My thoughts would be that if you are forced to play a bounty for any reason, but there is no valid target to attach it to, then it just gets discarded. I don't like the idea, thematically, of potentially gainin benefit from a bounty placed on nothing.
That being said, I see no reason, ruleswise, why Emvisioner's interpretation would be incorrect either. Probably gonna have to get a ruling in that if you want to be official.
Essentially, the discussion comes down to how you view the words "play this card next to..." There are two possible ways to read it:
1) "Play this card next to..." is part of the requirement to have the card enter play. If you can't put it next to a valid target, then it doesn't enter play. But is it possible for a cards text to be active before the card enters play? Yes. Otherwise, Unity would be playing golems all the time. We clearly see there that there are texts that are active before the cards enters play.
2) "Play this card next to..." is only activated after the card enters play. First let's consider the ramifications of this. If the card entering play and being put next to a target a two separate steps, then that means all "when a card enters play" triggers happen before it is placed next to a target. Therefore, if you play a bounty with NEF in play, the NEF would hit a bunch of targets, and possibly kill the target you were going for before the bounty was ever on it, and you wouldn't get the destruction bonus.
However, there is a bigger issue. All Ongoing cards have two effects: statics effect that are always on and triggers. Every trigger says when the effect is activated, while static effects simply say something (e.g. +1 damage). "Put next to" has no triggers, which would put it in the static modifier camp. But I have no idea how that would work. I don;t think anyone is proposing you can move bounties around at will (although it would be great for Ammo cards). However, if it was a trigger, why doesn't it specifiy when like every other Ongoing card in the game. There are many cards that say, "when this card enters play..." (e.g. Fixer's styles, Bunker's Modes, Ra has one, etc.). If this was meant to be a trigger after it comes into play, it would say "when this comes into play." This would be a huge oversight that has existed since the core game, and would be even more amazing since many of the bounties have triggers on the next line of the card.
In order to be consistent with the rest of the game, you have to say that this is part of the requirement for the card to enter play to begin with. So, if you are forced to play the card and there are no valid targets, it goes to the trash.
I think it is just instruction on how to play the card.
As you are playing the card the text informs you that it does not get played normally, it gets played outside of your play area next to a certain type of card.
The two arguments I see are:
1) The directions are followed before the card enters play. The card cannot fulfill the instructions on how to play it, so it does not enter play. We would then default to putting the card in the trash. It isn't a requirement to play the card, but the instructions are also not worded to be optional either.
2) The card enters play, then the text activates. In this interpretation the card would stay in play, since it enters play and then is put next to a target. Cards are not destroyed because they can't do what they are supposed to do, we already know that. Targets can be removed and cards left behind (I think I remember that ruling correctly, can't remember what cards it was for though) so this card would enter play, attempt to fulfill its text, fail and sit there uselessly until destroyed.
I could see Christopher going either way with this, or seeing some side of it that I don't see. I would probably play it the first way, but it really does deserve an official ruling.
I definately think the target is already selected when the Bounty enters play, I just don't see the lack of a target preventing them from entering play. Perticularly when we have Ultimate Target which can be in play without a target.
And if you are going to prevent them from entering play, what about just leaving them where they were? That seems just as valid as putting them in the trash.
Buh?
You make an assurtion that the Ultimate Target can be in play with no target, suggesting it is different from other Bounties, why are you singling out this one in particular? It still needs a target when you play it, it's just a different target to all other bounties.
…
Is this because it doesn't destroy itself when the target does? Every other card that attaches to a card is removed from play when the target goes away because the card itself says so. The Ultimate Target specificaly doesn't say this (and is confirmed as meaning this), that is why it is an exception to the rule, because it is a rule itself.
No body is saying you can't play the card, just that when you play the card you must follow the text on it. What happens if you play a card with conditions on it you can't fulfil in any other situation in the game? You ignore the parts you can't do. Can you not play a card that says "Draw a card" if you are prevented from drawing a card by another effect?
If you really want to put the bounty card into play with no target then read the whole of the card when you do, is the target you attached it to still in play? No (by definition the target is not in play as you didn't attach it to a target) then destroy this card. (Which I concede would mean that Ultimate Target would stick around, but I do not concede that you can play the card without a target.)
If you really want to put the bounty card into play with no target then read the whole of the card when you do, is the target you attached it to still in play? No (by definition the target is not in play as you didn't attach it to a target) then destroy this card.
The cards state "when that target leaves play, destroy this card."
A card that is not in play cannot leave play.
The significance of The Ultimate Target is that it does remain in play when its target leaves play, because it doesn't have destruction language that would destroy it.
So we know that a Bounty can be in play without a target. We know that they destroy themselves when the target they are placed next to leaves play.
That is why if the card can enter play with no target to put it next to it would stay in play with no target, just as The Ultimate Target does, pointlessly sitting there just being a bounty card. It is not attached to a target, so no target can leave play and cause it to destroy itself.
That's why I said if you put the card in play it stays until something else destroys it.
The way I see it, if there are no legal targets, you can not play the bounty from your hand into play. I think that is the purpose of the instruction "Play this next to a target". What is interesting is that the instruction is not written in the negative (ie. "cant" do something) but still seems to be a restriction on how to play the card. Twist the Ether has the same wording for anyone interested. "Play this card next to a target". I do not think anyone has questioned that the intent of Twist the Ether is to only be playable on a target. But there is never a situation where TtE won't have a valid target either.
Now, when facing Miss Info (since this is the only time this will ever come up, lets isolated hero it), if something happens to put a card from your deck into play and it happens to be a bounty that has no legal target, I guess I could see how that could go into play and just sit there. But that interpretation hinges on the difference between "playing" cards and "putting into play" and the way the instruction is worded. I think the secondary functionality of Jim's Hat could be taken into account when making that argument as well.
I would agree with skippy on the destruction point. If it is allowed to be put into play without a legal target, than the trigger condition for the self destruct effect will never be met.
The most compelling argument right now for playing bounties without legal targets is that it doesn't specifically say you can't.
All this brings up a follow up question that I am sure someone will get to eventually. IF bounties can be played without a legal target in play, can you play a bounty without an attached target when there IS a legal target in play? Maybe answering that question will clear the path for the original question.
I'm sure you must attach to a valid target if one is available. Just as Terrible Tech strike must deal damage if possible, and Sudden Contract must put a bounty into play from the deck if possible. There is no 'may', so it is not optional.
Yeah, you can't just ignore the instructions.
The question isn't whether you can play a bounty without putting it next to a target, but if the lack of a legal target makes the card unplayable.
Following wording and rulings literally I would say yes it should be allowed, but I would not at all be surprised if that isn't the way >G would rule it.
I personally don't like the idea and wouldn't let someone do it just to get a bounty in play, but if the card was forced to be played, like with DDA then I would allow it. I probably wouldn't even allow it with Timeshift, since the option of discarding is more valid, but there isn't any legal reason to treat it that way.
"Play next to.." is part of the requirements of playing the card. We never see that there is both a positive and negative statement on a card. In fact, if it wasn't required, it would have said something like "you may."
Normally, you can play a card that has no effect. I thought I saw a ruling about this somewhere, but I can't find the source. However, this would only apply once the card enters play, not to have the card enter play (yes this is my distinction).
Also, if you have established that "Play next to..." is part of the requirement to play the card normally, the card entering play would not bybass this requirement. You cannot use Timeshift to bypass the "limited" limitation. Yes, we might have this outright in the rulebook, but we also know that all cards override whatever is in the rulebook anyways. If you say that is overides the requirement here, you would also have to say that it overrides the requirement by limited cards.
To me at least, I don't see anyway that it would stay in play, or that it won't be ruled this way.
>
I'm sure you must attach to a valid target if one is available.
Honestly, I don't see why this would be true. If you are saying the "enters play" bypasses "play next to..." to keep the bounty in play, I see no reason why it still wouldn't bypass that line even if there were valid targets. If the line is being bypassed, then its bypassed, if not, then you can never play it without a target.
Bounties must be played on targets or they cannot be played. Ammo cards must be played on Guns or they cannot be played.
Alright, sweet. Thanks Christopher.
So they would discard if they would be forced into play like duplicate limited card.
This does not surprise me at all. Pretty much what I expected. Thanks for dropping in!
Thank you!
Going in the FAQ.
I love times like this. Just saying.
Okay, but that doesn't answer what happens with Ranger's Mark, which says "put into play". If Incap Sobek or Atlantean Font of Power puts out a Bounty which can't find a target, what happens? And if it works in those cases, then why wouldn't it work with Ranger's Mark or Timeshift?
That is one possible answer. It is not confirmed yet.
5.42pm GMT? What's so special about it?
Where's the problem? If it is going into play and there's nothing to anchor it on, it would bounce to the trash.
Awesome! Now that we know that, we just need the citation to confirm it!