Isolated Hero and Incapacitated Abilities

Other Games SotM Game Engine
101

Wrest the mind must be played on a target. Or next to if you wish. That semantic difference means nothing within the context of the game system. Choosing a target for wrest the mind is part of that cards effect. And we all know from our reading comprehension skills that isolated heros can't be the target of other hero card effects. 

Again, can we PLEASE stop using generalities and stick to actual tangible in game examples. Talking about the table space and where they go on the table like it actually matters is just showing how insaine this thread is.

 

102

Isolated Hero doesn't say anything about preventing cards from targeting each other, it just says something about preventing them from affecting each other.  Whether or not targeting something includes affecting it is unclear.  Look at immunity for example.  You could reasonably say that a target that is immune to fire damage cannot be affected by fire damage... but that doesn't mean that target can't be targeted by fire damage.

103

Back to Wrest the Mind.

The text on the card is the cards effect. Fact. 

Part of that effect is chosing a target. Fact. 

When you choose a target, that target is now having some kind of interaction with the effect from WtM. 

If cards interact with each other in any way shape or form, you can reasonably say that they effected each other. Does that interaction result in what you consider "change"? It doesn't matter ultimately, and certainly not with your unease scarily narrow view of what "affected" means. The fact that they interacted at all is at odds with the intention and plain wording of the card within the context of the game system.  

What about this is so hard? Drop the zealous grasp on silly semantics and see the card for what it's intended purpose is. 

104

Immunity specifically says that the target's HP is not reduced by the damage, but that it is still a valid target.  It would certainly be possible to define a list of things which qualify as 'affect a card', and then everything else would be fair game.  However, without such a definition, I'm inclined to just say that if you cause something to resolve differently then you have affected it.

105

Foote, while I completely agree with your thoughts and analysis, please do not continue with the insulting attitude. It is not helping the situation/discussion.

Everyone, please feel free to continue this conversation, but remember the intention of the card is clear: Other heroes can't interact with the isolated hero.

This isn't a game like Magic, where the rules and interactions are at a finite level of detail in order to handle all potential interactions. SotM does not have definitions for "affect" and such - and hopefully (in my opinion) it never will, because it's meant to be a fun, enjoyable game that can be played without picking apart the rules.

If you are someone who enjoys picking at rules, you're welcome to do so! Just remember that it's not how the card/game was intended to be played.  :wink:

106

The only reason play space was brought up was because I don't believe playing a card next to a target is affecting that target, the card's effect is triggered later, Twist the Ether can sit next to a target all game and have no effect, it has to be voluntarily triggered to have an effect.  Unused it has absolutely no effect on the target.  It isn't even treated as their card, it is still Visionaries card.  The only effect the card is having is taking up space in the target heroes play area.

Isolated Hero does not say the hero can't be targetted, it says it can't be affected by the effects of the card.  The only effect of the card that is triggering is that when you put it in play you put it next to a target instead of your own play area.  I don't see setting a card next to a hero as affecting that hero.

Seriously there is absolutely no difference between the card being there or not if it isn't activated.  It has no effect until triggered.  It should be playable, just not able to take effect.  Just like I would argue that target based redirection can target an isolated hero, but not actually redirect the damage.  Isolated hero should cause the redirection to fail if it needs to target an isolated hero to take effect.  It wouldn't skip them in targetting, it would target them and fail.

Isolated hero does not remove the hero and their cards from the fight, it makes them unable to be affected.  They are still a valid target, Isolated hero just cancels or negates the effect.

107

I get what you're saying, and if that works for you, that's great… but without a clear understanding of the rules, there will always be cases that arise where it's unclear how they should be handled.  I also get that there's an ambiguity rule that says the players get to choose, but there's a difference between choosing one of several equally valid targets for a villain's attack and making broad sweeping interpretations of the rules.  One is a tactical decision that adds strategic options to the game and makes it more fun, and the other can drastically affect the game balance, potentially destroying the fun.

Also, if an electronic version of the game is indeed being developed, as hinted by arerson9, then all of these questions will have to be answered in an official way if the cards these questions apply to are to be included in that version.  Trying to build a software product without a clearly defined set of rules is a recipe for disaster.  The earlier versions of MtG didn't have such well-defined formal rules either, but once people started trying to make computer game implementations, that level of formalilty became necessary.

108

See, I'm looking at it as that hero affecting Twist the Ether.  When played, Twist the Ether has to select the target which it will apply to for the duration that it is in play.  If you select the isolated hero, then that hero (its presence and status as a target) has affected Twist the Ether.

But that is based on my assumption that the cards should not even see each other.  It seems like you are going more for a definition where the presence of cards and their status as targets can affect other decks, they just can't actively do things to each other.  My concern is that there won't be a clear line of what qualifies as doing something to the card.  I just find it easier to draw a hard line that the existence of that isolated card has no effect on how I resolve the text on mine.

109

I can see the argument, but I think that leads to bigger jumps gameplay wise.  I don't think Isolated Hero is meant to effectively remove that hero, just prevent them from being helped.  They aren't on opposite sides of the planet, two people on opposite sides of the planet can't melee damage the same target very easily.  I don't like Smoke Bombs ignoring that hero as a target and assigning the second lowest HP hero as the lowest.

This definitely could use an official ruling, but even without one it isn't like we can't all play our own way.

110

What is telling you to play the card next to a target? A card effect you say? Can a card effect interact with an isolated hero?

The argument that card/hero interactions are not predicated on card effects is baseless and wrong. Flat out wrong. 

The targeting of the Isolated hero to place the card next to IS a card effect. Would you like to argue otherwise? You are not just placing it somewhere in the middle of the table randomly. It is being attached and associated with a specific target that YOU must name from the very start. 

Really now? There are tons of differences. What if you need to destroy [H] hero cards? Sure makes a difference then if it is in play or not.

No effect until triggered? You trigger the first effect the second you play it. That first effect would be the first sentence, you know, the one where it tells you to pick a target to play your card on. 

You keep saying that targeting is not an effect, but have nothing to back that claim up with. Because it certainly is an instruction on a card. And trying to make the case that a cards text is not also that cards effect is just not defensible 

111

While an official statement would always be nice, I feel like we could fill an entire page of the official rulings thread with questions on how various different types of cards interract with Isolated Hero.  (And what happens as it enters play, and leaves play).

The promo decks seem to be where they stick effects which really screw with normal gameplay, and I think part of the idea is to hit you with some weird card interraction that you never anticipated.  It's interesting to compare the various ways that people resolved those interactions, but everyone seems more or less satisfied with how the card works for them.

112

What is telling you to play the card next to a target? A card effect you say? Can a card effect interact with an isolated hero?

A card effect can't effect an isolated hero, the effect of playing it next to a hero affects the card being played and the way you play it, that is all.

The argument that card/hero interactions are not predicated on card effects is baseless and wrong. Flat out wrong. 

There is no card that tells you you get to use a power each turn, yet you do.  There is no card that tells you to play a card during your play phase, but you do.  We do things in the game based on rules, and card effects.  Not everything is a card effect.  A card is not played by its own effect, it is played because that's what the rules state you do.  Most Hero/card interaction is predicated on card effects, not all.  That has nothing to do with this debate though.

The targeting of the Isolated hero to place the card next to IS a card effect. Would you like to argue otherwise? You are not just placing it somewhere in the middle of the table randomly. It is being attached and associated with a specific target that YOU must name from the very start.

Yes it is a card effect, and that effect is affecting the card Twist the Ether, and the person playing it.  That is all.  The rest of Twist the Ether's effect affects the targetted hero, but they are seperate effects.  One of the effects is usable through isolated hero, one isn't.  I'm not saying you can alter their damage, just that you can play the card.  Just like Chrono Ranger could use Temporal grenade if he couldn't deal damage, two different effects.

Really now? There are tons of differences. What if you need to destroy [H] hero cards? Sure makes a difference then if it is in play or not.

If you have to destroy (H) cards that choice as to destroy Twist the Ether would be Visionaries choice, not the target the card is next to.  So that still doesn't affect the target.  If the Isolated Hero has to destroy cards they could not destroy Twist the Ether because it isn't theirs.

No effect until triggered? You trigger the first effect the second you play it. That first effect would be the first sentence, you know, the one where it tells you to pick a target to play your card on. 

Again we are talking about effecting an isolated hero.  Isolated Hero does not prevent effects that do not affect the isolated hero.  The first effect does not effect the hero it is played next to.  The second effect is the only effect that affects another hero, and that one would be stopped by Isolated Hero.

Also the card does not tell you to target someone.  It says "Play this card next to a target."  That is not targetting them for some effect, it is an effect that alters where the card is played.  The effect only affects the card being played and the player putting it into play.

113

FYI, not just a hint. :sunglasses:

114

So how exactly does a card effect can involve a target but not affect them?  

You involved, and interacted with, an Isolated target in the resolution of another heros card effect.

I am pretty sure this thread has run its course. As much as I enjoy discussing the finer semantic points of the words effect/affect, we gain no ground from it. As always, play however you want to and have fun. 

 

 

115

I think you need to read the definitions of Involve and Effect.  One is an inclusion, the other is the result of an action.  Something can be included without being affected.

It has been good debating this, but as you say, it has run its course.  Oh well.

116

Was there ever any official word on the scope of Isolated Hero after this discussion?  I saw another thread where the discussion seemed to briefly reoccur in November, but neither this thread nor the slightly more recent one actually reached a consensus or got an official answer.  If any indication's been given from the top how broadly or narrowly to interpret this card, I'd be interested in hearing the outcome.

Since everyone seemed to agree that the discussion ran its course pretty thoroughly the first time around, I suppose I'm not asking to reopen the debate, don't worry.  Just curious if there were any later insights or developments that can be shared.  Thanks.

117

Yeah, no concensus reached here.  No official ruling either.  Each of us does what is right in our own minds.  Whatever your game group thinks is right go with it.

118

What's the question exactly?  Is it "Does Isolated Hero continue affecting a hero after they're incapacitated?"  If so, I vote "no" on the basis that it would mean that player was completely out of the game, and that would suck.  Already it's possible in Final Wasteland, but there's no sense in making it happen even more often than that.

119

When a hero is incapped, don't all cards in that hero's play area return to their respective decks?

120

Yes

Edit: Nah, Ronway below is right actually. Forgot about those