Order in which damage effects are applied

There's a lot of old discussion about damage effects and the order in which they are applied, but I still find the situation murky.  In particular, I'm not sure which of the old discussions have been overruled by later rulings.  (I always get suspicious when a thread starts talking about Imbued Fire/Flesh of the Sun God, which has since been ruled not to work.)

So here are some questions.

(1) Do damage-type-changing effects take place in the order in which cards are played?  For instance, if Ra's "Imbued Fire" is played before Visionary's "Twist the Ether", I would think the damage gets converted to fire, then to whatever Visionary chooses, while if "Twist the Ether" was played first, I would think the damage is always fire.  Is this correct?  I did find some people confused in other threads.

(2) When do damage bonuses get applied?  For instance, suppose Absolute Zero (AZ) and Ra are out. AZ has played Focused Apertures before Ra played Imbued Fire, and then AZ deals some cold damage.  Perhaps the cold damage gets the +1 from focused apertures, then is converted to fire by Imbued fire, then gets the +1 from Imbued Fire; or perhaps the damage type is computed first (and is fire), then there's only the one +1 from Imbued Fire.

(3) When AZ would deal cold damage to himself that is converted into healing by Null-Point Calibration Unit, does this count as cold damage dealt by AZ for the purposes of (eg) Thermal Shockwave?

(4) Can damage reduction get applied multiple times?  Eg, say Haka has Ta Moko out, and Legacy has Lead from the Front and Fortitude out.  Then a villain deals damage to Haka.  Can this get reduced by 1 by Ta Moko, switched to Legacy by Lead from the Front, then reduced by 1 by Fortitude?  Does it depend on the order the cards were played in?

(5) For effects like Fanatic's Undaunted, when do I check the damage amount?

(Text: "Whenever exactly 1 damage would be dealt to Fanatic, prevent that damage. Whenever Fanatic would be dealt 5 or more damage from a single source, reduce that damage by 2.")

(6) In general, I'd like to see an accounting of the precise steps involved in computing damage.  I suspect the answers to (2) and (4) are both "no, that combo doesn't work", but why not?  One algorithm I would know how to apply would be to have virtual damage floating around, modified by all cards played in the order they were played (damage increased/decreased, targets switched, type changed, converted to healing, etc.)  But I gather this is not the algorithm?

I should say that I've checked Spiff's very useful compilation of rule clarifications, and didn't find these issues clarified there.

1. Not sure if it has ever been confirmed, but that is exactly as I have been playing it. So I tend to save Twist the Ether on a hero for after Imbued Fire is played, or use Mental Divergence to take 3 rounds to get it back into play.

2. As Focused Appertures specifies cold damage is increased, he would no longer get the +1 for cold since it is now fire.

3. No, as he was not dealt the cold damage. Being dealt damage is always a result of HP loss.

4. Damage can be reduced multiple times, however not by cards that specift a hero. As Haka would reduce damage dealt to himself by 1, once it goes to another target it is no longer reduced as Haka is no longer going to be hit. However with Smoke Bomb from the Wraith, if the lowest would be hit, the damage would be redirected to the highest, say Haka with Ta Moko. That would result in a -2 to damage.

5. Right before you take her HP away.

6. I think someone posted something like this at one point, i'll see if I can find it.

(1) It happens in the order of cards played, as you rightly surmised.

(2) Add damage bonus based on type at the very end of the 'chain', after the type has been determined. In your example it would be +1fire damage from Ra's imbued Fire.

(3) Whoops! Ronway is right, I am wrong.

(4) When damage is redirected you recalaculate the damage done. If Haka was the original target of an attack by Ambuscade and Legacy redirects it to himself, then the nemesis bonus would not apply, nor would any reduction specific to Haka. Damage reduction from global sources (e.g. shielding winds) and damage reduction on the final target (e.g. Fortitude) would apply. In your example Legacy's reduction would apply, Haka's would not, netting a -1 in total.

(5) I don't understand this question, you seem to know when to check for Ta Moko, this is no different.

(6) No, there's no algorithm. Well there probably is, in our heads, but it's too much hassle for me to put it into a way someone else would understand!

And let me say, welcome to the forums!

Regarding Twist the Ether, doesn't Visionary get to choose what the damage type is whenever that target attempts to deal damage? With Imbued Fire, you basically read all damage types as "fire", so for example if a card says "deal one target 2 melée damage", if Imbued Fire is out you basically pretend that card reads "deal one target 2 fire damage". But if Twist has been played on that person, I don't see it'd make a difference whether it or Imbued Fire came out first. Because instead of Visionary looking at the target and going "It's trying to deal melée damage? Okay, I convert it to cold", she's looking at it and going "It's trying to deal fire damage? Okay, I convert it to cold".

I agree with Ameena on this point. Card play order is really only important when multiple effects happen simultaniously (example, multiple start/end of turn effects). I understand thats not exactly how the rulebook explains it, but that is the reality of how the game has evolved. Things like global damage type changes and damage increases are understood to be "static" and always constantly on.

For me at least, Twist the Ether is altering a global effect with a trigger condition of when someone tries to deal damage. We all know that triggered effects get resolved in order from newest to oldest (unlike resolving multiple simultanious effects, which happen in order from oldest card to newest). So in that sense, Twist the Ether is the newest trigger where as Imbued is oldest (because it is global and always on). 

I'm with Ameena on TtE.  Also environment cards that change things universally, I believe that TtE's effect is activated after the universal, non-optional effects, because it is optional, it would be wierd if you would have to decide what damage and whether to increase it before checking all the other steps.

Its taken me a while to get used to the flow of calculations because I'm used to CCGs and the method of applying effects they have.

This game has its own, and it is quite different, but also quite intuitive once you get the hang of it, or at least most of the time.

Damage reduction is personal, damage increases like focused Aperature and imbued fire only apply to their element.

So if Imbued fire and focused aperature are out and AZ has Twist the Ether on himself and he tries to cold himself the cold damage would be increased by aperature, except that it isn't cold damage, Imbued fire has made it fire, and raised it by it's own effect.  So AZ's ability to deal himelf fire or cold has become fire or fire.  Then I believe Visionary can change that through TtE, since it's effect is activated after imbued fire has done it's thing.  IF Vis changes that damage to Cold, it loses the +1 from imbued fire and regains the +1 from aperature, as well as Vis's effect of raising or lowering it.  If she changes it to Radiant, Melee or Fluffy Bunny damage, the other bonuses don't apply and only her own effect can raise or lower it.  (Fluffy Bunny damage is unstable and I wouldn't suggest using it)

For damage done, the target has to actually take damage, which I believe means that if a target has two health and you hit them for 4 health you only get credit for two.  The exception to this is if they are indestructible, under those circumstances it is official that targets can enter negative HP, which means you can deal damage past 0hp.

The steps would seem to be:

1.  the starting step that leads to damage being dealt.

2.  Check for any modifiers to damage from that target.  If damage changes type re-check.

3.  Check for redirection.

4.  Check for modifiers to damage dealt to target.

5.  Calculate final damage, check for immunity, negation or change to healing.

6.  Check for redirection, if redirected return to step 4.

7.  Apply damage.

8.  Check for destruction and effects

9.  Check for retaliation effects.

I don't think I missed anything.  Feel free to add points if I did.

Interesting note, AZ's cold to healing is not changing the damage type, you don't lose the modifiers to cold damage dealt or taken, you just heal for the amount you would be damaged, I honestly don't know if you would gain universal increases to recovery or not, we do in my group, but I don't know officially.

I'm pretty sure that you always get credit for the full damage dealt, even if it knocks them into negative HP.  Alot of cards mention targets being at zero or less HP, so I don't think it is some special rule for indestructible targets.  (The only thing special about indestructible targets is that they actually remain in play since they can't be destroyed).

We just had this TtE and Imbued Fire combo in our last game.  Imbued Fire is a constant effect so I believe the order is something like:

1) Player does X melee damage.

2) Melee is converted to fire and increased to X+1 as a result of Imbued Fire.

3) TtE is used to convert the damage to say energy and increased by one.  Damage is now energy and no longer gets the IF bonus, so it's energy X+1.

4) IF is a constant effect.  The damage is immediately converted back to fire, and the IF fire increase now applies again.  The damage is now X+2 fire.

X + 1 from TtE + 1 from IF.

I don't think you can use the text on TtE more than once for a single damage source.  This would mean that whatever type you change to is overridden by any constant effects.  If TtE didn't operate that way then you could change the damage type and amount every time the type was changed by a constant effect causing an infinite loop of damage increases.  I think, I don't have the card in front of me.

The real sticky situation is Imbued Fire coupled with an environment card that converts all damage.  I assume in that situation it's down to card play order. 

I do not believe that is correct. If you decide to activate Twist the Ether, you are overriding Imbued Fire with the new effect. Twist the Ether does not stop its effect right after you use it, so Imbued Fire would not come back to override it. Even if it did, your interpretation assumes Twist the Ether is no longer in effect, meaning you wouldn't get +2 in either case.

Combine your step 1+2. This happens at the same time. The player would not even attempt to deal melee. It is fire+1 from the start.

My interpretation assumes that the damage type from TtE is overridden.  The increase in damage (or decrease if chosen) is a seperate component.

Imbued Fire does not have a trigger condition to override TtE after that has been activated you kow? It does not constantly check and change your damage type, it changes the base damage type of all of your attacks. TtE is a triggered effect that changes the damage type after Imbued Fires effect happens.

With your interpretation (which requires Imbued Fire to constantly check and change), it would be impossible to resolve Imbued Fire with Irratiated Vats from Pike Industral (changes all damage to Toxic). If global damage type modifers are constant checks, then you create an infinite loop that can't be resolved. In this sense it absolutly cannot work that way.

TtE overrides Imbued fire. Now, if you used TtE to also use fire damage, you would absolutly get the +1 from IF and +1 from TtE. If TtE changes to anything other than fire, you loose the +1 from IF.

I'm going to add this to the pending rulings.

To clarify, when I say that Imbued Fire is constant effect, I mean it in the sense that it does not have a conditional trigger in order to apply the effect. The effect is triggered only by playing the card, and the effect takes hold. 

Any global damage type modifiers that come into play post Imbued Fire would override it due to order of cards played as the effects are contradictory. So if Close Quarters Combat (all damage to melee) or Irradiated Vat (all damage to Toxic) comes out after Imbued Fire, they take precedence.

Twist the Ether is a very different kind of manipulation than any of those above. Yes, they all change the damage type. But they have very different triggers. Where Imbued Fire's effect is triggered upon it being played, Twist the Ether triggers as a hero is attacking (and it is an optional trigger for the player). There are many official rulings about how to resolve triggered effects. They all that if you have multiple conditional triggers trying to resolve, the newest trigger takes precedence over the old ones. Thats why you can use Bee Bot to destroy End of Days before it burns all of the Heros things. Same principle. Twist the Ether, whos effect has to be triggered (therefor being a newer triggered effect than IF), will override Imbued Fire's damage type restriction. But you can still benefit from the +1 damage from IF as long as you keep using fire damage with TtE

So, the interpretation is that the damage type alteration of TtE is always the last on the stack so to speak.  All global effects are applied in play order followed by TtE.

Spiff's rules clarifications for Imbued Fire say:

Both parts of the text on Imbued Fire ("Increase all fire damage by 1.", and "Change the damage type of damage dealt by hero targets to fire.") are ongoing, static buffs.  These things aren't happening in any order because it's not a power or one-shot, so once it's in play, both of the effects are in play simultaneously, which would play out like so:

All fire damage is increased by one, okay.  Change the damage type of damage dealt by heroes to fire.  Now I'm dealing fire damage, but wait, all fire damage is plus one.  So yes, Imbued Fire gives everyone an increased one damage.

(I typed that in and didn't copy-paste so please forgive any errors.)

This implies that those static effects are always in effect.  Otherwise nobody gets a +1 to damage from Imbued Fire for attacks that are changed to fire since the attack wasn't fire when the damage increase went off.

Ah, you replied while I was replying.  Triggered effects override static ones then.

Static effects are triggered, then are static.  When imbued fire is played it triggers, if it could somehow be played during a damage calculation it would take effect.  After that it is a passive change of status that remains without being triggered.

That's why in my damage steps I put check for modifications, because some just hang out.  Imbued Fire can be overwritten because there are contradictory effects, damage can't be fire and toxic, so the latest card wins.  The +1 to fire damage has no contradictory effects, if a card exists in the future that states "No fire damage can be increased" then they would be contradictory and the latest card would win.  That +1 isn't constantly triggering to raise fire damage, because that doesn't work, there would be nothing to stop it from constantly raising the damage by one for infinite damage.

This is very different than a target at 0 or less hp having constant destruction checks.  0HP triggers a destruction effect, and that trigger remains until it is resolved.  The trigger is not static, because it resolves and goes away, but until it is resolved it remains, constantly trying to resolve itself.  Basically fixed point delays the resolution of the trigger as long as it is on the field, and Lady Luck negates the check, which would immediately restart a new one.  There is no resolution to the 0hp destruction check where a 0hp or less target remains in play.  I only bring this up because the rulings seem like they contradict, but they don't.

The static of +1 fire damage, or all damage is fire doesn't need triggered.  It sits there changing things until it is overwritten, then it sits quietly till the overwriting effect is no longer there, and then it will continue doing its thing.  Static effects are very polite like that.  As a triggered effect TtE activates, overwriting the all damage is ___ damage, but not having any effect on all fire damage is +1, it is cool with that effect.  Once the triggered effect is resolved (the damage is dealt) TtE is no longer effecting anything, and the static remains in play as before.

If somehow Imbued fire could enter the field after TtE has been used but before the damage dealt it would override TtE.  I don't think that can happen.

We use the tokens, when all damage is fire we put the token out, if Close Quarters comes out we put an All damage is Melee on top of the fire one.  When close Quarters goes away we remove the all damage melee token.  If Imbued Fire was removed first we'd remove that token and leave the melee one.  It helps keep the order as the game goes on.

Quick note on the 0HP thing. The effect of "destruction" is a triggered effect. The condition for that trigger, in the case of a target, is HP reaching or going below 0. Lady Luck and Fixed Point can delay the resolution of that effect, but what makes those situations unique is that the trigger condition for destruction is constantly being met and constantly triggering. You can see how Imbued Fires effect does not continuously trigger in that same way.

Maybe using the phrase "constantly checking" is a poor way to describe what is actually happening with the mechanics. It is much easier to describe these interactions and timing of those interactions using triggers, trigger conditions, and the triggered effect.

So the all fire damage part of Imbued Fire is like the cards that reduce all damage by 1 or whatever.  The effects aren't checked constantly.

My brain was seeing the +1 to fire thing wrong.  It's a static +1 to all attacks that happen to be fire whenever they are resolved.  Twist gets to override everything since its applied effect is going off after everything else.  If I was playing Visionary I could use my Twist on say Wraith and let her get her projectile damage bonus even with Imbued Fire in play.

Did we ever get an answer on Bee Bot blowing up a explosives wagon in the middle of the wagon exploding?

The +1 to all fire damage and the "change all damage to fire" are two separate, distinct parts of the card. Twist the Ether lets you get around the part where you HAVE to deal fire damage. If you still choose to deal fire damage with Twist the Ether, Imbued Fire still adds +1 to all fire damage.
 

Wraiths Targeting Computer specifically gives "Projectile" damage +2. When Imbued Fire is in play, it forces all of her damage to be fire, so she would lose the +2 from TC but gain the +1 from IF. If you played Twist the Ether on Wraith, you can force the damage back to projectile, gaining +2 again from TC and +1 from TtE. Obviously if you deal projectile damage you would not get the +1 from Imbued Fire.

So yes. You are correct.

Might want to check that thread instead of this one?

Dealing with TtE timing:  

If Embolden is on Legacy and Fanatic has her damage increased by 3, and Legacy has superhuman durability, fortitude and Fanatic has TtE on Fanatic (not included in the +3). . .

Can Visionary reduce the damage by one, after it has been reduced by Superhuman?  Superhuman reducing by 2, fortitude by 1 and TtE by 1 for 1 damage taken being the goal.

Do Superhuman and Fortitude trigger in the order they were played, so that if Fortitude was out first it would be reduced by fortitude before Superhuman, and therefore be 4 damage and not trigger Superhuman, or in the order we want?  Does Twist the Ether have any requirements as to when in the process its effect must be used?

We actually had this occur with a +5 (+2 Legs and 3 obsidian fields) with Tempest and Legacy reducing it by two each, fortitude by one and TtE by one.  It was sweet.  I'm just wondering if that was all legit.

I would say there is no timing to take into consideration with superhuman durability. You would have to trigger TtE before SHD has a chance to trigger. Some people might disagree due to a very old ruling about SHD. 

 Thank you, everyone, for the answers so far!  (And thanks for the welcome!)  I'm most interested in the answer to my question (6); I don't want to remember lots of special cases, I want to know what my cards will do before I play them!  So, Ronway, if you can find what was posted before, that would be great, and, Matchstickman, I know it's a lot of work, but it would be very helpful (and not just to me, I think).  I do see a lot of confusion and many different possible situations being discussed; I think a clear algorithm would be the best for answering all the questions.

So far phataskippy came closest to what I was looking for in his list.  It does imply some things I hadn't thought through; eg, I'm not sure if there are any redirect effects that depend on the damage size, but if there were, it would have to depend on the damage _before_ any target-specific effects.  I gather from some of the other answers that damage type modifications are a separate step (between your steps 1 and 2).  I would also add a separate step for target selection, which it seems is its own thing, from the earlier settled answers about when you can select different targets and the like.  That's part of step 1 in your list, I guess.

I'm a little worried that your algorithm seems to have room for an infinite loop between steps 4 to 6, although I haven't attempted to construct one.  (I only have the base game at the moment, so may not have seen all the cards that might create an infinite loop.)

In other threads, I've seen people talk about a distinction between damage dealt and damage taken.  In terms of your list, I guess the damage dealt is the damage either before or after step 4 ("Check for modifiers to damage dealt to target"), and the damage taken would be that in step 7?  Was there concensus on overkill?  (If AZ does 5 cold damage to a target with 2 HP (with no relevant modifiers), does that count as 2 or 5 damage dealt?)

Again, thanks all!

The problem with making an "algorithim" is that there are so many little interactions that give rise to so many edge cases it would be extremely hard to get a solid one down. You want a one size fits all theory of how to resolve effects, which kind of betrays the complexity of all the different interactions.

The best way to look at it is in the sense of Triggers and Effects:

For consecutive triggers and overlapping effects, the newest triggered effects take precedance over older ones. 

During simultanious triggered effects (multiple end of turn boss effects for example), you start with the oldest and move to the newest. 

That is all you need.

As for damage taken/delt, there is no distinction within the game. Delt/taken are the same for all intents and purposes, as damage delt is always the result of HP loss. 

The main problem with an algorithm is that there are disagreements on alot of this, so we won't all agree on anything which gets posted.  For instance Foote says that Twist the Ether is always before Super Human Durability, but I don't see why that would be.  (At least no reasoning based on card text or official rulings.  I can see how a general rule that Superhuman Durability, Shielding Winds, and Undaunted being checked after all other damage modifiers reduces the amount that the order of cards entering play needs to be remembered)

This is the post where TheJayMann posted his idea for the algorithm: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/operation-order-2679

As for damage type being done as a separate step, that is a general rule of convenience.  Existing cards which change damage type either effect all damage or are dependant on the source.  Since no existing effects change the source of damage, you can resolve any conflicts between the damage type changing cards before considering other effects.  If some future card said something like "all damage dealt to villain targets is Toxic", that simplification would no longer be valid.

There are some cards which can seem to cause infinite loops of redirection.  The most common to pop up is Wraith's Smoke Bombs + Visionary's Decoy Projection.  I've always gone with the rule that each redirection effect can only be resolved once per instance of damage.

There are some cards which can seem to cause infinite loops of redirection.  The most common to pop up is Wraith's Smoke Bombs + Visionary's Decoy Projection.  I've always gone with the rule that each redirection effect can only be resolved once per instance of damage.

I believe that is officially correct, each redirect can only trigger once per damage calculation.

Edit:  My first example was terrible, this one is slightly better:  IF some villain does 3 damage to each hero target, Wraith has smoke bombs, Unity has Stealth Bot and Mr. Fixer has the highest HP and Driving Mantis you can have Stealth bot take each instance of damage, triggering smoke bombs every time, and send them to Fixer reduced by the bombs (as long as he stays highest), he can redirect the first damage that is redirected to him with Mantis, but not the others (by mantis's effect) if he redirected that damage back to Stealth bot Stealth bot takes it, as Smoke Bombs could not redirect that same damage again.

So far phataskippy came closest to what I was looking for in his list.  It does imply some things I hadn't thought through; eg, I'm not sure if there are any redirect effects that depend on the damage size, but if there were, it would have to depend on the damage _before_ any target-specific effects.  I gather from some of the other answers that damage type modifications are a separate step (between your steps 1 and 2).  I would also add a separate step for target selection, which it seems is its own thing, from the earlier settled answers about when you can select different targets and the like.  That's part of step 1 in your list, I guess.

Mr. Fixer can redirect damage of 2 or less, if his damage reduction would lower damage dealt to 2 or 1 he redirects it, no matter what its original amount was.  As I recently learned the damage then returns to its full amount (since MR. Fixers pipe wrench isn't protecting anyone else), which is why redirection sends you back to recalculate on my list.

Damage type gets modified just like damage, there can be any number of modifiers out there, they each get their own little process, but I put them in two categories, modifiers to the damage source's damage dealt, and modifiers to the target's damage taken.  I do it this way because the damage source never changes.  Do all the various calculations to the source in step two, and the current target in step 4.  Modify the damge fully before redirection anytime the redirection is triggered by damage dealt to a target. (Like with Mr. Fixer)

I don't include a targetting step, that is part of step one, adn the reason is some damage doesn't require you to select a target.

As for infinite loop, that would require an infinite loop of redirection, which does not occur.

The list would make more sense with damage type being determined as a step by itself, I do it together, since most cards that change type also modify it.  If you would prefer it seperate, just add it in and make the list 10 steps.

The order of damage reduction is a difficult thing.  I would expect one of two routes:

1.  The effects go off in the order the cards entered play (this is a rule for card effects that go off end of turn and such, it may apply the same)  I don't follow that as I don't like to keep track of that, and players aren't the best at putting their cards in play in an orderly cronological fashion.

2.  The effects would trigger simultaneously (Like damaging all targets at once, you have multiple cards trying to reduce the damage at once) and therefore the heroes choose the order.  I prefer this method myself.  It is more fun, adds to the "Thinking and then being triumphant" aspect of the game, and it benefits me and my friends.  Also who really wants to sit there and try to line up damage reduction cards coming into play for maximum benefit?

In the end the creators of this game seem to me to value fun over regulation, so don't stress too much over the little rules, if your players find one way better, use it.

This may be the most relevant text!

FWIW, here's my algorithm:

1. Apply all cards that affect the type of the attack in card played order. (This is only done as an separate, first step, because there are no cards which change the type of an attack based on either the destination of the attack or the amount of the attack, and there are no cards which change the source of an attack).
2. Apply all other cards in card played order. If a card changes the destinatio n of the attack (target), reset the amount of the attack to the original amount  and return to the beginning of this step, but don't consider that card again. 
3. If the attack is 0 or less or the target is immune, no damage is dealt.

• An attack that has been reduced to zero or less can NOT be  redirected.
• Stored increase (Haka of Battle) or reduction (Wraith's Stealth)  are applied in card played order as well.
• There is no established order of the hero and villain character cards, so I would let that be a player decision, if it ever came up. Another thought would be to say the order is the order of turns, so villain character cards first followed by each hero character card.

Basically, card played order is King. Some perhaps non-intuitive results can occur. For instance, if Mr. Fixer is hitting himself due to an Infection and has a plus one from a tool and a plus one from Harmony, whether or not he can redirect due to Praying Mantis is going to depend on the order in which his cards were played. Praying Mantis before one or both of the tool and Harmony? Amount is one or two, so redirection! After both? Amount is three, so not redirected.

I definitely agree that fun is the most important! Thanks for the helpful comments, many things were clarified.

Thank you! I will have to study that more comprehensive proposal; it looks broadly similar to what phantaskippy proposed.

That’s a very sensible rule, which I will adopt. Was there an official ruling on this point sometime?

The questions you added are good and clear, but are there other disagreements here? Maybe it makes more sense to create new threads (as I see you did for at least one question), but what about the damage reduction order? Notably, if Legacy has Superhuman Durability (reduce damage of 5 or more) and there is a global damage reducing or increasing effect like Cramped Quarters, do results depend on the card order played? If I understand correctly, your (areson9’s) algorithm sketch would say yes, it does depend, Phantaskippy’s algorithm would say no (Cramped Quarters always takes effect first), but perhaps Phantaskippy actually plays in a way that lets the heroes choose whatever is best.
I saw some other threads about this, but the resolution was not clear to me.

This is probably deep in the weeds, but since villain cards can damage heroes during setup, I would think that the villain character card has to be played after the hero character cards (which I would say are played in turn order).

My personal rule for my group is, whenever order of play needs to be tracked across multiple decks, proceed in turn order. i.e. Villain first, then heroes in turn order, then environment. So, environment often trumps all.

Did we get anything official to this? Something similar came up in my game last night. The situtation came up between Ra and Wraith in regards to imbued fire and micro targeting computer.

Imbued Fire - Increase all fire damage by 1, change damage type of damage dealt by hero targets to fire. Power: destroy this card.

Micro Targeting Computer - Increase projectile damage dealth by the wraith by 2.

Heres the discussion I had in a nutshell.

- Micro Targeting computer is played first

- Imbued Fire is played after Micro Targeting computer is in play.

- Wraith uses a power that deals 1 projectile damage (for example)

Now that 1 projectile damage, I would assume gets buffed by 2 because of MTC. This is because according to the rulebook, Simultaneous effects occur in the order in which the cards entered play.

Then my buffed 3 projectile damage gets mod by imbued fire, turning it into fire and adding +1 damage for total of 4 damage to the target.

Some other players wondered if I would lose the 2 damage because my damage is no longer projectile. After a discussion, I still hold firm that you would not RECHECK MTC to see if my damage is still projectile. I cant think of a situtation in the game where you would RECHECK to see if the criteria of a card is still being met WITHOUT written text saying to do so.

Example #2

- Warlord Voss is in play with 14 minions out. At the start if 15 minions are out the game is over.

- environment turn : card comes out saying at the start of each turn, play the top card of the villan deck.

- villian turn: Since voss was in play first, his start effect goes off first as stated in the rulebook. Voss checks and has 14 minions out so the criteria is not met.

- Start effect of environment card then plays, Voss gets a minion.

Now Voss would not RECHECK his start effect EVEN though it still is considered the Start Phase, which would end the game because its not stated to do so. I put this example to back up my theory that you would not RECHECK to see if criterias are being met on a card UNLESS it says to do so of course.

It seems as if the rulebook supports my theory as well unless I have missed anything in which case please free to let me know.

Anyone see any holes in this theory? im interested to hear it.

Nothing official, but I don't think you've got that right.  The card effects don't stack, so the +2 damage for MTC never happens because Imbued Fire (which is the most recent) has turned the damage into fire, so there is no projectile damage.  It would go like this:

- Micro Target computer is played.  Her projectile damage will get +2.

- Imbued Fire is played, turning all of her damage into fire, so she can't deal projectile damage anymore.

- She uses a power, which has been turned into fire damage, so MTC doesn't apply.  You're not rechecking anything.  The original MTC effect has been superseded by the Imbued Fire effect.

According to the rules, card effects happen in the order they where played, so MTC would buff first. then imbued fire.

again, MTC was played first so its buff is applied first.

Yeah, but the MTC only buffs projectile damage. If Imbued Fire is out, all hero damage is now fire. So for every hero card which lists a damage type, you pretend it now says "fire" instead of whatever damage type it is. Therefore all Wraith's projectile cards read "deal X fire damage", therefore don't get buffed by the MTC.

yep, what she said.

I understand your view, but I have to disagree.  As I see it, Nothing happens at the same time in this game. No two things happen at the same time.  If i'm using a power, as I read the card, no other cards are effecting it yet. You do not pretend to read fire instead of projectile. You read the card, then apply modifications in the order that the cards were played BECAUSE some modifications to my attack may have been out before imbued fire. And again, Simultaneous effects (MTC and Imbued fire) happen in the order they were played since they effect my attack.

Again you do NOT apply imbued fire before MTC if MTC was played first. This is conflict resolution as defined in the rulebook.

I understand your logic, but I'm pretty sure the consensus is that it's incorrect.  In your view, Wraith's attack gets bonuses for being both a projectile attack and a fire attack, which isn't correct.

The damage modifiers are depedant. You apply +2 to the projectile attack, then imbued makes it fire and the +2 no longer effects it, then it gets +1 from imbued. So they go in order, but they still have clauses that you don't get to ignore later on. If you have Twist the Ether on as well, and change it to a non-fire non-projectile damage, then it wont end up having other buffs.

Quicksterboy, of course you should play however you have fun!  But there seems to be widespread agreement that it doesn't happen like you said (as per all the discussion above).  I went looking for an official ruling that would contradict the naive algorithm you proposed, but didn't actually find one.  But everyone here seems pretty sure, and many of them have played games with the creators where I assume this would have come up.

(However, I note that the justifications for why Wraith wouldn't get the targetting bonus seem to differ.)

Here's a link to a ruling by Adam(!) talking about Imbued Fire and Cramped Quarters Combat, which is essentially the same question as IF and MTC

but why would we recheck MTC's criteria to see if i STILL get my buff after imbued fire has been played? I dont understand why MTC has to be checked twice where as most cards in the game, once the initial check has been passed, don't get rechecked?

Also thanks for the input so far, i'm just looking for something solid to back up WHY this doesn't work. I'm reading over the link from Adam so we'll see how that turns out.

The way the rulings have gone it makes sense to resolve all damage-type changes first, then see what modifiers to amount apply.

The only time multiple are resolved by card order is if they happen simultaneously.  Ra makes all damage fire, it doesn't turn it fire, it just is fire.  Then you add modifiers that apply.  If something else can change the type of damage, then you would have to recheck your modifiers, because MTC is incapable of boosting any damage but projectile.

What ^he said. Damage is converted by Imbued Fire. With that in play the original attack is never projectile damage able to by modified by the MTC. It ignores it because it isn't its type.

Thats a good point, Is it an offical ruling that you apply damage type changes first before dealing boss damage?

Again I always thought that no two cards are working at the same exact moment, thus imbued fire cannot always be on. Or am I wrong? If I use a power, thats the only card that is in effect while im reading text right? So I wouldnt think imbued fire would be able to effect that card until I have put that cards effect into action, then the modifiers come into play.

I see MTC and Imbued Fire as modifiers which are the same, both are constant, but since MTC was played first, MTC's criteria is applied first and since im still doing projectile damage, I meet that criteriat and get my buff, any changes after that should not alter what has already happened.

I do realize i'm the very slim minority here though and from what I have got out of the Link with adams comments, I don't see anything official, just saying tha he'll follow it up with chris.

Although I do think that if we have a ruling about damage type applying first, that could solve this…possibly.

Great input so far !

The way I see it the MTC a conditional buff that is dependent on the damage being projectile (not just triggered by that fact) so once the damage isn't projectile anymore, the buff no longer applies. You aren't rechecking really, you were just making sure the necessary conditions still apply. 

And ill agree with that IF imbued fire came out before MTC, but since i'm suggesting that if MTC came out before imbued fire, MTC's buff would be applied BEOFRE imbued fire, meaning im still doing projectile damage. As the rulebook states, Simultaneous effects occur in card play order and i'm suggesting both MTC and imbued fire are both modifiers that effect an attack, all that matters is which card order to play them in and the correct answer would be in card play order.

And since my criteria for MTC was met, I get my damage buff regardless if it changes later. If it does change later and you say i LOSE my buff, then why are we looking back at MTC criteria? I guess I dont see damage type and damage amount linked.

The way i see MTC is, in order for my damage to be increased by 2, I have initially deal projectile damage which I would have met that criteria regardless of if that changes later by another modifier.

I hope i'm making sense lol

I guess the difference is that I see this conditional modifiers as being conditional throughout the entire sequence until they are resolved, so if at some point the conditions aren't met, then they disappear. So in my view you aren't looking back at MTC and reapplying the conditions... the conditions never left at all (if that makes sense at all)

You are definitely making sense in what you are saying and I can see your logic in coming to that conclusion, I think if that were the way things were intended, it would make the game a bit too easy since you wouldn't have to worry about these conditional effects canceling each other... and based on other rulings (most notable ruling #15) I feel that the careful balancing of effects and the sometimes delicate interaction between heroes powers and cards is a deliberate part of the game. 

Think of IF as a constant effect (all heroes do fire damage) and the MTC as a conditional modifier (Wraith's Projectile damage is buffed). A constant state will never have to check conditionals, because they'll never be met while the constant state is in effect.

Yeah, the difference is that Wraith's projectile damage isn't changed from projectile to fire, it just is fire right from the time you play the power. It can't get the MTC buff because it was never projectile in the first place. The order in which MTC and IF are played here doesn't matter.

I think this is the main consensus' way of thinking and I can understand that point of view, but what backs that up?

If someone is saying one is a constant and the other is a modifier, what makes one card a constant and one a modifier? personal opinion? context? Are there any constant effects in SoTm or are they all triggers?

and IF there are constants, i'd like to know how I can tell the difference between the two? Like something solid like an icon or text that says so, or else I just kinda see it as speculation.

great discussion and Thanks so far for the input, its really getting me thinking !

Mostly the wording of the cards themselves.

I see, thats kinda why im looking for something more then personal opinion, not to say there is anything wrong with that.  Some see imbued fire as a constant, I see it as something that triggers off everything which is more in line with how every other card plays.

also thanks everyone for at least understanding my point of view.

That may be so, but in this case you have to decide if the attack is fire or projectile. If it's fire, you get the +1 from IF. If it's projectile, you can tap into the MTC. But you can't have it both ways.

I guess I don't understand the idea of losing a cards effect, why does this happen after the cards criteria has been met? where does it say we have to keep meeting that criteria? I haven't really come across a situtation other then this where you actually lose a cards effect (MTC) after you met it's criteria. Also keep in mind that this type of situtation only applies to a certain order of cards played.

Yes, you have.

Every card in the deck is only active if you met the critera of having it in play. When they are not in play you 'lose' the effects.

I think the idea is that Imbued Fire effective replaces all instances of other damage types with Fire. So Throwing Knives to 1 Fire Damage to up to 3 targets now instead of it's regular text. There's no chance for the game to see projectile damage coming from them to increase, because no hero has anything that doesn't deal fire at the time. 

This is an idea of it being a constant effect, which I don't think exists in SoTm. Why is imbued fire a constant effect while most others are triggered? why not imbued fire be a trigger on every damage and act like most other cards in the game? By giving imbued fire a special mechanic, it avoids being qued up with other modifiers and thus doesnt go by the card play order rule, but what gives us reason to play it this way? personal opinion?

and yes matchstickman that is true lol although not related but good point regaredless lol

What makes you think constant effects don't exist?

Good question. Personally, I think they dont exist because of the conflict resolution rule.  It's there to help us seperate simultaneous effects, which if we had constant effects, would cause conflict with this rule.  Also just how the general way the game plays based off the order cards entered play.  The game revolves around cards being "qued" up and played one at a time.

For example, a villian has 3 minions out all with end of turn effects, you dont play them all at once or in any order you choose, you play them in the order they came out. Of course thats all in my own opinion.

I'm with quicksterboy44 in not understanding what "constant effect" means.  I'm totally OK with finding the damage type before the damage amount modifiers, or recomputing damage modifiers if some of their conditions change, but calling the damage type change a "constant effect" doesn't really explain how it works, especially given that the card-played-order rule does affect what happens when Cramped Quarters and Imbued Fire are both in play.

Good example dpt

That's about the only conflict you will find, because IF makes hero attacks fire and CQ makes all attacks melee.

If you remove IF and replace it with CQ you end up with the same situation, only with melee. So again you won't get the MTC because the final damage effect is melee.

Conflict resolution is handled by the play order, not nessesarily the card effects. The rulebook mentions the card play order aspect under the conflict resolution heading even.

"Blah is immune to damage" is a constant effect. 

Imbued Fire basically says "All hero damage is now Fire". MTC says "Increase Wraith's Projectile damage by two". If both cards are out, Wraith isn't dealing Projectile damage, she's dealing Fire damage. Therefore she gets a +1 because her damage is Fire, and Imbued Fire increases all Fire damage by one. I can only think of two ways this could be changed (without Imbued Fire leaving play). Firstly, Visionary could have played Twist the Ether on Wraith. Then she can change Wraith's damage to Projectile, which would benefit from +2 from the MTC and +1 from Twist (unless for some reason Visionary wants to decrease it instead). Secondly, if Cramped-Quarters Combat comes out after Imbued Fire, it changes all damage to Melée. As CQC came out after IF, it will override it. So Wraith still won't get to benefit from her MTC, because now she's doing all Melée damage.

I can't really see why this would be difficult to understand…

Now see thats where I think your wrong and that your reading the card wrong. The card does NOT say "all hero damage is now fire". It says Change the DAMAGE TYPE of DAMAGE DEALT by hero targets to fire.

It does not say All damage types are now fire BEFORE DAMAGE DEALT regardless of other card effects in play.

Yes i do understand damage will be turned to fire When damage is dealt, BUT imbued fire is not some special snowflake and must be qued and played by the order in which all other modifications (simultaneous effects) are in play.

P.s i'm not argueing about damage dealt vs hp lowered thing cause that doesnt really apply, i'm merely using damage dealt to show you that its not "always on" but triggered when an attack is made and thus must be put in que with all other cards.

Then twist the ether and crampe quarter combat will have no effect with imbued fire out because imbued fire will always change anything back to fire if it is a constant effect. You cant argue that you play whichever came out first between the two because then you are saying imbued fire is no longer constant. Its either its a constant which will always override Tte or CQC or its not a constant and you play them all in card play order. ( all meaning ANY card because there is no difference between MTC, Tte, CQC in terms of effects, just criteria)

Also let me point out that the rulebook says that the conflict resolution rule covers BOTH Simultaneous effects (MTC & imbued fire) AS WELL AS competing effects (imbued fire, Tte, & CQC) its all covered.

CQC is a constant effect as well. A conflicting one. When there's two out, the most recent one wins out, hence the need for a ruling in the first place.

It is not a constant effect, there are effects that cover a period of time, like immunity and indestructibility.  You are right that Imbued fire changes the damage type to fire.

This does not allow for boosting a single instance of damage as both projectile and fire.  Because it cannot be both projectile and fire.

Damage reduction does not carry in redirection, because it only protects the target that has it, if damage going to Tachyon is reduced, then redirected to a target that isn't covered by the reduction Tachyon has, then the damage is not reduced by that reduction.  Same with Micro Targetting computer and imbued fire, whenever the damage type is changed conditional modifiers have to be reevaluated, in case the condition of the modification is no longer applicable.

As a point that is a bit away from the discussion, and to repeat my earlier stance:  I believe that optional modifiers like TTE can be applied at will within the time frame of their activation.  If TTE is played, then Imbued fire, then close quarters combat, when the hero with TTE sitting next to their card would deal damage it is changed to fire and then melee, throughout that process it is still in the "would be dealt damage" phase, and I would say that Visionary could choose to wait until both had triggered and resolved before activating the effect of TTE, still in proper timing, since it is still the "would be dealt damage" timing.

The best sense of an order we have is the text "would deal damage" vs. "Deals damage", (or be dealt if it's defensive)  I posted what I think is a pretty good resolution order, I seperated the damage type and amount modifers, simply because it makes it easier to keep straight. I'll repost it here:

1:  Damage Declaration, initial Source, type, amount and target are declared.

2:  Apply changes to damage type.

3:  Apply modifiers to damage based on source and type.

4:  Source of damage steps complete, check for redirection based on source, proceed to target.

5.  If target is immune end damage calculations, no damage is dealt.

6.  Trigger all "would be dealt damage" reduction and redirection effects.

7.  Trigger all "is dealt damage" modifiers.

8,  Reduce targets HP.

Step 5 exists because of an official ruling that you can't redirect damage that the hero is immune to, since they could not be dealt that damage.  Officially inside each step you should go by card order, although on steps 6 and 7 I tend to let the heroes choose the order, because it gets annoying to keep track of which cards were played first, and arguments don't improve the game when someone misremembers.

I love that this thing which we've all taken as true for so long is being challenged and we can't say explicitly why we think it's true.  They're right to be questioning this.

This is actually an interesting point although not specifically in the way you put it. I still say nothing is constant in this game, its all triggered.  Imbued fire even tells you when to apply its effect, again not specifically when damage is dealt (going into the whole boss hp isnt lowered thing) but it pretty much states that when damage is produced, apply this buff.

Both Imbued fire and MTC are applied upon damage dealt (or would be dealt in this case). its written right on the card.

Imbued fire - change the damage type of DAMAGE DEALT by hero targets to fire.

let me reword it, heros who would produce damage, their damage is changed to fire.

Meaning a hero must produce damage for it to be changed. BUT there are many cards that also modifiy that card's damage that MIGHT have come before it like MTC for example.

MTC - increase projection DAMAGE DEALT by wraith by 2.

let me reword it, when wraith would produce projectile damage, increase it by two.

Now let me exlpain cause I know what your already thinking.  I only use the term would produce damage because I dont want to get into the whole issue of "technically if boss hp isnt lowered, damage isnt dealt." because we all know that you apply effects to an attack BEFORE it hits the boss and not after because it would only confuse the game.

Again that is the only reason why I added would produce damage. Both imbued fire and MTC are triggered at the same time, when damage is dealt (produced).

Now CQC is something of a different story, it just says change the type of all damage to melee. It doesnt really state when to apply it, but I still say there cannot be constant effects and since its a "competeing" effect with imbued fire and Tte, it falls into the rule of card play order.

So...Wraith tries to chuck a knife at someone, and the damage is changed to Fire by IF. So now it's Fire damage. The MTC only boosts Projectile damage. Wraith isn't dealing Projectile damage. The MTC does nothing.

So…Wraith tries to chuck a knife at someone, that knife gets boosted by 2 when she chucks it, mid flight it bursts into a flaming knife getting +1 damage…

see what i did there? MTC boosted the attack since MTC was in First, then its further affected by imbued fire.

Why would Wraith (or almost anyone) get bonus damage from IF. IF first says to increase all fire damage, then change the damage type to fire. So when you are dealing damage and looking for increase,s you will look at them in play order. When you get to IF, you see if it is already fire damage. If so increase it, if not, then change it to fire. Once something is applied or doesn't apply, there is nothing that says to recheck it or reapply it.

I am fairly confident that this isn't the intent of the card or how the card works. The only way to have the card work properly as intended is to view the damage increase and rechecking as constant. If so, only IF would apply, and not MTC.

Forgive me pydro, i'm didn't fully understand you post, but I do think the same as you mentioned when once something is applied, nothing says to recheck it.  Imbued fire gives +1 damage increase and then changes all damage dealt to fire.

Update: I think I see what you mean and the main way I can explain that is whenever there is an attack that has or gains the fire damage type, increase it by one. Because it's spaced by itself, it might be considered its own effect.

Since the card doesnt really state once damage is dealt, increase it, i assume the trigger is when a fire type attack has been created. This would work with ra changing an attack to fire even though the +1 fire damage text is before the fire type change text. Of course thats just my opinion.

Great point though, really gets you thinking.

IF effectively changes the Hero's cards so that whatever damage type is printed on the card is overwritten with "Fire damage". It's changed at the source. Not in the middle of the action.

In that thread where Adam says he has to ask Christopher, he does actually rule about the order of IF:

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/1022#comment-1022

He says they are static modifiers that are always in effect.

We then ahve the post where he says he will double check with Christopher:

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/1031#comment-1031

However, later on, he gives some more rulings that precisely answer this issue without questioning it:

First, if something changes the type from IF, you will lose the damage bonus:

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/1049#comment-1049

Finally, someone asked outright about MTC and IF:

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/1302#comment-1302

He says that you do not get both bonuses.

EDIT: I wanted to add that there has been an official ruling on this, but the thread got lost when the forum switched over. Here are 2 threads from BGG that talk about the official ruling and link to the old threads, which just go to the main forum page now.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/817510/ra-and-wraith

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/739625/cramped-quarters-effect-on-damage-types

I believe hes regarding the effects of +1 to fire and change type to fire will always happen regardless of order written on the card. They are static effects meaning they will TRIGGER anytime damage is dealt.

I can see this solving the issue but my only concern is it doesn't state if this is including the possibly of MTC being played before imbued fire. but I could very well be nit-picking.

again possibly, I can definitely see that they could very well be saying that, personally I just wasn't sure if it was made an official ruling where the rule was clearly stated. Possibly something addressing that the player would very well end up losing the +2 bonus even if that card was played before imbued fire. Again take it as you like, I'd personally just like to see the rule clearly stated i guess if thats the case of it being answered in that thread. But again thats just me as the matter can be confusing.

good find although again maybe something stated would be good to have. One thread ends with it saying that it probably comes down to card play order and in that threads case, CQC taking precidence over other mods would be more akin to a house rule. As you said, the links in the other thread just go back to the main forum page.

Good points to make all around though

Honestly, I think that you have to say that his situation is talking about MTC being played first. AS you have shown, there would be no question at all if MTC was played after IF. Therefore, the only question is what happens if it is played first, and it cleary says that Wraith will be losing the damage bonus.

However, I think the point of this answer also answers the question. The order doesn't matter at all. You only follow card order when there is a conflict. As per this answer, damage types and damage buffs do not happen at the same time. Therefore, you do not go buff-> Type -> buff, but rather the order is always type -> buff. In this case, it doesn't matter what card was played first, since the damage type change on IF will always precede any buff (which also clearly answers why the order on IF doesn't matter).

Its always a strong point when a dev says something and I dont' want to try to discuss a reasoning behind it but if thats the case, again i'd like a clear ruling written rather then agreeing with a hypothetical situtation.

I guess my stance would be 2 cards, regardless of what they do, that have the same trigger (trigger on damage dealt) should be resolved per card order.  I guess they could say damage type > damage increase but again when would you apply the buffs and in what order? If two cards have the same trigger, why do we give imbued fire a special priority? If it really is damage type > damage increase regardless of card order then i'd like a statement  stating something like "regardless of card play order (so it can override the rule) any card that changes damage type will get priority over any other card that would have beenplayed before it"

Again I, personally think if this thread does indeed answer it, then i'd like a clear ruling.

There are problems with solving everything by card order, like Fixer's rivetting crane.  If Voss is out and you are doing advanced and all hero daage is reduced by one, then Voss's card was clearly out first, so should we reduce the damage first, then make it irreducible?  What about powers?  Do they get the timing of the card they are on, or the time they are activated?

A lot of situations can't be solved by the card order rule.

I think the best result is to try and resolve them in a fashion that is quick, consistent, and doesn't ruin the feel of the game.

I don't at all keep strictly to card order when things get complicated or ambiguous.

I tend to rely a lot more on the rule after the card order one:  When timing is ambiguous the players choose the order.

I allow damage reduction from Pipe Wrench before driving mantis redirects, regardless of play order.  None of my play group likes keeping track of play order, so outside of villain and environment (which are easy to keep straight) we don't follow that rule.  If Tempest has shielding winds and Fixer has pipe wrench and driving mantis and IL would deal Fixer 5 damage, it's coming back at him, I don't care which cards were played when.

Honestly if your group would rather be able to fling flaming galvanized throwing knives that can take advantage of her MTC and get twisted mid-flight into dealing Sonic damage go for it.  I don't think any of the creators of this game would really care all that much.

Card play order applies to stuff that would happen at the same time like attack modifications. Powers are not simultaneous.

Some of us just can't be arsed with trying to work out which hero cards were played in what order. I certainly can't, especially between heroes. Also, I like to have my cards laid out in an order that makes sense to me (eg the Adept has his instruments, then Harmonies, then Melodies, then Rhythms, regardless of when I actually played them) so I don't get confused. The villain and environment decks, fine - like Phantaskippy said, they're easy to keep track of and I certainly do that. And likewise, if you want to interpret the wordings of the cards so you get multiple buffs somehow stacking at the same time because you have more fun that way, then go right ahead - if no-one in your gaming group is a member of the forum I don't expect they'd notice ;).

I lay the cards out from left to right as I play them.

I meant effects of powers, like Wraiths stealth or Legacy's galvanize, where do they trigger in relation to card play order?

Thats a good point, I would assume player turn order, at least thats how i've always saw it.

Also one quick note, i'm not trying to be the villian on these forums (no pun intended), i'm merely asking why we actually play this card like we do and trying to promote discussion on a question I found interesting. I hope I havent come off as rude to anyone, its not my intention.

Also one quick note, i'm not trying to be the villian on these forums (no pun intended), i'm merely asking why we actually play this card like we do and trying to promote discussion on a question I found interesting. I hope I havent come off as rude to anyone, its not my intention.

Not at all man, they are good questions to ask, one of the great things about htis game is it attracts all types of players.  Some of us just want to play the game and have fun, others aren't really happy unless they know they are playing the game the way it was intended, and some of us just love to argue and debate.

Thinking in terms of a 1) Cards effect and 2) How that effect triggers is the best way to look at this game in general.

If there are triggered effects that happen simultaniously (like multiple end of turn triggered effects for example) then card order matters. Any other time and card order has no impact. 

Attack modifications are not simultanious, unless they are part of a trigger condition for that effect. For instance, Legacy has Surge of Strength and Inspiring Presence. Both are attack modifications of +1 damage. Now if we read the card, there is no condition that must be met to activate that +1 damage (in other words, nothing like "if X happens, do Y" where X is the trigger condition and Y is the effect). It can be understood then that the trigger for the effect is the act of playing the card. Once you play a card like Surge of Strength, the triggered effect now takes hold and all Legacy's damage is increased by 1. Since there is no explicit end point listed on the card, it is understood that the effect is consistant as long as the card remains in play. 

Back to Imbued Fire and Micro Targeting Computer/Razor Ordinance. Lets break down these 3 cards in terms of card effects and the triggers for those effects.

Imbued Fire. Increase all fire damage from heros by 1. Like SoS, there is no conditional trigger, so the effect triggers instantly upon playing, and because there is nothing limiting the duration of the effect, it is constant as long as the card remains in play. The effect has a limitation however in that the damage delt needs to be fire. The second part changes all hero damage to fire type. This is also an effect with no conditional trigger or expressed end point so it behaves the same way.

Micro Targeting Computer says to increase projectile damage delt by Wraith by 2. Like SoS there is no conditional trigger for the effect, so it happens instantly upon playing it. MTC also has a limitation similar to the first part of Imbued Fire in that that damage delt must be projectile.

Razor Ordinace has a Power. During a Heros power phase, that hero my activate one Power, acting as the trigger condition for that Power's effect. Razor Ordinace lets you deal 3 projectile damage to one target.

Let's say that all 3 of these cards are in play during a particular game. It's Wraiths turn and shes looking to do some damage. So Wraith needs to trigger an effect that deals damage. This is where the first big distinction comes in. Razor Ordinance must be triggered after the effects of IF and MTC are in play.

Lets read the Power. Wraith deals one target 3 projectile damage. If you read the power like this, you have already made a mistake. Imbued Fire is already changing all hero damage to fire. So as you are reading her powers and deciding what to use, you would not even read the word "projectile" as you are replacing it with "Fire" the instant Imbued Fire hits the field. That is the second big distinction. You can't trigger the effect of Razor Ordinance before Imbued Fire has already changed the damage type.

Now Wraith chooses to use that power, so she triggers that power's effect. Now that she is dealing fire damage, she is within the other effect of Imbued Fire and increases that fire damage by 1. 

It makes no difference whether or not MTC or IF were in play first. Why? For starters, the two effects we are specifically looking at here (the +2 projectile damage and the change all damage to fire) are not simultaniously triggered, so there is the first big tip off. The other big reason here is the fact that if a hero, at any time, fails to meet the criteria for an effect, they loose that effect. Even if you thought the +2 projectile damage is applied before Imbued Fire changes the type, as soon as Wraith is no longer dealing projectile damge, MTC stops buffing as well since you no longer meet the criteria to benefit from it (that criteria being doing projectile damage). 

Thanks, Foote, for the patient explanation - I think for the first time I understand what "constant effect" is supposed to mean.  I'm still not sure I like that interpretation, though.   If one is to create a category of "constant effects", then you need to decide for each effect whether it is "constant" or not, and that just seems hard based on the text of the cards.

This alternate description makes more sense to me:

I know how to re-evaluate conditions like that…  On the other hand, sometimes you can't sensibly lose an effect (as in the conditional damage redirection examples).

I don't quite agree, if you have 1 attack being modded as soon as that attack is produced but before hp villan hp is lowered, there must be a set order to apply mods. Heres an example

Card A increases atk by 1. Card B increases atk by 2. End results will always be 3. Which order do you apply them? My answer would be in the order they came out. If Card B came out first then the initial atk would be increased by 2, then again by 1.

I understand what you mean, its the same as the example I used eariler for CQC, but I think an attack must be initiated before it can be modded, do you agree? So in essence, SOS, while not stating any trigger, must, by default, trigger when an attack is initiated right? That default trigger would most likely be damage dealt, thus being in the same category as MTC and IF, which do indeed have the same trigger, both happen on damage dealt.

I'd like to point out that it does indeed have a trigger, it says change it on damage dealt (aka damage must be produced FIRST in order to change it) that means no changing card text theory. This is the same as MTC, both apply on damage dealt.

I would argue that it does as stated above.

I agree and in the situtation I am discussing, in which MTC came out Before IF, my attack is still projectile (because we dont apply IF yet because both are attack mods that trigger on damage dealt.) meeting MTC's requirement.

To make this similar to the scenario im talking about, we'll say the card play order is MTC, IF , RO. lets continue.

This is an interesting way to think about it, but I'd say your already wrong, MTC and IF trigger on Damage Dealt, its written on the card. If a power is being used, damage has not yet been "produced" meaning you do not apply attack mod. I'd say in general, modifications to an attack happen AFTER you use a power, not before, but thats my opinion. I still will hold true to the fact that damage must be "produced" in order for MTC and IF to mod it.

This would fall into my arguement above. Again IF says to change damage to fire when damage is DEALT, you cannot change before or while someone is doing the attack. Your arguement would create an infinite look with CQC and IF because you cant give special preference to one set of card and not apply it to all cards.

Also the rulebook does acknowledge a difference between "simultaneous effects" and "competeing effects".  "competeing effects" means for example, all cards that state "at the start", "in the end", and two cards that state "change X to Y" within them would all compete with each other.

"Simultaneous effects" are different effects that happen at the same time. For example, increase atk by 1, chanage atk to fire, increase atk by 2, change atk to melee.

All would be resolved by card order. I like to use legacy's power as an example because its a power that mods atks. So you'd always apply his atk mod first regardless if its really important to the situtation or not.

For example, If I do an atk of 1, chrono ranger makes the boss take 1 damage more, and legacy's power increases damage by 1 the end result would be 3, BUT the exact order of mods would be, my atk produces the first damage of 1, legacy (since his character card will always come before a hero card) will increase it by 1, and Chrono ranger makes the villan take one more making a total of 3 would be the exact order of buffs.

This example is CLEARLY supported by the rules in the rulebook and is an example of "simultaneous effects" which is consistant with MTC and IF.

I argue the exact opposite, you cant trigger an atk mod before the atk is made. But thats my opinion so please show evidence from the rulebook or somthing to support your theory. It's a very interesting way to think about !

This is another point i've come across, but WHY would you check MTC to see if im STILL meeting its criteria, once I have met a cards criteria, I get my buff, I no longer have to continue to meet that criteria.

Sorry for the long post, I do appriciate your input on the matter Foote.

Nevermind. :)

The +/- damage mods are not triggered by an attack. There are effects that have damage delt as a trigger and you can tell by the way they word it as the sentence structure will clearly indicate a cause/effect relationship.

The +/- mods are just there passively augmenting all damage you do. Yes, I to see the fruits of the effect you must initiate an attack, but the card does not indicate that as a trigger. So you are sort of posing an imaginary trigger condition there to fit your interptetation, which is fine, but its not really backed up by anything. 

You also just made up the "competing" and "simultaneous" effect definitions and tried to pass it off like the rulebook defines both of them in the way you describe. I assume you were looking at page 8 in the EE rulebook. In which case it absolutely does not say what you say it does. What page were you on?

A competing effect, by the way, are effects that are at odds with each other. Change all damage to toxic and change all damage to fire would be competing effects as they both can not possibly both be true at the same time (damage can't be two types at once). How do multiple start of turn effects "compete"? Those are simultaneous. Where did you pull those definitions from?

if they are not triggered, then I assume your saying they are passive/constant? If so then you'd still play them in the order they came out, After an attack is made, and in card order. My arguement is the wording on MTC and IF happen at the same time whether you want to call them triggered or passive is not the point, they both mod an attack at the same time just in different ways.

If your talking about cards that say "if damage is delt this way to the target, do X", im not referring to that kind of damage dealt, im merely using damage dealt on the cards as an example of saying they 1) happen at the same time. 2) happen before the boss takes damage.

And ya, your right the simultaneous and competeing was in my own opinion, but again we're discussing semantrics because I still think both MTC and IF happen at the same time regardless of how you put it, if Imbued fire is "constant" then MTC is "constant" however you want to call it, fact of the matter is you still would apply them in card order.

"Damage dealt" within the game also has two definitions.

Damage that will be dealt if the attack is successful,

and

The amount of damage taken from an attack.

IF is effectively saying that any damage you are attempting to inflict will be Fire damage.

I agree with you Greywind about the damage definiton but what defines a successful attack? I'd say its Hp reduction regardless of damage type because even without MTC, you dont subtract base damage just because you changed damage type right? Also you'd still apply MTC before IF, why would you not?

Why are we talking about a successful attack? Whether the attack is successful or not is immaterial, the damage is fire regardless of whether any HP is actually reduced on the target of not.

...

And thinking about it HP reduction does not define a successful attack, Stun bolt can be a successful attack which inflicts 0 points of damage, the damage reduction kicks in whether or not HP is reduced.

So you're suggesting the following process:

1) Start damage-dealing process

2) Check damage type

3) Apply appropriate buff(s)

4) Check if damage type needs to be changed, e.g. with IF or CQC or TTE or similar

5) Apply buffs that weren't appropriate before, but are now

And the general consensus before this was:

1) Start damage-dealing process

2) Check damage type, change if neccessary due to IF or CQC or TTE or similar

3) Apply appropriate buff(s)

In my opinion, when in doubt the simpler option is probably better. Buffing shouldn't happen at different times during the damage process, it should happen just before the damage is applied to the target.

Very much agree, Silverleaf.

im suggesting that it goes, attack is produced - attack is modded by cards in their respective play order - end result connects to villian

Because the designers have outright said that you don't. To quote from this thread again:   https://greaterthangames.com/comment/1301#comment-1301

And Adam's response:

I know you have said that this doesn't count because they didn't said outright the following, "if you have MTC out first, you do not get the bous damage," Honestly, I don't see how this could even slightly not answer the question. Damage type is decided first .

There have also been official ruling before. The links might be gone. but there are many people saying that this is an official ruling.

This might  add some confusion. If it isn't straight forward here, where else is the rule different? The answer, follow the rules until someone says otherwise. In this case someone has said otherwise.

One things I would add, is that you keep referencing the rulebook as the only source for rulings. Unfortuanately, the rulebook is not always correct. There are some things the rulebook leaves out, and even some things that are misleading. 

Honestly, it doesn't really matter. If you want to play with those rules, fine. Have a great time, and enjoy the game.

I didn't say I don't think it counts, actually when a dev rules something its the end of the discussion.  I insinuated that I didn't think they clearly wrote out the ruling in that thread.

Quicksterboy44, I don't quite understand your attitude.  Are you trying to understand how the designers intended for the cards to be played?  If so, we've been given multiple sources that say that Wraith does not get the MTC bonus when IF is in play, regardless of card-played order.  I'm thinking of the problem as trying to understand why this is so, to come up with a consistent set of rules that acheive this result.  (I can think of several such rules.)  What you're proposing would be a sensible interpretation, but it is evidently not what was intended by the designers.

Holy double negatives!

I'm not sure I don't know what you are not saying

pretty much this, why do we play IF > all other effects?

the best answer I think I got was from the dev thread posted.  Though its not clearly stated, the best thing I can make from it is that the ruling says when an attack is made, you take all mods into consideration but do not apply them, figure out what the end damage type will be, then apply all mods as long as they meet the criteria of the end damage type.

Is it their intention to make damage type take prescedence over other cards regardless of when they were played?

Actually I dont think thats a double negative, but I did put "didn't" instead of "not". Nevermind.

IF takes precedence over cards like MTC regardless of play order because MTC is a very specific and situational modifier. It increases projectile and only projectile damage. If the Wraith is not dealing projectile damage then the modifier no longer applies. All modifiers are taken into account before the damage is actually dealt, and so if MTC is played first, then you would add the two projectile, then take it away and 1 damage from the IF modifier.

The boost from MTC isn't like Legacy's Galvanized. It applies only to a particular damage type. You don't get to keep the boost if you're not dealing projectile anymore.

Picture it this way. Wraith's got a target in her sights and with help from her MTC, is going to hit in a vital spot with one of her knives, but then the Knives are suddenly on fire which completely throws off the calculations of the MTC which is unable to accurately predict or accomadate for supernatural meddling meaning that Wraith can no longer rely on it for her attack.

The best way around this would be to put a Twist the Ether on Wraith after an Imbued Fire is played, that way Visionary could switch the damage type to projectile after IF switched it to Fire.

I don't think you can give an attack the buff, then take it away once something changes it damage later, you either give it the buff regardless of what happens later or like I said above about what the dev might be ruling, once an attack is initiated, evaluate all the buffs it will get, apply the end damage type result, then apply the amount of damage it'll do based on the last damage type result regardless of the order.

MTC does not change Wraith's damage type, it only increases projectile damage done by her. Imbued Fire changes all damage to fire. Wraith is no longer doing projectile, so the boost no longer applies. The boost from the MTC isn't being taken away, it just no longer applies. All of her projectile damage is still being increased by 2, but as soon as she's doing damage other than Projectile, it can't help her.

I can understand the initial confusion, I had some myself, but the logic for it makes sense.

You don't think you can have a buff then lose it? I'd love to see where in the rulebook or in any previous official ruling where you found such an Idea. You are pretty married to it, so it much have a strong basis somewhere?

Maybe it would help to think of MTC as an aura that always affects Wraith.  At no point is she not affected by it (as long as MTC is in play).  She always gets "+2 to projectile damage".  No matter how many times her damage type may change, that aura (aka, constant effect) is always affecting her.  At the end of the day, that bonus will or won't be applied based on the final damage type.  Technically, it will or won't apply at any given moment of the entire resolution process based on the damage type.

Imagine if IF and MTC are in play and Wraith uses her "hit 3 targets for 1 projectile damage" power, she'll deal 2 fire damage to each.  But what if the first target she hits is killed and has a "when this card is destroyed, destroy one hero ongoing card" and IF is the only valid target?  Her damage we'll go back to being projectile and she'll deal 3 damage to the remaining two targets because MTC's effect's condition is being met again.  There is no trigger evaluation here.  You aren't re-evaluating triggers.  MTC has none.  It is a constant effect with a condition.

Now imagine a villian had an ongoing that read "If the villian is dealt 5 or more fire damage, redirect that damage to the hero target with the lowest health.  If the villian is dealt 4 fire damage, change that damage to projectile damage."  Wraith with IF+MTC using RO (3 projectile damage) would deal 4 fire damage, so it avoids the first trigger, but not the second.  However, because the second makes the damage projectile damage, MTC's constant effect applies because its condition is now met.  In this case, both's IF's +1 fire-only AND MTC's +2 projectile-only modifiers were important to the resolution.

What makes you say that?

I don't like the damage type alterations just sitting there with a passive effect, I don't think that really makes sense, and muddles the whole multiple damage changing types, because if there is no trigger, the effects can't be simultaneous, and card order isn't invoked, so how would Imbued Fire and Cramped Quarters resolve?

It makes more sense to say that the dsigners basically added a step in the process where damage type changes occur, and it is before +/- modifiers occur.  Therefore all damage type changes would be simultaneous and resolved by card order, then you would move on to  +/- modifiers.

I think that works better than trying to create a new category of effects that don't have to trigger once they are played.

I agree with the results, but not the terminology.

It seems like we are at this pont a lot.

The trigger is someone attempting to deal damage, the effect is changing the type.  I would argue that the card does not effect the hero until they try to deal damage.  Otherwise would you be able to play Imbued Fire if someone had Isolated hero out, since it effects the isolated hero?  (I'm sorry for bringing that up, but it shows how my thoughts run and why I resolve things the way I do)

If you are processing cards in the order they come out and IF is not a static bonus then Hero damage is NEVER increased by 1, because you process cards in the order they are written, the fire increase is listed first and the damage type change is listed second, so their MUST be passive, always on, always checking effects in the game, the card doesn't work as the designers have said it does on multiple occassions if you either process cards in the new manner suggested or it is not a continually on, passive effect.

The very thread linked to states this.

Adam also says that you do lose bonuses from specfic damage type increase in that self same thread, so you must reevaluate bonus and negatives each time something changes the damage e.g. it changes to a new type.

There is nothing muddled. No trigger. Correct. But they are "competing" effects, and we can still turn to play order when two effects are totally contradictory. So if there was a card in play that changed all damage to melee and one that changed all damage to fire, it cant be both at the same time correct? So the final damage type is determined by play order. If Imbued Fire was out second, it would over ride Cramped Quarters and become fire damage. If Cramped Quarters was out second, it would all be melee. 

 Damage type changes are already resolved by card order because they are competing. In the EE rulebook, simultanious triggers and competing effects are stated to be resolved through card order (page 8). There is no "new category" of effect. It is an effect with no explicit trigger, which leads to the conclusion that its trigger is when the card is played. This is no different than how a One-Shot works mechanically, yet those are not "new effect categories". One-Shots have effects but have no explicit trigger. The only difference here is that Imbued Fire is an ongoing, so its effect is also ongoing (the keyword makes more sense now huh?) where as a One-Shot moves to the trash. 

No. You are 100% pulling that trigger from thin air. A conditional trigger for an effect is stated through a sentence structure that poses a cause/effect relationship. You are twisting a gramatical nessesity in the sentence by saying that Imbued Fire and Micro Targeting Computer have triggers. They have a requirement with the effects, but that is not the same thing as an effect trigger. There is a difference between "When you deal damage, change it to fire" and "change all damage delt to fire". One is cause/effect. One is just effect. A Cause = A Trigger. You cant make up a trigger thats not there.

Why wouldn't you be able to play Imbued Fire with Isolated Hero out? Iso Hero does not prevent you from playing cards. Whoever is Isolated just never gets their damage turned to fire and doesnt get the +1 fire damage buff. Really not rocket science here. 

Heres my villian example I posted eariler in the thread. This is an example of meeting a card's criteria, having the criteria not met later in the same phase and not rechecking.

• Warlord Voss is in play with 14 minions out. At the start if 15 minions are out the game is over.

• environment turn : card comes out saying at the start of each turn, play the top card of the villan deck.

• villian turn: Since voss was in play first, his start effect goes off first as stated in the rulebook. Voss checks and has 14 minions out so the criteria is not met.

• Start effect of environment card then plays, Voss gets a minion.

Now Voss would not RECHECK his start effect EVEN though it still is considered the Start Phase, which would end the game because its not stated to do so. I put this example to back up my theory that you would not RECHECK to see if criterias are being met on a card UNLESS it says to do so of course.

Right, because Voss has completed the check-win-condition and we have moved on to the next 'action'; the attack is a single 'action' that has not yet completed, it is still being (re-)calculated

And again, look at IF, with your understanding the only way the heroes would ever get the +1 for fire damage is if the card/power they were using said fire damage on the printed card, because the +1 to fire damage comes before the 'turn hero damage to fire' clause, and that is clearly not how the designers have ruled that it works.

I related this way of thinking to all cards because I figured all cards play the same.  My idea was that if the boss's check to win criteria gets checked only once, then MTC's criteria only gets checked once. I just apply the same logic to everything, but I guess that isn't the case, I guess i'll see what the devs ruling will be.

This was already explained by Adam which stands even with my way of thinking in the dev thread posted in here. Heres the quote

Keep in mind this is only referring to the order IF is written in.

I brought up the definitions because it seems that it is being read one way when it, obviously to some, means the other.

quiksterboy, you are having a complete terminological disconnect with the rest of the boards.

I will try one more time to say what we are trying to say:

What we are saying is that the situations you keep bringing up are fundamentally different from the situation with Imbued Fire and Micro-Targeting Computer. IF and MTC are mutually exclusive. MTC has a condition on it that must be fulfilled. IF prevents it from fulfilling that condition. So MTC goes away when IF is out.  The card play timing is for resolving *contradictions in timing*; things that have to go in a specific order in order for their effects to be resolved (like multiple instances of damage targeting the highest HP hero).

These cards do not have anything on them to suggest they go at a "time" nor do they truly contradict each other; they are just on. If MTC said to convert Wraith's damage to Projectile and buff it, then you'd need to check it against IF for timing. It doesn't say that. As written, you don't check them in order; you apply them all and sort out what conditions are involved at the end of the attack. There is no "timing," there is no "rechecking." You deal with the stuff on the table and go. If some of it is directly contradictory and clearly has to be timed - then go in card play order, and then resolve by player choice if that doesn't work.

I will concede that it is possible I have been playing Voss wrong, and a card acting to make him fulfill his win condition at the start of the villain turn would make him win. I have always played those checks as an action taken by the bad guy, and I did this in a game with Christopher, so I expect my understanding is correct, but I see the contradiction you have pointed out and it may require some rewording of cards. That happens in games sometimes, unfortunately.

That said, and I mean you no personal attack, all you seem to have done on this thread is repeat the same point, sometimes with different examples, sometimes with all caps for emphasis. That isn't a discussion; that's a tirade. I encourage you to consider the points brought up here and to not post again until you have something new to add. Thank you.

No, that's a basic ruling for all such ongoing static effects, you don't process them in the order of the card after they are 'turned on', they are always on.

This is a bad example.

Voss's extra win condition has a specified trigger (that trigger is "At the start of the Villain turn"). Once you trip that trigger the first time, the trigger would need to be tripped again for it to go off. You only get one "start of turn" phase each turn. Meaning the trigger for that particular effect only trips once per turn. Do you see the error in your reasoning?

Imbued Fire and MTC do not have triggers. Again, there is no cause/effect relationship in the sentence structure of those cards. It is all effect.  Since the effect has no trigger, it is understood as static. We have thrown around the term "static effects" before on the forum, and I think thats a better descriptor to use than "constant". 

That aside, the Voss example is no where close to the question thefryguy asked. What was in question was your statement that once you gain a buff, you do not lose it. Well, Voss's win condition check is a far cry from the static damage mods we were talking about . Do you really think you are comparing apples to apples here? If you do, that is absurd

I agree with this. It's the same logic that says that we check "End of Turn" effects on cards that are brought in during the end of a turn.

Ya, im not going to aruge with a little kid who tries to bash others point of view. I'm just going to happily sit back, see what the original ruling turns out to be and enjoy the game.

This is a very good way to simplify the entire thing. You summed up my thoughts in a much better way than I have been doing. 

Ok i'll try to see things from your guys point of view. What is the condition that must be met?

Might wanna grab a drink before you sit down cause you will be waiting a long time then. First off, its already been ruled. You just do not like the ruling. I doubt >G has the time to re-rule something that only you have an issue with.

Second, there is no argument here and I am not bashing your point of view. I pointed out that you are comparing very different things and now I guess you're butthurt over it. Sorry bud, but we are not dealing with opinions here about your feelings of something. We are explaining to you why we have the ruling we do and how the mechanics of the game support that ruling. 

Go play however you want to play and have fun man. Seriously. Thats what the game is about and if you want to interpret some rules your way, go ahead.  But if you want to do that, do not come to the forum. Here, there is going to be a correct way to play and an incorrect way. You have been incorrect. 

Being projectile damage is a requirement for the +2. IF turning all damage to Fire prevents the damage from being projectile, preventing the damage from gaining the +2

lol your making yourself look like a fool, This thread was made from a different question originally and a "pending rule" was already posted in the pending rule section that came from this thread. You really are making yourself look bad and I feel sorry for ya.

Ah, and the name calling begins! The tell tale signs of losing an argument are easy to spot. 

Can we scale this back a little, folks?  The fact that so many people need to make multi-paragraph long posts about this subject to explain why the "Resolve in order the cards are played" ruling has to be interpreted in a very specific way to be considered "correct" tells me that this question needed to be asked and clarified in the first place.  It sounds like we all know the conclusion, but are trying very hard to figure out the premises.  This conversation has appeared quite civil up until recently, so can we try to maintain the amazing netiquette that the >G forums are known for?  Please?

The "resolve in order of play" ruling only applies to competing (read: contradictory) and simultanious effects. It says so right in the rulebook. That is not whats in question here.

The question is what effects are simultanious. Now this debate about MTC and IF is rediculous because the effects of these cards are not simultanious and they do not contradict eachother.

Simple. Easy. Clean. Now the reason for those long paragraphs are a totally separate matter. It has nothign to do with this needing clarifying. Its pretty clear.

^ This. Voice of reason. 

To be fair, quikstarboy does seem to bring a fair point to the discussion. Even in the earlier posts, he stated that he's just looking for official answers to these debated questions. Given how heated this back-and-forth deliberation is beginning to slide down a slippery slope and the fact that this is currently one of the most active threads with 100+ posts on this question, I would imagine that we would receive answers to this soon. I would also expect that the >G is quite busy with convention season to write a detailed outline of their vision (designer intent) for how these things were supposed to interact.

It's just a game. There is indeed human error when playing a great game, but thats what makes it a great game. 

Destruction at 0hp is a constant, passive effect.  It does have a trigger, just like anything changing damage has a trigger.  One-shots are activated when they enter play, the triggering effect is the card entering play.  If it does not enter play the effect does not occur, if it does enter play the effect occurs, the action that causes the effect to happen is called a trigger.

Also, there is no such thing as an effect without a cause.  That's simple metaphysics, there cannot be an effect with no cause.

Also the rulebook does not state that competing effects are resolved by card play order, it states:

In all situations, card effects that happen simultaneously occur in the order in which the cards entered play.

In order to be resolved by card order, it has to be an effect that happens simultaneously.  That's why you resolve damage changes first, they are effects that are resolved simultaneously, thus by card order.  They do not change the wording on cards, they change the damage that a hero is trying to deal to a different type.  Whether you call it a triggered effect or not, it is an effect that changes damage, and they all happen simultaneously when you declare damage being dealt.

Okay, first, thank you for the voices of reason on this thread. Decent and civil conversation is great. Insulting others is not.

I was really hoping mods wouldn't need to get involved in this. Please don't make it come to that more than it already has.

Please continue.

/agree.

I'm not sure what's left to discuss here.  I totally understand why the initial question was raised, because there's nothing in the rulebook about static or constant effects, and it's not necessarily intuitive how to handle them.  But the explanation has been given for how to handle them, backed up by posts from the game's creators.  Nobody has to follow those rules if they don't like them.  Why are we still arguing about this?  ;)

Where is the idea coming from the effect triggers when you declare damage? Is the effect non exist the instant before you declare then?

Its a constant buff that's always on regardless of whether you are dealing damage or not. You are inserting an element of timing that does not need to be there. There is no timing to the effect. 

To illustrate my point, lets take wraith who just entered her power phase. MTC is in play along with RO and Eyepiece. Before I chose which power to use, RO is still benefiting from MTC and will read as 5 damage instead of 3. As the devs have been quoted as saying, those damage mod effects are always "on" and your interpretation requires the effect to be off at some point (triggering an always on effect is like saying you flipped a switch on that was already flipped. It makes no sense). 

We agree that the effect has to be triggered somehow. I get the metaphysical thing. But I am saying that in the case of static effects like IF and MTC, the effect triggers when the card is played and is always on afterward which is consistent with dev thoughts and doesn't require forum brewed concepts like "declaring damage". 

To illustrate my point, lets take wraith who just entered her power phase. MTC is in play along with RO and Eyepiece. Before I chose which power to use, RO is still benefiting from MTC and will read as 5 damage instead of 3. As the devs have been quoted as saying, those damage mod effects are always "on" and your interpretation requires the effect to be off at some point (triggering an always on effect is like saying you flipped a switch on that was already flipped. It makes no sense). 

We agree that the effect has to be triggered somehow. I get the metaphysical thing. But I am saying that in the case of static effects like IF and MTC, the effect triggers when the card is played and is always on afterward which is consistent with dev thoughts and doesn't require forum brewed concepts like "declaring damage". 

I think I may be coming across more strongly than I intend.

A passive effect isn't doing anything, it has to activate to change what is going on.  There has to be a time where players look around at the board and calculate modifiers to damage.  At that point they are changing the damage type, adding or subtracting, etc.  They are activating the passive effect, the idea that the damage on the card is already 5 may work if this were a video game, but the card text doesn't change, and the modifier has to be calculated by the players at some point.

I don't like the passive effect description because it sounds (to me at least) that those aren't effects that are going off, and then the whole resolve simultaneous card effects by card order seems contrived.  A passive effect needs to be activated to do anything, or maybe used would be a better term?

It seems much more to me like a passive effect would be just like the destroy 0hp rule, it is always there, and it activates whenever something reaches, or is at 0 hp or less, it doesn't have to be triggered by damage or card play, it activates if the condition is met, and if conditions change before resolution, the effect can change, like healing above 0hp while indestructible, or changing damage type with TtE making damage no longer receive a conditional modifier.

I know those are very different events, but I hope you can understand what I mean.  I understand what the devs are intending, I just think their language is leading to too much confusion where a simplified form that could be nicely turned into a timing list would solve many things.

"Start of Turn" is a phase. If status changes during that phase, it is still during the "Start of Turn".

You go through any and all things that happen at the start of a turn. You don't do the first one, and since it is now no longer "Start of Turn" because something happened, skip the rest.

If Voss draws during the start of his turn, bringing out the 15th minion, then it is still the start of Voss' turn, and he will win.

That’s a good question. I don’t yet understand the precise way in which static and constant effects are handled is quite clear to me, and I think I see disagreement even among long-time players on this. The discussion has gotten fairly bogged down in generalities, without enough connection to specific examples. For damage modifications in general, I don’t think the following questions have been definitively answered that I’ve seen:

• As arenson9 posted in the Pending Rulings thread, if Cramped Quarters, Imbued Fire, and Twist the Ether are all in play, how does the order in which these cards were played affect the eventual damage type?
• As phantaskippy asked earlier in the thread, if Legacy has out Superhuman Durability and Fortitude and is dealt exactly 5 damage, how much is it reduced by, and does it depend on the order in which the two cards were played?

The following question has (in my opinion) been definitively settled, but needs to be accounted for. (It would nice to see this added to some FAQ, like your list, Spiff.)

• If Multi-Targetting Computer and Imbued Fire are both out and Wraith uses (say) Throwing Knives, how much is the damage boosted by? [Answer: +1, from Imbued Fire but not MTC.]

I haven’t seen disagreement on the following point (raised by phantaskippy), but I also don’t know where the definitive answer is.

• If Fixer has Pipe Wrench and Praying Mantis and is attacked with an attack of strength exactly 3, can he redirect it, and how much damage is redirected? Does it depend on the order the cards were played? [Proposed answer: Yes, it is redirected, as an attack of strength 3, losing the defensive bonus from Pipe Wrench.]

If the last point is really settled as I said above, it does seem to imply that one rechecks conditions in some conditions.

I’d be curious to see how different people would answer these specific questions. But I’m also open to just giving the whole thing a rest for now.

No offense, Greywind, but Foote's right. I've had conversations with Christopher on this, also, and (unless I grossly misunderstood our conversations) he's been very clear: Voss checks first (as he was in play first) and doesn't re-check. Triggers then move on to the next card played, and so on.

They are meant to be triggers, and each happens in order. Once it's triggered, it doesn't go back and re-check the trigger condition.

Yep.

Yep.

Nope.

For a start it's 10 minions, don't be making Voss any easier than he already is!

Secondly, you look at each card in the order that they entered play and process any effects on them in the order they are printed on the cards*. NOTHING can make Voss play an additional card in the villain start of turn phase before you look at his card to process his start of turn effects, because Voss (and the Heroes) are the first things that enter the game.

• e.g. if Voss was on his Super-Thorian Warrior side and had two minions in play  and Absolute Zero had  Subzero Atmosphere in play,  Voss' flip condition would flip him before he would deal damage; you would check his S-TW side flip condition, flip him, check his CAW side flip condition, then finally check his win condition, because that is the order the affects are printed on his card.

That method keeps Voss from getting an auto win if Forced Deployment goes off and pulls out ten or more minions simply because the heroes didn't have ongoing destruction that turn.

Well technically, both are right, because if Voss manages to somehow draw a 15th minion at the start of his turn, that probably means he has 10+ when he first checks his win condition, thus would have already fulfilled his win and no card would need to be drawn in the first place.

The only way Voss can get out a 15th minion and not have already won, is Forced Deployment. But you would still have a round to deal with all those minions. Though having to deal with 15 out of the 16 minions could put you in a sticky situation, since you would have atleast 1 Gene-bound Guard in play.

Keeping in mind that the conversation was assuming Voss needed 15 to flip (because some of us don't have the cards memorized and assume those posting info like that are posting based on actual information/knowledge)…

To be clear: If Voss has 9 minions at the start of his turn and there's an environment card that causes him to play a card at the start of his turn, Voss will check his win condition, see he doesn't have 10 minions, then play a card per the environment card trigger. If that card is a minion (bringing him to 10), he will not go back and check his win condition again as that "At the start of the villain turn…" trigger has already past and triggers are checked in order the cards come into play.

The >G folks have been clear that this is how the cards are meant to work. Are folks saying they disagree with this? If so, I'm interested in hearing why. 

Passive effect doesn't mean it didn't go off. Passive just means that the player is not active in the effect. It's not a power that the player uses and has final say in. Most damage mods are not manual nor are they optional. Surge of Strength, once played, is not optional. The playing of the card is the cause of the effect, not the fact that you are dealing damage. 

Can we go back to using "static effect" rather than passive if the issue is semantical rather than mechanical.

If you want a general timing rule, consider static effects before considering effects that are otherwise triggered. 

I disagree. Voss' starrt of turn:

Are there 15 minions in play? no

Play the top card of villan deck

(Resoove any other effects)

Also, according to spiff's clarifications:

Further, what if “forced deployment” is destroyed at the beginning of grand warlord voss’ turn and it brings in enough minions to get him over 10, which ends the game according to voss’ start of turn text. is the game over? no. because voss was in play before “forced deployment” was, you’d check his “start of villain turn” text first. at that point there wouldn’t be enough minions to end the game. then “forced deployment” would activate, bringing out the minions. the heroes would have one full turn before it came around to voss’ start again to deal with the horde of game ending minions.

This seems the same as an out of turn play.

Sidenote: Voss only needs 10 minions to win, not 15.

Edit: Greywind, did you make your assumption from the rule taht if a card with an end of turn action enter play during the ned of turn, it acts now.

I have updated the pending rules questions to explicitly ask about the effects of MTC and Imbued Fire.

https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/pending-rules-questions-3404#comment-36018

When will the designers have a chance to respond? Who knows. They are very, very busy. They care. I promise you. But they are deep in the sh*t dealing with Vengeance, GSF, Tactics, conventions, logistics, etc.

I know I'm a bit late to the party.  But this caught my eye, so I thought I would respond.

I'm fairly sure the answer here is no.   In my mind, once Mr. Fixer "takes" the blow and applies his damage reduction, he is the final target of the attack and can therefore no longer redirect damage.   In other words,  Redirect effects happen beofore damage reduction, so an attack of exactly 3 will bypass Driving Mantis style.

Most of the forumites I play with on Google do play it so that if you get hit for 3 with Pipe Wrench then when it gets reduced to 2, you can redirect with Mantis to another target for the full 3. As far as I know there's been no official ruling on this, but the above scenario seems to be the general forum consensus on how to play those cards. We got some rulings on Crowbars and Jackhandle, but there is still some confusion about the wording and synnergy of some of Fixer's cards.

That's been the consensus. Mainly it's based off the "would be dealt damage" wording of most redirect effects. If he were to be dealt damage, it would end up being 2 correct? So Mantis may be used here. After that we do have solid rulings on that after a misdirect, damage mods are reassessed for the new target. Damage reduction does not happen post redirection. This goes back to part where damage mods do not have timing to the effect. 

I guess I sort of disagree here...    at least in the case of these specific cards.

Say he's the target of an attack for exactly 3 damage  (blade batallion at 3 hp, if it matters).    

> Most of the forumites I play with on Google do play it so that if you get hit for 3 with Pipe Wrench then when it gets reduced to 2, you can redirect with Mantis to another target for the full 3. As  

Not trying to pick on you, Nielzabub, but it is a perfect example if what I'm talking about, so I'll use it if you don't mind.  This seems like really wonky logic to me,  specifically it hinges on Pipe Wrench reducing damage that is not actually dealt to Mr. Fixer.   I guess that's what I have an issue with.

If he's redirecting the damage, then the damage was not dealt to Mr. Fixer, therefore Pipe Wrench would not apply. 

Why do you think DR only applies after damage is dealt? 

Here is the other logic. If the Blade Batalion at 3HP deals damage to fixer with pipe wrench out, it will never be 3 damage. If Fixer would be dealt damage, he would not be dealt 3. He would be dealt 2. Is this not correct? If Fixer would be dealt 2 or less, which is the exact card wording on Mantis, you may redirect it. 

he would be dealt 3 damage.  He is actually dealt 2 damage.

Identical situation:

Legacy and Haka.   Legacy has Lead from the Front and Fortitude.   Haka has Ta Moko.

Blade batallion coming at haka for 3 damage.  By your logic, Haka could reduce his damage that he takes by Ta Moko,  then Legacy could absorb the hit with Lead From the Front, reducing it again with Fortitude.   Legacy would end up taking only 1 point of damage, despite the fact that Haka is never actually hit by the attack.

The relevant wording on the cards is identical.

Edit;  you could also do a infinite damage-null loop with Lead from the Front, Fortitude and Stealth bot.

Unity takes damage, redirected to Stealth Bot, reduced by 1,  Legacy redirects damage to himself, reduced by 1,   Stealth bot Redirects damage to itself, reduced by 1,  Legacy redirects damage to himself, reduced by 1... etc.

But didn't they say that the two damage would be redirected and turn back into three damage, since it's a new target?  If Legacy redirected the two damage Haka would take, he would have three redirected to him and reduced by one due to Fortitude.  As far as I can tell, it's the same timing as the logic behind the Mantis/Pipe Wrench combo.

And I'd be qute disappointed to find that yet another Fixer Style/Tool combo doesn't work together.

if true that would solve the haka/legacy combo and the legacy/unity combo.   I don't recall seeing that, but I can understand it.

I still think in Mr. Fixer's particular case it's a bit nebulous, because it specifically relies on Pipe Wrench reducing damage that Fixer is not taking.

Where is the concept of "actually dealt" vs "would be dealt" coming from? Rulebook? Dev post? Official ruling?  I am pretty sure you invented this distinction to fit how you think it should work. But I assure you, that is not a real thing.

Fixer WOULD be dealt 2 points of damage if the player did not have Mantis in play. That is not arguable.

With mantis in play, when Fixer WOULD be dealt 2 or less points of damage, Fixer may redirect.

Please, someone explain to me why damage mods have to have timing to the effect. We have dev posts in this very thread saying damage modification effects are "static" or in other terms, "always on". There are big implications to saying that. The largest one you all seem to be blissfully ignoring is that if something is "static" or always on, then it is never off or not changing. Meaning there can't be timing to trigger the effect "on" since there was never an "off" position. Which means when resolving all these different effects in game, you must assume that all damage mods are always considered and accounted for first before anything else. Why? All effects within the game are triggered by something. There are no exeptions. Damage mods, if the card is in play and always on, as the devs have said, the damage mod effect has already triggered and is already on by the time Blade Batalion triggers to deal damage to Fixer.

If anyone would like to explain a different interpretation for what "static" means and how that relates to triggered effects within this game, lets hear it. Anything else is house rules at this point. 

Relevant Dev Post. linked by Pydro a few posts back. I saved you the trouble of looking for it again.  Emphasis mine.

Adam wrote:

Ok, ruling time. The reason this card is different is that both parts of the text on Imbued Fire are ongoing, static buffs. These things aren't happening in any order because it's not a power or one-shot, so once it's in play, both of the effects are in play. All fire damage is increased by one. Okay. Change the damage type of damage dealt by heroes to fire. Now I'm dealing fire damage, but wait, all fire damage is plus one. So yes, Imbued Fire gives everyone an increased one damage.

No. After a redirect, you must re evaluate all the damage mods. There are firm rulings on redirection to confirm this. You do not double dip modifications. No infinite damage reduction loop is possible.

http://www.spiffworld.com/sotm/files/sotm_rules_and_clarifications.pdf

Here is a link to Spiffs rules clarifications. See page 35.

If he's redirecting the damage, then the damage was not dealt to Mr. Fixer, therefore Pipe Wrench would not apply. 

This is why you redirect the three.  Because the damage reduction would only reduce it when Mr. Fixer would be dealt damage.

The logic is that if Fixer would take the damage it would be reduced by one to two, and therefore it is redirectible.  Once he redirects it, the damage is no longer reduced.

Similar to how the game "sees" ahead of time that Nightmist is immune to damage so she can't redirect, the game "sees" ahead of time that Fixer would be taking 2 and allows him to redirect. The damage gets recalculated after the redirect because the modifiers may be different and the damage never quite ended up happening to the original target so their modifiers become irrelevant.

Because I don't see it as a "trigger".

I see it as a true/false condition. If, during the "Start of Turn" the condition becomes True for any reason, game over.

Right, but this part of that statement:

The >G folks have been clear that this is how the cards are meant to work.

is incontrovertible.  They've said explicitly that that's how it works.  So you can see it as a true/false condition, but the game designers don't see it that way.  So I'm not sure who you're arguing with.

Ah! In addition to Spiff's comment, keep in mind that it doesn't say "During the start…" (as you summarized), it says "At the start…" - a statement indicating a trigger. "At" happens once, "During" would indicate a condition.

I'm not arguing with anyone. I was responding to Rabit.

Thanks for clearing.

Can I ask that the Mr. Fixer/Pipe Wrench/Praying Mantis combo be added to the Pending Rulings?

Thanks for the specific reference! But I don’t think it actually addresses the case at hand, of damage modifications for damage to B but not to C.

I have not been following the discussion closely enough. Can you state the question concisely?

Arenson,

I think this summarises it, but I'm not a direct participant:

"If Mr Fixer has Pipe Wrench and Driving Mantis out, and he is the target of 3 points of damage, can he redirect that damage with Driving Mantis?"

More generally, as it would also apply to Tachyon redirecting hits of 2 damage from the Matriarch with Synaptic Interruption, "If redirection requires a certain damage, do you apply target specific modifiers before checking whether the damage dealt meets the conditions for redirection?"

Thank you. So, someone is arguing that Mr. Fixer can not redirect the attack? Is it more than one person, because this ruling seems obvious to me.

I think the key question is how much damage the target of the redirection will take: 3 or the reduced 2? (This is actually a discussion you and I have had in person!) At least that's my perception.

Rabit,

I almost added "And if so, would the new target be dealt 3 or 2 damage?" but thoguht that would complicate things to much and make the question unclear.

I told you how it works. If you don't like it, house rule it

Arenson, I think most of these questions are based on one overarching problem.

There is no clear guide on the order of cards from the time an effect of dealing damage activates or is triggered, to when HP is reduced, including the timing of redirection vs. reduction, damage modifiers vs. type changes, etc.

I'll try to get them all worded in ways that will get clear answers.

1.  Does the wording "Would be dealt damage" and "Is dealt damage" signify different timing, or are these effects at the same time?  (This question would resolve a lot of redirect issues)  *Not different timing*

2.  With Pipe Wrench and Driving mantis, if damage of 3 would be dealt to Mr. Fixer, what determines the order of the reduction vs. redirection?  Do the heroes choose, or do the effects take place in the order the cards came into play?  If Tempest's shielding winds was in play as well, could Fixer redirect an instance of 5 damage?  *the order the cards were played resolves the issue*

3.  With Imbued fire and Micro-targetting computer, what is the timing of the card effects?  If damage is boosted and then changes type, are damage increases rechecked?  When does Visionary change the damage with Twist the Ether, if Twist the Ether is played before imbued fire can Visionary change the damage type after it is turned to fire by imbued fire, and does that force a recheck with damage bonuses as well?  Is there a window of time Visionary has to choose whether or not to use TtE?

4.  If smokebomns redirects damage to a hero, who then redirects it to a different target, is it still reduced by Smoke Bombs, or does Smoke Bombs just reduce it if it is taken right after it is redirected by Smoke Bombs?

EDIT:  Fixed #4.

EDIT2:  Pydro links to answers to most of this before, i think only the Twist the ether and Smoke Bombs questions aren't answered now.

4 is already definitvely answer, each redirection can only kick in once.

5 (which is the second part of 4 about Villain Targets and Smoke Bombs and really should be separated) has not.

For Mr. Fixer/Pipe Wrench, pwatson1974's version with Rabit's addendum covers it, I think.

Matchstickman, I don't know what you mean by "the second half of 4".  Can you be more explicit?

> Lastly when Tachyon redirects the damage to Iron Legacy, is it still reduced by Smoke Bombs, or does Smoke Bombs just reduce it if it is taken right after it is redirected by Smoke Bombs?

I'll second that one for more definitive answers. I'll like to reiterate some other people's comments as to more clarification about how processes, reductions, static effects are supposed to resolve. 

Fixed #4.

I think someone (phantaskippy?) asked a question about Superhuman Durability and Fortitude. The official ruling is that you resolve the cards in the order that they were played.

Paul answers it here:

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/3024#comment-3024

(This entire thread is worth reading.)

Christopher answers it here:

http://boardgamegeek.com/article/10246144#10246144

The Fixer question was discussed here:

http://boardgamegeek.com/article/9745439#9745439

Christopher's only input in the conversation was that things are resolved in card order, but didn't directly answer the question.

Thanks Pydro, it is good to have an official word on these questions.

Not that I intend to follow that ruling, but it is nice to have it.

Thanks, Pydro, those are very helpful pointers.  I like arenson9's Synaptic Interruption/Citizen Dare/Citizen Anvil example.

The devs have also said the old super human and fort ruling will be re evaluated. I really wish I remember what thread I saw that in to link it. Anyone else recall that?

After a quick search, the only thing I found was Ronway saying that it should be changed based on the FIxer issue:

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/29988#comment-29988

EDIT: It is also worth noting the dates of the posts.

Paul's comment on SHD and Fortitude was on 2-13-2012

Christopher's comment on the Fixer question was on 8-3-2012

Christopher's comment on SHD and Fortitude was on 10-9-2012

Ronway's comment was on 5-28-2013

We defenitely know that the SHD and Fortitude ruling was still in effect when the Fixer issue was brought up

If Ronway's comment means that they should re-evaluate the ruling, but they actually haven't, then a consideration of a re-ruling probably happened after 5-28-2013.

If Ronway's comment means that they have already considered re-ruling, we know it is inbetween 10-9-2012 and 5-28-2013. EDIT2: Ronway explained this wasn;t what he meant. Thanks Ronway!

My comment was I think they should reconsider changing the ruling for SHD and Fortitude, not that they will.

That's what I was thinking of Pydro. Thanks for looking that up. 

Here's my attempt at understanding what rules questions there may be, and my opinions on whether or not there are existing rulings:

A) After redirection, do amount modifiers based on the initial target still apply? For example, if Pipe Wrench is in play before Driving Mantis such that Mr. Fixer is able to reduce an attack from 3 to 2 and then redirect it, is the redirect attack for a value of 3 or 2?

Andy's Answer: I wish I had a reference, but I have a firm understanding that the redirected attack is for 3, not 2. The Pipe Wrench reduction, though it was necessary for Mr. Fixer to be able to do the redirect, no longer applies to the attack.

B) Is there a timing difference between 'would be dealt' and 'is dealt'?

Andy's Answer: From what's written above, I got the sense that this is considered answered, so I have nothing to add.

C) Questions about how changing the type of an attack interacts with modifiers based on the type of an attack (Microtargetting computer and Imbued Fire; Twist the Ether).

Andy's Answer: Already listed in Pending Questions

D) If an attack is redirected by Smoke Bombs, and thus reduced, and then redirected by something else, is it still reduced by Smoke Bombs?

Andy's Answer: This seems self-evident to me. It is still reduced. I doubt there is a ruling anywhere for it. If there remains people clamoring for an official ruling for this, I suppose I'll add it to the pending questions. Yes, I'm using my annoyed tone of voice. No, that's probably not appropriate. I'll try not to be cranky all the time.

In your quote from here, http://boardgamegeek.com/article/9687086#9687086, you have said that this has been ruled, but you don't give a source. In fact, you have used this ruling as a way to prove that Fixer's combo works.

EDIT: Here is an official answer from Paul:

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/2468#comment-2468

Oh man, the more I read on this the more it seems like the devs don't really have a concrete answer for some of these issues.

Which I am actually cool with, they aren't a huge team, they made an awesome game and some of the interactions they might not have reached an internal concensus on, esp. since they are busy continuing to rock the Multiverse.

I think I'll just continue to play the way I do, and see what happens.

THANK YOU. I had a memory of this post from Paul, but didn't have a link from it and I don't always trust my memory.

That post by Paul doesn’t actually address the Pipe Wrench / Praying Mantis example.

One thing I realized is that it’s much less important to nail everything down in a coop game than in an adversarial one.

I guess nobody agrees with me that Pipe Wrench would not combo with driving mantis,   I suppose I'll stop arguing it.    This quote though I object to,  I think this opens the doors for the infinite redirection combo I was talking about.   According to what Reckless was saying to refute that,   Smoke bombs would no longer reduce the damage.

In Paul's examples that Pydro so kindly linked, when he brings up Obsidian Field in his example, he did not mention anything about whether OF was in play before or after the card that presumably allows the redirection effect. Is that not significant? He expressed the example as the mod was essential in determining what "damage dealt" will be. Am I reading that wrong?

What drives me up a wall is that example is completely at odds with the superhuman durability / fort ruling of card order would matter. Though its worth noting that it was never confirmed what the damage would be in the case of SUD being played first. 

Am I missing something? There can't be an infinite redirection combo, because each card can only redirect a single attack once.

This may be one of those things that seem so clear to me that I think there has been a ruling when there hasn't. Can anyone find a ruling?

Stealth bot and Lead From the Front have no limitation on the amount of times they could theoretically be used per attack,   it says "whenever"   a hero would be dealt damage, you may redirect it to stealth bot/legacy  -or something to that effect.

At that point you only have a max DR of 2, and while that's powerful, there are ways around it. Depending on which villain you're facing, you can get an infinite no damage loop with Next Evolution and Lead from the Front, but you can do that without Stealth Bot or Smoke Bombs.

I'm personally just fine with Mantis Pipe wrench combo since it makes both cards a little bit more useful and allows Mantis to be much more usable in a five player game.

The only thing I found so far is you saying it has to be this way: https://greaterthangames.com/comment/26201#comment-26201

Infinite loops like that are not an intended part of the game. That is a no brainer. The question becomes, how do we interpret card interactions knowing that.

We talked a lot about the infinite redirection combos that could turn up with cards like Smoke Bombs and Stealth Bot. And the forum consensus at the time was that allowing 1 instance of redirection per 1 instance of damage was a comfortable solution to keep all the functionality of redirection intact but make infinite loops essentially impossible.

This is easily addressed with a Smoke Bomb example. Lets say all the heros are tied for HP (so they are all the highest and lowest HP hero) and Blade Batallion is dealing 3 damage to someone. Smoke Bombs redirects from hero A to hero B and decreases the damage by 1. Now, hero B is also the lowest target. Should Smoke Bombs be allowed to redirect that instance of damage again? Saying no seems like the simplest solution here. Even if you could still redirect in this situation, remember that damage mods reset every time you redirect. So if you redirect damage from B now to C, Batallion would still do hero C 2 damage (as you are not allowed to double dip the Smoke Bomb debuff, as that would lead to an infinite damage reduction loop, which, again, is surely not an intended aspect of gameplay). So in the above situation, why wouldn't you have just chosen C with the first redirect anyway if hero C will essentially take the same damage regardless of how many times Smoke Bombs bounces it around.

This does not have any official ruling as far as I am aware, but it is an elegant solution to address this particular problem.

Multiple redirections of one instance of damage by the same card would ruin the game.

Stealth Bot and Lead from the front aren’t limited in wording because they can redirect any number of instances of damage in one round, but only once per instance.

Smoke Bombs damage does not apply to a target, it reduces the damage, it does not reduce damage dealt to a target, therefore changing the target shouldn’t eliminate the reduction anymore than redirection would get rid of an environment card reducing all damage by 1, or Voss’s all heroes deal -1 damage, the effect is not conditional on the target, once triggered it stays.

My apologies, I don't know if I was being clear.

From what I understand, redirected damage from a target with a DR of 1 will no longer be reduced by 1 because that target is no longer taking the damage (or if the target was the damage source's Nemesis, then the damage dealt to a new target would no longer receive the Nemesis boost).  Smoke Bombs specifies "reduce damage redirected this way by 1".

I'm not saying that this is clear, but I'm reading that the damage itself is being reduced rather than the target it's being redirected to gaining damage reduction.  It's a small difference, but I would say that if it were pulled from that target to another target, then the damage would stay reduced from Smoke Bombs.  I could definitely see it being ruled a different way, however.  I just know that you recalculate modifiers that were unique to a specific target when damage is redirected to a new target, and from what I can tell Smoke Bombs cuts all of that out and strictly reduces the damage dealt.

It may reduce the damage itself, or the damage specifically being redirected to that particular target.  I think it could be read either way.

I agree with Reckless and Phantaskippy. Smoke Bombs is a pretty unique (for the moment) redirection effect.

[REDACTED] has a very similar ability that we will see come Vengeance. This may not mean much I guess to non-PTs at the moment. But, the two abilities are identical in what they are attempting to do (that is, apply damage modifications directly to the instance of damage rather than apply those modifications to the source/recipient of said instance of damage) but the new ability has much cleaner wording in this regard. We will see how that ability shakes out in the final product, but it is something worth considering. 

The wording on [REDACTED]'s card is a little bit different though, as you pointed out.

Smoke bombs says

"whenever a villain card would deal damage to the hero target with the lowest hp. redirect that damage to the hero target with the highest hp.

Reduce damage redirected this way by 1."  

 You're clearly not redirecting damage "that way"  if you're switching the target to anything other than the hero target with the highest HP.   The conditions for the reduction in damage are no longer met.

Well you can't redirect damage with Smoke Bombs to anything other than the hero target with the highest HP, so I am not sure what you are getting at.

Edit: Are you talking about a senario where damage from hero A is redirected to hero B with smokebombs, and then that damage is redirected to hero C (not through smoke bomb)? If you are, then I disagree with you. The conditions for the smoke bomb reduction had already been met and applied. Was the instance of damage redirected in "that way" when it moved from A to B? Yes. Does the damage moving from B to C mean that Smoke Bombs never moved it from A to B? No. Does that make sense?

Yes, the wording on the cards are slightly different because they function off different triggers. So that is to be expected. However that is not the point. The point is that they both are modifying the instance of damage as opposed to modifying the source/recipiant of that instance of damage. That is what is important in both cases, and critical wording pointing to that are the same.

"whenever a villain card would deal damage to the hero target with the lowest hp. redirect that damage to the hero target with the highest hp.

Reduce damage redirected this way by 1."  

You're clearly not redirecting damage "that way"  if you're switching the target to anything other than the hero target with the highest HP.   The conditions for the reduction in damage are no longer met.

I disagree, they are on two lines, two different effects, the first is the condition for redirection, and the redirection effect.  The second is a damage reduction that requires the first effect to go off.

As long as the damage is redirected by Smoke Bombs it should get the reduction, no matter what happens after that.

There is no way once it is redirected by smoke bombs for the effect to be undone, no way for the damage to not have been redirected by the effect of Smoke Bombs, therefore I don't think it could lose that reduction.

I don't think there is another effect like it, because all other damage reduction is based on the dealer of the damage or the target of the damage, the trigger for this reduction is the earlier effect triggering, once that is triggered the damage is reduced.  I compared it to reduction based on the dealer of damage because like SMoke Bombs effect you can't undo that once it is activated.

Very well. I have put in pending questions about both whether or not a card can redirect multiple times and about whether or not reduction due to redirection is maintained if there is further redirection.

Moving this over here. Not sure if arenson9 wants discussion in taht thread.

Here's the thing though. Negative Energy Field will hit the card just played. If it can hit the card, it has hp. If it has hp, the target has entered play. This means that the timing of both effects are equal, and not that one should be first.

If they are the same, why are they worded differently. First HTR specifies a target. You could say when a target would be played, but then that would get around some situations. What if a card entered play but wasn't played, e.g. Timeshift, it suddenly gained hp (Miss Informations, etc.). With HTR wording, they would still take a hit. If it only said played, they wouldn't.  Also, why doesn't the Fowl card simply say, "when this card enters play…"? Because if it did, Darken the Skies would put the entire deck into play.

So I think the timing is the same, just that the wording fits the specific card. I also have to agree that I think the issue is with HTR stopping Matty cold, and that is why there was the ruling.

Which should be sorted out with the Rook City reprint. I am 101% positive HTR's wording will be changed.

Yeah, they could change it to "After a target has come into play" and that would fix the timing.  Just enough delay to let the text ativate before Haittrigger does.

Which should be sorted out with the Rook City reprint.

I don't think people should be expecting any actual rewording of the cards with the reprint they're currently planning.  As far as I know, they're just reprinting the cards as they've always been, not changing anything.

I was under the impression that the wording on Fixers tools was on the block to be tweaked for the reprint as well to make them more clear.

If you are going to spend money on a reprint, especially considering the multitude of questions over Fixer and Expats cards, and potential changes to how Plauge Rat due to, umm, reasons, I would think some updated wording on some historically unclear cards would be a no brainer.

I say all of that with no authority whatsoever. This is just kinda what I would kinda expect.

At GenCon I asked Adam if the reprint will have errata. He said yes, but this was also the last hour of the con, and he was kind of out of it.

If they are going to change the wording on some of the cards, hopefully it won't be a stealth, under-the-radar thing where the cards just show up different from previous versions.

I'm skeptical that it will happen.  They always say how busy they are.  Which is easier, just hitting the "reprint them how they are now" button, or playtesting the changes, editing the files, proofreading them, proofreading them again, sending the new files, worrying if the printer will use the right set of files, etc.?

I can only think of one bit of Rook City errata which is a complete no-brainer:  Both "Tony Taurus" and "Dr. Tremata" say they are "immune to damage from heroes", which should really be changed to "immune to damage from hero targets".  Anything else will require more time and effort than they likely want to put into it at the moment, I'd imagine.

Is anyone else really hoping that they make "Checmical" an actual canon thing in the Sentinels Multiverse instead of fixing the typos?

I most certainly do.  I like bringing it up any time I can, sometimes to Christopher's ire.