Or, comparing "first time" with "next time" is not possible, due to the fact that both act differently and thus cannot be used to compare one another.
First time, trigger multiple times, but only a single time per round or turn.
Next time, triggers once.
Actually they don't. Here is a scenario where "next time dealt damage" and "first time dealt damage will work differently.
A attacks B. A's damage is reduced to 0 or less from other sources. B has "next time reduce damage by X." and "The first time you were dealt damage, redirect it."
In this case, the "next damage" is used up but the "first time" is not. They are two different cases with different rules.
I would say that these cases are not similar. In the case of redirection, all modifiers are canceled, but the designation of "would be dealt damage" still hangs around (otherwise you can redirect "first damage" indefinitely). However, not being able to deal damage is completely different. The attack doesn resolve at all, nothing happens, the attack is completely prevented. Therefore, there are no modifiers and a designation of "would be dealt damage" was never applied.
But that's not always true.
We saw this with PW Haka/Shielding and Fixer's Mantis. Haka Shields Fixer. Fixer gets dealt an instance of 4 damage. Shielding brings it to 2 so Mantis redirects it. Fixer no longer has Shielding even after the redirection "recalculated and rest" the damage, as Shielding was nessesarily used. This ruling directly contradicts your above statement.
Both Ronway and I have outlined numberous times exactly how "first time" and "next time" are not exactly the same thing. I even made a little English experiment to demonstrate this. It has not been refuted (mainly because it can't)
This is a pretty bad example. Synaptic Interuption does not have the conditional trigger clause of "first time" and even includes the optional term "may". You can use Synaptic ANY time you could be dealt 3 or more damage. This example can't prove what you want it to.
I agree with this. Since cards dont "exhaust" or "Tap" like other games if the "would be dealt damage" just went away after the redirect there would be nothing there telling it that it can't redirect again after each redirect.
Ronway pointed out that "first time each turn" restarts each turn, "Next time" doesn't.
That isn't being debated.
You showed that you don't redirect 0 damage. That is all. First vs. Next had nothing to do with your example. If both of the effects said first time each turn they would resolve the same way, because you were comparing different effects.
If you take any effect that says "next time dealt damage," and the same effect but word it "the First time each turn" then inside of a single turn that starts with the either effect active, it will necessarily act the same.
Therefore any situation where we get a ruling on how "Next" works inside of a single turn, will affect how "First time" would work in the same scenario.
That's all there needs to be said. The effects will act the same under these conditions. So if your damage reduction is first time each turn, or next time, and the redirection vs. consumable reduction comes up the ruling we have will apply.
Because the only difference between "Next" and "First" is when they are active. If the game situation has both active at the same time, they will act the same.
Just like Galvanize, while active, works the same as the buff from Inspiring Presence while it is in play.
The only difference they have is when they are active.
Good lord, this again.
"Next" is always available, it can always be the next time you take damasge. "First" is not, it may not be the first time you took damage. That's a critical difference. Maybe you're parsing "active at the same time" in an odd way, but the fact is, next can be triggered when first can't, and technically first is still hanging out unused and unable to trigger.
For example, you take damage at the start of your turn, play a card with a first or next trigger, and then with your power, do damage to someone who hits you back. "Next" works in that situation, "first" does not, both are active and untriggered. The wording makes the difference.
Next literally means:
The first time after Next is stated that it happens.
Let's go back to the bus example
Two men standing at the bus stop.
They both say "Let's get on the next bus that stops here."
A bus pulls up, one man gets on, the other doesn't.
A second bus pulls up, the other man gets on it.
Only one man got on the next bus.
In the instance I gave they will act the same. Seriously. The majority of the time when you activate an ability that triggers on "the next time you would be dealt damage" that damage is likely to be the first time you are dealt damage on whatever turn you are dealt damage.
The ONLY time The Next damage you would be dealt is not the first damage you are dealt in a turn is requires:
1. The effect not being active at the start of your turn.
2. damage effect trigger occurs while the effect is not active.
3. The effect is activated.
4. Damage dealt trigger activated while it is still the same turn.
That is the only way a "Next Time you would be dealt damage" effect will be different from the same effect with "The first time each turn you would be dealt" as the trigger.
Two men say they are going to walk into the next bar they see. Only one walks into it. The other laughs.
???
seriously we need an official ruling on this.
Can we isolate an easy in game example to get a ruling on? Are we going with the double superhuman redirection with 2 instances if damage example? And honestly this is probably the last thing Christopger will want to answer after a cruise. Maybe MigrantP can lend an opinion. He has to be kinda good with rules stuff these days.
He didn't say anything about them using the door.
The overarching question is whether redirected or prevented damage counts as "would have dealt damage" after it is redirected/prevented.
A good example would be the one mentioned on the Sentinels + Guise thread, if Guise had Uh, Yeah, I'm that guy copying the Sentinels with Human Shield + Caligunous Form in play, and had Beefcake in play would Guise be able to redirect 2 instances of damage or one?
I'm so sick of the rerurgitating of the same bad argument again I might barf mysef. If on next damge gets bypassed, it obviously triggers the next time you take damage, because the next time is still in play. Always. Any time you take damage, until the effect is removed from play, it's the next time.
Since next effects tend to get used up permanently, and first ones don't, this is fine from a game balance perspective.
that is restarting the effect.
Next doesn't self-perpetuate, it has to be reactivated.
I'm so sick of the rerurgitating of the same bad argument again I might barf mysef.
And I get tired of explaining the meaning of words to people who don't seem capable of picking up a dictionary or understanding the concept of timing.
I guess we all have our burdens to bear.
Your entire concept of next is based on the idea that if you miss the next one, there is always the next one after that. But that is a falacy, because that one is the one after next. First time each turn reactivates every turn, Next reactivates when you freaking reactivate the ability, not whenever you want it to.
It's like I'm talking to a brick wall, which is why we need to drop this and wait for an official ruling.
That's just it: if it wasn't used, there's no need to reactivate. It didn't trigger. Dictionary, meet brick wall #1, dictionary, meet brick wall #2. But any dictionary that insists first = next is a really odd one.
Seriously, listen to the context.
At the start of your turn, the first damage you are dealt that turn will also be the next damage you are dealt.
That is a fact.
Read through this thread, Every page or so we get someone new rehashing this, I'm not saying first is next, I'm saying they will work the same in the examples that have been given by me throughout this thread.
Can I suggest that we stop here? All that's happening is that the same arguments are being repeated over and over again, and people are getting pissed off and neither side is close to convincing the other.
Let's ask for an official answer, huh?
And its also fact that anything after the first of something can also be labeled as the "next" one.
On to the next argument. And the next argument. And the next argument after that. They are all technically "next" are they not? Is this not also a correct usage of the word?
Can we get an in game example to illustrate what we are arguing? I think we have totally lost sight of any practical application this discussion might have had. At least I have. Idk about anyone else.
I agree with Silverleaf, but I would like to come up with a list of related scenarios, so that when we do get an answer, it applies to all of them. If we can find the really weird corner cases now, then we're less likely to go through this pain a second time.
To start the list:
Advanced Iron Legs (Motivated by Desperation) has 2 Superhuman Redirections out, and is attacked for 4, 5, & 5.
Advanced La Capitan (Split Across Time) has 3 cards under her, and is attacked for 2, 2, 2, 2, & 2
Fright Train has Engine of Destruction out, with Bloogo next to him with 1 HP, and is attacked for 1, 1, & 1.
4) Guise has Total Beefcake and Uh, Yeah, I'm That Guy! (copying Writhe's Caliginous Form), and is attacked for 1, 1, & 1.