Definitive edition question for Akash'Butha and Ra

Games Sentinels of the Multiverse
1

Hello

I got two questions about DE rules.

  1. End of turn effect are resolved from the most ancient card to the most recent.
    I got Akash’Butha is on its ‘dealing damage’ side and three limbs are play.
    Akash deals damage, the first limb then deals damage. But given reaction stuff, the second limb dies before doing damage. So the top card of environment is discarded.
    Environement is empty, so its discard isshuffled and Akash flips.
  • I assumed that since the text asking for discarding the top card of the environment isn’t here anymore, there is no discad after the shuffling. Was I right ?
  • Now Akash has a new End of turn effect, do I have to go back and do it or do I process to the third limb ?
  1. The Self-Destruct of Mars Base is in play.
    Ra has his two Solar Flare in play.
  • Could Ra put a card under the self destruct then skip to his power phase before resolving the start of turn effect of his Solar Flare ?
  • If Ra is immune to damage, he can still chosse to take 5 fixed damage from his Solar Flare ? So he deals himself 0 damage and keep the Solar Flare ?

Thanks in advance for your answers.

2

I don’t know DE rules specifically, but from C&A’s general design philosophy, and the errata given to the EE cards akin to Solar Flare long before DE got anywhere near happening, I’m 99% sure that your last question is a no, you can’t keep a card that requires you to take damage unless you actually take some damage. (Taking less damage, even just 1, would satisfy a requirement like that, if not for the new concept of “fixed” damage making that impossible.)

1 Like
3

On question 1:

  • First of all, trying to discard a card from an empty deck doesn’t cause it to reshuffle, only drawing or playing from an empty deck causes it to reshuffle. This is in the FAQ in the rule book.
  • If we ignore the above and say that Akash flipped anyway, I’m pretty sure you don’t go back and do Akash’s new EOT effect, you just continue on to the third limb.

On question 2:

  • I’m less sure about this one, but I think it would depend on which card was played first. If Solar Flare came out before Self Destruct Sequence, you would have to resolve Solar Flare first, and vice versa.
  • If Ra could not deal damage then I think you would have to destroy the card, but if Ra is immune to damage I think you get to keep it. Otherwise I think it would still be phrased “Ra may deal himself 5 fixed psychic damage. If he does not take damage this way, destroy this card”.
3 Likes
4

As far as Self Destruct Sequence goes, the order of resolution for phases is:

  1. Static Effect on Cards
  2. Normal Action for the Phase (drawing or playing)
  3. Optional Additional Actions

Self Destruct Sequence is optional, Solar Flare is not. And so Solar Flare must resolve first. This is on page 21 of the rule book, in the FAQ about Omnitron’s play phase.

If Ra is immune to damage, then he can’t deal himself fixed damaged, and therefore must go for the other option (destroying Solar Flare).

5

I think that rule on page 21 is only for multiple effects on a single card (which is why it uses Omnitron as an example), not for effects that happen on different cards. I may be wrong though.

6

I understand how you’re getting that interpretation (it does say on a card). However, the sentence about Regular actions separates Static effects and Optional actions. It wouldn’t make sense to do this for each card in play.

For reference: “Any static action on a card that happens in a phase, such as ‘[Flip]’ or ‘Regain 1 HP’ happens first. Then, the regular action happens for that phase, such as playing a card during the Play Phase. Finally, any optional extra actions granted can be used, such as ‘You may use 1 additional power this phase.’”

7

Thanks for your answer.
For the shuffle, I still had reflexes from the previous edition. I will need to forget them. :slight_smile:

I don’t like the phrasing of the DE Solar Flare and simillar cards.
In the previous edition, it was ‘deal X damage, if no damage dealt this way, destroy this’.

Here it is : ‘Destroy that card or deals X fixed damage.’
There is no penaly if fixed damage are prevented with this wording, and nothing preventing to choose the damage path even when immune to damage.

I guess it was done for avoid weird thing with Self Destruct and other ‘you may skip’ stuff : The effect is mandatory, so must happen before the optionnal skipping via Self Destruct.

But yeah, years of playing the previous edition makes me feel weird.
As I read the card, it is totally legal to play both Solar Flare and make Ra immune to damage to do ludicrous amount of damage with no drawback.
But there is that little voice saying : “it wouldn’t work in the previous edition. Are you sure it works here?” … I hate little voice in my head.

2 Likes
8

The way I interpret it, there is still a penalty. If you can’t deal damage (immune), then you can’t choose the option to deal damage. I agree with your little voice on this.

9

I’m away from my rulebook, but I think there were questions about what counts as “dealing damage” in the FAQ.

Because, my thought is that the target being immune doesn’t prevent you from choosing an option to deal damage, the damage just fails to be dealt. I also wonder about this because in the older edition, Fixed Damage wasn’t a thing. This meant that a card that dealt self-damage could be stopped via damage reduction or redirected. However, now it is ONLY possible to stop fixed damage by being immune or being unable to deal damage.

Since Solar Flare is psychic damage, Ra can’t make himself immune to it, and I haven’t seen a villain card that prevents all hero damage. So, the only time this comes up is the Wagner Mars base (again, man, Wagner is the problem child of DE)

Immediate Edit: Legacy. Right. Okay, does Legacy’s Heroic Interception interact this same way with Tachyon’s Pushing the Limits? I feel like it is possible that this is an intended interaction. It only prevents the self-damage for a single turn, and it is the only way to prevent it. EE was ruled differently simply because EE had far more ways to prevent, redirect or reduce self-damage, which could allow multiple turns of taking no self-damage, which was not intended.

I’d say I fall 65% on the side of “if you are immune to damage, you cannot deal yourself damage, therefore you must destroy the card” but the order of the effects makes it possible that you choose not to destroy the card, you attempt to deal damage, that damage is prevented. Because no text says that if you don’t take the damage the card is destroyed. If the text was reversed “deal yourself damage or destroy this card” I would be more convinced.

I’d think this is an either way situation, at worst, you prevent it for a round or two, via Legacy taking damage for you, but that takes a rather specific set of circumstances.

10

This could be me mixing up ideas floated in play testing and what made the final rulebook.
But I believe the answer to the second question is “play area order”. So you would execute Ra’s start phase effect before Environment effects.

I believe Ra can choose to deal himself damage and even if the damage ends up becoming 0 (due to immunty) and Solar Flare isn’t destroyed. If a effect says Ra “cannot deal damage” I would think dealing himself psychic damage is no longer a valid choice so he would need to destroy it.

2 Likes
11

I feel like I may be cluttering this post, and I’m sorry for that, but I think I’ve got a decent grasp on the ruling.

I don’t know if the “play area order” made it to the rulebook, but regardless that doesn’t take place in this instance. It’s a matter of Static Effect vs. Optional Action. Static Effects go first.

And as far Ra dealing damage, it doesn’t “become 0” when he’s immune, it can’t be dealt. So you can’t choose the option to deal him damage. Therefore, you must choose the option to destroy the card. And this decision isn’t affected by order of events because the decision itself is the event. Destroy this card or deal yourself damage; you have to do one or the other.

12

But, let me ask a theoretical other question. Let us say Haka is immune to damage and has his defender card out for whatever reason. And a villain plays a card that says “every hero must discard two cards, or the villain deals them 2 damage”

Would you say that Haka has to discard two cards for every hero? Or would you say that no one discards, and Haka cancels the damage? Because your current phrasing makes it seem like if someone is immune to damage, they cannot choose to take damage.

I’d argue that each hero, including Haka, can choose the damage option, even though Haka is immune. Because choosing for damage to be dealt is different than that damage actually being dealt.

Alternatively though, if the choice is to deal damage and you are incapable of dealing damage, then the card would be destroyed. But Immunity isn’t that you are incapable of dealing damage, you are incapable of TAKING damage.

1 Like
13

Ooh, what an interesting point! This is part of why I love talking rules like this. I don’t believe that Haka is immune from that card, but you are right that heroes other than Haka wouldn’t really have the option to take damage… And they “should” be able to choose the damage option. Interestingly enough, this also only happens when damage “would be dealt”.

Does such a villain card exist?

As for immunity: “If a target is immune to damage, or if an effect prevents damage to a target entirely, neither irreducible nor fixed damage can be dealt to that target.”

So no, the damage can’t be “dealt”. So they can’t deal the damage. Damage is never taken, only dealt (as far as I understand).

Edit: I see now that you stated immunity was separate from Tiaki Defender, whoops.

14

I have no interest in squelching the discussion, so please do continue, but – in case anyone doesn’t know – there’s an opportunity for an official answer: They’re doing a Letters Page podcast episode on DE in a couple of weeks (coming out on 1-Mar, but likely being recorded on 25-Feb). Someone can send in a question on this, if they haven’t already. :wink:

5 Likes
15

I likely will, but being… two years behind on the Podcast means I’m unlikely to hear the answer. I may have to skip… shudders

Do you know when the cut off date for the questions are? If I have more questions, I want to just gather them in one letter instead of sending in multiple letters.

16

Generally the morning of recording. So if you get things in by the evening of the 24th you’re probably good.

2 Likes
17

No such card exists at the moment, but I can see it being similar to Baron Blade’s Devious Disruption. It was mainly created to illustrate this point by giving a different view with something “similar”

I would argue that Damage has to be taken. No card exists with a reaction to this, but I remember Guise’s card from EE that let you draw a card whenever he took damage.

Our discussion space is really limited to a single question I guess. Is attempting to deal damage, but failing to do so because of immunity enough to satisfy an option to deal damage.

For another example, if Baron Blade is immune to damage, and you have a power that states “You can deal 1 target five damage or draw a card” I think you can choose to attempt to deal damage to Baron Blade. It will fail, but you would not be forced to draw a card.

1 Like
18

Well, I have now sent 3 rule questions into the Letters Page (“would be dealt”, Phase order, and destroy or deal vs. immunity). Feel free to still send your own in about those, in case your wording better clarifies the questions.

You are right in identifying the root cause of our discussion, and that’s what I highlighted in my letter to C&A. I believe it is not enough to satisfy the condition, because I don’t think you can even “attempt” to deal damage, but I guess we may find out.

I also appreciate the hypotheticals, but unless we find an example of this on an existing card I think they may remain as hypotheticals. The conditions you’re describing may be intentionally avoided, making it a moot point.

1 Like
19

Based on EE precedents, I approach these cases as follows: you may choose any valid option on a card first, and then you resolve how that option comes out. So for “do X or deal yourself damage,” you can choose the damage as long as you are able to deal damage. Now you’re past that choice on the card, and immunity comes into play when you figure out how much damage occurs.

Likewise, there is long-standing precedent that you resolve cards in the order they came into play, and when you skip a phase, you do nothing else in that phase. There are several EE combos that take advantage of the Self Destruct Sequence, such as Destruct Sequence coming into play first, then Haka plays Ground Pound. You get to the start of Haka’s turn and resolve the effect on the Destruct Sequence first, choosing to skip the rest of your turn. Even though Ground Pound says it destroys itself at the start of Haka’s turn, it’s not the start of his turn any more – you skipped it! – so Ground Pound stays in play. I don’t think there was anything in the DE rulebook that would have changed this behavior, right?

1 Like
20

Thanks for weighing in!

I’ve got 2 things to point out from the rule book:

  1. You aren’t able to deal damage to an immune target. “If a target is immune to damage, or if an effect prevents damage to a target entirely, neither irreducible nor fixed damage can be dealt to that target.” (emphasis my own). Dealing and taking are not two separate things, as far as I know. This is why reductions are written “dealt to” as opposed to “taken by”.
  2. There is something that changes that behavior in the rulebook. The FAQ on page 21 that lists each phase as Static Actions, then Regular Action, then Optional Actions.

Edit on point 1: I don’t know :man_shrugging: This interpretation does bring up a lot of weird cases, so it’s probably wrong? Either way, I sent a letter to C&A.