Question about Omnitron-X's power

Hi. Apologies if this has been answered before, I couldn't find it.

O-X's power allows you to put into play the top card of any deck (rather than letting ny player put into play a card from the top of his deck).

How should card "ownership" and effects be decided? e.g: (card names and text may not be literal, don't have them with me right now)

Unity's "brainstorm" - "You draw 2 cards. Unity deals 2 damage" 

-> While it is clear that Unity deals the damage, who draws 2 cards? O-X or Unity? I've been assuming the former

Any non "one-shot" card: Who controls the card ? the owner of the deck or O-X? A literal interpretation of the rules suggests the latter, but it just seems too wierd.

Thanks

I believe like all cards that for you to play the top card, the person still benefits form it in that case. Like the environment card from ruins of atlantis.

So we should just consider that the card was "put into play" by the owner of the deck? that seems very reasonable, but I wasn't sure if it was the right way to do it.

O-X is absolutely amazing with Unity then. Those golems just pop up like mushrooms Well, I guess I could just say O-X is amazing. Period.

I play it that O-X is essentially allowing the owner of the deck to put a card into play, not that O-X takes over the card that gets played.

Yeah, the same as if the Adept lets someone play a card.

Sort of.  Omnitron-X's power can still be used while effects are in play that say "you cannot play cards" (I know some card in Megalopolis does this), since OX's puts them directly into play.

Ah, yes, good point - that's cool then :). The down side to the way Omnitron-X's power works is that you have to either play this unknown card, or put it in the trash. Well, I suppose it isn't unknown if another character (eg Tempest, with Reclaim from the Deep) has recently controlled which card is currently on the top of the deck. But you know what I mean ;).

Agreed.  It usually involves an element of risk

Omnitron_X's power does not let you PLAY cards. it only PUTS them into play. therefore, ONE-SHOTS cannot be played with this power; they are simply put into the trash.

you do not PUT into play one-shots; you PLAY them. O-X's power does not let you use revealed one-shots. only "permanent" cards that are PUT into play like ongoing and equipment cards.

Where are you finding that distinction?  Could you give us a citation in any of the rulebooks?

Due to numerous conversations I've had with Christopher regarding not only O-X's power, but the interactions between one-shots and cards like Positive and Negative Energy Field, I believe your statements are wholly incorrect.

Yup, the official ruling is now and always has been that one-shots that are put into play do their thing, and don't just get discarded...

Yeah, otherwise Ghostly Images would be a bit buggered (at least I think that says "Put it into play"...can't remember actually). The difference beterrn playing something and putting it into play is more notable when, for example, you can't play cards (due to something like a Hostage Situation), Omni-10 could use his power to get someone to "put a card into play", not the same thing as playing it, so that person would be able to get a card out and get around the "can't play cards" rule :).

(heheh stupid morodor)

Anyways - the ruling has always been that One shots are put in play, then take their action printed, then are put into the trash. They are not instants from Magic :P They are whole cards that enter play on the table and interact, and the one shot designator means they all have a rider of 'after doing this action, put this card in the discard pile'

however, there are a couple distinctions to make, both on One-shots and playing.

You can put cards into play even if you can't play them (beat down, megalopolis, etc.) but not vice-versa.  Playing = putting into play, but putting into play =/= playing.

Also, although one-shots are resolved and then sent to the trash, they are not destroyed. therefore, if fixed point is in play, they don't become ongoings, and cards that react to cards being destroyed (Anubis, the Fence, etc.) don't trigger from them.

well, i'll be.

but to be fair, >G rules are ambiguous at best and mine was a fair assumption to make since every other cardgame makes this distinction between instant/event type cards and permanent/ongoing type cards.

then why doesn't he just say "You can PLAY the card or discard it."? Why even use the confusing "put into play" language?

EDIT: just read the other thread about why this distinction. it sure is fuzzy though.

if you guys are right, O-X just got a whole lot cooler (and he was already pretty damn cool)!

I haven't played every other card game, but the definitions of Play and One-Shot in the Glossary make things at least moderately clear.

I played O-X for the first time last weekend and we had the same problem deciding between whether he could use his power to play a One Shot or now. The funny thing is that our logic was the same as plasticbrain's because my cousin and I are both former MTG players. We didn't have access to the rules doc, but I had a vague recollection of the One Shots being "put into play but then destroyed after resolution" so we ended up playing it right. 

Long story short: 1) I see where plasticbrain is coming from and 2) that Boromir meme made me LOL. 

I think a lot of people make comparisons to Magic when playing Sentinels, which is funny considering their continued attempts to keep simple timing rules (i.e. NOT Magic: The Gathering).  I can definitely understand the comparison, but generally with >G, the "rule of cool" applies to this game.  Usually if something has the potential to be awesome, it is.

Its tough, ill give you that - our play group is L5R players, some serious ones too - so we get some pretty amusing rules calls through Sentinels when were playing :P