Testing the Limits of the new Order of Operations ruling

1) Fighting against the Ennead on Advanced mode. You are playing as Fanatic. Ennead is out in force, so they all get +1 damage. Lets also say that an Obsidian Field is in play, because why not. Fanatic has Undaunted in play. The Ennead on their turn play Elemental Storm (thats the three instances of 1 damage to each hero target).

Does Fanatic have to take damage in this senario?

2) Playing against The Chairman. H=3 for this example and the Operative is incapped. Chairman is being given +1 damage from incapped Operative, and his retaliation has a base of 3-2=1. Two Obsidian fields are in play. You are playing Mr. Fixer who has Driving Mantis in play. You deal Chairman some amount of damage, and he retaliates. 

Can Fixer choose to redirect this damage? 

It seems the answers would be No and Yes in that order, but am curious to see how other people view it, or if they are sticking with their current way of playing. Both of those answers would be very different for me before the new ruling. Let me know what you think below.

Edit: Link to ruling here: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/timing-and-order-of-operations-4347

Could you link to the ruling itself in your OP for ease of reference?

My answer would be, Yes and  No, with a side order of please stop torturing logic this way.

Yes, being able to determine card order could be applied that way, if you ignore how the game works. But doing so is so obviously ridiculous that I can't imagine anyone trying to do it in a real game, which puts this into the realm of munchkin theory wonkery which Sentinels does not need.

In the same way you can't get bonuses from the Micro-Targetting Computer by applying it first, then applying Imbued Fire to change the type to Fire and garner an extra +1, which by your interpretation would appear to be fine and dandy, you apply the would be on the final total, not on one half-way through.

I'd say:

1. Fanatic has to take the damage.

The Ennead gains +1 damage, which is applied on their turn.  This is then sent to Fanatic, overcoming her Undaunted threshold.

corrolary: If fanatic had some bonus that granted damage reduction (such as protection from the Argent Adept), she would reduce first, then be protected by undaunted if the damage = 1 point.  

environmental tangent: Obsidian fields complicate the issue, because they provide a global, permanent damage increase that is applied before the damage "leaves" each target. I realize that this is an odd way of looking at it, but the way I've always seen it is that the Hero or villain always checks for environmental damage modifiers before any sort of modifiers of their own (so, if the environment is converted to toxic, Wraith gets no Micro-targeting bonus, regardless of whether or not she played it first).  I did this because (prior to) this ruling, my friends and I needed a consistant ruling on damage increasers that were damage-type specific, and we collectively decided that global changes ALWAYS won.

2. Mr. Fixer may not redirect.

this is because the damage (applying the same logic as above) is actually:

base 1, +1 from operative, +2 from obsidian.  this results in 4 damage by the time it reaches Fixer, who cannot redirect that much.

Global effects always, always, always happen first, and the Obsidian Field is the quintessential Global effect.  

I've never gone by the old official ruling in my games, so this hasn't affected the way I play the game.

If we are talking officially, >G certainly didn't go away from the static and triggered effects happening at the same time, so I would guess you could prevent the damage before boosting it, same with redirecting.  I don't really like that solution, it just doesn't seem right.

I would suggest coming up with a philosophy of timing, and sticking to it.

My order of resolving damage modifiers goes as follows:

1.  The original damage (written on the card)

2.  Source based damage modifiers (by players choice if needed, static damage type changes I still resolve by play order)

3.  optional modifiers based on source. (wrest the mind/twist the Ether)

4.  Target based modifiers to damage, including redirection. (by players choice)

5.  Change HP (or prevent)

It still gives player choice, but with a structure that I like, since it keeps effects orderly and doesn't let anything get too crazy.

First off, pwatson, please refrain from telling me about torturing logic as you bring up Micro-Targeting Computer as some kind of, what, counter example? It didn't  apply at all to what I asked, nor did it address the core issue of what I want to get at. Munchkin theory indeed. Give me a break.

ANYWAY. Back to real dialoge.

I see what you are saying. But where does it say global effects always happen first? I think that was a forum construction to easily resolve interactions involving damage modification and not an official rule about order of operations. If I am wrong, someone jump in on that. 

From Christophers ruling, it is implied that he views Fortitude and SuperHumanDurability as simultaneous actions. That is the entire basis for the old ruling (where card order mattered).

Now, it seems that outside of Start and End of turn effects, simultaneous effects are resolved by player choice, and that Fort/SHD is affected by that change.

What does that mean? Well, if a T-Rex decideds to chomp on Legacy, that the base damage of 5 would be sufficient to trigger SHD and then apply the Fort reduction, regardless of when SHD was played.

 That brings me to senario 1 in my OP. It sounds like "would be dealt damage" triggers are officially considered simultaneous with damage modification effects (whether it reduces/increases all damage or just specific instances of damage I do not think is consequential). If SHD can be chosen to trigger off of "base damage" numbers before modifications are applied, why not in senario 1?

I think the nuance of the argument lies in "what exactly are simultaneous effects"? I think there is a case to be made that Fort/SHD are considered "simultaneous" not because of the timing of their triggers (timing seems to be something we are moving away from systematically) but because of the nature of the effect. Both Fort and SHD are reducing damage. Maybe Undaunted would not be considered simultaneous with Fort if they happened to be found in the same deck?

Edit: Phantaskippy, thats something I wanted to know as well. If people are trying to incoorporate the new ruling into how they play the game, or if you are sticking to what has worked for you until this point (which the new ruling seems to promote in a positive way)

Logic of MCP/IF comment

Posit 1) All effects can be applied in any order, even if silly as with resolving damage effects before applying all increases to damage.

Posit 2) Effects are not recalculated after being applied, as would have to be the case for either of your examples to work.

Conclusion, you can apply both MCP and IF to the same effect by applying MCP while the damage is projectile and then IF to make it fire which increases the damage as its fire.

Please do explain why you think this is different to your suggestion.

It doesn't (that I know of).  I play as if they do, because my friends and i required a ruling on it when Pike Chemical introduced global, environment-based change of damage types, and we needed a way to figure out how to deal with them.  So we had a conversation about what made sense, and the result of that conversation is that I play (and teach) that global modifiers always come before anything else.  Its for my own sanity, since it makes it much easier to figure out the order of events.

this brings me to "would be dealt damage".

"Would be dealt damage" implies (to me) that it only resolves AFTER all modifications and quibbling have been resolved.  so , in the case of Undaunted, I resolve it thusly:

IF, after all modifiers, arguments, tears, pleading, bribery, and signed statements have been applied, the amount of damage is EXACTLY 1 point, THEN Fanatic prevents it.  

IF the amount is above 5 points (same stipulations as above), then reduce it by 2.  You may NOT, at this point, argue about further reducing it to exactly 1 point through any other modifiers, black sorcery, or offers of "being your best friend".

EDIT: This method of determining things was done entirely to protect my sanity and prevent endless rule arguments with people who I love dearly.

Sure man, I'll hold your hand as we walk through this.

Posit 1: Nonsense. Effects can not be applied in any order. Simultaneous card effects, though, happen to resolve by player choice now.

MTC and IF, you can choose to resolve those cards in any order you choose. Does not change the fact that if you stop doing projectile damage you stop gaining benefit from MTC at all. Happens that way in either order.

Posit 2: Not sure what you are saying. Again, simultaneous effects now resolve by player choice. If Fort and SHD are simultaneous, as the ruling strongly alludes to that fact, then wouldn't Driving Mantis and the Obsidian fields also share a simultaneous status?

Please explain how MTC and IF have any relevance here again. I still must be missing that crazy logic thing you keep talking about.

You're assuming Driving Mantis or the prevent condition of Undaunted are simultaneous with the damage? Why? Or rather, why are they simultaneous but Imbued Fire/MCP is not? They all seem equally simultaneous or unsimultaneous to me, hence the rather aggressive incredulity as to your position. I apologise for the intiial post's sarcasm. It was not warranted.

Let's stick to debate, not ad hominem argumentation, please.

IF and MTC bring in conditional bonuses, which can be gained and lost by changing the damage type.  So while Mantis and Obsidian field could be resolved in different orders to different results, if you apply MTS then change the damage to fire, that +2 is lost and the +1 from IF gained.  If you changed it back to projectile with Twist the ether, Imbued Fire's +1 would be lost and MTC's +2 regained.

MTC cannot result in an increase to damage that is not projectile when hp is reduced.

Which would also apply to Driving Mantis and the prevent portion of Undaunted, no? I do not see why you would recalculate for "If the damage is projectile" but don't for "If you would be dealt exactly 1 damage". I can see why SHD and the reduction component of Undaunted are simultaneous to the other damage modifiers as they're all applying various damage modifiers, but these two effects are not simultanoues. They are applied at the end when the damage is actually dealt.

[EDIT] Illustration

1) Wraith does 1 projectile damage.

2) As it's projectile, apply MCP to increase to 3.

3) Apply Imbued Fire to convert to Fire.

4) Recalculate damage as 2 is no longer true.

1) Ennead do 1 damage do Fanatic.

2) As it's exactly 1 damage, Undaunted prevents the damage.

3) Apply damage bonus from Obsidian Field

4) As 2 is no longer true, why is the damage not recalculated here? What is the difference between these two lists?

You don't recalculate triggered events.

Otherwise you'd get stuff like:

1.  Fixer would be dealt damage, redirect.

2.  Fixer would no longer be dealt damage, cancel redirection.

Only if you consider them simultaneous. I'm still wondering why these triggers are being considered as simultaneous to the damage when they're consequent? After all ,what's triggering the trigger if the event hasn't finisehd resolving? Yes, I know this causes SHD and Undaunted problems, but the alternative is that you can ignore damage boosts when it's not convenient and include them when it is. That seems obviously counter to the game play to me.

Because they aren't simultaneous. The way you are supposed to do it, you determine the final damage type FIRST. It's fire. THEN you apply IF but not MTC, because you are dealing Fire damage but not Projectile. It only applies the buffs based on the final damage type.

That's the thing though. What are simultaneous triggers? I would have not considered SHD/Fort as simultaneous before, but they are. So the question becomes what exactly makes them simultaneous so we can apply that to other card interactions, like Driving Mantis/Obsidian Field. 

And Pwatson, when undaunted would prevent the damage, it would stop the damage process there, so it would not apply the OF bonus since that instance of damage was prevented from occurring if undaunted was resolved first. That was my thought anyway. 

Yeah, if you can time prevention you can stop the damage right then, because it can't be dealt, so it wouldn't be boosted.

That's why I don't allow it, but the new ruling might make it an option, depending on how someone sees static and trigger effects interacting.

Also on destruct effects when a card has self destruct text could be interesting.

Thats basically what I was asking in the OP. Do you think the new ruling make those interactions an option (regardless of whether you choose to resolve it in that order or in a different one)? I am thinking the new order of operations ruling makes it possible, while at the same time leaving the door officially open to resolve them in a different way if the player chooses.

I was not sure what other people thought the ruling actually changed. It seems that, from the few who have posted here, the new ruling is largely being ignored as it pertains to intigrating it into your games. I think the ruling allows for that, but it is certainly interesting to note.

My first 2 senarios might have jumped into the nuances of unpacking the ruling too quickly. Lets take a few steps back and inch forward.

Senario #3) Cramped Quarters Combat and Imbued Fire are in play. For the sake of argument, assume Imbued Fire was in play first. Lets also assume that Voss has one of his melee immune ships in play. Does the new Order of Operations ruling allow the heros the option to resolve CQC before IF to continue doing fire damage to kill Voss's ship?

That's one thing I love about the new ruling, you can follow it by ignoring it.

I like it because you have much more capability to come up with awsome combos, like Shielding winds+Superhuman+Fortitude reducing a 7 damage attack to 1 damage without worrying about card play order.

I do think it is acceptable to prevent damage before modifying it under current rules.  You can't take the damage before applying modifiers, but preventing is different.  Just like being immune to damage affects damage before you can redirect it, Prevention should be able to shut that damage down before it is modified.

Basically my interpretation of the way you would justify that is:

Fanatic's Undaunted says whenever Fanatic would be dealt, which times it right with modifiers and redirections.  If you viewed it this way you could play the card that if at any point damage that is directed at Fanatic is 1 damage, it is prevented.  So say you get dealt 2-1+3 damage, you could take the -1, the damage equals one damage, you prevent it, before the other bonuses apply.

I don't like that interpretation at all, but the logical sequence of rulings we have, and the card text allow for it.\

As for global effects applying first, I haven't seen that in anything official, so I believe it is just a concensus, not a rule.

3) Yes, I believe scenario 3 is correct. It also allows you to control redierctions to determine who gets the final effect, i.e. if Lead from the Front and Smoke Bombs are in play you could hold off on redirecting to Legacy until after Smoke Bombs has kicked in.

I'm mostly objecting to interefering with damage while it's still being calculated. I do not agree that redirection or prevention are simultaneous with modify damage totals. Without that, the question becomes moot.

What is it that makes SHD/Fort simultaneous? Is it because they have a similar effect (trigger not assessed)? Or is it because Fort might have an implicit trigger of "whenever you would be dealt damage" similar to SHD (trigger assessed)? 

If we can boil down what exactly gives SHD/Fort its simultaneous status, we can extend that to other interactions like redirection and prevention. But as Phantaskippy pointed out, there may not be a right/wrong way anymore to how these things resolve, which is the single most infuriating/beautiful thing about the ruling. 

I'd like to attempt to distill a methodology for navigating the new official order of operations. But to do that, I need a set of premises that I need to assume are true.  Here I have 3 premises that I fully believe to be 100% correct that will guide this new method:

1. The Order of Operations ruling contains two truths, that  A) SHD and Fort. are simultaneous effects and that B) simultaneous effects are resolved in the order of the players choice

2. For two or more effects to be "simultaneous", they must occur at the same time. 

3. The timing of any particular Effect can only be conveyed through its associated Trigger

(If anyone disagree's with any of the above premises, I would be interested in hearing so)

If [1A] is correct, than it follows that SHD and Fort, then they must occur at the same time, as stated by [2]. Timing of effects are the exclusive property of said effect's Trigger clause as stated by [3]. Having said that, the conclusion I am reaching here is that SHD and Fort must have similar triggers.

SHD has an explicit "when you would be dealt" trigger. Fort, on the other hand, as is the case with the vast majority of damage modifying effects, does not contain an explicit trigger clause. Since we have already deduced that Fort/SHD must have similar triggers to be given simultaneous status, we can infer that Fort. has an implicit trigger of "when you would be dealt".

Here is where the dangerous part comes in. If we are now saying that Fort. has a defined implicit trigger, might we extend that implicit trigger to all damage modification effects that otherwise have no explicit trigger? That would seem to be the logical leap here. If the implicit trigger on Fort. reads "when you would be dealt", I imagine effects that increase damage would have an implicit trigger of "when you would deal". 

If those type of effects share a "would deal/be dealt" trigger wording and are simultaneous with eachother, then we can go ahead and say that other "would deal/be dealt" triggers would fall simultaneous with those as well. This would include redirection effects, such as Driving Mantis, and the prevention mechanic as it is worded on Undaunted.

If all of those things are truely simultaneous, maybe these is a way to boil down the whole damage dealing proccess into a neat little package.

I propose splitting the whole resolution proccess into two distinct parts, Pre-Damage and Post-Damage.

Pre-Damage occurs anytime an instance of damage is declared. Determin the initial target, type, and amount for the damage. Then, in the order of the players choosing, may start resolving any "Pre-Damage" effect, which include any and all effects dealing with damage that are not dependant on HP being reduced. This would include damage type modifiers, amount modifiers (+/- or prevention), and target modifiers (redirection). (It should be brought up that having damage Immunity is a bit of a special situation. To keep in line with the official ruling that a damage immune Nightmist can not redirect damage with her Amulet, I will be working on the assumption that immunity does not prevent you from being targeted with an instance of damage, but it would in effect prevent "would be dealt" triggers from triggering on her).

Post-Damage occurs the moment HP starts being actually reduced, and would include damage effects that are specifically dependant on HP being reduced in some capacity, like Hypersonic Assault from Tachyons deck or Omni-X's Reactive Plating Subroutine. 

Id like to hear any thoughts you guys have on this methodology or anything about the new Order of Operations in general.

I tend to order the rpocess of damage as:

1) Select target

2) Determine damage type. Anything that modifes type is simltneous with everything else that does.

3) Determine immnity. If immune, stop.

4) Apply modifiers to the damage total. These are simltaneous, so can be applied in any order. I tend to break on initator and on target modifiers separtely and do the former first. If damage is 0, stop.

5) Redirect and return to step 1 if is a change of target. All redirections are simltaneous.

6) Apply any prevent damage features, or convert damage to healing.

7) Reduce targets hit points by damage total.

8) If target has hit points left, continue with any effect that applies after damage is dealt, such as the Chairman's retributive damage or Isothermic Transducer's second strike.

This is in no way backed up by the rules, just how I conceptualise the damage process.

Theres the thing though, it actually is backed up by the rules, at least it is if I am seeing things right. That is not an incorrect way to resolve it.

I do not like the idea of implicit triggers, as Static effects seem officially to not have them (not expressly stated, but the static effects don't have timing definitely leads that way).

 I have tried to reconcile the idea that Fortitude and SHD can be simultaneous effects, and Fortitude not have timing.

That is how I came to my current operating stance on timing static and triggered effects:

Static effects never have timing issues with other static effects, you don't need to time them or resolve them as such, you just need to do he math.  This is largely because static effects do not oppose each other, a +1 and -1 don't fight to see who gets applied, they both apply for a change of 0.  Conditional triggers like SHD and redirection triggered by amount of damage can conflict, and in those circumstances the application of a static effect and the triggering of a triggered effect can have simultaneous timing.

This is important because unlike conditional static effects, conditional triggered effects do not recheck.  Imbued Fire's bonus to fire damage and Micro Targetting Computer can apply their effects, then unaply them, no conditional trigger does that.  If Super Human rechecked once it reduced damage it would just endlessly loop on damage of 5 or 6, constantly reducing then unreducing than reducing again.

An interesting test of conditional triggers, and the timing of different effects would be the following progression:

Fanatic has Divine Focus ans Sacrosanct Martyr in play, and the twist the ether on her, Baron Blade has elemental redistributor and a Mobile Defense Platform out.

1.  Fanatic discards at the start of her turn to deal Baron Blade 2 radiant damage.

2.  That damage is Fire and increased to 3 due to IF.

3.  Because that damage is fire Baron Blade redirects it (to Fanatic for our purposes)

4.  Visionary uses Twist the Ether to change the damage to Radiant, which reduces it to 2 (losing IF bonus), then increases it one to hit Fanatic for 3 radiant damage.  Lets divine focus go away.

5.  Fanatic sacrosanct Martyr's, dealing herself 5+1 radiant damage through TtE.

6.  Fanatic deals the Mobile Defense Platform 10 damage, destroying it.

Is this a legal turn under the current rules?

Could Visionary wait till the damage is redirected to use Twist the Ether? (I don't see any reason she couldn't, since it is still Fanatic's damage)

If Visionary changed the damage would it then not be redirected by the Baron's Elemental redistributor and do nothing to the immune to damage Baron Blade.  (this would only be the case if conditional triggered effects can recheck their requirements and untrigger, which I would say no to)

I see what you are getting at, but have you considered that Barron blades immunity granted by the MDP could alter your step 3?

consider that Nightmist can't redirect an instance of damage with amulet while she's immune to damage. I do not believe the order of operations trumps that ruling, so I consider it valid. If that's the case, I do not believe you would be able to redirect to Fanatic. I'd be interested on your thoughts on immunity. 

But yes I think you might be able to wait on Twist the Ether. And no I think the redirection wouldn't be retroactively canceled. The trigger for the redirect is conditional sure, but the effect is not conditional (like MTC is a conditional effect). 

you are right about the immunity, didn't think of that at the time.

Here's a question that puzzled me today - under the OoO ruling, if Absolute Zero has the lowest HP and a Null-Point Calibration Unit in play, and Wraith has out Smoke Bombs, and a Gene-Bound Frost Hound deals cold damage to everything, can Absolute Zero choose to gain HP by taking the cold damage, instead of redirecting the damage away from himself to the highest-HP hero?

Smoke bomb redirect is optional. 

There is no may in Smoke Bombs

Smoke Bombs is not optional, but the timing of Smoke Bombs and the conversion from cold to healing should be simultaneous, and that would mean hero choice.

I would say that since we have no reason to treat them as anything but simultaneous that the order would be your choice, so yes, AZ could heal before the redirection would trigger, causing the redirection to not trigger.  

Yeah, the specific wording on both cards are "Whenever (X target) would be dealt (Cold damage/damage from a villain target), (Y effect)," so they are undoubtedly simultaneous. I second this ruling.