With Amulet of the Elder Gods in play and then Mist Form in play, can Nightmist redirect damage?
Amulet of the Elder Gods: The first time Nightmist would be dealt damage each turn, you may discard 2 cards. If you do, you may redirect that damage to a target of your choice.
Mist Form: Nightmist is immune to damage. etc etc.
So if Nightmist is immue to damage, then she would not have been dealt damage, so Amulet will not trigger?
You can only redirect damage if you were dealt damage, since you are immune to damage while in Mist form, you can not redirect damage from the amulet since no damage was actually dealt. You would essentially be discarding two cards to redirect zero damage.
The act of dealing damage is different from the act of taking damage.
If a card says "deal a hero with the highest HP 5 damage" it's checking to see who a valid target would be. At that point the damage "would be assigned" to nightmist, where upon the amulet triggers to redirect. If you don't activate the amulate, nightmist would take 5 damage, however since she is immune Her health would not decrease.
For cards that trigger "when [some target] is dealt damage", there are official rulings that they need to actually have their HP reduced. However for cards that trigger "when [some target] would be dealt damage" we don't have such rulings and I feel the game plays much better if it just triggers when they are the target of damage, regardless of whether that damage could reduce their HP.
So I allow Amulet of the Elder Gods to work when she is in Mist Form.
I can see the logic in that, but the wording on Amulet states "The time Nightmist would be dealt damage each turn," If she is in Mist Form, she can not be dealt damage which would negate the condition necessary for Amulet of the Elder Gods to activate since she would need to be in a position to take damage before she can redirect it.
I agree with dypaca. It would also apply to Mr Fixer's Jack Handle. Even if the initial target is immune, you would still activate the ability and attempt to deal damage to all non-hero targets.
Similarly, if Citizen Tears were in play witgh the Police Backup, even if the hero did not have any cards in hand to discard, the Police Backup would still be destroyed, even if no card would be actually discarded.
I tend to view the procession as this:
Subject decides on action.
"Would be" actions that are relevant to the decided action trigger.
Original action occurs if possible.
Actions that depend on the outcome occur, such as Wraith's Throat Jab.
Yeah, you can still deal Nightmist damage when she's in Mistform, it's just that nothing will happen because she's immune to it. Just as you could use the Wraith to target the unflipped Chairman with a Stun Bolt - he wouldn't take damage at this stage because he's immune to it, but the damage reduction part of the Stun Bolt would still take effect (because that isn't dealing damage) and do you a favour if an Undivided Attention card came out.
Stun Bolt doesn't say in its description that damage has to be dealt in order for the effect to take place. Amulet specifically states that its effect goes off when Nightmist would take damage. That doesn't read to me the same as whenever she's the target of an attack.
I say that, if a target is immune to damage (or can reduce it to zero), anything that says if that target would be dealt damage, it is ignored (as that target would never be dealt damage), but, anything that says if a source would deal damage to a target (even if that target is immune or reducing damage), it would still have it's effect. It's the same difference I noted earlier (with reguards to Pushing the Limits and Embolden) where one is an action, and the other is the result of the action. In the case of Mister Fixer and the Jackhandle, dealing damage is an action, which triggers on that action, even if the result doesn't occur. In the case of Nightmist taking damage, that's a result of an action of some other source dealing damage, but the immunity prevents the result from occuring, thus no redirection would occur.
And, even if redirection could occur, it would not be a redirection of 0 damage, as, when damage is redirected, the static modifiers are reapplied (e.g., if Mister Fixer would be dealt 3 damage when he has Pipe Wrench and Driving Mantis, Pipe Wrench static modifier would make the damage 2, Driving Mantis would redirect the 2 points of damage (redirects damage of 2 or less), at which point Pipe Wrench static modifier would no longer apply as Mister Fixer is no longer the target of damage, and the full 3 damage (assuming no other static modifiers apply to the new target) would be dealt to the new target).
The thing to do here is look for a precedent with other, similarly-worded cards.
For instance, the Null-Point calibrator has almost the exact same wording. Whenever AZ WOULD be dealt cold damage, he instead regains that much HP. If we were to follow dypaca's opinion, then if AZ would be targeted by an attack for 3 cold damage but were immune to cold damage, he would still regain 3 HP. (by contrast, the Isothermic Transducer is worded differently; it says whenever he IS dealt damage, so by dypaca's ruling if he doesn't take damage, he doesn't deal damage.)
To clarify, dypaca's ruling here means that "would be dealt damage" and "is dealt damage" are different, in that the first still triggers even if the target is immune to damage, and the second does not. However, I think the common-sense ruling is that Null-Point Calibrator does NOT trigger if Absolute Zero is immune to cold damage, and therefore neither should other cards that say "would be dealt damage" also do not, so the amulet does NOT trigger in conjunction with Mist Form.
(also, on the topic of Jack Handle, that doesn't matter whether the target is immune to damage or not, because the nature of it means that it activates when Fixer initiates the attack and before it is resolved.)
So, does Citizen Tears destroy Police Backup if the hero has no cards? That's another "would be" that can be impossible from circumstance. It would be fairly contrived, I grant you but its possible, even if less likely than NightMist hiding out in mistform with the amulet.
EDIT: So "would deal damage" triggers even if no damage is dealt owing to immunity but "would be dealt damage" doesn't trigger if no damage is dealt. That seems to be splitting grammatical hairs with a very fine razor.
Isn't there a precedent from Plague Rat? When he has Sewer Fiend in play, and an Environment card would deal him Toxic damage (which he's immune to), he still redirects it to an Infected Hero.
Does he? That's the question. I'd say he does for the same reason I'd say NightMist does. McBehrer's interpretation says no. As long as you're conssitent, it probably doesn't matter much.
I see it like this, then. You can use the amulet. Since you would be dealt damage, just like Plague Rat would, and once it's redirected to someone who isn't immune, they take the full amount, since it isn't reduced or anything.
Absolute Zero, on the other hand, can not regain HP if he has cold immunity, since he regains the amount he would be dealt, which is 0 as long as it's directed at him.
So, I guess that makes sense. Counter-examples are the best way to make an argument.
I agree that Null Point Calibration is different because he heals by the amount of HP he would otherwise lose, which is nothing. For even more of an edge case we could have Atlantis boosting all healing and Absolute Zero immune to cold damage, but I would still be inclined to not let him heal.
I'm having trouble finding the thread where Sewer Fiend is discussed, so if someone could link that, I would be interested in reading it. The other reason I'm uncomfortable with redirection occuring with damage immunity are cards like Hypersonic and Throat Jab. Those cards specifically state that they have to deal damage in order for their effect to go off. If they hit a target that's immune to damage, then under the same logic as Amulet, shouldn't their effects still go off since damage is still being dealt and then reduced. The only difference with the wording of these type of cards is that one is used for an attack while the other is used as defense.
I think in the AZ case the key phrase is “they instead gain” in that case I think the immunity would be irrelevant, because instead of dealing damage that would then be reduced to zero, they instead gain the full amount