The difference with throat jab and hyper speed is that they have to deal damage to trigger, no damage is taken thus no effect triggers, “would deal” is a step before “dealt”
The ruling itself is in Spiff's excellent collection of rules and clarifications: http://spiffworld.com/sotm/ . Unfortunately, while I trust him to have transcribed it accurately, I can't find the source either and it may have been eaten in one of the forum reworkings or not even have been from the forum.
The key difference between Amulet of the Elder Gods and Throat Jab is 'would' versus 'is'. Amulet of the Elder Gods triggers when damage would be dealt and alters it before that damage affects her. Throat Jab triggers when damage is dealt, and causes additional effects after the damage affects the target. I admit it is kind of arbitrary to say that one cares about immunity and the other does not, I just think it makes for better gameplay.
That's one of the things I've had trouble wrapping my head around with AZ. Cryo Chamber increases cold damage dealt to AZ by 1 and decreases fire damage dealt to AZ by 1. If I use Thermodynamics to deal myself 1 cold damage with Cryo Chamber and NPCU out in the absence of any other buffs, do I heal myself for 1 or 2?
The case for 1: Cold damage dealt to AZ is increased by 1, but NPCU prevents AZ from actually being dealt damage.
The case for 2: Cold damage dealt to AZ is increased by 1 the second it's directed at AZ, but then converted to two healing by NPCU.
I feel like 1 makes logical sense by a strict reading of the rules, but I also feel that if that's the case then Cryo Chamber is a terrible card that kind of neuters AZ's base power.
Do you think the developer's intent was that some cards kick in when damage is targeted and others only when it is dealt? That seems complicated to me.
For Absolute Zero it is definately case 2. Whatever amount his HP would go down, Null Point Calibration Unit heals him that amount instead. There are alot of different ways to define how static and triggered effects interact, but ultimately I'm sure the whole point of Cryo Chamber is to boost his healing.
Redirecting damage has to kick in before the damage is dealt, because the original target is not hurt by it. Whereas reactions to damage that is dealt are resolved after the target has actually been hurt by it. (For example, Absolute Zero can't take a lethal dose of fire and use both modules to survive, because taking the fire damage incapacitates him).
That makes more sense to me now.
Unfortunately, while I trust him to have transcribed it accurately, I can't find the source either and it may have been eaten in one of the forum reworkings or not even have been from the forum.
I'm slightly embarrassed about the lack of links in my doc. I've always known that the lack of citations in my doc is a weakness, and I'd want links proving the truth of each clarification too, if I were someone deciding whether to trust my doc as authoritative. But at this point, hunting down and adding citations for each and every clarification in there would (a) be a giant pain in the keister to do, and (b) clutter up the doc, reducing its readability.
I suppose if someone were to do all that research and present me with links for the rulings, I could be shamed into adding them and then maintaining that going forward, but that's unfortunately probably the only way it's going to change.
I'm sorry Spiff that I don't have the time to hunt those citations down for you, but you are a very reputable source and I trust your rulings 100%.
I am still against the idea of redirecting damage intitally dealt to an immune target.
Another point I'd liek to throw out, linking back to the old "Imbued Fire vs Close Quarters Combat" thread, it was stated that the effects given by Imbued Fire are static, i.e. always in effect. Since the damage immunity cards do not have any trigger wordings (i.e. 'when'), then it is a static effect, and always active. Thus, attempting to deal damage to one who is immune, the immunuity is always in effect, and there would not be any damage dealt. Same with conditional immunity. For instance, if some card would react to if The Chairman would be dealt damage, and an environment card attempts to deal damage to The Chariman, The Chairman is immune to environment damage (regiardless of which side he's currently on), and he would not be dealt damage, thus failing to activate the "would be dealt damage" portion of that card.
I would agree.
Although I would say that "would take damage" is similar in operation to the phrase "a card taking damage this way."
Would take damage requires that the damage would be taken. Not reduced to zero or not taken through immunity. The difference is simply timing. if the damage will be taken, then "would take damage" has been met, and the effect goes off before the damage is actually dealt. If the damage would not be taken, then its condition is not met.
The only problem is that the wordings don't seem to be used consistently enough to make this rule stick.
For example wrest the mind's effect takes place "Whenever (the) target deals damage" but the effect of the card takes place before the initial damage is dealt (that would seem to be required for the redirect to take place). This would be a prime spot for would deal damage to be used if following this definition. But it isn't used. I'd like to see an official clarification on the usage of would.
Being able to redirect damage done to an immune target doesn't sit well with me because I'm already not super comfortable with the confusing templating on "dealing damage" versus "being dealt damage." It takes a simple, intuitively understandable ruling, "Damage dealt = HP reduced," and makes it more convoluted.
However, if Plague Rat can redirect damage from environment cards he is immune to, then Nightmist can definitely redirect in this case. I was actually completely unaware of that ruling. Not really sure how I missed it because I've been reading these forums closely for some time now but oh well. Also, it means that I've been doing damage redirection for AoE attacks against Apostate's relics wrong in his favor, so I'll have to remember to fix that next game.
Maybe immunity shouldn't be viewed as static modifier? I look at it this way, "When you need to remove HP counters from this target, do not do it."
This way, immunity takes effect as a separate event from other modifiers and triggers, and acts at the last possible moment before HP reduction.
I like it.
I think an important point to consider is that villains already fundamentally work different from heroes. Spite is the only deck in the game with victim cards and only villain decks have devices. It wouldn't be too far fetched if the villains could do some things that heroes couldn't, in reference to Nightmist and Plague Rat.
That's different though; having cards with unique descriptors is entirely different from having different mechanics for the exact same word and concept.
My point is that something intended for a villain to be able to do, may not have also been intentioned for a hero. Chastise has gone through multiple errata because of deadly combinations it had with other cards such as stealth bot that were unseen at the time. It's possible that the ruling with Plague Rat and sewer fiend was made without taking Nightmist and the Amulet of the Elder Gods into consideration.
Is there some concern that allowing the Amulet to do this is overpowered? With Chastise and Stealth Bot the combo is allowing two separate effects to do something much bigger than either could do on their own. Allowing the Amulet to redirect when Nightmist is immune is just allowing it to do what it would normally.
If the problem is just that this seems unintuitive to you, I get that. But if you think it is hurting gameplay somehow, I'm not seeing that. I guess it makes it more viable to wear a villain down while you hang out in Mistform, but really if a villain can't destroy ongoings, things like Mistform or Telekinetic Cocoon are going to be a big problem for them regardless.
I can agree that at the moment, allowing NM to use the amulet while in Mist Form isn't horribly game breaking, I think it has the strong potential to be. Visionary's Demoralization only happens once at the start of her turn, after that, she has to wait another turn to do anything. NM with the Amulet can have her effect go off at the start of every turn. Also, she draws an extra turn, so even though she could get really low on cards and not be able to use it on multiple turns, she will always have fuel for it, and someone else like the Argent or Visionary could give her extra cards. So right now, there's nothing too horribly game breaking, but I'm not sure that's a door we really want opened.
I for one think it's very important that it functions the same way for Villain or Hero cards, and do not think there are any worrisome balance implications at this time. It's difficult to think of a situation where such an ability would be game-breaking. I think it's confusing in light of previous rulings, but otherwise it seems fine.
Tag-on question: Tachyon has Synaptic Interruption (if she would be dealt 3 or more damage from a single source, redirect it) in play and is immune to fire damage. Some effect tries to deal her 4 fire damage. Does this trigger Synaptic Interruption? It seems to me that one logical way this could function is immunity means that you essentially set the damage to zero, and that zero damage still triggers "would be dealt damage" effects. This could mean that Wraith's Stealth would pop even if you're immune.
EDIT: Upon further consideration this is extra awkward, becuase card effects that trigger on "is dealt damage" don't proc here. So it's a property of "would be dealt damage," or worse a property of redirection, and not a general principle that would allow it to trigger on packets of zero damage.
My concern is that Mist Form/Amulet combo could really produce some rather unfortunate results in shortsighted players. I have had players in the past in various games that needed some extra assistance in understanding the team play aspect of the game, and I worry that this could be oversimplified into a "power combo" that certain players would focus on rather than teamwork. I know that some players can do this with Bunker already, by putting out Heavy Plating, then his Repair Unit, then Ammo Drop, and put their Flak Cannon and Grenade Launcher on last with a Turret Mode finally played after the field has already been overrun with mooks and targets that needed to be eliminated three rounds prior. This wouldn't be the case with everyone, I know. I just worry that it is a combo that is a little too easy to pull off that results in Nightmist being a very passive, loner player in a game about teamwork.
The thing is, this isn't even a power combo. It's more work than Visionary's immunity + damage because you still have to sac cards to get the redirect, and anything that eats ongoings or equipment will break it. The worst part is, if you're redirecting with AotEG you're not taking the damage anyway so it's inefficient from a use-of-effects standpoint.
If a player's going to make problems for the team chasing this combo, they're going to make problems for the team playing characters that are actually combo-heavy like Wraith, Absolute Zero, or Argent Adept. They'll also make problems for the team playing support characters and only buffing themselves. Shortsighted players will find something to be shortsighted about.