Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 39

Thread: Mera - Mournful Rage

  1. #1

    Mera - Mournful Rage

    What say we get into the semantics for a card we won't even see for quite some time.

    Pay . If a character would deal you 5 or more combat damage, it instead deals you 2 combat damage.
    Is this something you can pay in response to being dealt damage or do you just pay it and then it is in effect for whenever the damage occurs?

    Does it apply as a blanket for any character that would deal 5+ or do you have to pay one mask per character dealing 5+?

    Discuss.

  2. #2
    While I would initially say that it's a preemptive effect that would have to be payed earlier in the turn, I think that's wrong.

    Instead it's a reactive global similar to Human Paladin, but aimed at countering Overcrush and unblockable characters past opposing protection that would prevent targeting for globals like Smash! or Distraction.

    Accordingly, it specifies "a character" not multiple characters, so you would have to pay the cost multiple times for multiple characters.

    Finally, this affects the damage being dealt to you, not a set number of characters so it cannot be considered targeted, meaning the only real way to shut it down is starving your opponent of energy, attacking with 4 or less combat damage, or the rare Doomcaliber Knight.

  3. #3

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Necromanticer View Post
    ... or the rare Doomcaliber Knight.
    Shhhh.... I'm just waiting for the OP Wonder Woman to build my Rare DCK team.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy View Post
    Shhhh.... I'm just waiting for the OP Wonder Woman to build my Rare DCK team.
    @Shadowmeld pulled that on me the other day and boy was it a nasty combo. The only real response is to use character abilities or action dice to shove them off the field and then go about your turns normally.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Necromanticer View Post
    @Shadowmeld pulled that on me the other day and boy was it a nasty combo. The only real response is to use character abilities or action dice to shove them off the field and then go about your turns normally.
    Ha. Of course it was him. OP Wonder Woman has been at the center of a few ideas lately: DCK, Mystique, Iron Man... just trying to figure out the best use of getting a character to lvl 3. But that's another topic. Not derailing this thread.

    So yea, Mera...

  7. #7
    Yeah, I would say it's a "response" global.

    Also, let's talk about this and Jocasta.

    First, if Jocasta redirects, say, Mjolnir, it doesn't count. It's a redirect, not Jocasta causing the damage.

    But what about Jocasta redirecting damage as a blocker? 6 damage comes to her, she redirects it to your opponent's face. The source was a character. Does this global come into play here?

  8. #8
    I don't think they've ever defined combat damage as anything but damage dealt as an attacker or blocker so I don't have any reason to suspect that any damage from Jocasta's ability could be reduced by Mera.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by alleyviper View Post
    I don't think they've ever defined combat damage as anything but damage dealt as an attacker or blocker so I don't have any reason to suspect that any damage from Jocasta's ability could be reduced by Mera.
    The problem is that Jacosta redirects damage. Redirected damage is considered to retain its source. As such, there is an argument to be made that if she gets damaged in combat, that the damage she redirects is still combat damage and thus could be mitigated by Mera's global. Basically, Jacosta's effect is wacky as all get-go and is guaranteed to have weird interactions (and this might be one of them).

  10. #10
    Right, right, didn't think about it that way. With that in mind I would initially think that you could probably use Mera's global but the question becomes whether redirected damage is still combat damage, regardless of the source.

    Is there any ruling anywhere on the redirected damage still coming from the source? A cursory glance on the forums didn't yield anything. I'd be curious to see what their actual wording is.

  11. #11
    It seems responsive. During the attack step, you're permitted to play globals whenever appropriate to respond to damage. This ability was probably intended to be used similarly.

    I hate to bring in grammar but the wording seems to imply the same conclusion. You pay a mask, what "would" (conditional present tense) have dealt 5+ now deals (present tense) 2.

    If the global was intended to be paid preemptively, proper wording would be something like, "If a character will have (future perfect) dealt you 5 or more combat damage, it instead will deal (future tense) you 2 combat damage.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by alleyviper View Post
    Is there any ruling anywhere on the redirected damage still coming from the source? A cursory glance on the forums didn't yield anything. I'd be curious to see what their actual wording is.
    It's in the rule book:

    Quote Originally Posted by DC Rule book, page 21
    When an effect is redirected, the target of the effect changes from its original target to the new one chosen as described in the game text, even if that target was not a legal one for the original effect. The source of the effect remains unchanged from the original.

  13. #13
    Of course that only specifies effects and not combat damage. It's easy to take the next logical step and say that damage works the same way (especially damage from an ability and not combat damage) but it's important to note.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by alleyviper View Post
    Of course that only specifies effects and not combat damage. It's easy to take the next logical step and say that damage works the same way (especially damage from an ability and not combat damage) but it's important to note.
    The Overcrush/Hulk ruling shows that combat damage is considered a game effect:

    ...Here, there is a single game effect (the attacking Martian Manhunter’s attack damage)...
    Source: http://wizkidseventsystem.com/bb/vie...t=5936&p=16153

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Randy View Post
    Shhhh.... I'm just waiting for the OP Wonder Woman to build my Rare DCK team.
    Which Wonder Woman is that?

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by digitallimit View Post
    Which Wonder Woman is that?

  17. #17
    That is too fun! Definitely making a proxy.

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by digitallimit View Post
    Which Wonder Woman is that?
    This Wonder Woman

    She spins characters up, effectively refilling Doomcaliber Knight's anti-global ammo so long as you fuel them with BEWD.

  19. #19
    Back to OP's question of whether paying for Mera's ability is preemptive or reactive. Here's a relevant ruling regarding using Human Paladin's global to reduce damage taking from a character's ability:

    You can only reduce damage that will actually happen. You can't set up a "shield" to protect you from a potential effect. If your opponent's Wind-Rider were to reroll two of your NPCs, after they come up as energy, you'd have a chance to use Human Paladin's Global Ability to reduce that damage (from 4 or 2) to 1.

  20. #20
    Oooh, I got that Wonder Woman and Shazam the other day actually. Ideas are flowing.

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Crestfallen View Post
    Back to OP's question of whether paying for Mera's ability is preemptive or reactive. Here's a relevant ruling regarding using Human Paladin's global to reduce damage taking from a character's ability:
    Human Paladin's global is actually written as a reactive global though.

    Mera's ability appears to be a preemptive ability.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    Human Paladin's global is actually written as a reactive global though.

    Mera's ability appears to be a preemptive ability.
    I don't think Mera's ability is preemptive. The grammar of the ability suggests its reactive.

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Crestfallen View Post
    I don't think Mera's ability is preemptive. The grammar of the ability suggests its reactive.
    If you would reconsider your position, you will instead see that it is preemptive.

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion0x17 View Post
    If you would reconsider your position, you will instead see that it is preemptive.
    If the card is to be interpreted as written, it could not mean a payment that is done preemptively to counter something that may happen. It's certainly possible that the grammar doesn't reflect the intent (i.e., bad grammar was used) but apart from something from Wizkids, there's not a good reason to think it preemptive.

    I explained this above but I'll lay it out again. You pay a mask, what "would" (conditional present tense) have dealt 5+ now "deals" (present tense) 2. Interpreted as written, the payment and effect all happen in the moment, in the present. The grammar doesn't allow for an interpretation where an energy payment is made in the present to address something that may/will happen later.

    If the global was intended to be paid preemptively, proper wording would be something like, "If a character will have (future perfect) dealt you 5 or more combat damage, it instead will deal (future tense) you 2 combat damage.

  25. #25

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •