Guise: Multiple base power use, and multiple redirections.

Other Games SotM Game Engine
1

1.  If Guise uses a hero's base power, does that use it up for that turn, or could that same hero then use their power.

I assume it does, but I want to be certain, in light of interactions of Pride & Prejudice and the fact that it has never been clarified for two different heroes using the power.

Here's how it came up:  Guise plays Beefcake, then makes a tough choice and plays I can do that too, using PW Fanatic's base power, redirecting the damage via Beefcake, playing the top card and then. . . If Guise gives the power use to Fanatic, can she use her base power?

We ruled no which was OK, since Guise's top card let him steal Absolution anyway.

 

2.  Guise plays Beefcake, and Uh, Yeah, I'm that (gal). . .  copying KNYFE's ongoings, most importantly Infiltrate and Obfuscate.  Then Guise is dealt damage by an environment target, and then a second environment target.  Can Guise redirect both?

 

Basically timing of redirection and "first time" wording, with 2 probable resolutions:

A.  Damage would trigger both redirection cards, Guise chooses the order to resolve, the one chosen triggers and resolves, the other does not trigger because Guise is not in a state of being dealt damage.

The second damage triggers the card that failed to trigger and is redirected.

B.  Damage triggers both redirection effects, Guise chooses the order to resolve, the one chosen triggers and resolves, the other one fails, but counts as having been triggered.

The second damage hits Guise.

 

B is my initial choice, but there is arguments for the A.

Given how Twist reacts when damage is redirected, ignoring everything that happened, as if the damage was never directed at that target, and recalculates everything.  Does this work for "first time" redirection effects?

Unlike damage increases or decreases it isn't applied at all until triggered.  But it is triggered, and then the trigger is effectively negated.

With this line of thought the calculation for damage should restart upon redirection, in which case the redirection effect that caused the redirection is consumed, because without it it doesn't get redirected, but the redirection that isn't used would not be triggered, because the damage is recalculated upon redirection, and the effect would never resolve or fail, it would reset in the re-calculation.

2

Wasn't ruled somewhere that if Iron Legacy has two Superhuman Redirections that he would still only redirect once?

3

No, it's once per hit, like with Synaptic Interruption.

4

The logic being, that when he takes damage, one of the redirects triggers. Then, when he takes damage again, the second one checks; since he hasn't taken damage yet, and that redirect hasn't been used up, he redirects it. Then both of his redirects have been used up, so the third hit will go through.

5

We could go through the argument again, or you can just agree that Ronway is right again.

6

that sounds rather fool proof

7

I agree with Ronway

8

In reference to the first question, I would say that Guise "uses up" the power.  The rulebook states that "...each instance of a power may only be used once per turn."

9

After some extensive searching, I figured out what I was remembering, although I could not find the thread in question. I definitely remember it happening, though.

We had a discussion on Iron Legacy, with both Redirections out, on his advanced flip side. The question was, how many hits would it take to break through those? The sample damages were 3 hits of 5, 5, and 4; they could be assigned in any order.

And the answer was that it depended on what order the hits were in. Since the redirections triggered in the order in which they were  taken, the first hit would redirect regardless of how much damage it was. So, if the first hit was a 4, then the second hit of 5 would trigger the first redirection, and the third hit of 5 would trigger the second.

 

In retrospect, I'm inclined to believe that this was erroneous; after all, if redirecting it means that he never took the damage -- which is what allows the second redirection to trigger on the "first" time he takes damage, even though it's not the first time he's been targeted -- then what is stopping the first redirection from just triggering infintely? Or Driving Mantis, for that matter?

On the other hand, this seems to conflict with the general idea that "being dealt" damage = "taking" damage. If it's the first time he's taking damage, then it's the first time he's being dealt damage, which means that -- according to our ruling on temporary damage reduction vs. redirection, wherein we determined that redirecting damage away from a target with a "next time this target is dealt damage" effect does NOT use up the DR, as it did not take damage -- the redirection itself cancels out the first instance of taking damage.

So, while I'm inclined to agree that Guise and Iron Legacy should only be able to use their "first time each turn" redirections once, it means that we will need to reconsider our position on redirections affecting whether or not something has, in fact, been dealt damage. If it hasn't, then the next damage it takes will trigger another redirect, since that will be the first time it is dealt damage. If it has, then that will use up any "next time it is dealt damage" or like effects, even if it is not the final target.

10

The key concept is in the ruling from the Driving Mantis and "next damage" reduction.

 

If the effect was critical to the redirection occuring than it is consumed.  Other effects are not consumed.  So the "next damage" reduction is only used if it is necessary for the redirection.

Since a second effect redirecting damage is not critical to the resolution of the first redirection, it should be left unconsumed.

11

I disagree. They aren't related at all.

12

Ok?

13

I don't think we are going to agree here, but here is how I see things:

"Next damage"

This was a strange and interesting ruling, that, while it makes sense, doesn't quite fit in with the mechanics. We need a special ruling because of the timing of the the effect. Since all damage modifiers are determined before we know if damage is being dealt. This led to situations where the "next damage" wouldn't have any additional effects. The ruling, essentially allows us to look ahead, and see if the modifier would matter, if it wouldn't, the this wouldn't be the "next damage", but rather the next time it would matter. To me, this is an exception and not the rule.

"Redirecting the first time you take damage"

This happens at a completely different point in the sequence. It happens once you already determine that damage will be dealt. The difference in timing tells me that the rulings shouldn't be equated, but there is more. If there was no damage, then it couldn't be redirected. To me, this is the same exact ruling as above, where if it doesn't matter (i.e. the card will have no practical effect), then you don't waste it, and this is the ruling. However, if it does matter, then it, and everything with it is used up. Once you take damage for the first time, you redirect, that was the first time you take damage, if not, you wouldn't redirect it. Now, if you had another card that also redirects the first damage, it wouldn't trigger later, but rather at the same exact time. It's as if you had two competing redirectiosn for the same instance of damage, that is what is happening here. One will activate, but the other one won't get a chance to.

Hmmmm....I think I worded it better here than over there. Oh well. this is how I view the situation.

EDIT: Also, I think if you were to compare the sitautions, they would need to be more in line. The case of multiple first redirections has two effects that could matter that are essentially based on taking damage. To have an accurate comparison, you would need two separate effects of "next damage" where one would matter and the other wouldn't. Then, one would take effect, and the other would be save until the next time. However, I don't think the ruling covered that situation. In fact. the ruling of stacking multiple Stealths might imply that mutiple effect of "next damage" would stack to create only one effect (given we don't have a ruling if they come from different sources). If they do stack, then it makes sense that both "first damage" are used up, just like multiple "next damage."

14

This is my attempt to understand what our discussion is about.  It will probably oversimplify a number of things but should hopefully achieve it's goal of highlighting how our opinions relate to each other.

 

There are currently in existence 4 distinct "temporary" damage affecting effects (I hope I got affect/effect right there) that I see:

  1. Increase/Reduce the next damage dealt to/by <Name> by X
  2. The first time <Name> would be dealt <> damage, redirect it to <>
  3. The first time <> damage would be dealt to <Name> each turn, prevent that damage.  (Currently only found on Deadline's Auto-Armor Caster)
  4. Increase/Reduce the first damage dealt to/by <Name> each turn by X.  (Currently found only on Fright Train's Engine of Destruction)

 

(You could split this into several subcategories by seperating increase/reduce, or to/by, but I think that these are the important categories for this discussion.)

 

I think that 2 and 3 can be considered the same for all analysis of the subject.  1 has gotten an official ruling that instances of 1 will not get used up unless HP is removed - unless they were necessary to achieve the end result.  I don't think 2 and 3 have been officially ruled, but at least one thread in the past has agreed that all instances of 2 and 3 will get used up at once.

 

I think that our discussion could be summed up as "what would happen to case 4."  If I understand Pydro's position correctly, he holds that the difference between 1 and 2/3 is "first" vs "next", and that 4 should be ruled like 2/3.  My position is that the difference is between "reduction/increasing" vs "redirection/prevention", and that 4 should therefore be ruled like 1.

 

My argument (which I think is shared in essence with Phantaskippy) is that prevention and redirection are replacement effects (signified by "would be dealt damage") as opposed to application effects (signified by "is dealt damage") and that the distinction allows for a different handling method (which is not a timing difference) for when they get used up.

Pydro's argument is that my "different handling method" is in fact a timing difference, and since it's been established that there is no timing difference between application effects and replacement effects, it cannot be used as the determiner of behavior.  Therefore, the difference must be that "next" has unique handling distinct from "first".

 

 

Pydro and Phantaskippy (but especially Pydro), do you feel that I have accurately summed up this discussion and your opinions, and do you have anything that you wish to correct or add?

15

Actually, that's not my position at all.

Just to be clear, you would treat Stealth and Haka of Shielding differently?

16

There is a fundamental difference between saying "the first" time something happens and "the next" time something happens jsz2. Maybe the result tends to be the same in some cases does not lead to the conclusion they are the same in all cases. To blanket them and call them the same thing misses a lot of conotation inherent in using those phrasings. I can't agree with your conclusion. 

The next time could very well end up being in a 2nd or 3rd attempt if the first was tampered with, because its just the next time it happens. The first time is always the first time and can never be a 2nd or 3rd. "First time" is a more limiting trigger clause than "next"

17

Just to emphasize Foote, it makes absolutely no sense if there are two cards that say "the first time" and they activate on two different instances of damage.

In fact, that is the essence of the arguement, that there are two effects happening, and one triggers and the other doesn't. Nobody has yet to bring a proof that the same thing happen with "next". If you can tell me that you have two instances of "next" and only the first one activates, then I will consider that. To apply, only one isntance of "next" to the second isntance of "first" as a proof. doesn't hold up to me. IN fact, the ruling that multiple Stealths are used up implies that it acts the same way.

18

The next time is always the first time after this point in time.  That is the definition of next.

The next time something happens cannot be the thrid time it happens, unless you only say "the next time" after the second time it happens.

19

Yes, but the next time need not be the first time in a turn. I agree with the consensus in this thread that "first time [text] each turn" is special. The examples listed a bit sloppy, because the omit that wording and just say first time.

The semantic parsing gets a bit ugly, but here's my opinion:

If you have two such first time each turn effect active, and you get damaged, only the first one triggers. This is important, because some future card might have side effects. You just resolve the first card, and ignore the second, because you weren't damaged.

If you have two next time effects, same thing.

If you get damaged a second time with two first time each turn effects, the second effect does not trigger, because you've already passed the "first time" condition. It's now really the second time, at least for purposes of the qualifying event.

If you have two next time effects, it's still "the next time" because the effect's still in play, so it triggers.

 

Now where it gets tricky is stacking redirects and reducing damage. My take on it would be that we're dealing with an event flow, and that if you triggered redirection, you can still trigger damage reduction later, because you never got to the "actually apply damage" step in the event flow. And in this particular flow, all of your first time / next times trigger (and get used up) when you would apply damage to a target. This is because the damage isn't sent away, so you keep reducing the damage until you run out of effects that reduce it.

In a nutshell, redirecting first damage in a turn would not prevent you from later reducing first damage in a turn.

20

If you get damaged a second time with two first time each turn effects, the second effect does not trigger, because you've already passed the "first time" condition. It's now really the second time, at least for purposes of the qualifying event.

If you have two next time effects, it's still "the next time" because the effect's still in play, so it triggers.

For this to be true you would not only have to not consume the effect, you would have to reapply the effect.

If I am going to get on the next bus that stops, and then a bus stops and I don't get on, and then another pulls up and I get on I did not get on the "next" bus.

If I am going to get on the first bus that stops, and then a bus stops and I don't get on, and then another pulls up and I get on I did not get on the "first" bus.

If the first bus drives by and doesn't stop, and the next one does, then I got on the "Next" bus that stopped, as well as the "first" bus that stops.

 

If something would deal you damage, and it is the first time that turn that you would have been dealt damage, and the first time since the "next" effect was activated that you would have been dealt damage, then it is both.

Any damage after that can not qualify for either, because the next and first already occurred.

If after the first time you would have been dealt damage, you re-activate the "Next" effect then that second damage will be the next damage.

 

Next does not self-reapply, the Next bus is not "every bus that stops until I get on," it is the first one after you activate "next."