focus. Pushing the Limits and Embolden are the big ones there.

Although Chastise is weakened in one of the major circumstances when you would want to play it, that is, when you can't eliminate a Villain target by damaging it.

Yep, we all looked and asnwered at the same time, go us!

Test deletion post

yep, you've got us all shut down Ronway!

I had that problem last night.  It looks like someone was kind enough to delete my double post when I noted that it was a mistake.

Golem unity:  

Her power is: "Unity deals herself 4 energy damage. Put a Mechanical Golem from hand into play. "

That doesn't sound like a conditional clause (indeed, there is a period separating the two events).  Thats a two-step power.  

Step 1: self-damage

Step 2: Put golem into play.  

I'd say that step 2 isn't tied to step 1, its just that usually you have to resolve step 1 first.  If Unity is immune, then you just move on to the next sentence.

EDIT- I'll just join the throng of people who answered this...

So, once again, ronway's ruined it for everyone. Damn it, Ronway!

I couldn't agree more. Regarless of the "nerf", we now can play an old character with fresh eyes. This has to be worth something.

I brought this up in the "deleted" thread. If the "high tiers" were "high tier" based on a mistake, it would have a whole new perspective on "low tier", Especially when you consider that Legacy might not be as useful with other characters anymore.

Truth be told I rarely got the super combo out for Ra, it was just something I would keep in mind as a posibility when I got part of the combo in hand.  I feel like Tachyon and Fanataic will be impacted as much as Ra.

As I understand it, the admins decided to keep people from deleting entire threads, because that would lead to other people's comments getting deleted. Looks like the implementation went a bit further than intended.

To me, this ruling "nerfs" Fanatic more than anyone (and she was already hanging out in the lower tier).  It affects 3 of her cards, in cluding her best consistent damage dealer and best team utility card.  Any kind of damage reduction not only shuts her down, it also hurts a very viable strategy in which those cards stay out to fuel her life loss for a Wrathful Retribution.  As I've already been vocal about my feelings on the ruling itself, I wanted to point out a specifc case.

How dont they still fuel life loss?  

Because even if you take one damage once to fuel a Chastise after experiencing damage dealt or damage taken -1, it's still not going to be enough to keep it in play and it will be destroyed compared to the multiple turns it could've stayed out if it were valid for her to take one damage to fuel the effect each turn.  Hell, pretty much all of those cards will be unusable against Advanced Voss for more than one turn since he gives blanket damage dealt -1 to all heroes.  Assuming she isn't being babysat by Legacy.

Just to clarify, it's -1 by all heroes - but the end result is the same.

Which makes interacting with damage increases even more interesting. Legacy is far from the only source of +dmg. The situations in which the difference between win and loss due to not having embolden out another turn longer will be few and far between

I guess the thing that still sticks in my mind is:  What makes these 5 instances of damage so different than all the others?

Any other card, if the damage gets redirected/increased/decreased/negated, the rest of the card continues on.  The remaining text on any other card doesn't disappear just because that instance of damage was altered.  

If the idea of errata is to provide consistent rulings to unify rules, Ruling #15 does exactly the opposite:  it creates a closet case that's inconsistent with how the rest of the game is played.  

Beyond this, it doesn't make sense to me why anyone would make a mode of the game (some of the aforementioned Advanced Modes), where entire portions of the deck aren't worth playing.  That's counter-intuitive design and I can't believe that's what Christopher and co. intended, regardless of the Ruling #15.

I know I don’t post here much but it wouldn’t surprise me if ruling #15 was changed to remove the minimum damage restriction and instead state that a hero needs to take at least one damage. Some cards will still wipe out self-harm cards (Meteor Storm) but changing the ruling to this would make it compatible with the current on-card text, not wipe those cards when dealing with blanket damage reduction cards (e.g. Advanced Voss), bring it in line with the “Damage 0 = No damage dealt” ruling, is compatible with the “damage type can be anything” portion of the ruling, and I think is the cleanest interpretation of the rules as currently written. It would be nice if the card was made the source of the damage to protect against increased self-damage to Ra in the case of Flame Barrier and Flesh of the Sun God but that’s a secondary issue to the damage reduction one.

To be fair, my ruling change is contingent on the word “either” in the phrase “At the start of your turn either $HERO deals themselves $X damage or destroy this card” implying a player choice. If it instead implies a damage minimum than the only way one of these cards is getting removed once they are in play is through damage reduction or ongoing destruction which makes them a significantly riskier proposition.

I think the inevitable conclusion to ruling # 15 is the effected cards would benefit from errata. 

Would this do it?

“At the start of your turn, hero may do himself 4 irreducible legalese damage.  If you do not take damage in this way, destroy this card.”

>

Beyond this, it doesn't make sense to me why anyone would make a mode of the game (some of the aforementioned Advanced Modes), where entire portions of the deck aren't worth playing.  That's counter-intuitive design and I can't believe that's what Christopher and co. intended, regardless of the Ruling #15.

You're basically calling situational cards useless at this point. Do you really expect every card to be useful in every situation?  

There seems to be some wierdness with these five cards.  I don't think some of the conclusions being drawn are accurrate.

First, we know that the requirement to keep the card in play is the action is not the act of dealing damage of a specified amount.

Rather, the requirement to keep the card in play is being dealt some amount of damage.  The strangeness occurs in that the card does not specify any means of dealing this damage.  Solar Flare does not say "Ra deals himself 4 psychic damage to Ra.  If Ra is not dealt 4 damage in this manner, destroy this card."  The card gives no explict means to fulfill this requirement.

Rather then assuming that the "be dealt damage or destroy" clause is flavor text, there must be some implict means that the card allows you to deal damage.  Implictly, the card allows you to deal yourself the damage required to maintain the card.  The amount of damage is not specified.  There is no reason that Solar Flare allows Ra to deal himself only four modifiable damage.  The card says nothing of the sort.  What the card cares about (when clarification 15 is taken into account) is ensuring Ra's health is reduced by 4 via damage.  If possible within the constraints of the gamestate (i.e. Ra is not immune to damage), then that is what the card allows you to do.  Whether your damage is increased or reduced by one or two isn't relevant: Solar Flare isn't dealing a specific amount of damage that is being modified to a variable result, it is dealing a variable amount that is being modified to a specific result.

This is my interpretation.  I believe it preserves the intent of the cards.  It is certainly not intutitve.  Obviously you can utilize or ignore this interpretation as is your preference.

This confuses me. It does explicitly state that you (your hero) deals himself the damage. Further it explicitly states that it is "damage" (therefore subject to increases/decreases). It also does specifiy the amount of damage (4 in the case of Solar Flare). Flavor text? That is on the bottom of cards in the bubble.

Can you clarify what you mean? I am not sure I am following what you are trying to say.

Expatriette targets herself with a tactical shotgun.  She deals herself 4 damage.  That doesn't mean she ends up taking 4 damage.  She could end up taking 3 or 6.  We don't know until we evaluate the gamestate.  The power of tactical shotgun describes the means of the action, but not the end.  If you have a +1 damage boost, Expatriette ends up doing 5 damage to herself, even though the power says she only deals 4 damage.

Clarification #15 turns this idea on its head.  The line "Ra deals 4 pychic damage to himself" has been clarified to refer to the end.  If Ra does not take 4 damage, you lose the card.  However if this is true, then the means by which this damage is caused is not explictly stated.  We only know that, after any modifications, the end result is that Ra takes 4 damage.  It, then, must be implict that the card allows you to do so.  If there was no way to do so, then that line of the card would be flavor text: it would have no rules related meaning.  As the text is not in the place flavor text is usually kept and is not particualrly flavorful, it seems likely that the intent of the card was that Ra could indeed deal himself damage to keep the card in play.

Ah ok, I see what you are saying. Thank you for clarifying.

Yep.  I've been saying this since I first came across the earlier ruling of "if no HP is lost, no damage was dealt", which is a logical tangle worthy of an acid trip.

Posted a LONG answer over here: https://greaterthangames.com/comment/33371#comment-33371

I've been playing for a few months, and have been using the following logic:

• Deals/Dealt = damage before modifiers/reduction effects.
• Takes/taken = damage after modifiers/reduction effects.

EDIT: I posted a more detailed description after Christopher's post on the other thread and will limit my comments to that one.

Christopher's clarification matches what has been my understanding of the way the cards have worked all along.  At least one point of damage must be taken or else the card goes away.  I am content.

0 was the worst/best concept to ever be added to mathmatics and numbers in general. It is philisophical in a wayto how we approach 0 in terms of a number and what that number represents in the physical word around us. If you have "0" of something (lets say apples), by saying you have 0 apples, there is almost a slight notion that there are, in fact, some tangable apples that you "have". But if you have 0 of them, the reality is that no apples exist. Even though the implication in English of "having 0 apples" is that there is an apple to have even if that number is 0, the reality is that the apple just does not exist.

The "If no HP was reduced, then no damage was delt" is pretty much an extension of the inherent logic trap that is 0

I just realized that the "Stealth Bot/Chastise" combo was far less abusive than we all thought, since Fanatic couldn't send her self-damage to Damage Immune Stealth Bot because Chastise would be destroyed.

Still would've been a potent combo, mind you, but nowhere near the level of abuse people were painting it up to be.

I realize I misread #15 in the first place (I thought he was saying you had to take the exact amount of damage) and then see the update that it's cool to reduce the damage.

I'm a fan.

I was freaking out thinking that if legacy played his standard it would screw Tach and Fanatic, but I was wrong, and I very much like the ruling that you have to take at least some of the damage to gain the benefit.

Christophers original intent was exactly how you read 15 the first time. He posted a clarification a few posts back easing up on his original intention due in no small part to our discussion on the topic.

Well, not 100% exactly.  Phantaskippy says he thought you had to take the exact amount of damage, while Christopher's original Ruling #15 allowed that you could take more than the stated damage, just not less.

Zero isn't a logic trap… but it's not exactly a number either.  Likewise, infinity is also not a number.  You cannot do normal math with either of them; you instead apply specific things to them dependent on what you're trying to do.  This is why all of the indeterminate forms have either zero or infinity in them, or both.  Zero is a totally different type of concept than "regular" numbers and has a very different set of rules.

Fun with calculus!

16. How does Dual Crowbars and Jack Handle react to one another if they are both in play?

You would essentially deal all non-hero targets the damage twice.

I'm writing these up in the FAQ but got stuck on this one.  How could you ever have both Dual Crowbars and Jack Handle in play at the same time?  Whenever a Tool enters play, you have to return any other tools to your hand.

Fixed Point

And [Redacted].

Fixed Point is such a specialized occurrence, I don't think I'm going to worry about including it in the FAQ. And I'll worry about [Redacted] when it gets un[Redacted].

Sounds like a plan.

This exchange seems focussed on #15.

But to the thread's title, I just saw a debated exchange on BGG, and would like an answer.

Clearly, nothing is simultanious.  So if you have to process a bunch of targets, you do them one at a time.

During this process, can X change?  Does one re-evaluate X after each target is processed?

For example, everything takes X damage where X is the number of environments.  Process villians first, then process environments, killing a few off, then process heroes who take less damage since some environments were destroyed, lowering X as you proceeded.

X is calculated then dealt in one swoop to the targets.

It would deal a bunch of instances of X damage, but X is set at the beginning, then dealt to all targets.  If it was:  

Deal X damage to one target.  

Then Deal X damage to one Target.

If the first one destroyed a target that effected X, then the damage would change, but with deal a bunch X damage, you don't recalculate during the damage, you calculate the damage first, then deal it to all the targets.

I thought Electro-Pulse Explosive's damage will go down if it is damaged in between instances. There have been a bunch of calculations ith EPE and WtM, I don't recall someone saying it always does 15 damage, but it goes down by 3 each time.

Actually, Rabit has an official ruling on this for us!

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/37921#comment-37921

This might be usefull to add to your doc Spiff

See, it's fun to bring links.

I just do not have your skills in the linking department man. 

I don’t think that quote from Rabit directly addresses the question about whether X varies. I think it probably does, I would just wait before asserting it’s an official ruling.

It is clearly directly applicable.

If X did not varry, TtE would not be able to influence every instance of damage. It would only effect the first X and then that would apply to every target. That is what Phantaskippy was saying.

This is not how Christopher described it. Each time damage is dealt is an instance of damage which gets evaluated at the time its dealt. What this implies is that the way Phantaskippy described it is incorrect. 

Apply what Christopher said about TtE+Oblivion to other interactions now. The Electro-Pulse+Flame Barrier is a good one. Electro-Pulse hitting Ra for 15 will get hit with the barrer, making the next target in line take 13 now that Electro-Pulse has less HP as the damage dealt is re evaluated for each target.

Not everything is going to get ruled individually man. You are kinda have to use a little abstract thought and apply the rulings we do have to other situations for consistancy. 

I'm going to agree with Rabit and Foote.

I was thinking of Jackhandle and Dual Crowbar, but looking that up it really doesn't apply at all.  EPE is the perfect example, It deals each target X where X is its current HP, as the current HP changes so does the damage.

As you kill Environment targets, Scorched Earth would drop in damage, as would any other cards doing the same.

There really isn't a way to make a nice simple process of resolving damage that covers everything.  I'll have to go back to telling people damage works the way it does because that is the way it is.

These two really seem to contradict each other:

So, Haka punches the Sonic Mine, thereby destroying it.  When the Sonic Mine is destroyed, it starts dealing damage to all the heroes.  Visi redirects some of that damage, dealing 3 to the Mine and 3 to herself, but the mine has already been destroyed, yet it's still out and dealing damage.  What gives?

I'm not 100% clear on what you're asking, but if I read your post correctly then my answer is that things that have an effect specifically when they are destroyed are a special case,  deserving of a subset of rules that are never made explicit.

In this case WtM is following one set of rules (the rules for normal cards)   and Sonic Mine is following a parallel set of rules (the rules for cards with "when this card is destroyed" text).    This accounts for the difference.

Edit:   Essentially  "when this card is destroyed"  text cards ALWAYS have the listed effect when they are destroyed.    Normal cards that lack that text do not follow that rule,  and thereby they can be interrupted and canceled by the destruction of a relevant card.

Wrest the Mind is destroyed when the target it is attached to leaves play. When the Sonic Mine is destroyed, it first deals damage then it goes to the trash. Thus it is still in play while it is doing damage, meaning Wrest the Mind is still attached to the Sonic Mine and allowing redirection to occur.

The key to understanding these two cases is the order of resolving effects.  1) If resolving one effect triggers a second effect, resolve that second effect before completing the first.  2) If two effects are triggered by the same thing, resolve them in the order they entered play. 

So in the first case (ruling 5):

1. Something causes the target to deal damage, triggering the redirection effect (the middle paragraph of wrest the mind)
2. The damage is redirected, then Visionary deals it 3 damage, destroying it and triggering the destruction effect (the final paragraph of wrest the mind)
3. Wrest the Mind is destroyed and leaves play.

After resolving step 3 you would normally go back up to finish the second effect and Visionary would damage herself, but the card and effect are now gone.  So now you go back up to the first effect, which is also gone.  (Unless the effect causing the target to deal damage was not on the target itself, in which case you now continue resolving it)

In the second case (ruling 17):

1. Something destroys Sonic Mine, triggering both the Sonic Mine to deal damage and Wrest the Mind to destroy itself (They each resolve in the order they entered play)
2. Resolve Sonic Mine dealing damage, each one triggering the redirection effect on Wrest the Mind.  (for each damage she chooses to redirect, Visionary deals the Mine and herself damage, but the mine can't be destroyed again so this does not trigger the third paragraph of Wrest the Mind)
3. Resolve the third paragraph of Wrest the Mind, now taking its turn to react to the destruction in step 1.  Wrest the Mind is destroyed and leaves play.

Now there was some debate on whether order of play should really be the key here or if "When this card is destroyed" effects should always take precedence.  In the case of Wrest the Mind though, it necessarily entered play after the target it is next to anyway, so that question only matters for other chain reactions like Ammo Drop + Tome of the Unknowable.

Dypaca is correct with how it resolves.

I think an easy way to think of it, explain it to new players and deal with it quickly in game is to say cards with effects on self-destruction delay the resolution of destruction until their effect is finished.

They are in the process of destruction but not destroyed, so they are still in play and other cards that respond to card destruction won't trigger until after it completes its destruction.

This of course is unnoficial and subject to being ruled wrong at any moment, as I've based it off inferences from answers given quickly and in person, so Christopher may not have intended it to sound that way.

It seems really weird that the resolution of 5 would read "Visionary deals herself and that target 3 damage" as stopping at the word "and" but still be able to process the fact that it's dealing damage.  And doubly so that Sonic Mine can work differently, even though no specific exception is written into the rules which allows cards with death-triggers to function differently than ones without them.

Considering the text on the cards are also the rules, I would say the fact that a card has a destruction effect written on it already says it functions differently than a card that does not have one. If it functioned the same, than it wouldn't have a destruction effect.

I'm not too big of a fan of typing long paragraphs, so i'm going to try and keep this as short as possible.

Lets say Wrest the Mind is placed on Citizen Hammer. Now Citizen Hammer will do all hero targets 3 fire damage, however you do the damage 1 at a time in game terms. So you would first choose a target to deal damage to, however thanks to Wrest the Mind, Visionary may redirect it. If she chooses to redirect it, lets say to good ol' Citizen Dawn. Wrest the Mind carries on with a "If you do" clause, so that interrupts Hammer's damage and proceeds with Wrest the Mind. Now Visionary will deal Hammer and herself 3 psychic damage. It goes in order of the card, so Hammer will take the damage first. Hammer recieves his 3 psychic damage, thus causes him to be reduced to 0. Since Hammer is now at 0 HP, he is effectively destroyed and is leaving play. Oh look, Wrest the Mind has a trigger for if the target it is attached to leaves play, thus interrupting the section of Wrest the Mind we were already on. When the target leaves play, Wrest the Mind is destroyed. Now that is taken care of, we can return to the other part of Wrest the Mind, oh look it's no longer in play, so its text is no longer valid. Meaning we can go back to Hammer, oh wait, he is gone aswell, no longer important. The game will than carry on as normal.

Now lets say Wrest the Mind is on Sonic Mine. Good ol' Mr. Fixer decides to use Strike for 1 point of melee damage to the Sonic Mine, reducing it to 0. Now it will be destroyed, but it has a destroyed trigger, so before it leaves play it will carry out this trigger. It will deal all hero targets the 2 sonic damage, Visionary will decide to redirect the first one to Ambuscade. So the next part of Wrest the Mind kicks in again, dealing the Sonic Mine and herself 3 psychic damage. First off the Sonic Mine takes the damage, being reduced to -3 HP, something would usually be destroyed at this point, but it is already in the process of it, so nothing happens for that. Then Visionary will take her 3 psychic damage.  She chooses to do the same thing for the second instance of damage, which will lead to the same result, 2 to Ambuscade, 3 to the Sonic Mine which will be at -6, and 3 more to Visionary. After Sonic Mine is done doing damage, it will leave play, finally destroying Wrest the Mind with it.

In all honesty though, if you are in that situation, you might as well target Visionary for the first instance of Sonic Damage, allowing her to be hit and can no longer deal damage because of it, then redirect as normal without Visionary doing anything else damage.

In all honesty though, if you are in that situation, you might as well target Visionary for the first instance of Sonic Damage, allowing her to be hit and can no longer deal damage because of it, then redirect as normal without Visionary doing anything else damage.

It's always great to be unable to deal damage as Visionary, it's a free pass to mess with people.

Well it looks like Ronway covered most of this as I typed this, but I'll post anyway.  If Visionary damaged herself first, she could not avoid the damage.  However, the card says that 'Visionary deals this card's target and herself 3 psychic damage".

Also, a card can be destroyed and interrupted even if there is no 'and' separation.  For example when Gene-bound Frosthound 'deals each hero target 2 cold damage'.  If the first target selected is Ra and his flame barrier deals damage back and destroys it, then it doesn't get to deal the damage to any other hero targets.  An alternate way of playing where all that damage is treated as simultaneous might be interesting and more logical to some, but is not the way the this game is meant to work.  The destruction of the Frosthound is the newer effect, so it takes precedence over the damage that was resolving, and once it is destroyed you stop resolving that effect.

In case 5, the effect on Wrest the Mind's redirection causes the destruction, so the destruction interrupts and takes precedence.  In case 17, the destruction is causing Wrest the Mind's redirection, so the redirection takes precedence.  It isn't that "When this card is destroyed" gets a special exception so much as it is just a reverse of the normal cause/effect relationship.

The rules aren't on the cards.  The rules are in the rulebook; the cards can contradict the rules, but only do so where they specifically do so.  If you want to suspend a rule on a card, you have to do so explicitly.  In the case of Sonic Mine, you'd do that with something like "If Sonic Mine would be destroyed, first it deals 2 damage to each non-hero target, then it is destroyed."  (Technically you should also specify "This ability does not replace itself", but that much can generally be left implied, as it's pretty obvious.)

Now Citizen Hammer will do all hero targets 3 fire damage, however you do the damage 1 at a time in game terms.

That is certainly not how all games handle simultaneous multi-target damage, and it's an interpretation which leads to a lot of potential problems, which is probably why most games don't do it that way.  I can think of no other examples where something that should hit the entire board at once instead pauses to resolve triggered events after every single target gets hit.

It goes in order of the card, so Hammer will take the damage first.

That should really have been written as "Visionary deals that target 3 damage, then deals herself 3 damage".  Compressing it into a single clause makes it sound like it should all happen at once and be impossible to interrupt.

Hammer recieves his 3 psychic damage, thus causes him to be reduced to 0. Since Hammer is now at 0 HP, he is effectively destroyed and is leaving play. Oh look, Wrest the Mind has a trigger for if the target it is attached to leaves play

But why would it be triggered by "effectively" rather than "actually"?  If all cards are put into the trash instantly upon receiving lethal damage, then Sonic Mine can't work.  Therefore, if Sonic Mine does work, cards should not be put instantly into the trash, but should be destroyed whenever an effect isn't being resolved that requires them to still be in play to have an effect.  (Magic the Gathering solves this very simply by saying a card doesn't have to be in play for its effect to resolve, if it was triggered under appropriate circumstances; the effect stays in motion, like an arrow in flight, even if the "bow" which launched it has disappeared, until the effect reaches the "target" and is done "flying".)

That at least seems to make some sense.  But I still think the two rulings are inconsistent with each other, and that ideally the wording should be changed.

This isn't all other games however, this is Sentinels of the Multiverse: The Card Game.

Things don't truly happen at once when Sentinels of the Multiverse: The Card Game's mechanics are concerned.

Word it however way you want.

Sonic Mine does work, simple and easy as that. Does it need al ittle adjusting to the wording? Sure it does, but until than we will have to know how it is intended to work and play that way.

This is Sentinels of the Multiverse: The Card Game, not Magic the Gathering.

Indestrucible, cannot leave play be any means.

Returning to your hand is a means.

Indestructible cards cannot be destroyed or removed from play, so tools cannot go back to the hand, they have to stay in play.

Just to check - when Fixed Point wears off and your styles/tools suddenly go "oops, there's two of us - one of us has to go!", can you choose which one, or would the one that was out first be automatically "butted out" by the more recent arrival as though you'd only just played it (the newer card)?

Neither.

The tools don't 'check for target destruction after every action' like Bounties, they have an instruction on the card that triggers when they enter play, after that they no longer check. if you were to play another tool after Fixed Point goes away, then the new tool's card text would trigger and remove all the 'excess' ones.

Same with Styles.

Yes, with the right setup you can get a ton of his cards in play in one round or fixed point.  Jackhandle/Hoistchain/Crowbars with Crane/Tiger/Monkey was the best I've pulled off.  Absolutely insane how badly Akash got stomped after that.

Of course we set the game up to pull that off, and it involved Adept destroying that song to get him a lot of extra plays, and vernal set up Omni-X for the last one, Visionary was working the decks to set it all up.

Oh wow, that's cool :D. So to take full advantage of it, I suppose you would need someone who could let Fixer get out as much stuff as possible outside of his turn. Tiger Claw, Riveting Crane, and Jack Handle would be just epic against someone like Voss or Apostate >:). Actually, I suppose if he had the Crowbars out as well, it'd be even more stupidly powerful, even if he has no damage buffs. I have to try this some time :D.

Sorry in advance for for the necro.

I don't think this one works. Fixed Point makes all other cards indestructible, while playing a tool only returns any other tools already in play to your hand. The old tool leaves play, but it does not go to the trash and is this not actually destroyed as per RAW. [Statement retracted. Please see my edit below.]

Fixed Point therefore shouldn't allow multiple tools to be on the board simultaneously. (It can do multiple styles, yes. That's a very handy little trick, particularly if someone can give you an extra card play or two while Fixed Point is in play.)

[Edit to save confusion for those digging this topic up in the future: I didn't follow due diligence and double check the glossary definition for "indestructible: If a card is indestructible, it cannot be destroyed or removed from play. If a target is indestructible, it stays in play even if it is reduced to 0 or fewer HP. My argument was based off of the erroneous assumption that "indestructible" meant simply "cannot be destroyed" (i.e., put in the trash). Fixed Point does in fact prevent tools from being returned to the hand. Exits stage left, hat firmly in hand.

Had Harmony out as well, so Fixer dealt 4 irreducible damage of any type to all Non-Hero targets, lowering their damage by one and making all damage to them irreducible.  Then immediately did it again.

I got the chance to overdrive and it was barely even worth it, everything was dead after the first strike.

Sorry to re-necro the thread, but I have to ask... HOW exactly did you destroy Alacritous subdominant? It's INDESTRUCTIBLE!

More properly stated would be "made use of its indestructibility."