Priority of "First damage" vs "HP were reduced"

There have been some arguments about what happens when a character has 2 effects which redirect the "first damage" they take in a turn.  The two positions are:

A) First is first, period.  There is only ever one "first", and so only one of the effects is actually used.

B) By a long-standing ruling, "damage fealt = HP were reduced".  If the damage was redirected, HP were not reduced, so the damage was not dealt, so this was clearly not the "first" damage, as it was not damage at all.  The second effect remains available to use.

Possible refinements to A / counterarguments against B:

A1) When a card says "First damage dealt to <foo>", it really means "First time <foo> is assigned as a target of damage."

A2) Both redirect effects actually *trigger* on the first damage, even though only one is able to have an effect.  The other one is expended uselessly.

Thoughts?

It has  to be A. As Ronway pointed out, if it wasn't, NightMist could redirect everything since no damage was actually dealt.

It's worth noting the difference between damage reduction/increasing effects and damage prevention/redirection effects.  Damage reduction affects damage being dealt, while prevention/redirection triggers when damage would be dealt.

Reduction effects have been covered with Word of God - if the damage is redirected or prevented, the reduction is not used up, unless the reduction was necessary to trigger the redirection or prevention.

Prevention/redirection has been covered in previous threads (which were linked to in the thread you linked to) - all redirection/prevention effects will be used up the first time that damage would be dealt.  (I do not think they trigger if reduction has already reduced the amount of damage to 0, though).

I'm pretty sure that covers all scenarios.

Basically, what jsz2 said. It cannot be A1, because it simply isn't true. Simply being assigned damage won't use it up (e.g. if the damage is less than 1). I think the simplicity of my first damage dealing post really explains the situation best. First, determine if damage is greater than 0, if so, you have many options, some cancel, some redirect, some trigger, etc., but it is all part of the same next step in the sequence.

But if you have 2 redirection effects, and the first redirects the damage, would the second also be consumed?

I mean the one that redirects is obvious, and clears any Nightmist Shenanigans, it did redirect, just like reduction required to reach prevention/redirection getting used up, but reduction that isn't necessary for prevention or redirection, despite being triggered, isn't consumed because it didn't affect the result.

I think it makes sense that redirection that triggered but never affected damage because that damage was redirected by another effect would not get used up.

How about Wrest The Mind and Driving Mantis?

Gene-Bound Soldier has Wrest the Mind on it, it goes to attack Mr. Fixer, But Visionary redirects the damage to another target and Soldier is destroyed.

If Mr. Fixer has Driving Mantis in play was its effect consumed in that process, or could he still redirect a second shot of damage dealt to him?

I can't imagine that consumes Fixer's effect, because it didn't actually do anything.

That is the crux of the "next time" reduction vs. redirection, if the reduction actually affected the end result, then it is consumed, if not then it is not consumed.

Also, I don't see the point of creating a second thread about this question.

The problem is that you are defining "first time you take damage" differently for the same exact card. The issue isn't whether or not the "card" is comsumed, but rather whether or not the "first time you take damage" is consumed. If it wasn't, the first card would have never reacted. If it was, and the first card reacts, then you already are on to the "second time" and the other card won't trigger.

It should work the same as the "Next time" wording on reduction.

The next time you would take damage, the first time you would take damage.

Where's the difference?

Yes.  The reason it's different from from damage reduction is that damage reduction triggers when damage is dealt and damage redirection triggers when damage would be dealt.  (Imagine someone's punching you.  Damage reduction is like a shield - it will only break if something hits it.  Damage redirection is like a block - you move to block when you see them start to punch you, regardless of whether someone else blocks the punch as well)

 How about Wrest The Mind and Driving Mantis?Gene-Bound Soldier has Wrest the Mind on it, it goes to attack Mr. Fixer, But Visionary redirects the damage to another target and Soldier is destroyed. If Mr. Fixer has Driving Mantis in play was its effect consumed in that process, or could he still redirect a second shot of damage dealt to him?I can't imagine that consumes Fixer's effect, because it didn't actually do anything.That is the crux of the "next time" reduction vs. redirection, if the reduction actually affected the end result, then it is consumed, if not then it is not consumed.
Yes.  It's still triggering on the "would deal damage" trigger that activates Wrest the Mind, so this isn't any different from the first redirection being a "once per turn" redirection.

Also, I don't see the point of creating a second thread about this question.

Agreed

There can always be a another next time, there is always only 1 first.

There is no difference if there is a "would be" or not.

I disagree. There is only one next. This is why multiple stacks of Stealth get used up all at once when Wraith would take damage.

[quote="Pydro"]

There is no difference if there is a "would be" or not.

[/quote] Yes there is, or one-use damage reduction would be used up by attacks that were redirected.

I don't see how that proves anything as Stealth just stacks into one bonus that is either used up all at once or not, but the ruling itself shows that there is a difference, that "next" doesn't mean "next" but really "the next time this would matter." There is no way to word "first" like that. The second time is no longer "the first time it mattered."

You don't reduce damage after damage has been dealt.  That doesn't make any sense at all.  If that were true Wraith's Stealth could never reduce damage to 0, because you would have to take damage to reduce it, and Fortitude would be worthless against shots of 1 damage.  We know that isn't the case, so we know damage does not have to be dealt to be reduced.

Damage Dealt is HP reduced.

First time each turn vs. Next time is effectively the same, except that one resets each turn, and one is a single use.

Inside of a single turn the effects work exactly the same.  They are consumable reduction.  Why wouldn't they follow similar rules?

How would Spite's PL602 Compound Omicron work in an equation like this?  If an Environment target has Wrest the Mind on it, and it would damage Spite but Visionary redirects the damage to something else and Spite is dealt no damage, does that consume his "First time each turn" reduction?

I think it would be silly to assume that it would work differently than if he had an effect that reduced the next damage and the same thing happened.

Both are consumable reduction, the rest of the equation being the same, to say the result would be reversed doesn't seem sound.

No there isn't.

I think that there is.

You are correct that there is no difference in timing.  But this isn't about a difference in timing, it's about a difference in triggering.  If there was no difference at all, all the cards would use the same wording.

I disagree. Do you have any evidence that Stealth stacks as opposed to being a collection of dr2 effects that all get used up at the same time?

The "next time this would matter" thing seems like you're over-complicating this - why can't "next" just mean "next"?

The way I see it, the next time Wraith would take damage, her whole stack of dr2 effects gets used up. The first time Iron Legacy would take 5 or more damage, both Superhuman Redirections activate - it's just that the second one does exactly the same thing as the first one, so it doesn't really matter. Does it need to be more complicated than this?

Honestly, not sure what this is refering to.

Except that the cases aren't even remotely comparable, and happen at completely different times. There might be a new ruling that says they work the same, but no comparison can be made. The "next time" was made regarding modifiers that increase or decrease damage. Modifiers that all happen at the same time, and before we calculate whehther or not hp will be reduced. A special ruling came out, one that wasn't intuitive, that "next time" damage happens in a special way.

Redirection has absolutely no relationship to that case. You only determine redirection after you calculate all of the modifiers, and see if any damage would be dealt. If damage is 0, then there is no redirection. What redirection does is that damage was going to be dealt, and a special ruling of redirections says that it isn't. That is the first time that damage was dealt. If not, then the card doesn't work to begin with. Obvisouly, the card is meant to work, which means that that is the first time it takes damage. If not, you could keep redirecting damage with NightMist. There is no such thing as a card being used up with redirection, but the exact same card being able to do it. It is based on the target taking damage, not the card. You came up with the idea that one card is used up, but we are talking about taking damage.

You keep saying that it make sense to do it that way, but, simply speaking it does not. In fact, it contradicts itself. Please explain to me how two cards that affect the first damage can apply to two different instances of damage. How does that make sense?

But this isn't about a difference in timing, it's about a difference in triggering.  If there was no difference at all, all the cards would use the same wording.

[/quote]

Not true. In fact, I explained the difference in wording in that post.

Yes, that was in the part of your post that I quoted, except that I skipped most of the explanation part because it was long and we both knew what it said.

I think that we're actually in agreement here (certainly we were in agreement at the beginning of the thread), except that we conceptualize the reasons that everything works the way that is should differently.  I look at it one way, and you look at it a different way, but we both come to the same result.

I think Mantis would be used up, because the second shot of damage would technically be the 2nd time Fixer would be dealt damage that turn by definition. That is not the trigger clause for Mantis. Just because another sources redirection was used doesn't change the nature of that second instance of damage assigned to him.

I don't understand how a seperation of timing matters in this case.  They are consumable triggers that work off the same trigger.  Why would one work one way and the other work the other way.

I understand that the reduction happens before redirection, but whether we are backtracking to undo reduction or not applying redirection the same thing is happening.

To have redirection cancel effects that have already taken place and count them unconsumed, but count effects as consumed that were yet to take place doesn't work.

The key to the other ruling is not timing centered, it is centered on the idea that if an effect was crucial to the result, it is consumed, if it is irrelevant to the result, it is not consumed.

A card looking to redirect damage that is redirected before it can do so has no relevance to the redirection that did occur.

Similarly consumable redirection isn't consumed against damage that is prevented. (La Capitan for instance)

The Twist the Ether mechanic shows us that redirection causes a do-over for the damage.  

The Driving Mantis + consumable reduction shows us that effcts that are critical to the redirection are consumed.

Logically it follows that Nighmist can't redirect things infinitely because the redirection effect was critical to the redirection, not because the wording "First time" holds special significance that "Next Time" does not, or because the timing was slightly different than reduction.

I think it is not just a fair argument, but a better assumption that because a second redirection effect had no relevance to the first one being used that it will remain unconsumed.

It is more elegant and follows a cohesive logic that doesn't need special exceptions.

and with the Driving mantis ruling the next damage would not be the next damage dealt, it would be the second damage dealt since the effect activated.

But yet we know that officially "next damage" reduction isn't consumed unless it is critical to the end result.  Timing is irrelevant here, it is all about what effects have actually impacted the game.

This isn't quite the same. Technically, Driving Mantis triggers off "The first instance of damage that is 2 or less" and not just "the first isntance of damage". Mantis has a 2nd qualifier in its trigger clause that needs to be evaluated.

Except that the situations aren't comparable. "Next damage" is based on whether it has some impact. So does "both" of the "first time cards". If no damage was dealt, neither would be used up. To accurately compare the sitautions, you would need 2 "next damage" effects, and prove that only one would be used up and not both. However, not only does the ruling not cover that situation, we also have a ruling that multiple Stealth effects would be used up at once. This would indicate that mutiple "first time" would all be used up at once, even if you compare the situations.

Soldier does deal 2 damage, so they would both be triggered.  If a second instance of 2 damage happens the same turn, which in Voss's deck is pretty common, then what evaluation is needed.

He would have been dealt damage that would trigger the redirection, but another redirection got to it first.  There was no first instance of damage that turn, because it was redirected.  Therefore the redirection effect of Mantis is unconsumed.

I skimmed all the post, so I am not sure where things ended up. However here are some of my thoughts on it the first time x target would be dealt damage.

I noticed a post saying that damage dealt means HP reduced, however we are talking about would be dealt, which is not reliant on HP being reduced. Infact, the first time a target would be dealt damage and the first time a target is dealt damage can trigger two different things. Take Mister Fixer's Driving Mantis and Captain Cosmic's Wounding Buffer. If that Wounding Buffer is on Mister Fixer, then say Mister Fixer is the target of a 2 damage attack, Mister Fixer can redirect it because it would be the first time he would be dealt damage. Then say he is a target of another attack in the same round, since this is the second time he would be dealt damage, even if 2 or fewer, he would be unable to redirect. However the is now the first time he is dealt damage, so Wounding Buffer could then trigger. In this he would of been dealt damage twice and is dealt damage once.

And with the case of Wrest the Mind and Driving Mantis, if The Visionary redirects it when it would of dealt 2 or less damage to Mister Fixer, then I would be inclined to say Mister Fixer would no longer be able to use Driving Mantis that turn.

It doesn't matter if Mantis was used or not though. Mantis and Wrest the Mind would both be active during that first instance of damage because both trigger clauses are met and you have to choose one or the other (or none at all). Regardless of how you redirect the first instance, that second instance of 2 damage is the 2nd time Fixer would be dealt an instance of 2 or less damage, and that does not meet the requirment anymore for triggering Mantis at all. Effects are still 100% dependant on their trigger clause and conditions.

I will try my take on it.  I always thought that the Haka/Redirection/Mantis ruling was more a representation of the players choosing the order of effects instead of what effects go off.  As such...

-when Fixer has Mantis and Haka shielding (-2), he can choose what to do first.  If he takes 2 damage, he chooses to use mantis first and shielding goes back into play because it wasn’t used.  I think that is the key, shielding goes back into play with “next damage”, so it will work on the next damage.  If he took 4, he can choose to use the shielding, then Mantis.  Both are used.

-when Fixer has Mantis and Wrest the Mind on the damage dealer, the players can choose to use either first.  If they use Mantis, fine, they are both still in play.  However if they use Wrest first, Mantis is still in play, but it is no longer the first time he has been dealt damage.

-So, let’s assume Fixer has some way to duplicate Mantis’ effect on a consumable card and has both in play.  He receives 2 damage.  He takes both cards and chooses which to apply first.  Either one,, the damage is redirected.  If it was the consumable, it leaves play.  If not, the consumable goes back in play, but wouldn’t be able to be used later in the turn because the next damage he takes is no longer the first time in the turn.  Next turn, he could use the consumable if he wanted when first dealt damage.

If the trigger is the first time, it is still the first time even if it is redirected.  Next time can stay in play if not used.  Keep in mind I think this is card based, hence why Wraith uses all up.  You action Wraiths power and it uses up all stacks.  If Wraith had the same -2 shielding, she can choose which “next time” to use and if the damage is prevented completely, the remaining card/ability goes back into play to go into effect the next time damage is done.

I hope this makes sense.

Twist the Ether doesn't redirect anything, so it has nothing to do with the original target.

Next damage, or first damage, it works the same.  Next does not mean "The next or time after that," it means next.  If "next damage" is not consumed and can still trigger then why not "first time."

As for Ronway:  The HP reduced is damage dealt was a response to a specific argument, it really doesn't affect this debate at all.

It seems this argument has come down to the difference between "next damage" and "First damage."

My thoughts:

When you activate a "Next damage" effect, it is the same as saying "the first time you would be dealt damage after activating this effect. . ."

The First time each turn effect is the same as "At the start of your turn, the next time you would be dealt damage this turn. . ."

Obviously the more elegant wordings are the ones in the game, but "first" and "next" are not different timings, they both mean the very next damage dealt for their respective periods of time.

Beyond that my argument is:

1.  Redirection cancels all the effects of the initial attack, changing it to a new target.  Twist the Ether shows us that, the damage alterations are canceled, and the attack starts over with a new target.

2.  Because of this, once Soldier's attack on Mr. Fixer is redirected it is treated as not happening.  Mr. Fixer wouldn't take damage, that attack never happened.  This is supported by the idea that "Next time" effects are counted as not applying to redirected damage.  If the attack counts as clearing the "Mr. Fixer would take damage" hurdle, then it was the next time Mr. Fixer would take damage and those effects would be gone.

3.  The ruling on Mantis vs. Next damage effects show us what effects are still treated as having happened, and that is the ones that are critical to the redirection or prevention.  Therefore if a "Next Damage" reduction is needed for Mantis to redirect the damage, then after the attack is restarted Mantis and the "Next Damage" are consumed because they were both required for the redirection to happen.

4.  To further the similarity between first and next, if Spite's PL602 Omicron's reduction is active and Wrest The Mind redirects damage away from his that should not prevent Omicron from reducing an attack against Spite, because Omicron was not required for the redirection to occur, and the damage was dealt to another target, it didn't resolve with Spite, so it wasn't the first time he would take damage.  It was the first time a different target took damage.

5.  If Redirection would trigger on the "next damage dealt to" or "first damage dealt to" and that damage is redirected away, that damage resolves elsewhere and the damage resolves as not being the first damage, or next damage that would be dealt to the original target.

Side Note:

Redirection and Prevention:  If Mr. Fixer would be dealt damage but that damage is prevented it does not count as the first time Mr. Fixer would be dealt damage, because he couldn't be dealt that damage.  If an instance of damage is already resolved on another target, it cannot be dealt to Mr. Fixer.  It can't be the first damage that would be dealt to him if it is resolved elsewhere, so the effect is not consumed.

If "Next time" and "first time" were the same, they would be worded the same. There are different connotations there. "First" in more limited in that it completley excludes any 2nd or 3rd time. "Next" could very well be a 2nd or 3rd attempt if previous attempts were altered or tampered with in that proccess, pushing a future attempt as the "next". This has 0 to do with timing and everything to do with how triggers clauses work.

Different phrases. Different connotations. 

Actually, I think this can be tested out in the App.  If Wraith has both Combat Stance and Smoke Bombs in play and she has the lowest HP.  Does it give you the option to deal combat stance damage, then redirect?  Or do smoke bombs go into effect immediately?  Also does another instance of damage trigger combat stance after smoke bombs redirect?

I'm at work, so I can't test this out.

Combat Stance requires damage to be dealt I'm pretty sure. Smoke Bombs doesn't. These are totally different trigger clauses

Not sure about that. I don't remember the exact sitaution, but one time when playing I had an effect based on being dealt damage (maybe Iso?), and a redirection, and it asked me which one I wanted to do (couldn't do both). WIll have to doulbe check later).

But it would prove if redirected damage counts as "First time hit".  If you can use Combat Stance after smoke bombs redirected damage from the same target, it would support multiple "First time effects" a turn.  If Combat Stance does not trigger, it supports that "First" is different than "Next".

no you are comparing apples and oranges here. These are two very different triggers 

English man.

English.

Next:

coming immediately after the time of writing or speaking.

The first time ___ happens after I have said this is the next time it happens.  The difference between next and first is the timing of when you start looking for the object.

The next baseball game, vs. the First baseball game of 2015.

If I am saying this in 2014 and there are still baseball games to play, then the two mean different things.

If I am saying it in 2015 or later and the first game of 2015 has passed, then they mean different things.

But

If I am saying this when there are no baseball games left before 2015, and before any games in 2015 have occurred, then they mean the exact same thing.

If the "next damage dealt to a hero target" effect has not been used then when the turn starts a "First time this turn damage is dealt to a hero target" will be referring to the exact same event.

In this argument we are talking about a period of time where next and first both are looking to the exact same event.  The first time you are dealt damage will be the next time you are dealt damage.

You can't have one be fulfilled and the other not.  It is not how the words work.

The way you are treating redirection and Next is as if the redirection not only didn't trigger it, but in fact reapplied the effect.  Setback isn't using his base power a second time whenever redirection occurs.  The effect activated and the first time after activating the effect that damage would be dealt to a hero target is by definition the next time a hero target would be dealt damage.

Christopher isn't reinventing the English Language.  He's using the words properly.

To reiterate:

The only way for "The next time a hero target would be dealt damage" and "The first time each turn a hero target would be dealt damage" to not overlap is if:

1.  the "next time" effect was activated in a turn where damage had already been dealt to a hero target.

-and-

2.  Damage is dealt to a hero target after the effect is activated, but before the turn ends.

That is the only way that "The next time a hero target is dealt damage" will not also necessarily be "the first time each turn a hero target would be dealt damage"

"First" requires a set beginning point to start tracking.

"Next" starts tracking upon saying the word "next."

That is the entire difference of meaning in the words used here.

I agree - there is no distinction between "first" and "next" that is interesting to this discussion. "First" is just a "next" that refreshes at the beginning of each turn/round/whatever.

Let me see if I can help show where people are going wrong with "next."

(I used the bus analogy in the sister thread, using it here again)

If I say "I'm getting on the next bus that stops." and a bus pulls up and stops, and I do not get on, I did not get on the next bus that stops.

If I then say "That's alright, I'll get on the next one."  I am re-activating the word next, it is a whole new effect, and not at all the same as my prior statement that I would get on the next bus.

The point is, to say that the first damage being redirected, and then another damage coming can't be the first, but can be the next, is to re-activate the "Next time . . . would be dealt damage" effect, it would have to be a seperate activation, because the initial one has failed.

For "the next damage" to apply after redirection means that damage is treated as not counting as damage that "would be dealt."

Meaning that it would not cause "the first time" to fail either.

It cannot work any other way.

It can work multiple ways depending on interpretation.  Remember that not everybody reads things and interprets them in the same way.

But expanding on your analogy,  I say that I will get on the next bus I see.  The first bus I see drives by without giving me a change to get on, so I will get on the next bus.  The second bus stops and I get on.  The second bus was the next after the first, but it is not the first I saw.

The semantics of "first" vs. "next" don't interest me, as much as the effect still being in play does. If a "next" effect is still in play, it can still trigger that turn. However, a "first each turn" has two conditions, and it might not trigger if it's no longer (for purposes of that trigger) the first time in a turn.

The real question is here is finding a way to process the rules that both fits the wording and the intention. English breaks down under excessive attempts to parse it, but rules intentions can be divined by consulting the designers.

It *seems to me* that the designers intend you to be able to have multiple synaptic interruptions (and similar effects) in play and trigger successively, but do not intend the same to be possible with multiple first in turn effects. That's fine by me, since the synaptic style effects get consumed in use, so they're balanced by that.

If that turns out NOT to be the intention, we adjust our understanding of the wording on the cards accordingly, or (as I often do) say "great, I'll keep doing it this other way".

copy and paste from other thread because these two threads are the exact. same. thing. why are there two threads with the same discussion.

Here lies the entire crux of my argument.

"The next time" is always the first time after a given point in time. But what point is that exactly? Is it ever stricktly defined? Why can't that point in time fluxuate under certain cercumstances? In fact, we already know that it does. Look at Haka of Shielding. Les say Haka uses Shielding on himself and two instances of 2 damage comes his way. The first gets redirected by Wrest the Mind. We know that Haka of Shielding in this case is  still considered active and will reduce that second instance of damage. Why? Because since Haka of Shielding wasn't used, it is still active. We are still technically reducing the "next" instance of damage that would be dealt since the card is still active.

Card is active, trigger clause is literally met, so effect will trigger.

However, "the first time each turn" is always the first time after a specific point in time, the start of each turn. That specific point can't fluxuate due to its very definition. So say those two instances of 2 damage get dealt to Fixer with Mantis in play. The first gets redirected by Wrest the Mind. Now we have a case were Mantis might still be active because it wasn't used, but quite litterally it is now the 2nd time this turn he would be dealt an instance of 2 or less damage, and the trigger clause on Mantis fundamentally can't be triggered. Whether Mantis was used before or not makes no difference.

Card is active, trigger clause can not be met, so effect doesn't trigger.

First time and Next time are not terms you can whimsically interchange as you please. They have different connotations and apply differently under certain contexts.

This is the classic case of Square = Rectangle but Rectangle =/= Square. 

Square = First time

Rectangle = Next time

No.

Next is also a fixed point.  The point at which you activate the idea of next.  In this case the ability that says "next" is the exact, fixed time the effect is active.

Seriously, the definition states exactly that.

You are trying to argue that a word doesn't always mean what it means and your proof is that the card effect doesn't fit your theory and the definition of the word.

The problem isn't the definition of the word next, or the official ruling on how the card works.

First and next will work the same way in the example for this question.  They have to, because the word next does have a meaning, and that meaning fixes the point from which Next is active, and that point is the moment the word is invoked.

In the case of this card game it works the moment the effect that uses the word next is activated.

How else could it be interpreted without ignoring the definition of the word next, and the way it is used throughout the card game.

Next is never used to refer to an ambiguous occurance in the future, it always means the first time after now, now being the moment you invoke "next."

The only way to be consistent with the ruling we have and similar effects that use the "first time each turn" wording is to have them work the same way.

We know "next" isn't consumed by damage that is redirected without requiring the effect that next is attached to.

To resolve how "first" will work we have two options:

1.  Ignore the definition of the word next, and how it is consistently used every other time in the game and say that while "First" and "Next" are both not consumed, next can mean the one after the next, while first cannot mean the one after first.

-or-

2.  We take the option that doesn't violate the definition of the words, and makes a nice consistent rule and say that damage that is redirected no longer "would have dealt" damage to the original target, therefore first and next don't have to violate their meanings and the whole system works beautifully.

#2 also has teh added benefit of not allowing a single instance of damage to count as damaging one target, but almost damage a bunch of others.  Which just seems bizarre to me.

Lastly, yes Next and First have different meanings.  The exact nature of which I have made clear multiple times.

First you have to designate the time at which it starts tracking, it can be in the past, in the future, it has to be designated.

Next self-designates that time because it tracks from "now."  Now being he moment the word next is invoked.

That is the difference.  That difference is irrelevant to this question.

Seriously, you can imagine that next has some wierd true meaning that none of us quite grasp, or you can accept that the definition of the word is accurate and use it the way it is intended to be used.

There is no ambiguity in this usage of next.  None.  In the example Next and first will work the exact same way.

Question for all.  Fright Train has Engine of Destruction in play and Bloogo with 1 HP next to him.  Fanatic Exorcises him (Fright Train, not Bloogo) with her base power (1 melee, 1 radiant).

How much damage would you say Fright Train takes?

And no more than 5 lines of explaination about why you chose that number.  Bonus points if you can summarize in a sentence.

I'm trying to get a better feel for everyone's opinions, because I think we've started to repeat ourselves.

Fright Train takes 2 radiant.

When Fanatic exorcises, she would deal one melee to Fright Train, but this gets redirected to Bloogo, who dies. She then deals 1 radiant to Fright Train, increased by 1 by Engine of Destruction.

When you redirect that first bit of damage, it loses Fright Train's bonus, per other examples of redirection and increased / reduced damage to a target. This prevents it from being the first actual damage dealt to him for purposes of taking damage, but he's already had damage dealt to him for purposes of redirection (even though that winds up being irrelevant).

The question's more interesting if Bloogo has two hit points :)

I think all this endless nattering about "first" meaning the same as "next" falls apart when you modify "first" with "in a turn" and make it conditional. And when you take into account that prior rulings appears to indicate that multiple "redirect first damage in a turn" effects don't trigger sequentially, but multiple "next damage" effects do (that last will be revised if an official ruling contradicts it).

Because, as I've said, there's always room for "next damage" when you take more damage. There's not always room for first damage in a turn.

I would have said 2 radiant, but going by the ruling for Superhuman Redirection, I'll have to (reluctantly) say 1 radiant. The buff was used up on the damage that got redirected to Bloogo.

Absolutely 2 radiant. Damage dealt requires HP reduction. The melee hit reduces Bloogo's HP, so at that point, we haven't seen the first damage dealt to Fright Train yet. The radiant will be the first damage dealt to Fright Train, so it gets the boost.

But then, by that logic, multiple Superhuman Redirections would trigger one after another. After the first one redirects, then you hit him again, and since he hasn't lost HP yet, he hasn't been dealt damage. Therefore, this is the first time he is being dealt damage, so you redirect it for the second one.

Superhuman Redirection triggers on when he would be dealt damage. That does not need damage to actually be dealt for it to trigger. This is why onle one redirection with Superhuman Redirection is possible, as the first time he would be dealt 5 or more damage in a turn it would be redirect. The second time he would be dealt 5 or more damage in that turn triggers none of the Superhuman Redirections, as it would be the second time he would of been dealt 5 or more damage that turn. 

Can someone find the Superhuman redirection ruling that is being referenced here?

The one I remember was about the same instance of damage being redirected multiple times by the same card.

It was asking since it was the same instance of damage if that damage could still be redirected by the same effect. (since it was necessarily the same instance of damage that was "the first")

That is the one I remember, I don't remember and can't find one that deals with multiple copies, or any ruling about First working that way.

Also the La Capitan ruling doesn't mesh with it.

And if we follow the "first damage" as people are saying we should then then La Capitan's Flip side Advanced text can only take place if La Capitan is damaged between the start of her turn and the end of her turn, when she has no cards under her but hasn't flipped yet.

I sincerely doubt that is the idea behind that advanced text.  Any other time her cards are cleared it would not be the first time she would have taken damage, since she has to have "would be dealt" for her prevention to activate.  And after all, even if the damage is prevented it still won't be the first time that round.

Prevention and redirection both cancel the attack.  The attack never happened.  La Capitan, or in my original example Guise, the damage would not have damaged La Capitan or Guise, because it was prevented in one case, and dealt to a different target in the other.

 

Once an attack is redirected ALL modifiers are reassessed.

 That is 100% correct.

Now, on to a situation which has caused great discord:

If Haka reduces damage to Mr. Fixer, allowing Mr. Fixer to redirect that damage, then the damage gets re-evaluated as it hits its eventual target, as per the "once an attack is redirected, reassess all modifiers" law. However, Haka's reduction of damage dealt to Mr. Fixer is necessarily used up. It has to be, otherwise, Mr. Fixer could not have redirected the damage. So, even though Haka's damage reduction never actually reduced any final damage that was dealt, the effect was used up, as it allowed a trigger to occur.

That is the ruling on Mantis and "next time" reduction.  

1.  It is a fact that "next" and "first" will work the exact same way if both are active at the start of the turn.  Any other result violates the definition of the words.

2.  Prevention and Redirection, according to the video game guys, both will use this ruling.

3.  If "Next" can still trigger, then the effect has either been reactivated, or the attack never happened.

4.  Setback's base power, incap powrs and PW Haka's base power are not given a "free use" every time damage is redirected.  Those abilities have costs, you'd have to pay the cost a second time.

5.  La Capitan's Advanced text (flip side) would almost never trigger, and be by far the most situational, fiddly and worst designed advanced text in the game, unless prevented attacks do not count as "would be dealt" for the purposes of determining the first time each round.

I think it is pretty clear that either those attacks don't count for Next or First, or the game is needlessly complex and not as well designed as it is.

Not ruling, I meant concensus. Just the general idea in the thread was that the first one was the only one that mattered, even if it got redirected.

Also, I was pretty sure that La Capitan's flip side advanced was after all the cards were cleared. I remember I brought up the same thing, saying that it should happen before clearing the cards, but was corrected on the grounds that it is written lower on the card, and so must occur later.

The point is if damage "would be dealt" to La Capitan and is prevented, then under what circumstances would her redirect even be able to occur?  Since it is "First time each round" her advanced text either needs the prevented damage to not qualify as "would be dealt" or it simply will not ever activate, except in the bizarre circumstance I mentioned above.

The evidence all points to redirected and prevented damage not counting as "would be dealt" to its original target once redirected.

Which makes sense to me, damage that has already been resolved is not threatening to anyone that wasn't dealt damage by it.

Except then, when you hit Iron Legacy the second time, that's the first time he "would be dealt" damage, so his second redirection should trigger, right? That's what I have been saying; if redirecting cancels out "first time" effects, like Engine of Destruction or La Capitan, then it should cancel out "first time" effects like Superhuman Redirection or -- in the conversation that started this whole thing -- Total Beefcake and Infiltrate and Obfuscate.

But since everyone else INSISTS that redirecting damage away via those effects breaks the "first time they would be dealt damage" barrier, so the second hit would go through and not count as the first time, that means that OTHER "first time" effects like Engine of Destruction would have to be used up as well.

So, there are 3 options.

1.) if you redirect the first damage away, it still counts as that target's "first time it is/would have been dealt damage," cancelling out any further effects with that trigger, like additional Superhuman Redirections, Engine of Destruction, Stealth, etc. 

2.) If you redirect the first damage away, it means that the target has not been dealt damage, which resets the "first time it would have been dealt damage." Therefore, the next time it is dealt damage is the first, which would then trigger a second Superhuman Redirection, Engine of Destruction, Stealth, etc.

3.) If you redirect the first damage away, it uses up the "first time it WOULD be dealt damage," but not the "first time it takes damage." This would use up things like Caliginous Form and Superhuman Redirection, that merely require the target to be the TARGET of damage, but not bonuses or reductions that require damage to actually be dealt. The second time it is targeted is not the first time in the turn it WOULD take damage, but it is the first time it DOES take damage. They are grammatically and mechanically distinct. This means that all of the Redirections (or other "first time they would take damage" effects) go off at once. You may have moved the damage, but the trigger -- being targeted for damage -- still happened. If there are different effects that trigger, they don't get skipped. Just, in this case, they don't matter, because they both do the same thing.

The way I see it, option 3 is the most logical. I was originally going to say 2, but thinking it over I realized that, based on the wording, you CAN make the argument that using up the "first time it would be dealt damage" does not necessarily use up the "first time it IS dealt damage," if no damage is dealt. This comes with the addendum that, except in the case of prevention or redirection, a Stealth effect that reduces the damage to 0 IS used up, since it is only because of its own effect that no damage was dealt. No stacking up Stealth and just never ever taking damage. "First time" comes before "whenever," so La Capitan's advanced mode would trigger before the prevention, as I believe is the intent.

I don't think this is correct at all. Prevention and Redirection are not the same thing. They are two totally different mechanics. Even though they may have the same outcome of the initial target not taking damage, its faulty logic to conclude they must therefore be the same in any and all cases.

You are making this exact same logical leap saying that "Next" and "First" are the same as well (that leap being that if two things are similar, they therefore must be the same). And while I'm on the topic of Next and First, let's walk through a quick proof of why they are not the same.

I want to catch the Next bus. I miss the 1st bus. I get on the 2nd bus. I caught the Next bus

But did I catch the first bus? No, that is a false statment.

I want to catch the First bus. I miss the 1st bus. I get on the 2nd bus. I caught the First bus

Do you see why the word "First" and "Next" can't be interchangable words? I don't understand why that is even a debate. 

But I digress.

Lets go back to the mechanical difference of Prevention and Redirection:

When you prevent damage, you are right here that the attack is considered never to have happened. The entire thing was prevented, and because of that fact, for all intents and purposes its considered that you would not and could not have taken damage at all. This is why the La Capitain ruling can work like it does and the redirection can still trigger, since she would never technically be eligable to take damage while there were still cards under her to burn, so the "First time she would take damage" clause in the Advance text is still applicable after all cards under her are gone. It truly is only now the first time she could really be dealt damage by virtue of her mechanics. 

But when you redirect an attack, the attack from the source still happens, it just happens against a different target now (and because its now a different target, all modifiers are recalculated to adjust to that fact). So your inital statement above is false. Furthermore, the game state still considers the fact that you would have and could have taken damage in that instance because redirection nessesarily occures after that evaluation takes place. How do we know this is true? Because instances of 0 damage can not be redirected at all (a case where the game considers that you would not have and could not have taken damage). 

EDIT:  As Foote points out below, my point only works for a modified version of this:

I want to catch the  First  bus. The 1st bus doesn't show up. I get on the 2nd bus. I caught the  First  bus

It's a different metaphor, but I don't think it's a less valid one.

/EDIT

And this is exactly where the disagreement is.  "I caught the first bus" is not an false statement - it is an imprecise one.

"I caught the first bus that came" is a true statement.

I caught the first bus that was scheduled" is a false statement.

The disagreement is whether "first" is referring to the schedule or the arrivals.

Those of us claiming that "next" and "first" are the same are using "that came" for both "first" and "next".  Those of us claiming that "next" and "first" are different are using "that came" for "next" and "that was scheduled" for "first".

"I caught the first bus that came" is in no way, shape, or form a true statement . It explicitly says that you missed the first bus. You can't miss a bus that never comes dude. It came. You missed it.

You're right.  In my head I was thinking about busses breaking down and not showing up, instead of you missing the bus.  (Because when I constructed the metaphor for myself, I used busses that break down because it supports my argument)

And this is where the metaphor breaks down, because I can think of no way to argue whether busses being missed or busses breaking down is a better metaphor for preventing/redirecting damage.

Alternate version of my point, with a slightly different metaphor:

"I caught the first bus.  The 1st bus was full.  I caught the 2nd bus."  is a false statement.

"I caught the first available bus.  The 1st bus was full.  I caught the 2nd bus."  is a true statement.

Are these cards talking about busses, or available busses?

A side note here: La Capitan's Flipside Advanced text was changed for the oversized villain cards (eg, the most recent printing of the character) to read "The first time every TURN…" instead of first time every round.  This indicates to me that Christopher realized that the original wording was flawed in some significant way, perhaps in exactly the way you observe here.

Actually, that was a typo. The small cards always take precedence over the large card. It's supposed to be round, and has been stated as such.

But see, thats not the point I was trying to make there. The thought experiment was to show that the words "First" and "Next" are not interchangable. That is the whole point. The statements I provided only served to illustrate that.

And my point is that given the proper metaphor, they are interchangable.  You're using a metaphor in which they are not interchangable.  I'm using a metaphor in which they are.  Neither metaphor is similar enough to the actual scenario to be declared more accurate than the other.

The issue is not who's correct.  Everybody is correct in the paradigm that they're using.  We're spending time arguing about who's correct, when we should be arguing about which paradigm is correct.

That said, the paradigm I'm using is the paradigm of seperate paradigms, which is probably not the only way to view our problem here.

We know they are similar terms already. "The First Time" will always technically be "The Next Time", but you flat out can't say that "The Next Time" will always be "The First Time" as I showed you. Again, this is Squares/Rectangles. Squares can always be Rectangles, but Rectangles are not always Squares. Two very similar words that can be interchanged on occasion, but they still mean two different things.

And thats the whole point. They are different. Not the same. As soon as I provided one case where they were not interchangable, thats the only conclusion you can end with.

They're not interchangeable, but sometimes you can treat them as if they are.

For example:  A square is not interchangable with a rectangle - unless the only thing you care about is the angles of the corners.  If all you're doing is measuring corner angles, then suddenly the differences (while still present) don't matter.

That's my point.  There are some cases where first and next can be treated the same (even though they're different).  And while one case can be used to prove that they're different, one case cannot be used to prove that in this case they need to be treated differently.

But ultimatly we are talking about the mechanics of triggers in-game. And if we are going to read these cards as literally as possible to help that cause, you have to keep in mind that those two terms are different and the assumption can't be made that they should be treated as the same, because they just arn't. If they were meant to be treated as they same in all cases, they would be worded the same.

They are different terms with different meanings.  This is true.

In the exact case we are looking at, and in fact in almost every case in this game they are going to act the same way.  This is also true.

I want to catch the Next bus. I miss the 1st bus. I get on the 2nd bus. I caught the Next bus

This is not a true statement.

Unless your intention to catch the next bus began after missing the first bus.  Otherwise you missed the next bus, and caught the bus after next.

The problem you are having with next is that you are sliding the timing of next, reapplying it after it has expired.

You can't do that in this game.  Setback's base power triggers the next time a hero target would take damage.  Which literally means "The first time after the power is activated."

That is what next is.

The difference between next and First is that when reapplied next will always have a target, the first one after activation.

First time each turn, if applied mid-turn after damage has already been dealt will have already missed the trigger for that turn.

However, if at the start of the turn both "next" and "first" are active, they will resolve the exact same way.

What you are doing by making next apply after the first trigger post activation is the same as reapplying it.  You are changing the activation timing of the effect.  The effect is already active, and it doesn't get a do-over if its trigger is missed anymore than "first" does.

Its like saying, "Well I missed the first bus, but I'll get the first after that."

In common speech we often reapply next haphazardly, but in game terms "Next" has a definitive point of activation.  Every effect that uses next has a set time that it starts looking for the "next" trigger.

Thats not a problem at all though. Thats the entire point of using the word "next" because the nature of the world allows that kind of sliding, given a context in which it makes sense.

We have already have rulings where this sliding of timing does happen.

Haka uses Shielding on himself to reduce the next instance of damage. Two instances of 2 damage come his way and the first lest say is redirected by Wrest the Mind. That "Next" damage that would have been dealt to Haka after the card was played was that First instance of damage that would have been dealt, and that subsequently got redirected.

So was Shielding used on that particular "next" instance of damage? No it wasn't. It will still go on to reduce the 2nd instance of damage coming to him.

"Next" shifted from the first instance of damage to the second instance of damage. It quite literally still reduced the "next" instance of damage he would have taken.

We have to read it literally, and It literally is a more flexible term than "First" because that explicitly specifies the point of timing. If Haka of Shielding said to reduce the First amount of damage that would be dealt, then the card would not work as it currently does because it specifically can't affect the Second amount of damage that would have been dealt as that defies the conditional clause of the effect.

I think you guys are arguing over something that doesn't really matter. The REAL point of contention here isn't whether or not the second instance of damage counts as the first, after redirecting. The point is ACTUALLY whether or not the first one STILL COUNTS AS THE FIRST ONE after it gets redirected, or if it simply ceases to have happened. If it ceases to have happened, then the next one he gets hit with would still be the first one, since the "true" first one got nullified before it went through.

However, I do not believe that to be the case. I think the correct answer is that for "would be dealt damage" effects, it is used up -- It has already been targeted, so the first bus has already come and gone -- but for "is dealt damage," it is not, as he didn't actually get on.

I think McBehrer is right.  As much fun as this is, we have strayed off topic.

I also happen to agree with his interpretation of the rules, but that's a seperate issue.

Haka uses Shielding on himself to reduce the next instance of damage. Two instances of 2 damage come his way and the first lest say is redirected by Wrest the Mind. That "Next" damage that would have been dealt to Haka after the card was played was that First instance of damage that would have been dealt, and that subsequently got redirected.

So was Shielding used on that particular "next" instance of damage? No it wasn't. It will still go on to reduce the 2nd instance of damage coming to him.

That first instance of damage was dealt to someone else.  It doesn't count for "next time Haka would be dealt," because that damage is already resolved, and Haka wasn't damaged, didn't reduce it, didn't have anything to do with the final result.  The dealer, Wrest the Mind and the Target the damage resolved against were involved in the process.  All of those effects and targets count the damage as involving them.  Haka and all of his effects had nothing to do with the result.

So Shielding would reduce the second, because the second instance of damage is the first time since Haka of Shielding was used that Haka would be dealt damage.

Ok made an account just so I can throw my two cents in :P. Just to clarify this is my opinion and until there is an official ruling on how it works this is just how I play it as far as double redirects and such. The big thing  havent really seen mentioned on this thread is the order of operations (not PEMDAS). By order of operations I mean where it says in the rulebook under conflict resolution, " Over the course of the game, there are situations in which multiple effects would occur simultaneously or have competing effects. In all situations, card effects that happen simultaneously occur in the order in which the card entered play".

So the way I see it playing out is :

1) Some time throughout the game Player1 has played two redirects (redirects the first damage) and lets say a damage reduction card.

2) The Villian attacks player1 with 2 Damage

3) Since card priority goes in the order in which they were played, the damage hits the first redirect and it activates it since its the first damage.

4) When the redirect activates it changes the damage to the new target and is no longer targeting player1. So by the time that damage hits the second target it is no longer considered the first damage for Player1 as far as every card after the first redirect is concerned.

5) So when the villian sends a second attack for 2 damage to player1 it gets to the first redirect which has been activated due to "first damage" having already been dealt to it, and bypasses it.  (When that first damage hit the redirect it was considered the first damage to player1 at the time it was activated, even tho it was changed to a different player afterwards.)

6) The damage then goes to the next card in the order which out of the three would be the second redirect. The second redirect has never seen any damage so it activates since it is the new first damage since the other was redirected and changed from player1 to a new target therefore becoming the new targets damage. The second redirect goes off and changes the target just as the first had.

7) And finally if a third damage gets sent it bypasses the two previous redirects (since both have seen "first damage") and hits the third card which reduces the damage and finally true "first damage" is dealt to the hero..... if any is left after the reduction of course lol.

Sorry if this format is bad lol.. It was going to be rough draft but looking back I am way to lazy to spruce it up.. I think is shows what I mean tho. And as I said before this is just how I see it and by no way say this is how everyone else needs to do it. Without and official ruling there is no right way set in stone.

Without reading the rest of your post, this is currently incorrect as per the most current order of operations ruling by Christopher. It was issued after the printing of the Enhanced Edition so it's totally reasonable why you might have missed it. Maybe we can get a mod to sticky that thread somewhere in the rules forum or where other errata announcements are posted?

Unless they are Star/End of turn effects, simultaneous effects occur in the order of players choice.

Link to the ruling: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/timing-and-order-of-operations-4347

Also, Welcome to the forums!

Welcome to the forums! Now that you’re here, post more!

Ah I See. I appriciate the update on that. Since its still the players choice in the matter the post still works I do believe. Thanks again for the update on simultaneous effects.

Here is what you are missing though. Let me know if this changes anything for you.

1. On the first instance of damage you mention, we can all agree that the redirection triggers. The trigger clause that allowed the redirection effect is conditional on the timing being "the first time you would be dealt damage". But it does trigger. That instance of damage, even though redirected, has been tagged as "the first" (else the card would never trigger in the first place right?)

2. Logically, there can not be two seperate instances of anything that can be considered "the first". There can only be one first, which makes any subsequent instances the 2nd, 3rd, ect. This is where a lot of people have trouble, but the first is the first. Anything after the first no longer is the first.

3. It doesn't really matter if the second redirection card ever triggered or not because its trigger clause technically can't be fullfilled. Once the one instance of damage was tagged as "first" (to make the redirection trigger at all), you can't go back and say "well it wasn't really the first, but now this next one really is the first". No, if the previous instance was indeed the first (which is was because we triggered the effect labeling it as much), the next instance will no longer meet the requirments of the second redirection cards trigger clause.

It's kinda late, and I may not have worded that really well. But the first is the first. Anything after that can never be considered the first again. Trigger clauses are important to read literally.

My question was more of is it still first damage when you change the target and have to recalculate damage and if not, would not one still stay activated because if theres two redirects the first wouldnt have to activate because there would be no threat of a first damage because the second would guarantee that there was no damage being dealt. I know I over think things. My problem was I wasnt sure where exactly would be damage "would be damaged" is calculated in the chain of events. I was thinking of redirects as someone basically saying hey im gonna attack you and then as the attack goes through your first redirect sees the damage coming and basically says "nope... your gonna attack someone else" . Then the attacks then targeted to a different target where everything is recalculated again. ( I know thats a very crude version and theres a lot more involved but I wanted to be quick lol). Tho with all that being said I have changed my stance on it after reading Pydros Post https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/dealing-damage-timing-clarification-6047 .

Here's my counter argument.

We already know that effects that affect damage dealt reset when they are redirected.  This works because the damage is recalculated from the start.

Therefore that "First time would be dealt" redirection actually cancels that "would be dealt damage" clause.

The only effects that are expended are ones that are necessary to the redirection.

So if Tachyon would be dealt 3 damage by Baron Blade but Synaptic changes the target to Baron Blade, then that instance of damage does not count as "would have dealt" damage to Tachyon.  If later in the turn something tries to damage Tachyon it will be the first time whe "Would be dealt" damage.

It will work the same if Wrest the Mind chooses a different target, or if Hypersonic assault prevents Baron from dealing 3 damage to Tachyon.  The attack resolves, the damage wasn't reduced to 0 while targetting Tachyon, it didn't reduce her HP, it wasn't dealt to her.

The same instance of damage can't be dealt to 2 targets.  If one of them takes damage the other can't.

This has to be true for the ruling on redirection and "next damage" to work.

If your turn starts with both a "next time dealt damage" and a "first time this turn dealt damage" active, they must work the same.

Either that or Christopher's English degree was a huge waste of time and this game is rewriting the meaning of words.

Here is my counter argument: we only know that all modifiers are canceled and recalculated, nothing had ever said that the designation of “would be dealt damage” goes away.

In fact, it makes very little sense for it to go away. That would mean that NightMist can redirect the first damage, have the first damage dealt be canceled, then redirect the next etc.

Nothing had ever said that it is first time for each card/power, only the first tome a target is dealt damage, so clearly that can’t work.

Or, comparing "first time" with "next time" is not possible, due to the fact that both act differently and thus cannot be used to compare one another. 

First time, trigger multiple times, but only a single time per round or turn.

Next time, triggers once.

Actually they don't. Here is a scenario where "next time dealt damage" and "first time dealt damage will work differently.

A attacks B. A's damage is reduced to 0 or less from other sources. B has "next time reduce damage by X." and "The first time you were dealt damage, redirect it."

In this case, the "next damage" is used up but the "first time" is not. They are two different cases with different rules.

I would say that these cases are not similar. In the case of redirection, all modifiers are canceled, but the designation of "would be dealt damage" still hangs around (otherwise you can redirect "first damage" indefinitely). However, not being able to deal damage is completely different. The attack doesn resolve at all, nothing happens, the attack is completely prevented. Therefore, there are no modifiers and a designation of "would be dealt damage" was never applied.

But that's not always true.

We saw this with PW Haka/Shielding and Fixer's Mantis. Haka Shields Fixer. Fixer gets dealt an instance of 4 damage. Shielding brings it to 2 so Mantis redirects it. Fixer no longer has Shielding even after the redirection "recalculated and rest" the damage, as Shielding was nessesarily used. This ruling directly contradicts your above statement.

Both Ronway and I have outlined numberous times exactly how "first time" and "next time" are not exactly the same thing. I even made a little English experiment to demonstrate this. It has not been refuted (mainly because it can't)

This is a pretty bad example. Synaptic Interuption does not have the conditional trigger clause of "first time" and even includes the optional term "may". You can use Synaptic ANY time you could be dealt 3 or more damage. This example can't prove what you want it to.

I agree with this. Since cards dont "exhaust" or "Tap" like other games if the "would be dealt damage" just went away after the redirect there would be nothing there telling it that it can't redirect again after each redirect.

Ronway pointed out that "first time each turn" restarts each turn, "Next time" doesn't.

That isn't being debated.

You showed that you don't redirect 0 damage.  That is all.  First vs. Next had nothing to do with your example.  If both of the effects said first time each turn they would resolve the same way, because you were comparing different effects.

If you take any effect that says "next time dealt damage," and the same effect but word it "the First time each turn" then inside of a single turn that starts with the either effect active, it will necessarily act the same.

Therefore any situation where we get a ruling on how "Next" works inside of a single turn, will affect how "First time" would work in the same scenario.

That's all there needs to be said.  The effects will act the same under these conditions.  So if your damage reduction is first time each turn, or next time, and the redirection vs. consumable reduction comes up the ruling we have will apply.

Because the only difference between "Next" and "First" is when they are active.  If the game situation has both active at the same time, they will act the same.

Just like Galvanize, while active, works the same as the buff from Inspiring Presence while it is in play.

The only difference they have is when they are active.

Good lord, this again.

"Next" is always available, it can always be the next time you take damasge. "First" is not, it may not be the first time you took damage. That's a critical difference. Maybe you're parsing "active at the same time" in an odd way, but the fact is, next can be triggered when first can't, and technically first is still hanging out unused and unable to trigger.

For example, you take damage at the start of your turn, play a card with a first or next trigger, and then with your power, do damage to someone who hits you back. "Next" works in that situation, "first" does not, both are active and untriggered. The wording makes the difference.

Next literally means:

The first time after Next is stated that it happens.

Let's go back to the bus example

Two men standing at the bus stop.

They both say "Let's get on the next bus that stops here."

A bus pulls up, one man gets on, the other doesn't.

A second bus pulls up, the other man gets on it.

Only one man got on the next bus.

In the instance I gave they will act the same.  Seriously.  The majority of the time when you activate an ability that triggers on "the next time you would be dealt damage" that damage is likely to be the first time you are dealt damage on whatever turn you are dealt damage.

The ONLY time The Next damage you would be dealt is not the first damage you are dealt in a turn is requires:

1.  The effect not being active at the start of your turn.

2.  damage effect trigger occurs while the effect is not active.

3.  The effect is activated.

4.  Damage dealt trigger activated while it is still the same turn.

That is the only way a "Next Time you would be dealt damage" effect will be different from the same effect with "The first time each turn you would be dealt" as the trigger.

Two men say they are going to walk into the next bar they see. Only one walks into it. The other laughs.

???

seriously we need an official ruling on this.

Can we isolate an easy in game example to get a ruling on? Are we going with the double superhuman redirection with 2 instances if damage example? And honestly this is probably the last thing Christopger will want to answer after a cruise. Maybe MigrantP can lend an opinion. He has to be kinda good with rules stuff these days. 

He didn't say anything about them using the door.

The overarching question is whether redirected or prevented damage counts as "would have dealt damage" after it is redirected/prevented.

A good example would be the one mentioned on the Sentinels + Guise thread, if Guise had Uh, Yeah, I'm that guy copying the Sentinels with Human Shield + Caligunous Form in play, and had Beefcake in play would Guise be able to redirect 2 instances of damage or one?

I'm so sick of the rerurgitating of the same bad argument again I might barf mysef. If on next damge gets bypassed, it obviously triggers the next time you take damage, because the next time is still in play. Always. Any time you take damage, until the effect is removed from play, it's the next time.

Since next effects tend to get used up permanently, and first ones don't, this is fine from a game balance perspective.

that is restarting the effect.

Next doesn't self-perpetuate, it has to be reactivated.

I'm so sick of the rerurgitating of the same bad argument again I might barf mysef.

And I get tired of explaining the meaning of words to people who don't seem capable of picking up a dictionary or understanding the concept of timing.

I guess we all have our burdens to bear.

Your entire concept of next is based on the idea that if you miss the next one, there is always the next one after that.  But that is a falacy, because that one is the one after next.  First time each turn reactivates every turn, Next reactivates when you freaking reactivate the ability, not whenever you want it to.

It's like I'm talking to a brick wall, which is why we need to drop this and wait for an official ruling.

That's just it: if it wasn't used, there's no need to reactivate. It didn't trigger. Dictionary, meet brick wall #1, dictionary, meet brick wall #2. But any dictionary that insists first = next is a really odd one.

Seriously, listen to the context.

At the start of your turn, the first damage you are dealt that turn will also be the next damage you are dealt.

That is a fact.  

Read through this thread, Every page or so we get someone new rehashing this, I'm not saying first is next, I'm saying they will work the same in the examples that have been given by me throughout this thread.

Can I suggest that we stop here? All that's happening is that the same arguments are being repeated over and over again, and people are getting pissed off and neither side is close to convincing the other.

Let's ask for an official answer, huh?

And its also fact that anything after the first of something can also be labeled as the "next" one. 

On to the next argument. And the next argument. And the next argument after that. They are all technically "next" are they not? Is this not also a correct usage of the word? 

Can we get an in game example to illustrate what we are arguing? I think we have totally lost sight of any practical application this discussion might have had. At least I have. Idk about anyone else.

I agree with Silverleaf, but I would like to come up with a list of related scenarios, so that when we do get an answer, it applies to all of them.  If we can find the really weird corner cases now, then we're less likely to go through this pain a second time.

To start the list:

Advanced Iron Legs (Motivated by Desperation) has 2 Superhuman Redirections out, and is attacked for 4, 5, & 5.

Advanced La Capitan (Split Across Time) has 3 cards under her, and is attacked for 2, 2, 2, 2, & 2

Fright Train has Engine of Destruction out, with Bloogo next to him with 1 HP, and is attacked for 1, 1, & 1.

4) Guise has Total Beefcake and Uh, Yeah, I'm That Guy! (copying Writhe's Caliginous Form), and is attacked for 1, 1, & 1.

Foote what you are saying is equivalent to:

Let's move past the first argument, and on the the first argument after that one, and then we'll have the first argument after that argument.

You are reapplying the effect.

Once "Next" is used, the timing starts, for Next to carry on past the first instance after next is used, it has to be used again.

If you miss the Bus, you can say "I'll get the next one." because you are applying the effect when you say it.

If I say:

"I'll catch the next bus."

And a bus stops and leaves and I don't get on, I missed the Next bus.

If I say:

"That's Okay, I'll catch the next one."

I can do that, because I just reapplied the effect.

It doesn't undo the truth that the first statement "I'll catch the next bus" didn't happen.  It failed.

Only the second statement of next ended up happening.

I understand we need an official ruling, and that people might look at this thread and say it has gone on long enough.

But it is staying civil, and we are clarifying the question so we understand what to ask so we get an official answer that resolves the situation.

With respect, I don't think you are clarifying. I'm just seeing the same stuff about buses over and over again.

Time for official ruling accroding to the app! (sort of, I don't thnk it covers a situation with 2 "first time" which makes no sense to me, but it does clarify things, and 'slightly' changes my stance):

Situation:

Ambuscade has Charged attacks out, Legacy has Lead from the Front, and Ra has Flame Barrier (see where I am going with this...)

First device destroyed causes Amby to target Ra and redirects to Legacy, second device in the same turn targets Ra, activates Flame Barrier...and that's it.

Still doesn't change my stance. As Flame Barrier uses "is dealt damage", not "would be dealt damage". Sadly, I think the first "the first time x target would be dealt damage" that is in the game is Mixter Fixer's Driving Mantis. 

Good point. I didn’t think of that.

Is Mixter Fixer some new DJ? 

The newest Argent Adept alt.

Power: Activate a perform text. You and one other target take 2 sonic damage.

I figured he was more of a drummer.

Here's a question that might help get this answered:

Can the First time a target would be "Dealt Damage" also not be the first time a target "would be dealt damage"?

Example:

Guise has Wounding Buffer on him, Total Beefcake in play, and is copying KNYFE's Infiltrate and obfuscate.

An Environment target attempts to deal Guise damage, It is redirecte by either I&O or Beefcake.

A different Environment target attempts to deal Guise damage.

We have 2 options:

1.  It is not redirected, and deals damage, which triggers Wounding Buffer when Guise's HP is reduced, because it is the first time Guise is "Dealt Damage".

2.  It is Redirected by the card that did not redirect the other instance of damage, because it counts as the first time Guise "would be dealt damage".

If 1 is true, then we have a case where the first time Guise would be "Dealt Damage" is not the first time Guise "would be dealt damage".  That seems a bit nonsensical to me, and unnecessarily complex, but obviously others don't see it that way.

If 2 is true, then it must be that "Would be dealt damage" and would be "dealt damage" mean the same thing.

The interpretation I support would have an effect that triggers when Guise "would be dealt damage the first time" makes exactly 2 checks before activating or not:

1.  Is Guise the target of damage?

2.  Has Guise been dealt damage this turn?

If answer 1 is yes, and answer 2 is no then it is the first time Guise would be dealt damage this turn, no matter where you put the quotes.

Otherwise the list of checks is actually pretty complicated, because we are treating prevention and redirection and reduction and first and next all differently to create a very complicated equation to figure out if effects trigger or not.

Frankly I hope that isn't the case.

Does anyone see a problem with this example as a question to pose for a ruling?

Can the first time a target "would be dealt damage" also not be "dealt damage"?

We already know that answer is yes, that's the whole point of Would Be, it triggers before resolution.  There is no reason to ask Christopher that question.

I have created a short summary of this entire thread.

Well, I can't truthfully say I created it.  But you know what I mean!

There we have it folks! We can finally move on from this and never speak of buses again.

No, seriously Ronway, do you remember the order of operations and how many questions kept coming up because none of the questions we asked were sufficient?

Ha ha, you made a funny, but can we seriously come up with a question that will resolve this issue?

Hmm? I am failing to see where the issue still lies. We know "would be dealt damage" can have effects that prevent being "dealt damage". Thus we also know that "would be dealt damage" can occur more frequently than being "dealt damage". So the first time a target is "dealt damage" doesn't have to be the first time a target "would be dealt damage".

As for the crazy order of operations thing. I took no part in that, I don't need to think about what I am doing, I just do!

The order of operations is wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9h1oqv21Vs

Do you see a way that Christopher could answer that question that won't resolve the issue?  Beccause I think it will answer the issue no matter what side you are on.

You don't need to agree with me on how it should resolve, just whether or not answering that question resolves the dispute.

That was great.

Semantic Satiation

Also, for that one last extra bit of mind screw that I don't think we've covered yet:  

If damage is directed at a target, redirected away, and then redirected back to the original target, would this be treated like it was still the first attack, or as if it was a second attack.

In other words:  should the following two cases have the same result (for Guise)

1)Guise has Total Beefcake out, and is attacked for 5 damage.  That damage is redirected to Iron Legacy, who redirects it back to Guise.  

2)Guise has Total Beefcake out, and is attacked for 5 damage.  He is then attacked for another 5 damage.

When total Beefcake redirects the damage its effect is consumed, it can't redirect twice.

Effects are not consumed, they trigger everytime their condition is met.

In the case of "first time x would be dealt damage each turn", that will trigger everytime it is the first time x would be dealt damage each turn. If somehow a target manages to achieve this twice in the same turn (not sure how, as nothing occurs simultaneously, so whatever happens after the first would have to be the second, followed by third, then fourth, etc.) then that will trigger twice. 

It's even the same case with "next damage dealt" effects. Sure it take the appearance of being consumed, but what is actually going on is the effect has no means to trigger again. As once the "next damage dealt" has been dealt, there will not be another next for the purposes of whatever created the effect in the first place. 

Take effects that occur at the end of a specific turn. Why do we only trigger those once? Not because they are consumed afterwards. It's because they tell you to activate at the end of that turn, which only happens once, as every turn only has one end of turn. This is why Sub-zero Atmosphere can allow the villain end of turn effects trigger twice if it is destroyed before the end of the villain turn. If effects were consumed, only the end of villain turn effects that didn't trigger at the start of the villain turn would trigger at the end.

Short answer: Effects are not consumed, they trigger whenever possible.

I disagree. In the case of Haka of Sheilding and Driving Mantis, we saw that even though Fixer had not been dealt damage, the shielding was consumed because it was required in order to trigger the redirect. With Guise and Iron Legacy, Guise's redirect had to happen in order to prevent his "first damage." Not to mention, if Guise WAS able to redirect again, it would cause an infinite back-and-forth loop between him and IL (since they would both have the same HP, and their conditions would still be met for redirection).

Not sure if this was what you were arguing against or not.

Not more of the first and next being the same. Nevermind, i'm out before we get into buses agian.

I'm not saying they're the same. I'm saying effects don't always trigger whenever possible. The Haka of Shielding example proves that.

I disagree. It activated precisely when it was supposed to.

Whether or not Fixer actually takes damage has nothing to do with wether or not the "next damage" will be consumed. All modifiers happen at the same time in the damage order sequence: Determine attack type -> determine all modifiers. The game doesn't check to see if it applies before applying the trigger. As soon as the next damage will be dealt, the modifier applies. However, we have a separate rule that sometimes, retroactively, things are canceled. So, in the case of a normal redirection, all modifiers are canceled. If it is required for the redirection, then it isn't canceled. This is the reason (and the only reason) why it wouldn't be "consumed". This is exactly what Christopher said, that the reason is because everything is canceled, not because it didn't deal damage. Therefore, "next damage" will always apply the next time damage is being attempted (except when you can't deal damage, then the entire sequence is canceled immediately), and only sometimes will retroactively get canceled (i.e., redirection, prevention, etc.).

Note, that if there isn't a specific effect that cancels it, it will get consumed, even if it had no effect: For example, Stealth gets consumed against irreducible damage, even though it had no effect (nothing cancels it). Haka of Shielding will get consumed in a 1 damage attack with Ta Moko out (nothing is canceling it).

Whatever the question we are arguing, it's been long since lost. We need to refocus the question at hand back into an in-game scenario. You think Christopher is going to slog through this bog of a thread at this point to strain it out himself?

So, lets refocus.

I'm going to rephrase the argument against A. Let's go back to the basics of the game engine. Triggers and Effects.

1. Both Beefcake and Infiltrate & Obfuscate share the exact same trigger clause. "The first time [Target] would be dealt damage each turn"

2. When two cards share the exact same trigger clause, if one triggers, then they both trigger. 

3. Char (Environment target) targets Guise with two instances of 2 damage. When we resolve the first instance of 2 damage, that triggers "The first time [Target] would be dealt damage each turn" clause. Both Beefcake and I&O trigger.

3.A) Guise chooses to resolve Beefcake first, then redirects the damage.

3.B) I&O doesn't have damage to redirect any longer so does nothing.

4. We start to resolve the second instance of 2 damage.

If A is Correct:

5. I&O triggers to redirect the second instance of 2 damage.

5.A) I&O can only trigger if it's trigger clause is met.

5.B) If I&O's trigger clause is met, and shares the exact same trigger clause as Beefcake, then it follows that Beefcake must also trigger.

"But I&O wasn't 'consumed', so it can trigger while Beefcake was 'consumed' so it wont"

Ongoing effects are not dictaed by whether they were used or not. They are only dictated by whether their trigger condition is met. 

If you want to argue that I&O triggers on that second instance of damage, then you have to nessesarily argue that the trigger clause for that redirection effect is being met. No way around that.

Now, if we are saying that the second instance of damage is now being considered "The first time" (and it has to be if you want I&O to trigger at all) due to the first redirection reseting the attack, what stops a 3rd instance of damage from also being considered "The first time" after the second redirection? If a first redirection can reset what is considered the "first time you would be dealt damage that turn", why wouldn't the second redirection? Now we have a case where a 3rd instance of damage is also considered "the first time you would be dealt damage that turn", which nessesarily would meet the trigger clause requirments of Beefcake and I&O.

Whether you actually agree or not, you just set yourself up for a solid argument for infinite redirections under this interpretation of the rules.

If B is Correct:

5. Beefcake and I&O both triggered in step #3, both recognizing that the first instance of 2 damage Guise recieved as "The first time [Target] would be dealt damage each turn". Guise could have resolved either one first in step #3.A remember.

5.A) It now follows that this second instance of 2 damage now must be labled as "The second time [Target] would be dealt damage this turn". 

5.B) The trigger clause for I&O and Beefcake are both considered (both are still active ongoing effects), but can not be met, so neither effect can trigger.

5.C) Guise takes 2 damage

Clean. Simple. Follows all the rules we know about how trigger clauses and effects work. I like it.

This whole debate of "Next" vs "First" I think is 100% pointless.  Ongoing effects are, and have always been, dictated by their trigger clause.

Yeah, the effect triggered, was used up, even though under similar conditions it might not be used.

The word consumed is entirely me, it is not an official term, I just use it denote that that effect is no longer active/viable.

@Killswitch:

Going off of what Pydro said, the type of effect is important to keep in mind:

1)We know by official ruling that all damage modifiers and targets get re-assesed after a redirection effect.

2. Haka of Shielding is a damage modifier effect.

3. After a redirect, as long as Shielding wasn't nessesary for the redirection to trigger, Shielding also reasseses along with any other effect that modifies damage.

The lack of consensus (let alone sheer confusion) here is partly why I wanted to stay out of this one.

In the case of "first time x would be dealt damage each turn", that will trigger everytime it is the first time x would be dealt damage each turn. If somehow a target manages to achieve this twice in the same turn (not sure how, as nothing occurs simultaneously, so whatever happens after the first would have to be the second, followed by third, then fourth, etc.) then that will trigger twice.

So let me ask this: when would the case of "first time x would be dealt damage each turn" ever happen twice?

It wouldn't. Thats our entire argument here.

Perfect, I'm in the same camp then.

The problem is that Next works the same way as first in certain circumstances.

And in one of those circumstances we have a ruling that "would be dealt damage" can trigger, then redirect, and a second "would be dealt damage" can still count as the first damage dealt since the "next" effect was activated.

Because that is what Next means.

on the first or soonest occasion after the present; immediately afterward

Two instances of damage cannot both be the next instance of damage, just like 2 instances of damage cannot both be the first instance of damage.

So we have a problem.

I am not going to assume that this game misuses next just because other people assume that.  I'm going to need to hear "I don't give a crap about what words mean" from Christopher himself, I'm not taking anyone's word for it.

But not all circumstances. Therefore this line of argument is invalid.

And it doesn't matter at all. Look at the last few posts.

Edit:

Two instances of damage cannot both be the next instance of damage

The next time each turn that Mister Fixer would be dealt 2 or less damage, you may redirect that damage to a target of your choice.

Reduce the first damage dealt to Haka be 2 for each card discarded this way.

Here we have Driving Mantis and Haka of Shielding, with "next" and "first" switched between the two.

Driving Mantis doesn't make sense to me. I have no idea what it is trying to do. Haka of Shielding on the other hand, I can kind of grasp what it is trying to do, but not very clear.

Thank you for pointing out that Next and first, as I have been saying the entire time, differ by their point of activation.

First always requires a start point for tracking.  Like:

The first time today

The first time each turn

The first time ever

Next doesn't, because it starts tracking from the moment you activate the word.  Normally that is by saying the word, in this game it is by activating the effect that is tied to "Next".  You would accomplish this by using a power that uses next, or playing a card that uses next.

The reason First is used in the card game is for effets that reset, and can happen once per turn/round, but not multiple times inside that time period.

Next is used for effects that don't reset, and only trigger once per use of the effect.

But once you say/activate "Next" it starts tracking, and the first occurance of the event you are looking for will be the event that is "Next."  At that point Next is done, the effect is over, and will not trigger until the effect that uses next is activated again, by using a power, incap, playing a card, etc.

The second instance is the "next" instance after the first instance. You telling me that is not correct use of the word next?

The second instance is the "first" instance after the previous instance. You telling me that is not correct use of the word first?

When you restart the tracking you restart the effect.  You can't just reapply an effect in this game because you want to, Haka of Battle requires the card to be played, and directions followed.  As soon as that card is played tracking begins, and it looks for the next damage, not 1 of the next 2 damages.

You are missing the forest for the trees.

You're entire argument hinges on the Haka Shielding/Mantis ruling. But Haka of Shielding is reassesed after a redirection because it is a damage modifying effect, and by rule all damage modifier effects get reassesed. Nothing to do with "next" or "first" or anything.

I have no idea what you're even trying to argue for anymore. Can we go back to in game examples please?

As for your initial in game example from my post in #127, I don't even know what you are arguing for anymore. Are you in camp A? It can't work that way and I outlined why. Are you in camp B? If so we can end this thread right now because we all agree.

I'm in camp B myself, but for a slightly different reason.

I'm at odds with "When two cards share the exact same trigger clause, if one triggers, then they both trigger" because I'm used to not resolving anything in SotM simultaneously. Wouldn't you trigger one or the other first, and then check to see if the second card still meets the requirements?

The way I would play it is: Environment deals two types of damage to Guise. Beefcake redirects the first, and I&O has nothing to redirect. It doesn't do anything because it has nothing futher to redirect from the "first" damage. The second damage hits Guise, not because I&O was expended per se, but because it is no longer the first damage.

Is that an okay way to look at it?

Resolution is different than the Triggering.

Everything still triggers simultaneously. But as per the rulebook, you don't resolve the effects simultaneously. You resolve simultaneous triggers in order of players choosing. 

Reassess is not reapply.

Let me spell out my thoughts again and see if this clears up what I am saying:

DW Setback uses Mitigate

Tachyon plays Synaptic Interruption.

Villain A tries to deal Tachyon 5 damage.

Mitigate and Synaptic both trigger.

Mitigate reduces it by 2, Synaptic redirects the damage.  We know from the ruling that Mitigate is not consumed, it is still active.

But the Next time a hero would be dealt damage has occurred, and has passed.  The window of triggering Mitigate is over.

The only way for that not to be true is:

1.  Redirection restarts a very specific set of effects, without requiring the cost to be paid again, and only if their application was not needed for the redirection.

-or-

2.  The "would be dealt" status is cancelled, and treated as if no hero would have been dealt damage by the attack that was redirected. (assuming the redirection was to a non-hero)  The effect of Synaptic is not undone, because it was needed for the redirection to occur.

I am firmly in camp #2.

The last time we had rules start getting this crazy ended in Christopher changing order of operations to be player choice outside of Start and End of turn effects.

When you start having to account for things like "did the reduction say first or next, and was the initial damage prevented or redirected or reduced to 0, and did reduction matter to the redirection or prevention?" I start to think this is not the intent of the game, and the answer is something far simpler.

That's why I think the most effective way to resolve this is to have a simple question for Next/first.

Has the target been dealt damage this turn?  If no then this is the first time the target would be dealt damage this turn.

or

Has the target been dealt damage since Haka of Battle was played?  If no, then it is the next time that target has been dealt damage.

It is simple, it is elegant, and it removes the fiddliness.

Doesn't matter. Modifiers are on a different wavelength than reduction, as they will always be figured first. So take Fright Train with Engine of Destruction. If his damage is somehow redirected and this damage increase to himself was no needed, then he will still have the damage increase for the following strike, as he never took the damage. Just like effects that deal with "next". I see why you are finding the other way so much more fiddly, if you think this is something you ahve to account for.

Prevention and redirection will yield the same, it would of been dealt, but not actually dealt. Where reduced to 0 means that neither cases happen. Seems easy to me, reduced to 0, you just move on. If prevented or redirected, you have now would of been dealt damage once, so nothing triggering on the first time you would of been dealt damage for each turn will not trigger again.

This doesn't seem complicated either. Mister Fixer is the only one that requires under, so really only checking in games with a single hero.

Looks like your infavor for unlimited first time each turn redirections and temporary DR that will last as long as you can avoid taking damage.

This forum needs a popcorn smiley.

/Sigh

You do realise that #1 is already an official rule? Redirection does "restart a very specific set of effects". Damage Modifier effects! We have know this for a long time, and Haka Shielding/Mantis ruling backs this ruling up. Mantis redirects, and Shielding, being the damage modifier effect that we all know it is, gets reset. Same thing with Mitigate. Since Mitigate was not nessesary for Synaptic to trigger, the redirection resets Mitigate and it continues to be active.

But lets roll with your #2 for a moment.

Guise has Beefcake out and gets targeted by Char for two instances of 2 damage. First instance Guise redirects it. The "would be dealt" status is cancelled and treated as if Guise would not have been dealt damage by the attack that he redirected. The 2nd instance of damage comes his way. Since this now would be "the first time Guise would be dealt damage" (remember you canceled that status last attack?), Beefcake meets it's trigger condition and he redirects the 2nd instance of damage. Due to the redirect, the "would be dealt" status is cancelled again and treated as if Guise would not have been dealt damage by that attack. Guise now gets hit for a third instance of damage from another source, and since this is currently "the first time Guise would be dealt damage", he redirects it again. Congrats. You just made Guise is invincible.

Do you see the flaw in #2? Whether you like it or not, that interpretation opens the door for the argument above. It can't work that way.

That's what I've been saying.  We know that damage redirected doesn't count as "the next time a target would be dealt damage", but people are arguing that it does count as "the first time a target would be dealt damage".

Under my view it doesn't matter, because they both act the same.

Nope, we already have a ruling preventing that, since effects necessary to the redirection are used up.  An effect is obviously necessary to its own effect.

There is no ruling that says effects restart.  There is a ruling that says they are re-evaluated, but restarting is a whole different thing than re-evaluating.

See above, it is clearly stated in the Haka ruling that effects necessary to the redirection are used up.

So, just to clarify, in order to redirect you need the “first time being dealt damage”. Since that is necessary for the redirection, it is used up.

There is no card that says "next time a target would be dealt damage", if it did, it would act similar to that of "first time a target would be dealt damage". Currently everything that uses "next" are just damage modifiers.

I recommend looking at the cards again and coming up with a new theory, as your agruements are based on cards that do not exist.

Nonsense. SotM has no consideration whatsoever for "re-evaluated vs restarting" and theres no official ruling out there to make the case that there is.

I'm calling horsefeathers on this one boys.

Ronway:  Wraith's Character card.

Foote:  Restart means to start again.  Re-evaluate means to Evaluate again or differently.

Since Start does not mean the same thing as Evaluate the two terms are different.

We don't need official rulings that say SotM follows definitions of words.  If you want to ascribe a completely different meaning to the words used in an official ruling, then the burden of proof falls on you.

So Wraith uses Stealth, something tries to attack her, but Stealth Bot or Smoke Bombs redirects that damage away from her, and her reduction is lost?  We can check that pretty easily.

What would this prove? I think we would all agree that Stealth would stay active after either one of those redirections.

Stealth is still a damage modifier effect, which puts it squarely under the ruling of re-assesing damage modifier effects after a redirection. 

If you want to play around with "re-assesing" and "re-starting" garbage argument, "next" seems to also get re-assesed after the redirection because again, its a damage modifier effect. The effect doesn't have to "restart" or whatever you wanna call it, but the context with which "next" is viewed gets re-assesed when the entire effect does.

Still a damage modifier, one that could also a errata that words in like the rest of the "next" modifiers. Note that Superhuman Durability, Shielding Winds, Undaunted, etc. all use "would" as well, but still trigger with all other modifiers, taking place before any other "would be dealt damage" effects take place. So I repeat, "next" only deals with damage modifiers

At the risk of bringing back the unholy mess that is this thread, now that Christopher's back do you think we can get a ruling on this?

We'll have to wait and see. I was actually kinda hoping for something on this matter.

Not a snowballs chance in hell is my guess


Honestly I don't know what we are arguing about at this point.

Have we resolved the "Next" and "First" resolve differently crap?  Because if so then we can actually get back to the original question:

If 2 redirections both using the wording "first time each turn that Default Hero would take damage redirect it" and one damage is redirected and a second damage that turn comes in, can the other redirection effect still activate?

That we could use an official ruling on.

Also, how does Fright Train's Engine of Destruction work with damage prevention?

I definitely don’t want to restart the definition argument, but I also want to keep this on top of the forums so it gets noticed. :-)

One thing I wanted to note was it seems people are taking Christopher's ruling on Driving Mantis/Shielding to mean that modifiers are always applied first.  That is not how I took it.  I took it as an extension of “the players choose the order of events”.  I think this applies broadly to the First vs Next debate.  I like to think of it like it is in the App.  When damage is applied, a box comes up with all the cards that “could” trigger from this event and you choose the first to use.  If you choose a redirect, nothing else happens.  If you choose a modifier, if there is still damage left it gives you the same options minus the one you chose.  You could then select a redirect, and both are used.  So the order you choose them in has more of an effect that the working on the cards.  I think it is the same with multiple redirects.  Like with Beefcake and I/O, if the environment deals him damage, that same box comes up (in my mind) with all the cards that could possibly trigger off that damage.  You select what you want to use.  They both redirect the damage, so the second doesn’t trigger.  If he gets damaged again by the environment in the same turn, the 2 redirection cards would not apply because it is no longer the first time he was damaged.  If he had Shielding/Stealth on him, those would come up as possible effects in the list, but if you don’t choose them, they will keep showing up until they have to be used because you can’t prevent/reduce the damage dealt.

Hope this makes sense.

Just to clarify, the Mantis/Shielding ruling had nothing to do with modifiers being applied first or not. The ruling was that one-time modifiers like Haka of Shielding are used up when they are necessarily applied in cases where they get redirected, but the damage value was necessary for the redirection to occur in the first place. So with Driving Mantis, we see that Fixer must redirect instances of 2 or less damage. Shielding will take the damage down to 1, and gets redirected. Even though damage modifications are re-calculated, Shielding is not re-calculated because it was necessary for Mantis to redirect it, and it can only be used once.

This is not strictly true.  The App presents you with all the effects that could trigger during a particular timing subphase.  Damage Prevention and Redirection effects share a subphase, but this definitely happens before effects that modify the damage Amount.  (For a detailed list of subphases as we currently unerstand them, see this google doc.)

One example where this subphase breakdown can be easily seen in the App is when Twist the Ether is in play, and there are other effects which could change both the Type and Amount.  The Type effects get chosen/resolved first, and only then do you choose the order of Amount effects.

The question we have is would redirection work the same as those damage modifiers.

To me I can't see it not working the same way, effects that aren't used aren't used seems to be a logical way to deal with both, but there is disagreement.

Either way we'll get an answer this fall when Guise becomes part of the Video Game.

Becausr that’s the order they appear in the card text.

While I'm glad to see that this did not devolve into a flame war, please be careful in the future about calling things crap or garbage.  Such language can too easily be taken as pejorative.