When Legacy uses Galvanize to increase each hero's damage by 1, is this increase optional? For example, when Tachyon Pushes the Limit and does 2 Sonic damage to herself, if she's Galvanized does she have to do 3 damage instead?
How about when an ongoing makes a hero do damage to themselves, like Jinx's Two Left Feet Ongoing card? Does a Galvanized hero do one point more damage to themselves?
No, it's mandatory.
Using the power is optional but once the bonus is out there you get the effects for good or ill. I'm not certain I can think of any increase that is optional off the top of my head, if there is I'm sure others will come along and correct quickly enough.
The damage increase from Galvanize is not option if it was used.
Villain/environment cards that have heroes do themself damage is also increased if Galvanized was used.
Edit: Curses! Matchstickman beat me. I have now dishonored my family.
Outside of Twist the Ether I can't think of any damage mod that is optional once its used/in play
I was thinking that too, but I just checked, it's mandatory that you raise or lower it, you don't have a choice if it happens, just what happens.
Edit: You know what to do as penance for your family dishonour Ronway, perform the teacup dance.
Question about TtE. I know that if you are hitting something like all villain target, you have to decide the damage type before hitting any targets, and you can't cahnge it between targets. The ruling also seems to imply that you have to choose whether or not you increase or decrease damage then too, and you can't change it between targets. I think a couple of people mght has said you can change it though. So, can you change the damage between targets?
No I don't think so Pydro. I think that the amount and type are figured at the same time for all intents and purposes. Plus, dealing X damage to all non hero targets is still considered one instance of damage, it's just applied to multiple targets simultaneously.
Ah! Good catch.
What is fun is when the hero doing damage and visionary disagree on how to treat the damage, it is rare, but we've had times where AZ and Vis disagree on whether he gets hit with fire or cold, and we've had some very unhappy AZ's when they find out that it is Visionary who decides.
It's also not too fun if you have Twist on you and you get Infected - that irreducible damage therefore must be increased :P. Same for sticking Twist on Rat himself, of course.
Was this confirmed. I remember reading an argument on this, and Ronway said you can choose to lower it, it just doesn't work. I don't recall a conclusion though.
If you are given an Either/Or choice, you must chose one of those choices. If there is a situation where one of the choices is fundamentally impossible (IE, discarding a card when you have no cards to discard, or destroying an ongoing when you have no ongoings to destroy), the other choice must be made.
I think there is a difference when the choice you make is affected by in-game effects. Ronways example (sorry for no link) was about the choice of destroying one of your cards being made indestructable through something like Fixed Point. The rational there is that you can still choose to "destroy" one of your cards (as you do essentially have cards in play to destroy), but that an in-game effect is affecting that choice after the fact. I believe you can still choose the option reduce option on TtE, but an in-game effect (in this case, irreducible damage) affects that choice.
The counter argument I know someone is going to make is that "choosing to reduce damage that is irreducible should count as a 'fundamentally impossible' situation". My response to that is that if I was going to choose to reduce damage when there was no instance of damage to reduce would be an example of 'fundamentally impossible'. I am not talking about things that are 'mechanically impossible'.
Maybe there is better terminology I could use to explain this difference, but that is the gist of it. Any questions?
Actually, Ronway was talking about this case specifically.
Bad memory. Always quick with a link.
I just happened to see that conversation recently looking for the other rulings. I only brought it up incase someone would say the situations aren't comparable.
Do we have an official ruling supporting any of this?
In Lieu of an official ruling I'd say that you should be able to attempt to do it, just like you can attempt to damage a target that is immune to damage, or play a card that destroys cards when they are indestructible.
The Iron Legacy question is an either or, you can't destroy cards unless you have them, if fixed point was out and you had the choice to destroy or discard, I would say you could choose to destroy a card you have in play, but Fixed point would prevent you, you can't try and destroy a card that isn't there, but you can try and destroy it but be prevented from destroying it.
I would think you could try and reduce damage that was irreducible, but you couldn't try and reduce damage that doesn't exist.
If twist the ether is on Omnittron-X and he uses timeshift, you can't choose to increase or reduce damage, because there is no damage to effect. I would think this is the parallel to the IL destroy a card or discard 2 choice, you can't choose to effect something that isn't there.
Hey, folks, just thought you'd like to know I checked with Christopher on this. Dealing damage to all non-hero (or any other set of multiple) targets is not one instance of damage. It's dealing damage multiple times. So, for example, if Visionary uses TtE on NightMist and NightMist uses Oblivion, Visionary can decrease the instances of damage on the heroes (or The Dreamer, etc.) but increase both instances of damage against the non-hero targets (and each type of damage is indivdiually defined).
Oh good - that was what I'd been thinking. Even though only one attack is listed on a card, you're still hitting multiple targets therefore it's separate instances of damage and each can be changed (because Twist specifies words to the effect of "whenever that target deals damage, implying each individual hit).
Ah, very good. Thanks for the clarification.
WOOHOO!!
I was playing TtE the other way, you had to do the whole attack one damage type and up or down for all of them.
My goodness, Visionary/Nightmist is going to be beastly.
Maybe Rabit can clarify, but we already have a ruling that the damage has to be the same for every target.
Nice.
I love >G, they really don't seem to have a set ruling, it changes depending on the question, or when you ask it, or whatever.
Maybe, maybe not. That ruling was specifically taking about the damage type (although you might be able to extend to teh amount). The new ruling is just talking about the amount, not the type.
I think normally its all one damage type but TtE causes the exception. Why would type work any differently than amount in that sense.
I think the issue here is one of when the question was asked. Seriously, that was less than a month after the game was first released (Sep 2011)! They didn't have a full understanding of the implications of rulings, how one card fully affected another, etc. at that time. Now, they have a far better understanding of the game's fundamental mechanics and how the cards interact. So, yeah, much like other games, things sometimes change as the game evolves and grows.
(Seriously, have you looked at the early rulings for Magic: The Gathering? Scary stuff, there… 
)