In a game I played today, Legacy first played:
Fortitude: Reduce damage dealt to Legacy by 1
then played:
Superhuman Durability: Whenever Legacy would be dealt 5 or more damage from a single source, reduce that damage by 3.
Legacy was than targeted by a Blade Battalion for five damage.
How much damage does Legacy take? 4? 1?
(BTW I was running Legacy and Tempest against Blade in Metropolis and successfully won as a two-man army!)
Would not the “first card played acts first” rule apply, giving 4? Although, given the “static” nature attributed to damage count modifiers as stated in the Imbued Fire ruling, the “reduce damage by 1” would apply “always apply,” thus creating ambiguity as to whether the “always apply” causes it to be 4 immeduately, and thus being 4 before the Superhuman Durability could kick in, or give a 1 as damage count modifiers seem to be applied at the end.
Though actually, and what I’d probably put my money on, is the text for Superhuman Durability stats that “Whenever Legacy would be dealt … damage,” which to me says it triggers at the moment it has been decided that Legacy is going to be dealt damage, which would occur after all other damage modifications, thus yeilding 4.
Legacy takes 4 damage because of the order in which the cards were played.
Okay, now I have to step up. In some cases, the ruling is “order the cards are played” yet other cases “modifiers are static” (i.e. always in effect). Initially, I assumed that damage count modifiers always being in effect couldn’t cause conflict, as they are commutative. However, damage count modifiers conditional upon the current damage count destroys this commutativeness, giving importance to the order. Giving importance to the order would give a different effect than was officially ruled for Imbued Fire. Really, the only solution I can come up with for both of these rulings to apply is “because we say so.”
Actually, I think the rulings have been consistent.
For both ‘type of damage’ and ‘amount of damage’ cards, they are applied in the order they are played. It’s just that ‘type of damage’ modifiers are all applied before ‘amount of damage’ modifiers.
Ah, yes, the damage count modifiers must occur at the moment damage is to be determined, and then by action play order. This would allow all current rulings, and keep things like damage redirection consistant, that way count modifiers are not applied, reapplied, and removed unnecessarily when the targets change.
What would get sticky, I think, is if there were redirection based on amount of damage. I don’t think, though, that there are any cards that do that.
I may be mistaken, but I believe Tachyon has a card like that.
You’re right!
So, given that the following are in play:
Tachyon, Synaptic Interruption: If Tachyon would be dealt 3 or more damage from a single source, instead redirect that damage to a target of your choice and destroy this card.
Citizen Dare: Increase all damage dealt to hero targets by 1.
Citizen Anvil: Reduce all damage dealt to citizens by 1.
and that Tachyon has the highest HP of the heroes such that Citizen Dawn targets her for 2 energy damage.
How would this be resolved?
Citizen Dare causes the damage to increase from 2 to 3, which is enough damage to trigger the Synaptic Interruption. If Tachyon redirects the damage to a Citizen, Citizen Anvil would presumably reduce the damage by 1, from 3 to 2, but would the increase by Citizen Dare still be in effect?
This isn’t the harriest possible example. Imagine that Tachyon had a card that increased or decreased damage done to Tachyon. Would that increase or decrease still be in effect after the redirect? If not, why is Citizen Dare’s increase still in effect?
Bumping this in the hopes of drawing the attention of one of the designers …
Still no ruling?
I would think that, given the static nature of the modifiers, Citizen Dare’s +1 will not be in effect anymore as the target has changed. So, I say, just 1 energy damage from Citizen Dare to Citizen Anvil.
I had a chance to ask this question directly to Christopher last week and he wanted a chance to think about it. Since then we went on the nerd cruise and now the Rook City expansion has arrived from the factory, so I’m not surprised that it may be a while before he responds.
My current inclination is to agree with ketigid – the boosts and reductions must all be reconsidered after a redirection and the amount of damage should be just 1.
One other thing about play order is that, while it is easy to maintain play order for 1 player/villain/environment, it is difficult or at least unintuitive to do so across the table.
So let me suggest this, when play order is required to resolve ambiguity, proceed in the same order as on the back of the rulebook (i.e. villain, players from clockwise, then environment). That said, environment will always subsume players and villains (i.e. Close Quarters subsume Imbue Fire).
Any foreseeable problems with this rule of thumb?
Admittedly, using this rule of thumb would keep one from having to remember what order cards were played across heroes, the villain, and the environment, but I don’t recall every having trouble remember that, so I don’t think I’d opt to use this rule.
It is for future-proofing against some cards that may or may not appear in some future expansion. :-X ;D
It did become difficult to remember card order play when playing Plague Rat the other day. Even though they were all Plague Rat cards, they were also spread around the table and difficult to remember which order they were played.
I always assumed Superhuman Durability came first because it says "would be dealt", whereas Fortitude reduces the damage that -is- dealt to him. That's how I always treat "would be" cards, as coming before the actual thing (plus as a general rule, unless the wording makes it super obvious that it's supposed to happen, I always err on the side of players not being screwed over by their own cards. It's not that common to take 5 or more damage, Superhuman Durability already has very few cases where it's going to trigger. It doesn't need Fortitude getting in the way too.). I don't know if that's right, and I'm not like, married to the interpretation--you could easily argue that since Legacy has fortitude he wouldn't be dealt 5 damage, so the would be clause comes after. But whatever it means, it has to mean something, doesn't it? Otherwise why would they sometimes say "would be dealt damage" and sometimes just use "damage dealt to"?
THIS. Letter of the law means a lot less to me than the spirit of the game, and it just doesn't make a lot of sense to be screwed by your own cards.