Honestly, we are talking about such a large fringe case here I doubt it maters either way.
Many of us check these boards every 5 minutes. I think we only have the fringe cases left.
No need for a fringe case at all. Ranger's Mark is in CR's deck. If you play Ranger's Mark anyway, just because you want the 1 projectile damage, then can you first put a bounty into play even if there's no target, possibly immediately increasing the damage of your projectile hit if you have Hunter & Hunted in play. It's a very basic question that you need to know in order to make the most of CR.
Such as, for example, the second ability of Jim's Hat, which otherwise does virtually nothing. (It can recycle The Ultimate Target if you played it on a sub-ultimate target earlier, or it can destroy bounties which you just don't want to be on their targets anymore, but those are both pretty uncommon occurrences, and the need to do something with bounties that entered play without targets would be one more source of meaning for that text.)
Except for the fact that it is keeping with how other cards work. The more bounties out, and the more damage you take with Hunter and Hunted. There are many cards in the game that if they offer you a negative, they also give you a way to take it out on your own. Regardless, the first ability is quite useful. I also dont think this is great reason, because then Expat would would need some inherent way to destroy floating Ammo cards. You could easily argue the opposite and say thay if Expat doesn;t have a card like that, it is bcuase that is not how it works.
However, this all goes back to my point above, either Ranger's Mark has to put it next to the target, or it never will. Either the line is essential, or it is completely skipped.
Expat was published earlier. This might be them learning from experience.
However, this all goes back to my point above, either Ranger's Mark has to put it next to the target, or it never will. Either the line is essential, or it is completely skipped.
All of which is just your opinion. I see no reason why the cards should be forced to behave "consistently" in completely different scenarios. I say the bounty has to be put next to a target if possible; otherwise, it can sit in play by itself. Even if Christopher confirms that a targetless bounty put directly into play acts like a duplicate Limited card, I'll probably just ignore that ruling in my games because it makes no sense IMO.
And that is just your opinion.
I will ask him this very question today.
Thank You.
Make sure you bring a Solicitor with you, to make sure that the language of his ruling is loophole free.
Maybe, but this was also an issue with the core game. Lot's of mistakes it seems. However, you are also completely ignoring Ultimate Target in your arguement. It is a card that clearly is intended to stay out. So wouldn't it make more sense for a minor second ability to compensate for a very specific situation in a very specific deck, then to say that everything else is a mistake.
[quote="Envisioner"]
I say the bounty has to be put next to a target if possible; otherwise, it can sit in play by itself.
[/quote]
Based on what exactly, besides your opinion. I have already explained that this doesn't make any sense. Can it be ruled this way? Sure, I don't think it will, but it can, and it won't be consistent with the game mechanics (but this has happened before).
[quote="Envisioner"]
I see no reason why the cards should be forced to behave "consistently" in completely different scenarios.
[/quote]
REALLY!!! Your areguement is that the rules shouldn;t be consistent? This is the enitre basis for any game. Cards have to behave the same way in every situation, otherwise, we will not know how to do anything. Essentially, unless you have a confirmed rule for how every card works in every situation, how exactly do you play the game. Of course the cards have to be consistent.
[quote="Envisioner"]
Even if Christopher confirms that a targetless bounty put directly into play acts like a duplicate Limited card, I'll probably just ignore that ruling in my games because it makes no sense IMO.
[/quote]
Then why even post in this topic if you don't care what the answer is anyways.
EDIT: I just wanted to add that when the ruling comes out, I will follow it no matter what it is. I try to follow all of the official rulings regardless of how they fit in with the other cards (Yes, I play where the order of SHD and Fortitude matter). Until such time when an official ruling comes in, I believe you are forced to play the game consistently based on previous rulings. At this point, not having the cards enter play is the only logical conclusion based on the current known game mechanics. Yes, this might not be how it is ruled, but it is the only thing that makes sense right right now.
I asked.
I do not have the exact wording (I foolish forget to use my MP3 player as a recorder... not joking, I thought about it just after Christopher had finished speaking).
You CANNOT play ongoings without a valid target. If such a card tries to enter play (even through forced means) and there is no target it does not enter play, it is discarded, not destroyed.
What if it doesn't try to enter play. . .
But seriously thanks for clearing this up, and tell Christopher thanks for answering the question a second time.
So, essentially, certain Bounties and Ammo cards without a Gun to attach to act with a sort of ghost "Limited" keyword.
That'd be valuable to put in the RC/IR FAQ.
Hrm. Well apparently Christopher disagrees with me, even though The Ultimate Target disagrees with him. Whatever. I still haven't decided whether to play according to this ruling or my own preferences.
Rather, that the rules should not force two sorta-similar situations to be resolved exactly the same way in the name of "consistency". If there is any distinction at all, then the possibility exists for the difference to be major. Most bounties can go on any target, and thus never fail to find a target, but No Executions is different and therefore requires special handling. Just as most bounties automatically destroy themselves along with their target, but The Ultimate Target doesn't, and thus it's a special case.
If one Bounty can sit in play with no target, why can't the other? Apparently Christopher didn't give a "why", and therefore his answer doesn't satsify me. (As I said, I may go with it anyway, if I decide that the overall benefit of a reliable rule is worth the counterintuitive scenarios that result. I just don't automatically accept that "consistency" is necessarily the more desireable alternative to what I would characterize as "sufficient complexity for the sake of simulationism and/or strategic intricacy".)
Essentially, unless you have a confirmed rule for how every card works in every situation, how exactly do you play the game.
I would in fact like exactly such rulings. SOTM is getting large enough that it could begin to deserve its own version of MTG's "Gatherer" program - a searchable database with one file for every card, containing an aggregation of rulings, strategic advice, and user comments about that one card, explaining exactly what it's used for, and how, and how good it is. There's somewhat less need for this in SOTM's case since the cards can't be swapped around, but the immense interconnectivity among the decks still leads to enough confusing scenarios that I think a "knowledge base", which contains space for every possible clarification of an interaction between any two (or occasionally more) cards, and gradually aggregates them through crowdsourcing and authoritative vetting, would be useful to have.
Christopher said, when explaining the ruling today, that basically any card which is played needs to go into a play area. The "play area" for an Ammo card is a Gun, and the "play area" for a Bounty is an appropriate target. If the applicable "play area" doesn't exist, that cards must, therefore, go to the trash. Ultimate Target can only stick around if it's already been played on a target and then that target is destroyed, only because there is no text on it to say that you should destroy it like you do other Bounties. Look at Infection - that's much the same. Its "play area" is an active hero, but if said hero then becomes Incapacitated (and thus no longer a target), there's nothing on the Infection card to say it gets destroyed so it sticks around, doing nothing unless Afflicted Frenzy is also present and forces that hero to continue to hit people even though they're down.
Interesting. I assume the same is true of Kismet's Jinxes and MI's hero-specific Clues? (Not sure if there are any other than Isolated Hero.)
I'm not sure. If there is a case of a tie (each hero having only their character cards in play, two heroes with the highest HP, etc.) I think the heroes choose which hero is targeted by the Jinx. Since it targets the heroes and not hero cards (or lack thereof) there should always be a hero target in play. If there isn't, then the game is over.
If something tells you play a card on, say, the "hero with the most cards in play", and there is a tie (ie multiple people have the same number of cards in play, or no-one has any), you use the usual "simultaneous" rule of deciding to which target you want to apply the effect.
No, I mean, if a Jinx or Clue was in play affecting a hero and that hero becomes incapped, the Jinx/Clue stays in play, but is no longer having any real effect on that hero.
Ah! My apologies. I imagine it would depend on whether there was a destruction effect related to the target leaving play or not.
Look at Infection - that's much the same. Its "play area" is an active hero, but if said hero then becomes Incapacitated (and thus no longer a target), there's nothing on the Infection card to say it gets destroyed so it sticks around, doing nothing unless Afflicted Frenzy is also present and forces that hero to continue to hit people even though they're down.
So that is an official ruling, Afflicted frenzy can cause an incap hero to deal damage because they don't become un-infected by being incapped.
No, I mean, if a Jinx or Clue was in play affecting a hero and that hero becomes incapped, the Jinx/Clue stays in play, but is no longer having any real effect on that hero.
Looks that way, no destruct text on them, so they would stay in play.
It makes sense as incapacitated doesn't mean they are dead, just out of the fight. I kind of like the idea that a hero could be taken out by the plague rat and yet be fighting, like the infection has taken over. Really cool.
If I understand correctly, however, they are no longer hero targets, so Galvanize and the like would generally stop affecting them once they were incapped.