Do You Take The Retaliate Hit From Thanos 1 to Thanos 2? 

I agree with the no retaliate. He didn't have the helmet when you attacked him. If I kick a soccer ball and it rolls away then someone replaces the soccer ball with a bowling ball my foot will not hurt from the 1st kick.

As far as I'm concerned, when the villain is defeated, the attack ends and retaliate does not come into play, even when moving to the next stage. The movement to the next stage is a post-attack move and falls into the same stage as the other post-attack cards. Retaliate occurs at the end of the attack stage, but before the post-attack stage.

I agree with you, no retaliate, because a lot of cards alow you to trigger effects when you defeat a villain stage. For me Thanos is knocked out and cant react, then he get up put his helmet and say " OK lets start this again".

I agree with you 100%! You should NOT take retaliate damage according to the rules as writen, AND I dont believe you should take retaliate damage when defeating villain stages, I sure as hell dont in my games!

Not a rules expert, but taking into account the process of how the steps go in reference to other card games: 1. You attack Thanos with no retaliate. (This is the start of the damage phase) 2. Response phase 3. Damage is taken 4. response phase 5. Enemy is defeated. 6. Response phase 4. End damage phase 5. Bring in new villain stage. 6. Activate villain revealed effect. (Put in helmet) 7. Thanos 2 now has retaliate but the damage stage has already ended after step 3. If anything should be able to activate, it would be cards that activate when the villain stage is defeated, as mentioned.

Thematically: Thanos doesn't have the helmet when you initiate the attack against him, he should not respond like he magically had it all along before the attack finishes resolving. Gameplay-wise: If I'm looking at a board state and attack with the information that I won't be retaliated, and then some hidden retaliate pops out of the deck (changing the board state and potentially the decision I would have made prior to having that information), it's poor design. I don't see any reason for retaliate to activate here, but that's also exactly why I assume the FFG ruling will be that it does :)

When you do Ms. Marvel For or Against video, would love to see an example of how long that response window can theoretically get.

Here's the argument and flow of events as the RRG presents it to me. Item #3 is the crucial one, because it states that once a game element is targeted, it becomes the *exclusive* target of that game function. Item #5 is perhaps superfluous but I left it in just to drive the point home. "Card abilities only interact with, and can only target, cards that are in play" - RRG 1.5, Pg 20; 'In Play and Out of Play' "...unrevealed cards in the villain deck [...] are out of play." - RRG 1.5, Pg 20; 'In Play and Out of Play' "If a game function or card ability is directed toward a game element [...], that game element becomes the target of that function or ability for the duration of that function's or ability's resolution." - RRG 1.5, Pg 35; 'Target' "All of the following are game elements: * Cards, * Decks..." - RRG 1.5, Pg 18; 'Game Element' "A target that cannot be attacked is not a valid target for an attack-labeled ability." - RRG 1.5, Pg 35; 'Target'

Here's my 2 cents on this debate: If we look at the Timing Chart published on page 5 of the 1.5 Ruleset, Constant abilities, i.e. KEYWORDS, trigger FIRST. Then, "When Revealed" effects, i.e. Stage 2 Thanos' "When Revealed: Search the Encounter Deck & discard pile for Thanos' Helmet & reveal it.", happen at STEP 5. Therefore, if you're doing Stage 2 Thanos' "When Revealed" effect, you are past the step when Keywords are resolved and the Retaliate does NOT trigger. At least that's how I play it. Also, they have always stated that knocking the Villain from one stage to another counts as a "defeat" of the villain, therefore would also negate the Retaliate effect. Caleb must have been distracted working on the Star Wars Deck Builder when he gave that response. 😉

I don't buy it, for four primary reasons: 1) Thanos [Stage 1] is not the same "character" (for game purposes) as Thanos [Stage 2]. Thanos [Stage 2] only enters play after Thanos [Stage 1] is "defeated". 2) You did not attack Thanos [Stage 2], you attacked Thanos [Stage 1], who does *not* have Retaliate. 3) An attack (or other effect) that "defeats" Thanos [Stage 1] is fully resolved before Thanos [Stage 1] leaves play and Thanos [Stage 2] enters play. Thus, even if someone tried to make the argument that they were the same "character" and that [Stage 2] "*gives* that character Retaliate", your attack has resolved before Retaliate is in play. 4) The rules for Retaliate specify that "the character...must survive to deal this damage". But Thanos [Stage 1] didn't survive. He was defeated.

I've never seen anyone play that way, and I've never played it that way myself. It makes no sense. Retaliate may be a response, but Villain 1 and Villain 2 are two different enemies. When you defeat Villain stage 1, you gain any "When defeated" benefits. For example, if I have an upgrade that says "Draw a card when you defeat an enemy", I'd draw a card when I defeat Stage 1 villain. So you've defeated this villain and the stage 2 is essentially a new enemy. And don't status effects also fall off when you switch from Stage 1 to Stage 2? Maybe I'm wrong here, but I've always played that if I stun Stage 1, then defeat them, the stun falls off. Again, because I've defeated that enemy and Stage 2 is now a different enemy. There's no way that Stage 2 can trigger retaliate, because I haven't hit that enemy yet.

Maybe this came up and I missed it but if a stage 1 villain is defeated and stage 2 comes in with ‘gains retaliate’ printed on the stage 2 card, retaliate doesn’t trigger as the stage 2 villain was not attacked so I see Thanos’ helmet the same way. It wouldn’t trigger retaliate at the time in question.

Whenever I have defeated a villain that has retaliate I've NEVER taken that retaliate damage. I could see taking one damage in attacking a villain that starts off with retaliate and ends with retaliate but that would be saying that we are in fact not defeating the villain. If I can go a step further, I would say that tooth and nail ruling doesn't make sense to me. You attacked venom, he takes damage, goes to stage 2, reveals tooth and nail, and now any damage moving forward will be taken off that side scheme as well. Maybe, its because I just think that when you defeat the villain and he brings in new cards, those effects activate on the next attack, not the attack that caused him to go to the next stage.

I have always played that Stage flips are always considered Defeat, in all senses of the word. They dont trigger retaliate, they allow me to do my "Defeat enemy" triggers, etc. To be fair, i also play that things like Tooth and Nail cant trigger if it wasnt on thw table when I triggered the attack.

Never taken the retaliate going from Thanos I to II due to it being from an attachment he gains from the when reveal effect. If they determine that we take the retaliate damage then surely we could spend the resources in this same window to remove the helmet (something I also have never done as he doesnt have the helmet when you initate and resolve the attack defeating Thanos I)

If the next stage of the villain has retaliate then you take the retaliate damage. Retaliate checks after the attack. This is the case on expert Ronan. Ronan 2 does not have retaliate, but Ronan 3 does. When you defeat Ronan 2 and Ronan 3 comes into play the retaliate check still happens.

Imo the attack response to an attack would be over with, or you wouldn't have had the villian flip to begin with. The damage phase is the last phase of a attack after that I couldn't see a response triggering again for being attacked. Nope way.

I don't agree with their argument. To me, the attack is fully resolved by the time stage 2 Thanos and his helmet comes into play. The attack was initiated, damage was dealt, and the villain stage was defeated. It doesn't make sense for retaliate to trigger so long after your attack completely 100% resolves. The only thing I can see something like this making sense is with Zola having retaliate on both stages.

Team no retaliate, doesn’t make sense for me from the either side honestly. Shouldn’t be a question

IMO. you only take retaliation damage if both stages had retaliate.

The way the rules are written in the v1.5 Rules References would indicate that Moment of Truth does not trigger when you reduce a villain's hit points to 0 and proceed to the next stage. The rule is (p38): "If the villain’s hit point dial is reduced to zero, the players have defeated that stage of the villain." The important thing here is that you are defeating a stage and not the villain. Continuing with the ruling is: "Remove the current stage of the villain deck from the game. The next sequential stage of the villain deck is revealed. Set the villain’s hit point dial as indicated by that stage. " Again, at no point in this ruling does it say that the villain is defeated. The only time the villain is considered to be defeated is when the players win the game. Looking at Retaliate (p31), the rules are "After a character with the retaliate X keyword is attacked" and "must survive the attack". If both of these are true, then Retaliate will trigger. Easy enough, so when do we check for Retaliate's trigger? Here is the order of events: 1. Abilities that trigger “after [character] takes any amount of damage...” 2. Retaliate X 3. Abilities that trigger “after [character] is attacked...” or “after [character] attacks [and damages]...” The critical point is that Retaliate doesn't check for resolution until AFTER abilities that trigger after taking damage. So order of resolution would be: 1. Stage 1 Thanos sustains enough damage to be reduced to 0 hit points. 2. After Damage Trigger: Do the players win the game? No. 3. After Damage Trigger: Remove Stage 1 from the game. Reveal Stage 2. Set Thanos hit points to value indicated on Stage 2. 4. Does the character have Retaliate? Yes 5. Trigger Retaliate. Based on this timing, it isn't if they have Retaliate when you attack them, but do they have Retaliate when it is time to check for its resolution. In the case of Thanos, that would be yes he does. So when Retaliate triggers for Thanos: First, does Thanos have Retaliate at the time of the trigger? Yes Second: Was Thanos attacked? Yes Third: Did Thanos survive the attack? Yes Fourth: Resolve Retaliate And finally, if you don't like the above, then there is the Grim Rule which states that if a rules question could result not in your favor, then you don't get it. THE GRIM RULE (p4) If players are unable to find the answer to a rules or timing conflict in this Rules Reference, resolve the conflict in the manner that the players perceive as the worst possible resolution at that moment with regards to winning the scenario, and continue with the game. ULTIMATELY, at the end of the day, this is a game. If you don't like the above and you get more joy playing how you interpreted the rules then continue doing so. I'd much rather have fun than be right.

Great delivery...where do I sign up for the angry mob! :) These days I look at it as "Knock 'em down" or "Bloodied" (like DnD4Ed). And they get a "2nd wind" or similar (again DnD4E Dragons...). "Same opponent" (same 'Game Name') 'coming back at ya'! So, "okay" to Retaliate, but they definitely do have BAD wording in rules. There is "defeat" (perhaps better described as a "game reserve term" trigger???) and there is "Final defeat". Some of our "heroes" have similar "I got Better!", so Wolvie could still retaliate in a situation such is triggered. But I guess even here, we use the "instead" word. Unless of course you're playing one of those Multi-sequenced villain scenarios (Mansion Attack)...not to confuse the issue, but hopeful clarity by distinction.

So I've never played it like this, but I can also see the logic behind it. See, with the way retaliate works it's not supposed to proc if you defeat the enemy that has it right? Obviously with minions this is no issue, and you'd think it would work the same with Villain's considering cards like Chase Them Down work fine against them. Plus the Villains themselves also sometimes have "When Defeated" triggers on there as well. So I fully understand the reasoning why retaliate should not work. Doing it this way is clean. But I think FF have a different definition when it comes to the villains themselves. They treat them as if they keep permeance between stages, meaning that though you can trigger "When Defeated" effects on them from a technical standpoint, FF don't consider them ACTUALLY defeated. Maybe because they share the same name? Or because it's not a defeat, it's a "Villain Defeat" which is different to the defeat needed to avoid retaliate? It feels like an unexplained extension of the rule for why Villains keep their attachments/statuses/tokens etc when they go to a new stage. I think VillainTheory's example with Venom's Tooth and Nail scheme is an apt illustration of their mindset, even if it's a response. Though you have defeated a stage of the villain, I think the game wants you to treat it as if that villain is the exact same entity as he was in Stage 1. Meaning anything you just did to the villain in Stage 1 is treated as if you just did it to them in Stage 2. When a villain would change stages, you do that IMMEDIATELY before finishing resolving literally anything else (with the exception of Kang). So with this logic, if a villain gains retaliate from Stage 1-2, then you'd be in the process of still finishing your attack on that villain (who the game treats as the same entity Stage 1 or 2) and it would then trigger the retaliate it just gained. Is this arguably batshit word wrenching to try and explain the reasoning and Caleb's rule? No doubt. As I said earlier, doing it your way is infinitely more clean and makes more immediate sense. But I think this is where their mindset is at and it would explain the Caleb rule. When it comes to villains and retaliate I think their logic is the only two times retaliate won't trigger vs the Villain (ignoring ranged) is if the Villain will lose the keyword as a result of the attack (perhaps Stage 2 doesn't have it, or because you removed the attachment in the attack), or because you will win the game off it and fully defeat them. Going from Stage 1-2 isn't treated as a "defeat" in retaliate's definition in FF's eyes, and if the Villain has retaliate in Stage 2 then you must act is if you intentionally attacked an enemy with the keyword and take the damage.

When an character is defeated they dont retaliate; i think to keep consistency with minions, heroes, and allies, a villain gaining retaliate from a stage reveal shouldn’t trigger. Id like to compare this to a dark souls boss with multiple phases, theres usually a cut scene of the boss ramping up and evolving, they arent attacking right out the gate when you break that first health pool. This game is hard enough for me i dont need extra stress!

If the frostbite upgrade that was added for me blocking with Iceman also melts from the attack that I was blocking, then I understand how retaliate would hit you, as you are still in a state of attacking when the retaliate is checked. I think it is a dumb rule, but it is the current way that my understanding of the rules is outlined.

The rules state that you do not take retaliate damage if an enemy is defeated. It also states that the next stage is revealed after the villain is defeated. Based on this it seems the window to take retaliate damage is closed by the villain being defeated. Even if the villain previously had retaliate, the way the rules are stated would prevent you from taking retaliate damage when a villain stage is defeated. Caleb’s ruling looks incorrect to me. FFG would need to make an additional ruling to allow villain stages to override the way retaliate works currently in the rules.

so with the villain defeat issue, if the X-23 ally does the final 3 damage to stage 1 of a villain, does she ready up? That's the way I've played it. Also I am on the side of no retaliate with the Thanos scenario

I didn’t expect to be this big. Man. I wish I said nothing about it

I think they survive because Stages I and II are considered the same character (I check was checking it a while back to see if you can use Melee to hit the new stage).

There is no way I would ever play it like that. If that was the case leftover damage should go onto the villain in the next stage.

To me - it makes sense to take the retaliate damage. Now, that said, I probably make the mistake of not taking the retaliate damage more than I play properly. BUT, I think it is proper to take the retaliate damage. Thematically I do not like that Chase them Down and Moment of Triumph work hen defeating a villain stage 1. But, it makes sense because the villain stage I My only rational is that there must be a difference between survival and defeated. I think this comes from the rules where it says "If a villain’s hit point dial is reduced to zero, that stage of the villain is defeated." Keyword in that being "stage," but I do not know. I like the idea that it is the same villain, so he survived. As opposed to a multiple villain scenario. So think if you kill doc oct. in sinister 6 and Kraven is still there with retaliate - he does not get to retaliate. Similarly with Morlock Siege and Mansion attack. The new villain with a different name does not get to retaliate. The "When Revealed" happens before any responses. So if you can play cards like pitch back, chase them down, moment of triumph, etc. Thanos would already have his helmet. Then looking at the timing section of the rule reference - retaliate is not specifically listed, but occurs between "after character takes damage” and "after character is attacked."

The ruling is consistent with the current writing of the rules but not its spirit. 88% of players play a better variant than the official game and I would play the same game too.

Really interesting Well for here or there it's just one dmg bac 😳

You can’t make me take that Retaliate damage! I won’t do it 😅