Darkseids Trait reads:

From the Rulebook on Penetrating damage:

Now, it's very obvious what the intent of that power is (like couldn't be more obvious), but much like Dormammu needing his trait reworded from

to

because of the way that mystics works; it deals unavoidable damage which is defined as


So, should his trait be reworded for consistencies sake?

Thanks!

I don't get it... what do you want it reworded to?

Got a suggestion?

"Penetrating damage dealt to Darkseid is normal damage instead."

or something to that effect

The wording is fine, it is actually simpler to word it as an exception to a more commonly known rule.

Ah, ok. I don't think we have "normal damage" as a game term though (or anything similar).

Is your issue with the can/can't thing? I ask since your example doesn't use them.

Personally, I think Darkseid's printed text is fine with the current rules, since the rule book tells us that, "in general, game effects originating from rules on individual cards supersede the rules in this rule book."

So while we kinda know that can't generally trumps can, the rule book tells us for certain that cards supersede the rule book.

D'oh I knew I forgot something. The reason that Dormammu had to be changed was the definition of Unavoidable Damage which reads

I think there is a very strong parallel to Darkseid.

(also, I'll be updating the first post...

Another thought...

Your suggestion was to turn Penetrating Damage into Normal Damage. As written, he is still taking Penetrating Damage, it just isn't... penetrating...

This would matter for any effects that trigger when a figure takes penetrating damage. I can't think of any off-hand and it will take quite a while to search the PG...

Yeah my wording isn't the best (maybe with some thought I could come up with something better), I also think another character has a similar power, but I can't remember for the life of me.

I know it's not really a big deal, and like I said the intent is clear, I just like constancy (and hate edge cases).

Found it! On Thanos oddly enough

LOL Imagine that!

Your search-fu is strong, much props to you.

With the incredible "coincidence" that it was on Thanos, I wonder if they looked at it and decided they didn't want to use "regular damage."

EDIT:
It also appears on another figure, from the Two Towers set:
Very very interesting...

This topic really has me interested (obviously). We have numerous instances of figures that reference "regular damage" and "normal damage" but they didn't use either for Darkseid. Consider me officially on-board with changing it, or at the very least getting an admission that in hindsight, it should've been.

Regular Damage:
T2T018 Hama
IG008E Thanos (Issue #5)

Normal Damage:
SF011 Fei Long
FFGGA005 Beta Ray Bill
ASM003 Dagger
ASM033 Man-Thing
ASM203 Dagger
WXM066 Iceman

Yeah effectively it's a non issue, I just like to be able to respond to a question like

"Why does M10 iron man still take mystics from a character holding a resource when Darkseid can reduce non reducable damage?"

with

"Well his wording was actually errated to..., so it works!"

This is what my Deadpool thread was about. We have a new figure with a power that does pretty much the EXACT SAME THING as a figure that already exists, but they use completely different words.

I just want to point out that all those examples of "normal" damage is referencing whatever damage would normally apply. For example, take a look at Dagger:

LIGHT DAGGERS: When Dagger hits a single target with a ranged combat attack, instead of dealing normal damage she may choose to deal 1 penetrating damage and heal herself or an adjacent friendly character of 1 damage.

If Dagger somehow gained Penetrating/Psychic Blast, when she uses it, she could choose to deal her full damage as penetrating damage, or deal 1 penetrating damage and apply the healing.

yup, and in addition precedent says pretty clearly that his power should not work...