Lady Luck question

Does Kismet's Lady Luck card prevent Kismet herself from being destroyed? If so, what happens to her HP? If she was at 3 health and took 4 damage, will she remain at 3 health, or will she have -1? If it's the latter, what happens then?

... and what would happen if the card was a lucky, "Fortune's smile" ...

Kismet regains (H) hp and deals each hero target 1 psychic damage.

Play the top card of the villan deck.

... would her healing prevent the heroes from winning (assuming that kismet would have 1 or more hp after healing), or would it be too late

Ummm…What? I do not quite understand the question.

Kismet is not a Jinx card if thats what you are thinking. Lady Luck only applies to when you are trying to destroy her ongoings. 

Do you mean Inconcievable Obstruction? That could certainly prevent you from destroying her, as that last bit of damage could be redirected to an enviro target. If you can clarify your question a bit, I could try and help a bit more.

Urgh, Lady Luck is a horrible card - it usually takes us multiple attempts to get rid of it because it keeps preventing its own destruction. Grr :P.

Yeah, usually once Lady Luck hits the table, unless I get real lucky with the first ongoing destruction, I stop focusing on those all together and just start playing Hot Potato with her Charm and try and keep her off her front side as much as possible. Her damage increases get nasty real fast with Lady Luck in play.

Whenever a villain card would be destroyed

Bah. Happens every time I type something without the cards in front of me. My appologies. I was talking about it in a pragmatic sense, not how it was actually worded.

Once the Villain character cards HP reaches 0 the game is over, and I believe hitting 0 HP happens before any destruction effects would happen. And since the Charm is indestructable (cant trigger lady luck), then for all intents and purposes, Lady Luck only effects her Ongoings (theres nothing else that would trigger Lady Luck in her deck)

Edit: Actually, I am not quite sure if I am right or wrong about the Win condition. Is the condition when the Villain Character Card(s) is/are reduced to 0 HP, or do the Villain Character cards actually have to pass a "this card is now destroyed" check before poking the fat lady to sing? I believe I am interpreting it correctly above, but I think theres valid arguments in either direction. Anyone care to chime in on this?

According to the Rule Book:

Unless stated otherwise, when a villain character card is reduced to 0 HP, the villain is destroyed and the players have won the game

So the order appears to be 0HP->Destroy->Players win.  However, Lady Luck does "state otherwise," and prevents the destruction.  It does not prevent the damage dropping her to 0 hp, so she would remain.

I would say Lady Luck could only save Kismet if the card revealed was Fortune's Smile, because she would hit 0 hp, then Lady luck would interrupt (or come before, whatever is most correct) the destruction while it was resolved.  If it is not a lucky card the destruction is prevented, but she would remain at 0 hp and as soon as Lady Luck was finished she would be destroyed, just like Fixed Point can keep a 0hp target alive, but only while it is active, the process of 0hp->destroy isn't a one time thing, it keeps trying.  If the card revealed was fortune's smile, then it is tricky.  It's all on timing there, because the destruction isn't prrevented, but if she is healed between Lady Luck checking and the 0hp->destroy happens then the destruction wouldn't happen anyway.

I think this is a brilliant (or incredible unintentional) play on the whole theme of shattered time.  A nice little paradox.

The answer is also in the rule book:

In any Ambiguous situation, the players choose the outcome.

I'd say the timing is pretty ambiguous, so just decide amongst yourselves how to deal with it.  I for one would allow it.

The real question would be if Lady Luck triggered on an effect that dropped all Hero and her HP ro 0, if a non-lucky card came up then, wouldn't she win?  All Heroes are incapacitated by an effect that does not destroy the villain, so I'd think the Heroes didn't win.

Qualifying this whole post that there may be an official ruling I don't know of that contradicts everything here, this is just my own interpretation of the rule book.

Here is my thought as to what would happen if Kismet would be reduced to 0 or fewer HP while Lady Luck is in play.

She would flip a card, if it is not a Lucky card, she will not be destroyed, but she is still at 0 or fewer HP, thus she will be attempted to be destroyed again, as a target can't remain in play with 0 or fewer HP unless it is indestructible. So it would flip a card again, continueing to do this until a Lucky card is revealed or her deck is empty, whichever comes first. At which point she would be destroyed.

If Fortune's Smile would be revealed, I would say she would still be destroyed, as he destruction effect takes priority over a new card entering play, as she was in play first.

But wouldnt any new card that gets played (like fortune smiles) effect go off immediatly? I thought that any new effects or triggers that happen in the middle of a current action resolve immediatly first, then continue on. Shouldn't Fortune Smile, in that sense, actually save her from destruction as the HP increase would happen before we go back to her destruction check? That seems like it would be consistant with other similar rulings we have.

On the killing blow to Kismet, you would probably have to track into the negitive HP to make absolutely sure Fortune Smiles wouldn't save her from still being at 0HP.

Otherwise I agree with Ronways assesment that little buggaboo aside.

What other similar rulings? I couldn't think of any, I was simply going by the order of play for triggers.

Bee bot and EoD is a good example of the newest trigger taking precedence over an older trigger still occurring. 

Playing a card is in fact a trigger for its text. 

AkashBhuta. Plays disrupt the field. Destroy all environment cards first (activate any environmental destruction triggers that apply now). Then play the next villain card. Lets say its Primeval Eruption. You right now resolve Primeval Eruption before you move on to playing the next enviro card as Disrupt Field instructs. Again, newest triggers take precedence over older ones. There's many other examples like this. 

Lady Luck plays the lucky card as part of its reveal trigger, so you would indeed heal up with fortune smiles. The real question is if its enough healing to get back above 0. I never though about Kismet working this way, but how that plays out thematically is pretty freakin cool. 

Hmm... I guess it would have the chance of healing her. Might be interesting if the situation came up.

That's exactly the way I would think it would happen since Lady Luck doesn't actually stop her from taking damage. I do think that Fortune's Smile would save her, but I'd be fine playing it either way.

On the killing blow to Kismet, you would probably have to track into the negitive HP to make absolutely sure Fortune Smiles wouldn't save her from still being at 0HP.

Is there officially negative HP?  That doesn't seem to make sense as the rules don't say at 0hp or less a target is destroyed, just at 0hp.  I assumed there was no negative counting.

Yes, you can go into negative hp.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/11746368#11746368

Certain specific situations can make you go into negative HP temporarily and perhaps recover

How does this effect damage from Absolute Zero?  If something has 1hp and I hit it for 3 cold, do I get 1 damage toward Thermal Shockwave, or all 3?  Would it be one under normal situations, but 3 with fixed point in play?

I kinda like this way of doing it. It makes me imagine Kismet desperately struggling to find a timeline where she doesn't lose, and (most likely) failing at the end.

But it would make perfect thematic sense that her fortune could save her from death as well no? 

The way that it is worded in the rule book sounds like a trigger. It says…

when a villain character card is reduced to 0 HP, the villain is destroyed and the players have won the game

Whenever a villan charecter card has 0 or fewer hp, it is destroyed and the players have won.

(an argument for a diffrent thing)

Also, it's clear that the players do not win when they destroy one member of the Enead. And the "Shrine of the Enead" uses the same lanuage that "Lady Luck" does.

Whenever a villan(card/target) would be destroyed, do blah blah blah instead.

This says the exact same thing twice. Are they supposed to be different?

Once any villain character card reaches 0 (yes it can also be negative) the destruction trigger kicks in to check the win condition. If Lady Luck is in play and flips a Jinx, her destruction is prevented. Now that trigger is completely resolved. But the win condition check is a constant thing, you don't just check it after you deal damage. She still has 0 or fewer HP, so the destruction effect triggers immediately again. This effectively leads to you milling Kismets deck until you find a lucky card. Either it heals her enough to get back over 0 HP or dies finally passes the destroy check and the heros win. That is why it works that way. 

Basically, the destruction trigger is only related to HP, it does not require damage delt to trigger. 

So with Fixed point in play, would Lady Luck trigger? Would it keep triggering until Kismet had positive hit points again or would it never trigger?

Lady Luck would not trigger. Fixed Point makes Kismet indestructible, so the trigger condition for Lady Luck never fires off

NO, FOOTE, it does not say the same thing twice. One of them is worded like a trigger, like sonic mine. Which i am sure you all know does not deal each hero target two sonic damage(i think, text not exact) an infinite number of times when it is destroyed, only once. The other one is like the enead. If for some reason the heroes cannot win(why?), and there are no gods in play. The heroes don't win, because they can't. But then there are still no villan targets in play, the heroes try to win again, but don't, etc

Isn't Kismet being reduced to zero or fewer hp, similar to sonic mine being destroyed, or AZ being dealt fire damage. IT does not cause AZ to deal one target (a varying amount of )cold damage an infinite number of times(or untill the players win or lose, whichever comes first).

If other effects using the same language, "When xyz happens" only act once, then why is the villan being reduced to 0 or fewer hp an exception?

Completly unrelated sidenote: Foote, you forgot about "Karmic Disjunction".

They are both worded as triggers. I'm not sure what you are saying. Starting off the sentence with "when" instead of "whenever" makes no actual difference.

sonic mine has no bearing here. Nothing prevents sonic mine from completing destruction. Lady Luck interferes with Kismets destruction. That's the difference you seem to be missing here.

If your position is that if Lady Luck prevents her destruction once and she can go on to take another full turn still sitting at 0HP then you have lost me.

Edit: no cards in front of me, but I thought Karmic Disjunction was just a one shot and not a "lucky" card?

Read my post better, Foote.
 

In any case, the quotes were

when a villain character card is reduced to 0 HP, the villain is destroyed and the players have won the game

Whenever a villan charecter card has 0 or fewer hp, it is destroyed and the players have won.

Edit:I was not comparing sonic mine to lady luck, i was comparing sonic mine not the piec of rulebook that phantaskippy refferenced

(related to karmic disjunction)

To prevent the card's destruction, a card other than a lucky needs to be revealed, speciffically a jinx

Yes, that is my position

So the game would become unwinnable?

Edit: For some reason  this post was here twice

Yes, that is my position to a degree. I think kismet can live forever in the negative hps provided she is never damaged. damaging reduces kismets hp(from -x to -y), performing the action of reducing kismet to 0 or fewer hp again.

I read it just fine thank you.

I know you think there is a difference there, but there is not. "Being reduced to 0" and "having 0" are the same thing. After Lady Luck prevents the first destruction, the fact is that Kismet was still reduced to 0 and has not been destroyed. You are trying to play with non-existent semantics here. Take it from someone who tries to do that all too ofen in this game. You will usually be wrong.

Which is A) without precedent and B) totally inconsistent with rulings we have on similar situations.

Please go read up on the discussions surrounding Fixed Point. It makes cards indestructable. Well it was ruled that for indestructable targets (also applies to Matriarch encounters) should be tracked into the negative HPs. Why? Because once they become destructable again (like by getting rid of fixed point) if that are at or below 0HP they are all destroyed imediatly. This pretty much quells your semantic gymnastics in regards to the rulebook and "being reduced to" instead of "have" dead in the water.

Allow me to put it another way. The "Destruction Trigger" is not a card based conditional effect (those, for the most part with few exceptions, only trigger once). The Destruction Trigger is a baked in mechanic of the entire game system. The "check" for when a target reaches 0 HP is constant. The game is always checking for "if this target has 0 HP, destroy it". Being "indestructable" is the only way around that check. Lady Luck does NOT provide Kismets villain cards with indestructability, only with a single instance of preventing the destruction. It would, in fact, keep checking until either the target is A) destroyed or B) above 0 HP 

If she is already at 0, then how do you propose the players re-reduce her to 0? Semantics!

Edit: An appology for a just blatent trolling here. I miss the delete button sometimes.

Note, this is also to Foote.

Is the "The villan is destroyed" part just flavor text?

Also, "The villan is destroyed and the players win" sounds like two seperate effets, like nightmist's base power. Does the villan even need to be destroyed  for the players to win?

What happens if the card is fortune's smile?

What happens if the deck runs out?

I would say that no card is not a lucky and thus the chain is stopped untill kismet plays next.

Certain specific situations can make you go into negative HP temporarily and perhaps recover

This is the official rule on Negative HP, you cannot keep existing in negative HP, you can go into it and recover, so long as you are prevented from being destroyed.  If there is nothing preventing you from being destroyed at 0 or fewer health you are destroyed.

The villain is destroyed is not flavor text.

When a target reaches 0 HP it is destroyed, unless otherwise stated.  Lady luck may prevent it, just like Fixed point, but as the ruling on fixed point is that when it leaves play all 0 health targets are destroyed, so too would Kismet be destroyed the instant she is not prevented from being destroyed and is at 0hp.

The order for Villain reaching 0 hp and the heroes winning is such:  When a target reaches 0 hp it is destroyed, when the villain is destroyed the heroes win.

Flavor text is found in text bubbles on the bottom of cards. So no it's not. 

You are reading the rulebook. Not an effect on a card. You are comparing apples and oranges. And yes, considering the Fixed Point rulings we have I'm positive the villain must be destroyed to win. If not everything your arguing becomes moot. 

Fortunes smile? I already said, if the healing is actually enough to pop her above 0, then she survives and is still alive to fight on! How fortunate for her huh?

Please review the official rules for how to handle the villain deck running out of cards. It says to reveal the top card of the villain deck. If there no more cards to reveal, you wouldn't even read the next sentence of the card. You would stop there and Lady Luck would do nothing, ending in her assured destruction. 

Simple, reveal doesn't cause a reshuffle. There is no revealed card, thus the card cannot continue the steps. Thus drops them and it will continue with the destruction.

What would happen if kismet was, say, destroyed by sucker punch. Presumably then, you would only try once.

Would the same thing happen, aside from the "heroes win" part, if a jinx, made a target by "imbued vitality" was reduceed to 0 or fewer hp

Yes, as she still has HP of at least 1.

I would say so. As they are constantly in the danger of being destroyed as long as they are 0 or below.

And if the each hero one psysic damage part of fortune's smile , or the effects of the extra villan play, caused all heroes to be incapacitated? Would they lose or win?

If kismet still had 0 or fewer hp after healing, would it be a tie?

Well, I do not think we have to worry aobut Fortunes smile dealing damage. Unless you want to house rule it? 

Now, I guess the Lucky card she reveals could be Happless Strike (which has highest HP hero deal the lowest HP hero damage). If there was only one Hero left and it hit himself, I guess it could kill the hero before Kismet is destroyed. I think that would be a hero loss in my opinion. She just got lucky =P

I believe if all heroes are incapacitated at the same time the villain is destroyed then the heroes win, they stopped the villain.  I think she could win by getting a non-lucky card after something like the volcano dropped all heroes and Kismet to 0hp, her initial destruction would be negated and the heroes would be incapped, so I believe she would win.

I believe any other result would be a tie in timing, which would let the heroes win.  Most likely the police arrive before anyone recovers and that goes well for the heroes (unless it is a crooked cop in Rook City)

Even if it does not cause kismet to deal damage, WHICH I AM SURE IT DOES, anything can happen when you play the top card of the villan deck.

In any case, i quoted the text of that card in my first post.

I understand what you are saying, no need to break your caps lock key buddy. Yes you are right I guess, anything could happen when fortune smiles plays another card. But the point is, if the heros are destroyed before Kismet is actually destroyed, you lose. 

If Fortune Smile heals her over 0 HP, then she would play the next card and the game would continue like normal. If the inital heal from Fortune Smiles does not bring her back above 0HP, she is destroyed before she can play the next card and the heros win right there.  

What a wierd time for destruction to interrupt. Don't you finish the effects of one card before moving on?

Not always. When we talk about card triggers and their effects, they resolve in a specific order. The general rule of thumb is that the newest triggered effect resolves first.

Take my AkashBuhta example. She plays Disrupt the Field. Playing a card is the trigger condition for the cards specified effects right? So we start doing what the card says. First we would destroy all Enviro cards. Now, lets say that an Explosive Wagon was one of those destroyed cards. The wagon has a triggered effect upon it being destroyed. Since that is now the newest effect to trigger, we would actually resolve the Wagons damage before moving on to the second part of Disrupt the Field. Does that kind of make sense?

And yes, Lady Luck does pose a weird timing game with when she actually gets "destroyed" I agree. I never thought Lady Luck would prevent Kismets destruction until I saw this thread. It was an easy one to miss!

Take my earlier example about a jinx, made a target by imbued vitalily, being reduced to 0 or fewer hp. It would try to be destroyed, but lady luck would intercept, getting a card other than a lucky, etc etc etc. Eventually, you would get a lucky.

If it said that kismet, who had the talisman at that time, dealt damage to a hero, would the damage they take be buffed by the soon-to-be-destroyed jinx?

If the card was a fortune's smile chaining into an imminent destruction(destroy all environment cards blah blah blah) would the no-longer-a-target jinx be destroyed?

Is this the same question as the one about fortune's smiile saving her from death?

I think the answer the the first and last question is yes, and the other one no.

Edit:changed guesses

Overall conclusion: don't you finish all would-be-destroyed effects before the actual destruction?

Can you provide a real in game example of what youre asking? It's so much easier when we are not talking in vague generalities. 

I did. Read the first paragraph

But how are both kismet and the imbued jinx at 0 HP at the same time? That's not going to happen. If you could pose an actual game scenario this would be much easier

or break the question into smaller and easier to digest clumps. I'm having a hard time following. Sorry haha

They aren't. Kismet is not at 0 hp in that scenario.

Lemme see if I understand this. Yes, if kismet is dealing damage while she has her charm, all damage she deals is increased per jinx in play, regardless if that jinx is a target or not. 

If Lady Luck reveals fortune smiles chaining into enviro destruction, since Lady Luck has you play the card before the destruction sequence carries out, I'd say that jinx would stay in play. BUT it would actually still count as a villain target leaving play which would trigger bunkers ammo drop for example. 

Is that what you were asking?

Somewhat. You answered my second and third questions.My first one, does the jinx-target with 0 hp increase kismets damage while resolving the effects of the lucky, even if there was another effect obn that card before the damage, remains unanswered

If the answer to that queastion is yes, you are being inconsistent.

If the jinx has not been destroyed yet then it is still in play increasing her damage. If you destroyed it, then it wouldn't. What exactly is inconsistent there? Again, if Lady Luck reveals a lucky card, you put it into play first before you resolve the jinx being destroyed (as that's the order of wording on the card). 

If you're resolving the effects of a destruction then the card must have left play, if you're resolving the effects to see if a card is destroyed, then by definition it still has to be in play, so I say a 0HP Jinx would increase the damage.

Anecdotally, last night we played a game against Kismet (via G+). When Kismet played a Jinx oneshot I said it was "in play" and increased the damage it dealt by 1, nobody disagreed.

One shot absolutely enter play, then are moved to the trash upon the completion of its effect. 

So if fixed point were in play it would stay, and keep increasing damage.  Right?

Also while indestructible prevents cards from leaving play, one-shots naturally leaving play is not counted as destroying them, so while fixed point will keep a One-Shot in play Lady luck would have no impact on a one-shot card, since they aren't destroyed.

Is there any way to destroy a one-shot kept in play by fixed point?  It has been said they stay out, since their time of leaving play was missed, but then what, is there any way to destroy them?  Short of end of days that is.

Need to play Kismet in time cataclysm now.

Matchstickman, this is a "Would be destroyed"

Foote,…

… If you said in this post that she is destroyed before you play the next villan card…

…Theese two posts conflict eachother. Fortune's smile says "play the top card of the villan deck". As you know, one-shots that say play the top card of the villan deck are not finished untill the card they played is finished. So the extra card get's played before fortune's smile is finished, and fortune's smile needs to be finished for lady luck to be finished, and lady luck needs to be finished for kismet to be destroyed

One-Shots do not stay in play with Fixed Point.

I like being the only troll on these forums. Lets keep it that way huh?

How was i being a troll?

Those two comments of mine are two totally different scenarios. You compare apples to oranges but call me inconsistent and contradictory.  

Make a coherent argument for how you think it should work and why you think so. Other than that, iv explained how this works correctly the best I can. You don't have to accept it, but I'm going in circles here. 

Edit: The difference is in the first example, Fortune Smiles was the thing playing the extra card and the destruction target is Kismet herself. Fortune Smiles is broken up into two seperate distinct parts. The second was Lady Luck playing the card and the target was a Jinx under the effects of Imbued Vitality. Lady Luck plays the Lucky card in a different fashion coming from a totally different trigger. It makes a HUGE difference.

Look, I enjoy going over the minute details of card interactions. They can be very complex and its part of what keeps me interested in the game (hell I never considered Lady Luck protecting Kismet until now ya know?). But if we are going to have a constructive discussion on how these effects interact, we need to be consistent with the examples we use to illustrate how these things interact. I'm also sorry I called you a troll. That was unfair.