A modifier you chose, yes. Not a replacement value.

Wasn't intended to be name calling, if I'm wrong then sorry.

That is not a replacement value on Domino. You are modifying her values.

Touche.

But that so far is the best reasoning I've heard as to why "replace then modify" doesn't apply, although I don't totally agree with it.

I love you. Full homo.

<han>
I know.
</han>

Dammit, man.

Let's try this from a slightly different angle.

You have successfully hit two targets. Your printed Damage Value is 4, and your Damage Value is modified +1 with Perplex.

You can divide the 4 however you like. So let's say you split it 1 and 3.

Now you apply the +1 modifier. You can add it to the 1 or to the 3. Not both.

Is that a little clearer?

-J

Hmmm, teal in the rules forum.... some people just cant be taken seriously...

Rulebook p. 12
The better argument is dealing one figure negative 20 damage and the other figure positive 22 damage.

To put it yet another way...

Replace and modify is used when determining the damage value of the attacking character.

When splitting the damage between multiple targets, the damage value has already been determined. When splitting the damage value between multiple targets, you're dividing the damage value to determine the damage dealt. Damage dealt is not a combat value, so replace/modify doesn't apply. Splitting the damage between multiple targets is not a manipulation of the damage value, it's a manipulation of damage dealt.

Yet another example: Energy Explosion. In the case of the characters taking 'splash' damage, Damage Value has NOTHING to do with the damage dealt.

Damage dealt is its own thing.

The difference between damage value and damage dealt is what allows a critical hit to deal +1 damage to all hit characters, even if Pulse Wave, Blades/Claws/Fangs, or Quake is used, or if the damage value is already +3 above the printed damage value.

What are you dividing your damage value by?

You're looking at it as a mathematical division, which might make sense as a replacement value, but that's not how it's being used here.

It's saying to break the damage value into smaller amounts as damage dealt, which is how it refers to those smaller amounts in the very next sentence.

Divide the attacker’s damage value any way
you choose among the successfully hit targets. A
successfully hit target can be dealt 0 damage or any
non-fractional amount of damage, provided that all
damage dealt is divided among the successfully hit
targets.

But prior to that we're told...

When an attack hits, the damage dealt to the target
is equal to the attacker’s damage value, modified
by any game effects.

So when an attack hits, the damage value (normally) becomes the damage dealt. What the multi-target rules are trying to make clear is that the final damage value is the amount broken up among the hit targets as damage dealt. At the same time, leaving open the door for further manipulation of the damage dealt from critical hits or other game effects.

It might be better to say "calculate the attacker's final damage value, then split that amount among the hit targets as damage dealt." That's the procedure to follow.

Good thing he was using decimals and not fractions then!

I actually was going to make that point, but I figured that would be nitpicky.

At the risk of sounding too serious, Decimals are fractions of the whole.

clearly, I am the Bud Abbot of this bit.

Again at the risk of sounding serious (my phone just tried to put "stupid" there), I think Harpua (and maybe Sutkus :P) are smart enough to know that.

Heeeeyyy Aaaaabbot!

And now I have to hit "quote" on every reply in this thread to make sure I didn't miss anything.