Hey there. I just got SOTM and so far it’s shaping up to be my new favorite game. One thing I’m unsure of and would like clarified if possible.
Does Fire in the Biosphere (Wagner Mars Base):
a) Deal 2 fire damage and then a second instance of 2 fire damage if an Ongoing card is not destroyed?
b) Deal either 2 or 4 depending on whether the player destroys an Ongoing or not?
Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance!
It is a).
They are two seperate instances of damage. Look at Insula Primalis, Primordial Plantlife for an example of b).
The wording of this card bothers me. Is this the only card that describes a separate instance of damage using "take" instead of "deal"? And, does it have any consequences on gameplay, e.g. bypassing effects that typically apply to dealt damage or changing the source of the damage?
The way my play group has interpreted it so far is that Fire in the Biosphere deals 1 instance of fire damage to all targets, in the amount of 2 to all villain, hero, and environment targets, except for hero character cards, in which case it deals 4, unless their players choose to destroy an ongoing card, in which case they take 2. The reason we think this is that if the effect were more straightforward, such as what phantaskippy has said, then it would say something like:
Deal 2 fire damage to all targets.
Each hero may destroy 1 of their ongoing cards. Deal 2 fire damage to each hero that does not.
The one other use (that I can think of) of 'take damage' this way is 'Swingin Blades' in the Tomb of Anubis.
Environment cards tend to play a bit fast and loose with damage terminology, sometimes specifying a source sometimes not. FIre in the biosphere actually specifies 'this card' for the first damage and not for the second.
Thanks.
Swinging Blades gives the option to take damage as a cost to pay for an effect, and when I reread Fire in the Biosphere thinking of "taking damage" as an optional cost, it seems to fit. So, I agree that Fire in the Biosphere deals a flat 2 fire damage to all targets and that the other 2 fire damage is separate. However, I think neither option (a) nor (b) is correct.
I think the other 2 fire damage is not being dealt, so it has no source, can't be redirected, can't be reduced, and can't be increased. Also, since immunity prevents hp from being reduced by damage, a hero that is immune to fire damage would not be able to pay the cost. I'm unsure if that means that the player would have to destroy 1 of their ongoing cards, or if they could choose to option to take the damage and then fail to do so because of the immunity.
With the environment, unless specified otherwise, you basically assume the damage is being dealt by "this card". So Fire in the Biosphere is what's dealing the fire damage. If fire damage is increased via Imbued Fire, everyone takes three fire damage, then heroes take three more if they don't destroy one of their Ongoings. If Ra has Flesh of the Sun God out he's immune to fire damage, so just gets to go "Lol, I take no damage" and ignore the entire effect :). If he's used the power from Flesh to make all the other heroes immune as well, they likewise get to sit back and watch as all the other targets still take the first hit of two (three if Imbued Fire is out) fire damage :). Basically, the fire damage does still hit all the heroes…it just doesn't do anything, as they are immune.
Similarly, if a hero has no ongoings to destroy, they have no option but to take the damage because they can't destroy an ongoing. Damage can still hit you if you're immune, it just doesn't do anything. The only time this matters (according to the much-discussed Rule 15) is with cards like Solar Flare and Push the Limits, which say you either take damage or destroy the card. If your hp doesn't go down, you haven't taken damage, therefore the card is destroyed.
The wording on Fire in the Biosphere is actually quite close to Solare Flare/Pushing the Limits. It says that "Each hero must either destroy 1 of their ongoing cards or take 2 more fire damage". However I think the final decision on rule 15 was that the wording on the cards did not adequetly describe how they are intended to work, and I think the plan was to errata them to clearly say that you optionally deal yourself damage and destroy the card if you do not take damage. (Similar to Swinging Blade, but inverted).
Given that, I think it's reasonable to say that Fire in the Biosphere should be worded like River of Lava: "Each player may destroy 1 of their ongoing cards. Deal any hero that does not destroy an ongoing card 2 more fire damage."
And on the subject of the source for environment damage, the general pattern is definately that environment targets specify themselves as the source and non targets do not specify the source. I think the exceptions to this are the first damage of Fire in the Biosphere, Impending Casualty, Falling Statuary, Toxic Sludge, and Explosive Wagon. (Not counting the handful of cards which specify another source like the villain character card, anubis, or the hero).
Non-specified environment deck damage comes from the environment, not the card. Primalis, the base, etc. is the source of the damage.
That is not how I understand it
Me neither. I'm pretty sure there's a note in my FAQ (taken from an official comment by Christopher) confirming that if an environment card doesn't specify the source of the damage, it should be read to mean that the card itself is doing the damage.
Maybe I'm wrong there, I read that elsewhere on this forum a while ago, it could have been wrong.
There is an environment entry in the enhanced edition glossary stating that environments can be a source of damage (I don't actually have the original rulebook, but I'm pretty sure that note is new). I believe several non-target environment cards also replaced 'this card deals' with 'deal' in enhanced edition.
I've always pretty much ignored this on the assumption that damage from the environment or from a non-target environment card are the same for all practical purposes. If not, it has rather large implications for things like Mega Computer or Ground Pound, and probably several others. (I'd have to check the wording on things like Danger Sense or Visionary's Levitation card.)
If you want to generally source damage to the "environment" I guess I could see that. But if the damage is not being sourced to the card, does that mean Bee Bot can not interupt a Volcanic Eruption's damage sequence?
Now, I do not have the EE, nor do I have cards in front of me, so I am not sure if this applies here, but if Volcanos damage was sourced to the enviro and not the card, then destroying the card would not remove the damage source, so it would be uninteruptable in that sense.
THoughts on that?
Well I've always thought that damage needs both a source and the card effect causing the damage to continue. So, for example, if Bee Bot destroyed Entomb while it was resolving, then (the way I play) the damage would stop. But I know we had a whole other thread where some people felt you could finish resolving a destroyed card if it was causing something else to deal damage.
The bigger issue for me is whether it still counts as damage from an environment card. And for Explosive Wagon, whether it counts as damage from an environment target. Like I said, I always play it the same as if damage without a specified source comes from 'this card'. (Except for Horrid Cacophony which is supposed to be the Matriarche).
If that were true it would not remove the source but it would remove what is generating the instructions, with no instruction to "do 7 damage" I would not continue dealing 7 damage.