That's not logically intuitive then. The reason a first strike character survives in mutual destruction is because that character is 'hitting' before the other character has a chance to assign lethal damage back. What is intuitive about letting two characters that are hitting each other first both survive the battle?
MtG first strike =/= Redemption first strike, there is no "hitting first" in Redemption, lol. The rules state that a character with first strike survives in a mutual destruction scenario. Logically, if 2 characters have first strike then shouldn't they both survive?
Ok,
1) I know that CURRENTLY MtG FS =/= Redemption FS, but for GAMING RULE SAKE, PLEASE listen to the reasoning!
2) since i'm using another game as an example (MtG) I took their ruling wordings from their customer service page as follows(copy & paste from http://wizards.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/133 <- only listed as a resource for argument):
Comprehensive Rules:
702.7. First Strike
702.7a. First strike is a static ability that modifies the rules for the combat damage step. (See rule 510, Combat Damage Step.)
702.7b. If at least one attacking or blocking creature has first strike or double strike (see rule 702.4) as the combat damage step begins. the only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are those with first strike or double strike. After that step, instead of proceeding to the end of combat step, the phase gets a second combat damage step. The only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are the remaining attackers and blockers that had neither first strike nor double strike as the first combat damage step began, as well as the remaining attackers and blockers that currently have double strike. After that step, the phase proceeds to the end of combat step.
702.7c. Giving first strike to a creature without it after combat damage has already been dealt in the first combat damage step won‘t prevent that creature from assigning combat damage in the second combat damage step. Removing first strike from a creature after it has already dealt combat damage in the first combat damage step won‘t allow it to also assign combat damage in the second combat damage step (unless the creature has double strike).
702.7d. Multiple instances of first strike on the same creature are redundant.
I will now translate this seemingly mindless babel into Redemption terms:
Comprehensive Rules:
702.7. First Strike
702.7a. First strike is an ability that modifies the rules for combat.
702.7b. If at least one Hero or Evil Character has first strike as combat damage begins. The only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are those with first strike. After that step, instead of proceeding to the end of combat step, the phase gets a second combat damage step. The only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are the remaining Hero or Evil Character that had neither first strike as the first combat damage step began. After that step, the phase proceeds to the end of combat step.
702.7c. Giving first strike to a Hero or Evil Charater without it after combat damage has already been dealt in the first combat damage step won‘t prevent that Hero or Evil Charater from assigning combat damage in the second combat damage step. Removing first strike from a Hero or Evil Charater after it has already dealt combat damage in the first combat damage step won‘t allow it to also assign combat damage in the second combat damage step.
702.7d. Multiple instances of first strike on the same creature are redundant.
Now I realize that this covers the multiple "First Strike" I believe is in question. As for "Mutual Destruction via Multiple First Strike", refer to regular combat rulings on "Mutual Destruction" and YES, the Lost Soul IS RESCUED via our current "Mutual Destruction" Rules.
If the GAMING RULES worked for MtG, WHY can it NOT work for Redemption?
