We are playing against Iron legacy. On his desperate side, he reduces incoming damage by 1. He also redirects the first attack against him to the hero with the Highest HP. If we hit him for 1 damage, does he redirect it, causing him to be open to be hit by better attacks, or does he simply reduce it and ignore it, meaning you have to hit him for 2 damage before you can hurt him with other attacks during your turn? I think it would make sense for him to deflect any first attack you make against him, regardless of whether he would be hurt by the attack, since it would be in his benefit to make you hurt your teammates. He doesnt know if you are going to attack him again or not, why woud he wait for something else?
There is an open rules question about this. However my opinion is that he will redirect the first damage, regardless of whether that damage could hurt him or not.
That is how we ended up ruling it just to make the game move on, it ended up making him decently easy since I had Tachyon, I could use a move that hits for 1 then use her move that causes enemies not be able to deal damage
If you were using Tachyon then the -1 would not be a problem since Tachyon is one of his nemeses. The calculation should have been 1 base damage, +1 from nemesis, -1 from Iron Legacy's side B for a total of 1. He redirects to the heroes and the damage is recalculated.
I do understand your question, though (like if he also had Armored Fortitude out). The order of effects happens as written on the card. Therefore the -1 should happen first and then do the redirect if the damage is >0. The only exception to this rule is La Capitan's advanced mode.
However, most people play that static modifiers like +1 or -1 damage are always in effect regardless of play order. The damage should be reduced first and then check for triggers like redirect. Think about Mr. Fixer's Pipe Wrench, Driving Mantis combo. Most people play that the combo works regardless of play order. If you play it that the redirect happens first and reduction happens second then that sucks because if Fixer gets hit for 3 the redirect check fails, but then the damage is reduced to 2.
Modifiers should be assesed before any other triggered effects are resolved. That is the most correct way to play.
La Capitain is not nessesarily an exception to what j1hopki1 said about reading cards in order (I assume you are refering to the Advanced Mode rule). It was a constraint of the card formating as all advance rules are printed at the bottom of the card. And regardless, the "first time" clause in the instruction still indicates that it takes precedence over the normal modes text for damaging her on her flip side. But thats neither here nor there.
Hitting Iron Legacy for 1 damage would get reduced first. Since 0 damage = no damage, I am not sold that this would trigger his redirection (how do you redirect damage that doesnt exist?). I would think the initial attack would have to be 2 or higher. Now, I do not have the cards in front of me to double check wording and such. But thats how I generally see the situation.
Wait, so Stealth Bot can double dip with damage reduction if the original target has some too?
No. The damage reduction that Iron Legacy has for himself does not carry over when it is redirected to Stealth Bot. Whenever you redirect damage, all modifiers need to be re evaluated, as the "source" of the damage is staying the same, but the end target is what is changing. So, for example, if an attack of 3 damage would be sent to Scholar with Flesh to Iron out, he would take 3-2=1 damage. If Stealth Bot chose to redirect that damage to itself, it would the become 3-1(SBs own reduction)=2. If that makes sense.
/agree
I follow. It just seemed like you were saying damage reduction happened before you handled redirection, which would seem to mean that you could reduce, then redirect, but what you're actually saying is the game sees that the damage is going to be reduced to a non-damaging amount and won't trigger the redirect in the first place, even though it would technically occur before the reduction.
I think it is up for debate whether or not IL (or anyone for that matter) can redirect damage of 0. My interpretation relies on the common law rule of "if no hp was reduced than no damage was delt". So to extend that idea, if IL would be the target of an attack deal 0 damage, and 0 damage is equal to no damage, then a redirection can not occure because there was no damage to redirect. Again, I think that point is up for a debate, but that is the way it is played at my table.
Well, if it's redirected, it won't be 0 (since it never hits legacy and is redirected at it's original strength). I definately agree that redirecting 0 damage doesn't make any sense.
Now, I might confuse you here, but there is a situation with Nightmist where it has been ruled that she can redirect damage using her amulet while in Mistform (aka immune to damage). The difference here boils down to the difference in timing of "damage immunity" and "damage reduction" effects. Reduction effects activly reduces any and all incoming damage before it "hits" you. The current concensus on damage "immunity" is that an attack still "hits" you for the full damage value, but is completley prevented on the backend. Damage Immunity can be understood as a reaction to being damaged, while damage reduction reduces the amount of incoming damage before it is delt.
This makes perfect sense if you assume the redirection happens before the damage hits it's target. And since you can't loop redirections through different people to double dip reduction, it makes sense that the redirection will be happening before damage reduction too.
Damage of 0 or fewer can be redirected. At least that's what I remember from past threads about Apostate and the Orb of Delirium, I think it is.
If Damage is only redirected if it would be taken, than that's a triggered redirection and it wouldn't happen with an attack of 0 or fewer because the trigger condition wouldn't have been met.
"The first time IL would be dealt damage each turn, redirect that damage to the hero…"
I would say that the attack would have to deal damage for redirection to occur. If the attack would deal 0, then no damage would be delt right? If no damage would be delt, the trigger condition for the redirect can't be met.
Well I don't think we ever came to consensus before, but my criteria is effects which react after damage is applied need actual damage to be dealt. Effects which modify damage before it is applied shouldn't care whether that damage would otherwise be zero, regardless of whether the text uses the term 'would' or not.
By your criteria, are you saying that Advanced Desperation Legacy won't redirect zero damage, but that Divine Sacrifice (which does not use the word 'would') can? How about Punish The Weak which triggers when Haka 'would damage' certain targets? Does it require the damage to be non-zero before hand, while Imbued Fire doesn't?
I think 'would' is used when it makes the sentence easier to understand, and I don't think it is intended to make specific damage modifiers (whether they modify type, amount, or target) only work on non-zero damage.