Fireballs Exposed (in General)

My understanding is that Fireball's effect is split up according to the number of minions it hits. But, when we get to melee thing get interesting. If you are hitting 3 opponents minions with your fireball AND one of your own unprotected minions, then how is fireball's damage doled out. There is a fixed percentage of damage to your unprotected minion. But is the damage to the opponent's 3 minions the same as if your minion wasn't damaged? Also, if your uprotected minion was hit by your fireball for "no damage", does that influence how much damage is given to the opposing minions?

While we are on the subject, I am surprised mages packing FB and an FF on their back aren't outraged at the way a fireball minion (or tattoo) counts the number of targets. Even if someone dies when the first fireball spreads and kills, the second minion still has damage split as if all opposing minions/familiars were still alive. At least that is how GentlemanLoser explained (and illustrated in data) to me.

As a guy having two 20 HP minions, I love the way it currently works. But I don't think it is fair. My front two should wither on the first fireball and the second one should only be targeting (and diluting) based on the remaining two.

Rubberduck, you have an FF, right? How many targets does he appear to have when he fires after your mage has killed my lead two?

Yes that is correct Chet although it works the other way round, my FF clears the way and my mage gets its damage split for more than the number of minions it will hit in the play by play. I look on it as if all minions fire simultaneously so it makes sense for fireballs to be split depending on the number of minions alive at the start of the round. It certainly hurts especially when combined with a sizeable AMF as this still does damage in line with a full power hit.

I never get to melee with 2 minions but I thought FB damage in melee was split according to the number of opposing minions, the splash damage being additional.

If you are OK with it, who am I to argue? *smile*

And yes, I believe the splash damage is purely additional. Spread is determined only by number of opposing minions/familiars as of the beginning of the round.

I was under the impression that when you get to melee FB - including splash damage - only targets a max of 5 minions. So if both teams total minion count is above that some minions will not be hit at all. At least that was my understanding from GL and his mathematical mind....=)

Another Fireball question as it relates to number of minions your opponent damages. If your opponent's fireball hits your minion for "no" damage, and then hits 2 more of your minions, is the damage of the fireball split up as if it were being dealt to 3 or 2 minions. It should be 3, I would think. I'm not sure how the numbers reflect this, or how you can figure it out.
Here's an example:
tWiSTed Fire's familiar's Fireball hit Sancho Panza for no damage
tWiSTed Fire's familiar's Fireball hit Rosinante [13769], Don Kixothe [23912]
I hope I made myself clear.

Remember the cut and paste I did yesterday? 3 opposing minions and 4 of my minions were hit by the fireball splash, according to the play-by-play.

Yes, the undamaged minion counts as a target. I have a FB/TBF char, and that's exactly how the math works out.

Also, FB targets five Minions maximum, including splash. Splash targets come first, so there is the chance that FB may not strike all enemy Minions. Every time I've seen that happen, it was the last enemy Minion that didn't get hit.

Chernobyl, I've never seen that! I thought fireball always hit enemies regardless of the splash. Anyone else see that?

Puddy's familiar's Fireball hit Breathless [21031], Jack Crow [32275], Mr. Pitt [26583], Newman [34615], Puddy [34037], Elaine [32253]

The above is from one of my battles. My minions are Breathless and Jack Crow. Puddy's familiar's fireball hits four minions as friendly fire and two of mine as normal. Six targets... I was under the impression that it was a max of five myself but this proves that one wrong....