Unity's bots and Legacy's Galvanize

If Legacy gives out +1 damage and Unity later plays a bot, does the bot have it's damage buffed?

Related: Is "Unity is +1 damage" the same as "Unity and her bots are +1 Damage?"

Yes her bots will have +1 damage as the enter play.

If only Unity as a +1 damage, it would not effect her bots.

Galvanize says (correct me if I'm wrong on the exact wording):  "Until the start of Legacy's next turn, increase all damage dealt by hero targets by 1".  The bots are hero targets, and Legacy is producing a global effect.  If Legacy instead said "Choose any number of hero targets.  Until the start of Legacy's next turn, increase all damage dealt by those targets by 1", then he couldn't choose a Bot that wasn't yet in play, and a newly played bot wouldn't be included in the effect.

It's like the difference between Hypersonic Assault and Meteor Storm; the Assault only stops targets which it hit at the time from dealing damage; new targets played thereafter still can.  But Meteor Storm just stops damage from being dealt, so it works on cards that enter play after it's played.  (This isn't the best example since Meteor Storm is a card that sits in play and has its effect while in play, which is distinct from a one-shot card's time-limited continuous effect.)

They are hero targets, Legacy produces a static effect that increases damage dealt by hero targets.

Basically when something is going to deal damage, activated Galvanize checks to see if it is a hero target, if it is that damage is boosted.

Galvanize doesn't care when the hero target entered play, if it tries to deal damage while Galvanize is active Galvanize raises that damage.

Yes. The +1 from Galvanize is a static buff that affects all Hero Targets (cards that [a] belong to a hero deck and [b] have HP). As long as Galvanize is active, any hero target would have their damage increased. 

This is ultimatly a trivial nitpick, but Galvanize doesn't do a "check" nessesarily. As you said, it has already been activated. Hero targets are still considered to be under the effects of Galvanize whether they are actively doing damage or not.  The timing element is unessesary. 

This is ultimatly a trivial nitpick, but Galvanize doesn't do a "check" nessesarily. As you said, it has already been activated. Hero targets are still considered to be under the effects of Galvanize whether they are actively doing damage or not.  The timing element is unessesary.

I don't mean an activation style check for a trigger, but the only qualification for gaining the bonus is to be a hero target, that's what I was trying to say, that all Galvanize cares about is whether the damage dealer is a hero target that is dealing damage.  I fully agree with you, just poor wording on my part.

See, I dissagree (Foote dissagrees with someone?! What a shocker).

Consider the two sentences below:

1. "Increase all damage dealt by hero targets by 1"

2. "Whenever a hero target would deal damage, increase that damage by 1"

Galvanize, as written, is #1 (I am omiting the "Until the start of Legacy's next turn" portion as it is non-conseqential to my next points). 

#2 is dependent on a a target being a hero target and dealing damage

I am infering from your quote above that you think sentence #1 and #2 are identical. I do not believe that is the case.

The entire SotM game system is built upon the premise of Triggers and Effects, that is, when X (trigger) happens, do Y (effect). It is the old cause/effect relationship.

#2 is a perfect example of what a Trigger/Effect is and looks like . "Whenever a hero target would deal damage," is a Trigger clause. "Increase that damage by 1" is the Effect clause.

All in-game effects have a trigger.

Look again at #1 now. "Increase all damage dealt by hero targets by 1" is an Effect clause. There is no explicit Trigger clause in that sentence. The argument of "but you cant increase damage that isn't there being dealt" holds no water at this stage. Without a Trigger, there can be no Effect.

With no explicit trigger given, we must assume the trigger is implicit (by which I mean that it is a core function of the game system). An example is playing a One-Shot. Putting the card into play is the implicit trigger for the effects of One-Shots. Powers function in a similar manner. The implicit trigger for a Power's effect is the activation of that power.

Galvanize does not have an explicit Trigger (neither do the two effects on Imbued Fire for reference, hence why Adam labled them "static" effects). So we fall on the implicit trigger of the power being used triggered the effect. 

Ultimatley, to say that Galvanize is dependant on the hero target actually physically dealing damage is to say that Galvanize contains an explicit trigger saying so. I think it is clear that this is not the case. So you must then concede the fact that Galvanize (and other things like it such as Imbued Fire) only state the Effect portion of the Trigger/Effect relationship. Then you must concede that the Trigger for Galvanize is the activation of the Power.

In the end, here is what this means. If Legacy takes his turn after Wraith and uses Galvanize during his Power Phase, Wraith is "Galvanized" during Legacy's Draw Phase and is having her damage increased by 1 regardless of whether she is in the proccess of attacking something or not.

This was a rather long post for a "trivial" matter, but I felt it important to outline. 

So in spite of all that text, I'm not sure I understand what practical difference you are seeing between the two wordings.  Are you saying that the bot would not be galvanized if it was not in play when Legacy used the power?

I don't think that is the case, I'm pretty sure he is just creating the effect "increase all damage dealt by hero targets by 1" and the effect goes away at the start of his turn.  Just as imbued fire makes damage from the bots fire regardless of whether they were in play when imbued fire was played, the effect of galvanize would effect them regardless of whether they were in play when the power was first used.

EDIT: Or were you just saying that galvanize gives the boost to damage that otherwise could not reduce HP?  I agree with that, but I don't think anyone was actually saying the reverse.  (And for effects like Punish the Weak or Twist the Ether which do have wording like your #2, I wouldn't place that requirement on them either.  But that is literally a whole other thread.)

As long as galvanized is active, any hero target would benefit regardless of when it entered play. I don't think there is anyone who would dispute that. 

The point is that Galvinize is not dependent on damage being dealt, just that the target in question is of the hero deck. 

When would this make a difference to the outcome?

It was a clarification of the process, not a challenge of the ultimate outcome. It's not only important to understand that Unitys bots would benefit from Galvanize regardless of when they were played, but why it works that way is just as beneficial. "Teach a man to fish" cliche comes to mind. 

This would make a difference in one single convoluted way.  Should there be two effects out, one of which reduces damage dealt (not taken), and one which increases damage dealt (again, not taken), and the damage reduction was in play first, having them as triggers to damage dealing could have the reduction completely negate any damage to be dealt before the damage increase can have any effect.  This would effectively remove the commutative (as well as possibly the associative) properties which damage count modifiers currently have.  Assuming Voss advanced and Legacy are in the game.  Voss decreases damage Heroes deal by one, while Legacy increases damage dealt by hero targets by one.  Going by the trigger method, Tempest dealing one damage to all non-hero targets would be reduced by one.  At this point, Tempest no longer deals any damage, meaning that Legacy cannot increase the damage as there is no damage.

That said, I don't think anyone believed this was trigger based, thus this comparision never really needed to be made.  Even using words such as 'Galvanize checks that the target is a hero target' doesn't necessarily imply that Galvanize is trigger based.  The fact the wording of the power has a filter word at all (hero targets) means that it is specifically a check.  But that doesn't mean it's triggered by anything.  It can still be an always on effect.  Much like the special "triggers" in WarioWare DIY, which some triggers fire constantly of not further constrained by another trigger filter.  (I actually believe this game to be a polling style rather than interrupt style, where a funtion is ran over all the data at every tick, firing the necessary triggers every tick that the filter allows.  It rather facinates me to the point that someday I'd like to write a similar engine myself.)

I do agree that "check" does not nessesarily imply something being trigger based. What "checking" does imply however is an element of timing. It is inherent in the connotation of the word that there must be a point in time where you "check" it and it easily follows that there would be a point where you wouldn't. This would not be too major of an issue, until you realize that all issues of timing like this on effects are handled by their Triggers. So in a round-about way, "checking" certainly can lead to a logical conclusion of being the equivilent of a Trigger. 

If you wanted to say Galvinize "checks" that filter right after its used (to cover hero targets currently in play) and does a quick check for every additional target that enters play while the effect is active, that would seem to be more palletable, but that still is unnessesarily convoluted.  There is  never  going to be  a point where a hero target becomes a non-hero target. It will either always be affected by Galvinize or it will never be. There is no real reason to insert any notion of timing to the effect past its activation. 

Here is my thought on how it works. Is a hero target going to deal damage? If yes than it gets +1 damage.

Hurrah for simplicity!

FTFY, now with even more simplicity!

There, way more simplicity!

This is what I was trying to say.  You did it better.

I think we are starting to get the hang of this!

Christopher will be so proud!

I see your point, but I think that it's just as much a strech to say that any unstated trigger must be implicit. I don't know your background, but I do a lot of database work, and there isn't just 1 and 0; there's 1, 0 and empty (null). In this case, it's null, empty, undefined, unstated, or however else you would like to say "there is no specification made to the source of the trigger on this card", 90% of people (made up number) would probably consider it an aura type effect, "when it's on, all damage all the time, inceased by 1", some lesser % may be a little more.. we'll say, binary, and consider the effect to be applied when it is activated, but in the end, until the text on the card is restated, neither one is really wrong.

I see your point with 0,1 and null. But we are evaluating the rules based inside a defined system. These rules and cards do not exist in a vacuum. 

There is no effect without a cause. Learned that in science class. When no cause to an effect is given it is a much safer assumption to say the cause/trigger has already occurred rather than create your own trigger from thin air.

The Trigger/Effect structure of the game is the principle system allowing the game to function. It was a very conscious decision by >G to design the system that way as it allows new players to dive right in without needing a huge rulebook. Magic the Gathering, by and large, is 80% an implicit rules system. SotM is the exact opposite, opting to not use effect keywords and such so that almost every effect and interaction is explicit and written on the card. The absence of an explicit trigger should be a strong indication that the trigger is tied to a core implicit part of the rules instead of triggering off something that happens in game (for instance, whenever a hero deals damage seems to be a popular trigger people have invented for applying damage mods). I understand that without official word it's all assumptions here. But there is no strong reason to accept an alternate interpretation as correct at this point. 

This really has more to do with damage modification in general and not a lot to do with Unity. I don't think anyone doubts how she and Legacy work together. 

Increase damage dealt by hero targets by 1.

There. PIBTWIWFE (Put it back the way it was for everyone.)