Miss Information: definition of "a hero"

Miss Information's power reads: "The first time a hero target deals damage to Miss Information each turn, she deals that target H-2 psychic damage."  The question is whether "a hero target" should be read as "any hero target" or "each hero target".

For example: Unity's Turretbot deals damage to Miss Information.  This is the first time this or any hero target has damaged her during Unity's turn, so she deals the Turretbot H-2 psychic damage back.  Then later in the turn, Unity's Raptorbot deals damage to Miss Information.  This is the first time that particular hero target has damaged her, so perhaps Miss Information would deal the Raptorbot damage.  Or perhaps since another hero target has already damaged Miss Information this turn, Miss Information doesn't get to deal damage again.

Which do we think is the correct interpretation of "a hero target"?

The way it is written, I would go with damage to Turretbot, none Raptorbot, as Miss Information has already dealt damage that turn.

EDIT: Ninja'd by Dypaca. I agree that the "once per turn, period" is more intuitive for the wording, though.

I believe the ruling for Combat Stance in this old thread: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/combat-stance-0 was that it goes off for each target each turn.

Personally, I always found the other reading (goes off once per turn total) to be much more intuitive though.

I would interpret that be the same as "any" hero target. In the instance when a second hero target deals damage to her you can use the wording on the card to clarify that her action does not trigger because "a" hero target has already dealt her damage. 

The wording of Combat Stance and Miss Infos card are very different. They are not compareable.

My interpretation matches jagarciao's, that once she's been hit by "a hero target" (i.e. any hero target) then that's all she gets that turn.  Just wanted to check other people's interpretations.

The only real difference is "is dealt" vs. "deals." The important part for this discussion, the part that determines which targets trigger the effect, is the same. The version on Miss Information is still ambiguous sans ruling, but it's less unclear than the other versions. I am 100% certain that the ruling applies here.

I agree the wording is not good if that's the intent, but I also think the ruling unambiguously applies here. This is another thing like "would/instead," where a single additional word (an extra "each" in this case) would make it a lot clearer.

I take back what I said before. I believe that that I completley read it the wrong way and that you are correct. I think that if it was intended to be the first time a turn ANY hero targets damages her, it would have said the word "ANY" specifically. I think the combat stance ruling is totally applicable.

I guess that means we need something official, which is unlikely until after PAX at least.

EDIT: I take it back.  After reading the Combat Stance ruling, I also agree that Miss Information will hit back once per turn per target, not just once per turn.

incidentally, Flame Barrier is another card which works the same way. Bad news for Ra if he's Infected and doesn't have Flesh and Imbued Fire out :P.

Doesn't Ambuscade have a card like this too?  I've only played him once and I don't have the cards in front of me but I remember there being some confusion about whether a card damaged each hero the first time they damaged him in a turn or just the first target that damaged him. 

Yes Ambuscade has the Reactive Plating, interestingly about this card though is the Reactive Plating actually deals the damage rather than Ambuscade!

 

Using flame barrier as the precedent, I would say each target triggers an attack. Sad for unity

 

I still think that Wraith's combat stance should not cause her to hit herself in the face if she deals damage to herself (i.e. infection). It doesnt make any sense if it were actually happening. Tho I supposed you could argue that she punches herself (in the leg or something) as a way to deal with the pain of the infection.

Perhaps she is so tensed up that the act of restraining herself, that not hitting back is causing the damage from a self inflicted combat stance attack.