Multiple Damage-Type Changes (rules geekery, obsolete under OoO ruling)

Other Games SotM Game Engine
1

The Order of Operations ruling renders this moot, but I want a hypothetical answer using the original ruling.  If Absolute Zero had a Twist the Ether on him and then Cramped Quarters Combat entered play, then when he went to deal himself 1 psychic damage, what would happen?

A)  He announces 1 psychic damage, which Twist the Ether may turn into either 0 or 2 damage of any type Visionary chooses, which then becomes 1 or 3 melee damage due to CQC.

B)  He announces 1 psychic damage, which CQC increases to 2 while making it melee, and then Visionary may change it to 3 of whatever she chooses.  (This outcome, now always true due to the OoO ruling, is almost certainly impossible under the original sequential resolution, but I mention it for completeness's sake.  If CQC mentioned the increase first and then the type change, I could see a little squinting to allow this to happen.)

C)  He announces 1 psychic damage, which Visionary reduces to 0.  No damage is dealt, so CQC cannot increase it.  (I'm assuming this is a legal outcome under the OoO ruling, but am not at all sure, so in fact this question might not be pure geekery after all.)

D)  He announces 2 psychic because all damage is increased, then Visionary Twists it into whatever she wants.  (Similar to scenario B, but worded differently under the assumption that the "announcement" is instantaneous and applies all static effects before any triggers can occur, with the assumption that type-changing, because it matters sequentially, must be a trigger, but that increases can be static.  Probably utterly wrong.)

E)  He announces 1 damage; what Visionary changes it to is irrelevant, as TtE's effect is overwritten by CQC, and the end result must be 2 melee.  (Almost 100% sure this is wrong.)

F)  Some other scenario even more far-fetched and contrived than all of these.  (I could swear I'd come up with one while working through these four - edited to add scenario E, which might have been what I was thinking of, but I don't put it past myself to have had an even weirder idea flit through my brain.)

2

Like you said, until the recent OoO ruling, the answer was different, but now the answer is a slightly different B. Change it to "Visionary may change it to either 3 or 1 of whatever she likes," and there's your answer. She CAN still choose to decrease it.

 

A would have been the correct answer under the original interpretation of the rules, but C would never have been correct; while you're still calculating damage, 0 is a damage amount and can be increased and changed like any other number.

 

D could work, since it's pretty much exactly the same as B. There's ACTUALLY not really a distinction there with the new OoO ruling. Originally, that would have been wrong.

 

E's just ridiculous. Even if the damage type were fixed (originally true, now more flexible), she would still have the ability to Twist it to either 1 or 3.

3

At the time I believe the ruling was optional effects could take place at any point during the process.  I could be using a forum concensus over official ruling, but that's how I believe we were doing it.

Start of turn optional effects could be timed anytime during the start of turn, they didn't need to follow the order they came into play.

 

4

Erm.  Not sure why I ruled that out.

C would never have been correct; while you're still calculating damage, 0 is a damage amount and can be increased and changed like any other number.

If 0 damage is dealt, then no damage was dealt.  I could conceive of the possibility that reducing a damage instance to 0 would instantly cancel it, preventing further modifications.  In fact, that's how I opted to play it last night, and it made a pretty big difference for the negative…it meant Absolute Zero survived, and I made material sacrifices to keep him just barely alive, until the Ennead wiped all three heroes out at once.  Had I accepted that Zero was doomed, Expat would have kept her guns, and Incapped AZ would have let her fire them twice a round, and Atum might have died without Visionary having to spend a card play that could instead have been a Decoy to protect her.  We might have had a chance to survive if I'd played this correctly, but AZ is one of my dyingest heroes, so I wanted to give him every chance to possibly heal himself back up and survive.

5

Yeah, but that's AFTER the calculations. You don't just go "well, this decreases it, so even though this will increase it back to 1 it is at 0 now so no damage will be dealt." You apply ALL modifiers (all plusses AND minuses) and then determine how much damage is being dealt.

6

YEah if There are no villain ongoing cards and Ra uses that one power, it can still do damage if you have + to damage out.

7

or if you're against the Ennead. Nemesis bonus FTW

8

Okay, so if damage can be 0 and still be damage being dealt for the purpose of increasing it, does the same apply to HP recovery?  Scholar damages 0 targets with Get Out of the Way while Solid to Liquid is in play; does he gain 1 HP?

9

I would assume so.

10

Yep, and if Thermal is only used to heal AZ and Legacy is boosting damage he can still deal fire damage even though he hasn't dealt cold.

With +2 damage, Cryo, Apertures, null-point and Thermal AZ is a healing machine