Isolated Hero

Just how far-reaching are the effects of this card?  Rules-lawyerish fellow that I am, I want to read it as only preventing any direct interaction between a hero and their allies; I don't see it treating all their cards as blank for the purposes of the others and vice versa.  For instance, Chrono-Ranger has By Any Means on a target; heroes who deal damage to that target are not "affecting or being affected by" By Any Means itself, since By Any Means "affects" the villain target it's played on.  Am I ruling this as intended, or is it really meant to effectively blank the cards?

The instance of damage you are dealing is being increased by that heros effect. Sounds to me like isolated hero prevents that interaction. But there's already threads on this very subject. I'd recommend posting in those. 

I searched for "isolated" and found threads which did not appear to answer my question.  Until the search function of this board improves, please discontinue chiding me for creating a new topic every time I have a question (since it's already been established that people would rather that new, redundant topics proliferate, rather than a generic catch-all questions thread be used).

There is a thread about Isolated Hero and Incapacitated powers that was the second tag when I typed "Isolated Hero" into the search. I only skimmed the thread but it seems to cover most of the questions that would relate to Isolated Hero.

If it was in my search results, it must not have appeared to pertain to my question based on the little preview snippet.

Multiple threads about the same topic is not quite as useless as a single extremely-difficult-to-search-for thread with mutliple topics, but it's hardly ideal.

Ideal = one appropriately-titled thread per topic/card/similar, with one topic/card/similar per thread.

Fragmenting information just makes searching more difficult.

2nd result for "isolated hero"

> ... and Gameplay Quote 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 ...

Isolated hero prevents you from affecting any other hero card.

By any means does not affect a hero card, it affects a Villain card, only damage to that card is affected.

Isolated heroes are allowed to affect villain cards, so I don't see why it would not be allowed.

Take down would still work if Legacy was Isolated, and if he wasn't but someone else was the isolated hero would benefit from take down, but Take Down is still a legal play, just like Ground Pound or Hypersonic.

Visionary could still Wrest the Mind or Twist the Ether on a villain card, and while that might benefit another hero it would be allowed, because the effect of the card is on the villain, not the hero.

Twist the Ether is a good sample case, by reducing damage or changing type Visionary can greatly affect the Villain-Hero relationship, and affect the Hero target by changing the amount of HP it loses.

By any Means affects a hero card effect by increasing the damage that a villain takes.  Neither effect is directed at a hero card, but both affect hero cards (or effects) secondarily.

I would say that heroes affected by isolated hero do not benefit from By Any Means. Anything that increases a hero's damage is affecting them as well as the villain. Take Down affects the villain deck, but doesn't give any individual bonuses to a hero, same with Ground Pound. I do agree that you could play Twist the Ether on a villain card and not worry about isolated hero, but again that's entirely affecting the villain card and not anything the hero is actually doing.

But it isn't boosting the hero's damage.  It is increasing damage dealt to the villain, from any source.  The effect has nothing to do with the hero at all, just like twist the ether doesn't have anything to do with the target of the attack.

The end result is altered, the non-isolated hero's involvement in either is secondary.  The villain takes more damage, the hero isn't getting his damage boosted, The villain deals less damage, the hero isn't gaining reduction.

The end result might be the same as if the heroes damage had been boosted, or the hero had been granted reduction, but the process does not involve the hero.

The hero's damage is still being increased. Instead of dealing 1 damage, they are now dealing 2. The effect on the hero is secondary to the effect on the villain, but an effect on a hero is still being made. They are able to do extra damage to that villain target because of something another hero card in another hero deck is doing.

Take Down, Twist the Ether on a villain card,  and Ground Pound do not actually affect anything the hero is doing. By Any Means actually does, although passively.

No, but that hero is sure doing more damage as a result of the other heros card effect. That is not debatable.

Is the hero doing damage benefiting from a card effect of an isolated hero? The answer is yes. That is clearly not the intent of Isolated Hero.

The way I see it, if Hero A is Isolated, then Heros B-E do not see Hero A's cards or take any effect they bring to the table into account and vice versa. You pretend like its not even there. Anything else and you are just grabbing at straws for loopholes. Its an awesomely unique villain card ability, there is no reason to neuter it.

Then Visionary shouldn't be able to use Twist the Ether to lower damage to a Hero card.  Her effect is clearly beneffitting that card.

By your they can't see the cards By any Means wouldn't be affected at all, it goes on the villain, it gets placed in the villain play area.  If Wraith Stun bolted a villain while Isolated, would the reduction of villain damage dealt only lower damage when her card would be attacked?

Could Chrono Ranger when Isolated retaliate with the Ultimate Target if an ally was damaged?

Secondary benefits are secondary benefits, the effect of the card is on a non-hero.  The card has the right to affect a non-hero.  Isolated hero does not have the power to stop a hero from affecting a non-hero card or non-hero card effect.

How about Mega-Computer, can it reduce damage to Environment targets while Wraith is isolated, or would it only reduce the damage being dealt to her?

The card does have the right to affect a non-hero. Sure. Thats correct. But Isolated Hero EXPLICITLY prevents other heros from benefiting from the effects of your cards. Yes the Bounty can be played on the Villain, and an Isolated Chrono can still benefit from that +1 damage increase. Is the effect coming from an Isolated Hero? Yes. Is a non-isolated hero benefiting from that effect? Yes. That is the entire point of the card, to prevent that.

This does not stop the bounty from affecting the villain target. It is stoping other heros from benefiting from that effect though.

If Wraith is Isolated with Mega-Computer, she would still benefit from the damage reduction, and the Villain/Environment targets would also still be affected by Mega-Computer, but the other Heros would not benefit from Mega-Computer.

I mean, the wording is pretty explicit here guys. I get the confusion on some cards, but this one? 

If Wraith Stun bolted a villain while Isolated, would the reduction of villain damage dealt only lower damage when her card would be attacked?

Could Chrono Ranger when Isolated retaliate with the Ultimate Target if an ally was damaged?

Wraith's StunBolts, in my opinion, would only benefit her if she was the the one Isolated. Again, Isolated hero explicitly prevents other heros from benefiting from any effect originating from your cards and deck. Other heros would not benefit from your effects. Yes, debuffing the Villain is an effect steming from your deck and cards. Care to argue that point otherwise?

An Isolated Chrono Ranger could absolutley retaliate with Ultimate Target if an ally was damaged. Chrono Ranger is not benefiting from another heros effects, nor are other heros benefiting from his effect (they are not getting to use a free power), so its Chrono being effected by his own card, so that seems perfectly fine.

The word benefit is nowhere on the card.

Your hero and cards cannot affect or be affected by a hero card or effect.

There is nothing in there about heroes not benefiting from your cards effecting a villain target.

If a villain takes reduced damage, that villain is not affecting heroes, the villain is affecting their own cards.  

To interpret that the isolated hero may do nothing that impacts another hero is absurd.

Can you damage a villain target?  That helps other heroes win.

Can you destroy an ongoing card that would deal damage?  That certainly benefits other heroes.

Can you discard a card for Suspicious Malfunction?  If so would the count be different for the isolated vs non-isolated heroes?

What about Threat to the President or concealed betrayal, can the isolated hero be the one who destroys a card?  Can they destroy a card or discard to fulfil the destruction requirement on the card?

None of these situations is the isolated hero or one of their cards affecting another hero, yet they all are beneficial to the other heroes.

If you can't discard toward the (H) cards to destroy Concealed Betrayal, what wording on the actual card Isolated Hero tells you that you can't?

If you can discard, and thus lower the amount of cards the rest of the team needs to discard, then why wouldn't you be able to do the same with other effects of non-hero cards?

The effects of non-hero cards can be affected while you are isolated.  Twist the Ether and Wrest the Mind affecting the effect of a non-hero card is not stopped by Isolated hero.  That the villain card is being affected while effecting a hero target is unimportant to fulfilling the text of the card.

Seriously, answer these questions using the text of the card Isolated hero.  Don't just tell me it is explicit and then use wording that isn't on the card to justify your interpretation.  If the card is explicit then use its wording to answer the questions.

Benefiting / affecting can be used interchangibly. Seriously? If you are benefiting from an effect, you are being affected by it. No two ways around that one. I am open to any counter example you can cook up though. "Affecting" wording includes the possibility of excluding effects that could hinder you as well (say Wraith with Micro Targeting is isolated so it would be hurt by Ra having Imbued Fire out). Thats the only difference

I understand what you are saying with the Bounty and its relationship with increasing damage dealt to villain targets. But you have to look at it from an un-isolated heros perspective. Wraith shoots the villain with By Any Means with Razor Ordinance for 3. By Any Mean increases damage dealt to the villain target by 1. Increases whos damage? The hero doing it, of course. Normally, By Any Means would increase the damage Wraith does to the villain by 1. By Any Means, in this example, is an effect coming from an Isolated heros cards/deck. Should Wraith's damage be "affected" by an effect coming directly from an isolated heros cards/deck? You're saying yes? How exactly is Wraith not being affected here again?

Edit: The discarding thing? Thats not an effect coming from the Isolated Heros deck or cards, so I fail to see how Isolated Hero would come into that conversation at all. Does not apply.

Edit2: 

To interpret that the isolated hero may do nothing that impacts another hero is absurd.

Absurd? Thats the entire point of the card!!! Thats the EXACT intent.

Edit3: If Twist the Ether was put on a villain target (as an example), if that target deals damage to an Isolated Hero, Twist the Ether is not directly affecting the Isolated Hero, so in this case I would say that TtE could reduce that villains damage and have that attack the Iso hero. But you must see the difference between this case and the Any Means Nessesary example. Wraith's damage was being directly affected by the Iso heros card in play. So I see your point with the "benefit" wording, but that minor semantic difference doesn't change the core argument.

To interpret that the isolated hero may do nothing that impacts another hero is absurd.

Absurd? Thats the entire point of the card!!! Thats the EXACT intent.

Almost everything any hero does that affects the game affects other heroes.

Destroying ongoing cards affects other heroes, dicarding to help destroy Concealed Betrayal helps other heroes.

If I'm Isolated and I discard all four of my cards to destroy Concealed Betrayal that certainly is a direct benefit to the other heroes.  Yet you are OK with that.

I'm not talking about hero cards affecting heroes I'm talking about hero cards affecting villains and Environment cards.

For Stun Bolt, the effect of the damage a villain deals is an effect of a villain card.  The amount of that damage can be influenced by environment, villain or hero cards, but the damage is only the effect of the villain.  So why would a card effect that reduces damage a villain target deals be illegal under isolated hero?

You are reducing the damage a villain deals.  Legacies Galvanize doesn't affect Villain targets.  It affects hero targets.  The damage done by a hero affects the villain.

You have said in the past that static effects essentially change the text on cards that are affected by it, so Galvanize would cause Throwing knivs to say deal 2 damage instead of 1.  Stun Bolt by the same logic would lower the damage dealt by villain targets on their card, it is still the Villain dealing damage, the amount affected by Stun bolt is determined before the hero card is involved.  The damage dealt to a character by a villain target that has been stun bolted is solely the effect of the villain card, not Wraith.  Wraith is affecting the villain's ability to deal damage, that is all.

Please, answer this one.

How about Ground Pound, can non-hero targets deal damage to an isolated hero if Haka plays Ground Pound?  If Haka is Isolated will Ground Pound only prevent them from damaging Haka?

How about Hypersonic?

If an Isolated hero can prevent a non-hero target from dealing damage to their allies then they can affect damage that would be dealt to allies by affecting the villains ability to deal damage, the same as Stun Bolt or Mega Computer affects a non-hero card's ability to deal damage.

Ronway is here to toss in his 2 cents!

I play it that any card that affects non-hero cards (Hypersonic Assualt, By Any Means, Ground Pound, etc) will continue to apply to heroes, as it is directly affecting non-hero cards and not the heroes. While cards that affect heroes/players (Galvanize, Fleet of Foot, Imbued Fire) would not apply to heroes.

It seems to me that at least part of the question is about who damage belongs to. Is it:

1. A property of the damage dealer,
2. a property of the damage receiver, or
3. two properties, one belonging to each?

An example:

Wraith, while Galvanized, uses Throwing Knives to damage a villain who has By Any Means played next to them. Under normal circumstances, with no other relevant effects in play, Wraith would deal 3 damage. If Wraith is Isolated, here is how I would interpret the situation for each of the three answers to the question above.

1. The damage being dealt is Wraith's damage. Since Galvanize and By Any Means directly affect the damage and that damage belongs to Wraith, they cannot be used. The villain takes 1 damage.
2. The damage being dealt is the villain's damage. Since Galvanize and By Any Means affect the damage and that damage belongs to the villain, they can be used. The villain takes 3 damage. I imagine that most people will agree that this interpretation is not correct.
3. The damage occurs in two phases. The first phase is Wraith dealing damage. Galvanize affects the damage that Wraith is dealing, so it cannot be used. The Wraith deals one damage in the first phase. The second phase is the villain taking damage. By Any Means affects the damage that the villain is taking, so it can be applied. The total amount of damage dealt to the villain is 2.

I think that 1 and 3 are equally valid interpretations - neither of them is obviously correct, or this discussion would not be happening.

Honestly, with these and the Stun-Bolt and the Twist the Ether examples…I could see those going either way possibly. Those are not exactly as clear cut. Even I am on the fence about being OK with TtE affecting the damage heading towards an Isolated Hero.

Here is my core thoughts on the argument:

My interpretation of the card very much hinges on my idea of the thematic intent and the percieved mechanical intent. For me, the card is doing exactly what its name implies…Isolating a hero. The intent there, I believe, is to try and artificially create the feeling of having just your one hero Vs. the Villain in the Environment chosen. It wants to simulate that 1v1 feeling, but has to do it within the tabletop environment where obviously you as the player are not really alone. To this end, my interpretation really is guided to encompass as much of that feeling as possible. This would mean that Stun-Bolts and Twist the Ether and other similar effects coming from other hero cards/decks should be viewed as totally non-existant from the Isolated Heros perspective, like they were never there. And that should be fitting. You are Isolated, after all. It is just you. No friends around to change the complexion of the situation or battlefield for you. You must do it yourself – alone – or die trying…

I know we both love arguing about rules and stuff. You always make me rethink my initial stances. But maybe arguing semantics is not in either of our best interests in this case. The thematic intent of this card is one of the single coolest villan effects in the entire game. I find it very sad that no one else really sees it that same way 

I'm getting a bit confused here trying to sort this out.

The Isolated Hero card text states:

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

So If Crono is Isolated his cards cannot affect the effect of another hero's deck.  By any Means (by my argument) does not affect a hero card.  But it does affect the effect of a hero card, even if it is secondarily.  Take Thermal Shockwave, if By any Means is allowed to increase damage to the villain the second part of the card effect will be affected by that increase.

So I'm going back on that part and saying that an Isolated Ranger's By any means can't affect the amount of damage dealt to a villain target by another hero's deck effect.

However; an Isolated hero targetting a villain that has By any Means on it, played by a non-Isolated Crono-Ranger would not have the same problem, since the card does not state that the Isolated Hero's card effects cannot be affected by another hero's cards.  The damage you deal is not a card, it is an effect, so you should be able to benefit from By any Mans in that situation.

Gah.

It also makes me wonder what it means that your hero cannot be affected.  Does your hero exist outside of their cards?

What? No I think you are reading that sentence wrong.

When it says that a Heros cards cannot affect any other hero card or effect, it is talking about the effects on the heros cards. That is more than a stretch to say otherwise. Thats grabbing at semantic straws

It also makes me wonder what it means that your hero cannot be affected.  Does your hero exist outside of their cards?

Ahhh…all this arguing…her plan is working!

A card effect is an effect of a card, not the card itself.  Twist the Ether does not affect Thermal Shockwave the card, but when the power is used it affects the effect of the card.

That's why card and card effect are listed differently.

At least that's how I see it.

I think we need an official explanation of the intricasies of Isolated Hero, a quick answer won't even cover half the possible interactions of this card.

How does a hero card ever "affect" something else in the game without its text? No way dude, calling shenanigans on that one. When you are talking about a hero card affecting other things, it is refering to the effect that card has to do the affecting in the first place. A blank card does not exert an effect on anything in the game.

A quick answer could very well clear up every possible interaction. "Isolated Heros ignore all other hero cards and effects like they are not even in play" would solve everything (and coincidently be in line with how I see the cards true intent, of course). 

It doesn't have to be this complicated. The fact that it IS this complicated should you that there is probably a more correct way of looking at it. Simple is better.

My way of dealing with it was simple:  A card affects a hero if the effect on the card affects that hero directly or universally.

That's why I went with By any Means working through isolated, because the effect affects a villain, and only heroes as a byproduct of its effect on that villain.

The only reason I'm reconsidering is the level of interaction between that increased damage and a card like Thermal Shockwave.

It explicitly prevents other heroes from being affected by your cards.  I'm inclined to agree with phantaskippy's interpretation - it only prevents direct influence.  To put it another way, if the Isolated Hero picks up a rock and sets it down at a more convenient height, another hero can therefore pick up the rock without having to bend down; the isolated hero just can't actually hand the rock to them.  Isolated Hero does not prevent the victim from picking up a random rock and setting it down in a random place, even if that might benefit another hero down the line, because they're not actively affecting the hero, just the rock.

If you benefit from an effect you are affected by it. Explain the error in my sentence to me. Feel free to keep ignoring that in favor of playing useless semantic games though.

I would like to hear your rational for why the wording of "affected" should include directly affecting but exclude indirectly affecting. I do not see any sound basis for excluding indirect effects from this. Maybe you can change my mind. 

Hey, folks? Let's keep it civil.

The way I've always interpreted and played it is that the Isolated hero exists in a total vacuum.  Nothing that they do can have any impact on the experience of the other heroes, and nothing the other heroes do can have any impact on them.

any rules/questions are resolved this way (though you are of course free to make up your own interpretations):

For Non-isolated heroes:   The (H) value stays the same.  In all other respects, the Isolated Hero exists outside of their sphere of influence.  none of their cards, powers, ongoings, redirections, or choices can have ANY influence.  The isolated hero takes full damage, even if the villain is hypersoniced or stunned, and gets no bonus from things like bounties.

thematically, I resolve this as the Isolated hero has been detained, delayed, or ambushed.

The Isolated Hero may reduce the HP of the villain, because they are still attempting to re-unite with their friends.  If the villain is reduced to 0, all of the villain cards become a moot point, and it is assumed that they re-unite.  

In the event that Ms. Information ever gets any sort of last-second reprieve, or omnitron-like ability to stick around until all diversions have been handled, then Isolated hero would persist.

For the Isolated Hero:

Until the card is destroyed, they exist entirely on their own.  If they are the last one standing, the other heroes cannot use incap. powers on them (though they may still provide indirect aid by destroying ongoings/environments).  If they go down, they may not use direct incap powers on other heroes, as ongoings played on heroes persist after incapacitation- (see People V. Plague Rat).  They may provide indirect aid in the form of destroying non-hero ongoings/environments (or any other incap that does not proivide a direct benefit to heroes, or acts upon the villain).

Because if you take any action that affects a hero secondarily you get anything that a hero can do other than draw cards and play self buffs.

If an Isolated Hero defeats the vilain, do the other heroes win, because I would think ending the game affects a hero.

If I discard four cards to destroy Concealed betrayal that affects the other heroes, so can I not discard to meet a cards destruction requirement?

If a non-hero card deals damage to the lowest HP target and the isolated hero is tied for the lowest HP, can they take that damage?  Taking that damage would effect the other heroes because one of them isn't taking that damage.

Destroying any card by card effect or damage dealt will affect the other heroes i the game.

Damaging The villain brings the game closer to a victory, that affects the other heroes.

Being in the game raises any (H) based effects, thereby affecting the other heroes.

"Cannot" is an absolute effect.

I agree with Braithwhite.

I don't see where A affects B, B affects C is equivalent to A affects C.

If I affect a villain cards ability to deal daamge I have not affected a hero card.

If that villain is unable to damage a hero because of it, that effect is still only affecting the Villain card.  It is causing the Villain to not affect the other hero, not causing me to affect that hero.

I'm very interested in seeing your thought processes about the card.  Could you please give a breakdown of how you interpret it, preferably with examples?

I'm not being sarcastic or condescending (and i apologize if it seems that way).

The game ends, either way.

If I discard four cards to destroy Concealed betrayal that affects the other heroes, so can I not discard to meet a cards destruction requirement?

You aren't affecting the other heroes. You are affecting only Concealed Betrayal.

If a non-hero card deals damage to the lowest HP target and the isolated hero is tied for the lowest HP, can they take that damage?  Taking that damage would effect the other heroes because one of them isn't taking that damage.

Yes, they can. You're reaching.

Destroying any card by card effect or damage dealt will affect the other heroes i the game.Damaging The villain brings the game closer to a victory, that affects the other heroes.

Doesn't matter. All the heroes are working towards the same objective. Being isolated means that that one hero is doing it alone, without the benefit of allies.

Being in the game raises any (H) based effects, thereby affecting the other heroes.

Nonsequitur. H is set when you decide how many are going up against the villain. Nothing alters H once the game has begun.

Not quite sure what you are saying here. I still want to know why "Affecting" must nessessarily include directly affecting but must exclude indirectly affecting. Isn't the word "affecting" more of an umbrella term that could possibly take both into account? I do not see why it is nessessary to exclude indirect effects. The card sure does not make that exception, so I am just wondering where it is coming from.

Would you be happy with saying the Isolated Hero doesn't win? This is out of the scope of Isolated Hero. The Villain being reduced to 0 HP is not an effect coming from a hero's card or deck, so Isolated Hero has no impact during the win condition. If you really wanted to go that route, Isolated Hero gets removed when the Villain dies. There you go.

Again, that effect (the one forcing you to discard cards or face a penalty) is not coming from any Heros card or deck, so Isolated Hero again does not come into play. 

Sure. You still need to follow the instruction on the non-hero card. Isolated Hero does not change that. It is only a simulated 1v1 senario, obviously when you are at a table with other people, the players have to decide who counts as "lowest" HP and "2nd lowest" HP if they are tied. You doing that though is not mandated by an effect coming from a hero deck or card, but rather a nessesity of the game system. 

But the whole reason why the Villain can't hit the Isolated hero is a result of an effect coming from another heros card/deck. Thats the difference. What is the point of being Isolated if you can still be aided by effects from your teamates? Thats not much of an Isolation.

The Villain being reduced to 0 HP is not an effect coming from a hero's card or deck

Neither is a villain dealing damage.  A Villain dealing damage is solely an effect of a villain deck.  Why can't an Isolated hero affect that?  

My view of the card is that the heroes are not working together anymore.  They aren't on opposite sides of the globe, because If Haka can punch the same person that Mr. Fixer can punch, then they are in the same area.

I don't know if anyone is a Battletech player, but the rules for being seperated from your unit are a big influence on my stance here.  You lose all bonuses associated with working as a team  It doesn't require anything more than losing communication with your allies.

You are near each other, but you can't coordinate your efforts anymore.  To apply that to Sentinels you would take away any impact that being with the rest of your team would grant you.  Legacy can't galvanize you or Bolster you, Visionary can't enlighten you or twist your ether, Fixer's Salvage yard is not in reach, and you can't hear Adept's Righteous tunes.

Effects that hit a villain like stun bolts would still work, because a stun bolt is harming the villain, the same villain the isolated hero and non-isolated heroes are fighting.  If Haka Ground Pounds and knocks all the villains and Environment stuff silly, they don't only suffer dissorientation when they aren't looking at the isolated hero.  If Wraith Jabs the villain in the throat, it is the same throat of the same villain everyone else is fighting.

That's why I don't think secondary affects would be stopped.  Both parties can affect the villain, they just can't directly help each other.

The heroes can still support each other through secondary measures, I mean Aragorn helped Frodo and Sam when the army of Mordor and the Black Gate were between them.  (that's right I went LOTR)

As for By any Means, my thematic interpretation of that bounty is that Crono is running down the villain, and they are unable, due to his interference to normally defend themselved, creating better opportunities for other heroes to dawanted persons who are not yet convicted.mage them, or at the least that because of him they have legal ground to bend rules they would otherwise follow in pursuit of the villain, meaning the villain lacks normal protection afforded most wanted persons that have not been convicted.

A single game can represent a lot more than one single battle on a given day. They work on many more levels than that. Using that assumption as your basis for interpretation seems odd

I still don't understand your exclusion of indirect effects. The wording indicates no such exclusion. But we are now going in circles. 

Edit:

You are near each other, but you can't coordinate your efforts anymore.

Maybe we just have very different definitions of what "Isolated" means.

Isolated: adjective

1.far away from other places, buildings, or people; remote.

synonyms: remote, out of the way, outlying, off the beaten track/path, secluded,lonely, godforsaken, far-flung, inaccessible, cutoff, incommunicado,

I would say the wording doesn't include them, as reducing a villain damage is affecting the effect of a villain card, which is not prohibited by Isolated Hero.

That is the essence of a secondary effect.  the Isolated hero is affecting a non-hero target's ability to affect a hero target.

If Apostate deals Fanatic damage if is Apostate affecting Fanatic's health, if Wraith has sutn bolted Apostate stun bolt is not affecting Fanatic.  That is the key.  Stun Bolt is not affecting Hero targets, it is affecting the target shot by the bolt, just like If a hero destroys a thug from Chariman's deck that hero card effect is not affecting the hero target with the highest HP, it destroyed a thug.  The retaliation for that action is solely an action of the Operative.

Reducing the damage a villain can deal is affecting the villain.  If that Villain damages a hero, that is an effect of the villain deck.

Stun bolt hitting a villain target is not affecting hero targets.  Stun bolt doesn't have any effect except the effect for the target dealt damage by the power on it.  If you aren't the target dealt damage by Stun Bolt's power, then Stun Bolt did not affect you.

As for timing of rounds, I agree thematically that rounds can be long periods of time, esp. with Miss Information, where each clue and diversion is a seperate event, however I would say that a round is an equal amount of time for each hero, and that a villain affected by a card effect would be affected for the same amount of time for each hero.  It isn't like the round represented one week for all the heroes but the isolated one, and that hero the round was a month.  As such if Throat Jab rendered a villain unable to harm heroes for a set amount of time, no matter how long that time was it would be the same amount of time for each hero, isolated or not.

Is the damage being dealt to the Isolated Hero modified in any way? Yes. Is that modification being applied by another heros effects? Yes.

The ending HP for our Isolated Hero (a hero card) is affected by the Stun Bolt effect (an effect from another heros cards/deck), would you disagree with that statement? 

You are correct in a sense, that reducing a villain damage is affecting the effect of a villain card, which indeed is not prohibited. But what is prohibited is those effects affecting the Isolated Heros cards (including his character card, which includes his HP), and the fact is that the debuff from Stun Bolts has a clear tangable affect on our heros HP. So it should not apply when dealing damage to said Isolated Hero.

I have said this many times already, and it has not been refuted, that if you benefit from another heros effect, you have been affected by it. Still waiting to hear why that nessessarily can't be the case.

Affected: Definition: 1.  Acted upon, influenced, or changed.

My final argument is that the Stun Bolt effect absolutley influences and changes the amount of damage an Isolated Hero would recieve. By definition, the Isolated Hero was affected by Stun Bolts.

The defense now rests, your honor

The key difference for us when we play is that when an Isolated Hero is acting or being acted upon, we simply look at all the active effects in play at that time and ignore all those that generated from a Hero deck. We basically look at that moment in time and remove all outside influences coming from other Hero's (buffs and the like). 

Technically, by changing the state of the game in their turn, the heroes are still affecting the Isolated Hero in some form (for instance, by reducing the HP of some Omniton's drones, they are in fact reducing the amount of damage the drones can deal the Isolated Hero... or vice versa), but those lingering effects I believe are outside the realm of Isolated Hero, and therefore we don't worry about that. We simply look at the effects actively occurring at the time the Isolated Hero is acting or being acted upon. 

Affected: Definition: 1. Acted upon, influenced, or changed.

I would say that Stun bolt did not act upon a hero, influence a hero, or change a hero card or effect.

It did that to a villain card effect, as it dealt damage to a villain card, and changed the amount of damage the villain could deal.

It did not act upon a hero, it did not influence that hero, and it did not change anything about that hero.

The Villain card effect of dealing damage acted upon the hero, and changed their HP.

The Amount of damage dealt them was changed, but damage that a villain deals is not a card or effect of a hero deck.

I don't understand any situation where damage dealt by a villain could be construed as a hero card or effect of a hero deck.  Damage dealt was affected, but:

That Damage is the effect of a villain deck.  The effect of a villain deck was changed, that is all.  The hit points lost by the hero were lost by the effect of a villain card.  How does Stun bolt Act upon, change or influence a hero target that it didn't damage?  It can't.

Damage dealt is not an effect of the reciever of damage.  The amount of that damage is not their effect.  I understand that it alters the amount of damage they take, but that damage is an effect of a villain card, not an effect of Stun Bolt.  the Damage dealt is the action that affects the hero.  Stun Bolt damaging a villain target does not change the HP of a hero.  Stun Bolt reducing the damage a Villain can do does not change the HP of a hero.  It changes the amount of damage a villain can do, but it doesn't cause the villain to change anyone's HP.

The affect on the hero is solely the result of a villain deck effect that deals damage.  Changing the amount of damage is not changing the source, or what card caused that damage to be dealt.  You aren't taking 3 damage then healing one, you are taking two damage.  That villain is dealing two damage.  that amount can be influenced by stun bolts, but Stun Bolts does not then take responsibility for HP changing.

I have a feeling that until an official ruling is made, the card should just be played via the player's own intepretation. If playing with a group of people, then decide by vote or whoever owns the game gets to decide. That's usually how we decide things until my group finds an official ruling.

On the matter of searching for threads/rulings, on BGG, one game I play has individual card rulings for each deck or type of card so I just pull up that list when we have a question about a card. It would be simpler if there was a card ruling section of the forum sorted by deck into subforums, then you'd just need to search/post in that deck's section.

I agree that a Stun bolted villain's damage against an Isolated hero should be reduced as normal, since it was the villain that was affected by the Stun Bolt and not the hero.

Thematically the villain is confused and disorientated by the Stun Bolt and therefore doesn't hit as hard. It's a "mess up the villain" card rather than a "protect the heroes" card, even if it does ultimately have the secondary effect as a result of the primary one.

Is that not basically what Spiff's Rule Clarification PDF is?

I am not sold on Stun Bolts.

But what does everyone think about Ground Pound? It is not reducing damage done by appling a debuff, but it is outright preventing damage from being dealt. I think if there were going to be an exception to how I see it working out, Ground Pound might fit that bill. 

Yes I do realize that opening the door for Ground Pound makes the argument for allowing Stun Bolts slightly stronger. But it is worth talking about. Phantaskippy brough up Ground Pound before, and its a reasonable point.

Wouldn't this get into the issue of what powers Miss Info has? Let's look at the two extremes:

If Isolated Hero was an illusion spell from DnD, then it makes sense that nothing would affect them. Even if Stub Bolt worked, the illusion would make it that they hero wouldn't believe it, and they would take more damage.

On the other extreme, if this was in real life, this is a standard military tactic of divide and conquer. In this case, while you are moslty alone, you still have some affects from other heroes. In this case Stub Bolt would still work.

What happens when its an imaginary comic with superheros though?

That was, sort of, my point. Where does this character stand in this super-hero game? Until we know that, anything is possible.

I think her encounter thematically can be looked at in a lot of ways.

She sent Fixer and Tempest to investigate a plant. She sent Wraith by herself to save a cat from a tree because how hard could that be right?

Miss Info is the secretary. She almost seems like the dispatch center, regulating where the heros should go and spend their resources the best. All those distractions and clues? She is not sending our heros together in a nice neat package everywhere together. She is spliting them up. Sending them to different places.

That idea can be hard to wrap your head around when the confines of the tabletop have you both hitting the "same target", but I think she requires a little more abstract thought. If she Isolates you, chances are she probably sent you far off from every other hero and put you smack in a ambush. In fact, this is exactly what the picture of Isolated Hero depicts. Tempest. Alone. Ambushed. Doesn't look like he has a lot of help near him. Sure, maybe that one villain still has a stun bolt stuck in his butt cheek from his battle with Wraith a few days ago. But maybe not. 

I'll admit, I skipped to the end to write this and throw my 2 cents into the pool.

Beyond any other aspect I think for me personally the following explains why the villain still takes increased damage from By Any Means (that's the one we're talking about right? I don't have cards in front of me) even if Chrono is isolated. I see that bounty as affecting the villain with negative DR. Instead of increasing their armor, he is reducing it, and thus other heroes can take advantage of that fact. Their increase is damage comes from the villain DR being reduced from 0 to -1 (or from 2 to 1or 1 to 0, however you'd like it to be). The overall effect is the same, the villain is taking more damage, but it is different from increasing the damage dealt as you do with Galvanize.

How you wish to handle that thematically is up to you (perhaps he's messing with her illusion maze making it easier for other hero's to notice the illusions or focusing more of her attention on his antics in the jungle so she's having a harder time getting the resources to deal with the heroes in Megalopolis.

I see where you are going thematically with that Foote, and looking at it purley thematically that would make sense.

The problem for me is we still have to work from the wording of the card.  That is where we disagree, and I think a ruling on a few key examples would really help solve this.

I would ask for a ruling on Stun Bolt, Ground Pound and By any Means and maybe the incap question.  Also ask if it makes a difference if you switch the hero from being isolated to trying to affect someone who is isolated, or if the relationship is identically blocked both ways.

That is a lot of questions, but they would resolve this debate.

Our disagreement centers around whether Isolated Hero prevents direct and indirect hero effect interactions, or if it only prevents direct interactions. I agree with you that, for a solid ruling, we need to work with the wording. I just do not see the wording of the card excluding indirect hero interactions.

By Any Means, Stun Bolt, and Ground Pound, as a set, represent the shades of that question very well.

By Any Means interacts with an Isolated Hero's instance of damage dealt. Should that be allowed? (I think certainly not)

Stun Bolt interacts with an instance of damage being dealt to the Isolated Hero. Should that be allowed? (I think no, but it's not clear admittedly)

Ground Pound interacts with the ability of the game to interact with the Isolated Hero. Should that be allowed? (Instinct says no, but leaning toward yes)

If theres an interaction between two hero effects and/or cards, whether directly or indirectly, the case can be made that they have indeed affected each other and would be explicitly banned by Isolated Hero. But the flood gates are open as to what consititues an interaction between hero effects/cards. You do not see Stun Bolts as a lasting debuff coming from Wraith, as I do, leading us to different views as to whether that is actually an interaction between two hero cards/effects at all.

My figuring is that it only counts as "affecting" if it, for lack of a better word, "targets" the Isolated Hero (or any non-Isolated hero, if originating from him), their cards, or their player - anything which is played on the villain or the environment has all its normal effects.  The only alternative I can see is the "treat the cards as blank" solution (with appropriate modification for effects such as Stun Bolt), which would work elegantly, but I feel that it's overkill.

That's not a bad way of looking at it - you can't "target" the hero or their player, but the villain/environment is fair game, as are the other non-isolated heroes/players assuming you're not isolated yourself, or yourself if you are. Simple.

I think if the intent of the card was to only work off direct targeting, it would have read more like "Your hero can not target or be targeted by the cards or effects of another Hero".

The wording on Isolated Hero, I believe, is intentionally much broader than that. If it was ment for only direct interactions (Ie. targeting or being targeted) than it would have, and absolutley could have, said as much.

If a hero (who wasn't Visionary) had Twist the Ether on them, and then became Isolated, would Twist go away or would it just not do anything until they become un-Isolated?

I'd say it would sit there and do nothing. It's still a legal play, just handicapped by the Isolated.

Except that "target" in SOTM doesn't mean "thing that you're pointing at", it means "thing with HP".  So the only way to say "point at" is "affect".

The wording on Isolated Hero, I believe, is intentionally much broader than that. If it was ment for only direct interactions (Ie. targeting or being targeted) than it would have, and absolutley could have, said as much.

If it was meant to treat the cards as not existing for the purposes of other heroes, it could have said that.  It only prohibits "affecting" other heroes, not "affecting" the villain in ways that have an indirect impact on other heroes.

Galvanize doesn't target anyone, it is a static effect, as is Imbued Fire.

Twist the Ether should sit there useless, as it does not affect the target until activated, but the activation (which is not-optional otherwise) would be prevented because the card effect cannot affect the Isolated Hero.

Context clues are an important aspect of reading comprehension. You can be targeted by an effect. To say otherwise is incorect. 

But you agree that they are "affected" though, whether that be directly or indirectly? 

By Any Means interacts and changes the instance of damage an Isolated Hero will do. That is an effect from another hero deck influencing and changing (dictionary definitions for the word "Affected") the Isolated Hero's effect that is dealing the damage. Where am I mistaken here?

Would you say that By Any Means does not interact with an Isolated Hero's instance of damage? That is indefensible 

Foote,

Oh, really? Here's the defence for you to read when you're done being snotty.

By Any Means affects the card it is assigned to. It reduces their defences and increases damage dealt to them. This is an affect that affects that target, not the person dealing the damage, so it does not affect the hero or the heroe's cards as required by Isolated Hero. I tihnk you're interpreting the card overly broadly. There, defended. I may not be right in my interporetation, but you have no proof you are so the dogmatic certainty and high-handned manner you're displaying are starting to get on my nerves.

I can admit that By Any Means is a somewhat questionable case, but I have chosen to draw my own particular line that says "affected" means only "directly affected", just because I think that arguing over whether something is an "indirect effect" (exactly as has been done on this thread with examples like discarding to an environment) makes for the more difficult and overcomplected interpretation.  That's just my opinion, but it's good enough for me at the moment.  I wouldn't be averse to hearing Christopher's take on it, though.

I am sorry. You are right.

Increases whos damage dealt to them? The Isolated Hero's? Is that hero's damage (and by extension, the hero itself) not being affected by an "effect from another hero deck"? I tried to keep that almost identical to the actual wording on Isolated Hero.

You are not the only one to say this in this thread, but I just do not think that is correct. The card might be played on the villain target and increase damage dealt to it, but really, what is being directly acted upon and changed in this senario is the instance of damage that the villain is taking, right? And again, the question is whos instance of damage is being altered here?

From this perspective, the Stun Bolts debuff has a much stronger argument to it, as what is being directly acted upon here is the instance of damage the villain is dealing. Same with Ground Pound, what is being directly acted upon is the ability of the villain to deal damage at all. 

Yes, I am. No argument there. I think thats due to the overly broad nature of how the card was worded though.

I would argue that By any means does not reduce defences if it said "Reduce the DR of the target by 1" then it would reduce defences.

Does Galvanize reduce the defences of all targets in play but the heroes?

By any means is motivating the heroes to do their all to collect this bounty, do I think a hero who is isolated should get this bonus? No.

Except it's not just the heroes. Are T-Rex's also motivated to get the bounty?

It explicitly says damage dealt to the target is increased. That is an affect on the target, not the heroes.

Ok, counter example: If the Argent Adept was isolated and for some mad reason used Counterpoint Bulwark to reduce damage dealt to the vilain by 1, would you not apply it because it's affecting the heroes' damage? If not, what's the difference?

(Not all that mad when the villain is the Dreamer.  Might also be used in some cases to prevent things like Baron Blade's backlash field from being triggered by a "1 damage to everything" effect which was more intended to hit his minions.)

Neither of which can play Isolated Hero. ;-)

Similarly would Ra's Imbued Fire still boost River of Lava or the volcano if he is isolated?

Those aren't hero cards, so explicitly, yes, it would.

Any interaction that is not hero/hero is outside of the scope of Isolated Hero. If a TRex has his damage increased due to a bounty, whether Chrono is Isolated or not is of little consequence here.

But make no mistake, it is the T-Rex who's having its damage increased. The Bounty may be attached to the villain, and it only activates when that villain is the recipient of said damage, but its the damage the attacker is doing thats being changed. Not the villain. The bounty is not removing a DR from the villain, it is increaseing the damgae of the attacker. I think you are looking at it backwards.

Whos damage are we reducing? Thats the question you must ask. If its another heros, then Isolated Hero prevents that. Do you see what I am getting at? 

Counter Example: Imbued Fire says increase fire damage dealt by heros by 1. I highly doubt anyone would argue that an Isolated Hero would still get Imbued Fire's +1 damage or vice versa. Would you say an Isolated Argent would Ra's Imbued Fire bonus?

Imbued Fire, in reality, is directly acting upon the instance of damage our heros are doing.  

What if Imbued Fire wasn't restricted to just heros? What if it said increase all fire damage by 1? Now the scope of the effect is greater than just heros, but still encompasses them just the same. So Isolated Hero would still prevent this interaction correct?

If you agree with the above, what if we took it one step further and gave it a target restriction?  Increase all fire damage dealt to [specific target] by 1. So now there is a condition attached to getting that +1 fire damage, but does that really change the nature of the interaction between Ra and our Isolated Hero?

By Any Means takes that concept one side step by having Imbued Fire not stay in the players play area, but just attaches it to the [specific target] from the above example. Does that really change the nature of the interaction between the two heros? The area in which the card is played? 

The villain is part of the condition for the effect of By Any Means to occur, it is not what is being acted upon.

Edit: Imbued Fire never says to just increase hero fire damage by 1. So you can ignore that. But the thought exercise remains unchanged

Edit2: Example2: Mr. Fixer is Isolated and has Grease Monkey Fist in play. Ra has Imbued Fire also in play. If Fixer changes his own damage type to fire, would you say that Fixer would get the +1 from Imbued Fire? Surely if By Any Means is an effect on the villain instead of on the heros damage, than you would have to argue that the damage clause of Imbued Fire is a global effect and not one directly acting on a hero. That just can't be correct.

Imbued Fire would never effect a hero through Isolated Hero, because that is a hero card directly affecting another hero.  The affect of the card is to increase fire damage by 1, if the damage being increased is the effect of a hero card, then the interaction cannot occur.  If the damage being increased is the effect of a non-hero card than it can be increased.

Imbued Fire's boost to fire damage would however make an environment or villain card that deals fire damage deal +1 damage.  Whether that villain deals that damage to a hero or not would not matter, it gets the bonus.  If a hero is the target of that damage the hero is in no way causing or being affected by the affect of imbued fire, since they are not dealing damage their damage can't be boosted.  The villain card effect is being affected.

By any means would not work because while By any Means is affecting the villain, the effect does affect a hero card effect.  The hero deals damage, the damage is a Hero Card Effect, it cannot be increased by a hero card effect through Isolated hero.

Twist the Ether on a villain would work because damage dealt by a villain is a villain card effect, and Twist the Ether can affect a villain card effect through Isolated Hero.

Summary:

1.  Imbued Fire's increase of fire damage could not affect damage caused by a hero card effect or dealt by a hero, but could increase damage dealt to a hero by a non-hero card effect.

2.  By any Means is a Hero card, and cannot affect the effect of a hero card through Isolated Hero, therefore it cannot increase damage that is dealt by a hero or hero card effect.

3.  Twist the Ether could affect damage dealt by a non-hero target by a non-hero card effect.

Rational:

1.  Damage is the effect of the both the dealer of the damage, and the card that causes it to be dealt.

2.  Taking damage is not an effect, but the result of an effect of the card and dealer of the damage.

3.  The wording of Isolated Hero stops interaction between Heroes, their cards and card effects.

Interesting things: (my answer)

1.  Take Down is a hero card causing a villain to deal damage, could it be affected by Twist the Ether?  (No, the damage is a hero card effect)

2.  Infection is a Villain Card causing a hero to deal damage, could it be affected by a hero card?  (I would guess no, since a hero is dealing the damage)

I think you have it

Edit: Phantaskippy is wrong as well

Wow, Foote and I agree, this is the point where an Admin comes in and tells us the official rule is something completely different.

So, in anticipation of that event I predict the official response to be:

Whenever Isolated hero enters play all players must stop playing the current game and go feed squirrels for two hours, then they must go to their respective homes and try to finish the game from memory using toothpicks and applesauce.

EDIT:  Also Foote is wrong.

Actually, Foote and phantaskippy agreeing is not allowed on this forum. Please edit your posts accordingly.

Isolated Hero is meant to stop effects that specifically target other heroes and their cards. HP regain, damage increases (Increase damage dealt BY HEROES), destroy their ongoing cards, etc. and vice-versa. It is not intended -- nor can it logically be interpreted -- to affect any INDIRECT interactions, like increasing damage dealt TO villain targets (because it targets the villains, not the heroes), destroying villain cards that affect hero cards, destroying environment cards, dealing damage to any non-hero cards, etc. Because of the way By Any Means is written, it doesn't affect the hero at all, and it doesn't boost the hero's damage; rather, it just says "oh, this villain is taking damage? increase it!"

I'm not so sure this sentence was needed.

McBehrer wrote:

Maybe you didn't read the thread then. Pretty sure it can.

Either way, Phantaskippy put it in a pretty definitive way in my opinion. 

I think we really need Christopher to weigh in on this one.  I totally agree with McBehrer's take, but I can see where Foote is coming from (it's not a shoe).

I read the thread, and while I saw that it could be interpreted otherwise, the operative word there was LOGICALLY. Foote's main arguments were pretty ridiculous, to the point of appearing, to me, to intentionally mis-interpret the degree to which things "affect" each other.

While Foote and I intially had very different interpretations of the card, (based on thematic views mostly) the last post I made I think sums up the most logical application of the card text.

Unless Christopher wants to come and tell us otherwise, I plan to follow that logic.

The big thing for me being that while By Any Means directly affects a villain target, the efrfect of By Any Means does affect the effect of hero cards that deal damage to that villain.

If By any Means did not affect the effect of Thermal Shockwave, then that bonus point would not apply towards AZ's calculation of cold damage done that turn.  If you would apply that extra point, then the card effect of By any Means did affect the effect of thermal shockwave, and should not be allowed through Isolated hero.

The same ruling made on By any Means would also apply to riveting crane and G.I. Bunker's Panzerbuster.

Arguing that Stun Bolts debuff would be nixed by Isolated Hero was a stretch of a position to take, but it forced a focus on how exactly effects affect effects (eww). Phanta presented that in a very clear and elegant way, and I think both of our initial views met in the center finally.

Maybe casting the net too wide at the start was "intentional mis-interpretation". Maybe that's fair. But I'd say that I think a logical and sound interpretation was reached because of it, so, shrug 

I would still say that By Any Means and Stun Bolt and the like are not affected, but unless I'm playing with you it doesn't really matter TOO much to me what you think about it. (And I didn't mean that in the YOUR OPINION DOESN'T MATTER way, so much as the "Your opinion doesn't adversely affect mine.") Except that you're wrong. But I guess I can try to get over that =3

I am Rabk, candidate for Isolated Hero, and I endorse this opinion. 

It took some work to get there, but I'm 100% with Phantaskippy and Foote now that they've settled their differences. 

Still not fully addressed, however, is Stun Bolt/Ground Pound/Hypersonic Assault. I move that their effects should still work, regardless of isolated status. I'm honestly too lazy to attempt a rule-based justification and will instead just say that it makes sense from a story-telling perspective. The Wraith catches an "Old Lady" in the Street - she punches her in the throat, shoots her, and then moves on to her next victim (Maia apparently missed out on the whole Boy Scout thing…). If a lost and confused Bunker walks by a few minutes later (i.e., the next villain turn), would the Old Lady suddenly forget about her mutilated larynx and be able to attack him simply because he's all alone? I would say no. I hear the argument about different time periods or timelines and the possibility that Bunker is isolated somewhere/somewhen else entirely, but I can't make sense of it thematically. Did he encounter a completely different Old Lady, one who is somehow not experiencing any shortness of breath? Then why is her HP reduced just as is she had been throat-jabbed and submitted her to a certain degree of nonconsensual projectile-violation?

True, the effect that is protecting Bunker ultimately originated with Wraith, but since the villain card acts as an intermediary it does not effect the isolated hero directly. This is the same logic chain that argues for Imbue Fire increasing the fire damage a volcano deals to an isolated hero: in both cases the effect acts through an intermediary, non-hero card.

[Edit: To expand on someone's earlier statement regarding By Any Means, the bounty says to increase damage dealt to the target. Thematically, Jim's telling his team that the target needs to be eliminated "by any means" neccesary. By putting a bounty on her head he is urging the other heroes to attack more aggresively. (I know it has nothing to do with rules, but the flavor text also seems to pretty much insist that this particular bounty interacts with other heroes.) If the card instead said to increase damage taken by the target, I could better see the argument for allowing interaction with isolated heroes. Maybe he threw sand in her eyes or pants'ed her or something to take her off her guard and reduce her defenses. (We'd have to rename the card, though - maybe "Kick 'em while They're Down"?  )

Yes, I realize the analogy's not perfect since environment damage is also increased, but I do my best. Maybe "By Any Means" is in fact a big green holographic Bounty Beacon[sup]®[/sup] that makes it easier for everyone (even velocirapotors!) to see the target?  ]

^ I like you

Logical, that.

True, the effect that is protecting Bunker ultimately originated with Wraith, but since the villain card acts as an intermediary it does not effect the isolated hero directly.

This is exactly how I feel about BAM and Ground Pound.  Now, if Ground Pound stopped everyone but Haka from dealing damage, this might be beneficial to Nightmist et al, and I'd be more inclined to say Isolated Hero stops it from stopping their damage, but I'd still imagine it would stop the villain from damaging both the Isolated Hero and the non-isolated ones, regardless of which category Haka was in.

regarding By Any Means, the bounty says to increase damage dealt to the target. If the card instead said to increase damage taken by the target, I could better see the argument for allowing interaction with isolated heroes.

There is no functional distinction between these two as far as I'm aware.  This isn't like Magic the Gathering, where the amount of damage dealt can differ from the amount taken - you keep recalculating as necessary until the two values are the same.

Maybe he threw sand in her eyes or pants'ed her

Akash'Bhuta's eyes are eight feet tall, I don't think she'd notice a little sand.  And she doesn't wear pants. 

The Earth is her pants.  Apparently she has been snacking on too many velociraptor packs.  Akash, they aren't called "thunder thighs" because they're so massive that thunder actually strikes them, honey.  Sadly, there isn't a gym large enough in the Multiverse to house a being of her immense girth.

…Yet.

Don't mind me... I just come here for the "Yo' Momma [Nature]" jokes about old Agosh'thosethighs...

(I realize there's not a functional difference between "dealt to" and "taken by," but I was just talking thematically on that bit.)

Defeating Akash's limbs isn't killing her. It's helping her lose weight.

You're all haters, the goddess has curves.

We're not haters, we're healers! Like Drakossozh says, we're just helping her achieve her ancient dream of losing 1500 tons so she can finally fit into that old prom dress again. 

As it turns out, the Argent Adept is actually Richard Simmons in disguise, and he's taking on his biggest challenge to date. It's all being filmed for a reality TV show; it's going to air on either Lifetime or the National Geographic channel, I don't remember which. 

Joint program?

No, that will be when Johnathan Frakes hosts a History Channel special on the cultural heritage of marijuana (and its possible connection to ancient alien astraonauts)....