DW Fixer takes a hit though, since facing high reduction, one of his strengths, now can cause the second crowbar hit to do less damage, just like base fixer and charge.
Wooooaaaah.
And this puts some arguments to rest, doesn’t it?
Jack Handle effectively cancels the original damage, and causes a new set of damage dealing instance to all non-hero targets with the original damage amount/type/irreducibility.
…or does it? Can Fixer double-dip Grease Monkey’s +1?
I find this one confusing. Relevant text quoted:
>
When a card enters play, the following order of things occurs.
- Ongoing effects on the card become applicable.
- Cards that react to other cards entering play now act.
- One-time effects on the card happen.
There is an exception to the order of operations ruling relating to reacting to damage being dealt. A card (or cards belonging to a hero/villain) that reacts to damage being dealt to it reacts before other cards do. The card dealing the damage and other interested cards happen afterwards and can be ordered by player choice.
Example: Suppose Mr. Fixer has Dual Crowbars and Bloody Knuckles in play. Omnitron has Adaptive Plating Subroutine but is not immune to anything yet. Mr. Fixer uses Strike to hit Omnitron for 3 melee damage. By this ruling, the text on Adaptive Plating Subroutine must go first and make Omnitron immune to melee damage. Then Dual Crowbars’ effect happens and Mr. Fixer can deal damage to another target. Without this ruling, you could use Synaptic Interruption and careful ordering to hit Omnitron twice before it becomes immune to melee damage.
The example sounds to me like adaptive plating subroutine effectively makes Omnitron immune to damage, and that doesn't seem correct. I assume I must be misreading something.
Adaptive Plating Subroutine makes Omnitron immune to certain types of damage. That's what the card does. Are you looking at Omnitron or Omnitron-X? Their Subroutine's are different.
I am looking at Omnitron. I think you misunderstood my question or I stated it badly: It looked like it was saying that Omnitron's immunity kicked in before the damage was applied, but I see upon rereading that it only says it kicks in before the second instance of crowbar damage.
I may be new to the game but I am clear on which deck is which. 
I at first read it that way
which made me reread in dismay
but damage happens before
what triggers lie in store
so damage still happens, okay?
The wording which tripped me up was " Mr. Fixer uses Strike to hit Omnitron for 3 melee damage. By this ruling, the text on Adaptive Plating Subroutine must go first and make Omnitron immune to melee damage." They don't mean 'first' as in 'before the damage', they mean 'first of all the triggers that happen after the damage has been dealt'. Does this make sense?
EDIT: Ninja'd
Yep, that's exactly how I misread it too.
Also:
Shock Rounds text is adjusted to say “The first time that card’s power is used to damage a target, Expatriette deals each non-hero target 1 lightning damage. After that power is used, destroy this card.” This clarifies that the lightning damage only happens once.
Okay, I know what you want, but that is still ambiguous. What if I read it that "the first time that card's power is used to damage a target - on a per target basis, ..." a la the way Combat Stance and Flame Barrier are supposed to work? It might be better to say "the first time each target" vs "the first time any target," or some wording that adds disambiguity. Or even, "The first time..., Expariette deals each non-hero target 1 lighting damage, then destroy this card."
Shock Rounds have been in our house rules for a while, because while Expatriette is an awesomely reliable dealer of small amounts of damage, she doesn't really have any awesome game-changing slam-dunk moves. So we let her Shock Rounds re-trigger.
I read that as striking all non-hero targets with one lightning damage, which with buffs can be quite effective.
Hmmmmmmm. I don't know if it's a consequence of this
> When a card enters play, the following order of things occurs.
Ongoing effects on the card become applicable.
Cards that react to other cards entering play now act.
One-time effects on the card happen.
or not but the Mask of the Matriarch is triggering off itself entering play, I really don't think that's how it's meant to work.
EDIT: Ronway tested this for me, seems like it's not rules ambiquity but a bug!
[url= http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=425298440 ] pic1 [/url]
[url= http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=425300556 ] pic2 [/url]
[url= http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=425300609 ] pic3 [/url]
[url= http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=425300651 ] pic4[/url]
Unload?
Hollow Points?
Expat rocks the damage, because her ammo is essentially a one-shot that boosts your power instead of adding small damage. 4 damage to 3 targets with 2 cards is dang good damage for a turn. She is mostly solid damage with ammo fueled boosts giving better turns and Unload turning in serious damage.
I agree in principle...she's so slow to draw cards, though, that you can't reliably expect her to have those things at your disposal. I've easily played games where she never sees ammo at all.
If a card is damaging the X lowest HP targets, and in the middle of doing that a new lowest HP target appears, the targeting does not change. The originally chosen X targets are damaged. If one disappears in the middle, the damage fizzles and does not re-target.
I would suggest rephrasing "the damage fizzles" to "the damage to the missing target fizzles". We're talking about (often) multiple targets here, and any that *don't* disappear do still take damage, right?
1. Ongoing effects on the card become applicable.
2. Cards that react to other cards entering play now act.
3. One-time effects on the card happen.
That strikes me as needlessly complex. It would be much simpler to just make step 1 be "Text on the card takes effect." and have no step 3. While one can easily construct an edge case where this makes a different outcome, I don't see any cases where it would cause an outcome that seems (to my intuition) wrong enough to make the added complexity worthwhile.
Expatriette’s Ammo cards can be played without a gun in play. If that happens, the Ammo card is destroyed.
I thought it went directly to the Trash, having never really entered play, and thus not triggering either "card enters play" or "card was destroyed" effects. Has this changed?
If an ammo card is next to a gun card and the gun card is destroyed, the ammo card remains in play.
Uh, why? Expatriette has enough trouble getting ammo cards out, so why make it so easy for one to end up in limbo? She has many means of getting ammo out of her trash, but *none* for recovering an ammo card that gets detached like this. It would make more sense to me to errata the ammo cards to say "If the Gun card this is next to is destroyed, so is this card."
Oh, wait. Is there actually a situation that can destroy a gun instead of an ammo card that isn't due to players being perverse and/or dumb about their choice of resolving ambiguities? I don't think there is. Nevermind...
For the second instance of damage, Dual Crowbars is only restricted from selecting the target that was the final result of the first instance of damage (after all redirects).
Is this a general change to how targeting multiple targets works? I was under the impression that you couldn't re-choose the *initial* target, but you *could* re-choose a target that ended up getting damaged earlier due to redirects. Is this still true in general, or not?
This is how it has always worked, as was known from the Informant ruling. If it changes, there will be a lot of practical differences, namely how easy it would be to deal with the Informant.
Ongoing text refers to what was earlier called static effects. The order has been known, because of the ruling that sucker punch would not destroy the Informant before she caused a villain card play.
Dual Crowbars triggers when Mr. Fixer deals damage to a target, you don't select two targets, the original target is unimportant because it only cares about the damage dealt and what target was dealt the damage.
Thanks for the clarifications; those both make sense to me now.
I've updated the (unofficial) Damage Dealing Timing spreadsheet with these rulings. The biggest change was splitting what was step 20 into 20 and 21. Added a new note on step 3 and clarified wording on various steps regarding the applicability (or not) of Fixed Point.
I have the same question.
Dual Crowbars is different from most
The old rules aren't entirely toast
I'd like to say why
but I think I won't try
to explain in this limerick post
Basically, the way Dual Crowbars works (or at least the way it works now), is a damage response that triggers off of the damage he deals. This is different from most cases of multiple damage - it's more like Combat Stance and fellows than anything else. So normal multiple targets still work the same way, with the initial target being the one off limits.
The key is how it i worded, (funny that it finally fits the effect) "when Mr. Fixer deals damage" is looking at the reduction of hp. "To one other target as well" is dealing with the target that lost hp, so it doesn't care who thevoriginal target would have been, only who lost hp and how much they lost.
IMHO the Dual Crowbars ruling is a bad one and should instead follow the same path that was taken for Shock Rounds: reword it to make it work in a simple, intuitive fashion. This change makes Dual Crowbars so powerful that, strategically, it overshadows all other Tool/Style. Each +1 that he recieved transforms into a total of +3 with Crowbars.
It's funny, back when I wanted to buff Fixer I ignored rulings on how Dual Crowbars and Jack Handle worked (and Shock Rounds for Expat). It's flashy to play it once or twice but as a character he became dull when some cards were just so much more powerful and verstatile than the rest of the deck. Some time later I went back to playing him as was ruled back then. I guess now I'll go back to ignore official rulings again.