Depending on how many cards the Ennead end up with hanging around, when they go it could end up being positively lethal to the heroes.
Are we sure that "removed from play" in this sense isn't referring to an effect akin to Unforgiving Wasteland? Doesn't Into the Stratosphere put a "non-indestructible" card on the top of the villain deck?
Why would the "non-indestructible" qualifier be needed if removal from play in this fashion was already prohibited by a card's indestructibility? Especially since "non-indestructible" was specifically added in EE.
I may be way off base. I'm by no means a rules guru and to be honest I had to pause a few times while posting this to make sure my thought logic was accurate (which it still might not be).
I think that clause was added in purely in order to make assurance doubly sure, and not because it was necessary from a rules perspective. I mean, how many people read the glossary looking for rules? I didn't do it for months.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what you mean by "removed from play" is referring to the Unforgiving Wasteland. As the Unforgiving Wasteland has nothing to do with removing from play, as it removed cards from the game.
The Ennead triggers only happen once per turn, so if there are a bunch of one-shots going to the trash all on the same turn, that would probably be far less lethal than those one-shots going to the trash on different turns.
Yeah, but when you have up to nine possible different effects going off...
Considering that Fixed point will only be around for one round, you should only have the same amount of cards moved to the trash as it would of played on the Ennead's turn. So it's pretty much instead of triggering on their turn they will at the start of the environment. So i'm not really getting why this will be so much harder to keep track of.
So after re-reading this thread, I had a question: Why are we assuming that One-Shots will go the the trash after FP leaves play. The rulebook says (Thanks Foote!):
Card Types. One-Shot. One-Shot cards come into play, have an immediate effect, then go to the appropriate trash.
Why wouldn't you consider this a one time chance, if you missed it, you missed it. It would be similar to a Tool or Mode card, the removal effect only happens once, when the card comes into play. If you can't remove the card then, there is nothing that triggers that statement again.
I know this sounds a bit weird, but we do have a bounty that just hangs around and does nothing. The only thing you would have to worry about is not to play any One-Shots that round.
Of course, I could also see someone just saying that One-Shots are different, hence the question.
It seems like you could make the same argument that targets in negative HP aren't immediately destroyed when Fixed Point goes away, but the ruling going back to Advanced Matriarch is that they are.
To be honest, while it is in line with the letter of the rules, I've always considered it unlikely that Fixed Point was ever intended to keep One-Shots in play anyway.
Fixed Point only prevents cards from being destroyed. It says nothing about preventing cards from going into the trash. Being moved from play and put into the trash is a baked-in mechanic for One-Shots. It says so right in the rulebook. I do not see how this is even an issue. Fixed Point does not keep One-Shots in play.
Fixed Point makes everything indestructible.
"Indestructible: If a card is indestructable, it cannot be destroyed or removed from play...."
I would say that putting it in the trash removes it from play.
EDIT: Nevermind, just re-read your previous post. You don't think that it counts as leaving play.
Ah yeah, thats right. Maybe I should have re-read the thread too haha
One-Shots do come into play. If we learned anything from the Imbued Vitality, it is that if a card enters play, it leaves play as well when its gone. One-Shots would have to follow for consistancy. Hmmm.
I spent a bit too much time writting this argument with many more words. Foote made the argument much more efficiently.
In order for Fixed Point to affect a card there has to be a possibility that it can be destroyed. One-shots are never destroyed or removed from play. They are simply played. If Fixed Point can apply to them, then Bunker's ammo drop should get you an extra card every time a villain One-shot is played.
First I do find it funny that everyone before my post assumed it does affect it, and everyone after my post assumes it doesn't.
Why? There are 2 conditions for indestructible: can't be destroyed or removed from play. It seems that it can work for any card that can be destroyed or that enters play.
The rulebook specifically says that they "come into play." Once in-play, don't they have to go somewhere, do they stay in-play forever?
EDIT: I wanted to add that if they are only played but don't come into play, One-Shots wouldn't trigger on "put into play" effects like Timeshift.
Ammo Drop says you get a card when a villain card is destroyed, not when it leaves play (so no card when Into the Stratosphere is layed). Unless I am wrong, if a target is played against Mad Bomber Baron Blade, it is removed from play, not destroyed. Therefore, it wouldn't trigger Ammo Drop. This seems to imply that something does not need to trigger Ammo Drop in order for it to leave play.
Whenever Mad Bomber Blade on his front side plays a villain target it gets moved underneath his card. His backside however does state that the villain target is destroyed when it enters play.
Ammo Drop won’t trigger on his front, right?
Correct, I was pointing out that he doesn't remove from play on either side when the villain target is played. Not that you're point is invalid. Infact I agree with it, as seen by my previous post.
I was talking more about one-shots in general and not specifically Baron Blade. I'm in the camp that moving a card to the trash isn't the same as removing it from play. If putting into play and playing are two different things, I think there's plenty of room to argue that moving a card to the trash isn't the same as destroying or removing it from play.
Playing a card isn't the same thing as putting it into play, but when you play a card it is put into play. Similarly, given that we're talking about the glossary definition of Indestructible here, I think it's reasonable to conclude that the phrase "removed from play" refers to any and all methods of taking a card that is in play and then, eh, removing it from play, be that destruction or being put back into somebody's hand or being moved into the trash.