Dual Crowbars works somewhat like Isothermic Transducer. The final damage dealt from the first instance of damage forms the initial amount/type/irreducibility of the second instance of damage. That means you can benefit twice from damage increases.
I'm curious about the irreducibility part of that. *Usually* irreducibility is granted by the original source of the damage, so inheriting it in the second instance makes sense. But what if the irreducibility came from somewhere else?
Example: GI Bunker uses his Panzer-Buster power on, say, a Gene-Bound Guard. Mr. Fixer (with Dual Crowbars out) then uses Strike against that Guard, and the damage becomes irreducible from Panzer-Buster. Dual Crowbars kicks in, starting a new damage instance, whcih Mr. Fixer aims at Grand Warlord Voss. Is the damage against Voss irredcucible?
By the ruling above, clearly yes. But it doesn't seem obvious to me that this wrinkle was considered when making the ruling. It's not a game-breaker either way, but I thought the issue was worth at least a brief discussion here.
I don't think it's that big of a deal, considering Panzer Buster could just target Voss directly and not even worry about the Guard (or Fixer could just do the irreducible damage directly with his style. However, according to that ruling, I would agree that the damage to Voss would be irreducible.
While my gut says that it shouldn't be irreducible, the wording on the card is vague, and actually demands it is. Dual Crowbars does not specify damage type for the second instance, which means that if it is inheriting one quality of the damage (type). If it inherits one quality, it should inherit all qualities, which would include irreducible. While the irreducibility is attached to Panzer-Buster's target, "that damage" is now identified as "damage dealt" rather than the initial damage dealt before bonuses. This means the time to determine the second instance's initial damage is when you apply the first instance damage to the first target.
It seems arbitrary to place the damage amount determination after reduction, and somehow drop the quality irreducible, since the determination of whether the damage is irreducible must be done before the reduction itself is done. In cases where Panzer-Buster is not applied, the damage was deemed reducible before reduction was be applied, and the amount of damage to be dealt is determined after reduction.
I think this needs some further clarifcation. In the app with Dual Crowbars if I hit Ambuscade who had Panzer Buster applied with the initial strike. My second hit was on Reactive Plating but the irreducible effect did not apply on that hit and it dealt one less damage.
I think it's just a missinterpretation of what was initially said. I think it's working as intended.
Alternativly, this could very well be because Panzer Buster acts upon the target specifically instead of the particular insteance of damage. If there was something that gave Fixers next instance of damage Irreducibility, theres a chance that the 2nd hit would gain irreducibility as well.
I suspect no one has ever asked the question before. The Dual Crowbar clarification was recent, and that the damage quality Irreducible might have to go with the damage quality type simply not considered.
Our intention was that all of the attributes of the damage would carry over including irredicibility, but that's not happening as per Powerhound's test. However, we'll double check with Christopher before changing it.
Panzer-Buster's effect modifies the target and not the particular instance of damage that Crowbars is dealing. Does that make any difference? I'd be interested in what you guys come up with for the ruling here.
Definitely different. Consider applying Panzerbuster to Tachyon, and Synaptic Redirection sending it to a new target. The irreducible would not move with the damage stack. And since it's not part of the damage dealt, I don't think crowbars should lift and carry it. It does get the possible benefit of the target having taken more damage (to increase the second attack's damage), and that's enough.
Types do not have to come from the original source of the damage (Ra changes your damage to Fire, for instance), so the fact Irreducibility comes from the target is actually irrelevant. Irreducibility must be decided before the first damage reduction is applied, and damage reduction can come from the environment, or Argent Adept for that matter. So the source of the irreducible quality is equally irrelevant. The damage has that quality long before the damage finally strikes the HP, and it is the damage dealt to HP that gives the qualities for Dual Crowbars.
[edit to avoid double posting]
I'm a dolt. It's right on Riveting Crane. ", all damage dealt to that target is irreducible until the start of your next turn." This places the quality Irreducible on the damage, not the target. The "target" is not irreducible, it's the "damage" that is irreducible. For the quality to be on the target, it would need to read something like, ", all damage reduction applied to that target is ignored."
I'm falling down on the side of "not picking things up from your current target"; when you redirect damage you start over from your base damage/type and recalculate everything over again, I can't see anything here that convinces me that this isn't the same thing. Irreducible damage is not (so far) a thing you get 'keep' when you redirect it away from a target.
We could test this in the app by having Mr Fixer hit himself with an infection with Crowbars and Riveting Crane out, and then his play could swap out to Driving Mantis and he could target himself with his strike.
Riveting Crane is slightly different from Panzer though since it directly acts on the damage where Panzer acts on a target. Maybe I'm playing too deeply with semantics here.
It seems cut-and-dried to me. If you hit one target who has been inflicted with the "all damage done to this target is irreducible" with Dual Crowbar, then you go on to do that damage to another target, and that damage is adjudicated as normal unless the second target also has an effect that would render the damage irreducible. In this case, the "Irreducible" effect is a property of the target, and I can't see why it should carry over to a second target that doesn't already have that property, any more than it would if Squall dealt damage to the same targets.
But I've been wrong before trying to rule based on what I thought was common sense, and I am a fan of Mr. Fixer, so I await an official word with baited breath. :)