Hi. I have a few questions about rules. I've already looked through Spiff's rules and clarifications and couldn't find an answer.
When damage between two targets is increased, but damage from one of those targets to the other is redirected, is the damage still increased? So if for example Progeny would deal 1 damage to Knyfe, but The Scholar redirected it to himself, would The Scholar take one damage or two?
If an effect on a card is unable to be completed, do subsequent effects on the card still activate? In a recent game I played, we came across Progreny's card Time of Tribulations, which reads "Increase damage dealt by Progeny by 2. At the start of the villain turn, destroy 1 equipment card belonging to each player, then destroy 1 scion card and this card." So if not every player can destroy an equipment card, does it still destroy a scion card and itself?
If effects can't be fulfilled completely, are they still fulfilled partially? So in the previous example would you destroy an equipment card in front of each player who does have equipment? Or if Setback plays "Plucky Break" with 1 unlucky token would he remove that token?
Redirected damage is not a new instance of damage, it just changes the target. Thus it does not get boosted again unless the new target has a modifier that will increase or reduce it
The card effect in that case is fulfilled as much as possible. So each player with equipment would destroy one, it would destroy a scion and then itself. Unless the card has a condition on it, it does each thing as much as it can. So in your Setback example he would remove 1 token.
I'll probably get ninjaed before I finish typing this out but here goes
For your first question, when damage gets redirected the damage is reevaluated. I'm assuming in this case that Progeny is dealing two damages to all hero targets and that KNYFE has her shield out which reduces damage by one from the villain with the most health. In this particular case when the damage is redirected to Scholar he would have two damage coming his way and you would need to evaluate what he has in play to see if it stays at two damage.
For your second question that card and a scion card would be destroyed regardless of whether every hero has an equipment to destroy. If the card read that the card and a scion card was destroyed if each hero destroyed one equipment card then it would remain in play. Since it the text doesn't state it's dependant on the destruction of equipment from each hero it proceeds to destroy a Scion card in play and itself.
For your next questions, in talking about the same card you would just destroy one equipment for each hero. If your hero doesn't have an equipment card in play then you don't destroy one. Again, Time of Tribulations is not dependent on all heroes have an equipment card to destroy for its remaining effects to happen.
In the Setback example you would remove the one unlucky token you have in your pool and only get the benefit of the health gained in the second line since you were not able to remove two total unlucky tokens.
You forgot about the nemesis bonus between KNYFE and Progeny.
But just for clarity, the +1 damage from the nemesis bonus would not apply when redirected to Scholar because, as Powerhound said, all modifiers are reevaluated after a redirection.
"Plucky Break" - Yes, if you only had 1 unlucky token, you have to remove it. Since you did not remove 2 tokens that way, you do not get the conditional benefit of the card (drawing and dealing damage). You just lose your token, and most likely heal since you would have 0 tokens left in your pool.
Effects can be interrupted if the source is destroyed though. If you destroy a volcanic eruption then all of the remaining lava immediately vanishes or something.
I argued that the "then" clause happens whether or not the first part of the sentence is fully completed, but they said that they thought it had to destroy an equipment belonging to each hero for that to happen.
Waaaaaait a minute! I’m getting turned around, here.
My premises are:
“Damage dealt” = “HP is reduced.”
“Redirecting” damage does not generate a new instance of damage, it just changes the target damaged.
I’m looking at the second edition rulebook to get those.
Suppose Scholar has Alchemical Redirection in play, and no other modifier is on the board. Progeny is supposed to deal KNYFE 1 damage according to the text on whatever card we just started resolving. Here’s how I think things should go:
Apply modifiers to the damage, so Progeny now gets the nemesis bonus and he’s about to do KNYFE 2 damage.
Now we know how much to reduce KNYFE’s HP, which means we know she “would be dealt” that much damage. We didn’t know this before the modifier!
When a hero would be dealt damage, we redirect it to the Scholar. That switches the target of the original damage to the Scholar, it doesn’t make Progeny stop and start all over again.
Scholar’s HP goes down by 2.
(Now, if we had the opportunity, we could apply any defensive bonuses on the Scholar, like Flesh to Iron.)
I would think that if Progeny stopped and restarted, the door would open for all kinds of infinite redirect sorts of things.
If Scholar becomes the new target due to redirection you have to reevaluate the damage being dealt. In the situation above with no other interactions, the Scholar would have one damage coming his way.
That just doesn’t seem thematically in line with what is going on. Or consistent with the “damage dealt = HP reduced” principle, for that matter.
Progeny is TRYING to hit KNYFE. He hates her just as much as he ever did. The Scholar is stepping into the middle of things and doing something to interfere with Progeny’s actions. Progeny shouldn’t get the chance to, as his half-formed energy blast leaves his liquid fingertips, think “oh, wait, I’m going to hit somebody else by mistake. I just won’t try as hard.”
That's assuming the damage is because of hate, maybe it is because of experience. They fought so much, that they know of each other's weaknesses, which wouldn't apply to the next target.
Regardless, that's not how redirecting works. First you see if damage would have been dealt. If it has been, then you redirect, reassesssing all modifiers. However, you were incorrect in your assumption above, it does create a new instance of damage. The first instance was canceled, and a new one is being reassessed. It is as if the first one never happened, with a few exceptions.
Honestly, the other way simply doesn't make sense to me. BUnker is lowest with Heavy Plating, and Smoke Bombs redirect it to somenone else, why would the next target get the defense bonus for Heavy Plating?
You can play it that way if you like with the card game but damage always get reevaluated when the target changes. I'll give two other examples that can be done the video game currently where a redirection causes changes.
Say Tachyon has Synaptic Interruption in play, Baron Blade has Backlash Field and Living Forcefield in play, and Baron Blade is about to deal Tachyon five damage. Synaptic Interruption gets destroyed and Tachyon selects a new target of Baron Blade. Baron Blade now deals himself five damage which gets reduced to four and Backlash Field will react causing Baron Blade to hit himself for three damage which gets reduced to two.
Second example. Legacy has Lead from the Front in play and Baron Blade is about to deal Tempest two damage. Legacy chooses to take the damage from Baron Blade but is now dealt three damage due to the nemesis bonus.
I initially thought this to be how redirecting works in the game, but I realized that this idea just doesn't fit into the mechanics. There is no case where something suddenly redirects something else (although there are times when you don't know if it will be redirected). Whenever somebody attacks somebody else, on both side, they know it will be redirected.
I think Smoke Bombs and Lead from the Front would be obvious counter examples to the idea that both sides know what’s going on.
I’ve always thought of redirects as something like one hero jumping in front of another target to take the damage, or maybe as confusion on the battlefield. Rules-wise, all the word “redirect” changes is the target of the damage - and we don’t know how much damage was going to happen until we count out how much HP to take away from the original target. I’ll offer up that >G seems to have called out generating a new damage instance as a special thing, which should be treated differently. For example, the Jack handle doesn’t say “redirect that damage to all non-hero targets.”
I agree that the Bunker example seems a little funny, but by the same token if we have Baron Blade hit Wraith, who is lowest, and Smoke Bombs redirects the damage to Legacy, who has Fortitude, I think that Legacy absolutely should get the benefit of both the confusing smoke and his own bulletproof pecs. Also, the Baron had no idea Legacy would be there, so he gets no benefit from his experience or hatred or whatever.