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

I'm not on either side on this, but what precedent is there in the rules for something mechanically happening because a hero needs to "accept the consequences" of their actions?  Tell that to Fixer with a Jack Handle when he's beating up Plague Rat with his own Infection.

The cost for redirecting should be paid before the redirected damage is ever inflicted.

It's clearly not a cost. Sentinels uses other phrasing when it wishes to denote costs.

You're missing the point. It's one action, total. Redirect, damage to Target, damage to Visionary. One action. Do not stop in the middle. Do not jump to the end of the card.

Agreed. The trigger condition for Visionary doing herself 3 damage has been met. It is not contingent upon Visionary damaging the target first or WtM staying in play. They just happen to share a common trigger. Remember, triggered effects happen instantly, and if multiple things seem to happen at once (like multiple effects working off a common trigger), they resolve seperatly and in order that they appear, which is why the "que" or "stack" imagery can be helpfull when dealing with multiple and intertwining triggers.

It is not about consequences. It is all about Triggers, the effects of those triggers, and the timing of when you resolve said effects. Thats what I have been trying to outline here.

What precedent are you referring to? Anyway, I'm pretty clear in my own mind that you don't trigger new effects on cards that aren't in play. If a card has already produced an effect with a specified duration (e.g. Next Evolution) then that effect remains until the duration expires regardless of whether the card leaves play or not (otherwise Mistbound wouldn't do anything), but in the case of the Harp, you haven't produced the effect of an Accompany activation. The effect is unresolved, and when the Harp leaves play it never gets to resolve, for the same reason that if you shoot the Hired Gun dead in the middle of his killing spree, the Hired Gun doesn't go on to shoot everyone else.

It's three effects, not one effect. And you stop in the middle of these effects in Sentinels all the time, otherwise cards like Fortitude would literally have no effect.

I can understand that argument.  My question was purely about terminology.  When we start talking about heroes accepting the consequences of their actions in a topic about hard mechanics there is a risk of arbitrary rulings and unfounded opinions flying around.  I just wanted to make sure I understood what the mechanical argument was in that statement.

Incidentally, and I don't think this has ever been relevant, but I don't think End of Days is the source of the destruction caused by the card End of Days. I think Fanatic is, based on the ruling that the Tomb of Anubis is the source of the damage inflicted by the card Spike Trap.

As for the argument that the last line is part of a process rather than a continually checked condition, I think that if it was part of a process, the correct wording would be "If the target has left play, destroy this card". The word "leaves" is in the present tense, and is therefore a continually checked condition.

Fortitude is an ongoing constant effect so long as that card is on the table and only effects damage Legacy would take. As such I do not see its relevance in this discussion.

Fortitude interrupts damage effects that target Legacy, and does so with a particular timing as well. In the same way, Wrest the Mind interrupts damage effects that have as their source the Target Wrest the Mind is played next to. It also has a self-destruct clause, which triggers when its timing condition is met.

A trigger that cannot be met without the cost of the prior trigger being met first.

Yes you have. That is the entire point. Hired Gun is not the same. I explained this with EoD. Hired Gun IS THE SOURCE of the effect (the effect in this case is the damage delt). If the source of an effect leaves play, it cannot continue carrying out the effect.

The harp IS NOT THE SOURCE of the effect. The Harp provides the Hero with additional effects that HE can use. The HERO is ALWAYS the source of the effects of its own powers. That just follows common sense here.

In regards to "not having produced the effect of an Accompany". All actions in SotM must be triggered. Whether that is by playing a card, activating a power, or an interaction of cards on the board, an effect has to be triggered somehow. The Harp has one Power. If you activate that power, that triggers the stated effect of "activate a Perform text and an Accompany text". Two effects stated. Now here is the thing, both of them have the same trigger! The Accompany text is NOT dependant upon the Perform text happening, only that the Power was activated in the first place. 

Straight from the EE rulebook, top of page 8: "...there are situations in which multiple effects would occur simultaneously" (like 2 effects having the same trigger like the Harp). "In all situations, card effects that happen simultaneously occur in the order in which the cards entered play". That last sentence has been extended in rulings to include the order in which effects appear on a single card, not just accross different cards.

The Harp is not the source of the Perform and Accompany effects. It is Argent. I do not see how you could argue that point otherwise.

That's not correct. If the Visionary plays Wrest the Mind on the Hired Gun, and Fanatic plays Final Dive on the Hired Gun, then Wrest the Mind leaves play.

Playing a card and making use of a card are not the same thing.

Could you possibly link this ruling? 

Fortitude is not an interrupt. It's a modification of damage.

The Accompany text is not dependent upon the Perform text happening, but it still happens after the Perform text. That's the reason Alacritous Subdominant shenanigans work. And Powers can be interrupted like any other collection of effects. I am aware of no ruling that allows you to continue resolving new unresolved effects on a card after that card leaves play. And if a Hero is always the source of the effects of their own powers (and I agree that they are), I see no reason that they wouldn't also be the source of the effects of any cards they might play, such as End of Days.

WtM shouldn't be removed until the prior sentence is carried out in full.

On a more interesting note about WtM. Lets use Ronways example with Visionary playing WtM on Citizen Hammer.

End of Villain turn. This triggers Hammer to deal damage. Visionary chooses to have Hammer redirect the 3 damage Hammer would have delt to himself. This kills Hammer. I think in this case, WtM would be destroyed before the 2nd conditional trigger is checked, as its trigger is dependant upon the first trigger fully resolving, which by that time, WtM would no longer be in play to check.

It doesn't use the "would be dealt" wording, but that doesn't mean it isn't an interrupt.

No. An interrupt is "stop doing this action and do this action, when completed resume previous action".

What happens if the target Wrest the Mind is played next to is killed by a Vat Explosion?

WtM leaves play as instructed. Again a moot point as it has nothing to do with Visionary's decision to redirect damage.

It has everything to do with it. The question is whether the self-destruct clause on Wrest the Mind is continuously checked or not. If it was strictly part of the redirection effect, and always happened only at the end of that paragraph, it would not be checked in any other circumstance. Since it can be checked in other circumstances, it should be checked in all other circumstances where it applies, e.g. if the Target blows up during the redirection.

Also, I can't stress enough that The Visionary taking damage is not a cost of the card. If it was, it would say "The Visionary deals herself 3 damage. If she does, ..." If it was intended to be an unavoidable consequence of using the card, it would say "The Visionary deals this card's Target 3 Psychic damage. She then deals herself 3 Psychic damage, even if this card has left play". The card does not say that, or anything like it, which means that The Visionary's player is free to use shenanigans to avoid taking damage. Inflicting 3 damage on the Target and herself are discrete events. Per the card, they are ordered such that the Target takes damage first (and even if you disagree about that, she could clearly choose to order those events in such a way that the Target took it first). And if Wrest the Mind blows up, there's no card in play to say that she deals damage to herself.

Actually, no. The litmus test is "Did Visionary Redirect damage?"

Yes or no.

If yes, she will take the 3 damage.

The thing here is that the condition for both effects is met. You do both of them. Yes you do them in order, but you still get to carry out both effects.

If the power said "Active a Perform text. Then, Activate an Accompany text" then I would agree with you, that the destruction of the Harp in the first trigger prevents the next trigger from ever being checked. But thats not what the card says to do.

This is why I the idea of a "que" is so important here. Its one trigger with multiple effects that should happen simultaniously. They do indeed happen simultaniously is the key. They do not resolve simultaniously, but they indeed both trigger and get added to that "que".

The difference between Powers and a card like End of Days, as far as "source of the effects" goes, Powers simply imply the player/hero carries them out. It is their power that they are using. I understand what you are saying here, but I think that the EoD/Beebot ruling makes it very clear that EoD IS the source of the effect.

There are several tests. If she's immune to damage, for instance, she won't take damage, even though she may deal it. And if the card isn't in play, then she won't deal damage, because there is nothing to say she takes damage.

You're overthinking it just to get the end result you wish it to have.

I don't think there's any meaningful distinction between the wording of the card and the wording you're proposing.

No, it's actually the common interpretation of the card.

That doesn't mean that it's right.

I think we are getting to a point where we're overstepping the amount of authority we can actually wield with our arguments.  We should probably wait on an official ruling.

It implies one effect must fully resolve the first before you even consider the second. So yes there is a difference. They become two instructions with two triggers instead of one instruction and one trigger. 

I will add this:

Sentinels is not, and doesn't appear to be meant as as overly complex game. Playing the card as it reads without the acrobatic shenanigans to come up with a way to make Visionary impervious to her own damage is keeping it simple and straightforward.

It doesn't have to be worded that way for it to be a cost, because damage order can matter, and the cards wants Visionary to take damage last. You can still do a lot of shenanigans to avoid damage, e.g. with Ra making everyone deal fire and be immune to fire, even if it is not from the card itself.

One of the problems with saying, "it has to be this way, otherwise it would say this" arguement (not just you, but everyone), is that you can extend it almost every way. For example, to me at least, if the meaning was that WtM would be destroyed immediately and prevent damage it would say it in the following manner, "Play this card next to a target, other than a character card. If the target leaves play, destory this card. Whenever the target deals damage..." By putting above the redirection you are saying that the line always takes precendent. Furthermore, it makes a lot more sense to put the destruction condition by the sentnce where you place the card, you are talking about similar things. To purposely put it at the end of the card tells me that it should only be done after she takes damage.

But here is the thing, not every card has the real estate to say what it wants. In fact, in the PT forum Christopher was lamenting the fact that he can;t have a crd the way he wants becuase there isn't enough space. As gamers we want consistency, for a game like MtG you really need it. If you are building you deck, you really need flying to mean the same thing everywhere. However, SotM doesn't have the same restrictions. each deck has its own theme and mechanic. I can very easily see Christopher give non-consistent rulings between cards, because the theme of the deck demands this is how the character plays. You also have the issue that if it is so strict, you are really limiting the options for more characters if you are forced to say that the text has to work the same way every time (once again real estate issues). After SotM is done, I can see them releasing a final version that has consistent wording throughout based on all of the characters. (I do think many people will argue with this, but it is just my opinion.)

Now, I do say that we should argue and discuss, because that is all we can do. We do have to keep in mind, however, that it might be that not everything will make sense, or you have to look at it in a specific way. All we can do is discuss until we get an official ruling.

That's why taking into "spirit of the game" and "card intent" can be just as valid. The spirit of WtM, I'd guess, is that the actual intent is that, if you choose to redirect the damage, visionary takes damage. I think they tried to word it on such a way that this would happen. 

That I agree with, Foote.

Thinking out loud here - would A'B's limbs be an example that supports the interpretation that Visionary would still take damage from redirecting, even if the target is destroyed as a result?

Here's my thinking:  A'B's limbs all have text that do damage to A'B when the limb is destroyed.  However if the limb is destroyed, by the interpretation of folks saying WtM's damage can be avoided by destroying its target mid effect, that limb text that should damage A'B is no longer in play.  Thus A'B would never be damaged by her limb cards' destroyed triggers.

That's clearly not the intent.

Now let's consider that in regards to WtM.  We have a trigger of redirecting damage.  By the same logic that A'B's limbs uses, the triggered effect must fire off in full, even if WtM is destroyed as a direct result of the redirection or subsequent damage to WtM's target.

very good point. It also follows that it is AB that's the source of the damage and not the limbs to further your case. 

I think the argument's moved beyond this, but for the record I was referring to Next Evolution, which I believe remains active even after destroyed, in the same way as Galvanise works even if Legacy is incapped.

Octavian: The difference is that the limbs specify that they act when destroyed. As WtM doesn't, I don't think this is much of an argument to make.

So as we're clearly not going to get anywhere with this, I'm going to attempt to phrase the question needed to clarify the Harp situation:

3) The Argent Adept's Musarangi's Harp reads: "Power: Activate the Perform text of a Harmony card and the Accompany text of a Harmony card". His Cedistic Dissonant reads: "Perform: Destroy an instrument. If you do, destroy any one card in play, other than a character card". If The Argent Adept uses his Harp to activate the Perform text of Cedistic Dissonant, and destroys the Harp using that effect, does he still get to activate an accompany text?

If the limbs were the source, the damage would still happen.  Sonic Mines are the source of the damage which they deal after they are destroyed.

As BlueHairedMeerkat said, the difference is that both the limbs and Sonic Mines are causing the damage because they are destroyed.  I don't think it has much bearing on whether Wrest the Mind still causes its regular damage in spite of being destroyed.

I have added this to the pending questions.

For what its worth, my intuition is that Wrest The Mind can be interrupted, that if its target is destroyed before Visionary gets to the point of having to attack herself, she doesn't have to attack herself. This intuition comes in large part from what I remember of the very first game I played with Christopher and Paul, when one of the senses I got of the game was that if you did things in the right order, you could avoid negative actions. The intuition comes in a smaller part from a sense that except for actions that specifically list a duration, if the card that mentions that action is gone, the action doesn't happen.

Is that enough evidence to logically argue about how the card should work? No. I see where others are coming from. I just don't think that there's any sort of a stack or queue in which one time actions to be done get set in motion such that they are still done after the card that initiates the action is gone.

That's the crux of the debate, isn't it? If a card says to do THIS and THAT, but THIS causes the card to be destroyed, do you still have to do THAT?

Based on the different opinions in this thread (assuming it is based on the different opinions), how would you handle the following situation:

At the start-of-the-villain-turn, Mad Bomber Baron Blade is going to deal all non-villain targets damage. The first target hit has a counter attack that reduces MBBB to 0. So what happens?

Here are the cards for reference:

Front

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1444328/sentinels-of-the-multiverse-vengeful-baron-blade-v

Back

http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1444327/sentinels-of-the-multiverse-vengeful-baron-blade-v

My take is that he flips, goes up to 40HP, destroys X cards, reshuffles his discard pile into his deck and hits the Hero character with the highest HP for 0 damage, modified by anything out there that modifies damage.

What is the relevance here? And I'd say Katsue is correct

Well, if you say that if a card's action continues if it leaves play but the source doesn't, when he flips, the original card leaves play, but the source, BB doesn't. This would mean that he still does everyone damage. Or maybe, since all his cards are taken away, he does everyone 0 damage, assuming we say that damage can be modified in the middle of an action. Unless we say that the front and back are different sources, but most cards say if BB does damage not MBBB. Or if we say that it follows card order, and since the check for flipping is on the bottom, he wouldn't flip until all damage is done. Of course nothing can be comparable, but this is why I asked the question.

I believe the intent is that baron stops everything he is doing upon his front side being destroyed.