Effects attached to damage vs damage reduction

     A co-worker and I have been having a discussion today, I've looked around the forums and could not find an answer. The premiss goes like this: Say I play 'Nimble Strike' and my only available target has damage reduction 1, negating my damage. Am I still able to draw a card?

     Another example would be 'Motivation Charge': If Damage reduction or immunity negates the two damage, do the heroes still regain 1 HP?

     His arguement is that for nimble strike a card is still drawn because the wording on the card is 'may draw a card' and that the heroes do not regain HP because he feels the HP recovery is linked to the damage. I argue both post damage effects occur, but do not have any backup besides there is nothing in the rules that say the effects are linked and it limits options for low damage characters with similar powers that go up against villains with damage reduction.

You resolve each sentance on the card in order.  In the case of nimbke strike you would:

1. Deal 1 target 1 melee damage (resolving any damage buffs/reduction)

2. Draw a card.

This can come in handy sometimes (or be annoying), especially when you have interactions that cause heroes to hurt themselves, or you have other effects that are dependant on you dealing damage.

Here are a few examples:

Promo (Freedom 6) Unity

Unity deals herself 4 energy damage.  Put a Mechanical golem from your hand into play.

First you deal damage (applying any buffs/reductions).  then you play a golem.    This can be pretty painful if Legacy has galvanized/inspiring presenced, but pretty sweet if you've got some way to prevent damage to Unity (for instance, if she is entanged in Ensnaring Brambles, Ethereal bonds, or it was heroically intercepted.)

Hypersonic Assault:

First you deal every non-hero 1 sonic damage. (resolving any redirections, reductions or buffs)

Then, any target that was dealt damage can't deal damage (this effect is dependant on the target taking at least 1 point of damage, so whether you get through any armor in step 1 is VERY important). 

Stun bolt

Deal 1 target 1 projectile damage (resolving reductions/buffs).

Reduce damage by that target by 1 (Note that this reduction is NOT dependant on the stun bolt gettign through armor!)

hope this helps!

If the effects are separate grammatically, then their effects aren't linked and being stopped from doing one doesn't stop the other.  As Braithwaite says, with Nimble Strike, you'll deal the damage (period).  Next, you'll draw a card (period).  If the card was worded so that you "deal 1 target 1 melee damage, then draw a card" and you were prevented from doing the damage, then the linked part about drawing a card would also be prevented.

Just a clarification Spiff, the wording would have to be "deal target X damage, then, if you do, carry out effect Z". The word "then" just implies order, it does not imply dependence.

@ OP, any secondary effect that is dependent upon the initial effect will be worded that way in the sentence. You will get a feel for it as you compare effects and abilities across the game.

Another quick note on Hypersonic Assult: The secondary effect is dependant upon the first, so damage must get through, but it takes effect as soon as damage is done. So if you are facing Matriarch for example, when you play Hypersonic, ping Matriarch first, apply the debuff, then kill all the birds since Matty is prevented from dealing her retaliation damage

Thanks all for your answers. I thought that was the case.

It can be a bit tricky to figure out how some card text should be interpreted, given that you are sometimes expected to stop resolving rules text in mid-sentence (the classic example being Wrest the Mind...if Visionary kills the Wrested target with damage, she never deals any to herself), while other times, a card stays in play long enough to apply a when-destroyed effect (e.g. Sonic Mine or Explosives Wagon).  In most cases, common sense is the correct answer, but this isn't always 100% reliable.

This is why my group will usually ask the questions:

Which way do we think is correct for the card?

Which way is correct for the situation?

Which way will result in the most fun/interesting situation?

Usually we go with what we think is right, but if it isn't clear we look at the next two questions.  Being a cooperative game, and not being that competative a person anyway, I'm more interested in an enjoyable expereince than working everything 100% correctly.