The ability of the Dragon Mage is Action: This unit takes 1 uncancellable damage. If it does, it gains 1P until the end of the turn.
If the damage is redirected, does it still fulfil the "If it does" condition? This is less obvious than it may sound, since Redirect is not a canceling effect.
I believe that the taking of 1 uncancellable damage is the cost of the Action , as stated in FAQs "do X to gain Y".
As long as X was done and action chain successfully resolved, Y should be achieved.
So the damage redirection, if it is a constant effect which will resolve immediately before action chain, is in essence not interefering with "gain Y". Damage redirection only affects the do X (deal 1 uncancellable damage), which was not in any sense cancelled and therefore the cost was paid, allowing 1 power to be gained despite redirection.
Hi SleepyLynx! I agree that it would be a very clear case if the card action were worded as "This unit takes 1 uncancellable damage to gain 1P until the end of the turn."
It isn't, however, which is why I'd like a definite answer on this. In the meantime, if I should play this against you on OCTGN (long time no see there, regrettably), we can certainly rule it our way
I believe that the taking of 1 uncancellable damage is the cost of the Action , as stated in FAQs "do X to gain Y".
As long as X was done and action chain successfully resolved, Y should be achieved.
So the damage redirection, if it is a constant effect which will resolve immediately before action chain, is in essence not interefering with "gain Y". Damage redirection only affects the do X (deal 1 uncancellable damage), which was not in any sense cancelled and therefore the cost was paid, allowing 1 power to be gained despite redirection.
Okay, we got this hashed out on the german forum: the crucial point is that 'take damage' is equivalent to 'deal damage', except that the target is also the damage source. Since damage is dealt when it is assigned and applied, the redirected damage does not trigger the +1 power for the Dreamer - although the damage is assigned to him, it is then applied to some other luckless guy, so he did not take it.
Hello Maik!
I am sorry for the late reply, was without proper internet connection for sometime.
You sure we meet each other in octgn before?? But alas, I am not overly fond of it in end and stopped using it haha.
It's good to know this, i guess the german forum ruling does make sense: it is enough to kill the luckless dude taking the uncancellable indirect damage; let alone additional painless increase in Dreamer's power
Shall follow that in house.
Okay, we got this hashed out on the german forum: the crucial point is that 'take damage' is equivalent to 'deal damage', except that the target is also the damage source. Since damage is dealt when it is assigned and applied, the redirected damage does not trigger the +1 power for the Dreamer - although the damage is assigned to him, it is then applied to some other luckless guy, so he did not take it.
I still find myself confused on redirecting dmg. Let's take a couple of units with ....let's say Savage,for example - something that triggers off of taking dmg. The first unit with Savage has a dmg coming his way but by whatever effect, he redirects it elsewhere. So I guess this first unit doesn't get to trigger Savage because he didn't take the dmg. But what if the unit he redirects it to has Savage? I read in the Deckbox faqs a while ago that that redirecting isn't assigning (or dealing or whatever the correct legal term here is) dmg, it is MOVING it. Thus not being able to trigger effects like this. Am I misunderstanding this? Dmg comes toward one dude, lands on another instead, and no one gets to trigger their taking dmg effects? This doesn't seem right to me. Could someone take the time to enlighten me please?
I read in the Deckbox faqs a while ago that that redirecting isn't assigning (or dealing or whatever the correct legal term here is) dmg, it is MOVING it.
Read the real FAQ;
As I understand it redirecting damage is not the same as moving damage.
Redirecting damage is done to damage that has been assigned, but not yet applied. So damage is assigned to Unit A, can be redirected to Unit B, then it is Applied to Unit B. Unit B can then use damage cancellation like toughness, and trigger actions when taking damage like Savage.
Moving damage can only be used to move damage that has already been applied to a unit onto another unit. Move could not be used to 'move' assigned damage before it is applied (as this is redirecting).
In the deckbox forum faq post you mention, it also further differentiates between redirecting and moving damage; it states that you can redirect more damage to a unit than it takes to destroy that unit (because damage it has not yet been applied and you can assign more damage to a unit that it would take to destroy it), but states that you can't move more damage to a unit than it takes to destroy that unit, so the two are different
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how our group plays it.
but states that you can't move more damage to a unit than it takes to destroy that unit, so the two are different
Can you quote this fragment?
Can you quote this fragment?
but states that you can't move more damage to a unit than it takes to destroy that unit, so the two are different
It's in here in the "Unit Damage" section;
Hmm, it's not in the current FAQ:
Hmm, it's not in the current FAQ:
Moving DamageMoving Damage is not considered dealing or assigning damage, and damage moved from one unit to another bypasses damage cancellation effects (like Toughness).
It is:
"Q: Can I move more damage onto
a unit than it takes to destroy that
unit? For example, can Orc Shaman
(MC 45) move 5 damage to a unit
that has 1 remaining hit point?
A: No. You cannot move more
damage to a unit than it takes to
destroy that unit. So Orc Shaman
could only move 1 damage to a unit
with 1 remaining hit point."
(FAQ 2.2 p.19)
But that's the problem with that FAQ - you have to read the questions to find such things. Should be in the paragraph of moving damage too of course.
Just found it too.
I am currently working on updating my FAQ to move stuff like this into the body.