I'm playing a solo game and got into a bit of a tricky situation. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but I just want to make sure.
Right now Wraith has -2 to next damage from her Stealth power and has Smoke Bombs in play (whenever a villian card would deal dmage to the hero target with the lowest hp, redirect that damage to the hero target with the highest hp. She has the lowest hp and Ra has the highest hp in this group of 3 heroes. Baron Blade played Slash and Burn.
Does Wraith keep the -2 to next damage benefit from Stealth AND THEN the H (3) damage is dealt to Ra in its entirety? Or does she lose the benefit and the remaining 1 damage (3-2=1) go to RA? Or does something else happen? Right now my guess is that she loses the Stealth benefit and Ra is dealt 1 damage.
Thanks for helping. Really enjoy this game!
Hopefully this topic can help others who run into similiar situations.
The -2 definately should not apply to Ra, it can only protect the Wraith. My opinion is that she would keep the -2 until some damage comes that isn't redirected, but in the other thread people were arguing it would go away. (Although that was also a slightly different situation).
As best I can tell from other rulings I've seen around here, redirection is applied first, and then reduction or increases (including things like the Nemesis bonus as well as immunities) apply only to the target that's actually damaged.
(One possible counterexample is the advanced La Capitan on her Split Across Time side, as the effects on that are supposed to be applied in card order - first you prevent damage if she has a stolen card to remove, and only if that fails does she redirect. I wouldn't be the first person to think this is a bit lame, but then she's supposed to be only a difficulty-2 villain.)
I think the -2 of Wraith's would stay until she actually is hit by something, something that isn't redirected. Until then, it stays. Stealth doesnt affect Ra though... Basically, I'm with dypaca :)
Not quite. If the original target reduces the damage to 0 or is immune to damage, no redirection takes place. After you see if redirection is even possible, you ignore all of the previous modifications, and then you recalculate the damage based on the original source and the new target. So if Wraith’s -2 would have reduced that damage to 0, she would definitely lose it, and there would be no redirection.
EDIT; Envisioner, this could have been what you meant, but it seeems like you said immunity only matters by the second target, but it also matters by the first. If the first one is immune, then there is no redirect.
Okay, good to know. The distinction would not have occurred to me...most redirection is optional, but I know not all is, and it's nice to know that you don't get forced into situations where someone must take damage even though someone else would not have.
I don't have time to "cite" things, but it's pretty obvious from the existing rulings I've encountered. If Citizen Dawn is dealing damage to Expatriette, but Legacy redirect the damage to himself and has Fortitude in play, then the damage is reduced by 1 by Fortitude, and not increased by 1 by the nemesis bonus. First you determine what's taking damage, which is when redirection applies; only then do you determine the final damage amount based on all factors applicable to the new target. Factors which were only applicable to the old target cease to be applied as soon as the redirect happens. As Ronway-I-think pointed out, I didn't put it exactly correctly, as you check for things both before and after a redirect, but the things which actually happen will always come after the redirecting is finished.
Actually... no. Take for example Mr. Fixer. If he has his Wrench in play, he gets -1 damage armor right? And then, of course, he has his Mantis style, which allows him to redirect damage of 2 or less, right? A common combo that is actually by consensus acceptable is for Mr. Fixer to take a 3 damage hit, reduce it 2 (via the Wrench), and because it is now 2, it is redirected by Mantis. At this point, the damage is no longer aimed at Fixer, so the damage goes back up to 3. As you can see, redirection is not applied first :)
Reduction is not triggered, it is static, so timing of application in regards to redirection, which is not a static effect, but a triggered event (my words, not official lingo), is fluidish.
Wraith's reduction from Stealth can never be transferred to another hero, but will always apply to her (until it is used and removed).
So any damage that would be dealt to Wraith is reduced, but if redirected that damage is not dealt to Wraith, and the reduction does not apply.
The problem is mental bookkeeping cannot account for static effects, we need to time it somehow.
I tried to come up with a ordered checklist of timing for damage resolution, but it just doesn't work, the game isn't designed like that.
Try to get a handle on static effects, and resolving things that don't have timing and it starts to become clear how to play most of these situations.
The easy way is to apply static effects first then check for triggers, I don't think there are many exceptions to that resolution.
You are absolutly correct though. And its really another huge reason that the Fort/SHD ruling is faulty (or not fully understood). Paul is either wrong about static effects and how Imbued Fire works, or Christopher is wrong about Fort/SHD being decided by card order. Card Order played is only used to determine the resolution order for simultanious effects. Says so plain as day in the rulebook. A static effect, by definition, can not happen simultaniously with a triggered effect. So either there is no such thing as static effects (which 150% changes how Imbued Fire works), or Fort/SHD is not determined by card order.
I will probably continue to harp on this every time I see that ruling mentioned anywhere until we get a clarification on the matter. Because honestly, the Fort/SHD ruling is the center of every single debate we have on damage resolution and modification. It all boils down to that one interaction.
And if its going to come down to changing how Imbued Fire works, I would imagine that would be more unpopular than the infamous Ruling #15 (which, in Christophers defense, took the communities input and slightly altered his original stance). The same will happen to the Fort/SHD eventually.
I don't think these rulings have to be in conflict. I think saying that Imbued Fire and Fortitude apply to damage which meets their criteria (fire damage or damage dealt to Legacy) doesn't have to mean that there is no order in which you apply their effects. They can by applied with a timing, and yet still apply to damage of certain criteria instead of only checking a condition at a specific time.
Basically it seems to me that you came up with one way of generalizing the behaviour of Imbued Fire, then that generalization contradicted a ruling on other cards. If it were me, I would conclude that my generalization was wrong and not that one of the rulings needs to change.
(Having said that, its not like rulings can't be reversed. And from a gameplay perspective, I'm generally in favor of rulings which reduce the importance of card played order).
Except that, when Christopher said "Card order" in the Fort/SHD ruling that certainly implies there is an order. But you bring up a fair point.
There is one way I can think of that preserves the way Imbued Fire should work and the Fort/SHD ruling where card order evidently matters. The It was ruled that if Fort was played first then SHD, that, going by card order, SHD wouldn't trigger with an initial attack of 5 (as Fort drops it to 4 and outside of SHD range). Now it was never really confirmed how it would work if SHD was in fact played first. I think, after Christopher said "card order", that the assumption was that SHD would kick in before Fort and ultimatly take that 5 down to 1 after Fort is taken into play. I think thats been the popular interpretation of that ruling would you agree? Could it be that you see the initial 5 attack, consider SHD could trigger, then by considering Fort afterward (in play order still) it puts the damage back outside of SHD range? I think thats kinda what you were getting at, but am not too sure.
By the way, here is the thread. https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/same-or-different
Not to be nitpicky, but Adan said the ruling about IF and Paul said the ruling about this. Also, if you scroll down a bit, TheJayMann says there was a discrepancy betweeen the rulings, and arenson9 gives a possible ezplanation. He says its always card play order, but damage type is always considered first. But I am on my phone and not reading through everything again now, so I could be wrong.
I think the statement that you resolve them in the order they were played means that the order matters. So I think an attack of 5 damage will be either 4 or 1 depending on the Fortitude/SHD order by the current ruling.
Basically, I do see a difference in how you resolve SHD vs Imbued Fire (they are worded quite differently after all), I just don't think that necessarily means that Imbued Fire and Fortitude are always applied first. My comment at the end was to aknowledge that I do see the fortitude/SHD ruling as a bad one for gameplay, I just think it is a bit of hyperbole to say that either fortitude/SHD order can't matter or Imbued Fire cannot work as intended.
Lemme see if I remember this correctly. Ruling 15 was in a thread that no longer exists, and originally said that a hero with a self-damage Ongoing (eg Pushing the Limits) had to take the full printed amount of self-damage, or more but not a single point less, or else the card was destroyed. And Christopher has since backpedaled to say that as long as any damage gets through, the Ongoing stays, but if it's entirely prevented (whether reduced to 0, redirected, or canceled by immunity), the Ongoing dies. Do I have all that right?
