Damage dealt is not reduced to zero. However, any card can be played, and any action that would cause said source to deal damage can still take on that action. A target or set of targets may even be selected. But that damage is never dealt. It's not zero (as a zero can be increased above zero), but simply no damage will be initiated. Thus, you could activate Haka's inate power to deal 1 target 2 melee damage, choose Citizen Hammer to be the target of the damage, and then, absolutely nothing happens. Rather pointless. However, something like "Deal 1 target 3 melee damage. Draw a card," would still be useful. The damage dealt would be prevented, but you'd still draw the card.
What TheJayMann says is completely true. Such as in the case with Tempest using Localized Hurricane, you would still choose two targets to recieve the attack, but not actually dealt damage to them, but he'll still benefit from drawing two cards. NightMist using Investigation would deal her nothing and still bea ble to draw two cards. Haka's mere would deal no damage but allow the extra card draw. Wraith's Stun Bolt wouldn't deal damage, but it would still reduce the damage dealt from that target by one. Tachyon can choose deal herself two damage from Pushing the Limits that would then turn into no damage thus keeping it into play.
There are plenty of other things that makes it where not being able to deal damage isn't entirely bad, though a few heroes may be a little annoyed by it. Absolute Zero especially as he doesn't do anything super awesome without damage. Well actually... Module Realignment is helpful in the case when you want to get back a module when you have none in play. Thus you avoid the 1 cold and 1 fire damages...
No official ruling there, and I still feel a little weird about it myself, but it kind of seems like you would have to destroy Pushing the Limits if another card says that she cannot deal damage.
Here's the thing about Pushing the Limits. Compare the wording of it to Argent Adept's Polyphoric Flare. In the case of AA's card it states "The Argent Adept deals himself 2 energy damage. If he takes damage this way, you may use a power now." to the Tachyon's wording"At the start of your turn, either Tachyon deals herself 2 sonic damage or this card is destroyed." granted the wording is a bit inconsistant with others that are the same thing, such as Fanatic's Embolden. Where it reads 'At the end of that hero's turn, either Fanatic deals them 2 radiant damage or destroy this card." it essentially is the same thing just worded differently. Aregent Adept has to take damage in order to keep in effect as it plainly states "if he takes damage this way" while the other two do not state it. Maybe we'll get Christopher or someone involved when they have the chance to get the official ruling on this one.
The difference I see is that Argent Adept actually has to take some damage. (His HP needs to be reduced).
For Pushing the Limits and the other cards like it, I think it is OK if the damage gets reduced to zero, or she is immune to it, or it gets redirected. But it just seems like 'Cannot deal damage' might be different because it says plainly that the first option cannot happen. An official ruling on this would be good.
If Tachyon cannot deal damage, then she can't use the choice to deal damage to keep pushing the limits out. However, if Tachyon is immune/heavily reduced to damage, she can still choose to deal herself damage to keep the card out, even if she ends up taking no damage.
Or better yet, if Tachyon has a damage boost and Synaptic Interruption out she can hit the villain with the damage.
Thinking about the 'Cannot deal damage' case though, could the reverse situation also happen in theory? If something could make Pushing the Limit indestructible, would that mean she has to deal the damage? Or would indestructible work more like damage immunity, meaning you can still choose to destroy the card and it just has no effect?
This seems inconsistent with your earlier answer. Either you can select options that would deal damage when "cannot deal damage" effects are in play or you can't. I don't understand what would differentiate Pushing the Limits from Mere in this regard.
I'm basically interpreting the text on Pushing the limits to mean: "At the start of your turn choose one: Tachyon deals herself 2 sonic damage or destroy this card." I'm not really sure how else to interpret it without making it self-destruct if there are any damage boosts/reductions/redirects/type changes in effect.
In any case, an official ruling sure wouldn't hurt. ^_~
I would use the interpretation of "If you can't deal damage, you can't do anything that requires you to deal damage". So, in the case of cards that have another effect, you still get the other effect (eg Stun Bolt, Mere). But if it was something that says "deal damage or destroy this card", well, you can't deal damage, so that option is out, therefore the only other thing you can do is destroy the card. If you're immune to the damage, then that's okay - you're still dealing yourself the damage, but nothing happens. So, Ra with Imbued Fire and Flesh ofthe Sun God out means that if he has a Solar Flare (or two) in play as well, the psychic damage he needs to deal himself becomes fire damage, which he's immune to, so you get to basically keep the Solar Flare(s) in play for free and have really epic damage (even more so if Legacy and any Obsidian Fields are in play…omg that battle we had against Akash'Bhuta was so cool :D).
Similarly, if your damage has just been nerfed (say, by a Biomemetic Plasma Vat or two), you're still dealing the damage - it then just gets reduced and if it ges reduced to zero, oh well - it still counts. I mean, you can still "deal yourself damage" to keep a card in play. You're just dealing yourself zdero damage, that's all.
It's only if a card specifies that "if you took damage this way…", that it matters. So the Adept's Polyphoric Flare, or Akash'Bhuta's Entomb. Or a lot of Ab'Zero's cards (where the damage/healing he can dish out is dependent on how much damage he just took). If your hp didn't go down, you didn't take any damage.
One way to think about it is that with Mere you are choosing whether or not to use a power, which you can do even if that power would normally cause you to deal damage. With Pushing the Limits you are choosing whether or not to deal damage, and you cannot deal damage.
I'll admit that I don't have alot of justification for why it is ok for the damage to be modified/blocked/redirected other than it would make cards like this virtually impossible to keep in play. In the absense of official rulings I just try to interpret the cards as literally as possible without getting in the way of good gameplay.
What I had said earlier about not being able to deal damage, you can choose to initiate dealing damage, which also allows target selection. However, "Cannot deal damage" steps in and says "You may think you dealt damage, but I stopped you." Thus, you never dealt damage, and thus can't satisfy Pushing the Limits. On the other side, with redirection, prevention, or reduction, she still deals the damage, thus satisfying the condition, even if later no damage is dealt, or a different target is dealt the damage.
Can we agree on what questions we want answered? Does this cover it?
Does 'can not deal damage' mean that an attack can not be initiated or that no matter what attack is attempted, no damage can result?
If a choice is given between either dealing damage or destroying a card and one of those is impossible ('damage can not be dealt' or the card is indestructible) does that mean that there really isn't a choice?
That sounds pretty good Arenson. The root of the problem here is that "cannot deal damage" is ambiguous within the terminology of this game. It could mean they're blinded and can't punch at things, or it could mean they're made out of rubber and when they punch things it does nothing, because "dealing damage" means both of those things in SotM. For the discussion here, the first would mean the "Tachyon deals herself 2 sonic damage" option would be an impossible option. The second would mean that it's merely an ineffective option.
After rereading this thread this morning, I realized that I was assuming it was the second because of "dealing damage" meaning two things. In most cases where it isn't of the form "A deals B X damage," it means the second, so that's where I went with it. To be honest, I think that the first option is problematic because highlights this templating quirk, and increases the ambiguity rather than decreasing it.
As far as indestructible goes, you can choose to destroy any card (so long as any other conditions apply, such as being the correct type of card), but, if that card is indestructible, then it isn't destroyed. It can be chosen to be destroyed, but it will not be destroyed. Basically, indestructible is preventing the result, not the action. Cannot deal damage (as well as cannot play cards or cannot draw cards or cannot use powers) prevent the action. You can choose to initiate the action, but the action will end up failing to act. You can also select targets for the damage, as it's a precursor for dealing damage, and is required for other cards (such as stun bolt), but the action will fail to enact, and, thus, there is no dealing damage. This means you've never satisfied the first condition, requiring a fallback on the second condition.
I think the main difference is that "dealing damage" is an action, "damage dealt" is a result. Preventing the result does not prevent the action, but preventing the action most definately prevents the result. Or something.
Now I feel dumb. I remember trying to hold "dealing damage" as the action and "damage dealt" as the result in my brain but it keeps slipping out. I've even stressed that exact dichotomy on the BGG boards before. It's just bad nomenclature. We're stuck with it now, but I really wish that it had been established as something more clear in the first place. It's consistently a source of confusion for new players, and even experienced players like myself lose the plot from time to time. In any case, I'm now on board with you saying that it prevents the action.
I now agree with you that this is the result, but I think your reasoning is slightly off here. The way you're describing it, damage alteration effects would cause the first condition to be left unsatisfied, which isn't how I believe this functions. They aren't conditions, they're options. Either you initiate an attack against yourself or you destroy the card, your choice. Once you've picked one it can't revert to the other This is why immunities don't force you to pop the card, and "indestructible" effects don't force you to hit yourself; you can still choose to deal yourself the damage or destroy the card, it's just ineffective. The trick is you are not allowed to pick the damage option if it's impossible because you cannot deal damage, the same as you cannot pick the "discard 2 cards" option on Ground Pound if it's impossible because your hand is empty.
I guess it would also be good to clarify whether you can choose an indestructible card for destruction. (Given the choice between suckerpunching Raptor Bot or an indestructible co-hort, can you punch the bird?) Although that question seems familiar, so maybe we've had it answered before and I forgot.
If I'm not mistaken, the only things that prevent an action from occuring states the phrase "cannot," such as "cannot deal damage" and "cannot draw cards." Indestructible prevents the result, and not the action, allowing you to play a card or use some other effect to destroy an indestructible card, but not having the actual destruction effect.