Increased Damage Question

[Rhagnor]

I'm sure this has been answered elsewhere, but I haven't found it specifically after multiple pages of threads. Sorry for that...

If a card has damage increased (not specific type, just all damage) and they use a power that hits for multiple kinds (say Bob does one target 2 melee damage and 2 fire damage), is the total damage increased by 1 or because they are two different kinds of damage they are both increased by one? 

We got into a lengthy discussion about this last night and want to be sure we are playing it correctly. THANKS!

[Ronway]

They are both increased by 1.

Such as if Fanatic uses Exorcism for 1 melee and 1 radiant, and Legacy as Galavanized this turn, she would instead do 2 melee and 2 radiant.

[Rhagnor]

Then we were playing it correct. Thanks for the response!

[jagarciao]

Even if they were the same type, but dealt in separate instances, each would be increased by 1. For example, if a card said (for whatever reason) "Deal 1 melee damage and deal 1 melee damage."  and Galvanized had been played by Legacy, you would deal a total of 4 melee damage (2 melee damage and 2 melee damage). 

[Reckless]

The one exception is Dual Crowbars, which specifies that it does the same amount of damage on the second swing.  Thus, it benefits from buffs only once, but will suffer from DR twice (Fixer w/Dual Crowbars against a Gene-Bound Guard would deal 2-1 Melee, which equals 1.  He would then deal it 1-1 Melee damage, making it zero.)

Ronway confirmed this at Kantcon with Christopher:
 

https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/answers-to-debated-questions-3871

[Foote]

@Reckless

The one exception is Dual Crowbars, which specifies that it does the same amount of damage on the second swing.  Thus, it benefits from buffs only once, but will suffer from DR twice (Fixer w/Dual Crowbars against a Gene-Bound Guard would deal 2-1 Melee, which equals 1.  He would then deal it 1-1 Melee damage, making it zero.)Ronway confirmed this at Kantcon with Christopher: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/answers-to-debated-questions-3871

That is not at all how I read Ronways answer. I do not believe that is correct.

[Reckless]

@Foote

 

Reckless wrote:

The one exception is Dual Crowbars, which specifies that it does the same amount of damage on the second swing.  Thus, it benefits from buffs only once, but will suffer from DR twice (Fixer w/Dual Crowbars against a Gene-Bound Guard would deal 2-1 Melee, which equals 1.  He would then deal it 1-1 Melee damage, making it zero.)Ronway confirmed this at Kantcon with Christopher: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/answers-to-debated-questions-3871  

That is not at all how I read Ronways answer. I do not believe that is correct.

Oh yeah, he can't hit the same target with Dual Crowbars.  However, the DR the Gene-Bound Guard grants to other targets would effect that, such as if he hit a Gene-Bound Frosthound (at least that's how I read "Damage reduction would be applied separately to each target").

I could be wrong, but I'm not sure how to read that unless it grants him a way to bypass DR through some "unmodifiable" phantom mechanic.

[Foote]

@Reckless

 

Foote wrote:

 Reckless wrote:

The one exception is Dual Crowbars, which specifies that it does the same amount of damage on the second swing.  Thus, it benefits from buffs only once, but will suffer from DR twice (Fixer w/Dual Crowbars against a Gene-Bound Guard would deal 2-1 Melee, which equals 1.  He would then deal it 1-1 Melee damage, making it zero.)Ronway confirmed this at Kantcon with Christopher: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/answers-to-debated-questions-3871   

That is not at all how I read Ronways answer. I do not believe that is correct.

Oh yeah, he can't hit the same target with Dual Crowbars.  However, the DR the Gene-Bound Guard grants to other targets would effect that, such as if he hit a Gene-Bound Frosthound (at least that's how I read "Damage reduction would be applied separately to each target").I could be wrong, but I'm not sure how to read that unless it grants him a way to bypass DR.

Honestly, I think it just allows you to attack 2 targets. Calculate buffs and DR like normal per target. The answer is ment to totally deny "double dipping" any damage buffs. For instance if you have galvanize up, Fixer strikes the first target for 1+1 damage. The point of the answer was to prevent the second target from taking 2(total damage from first hit) then adding +1 galvanize for a total of 3.

Fixer would strike 2 targets for 1+1 damage. Calculate DR as normal per target. That is how I read it.

[Reckless]

@Foote

Honestly, I think it just allows you to attack 2 targets. Calculate buffs and DR like normal per target. The answer is ment to totally deny "double dipping" any damage buffs. For instance if you have galvanize up, Fixer strikes the first target for 1+1 damage. The point of the answer was to prevent the second target from taking 2(total damage from first hit) then adding +1 galvanize for a total of 3.Fixer would strike 2 targets for 1+1 damage. Calculate DR as normal per target. That is how I read it.

That makes sense.  So, for a proposed rewording you might put "Whenever Fixer deals damage to a target, he instead deals that damage to two targets", or something to that effect?

[Foote]

@Reckless

 

Foote wrote:

Honestly, I think it just allows you to attack 2 targets. Calculate buffs and DR like normal per target. The answer is ment to totally deny "double dipping" any damage buffs. For instance if you have galvanize up, Fixer strikes the first target for 1+1 damage. The point of the answer was to prevent the second target from taking 2(total damage from first hit) then adding +1 galvanize for a total of 3.Fixer would strike 2 targets for 1+1 damage. Calculate DR as normal per target. That is how I read it.  

That makes sense.  So, for a proposed rewording you might put "Whenever Fixer deals damage to a target, he instead deals that damage to two targets", or something to that effect?

I think that is much better. Now, I could be wrong too here. But this is how it makes the most sense to me.