It can work multiple ways depending on interpretation. Remember that not everybody reads things and interprets them in the same way.
But expanding on your analogy, I say that I will get on the next bus I see. The first bus I see drives by without giving me a change to get on, so I will get on the next bus. The second bus stops and I get on. The second bus was the next after the first, but it is not the first I saw.
The semantics of "first" vs. "next" don't interest me, as much as the effect still being in play does. If a "next" effect is still in play, it can still trigger that turn. However, a "first each turn" has two conditions, and it might not trigger if it's no longer (for purposes of that trigger) the first time in a turn.
The real question is here is finding a way to process the rules that both fits the wording and the intention. English breaks down under excessive attempts to parse it, but rules intentions can be divined by consulting the designers.
It *seems to me* that the designers intend you to be able to have multiple synaptic interruptions (and similar effects) in play and trigger successively, but do not intend the same to be possible with multiple first in turn effects. That's fine by me, since the synaptic style effects get consumed in use, so they're balanced by that.
If that turns out NOT to be the intention, we adjust our understanding of the wording on the cards accordingly, or (as I often do) say "great, I'll keep doing it this other way".
copy and paste from other thread because these two threads are the exact. same. thing. why are there two threads with the same discussion.
The next time is always the first time after a point in time. That is the definition of next.
Here lies the entire crux of my argument.
"The next time" is always the first time after a given point in time. But what point is that exactly? Is it ever stricktly defined? Why can't that point in time fluxuate under certain cercumstances? In fact, we already know that it does. Look at Haka of Shielding. Les say Haka uses Shielding on himself and two instances of 2 damage comes his way. The first gets redirected by Wrest the Mind. We know that Haka of Shielding in this case is still considered active and will reduce that second instance of damage. Why? Because since Haka of Shielding wasn't used, it is still active. We are still technically reducing the "next" instance of damage that would be dealt since the card is still active.
Card is active, trigger clause is literally met, so effect will trigger.
However, "the first time each turn" is always the first time after a specific point in time, the start of each turn. That specific point can't fluxuate due to its very definition. So say those two instances of 2 damage get dealt to Fixer with Mantis in play. The first gets redirected by Wrest the Mind. Now we have a case were Mantis might still be active because it wasn't used, but quite litterally it is now the 2nd time this turn he would be dealt an instance of 2 or less damage, and the trigger clause on Mantis fundamentally can't be triggered. Whether Mantis was used before or not makes no difference.
Card is active, trigger clause can not be met, so effect doesn't trigger.
First time and Next time are not terms you can whimsically interchange as you please. They have different connotations and apply differently under certain contexts.
This is the classic case of Square = Rectangle but Rectangle =/= Square.
Square = First time
Rectangle = Next time
No.
Next is also a fixed point. The point at which you activate the idea of next. In this case the ability that says "next" is the exact, fixed time the effect is active.
Seriously, the definition states exactly that.
You are trying to argue that a word doesn't always mean what it means and your proof is that the card effect doesn't fit your theory and the definition of the word.
The problem isn't the definition of the word next, or the official ruling on how the card works.
First and next will work the same way in the example for this question. They have to, because the word next does have a meaning, and that meaning fixes the point from which Next is active, and that point is the moment the word is invoked.
In the case of this card game it works the moment the effect that uses the word next is activated.
How else could it be interpreted without ignoring the definition of the word next, and the way it is used throughout the card game.
Next is never used to refer to an ambiguous occurance in the future, it always means the first time after now, now being the moment you invoke "next."
The only way to be consistent with the ruling we have and similar effects that use the "first time each turn" wording is to have them work the same way.
We know "next" isn't consumed by damage that is redirected without requiring the effect that next is attached to.
To resolve how "first" will work we have two options:
1. Ignore the definition of the word next, and how it is consistently used every other time in the game and say that while "First" and "Next" are both not consumed, next can mean the one after the next, while first cannot mean the one after first.
-or-
2. We take the option that doesn't violate the definition of the words, and makes a nice consistent rule and say that damage that is redirected no longer "would have dealt" damage to the original target, therefore first and next don't have to violate their meanings and the whole system works beautifully.
#2 also has teh added benefit of not allowing a single instance of damage to count as damaging one target, but almost damage a bunch of others. Which just seems bizarre to me.
Lastly, yes Next and First have different meanings. The exact nature of which I have made clear multiple times.
First you have to designate the time at which it starts tracking, it can be in the past, in the future, it has to be designated.
Next self-designates that time because it tracks from "now." Now being he moment the word next is invoked.
That is the difference. That difference is irrelevant to this question.
Seriously, you can imagine that next has some wierd true meaning that none of us quite grasp, or you can accept that the definition of the word is accurate and use it the way it is intended to be used.
There is no ambiguity in this usage of next. None. In the example Next and first will work the exact same way.
Question for all. Fright Train has Engine of Destruction in play and Bloogo with 1 HP next to him. Fanatic Exorcises him (Fright Train, not Bloogo) with her base power (1 melee, 1 radiant).
How much damage would you say Fright Train takes?
And no more than 5 lines of explaination about why you chose that number. Bonus points if you can summarize in a sentence.
I'm trying to get a better feel for everyone's opinions, because I think we've started to repeat ourselves.
Fright Train takes 2 radiant.
When Fanatic exorcises, she would deal one melee to Fright Train, but this gets redirected to Bloogo, who dies. She then deals 1 radiant to Fright Train, increased by 1 by Engine of Destruction.
When you redirect that first bit of damage, it loses Fright Train's bonus, per other examples of redirection and increased / reduced damage to a target. This prevents it from being the first actual damage dealt to him for purposes of taking damage, but he's already had damage dealt to him for purposes of redirection (even though that winds up being irrelevant).
The question's more interesting if Bloogo has two hit points :)
I think all this endless nattering about "first" meaning the same as "next" falls apart when you modify "first" with "in a turn" and make it conditional. And when you take into account that prior rulings appears to indicate that multiple "redirect first damage in a turn" effects don't trigger sequentially, but multiple "next damage" effects do (that last will be revised if an official ruling contradicts it).
Because, as I've said, there's always room for "next damage" when you take more damage. There's not always room for first damage in a turn.
I would have said 2 radiant, but going by the ruling for Superhuman Redirection, I'll have to (reluctantly) say 1 radiant. The buff was used up on the damage that got redirected to Bloogo.
Absolutely 2 radiant. Damage dealt requires HP reduction. The melee hit reduces Bloogo's HP, so at that point, we haven't seen the first damage dealt to Fright Train yet. The radiant will be the first damage dealt to Fright Train, so it gets the boost.
But then, by that logic, multiple Superhuman Redirections would trigger one after another. After the first one redirects, then you hit him again, and since he hasn't lost HP yet, he hasn't been dealt damage. Therefore, this is the first time he is being dealt damage, so you redirect it for the second one.
Superhuman Redirection triggers on when he would be dealt damage. That does not need damage to actually be dealt for it to trigger. This is why onle one redirection with Superhuman Redirection is possible, as the first time he would be dealt 5 or more damage in a turn it would be redirect. The second time he would be dealt 5 or more damage in that turn triggers none of the Superhuman Redirections, as it would be the second time he would of been dealt 5 or more damage that turn.
Can someone find the Superhuman redirection ruling that is being referenced here?
The one I remember was about the same instance of damage being redirected multiple times by the same card.
It was asking since it was the same instance of damage if that damage could still be redirected by the same effect. (since it was necessarily the same instance of damage that was "the first")
That is the one I remember, I don't remember and can't find one that deals with multiple copies, or any ruling about First working that way.
Also the La Capitan ruling doesn't mesh with it.
And if we follow the "first damage" as people are saying we should then then La Capitan's Flip side Advanced text can only take place if La Capitan is damaged between the start of her turn and the end of her turn, when she has no cards under her but hasn't flipped yet.
I sincerely doubt that is the idea behind that advanced text. Any other time her cards are cleared it would not be the first time she would have taken damage, since she has to have "would be dealt" for her prevention to activate. And after all, even if the damage is prevented it still won't be the first time that round.
Prevention and redirection both cancel the attack. The attack never happened. La Capitan, or in my original example Guise, the damage would not have damaged La Capitan or Guise, because it was prevented in one case, and dealt to a different target in the other.
Once an attack is redirected ALL modifiers are reassessed.
That is 100% correct.
Now, on to a situation which has caused great discord:
If Haka reduces damage to Mr. Fixer, allowing Mr. Fixer to redirect that damage, then the damage gets re-evaluated as it hits its eventual target, as per the "once an attack is redirected, reassess all modifiers" law. However, Haka's reduction of damage dealt to Mr. Fixer is necessarily used up. It has to be, otherwise, Mr. Fixer could not have redirected the damage. So, even though Haka's damage reduction never actually reduced any final damage that was dealt, the effect was used up, as it allowed a trigger to occur.
That is the ruling on Mantis and "next time" reduction.
1. It is a fact that "next" and "first" will work the exact same way if both are active at the start of the turn. Any other result violates the definition of the words.
2. Prevention and Redirection, according to the video game guys, both will use this ruling.
3. If "Next" can still trigger, then the effect has either been reactivated, or the attack never happened.
4. Setback's base power, incap powrs and PW Haka's base power are not given a "free use" every time damage is redirected. Those abilities have costs, you'd have to pay the cost a second time.
5. La Capitan's Advanced text (flip side) would almost never trigger, and be by far the most situational, fiddly and worst designed advanced text in the game, unless prevented attacks do not count as "would be dealt" for the purposes of determining the first time each round.
I think it is pretty clear that either those attacks don't count for Next or First, or the game is needlessly complex and not as well designed as it is.
Not ruling, I meant concensus. Just the general idea in the thread was that the first one was the only one that mattered, even if it got redirected.
Also, I was pretty sure that La Capitan's flip side advanced was after all the cards were cleared. I remember I brought up the same thing, saying that it should happen before clearing the cards, but was corrected on the grounds that it is written lower on the card, and so must occur later.
The point is if damage "would be dealt" to La Capitan and is prevented, then under what circumstances would her redirect even be able to occur? Since it is "First time each round" her advanced text either needs the prevented damage to not qualify as "would be dealt" or it simply will not ever activate, except in the bizarre circumstance I mentioned above.
The evidence all points to redirected and prevented damage not counting as "would be dealt" to its original target once redirected.
Which makes sense to me, damage that has already been resolved is not threatening to anyone that wasn't dealt damage by it.
Except then, when you hit Iron Legacy the second time, that's the first time he "would be dealt" damage, so his second redirection should trigger, right? That's what I have been saying; if redirecting cancels out "first time" effects, like Engine of Destruction or La Capitan, then it should cancel out "first time" effects like Superhuman Redirection or -- in the conversation that started this whole thing -- Total Beefcake and Infiltrate and Obfuscate.
But since everyone else INSISTS that redirecting damage away via those effects breaks the "first time they would be dealt damage" barrier, so the second hit would go through and not count as the first time, that means that OTHER "first time" effects like Engine of Destruction would have to be used up as well.
So, there are 3 options.
1.) if you redirect the first damage away, it still counts as that target's "first time it is/would have been dealt damage," cancelling out any further effects with that trigger, like additional Superhuman Redirections, Engine of Destruction, Stealth, etc.
2.) If you redirect the first damage away, it means that the target has not been dealt damage, which resets the "first time it would have been dealt damage." Therefore, the next time it is dealt damage is the first, which would then trigger a second Superhuman Redirection, Engine of Destruction, Stealth, etc.
3.) If you redirect the first damage away, it uses up the "first time it WOULD be dealt damage," but not the "first time it takes damage." This would use up things like Caliginous Form and Superhuman Redirection, that merely require the target to be the TARGET of damage, but not bonuses or reductions that require damage to actually be dealt. The second time it is targeted is not the first time in the turn it WOULD take damage, but it is the first time it DOES take damage. They are grammatically and mechanically distinct. This means that all of the Redirections (or other "first time they would take damage" effects) go off at once. You may have moved the damage, but the trigger -- being targeted for damage -- still happened. If there are different effects that trigger, they don't get skipped. Just, in this case, they don't matter, because they both do the same thing.
The way I see it, option 3 is the most logical. I was originally going to say 2, but thinking it over I realized that, based on the wording, you CAN make the argument that using up the "first time it would be dealt damage" does not necessarily use up the "first time it IS dealt damage," if no damage is dealt. This comes with the addendum that, except in the case of prevention or redirection, a Stealth effect that reduces the damage to 0 IS used up, since it is only because of its own effect that no damage was dealt. No stacking up Stealth and just never ever taking damage. "First time" comes before "whenever," so La Capitan's advanced mode would trigger before the prevention, as I believe is the intent.
I don't think this is correct at all. Prevention and Redirection are not the same thing. They are two totally different mechanics. Even though they may have the same outcome of the initial target not taking damage, its faulty logic to conclude they must therefore be the same in any and all cases.
You are making this exact same logical leap saying that "Next" and "First" are the same as well (that leap being that if two things are similar, they therefore must be the same). And while I'm on the topic of Next and First, let's walk through a quick proof of why they are not the same.
I want to catch the Next bus. I miss the 1st bus. I get on the 2nd bus. I caught the Next bus"I caught the Next bus" is in fact a true statement.
But did I catch the first bus? No, that is a false statment.
I want to catch the First bus. I miss the 1st bus. I get on the 2nd bus. I caught the First bus"I caught the First bus" is a false statement.
Do you see why the word "First" and "Next" can't be interchangable words? I don't understand why that is even a debate.
But I digress.
Lets go back to the mechanical difference of Prevention and Redirection:
When you prevent damage, you are right here that the attack is considered never to have happened. The entire thing was prevented, and because of that fact, for all intents and purposes its considered that you would not and could not have taken damage at all. This is why the La Capitain ruling can work like it does and the redirection can still trigger, since she would never technically be eligable to take damage while there were still cards under her to burn, so the "First time she would take damage" clause in the Advance text is still applicable after all cards under her are gone. It truly is only now the first time she could really be dealt damage by virtue of her mechanics.
But when you redirect an attack, the attack from the source still happens, it just happens against a different target now (and because its now a different target, all modifiers are recalculated to adjust to that fact). So your inital statement above is false. Furthermore, the game state still considers the fact that you would have and could have taken damage in that instance because redirection nessesarily occures after that evaluation takes place. How do we know this is true? Because instances of 0 damage can not be redirected at all (a case where the game considers that you would not have and could not have taken damage).
EDIT: As Foote points out below, my point only works for a modified version of this:
I want to catch the First bus. The 1st bus doesn't show up. I get on the 2nd bus. I caught the First bus
It's a different metaphor, but I don't think it's a less valid one.
/EDIT
And this is exactly where the disagreement is. "I caught the first bus" is not an false statement - it is an imprecise one.
"I caught the first bus that came" is a true statement.
I caught the first bus that was scheduled" is a false statement.
The disagreement is whether "first" is referring to the schedule or the arrivals.
Those of us claiming that "next" and "first" are the same are using "that came" for both "first" and "next". Those of us claiming that "next" and "first" are different are using "that came" for "next" and "that was scheduled" for "first".
"I caught the first bus that came" is in no way, shape, or form a true statement . It explicitly says that you missed the first bus. You can't miss a bus that never comes dude. It came. You missed it.
You're right. In my head I was thinking about busses breaking down and not showing up, instead of you missing the bus. (Because when I constructed the metaphor for myself, I used busses that break down because it supports my argument)
And this is where the metaphor breaks down, because I can think of no way to argue whether busses being missed or busses breaking down is a better metaphor for preventing/redirecting damage.
Alternate version of my point, with a slightly different metaphor:
"I caught the first bus. The 1st bus was full. I caught the 2nd bus." is a false statement.
"I caught the first available bus. The 1st bus was full. I caught the 2nd bus." is a true statement.
Are these cards talking about busses, or available busses?