A side note here: La Capitan's Flipside Advanced text was changed for the oversized villain cards (eg, the most recent printing of the character) to read "The first time every TURN…" instead of first time every round. This indicates to me that Christopher realized that the original wording was flawed in some significant way, perhaps in exactly the way you observe here.
Actually, that was a typo. The small cards always take precedence over the large card. It's supposed to be round, and has been stated as such.
But see, thats not the point I was trying to make there. The thought experiment was to show that the words "First" and "Next" are not interchangable. That is the whole point. The statements I provided only served to illustrate that.
And my point is that given the proper metaphor, they are interchangable. You're using a metaphor in which they are not interchangable. I'm using a metaphor in which they are. Neither metaphor is similar enough to the actual scenario to be declared more accurate than the other.
The issue is not who's correct. Everybody is correct in the paradigm that they're using. We're spending time arguing about who's correct, when we should be arguing about which paradigm is correct.
That said, the paradigm I'm using is the paradigm of seperate paradigms, which is probably not the only way to view our problem here.
We know they are similar terms already. "The First Time" will always technically be "The Next Time", but you flat out can't say that "The Next Time" will always be "The First Time" as I showed you. Again, this is Squares/Rectangles. Squares can always be Rectangles, but Rectangles are not always Squares. Two very similar words that can be interchanged on occasion, but they still mean two different things.
And thats the whole point. They are different. Not the same. As soon as I provided one case where they were not interchangable, thats the only conclusion you can end with.
They're not interchangeable, but sometimes you can treat them as if they are.
For example: A square is not interchangable with a rectangle - unless the only thing you care about is the angles of the corners. If all you're doing is measuring corner angles, then suddenly the differences (while still present) don't matter.
That's my point. There are some cases where first and next can be treated the same (even though they're different). And while one case can be used to prove that they're different, one case cannot be used to prove that in this case they need to be treated differently.
But ultimatly we are talking about the mechanics of triggers in-game. And if we are going to read these cards as literally as possible to help that cause, you have to keep in mind that those two terms are different and the assumption can't be made that they should be treated as the same, because they just arn't. If they were meant to be treated as they same in all cases, they would be worded the same.
They are different terms with different meanings. This is true.
In the exact case we are looking at, and in fact in almost every case in this game they are going to act the same way. This is also true.
I want to catch the Next bus. I miss the 1st bus. I get on the 2nd bus. I caught the Next bus
This is not a true statement.
Unless your intention to catch the next bus began after missing the first bus. Otherwise you missed the next bus, and caught the bus after next.
The problem you are having with next is that you are sliding the timing of next, reapplying it after it has expired.
You can't do that in this game. Setback's base power triggers the next time a hero target would take damage. Which literally means "The first time after the power is activated."
That is what next is.
The difference between next and First is that when reapplied next will always have a target, the first one after activation.
First time each turn, if applied mid-turn after damage has already been dealt will have already missed the trigger for that turn.
However, if at the start of the turn both "next" and "first" are active, they will resolve the exact same way.
What you are doing by making next apply after the first trigger post activation is the same as reapplying it. You are changing the activation timing of the effect. The effect is already active, and it doesn't get a do-over if its trigger is missed anymore than "first" does.
Its like saying, "Well I missed the first bus, but I'll get the first after that."
In common speech we often reapply next haphazardly, but in game terms "Next" has a definitive point of activation. Every effect that uses next has a set time that it starts looking for the "next" trigger.
Thats not a problem at all though. Thats the entire point of using the word "next" because the nature of the world allows that kind of sliding, given a context in which it makes sense.
We have already have rulings where this sliding of timing does happen.
Haka uses Shielding on himself to reduce the next instance of damage. Two instances of 2 damage come his way and the first lest say is redirected by Wrest the Mind. That "Next" damage that would have been dealt to Haka after the card was played was that First instance of damage that would have been dealt, and that subsequently got redirected.
So was Shielding used on that particular "next" instance of damage? No it wasn't. It will still go on to reduce the 2nd instance of damage coming to him.
"Next" shifted from the first instance of damage to the second instance of damage. It quite literally still reduced the "next" instance of damage he would have taken.
We have to read it literally, and It literally is a more flexible term than "First" because that explicitly specifies the point of timing. If Haka of Shielding said to reduce the First amount of damage that would be dealt, then the card would not work as it currently does because it specifically can't affect the Second amount of damage that would have been dealt as that defies the conditional clause of the effect.
I think you guys are arguing over something that doesn't really matter. The REAL point of contention here isn't whether or not the second instance of damage counts as the first, after redirecting. The point is ACTUALLY whether or not the first one STILL COUNTS AS THE FIRST ONE after it gets redirected, or if it simply ceases to have happened. If it ceases to have happened, then the next one he gets hit with would still be the first one, since the "true" first one got nullified before it went through.
However, I do not believe that to be the case. I think the correct answer is that for "would be dealt damage" effects, it is used up -- It has already been targeted, so the first bus has already come and gone -- but for "is dealt damage," it is not, as he didn't actually get on.
I think McBehrer is right. As much fun as this is, we have strayed off topic.
I also happen to agree with his interpretation of the rules, but that's a seperate issue.
Haka uses Shielding on himself to reduce the next instance of damage. Two instances of 2 damage come his way and the first lest say is redirected by Wrest the Mind. That "Next" damage that would have been dealt to Haka after the card was played was that First instance of damage that would have been dealt, and that subsequently got redirected.
So was Shielding used on that particular "next" instance of damage? No it wasn't. It will still go on to reduce the 2nd instance of damage coming to him.
That first instance of damage was dealt to someone else. It doesn't count for "next time Haka would be dealt," because that damage is already resolved, and Haka wasn't damaged, didn't reduce it, didn't have anything to do with the final result. The dealer, Wrest the Mind and the Target the damage resolved against were involved in the process. All of those effects and targets count the damage as involving them. Haka and all of his effects had nothing to do with the result.
So Shielding would reduce the second, because the second instance of damage is the first time since Haka of Shielding was used that Haka would be dealt damage.
Ok made an account just so I can throw my two cents in :P. Just to clarify this is my opinion and until there is an official ruling on how it works this is just how I play it as far as double redirects and such. The big thing havent really seen mentioned on this thread is the order of operations (not PEMDAS). By order of operations I mean where it says in the rulebook under conflict resolution, " Over the course of the game, there are situations in which multiple effects would occur simultaneously or have competing effects. In all situations, card effects that happen simultaneously occur in the order in which the card entered play".
So the way I see it playing out is :
1) Some time throughout the game Player1 has played two redirects (redirects the first damage) and lets say a damage reduction card.
2) The Villian attacks player1 with 2 Damage
3) Since card priority goes in the order in which they were played, the damage hits the first redirect and it activates it since its the first damage.
4) When the redirect activates it changes the damage to the new target and is no longer targeting player1. So by the time that damage hits the second target it is no longer considered the first damage for Player1 as far as every card after the first redirect is concerned.
5) So when the villian sends a second attack for 2 damage to player1 it gets to the first redirect which has been activated due to "first damage" having already been dealt to it, and bypasses it. (When that first damage hit the redirect it was considered the first damage to player1 at the time it was activated, even tho it was changed to a different player afterwards.)
6) The damage then goes to the next card in the order which out of the three would be the second redirect. The second redirect has never seen any damage so it activates since it is the new first damage since the other was redirected and changed from player1 to a new target therefore becoming the new targets damage. The second redirect goes off and changes the target just as the first had.
7) And finally if a third damage gets sent it bypasses the two previous redirects (since both have seen "first damage") and hits the third card which reduces the damage and finally true "first damage" is dealt to the hero..... if any is left after the reduction of course lol.
Sorry if this format is bad lol.. It was going to be rough draft but looking back I am way to lazy to spruce it up.. I think is shows what I mean tho. And as I said before this is just how I see it and by no way say this is how everyone else needs to do it. Without and official ruling there is no right way set in stone.
Without reading the rest of your post, this is currently incorrect as per the most current order of operations ruling by Christopher. It was issued after the printing of the Enhanced Edition so it's totally reasonable why you might have missed it. Maybe we can get a mod to sticky that thread somewhere in the rules forum or where other errata announcements are posted?
Unless they are Star/End of turn effects, simultaneous effects occur in the order of players choice.
Link to the ruling: https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/timing-and-order-of-operations-4347
Also, Welcome to the forums!
Welcome to the forums! Now that you’re here, post more!
Ah I See. I appriciate the update on that. Since its still the players choice in the matter the post still works I do believe. Thanks again for the update on simultaneous effects.
Here is what you are missing though. Let me know if this changes anything for you.
-
On the first instance of damage you mention, we can all agree that the redirection triggers. The trigger clause that allowed the redirection effect is conditional on the timing being "the first time you would be dealt damage". But it does trigger. That instance of damage, even though redirected, has been tagged as "the first" (else the card would never trigger in the first place right?)
-
Logically, there can not be two seperate instances of anything that can be considered "the first". There can only be one first, which makes any subsequent instances the 2nd, 3rd, ect. This is where a lot of people have trouble, but the first is the first. Anything after the first no longer is the first.
-
It doesn't really matter if the second redirection card ever triggered or not because its trigger clause technically can't be fullfilled. Once the one instance of damage was tagged as "first" (to make the redirection trigger at all), you can't go back and say "well it wasn't really the first, but now this next one really is the first". No, if the previous instance was indeed the first (which is was because we triggered the effect labeling it as much), the next instance will no longer meet the requirments of the second redirection cards trigger clause.
It's kinda late, and I may not have worded that really well. But the first is the first. Anything after that can never be considered the first again. Trigger clauses are important to read literally.
My question was more of is it still first damage when you change the target and have to recalculate damage and if not, would not one still stay activated because if theres two redirects the first wouldnt have to activate because there would be no threat of a first damage because the second would guarantee that there was no damage being dealt. I know I over think things. My problem was I wasnt sure where exactly would be damage "would be damaged" is calculated in the chain of events. I was thinking of redirects as someone basically saying hey im gonna attack you and then as the attack goes through your first redirect sees the damage coming and basically says "nope... your gonna attack someone else" . Then the attacks then targeted to a different target where everything is recalculated again. ( I know thats a very crude version and theres a lot more involved but I wanted to be quick lol). Tho with all that being said I have changed my stance on it after reading Pydros Post https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/dealing-damage-timing-clarification-6047 .
Here's my counter argument.
We already know that effects that affect damage dealt reset when they are redirected. This works because the damage is recalculated from the start.
Therefore that "First time would be dealt" redirection actually cancels that "would be dealt damage" clause.
The only effects that are expended are ones that are necessary to the redirection.
So if Tachyon would be dealt 3 damage by Baron Blade but Synaptic changes the target to Baron Blade, then that instance of damage does not count as "would have dealt" damage to Tachyon. If later in the turn something tries to damage Tachyon it will be the first time whe "Would be dealt" damage.
It will work the same if Wrest the Mind chooses a different target, or if Hypersonic assault prevents Baron from dealing 3 damage to Tachyon. The attack resolves, the damage wasn't reduced to 0 while targetting Tachyon, it didn't reduce her HP, it wasn't dealt to her.
The same instance of damage can't be dealt to 2 targets. If one of them takes damage the other can't.
This has to be true for the ruling on redirection and "next damage" to work.
If your turn starts with both a "next time dealt damage" and a "first time this turn dealt damage" active, they must work the same.
Either that or Christopher's English degree was a huge waste of time and this game is rewriting the meaning of words.
Here is my counter argument: we only know that all modifiers are canceled and recalculated, nothing had ever said that the designation of “would be dealt damage” goes away.
In fact, it makes very little sense for it to go away. That would mean that NightMist can redirect the first damage, have the first damage dealt be canceled, then redirect the next etc.
Nothing had ever said that it is first time for each card/power, only the first tome a target is dealt damage, so clearly that can’t work.