We're playing a Vengeance-style game, witha whole team of Villains.
Chrono-Ranger: Best of Times has "No Executions" on some random minion. He uses his True Purpose power to make that bounty apply to one of the Villain Character cards. When that Villain goes to zero or fewer HP, does (can) it go to the bottom of its deck?
If so, it's a fun way to evade their incap effects :-)
It should still flip as normal to the incap side. The only villain character card that it could happen to through use of that power would be the Chairman. Maybe normal Omnitron.
Edit: Stuff like that is probably why that card played normally isn't supposed to target villain character cards.
Crush your enemies, drive them before you, and laminate their women! - Guise, Prime Wardens #31
The order of events for a Villain being destroyed is to remove its deck and all cards then flip the card.
If you put the Character card on the bottom of the deck instead of destroying it the deck would not be removed, and cards in play would be unaffected.
Then, like Original Omnitron it would continue to play cards, but the Character could not deal damage.
You also would be unable to win, because that Villain would be in a deck, and therefore not incapacitated. The win condition in Vengeance is for all Villain Characters to be incapacitated. Villains in a deck are not incapacitated.
At least this seems like how it would work from the information and rules we have.
The rulebook I'm looking at now (from Vengeance) doesn't say to remove the deck, it says to remove all cards FROM the deck. A deck can still conceptually exist, even if it is empty. I think your other ideas about what would happen in this instance are hard to support.
This, however, is undeniably true. So even if it might be doable, it would be a guaranteed lose for the players.
The text for "No Executions" specifies that it can't be played on a character card. Using the promo Jim's base power applies the text of all bounties in play to the target of his choice. So the "this cannot be played on a character card" would be applied too, wouldn't it, and therefore ignored if he picked a character card?
I am the Wordweaver...
Basically, I like writing stuff ;)
But you aren't "playing" the Bounty, you are choosing a new target for it to additionally affect.
I still believe thattext should apply and make it not usable on character cards
The question you have to ask yourself is this: If a logical restriction that should inherently apply to a cards effect, but doesn't technically apply because another cool power wants to do something cool, then do you assume that the logical restriction should still apply or be technical and say it shouldn't and create those scenarios that were purposely avoided with the initial wording.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"
Or you let the power be awesome and do what it was designed to do. Which includes putting bounty effects on targets that can't have the bounty card played on them.
I don't recall that being an intended part of the design. If it is, then yes, if not, then it makes sense to me to keep the original restrictions in play.
EDIT: Let's say you are right, what exactly is the "cool interaction." According to you it becomes an automatic loss, which essentially means that if the card is out and it will trigger, Chrono-Ranger can't use the ability on those targets. That is not a "cool interaction" besides the fact that it takes away choices.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"
I think what was being said was not that it would be an "automatic loss" but a (currently) unwinable situation, that you could not win until the character card comes out again (through natural play of the deck... much like how The Chairman can be played if The Operative is not defeated).
Stop lurking, it makes you look like a villain target
When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all
I get that, but it is so detrimental that it still restricts it's use.
As I said before, if that was the intent, so be it? I am ju at not convinced that it is. The restrictions on No Executions doesn't seem to be one that is preventing something overpowered, but rather restricting an action thay doesn't make much sense, and it makes sense that that restriction stays in place.
I guess it could have been worded to say " if that card could have been played on the target" if it purposely meant to restrict it, but that sounds so awkward that the lack of that statement doesn't tell me anything.
I can easily see the ruling going both ways. However, before it's official, since it is so awkward with no benefit beyond being awkward and removing choices, I will play that it doesn't apply. But to each his own.
Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.
-Robert E. Howard, "The Tower of the Elephant"
And?
If someone wants to use their power that way why not let them do it? Just because it's a bad play doesn't stop someone from doing it, and just because it's a bad play in most situations doesn't mean it always is. Isn't the possiblity that it can save the day worth the extra few games where people learn it's not always good to use your power with certain combinations (see The Dreamer+Tempest as an example of this too)?
EDIT: Isn't part of the point of a variant to show that the character can be played in a different way? Learning when not to do something with a new power is as beneficial as learning what is possible.
Stop lurking, it makes you look like a villain target
When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all
That's not the cool interaction.
Neither Kill on Sight or The Whole Gang can be played on hero targets. But with this promo you can put both on Bee Bot, and when Bee Bot is destroyed you deal damage, destroy and ongoing or environment, another target with 4 or fewer HP and draw 3 cards.
You can also bury members of the Ennead in their deck with No Executions to avoid their incap abilities. It just fails to meet the requirement for a victory in Vengeance if you have character cards in a deck.
(At least until we get a ruling that changes the victory condition)
I would interpret the power that all the text of all bounties currently in play can currently be applied to a specific target, which to me would also mean that the "This cannot be played on X type of target" would also apply. So for example if you had No Executions out and used the base power to apply its text (and that of other bounties) to a villain character card, because of the part where it says "this doesn't work on characters" you would just ignore No Executions entirely on that target, ie it wouldn't count as being applied to it because its text says it can't. Otherwise things would presumably get awkward and I'd've thought this would probably have come up in playtesting at some point so has been worked around in some way?
I am the Wordweaver...
Basically, I like writing stuff ;)
But it doesn't say the effect doesn't work on those cards, it says to put the card in play next to a specific set of targets.
Similarly if a card says deal a hero target 2 damage and that hero target redirects it to a villain target, the damage doesn't fail because the card said to deal the damage to a hero target.
Playing the card next to a target is one thing. The final result of the card effect, being modified by other card effects is something different.
We have plenty of cards in the game that alter the effects of other cards to be different than their wording. This is just one more.
Actually, a villain character card that is in the deck wouldn't prevent you from winning. The rules say when all villains in play are incapactied the heroes win, and since a villain character card in the deck isn't in play it wouldn't prevent the heroes from winning. It would be the same as a villain character being removed via Unforgiving Wasteland.
The Vengeance format says the villains have to be specifically incapacitated and with normal villains you can still lose if the Dreamer gets removed.
Crush your enemies, drive them before you, and laminate their women! - Guise, Prime Wardens #31
My current beliefs of what happens under the current rules if you try this hack:
1) All of the Villain's cards are removed from the game. (The conceptual "deck" remains, empty.)
2) The Villain Character Card goes to the bottom of his (empty) deck. At this time the Villain is not incapacitated, and the heroes cannot win right now.
3) On the Villain's next turn, they play the only card in the deck, the Villain Character Card. The Villain Character Card re-enters play at full HP, like any other target card.
There may be esge case situations where this seems like a net benefit to the players. Generally, I wouldn't expect it to be worthwhile.
That's awesome.
Update: played with Best of Times last night, and the power says to choose a non-hero target. Darn! No Bee Bot bounties after all.