Nor do you have any way to track it/be reminded of it, unless it happens to be an immunity you have a token for.
I use a "you can't deal damage" token and put it on the card that did the damage and created the immunity as a reminder.
We're telling you that when APS is destroyed Omnitron loses his immunity. If you didn't want an answer, I'm not really sure why you asked a question.
I agree that the wording on Adaptive Plating sounds like the immunity stays. I've never played it that way though, because it seems fairly obvious that it is not the intended effect of the card. I empathize with the desire to follow all card instructions like a computer program, but this is a case where I accept some implied meaning.
I think the more precise wording for how I have always played this card would be "If Omnitron has been dealt damage since this card entered play, Omnitron is immune to the last type of damage that he was dealt."
When equating card wording to that of computer execution, a card that creates a potentially infinite lingering effect after destruction sounds to me like a memory leak.
Unforunately Zero you are telling him what you believe the card /intends/ to happen - which is probably correct. It is most certainly the most sane way of playing it.
However, the way the card is worded without an exit clause to it, as /written/ it could potentially continue indefinetly. Unless there is a rule in the rule book that i missed (entirely possible!) that says destroyed card effects are canceled, it could easily be read as continuing. Becoming is the key world, not 'while this card is in play, omnitron is immune to the first type of damage delt to him each turn' or 'If this card leaves play, this immunity is ended' ect ect. Obviously as this has only -just- been asked on the forums then it is unlikely anyone is playing with it that way, or if they are then they have no problem with it. But it could probably use a clarification yes
I don't really care about how this argument turns out, since I'm still going to play it the same way after Christopher comes in to make his official ruling that it plays the way everyone is saying it plays. I just wanted to pop in to point out that making a word ridiculously larger like this is one of the worst ways to point it out. It just makes you look belligerent, rather than informed. Try italics or quotes next time.
Well to be fair, he did bold it a few days ago, then bold and slightly enlarge it, then try the really large font. And yet many people just keep responding that ongoing effects go away when a card goes away without acknowledging the main point: this card is worded as a triggered reaction, not an ongoing effect. There are definately triggered reactions with lasting effects after the card leaves play (look at sonic mine), but the rest of them all include an end condition (like 'until the start of the next villain turn').
We all seem to come to the conclusion that the immunity goes away with adaptive plating, but I don't think there is a great argument for why other than "it seems like that's what the card should say".
The thing is, I did acknowledge the becomes thing: "If an ongoing doesn't specify a timeframe, then it lasts until the card is destroyed and no longer." APS doesn't specify a timeframe. Therefore its effects go away when it's destroyed.
It doesn't need a "while this card is in play" any more than Micro Targeting Computer or HUD Goggles do.
I'm inclined to agree with Cosmonaut Zero. There already is a precedent for effects that do not go away regardless of player interaction, and that comes from Indestructible cards. If >G's intention was to cause a permanent immunity to Big O, they would have. But where would this theory end? Does this mean that damage dealt by cards that have been destroyed are restored after they leave? Legacy's Heroic Interception states that all other heroes are immune to damage. It doesn't say the card is providing the immunity, so when it's destroyed do they remain immune to damage? I suppose I'm confused as to why the word "becomes" makes this issue terribly muddied.
Cards like Next Evolution last until the beginning of the turn, even if they are destroyed, because they specifically say "Until the start of the next turn."
If it doesn't say that, then the immunity goes away instantly. This applies to things like heroic interception and ground pound, as well as things like Ethereal Bonds.
Do you have a rule book quote or a card quote for that effect CZ?
If you don't have a specific in writting rule, then its Read as Intended with Plating. If you do, then it becomes Read as Written and is much harder to argue against.
Is there a rule presented that validates this interpretation of "becomes"?
becomes 3rd person singular present of be·come (Verb)
|
Verb
|
The second definition being the important one. 'Turn into' - there is no timelimit on Becoming. It simply turns into this aspect.
That's Read as Written.
And there is a precedent for any card that creates an ongoing effect with no time limit, and that is to end the effect when the card is destroyed. This is not stated anywhere in the rulebook, but it has been explained by Christopher and Adam (I've never played a game with Paul), and it makes since both commonly and logically. To interpret 'become' to not only have a time limit, but also to break the precedent of limitless effects removed when the corresponding card is removed, it's not consistant with the rest of the game.
in·crease/inˈkrēs/
Verb:
Become or make greater in size, amount, intensity, or degree: "increase awareness of social issues"; "increasing numbers of students".
So if you take, say, Legacy's Surge of Strength ("Increase damage dealt by Legacy by 1"), then by your own logic that bonus is also permanent; there's no time limit on increase either.
Ok, I repeat myself :
If there is no card to tell you something is there there is nothing !
While dictionaries are informative, pulling out definitions seems rather patronizing and doesn't actually address the written rules. Can we stick to the game and its glossary rather than pulling up an outside authority that means relatively little in a game with its own terminology and mechanics?
I think precedence is important to establish. If cards can continue to have lingering effects after they've been destroyed, there really is no point to ongoing destruction, and would make cards like Danger Sense too powerful. Also, if the effect lingers, there's not much point having multiple copies in the same deck other than increasing the chances of drawing it. Also, there wouldn't be a need to have indestructible cards if you can make effects permanent by adding in the word becomes.
Sorry, bro, but you are wrong. APS causes the immunity, so once it's gone the immunity is gone. There is no room for debate.