While I can conceivably understand the rules argument for her not taking damage, that's not how we played it when it came up. It seems clear that the intention is for her to take damage if she chooses to redirect damage. It simply doesn't make sense for her to not suffer any backlash if her target is destroyed. Maybe Wresting isn't dangerous if it's fatal?
I'm aware of nothing is truely simultanious and i'm not agrueing that fact. However there is a slight difference between "do X and Y" to "do X then do Y" otherwise they would have worded things the same.
I may not have a way to cite my opinion on the matter, but can you cite yours?
Huh.
The offical errata thread needs updating as it doesn't have the same wording as on the card!
The plain fact that nothing is simultanious inherently implies there is no difference between "do x and y" and "do x then y". You can never do action X and Y at the same time, which is what "do X and Y" would normally indicate (a simultanious action). Because that can not happen, you must resolve the actions one at a time, so in effect you are actually doing "do X then Y" regardless of how the sentence is worded. There is no mechanical difference. There nessesarily can't be a difference within the structure of the game.
Regardless, I think I will change my stance. Re-reading Wrest the Mind, after Visionary redirects the damage, it is actually HER doing the 3 damage and NOT Wrest the Mind (like I originally thought). Regardless of whether Wrest the Mind and its target are destroyed, Visionary is still active and still the one doing the damage. So I do not think the wording of "do x and y" has any bearing in this after all.
Thoughts?
That's what I had been saying the entire time. Visionary is still active. I was not agrueing any simultanious ruling at all.
The simulatanious thing I was getting at if Wrest the Mind was worded "Deal the target 3 damage and then deal Visionary 3 damage" if the target would be destroyed than Wrest the Mind would go with it then it wouldn't get to the "and then" section. So "then" being there or not being there does have an impact.
Hmm keep forgetting that (Edit: incapped) Heros do not have name.
So then in theory:
You can have Haka Rampage and then incap himself to prevent the 2 damage to everyone else?
Yes you could, though if Haka is done to 2 HP than I don'tt hink that game is going too well.
This isn’t really the best evidence to back my statement up (given how much of the information was moved or lost during the transition), but it is the best I could find.
https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/destroying-source-effect
That's not really the same thing. As that is destroying the Rat that is doing the damage would stops it, which i would agree with.
Wrest the Mind has Visionary deal damage, so these are two different circumstances.
From Spiff's clarification document:
"when a card is destroyed before it can finish its effect, any remaining effect is cancelled."
Which does rather imply that if Wrest the Mind is destroyed mid-way through its effect resolving then any remaining part of the effect would not take place.
I think the arguments for both sides are pretty solid. Can we add this to the pending rules question thread?
The discussion about how this question is answered is hinging on the specific wording of Wrest the Mind. If someone is willing to quote Wrest the Mind exactly and rewrite the question above to point out the nuance of 'do this and that' versus 'do this then do that', I am willing to move this to the unanswered questions thread.
I might be willing to buy this argument (static effects of 'being played' card take effect immediately, while triggered effects do no), but I'm not sure. Anyone know of any precedent?
I think most of us are quite aware of that ruling. Which isn't where this discussion draws the line at. It is more of a timing and a card that is destroyed that is allowing another target to do damage.
Lets say Wrest the Mind is attached to Citizen Hammer (first card that came to mind that deals damage and has < three HP) so when it comes around to his turn to do an attack he'll try to do 3 fire damage to all hero targets however the first target he blast at Visionary redirects at Dawn instead.
Next Wrest the Mind says "Visionary deals this target and herself 3 psychic damage" so she preps for these 2 attacks, since of course it is the same effect. The first going into Hammer, destroying him and cancelling the rest of his attacks to the other heroes. Now this will also destroy Wrest the Mind, but Visionary already has the message she needs to hit herself aswell, thus she will hit herself with the second attack she had prepped as Wrest the Mind had already told her to do before hand.
Now my opposition is taking the card to be more along the lines of "Visionary deals this target 3 psychic damage then she will deal herself 3 psychic damage." Which would mean she preps the first hit and hit Hammer with the attack, destroying Hammer and Wrest the Mind with it. Since they were two seperate effects Visionary will be able to escape unscathed.
I find it funny that you say a card which actually states it’s multiple actions as a single thing (End of Days 'destroy (approx.) all cards) as multiple interruptable things, while a card that states multiple things (that target and herself) as a single thing.
I'm not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean. Please elaborate?
It seems like if an effect that hits "every (blah)" does so one at a time, and can be stopped if the source is gone, then an effect that hits 2 things "this target and Visionary" can be inturrupted by the source going away as well.
However Wrest the Mind is not the source of the damage. Visionary is, and has she gone away? I think not.
Well to be fair, End of Days is the source of the destruction. I think what Ronway said previously is correct, that if End of Days specified that Fanatic herself destroys the cards, then the BeeBot combo would cease to work.
To contrast, Wrest the Mind is not the source of the damage, Visionary is.
Maybe we can go back to the "stack of resolving effects" idea. Once Visionary redirects damage, the next effect is triggered and added to the stack immediatly. The effect is Visionary dealing 3 damage to the target and to herself. Maybe this is where the importance of "and" vs "then" that Ronway and I were discussing, as the "and" could imply that both effects are added to the stack at the same time, where as "then" would add them to the stack separatly (important for timing). If you look at it this way, the destruction of WtM does not influence whether or not Visionary hits herself, as the effect is already in the stack waiting to be resolved.
But it is the source of the effect. The effect can't continue when the card is gone, even if it is damage.