So, let's say Gauntlets of Perdition are out. I target them with Stun Bolt, but Orb of Delirium is out, so the orb takes the damage. What happens to the damage reduction? As a reminder, the text of Stun Bolt is:
"The Wraith deals 1 target 1 projectile damage. Until the start of your next turn, reduce all damage dealt by that target by 1."
In her case, (unlike Hoist Chain), the damage reduction isn't controlled by who took damage, it just "happens". My guess is that the orb takes the damage, but the Gauntlets of Perdition have their damage reduced, because the orb only takes damage, not effects.
Though the second effect doesn't rely on the target taking damage, I would imagine the second effect would affect the Orb. Since the Orb is the new target for Stun bolt, I think the whole attack redirects. I understand your interpretation, but I think that could really complicate things (especially with effects being redirected with Smoke Bombs).
I'm unsure on this, but I feel like the Stun Bolt effect would completely involve the Orb and nothing else. I'm not basing that on anything, mind you. Hopefully someone else has a better answer.
There's nothing in the rules to indicate that redirecting damage also changes the target of the power. As already pointed out Stun Bolt's damage reduction ability does not have anything to do with who (if anyone) took damage from the bolt. You can target the Chairman or Citizen Dawn with Stun Bolt even when they're immune to damage; there's nothing stopping you from using the effect on a target that redirects the damage either.
But damage redirection completely shifts the target, including buffs and DR that applies to it. I wonder if by shifting the target taking the damage the second effect shifts, as "the target" is now a completely different card. Again, I see it going either way, but I'm more inclined to say it all redirects for the sake of simplicity. We'll probably need an official perspective from >G on this one.
I'll have to say that. While common sense would tell you that the person who has actually been hit with the damage (or no damage if reduced or prevented) would be the one that truly got hit, and the one who would have his damage reduced, there is no general rule or form of logic that would say this to be true.
The only logical way to say that the damage reduction target moves with the damage dealt would be to say that choosing a target replaces the target line with whatever specific target which gets targeted, and redirection further replaces that stated target with a new target. E.g., as written, the card states "Wraith deals 1 target 1 projectile damage. Reduce damage dealt by that target..." It states '1 target,' thus requiring you to choose a target. You target the gauntlets. This now temporarily changes the wording of the card to "Wraith deals Guantlets of Perdition 1 projectile damage. Reduce damage dealt by that target..." The orb redirects the damage to itself, thus further altering the wording to "Wraith deals Orb of Delirium 1 projectile damage. Reduce damage dealt by that target..." This has not been stated by the rules or any rulings, because, obviously, this description could easily be confusing for such a rare case (well, depending on who is usually played).
Before my statements are taken out of context, I am not making a statement as to this being the way it should be played. Actually, the fact that I can't find any official documentation of this being the case is the reason I think that this is not how it works. I only bring it up because, if this is the way it works, this is the only generic and logical way I can see it as being able to work in such a way.
You could also just look at it cinematically - Wraith fires her stun bolt at Villain A. Villain A does some Special Funky Move, causing the glowing energy bolt thing to veer off-course and instead slam into Villain B, who's momentarily knocked a bit off-kilter and can't hit quite as hard as he could just a second ago. There's no reason why, after the redirect, Villain B would go "ouch" but Villain A would be hitting less hard ;).
That's why it's said that it fits in with common sense that new target should get the redirect. However, there is no current logical ruling to say this can happen. The currently not official description I gave would allow it to happen while following a logical set of rules, but this was something I just came up with, and is not stated officially anywhere in any form as for that being the correct ruling to follow.
Not exactly. Damage redirection completely shifts who is dealt damage, which may change which buffs and DR apply. That doesn't mean the target of the ability has changed.
I still think that for the same reason that preventing the damage doesn't prevent the second effect, redirecting the damage doesn't redirect the second effect either.
i think it has too, otherwise you can very quickly end up into an infinate damage cycle. I think there may already be one in Visionarys deck (haven't had a chance to really look at it, but i think it might be possible) and that would not be in the intention of the rules.
I went looking for other cards this ruling might affect, and the only one I came up with was Fanatic's 'Divine Sacrifice'.
It says: "Fanatic deals up to 3 targets 1 irreducible radiant damage each. Damage dealt by those targets is redirected to fanatic until the start of your next turn." So now I guess 'those targets' means targets which were the final target of damage from the first sentence. which may well be the Orb of Delerium three times over.
I don't know why, but I'm having a hard time seeing what needs to be added to the FAQ. There's already a section about redirecting damage. What are we saying is missing?
[quote="Stun Bolt"]
[/i]The Wraith[/i] deals 1 target 1 projectile damage. Until the start of your next turn, reduce all damage dealt by that target by 1.
[/quote]
What was confusing mean was whether "that target" in the second sentence refers to the target that Wraith selected for the first sentence, or the target that was ultimately dealt the damage.