After reviewing the Meta Rules relating to "avoids," I can't find a single nuance of literature indicating that these are team-wide defensive actions. It's clear to me that they are personal avoids only.
(EE) text: Avoid 1 attack made with a Power card "OR" remove 1 Power card Hit from X-man or teammate.
The passive aspect of the card is a personal AD, whereas the active is a team-wide AL, as the card clearly states.
Meta Rule #67 is as follows: An 'avoid' Special can only be played when the target of the attack is the player of the Special.
Here is Meta Rule #68: A 'teammate avoid' can only be played when the target of the attack is a teammate of the Character playing the Special, and not the Character itself. The targeted Character may be on either the front line or in reserve. The Battlesite is not considered a teammate.
This is the proper wording for a team-wide defensive avoid: "Spawn or teammate may avoid 1 attack of 9 or less."
Alternatively, we have these AD's: "Avoid any attack made with a Power card." I believe these are far more open to interpretation in regards to being a team-wide defensive action. I however, don't believe that they are, but their case is far stronger than the EE codes.
In closing, if I don't see adequate reinforcement to the fact that these are indeed team-wide defensive avoids; I will be challenging the play of them as such in the future. This to me is the equivalent of placing A-Next to Marvel Universe, and I will treat it accordingly.
Hi,
I think this is just a case of how you logically group the two clauses:
a) [Avoid 1 attack made with a Power card] or [remove 1 Power card Hit from X-man or teammate]
vs
b) [Avoid 1 attack made with a Power card or remove 1 Power card Hit] from [X-man or teammate]
Both are logically valid. Since the precedent in the game is to use the most liberal interpretation,
i.e. the b) logical grouping, then I think we are still good on "Master Mold" type specials. Since it only affects powercards, I would not do anything to reinterpret the current card.
PtG
Oxford comma ambiguity strikes again!
B is the proper way to parse such a card.
this just came up yesterday in a game. it seems to me that if people repeatedly interpret it to only defend the user (as I did at first too), they messed up with their ruling
however, from the guide to playing specials:
When played defensively, this card avoids one attack made on the Character or character's teammate with a Power card. When played offensively, it removes one Power card hit from either the "permanent record" or the "hits from the current Battle" of the Character or from one of the Character's teammates (see AL for more about removing hits). When used to remove a hit from the "hits of current Battle," this action does affect the Venture total. This Special cannot be used defensively to remove a hit from the "permanent record" or the "hits from current Battle" of the Character or from one of the Character's teammates to prevent KO. This Special cannot avoid the first part of a Teamwork attack, but could avoid the subsequent attacks.
not much to challenge there
Quote from: breadmaster on July 28, 2014, 04:01:11 PM
this just came up yesterday in a game. it seems to me that if people repeatedly interpret it to only defend the user (as I did at first too), they messed up with their ruling
however, from the guide to playing specials:
When played defensively, this card avoids one attack made on the Character or character's teammate with a Power card. When played offensively, it removes one Power card hit from either the "permanent record" or the "hits from the current Battle" of the Character or from one of the Character's teammates (see AL for more about removing hits). When used to remove a hit from the "hits of current Battle," this action does affect the Venture total. This Special cannot be used defensively to remove a hit from the "permanent record" or the "hits from current Battle" of the Character or from one of the Character's teammates to prevent KO. This Special cannot avoid the first part of a Teamwork attack, but could avoid the subsequent attacks.
not much to challenge there
The ruling is indeed "messed" up. Is that the tournament guide? I read one of those a few years ago and it was apparent to me some that of the rulings it contained contradicted the Meta Rules. I don't give much if any weight to that tournament guide I read, nor do I know if it's even posted somewhere on the internet for people to easily access.
I still see nothing to indicate that the special is currently being played correctly, due to how poor the standing interpretation is. #67 clearly states that if "teammate" is not present within the 'avoid' effect, then it is a personal avoid only. In this case, "teammate" is not present.
The correct wording for a team-wide defense has existed since the first EE came out, "Nightcrawler or teammate may avoid 1 attack of 6 or less. (AD)"
Every other avoid in the game is currently working as printed, while being backed by #67, and #68, except EE code avoids. Precedence is indeed precedence, but broken precedence is also broken. If we relied on precedence above all else, then we would still believe the solar system, if not the entire universe, still revolves around the Earth. It's apparent to me that the precedence of all the other avoids working correctly vastly outweighs three cards, which according to these same Meta Rules, are not working as intended.
If someone can find more than a 17 + year old opinion of a passing judge, which is what the "tournament" guide to playing specials is, I will withdraw my challenge.
Until then, the challenge stands.
WTF. come on hot rod. Your are smart enough to not start pushing the mastermold button. Though I believe you have valid points and great meta rule backing. I firmly believe that the teammate at the end of the special indicates team wide for both attributes. You showed the night crawler special, however that only has a single action. Did you want them to add teammate before the first clause and after the second. No overpower card has such a text. X and teammate may do something or x and teammate may do something else. It is a given that the final teammate is for the whole special. Show me a card that states teammate twice for two different actions and I will withdraw my argument.
Ps stop reading the rules and build a new deck. Lol
Just adding fuel to the engine hot rod. :-)
M
OP GOD
Well, I have to agree with Hot Rod on the literal interpretation of the text. And being a proponent of a more 'play as written' style of gaming - I think it would be interesting to diminish the EE cards slightly to shake up the game again....
...BUT...
That's not the universally accepted (and official) interpretation. So, strictly speaking as one of the 3 people who is usually called upon to judge our events, I'll tell you right now that you can challenge it all you want, but the ruling will not likely favour you. ;)
Quote from: BigBadHarve on July 29, 2014, 01:00:09 PM
So, strictly speaking as one of the 3 people who is usually called upon to judge our events, I'll tell you right now that you can challenge it all you want, but the ruling will not likely favour you. ;)
I'm still open to taking bribes.
I always used to play it that it could avoid for the character or heal the team, so this is a bonus for me :D
Quote from: BigBadHarve on July 29, 2014, 01:00:09 PM
Well, I have to agree with Hot Rod on the literal interpretation of the text. And being a proponent of a more 'play as written' style of gaming - I think it would be interesting to diminish the EE cards slightly to shake up the game again....
...BUT...
That's not the universally accepted (and official) interpretation. So, strictly speaking as one of the 3 people who is usually called upon to judge our events, I'll tell you right now that you can challenge it all you want, but the ruling will not likely favour you. ;)
This is nonsensical. If someone challenges the play of a card, the ruling should be derived from the actual rules themselves, not an individuals opinion. Out of all the challenges I've seen, this has to be one of the worst, in that how the card is currently played has nothing at all do to with the rules.
The card is not working as printed, which is fine, as we have others that are similar such as Leech, but a card that also breaks the very rules of the game? Where does it end?
It's time we set some new precedence, whether it's by a rules committee (still remains to be seen), or one challenge at a time.
another one that only has the guide (and I brought this up before) is negates
the rulebook specifically states that if you play a card offensively, and it is not an attack, the opponent doesn't get a defensive action. that's never how they've been played, and really, only the guide directly contradicts the rulebook.
there's also the issue with the meta rules. the one's you mentioned earlier are not linked to EEs. while I support a global interpretation of the meta rules, that's not how the majority play them
Quote from: Hot Rod on July 29, 2014, 04:09:25 PM
This is nonsensical. If someone challenges the play of a card, the ruling should be derived from the actual rules themselves, not an individuals opinion. Out of all the challenges I've seen, this has to be one of the worst, in that how the card is currently played has nothing at all do to with the rules.
The card is not working as printed, which is fine, as we have others that are similar such as Leech, but a card that also breaks the very rules of the game? Where does it end?
It's time we set some new precedence, whether it's by a rules committee (still remains to be seen), or one challenge at a time.
In what way is that nonsense? I'm not ruling based on my opinion, but on the commonly accepted interpretation of the card. All players have accepted this interpretation since the card's inception.
Or in the very least, those who haven't necessarily accepted it have had to endure it because that's what was ruled. Not my opinion at all. I would simply uphold that ruling.
Now, if said Rules Committee ever forms, and it's decided that this will change, I'll uphold that ruling and royally upset any player who gets called on playing said card the 'old way.'
And Breadman's right, the metas aren't linked to those cards, ergo don't apply. Another bullshit scenario, but how many times have I railed against that exact scenario to no avail? It is what it is.
Quote from: BigBadHarve on July 29, 2014, 04:37:39 PM
And Breadman's right, the metas aren't linked to those cards, ergo don't apply. Another bullshit scenario, but how many times have I railed against that exact scenario to no avail? It is what it is.
Yes, this is the only counter argument I could come up with. That the set of rules governing avoids don't apply to EE and DB codes. I was curious if anyone else would bring it up, as I intentionally left it out due to the fact it opens Pandora's box.
What this means is that the Meta Rules, rule by code, and not by card text. Alluding to the point of who assigned what Meta Rules to which codes? I would say that these 2 codes (EE, DB) were unattributed in regards to the Meta Rules that should have been applied to them via card text, and not simply by code, which of course is flawed.
I must say though some of us have differing opinions. It is good that this stuff is being discussed and challenged. Maybe we should have something like three rule amendments or clarifications per year as to not extremely complicate things. Discussed, judged, set in stone for rated events. In the words of the great Sylvester Stallone as the honourable Judge Dredd "We are the LAW!"
M
OP GOD
I think Breadmaster's post has it correct, at the time the PTB [Powers That Be] took my b) interpretation. I also agree with OPGod, to keep saying teammate over and over on the card makes zero sense. Understand that these "Master Mold" class special cards only affect power cards. So their scope is already limited in a sense, why the rush to reduce them further?
Syl also said: "Ya gotta have dee emoshun'--ya gotta have da feelin'!" See everyone in Columbus.
At some point we'll have to strike up a Rules Committee, and start reworking the rules set. Guess it will be a retirement project. <g>
PtG
yeah attacking say onslaught with a p c then having x-man play EE in reponse to said attck never made sense to me
(http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/1538.png)
i think people think that the bottom part applies to the top part as well
it doesnt say x-man or teammate may avoid 1 attack made with a power card
If you put an (,) after the words power card hit. It makes perfect sense.
I personally agree with ptg , it's not a broken card it only blocks power cards. And other than x man. When was the last time you saw sentinels in a deck??
Although I believe I played against one person In k2 with them.
M
OP GOD
why are you guys still arguing about this shit? its a common ruling every player and every well known judge all ruled on the exact same back in the day. no controversy. are you serious gonna say the guide to playing specials is wrong when it puts it in clear english that cant be interpreted any other way?
Just my 2 cents, if the card was meant to be able to avoid a pc atk from a teammate wouldn't the card have read "X-man or teammate may avoid one power card attack or remove one power card hit"?
Quote from: odbjosh on July 31, 2014, 07:18:25 PM
Just my 2 cents, if the card was meant to be able to avoid a pc atk from a teammate wouldn't the card have read "X-man or teammate may avoid one power card attack or remove one power card hit"?
The people who wrote these cards were not terribly organized about how they worded things. There were lots of cases of cards coming out with confusing wording that had to be ruled on in-tournament because the creators intent wasn't clear on the card. The EE is a good example and these rulings were made with the purpose of following the intent of the card creators, not just randomly. We are very fortunate to have people around here who can provide us with this information that we otherwise would have lost. So, while it is academically interesting to argue over how a card should have been worded, it is not productive to try to extrapolate the intent of the card creators from the card text if we have available an actual ruling from the time the card was created that tells us what the intent was.