Thanks for drafting questions. My general sense is that we are dangerously close to wasting our time and the designers time by asking about these topics, so I am inclined to cut these down as much as possible to the most important questions. I am also interested in providing, as much as possible, specific examples to judge. I have completed dropped the third and fourth questions. I'm not quite sure I understand what you're getting at with your third question, but my intuition is that an examination of any particular, specific example is likely enough to lead to a clear answer. Admittedly, Isolated Hero has struck me from the very beginning as being inherently challenging to deal with, so I'll allow that some specific examples might not be obvious, but, ironically, for that very reason I think that trying to ask a generalized question about Isolated Hero's effects is hard to do. For #4, unless the designers surprise me by saying that hero character cards are not hero cards, I don't want to bother them with a further question about something which strikes me as self-evident.
Here's what I'm considering asking:
Do hero character cards count as hero cards? In particular, if Isolated Hero is in play, can the base power or incapacitated abilities of a hero character card be used to affect the Isolated Hero?
If the answer to #1 is that hero character cards ARE hero cards and, thus, the base power or incapacitated abilities of a hero character card can NOT be used to affect the Isolated Hero, does that continue to hold true for effects which mention a Player rather than a Hero?
So now the claim is that the Hero Character Cards may not be Hero Cards and also not Non-Hero Cards? But that they are definately Hero Targets? It seems like a good general rule that a card has to be either a 'x card' or a 'non-x card' for any 'x'. Otherwise we start needing glossary definitions for things like what the term 'Non-Character Card' or 'Non-Agent Card' means.
On a side note, rechecking for abilities that reference Villain Cards, I came up with Smoke Bombs, Lead from the Front, and Ammo Drop. Several of the abilities which I thought might, like Divine Focus or Genebound Shackles, specify Villain Target. I hadn't noted that because they would only apply to cards with HP anyway and until this thread I'd never heard a claim that "<adjective> target" might not be equivalent to the term "<adjective> card with HP".
I think those two questions handle the question asked in the original post of this thread.
The third question deals with a different issue regarding Isolated Hero. Say, for example, Unity has a Stealth Bot in play and Visionary has a Decoy projection in play. Isolated Hero is in play next to Visionary. A villain target tries to deal damage to Decoy Projection. Can the damage be redirected to Stealth Bot because it's damage dealt by a villain target, which is not blocked by Isolated Hero, or can it not be redirected because it's trying to target Decoy Projection, which is blocked by Isolated Hero?
I agree that the fourth question is only relevant if hero character cards are not hero cards.
I think the Chrono Ranger example I mentioned earlier works well for questions 1 and 2, summarized: "Can Chrono Ranger use his incapacitated abilities to allow a hero affected by Isolated Hero to use a power or to allow that hero's player to play a card?"
For #4, "Which of these card types does Ground Pound prevent from dealing damage: hero character cards, villain character cards, villain cards?"
For question 3, I agree that I've always found the term 'cannot affect' to be nebulous.
The general rule I came up with is that any time the isolated hero's card says 'target' or 'card', I add on 'except for other hero's cards'. And conversely anytime any other hero's card says 'target' or 'card', I add on 'except for the Isolated Hero's cards'. This generally seems to play out in logical ways to me. Things like Lead From the Front and Heroic Interception are blocked, but things like Twist the Ether and Wrest the Mind on a non-hero target are not.
Of course there are still strange cases, like Twist the Ether already in play on a Hero target. In this case adding my assumed text onto the phrase 'that target' doesn't really make a well formed sentence. I've waffled between saying the Twist the Ether just has no effect while isolated from its target and saying that Twist the Ether should react as though its target left play.
Oh wow, I hadn't even thought about the question of whether or not cards like Twist the Ether should remain in play if the cards they modify become blocked by Isolated Hero.
Yeah, on the one hand, saying that these cards have effectively 'left play' seems to go beyond the intention and text of Isolated Hero. But otherwise I run into questions like what happens if the target actually does leave play while Isolated? If Twist the Ether then reacts and is destroyed, it seems like a violation of the cards being isolated from each other.
Haka is all alone, and before that happened, he had Savage Mana out and he rampaged poor Mr. Chomps. Now he wants to activate Savage Mana's power. What would happen?
I would say Raptor Bot would remain under Savage Mana and not count as being destroyed for Savage Mana's damage. Since Raptor Bot is still considered a hero card, it stands to reason that would still be Unity's Hero card, thus not being able to be affected by Haka's card, which is trying to destroy it.
That's how I would handle it until an official ruling says otherwise.
Yes, that thread discussed basically the exact same issue, but it doesn't answer the question. It only looks at the definition of Character Card in which the wording sounds like hero/villain character cards are hero/villain cards and not the 8 other glossary definitions + components list text that are worded as if they're not. Also, in that thread, spiff mentions "a conversation here on the forums about what exactly a villain character card is received confirmation from Christopher (probably)", but it's not linked from his post, and I haven't been able to find it using targetted Google searches.
That is an interesting question. I think either Raptor Bot would remain below Savage Mana and not be destroyed when the power is used, or Raptor Bot would immediately go into Unity's trash when Isolated Hero comes into play.
In the components, Hero Cards don't bring up the Hero Character Cards, because they have their own entry, as they are different enough to warrant it. Plus there is no reason to list them twice.
Character Card says "Character Cards do not have the same back as the rest of their deck" so they certainly part of that deck.
Hero Card "Any card from a hero deck" going by Character Card's definition they are part of the deck, thus a hero character card is still a hero card.
Hero Character Card, it doesn't mention anything about it being a hero card, but it doesn't say it's not either. Plus going by both the previous definitions, we can figure out that Hero Character Cards are infact Hero cards.
Deck "All cards in a deck have a uniform back" this is talking specifically about the 40 hero cards that make up a deck (or 25 villain card that make the villain deck or 15 environment cards that make the environment deck).
Going by all this we can get that Hero Character Cards are Hero Cards, are a part of a hero deck, but do not make up the deck.
So, you're suggesting that character cards are part of their corresponding decks, but are not "in a deck", and do not "make up a deck"? Hmm... interesting. It's a bit of a weird distinction, as I generally think of "being a part of" something and "making up" something as being semantically equivallent, but given how confusing the wording of these definitions is, it's worth considering. If we conveniently interpret the texts stating how many cards comprise a deck as only counting the cards "in a deck" and not the cards that are "part of" a deck, then the numbers become irrelevant to the question, and if we also conventiently interpret "from a deck" to mean "any card that is part of a deck" and not "any card in a deck" or "any card that makes up a deck", then "hero cards" would include "hero character cards", and Isolated Hero would prevent the use of incapacitated abilities that directly affect other heros, which I think is what most people imagine the intent of the card to be, although the other questions about how Isolated Hero works would remain unanswered.
This interpretation has the merit of eliminating the contradictions in the wording of the various definions, although it does leave the question of why so many definitions refer to hero character cards and hero cards as two separate things. The definition of a hero states that heroes have "hero character cards" and that each has a "deck of 40 hero cards" in completely separate sentences. The definition of a hero target is "any target that is a hero card or a hero character card", as though they're 2 distinct types of card. If hero character cards are hero cards, this could simply be written as "any target that is a hero card".
... I hope future printings of the rulebook will have revised glossary definitions to eliminate this confusion.
Squares and Rectangles are also "distinct" shapes. But squares are always rectangles due to implied definition, though it does not work the other way around.
Rectangles = hero cards
Squares = hero character cards
They are cards. That belong to a hero. And you still say they are not hero cards. Lets not throw away all other sound logic and reason due to the glossary not saying something.
I want to say something about the savage mana question. Even though raptor bot is a hero card it is not seen as a Unity hero card when it is under savage mana. It's only a generic hero card, for what it's worth.
Foote, a prerequisite for sound logic is that the logic must be valid first, and to be valid, it must be consistent. Also, logic is a formal process whereby one starts with formal definitions and applies consistent rules to derive results that may or may not be expected. So, disregarding formal definitions is absolutely not sound logic. It sounds like you're confusing "logic" with "pattern recognition".
I'm on board with the hero character cards being double-secret parts of hero decks idea, but even then, it's possible to read the rules as either hero character cards are hero cards ("from a deck" means "in a deck") or that they are not ("from a deck" means "of a deck"), so it would still be nice to see that clarified. The quote Pydro linked does make it sound like the former is more likely to be correct than the latter, so I'll play under that assumption until I see a more definite clarification.
In CCG parlayance, the character card is a "pre-game" card. A card that goes into play before the game begins. They are part of and associated with a given deck at all times.
That hero and that hero's cards cannot affect or be affected by any hero card or effect from another hero deck
Stealth Bot's ability to redirect is an effect from Unity's deck, so Isolated Hero would keep it from being applied. I suppose what I'm arguing is that if an attack is being made against a card in the deck of an Isolated Hero (and I'm including the hero character card as being in the deck, but also another target, like Decoy Projection), no effects from any other hero can affect that attack. Shielding Winds wouldn't work. Heroic Interception wouldn't work. Stealth Bot wouldn't work.
I've noticed this ambiguity of what a 'deck' means before. Sometimes it means the character card (or cards, as in The Chairman or The Ennead) and all of the other cards. Some times it just means the non-character cards that make the initial draw pile. Some times, even, it only refers to the remaining cards in the draw pile.
After the evidence supplied pointing to the ambiguity of whether or not a hero character card is also a hero card, I was open to the idea of adding to the pending questions, just to remove any hint of uncertainty. After, however, the further evidence supplied (particularly by Ronway), I'm now no longer planning on adding this to the pending questions.
dwetuski, I applaud your focus on the facts and your willingness to calmly defend your points. Examining these issues thoroughly is worthwhile, in my opinion, both for our clarity's sake and, I expect, for the people who are building an electronic version of the game. Even so, I feel that these particular questions, despite the unfortunate ambiguity in the text of the rule book and the cards, are adequately answered.
Are you satisfied with this situation? I don't want to be a dick.