It's true, but the difference is that Nightmist can always redirect damage once or twice, draw three cards on her turn, and she suffers little to no consequence for it. It is a simple combo that can easily refresh itself if it needs to.
Yeah, I'm not trying to say it's useless, especially if you have damage from a lot of different sources. It's a simple combo I might use as a stopgap if I'm low, or to hang on for victory if I'm the last hero alive. It's just that it's not the sort of combo I'd expect to see players chasing every single game, and it's no worse than other stasis-and-passive combos in the game.
When using Amulet of the Elder Gods and redirecting damage, +1 damage dealts are not added (Nightmist currently has +3 when dealing damage), correct?
The amulet just redirects the damage that would have been taken?
Right, redirecting damage isn't an opportunity to re-boost it. It just changes the target of the damage.
Thanks, Spiff!
But an ongoing like The Scholar's Mortal Form to Energy ('Whenever The Scholar reagins HP, The Scholar also deals 1 target that much energy damage.') will allow him to supplement the attack with whatever damage bonuses me may be receiving from heroes like Legacy, correct?
Yes. That's not redirection. It's like Fanatic's Sacrificial Martyr or Zero's Isothermic transducer. It's a second instance of daamge that just happens to be based on the original set of damage, or healing in the Scholar's case.
Thanks for confirming, pwatson!
There is no reason that things like DR and +dmg boosts are static but damage immunity is not. It is just not consistant.
Ultimatly, if it was ruled that the Rat can redirect damage he is immune to, then Nightmist can as well.
That would seem to mean that every other card that works off of the wording "would deal" is taken into account before all other static modifers. And in the name of consistancy, that would really make AbZ and NPCU extreamly shitty, for a lack of better words as it could not make use of his apetures or cryo chamber.
Something is not right. I strongly dislike the sewar fiend ruling and what it implies for AZ
I'm not following this logic. Immunity is considered after everything else. That doesn't mean that other 'static' modifiers are always applied after 'would deal' modifiers.
Do you really need a different ruling on Sewer Fiend to see how NPCU works, or do you just need a ruling that when NPCU say “that amount” it means the amount his HP would change? (Which we have tons of examples, plus common sense, to say that it does take focused aperature or cryo-chamber into account).
I don’t think the logic needs to be that “would deal” takes effect before other modifiers. Just that you don’t stop applying effects to damage just because the currently applied effects have reduced it to doing nothing. (We have rulings that effects which go off AFTER damage takes effect only go off if that damage actually reduced HP. I just think that we don’t need to put the constraint to things like redirection which modify damage before it takes effect.)
Immunity is not a modifier - so it is not Add all Dmg+, add all dmg- ... any left? Add Dmg - until damge =0.
Immunity is a seperate condition outside the dmg+, dmg- track of 'Is there damage being delt? Ignore it'
at least thats how i see it - so you are still a valid target, you are still being 'hit' you just take no damage. And then you can still redirect it.
Well quite frankly after re-reading it, there was none to follow. Hasty, not thought out, un-constructive. Everything that a post should not be. The only thing not consistant there was me.
Lynkfox, explaining it that way made a strange amount of sense to me. My current train of thought is that since the amulet and sewer fiend do not specify a damage threshhold for its trigger (like say, Fixers or Tachyons redirects do for example), that it would trigger for any amount of damage that "would be" delt, even if that amount is 0. Would that be a more correct reading?
Ooooooh, I like that phrasing, "that it would trigger for any amount of damage that 'would be' dealt, even if that amount is 0." Then it becomes a case like Driving Mantis/Pipe Wrench. You redirect the 0 damage, then, because the target changed (and the new target isn't immune) it blossoms back to whatever its original value was, much like the Driving Mantis/Pipe Wrench interaction. That seems really clear to me, and utterly consistent with other rulings.
yes. in like that. and bringing it into the fixer redirect makes it consistent with other similarly though process cards on redirection.
Using my trusty DBZ thematic analogies:
Master Roshi fires off a Kamehameha wave targeted at Ultimate Freeza. Freeza, even though he could let the attack hit him and be no worse off (although he might strain a muscle rolling his eyes too hard), decides to knock the attack away. It drills into a nearby mountainside, destroying it (the standard dbz environment target, if you will).
I think using DBZ to explain redirection rules works perfectly
By that logic, would an Ultimate-Targeted villain attacking a damage-immune (via soak or styraight immunity) hero not let Chrono Ranger use a power, then? In another thread the general consensus was no, because the target's hp didn't decrease. So surely if a target with redirection is taking no damage, it can't redirect it because there's nothing to redirect?
@Ameena
I do not think so, but I can see where you are coming from.
I think a difference might be that the bounty triggers on a target dealing damage, while in the case of the Amulet, it is triggered off when a target (her in this case) would be delt damage.
I would say that generally, if the trigger is dependent upon dealing damage, then the common rule of "no HP reduced = no damage delt" probably applies.
Recently it is looking like the Redirection mechanic might be the exception to this common rule. Thoughts?
Ultimate Target does require HP to be reduced, because it is an ability which is triggered by the damage, not a modification to that damage.
Basically, when the target next to Ultimate Target deals damage, that damage happens exactly as it would if Ultimate Target were not in play. Then, assuming the damage actually happens (meaning it actually reduces HP), Ultimate Target triggers and allows Chrono Ranger to use a power.
On the other hand, Amulet of the Elder Gods actually modifies damage before it happens. Some damage modifying effects use the term "would" (Amulet of the Elder Gods, Superhuman Durability, Punish the Weak), and others do not (Micro Targeting Computer, Fortitude, Divine Sacrifice). I don't think anything which modifies damage should fail to do so just because the unmodified damage would have been unable to reduce HP. I think the use of "would" in some cases and not others is just a quirk of how some of those effects have conditions that can be summed up with an adjective, while others are easier to describe as a conditional phrase.
From the KantCon rulings (https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/answers-to-debated-questions-3871)
9.Can a target immune to damage or reduced it to 0 still redirect damage?
No, as that would have not been able to deal damage. The ruling about Plague Rat being able to redirect toxic environment damage is incorrect and will be reviewed.
Very happy with this ruling. It makes thematic sense and isn't broken. I like to think that Night Mist shouldn't be able to play two cards against her nemesis and auto win.