1) Fighting against the Ennead on Advanced mode. You are playing as Fanatic. Ennead is out in force, so they all get +1 damage. Lets also say that an Obsidian Field is in play, because why not. Fanatic has Undaunted in play. The Ennead on their turn play Elemental Storm (thats the three instances of 1 damage to each hero target).
Does Fanatic have to take damage in this senario?
2) Playing against The Chairman. H=3 for this example and the Operative is incapped. Chairman is being given +1 damage from incapped Operative, and his retaliation has a base of 3-2=1. Two Obsidian fields are in play. You are playing Mr. Fixer who has Driving Mantis in play. You deal Chairman some amount of damage, and he retaliates.
Can Fixer choose to redirect this damage?
It seems the answers would be No and Yes in that order, but am curious to see how other people view it, or if they are sticking with their current way of playing. Both of those answers would be very different for me before the new ruling. Let me know what you think below.
My answer would be, Yes and No, with a side order of please stop torturing logic this way.
Yes, being able to determine card order could be applied that way, if you ignore how the game works. But doing so is so obviously ridiculous that I can't imagine anyone trying to do it in a real game, which puts this into the realm of munchkin theory wonkery which Sentinels does not need.
In the same way you can't get bonuses from the Micro-Targetting Computer by applying it first, then applying Imbued Fire to change the type to Fire and garner an extra +1, which by your interpretation would appear to be fine and dandy, you apply the would be on the final total, not on one half-way through.
The Ennead gains +1 damage, which is applied on their turn. This is then sent to Fanatic, overcoming her Undaunted threshold.
corrolary: If fanatic had some bonus that granted damage reduction (such as protection from the Argent Adept), she would reduce first, then be protected by undaunted if the damage = 1 point.
environmental tangent: Obsidian fields complicate the issue, because they provide a global, permanent damage increase that is applied before the damage "leaves" each target. I realize that this is an odd way of looking at it, but the way I've always seen it is that the Hero or villain always checks for environmental damage modifiers before any sort of modifiers of their own (so, if the environment is converted to toxic, Wraith gets no Micro-targeting bonus, regardless of whether or not she played it first). I did this because (prior to) this ruling, my friends and I needed a consistant ruling on damage increasers that were damage-type specific, and we collectively decided that global changes ALWAYS won.
2. Mr. Fixer may not redirect.
this is because the damage (applying the same logic as above) is actually:
base 1, +1 from operative, +2 from obsidian. this results in 4 damage by the time it reaches Fixer, who cannot redirect that much.
Global effects always, always, always happen first, and the Obsidian Field is the quintessential Global effect.
I've never gone by the old official ruling in my games, so this hasn't affected the way I play the game.
If we are talking officially, >G certainly didn't go away from the static and triggered effects happening at the same time, so I would guess you could prevent the damage before boosting it, same with redirecting. I don't really like that solution, it just doesn't seem right.
I would suggest coming up with a philosophy of timing, and sticking to it.
My order of resolving damage modifiers goes as follows:
1. The original damage (written on the card)
2. Source based damage modifiers (by players choice if needed, static damage type changes I still resolve by play order)
3. optional modifiers based on source. (wrest the mind/twist the Ether)
4. Target based modifiers to damage, including redirection. (by players choice)
5. Change HP (or prevent)
It still gives player choice, but with a structure that I like, since it keeps effects orderly and doesn't let anything get too crazy.
First off, pwatson, please refrain from telling me about torturing logic as you bring up Micro-Targeting Computer as some kind of, what, counter example? It didn't apply at all to what I asked, nor did it address the core issue of what I want to get at. Munchkin theory indeed. Give me a break.
ANYWAY. Back to real dialoge.
I see what you are saying. But where does it say global effects always happen first? I think that was a forum construction to easily resolve interactions involving damage modification and not an official rule about order of operations. If I am wrong, someone jump in on that.
From Christophers ruling, it is implied that he views Fortitude and SuperHumanDurability as simultaneous actions. That is the entire basis for the old ruling (where card order mattered).
Now, it seems that outside of Start and End of turn effects, simultaneous effects are resolved by player choice, and that Fort/SHD is affected by that change.
What does that mean? Well, if a T-Rex decideds to chomp on Legacy, that the base damage of 5 would be sufficient to trigger SHD and then apply the Fort reduction, regardless of when SHD was played.
That brings me to senario 1 in my OP. It sounds like "would be dealt damage" triggers are officially considered simultaneous with damage modification effects (whether it reduces/increases all damage or just specific instances of damage I do not think is consequential). If SHD can be chosen to trigger off of "base damage" numbers before modifications are applied, why not in senario 1?
I think the nuance of the argument lies in "what exactly are simultaneous effects"? I think there is a case to be made that Fort/SHD are considered "simultaneous" not because of the timing of their triggers (timing seems to be something we are moving away from systematically) but because of the nature of the effect. Both Fort and SHD are reducing damage. Maybe Undaunted would not be considered simultaneous with Fort if they happened to be found in the same deck?
Edit: Phantaskippy, thats something I wanted to know as well. If people are trying to incoorporate the new ruling into how they play the game, or if you are sticking to what has worked for you until this point (which the new ruling seems to promote in a positive way)
Posit 1) All effects can be applied in any order, even if silly as with resolving damage effects before applying all increases to damage.
Posit 2) Effects are not recalculated after being applied, as would have to be the case for either of your examples to work.
Conclusion, you can apply both MCP and IF to the same effect by applying MCP while the damage is projectile and then IF to make it fire which increases the damage as its fire.
Please do explain why you think this is different to your suggestion.
It doesn't (that I know of). I play as if they do, because my friends and i required a ruling on it when Pike Chemical introduced global, environment-based change of damage types, and we needed a way to figure out how to deal with them. So we had a conversation about what made sense, and the result of that conversation is that I play (and teach) that global modifiers always come before anything else. Its for my own sanity, since it makes it much easier to figure out the order of events.
this brings me to "would be dealt damage".
"Would be dealt damage" implies (to me) that it only resolves AFTER all modifications and quibbling have been resolved. so , in the case of Undaunted, I resolve it thusly:
IF, after all modifiers, arguments, tears, pleading, bribery, and signed statements have been applied, the amount of damage is EXACTLY 1 point, THEN Fanatic prevents it.
IF the amount is above 5 points (same stipulations as above), then reduce it by 2. You may NOT, at this point, argue about further reducing it to exactly 1 point through any other modifiers, black sorcery, or offers of "being your best friend".
EDIT: This method of determining things was done entirely to protect my sanity and prevent endless rule arguments with people who I love dearly.
Sure man, I'll hold your hand as we walk through this.
Posit 1: Nonsense. Effects can not be applied in any order. Simultaneous card effects, though, happen to resolve by player choice now.
MTC and IF, you can choose to resolve those cards in any order you choose. Does not change the fact that if you stop doing projectile damage you stop gaining benefit from MTC at all. Happens that way in either order.
Posit 2: Not sure what you are saying. Again, simultaneous effects now resolve by player choice. If Fort and SHD are simultaneous, as the ruling strongly alludes to that fact, then wouldn't Driving Mantis and the Obsidian fields also share a simultaneous status?
Please explain how MTC and IF have any relevance here again. I still must be missing that crazy logic thing you keep talking about.
You're assuming Driving Mantis or the prevent condition of Undaunted are simultaneous with the damage? Why? Or rather, why are they simultaneous but Imbued Fire/MCP is not? They all seem equally simultaneous or unsimultaneous to me, hence the rather aggressive incredulity as to your position. I apologise for the intiial post's sarcasm. It was not warranted.
IF and MTC bring in conditional bonuses, which can be gained and lost by changing the damage type. So while Mantis and Obsidian field could be resolved in different orders to different results, if you apply MTS then change the damage to fire, that +2 is lost and the +1 from IF gained. If you changed it back to projectile with Twist the ether, Imbued Fire's +1 would be lost and MTC's +2 regained.
MTC cannot result in an increase to damage that is not projectile when hp is reduced.
Which would also apply to Driving Mantis and the prevent portion of Undaunted, no? I do not see why you would recalculate for "If the damage is projectile" but don't for "If you would be dealt exactly 1 damage". I can see why SHD and the reduction component of Undaunted are simultaneous to the other damage modifiers as they're all applying various damage modifiers, but these two effects are not simultanoues. They are applied at the end when the damage is actually dealt.
[EDIT] Illustration
1) Wraith does 1 projectile damage.
2) As it's projectile, apply MCP to increase to 3.
3) Apply Imbued Fire to convert to Fire.
4) Recalculate damage as 2 is no longer true.
1) Ennead do 1 damage do Fanatic.
2) As it's exactly 1 damage, Undaunted prevents the damage.
3) Apply damage bonus from Obsidian Field
4) As 2 is no longer true, why is the damage not recalculated here? What is the difference between these two lists?
Only if you consider them simultaneous. I'm still wondering why these triggers are being considered as simultaneous to the damage when they're consequent? After all ,what's triggering the trigger if the event hasn't finisehd resolving? Yes, I know this causes SHD and Undaunted problems, but the alternative is that you can ignore damage boosts when it's not convenient and include them when it is. That seems obviously counter to the game play to me.
Because they aren't simultaneous. The way you are supposed to do it, you determine the final damage type FIRST. It's fire. THEN you apply IF but not MTC, because you are dealing Fire damage but not Projectile. It only applies the buffs based on the final damage type.
That's the thing though. What are simultaneous triggers? I would have not considered SHD/Fort as simultaneous before, but they are. So the question becomes what exactly makes them simultaneous so we can apply that to other card interactions, like Driving Mantis/Obsidian Field.
And Pwatson, when undaunted would prevent the damage, it would stop the damage process there, so it would not apply the OF bonus since that instance of damage was prevented from occurring if undaunted was resolved first. That was my thought anyway.
Thats basically what I was asking in the OP. Do you think the new ruling make those interactions an option (regardless of whether you choose to resolve it in that order or in a different one)? I am thinking the new order of operations ruling makes it possible, while at the same time leaving the door officially open to resolve them in a different way if the player chooses.
I was not sure what other people thought the ruling actually changed. It seems that, from the few who have posted here, the new ruling is largely being ignored as it pertains to intigrating it into your games. I think the ruling allows for that, but it is certainly interesting to note.
My first 2 senarios might have jumped into the nuances of unpacking the ruling too quickly. Lets take a few steps back and inch forward.
Senario #3) Cramped Quarters Combat and Imbued Fire are in play. For the sake of argument, assume Imbued Fire was in play first. Lets also assume that Voss has one of his melee immune ships in play. Does the new Order of Operations ruling allow the heros the option to resolve CQC before IF to continue doing fire damage to kill Voss's ship?
That's one thing I love about the new ruling, you can follow it by ignoring it.
I like it because you have much more capability to come up with awsome combos, like Shielding winds+Superhuman+Fortitude reducing a 7 damage attack to 1 damage without worrying about card play order.
I do think it is acceptable to prevent damage before modifying it under current rules. You can't take the damage before applying modifiers, but preventing is different. Just like being immune to damage affects damage before you can redirect it, Prevention should be able to shut that damage down before it is modified.
Basically my interpretation of the way you would justify that is:
Fanatic's Undaunted says whenever Fanatic would be dealt, which times it right with modifiers and redirections. If you viewed it this way you could play the card that if at any point damage that is directed at Fanatic is 1 damage, it is prevented. So say you get dealt 2-1+3 damage, you could take the -1, the damage equals one damage, you prevent it, before the other bonuses apply.
I don't like that interpretation at all, but the logical sequence of rulings we have, and the card text allow for it.\
As for global effects applying first, I haven't seen that in anything official, so I believe it is just a concensus, not a rule.