Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
16 Posts

Sentinels of the Multiverse» Forums » Rules

Subject: Can I redirect damage in this situation? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
MGS
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Warhammer: Diskwars
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was playing Mr Fixer.

On the table: the Style that allow me to redirect damage of 2 or less. and, the tool that reduces damage to Mr Fixer by 1.

Let's say the villain deals three damage to Mr. fixer. since I can reduce damage by one, and the damage dealt to Mr. Fixler is going to be 2, can I redirect this damage to another target?

Thanks
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Everything between now and the next game is just killing time
England
London
Agitation
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It depends on which card was played first, order of card play is really important in Sentinels.
If it was Pipe Wrench then Driving Mantis then the damage is reduce and then can be redirected (at which point it goes back up as the damage is not going to hit Mr Fixer anymore!) but it it is Driving Mantis then Pipe Wrench then it checks for redirect first and then reduces it.

Edit to fix card names
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MGS
United States
flag msg tools
badge
Warhammer: Diskwars
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That makes sense.
Thanks
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Arenson
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Matchstickman wrote:
It depends on which card was played first, order of card play is really important in Sentinels.
If it was Pipe Wrench then Driving Mantis then the damage is reduce and then can be redirected (at which point it goes back up as the damage is not going to hit Mr Fixer anymore!) but it it is Driving Mantis then Pipe Wrench then it checks for redirect first and then reduces it.

Edit to fix card names


I disagree. I don't think the order of the card play matters.

Imagine you check for redirect first (which wouldn't happen because the damage is too high), then reduce the damage. What's keeping you from then checking for redirect again?


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Everything between now and the next game is just killing time
England
London
Agitation
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Really?
I was doing it from memory of what was said on the >Games forum and thought that was the outcome...

On checking I see that you yourself said "the results weren't conclusive", but if every other time a question is asked and the answer comes down to "What order did the cards come out?" why would it not be so in this case?

For completeness here's arenson9's answer
Arenson9 on the >Games forum wrote:
I had a long conversation with Christopher about this back in Feb and the results weren't conclusive. That being said, my general impression is:

Determine Source
Determine initial target
Determine increase/reduction based on source
Determine increase/reduction based on initial target
Determine redirect and, if so, final target
Remove increase/reduction based on initial target
Determine increase/reduction based on final target

and a link to it on the >Games forum Link
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Arenson
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
On the >G forum I proposed what I thought was the best solution, while allowing that there were other possible solutions and that Christopher had not provided a definitive answer.

In this thread I took a firm stance against using card order. On reflection that wasn't warranted, as I don't believe there's ever been an official ruling.

Still, card order has not always been the answer. It's been ruled, for instance, that one determines the type of an attack before determining increases or decreases based on the type of an attack.

For redirection, it's been ruled that increases or decreases based on the intended target of an attack are recalculated after a redirection is applied and the intended target thus changes. Given that such increases or decreases must be recalculated after a redirection is applied, it seems most appropriate to me that they are all applied before a redirection is possibly determined.

Further, applying all increases or decreases before considering a redirection has the added benefit of reducing how much one has to remember about the order of cards played.





 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Arenson
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
In an effort to be concise, I left a lot out of my answer related to 'static' effects vs one-time effects and analogies to the discussions about Imbued Fire and iteratively checking for additions, etc, etc.

My initial answer in this thread was based on this kind of stuff, but on reflection I decided that it was a muddled way of thinking about it and not helpful. Matchstickman's quoting of my previous post to the >G forum forced me to rethink through this situation at the level of depth I had when I'd made that >G post.

What I should not have cut out, so I'm taking the time to explicitly say now, is that using card order is a reasonable choice, I just don't think it's the best choice or the easiest choice.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Lernout
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
arenson9 wrote:
For redirection, it's been ruled that increases or decreases based on the intended target of an attack are recalculated after a redirection is applied and the intended target thus changes. Given that such increases or decreases must be recalculated after a redirection is applied, it seems most appropriate to me that they are all applied before a redirection is possibly determined.


I'm a bit confused, but my understanding based on what has been said is currently:

1) Damage type changes are applied, with the latest timestamp taking effect.
2) Modifiers are applied based on source, target and type applied in timestamp order.
3) Redirection is now an option. If the attack is redirected, remove any target-based modifiers, then apply any applicable modifiers based on the new target.

So, in this particular case, Mr. Fixer would be the initial target, the damage modifiers would be applied and lower damage to the point where he can redirect the attack, but in doing so, the 1 damage reduced would be undone?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Arenson
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
BakaMattSu wrote:
arenson9 wrote:
For redirection, it's been ruled that increases or decreases based on the intended target of an attack are recalculated after a redirection is applied and the intended target thus changes. Given that such increases or decreases must be recalculated after a redirection is applied, it seems most appropriate to me that they are all applied before a redirection is possibly determined.


I'm a bit confused, but my understanding based on what has been said is currently:

1) Damage type changes are applied, with the latest timestamp taking effect.
2) Modifiers are applied based on source, target and type applied in timestamp order.
3) Redirection is now an option. If the attack is redirected, remove any target-based modifiers, then apply any applicable modifiers based on the new target.

So, in this particular case, Mr. Fixer would be the initial target, the damage modifiers would be applied and lower damage to the point where he can redirect the attack, but in doing so, the 1 damage reduced would be undone?


Yes, though ...

For #2, you mention 'applied in timestamp order', but I believe that's unnecessary. If you're just considering the set of increases and decreases the order in which they are applied is irrelevant.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Lernout
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
arenson9 wrote:
For #2, you mention 'applied in timestamp order', but I believe that's unnecessary. If you're just considering the set of increases and decreases the order in which they are applied is irrelevant.


I may just be over thinking in that case of a hypothetical conditional modifier such as "increase damage dealt by 1 to all sources of damage greater than 2".

Furthermore, I suppose any "prevention" effects would kick in at a step 4? For instance, a "prevent damage dealt to X if it is exactly 1" would check after all modifiers regardless of time stamp?

It might be wishful thinking to hope for an expanded example of resolution in the upcoming revised print - a clear layout of the steps would be great.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Roberta Yang
msg tools
BakaMattSu wrote:
I may just be over thinking in that case of a hypothetical conditional modifier such as "increase damage dealt by 1 to all sources of damage greater than 2".

Hardly hypothetical; I know there's a card out there that reduces damage by 2 only if the damage is 5 or greater.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Andrew Arenson
United States
Indiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
salty53 wrote:
BakaMattSu wrote:
I may just be over thinking in that case of a hypothetical conditional modifier such as "increase damage dealt by 1 to all sources of damage greater than 2".

Hardly hypothetical; I know there's a card out there that reduces damage by 2 only if the damage is 5 or greater.


Good point. I've not considered it much before, but I think conditional increases/decreases have to be handled after all other increases/decreases.

A reasonable case could be made for considering order of card played, but I hope that doesn't turn out to be the ruling, as it's more tracking of card order than I'm interested in.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Graham
United States
College Station
Texas
flag msg tools
I am Broccoli, most intelligent vegetable!
badge
I will destroy you all!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm pretty sure that's the case though. I don't have the ruling at hand atm, but I believe that card order was determined to be the deciding factor in how to handle (for instance) Superhuman Durability and Fortitude. If 5 damage is incoming, then which was played first determines how much damage is actually received.

Like I said, I don't have a link to the official ruling atm, but I've seen enough references to it (and similar discussions with Shielding Winds) that I'm pretty confident it's official.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Lernout
Canada
Kitchener
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The "resolve conflicts in the order cards were played" ruling is on the >G site under Rules/Conflict Resolution: http://greaterthangames.info/rules/conflictresolution/
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Badell
United States
St. Louis
Missouri
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Keep on saving the Multiverse!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BakaMattSu wrote:
The "resolve conflicts in the order cards were played" ruling is on the >G site under Rules/Conflict Resolution: http://greaterthangames.info/rules/conflictresolution/


Which can also be found on page 8 of the Sentinels of the Multiverse original edition Rulebook.

It will also be on page 8 of the Sentinels of the Multiverse: Enhanced Edition Rulebook, though page 8 will look a bit different...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
dypaca
United States
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The one place I see this on the >G forum is here:
http://sentinelsofthemultiverse.com/forum/topic/same-or-diff...

There is a ruling on the interaction of Fortitude then Superhuman Durability, but when the question of how this interacted with redirection came up there doesn't seem to be an official ruling.

The Fortitude/Superhuman Durability is also a little different because the initial damage meets the trigger conditions of both cards (he is taking damage, and he is taking damage of 5 or greater). So the cards resolve in play order, and I guess I can see some logic in the idea that the trigger condition is checked again when the card actually resolves.

But the reverse condition here where a card fails to work because it supposedly resolved before its trigger condition was met just seems wrong to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.