I think normally you could target the barrel but not Kismet. This is how I interpret it working with Apostates Orb of Delirium, Unity's Stealth bot, Wraith's Smoke Bombs, ect. If you redirect damage to yourself you protect one target, but if you were also a target you get hit twice or more, that's why Jack handle can hit the Orb 3-4 times depending on the number of relics out. It seems like the same situation is applied here. Inconcievable Obstruction redirects to an environment target, but you can still target that environment seperately. You cannot target Kismet a 2nd thime though.
So,what do people think is the difference between Schizero of Frost and Flame and Hoarfrost? One says 'then' giving a clear distinction between the two events, the other doesn't. If what people are saying, that multiple damage attacks do not target simultaneously, is correct, why would these be worded differently? What is the difference between these cards? I grant the game isn't 100% tight in its card wording conventions, but this implies a greaer distinction to me.
I think it can be summed up simply like this:
Redirection changes the recipient of the damage (hence the need to recalculate DR/+dgm modifiers for the new recipient), but it does not change who was targeted.
Thoughts?
If you want me to tie this in thematically, think Dragonball Z real quick. Goku fires a blast at Vegeta. Vegeta slaps it away, avoiding the damage, and that ball of energy hits Nappa instead (work with me here). Vegeta was always the target of the attack, even though Nappa took the consequences
Choose 3 targets. A, B, and C. These are targetted by an attack. A is struck. B redirects the attack to A. C is struck. A was targetted once, but struck twice, while B avoided taking damage by using handy meat shield A.
@pwatson, not all multi-target attacks are simultanious, but there are some that are.
Hail Storm says "deal all non-hero targets damage" and that would imply the simultanious action.
Hypersonic Assult, on the other hand, says "deal each non-hero target damage". This implies that it is not simultanious.
Frost and Flame are two completley separate attacks. They can target the same target if Argent wishes. Maybe he can choose the order in which the fire/cold damage is delt, but I would not be in favor of that interpretation.
Hoarfire is kind of the same. They are separate attacks and can hit the same target if AbZ wishes. I think the word "then" indicates that the second mechanic of the card is dependent of the first happening.
I agree completely and apprieciate the DBZ reference
Actually, there is no difference between ‘all’ and ‘each’ as there are no simultaneous actions. Any action which would imply simultaneous actions are resolved one at a time per the players’ choice, and multiple reactions which would occur simultaneously occur in card play order.
And since Nappa is a lower powerlevel than Vegeta, that same energy blast would potentialy hurt him more than it would have Vegeta, hence the need to recalculate the damage! Like Vegeta has a DR of 1 and Nappa has no DR in this senario.
Everything should be related back to DBZ. The world would be a better palce
Wouldn't there absolutly be a difference if, say, the action of doing damage has a secondary effect after it? It would drastically effect the timing of how the second effect resolves. Wouldn't a simultaneous multi-target attack apply all damage to its targets first before the secondary card effect, while "each" would imply the secondary effect is carried out before damage is calculated for the next target in line?
Obviously I am referenceing the Hypersonic Assult debate, and this is not the proper thread for that, but I think "all" and "each" do imply a difference in how that damage is resolved with other modifers and triggers in play.
Anytime I find myself disagreeing with Jaymann, I am usually very very wrong though, so let me aknowledge that
>G is not a huge company with a big editing and templating department. Sometimes little templating things like each/all will slip through. I would not necessarily say that there is an implication that they do different things because the wording differs slightly.
There are more people that go over the wording than you think.
If wording does not imply different effects, then what are half of these threads debating over? Common now
I get that. I would say howeve, that the redirection does not stop simply because the item has been targeted once.
Target First Artifact, Orb redirects it, and it hits. Target second artifact, orb redirects it and it hits.
Of course… with that logic, it technically be a never ending loop, of always targeting the artifacts until the orb was dead. So… in that case, with that logic, id have to re-evaluate as well, saying that you couldnt target Kismet a second time.
It seems there are two totally different questions here, and it might be best to get away from the Kismet example that hits both of them.
The first: If you are damaging multiple different targets and the first damage is redirected, is the final recipient of the first damage a valid target for the next damage and is the original target of the first damage a valid target for the next damage?
Example: Legacy plays Flying Smash and first targets Condemnation which is redirected to the Orb of Delerium. Can he now choose the Orb of Delerium or the Condemnation for the next damage?
-Personally I think it is really obvious that he can't choose Condemnation again, but can choose the Orb again. I'm surprised there is contention on this, as I feel the other way breaks down all kinds of things which go for the X targets with the highest HP and so forth.
The second: If you are damaging multiple targets (but not all targets of a type), and the first damage brings a new target into play, can you choose that new target for the next damage?
Example: Legacy plays Flying Smash and kills a cultist, bringing a zombie into play. Can he now target the zombie with the next damage?
-As I said originally I do think there is some slight ambiguity here, but I would be very surprised if he could not target the zombie. Requiring players to choose all targets before resolving any damage just seems onerous for no benefit.
Also, PWatson asked about the difference between Scherzo of Frost and Flame and Hoarfire. Scherzo's second damage just specifies a target. Hoarfire's second damage specifies a second target and therefor cannot be the same as the first target. I don't think the 'then' on Scherzo has any meaning, in that I would interpret the card exactly the same if it were removed.
If for example, a villain card hit the two lowest hero targets for x damage. Stealth bot and some other target are the two lowest with the same hp. When stealth bot redirects the damage to herself from the first target, would you consider her to not be the valid target for the second hit because of the redirect?
The way i play it, is the targetting and actually getting hit are separate and not relevant to each other unless specified otherwise. So even tho Kismet was not actually hit by the attack and the barrel was, she was still the first target and the barrel wasnt. Therefore you would be able to target the barrel with the second, but not Kismet again. But thats just imo....
Thank you for this clear restatement. I am going to use it and put both questions into the 'pending rulings' section.
Peronsally, I have zero doubt as to what the rulings are, which gives me some pause as to whether or not I should bother >G with it, but I also want to be a fair gatekeeper.
I'd be cool taking your word for it! (But if you've got official playtesters disagreeing, probably best to get THEM all in order, y'know? (Lucky SOBs.))
I'm not taking his word for it! I want straight dope directly from the designers, not dope cut with opinions and supposition. Nothing else gives me the buzz I crave. ;)
We had a pending question of:
>
Two questions related to choosing targets
The first: If you are damaging multiple different targets and the first damage is redirected, is the final recipient of the first damage a valid target for the next damage and is the original target of the first damage a valid target for the next damage?
Example: Legacy plays Flying Smash and first targets Condemnation which is redirected to the Orb of Delerium. Can he now choose the Orb of Delerium or Condemnation for the next damage?
The second: If you are damaging multiple targets (but not all targets of a type), and the first damage brings a new target into play, can you choose that new target for the next damage?
Example: Legacy plays Flying Smash and kills a cultist, bringing a zombie into play. Can he now target the zombie with the next damage?
The first question turned out to be unnecessary, as only one person was arguing against everyone else, and that person changed their position.
The second question was answered in the KantCon rulings (https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/answers-to-debated-questions-3871)
>
8.When doing damage with a card that says “up to x targets” do you choose all targets you wish to hit before you deal damage?
Yes you can, such as if you are swinging a Taiaha to do a killing blow to a Cultist, bringing out a Zombie, you can choose the second attack to be that zombie.
Note: Though the wording of this answer is a bit odd (Why does it start with 'Yes you can'), I think the intent is clear.
Opps, yeah, sorry. I must of been thinking I had worded the question differently for that one. I should go fix it.