Limited: A keyword appearing on hero cards. Limited cards are unique, in that only once card of that name can be in play at one time. If a limited card with the same name as a limited card alread in play would come into play, the second card is put into the trash instead.
Unless I am reading too much into this, it seems that the card does have text before it comes into play, otherwise how do you know if it is the same limited card. You can of course argue that it gains text after being played and before coming into play. Also, if being played comes before come into play, that would mean the second limited card triggers all of those effects. This could be true, just looking for a confirmation. Or of course there could be specific rules about limited cards that make it not apply to this situation.
I think you read that wrong. It's saying, if you put that 2nd limited into play, then it would get burned. From my understanding, the card was not considered limited before it entered play (which allows you to play it in the first place), then after its in play its now considered a duplicate limited and discarded
I don't think the Take Down thing matters - the card is entering play. It doesn't have text yet. The Informant triggers and the villain deck plays a card. That done, and assuming nothing else acts on the same trigger, you then look at the played card because its text now becomes active. Oh, look, it's Take Down - okay, the bad guys can't play any more cards now, and Legacy has to take some damage.
I am wondering if this is the consensus. I have misinterpreted the rulebook wrong before, and can be wrong about this, but to me it seems like it never enters play. It says "would come into play," meaning it hasn't already. It also says to "put it in the trash instead." "Instead" seems to mean instead of in play. Otherwise it would mean you "put it in the trash" "instead" of staying in play. To me at least, the former is the much simplier explanation.
I believe I’d said before (with no authority mind you) that playing a card is the same as entering play, but entering play is not the same as playing, along the lines that a tree is the same thing as a plant, but a plant is not the same as a tree. In other words, playing a card will also trigger anything that says it enters play, but a card which enters play will not trigger anything which reacts to playing. Of course, it could actually be said that entering play is an effect of playing, which would cause one to always trigger before the other based on internal interpretation.
However, this is not the case Ameena is trying to make. She is separating the idea of a card playing/entering play and a target playing/entering play. Her interpretation is that a card cannot be a target until its card is in play and has text. Thus, card play occurs before target play, and the card being played has no way to react to anything happening on the board (as it has no text yet) while a target being played can (as it has text now). If a card is being played which is a target and has reactions (Stealth Bot seems a perfect example), while the card is being played, it would not yet have text and can’t react (it would be unable to redirect Negative Energy Field), but it could react to anything which happens when a target enters play (I’m unsure of a non-hero card which deals multiple or targeted damage when a target enters play, but if it does/will, then Stealth Bot can redirect that when she/it is played).
This would assume that a card is not a target if it is not in play, which would side along with how I say that Sonic Mine is no longer a target when it is dealing damage. Some people have went against this idea, but I don’t know if any of the same are supporting Ameena.
In any case, I do not take either side, but find it interesting nonetheless.
Regarding the Limited cards, I believe I remember a conversation (which may have been verbal and thus not searchable) in which Christopher said that a player never even has the option to play a limited card in the first place. If a player is to play a card, any Limited card in hand with a same name in play is considered to not even be in the hand to begin with, not allowing the play. Only cards which would force a play can ever have a second limited card to come into play, which then would trigger the rules which says to instead place it in the trash, unless the card says what to do with the card (such as Atlantian Font of Power). If a card allows ‘random’ cards to be revealed, and playing/putting into play the cards is one of the options allowed (such as Timeshift power), then the play/put into play option is no longer a valid option for a duplicate Limited card.
Now, this is based ob information a year (possible a year and a half) old, and thus could be irrelevant now.
I have a little trouble when interpreting Fowl cards using Ameena's Method.
Fowl: "When this card is played from the villain deck, play the top card of the villain deck."
If "play a card" is indeed separate from "enters play" and the former occurs before the latter, then the text on a Fowl card can only exist after it has entered play which neccessarily means that the "to play" phase has already passed, hence the trigger on the Fowl card will not be activated.
I wasn't really getting into the semantics of the different meanings behind "playing" and "entering play" - I don't like when stuff gets complicated (like that Wrest-the-Mind thread) so I just try to keep it as simple as possible :). But if you want to get into detail on Fowl cards...okay, I'll say that it's entered play because it was played from the villain deck, therefore when its text activates you look at it and go "okay, which deck was this played from? The villain deck? Okay then...". I believe there was a discussion somewhere before as to whether Hairtrigger Reflexes can take out a Fowl card before it triggers a new card being played...but off the top of my head I can't remember what the verdict ended up being, nor whether it made it onto Spiff's rule list (because I can't remember whether one of the devs posted to confirm what actually happens).
Another card is played before Hair Trigger Reflexes triggers (I guess Expat just isn't that fast). However, this is inconsistent with the Negative Energy Field ruling.
Actually, Targeting Entering play and Card Entering play would trigger at different points. As when a card enters play the card isn't doing anything the moment it enters play, it would essentially be a blank card, infact put it upside down while everything that triggers on a "card entering play" has been established. Where when a target enteres play it has to be rightside up, allowing the effects on the card to be triggered.
That's basically how I play it - if it's a villain or environment card entering play, I'll pick up the top card of the deck but not turn it over yet. Once everything that's needed to act has done so (eg Positive/Negativ Energy Field), then I'll turn the card over and do what it says.
That order seems strange to me. I would fully resolve an action, like playing a card, before resolving the reactions to it. Just like I would not resolve Combat Stance before fully resolving damage to Wraith, including side effects like maybe incapacitating her.
But your order it is more like playing the card is just selecting the card and then there is an implicit second instruction to reveal the card and put it into play. I can see how it would work, it's just not how I would play it.
Well, I just go by what I read on the forum a while back - if something reacts to a card being played, it does so before said card's text activates. Therefore it doesn't matter what that card is, so I don't bother looking at it...unless it's a hero card, of course, in which case it's unavoidable and I just go "I'm playing this card, so I get interrupted by..." and do the triggered reaction (Informant, for example).