Vengeance rules questions (possible spoilers!)

So I'm pretty sure both of these came up during playtesting, but I honestly don't remember the rulings, and even if I dug them up, I'm sure someone who wasn't a playtester would ask eventually.

Bestial Shift - based on my understanind of how one-shots work, this should be legitimate, right?

   Begin in Gazelle

   Play Bestial Shift, regain 2 hp, use your base power to turn in Crocodile

   Continue resolving Bestial Shift to deal 3(4) damage, use a power to turn in Rhino

   One-shot action ceases, because you don't go backwards and pick up the Rhino effect.

   Right?

Infiltrate and Obfuscate - If there is only 1 villain target, is it both the highest and second highest?  Or is there no second highest, so the effect just fizzles?

For Bestial Shift, you are able to do all the things on the card in whatever order if you can pull it off, though The Naturalist can only use his base power to transform once per turn, so you'll likely only get 2 effects, but the order doesn't matter.

Also, the Gazelle ability is now 3 HP, rather than 2. But yes, you are correct, generally speaking.

Also correct on your other question.

Huh?

I think he meant that, if there's only one villain target, Infiltrate and Obfuscate will count that target as second-highest.

Do we have that official?

I've always played that there has to be 2 targets for one to be 2nd anything.

Multiple targets tied can be any order, but I'd like confirmation that a solo target can come in second to itself.

Seconded. I have always played it that K.N.Y.F.E. takes the damage if there isn't a second highest villain target.

If there is only one villain target, it is both the highest HP villain and the lowest HP villain. That is confirmed as we all know that Haka's punish the weak will still get a +1 when hitting a lone villain target. 

If a single villain target can be both the highest HP villain and the lowest HP villain target at the same time, it seems to follow that it would also be the 2nd highest, 3rd highest, ect ect. to infinity.

Confirmation would be nice, but I believe this to be the correct way to view it.

I disagree.  It can be highest and lowest simultaneously because it fits both definitions.  There are no villains with higher* hitpoins so this is the highest, there are no villains with lower* hit points so this is the lowest.  You just look at what highest and lowest mean one at a time and see that both fit.  However if we look at second highest, that means that exactly one other villain has higher* hit points.  If there are no other villains this is impossible and fails to be true.

*following rules for ties of course.

Yes this has been confirmed. But we are talking second highest, not highest or lowest.

If a single villain target can be both the highest HP villain and the lowest HP villain target at the same time, it seems to follow that it would also be the 2nd highest, 3rd highest, ect ect.

Confirmation would be nice, but I believe this to be the correct way to view it.

I'd say that in the absence of a second target, she can direct it to the solo. 

I will apply Promo gloomweaver logic:

There is 1 (one) non-hero target currently in play.  Gloomy has not flipped.

Promo gloomy goes after the non-hero target with the second lowest (at the end of the villain turn).

does it make more sense for:

the enfleshed god-zombie to hit the only target there? (dealing damage).

OR

the enfleshed god-zombie to become confused at the only target, get a headache, and have to lie down in a dark room for a while? (doing no damage).

Haha. Whats funny is, my prediction about us not having disagreements on these things has flown out the window instantly.

I see the reasoning behind there needing to be at least 2 targets to use the redirect. I'm not married to my interpretation in any way. I feel they are both valid ways to look at it until we get confirmation one way or the other (if we get one at all)

Edit: Nice counter example Braith. I still feel that way feels much better.

Or laugh at the puny lone target who thinks he can take on the might god. Ignoring that lone target, as there is no one just one person to succeed in his objective.

Foote is wrong.

We are not disagreeing, he is married to his interpretation (it is in fact crying in the bathroom right now feeling horribly betrayed), and until we get final confirmation there is no validity ever.

Man I miss the forum arguments.

Which is why I keep my expectations low.

I feel they are both valid ways to look at it until we get confirmation one way or the other (if we get one at all)

I think its safe to say we can rule out the "it just vanishes" option totally

I believe the correct answer is that it is redirected to Ronway.

There is already evidence of vanishing damage, thanks to Vicious Onslaught and Ravage from Plague Rat's deck. So I am not ruling out anything until one of the great powers join in, saying how it works.

The wording on those is to prevent a single hero from getting double dipped in damage. The wording at issue here is very different. 

I miss these forum arguments…

I disagree completely…

Wait, nevermind. Force of habbit.

Not sure what you mean by "double dipped in damage", when either of those cards are played with only a single hero target in play, they will not do any damage at all. And yes, the wordings are different, but I can't just shrug off vanishing damage when there are already two cards that are already doing it.

I may be misremembering the card. I'll take a peek when I get home and get back to you

Sure you don't mean force of Rabit?

Sorry, couldn't resist.  I'll go stand in the corner now.

Well, this is a LITTLE different, since the others are damage that is being dealt, and this is damage being redirected.  The real question is what happens when you try to redirect damage to a target that doesn't exist.  My only reasoning for the damage NOT vanishing is Proletariat.  He redirects all non-psychic damage dealt to the Clone card with the lowest hp.  If there are no clones in play, I ASSUME the damage doesn't vanish?  I ASSUME the redirection just doesn't happen, and thus that the same would be true for Infiltrate and Obfuscate.  I don't rule vanishing damage out, but Proletariat makes me think it's less likely.

Pro's redirect needs to target a clone though. If there are no Clones to deal damage to, the redirect would never kick in. Its not a matter of damage vanashing, it never happened in the first place. Right?

Christopher indicated at the gathering, that if there are no clones then the damage cannot be redirected and goes to Proletariat.

Right, but the same holds true.  If a single villain target is NOT also the second highest, then there is no second highest in play (just like no Clones in play), so then the redirection would never happen (not vanish), which is what I was saying.

Yes it is different, and I am in no way saying the damage vanishes is the way to play. I am firmly in the K.N.Y.F.E. takes damage if there isn't a second villain target in play, as I said in my very first post in this topic, and in every post I had made in the playtesting forum. I am merely stating that since someone had previously brought up the damage vanishing, that we can't rule it out as a possibility, until a higher power says so.

Just had a conversation with Christopher, as follows:

Me: so, infiltrate and obfuscate…only 1 villain target, is it also the second highest villain target, or is there NO second highest?

Christopher: With only one target in play, there cannot be a second highest villain target.

Me: so then the redirection cannot happen, correct?

Me: (i.e. with no legal target, you can’t redirect)

Christopher: Correct!

I did say those things!

That was fun guys, lets do this again real soon!


Uh, okay.

What if the villain target is schizophrenic?  Then they might be able to take it, as they could believe that they were the second highest as well as the highest, esp. if their different personalities had different Max HP.

Schizophrenia and Disassociative Personality Disorder are not the same thing. Schizophrenics who don't also have DID don't have multiple personalities.

What Katsue said. I was just about to make that distinction myself.

Studying psychology at uni and running self help groups for an organisation which supports people with mental health problems will do that to you. ;)

I understand, DPD patient would be very unlikely to think they are two people at once.  A Schizophrenic person can without requiring DPD.

The villain could also just be on acid.  That probably would have been a better reference.

A schizophrenic relative (a cousins uncle, is there a name for that?) used to believe he was sitting in the chair staring at him.  It was wierd, and took us a while to understand his paranoia, but he believed he was watching himself from under his invisibility cloak (or some kind of covering, he wanted us to sneak up and take it off)

The confusion between "schizophrenia" and "split personality" is understandable, given that "schizo" means "split".  But schizophrenia really refers to a "split" between the 'phrenic's internal reality and the external world, which can be virtually anything - the classic "hearing voices" is only one example.  In all cases, they have nothing to do with multiple personality disorder.