Tachyon deals each non-hero target 1 sonic damage. (paragraph break)
Targets dealt damage this way cannot deal damage until the start of your next turn.
We were playing the Matriarch recently and a question came up for TLT. She had hypersonic assault and played it. It did damage to Matriarch first, then to a Charion Field, then killed about 6 Fowl cards.
One player said that we take no damage because the Matriarch and CF are prevented from doing damage since they already took damage from Hypersonic Assault so its a damage free clearing of the Fowl.
A second player says that first it does all of its damage and then applies the modifier so we will all take the damage this turn but Matriarch and the CF won't be able to do damage until Tachyon's next turn.
The general consensus was that you do the damage and the side effects, then the target dealt damage can't deal damage after that. I'm not sure if there is an official ruling, though, or whether anyone feels differently about this case since the damage to the Matriarch has been fully resolved and you are now damaging the other targets.
Allow me to make a case to try and answer this question.
I think the key here is the wording "deals each non-hero target 1 damage". What jumps out at me first is that it does not say "deals all non-hero targets 1 damage". It would have been very easy to word it this way, but it is not.
So what is the difference? The wording of "All Targets" implies that it is a simultanious action. Take the official ruling for how End of Days interacts with Unity's Bee Bot. The wording leads to a simultanious action where the player can choose the order in which to destroy the cards on the field, choosing Bee Bot before any hero cards are destroyed but after all villain/enviroment cards.
Back to Hypersonic. The wording here of "deals each non-hero target" does not imply a simultanious action in the same way that End of Days does. Right?
I think we can all agree that her damage comes first, and damage must be done for the modifier to apply.
Because the action of dealing damage to each target does not happen all at once, the modifier would not apply all at once either. This means that she applies the modifier as she does her damage, one target at a time.
Thematically, picture Tachyon pinballing at lightspeed from one target to the next. She may be super fast, but she cant hit them all at the same time, just hits them all in a very short period of time =)
TL:DR
Hypersonic Assault does not deal damage in a simultanious action. Therefore, the modifer is applied as each target gets hit. If Matriarch is first to be hit, then she would not be able to retaliate when her birds bite the speeding bullet
P.S. In regards to the comparison to throat jab/backlash field, I think these two specific situations are very different. If Tachyon were to Hypersonic the Baron with Backlash in play, I agree with the concensus that in this case Tach would be hit by Barons personal retaliation before the modifier goes into effect.
I'd be also happy, if there'll be a official ruling. Until now, I played it, that the retaliate damage is dealt before the target is unable to deal damage. The main reason is the ruling in Spiff's Clarifications:
5) If a card has multiple effects and the first effect triggers another effect, the triggered effect will happen before any subsequent effects on the original card.
Thematically I would prefer it the other way though.
It really makes Tachyon a strong choice against her nemisis if it results in no damage, so yeah thematically I like that. Thematically speaking I could also see it as something like this:
First Tachyon hits everything doing 1 damage to each, then shortly after a sonic boom hits and stuns everything so that they can not attack for a short time.
I could see that sonic boom hitting as she is moving to the next target. I imagine there would be like 20 little mini sonic booms all in a very short time span. So short it might even sound like one single one! Its a very cool visual to picture happening in slow motion
Actually, the pressure wave that we perceive as a sonic boom happens continuously as long as you maintain a speed above the speed of sound. Anything in her wake would get one.
Mostly I was just trying to come up with a thematic reason she would hit everything first and then, after having damaged every target start applying the inability to do damage. Just in case that is the offical ruling. The pressure wave is exactly what I was thinking so Cosmo is right on.
Of course if the ruling goes the other way that can fit thematically as well.
I read it as being as simultaneous as things get in this game. If your whole argument hinges on "not simultaneous," you're going to have to defend your premises as well.
I was making a distinction in the implication between the wording of "deal each target" and "deal all targets". If they fuctioned the exact same way, then there would be no need for the different wordings, no?
And, to be honest, I am not quite sure anymore of even being a simultanious attack or not matters in the long run as it specifically relates to this question. Even if it was ruled a simultanious attack, simultanious actions are done in the order of the players choosing. So if you choose to deal Matriarch the damage first (as it is your choice), there is no indication or reason that the modifer would not take effect on her right then and there before you move on to the next target, as she has already been delt the damage thus completly fulfilling the requirments of the modifier.
I mentioned this in another thread, but talking about the need (or lack thereof) for different wordings assumes that the templating is 100% on point. Despite the best efforts of the playtesters and the >G fellas, errors and inconsistencies do slip through. In light of this, and given that I have no natural tendency to read a significant semantic difference into the two phrases (based on my reading itself, and the lack of truly simultaneous actions in the game), it seems highly plausible to me that the wordings differ not because of any need, but simply by happenstance.
If you want to argue that they mean different things because they actually mean different things to you, I am on board. If you feel obliged to find a distinction because the wording is slightly different, I am not willing to follow you there, and I would recommend that you refrain from using the mere fact of a slight difference in wording as evidence that there must be some difference in the way they are resolved in the game. It is not necessarily the case that the wording needs to differ.
Far better to use accepted rules as logical evidence on why things that seem similar would work in a smiliar way (see my targeting discussion in relation to redirection in kismets thread, of course im wrong now but thats still what i mean :P)
Someone suggested at one point that whenever there is a rules question, conflicting card effects and amgiguity should always be ruled whatever workd in the players favor (this came up with weird conflicts like Fortitude VS shielding winds). I've taken that to heart, and it is sort of my golden rule whenever I have a question. So based on that criteria, I would say that it would prevent all damage (I would further argue that that's kinda the point, and it would suck if it didn't do what it said due to a rules technicality).
On a more technical note, I read them not as separate effects but as a damage effect with a rider condition, i.e. "Everything that takes any damage from this attack also cannot deal damage" (as opposed to "deal one damage to everything, THEN everything hit cannot deal damage.")
I think I have been trying to turn very simple things into arbitrarily difficult semantic readings (and not just in this thread but others). Usually the simplest answer is the best and I am way too tunnel visioned at times with these things.
Cosmonaut you are correct. My appologies . I will be much more mindful of how I present the tangled web of crap that goes through my head.
I figure it depends on whether ‘targets dealt damage this way’ is an action or a reaction. As an action, it would not take effect until it reaches the top of the ‘card text queue’ (in this case, not until all damage has been dealt). As a reaction, the moment a target is dealt damage (which would occur after HP is reduced) the effect takes place. The wording to me sounds more like an action, as I would figure a reaction to be worded as ‘if a target is dealt damage this way, …’ though I would not be against the idea that it is a reaction, as it would be more intuitive and fun.
The distinction of action and reaction is a good one. I never thought about it quite that way, but it makes a ton of sense. Since the second part of the card (the debuff) is dependent on the first part (the damage) occuring, would it not be considered a reaction in that sense?
. I will be much more mindful of how I present the tangled web of crap that goes through my head.