Acts as a level 3 Fighting attack. Can only be defended by a level 3 Power card. If defended, Power card hits Longshot. (CV)
1) if 'into the depths' event (Level 1 Intellect Power cards may be used to avoid any numerical attack this battle.) would you say this defends the longshot card?
2) if taskmaster is attacked (inherent: May use Intellect Power cards to avoid any Fighting attack), could he use any intellect power card to defend
basically, the question is: what do you think is the order of precedence for specials/inherents/events. i'd say it goes in that order (e>i>s)
also, a follow up. if longshots team has a bonus or the opponent a penalty (+2 or -1), would you say a level 3 would still block the card, as indicated on the special? i'm leaning towards yes
The CV special restricts what type of defense is allow against it. In this case, it only allows for level 3 power cards.
1) I would say no, it's not a Level 3 Power card regardless of what effects are added on to the card.
2) Again, no. Unless it's a level 3 Intellect Power card.
Follow up) Yes, the card itself bypasses any bonuses. Think of it as Kryptonite.
So in other words:
1) The only card that you can play is a Level 3 power card (a power card with a 3 printed on it). No other cards can come out of your hand (or placed). No basic Universe. No specials. Nothing.
2) That level 3 Power card must be sufficient to block the value of the attack. In most cases, the value is 3. But let's say, player Attack is using Maverick. Player Attack is +2, so that Level 5 must be blocked with a Level 3 power card. Impossible.
2a) BUT if Player Defend also has Maverick, and already has their +2 in play, then they can defend that 3+2 Attack with a Level 3 Power Card that is + 2.
2b) Obviously, you can't play Team Coordination in defense, because the only thing that can be played is a Level 3 Power Card.
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 04, 2013, 03:55:46 PM
So in other words:
1) The only card that you can play is a Level 3 power card (a power card with a 3 printed on it). No other cards can come out of your hand (or placed). No basic Universe. No specials. Nothing.
2) That level 3 Power card must be sufficient to block the value of the attack. In most cases, the value is 3. But let's say, player Attack is using Maverick. Player Attack is +2, so that Level 5 must be blocked with a Level 3 power card. Impossible.
2a) BUT if Player Defend also has Maverick, and already has their +2 in play, then they can defend that 3+2 Attack with a Level 3 Power Card that is + 2.
2b) Obviously, you can't play Team Coordination in defense, because the only thing that can be played is a Level 3 Power Card.
you got it. Combining the CV-Special with a booster makes it nigh-impossible to block. It's a good move (as are JZ/JW + boosters).
I think it should still be able to be negated.
Quote from: BasiliskFang on February 04, 2013, 04:29:10 PM
I think it should still be able to be negated.
well, the rules are pretty clear that when cards are combined, they share properties. So, Gambit's Staff Attack (AE), when combined with a level 4 Strength Power card, could then be defended by ALL of these cards,
* ANALYZE (AO) <OP> {C}
Negates the effect of any 1 Special card played by opponent
* FELINE FURY (CD) <IQ> {U}
Only Fighting attacks may be played against Black Cat for remainder of
battle.
* SUPER-ESCAPE ARTIST (AH) <JL> {C}
No Special cards may be played against Mister Miracle for remainder of
battle.
* KINETIC ABSORPTION (CN) <PS> {U}
No Strength cards may be played against Strong Guy for remainder of
battle.
(because the Power card takes on all the properties of the Special, and the Special takes on all the properties of the Power card)
Because the BG is already a pretty flexible card and simple card, I'm having trouble imagining a circumstance where it would add a property (aside from its bonus) to another Special card (like the ability to play offensively or defensively)... so it makes sense that when it's combined with a JZ, JW, or another tricky-to-defend Special, that what's highlighted is the properties it's acquiring (as opposed to "shared" properties going to both cards).
Acts as a level 3 Fighting attack. "Can only be defended by a level 3 Power card". If defended, Power card hits Longshot. (CV)
Here's where I have big trouble in little china. This text seems to override the value of the defense necessary to block the attack. You shouldn't need any other bonus. The 3 power card should be enough. It says so right on the card.
Crux can avoid any attack with a level one intellect power card. Even if its value is higher than the one intellect. Why does the text on the card for One In a Million not permit the level 3 power card to block the 3F +2?
If you place Bastion to Team Overpower, which is via a different means than the text on Bastion, you still can only negate an any hero. Because the text says so on the card. One In a Million reads right on the card a level 3 power card is the only card that can block it.
If this isn't the case, why?
3 to block, ever.
Makes sense to me. The card is already awesome strong.
The card isn't granting special permission. If it was, it would read:
"Acts as a Level 3 fighting attack. Opponent may avoid with a level 3 power card."
Then it would read like Crux. Crux's inherent grants her the special permission to ignore the usual rules, and treat her Level 1 power cards as if they read "Avoid 1 attack".
But this card is NOT like that. Its wording imposing a restriction. Under the normal rules, you may play any defensive card as a defense. This overrides the rules, and explicitly states that the ONLY card that may be played in defense is a Level 3 Power Card. Look at the card you are about to play. Is it a level 3 power card? Then no, you can't play it.
No, you can't negate it. Is a Negate a Level 3 Power Card and ONLY a Level 3 Power Card? Nope. Okay, can't play it.
Wait, you have a homemade special for Warlock that says "Acts as a Level 3 Power Card (and actually a power card, not just an attack. Seriously)". Can you play it? Ask the question again...
Is the card you are holding in your hand a Level 3 Power Card and ONLY a Level 3 Power card?. It acts like one. But its also a special. So no, you can't play it.
Restrictions always override permissions. Crux MAY avoid any attack with a level 1 Intellect Power Card, but she MAY NOT play anything except a Level 3 Power Card in defense.
Avengers MAY use and Doubleshot with normal contribution to avoid any attack. But they MAY NOT play anything except a Level 3 Power Card in defense. They can't play a Doubeshot with a Level 3 Power card, because a Doubleshot is NOT a level 3 power card.
If you had a homemade inherent that said "Captain Amazing may avoid any attack with a Level 3 Power Card". And if he was attacked with One in a Million under the influence of Team Co-ordination...
THEN and only THEN could he avoid (not just block) the OIAM with a Level 3 Power Card, even though the attack is coming in at 3F+2.
In summary: Restrictions override permissions. One in a Million imposes a restriction. The restriction is ONLY, which means that unless the card being played matches the ONLY restriction, it cannot be played.
if that's what the majority feels, then i'll accept it
don't agree with it though. sure, the special says what can and can't be used to defend, but inherents and events change the rules of the game. imo, inherents should override specials, and events should override inherents (except when specials specifically outline otherwise: ie legacy regression)
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 05, 2013, 10:12:11 AM
The card isn't granting special permission. If it was, it would read:
"Acts as a Level 3 fighting attack. Opponent may avoid with a level 3 power card."
Then it would read like Crux. Crux's inherent grants her the special permission to ignore the usual rules, and treat her Level 1 power cards as if they read "Avoid 1 attack".
But this card is NOT like that. Its wording imposing a restriction. Under the normal rules, you may play any defensive card as a defense. This overrides the rules, and explicitly states that the ONLY card that may be played in defense is a Level 3 Power Card. Look at the card you are about to play. Is it a level 3 power card? Then no, you can't play it.
No, you can't negate it. Is a Negate a Level 3 Power Card and ONLY a Level 3 Power Card? Nope. Okay, can't play it.
Wait, you have a homemade special for Warlock that says "Acts as a Level 3 Power Card (and actually a power card, not just an attack. Seriously)". Can you play it? Ask the question again...
Is the card you are holding in your hand a Level 3 Power Card and ONLY a Level 3 Power card?. It acts like one. But its also a special. So no, you can't play it.
Restrictions always override permissions. Crux MAY avoid any attack with a level 1 Intellect Power Card, but she MAY NOT play anything except a Level 3 Power Card in defense.
Avengers MAY use and Doubleshot with normal contribution to avoid any attack. But they MAY NOT play anything except a Level 3 Power Card in defense. They can't play a Doubeshot with a Level 3 Power card, because a Doubleshot is NOT a level 3 power card.
If you had a homemade inherent that said "Captain Amazing may avoid any attack with a Level 3 Power Card". And if he was attacked with One in a Million under the influence of Team Co-ordination...
THEN and only THEN could he avoid (not just block) the OIAM with a Level 3 Power Card, even though the attack is coming in at 3F+2.
In summary: Restrictions override permissions. One in a Million imposes a restriction. The restriction is ONLY, which means that unless the card being played matches the ONLY restriction, it cannot be played.
Well met, champ.;) Great breakdown.
Quote from: breadmaster on February 05, 2013, 07:26:25 PM
if that's what the majority feels, then i'll accept it
don't agree with it though. sure, the special says what can and can't be used to defend, but inherents and events change the rules of the game. imo, inherents should override specials, and events should override inherents (except when specials specifically outline otherwise: ie legacy regression)
Can you think of a situation not using One In a Million that this order wouldn't resolve? I can't think of these tight situations really... they just have to come up. I get the restriction versus permission thing... that makes sense, and should be in the rule book. But what are some situations where this order would be necessary? Do any come to mind?
stumbled accross this baby again
meta 134: If one Special sets up a condition and then a second Special comes along with text that directly contradicts the first Special, then the Special played later takes precedence. On the other hand, Events always override the text of Specials.
this would suggest the 1 intellect could in fact be used to avoid one in a million
Whoa...
Quote from: breadmaster on February 06, 2013, 06:32:48 PM
stumbled accross this baby again
meta 134: If one Special sets up a condition and then a second Special comes along with text that directly contradicts the first Special, then the Special played later takes precedence. On the other hand, Events always override the text of Specials.
this would suggest the 1 intellect could in fact be used to avoid one in a million
This would also mean that the "Do not discard duplicates" Events would allow you to keep duplicates off an HQ Special, contrary to the Special's text...
Whoa... :o
Quote from: breadmaster on February 06, 2013, 06:32:48 PM
stumbled accross this baby again
meta 134: If one Special sets up a condition and then a second Special comes along with text that directly contradicts the first Special, then the Special played later takes precedence. On the other hand, Events always override the text of Specials.
this would suggest the 1 intellect could in fact be used to avoid one in a million
No. Again, permission vs. restriction. Otherwise, any card that says "May play 1 additional Special" would override "App. for Destruction" (may not play non-attack specials).
This meta rule is more for modifiers. Imagine you play this:
First your opponent plays Green Lantern "Let's get medeval": all any-power hits become Strength.
Then your opponent also plays The Hand "Shinobi Shaw": All any-power hits become Intellect.
These two specials directly contradict, and obviously can't both exist at once. So AP hits become I, because Shinobi Shaw was played second.
I'm sure you can come up with more. Any special that does that that doesn't include "may" or "may not" probably has a contradictory card out there somewhere.
QuoteThis would also mean that the "Do not discard duplicates" Events would allow you to keep duplicates off an HQ Special, contrary to the Special's text...
No. First, I'm pretty sure Do Not Discard Specials was fairly well crippled by a rule somewhere that limited it only to the Draw phase. Second, restriction vs. permission. Third, you'd still be giving up 2 cards to gain 3, so whoopie? =)
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 12, 2013, 10:30:46 PM
No. First, I'm pretty sure Do Not Discard Specials was fairly well crippled by a rule somewhere that limited it only to the Draw phase. Second, restriction vs. permission. Third, you'd still be giving up 2 cards to gain 3, so whoopie? =)
first, I don't understand your first point... how was the "keep dup's" Event crippled?
second, I understand your point of permission vs. restriction, and I actually agree with it,
except when it comes to Events vs. any other card. IMO, Events are supposed to supersede all other cards. now, if 2 Events were contradicting, then I'd go restrictive vs. permissive. that being said, I still follow the correct rules on this one.
third, if I didn't understand your first point, then your last point may have well been typed in Wingdings :-[
Quote from: ncannelora on February 13, 2013, 12:16:29 AM
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 12, 2013, 10:30:46 PM
No. First, I'm pretty sure Do Not Discard Specials was fairly well crippled by a rule somewhere that limited it only to the Draw phase. Second, restriction vs. permission. Third, you'd still be giving up 2 cards to gain 3, so whoopie? =)
Quote from: ncannelora on February 13, 2013, 12:16:29 AM
first, I don't understand your first point... how was the "keep dup's" Event crippled?
Hmm, can't find the rule now so I might be wrong. I thought the event (and whatshisname's special) only allowed you to keep dupes during the initial draw phase, not from subsequent in-battle draws.
Quote
second, I understand your point of permission vs. restriction, and I actually agree with it, except when it comes to Events vs. any other card. IMO, Events are supposed to supersede all other cards. now, if 2 Events were contradicting, then I'd go restrictive vs. permissive. that being said, I still follow the correct rules on this one.
Events only take precedence over contradictory specials, but that's it. Example, event says "Any attack may be shifted to reserve". Brass' Tracking Computer is a special that says it may not be moved or shifted. The event does not override that restriction. The attack may not be shifted.
Since Events have the same precedence, two contradictory, they'd obey the "which was played first" rule. I honestly can't think of two events that would match this criteria, though.
Quote
third, if I didn't understand your first point, then your last point may have well been typed in Wingdings :-[
Just a philosophy. If something extraordinary happens due to a rule loophole or a combo, does it actually give a huge advantage. Look at the the reward verses the chance of it actually happening.
Say you play Keep Duplicates, AND you get to keep dupes from a Draw 3.
You need to get 2 cards in the exact right order. Back-of-napkin says that, 64 card deck, 8 cards per hand, only about 1/64 chance of that happening. Long odds there.
The reward you get: You play 2 cards. You draw 3. A net gain of 1 card. If your deck is low in dupes, you probably won't even see any benefit. Maybe you get to keep a dupe power card. If your deck is high in dupes, then you will have thrown away far more than 1 card in dupes by that point.
So in the end-- even if the combo ends up working that way, it is fair, balanced, and doesn't break the game. So, "who cares" if it does.
"You play 2 cards. You draw 3."
this is the part I still don't see... I play ONE card, I draw 3... the advantage on an HQ is 2... right?
i don't agree with restriction vs permission, but that doesn't really apply here anyways
-longshot says i can only defend with a 3
-event says i can defend anything with a 1
-they contradict, and the meta says the event overrules the special
to me, the issue is: where do inherents fit in. as i said before, it's my feeling that they are inbetween the 2. that is, events override inherents and specials, and inherents override specials. but since there is no ruling on this (to my knowledge) it's just my interpretation
Quote from: ncannelora on February 13, 2013, 03:57:28 PM
"You play 2 cards. You draw 3."
this is the part I still don't see... I play ONE card, I draw 3... the advantage on an HQ is 2... right?
The card you play that allows you to keep dupes counts as 1 card. The "Draw 3" is one card. Total of cards you played: 2. Total of cards you draw: 3. Net total cards gained: 1.
An HQ on its own is a 2 card gain, yes. But to combo it with a Keep Dupes is what I was referring to.
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 14, 2013, 09:12:04 AM
Quote from: ncannelora on February 13, 2013, 03:57:28 PM
"You play 2 cards. You draw 3."
this is the part I still don't see... I play ONE card, I draw 3... the advantage on an HQ is 2... right?
The card you play that allows you to keep dupes counts as 1 card. The "Draw 3" is one card. Total of cards you played: 2. Total of cards you draw: 3. Net total cards gained: 1.
An HQ on its own is a 2 card gain, yes. But to combo it with a Keep Dupes is what I was referring to.
Yeah, but that's an Event, which is has DTR anyway. So then it's "playing" 2 cards and getting 4.
Unless you're playing a Special like Cloning Process, but that's set up for a second battle, anyway, so the card advantage would be split between battles and, therefore, difficult to truly calculate.
Also, you said the back-of-napkin math equates to a 1:64 chance of getting dup's, but that's only for getting dup's of a
particular pair. Most decks are built (i'd guess) with anything from 8 to 15 such "pairs" which dramatically increases the odds of getting duplicates. If the odds were really, and practically, that low, I don't think the HQ would have that restriction in the first place.
Quote from: ncannelora on February 14, 2013, 09:45:37 AM
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 14, 2013, 09:12:04 AM
Quote from: ncannelora on February 13, 2013, 03:57:28 PM
"You play 2 cards. You draw 3."
this is the part I still don't see... I play ONE card, I draw 3... the advantage on an HQ is 2... right?
The card you play that allows you to keep dupes counts as 1 card. The "Draw 3" is one card. Total of cards you played: 2. Total of cards you draw: 3. Net total cards gained: 1.
An HQ on its own is a 2 card gain, yes. But to combo it with a Keep Dupes is what I was referring to.
Quote from: ncannelora on February 14, 2013, 09:45:37 AM
Yeah, but that's an Event, which is has DTR anyway. So then it's "playing" 2 cards and getting 4.
Yeah, that's true for an event. Drawback is you can't control when you play the event. You might not have the HQ. Where a Cloning Processing you can place and wait. Still not a huge advantage, if you factor in the randomness.
Quote from: ncannelora on February 14, 2013, 09:45:37 AM
Unless you're playing a Special like Cloning Process, but that's set up for a second battle, anyway, so the card advantage would be split between battles and, therefore, difficult to truly calculate.
The advantage is still the same, even spread out over 2 hands. The card advantage per hand would change, but not the overall advantage.
Quote from: ncannelora on February 14, 2013, 09:45:37 AM
Also, you said the back-of-napkin math equates to a 1:64 chance of getting dup's, but that's only for getting dup's of a particular pair. Most decks are built (i'd guess) with anything from 8 to 15 such "pairs" which dramatically increases the odds of getting duplicates. If the odds were really, and practically, that low, I don't think the HQ would have that restriction in the first place.
Interesting note: the restriction printed on the HQ should really just be italicized reminder text. The rules (and meta rules) state that every draw is "discard duplicates", unless it says otherwise. So an HQ wouldn't override the ability granted by the Event in any case. The HQ is obeying the rules, and the Event overrides the rules (as cards are oft to do).
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 15, 2013, 01:42:52 PMInteresting note: the restriction printed on the HQ should really just be italicized reminder text. The rules (and meta rules) state that every draw is "discard duplicates", unless it says otherwise. So an HQ wouldn't override the ability granted by the Event in any case. The HQ is obeying the rules, and the Event overrides the rules (as cards are oft to do).
so, are you saying you think that the duplicates should be kept?
This is also noteworthy, I think...
The argument about permission vs. restriction becomes pretty silly when you break down rules. The Event(s) says, "Do not discard any duplicates for this battle." - which is actually a restriction.
Let's say I'm using Robin and I have a level 1 Int Power card, his JA-Special, and his AT-Special, and this Event is in play. If I play the AT and I draw another level 1 Int Power card, I may keep it, per the AT text and the Event. However, from there, I can
not play the JA by discarding the level 1 Int Power card, because it's a duplicate! I would first have to play the other level 1 Int Power card in some other way, so that I have only 1 remaining, so it is no longer a duplicate...
This is when it gets a little silly trying to break down some of these card mechanics. The problem is that language is not the same as math or programming. This is why we still have judges to interpret law. :-\
Hmmm... interesting discussion. Getting pretty deep here! The event preventing discarding duplicates
probably is only referring to BEFORE you start slamming each other with attacks or playing HQ's. That's where the trouble is coming from in this whole situation. Which duplicates are we not discarding?
If the event simply read "Do not discard duplicates during the discard phase this battle," then all of these questions wouldn't really matter. But it doesn't say that... and that's ok. We can keep duplicates from an HQ, no problem.
Now, even though that's a tricky bit with Robin (the JA and all that), this
event as it currently reads under the "events takes precedence over specials" rule shouldn't break the
playability of ANY card. It's not changing activations on special cards or anything like that, it's simply not wanting you to discard duplicate cards. Discarding to
play a card is not even close to the same thing as discarding a card because you have multiples in your hand, which isn't allowed. The event isn't restricting playing any cards, so if during battle you find yourself wondering if you can play the JA, you should consider that the event isn't restricting discarding for playability. We could go round and round all day with technicalities and always come up with a new instance in which you could challenge a card/rule. For instance (and this is ridiculous ::), but I'm just trying to make a point), you have to discard almost EVERY card after it's played, so with this event
any duplicates drawn couldn't be played at all because in order for them to be used, they would have to be discarded when they resolve, and this event (using it
as if it prevents playing Surfing the Net because of the level 1 Intellect power card being considered a duplicate) would make your duplicates
unusable, and now they would have to be discarded. If you were to attack with a level one power card, it might be blocked, and would have to be discarded, but this event doesn't permit that, so what happens then? Or what if I had two AG specials in hand? They would be considered unusable. I couldn't use either one of them, because after avoiding an attack, they would be
discarded to the dead pile, and the event doesn't permit this. They would both be unusable, and would have to be discarded, but since we can't discard duplicates, even though they're unusable, we're sitting here stuck wondering what we should be doing instead of playing cards. If this is how the events takes precedence over specials rule would work, then it's not a good rule. We would all agree that discarding to the dead pile after being used is different than discarding as a duplicate, as well as is discarding to play the JA special, and this event isn't trying to go there with its text, so the JA shouldn't look to the event to see if its allowed to be played. The event restricts discarding duplicates this battle for the purpose of them being duplicates, and that's it. I don't think there's anything else to it.
This is where intuition comes in, and man, for the life of me, there aren't too many cards that a little intuitive interpretation shouldn't solve the problems for. The meta rules mess that up, though.
What I'm wondering is what do you fellas propose to SOLVE this particular problem, and where is the ref at with his call? Jack?
Quote from: breadmaster on February 13, 2013, 04:08:04 PM
i don't agree with restriction vs permission, but that doesn't really apply here anyways
-longshot says i can only defend with a 3
-event says i can defend anything with a 1
-they contradict, and the meta says the event overrules the special
to me, the issue is: where do inherents fit in. as i said before, it's my feeling that they are inbetween the 2. that is, events override inherents and specials, and inherents override specials. but since there is no ruling on this (to my knowledge) it's just my interpretation
Is this correct?
well first, the Events do affect the playability of cards indirectly. If the Event says "No Universe cards may be played this Battle" you cannot play Absorbing Man's KN-Special, even though he's "using" it more than "playing" the card.
Anyway, it seems you and I agree, so I'm not trying to be a pill. Reading too far into some of these rules is what really lead to the fall of Overpower in the first place, and none of us want that for our cherished second home ;)
- - - -
Back to the original card in question, I really feel like, the only card that should defend this CV, is a plain lv.3 Power card. The only exception to that should be an Event which bends/breaks rules (Lv.1 Int PCs to avoid #attacks; attacks made on FL can be shifted to Reserve; etc).
This is my opinion, who's with me?! ;D
Quote from: ncannelora on February 16, 2013, 01:46:40 PM
well first, the Events do affect the playability of cards indirectly. If the Event says "No Universe cards may be played this Battle" you cannot play Absorbing Man's KN-Special, even though he's "using" it more than "playing" the card.
I didn't know this. Wow. That's dumb. And I feel like I'm back in OP kindergarten again. Sometimes, I wonder I understand how to play power cards properly. :P
For sure the event exceptions... what about if the CV is +2? :o
Quote from: ncannelora on February 15, 2013, 03:40:37 PM
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 15, 2013, 01:42:52 PMInteresting note: the restriction printed on the HQ should really just be italicized reminder text. The rules (and meta rules) state that every draw is "discard duplicates", unless it says otherwise. So an HQ wouldn't override the ability granted by the Event in any case. The HQ is obeying the rules, and the Event overrides the rules (as cards are oft to do).
so, are you saying you think that the duplicates should be kept?
This is also noteworthy, I think...
Yes, unless the Event only counts to the pre-battle phase. I can't remember if that is true or not. If it wasn't for the Meta Rule that clarifies that all draws automatically contain "Discard duplicates", then I would think otherwise. "Discard duplicates" isn't a restriction, because if it wasn't printed, the card would behave exactly the same. "Discard duplicates" is just a re-iteration of the existing rules. Regardless of precedence of events, this isn't a permission vs. restriction situation.
Quote from: ncannelora on February 15, 2013, 03:40:37 PM
The argument about permission vs. restriction becomes pretty silly when you break down rules. The Event(s) says, "Do not discard any duplicates for this battle." - which is actually a restriction.
I would argue that, despite the negative sound of "Do not", this is actually a permission. It grants you an expanded capacity not otherwise allowed by the rules. A restriction would "You
may not keep duplicates". There are other Do Not that are actually permissions. Do Not add hits from current battle to permanent record.
Quote
Let's say I'm using Robin and I have a level 1 Int Power card, his JA-Special, and his AT-Special, and this Event is in play. If I play the AT and I draw another level 1 Int Power card, I may keep it, per the AT text and the Event. However, from there, I cannot play the JA by discarding the level 1 Int Power card, because it's a duplicate! I would first have to play the other level 1 Int Power card in some other way, so that I have only 1 remaining, so it is no longer a duplicate...
Ummm... huh? Why can't you play Robin's Draw 4 with a duplicate 1? It's an Intellect Power Card playable by Robin.
Quote from: ncannelora on February 15, 2013, 03:40:37 PM
This is when it gets a little silly trying to break down some of these card mechanics. The problem is that language is not the same as math or programming. This is why we still have judges to interpret law. :-\
Yup, that's why Jack was put on this Earth. =)
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 17, 2013, 12:21:16 PM
Quote from: ncannelora on February 15, 2013, 03:40:37 PM
The argument about permission vs. restriction becomes pretty silly when you break down rules. The Event(s) says, "Do not discard any duplicates for this battle." - which is actually a restriction.
I would argue that, despite the negative sound of "Do not", this is actually a permission. It grants you an expanded capacity not otherwise allowed by the rules. A restriction would "You may not keep duplicates". There are other Do Not that are actually permissions. Do Not add hits from current battle to permanent record.
I hear what you're saying, and I actually agree with it in the "spirit of the law" sense, but that's not the "letter of the law" based on some of the other Events and how they restrict things. e.g.:
Quote* MUTANT REBELS HELD CAPTIVE! <MC> {R} Jean Grey & Dark Beast
No Strength Power cards may be played this battle. Affected Power
cards are not discarded.
When this is in play, if I draw a few Strength Power cards, I cannot choose to go ahead and discard them, and then play Longshot's Purity of Thought to draw to replace them. The Event isn't "allowing" me to
not discard them (for bluffing, or some other reason), it's "restricting" me from discarding them.
(again, I'd like to point out that I do not like this interpretation and in our circle, we actually still discard the unusable cards that we don't place, usually out of sheer frustration >:()
Quote from: thetrooper27 on February 16, 2013, 05:09:05 PM
For sure the event exceptions... what about if the CV is +2? :o
I would say that makes it nigh-unblockable. ;D
(for the record, this doesn't bother me like DoW. the OIAM is still blockable if you already had a bonus of your in effect. Also, it's not automatically unblockable, like DoW ;))
Quote from: ncannelora on February 18, 2013, 10:35:50 AM
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 17, 2013, 12:21:16 PM7
I hear what you're saying, and I actually agree with it in the "spirit of the law" sense, but that's not the "letter of the law" based on some of the other Events and how they restrict things. e.g.:
Quote* MUTANT REBELS HELD CAPTIVE! <MC> {R} Jean Grey & Dark Beast
No Strength Power cards may be played this battle. Affected Power
cards are not discarded.
When this is in play, if I draw a few Strength Power cards, I cannot choose to go ahead and discard them, and then play Longshot's Purity of Thought to draw to replace them. The Event isn't "allowing" me to not discard them (for bluffing, or some other reason), it's "restricting" me from discarding them.
The second sentence is not a restriction. It is overriding the rules and setting a new set of rules. Normally, unusable cards are discarded. This allows you to keep them. Just because that messes up your Longshot strategy doesn't make it a restriction.
The first sentence is a restriction: it limits the scope of what can be played under the normal ruleset. Of all the cards to be played and actions to be taken in the entire game, there is less than you can normally do. You can't play Strength PC
The second sentence is a permission: it expands the scope of what can be played under the normal ruleset. Of all the cards to be played and actions to be taken in the entire game, there is more than you can normally do. You can keep unusable Strength Power Cards.
Quote
(again, I'd like to point out that I do not like this interpretation and in our circle, we actually still discard the unusable cards that we don't place, usually out of sheer frustration >:()
Kinda pick-and-choose there. =) If it were a tournament, I'd say "Thanks for showing me those cards. Put them back in your hand". What if I was going second, and my event was Phoenix Risen from the Ashes? I don't want those PC recycled. What if, as you pointed out, were playing Longshot and had Purity of Thought. I don't want to give you extra discards. Etc.
Quote
Quote from: thetrooper27 on February 16, 2013, 05:09:05 PM
For sure the event exceptions... what about if the CV is +2? :o
I would say that makes it nigh-unblockable. ;D
(for the record, this doesn't bother me like DoW. the OIAM is still blockable if you already had a bonus of your in effect. Also, it's not automatically unblockable, like DoW ;))
Yup, nigh unblockable. You better hope that you already have a +2 to defense in play for the character being attacked. =)
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 18, 2013, 01:40:36 PM
The second sentence is not a restriction. It is overriding the rules and setting a new set of rules. Normally, unusable cards are discarded. This allows you to keep them. Just because that messes up your Longshot strategy doesn't make it a restriction.
The first sentence is a restriction: it limits the scope of what can be played under the normal ruleset. Of all the cards to be played and actions to be taken in the entire game, there is less than you can normally do. You can't play Strength PC
The second sentence is a permission: it expands the scope of what can be played under the normal ruleset. Of all the cards to be played and actions to be taken in the entire game, there is more than you can normally do. You can keep unusable Strength Power Cards.
...
Kinda pick-and-choose there. =) If it were a tournament, I'd say "Thanks for showing me those cards. Put them back in your hand". What if I was going second, and my event was Phoenix Risen from the Ashes? I don't want those PC recycled. What if, as you pointed out, were playing Longshot and had Purity of Thought. I don't want to give you extra discards. Etc.
If I am not allowed to discard my Strength Power cards, under the normal discard rules (as unusable), then that is decidedly
not permission, it is restriction. This is how any person would define that scenario, who is not familiar with the game and rules of Overpower.
If you are reluctant to use the term "restriction" then perhaps "commission" is the most accurate word for this. Granting "permission" is not requiring anything. It is permitting something. It leaves it up to the person who has received permission. Giving a commission is not permitting, but rather committing a person to do something, which is, by definitition, also restricting them from doing other, contradicting or opposing, actions.
Back to the point of the JA-scenario I established, the Event commits the players to
not discard duplicates, and it is very specific about when that is enforced, as "this battle." So, if you are holding duplicate level 1 Int Power cards, you cannot discard one of them to play the JA-Special with this Event in effect - not until you first get rid of one of the duplicates.
As for the other scenarios
thetrooper27 mentioned, where playing a card creates a discard - there's a crucial element overlooked: cards in-play are not considered duplicate. Duplicates only exist in your hand or placed. Duplicates that are already "in play" are not considered duplicates at all. If you play one of the EB-Specials from The Marvels (like Captain Britain's), and the next hand you draw another, it's not a duplicate to the one that's remaining in play. So, if you have duplicates in your hand, as soon as you play one, the one you played is no longer a duplicate and it can be discarded as normal.
Quote from: ncannelora on February 19, 2013, 02:41:56 PM
Back to the point of the JA-scenario I established, the Event commits the players to not discard duplicates, and it is very specific about when that is enforced, as "this battle." So, if you are holding duplicate level 1 Int Power cards, you cannot discard one of them to play the JA-Special with this Event in effect - not until you first get rid of one of the duplicates.
That's-- bonkers. The card doesn't say "You may not discard Strength power cards". Where does it say that? It doesn't. It's saying effected power cards are not discarded. Meaning that if those power cards are effected by "cannot play", then they are not discarded when that effect would matter-- which is when the Unusuable check monster comes around to eat your unusables.
Those PC can still be discarded to any other discard mechanism. I Power Leech you, they get discarded. You play a JA, you can discard one. Colossus comes around to stomp on your hand for 3 cards, those Strength cards can be discarded.
Quote
As for the other scenarios thetrooper27 mentioned, where playing a card creates a discard - there's a crucial element overlooked: cards in-play are not considered duplicate. Duplicates only exist in your hand or placed. Duplicates that are already "in play" are not considered duplicates at all. If you play one of the EB-Specials from The Marvels (like Captain Britain's), and the next hand you draw another, it's not a duplicate to the one that's remaining in play. So, if you have duplicates in your hand, as soon as you play one, the one you played is no longer a duplicate and it can be discarded as normal.
What? I cannot parse that. "So, if you have duplicates in your hand, as soon as you play one, the one you played is no longer a duplicate and it can be discarded as normal."
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 21, 2013, 04:10:29 PM...
That's-- bonkers. The card doesn't say "You may not discard Strength power cards". Where does it say that? It doesn't. It's saying effected power cards are not discarded. Meaning that if those power cards are effected by "cannot play", then they are not discarded when that effect would matter-- which is when the Unusuable check monster comes around to eat your unusables.
Those PC can still be discarded to any other discard mechanism. I Power Leech you, they get discarded. You play a JA, you can discard one. Colossus comes around to stomp on your hand for 3 cards, those Strength cards can be discarded.
...
What? I cannot parse that. "So, if you have duplicates in your hand, as soon as you play one, the one you played is no longer a duplicate and it can be discarded as normal."
First, I agree that it's bonkers, but that's the ruling. This was discussed at great length somewhere in here before this (specifically the "cannot play X-type Power cards" and whether or not they could still be discarded). I don't remember where, but I think it was relative to either Danger Room or Longshot's HM, or maybe both... But like I said, in our circle, we absolutely still chuck those cards. Also, we play the other Event as thought it reads, "May keep duplicates for remainder of Battle." and we let it override HQ Specials and other Specials... I'm just asserting what the rules are and how they have been given to me from other more tenured players, specifically on this forum as well.
As for the second part, did you read thetrooper27's post earlier? He was saying you can't even play a duplicate, then, because you'd have to discard it, which you couldn't do... that's what I was clarifying. When a card is "in play" it is not considered a duplicate, so it could still be discarded. Read his question/concern and maybe my comment will make more sense to you. I hope it made sense to him, at least, but he hasn't replied...
Quote from: ncannelora on February 21, 2013, 06:11:20 PM
First, I agree that it's bonkers, but that's the ruling. This was discussed at great length somewhere in here before this (specifically the "cannot play X-type Power cards" and whether or not they could still be discarded). I don't remember where, but I think it was relative to either Danger Room or Longshot's HM, or maybe both... But like I said, in our circle, we absolutely still chuck those cards. Also, we play the other Event as thought it reads, "May keep duplicates for remainder of Battle." and we let it override HQ Specials and other Specials... I'm just asserting what the rules are and how they have been given to me from other more tenured players, specifically on this forum as well.
I'll read that thread if you can find it.
Quote
As for the second part, did you read thetrooper27's post earlier? He was saying you can't even play a duplicate, then, because you'd have to discard it, which you couldn't do... that's what I was clarifying. When a card is "in play" it is not considered a duplicate, so it could still be discarded. Read his question/concern and maybe my comment will make more sense to you. I hope it made sense to him, at least, but he hasn't replied...
Nope, still not clear. Can you give a gameplay example? I don't get what cards being in play have to do with the "Cannot play X. Effected cards are not discarded" event.
In any case, the point stands that the event doesn't read "You may not discard effected cards at any point in the battle". It means "Cards that are effected by this unplayable ongoing effect ignore the Unusable check, and are not discarded when the Unusable Monster comes around."
I think the point I was wanting to make was that discarding with a special card as a cost to generate its effect is different than any other discard, such as duplicate or unusable. The JA, or the Absorbing Man special card ncann mentioned shouldn't really read "discard". They should more be worded to the effect of "play with an intellect power card" or something like that (I think Ghost Rider and Omega Red have specials that play in this manner). Discarding to play the JA isn't discarding, it's using the card, so however the event ruling works out, if I'm holding two intellect duplicates that can't be discarded, I should be able to play the JA. The intuitive (my favorite word of all time) way to read the event might suggest that you keep duplicates from an HQ, but in no case at all is it suggesting you shouldn't be able to play the JA. The meta rules (our worst enemy) are the cause of confusion here, I believe.
The Power Leech example is a good one... if the event is played, and I'm holding 3 Tunnel Worms in hand, and you play Power Leech targeting Maggot calling Energy, I wouldn't have to discard them even if they are the only Energy cards I'm holding because they can't be discarded ... all based on the specifications mentioned above. In the name of all fairness, I would have an issue with that, even though it's in my favor. The events takes precedence over specials might not be good for this reason.
What I'm wondering is how do we reconcile these kinds of situations? These are the bugs the killed this game in the first place, I believe. And since the game is dead, I think its great to bring these kinds of situations to light, but in doing so, I would like to see the community come up with its own meta rules, or just simple errata's that prevent such roadblocks. Without this community, most of these issues wouldn't come up, and if they did, we would make a house ruling and move on. Do you guys think we should invoke particular rulings for inconsistencies in the established mechanics of OP? :-\
@halcyon1234 - I can't effectively search from my iPhone, and I'm out of town, but aren't you friends with BBH? like, IRL friends? if so, please ask him about this issue of the "cannot play X power cards... not discard..." because I'm like, 90% sure he was in on that conversation arguing, or "teaching" me about it ;) (love ya, BBH!)
@theyrooper27 -
I agree that the JA should be playable under BOTH Event types, but the JA clearly says you're "discarding," which is important, because of cards like Longshot's HM, where there's a purpose behind classifying "discards" as opposed to other forms of just "playing" cards.
- - -
I feel like I said this... I think these Events SHOULD be read as "may keep duplicates" or "discarding affected cards is not required"
Quote from: ncannelora on February 24, 2013, 10:09:38 PM
@halcyon1234 - I can't effectively search from my iPhone, and I'm out of town, but aren't you friends with BBH? like, IRL friends? if so, please ask him about this issue of the "cannot play X power cards... not discard..." because I'm like, 90% sure he was in on that conversation arguing, or "teaching" me about it ;) (love ya, BBH!)
I'll ask him next time I see him.
Quote
@theyrooper27 -
I agree that the JA should be playable under BOTH Event types, but the JA clearly says you're "discarding," which is important, because of cards like Longshot's HM, where there's a purpose behind classifying "discards" as opposed to other forms of just "playing" cards.
Agreed, too. If it wasn't that some cards said "play with" other others "discard" it'd be different. But a discard is a discard, not a play.
Quote
I feel like I said this... I think these Events SHOULD be read as "may keep duplicates" or "discarding affected cards is not required"
Or "Effected cards are not discarded as unusable".
Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 25, 2013, 09:36:52 AM
Quote from: ncannelora on February 24, 2013, 10:09:38 PM
I feel like I said this... I think these Events SHOULD be read as "may keep duplicates" or "discarding affected cards is not required"
Or "Effected cards are not discarded as unusable".
I feel like that part was maybe addressed with BBH... I think he was telling me that if I had a duplicate that was NOT affected by the "can't play type-X" that I still had to discard that duplicate.
like I've said elsewhere, lots of these scenarios had no "official ruling" - or at least not a well documented one - so it really comes down to people being a good sport in 1v1 games, or electing an impartial judged (or panel) for tournaments.
I'm convinced that a situation will come up in Buffalo, and I'll just have to wear one to the house.
I started a thread a while back about re-writing the meta rules, but that got misconstrued as a "let create a new rule set for the game" instead of a "let's clean up some of the confusions" and I'm pretty sure it's a dead thread now.
I think THAT is what is truly what caused this game to die. If players played by their own interpritation of the rules then went to sanctioned tournaments and found out the hard way that they were playing the game incorrectly, these newly schooled players would either
1.) Learn from the experience and try again with the real rules. or
2.) Stop playing a game that doesn't make any sense.
I for one, am of the mind that OIAM can only be blocked by a level 3 power card, regardless of other effects on the field or in play. I am also of the mind that the "No Discarding Dupes" event doesn't nessassarily only check for dupes at the discard phase, but any card draw throughout the battle, but I would still think that a JA special could be played, even if the power card "discarded" to play the JA was a dupe, should be considered a legal play.
A LOT of these issues could be cleared up by simply changing all specials which state "Discard x. This card does something..." to "Play this card with X. Now this effect happens."
As for meta 134: If one Special sets up a condition and then a second Special comes along with text that directly contradicts the first Special, then the Special played later takes precedence.
This rule should be worded similar to the VS system rule, that "If a card or effect allows something to happen, but another card or effect does NOT allow something to happen, the can't always beats the can." As this is currently written, if I play a "Target character cannot attack for remainder of battle" special, and it hits, my opponent could technically, under rule 134, still attack or play special cards with that character, as those special cards would contradict the one I played, and would be played "later" or after, there by undoing my special without the need of an avoid or negate.
Common sense tells us that this, clearly is not the case. The problem with common sense is that what makes sense isn't common to everyone.
Dem-
I agree about the game's demise. I also agree about re-writing the meta-rules. seems like we could do well simply going rule by rule and checking for issues. Rule#1 seems ok, right? then move to rule#2, etc.
I feel pretty strongly that Events should supersede Specials, but I suppose I could concede that point if enough people felt that way.
as for the "discard" vs "play with" I still feel like there should be a distinction for the sake of outer cards/mechanics (notably, if a JA is negated, you don't lose the Power Card. if you negate a BS from Multiple Man, he loses his Special and that first Power Card).
I also a free about the can vs can't argument, provided the cards are an equal tier (comparing 2 Events, or 2 I.A.s, or 2 Specials, etc).
I can understand the argument about what takes precidence over what, but again, if the cards were written the right way, there wouldn't be a question of precidence. Just play the cards as written. I think a lot of the issue with how people play now is that there is speculation as to what a card might mean. Do you play a card "as written" or by "the letter of the card" or do you play it by "the spirit of the card?" The next question then would be, who's the authority to decide what the "spirit" of a card is?
As Jack pointed out, the only time the game rules check your hand for duplicates is in the discard phase of each hand, which happens before placeing and venturing. Cards like the AT, which read "Draw 1 card. Do not discard if duplicate" are technically redundant, as you only check for duplicates before that card would have a chance to be played. The HQ cards would still HAVE to state that duplicates are discarded because at the time the HQ is played, it would be after the Dupe check had passed for that hand, and you wouldn't check for duplicates by the basic rules at a card draw that came after the discard phase, unless the card which allowed the draw TOLD you to check for dupes.
That is just ONE interpretation of how the game should be played. I'm not saying it's a misinterpretation, but do we KNOW for a fact that this is what the creators intended? If they only intended dupes to be checked during the discard phase, then why would the write "Do not discard duplicates" on the AT specials which were released in the original set? There are points and counter-points and contradictions all over the place, either due to the creators being unclear on the rules themselves, or just trying to be overly careful with the wording that it came back to bite the game in the ass in later sets, or just plain carelessness or inability to see how the wording might be a problem depending on the player.
In most cases, all this game needs is a "Keyword Golassary" to help define what each of the words mean as far as the game is concerned. A great example from a thread I was catching up on yesterday. I forget who it was, but there was a very upset post about the use of Professor X's Phsychic Shield, and how the word "against" is defined. If the card were written with a keyword system, it might have been written as "Professor X cannot be attacked by Special cards for remainder of battle." Instead we have "No Special cards may be played against Professor X for remainder of battle." One could feasably argue that if Professor X were to attack a character, that a Special defense would be a Special card "against" Professor X. Most of us have never looked at the card that way, but it COULD, reasonably be interpretted that way as a correct play. Ultimately, though, the actual use of the card would have to come from the people who discussed and decided how to use it, but if the game was actually done correctly, everyone who reads the card should be able to see exactly how to use it. You shouldn't need a guide on how to play your cards. All the information on how to play a card SHOULD be available ON the card itself, if not covered in the basic rules of the game. I may have gotten a bit off-topic with this rant, and I apologize, but THIS is where people need to get together and really try to figure out the simplest way to play a card, and not how the cards COULD be used, based on the wording. Stop looking for loopholes, and just play the card as would make sense within the confines of the game.
One in a Million states that it can only be blocked by a level 3 power card. Done. No other factors should even be brought into the equation. An event that states "X CAN happen" vs ANY other card that states "X cannot happen, IN THIS INSTANCE or otherwise" the "cannot" should always override the "can." Keeps things easy and the game can continue without major debate.
One more quick note about One in a Million and Into the Depths. Since OIAM can't be negated defensively and you can't play an AG or AD to avoid it, how does re-writing level 1 power cards to act as an AD special work, when an AD special iteself does not?
Demacus, let me preface by saying, I really do agree with you in the larger point if "spirit" vs "letter" and I think one of the bigger problems with a lot of these scenarios is, as you said, people trying to find loopholes. unfortunately, it's human nature to rebel and, certainly in the US, it's in our culture to question and fight against most authority placed over us :-\
having said all that, these are the reasons I said that when you're playing 1v1, just don't be a jerk with your opponent. if the stakes are higher and the venue larger, establish a trustworthy judge(s) and have everyone agree on their rulings AT THAT TIME, and don't try to re-use those rulings later because they would be subject to subsequent reinterpretations - this is like real law is handled... anyway, that seems like a good idea to me...
as for the Events, I think they should override regular rules. I think that's what they're meant to due (per their description in the Rule Book). really, that's why I think the Events allow the OIAM to be blocked with a lv.1 intellect, or shifted to Reserve, etc.
Quote from: BigBadHarve on December 27, 2012, 11:24:15 PM
Meta #44: When a card specifies what cards may (or may not) be used to defend it, this includes ALL cards used in the defense.
So yes, you cannot play any card in defense that is not specified by the special - in the Longshot scenario, anything that is not a level 3 power card.
That also means, for example, that you can't use a battlesite to defend Captain America's BA (Super Soldier - may only be defended with a special) because in order to grab the special from the site you must play an activator, which itself is not a special)
As for cards already in play - that's different. Either of these COULD be stopped with an EB already in play, unless something prevented the shift to the special that will be absorbing it.
-BBH
I would still think this applies, even in the instance of the Event card. The Event card states that "Level 1 Intellect Power cards may be used to avoid any numerical attack this battle." What this means is that the Level 1 Intellect Power cards now also have the property "Avoid 1 numerical attack" added to their potential effects for the battle in which this event is in effect. The OIAM is played. OIAM states that it "can only be defended by a level 3 Power card." Nothing about the wording of Into the Depths would make the Level 1 Intellect Power card act as a level 3 Power card, therefore the Level 1 Intellect Power card can not be used to defend the OIAM. Taskmaster's I.A. states that he "May use Intellect Power cards to avoid any Fighting attack" Again, if Taskmaster were to use any Intellect Power card that is not a level 3 Power card, then OIAM cannot be defended, as per the statement of restricted defense on OIAM. Could Taskmaster use a level 3 Intellect Power card to defend the OIAM? Sure, he could also use a level 3 Fighting or even a level 3 Multi-power. The Event and I.A. specifically in question do not affect the wording on the special being played, and would not allow for a non-level 3 power card to be used for defense. Just as Black Cat's Kiss of Death cannot be defended by a Male character, the level 1 Intellect power card cannot be used to defend Kiss of Death if the Level 1 Intellect power card is played by a male.
But I agree with everything else you wrote Ncann.
if you agree there's a contradiction, then you have to defer to the meta rule
so either you don't agree there's a contradiction, or you don't want to follow the meta. either is fine
What I ment by I agree with everything else Ncann wrote I was referring to
Quote from: ncannelora on March 03, 2013, 03:40:25 PM
having said all that, these are the reasons I said that when you're playing 1v1, just don't be a jerk with your opponent. if the stakes are higher and the venue larger, establish a trustworthy judge(s) and have everyone agree on their rulings AT THAT TIME, and don't try to re-use those rulings later because they would be subject to subsequent reinterpretations - this is like real law is handled... anyway, that seems like a good idea to me...
contradiction->meta 134
do you not agree there's a contradiction?
I'm not sure about the meta rule, but I've been thinking and thinking about this thread, and the more I look at this conversation, I'm starting to believe that this is what they intended with OIAM:
Since it's a level 3 attack, they probably wanted you to defend the attack with a level 3 power card, not avoid the attack.
A power card defense compares the numerical value of the power card for the block. OIAM doesn't enable, or otherwise grant permission to, a level 3 power card to do anything more than what it already is specifically designed to do defensively... which is numerically block the attack. Based on this logic, if you buff the OIAM with a numerical bonus (say +1), you probably would have to also have a bonus for the power card that you're using to block. And since you can only defend OIAM with a level 3 power card (that part I think is clear), you would have to have played the bonus for your defense prior to the attack, or get the bonus from an inherent ability on the defending character.
Taskmaster's ability, or Crux, or the Event would grant permission other than the specific use of the power card for defending. I believe in all of these examples, you're granted the ability to avoid one attack with the specified power card . Avoiding is a defensive action, but I would say there is probably a difference in altogether avoiding an attack and defending with a numerical valued defense.
I'm not 100% sure what you are getting at Bread.
I think you get it troop, but I did quote BBH from another thread that was pretty much asking the same question. Since BBH and Jack seem to be the best authorities on how the game is actually played, rules speculation aside, I figured that BBH's explanation from the other post about OIAM would still apply here, since it's basically the same question.
what i'm getting at, is that you can write out lots of long reasons why OIAM can't be defended by the 1i, but it comes back to meta 134
-special says i can only defend with a 3
-event says i can defend any attack with a 1i
-these 2 statements contradict
-134 says event takes precedence
if you lock down a character with an AV, i can't just play a special, and say that it takes precedence since it's played later. the character isn't allowed to play the special in the first place to activate meta 134.
you could get around this with a card like invisible woman's team coordination, which allows each tm to make 1 additional attack
According to the overpower.ca, meta rule 134 falls under the category of cards that are "in play," as in, on the table, creating contradictory effects. OIAM is not a card that is sitting "in play" it's an attack that's being played, that has very restrictive defense requirements. The "In Play" meta rules are in reference to cards that are played and stay on the table, like the EBs, DoW, Vertigo, ect, ect. OIAM does not generate an "in play" effect. I'm not 100% certain meta 134 would apply in this case. Of course, I could just be reading into Jack's organizational system improperly...
That being said, your example of the AV lockdown, with the FE follow-up SHOULD actually allow the locked character to still make a follow-up attack, provided that the character locked with the AV is not the one who would play the FE, as the FE would be contradictory to the AV, and the FE, being played later, should take precedence... according to meta 134.
agreed, the FE should override the AV, according to the meta
meta 134: If one Special sets up a condition and then a second Special comes along with text that directly contradicts the first Special, then the Special played later takes precedence. On the other hand, Events always override the text of Specials.
events always override the text of specials
With FE, I understand what you guys are sayign about it overriding the AV, but when the special says "each teammate may make one additional attack", this is another of those instances where the card isn't clear on why you're being allowed the additional attack (kinda like when you draw cards, someone said you should always discard duplicates and unusables unless the card specifically allows you to... I agree, and that should be in the basic rules). The lockdown card prevents attacking. The FE wants you to make attacks out of turn, rather than give you the ability to attack after it's been taken away. Cards don't really grant you the ability to attack... you're allowed to attack as a general rule, so when making additional attacks, its under the presumption that the conditions are proper and no restrictions are in place.
Sure, it's probably legal to play this way, which is perfectly fine and I'm not debating against it, but I don't think that's what they intended to happen when an FE is played after an AV. If the Blob is sitting on top of me, and Susan Richards calls for a team coordinated effort, I'm probably not gonna come thru for my team. ;D ;D ;D *cough* In my opinion (which is hardly relevant) unless it's avoided or negated, you shouldn't be able to attack at all with a character who's been AV'd.
I just had a thought though... if someone plays Iron Curtain on Dr. Doom, would Doombots allow him to make 4 attacks?? Shrapnel Bomb and other cards like this would do the same thing, right?
Quote from: thetrooper27 on March 08, 2013, 01:10:31 PM
With FE, I understand what you guys are sayign about it overriding the AV, but when the special says "each teammate may make one additional attack", this is another of those instances where the card isn't clear on why you're being allowed the additional attack (kinda like when you draw cards, someone said you should always discard duplicates and unusables unless the card specifically allows you to... I agree, and that should be in the basic rules). The lockdown card prevents attacking. The FE wants you to make attacks out of turn, rather than give you the ability to attack after it's been taken away. Cards don't really grant you the ability to attack... you're allowed to attack as a general rule, so when making additional attacks, its under the presumption that the conditions are proper and no restrictions are in place.
Sure, it's probably legal to play this way, which is perfectly fine and I'm not debating against it, but I don't think that's what they intended to happen when an FE is played after an AV. If the Blob is sitting on top of me, and Susan Richards calls for a team coordinated effort, I'm probably not gonna come thru for my team. ;D ;D ;D *cough* In my opinion (which is hardly relevant) unless it's avoided or negated, you shouldn't be able to attack at all with a character who's been AV'd.
I just had a thought though... if someone plays Iron Curtain on Dr. Doom, would Doombots allow him to make 4 attacks?? Shrapnel Bomb and other cards like this would do the same thing, right?
I agree. If you read the 3rd Meta Rule regarding X-World, it makes it pretty clear.
I.A.: "X-World's Power card attacks are not affected by Special cards already in play"
Rules:
•Any attack made of the specified type cannot be affected by cards of the specified type which were already in play prior to the attack.
•Any cards, even ones of the specified type, may be played in reaction to the attack (provided it is legal to play it from all other circumstances)
•If a card of the specified type prevents the character with this Inherent to make an attack in the first place, then this Inherent would not come into effect - first the attack must be makeable. Once makeable, then it will not be affected by cards in play.
•A Power Card attack is an attack made with a power card only. It is not any attack made with a Power Card (such as a teamwork follow up).
So, even though the AV is already "in play" and it is a Special, the I.A. from X-World is ineffective.
If we look at the NJ-Special, though, there's no indication of this same restriction...
So, if an AV is played on Dazzler, should she be able to play her NJ, or not? I say not, because the way this game is supposed to be played, seems pretty clear from the third rule of X-World... but it's also not mentioned for NJ-Specials (or for the A3-Aspect)...
It seems to me that either the FE does NOT override an AV,
or
the NJ, and A3 cards are a lot better.
I really think this AV v FE is really a restriction v permission argument. AV wins, IMO 8)
i would say yes, doombots would slice right through an AV, since doombots itself is not an attack.
stonewall is interesting. you'd have to discard 2 to play doombots, but then i would think you'd have to still discard 2/attack, as doombots and stonewall don't directly contradict
Doctor Doom may make 4 attacks, 3 attacks at +1 each, 2 attacks at +2 each, or 1 attack at +3. Bonus not applied to damage, or Venture total. (DU)
Play on target Character as an attack. For remainder of battle, Target Character may not attack or use Special cards unless Opponent also discards 2 cards per attack. Cards may be Placed or in Hand. (OD)
it seems to get more complicated with torch's marvels: Target Character may not attack or play Special cards for remainder of Battle. (FN)
seems if strategic burn is played against me, and then i initiate an FE, the character 'burned' could still attack, since the FE overrides the no attack portion, but not attack with a special
also, as i said before, i don't agree with the restriction vs permission at all, and the rule seems to support it. restriction or permission is only determined by which of the cards is played latest. that also seems to support my old argument about 'down but not out' vs 'fighting spirit lives', but that's just speculation, since the meta only mentions specials vs specials, and specials vs events.
I can't wait to have a verbal discussion in Buffalo. Much excitement. Ncannelora, I wish you could be there.:(
So what about the 3rd meta rule for Xworld? How does that work with the AV/FE play?
Quote from: thetrooper27 on March 10, 2013, 12:23:17 AM
I can't wait to have a verbal discussion in Buffalo. Much excitement. Ncannelora, I wish you could be there.:(
So what about the 3rd meta rule for Xworld? How does that work with the AV/FE play?
I wish I could go, too!
Breadmaster, what
about X-World's rules? is it possible that it was given this ruling as a Homebase-specific restriction? like an errata? I mean, is the I.A. really that good?
seems to me that it shows the spirit of permission vs restriction...
Not to get the argument going again but...
if Meta 134 states "If one Special sets up a condition and then a second Special comes along with text that directly contradicts the first Special, then the Special played later takes precedence. On the other hand, Events always override the text of specials."
and Meta #58: "Negates are considered a card being played defensively. If a Special indicates that it cannot be defended by a Special card, then a Negate cannot be used to defend the attack (although it may be used afterwards offensively to negate the effect). If a Special card indicates that it can only be defended by a specific type of card, then this excludes all other cards (including negates)."
Which Meta takes precedence?
In my opinion, by looking at the wording, meta 134 does not apply to OIAM, as OIAM is not setting up a condition that can be responded to by playing another Special, as it's "condition" only relates to how it can be defended. Much like the AV specials "condition" prevents a character from attacking, which prevents said character from playing a contradicting special which can then override the AV, the OIAM prevents defense that is not a level 3 Power card, and even in the case of the Event, a level 1 Intellect Power card is not a level 3 Power card. Meta 58 clearly states that this card cannot be defended by ANYTHING except what it says it CAN be defended by.
Meta 134 seems to apply only to specials that change the state of the game over-all, such as Zealot's Kherubim, or Green Lantern's Let's Get Medieval! Both of these are special cards that change the state of the game and have effects that might already be in play when a contradicting Event might be played, which would then override the special.
Just another fine example of how the powers that be tended to confuse the issues by creating newer and newer meta rules instead of re-evaluating the existing ones. These 2 rules SEEM to be in direct contradicton, especially due to the presented hypothetical situation.
Ultimately, it's up to whomever has the honor of making decisions at the tournaments, but I still lean towards the argument I had been making all along.
i think x-world sets a good precedence. the cards may contradict, but i can't just play ANYTHING, igonoring what's been set up.
that ties into the negate point too. i can't just defend with the negate, ignoring any text on the attacking special.
nic, you don't think a character who is locked down should be able to attack if a teammate initiates an FE?
Quote from: breadmaster on March 10, 2013, 05:22:51 PM
i think x-world sets a good precedence. the cards may contradict, but i can't just play ANYTHING, igonoring what's been set up.
that ties into the negate point too. i can't just defend with the negate, ignoring any text on the attacking special.
nic, you don't think a character who is locked down should be able to attack if a teammate initiates an FE?
I just want to add that all of these cards, the FE, Doombots, Fastball Special, Shrapnel Bomb, etc. grant either numerical bonus effects or chain attacks, both of which can only be applied to the standard ability to attack. Though there isn't likely a rule to clarify, I think any card that says "make an attack" should generally mean as long as there aren't conditions preventing them from attacking. Granting permission to attack with these cards seems to me a by product of the wording on a card, not the intention of the designer (and that's where intuition comes into play... playing a card around the most logical intent of the designer). When they designed this game, I don't think they really ever thought it would go to tournament formats, so they just threw words on the cards to tell you how to play them.
To comment on intent (and we went over this in another thread), a special that
acts as a level 4 Fighting Power card attack ISN'T a level 4 Fighting Power card. It can't be combined with Universe cards as a power card can, it can't be removed or avoided with XMan's EE, and it isn't discarded to the power pack to be reused when you reshuffle. It's just wording on the card to describe what to view the card as. It really could've just been blank. The Fighting icon with a 4 on it, custom made for a specific character who's name was printed on the card, would communicate clearly that it's a special card, not a power card.
All this to say, if the meta rules somehow state that you can follow up an FE if you've been thrown in the Fire Cage, the Iron Curtain, or whatever, then that's the way we will play. But I really hope that just one person will chime in about the intent of the AV card, and the intent of all other cards that say "make an attack." I can't be the only person in the OP world that thinks this. :o
What I'm thinking is that the meta rule SHOULD read backwards...
The card played FIRST in the turn takes precedence over the later cards. First come, first served. This would not only clear up confusion, it would give events their rightful place setting the priority conditions of each turn.
Quote from: breadmaster on March 10, 2013, 05:22:51 PM
i think x-world sets a good precedence. the cards may contradict, but i can't just play ANYTHING, igonoring what's been set up.
that ties into the negate point too. i can't just defend with the negate, ignoring any text on the attacking special.
nic, you don't think a character who is locked down should be able to attack if a teammate initiates an FE?
I think that if an AV-type of "hold" is in play, then no, you shouldn't be able to make any attacks whatsoever. IMO, that hold is preventing all attacks by that character. think about this- if there are only 2 characters left, and both have an Univ:Ally placed, then an AV would be useless. characterA could play an Ally, which would REQUIRE that teammate to make another attack. for that matter, Teamwork cards would do the same thing, right?
I think that the a victim would have to deal with the AV Special itself, before making any attacks.
as for the FEs "allowing" a follow up, I think it's written that way because you aren't normally allowed to make follow up attacks, let alone follow-ups for teammates. I DO NOT think that an FE, or Ally, or A-Next, or anything else, should allow a held-character to make attacks with the hold still in place.
tws and allies wouldn't allow the attacks; i agree. in theory, they should, but i don't think there's anything to support transfering a meta rule to a universe from a special
anext might overrule it, not exactly sure. iirc, there are a few aspects that are indeed linked to meta rules. i'll have to check it out. then again, meta 134 specifically rules on contradictions between specials, and specials and events, so it may be pointless anyways
Quote from: breadmaster on March 11, 2013, 12:06:04 AM
tws and allies wouldn't allow the attacks; i agree. in theory, they should, but i don't think there's anything to support transfering a meta rule to a universe from a special
anext might overrule it, not exactly sure. iirc, there are a few aspects that are indeed linked to meta rules. i'll have to check it out. then again, meta 134 specifically rules on contradictions between specials, and specials and events, so it may be pointless anyways
Still, even considering ONLY Special cards, what about if a character had the Living Symbiote played on them? Would they be able to play Spawn's AR, even after being held by an AV?
I really don't think this is legit. You'll notice that Meta Rule 134 was never linked to the AV code... I really think this is because there is no direct way to play a contradictory Special to "May not attack for remainder of Battle." unless there was a card that said, "May attack for remainder of Battle." ... I just don't think I could ever see a circumstance where playing another card could side-step a hold (unless you're actually ridding the holding Special...)...
yeah, symbiote would let the locked character play any spawn attacks
as pointed out before, the GL isn't linked to meta 26, but i don't think anyone would argue that it shouldn't apply
and besides, it's not like i'm trying to shoehorn some irrelevant meta into the discussion. meta 134 specifically deals with situations where contradictions between 2 specials, and specials and events arise
do you not think that 'Each Front Line teammate may make 1 additional attack' and 'Target character may not attack for remainder of battle' contradict?
There's a contradiction in the words, but not in how the cards are played. Again, if you're locked down, and Cap yells "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE", there's nothing you can do until you aren't locked down anymore. It's an accident due to the words and meta rules, not the intent of the designers. Maybe they need a meta rule for AV's that specifies a character can't attack at all, unless the AV is removed from play.
Now if you took the "specials take precedence in the order they are played" approach, there wouldn't be room for confusion, rather it would alleviate confusion. I think this would be a great rule revision. Any thoughts?
I don't think there is an actual contradiction because the FE isn't changing the abilities of a teammate for the remainder of the battle (the way the AV is).
I could describe it like this:
The FE is changing when the teammate may attack, not changing that the teammate may attack.
Normally, TeammateB may make an attack.
Normally, when TeammateA makes an attack, TeammateB can do nothing.
These are two separate rules (at least to me). The FE changes the second rule to something more like this:
TeammateB is no longer restricted because of TeammateA's attack.
The FE allows for an attack out of sequence. However, if TeammateB is not able to attack in the first place, then the ability to attack out of sequence is irrelevant.
It's like multiplying by 0.
It's like, in an RPG, a character must first have the ability ATTACK, before the FE would add the special properties for HOW the character may attack (in this case, out of sequence).
Now, if a character was hit with this:
* OUTNUMBER (NH) <XM> {C}
Acts as a level 3 Fighting attack. If successful, Target Character may
not make any follow up attacks from Teamwork or Special cards for
remainder of battle.
And THEN the FE was played, I'd say the FE would override the NH.
i gotta go with the if you cant attack then you cant play cards like FE
it just sounds right
I need to ammend my last statement.
If a character was hit with the NH, I could "accept" the argument that the FE would override it, but really, any AA would also override it - so then the NH is losing half it's purpose (the Teamwork follow-ups would certainly be lost still, since there's no contradicting "Special"). In general, though, I'm a much bigger fan of the permission vs. restriction angle, as the default for settling this sort of dispute.
Again, the NH seems like a much closer "contradicting" Special than the AV (relative to an FE, that is).
I really like that breakdown except for the Outnumber part. The purpose of that card is to prevent followups, and if the FE allows for a followup after the Outnumber, any other card would do the same thing and it would have a seemingly useless secondary effect. If the second card played always overrides the previous cards, and all AA's and FE's specify "making" an additional attack, the Outnumber would always be overridden by these specials.
I think any card preventing a character from attacking for remainder of battle should do just that for the duration of the battle UNLESS it is negated. All characters are allowed to attack until they aren't allowed to attack. Cards do not give the ability to attack, and in the case of any card granting a followup, it should always be considered whether or not they currently are able to make an attack. Just my opinion.
But I would really appreciate someone giving some feedback on specials taking precedence in the order they're played rather than last in overrides all previous specials played. What would the pro's and con's be of specials being played on a first come, first served basis? Can anyone think of some sticky situations under this guideline that would totally mess things up?
thetrooper27 - keep in mind, I'm only trying to pose a more direct contradiction. I still prefer the over-arching rule of restriction>permission. I think the Meta Rule raised here, regarding contradictions, seems like it might be more of the sort like 2 CD cards on the same character (which could even have its own argument).
I think the restriction over permission thing works, especially for this situation, but it's not the rule, is it? What is the rule?
I skimmed the thread, but for all the esoteric situations coming up a good rule of thumb is: "Do what a card says, unless something else says you can't."
Example 1
"Keep duplicates" event is played. You play an HQ. You draw 3, then discard the duplicates because the HQ tells you to.
Example 2
"This can only be defended by a level 3 power card" - it can only be defended by a level 3 power card. It is essentially saying "you can't defend this with an avoid, you can't defend this with a level 5 powercard, you can't negate this..." and so on. So any modifications like the level 1 intellect avoid, the Taskmaster inherent, etc don't get around the Longshot special.
Quote-longshot says i can only defend with a 3
-event says i can defend anything with a 1
-they contradict, and the meta says the event overrules the special
The event doesn't say you can defend anything with a 1 intellect, it says you can avoid anything with a level 1 intellect. Longshot's 3 cannot be avoided. An event giving you the ability to do something doesn't change the effect of a card. The meta rule in question
Quotemeta 134: If one Special sets up a condition and then a second Special comes along with text that directly contradicts the first Special, then the Special played later takes precedence. On the other hand, Events always override the text of Specials.
does not apply, because there is no contradiction. Longshot's 3 cannot be avoided, the event lets you avoid stuff, no overlap is going on here that would cause Meta 134 to be applied. If Longshot's card said "acts as a level 3 attack. Cannot be avoided" then meta 134 would enter the discussion.
Example 3
"Fighting Spirit Lives" (all specials in hand may be played by any character this battle) is in effect. Opponent plays a GA on your Wolverine. Wolverine cannot play specials.
Example 4
You have a frontline of Invisible Woman, Rhino, and Nightwing. Opponent plays Python Hold on Rhino. You play Invisible Woman 3i. Do what the card says, unless something else says you cannot. Nightwing may make a followup, Rhino may not.
we'll agree to disagree then, since i'm on the other side of all 4 examples
i'll go with the meta rule specifically dealing with contradictions
Quote from: Onslaught on March 17, 2013, 04:44:33 AM
I skimmed the thread, but for all the esoteric situations coming up a good rule of thumb is: "Do what a card says, unless something else says you can't."
Example 1
"Keep duplicates" event is played. You play an HQ. You draw 3, then discard the duplicates because the HQ tells you to.
Example 2
"This can only be defended by a level 3 power card" - it can only be defended by a level 3 power card. It is essentially saying "you can't defend this with an avoid, you can't defend this with a level 5 powercard, you can't negate this..." and so on. So any modifications like the level 1 intellect avoid, the Taskmaster inherent, etc don't get around the Longshot special.
Quote-longshot says i can only defend with a 3
-event says i can defend anything with a 1
-they contradict, and the meta says the event overrules the special
The event doesn't say you can defend anything with a 1 intellect, it says you can avoid anything with a level 1 intellect. Longshot's 3 cannot be avoided. An event giving you the ability to do something doesn't change the effect of a card. The meta rule in question
Quotemeta 134: If one Special sets up a condition and then a second Special comes along with text that directly contradicts the first Special, then the Special played later takes precedence. On the other hand, Events always override the text of Specials.
does not apply, because there is no contradiction. Longshot's 3 cannot be avoided, the event lets you avoid stuff, no overlap is going on here that would cause Meta 134 to be applied. If Longshot's card said "acts as a level 3 attack. Cannot be avoided" then meta 134 would enter the discussion.
Example 3
"Fighting Spirit Lives" (all specials in hand may be played by any character this battle) is in effect. Opponent plays a GA on your Wolverine. Wolverine cannot play specials.
Example 4
You have a frontline of Invisible Woman, Rhino, and Nightwing. Opponent plays Python Hold on Rhino. You play Invisible Woman 3i. Do what the card says, unless something else says you cannot. Nightwing may make a followup, Rhino may not.
Do what it says unless something else says you can't is an easier way of saying restriction takes precedence over permission, I think. And I like that as a rule. Will the calls at the Buffalo event be made this way?
With that being said (or asked, maybe... ???), I'm still not sure about these:
For example one, the meta rule states that the event overrides the text of the HQ, allowing in this situation to keep duplicates from the drawn 3. Is this how it would be ruled at an event?
For example two, if it can ONLY be defended by a level 3 power card, and
my opponent plays it against me with a +1, then
I can't defend it at all, unless I have a bonus to defense in effect before the attack was made against me
since I can't use anything except the 3 to defend, right? Or does the level 3 power card defend the One In a Million even if they give it +2 and I have no bonuses on defense? I'm still confused about that... earlier, I suggested that avoiding an attack didn't seem to be the same as defending an attack. The level 3 power card might be enough to defend against a level 5 One In a Million, but I'm really not sure.
Quote from: thetrooper27 on March 17, 2013, 04:58:35 PM
For example two, if it can ONLY be defended by a level 3 power card, and my opponent plays it against me with a +1, then I can't defend it at all, unless I have a bonus to defense in effect before the attack was made against me since I can't use anything except the 3 to defend, right?
Correct.
Quote
Or does the level 3 power card defend the One In a Million even if they give it +2 and I have no bonuses on defense? I'm still confused about that... earlier, I suggested that avoiding an attack didn't seem to be the same as defending an attack. The level 3 power card might be enough to defend against a level 5 One In a Million, but I'm really not sure.
Nope, you would need a Level 3 power card pre-boosted to defend a Level 5 OIAM.
Onslaught, I agree with most of your points. I still disagree with the HQ-Special and the Event in question, though. The Event does not say, "Keep duplicates." The Event actually says, "Do not discard duplicates." That is actually a restriction that, in my opinion, overrides the text of the HQ.
The HQ tells you to do something, the Event tells you not to do it.
You definitely have to discard dupes from an HQ with a no-dupe effect in play, whether it be from an Event or from Cloning Process. Quirk of the rules that they probably implemented because it was deemed "too powerful" - which it obviously isn't. Cloning Process + Inventive Genius was a common scenario in JLA era tournaments, and it was ruled that you have to discard.
Quote from: Onslaught on March 19, 2013, 04:53:13 PM
You definitely have to discard dupes from an HQ with a no-dupe effect in play, whether it be from an Event or from Cloning Process. Quirk of the rules that they probably implemented because it was deemed "too powerful" - which it obviously isn't. Cloning Process + Inventive Genius was a common scenario in JLA era tournaments, and it was ruled that you have to discard.
well, as I've said, without anything documenting a particular ruling from a tournament judge, many of these scenarios (no matter how common) might best be resolved by simply "letting things slide" in spot games, or else determining ahead of time to have a judge, or panel of judges, who can be responsible for resolving disputes at a tournament.
How about instead of a rules committee you just award somebody an automatic win for playing a shitty deck using Cloning Process or that bad Event if they manage to survive long enough to pull off such a "sick ass combo" with an HQ in the same turn
Quote from: Onslaught on March 19, 2013, 07:24:23 PM
How about instead of a rules committee you just award somebody an automatic win for playing a shitty deck using Cloning Process or that bad Event if they manage to survive long enough to pull off such a "sick ass combo" with an HQ in the same turn
you mad, bro?
I don't typically award auto-wins, but I'd take one. I use that Event because I think it's a fun boost when it comes up. if it's fun for my opponent, too, then that's a boon ;D
more to my first point, tho, maybe you should just let a guy keep his duplicates when that Event or Special is in play, and he has an HQ, so he can have more fun...?
I have more fun with defensive DZ, let's just ignore the rules so I can have more fun
Quote from: Onslaught on March 19, 2013, 10:07:37 PM
I have more fun with defensive DZ, let's just ignore the rules so I can have more fun
defensive DZ sounds good to me, man.
Quote from: ncannelora on March 20, 2013, 09:00:27 PM
Quote from: Onslaught on March 19, 2013, 10:07:37 PM
I have more fun with defensive DZ, let's just ignore the rules so I can have more fun
defensive DZ sounds good to me, man.
ill agree too