If a hero gets incapacitated while fighting La Capitan on her front side, will that hero get stolen? What if that hero is one of the Sentinels? What happens when the hero is returned? Does that work differently for the Sentinels?
La Capitan can't steal hero character cards, period. She only steals cards if they're destroyed, and character cards always get flipped over instead of being destroyed.
Are you sure?
[quote=Spiff's Rules and Clarifications]The sotm rule book says “when a hero is reduced to 0 or fewer hp, remove all of that hero’s cards from the game, leaving only the hero character card, flipping it over so their incapacitated side is up”. this has been officially amended so that it should be read as “if a hero is destroyed, by either being reduced to 0 hp or otherwise, flip their hero character card and remove all of their cards from the game”.[/quote]emphasis mine.
If this is a replacement effect, the text should read "If a hero would be destroyed", or have an "instead" at the end.
[quote=also from Spiff's Rules and Clarifications]however, there’s a dark side to this ruling as well. the final wasteland’s “unforgiving wasteland” card says that whenever a target would be destroyed by damage dealt by an environment card, remove that target from the game instead”. this means that if a hero is destroyed when “unforgiving wasteland” is in play, it will be removed from the game entirely rather than flipping to its incapacitated side and remaining in the game.[/quote]
This sounds to me like heroes do get destroyed - they simply are affected differently by destruction.
If a hero is destroyed, it is flipped and its cards are removed from the game. La Capitan says 'If a hero card is destroyed by a villain card, place it under a Capitan'. Therefore I'd say it was player's choice by OoO, and choosing to let La Capitan steal your hero would be silly and would muddy the rules, so don't do it.
But what about the sentinels? The cards don’t get removed when they die.
If Medico gets incapped, The Sentinels are not incapped. However, if Mainstay, Idealist, and Writhe are also Incapped, The Sentinels have now been incapped, following usual incap routine.
She can't steal character cards. They flip instead of being destroyed. OoO is irrelevant here because its not dealing with simultaneous effects.
Character cards can be destroyed. Wrathful Gaze does not flip Spite, it destroyes him, and if it flipped Apostate it wouldn't be awesome. But it is awesome, because character cards can be destroyed. It's why Shrine says that when an ennead is destroyed it flips, and why Talisman says it is indestructible and has text explaining what to do with it when it is destroyed.
I don't see why the character card would not go under La Capitan.
I understand that they are removed instead of incapped because of the "would be" in unforgiving wasteland.
If a character card is destroyed you flip it, remove all other cards from the game.
The Character card is still there. It is in play, it is still the same hero card, it has been destroyed by a villain card. By other ruling we know that it hasn't left play or entered play. It is still the same card.
It still meets all the qualifications to go under La Capitan.
There is no ruling that puts an "would be" or "instead" into the incap text, and nothing says Character cards can't be destroyed.
Whether or not character cards can be destroyed is not up for debate here. We know they can.
The reality is that destroying character cards is an effect specific case and is not the "norm" by any means. Yes Wrathful Gaze and such effects can destroy character cards because it specifically tells you to destroy a target within the specified HP range. That is very different from reducing HP to 0 tthrough standard instances of damage.
When La Captain can use Wrathful Gaze (or a similar ability) on heros, then she could get the character cards. Last time I checked she has no such ability.
Can Haka put Ennead members, or core V5 members under Savage Mana? Not to my knowledge. Edit: He can take the Chairman under Savage Mana, but only because he doesn't have an "incap" side, that I know has been confirmed before
The Ennead, from the Shrine: "Whenever a villain target would be destroyed, flip it over instead."
It cancels destruction, so no Savage Mana.
The Vengeance rule book deals with the V5 reaching 0hp in almost the exact same language as the Enhanced edition deals with heroes reaching 0hp.
So that is a good question, it seems it would be the same answer to La Capitan and hero character cards.
When La Captain can use Wrathful Gaze (or a similar ability) on heros, then she could get the character cards. Last time I checked she has no such ability.
This has nothing to do with it. The ruling is that a hero character card is destroyed when it reaches 0hp, and when it is destroyed you flip it and remove its deck from the game. Wrathful Gaze would not circumvent anything when used on a hero.
As far as I'm concerned, this is like Nightmist being unable to redirect damage if she's immune to damage. If you consider the in-the-rulebook-this-is-what-happens-when-a-character-is-destroyed effect to be simultaneous with all other destruction effects, it opens up a very deep and very nasty rabbit hole. For example:
Skydeck is in play.
A hero is reduced to 0 hp.
If you apply the OoO ruling here, you could place your character card on the bottom of your deck instead of being incapacitated. How would the game function then?
No no. This is exactly what I am saying is NOT the case. Being destroying and flipping to the incap side are not 2 different effects happening simultaneously. Therefore the OoO ruling has no bearing at all in anyway in this case.
Character cards, when their HP is reduced to 0 or below, flip instead of being destroyed. Thats always been the intent. Wrathful Gaze and similar effects are exeptions to the general rule of thumb not the other way around.
That was my point. If we consider the (game-based) on-destruction flip trigger to be simultaneous with (card-based) on-destruction triggers of other types, it leads to a whole host of problems not covered by the rules.
Unless you're saying that Vyktor or Call of the Grave COULD put a character card on the bottom of the deck if Skydeck is out.
If that's the intent, the current wording does not reflect that. The current wording changes the effect of destruction, but doesn't replace the destruction.
Incidentally, I believe you mean Hero character cards, as Villian characters flip whenever they say they do.
You could try to put an incapped hero card on the bottom of its deck, but the deck wouldn't be there. Because it is removed from the game.
Character cards, when their HP is reduced to 0 or below, flip instead of being destroyed. Thats always been the intent.
Proof?
Yes thats what I mean. Thanks for clarifying.
I'm pretty sure the owness of proof here is the other way around in this case. When has this ever not been the case?
Spiff's Rules and Clarifications:
The sotm rule book says “when a hero is reduced to 0 or fewer hp, remove all of that hero’s cards from the game, leaving only the hero character card, flipping it over so their incapacitated side is up”. this has been officially amended so that it should be read as “if a hero is destroyed, by either being reduced to 0 hp or otherwise, flip their hero character card and remove all of their cards from the game”.
There's no replacement effect in the amended rule.
From the Rulebook Glossary:
Destroy: When a card is destroyed, it is removed from play and placed in the appropriate trash
It certainly doesn't sound like the hero character card is being destroyed AND THEN flipping, at least if we want to use the official definition of "Destroy".
So which is it? They obviously can't both be correct, unless of course the flipping to incapped replaces the "destroyed" tag, which still fits within the context of the situation that prompted Christophers clarification that you cite in the first place. (Unforgiving Wasteland replaces both Destroy and Flipping mechanics where as Flipping just replaces the Destroy).
Does Skydeck put the card into the trash and then under the deck?
No.
The text affecting what happens to it when it is destroyed replaces the normal effect of being destroyed. Not the destruction, unless it states "when it would be destroyed . . . instead." then it is replacing the destruction.
The hero character card destruction special rules replace teh normal effect of being destroyed, not the destruction itself.
So the hero character card does not go to the trash, it flips and remains in play, because the special rules for hero character cards replaces that normal effect. Also I don't think an Incapped hero has a trash, without a deck or cards why would it? All it has left is a character card.
Here we have a situation with a rule that still has room to perform its effect. The special rules for Hero character card destruction can take place, and the effect of La Capitan putting the card under her card can still take place afterward.
Whether that is what officially should happen is unknown, but the rulings we have leave the door open for it, and no ruling we have says it cannot happen.
Well…says who?
Does the hero character card go under the deck when its destroyed? Or does it Flip to incap instead of being "destroyed" when Skydeck is out?
This is all the same to me. If you are replacing the effect of being destroyed, then you are doing something else instead of bieng destroyed regardless of the inclusion of the word "instead". You are effectivly doing the same thing. Its like you're telling me you're giving me an Apple, then you give me an Orange instead, but still insist on calling it an Apple. You gave me an Orange, lets call it an Orange.
This is all the same to me. If you are replacing the effect of being destroyed, then you are doing something else instead of bieng destroyed regardless of the inclusion of the word "instead". You are effectivly doing the same thing. Its like you're telling me you're giving me an Apple, then you give me an Orange instead, but still insist on calling it an Apple. You gave me an Orange, lets call it an Orange.
What? In a game where put into play and play have the same result but that designation is very important, where draw a card and reveal the top card and put into hand may have the same result but that designation is very important, you are going to tell me that the end result is all that matters?
Destroyed means it is destroyed, what happens to it when it is destroyed can be alterred by text that is in play. Just like anything else can be modified by text that is in play.
That Hero Character cards do something different when they are destroyed doesn't mean they aren't destroyed.
The same logic that says that with the Skydeck out the cards could go to the trash and then under the deck would indicate that a hero could easily be placed in the trash and then flipped. You would have to implicitly return it to play, but I don't see how that's different from implicitly replacing the destroy effect.
Playing a card is specifically playing from you hand. Putting into Play is a seperate term with a different meaning. Drawing and Revealing are also two seperatly defined terms.
Destroyed does mean Destroyed. When any effect happens, if something else happens in place of what would "normally" happens with said effect, then it stands to reason that the first effect was replaced with the second. This just can't happen with the terms you mentioned above, so those are irrelevant in this discussion. Lets stick to apples/apples comparisons here.
We are not talking about just modifying an effect Skippy, we are talking about totally replacing the effect with a different one, which is where we are diverging.
My point still stands, though. Why can't the heroes be destroyed and then flipped?
We aren't replacing the effect of being destroyed. We are replacing things that are triggered by destruction.
Wow, a thread with disagreement! It's just like the good old days.
So if a character card reduced to 0 HP is still considered "destroyed", does that mean that Lady Luck triggers when you kill Kismet?
Yes. If it succeeds at preventing destruction it checks the next card, going until it finds a lucky card.
The lucky card that heals her can potentially put her back above 0 hp and stop the destruction.
This needs to be an Achievement you can unlock.....
I had a thought.
We already have a ruling that cards belonging to a deck that are under La Capitan when that hero is incapped get removed from under her, wouldn't the same apply to an incapped hero? They would just go back into the relevant area (out of the game for any hero cards that are not character cards and into the 'play area' ready for use on their turn for the hero).
That's an excellent point. What about the Sentinels, though? Can they be kidnapped?
I seem to recall that too now that you mention it. Quick search didn't turn up a link. Remember where this was?
Spiff has it.
https://greaterthangames.com/comment/23950#comment-23950 (although links in Spiff's documnets are clickable, get on that Spiff!)
Well. That seems to be the end of this discusion. We got a little out of hand there, but it's nice to be back to tip top rules-arguing form around here.
But what about the Sentinels? Can the Idealist be kidnapped, and if so, what happens when she's rescued?
When destroyed, two things trigger:
Ergo, I'm guessing she returns incapacitated.
The thing is the character card does not leave the game. The cards under La Capitan aren't returned to the play area, they are removed from the game, because that is what happens when a hero is incapped, you remove their deck from the game.
But not their character card, it is not removed from the game, and it would be flipped before going under La Capitan, it could not be under her when incapped.
I can't say they should go under, simply because Character cards act differently, but after the Unforgiving Wasteland ruling and the Informant ruling I don't assume these things anymore, I could totally see Christopher deciding that La Capitan would use a downed hero as a human shield.
Except that La Capitan returns cards to "the appropriate trash", which makes things a bit ambigous.
I think that the reason behind the ruling is actually quite simple, both the hero card and the unforgiving wasteland ruling are replacement effects for destroying character cards (If it would be destroyed then do this instead), La Capitan on the other hand occurs when the card is destroyed.
In the case of hero character cards they aren't destroyed, they are either flipped (as per the standard hero character card rule) or removed from the game (as per the unforgiving wastelands rule), in neither circumstances are they actually destroyed so they never go under La Capitan.
We've covered this already. You can argue that hero character cards replace the effect of destruction, or that the card is destroyed then returned to play and flipped, but there is absolutely zero evidence that the destroy effect is replaced.
There are two templates for this sort of effect. Skydeck reads " Whenever a target is destroyed, put it under its associated deck." This is clearly distinct from Unforgiving Wasteland, which reads " Whenever a Target would be destroyed by Damage dealt by an Environment card, remove that Target from the game instead. " UW clearly replaces destruction with the word "instead", the fact that Skydeck does not include the same wording indicates that the act of destruction is not replaced. Since the wording of the Hero Character Card destruction rules follows the Skydeck template, not the UW template, the destruction is not replaced.