Player A has 2 units in his battlefield. One is a Warrior Priest

Player B has no units in his battlefield. And inflicts 2 damage to the Warrior Priest.

Can Player A redirect one of the damage to the Warrior Priest - resulting in the Priest to take 2 damage.

Or has Player A to redirect the damge to his second unit - resulting on both units taking one damage.

Our oppinion is, that he HAS to redirect to the second unit because otherwise it wouldn't be a redirect.

Can someone confirm our thoughts?

Thanks in advance!

Well, you've certainly made a good point. The word redirect implies doing damage to a different target, so it's true that it should be a different unit taking the damage. I suppose I can't be sure right now. Waiting for your oppinion, guys!

I think the damage must be redirected to the other unit.

The Warrior Priests card itself states: " If there is no valid target, the damage is assigned to Warrior Priests."

As the other unit is the only valid target available, it gets the damage.

Thanks for your opinions!

Hope that there will be some clarification in the faq about this matter.

I'm missing why we need a FAQ here. The card says what we need to do, when, and under what conditions.

The first damage assigned to the Warrior Priest each turn must be redirected to another unit in any Battlefield. There are only two units in all Battlefields in total, so the first damage assigned to WP is redirected to the other unit before the apply damage step of Combat. The card specifically says that if there is no other valid target (another unit in any battlefield) that point of damage is reassigned to the WP.

Is there a reason why you think it would not resolve on your own valid unit in the Battlefield?

seems to be that the FAQ is the alpha and the omega on the forums. I don't really see one as being necessary right now, in a month or two with some new cards and time for the game to build up a bit for sure. Answers are in the rules and in the cards at this point. We had one question for our 6 games today, quick flick of the rules, and there was the answer, took less than 30 seconds.

As for this question, the other unit would be the one to take the redirected damage.

if you havent found a situation that was not resolved by the cards or rules, you havent played enough.

Oh really. You can take your baseless assumptions elsewhere. You have no idea how much I have or have not played. I am getting quite tired of these FAQ attacks. There's no FAQ right now...life continues, the game is still fun, the sky is not falling.

None of the questions need a FAQ because they are not that complicated. I have been playing CCG's since 1993 and have played dozens of different games/rules.

shrug... I encountered the sadistic mutation/toughness interaction issue my first time playing. I searched on the forums for an answer and found numerous people arguing about it. The more reliable source for rule interpretation, Dormous, felt strongly the answer went one way. Many people agreed, and just as many disagreed. When Nate finally came up with an answer, it was a rule interpretation few, including Dormouse, expected. It was also a rule interpretation not found in the book that introduced a definition of "deal damage" that was also not in the rulebook but was required for correct interpretation of the rule.

The only reason I ever searched for this forum is because that I got so sick of trying to play the game and getting into rule arguements with my opponents that we couldnt resolve with the rulebook or cards.

If you havent played a game where a unit with sadistic mutation had its damaged canceled by toughness or any other damage canceling ability, then perhaps you havent played enough games of Warhammer Invasion. Personally, I wouldn't find that offensive, insulting, or anything particularly noteworthy. Of course I dont know how many games you have played, I just found it surprising that ANYONE would say a FAQ was not needed and that ANYONE hasnt encountered this or similar rule issues, especially since this forum is filled with MANY people who had similar issues and have spent the last 2 months wondering "where is the FAQ?".

dormouse said:

Yea. Because the card does not state "redirect to ANOTHER unit" like you said above.

It just says "redirect to a unit". And warrior Priest is a unit too. That's why me and a friend were asking if it HAS to be ANOTHER unit.

The text (If there is no valid target...) does not help either, because that is only clarifying what happens when Warrior Priest is the only unit in a BF.

It does not say anything about the possibility to redirect the damage to Warrior Priest when there are other unit.

I'm very happy with the answer you gave. Just wanted to answer your question and wanted to point out the thinking behind our question.

And if Toqtamish really thinks all rules are covered in the rulebook then he might be able to answer my "Forced March on a questing unit" question and point me to the correct page in the rulebook where the correct behavior is described.

Or what happens when one zone has a hero in it and a development is flipped and that card is a hero as well? Of course with quotes from the rulebook to confirm his statements.

There are definitely a very small handful of legitimate questions that the rules or card text do not cover. Sadistic Mutation was not really one of those, the clarification is supported by the rules, it is just that the grammar used could have been future tense or past tense and the wording seemed a touch inconsistent so it was difficult to grok.

The definition of redirect would preclude WP from being able to be the own target of his ability without the clarification text following the effect.

Redirect - verb
1. to direct again.
2. to change the direction or focus of

I see why the question would have come up now, if you look at their ability as preventing the first damage from being assigned to them and having to be assigned byyour opponent and you getting to choose the target, rather than being assigned to them, and then having their effect kick-in and then changing the assignment.