There have been some arguments about what happens when a character has 2 effects which redirect the "first damage" they take in a turn. The two positions are:
A) First is first, period. There is only ever one "first", and so only one of the effects is actually used.
B) By a long-standing ruling, "damage fealt = HP were reduced". If the damage was redirected, HP were not reduced, so the damage was not dealt, so this was clearly not the "first" damage, as it was not damage at all. The second effect remains available to use.
Possible refinements to A / counterarguments against B:
A1) When a card says "First damage dealt to <foo>", it really means "First time <foo> is assigned as a target of damage."
A2) Both redirect effects actually *trigger* on the first damage, even though only one is able to have an effect. The other one is expended uselessly.
It's worth noting the difference between damage reduction/increasing effects and damage prevention/redirection effects. Damage reduction affects damage being dealt, while prevention/redirection triggers when damage would be dealt.
Reduction effects have been covered with Word of God - if the damage is redirected or prevented, the reduction is not used up, unless the reduction was necessary to trigger the redirection or prevention.
Prevention/redirection has been covered in previous threads (which were linked to in the thread you linked to) - all redirection/prevention effects will be used up the first time that damage would be dealt. (I do not think they trigger if reduction has already reduced the amount of damage to 0, though).
Basically, what jsz2 said. It cannot be A1, because it simply isn't true. Simply being assigned damage won't use it up (e.g. if the damage is less than 1). I think the simplicity of my first damage dealing post really explains the situation best. First, determine if damage is greater than 0, if so, you have many options, some cancel, some redirect, some trigger, etc., but it is all part of the same next step in the sequence.
But if you have 2 redirection effects, and the first redirects the damage, would the second also be consumed?
I mean the one that redirects is obvious, and clears any Nightmist Shenanigans, it did redirect, just like reduction required to reach prevention/redirection getting used up, but reduction that isn't necessary for prevention or redirection, despite being triggered, isn't consumed because it didn't affect the result.
I think it makes sense that redirection that triggered but never affected damage because that damage was redirected by another effect would not get used up.
How about Wrest The Mind and Driving Mantis?
Gene-Bound Soldier has Wrest the Mind on it, it goes to attack Mr. Fixer, But Visionary redirects the damage to another target and Soldier is destroyed.
If Mr. Fixer has Driving Mantis in play was its effect consumed in that process, or could he still redirect a second shot of damage dealt to him?
I can't imagine that consumes Fixer's effect, because it didn't actually do anything.
That is the crux of the "next time" reduction vs. redirection, if the reduction actually affected the end result, then it is consumed, if not then it is not consumed.
Also, I don't see the point of creating a second thread about this question.
The problem is that you are defining "first time you take damage" differently for the same exact card. The issue isn't whether or not the "card" is comsumed, but rather whether or not the "first time you take damage" is consumed. If it wasn't, the first card would have never reacted. If it was, and the first card reacts, then you already are on to the "second time" and the other card won't trigger.
Yes. The reason it's different from from damage reduction is that damage reduction triggers when damage is dealt and damage redirection triggers when damage would be dealt. (Imagine someone's punching you. Damage reduction is like a shield - it will only break if something hits it. Damage redirection is like a block - you move to block when you see them start to punch you, regardless of whether someone else blocks the punch as well)
How about Wrest The Mind and Driving Mantis?Gene-Bound Soldier has Wrest the Mind on it, it goes to attack Mr. Fixer, But Visionary redirects the damage to another target and Soldier is destroyed. If Mr. Fixer has Driving Mantis in play was its effect consumed in that process, or could he still redirect a second shot of damage dealt to him?I can't imagine that consumes Fixer's effect, because it didn't actually do anything.That is the crux of the "next time" reduction vs. redirection, if the reduction actually affected the end result, then it is consumed, if not then it is not consumed.
Yes. It's still triggering on the "would deal damage" trigger that activates Wrest the Mind, so this isn't any different from the first redirection being a "once per turn" redirection.
Also, I don't see the point of creating a second thread about this question.
Yes. The reason it's different from from damage reduction is that damage reduction triggers when damage is dealt and damage redirection triggers when damage would be dealt. (Imagine someone's punching you. Damage reduction is like a shield - it will only break if something hits it. Damage redirection is like a block - you move to block when you see them start to punch you, regardless of whether someone else blocks the punch as well)
There is no difference if there is a "would be" or not.
[/quote]
Yes there is, or one-use damage reduction would be used up by attacks that were redirected.
I don't see how that proves anything as Stealth just stacks into one bonus that is either used up all at once or not, but the ruling itself shows that there is a difference, that "next" doesn't mean "next" but really "the next time this would matter." There is no way to word "first" like that. The second time is no longer "the first time it mattered."
You don't reduce damage after damage has been dealt. That doesn't make any sense at all. If that were true Wraith's Stealth could never reduce damage to 0, because you would have to take damage to reduce it, and Fortitude would be worthless against shots of 1 damage. We know that isn't the case, so we know damage does not have to be dealt to be reduced.
Damage Dealt is HP reduced.
First time each turn vs. Next time is effectively the same, except that one resets each turn, and one is a single use.
Inside of a single turn the effects work exactly the same. They are consumable reduction. Why wouldn't they follow similar rules?
How would Spite's PL602 Compound Omicron work in an equation like this? If an Environment target has Wrest the Mind on it, and it would damage Spite but Visionary redirects the damage to something else and Spite is dealt no damage, does that consume his "First time each turn" reduction?
I think it would be silly to assume that it would work differently than if he had an effect that reduced the next damage and the same thing happened.
Both are consumable reduction, the rest of the equation being the same, to say the result would be reversed doesn't seem sound.
You are correct that there is no difference in timing. But this isn't about a difference in timing, it's about a difference in triggering. If there was no difference at all, all the cards would use the same wording.
I disagree. Do you have any evidence that Stealth stacks as opposed to being a collection of dr2 effects that all get used up at the same time?
The "next time this would matter" thing seems like you're over-complicating this - why can't "next" just mean "next"?
The way I see it, the next time Wraith would take damage, her whole stack of dr2 effects gets used up. The first time Iron Legacy would take 5 or more damage, both Superhuman Redirections activate - it's just that the second one does exactly the same thing as the first one, so it doesn't really matter. Does it need to be more complicated than this?
Except that the cases aren't even remotely comparable, and happen at completely different times. There might be a new ruling that says they work the same, but no comparison can be made. The "next time" was made regarding modifiers that increase or decrease damage. Modifiers that all happen at the same time, and before we calculate whehther or not hp will be reduced. A special ruling came out, one that wasn't intuitive, that "next time" damage happens in a special way.
Redirection has absolutely no relationship to that case. You only determine redirection after you calculate all of the modifiers, and see if any damage would be dealt. If damage is 0, then there is no redirection. What redirection does is that damage was going to be dealt, and a special ruling of redirections says that it isn't. That is the first time that damage was dealt. If not, then the card doesn't work to begin with. Obvisouly, the card is meant to work, which means that that is the first time it takes damage. If not, you could keep redirecting damage with NightMist. There is no such thing as a card being used up with redirection, but the exact same card being able to do it. It is based on the target taking damage, not the card. You came up with the idea that one card is used up, but we are talking about taking damage.
You keep saying that it make sense to do it that way, but, simply speaking it does not. In fact, it contradicts itself. Please explain to me how two cards that affect the first damage can apply to two different instances of damage. How does that make sense?
But this isn't about a difference in timing, it's about a difference in triggering. If there was no difference at all, all the cards would use the same wording.
[/quote]
Not true. In fact, I explained the difference in wording in that post.
Yes, that was in the part of your post that I quoted, except that I skipped most of the explanation part because it was long and we both knew what it said.
I think that we're actually in agreement here (certainly we were in agreement at the beginning of the thread), except that we conceptualize the reasons that everything works the way that is should differently. I look at it one way, and you look at it a different way, but we both come to the same result.