If Chrono-Ranger plays Ranger's Mark to put a bounty into play, but no legal targets for that bounty to be put next to exist, can the bounty still be in play with no target, adding to the damage of the Masadah and so forth?
I would say yes. I would even allow playing the bounty directly.
Of course this is currently only possible against Miss Information, unless I'm missing something.
A bounty needs to go on a target, if no legal targets exist then it can't be played.
You couldn't play Wrest the Mind (or any targetted ongoing) on nothing, why would a bounty be any different?
I'll admit that playing the bounty (or wrest the mind) normally without a legal target is a bit iffy. But if something puts it into play or forces it to be played, what would you do? Is it destroyed, simply leave play, never enter play? To me it seems reasonable to just leave it in play without an assigned target. Particularly with Ultimate Target which is already allowed to stay in play without a target.
(Though only if there is no valid target. If a valid target exists, then the card must be assigned to one.)
It does not enter play, just the same as if a card says you can hit 3 targets and only 2 are in play you only hit 2.
Fulfil as many conditions on the card as you can, don't do the ones you can't.
I can see the logic in the bounty or Wrest the Mind staying in play without a target if an external cause like a villain or environment card forces you to play them, but Ranger's Mark is a hero card that you choose to play. And rules with those cards you'd have to apply with other cards as well. I really don't think you should be able to play cards like No Executions or Mutiny and just be able to wait for targets to appear. That seems a bit mechanically and thematically unstable to me.
Do Ammo cards not enter play if there is no Gun card in play with Expatriette?
No, they have a restriction on them
"Play this card next to a gun card"
No gun card=no ammo card
Well I still think the simplest solution is to just let these cards (bounties, wrest the mind, ammo) sit in play with no target.
But I just wanted to add that I was missing something on the bounties. "No Executions" requires a non-character target, meaning that for that one it is more than just a Miss Information corner case.
Source? I see nothing in the rules saying that those cards can't sit on the table just like non-targeted Ongoings; they just won't do anything. (404: Victim Not Found)
You are missing something. Several bounties including No Executions cannot be played on a character card.
I was never suggesting that; my thought was that you could put the Bounty into play, but it would do nothing until it left play and returned again, at which point you would again try to find a target to assign it to. Think of it this way - if we hypothetically say that there was a card similar to Ranger's Mark that worked on a One-Shot, and you used it to put out a One-Shot which said "Deal 1 damage to a non-hero target", and you were fighting Miss Info so there wasn't a non-hero target in play, should that mean you're not allowed to play the not-Ranger's-Mark card? I don't see why. You could play the damaging one-shot normally, and it just wouldn't do anything. Targeting for Bounties, or even putting out Ammo, should be no different as far as I can tell. If you can't fulfill their conditions, they aren't useful, but they can be played just to get them out of your hand, or for the sake of count-me effects such as The Masadah. That's my attitude about it.
Source- the cards themselves.
The cardinal rule of Sentinels is do what it says on the card, do not read anything into the card. Can you play this card next to a non-hero card target? No? Then don't put it into play.
Thematically, it makes no sense for a bounty to exist if it isn't placed on someone/something. It's like saying, "If you kill *nothing* and bring it back alive, we'll pay you a reward of $100."
It doesn't say "this card can't be played unless you can find something to play it next to", though. You can't start to follow the instructions on the card until you play the card…therefore, you play the card, then you stick it next to something, and it has an effect relative to the thing it's next to. If you can't stick it next to something, then most of its text is ineffective (Dead or Alive would still cause CR to gain 1 HP per round even with no target, that's about the most "broken" interaction I can see coming out of this assumption of mine). But it doesn't magically put itself back in your hand because you failed to find a target for it…any mechanism of putting it into play ought to be effective, if generally irrelevant, whether its "mate" can be found or not.
But the rewards (cards drawn for Kill on Sight, another target killed by The Whole Gang) depend on the bounty's target, not its existence. You can legitimately say "If you kill the man who isn't there, I'll pay you $0", and it's a valid bargain - there's no reward because no task completion, but the "contract" is still a gramatically correct sentence, and you're completely within your rights to agree to it and then go on about your day. Therefore, having a bounty in play with no target (which we already know is possible due to The Ultimate Target) means that CR is pursuing some vague, nonspecific goal with no particular reward or endpoint…it still leaves him with more of a sense of direction than if he had no bounty at all, and so it powers up the Masadah and Danny Boy and Hunter & Hunted, despite the fact that he has no specific creature he's attempting to kill - he's still a man on a mission, just one with no defined parameters and no particular endpoint.
To say that you can't put a bounty in play if there is no target puts a precedent that you can't play a card if its text is unable to be fulfilled. The Bounty does not say this card must be played next to a target, it just says to put it next to a target. If you didn't the card would simply sit there and have no effect other than being in play.
Can you play Tachyon's destruction card (name excapes me) if there are no cards to destroy? Can you play a one-shot that only deals damage if you cannot deal damage?
Obviously there are cards that have optional text, but ones that don't, do you have to be able to fulfil the text to play the card.
A very good question.
I could see there being a case made for playing cards like bounties without targets if you're being forced to play them from either the environment or villain decks, but I don't think the player should get the choice of playing those cards if there is no valid target in play.
I will say this. IF you are indeed able to play bounties without a legal target (btw how would there never be a legal target? You always have a villain character card), it would stay in play and not be able to re attach to a target later.
My question is, when could you ever play a bounty with no legal target to attach it?
Edit: Miss Info. Right. Missed that. Carry on
"No Executions" is restricted to a non-character target, so that is always a possibility. The rest to non-hero targets, which is only possible against Miss Information.
I think playing a bounty without a legal target goes against the intent of the card. Considering the specific instruction to "play on a non-character target", that seems like a reasonable assumption.
Just because a card is put into play doesn’t mean it has to stay inplay against its conditions. You cannot Timeshift a second limited card and keep both in play.
Yes, but to handle cases like that we were given specific rules on what happens. (The second limited card does not enter play and is discarded instead). So are you thinking these cards end up discarded?
My thoughts would be that if you are forced to play a bounty for any reason, but there is no valid target to attach it to, then it just gets discarded. I don't like the idea, thematically, of potentially gainin benefit from a bounty placed on nothing.
That being said, I see no reason, ruleswise, why Emvisioner's interpretation would be incorrect either. Probably gonna have to get a ruling in that if you want to be official.
Essentially, the discussion comes down to how you view the words "play this card next to..." There are two possible ways to read it:
1) "Play this card next to..." is part of the requirement to have the card enter play. If you can't put it next to a valid target, then it doesn't enter play. But is it possible for a cards text to be active before the card enters play? Yes. Otherwise, Unity would be playing golems all the time. We clearly see there that there are texts that are active before the cards enters play.
2) "Play this card next to..." is only activated after the card enters play. First let's consider the ramifications of this. If the card entering play and being put next to a target a two separate steps, then that means all "when a card enters play" triggers happen before it is placed next to a target. Therefore, if you play a bounty with NEF in play, the NEF would hit a bunch of targets, and possibly kill the target you were going for before the bounty was ever on it, and you wouldn't get the destruction bonus.
However, there is a bigger issue. All Ongoing cards have two effects: statics effect that are always on and triggers. Every trigger says when the effect is activated, while static effects simply say something (e.g. +1 damage). "Put next to" has no triggers, which would put it in the static modifier camp. But I have no idea how that would work. I don;t think anyone is proposing you can move bounties around at will (although it would be great for Ammo cards). However, if it was a trigger, why doesn't it specifiy when like every other Ongoing card in the game. There are many cards that say, "when this card enters play..." (e.g. Fixer's styles, Bunker's Modes, Ra has one, etc.). If this was meant to be a trigger after it comes into play, it would say "when this comes into play." This would be a huge oversight that has existed since the core game, and would be even more amazing since many of the bounties have triggers on the next line of the card.
In order to be consistent with the rest of the game, you have to say that this is part of the requirement for the card to enter play to begin with. So, if you are forced to play the card and there are no valid targets, it goes to the trash.
I think it is just instruction on how to play the card.
As you are playing the card the text informs you that it does not get played normally, it gets played outside of your play area next to a certain type of card.
The two arguments I see are:
1) The directions are followed before the card enters play. The card cannot fulfill the instructions on how to play it, so it does not enter play. We would then default to putting the card in the trash. It isn't a requirement to play the card, but the instructions are also not worded to be optional either.
2) The card enters play, then the text activates. In this interpretation the card would stay in play, since it enters play and then is put next to a target. Cards are not destroyed because they can't do what they are supposed to do, we already know that. Targets can be removed and cards left behind (I think I remember that ruling correctly, can't remember what cards it was for though) so this card would enter play, attempt to fulfill its text, fail and sit there uselessly until destroyed.
I could see Christopher going either way with this, or seeing some side of it that I don't see. I would probably play it the first way, but it really does deserve an official ruling.
I definately think the target is already selected when the Bounty enters play, I just don't see the lack of a target preventing them from entering play. Perticularly when we have Ultimate Target which can be in play without a target.
And if you are going to prevent them from entering play, what about just leaving them where they were? That seems just as valid as putting them in the trash.
Buh?
You make an assurtion that the Ultimate Target can be in play with no target, suggesting it is different from other Bounties, why are you singling out this one in particular? It still needs a target when you play it, it's just a different target to all other bounties.
…
Is this because it doesn't destroy itself when the target does? Every other card that attaches to a card is removed from play when the target goes away because the card itself says so. The Ultimate Target specificaly doesn't say this (and is confirmed as meaning this), that is why it is an exception to the rule, because it is a rule itself.
No body is saying you can't play the card, just that when you play the card you must follow the text on it. What happens if you play a card with conditions on it you can't fulfil in any other situation in the game? You ignore the parts you can't do. Can you not play a card that says "Draw a card" if you are prevented from drawing a card by another effect?
If you really want to put the bounty card into play with no target then read the whole of the card when you do, is the target you attached it to still in play? No (by definition the target is not in play as you didn't attach it to a target) then destroy this card. (Which I concede would mean that Ultimate Target would stick around, but I do not concede that you can play the card without a target.)
If you really want to put the bounty card into play with no target then read the whole of the card when you do, is the target you attached it to still in play? No (by definition the target is not in play as you didn't attach it to a target) then destroy this card.
The cards state "when that target leaves play, destroy this card."
A card that is not in play cannot leave play.
The significance of The Ultimate Target is that it does remain in play when its target leaves play, because it doesn't have destruction language that would destroy it.
So we know that a Bounty can be in play without a target. We know that they destroy themselves when the target they are placed next to leaves play.
That is why if the card can enter play with no target to put it next to it would stay in play with no target, just as The Ultimate Target does, pointlessly sitting there just being a bounty card. It is not attached to a target, so no target can leave play and cause it to destroy itself.
That's why I said if you put the card in play it stays until something else destroys it.
The way I see it, if there are no legal targets, you can not play the bounty from your hand into play. I think that is the purpose of the instruction "Play this next to a target". What is interesting is that the instruction is not written in the negative (ie. "cant" do something) but still seems to be a restriction on how to play the card. Twist the Ether has the same wording for anyone interested. "Play this card next to a target". I do not think anyone has questioned that the intent of Twist the Ether is to only be playable on a target. But there is never a situation where TtE won't have a valid target either.
Now, when facing Miss Info (since this is the only time this will ever come up, lets isolated hero it), if something happens to put a card from your deck into play and it happens to be a bounty that has no legal target, I guess I could see how that could go into play and just sit there. But that interpretation hinges on the difference between "playing" cards and "putting into play" and the way the instruction is worded. I think the secondary functionality of Jim's Hat could be taken into account when making that argument as well.
I would agree with skippy on the destruction point. If it is allowed to be put into play without a legal target, than the trigger condition for the self destruct effect will never be met.
The most compelling argument right now for playing bounties without legal targets is that it doesn't specifically say you can't.
All this brings up a follow up question that I am sure someone will get to eventually. IF bounties can be played without a legal target in play, can you play a bounty without an attached target when there IS a legal target in play? Maybe answering that question will clear the path for the original question.
I'm sure you must attach to a valid target if one is available. Just as Terrible Tech strike must deal damage if possible, and Sudden Contract must put a bounty into play from the deck if possible. There is no 'may', so it is not optional.
Yeah, you can't just ignore the instructions.
The question isn't whether you can play a bounty without putting it next to a target, but if the lack of a legal target makes the card unplayable.
Following wording and rulings literally I would say yes it should be allowed, but I would not at all be surprised if that isn't the way >G would rule it.
I personally don't like the idea and wouldn't let someone do it just to get a bounty in play, but if the card was forced to be played, like with DDA then I would allow it. I probably wouldn't even allow it with Timeshift, since the option of discarding is more valid, but there isn't any legal reason to treat it that way.
"Play next to.." is part of the requirements of playing the card. We never see that there is both a positive and negative statement on a card. In fact, if it wasn't required, it would have said something like "you may."
Normally, you can play a card that has no effect. I thought I saw a ruling about this somewhere, but I can't find the source. However, this would only apply once the card enters play, not to have the card enter play (yes this is my distinction).
Also, if you have established that "Play next to..." is part of the requirement to play the card normally, the card entering play would not bybass this requirement. You cannot use Timeshift to bypass the "limited" limitation. Yes, we might have this outright in the rulebook, but we also know that all cards override whatever is in the rulebook anyways. If you say that is overides the requirement here, you would also have to say that it overrides the requirement by limited cards.
To me at least, I don't see anyway that it would stay in play, or that it won't be ruled this way.
>
I'm sure you must attach to a valid target if one is available.
Honestly, I don't see why this would be true. If you are saying the "enters play" bypasses "play next to..." to keep the bounty in play, I see no reason why it still wouldn't bypass that line even if there were valid targets. If the line is being bypassed, then its bypassed, if not, then you can never play it without a target.
Bounties must be played on targets or they cannot be played. Ammo cards must be played on Guns or they cannot be played.
Alright, sweet. Thanks Christopher.
So they would discard if they would be forced into play like duplicate limited card.
This does not surprise me at all. Pretty much what I expected. Thanks for dropping in!
Thank you!
Going in the FAQ.
I love times like this. Just saying.
Okay, but that doesn't answer what happens with Ranger's Mark, which says "put into play". If Incap Sobek or Atlantean Font of Power puts out a Bounty which can't find a target, what happens? And if it works in those cases, then why wouldn't it work with Ranger's Mark or Timeshift?
That is one possible answer. It is not confirmed yet.
5.42pm GMT? What's so special about it?
Where's the problem? If it is going into play and there's nothing to anchor it on, it would bounce to the trash.
Awesome! Now that we know that, we just need the citation to confirm it!
Ooo... Now do a Raptor Bot made from The Staff of Ra...
Nice cartoon!
I'm not seeing where Christopher said anything remotely like, "Unless it comes into play through alternate means."
I'm not seeing any confirmation of it going to the trash. Where are we getting that this statement is a hard and fast conclusion that "If a card that cannot be played is played it goes directly to the trash"? Just because that is what happens with a second copy of a Limited card already in play does not mean that that's what happens with Ammo or Bounties.
Where else will they go if you can't play them? There's nothing that would allow for it to be shuffled back into the deck. The card isn't being drawn, so it can't go into the player's hand. If it can't go into play because is needs an anchor, the only place remaining is the trash.
Or it could remain in a player's hand and just not be played. There are plenty of instances of "Hero cards cannot be played" in Sentinels. If a player can't play a card the precedent is that it isn't played. I'm not saying that that's what happens with Ammo and Bounties, but there are more options than "Of course it goes to the trash, because there's no other place it could go."
It's cool if you have a perspective on how you think unplayable Ammo and Bounty cards are resolved, but what Christopher has said doesn't say anything about the card going to the trash, and I think it's perfectly reasonable to clarify where they would go if played by force or choice.
I wasn't aware we were discussing at any point the card coming out of hand. If it comes out of hand, you are bound by the words of the card; "Play next to..."
If it is a forced play, then you're pretty much bound by the words of the card; "Play next to..."
Again, I'm not understanding what rule you're citing to come to that conclusion. From what Christopher said it sounds like the cards cannot be played if there are no valid targets in play. I'm trying to understand what happens when you are forced to play a card by another card's effect. If it's played from your deck does it go into your hand, the trash, or back on top of the deck? If it's from your hand is it just not a valid choice, a la "Hero cards cannot be played"? I'm not finding any rule of "Well, it goes to the trash" or "You're bound by the rules of the card."
I'm honestly still quite unclear of what you're trying to say about a card automatically going to the trash or being "Bound by the words of the card." Are you saying that an Ammo card forced into play automatically puts a Gun card out so that it can attach to it? Does Voss suddenly reveal cards until a Minion is in play so that "No Executions" be played by an Atlantean Font of Power? Does the card get played and immediately get destroyed? What exactly are you saying?
Again, I'm looking for citations, not interpretations. I understand that there are ways that we can interpret these situations using our own knowledge of how we play the game, but I'm trying to find the designer's ruling.
Reckless, you could have scholar put the top card ofa deck into play. If that happened when fighting miss info and there's no legal target for that bounty, what happens? I think that's the question. It's as fringe case as you can make, but I think that's what they want to know
So what has happened is a question was asked, debated, and then Christopher came in and answered, yet because of his wording we are left back at the original question.
Awesome.
So my opinion is. . . oh wait, we already did that.
I understand that. From what I could tell Greywind was attempting to answer the question based on his own interpretations (the Ammo/Bounty immediately going to the discard). My confusion came from the lack of citation or precedent for that claim and I was trying to understand how Greywind reached that conclusion.
I'm sorry. I'm applying common sense. Once a card is played, it resolves. If it cannot resolve (no gun available for Ammo or target legal for a Bounty), it would not magically revert to the deck. It wasn't a "Reveal". You don't get a free gun. You don't get to search the Environment or Villain deck to find a target for the Bounty. The card does not get reshuffled into your deck. It was played. It wasn't successful. It joins the rest of the played cards in the discard pile.
I'm sorry. I'm applying common sense. Once a card is played, it resolves. If it cannot resolve (no gun available for Ammo or target legal for a Bounty), it would not magically revert to the deck. It wasn't a "Reveal". You don't get a free gun. You don't get to search the Environment or Villain deck to find a target for the Bounty. The card does not get reshuffled into your deck. It was played. It wasn't successful. It joins the rest of the played cards in the discard pile.
Bounty cards are ongoing, they do not go to the trash unless they are told to. Ongoing cards remain in play. Ammo is Equipment, same thing for them.
There is no language that states "play this next to a target or destroy it"
If these cards could enter play without a target they would sit there until some outside force destroyed them.
But as Christopher said, they HAVE to be played with a gun or target to anchor them.
That doesn’t mean the answer is automatically “They enter play and are immediately destroyed.” They could just not be played at all. We don’t know the answer, so that’s why I say we ask Christopher.
>
If these cards could enter play without a target
Why would they enter play to begin with? There are two possible ways to interpret "Play this card next to..."
1) This is part of the requirement for the card entering play. If there is no target, then the card never enters play. i would say it is obvious that the card goes to the trash, but I could at least see the question. If this is the correct interpretation, why isn;t it clear that it applies if it enters the game in another way? I can think of a few possible reasons. 1) This is the clearest and simplest wording. 2) Most of the time the cards enter play this way. 3) There is no other way to word it clearly without making it a trigger on entering play, which would have a whole new set of mechanics. For example, if it said "when this card enters play," effects that happen when a card is played will happen before this triggers.
2) "Play this card next to..." is a specific restriction on when the card is played. If the card is not being played, but enters the game another way, then this line is bypassed. However, this logic must be extended fully. Every time the card enters play in a different way besides being played, it will always bypass this line. This means that if you Timeshift a bounty, you completely skipp this line, and it will not be attached to a target.
There are only 2 possibly interpretations on the effect when the card enters play but is not played. 1) The "play next to a target..." is still a restriction, and it never enters play. 2) "Play next to..." is completely bypassed altogether (regardless if there are legal targets or not), and it will never be attached to a target. Consiering that I am fairly certian that the entire point of Ranger's Mark is to put a bounty from yuor trash onto another target (and is doesn;t specifically state this). I am of the opinion that #1 is the correct interpretation, and the bounty would never be in play to begin with, if there were no legal targets.
I thought this was kind of funny, so I am bringing it up. In the ST PT thread, Reckless had the same question regarding an original version of a card. Christopher's anwer:
I guess he wasn't able to avoid the question.
Oh yeah…that was me! What a fun coincidence!
You ruin everything, Reckless.
Honestly, we are talking about such a large fringe case here I doubt it maters either way.
Many of us check these boards every 5 minutes. I think we only have the fringe cases left.
No need for a fringe case at all. Ranger's Mark is in CR's deck. If you play Ranger's Mark anyway, just because you want the 1 projectile damage, then can you first put a bounty into play even if there's no target, possibly immediately increasing the damage of your projectile hit if you have Hunter & Hunted in play. It's a very basic question that you need to know in order to make the most of CR.
Such as, for example, the second ability of Jim's Hat, which otherwise does virtually nothing. (It can recycle The Ultimate Target if you played it on a sub-ultimate target earlier, or it can destroy bounties which you just don't want to be on their targets anymore, but those are both pretty uncommon occurrences, and the need to do something with bounties that entered play without targets would be one more source of meaning for that text.)
Except for the fact that it is keeping with how other cards work. The more bounties out, and the more damage you take with Hunter and Hunted. There are many cards in the game that if they offer you a negative, they also give you a way to take it out on your own. Regardless, the first ability is quite useful. I also dont think this is great reason, because then Expat would would need some inherent way to destroy floating Ammo cards. You could easily argue the opposite and say thay if Expat doesn;t have a card like that, it is bcuase that is not how it works.
However, this all goes back to my point above, either Ranger's Mark has to put it next to the target, or it never will. Either the line is essential, or it is completely skipped.
Expat was published earlier. This might be them learning from experience.
However, this all goes back to my point above, either Ranger's Mark has to put it next to the target, or it never will. Either the line is essential, or it is completely skipped.
All of which is just your opinion. I see no reason why the cards should be forced to behave "consistently" in completely different scenarios. I say the bounty has to be put next to a target if possible; otherwise, it can sit in play by itself. Even if Christopher confirms that a targetless bounty put directly into play acts like a duplicate Limited card, I'll probably just ignore that ruling in my games because it makes no sense IMO.
And that is just your opinion.
I will ask him this very question today.
Thank You.
Make sure you bring a Solicitor with you, to make sure that the language of his ruling is loophole free.
Maybe, but this was also an issue with the core game. Lot's of mistakes it seems. However, you are also completely ignoring Ultimate Target in your arguement. It is a card that clearly is intended to stay out. So wouldn't it make more sense for a minor second ability to compensate for a very specific situation in a very specific deck, then to say that everything else is a mistake.
[quote="Envisioner"]
I say the bounty has to be put next to a target if possible; otherwise, it can sit in play by itself.
[/quote]
Based on what exactly, besides your opinion. I have already explained that this doesn't make any sense. Can it be ruled this way? Sure, I don't think it will, but it can, and it won't be consistent with the game mechanics (but this has happened before).
[quote="Envisioner"]
I see no reason why the cards should be forced to behave "consistently" in completely different scenarios.
[/quote]
REALLY!!! Your areguement is that the rules shouldn;t be consistent? This is the enitre basis for any game. Cards have to behave the same way in every situation, otherwise, we will not know how to do anything. Essentially, unless you have a confirmed rule for how every card works in every situation, how exactly do you play the game. Of course the cards have to be consistent.
[quote="Envisioner"]
Even if Christopher confirms that a targetless bounty put directly into play acts like a duplicate Limited card, I'll probably just ignore that ruling in my games because it makes no sense IMO.
[/quote]
Then why even post in this topic if you don't care what the answer is anyways.
EDIT: I just wanted to add that when the ruling comes out, I will follow it no matter what it is. I try to follow all of the official rulings regardless of how they fit in with the other cards (Yes, I play where the order of SHD and Fortitude matter). Until such time when an official ruling comes in, I believe you are forced to play the game consistently based on previous rulings. At this point, not having the cards enter play is the only logical conclusion based on the current known game mechanics. Yes, this might not be how it is ruled, but it is the only thing that makes sense right right now.
I asked.
I do not have the exact wording (I foolish forget to use my MP3 player as a recorder... not joking, I thought about it just after Christopher had finished speaking).
You CANNOT play ongoings without a valid target. If such a card tries to enter play (even through forced means) and there is no target it does not enter play, it is discarded, not destroyed.
What if it doesn't try to enter play. . .
But seriously thanks for clearing this up, and tell Christopher thanks for answering the question a second time.
So, essentially, certain Bounties and Ammo cards without a Gun to attach to act with a sort of ghost "Limited" keyword.
That'd be valuable to put in the RC/IR FAQ.
Hrm. Well apparently Christopher disagrees with me, even though The Ultimate Target disagrees with him. Whatever. I still haven't decided whether to play according to this ruling or my own preferences.
Rather, that the rules should not force two sorta-similar situations to be resolved exactly the same way in the name of "consistency". If there is any distinction at all, then the possibility exists for the difference to be major. Most bounties can go on any target, and thus never fail to find a target, but No Executions is different and therefore requires special handling. Just as most bounties automatically destroy themselves along with their target, but The Ultimate Target doesn't, and thus it's a special case.
If one Bounty can sit in play with no target, why can't the other? Apparently Christopher didn't give a "why", and therefore his answer doesn't satsify me. (As I said, I may go with it anyway, if I decide that the overall benefit of a reliable rule is worth the counterintuitive scenarios that result. I just don't automatically accept that "consistency" is necessarily the more desireable alternative to what I would characterize as "sufficient complexity for the sake of simulationism and/or strategic intricacy".)
Essentially, unless you have a confirmed rule for how every card works in every situation, how exactly do you play the game.
I would in fact like exactly such rulings. SOTM is getting large enough that it could begin to deserve its own version of MTG's "Gatherer" program - a searchable database with one file for every card, containing an aggregation of rulings, strategic advice, and user comments about that one card, explaining exactly what it's used for, and how, and how good it is. There's somewhat less need for this in SOTM's case since the cards can't be swapped around, but the immense interconnectivity among the decks still leads to enough confusing scenarios that I think a "knowledge base", which contains space for every possible clarification of an interaction between any two (or occasionally more) cards, and gradually aggregates them through crowdsourcing and authoritative vetting, would be useful to have.
Christopher said, when explaining the ruling today, that basically any card which is played needs to go into a play area. The "play area" for an Ammo card is a Gun, and the "play area" for a Bounty is an appropriate target. If the applicable "play area" doesn't exist, that cards must, therefore, go to the trash. Ultimate Target can only stick around if it's already been played on a target and then that target is destroyed, only because there is no text on it to say that you should destroy it like you do other Bounties. Look at Infection - that's much the same. Its "play area" is an active hero, but if said hero then becomes Incapacitated (and thus no longer a target), there's nothing on the Infection card to say it gets destroyed so it sticks around, doing nothing unless Afflicted Frenzy is also present and forces that hero to continue to hit people even though they're down.
Interesting. I assume the same is true of Kismet's Jinxes and MI's hero-specific Clues? (Not sure if there are any other than Isolated Hero.)
I'm not sure. If there is a case of a tie (each hero having only their character cards in play, two heroes with the highest HP, etc.) I think the heroes choose which hero is targeted by the Jinx. Since it targets the heroes and not hero cards (or lack thereof) there should always be a hero target in play. If there isn't, then the game is over.
If something tells you play a card on, say, the "hero with the most cards in play", and there is a tie (ie multiple people have the same number of cards in play, or no-one has any), you use the usual "simultaneous" rule of deciding to which target you want to apply the effect.
No, I mean, if a Jinx or Clue was in play affecting a hero and that hero becomes incapped, the Jinx/Clue stays in play, but is no longer having any real effect on that hero.
Ah! My apologies. I imagine it would depend on whether there was a destruction effect related to the target leaving play or not.
Look at Infection - that's much the same. Its "play area" is an active hero, but if said hero then becomes Incapacitated (and thus no longer a target), there's nothing on the Infection card to say it gets destroyed so it sticks around, doing nothing unless Afflicted Frenzy is also present and forces that hero to continue to hit people even though they're down.
So that is an official ruling, Afflicted frenzy can cause an incap hero to deal damage because they don't become un-infected by being incapped.
No, I mean, if a Jinx or Clue was in play affecting a hero and that hero becomes incapped, the Jinx/Clue stays in play, but is no longer having any real effect on that hero.
Looks that way, no destruct text on them, so they would stay in play.
It makes sense as incapacitated doesn't mean they are dead, just out of the fight. I kind of like the idea that a hero could be taken out by the plague rat and yet be fighting, like the infection has taken over. Really cool.
If I understand correctly, however, they are no longer hero targets, so Galvanize and the like would generally stop affecting them once they were incapped.
True, they are no longer targets, so things that increase or decrease target damage no longer apply. Galvanize would not effect them, but something like an Obsidian Field still would since it just increases all damage by 1.
But... are uncapped heroes still able to deal damage at all?
Is there something somewhere that says they can't? They can still affect the play area with incapp abilities. Some incap abilities do damage directly even (doesnt chrono or expat have one?).
Chrono-Ranger's is one hero may deal 1 target 1 projectile damage. Expat's is Select a hero, the next time that hero uses a power, they may also deal 1 target 1 projectile damage. Just for fun, AZ Wrath has 1 target deals themself 1 cold damage.
No, there isn't anything specifically stating they can't. Just seemed... odd. But it's not really a big deal.
Chrono and Expat allow other heroes to deal damage, they don't deal damage themselves while incapped.
It only matters if Afflicted Frenzy is out, anyway - otherwise they just sit there with the Infection on them and do nothing ;).
Ah ok I misremembered them. Thanks for the quick clarification.
Assuming that incapacitated heroes are incapable of dealing any damage at all, there are still two reasons for the infections to still matter. First is that an infection on an incapacitated hero is an infection not in the deck/trash. Second is some cards count the number of infected heroes, and do something with that number.
Yeah, almost all the damage boosts are for hero targets, which Incapped are not, they are character cards still, but they have no hand or cards or HP.
I am perfectly fine with them dealing damage, I imagine Afflicted Frenzy's art to be a pretty good approximation of that event.
Infected Hero is incapped, lies on ground foaming and looking like they are dying, then suddenly gets up and in a craze attacks their friends, it works for me.
So Chrono-Ranger could allow an incapped hero to deal 1 Projectile damage. (Expat could not, since an incapped hero cannot use a Power.)
I may have missed something, but I think Galvanize and Inspiring Presence are the only damage boosts that specify Hero Targets.
Syncopated Onslaught is another one that definitely does. And most of the others come from a hero's own cards.
Not true, it can effect 2 targets.
You are correct, I should have just said targets. The environment "increase all damage" cards would apply, as well as Rat's infection bonus. Don't know if any other boosts would work.
Well okay, Sync can affect non-hero targets, but it can't affect non-target heroes, which was my point.
This is great!
By the way, what exactly does happen in this circumstance? Font of Atlantean Power specifies that if it tries to put out a second copy of a Limited card, you instead discard that card and try to play the next one. For effects that specify no such exception (which I don't believe any others do), if you hit a duplicate Limited, the effect is wasted? For Timeshift, you're simply forced to choose "into the trash" because "into play" isn't legal? Or do you get to disregard that card and look at the next one?
Can you have a second limited card in play? Nope, then it can't go into play. What's the other option given to you? "Put in the trash". Then do that.
Does Timeshift says to look at the next card like Font does? Nope, then don't do it.
Somehow I imagined that "go on to the next card instead" was part of the default Limited rule and that Font was specifying it redundantly. I get strange ideas sometimes (much like George Carlin).
I believe the correct elaboration of the stated rule is such that you do not have the option of putting a second limited card into play. If a card gives you an option between that and another action, then the other action must be taken instead. Should an action attempt to put a second limited card into play without specifying an alternative action (such as the incapacitated ability of Set), the rules (or at least the glossary) states that the second card is put into the trash instead of into play.
Out of curiosity, what happens if Fixed Point is in play? If you tried to play a second copy of a Limited card, would it still go into the trash on the basis that it was never in play to start with (it didn't manage to get that far), therefore isn't being "destroyed or otherwise removed from play"? That'd be how I understand it, anyway, but, you know, just in case... ;)
I am pretty sure that the second limited card never gets a chance to "be in play" so to speak, it just instantly goes into the trash. I really want to say this was confirmed at some point, but am having difficulty remembering if that is actually the case or not.
It basically goes to the trash instead of entering play, so it's never in play. (If I remember correctly...)
Fair enough - that's what I thought :).
Yep, the limited rule doesn't "destroy" anything, it replaces the action "put to play" with "put to trash".