A few clarifications needed for Wrest the Mind about Visionary self damage

I think your call on Wrest the Mind is correct, but as soon as a card enters play its text is considered active. So 1) No, 2a) 2, 2b) 1.

The difference is, a damage-altering effect is not resolving. If the played card has an effect that activates when it enters play then your ruling is correct, but always-on abilities are always active, from the moment they enter play. So Ta Moko blocks the 1 damage, and HtR hits the Explosive Wagon for 2.

It's not in front of me, but I'm pretty sure visionary deals herself damage before she redirects it with wrest the mind.

Visionary's self-damage is dependent upon redirection. Not whether or not the target is still in play at the end. The only thing dependent on if the target is still in play is if Wrest remains on the table.

So 1 is actually "yes".

Nope, other way around.

1. Redirect damage

2. Damage target of WtM

3. Damage self

I agree that you don't take damage if the target dies due to 2. above, WtM leaves play before 3. happens.

Also

https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/errata-wrest-mind

to see the text if you don't have your cards handy!

I didnt have the card in front of me to make sure. I have terrible memory off the top of my head. What Matchstickman said is correct.

I'm not too sure about that. Damage to Visionary and the target is simultaneous. On the card it is a single sentence. Then, if the target is removed is WtM destroyed.

There are no true simultanious actions in SotM however. For example, Fanatics Exorcism power. You do not deal that 1 melee and 1 radiant at the same time, they happen one after the other in the order the card states. The same applies in this situation.

If WtM redirects an instance of damage, you deal 3 damage to the Wrested target first, then 3 to Visionary. Because there are no simultanious actions, if the Wrested target is destroyed by that 3 damage, WtM goes with it instantly saving Visionary from having to take that extra damage.

See also: End of Days and Bee Bot. End of Days is midway through a series of simultaneous actions when Bee Bot destroys it, so the rest of those simultaneous actions don't take place.

From reading the text on the card, once Visionary commits to redirecting the target's attack, she's taking the damage. By that then, she would be the first damaged.

I completely agree with Greywind. Even though nothing happens simultaniously it is still in the same sentence and thus both things would occur with or without Wrest the Mind. As Visionary is still in play, the card has already sent the signal to Visionary to perform these damages.

The reason End of Days and Bee Bots prevents any more destruction is End of Days is the card destroying everything, if it said Fanatic did so than Fanatic would be able to at least carry out the rest of the destruction.

No multiple actions are simultaneous or future committed, even if within the same sentence. So, the first part has her (optionally) redirecting damage. Stop reading and redirect damage. Continue reading to she deals the target 3 psychic damage. Stop reading and apply appropriate damage. If this damage then destroys (or otherwise causes the target to leave play) then Wrest the Mind reacts to this trigger (adding to the stack, as dealing damage has not yet returned back to the damage redirection and damage dealing effects yet) and destroys itself. Now that the damage is finished, continue reading the card. However, at this point the card has been destroyed and no further action from the card can take place.

It doesn't read "deal that target 3 damage and then deal yourself 3 damage." it is "deal that target and yourself 3 damage." So you can't stop and start reading at different points.

Similar situation.

Say Fanatic targets Baron Blade(who has Backlash Field out) with innate, which incaps her. Does she still do the second instance of her attack?

No, as she is incapped and there is no longer a card named "Fanatic" in play, so no one can carry out the attack.

There is no mechanical difference in saying "do X and Y" and "do X then do Y". It is the same thing. Can you cite an example to support your stance?

You still must do the actions in the order the card states, and remember there are never simultanious actions. You cant deal Visionary and the target damage at the same time, it always happens one after the other. It also specifically states that when the target is destroyed that WtM goes with it.

Yes, but if you inflict the damage on the target you must then inflict the damage on Visionary without jumping to the end of the card.

After you check whether or not Visionary is going to take damage from her own action.

The phrase itsself already started, even if you don't yet get to the words. The card says, "The Visonary deals this card's target and herself 3 psychic damage." "Herself 3 psychic damage isn't a complete sentence", and it must be attached to the previous words, i.e. it reads, "The Visonary deals...herself 3 psychic damage." If this was true, the phrase and action already started, regardless of if the target is KOed.

While I can conceivably understand the rules argument for her not taking damage, that's not how we played it when it came up.  It seems clear that the intention is for her to take damage if she chooses to redirect damage.  It simply doesn't make sense for her to not suffer any backlash if her target is destroyed.  Maybe Wresting isn't dangerous if it's fatal?

Huh.

The offical errata thread needs updating as it doesn't have the same wording as on the card!

I'm aware of nothing is truely simultanious and i'm not agrueing that fact. However there is a slight difference between "do X and Y" to "do X then do Y" otherwise they would have worded things the same.

I may not have a way to cite my opinion on the matter, but can you cite yours?

The plain fact that nothing is simultanious inherently implies there is no difference between "do x and y" and "do x then y". You can never do action X and Y at the same time, which is what "do X and Y" would normally indicate (a simultanious action). Because that can not happen, you must resolve the actions one at a time, so in effect you are actually doing "do X then Y" regardless of how the sentence is worded. There is no mechanical difference. There nessesarily can't be a difference within the structure of the game.

Regardless, I think I will change my stance. Re-reading Wrest the Mind, after Visionary redirects the damage, it is actually HER doing the 3 damage and NOT Wrest the Mind (like I originally thought). Regardless of whether Wrest the Mind and its target are destroyed, Visionary is still active and still the one doing the damage. So I do not think the wording of "do x and y" has any bearing in this after all. 

Thoughts?

That's what I had been saying the entire time. Visionary is still active. I was not agrueing any simultanious ruling at all.

The simulatanious thing I was getting at if Wrest the Mind was worded "Deal the target 3 damage and then deal Visionary 3 damage" if the target would be destroyed than Wrest the Mind would go with it then it wouldn't get to the "and then" section. So "then" being there or not being there does have an impact.

Hmm keep forgetting that (Edit: incapped) Heros do not have name. 

So then in theory:

You can have Haka Rampage and then incap himself to prevent the 2 damage to everyone else?

Yes you could, though if Haka is done to 2 HP than I don'tt hink that game is going too well.

This isn't really the best evidence to back my statement up (given how much of the information was moved or lost during the transition), but it is the best I could find.
https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/destroying-source-effect

That's not really the same thing. As that is destroying the Rat that is doing the damage would stops it, which i would agree with.

Wrest the Mind has Visionary deal damage, so these are two different circumstances.

From Spiff's clarification document:

"when a card is destroyed before it can finish its effect, any remaining effect is cancelled."

Which does rather imply that if Wrest the Mind is destroyed mid-way through its effect resolving then any remaining part of the effect would not take place.

I think the arguments for both sides are pretty solid. Can we add this to the pending rules question thread?

The discussion about how this question is answered is hinging on the specific wording of Wrest the Mind. If someone is willing to quote Wrest the Mind exactly and rewrite the question above to point out the nuance of 'do this and that' versus 'do this then do that', I am willing to move this to the unanswered questions thread.

I might be willing to buy this argument (static effects of 'being played' card take effect immediately, while triggered effects do no), but I'm not sure. Anyone know of any precedent?

I think most of us are quite aware of that ruling. Which isn't where this discussion draws the line at. It is more of a timing and a card that is destroyed that is allowing another target to do damage.

Lets say Wrest the Mind is attached to Citizen Hammer (first card that came to mind that deals damage and has < three HP) so when it comes around to his turn to do an attack he'll try to do 3 fire damage to all hero targets however the first target he blast at Visionary redirects at Dawn instead.

Next Wrest the Mind says "Visionary deals this target and herself 3 psychic damage"  so she preps for these 2 attacks, since of course it is the same effect. The first going into Hammer, destroying him and cancelling the rest of his attacks to the other heroes. Now this will also destroy Wrest the Mind, but Visionary already has the message she needs to hit herself aswell, thus she will hit herself with the second attack she had prepped as Wrest the Mind had already told her to do before hand.

Now my opposition is taking the card to be more along the lines of "Visionary deals this target 3 psychic damage then she will deal herself 3 psychic damage." Which would mean she preps the first hit and hit Hammer with the attack, destroying Hammer and Wrest the Mind with it. Since they were two seperate effects Visionary will be able to escape unscathed.

I find it funny that you say a card which actually states it's multiple actions as a single thing (End of Days 'destroy (approx.) all cards) as multiple interruptable things, while a card that states multiple things (that target and herself) as a single thing.

I'm not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean. Please elaborate?

It seems like if an effect that hits "every (blah)" does so one at a time, and can be stopped if the source is gone, then an effect that hits 2 things "this target and Visionary" can be inturrupted by the source going away as well.

However Wrest the Mind is not the source of the damage. Visionary is, and has she gone away? I think not.

Well to be fair, End of Days is the source of the destruction. I think what Ronway said previously is correct, that if End of Days specified that Fanatic herself destroys the cards, then the BeeBot combo would cease to work. 

To contrast, Wrest the Mind is not the source of the damage, Visionary is. 

Maybe we can go back to the "stack of resolving effects" idea. Once Visionary redirects damage, the next effect is triggered and added to the stack immediatly. The effect is Visionary dealing 3 damage to the target and to herself. Maybe this is where the importance of "and" vs "then" that Ronway and I were discussing, as the "and" could imply that both effects are added to the stack at the same time, where as "then" would add them to the stack separatly (important for timing). If you look at it this way, the destruction of WtM does not influence whether or not Visionary hits herself, as the effect is already in the stack waiting to be resolved.

That is not quite right. Visionary is the source of the effect (it says so on the card). WtM is the vehicle that enables her to use her psychic abilities. 

But that's sort of irrelevant, since we have nothing which specifies that the ruling about effects stopping once the card causing them has been destroyed only counts if it's not making other people deal damage; you've created an exception where none seems to exist. We have a ruling stating that when a card is destroyed, any remaining effects go away. Nowhere is it even suggested that this 'doesn't count' if it's making someone else deal the damage.

EDIT: How's this, arenson?

The Visionary's Wrest the Mind states that when it redirects damage, "the Visionary deals this card's target and herself 3 psychic damage each". The card also states that "if the target leaves play, destroy this card".

1) If the target of Wrest the Mind is destroyed by the first part of this effect, and thus Wrest the Mind destroys itself and leaves play, does the second part still damage the Visionary?

2) Would this ruling be different if the card read "the Visionary deals this card's target 3 psychic damage, then deals herself 3 psychic damage"?

It is also not suggested that it does count as it is a different situation than the "End of Days" ruling. As End of Days is handling everything itself, where Wrest the Mind is using another card to do various things. The differences are great enough that they would need a seperate ruling.

So if you are performing an action on a card, you would stop in the middle of the action/line to see if a condition was filled later on in the card?

But I'm not trying to build my case on the End of Days ruling. In fact, the example given beneath it is Flame Barrier destroying an attacker before they hit other targets, which is a seperate ruling in which a card has no effect after it leaves play. It seems to me that it would be a lot more intuitive to have this case follow the general rule than to create a special case for instances in which a card which causes other cards to deal damage.

Greatly?  At its best, it's a loophole against one attack.  Maybe she can't experience psychic backlash if her target is catatonic/dead.  There are ways to rationalize it.  I don't really have a case for either perspective, but I wouldn't call it a huge boost in power.

Some of the semantics in this thread remind me of the particularly nasty one of Omnitron's Reactive Plating Subroutine that devolved into people pulling definitions out of the dictionary to justify their positions (I believe the word because started it all).  It was to the point that there were reductio ad absurdum arguments that you could never get rid of Legacy's Fortitude DR because it didn't state that it went away if the card was destroyed.  I think an official ruling would be great at this point to avoid too many arbitrary rules debates.

My thoughts on this are best described as a process flow.

Did the Target of Wrest the Mind deal damage?

If Yes, will Visionary redirect that damage?

If Yes:

1) The Target deals damage to a target of Visionary's choosing.

2) The Target takes 3 psychic damage.

3) Visionary takes 3 psychic damage.

If Visionary does not redirect damage then End.

Did the Target leave play?

If Yes, Destroy Wrest the Mind.

If No, Wrest the Mind remains in play.

At no point in a process do you skip unless you are specifically told to. Everything in it will happen as instructed.

Ronway, as for reversing the order, you'll have someone come along and "Hey, Visionary incapped herself with the three, so the target isn't going to take any."

The Redirection is the cause. The effect is 6 damage, of which the Target takes 3 and Visionary takes 3. If she redirected, she will take the damage. It has no bearing on the Target or Wrest the Mind at that point other than a reference as to why she's taking the 3.

Pair it with Mental Divergence and you got yourself a card that you can play eery other turn that can protect heroes from damage, destroy a target, and deal a little extra damage to something else. All you have to do is sit back and allow your fellow heroes ensure whatever you have Wrested is <3 HP.

Now pair it with a second Wrest the Mind and Mental Divergence and you have the same as above, but now it works every turn.

Assuming that the target will deal enough damage to destroy itself.  This strategy wouldn't work on a lot of La Capitan's Crew, Voss's ships, or many of The Dreamer's Projections.  Again, this strategy only works on tiny targets and only saves Visionary from 3 damage.  Your strategy would still work even if she took the 3 damage, so does that mean Mental Divergence and Wrest the Mind both have to be errata'd because they combo well in general?