Clan Eshin Mutant
Battlefield only. Destruction only. This unit enters play corrupted. Action: When this unit enters or leaves play, deal 2 damage to target unit. Then, destroy that unit if it has 1 remaining hit point.

Death in the Shadows
Destruction only. Action: Corrupt a Skaven unit you control to deal 1 damage to target unit. Then, if that unit has 1 remaining hit point, destroy it.

If a card uses the word “then” the preceding effect must have resolved successfully before the effect following the term “then” can be resolved.
Dealt Damage (v1.1)
A unit has been dealt damage, if at least one damage is applied to it after damage cancellation effects occur during the Apply Damage step.

Does damage from this cards have to pass through toughness for effect after "then" to resolve? Or does the damage have to be only assigned?

I believe the damage would have to actually be dealt as both cards read, "deal" damage first, "then" do second effect. So, if a unit has toughness, you would have to get through the toughness first.

I tought so at first, but I would like to get some insight from Entropy and Mullumo if possible.

I don't think the damage would actually have to be dealt, and the "Then" clause is there to circumvent Toughness in this case. So it would work on Dragonslayers (Toughness 2, 1 hit point), for instance. If it didn't work that way I think it would require that the unit is damaged or that it has taken damage this turn or so.

Cheers,

H

I'm agree with Doc9 because:

Deal = assign + apply

Toughness, cancel the damage when this is assigned, so the damage isn't apply, so the deal condition isn't satisfied.

I'm not certain I completely understanding the question, are people asking if you have to actually apply 2 damage to the unit in order to then destroy it?

"Then" just requires the preceeding effect to resolve successfully. This generally means that the effect didn't fail or get cancelled. In the case of a unit with Toughness, you can successfully execute every step of "dealing damage". You assign, cancel, apply whats left, (which could be 0), then you resolve the Then effect. I don't believe its a requirement that any of that damage makes it through Toughness. Otherwise, a unit with Toughness would be completely immune to this effect, since you would never actually apply the amount of damage that you assigned. So for the example of Dragonslayers, my understanding is that either of these effects would successfully destroy them.

If the requirement for "deal damage" to be considered "resolved successfully" is that the unit actually takes that amount of damage after cancellation/redirection, then a card like Sneaky Git could easily end up with you not reshuffling your deck after revealing the card.

I'm sure Mallumo will chime in if I've missed something here.

I actually thought Doc9 had it right. You're told to deal x damage, in other words to assign and apply x damage. With toughness, you don't get to apply the full amount, and the unit therefore won't be considered to have been dealt x damage (see the FAQ quote in the OP), so the part before "then" won't resolve successfully. However, Sneaky Git is a good example of why this might not be the intention. I guess this will have to go to Lukas.

My point is just that you do successfully assign and apply that damage, its value is just modified first by another effect (Toughness). Similarly, there are a lot of cards that say "Deal X indirect damage to target player. Then, <do something>" It is never assumed that you don't do the second part if the player somehow assigns some of that ID to a unit with Toughness.

I can only find two cards like that, Lothern Sea Master and Pigeon Bombs. And I think indirect damage is sort of a special case, different from dealing damage to a unit or a zone directly. You cannot change the amount of indirect damage the player is dealt, so the condition is always fulfilled. What happens with the damage then, how the player distributes it and if some of it gets canceled, doesn't matter in my view. Whereas here, the card asks for a specific amount to be dealt to a target unit, and deal means assign and apply. I guess you're right, but I'd still like to get clarification on this.

Mallumo said:

Comet of Cassandora ( Action: Reveal the top 2 cards of your deck. Deal X indirect damage to each player. X is the total printed cost of the revealed cards. Then, put the revealed cards on the bottom of your deck. ) is another one. If "deal" always means assign and apply, then you haven't dealt ID to a player until it is assigned and applied.

Another argument for my interpretation is that under your interpretation cards like Devotee of Chamon ( Action: Deal 1 uncancellable damage to a Mage unit you control. Then, give this unit * until the end of the turn. ) Wouldn't need to say "uncancellable", since the 2nd half would never happen if you cancelled the damage.

As a counter-point to what I'm saying though, Savage only triggers when damage is dealt to a unit, and it seems weird that you would get to trigger Savage if all the damage was cancelled by Toughness.

Got an answer from Lukas. The part after "then" will still happen even if some or all of the damage was canceled.

Lukas:

Thanks for the question. There is the act of "deal damage" and it has two possible outcomes: the damage being dealt, or the damage being canceled/redirected. The possible outcome, however, does not change the fact that a unit was dealt damage, even if the damage was not applied. What the FAQ is referring to is the result of the act of dealing damage; all the cards in question care about is whether or not the act itself was resolved. So there is a difference between "dealt" as a verb and "dealt" as a modifier; in the latter case all that is required is that the act was resolved, in the former it must have resolved so that the damage was applied.

So if the act of dealing damage was resolved, whether or not the damage itself was canceled or redirected, the "Then" clauses trigger.

I assume the latter/former cases he refers to are "Then" and Savage, respectively. Meaning that "Then" only looks at "dealt" as a verb, while Savage looks at it as a modifier.

Big thanks for your input guys.

Just to clarify, how do you solve the following situation?

1) White Lion Vanguard

Redirect the first point of damage dealt to this unit each turn to target unit in any corresponding zone.

2) Celestial Apprentice

Action: When a unit in this zone is dealt exactly 1 damage, deal 1 damage to target unit in any corresponding zone.

so if I dealt one indirect damage to the White Lion that is in the same zone of the Celestial Apprentice, can I redirect the damage to him and "create" another damage with the Apprentice and then shoot 2 damage, one for the WL and one for the CA?

The ability of the White Lion is activated surely, the only thing is: the damage dealt to the WL (and redirect) is considered condition that satisfy the trigger for activates the Apprentice or not?

Horatius said:

If I understood your question correctly, I'd say no. Redirection happens right before damage is applied (just like cancellation from Toughness), and damage has to be applied before it is considered to have been dealt.

Hope that helped,

H

EDIT: Ok, I think I see what you meant, you want to redirect the damage back to the WL Vanguard? I'm not sure you can redirect damage to the one redirecting it. Although I might be wrong.

Horatius said:

You can't do what you are asking. When you redirect that damage, you are basically reassigning it before it is applied, so it is not considered 'dealt' until after the redirection has happened.

i.e. the Apprentice in your example doesn't trigger off the WLV being assigned damage, but would trigger off the redirected damage that is assigned (and applied) to the Apprentice.

As an additional example, if you have 2 ID, and you put one on each unit, and there are no other units in any corresponding zone, you would then have to trigger the WLV's ability and redirect his 1 ID to the Apprentice. Now, there is no unit taking exactly one damage and the Apprentice doesn't trigger (assuming the 2 dmg didn't kill him).

Thank you for the reply Entropy,

but I'm not sure to understand the difference beetween this situation and the previous, with the answer of Lukas.

I'm not sure how to address this, since I don't know what you are confused about, but my WLV answer doesn't have much relation to the "dealt" question above. Things that trigger off of "dealt", don't trigger until after the damage is assigned and applied (zero may be applied if its canceled). Redirection happens before apply, so you can't do what you were asking.

This is the part of the answer of Lukas that leaves me doubtful:

"…There is the act of "deal damage" and it has two possible outcomes: the damage being dealt, or the damage being canceled/redirected. The possible outcome, however, does not change the fact that a unit was dealt damage, even if the damage was not applied…"

what is the difference with my case?

Thank you for the reply

Ok, I think I understand the issue now. When Lukas says "a unit was dealt damage, even if the damage was not applied", he is saying that the "deal damage" act has resolved successfully, for the purposes of determining if a "Then" clause triggers. The CA only triggers if a unit in that zone is actually dealt 1 damage (after all redirection/cancellation takes place). This basically just means, if exactly 1 damage is applied to it. i.e. If a unit in this zone takes exactly 1 damage. The use of "dealt" can be a little confusing because has very slightly different meanings depending on the context (as Lukas' answer was explaining). In all cases, nothing is considered "dealt" until all the damage has been assigned and applied.

Your original question confuses this a little, since it says "I dealt one indirect damage to the White Lion that is in the same zone of the Celestial Apprentice, can I redirect the damage to him" The rest of this sentence is irrelevant. Once you have "dealt" 1 ID to the WLV, you are past the redirection step. It goes:

Resolve spell creating 1 ID to my units.
Assign 1 damage to my WLV.
Redirect that assignment to CA.
Apply damage to CA.
CA's Action triggers and waits to go on the chain.

Alternatively:

Resolve spell creating 2 ID to my units.
Assign 1 damage to my WLV and 1 to CA.
Redirect the 1 to WLV to CA.
Apply 2 damage to CA.
CA's Action doesn't trigger.

Ok, now I think I understand the difference. Actually the use of "Dealt" depending on the context in which it is used, can be confusing.
In our gaming group, there are some players who use HE cards, with mechanics of indirect damage, redirect and ferocity combined together, they create a lot of these situations.

Thanks again for the explanations