Because calling it Irreducible changes the nature of the damage, Irreducible already has a function, and this is not it. I would prefer a new keyword like.... unchangeable maybe.
Unchangeable damage cannot be increased, decreased or have its type changed.
You could go further and say it is not effected by Immunities either, thus sidestepped the Legacy/Meteor Swarm interactions.
Why not just say “decrease Ra’s current hp by 4” and not even use words like damage?
Because then you would get into questions about retaliation damage, from Ra's Flame barrier in your example.
Which we do or do not want to work with the card? As it stands you will take 8 damage total for having both cards out. Is it supposed to be a choice between one or the other?
A reduction in HP does not have to be the same as damage.
And that's the point, merely saying "reduction in HP" leaves it ambiguous
I don't know. When the Ra "God combo" was possible this was never a factor, he was immune to his own psychic damage (as it was changed to fire with Imbued Fire)… I guess he still can be immune to the Flame Barrier damage as having Flesh of the Sun God out is not prohibited, he just takes the psychic damage and not the fire damage.
We are now discussing the nuances of Damage and Life Loss...
This is getting dangerously close to Magic: The Gathering.
I like the "irreducible" solution. Let the flame barrier burn where it may.
In this game the phrase "Source deals Target X damage" usually means that the source is going to attack the target with a base damage of X, this damage can be increased, decreased, negated, or redirected by other effects.
Perhaps the wording on these could be some thing like "Tachyon takes 2 sonice damage or destroy this card". My Idea here is that there is no source, and "takes" versus "deals herself" is basically trying to make the damage static ie it can NOT be increased, decreased, negated, or redirected by other effects. Its either take the damage outside of the normal rules of an attack, or destroy the card. The wording "takes" could have its own sperate rulings from "deals"
Just a thought.
i like this solution, it addresses the issue without overly complicating the "deals" vs "is dealt" situation already in the game.
My only concern would be if there is some other active source of damage acting on Tachyon at the same time. Could one argue then that she has already taken 2 damage and the condition has been met? or would she have to take two additional damage for the specific purpose of keeping the card?
EDIT: Just thought of one complication. The damage modifier tokens already use the terms "damage taken" as a modifier… It might confuse things if "taken" is to mean that it can't be modified…
What if the wording was "Reduce Tachyons HP by 2 or destroy this card"
First, there is clearly no source of damage. In fact, there is no damage being delt at all! No need to introduce damage that is sourceless (as that could get messy). Since it is not damage, it also can't be increase, reduced, redirected, or made immune to. I think wording it this way is short, clean, and leaves no room for mis-interpretation of how the card is supposed to work.
The big issue there is that it is not subject to damage increases, which I think is part of the actual intent of the card. Given that, a possible wording could be "At the start of turn, Tachyon may deal herself 2 irreducible damage. If you do not, destroy this card."
Keep in mind that the concept of "irreducible damage" was not around until Rook City. Had Tachyon been printed post RC, maybe her card would have said just this. Same for Ra. Food for thought.
Is irreducible damage still subject to redirection?
Irreducible can be redirected, and you can be immune to it
Great minds think alike!
I was thinking that if you would have to create a new glossary term anyways, it might be better not to have the word "damage" in there, so that it is obviously a different and unquie situation. Any restrictions tio the term can be in the glossasy.
There were numerous fixes during EE, which could have easily changed it to irreducible, The keyword Relic didn't exist in the orginial, but was only added to Fanatic when the idea was added to Apostate.
A very fair point. Quite possible that the real intent is that DR hard limits your ability to keep those cards in play. In which case, the "reduce HP" thing would have to be thrown out.
It's neither different nor unique. It's on multiple cards, and the intent is that it can be increased or decreased, or you can be immune to it, or it can be redirected.
It is damage.
The only card in the game (at present) where damage comes from an unspecified source is Horrid Cacophony, and that's because it's misprinted.
EDIT: What's the solution? There are plenty of good suggestions in this thread so I'm now I'm throwing my hands up and leaving it to Christopher, Adam and Paul
This suggestion was based on the assumption that it shouldn't be able to be modified in anyway, and therefore create a new term. If it is meant to stay the same, then there really is no discussion about changing the word, just clarifying the card.
I read the ruling again and, it seems to me,the intent of the card is as follows:
1) At the beginning of the turn, the card will DEAL certain upkeep damage.
2) This damage is no different than any other damage dealt in the game. It is modifiable, transferable, etc.
3) This damage amount also indicates the minimum amount of damage, dealt by this card, that must be taken by the hero in order to keep the card.
4) The type of damage is not part of this upkeep requirement (i.e. it can be changed to some other type without impact to the upkeep condition).
So there are really two semi-independent parts to the upkeep:
A) The card deals damage.
B) A minimum amount of damage must be dealt to the hero by the card in order to keep the card.
Based on this set up, and the rules as the exist, I believe the wording on the cards should be:
[Card] deals [hero] X [type] damage. If [hero] is dealt less than X damage by [card], destroy [card].
I think that should be clear enough.
I think the issue wasn't with the the current unedrstanding of the rule, but whether or not certain random events should destroy the card for you. For example, if an environment card comes out and reduces damage, the card has to be discarded. This also means that you can't play Ra's combo or the card will be discarded. If the intent is for an upkeep, then maybe you should at least have the choice or ability to avoid these circumstances.
EDIT: To calrify the card with the current ruling, your suggestion works very well.