Kismet Question (Imminent Destruction and Unlucky Break)

Sorry if this was already asked, but I don't remember seeing it.  So on it's "villain" side the heriloom increases Kismet's damage by the number of Jinxes in play.  Both Imminent Destruction and Unlucky Break are one-shot Jinxes that deal damage.  So is the damage she deals from these cards effectively +1 because they are in-play while resolving?

My guess is yes, because putting a one-shot "into play" makes it resolve, so I would assume it stays "in play" until done.

I would say yes!

I would deal an additional instance of Yes! damage to that question.

It has been confirmed by Christopher that One Shots are in play until they all text has been dealt with so I would say that they are "Jinx cards in play", increase that damage!

This is a great question and I agree that it would increase her damage dealt.

I'd say yes too, I had never really thought about it much before.

Agreements! YAY!

Wow, that is the most unanimous agreement I can remember seeing in recent history.  I'm almost tempted to disagree, just so I'm not blinded by the glaring brightness of this shining agreement.

Almost.

I'd disagree but all this positive energy is too good to mess up.

Although I'm pretty sure I don't like the way Foote worded his agreement.

Hey, I am totally with veggie-man here, I was totally tempted to disagree just to pee in the cherios a bit

I think a mod needs to step in here and put an end to this enthusiastic agreement. It's getting out of hand. 

If you guys want to pat each other on the back and sing praises to each other in extremely uplifting language, you need to take it elsewhere. These forums are solely for the discussion of marginally conflicting ideas, mostly based on semantics, where the differences are blown way out of proportion. 

No it's not, that would be stupid. They're for RAGING DISSENT AND CRITICISM of marginally different ideas, based mainly on semantics, where the differences are blown out of proportion. =3

Unlucky Break would not get the bonus because it only deals damage if a hero has the Talisman, and thus Kismet does not, ergo she doesn't increase her damage for Jinxes in play.  Imminent Destruction, though, seems like it would benefit if she has the Talisman while it resolves.  Makes sense, after all, since she's probably supposed to be using the Talisman to cause the Destruction, even though she can do it without the thing.

(Still, I think this is one place where MTG's concept of "reminder text" would come in extremely handy.)

I add myself to agreeing with all the people agreeing with each other about the thing being agreed with :).

I agree too. Even with Envisioner.

It can't be a good sign.

Something evil is on its way.

Quick, let's fight and argue before the world stops turning, and the Cosmos begins Wrathing.

"Well folks, looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree."

"I don't agree to that!"

"Me neither!"



All this agreeing is making me uncomfortable.

Stop it.


NO

Oh Please?

I agree that it should stop. 

If you haven't ever, you need to read The Phantom Tollbooth this weekend. Might take you as much as an afternoon.

I think, at this point, it would be best if I stepped in and made a ruling that indicated that you were all wrong.

"I really don't understand this bit of the rules… 'Everyone on the forum is wrong'? How does that work?"

"It's best not to ask, really."

I agree with Christopher.

I disagree with agreeing with Christopher.

Christopher is right.