Nope, only cards belonging to that hero. Cards like Infection, Jinxes, and Isolated Hero remain.
Yup! Luckily this game is a lighharted cooperative and its intention is to be fun so it doesn't really matter that much. The reason I say it doesn't matter is that no one is going to feel cheated by another player if the rule isn't perfectly clear. There is no tournament with money or title on the line.
You all lose or win together. If you think one way destroys the fun, don't do it. Heck people suggest house rules on these forums all the time. My group nearly ignored the famous rule 15 but then decided to incorperate it. Any time something isn't clear just decided as a group which ever you think is most accurate, or even most fun and do that. Do whatever brings your group the most enjoyment and don't worry so much about exact definitions.
Again with no official standings its more important to have fun than get it right.
My point to you, there are lots of rule discussion on here and yes people in general perfer to get it right, but if you are really certain about how you do it, then just keep doing it that way until an official ruling comes out. Even when one does, do what you like.
The discussion got much more broad than that over the course of the thread, regarding the meaning and scope of the term "affect" outside of the original incap question. Some believe that if one hero is impacted by another hero's card, this is sufficient to count as "affect"ing and be ruled out by Isolated Hero. Others believe that "affect" is limited to direct interaction, and isn't meant to include indirect impacts. One example being, if Wraith is an Isolated Hero, and she uses Stun Bolt on Miss Information, will Miss Information's damage be reduced by 1 against the other heroes?
In the original discussions, I recall it was eventually decided not to put this question to Christopher, but I'd certainly be interested in knowing the intended outcome. While we can always just play it how we each read the card, the experience is actually more fun for me if there is clear guidance regarding how the cards are supposed to work—it's not about rules instead of fun, it's about facilitating the fun. As a newer Sentinels player, but one with a lot of experience in other games as a judge and rules lawyer, I did my best to read up on how everything was supposed to work—I'm just programmed to care about the intricacies, so I wanted to make sure that we weren't mis-playing the game. (Spoiler alert, we were!) In any case, having a lingering ambiguity will always tend to rankle me when the unclear card comes up. If we win with an Isolated Hero in a close game, I'll probably start second-guessing whether we'd have won if we'd played the card differently, etc. Nothing against folks who feel differently, of course, but while the ambiguity isn't stopping me from having fun, I know that I'll enjoy games against Miss Information more if the loose end gets tied up.
Besides, whichever outcome I think is correct would obviously be the way that the ruling came down.
Yeah, I'm due to face Miss Info in one of my next three games, and I would really like to know that any victory I achieve is justified, given that I believe I've only beaten her once, and it was due to a serious error on my part (maaaybe one other victory that was actually valid, I can't recall for sure).
EDIT - I stand corrected. I've actually beaten Missy in all three of my non-Advanced games against her, and none of my Advanced ones (three each as of tonight). My first game shouldn't have been a victory, and this last one wasn't quite a defeat, I just screwed up a turn and conceded in disgust (it had already been sixteen rounds and I was bored) rather than try to figure out how to fix it. But still, I misspoke before...if not Advanced, she's apparently not as difficult as I thought. The pattern might also have been due to pretty much all of my early games opening with her having a stuff-destroying Diversion in play, which I could safely ignore and just play one-shots since she was destroying stuff anyway, while probably all of the last three games have started with "Cat" Stuck In Tree or "Diplomatic" Envoy.
I'll give credit where it's due, Missy is one of the most variable villains there is (short of the Vengeance Five). Seems no two of my games against her played out the same way.
Not sure where this discussion is at exactly, but at one point I think it was being argued that the character card is NOT part of the deck and therefore NOT subject to isolated hero. Wouldn't this mean Legacy could Galvanize everyone even if he were isolated. Similarly if another hero were isolated they could get +1 from Galvanize. The same could be applied to Team Leader Tachyon, Visonary, any hero whose base power targets other heros.
To me this seem pretty contrary to the point of the card. My appologies if this has already been brought up or is in any way irrelevant at this point.
I believe it was stated by Christopher that the character card is part of the deck.
Before the discussion petered out, it appears that everyone agreed the hero cards were considered part of the deck---possibly that there was a technical ambiguity, but also that everyone agreed on the point such that it wasn't necessary to ask for official clarification. So, no, I don't think there's any dispute that the character cards are considered part of the deck for purposes of Isolated Hero.
Man, I reread this thread...what a mess.
For simplicity, Isolated Heros don't see other hero cards and other Heros dont see Isolated Hero cards. Like, pretend they are not even there. Maybe there are nuances that are missed there, but I think it covers most of the "intent" bases. I think we overblew something thats supposed to be simple.
The other way it was viewed is:
If a card effect affects the hero, it is prevented by isolation.
If a card effect affects a non-hero card it is fine.
Examples:
If Wraith shoots badguy with stun bolts and badguy deals damage to isolated hero, that -1 to damage dealt is valid.
If Wraith has Smoke Grenades out and the Isolated Hero is the lowest HP hero, the isolated hero gains no benefit from Smoke Bombs.
if Isolated Hero would take 5 damage and Non-Isolated Tempest has shielding winds the damage is not reduced, since Shielding Winds effect cannot help the hero.
One of the points of contention was By Any Means, which increases damage dealt to a villain, and therefore in this interpretation is valid, since the effect is not on the hero.
But it is affecting isolated heros damage during damage calculation. This is the point where me and skippy split from agreement.
If you are isolated, I would say you don't even see Chronos bounty to take it in consideration.
Everyone can make up their mind on how they like to see it. Ambiguous rules are relegated to players choice so I doubt we will get any word from Christopher on this one ever.
Is it generally agreed that an Isolated Hero cannot benefit from other heroes' incap abilities? Would other heroes still be able to use incap abilities that don't directly affect that hero, but in a way that benefits them? (EG - Dead Argent Adept is completely useless if the only surviving hero is Isolated, but Dead Nightmist could still destroy Ongoing cards.) I scrapped a game last night due to mis-playing this.
Yes, I think Foote and I would even agree that destroying an ongoing would be legit.
(although if it was a jinx on the isolated player we might disagree)
The only reason I disagree with destroying a jinx is because kismet and miss info don't fight together in a legal game format haha.
Ongoing destruction (if it doesn't belong to the isolated hero or vice versa) is fine.
Could Nightmist destroy Incapacitated Hero itself? It's essentially a "jinx"....
Not surprised and always felt so, I was just making an observation for part of the arguement that had happened.
I completely agree with this, though as you have pointed out it doesn't provide an answer for every situation.
Yup.