Isolated Hero and Incapacitated Abilities

In a 4 hero game, 3 heroes were incapacitated, the last active hero has Isolated Hero on him, can other incapacitated heroes let the Isolated Hero play a card, use a power, draw a card?

Anytime I have played it and that happens i've always went with they cannont use anything that would directly effect the hero, since a incapped hero is still a hero card.

/agree

Yes. And this is why Miss Information makes me cry.

/deals self two psychic damage

Couldn't Isolated Hero protect from damage Fanatic deals to someone when she puts her "extra power" ongoing on them (assuming Fanatic's card is on them before Isolated Hero)?

Or does Isolated Hero cut the hero off from ongoing effects already in play?

I would say that the hero can't benefit from Embolden (I think that's the card) because they can't gain the benefit from any effect from any other hero. So you wouldn't get an extra power use until the Isolated Hero effect was removed. I suppose occasions on which this card is actually helpful would be, for example, when Haka goes on a Rampage - you can't be affected by other hero effects therefore Haka can't hit you. Or the reverse, if it's Haka who's Isolated - he can hit all the bad guys but none of the heroes :). Similarly, heroes who help out by nerfing the bad guys rather than buffing their friends wouldn't be affected much, eg Tachyon using Hypersonic Assault to stop non-heroes from dealing damage. It isn't an effect that can land on heroes, therefore it goes off, but still helps the heroes because the bad guys can't hit them for a round :).

If you look closely at incapacitated abilities, some say "One player may ..." and some say "One hero may ...".  Considering that the text of Isolated Hero states "That hero and that hero's cards cannot affect or be affected by any hero card or effect from another hero deck.", I think of the incapacitated abilities that say "One player may ..." as usable, as they target the player rather than the hero.

Furthermore, the definition of a deck in the glossary of the Enhanced Edition rulebook is "The set of all cards associated with a specific hero, villian, or environment.  All cards in a deck have a uniform back."  This description clearly doesn't include hero character cards, as they don't have the same back.  Also, character cards are never shuffeled in, drawn from, or otherwise mixed with cards in a deck, and a single deck can be used interchangeably with different hero character cards, i.e. standard versus promitional heros.  Furthermore, the definition of a hero card is "any card from a hero deck", which would therefore not include hero character cards.  So, I read Isolated hero to mean that the hero character card that Isolated Hero is placed next to and all the cards in that hero's deck are blocked from other hero's cards, but NOT from other hero character cards.  By this literal interpretation, even incapacitated abilities that affect other heros are usable, both to and from isoated heros, as long as they don't directly affect any hero cards from either hero's decks.

Now, let's look at the specific example of Chrono Ranger's incapacitated abilities.  They are:

* One player may play a card now.

* One hero may use a power now.

* One hero may deal 1 target 1 projectile damage now.

Playing a card could be interpreted as directly affecting the card played or as granting the ability for a card to be played, and then the playing of a hero card is a separate action without any direct connection to the incapacitated ability.  The wording of the first incapacitated ability makes it clear that the latter interpretation is correct in this case.

Allowing a hero to deal damage to a target clearly doesn't involve any of that hero's cards, but of course, that damage could not target a hero card belonging to another hero.  So, for example, Chrono Hunter could not allow an isolated Tachyon to destroy one of Unity's Bee Bots, but it could allow her to reduce a 2 hp unity to 1 hp so that the players would have the choice of choosing the bee bot for some damage that chooses highest hp targets.  This restriction is not a restiction on the incapacitated ability, however... it's just a limitation on the isolated hero's ability to damage other hero's hero cards.

The use of a power could be interpreted as directly activating a power card or as granting the hero the ability to use a power that would then be followed by the hero's use of that ability to activate a power.  In the case of the former interpretation, only the innate powers on hero character cards would be legitimate choices, but in the case of the latter, any power on any card would be fair game.  It's not clear which interpretation is correct, but I read it as the latter.

There are a few incapacitated abilities which can directly affect hero cards.  For example, Omnitron X has "Select a target.  Reduce damage dealt to that target by 1 until the start of your next turn."  This ability could not be used by isolated heros on other heros' hero cards, or by heros on isolated heros' hero cards, but could be used on any hero character cards.  Note that this damage reduction is reducing damage dealt TO a target and not damage being dealt FROM a target, or else the damage could be reduced because it would be affecting a villain target instead of a hero target.  Another example is Unity's "The hero target with the lowest hp regains 2 hp."  This would be completely shut down if the hero target with the lowest hp was a Visionary's Decoy Projection and either Unity or Visionary were affect by Isolated Target, as the Decoy Projection could not be affected by the hp gain and Unity's ability could not affect any target with more hp.

One other thing to note about Isolated Hero that may not be an issue for incapaciated abilities is that redirected damage is defined as affecting not affecting the original target of the damage, so it stands to reason that damage redirection abilities can be used on damage from villain or environment targets to divert damage away from hero cards affected by Isolated Hero, but it's less clear whether or not damage could be redicted to hero cards affected by Isolated Hero.  However, I interpret this as the redirection ability affects the source of the damage, but does not affect either the target the damage is redirected from or the target the damage is redirected to.

The intention of the card is very clear cut. If you are an isolated hero, nothing coming from any other player/hero can effect you. 

I know you want to make a distinction between the cards saying "player" and "hero", but that semantic leep there just does not hold up. You are completley shut off from everything outside of yourself and the villain/environment when Isolated. 

Lets say you are playing Argent Adept. You have 1HP and Miss Info just Isolated you. Your friend plays Unity and throws out Stealth Bot. You would NOT be able to redirect damage from Argent Adept to Stealth Bot while he is Isolated.

Lets take the reverse. Say Unity is Isolated with Stealth Bot in play. Stealth Bot would NOT be able to redirect any damage from any other hero or hero target except for those owned by Unity.

That is the entire point of the card. Incap abilities would work no differently, regardless of what they are.

Of course the text doesn't say "a hero may play a card" - it's the player that does all the card stuff. It's the hero that uses the power, but the hero doesn't wander around drawing and playing cards from their own deck!

I assume that's the reason behind the different wording of player/hero effects, because it would be incorrect to refer to heroes drawing/playing, or to players using powers (unless you're a superhero in real life, in which case why aren't you out there saving the multiverse instead of playing card games? ;)), but I agree with Foote here that it's clear what the card means. No effects from any other heroes. Nothing.

That may be the intent, but if that's the case, I'll expect to see some official errata, since it's clearly not the rules as written.  Also, even if it were a given that there can be no interaction between hero character cards, regardless of the text of the incapacitated abilities, when one of them is isolated, I still think that redirecting damage dealt by villain or environment targets would be fair game.  It makes more sense that a redirection ability affects the damage source than any of the potential targets that damage might be dealt to.

When a hero deals damage due to the effect of another hero's card, that hero is being affected.

And that hero does not exist outside of their character card.  the hero card is involved in everything that hero does.  when it deals damage the card itself is considered the source of the damage, so if Jim Brooks tries to cause Wraith to deal damage, Wraith's character card is affected by Jim Brook's character card.

Therefore it can't happen under the rules of isolated hero.

If heroes could act without their character card being involved Chrono Ranger could just have someone not involved in the fight do the damage.  The reason that can't happen is the only heroes that can do anything in a game are the ones with hero character cards in play.  Their character card is responsible for anything that hero does.  That character card 'is' that hero.  There is no seperation between a hero and the hero character card.

If the source of the misdirection is from a hero card or ability, no you could not redirect villain and enviro damage. But if the environment redirects villain damage to the isolated hero (however that might occur) then that's fair game. 

phantaskippy, I completly agree with everything you just wrote, except for this sentence:

Foote, can you reference any official ruling about that?  I still disagree with your interpretation, and haven't been able to find any rulings to support either of us.

The reason behind the fact that you probably can't find any official ruling on it is this is the only thread that has been brought up about it, and the only time someone has openly opposed what has been previously said.

It expressly says the isolated hero can't "affect or be affected by any hero card or effect from another hero deck". 

Ok. That's a direct quote. Can you please point to an effect a player does that doesn't come from that players hero deck? Then we can be on the same page. 

Well dwetuski's claim above is that the character card itself is not a hero card or part of a hero deck, and therefor not strictly covered by "any hero card or effect from another hero deck".

I think he is just seeing what he wants to see though.  It's true that the rulebook definition of "hero card" and "hero deck" describe the non-character cards, but the definition of character card also describes it as being 'of a deck' and notes that they are different from "the rest of their deck".

Not to mention all the common sense arguments.  I mean, dwetuski, wouldn't that also mean that the character cards are 'non-hero cards' and thus shut down by ground pound or grease gun?  Or for that matter wouldn't they then be unaffected by all the things which damage hero targets?

A hero character card is also considered a hero card if that's the main issue here. 

The Character card of a hero is a part of that hero's deck.

Even if it isn't a hero card, it is part of the deck.  The incapacitated side of a hero character card is a part of that hero's deck.  The effect of a hero character card is an effect of a hero deck.

I don't really get the idea that a character card isn't part of the deck.  If you order a replacement deck, do you get a character card with it?

Thematically, how do you justify a situation where a hero is unable to be affected by his teammates except for occasionally when he isn't? Doesn't make any sense to me.

An isolated hero is isolated. Not "this hero can't be affected unless I can flange it to say he can".

If the isolated hero is not one of the incapped, he didn't make it to the death-trap party in time.

Yes, as per the defitions of "Hero", "Hero Card", "Hero Character Card", and "Hero Target" in the Enhanced Edition glossary, hero character cards are not hero cards and are not part of hero decks.  It is true that the definition of a "Character Card", which I had not noticed until dypaca pointed it out suggests that hero character cards are hero cards, which seems to contradict the wording of the previous 4 definitions.

dypaca, as for your other questions, hero targets would still include hero character cards even if they are not hero cards because the definition of a hero target is "any target that is also a hero card or a hero character card.  If a card affects non-hero targets, it can affect any targets that are not hero cards or hero character cards".  The defintions of "Villain", "Villain Card", "Villain Characer Card", and "Villain Target" follow the pattern of their hero counterparts, which would mean that non-hero cards would include villain cards (but not villain character cards) and environment cards, so no, the character cards would not be shut down by Ground Pound, for example.

Thematically, Isolated Hero makes no sense at all, because if the hero were truly isolated from the rest of the fight, either that hero or all of the other heros would also be isolated from the villain.  It's hard to imagine a situation in which the heros are completely isolated from each other, but are in no way isolated from any of the same villains or environment features.

Everything I've found in the rules so far, with the notable exception of the defition of "Character Card", as pointed out by dypaca, suggests that character cards are not part of decks.  Aside from everything I've already pointed out, there is also the fact that in the Enhanced Edition component list, it separately lists 10 hero character cards and 400 hero cards, and then goes on to say that each hero deck contains 40 cards.  If you look at spiff's card list pdf (http://www.spiffworld.com/sotm/files/sotm_card_info.pdf), you can count the cards in the hero decks as 40 and see that they don't include hero character cards.

phantaskippy, I have not ordered a replacement deck, but a hero is not playable without both a hero character card and a hero deck, so it would be nice for hero character cards to be included with the replacement deck orders.  That doesn't necessarily mean that the hero character card is part of a hero deck in gameplay terms, however... it could simply be included as a "bonus".

dypaca, if you believe I'm trying to twist the rules to a certain outcome, then you have the wrong impression of me.  I'm simply trying to resolve cognitive dissonance so that I can be confident that I'm playing the game correctly, and I don't particularly care which interpretation turns out to be correct, so long as I can have confidence in it.  The bulk of the evidence supports the interpretation that I'm arguing for, but I agree that it's not clearly correct, which is why I'm hoping to see some official clarification that resolves the contradictory wordings in the rules.

I don't mean to sound too critical.  I enjoy doing very technical analysis of the rules as well.  And I do admit that there are rules like putting a destroyed card in the trash which mean non-character cards.  However I think it is reaching to say the card representing the hero is not a hero card.  Accepting that they are hero targets does clear up most of the problems caused by your interpretation, but that still leaves Ground Pound which stops non-hero cards from dealing damage.  That will be all damage dealers except Unity's bots if the heros are non-hero cards.  Plus it doesn't make any sense to me that you would be isolated from Legacy's Inspiring Presence, but not Legacy.

The question of exact status of character cards has come up before with the whole issue of whether the operative is a villain card.  While Isolated Hero and Ground Pound are the only cards I can think of which call out hero/non-hero cards, there are many abilities which call out villain cards.  (and I'm quite certain they are all supposed to apply to the Operative).

While looking through my decks for cards which specifically reference "villain cards", I found an interesting example.  The original text for Tempest's "Into the Stratosphere" reads "Choose 1 villain card in play and put it on top of the villain deck...."  In this case, "villain card" is clearly not meant to include villain character cards, but the Enhanced Edition text reads "Select 1 non-indestructible villain card in play, other than a character card, and put it on top of the villain deck...."  This could just be redundant wording for clarity, but in light of the Character Card definition you pointed out earlier, I think it's more likely that the authors had originally conceived of hero character cards and villain characted cards as not being hero cards and villain cards, respectively, but then at some later time changed their minds without updating all of the rules text to match.  This would explain the confusion and contradictory wordings we've identified so far.  Unfortunately, if this is the case, it casts doubt on the meaning of all cards that mention hero cards or villain cards, because they could have been written with different ideas of whether or not those terms included character cards.

I'm happy to put something into the pending rules questions for this, but would like to get a concise question drafted from someone rather than trying to do it myself.

Hero character card: The "main"  card for a hero. 

Thats straight out of the glossary, quotation marks and all. Common, this is quite clear that the character card is a hero card. They even go as far as to expressly call it the main hero card.  

The character card is definitely not a hero card, but it is definitely still the hero, so they still can't affect anyone through an Isolated Hero. 

Edit: Nevermind, the Deck has a uniform back, so incapped folks can still do stuff to isolated heroes. Seems like they shouldn't but there's nothing RAW that goes against that.

Actually, this should probably be "1) Do hero character cards count as hero cards, and does a hero character card count as a card from hero's deck?"

Agreed.

Actually looking at the definitions I have to agree that the way Isolated Hero is worded and the definitions from the the rule books, Isolated Hero would not stop any hero character card from affecting the isolated hero.  They could be affected by incaps and base powers.

I expect that is not the intention, but if you just look at the definitions then there isn't much room to say otherwise.  Hero Character cards do not have the uniform back, so they are not part of the deck, and thus are not a hero card.

Gah.  Guess I should have read what this thread was about better before I commented on it.

Hopefully we get this cleared up, I can't imagine that is what they were intending, but who knows, maybe it was intentional.

Plus by the definitions Hero card and effect of another hero's deck are the same thing, which makes the wording redundant, can't imagine they intended base powers to work.

Ground-Pound specifically states non-hero cards. It does not say targets like grease gun does. So you are in fact saying that playing ground pound prevents the hero character card from dealing damage. There is no way that can be right, but that's what you are implying. 

I haven't found a specific definition for non-hero cards.  It might be that non-hero cards are any cards which are not hero cards, in which case, according to the definitions, you are right, and hero character cards would be prevented from doing damage by Ground Pound but hero cards would not, which may not be the intent.  There is a defintion for non-hero targets, however: "any targets that are not hero cards or hero character cards".  We could therefore extrapolate that "non-hero cards" means "any cards which are not hero cards or hero character cards", in which case Ground Pound would not shut down hero character cards, or that "non-hero cards" follows the pattern of "hero cards" within the scope of "any cards that are not hero cards or hero character cards", in which case Ground Pound would not shut down any character cards.  It should be noted that extrapolation is generally considered bad practice, but without anything concrete to refer to, there's not much choice.

I would assume that non-hero cards is a category, it is not the same as saying any card that is not a hero card.  There is no direct definition of non-hero cards in the glossary, but when speaking of non-hero targets the glossary states that non-hero targets are any targets that are not hero cards or hero character cards.

Again I think the way the definitions and Isolated hero are worded is not intentional but an oversight, but under the current wording and definitions I don't see how it can be ruled any other way.  

So, I guess we also need:

4) What is the definition of a non-hero card?

Thanks, arenson9.

I think there are 4 key questions (edited):

1) Do hero character cards count as hero cards, and does a hero character card count as a card from hero's deck?

2) For cards which restirct effects e.g. Isolated Hero, do abilities that mention allowing players to draw/play a card, e.g. Fleet of Foot and many incapacitated abilities, count as affecting the cards or merely the player?

3) For cards which restirct effects e.g. Isolated Hero, do abilities that change damage types, modify damage amounts or redirect damage from one target to another, affect the source of the damage, it's (pre- / post- redirect) target, or both?

4) What is the definition of a non-hero card?

Foote, "hero card" is a specific game term, and "the main card for a hero" doesn't specifically use the term "hero card".

Really?

Wouldn’t the Chairman answer some of these questions? If the Chairman is killed, he is put in the villain trash, shuffled into the villain deck if it runs out of cards, and played from the villain deck. None of this would happen if the card wasn’t part of the villain deck.

The Chairman is the only villain to do such, is he not?

Yes, but only becauuse the game ends with the others, and Omnitron specifically says remove from the game. So, technically, everyone would, but there is something else preventing it.

Not necessarily. The Chairman may just be an exception to the norm, rather than the single baseline showing what would otherwise happen.

Except for the fact that the Chairman doesn’t state what happens to it when it is killed like the Ennead or Omnitron. To me at least, this would mean it just follows the “normal” rules are villain cards. This would be the “normal” rule even though it only applies to this one case, and it needed to be pointed out by Christopher.

Thanks for drafting questions. My general sense is that we are dangerously close to wasting our time and the designers time by asking about these topics, so I am inclined to cut these down as much as possible to the most important questions. I am also interested in providing, as much as possible, specific examples to judge. I have completed dropped the third and fourth questions.  I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at with your third question, but my intuition is that an examination of any particular, specific example is likely enough to lead to a clear answer. Admittedly, Isolated Hero has struck me from the very beginning as being inherently challenging to deal with, so I'll allow that some specific examples might not be obvious, but, ironically, for that very reason I think that trying to ask a generalized question about Isolated Hero's effects is hard to do. For #4, unless the designers surprise me by saying that hero character cards are not hero cards, I don't want to bother them with a further question about something which strikes me as self-evident.

Here's what I'm considering asking:

1. Do hero character cards count as hero cards? In particular, if Isolated Hero is in play, can the base power or incapacitated abilities of a hero character card be used to affect the Isolated Hero?

2. If the answer to #1 is that hero character cards ARE hero cards and, thus, the base power or incapacitated abilities of a hero character card can NOT be used to affect the Isolated Hero, does that continue to hold true for effects which mention a Player rather than a Hero?

Do you approve?

So now the claim is that the Hero Character Cards may not be Hero Cards and also not Non-Hero Cards?  But that they are definately Hero Targets?  It seems like a good general rule that a card has to be either a 'x card' or a 'non-x card' for any 'x'.  Otherwise we start needing glossary definitions for things like what the term 'Non-Character Card' or 'Non-Agent Card' means.

On a side note, rechecking for abilities that reference Villain Cards, I came up with Smoke Bombs, Lead from the Front, and Ammo Drop.  Several of the abilities which I thought might, like Divine Focus or Genebound Shackles, specify Villain Target.  I hadn't noted that because they would only apply to cards with HP anyway and until this thread I'd never heard a claim that "<adjective> target" might not be equivalent to the term "<adjective> card with HP".

I think those two questions handle the question asked in the original post of this thread.

The third question deals with a different issue regarding Isolated Hero.  Say, for example, Unity has a Stealth Bot in play and Visionary has a Decoy projection in play.  Isolated Hero is in play next to Visionary.  A villain target tries to deal damage to Decoy Projection.  Can the damage be redirected to Stealth Bot because it's damage dealt by a villain target, which is not blocked by Isolated Hero, or can it not be redirected because it's trying to target Decoy Projection, which is blocked by Isolated Hero?

I agree that the fourth question is only relevant if hero character cards are not hero cards.

I think the Chrono Ranger example I mentioned earlier works well for questions 1 and 2, summarized: "Can Chrono Ranger use his incapacitated abilities to allow a hero affected by Isolated Hero to use a power or to allow that hero's player to play a card?"

For #4, "Which of these card types does Ground Pound prevent from dealing damage: hero character cards, villain character cards, villain cards?"

For question 3, I agree that I've always found the term 'cannot affect' to be nebulous.

The general rule I came up with is that any time the isolated hero's card says 'target' or 'card', I add on 'except for other hero's cards'.  And conversely anytime any other hero's card says 'target' or 'card', I add on 'except for the Isolated Hero's cards'.  This generally seems to play out in logical ways to me.  Things like Lead From the Front and Heroic Interception are blocked, but things like Twist the Ether and Wrest the Mind on a non-hero target are not.

Of course there are still strange cases, like Twist the Ether already in play on a Hero target.  In this case adding my assumed text onto the phrase 'that target' doesn't really make a well formed sentence.  I've waffled between saying the Twist the Ether just has no effect while isolated from its target and saying that Twist the Ether should react as though its target left play.

Oh wow, I hadn't even thought about the question of whether or not cards like Twist the Ether should remain in play if the cards they modify become blocked by Isolated Hero.

Yeah, on the one hand, saying that these cards have effectively 'left play' seems to go beyond the intention and text of Isolated Hero.  But otherwise I run into questions like what happens if the target actually does leave play while Isolated?  If Twist the Ether then reacts and is destroyed, it seems like a violation of the cards being isolated from each other.

BTW, this question of villain character cards came up here:

https://greaterthangames.com/forum/topic/villain-card-clarification-2983

From that thread:

Now for an Isolated Hero question:

Haka is all alone, and before that happened, he had Savage Mana out and he rampaged poor Mr. Chomps. Now he wants to activate Savage Mana's power. What would happen?

I would say Raptor Bot would remain under Savage Mana and not count as being destroyed for Savage Mana's damage. Since Raptor Bot is still considered a hero card, it stands to reason that would still be Unity's Hero card, thus not being able to be affected by Haka's card, which is trying to destroy it.

That's how I would handle it until an official ruling says otherwise.

Yes, that thread discussed basically the exact same issue, but it doesn't answer the question.  It only looks at the definition of Character Card in which the wording sounds like hero/villain character cards are hero/villain cards and not the 8 other glossary definitions + components list text that are worded as if they're not.  Also, in that thread, spiff mentions "a conversation here on the forums about what exactly a villain character card is received confirmation from Christopher (probably)", but it's not linked from his post, and I haven't been able to find it using targetted Google searches.

That is an interesting question.  I think either Raptor Bot would remain below Savage Mana and not be destroyed when the power is used, or Raptor Bot would immediately go into Unity's trash when Isolated Hero comes into play.

In the components, Hero Cards don't bring up the Hero Character Cards, because they have their own entry, as they are different enough to warrant it. Plus there is no reason to list them twice.

Character Card says "Character Cards do not have the same back as the rest of their deck" so they certainly part of that deck.

Hero Card "Any card from a hero deck" going by Character Card's definition they are part of the deck, thus a hero character card is still a hero card.

Hero Character Card, it doesn't mention anything about it being a hero card, but it doesn't say it's not either. Plus going by both the previous definitions, we can figure out that Hero Character Cards are infact Hero cards.

Deck "All cards in a deck have a uniform back" this is talking specifically about the 40 hero cards that make up a deck (or 25 villain card that make the villain deck or 15 environment cards that make the environment deck).

Going by all this we can get that Hero Character Cards are Hero Cards, are a part of a hero deck, but do not make up the deck.

So, you're suggesting that character cards are part of their corresponding decks, but are not "in a deck", and do not "make up a deck"?  Hmm... interesting.  It's a bit of a weird distinction, as I generally think of "being a part of" something and "making up" something as being semantically equivallent, but given how confusing the wording of these definitions is, it's worth considering.  If we conveniently interpret the texts stating how many cards comprise a deck as only counting the cards "in a deck" and not the cards that are "part of" a deck, then the numbers become irrelevant to the question, and if we also conventiently interpret "from a deck" to mean "any card that is part of a deck" and not "any card in a deck" or "any card that makes up a deck", then "hero cards" would include "hero character cards", and Isolated Hero would prevent the use of incapacitated abilities that directly affect other heros, which I think is what most people imagine the intent of the card to be, although the other questions about how Isolated Hero works would remain unanswered.

This interpretation has the merit of eliminating the contradictions in the wording of the various definions, although it does leave the question of why so many definitions refer to hero character cards and hero cards as two separate things.  The definition of a hero states that heroes have "hero character cards" and that each has a "deck of 40 hero cards" in completely separate sentences.  The definition of a hero target is "any target that is a hero card or a hero character card", as though they're 2 distinct types of card.  If hero character cards are hero cards, this could simply be written as "any target that is a hero card".

... I hope future printings of the rulebook will have revised glossary definitions to eliminate this confusion.

Squares and Rectangles are also "distinct" shapes. But squares are always rectangles due to implied definition, though it does not work the other way around. 

Rectangles = hero cards

Squares = hero character cards

They are cards. That belong to a hero. And you still say they are not hero cards. Lets not throw away all other sound logic and reason due to the glossary not saying something. 

I want to say something about the savage mana question.  Even though raptor bot is a hero card it is not seen as a Unity hero card when it is under savage mana.  It's only a generic hero card, for what it's worth.

Here is a quote from Christopher before IR came out:

https://greaterthangames.com/comment/5106#comment-5106

Since at that point all nemesis symbols were on character cards, character cards must be part of the deck.

Character Card says "Character Cards do not have the same back as the rest of their deck" so they certainly part of that deck

OK, this is true.

So yeah, character cards are double secret hero deck cards.

This works for me.

I swear I can read that glossary a hundred times and only actually see half of it.

Foote, a prerequisite for sound logic is that the logic must be valid first, and to be valid, it must be consistent.  Also, logic is a formal process whereby one starts with formal definitions and applies consistent rules to derive results that may or may not be expected.  So, disregarding formal definitions is absolutely not sound logic.  It sounds like you're confusing "logic" with "pattern recognition".

I'm on board with the hero character cards being double-secret parts of hero decks idea, but even then, it's possible to read the rules as either hero character cards are hero cards ("from a deck" means "in a deck") or that they are not ("from a deck" means "of a deck"), so it would still be nice to see that clarified.  The quote Pydro linked does make it sound like the former is more likely to be correct than the latter, so I'll play under that assumption until I see a more definite clarification.

In CCG parlayance, the character card is a "pre-game" card. A card that goes into play before the game begins. They are part of and associated with a given deck at all times.

Isolated Hero reads:

That hero and that hero's cards cannot affect or be affected by any hero card or effect from another hero deck

Stealth Bot's ability to redirect is an effect from Unity's deck, so Isolated Hero would keep it from being applied. I suppose what I'm arguing is that if an attack is being made against a card in the deck of an Isolated Hero (and I'm including the hero character card as being in the deck, but also another target, like Decoy Projection), no effects from any other hero can affect that attack. Shielding Winds wouldn't work. Heroic Interception wouldn't work. Stealth Bot wouldn't work. 

I've noticed this ambiguity of what a 'deck' means before. Sometimes it means the character card (or cards, as in The Chairman or The Ennead) and all of the other cards. Some times it just means the non-character cards that make the initial draw pile. Some times, even, it only refers to the remaining cards in the draw pile.

After the evidence supplied pointing to the ambiguity of whether or not a hero character card is also a hero card, I was open to the idea of adding to the pending questions, just to remove any hint of uncertainty. After, however, the further evidence supplied (particularly by Ronway), I'm now no longer planning on adding this to the pending questions.

dwetuski, I applaud your focus on the facts and your willingness to calmly defend your points. Examining these issues thoroughly is worthwhile, in my opinion, both for our clarity's sake and, I expect, for the people who are building an electronic version of the game. Even so, I feel that these particular questions, despite the unfortunate ambiguity in the text of the rule book and the cards, are adequately answered.

Are you satisfied with this situation? I don't want to be a dick. 

Thanks, arenson9.

Regarding the redirection question, I look at it differently.  As I understand it, damage that is redirected away from a target T does not affect that target T, so I think redirecting away from isolated targets should be allowed.  I'm on the fence about whether or not redirecting towards isolated targets should be allowed, as I think of the damage as being "owned" by its source but the damage affects the target it hits.

I'm not really familiar with <G's development process or how the pending questions thread ties into it, so I won't answer to that directly.  I do think we've collectively examined enough evidence that there's no pressing need to address the question of whether hero character cards are hero cards, but I also think that the wording of the definitions and certain cards should be reviewed with that question in mind before the next printing of the manual.

Redirection is a bit tricky. Here is one way I think it could be handled is; cards like Stealth Bot, Lead From the Front, Alchemical Redirection, Divine Sacrifice, etc. would not be possible to used to redirect damage from or to an isolated hero. Smoke Bombs wouldn't redirect if the Isolated Hero is the lowest or Wraith is the one Isolated (unless she is the lowest), but Smoke Bombs would be able to redirect damage from the lowest to the highest even if the highest is isolated. However cards like Driving Mantis, Amulet of the Elder Gods, Synaptic Interruption, etc. would allow a isolated hero (or unisolated to a isolated) to redirect damage to a unisolated hero. I don't see anyone doing that though.

So Basically redirecting damage from a isolated hero would not work, but to a isolated hero would. That being said, I don't think I would actually play it like that, but I can see how it could be agrued that it would.

But in that sense you have an isolated hero effect targeting, or being targeted by, a non isolated heros effect (in this case redirection). So I agree I wouldn't play it that way either. 

But, the redirection effect is targeting the damage, and if the damage is coming from a villain target or an environment target, is it really a hero's effect?

My thinking is that if a target is isolated from you, you can't redirect damage to it anymore than you could do anything else to that target.  For redirecting from a an isolated target, nearly all redirection has criteria on what the original target was (generally a hero target).  In these cases I would not allow you to redirect damage from a target you are isolated from either.  The exceptions are Wrest the Mind and Divine Sacrifice which just redirect damage from a source regardless of target.  So I would rule that those two effects are only affecting the source and what they redirect to, and continue to work if the original target is isolated from them.

Also a note on Smoke Bombs:  For me Smoke Bombs would even ignore the isolated hero for the purposes of determining highest and lowest hero HP.  So if Haka had the highest HP but was isolated, then smoke bombs would redirect to the next highest HP hero target.

I would not allow Smoke Bombs to redirect damage to a hero target if there was another hero target in play with higher hp.

Yes. The redirection is specifically a hero effect thats coming from a hero card.

Redirection is not affecting the instance of damage. It is actually just changing the inital target for that instance of damage. That is why Driving Mantis and Pipe Wrench work the way that they do. Consider Wrench, Mantis and Harmony are in play. Fixer Strikes himself for 1+1+1=3-1(wrench DR) = 2. This is low enough to trigger the redirection from Mantis. So now Fixer chooses a new target so he chooses the boss. Based on the rulings we have, after you redirect damage, all +/- damage modifiers get re-evaluated for the new target. Fixer would then Strike the boss for 3 damage assuming it does not have DR.

If redirection was targeting the instance of damage instead of altering just the end target, there would be no reaon to reasses the modifiers. Thats why things like Smoke Bombs redirection effect have a separate clause that deals with the instance of damage specifically.

So for Isolated hero, if you are isolated, you can not use your redirection effect to target another hero. If you are a normal hero using a redirection effect, you can not choose an isolated hero as a target for a heros redirection effect. If Smoke Bombs is out and an Isolated hero (thats not wraith) is the lowest or highest, Smoke Bombs would not even consider them in its HP calculation as I would find that in direct contradiction to the text on Isolated Hero

Sorry, I was unclear.  By this:

[quote="dwetuski"] But, the redirection effect is targeting the damage, and if the damage is coming from a villain target or an environment target, is it really a hero's effect? [/quote]

I meant "is the damage really a hero's effect", not "is the redirection really a hero's effect".

No because the target is not a function of the damage, where as the damage is very much dependant on the target. 

Redirection effects only change the target. The particular instance of damage is not being effected or altered (unless it is coming from Smoke Bombs which specifically alter the instance of damage in a separate clause). Because the instance of damage is independant from the redirection effect, it allows the damage modifiers to be reassesed for the new target. 

It really is a matter of what the effect is acting on. Redirection acts on the target, not the damage going to the target. It would be like picking up and moving a road to change the direction of a car instead of picking the car up itself if that analogy is helpful. 

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure, so please tell me if I have it wrong.

Instead of an instance of damage having the 4 properties (amount, type, source, target), you're saying that it only has the 2 properties (amount, type).  And, that each target gains the property "is a target of the current instance of damage" when that damage is being dealt and then loses that property immediatly afterwards... so therefore a redirection affect doesn't change the value of the damage's "target" property, but changes the properties of the would have been target by removing the "is a target..." property and also affects the new target by adding the "is a target..." property?

I think you can still look at damage having 4 properties if you want to view it that way. There is the base amount (the damage before modifiers), type, source (the thing that is actually dealing the damage), and the target (where the damage is being delt to).

Of those 4, redirection effects act on the Target portion. Base damage, type, and source do not change and are uneffected. And again I will point out that Smoke Bombs has a separate clause that actually does modify the base damage during the redirect. [Redacted] also has a similar redirection ability that comes with a separate clause to modify the base damage.

I make the distinction of base damage as a property because modifiers to that base damage are determined on a target by target basis. Imagine the table as a graphic user interface for a computer. You decide you want to deal damage. In my head I picture me taking my mouse and highlighting each legal target individually, seeing what the damage "would be" if I attacked them. That is the step where you assess modifiers (and possibly "would be delt damage" type trigger conditions take effect, like redirection). Redirecting changes the target, so I must "deselect" my old target, highlight my new target, use the base damage to re-calculate modifiers, and press the big red button that Tommy Lee Jones told me never to press.

Each instance of damage is only ever dealt to a single target.  A card that says to deal damage to 3 targets actually creates 3 separate instances of damage.  Each of those 3 instance of damages happens at a different time and triggers its own set of increase/decrease/redirect effects.  Also, if one of those instances of damage destroys the source, any further instances of damage that the source would have dealt will never happen.

This is correct, but I am not seeing how this relates to what we were discussing. What correlation are you trying to point out here?

I was just trying to understand what you meant by this post:

But, I think I just got confused by your car/road example.  If you mean for a car and a road to represent an instance of damage and its target, it's confusing because a target is a single, specific card, but a road is a path from one place to the next, i.e., from a starting point (the source) to a destination (the target), and a car travelling the path of that road travels from the starting point (the source) to the destination (the target).  So, I'm not sure what you mean for them to represent.

Although, now I think that I may have confused you with my wording in the post that you quoted in your post that confused me.  I think we need to clearly distinguish between the target as a card, and the selection of that target as a property of the damage, which I guess is what you were trying to do with the user interface target selction example?

I think we both agree that redirection effects change the target selection of the damage, but I don't think they affect the target, meaning a physical card with hp that was selected as the target for the damage and is not selected after the redirect effect selects a new target.  In my mind, in order for something to be affected, that means something about it has to change.  Since the physical card that damage gets redirected away from does not take any damage or trigger any effects of taking damage, or change in any other way that I'm aware of, I think that physical card target is not affected, which satisfies Isolated Hero's critera that it can't be affected.

Well see there is the thing. The target, in my mind, IS being affected by the Redirect. How? If there was no redirect, that target would have taken damage resulting in HP loss. Redirecting affected that target by allowing it to keep its HP at the expense of the HP of another target. 

Sorry if the road/car example was confusing. I was thinking that the road is the path the damage travels from point A to point B and that the damage was a car. Redirection moves the road, so to speak, so that the road now points to Point C instead of point B.

My GUI example is just an illustration of how redirection is acting on the chosen target of the damage instead of acting on the other facets of the damage component, if the target is even a facet of damage to begin with, as I am not 100% sold on that point.

I see, so because the game state in which the target would not take damage because of the redirect is different from the game state in which the target would take damage if the redirect were prevented, you consider it a change and therefore an effect.  I would agree with you if the state in which the target would take damage were to actually occur, but in order for that to happen, Isolated Hero would have to prevent the redirect.  So, in other words, in order to justify the view that Isolated Hero prevents the redirect, we have to assume that Isolated Hero would prevent the redirect in order for the state in which the target would take damage to occur, which is circular logic, and therefore invalid.

[quote="dwetuski"]

I see, so because the game state in which the target would not take damage because of the redirect is different from the game state in which the target would take damage if the redirect were prevented, you consider it a change and therefore an effect. [/quote] Yeah, makes sense. 

[quote="dwetuski"] I would agree with you if the state in which the target would take damage were to actually occur [/quote] So you agree  

[quote="dwetuski"] but in order for that to happen, Isolated Hero would have to prevent the redirect. [/quote] Isolated Hero has not been mentioned up to this point. Just that the redirect is an effect. It's an effect wether Isolated Hero exists or not. Entirely independantly. 

[quote="dwetuski"]  So, in other words, in order to justify the view that Isolated Hero prevents the redirect, we have to assume that Isolated Hero would prevent the redirect in order for the state in which the target would take damage to occur, which is circular logic, and therefore invalid. [/quote] Nope, there's no circular logic in there. You just built a loop in your own head when there doesn't need to be one.

Damage incoming to something #1 -> Redirect -> Damage goes somewhere else.

Step 2 is an effect. Now you seem to be arguing that it's an effect that doesn't actually effect something #1. We know this is not true because of the Amulet ruling. A character who can't take damage can't have the damage they wouldn't be taking in the first place redirected. The damage has to be happening to them, and then instead of physically putting the damage on them, it gets put on whatever it was redirected to.

Yes. That is what effects tend to do. They tend to alter the game states.

What? We were talking outside of Isolated Hero there and just about basic mechanics of Redirection. 

No, in order to justify that Isolated Hero can prevent redirection you just read the text on the card. Have we forgotten about that?

Can we actually talk about real in game senarios here? Speaking in generalities does no one any good in a game with so many edge cases and complex interactions. 

Bunker is Isolated. Unity also on the field, not Isolated, with Stealth Bot on the field. Bunker gets targeted for an instance of 3 damage. Is Stealth Bot a hero card? Yes. Can Stealth Both redirect damage from a hero to itself? Yes. Is Stealth Bots redirection effect coming from a hero card? Yes. Can Stealth Bot choose Bunker to redirect damage from? NO. Bunker can't be targeted by Stealth Bot to benefit from its effect. Says so right in the text of Isolated Hero.

Flip it. Unity is Isolated and Bunker is not. Bunker gets targeted for 3 damage. Again, Stealth Bot can not target Bunker as no effect coming from Unity or her deck can target other heros with their effects. 

I think a question worth debating is how Smoke Bombs works when a Hero is Isolated.

Senario:

Bunker, Unity and Wraith are in play. Wraith is at full health. Unity has 15HP. Bunker is at 1HP and is Isolated. Wraith has Smoke Bombs in play. Horrid Skunk Ape starts to deal all targets 1 damage. Unity is chosen to be dealt damage first.

Question:

Bunker is the lowest HP hero, making it the target Smoke Bombs would usually help out. But Bunker can not be targeted by Smoke Bombs while he is Isolated. Does Unity, being the next lowest HP hero, become the eligable target for Smoke Bomb's to redirect from?

Or, does Smoke Bomb still recognize Bunker as the lowest HP hero and now rendered useless as it can not legaly resolve its effect?

Opinion:

I would say that, since Bunker is Isolated, it can not even be considered by Smoke Bombs when determining the lowest/highest HP targets. As far as the other Heros and their effects are concerned, it should be like Bunker is not even there with them at all.

But I find this question much more worthy of debate than whether or not you can sometimes use effects from another hero on an isolated hero even though the card expressly prohibits such a thing. 

Well as I said above, I would resolve Smoke Bombs as though the isolated hero cards weren't even there.  (or the other hero cards if Wraith is the isolated one).  Otherwise it seems like they are affecting Smoke Bombs.

This falls under my general rule that when a card says 'target', I read it as though it added 'excluding the isolated hero's cards' or 'excluding other heros' cards' as appropriate.

In my personal opinion this is being way over thought.  Isolated means isolated.  The villain has a particular hero isolated from the others.  In a corner, another room, other side of the planet.  Nothing the other heroes can do to help the one that has been isolated.  They are in fact isolated.  Just my 1.5 cents.  As long as you're having fun with it, play it how you like.

Was there a definitive answer on what happens if, say, a hero under the effects of Twist the Ether becomes Isolated? Would Twist go to Visionary's trash as her target is now "inivisble" and from her PoV no longer exists? Or would it remain in play on that character but do nothing until they become un-Isolated?

Isolated Hero says nothing about destroying anything when it becomes attached to a hero. Twist the Ether would remain attached but would do nothing for the hero. You could even play Twist the Ether on a hero that is Isolated, but it still wouldn't do anything.

Could you play it on an isolated hero? I'm with you on everything else. I don't see any reason why TtE would get destroyed. But playing TtE on an isolated hero? I'm not so sure I'd play it that way. 

You're referring to the fact that the Mist Form / Amulet of the Elder Gods ruling states that because Nightmist is immune to damage, she can't use the amulet to redirect it, right?  That's actually a good point in that it shows a clear precedent for considering whether or not a target would take damage in determining whether or not a redirect effect is allowed, but you're wrong… it doesn't prove that that the redirect effect affects the target the damage gets redirected away from.  Because the damage is redirected away from that target, that target never takes the damage, and therefore the state in which it took damage never actually occurred, so there is no change the target, which means that it was never affected.  What it does prove is that you can't use an effect to prevent a situation that would never have happened if the effect was not used, but that's completely irrelevant to the question at hand.

I agree up to this point.

The problem with this is that redirection effects never choose a target to redirect from… they respond to an instance of damage, and by the time that instance of damage has been declared, the target for the damage has already been chosen (typically by the source of that damage).

And who do you think choses the new target? What gives you the ability to do that? Does a new target magically get chosen? 

No dude. The player/hero who's redirecting choses. Because it is their. And a player can't choose another hero who's isolated. If you agree stealth bits redirection is an effect from unitys deck, then you must agree that effect can't be used on isolated hero. It says so on the card! 

Presumably the target was chosen by some villain or environment card text.  I believe his argument is that Stealth Bot is only affecting damage from some non-hero source, and doesn't care that the intended target was isolated from Unity.

That said, I agree with you Foote.  Stealth Bot is restricted to damage aimed at Hero Targets, so if the target is isolated from Stealth Bot I don't think it can meet that trigger condition without counting as the cards affecting each other.

Obviously.  That's why I can see it being the case that damage can't be redirected TO a target that's blocked by Isolated Hero, but so far, I don't see any justification for why it couldn't be redirected FROM a target that's blocked by Isolated Hero.

I've been ignoring these comments because they don't conribute anything to the thread, but now I feel the need to explain something to you.  There are two key concepts regarding any language: syntax, and semantics.  Syntax is the exact wording that is used, and semantics is the meaning behind it.  The problem with natural languages like, for example, English, is that a single syntax can potentially map to several different semantics.  In practical terms, this means that just because two people read the same words, doesn't mean that they'll have the same idea about what those words mean.

In case you still don't get it… I've read the card several times before even posting in this thread, and I've read it several times since.  Just because we don't agree doesn't mean that I haven't read the card.

Except the target did, it was just moved before the damage was placed. 

If the state never occurs, why does the game care if the target is immune or not?

Except when it was effected by the power up to the point the effect moves it to a different target.

So you're saying the game is checking into the future state of the game to see if the damage is possible against it's target, but the redirect still happens before the damage is ever assigned?

Oh, you're thinking of it as damage is actually applied to the target, then gets removed by the redirect affect?  That's interersting.  If that were the case, then yes, I'd agree that damage could not be redirected from targets affected by Isolated Hero.  However, this interpretation becomes murky when you consider that most redirect effects, and all redirect effects that I've found which describe redirecting damage away from a target, say when damage "would be" dealt, suggesting that the redirection occurs before the damage is actually dealt.

Yes, you can think of it as a "look ahead" mechanic.  When you see that something is about to happen, you get the chance to stop it from happening.  If you do stop it, then that "something" that you stopped from happening doesn't actually happen.  If that "something" is never about to happen, then the chance to stop it never gets triggered.

As for redirection, what is triggering the redirection?

If it is the isolated target being targetted for damage, then I would say no, you can't redirect damage away from that target, as you are responding to something happening to them.

WtM and Divine Sacrifice work differently.  Divine Sacrifice is triggering based on the source of the damage, Fanatic hit them, now their damage is redirected to her.  The target of the damage is irrelevant, that damage is being redirected without an optional trigger or a target needing to be specified.  If Fanatic is the one isolated or it is an ally, either way it would still be redirected.  WtM is the same way, it triggers on the source of the damage, not the target.  If Isolated hero is the target of the attack, it doesn't matter, Visionary can still effect the one dealing damage, and that is her trigger for redirection.  If the card is on an isolated hero it sits there and cannot be activated.  I agree you can play cards on an isolated hero or their cards, but those cards have no effect as long as the hero remains isolated.

Smoke Bombs is trickier.

Smoke Bombs is a non-optional trigger that goes solely off HP.  It doesn't care who the lowest HP hero is, or who the highest HP hero is, it is doing its thing whenever the lowest HP target is about to receive damage.  On the other side it is affecting those heroes, and I think I would end up not allowing smoke bombs redirect to or away from the isolated hero.  Wraith being isolated would make Smoke Bombs useless, just like Unity being isolated means Stealth bot could only work on Unity's cards.

I would go with Smoke bombs still triggering off the lowest HP hero, but if that hero is isolated it has no effect.  Also the isolated hero being highest HP would stop the redirection, and the lowest would still take the damage.

Isolated Hero doesn't stop you from being targetted, but it does block the effect.

I'd go with cards already placed on the Isolated Hero remain, but may not be used. New cards can't be played there until Isolated Hero is removed.

Isolated hero doesn't say they can't be targetted, or have cards played on them, just that they can't be effected.  I don't see why you couldn't put a card on them.

Being a target is an effect.

Because you are selecting the isolated hero for something (in this case playing a card). I'd consider adding a card to their board as affecting them 

It doesn't say affecting the space where their cards sit, it has to affect the hero or their cards, and being a target isn't affecting them, unless targetting them results in an effect.

An effect brings about a change, it has to actually do something.  The only thing you affect by putting a card next to their hero is the space that the card occupies.  There is potential for an effect, but not an effect yet.

As Isolated Hero does not prevent you from affecting the space they are playing in I don't see why you couldn't play a card there.  That card would have no effect.

This is a good question.  I was thinking it's the card that provides the redirection effect, but it could be that it's the target that's about to take damage that triggers the chance to redirect, and any cards that provide redirection effects then provide a chance to respond to that trigger.  If that's the case, and if it's also the case that  responding to a trigger is considered to affect the triggering card, then I'd agree with this interpretation.  Aside from redirection and responses to card destruction, what other trigger mechanics are there?

As far as I'm aware, there is no concept of a hero's board in the rules, nor is there anything that says that hero cards must be played near their corresponding hero character card.  In theory, you could play all hero, villain, and environment cards in one long list to keep track of the order in which they were played, but I imagine that would make it hard to keep track of what options are available to the players.

The Tomb of Anubis does mention a player's play area, but there is no general rule about where cards go when they are in play.  If you wanted to play 'Demoralization' and place it next to an isolated hero, I would be fine with that.

However cards like Twist the Ether and Wrest the Mind say to play them next to a target.  It is not valid to just put them next to nothing if you can avoid it, so I feel like when you play them next to an isolated target, then the card has affected them.  In general I try to resolve text on hero cards as I would if the cards they are isolated from are not even there.

Wrest the mind must be played on a target. Or next to if you wish. That semantic difference means nothing within the context of the game system. Choosing a target for wrest the mind is part of that cards effect. And we all know from our reading comprehension skills that isolated heros can't be the target of other hero card effects. 

Again, can we PLEASE stop using generalities and stick to actual tangible in game examples. Talking about the table space and where they go on the table like it actually matters is just showing how insaine this thread is.

Isolated Hero doesn't say anything about preventing cards from targeting each other, it just says something about preventing them from affecting each other.  Whether or not targeting something includes affecting it is unclear.  Look at immunity for example.  You could reasonably say that a target that is immune to fire damage cannot be affected by fire damage... but that doesn't mean that target can't be targeted by fire damage.

Back to Wrest the Mind.

The text on the card is the cards effect. Fact. 

Part of that effect is chosing a target. Fact. 

When you choose a target, that target is now having some kind of interaction with the effect from WtM. 

If cards interact with each other in any way shape or form, you can reasonably say that they effected each other. Does that interaction result in what you consider "change"? It doesn't matter ultimately, and certainly not with your unease scarily narrow view of what "affected" means. The fact that they interacted at all is at odds with the intention and plain wording of the card within the context of the game system.  

What about this is so hard? Drop the zealous grasp on silly semantics and see the card for what it's intended purpose is. 

Immunity specifically says that the target's HP is not reduced by the damage, but that it is still a valid target.  It would certainly be possible to define a list of things which qualify as 'affect a card', and then everything else would be fair game.  However, without such a definition, I'm inclined to just say that if you cause something to resolve differently then you have affected it.

Foote, while I completely agree with your thoughts and analysis, please do not continue with the insulting attitude. It is not helping the situation/discussion.

Everyone, please feel free to continue this conversation, but remember the intention of the card is clear: Other heroes can't interact with the isolated hero.

This isn't a game like Magic, where the rules and interactions are at a finite level of detail in order to handle all potential interactions. SotM does not have definitions for "affect" and such - and hopefully (in my opinion) it never will, because it's meant to be a fun, enjoyable game that can be played without picking apart the rules.

If you are someone who enjoys picking at rules, you're welcome to do so! Just remember that it's not how the card/game was intended to be played. 

The only reason play space was brought up was because I don't believe playing a card next to a target is affecting that target, the card's effect is triggered later, Twist the Ether can sit next to a target all game and have no effect, it has to be voluntarily triggered to have an effect.  Unused it has absolutely no effect on the target.  It isn't even treated as their card, it is still Visionaries card.  The only effect the card is having is taking up space in the target heroes play area.

Isolated Hero does not say the hero can't be targetted, it says it can't be affected by the effects of the card.  The only effect of the card that is triggering is that when you put it in play you put it next to a target instead of your own play area.  I don't see setting a card next to a hero as affecting that hero.

Seriously there is absolutely no difference between the card being there or not if it isn't activated.  It has no effect until triggered.  It should be playable, just not able to take effect.  Just like I would argue that target based redirection can target an isolated hero, but not actually redirect the damage.  Isolated hero should cause the redirection to fail if it needs to target an isolated hero to take effect.  It wouldn't skip them in targetting, it would target them and fail.

Isolated hero does not remove the hero and their cards from the fight, it makes them unable to be affected.  They are still a valid target, Isolated hero just cancels or negates the effect.

I get what you're saying, and if that works for you, that's great… but without a clear understanding of the rules, there will always be cases that arise where it's unclear how they should be handled.  I also get that there's an ambiguity rule that says the players get to choose, but there's a difference between choosing one of several equally valid targets for a villain's attack and making broad sweeping interpretations of the rules.  One is a tactical decision that adds strategic options to the game and makes it more fun, and the other can drastically affect the game balance, potentially destroying the fun.

Also, if an electronic version of the game is indeed being developed, as hinted by arerson9, then all of these questions will have to be answered in an official way if the cards these questions apply to are to be included in that version.  Trying to build a software product without a clearly defined set of rules is a recipe for disaster.  The earlier versions of MtG didn't have such well-defined formal rules either, but once people started trying to make computer game implementations, that level of formalilty became necessary.

See, I'm looking at it as that hero affecting Twist the Ether.  When played, Twist the Ether has to select the target which it will apply to for the duration that it is in play.  If you select the isolated hero, then that hero (its presence and status as a target) has affected Twist the Ether.

But that is based on my assumption that the cards should not even see each other.  It seems like you are going more for a definition where the presence of cards and their status as targets can affect other decks, they just can't actively do things to each other.  My concern is that there won't be a clear line of what qualifies as doing something to the card.  I just find it easier to draw a hard line that the existence of that isolated card has no effect on how I resolve the text on mine.

I can see the argument, but I think that leads to bigger jumps gameplay wise.  I don't think Isolated Hero is meant to effectively remove that hero, just prevent them from being helped.  They aren't on opposite sides of the planet, two people on opposite sides of the planet can't melee damage the same target very easily.  I don't like Smoke Bombs ignoring that hero as a target and assigning the second lowest HP hero as the lowest.

This definitely could use an official ruling, but even without one it isn't like we can't all play our own way.

What is telling you to play the card next to a target? A card effect you say? Can a card effect interact with an isolated hero?

The argument that card/hero interactions are not predicated on card effects is baseless and wrong. Flat out wrong. 

The targeting of the Isolated hero to place the card next to IS a card effect. Would you like to argue otherwise? You are not just placing it somewhere in the middle of the table randomly. It is being attached and associated with a specific target that YOU must name from the very start. 

Really now? There are tons of differences. What if you need to destroy [H] hero cards? Sure makes a difference then if it is in play or not.

No effect until triggered? You trigger the first effect the second you play it. That first effect would be the first sentence, you know, the one where it tells you to pick a target to play your card on. 

You keep saying that targeting is not an effect, but have nothing to back that claim up with. Because it certainly is an instruction on a card. And trying to make the case that a cards text is not also that cards effect is just not defensible 

While an official statement would always be nice, I feel like we could fill an entire page of the official rulings thread with questions on how various different types of cards interract with Isolated Hero.  (And what happens as it enters play, and leaves play).

The promo decks seem to be where they stick effects which really screw with normal gameplay, and I think part of the idea is to hit you with some weird card interraction that you never anticipated.  It's interesting to compare the various ways that people resolved those interactions, but everyone seems more or less satisfied with how the card works for them.

What is telling you to play the card next to a target? A card effect you say? Can a card effect interact with an isolated hero?

A card effect can't effect an isolated hero, the effect of playing it next to a hero affects the card being played and the way you play it, that is all.

The argument that card/hero interactions are not predicated on card effects is baseless and wrong. Flat out wrong. 

There is no card that tells you you get to use a power each turn, yet you do.  There is no card that tells you to play a card during your play phase, but you do.  We do things in the game based on rules, and card effects.  Not everything is a card effect.  A card is not played by its own effect, it is played because that's what the rules state you do.  Most Hero/card interaction is predicated on card effects, not all.  That has nothing to do with this debate though.

The targeting of the Isolated hero to place the card next to IS a card effect. Would you like to argue otherwise? You are not just placing it somewhere in the middle of the table randomly. It is being attached and associated with a specific target that YOU must name from the very start.

Yes it is a card effect, and that effect is affecting the card Twist the Ether, and the person playing it.  That is all.  The rest of Twist the Ether's effect affects the targetted hero, but they are seperate effects.  One of the effects is usable through isolated hero, one isn't.  I'm not saying you can alter their damage, just that you can play the card.  Just like Chrono Ranger could use Temporal grenade if he couldn't deal damage, two different effects.

Really now? There are tons of differences. What if you need to destroy [H] hero cards? Sure makes a difference then if it is in play or not.

If you have to destroy (H) cards that choice as to destroy Twist the Ether would be Visionaries choice, not the target the card is next to.  So that still doesn't affect the target.  If the Isolated Hero has to destroy cards they could not destroy Twist the Ether because it isn't theirs.

No effect until triggered? You trigger the first effect the second you play it. That first effect would be the first sentence, you know, the one where it tells you to pick a target to play your card on. 

Again we are talking about effecting an isolated hero.  Isolated Hero does not prevent effects that do not affect the isolated hero.  The first effect does not effect the hero it is played next to.  The second effect is the only effect that affects another hero, and that one would be stopped by Isolated Hero.

Also the card does not tell you to target someone.  It says "Play this card next to a target."  That is not targetting them for some effect, it is an effect that alters where the card is played.  The effect only affects the card being played and the player putting it into play.

FYI, not just a hint.

So how exactly does a card effect can involve a target but not affect them?  

You involved, and interacted with, an Isolated target in the resolution of another heros card effect.

I am pretty sure this thread has run its course. As much as I enjoy discussing the finer semantic points of the words effect/affect, we gain no ground from it. As always, play however you want to and have fun. 

I think you need to read the definitions of Involve and Effect.  One is an inclusion, the other is the result of an action.  Something can be included without being affected.

It has been good debating this, but as you say, it has run its course.  Oh well.

Was there ever any official word on the scope of Isolated Hero after this discussion?  I saw another thread where the discussion seemed to briefly reoccur in November, but neither this thread nor the slightly more recent one actually reached a consensus or got an official answer.  If any indication's been given from the top how broadly or narrowly to interpret this card, I'd be interested in hearing the outcome.

Since everyone seemed to agree that the discussion ran its course pretty thoroughly the first time around, I suppose I'm not asking to reopen the debate, don't worry.  Just curious if there were any later insights or developments that can be shared.  Thanks.

Yeah, no concensus reached here.  No official ruling either.  Each of us does what is right in our own minds.  Whatever your game group thinks is right go with it.

What's the question exactly?  Is it "Does Isolated Hero continue affecting a hero after they're incapacitated?"  If so, I vote "no" on the basis that it would mean that player was completely out of the game, and that would suck.  Already it's possible in Final Wasteland, but there's no sense in making it happen even more often than that.

When a hero is incapped, don't all cards in that hero's play area return to their respective decks?

Yes

Edit: Nah, Ronway below is right actually. Forgot about those

Nope, only cards belonging to that hero. Cards like Infection, Jinxes, and Isolated Hero remain.

Yup!  Luckily this game is a lighharted cooperative and its intention is to be fun so it doesn't really matter that much.  The reason I say it doesn't matter is that no one is going to feel cheated by another player if the rule isn't perfectly clear.  There is no tournament with money or title on the line. 

You all lose or win together.  If you think one way destroys the fun, don't do it.  Heck people suggest house rules on these forums all the time. My group nearly ignored the famous rule 15 but then decided to incorperate it.  Any time something isn't clear just decided as a group which ever you think is most accurate, or even most fun and do that.  Do whatever brings your group the most enjoyment and don't worry so much about exact definitions.

Again with no official standings its more important to have fun than get it right.

My point to you, there are lots of rule discussion on here and yes people in general perfer to get it right, but if you are really certain about how you do it, then just keep doing it that way until an official ruling comes out.  Even when one does, do what you like.

The discussion got much more broad than that over the course of the thread, regarding the meaning and scope of the term "affect" outside of the original incap question.  Some believe that if one hero is impacted by another hero's card, this is sufficient to count as "affect"ing and be ruled out by Isolated Hero.  Others believe that "affect" is limited to direct interaction, and isn't meant to include indirect impacts.  One example being, if Wraith is an Isolated Hero, and she uses Stun Bolt on Miss Information, will Miss Information's damage be reduced by 1 against the other heroes?

In the original discussions, I recall it was eventually decided not to put this question to Christopher, but I'd certainly be interested in knowing the intended outcome.  While we can always just play it how we each read the card, the experience is actually more fun for me if there is clear guidance regarding how the cards are supposed to work—it's not about rules instead of fun, it's about facilitating the fun.  As a newer Sentinels player, but one with a lot of experience in other games as a judge and rules lawyer, I did my best to read up on how everything was supposed to work—I'm just programmed to care about the intricacies, so I wanted to make sure that we weren't mis-playing the game.  (Spoiler alert, we were!)  In any case, having a lingering ambiguity will always tend to rankle me when the unclear card comes up.  If we win with an Isolated Hero in a close game, I'll probably start second-guessing whether we'd have won if we'd played the card differently, etc.  Nothing against folks who feel differently, of course, but while the ambiguity isn't stopping me from having fun, I know that I'll enjoy games against Miss Information more if the loose end gets tied up.

Besides, whichever outcome I think is correct would obviously be the way that the ruling came down.

Yeah, I'm due to face Miss Info in one of my next three games, and I would really like to know that any victory I achieve is justified, given that I believe I've only beaten her once, and it was due to a serious error on my part (maaaybe one other victory that was actually valid, I can't recall for sure).

EDIT - I stand corrected.  I've actually beaten Missy in all three of my non-Advanced games against her, and none of my Advanced ones (three each as of tonight).  My first game shouldn't have been a victory, and this last one wasn't quite a defeat, I just screwed up a turn and conceded in disgust (it had already been sixteen rounds and I was bored) rather than try to figure out how to fix it.  But still, I misspoke before...if not Advanced, she's apparently not as difficult as I thought.  The pattern might also have been due to pretty much all of my early games opening with her having a stuff-destroying Diversion in play, which I could safely ignore and just play one-shots since she was destroying stuff anyway, while probably all of the last three games have started with "Cat" Stuck In Tree or "Diplomatic" Envoy.

I'll give credit where it's due, Missy is one of the most variable villains there is (short of the Vengeance Five).  Seems no two of my games against her played out the same way.

Not sure where this discussion is at exactly, but at one point I think it was being argued that the character card is NOT part of the deck and therefore NOT subject to isolated hero.  Wouldn't this mean Legacy could Galvanize everyone even if he were isolated.  Similarly if another hero were isolated they could get +1 from Galvanize.  The same could be applied to Team Leader Tachyon, Visonary, any hero whose base power targets other heros.

To me this seem pretty contrary to the point of the card.  My appologies if this has already been brought up or is in any way irrelevant at this point.

I believe it was stated by Christopher that the character card is part of the deck.

Before the discussion petered out, it appears that everyone agreed the hero cards were considered part of the deck---possibly that there was a technical ambiguity, but also that everyone agreed on the point such that it wasn't necessary to ask for official clarification.  So, no, I don't think there's any dispute that the character cards are considered part of the deck for purposes of Isolated Hero.

Man, I reread this thread...what a mess. 

For simplicity, Isolated Heros don't see other hero cards and other Heros dont see Isolated Hero cards. Like, pretend they are not even there. Maybe there are nuances that are missed there, but I think it covers most of the "intent" bases. I think we overblew something thats supposed to be simple.

The other way it was viewed is:

If a card effect affects the hero, it is prevented by isolation.

If a card effect affects a non-hero card it is fine.  

Examples:

If Wraith shoots badguy with stun bolts and badguy deals damage to isolated hero, that -1 to damage dealt is valid.

If Wraith has Smoke Grenades out and the Isolated Hero is the lowest HP hero, the isolated hero gains no benefit from Smoke Bombs.

if Isolated Hero would take 5 damage and Non-Isolated Tempest has shielding winds the damage is not reduced, since Shielding Winds effect cannot help the hero.

One of the points of contention was By Any Means, which increases damage dealt to a villain, and therefore in this interpretation is valid, since the effect is not on the hero.

But it is affecting isolated heros damage during damage calculation. This is the point where me and skippy split from agreement. 

If you are isolated, I would say you don't even see Chronos bounty to take it in consideration. 

Everyone can make up their mind on how they like to see it. Ambiguous rules are relegated to players choice so I doubt we will get any word from Christopher on this one ever. 

Is it generally agreed that an Isolated Hero cannot benefit from other heroes' incap abilities?  Would other heroes still be able to use incap abilities that don't directly affect that hero, but in a way that benefits them?  (EG - Dead Argent Adept is completely useless if the only surviving hero is Isolated, but Dead Nightmist could still destroy Ongoing cards.)  I scrapped a game last night due to mis-playing this.

Yes, I think Foote and I would even agree that destroying an ongoing would be legit.

(although if it was a jinx on the isolated player we might disagree)

The only reason I disagree with destroying a jinx is because kismet and miss info don't fight together in a legal game format haha. 

Ongoing destruction (if it doesn't belong to the isolated hero or vice versa)  is fine. 

Could Nightmist destroy Incapacitated Hero itself?  It's essentially a "jinx"....

Not surprised and always felt so, I was just making an observation for part of the arguement that had happened.

I completely agree with this, though as you have pointed out it doesn't provide an answer for every situation.

Yup.