So I was fighting advanced Kismet in Silver Gulch, and raised a few questions.
Say Legacy plays "Flying Smash". His first target is Kismet, who has Inconcievable Obstruction out, and calls up a Stout Barrel and redirects the blow. Can you choose Kismet as your second target, since she never got hit? Can you choose the Stout Barrel as your second target, since it wasn't your original target the first time? Or do you need to name all three targets BEFORE you start smashing? (My instinct says no to the first, and yes to the second if the answer to the third question is no, but no idea about that third question, and I suspect I could be wrong on any of these.)
I think the only one with any ambiguity is the last question, but I'd be pretty surprised if we got a ruling that your couldn't pick your targets (and even whether you will continue) as you go with this.
I would say that all target have to be choosen at the same time. Kismet redirect damage you are trying to do so the new target is way after you can choose for it
I'd go with your instincts as well; Kismet's been picked as a target already, the barrel has not, and many precedents state that targets for multi-target attacks can be picked one at a time. I'd look at it as similar to if you'd attacked a Hayes brother while the barrel was already out, and so the barrel takes a hit but can be hit again.
I disagree, somewhat. You definitely can't hit Kismet again. But Flying Smash is one attack with mltple targets, not multiple attacks. It doesn't have the 'then' wording so it all occurs as simultaneously as things get in SotM. Thus I play it as all targets must be legitimate and on the field of play at the start. This is different from 'All' targets but I think its supposed to work that way.
So say Tempest uses his gail power that deals 2 damage to all non-hero targets. He kills a Cultist, which brings a zombie out wouldn't his attack still affect the zombie??
I assumed that rule applies to cards that require you to select multiple targets.
Yes because it affects all targets so you're just running through the villain list choosing the order. By the time you reach the end, you've got some more things on the list. Flying Smash and related hit a specific number of targets so you need to choose them right away. If they're not in play when you play the card, you can't choose to hit them but a global effect still does as they effectively walk into a blizzard, or in the zombie's case drags himself from the frozen ground to take a ball of ice to the face.
I disagree. It's 3 "simultaneous" attacks, and just like any other simultaneous attacks in the game it's actually 3 successive attacks, meaning that you could pick new targets just like anything else.
Yeah, I'd say the same as McBehrer - you can hit three things. You hit the first thing and a new target comes out, giving you an additional option for your second attack, so you can whack that one if you want to.
Regarding the redirect thing, as I understand it you declare what you're going to hit. Then, if that target redirects your attack, you hit the thing it was redirected to. But the original target still counts as having been attacked. A good example is probably Apostate - say he has his sword, a gauntlet, the Tome and the Orb out. You use an attack that hits everything (eg Grievous Hailstorm). You aim for the sword but oops, the Orb is out so that attack redirects to it. Then you try to hit the gauntlet. Same thing happens. And again for the Tome. So each of those things has been attacked but none has been hit because the Orb soaked it all up. Then it's the Orb's turn so you hit it as normal. Of course, if hitting the Orb directly first would mean that one of the redirects would finish it off before you'd finish hitting everything, that's probably a good idea - that way at least one of your attacks will get through to its intended target.
Posting here because Benhimself put this up for a rules question.
My opinion, so far, is that there is not enough dissension to require a ruling. I don't want to be a dick about it, though, so if you think I'm wrong, let's talk about it.
To me, it seems clear that you do not have to choose three targets that all existed on the field before the first attack is made, but I admit that my 'clarity' comes from my 'experience' in learning the game directly from Christopher, rather than an existing ruling somewhere.
So, can anyone else point to a specific ruling that covers this?
Can they not also effectively walk into a flying fist to the face as easily as a ball of ice?
I agree with the concensus here that you can hit up to 3 different targets regardless of whether they were on the field before or after the one-shot was played
my feeling lines up with arenson9 - There is not supposed to be a “stack” of actions that resolve, things just resolve as they are played. so you resolve this hit, another target is presented, you resolve the hit ect ect. kismet ability to present a new target happens as soon as something tried to target her, and then other targets haven’t been assigned yet.
I /would/nsay you couldn’t hit the environment target after kismet redirected it. redirection has always completely changed the target, to take into new damage reduction and nemesis or other damage boosts that haven’t been applied yet (bloody knuckles for instance). so it would be my opinion that kismet was never targeted
Lynkfox, I never considered the implication of the redirection. I think you may very well be correct in that the barrel can't be hit again but Kissmet probably can
Well, I WAS okay, but now people have jumped in with opinions that conflict what was already established? Some people think it's obvious that you can target Kismet the second time but not the barrel, and some people think it's obvious that you can target the barrel the second time but not kismet?
I believe the Apostate example explains it best. So after Kismet redirects the damage, you can't choose her as your next target but you can choose the barrel and hit it again.
I disagree. As I said redirected attacks ignore then original target for things like nemesis and dr. that indicates that the original target was never a target too begin with, meaning you could hit kismet with the second Attack (or the third in the case of flying smash) but not the barrel.
I think that’s the real question to be answered here
Lynkfox, redirection may recalculate damage soaks/buffs for the new recipient of the attack, but after thinking about it for a bit, you still have to target Kismet in the first place to trigger the redirection effect correct?
yes, but in doing so she moves the target to a new card. It’s as if you target Her, go to put your ‘I targeted you’ ribbon on kismet but instead of ever reaching her, the ‘I targeted you’ ribbon ends up in, in this example, a barrel… no ribbon on kismet therefore she can still be a target.
If you get my drift with the ribbons. hard to type from a phone, heh
Totally follow your logic there and it is valid. But I am not sold that just because you reevaluate damage buffs/soak for the new recipient of the damage, that it must follow that it's considered a new initial target.
By your example, Apostates Orb would become funky. Would you say that, with his sword, glove and orb in play, when Temest uses hail storm, the orb would only be hit once and only once?
I think the interaction is much more intuitive if it remembers the thing you targeted with the damage, not the thing that received the damage. Otherwise, "all targets" can easily create an infinite loop. You try to hit Kismet, redirect to the barrel. Okay, still haven't hit Kismet yet, hit her, redirect to the barrel. Which is annoying and feels dumb, but at least it ends. Now imagine that with one point of damage reduction on the barrel. OOPS.
Also, we know that things that come out partway through a card resolving are valid targets for that card. We've known since the core set. End of Days + Forced Deployment.