This card says,
"For remainder of game, both players must draw 1 card from top of Draw
Pile for each Activator card played by Opponent. Draw card before
resolving Opponent's action. Discard duplicates."
For the clarity of my question, let's just say I'm playing against BBH.
Where it says that "both players must draw..." does that mean that...
A) I will draw every time BBH plays an Activator AND BBH will draw every time I play an Activator?
Or
B) When BBH plays an Activator we will BOTH draw, but when I play an Activator, no one will draw?
It just so happens that Avalon is one of my current decks, and one of my new favourites, by virtue of this wonderful aspect! :D
B) is correct. You only draw when your opponent plays an activator, meaning the aspect is a discard if you face someone using Any Heroes.
It being your aspect, when it says opponent it's referencing YOUR opponent specifically.
For added fun - play with the 'To Save The World' Any mission while this aspect is in play. ;D
-BBH
Was this a tournament ruling? I mean, the card still seems pretty ambiguous to me (hence the question :))
So, in practice, how much advantage have you really seen from this card? I mean, I see the obvious help, that I get to draw a card before deciding what to do (if anything) about my Activator... but if they also get a card, that essentially turns all of my opponent's Activators into DTRs... that seems like it would backfire as often as not...
Quote from: ncannelora on March 14, 2011, 04:46:13 PM
Was this a tournament ruling? I mean, the card still seems pretty ambiguous to me (hence the question :))
So, in practice, how much advantage have you really seen from this card? I mean, I see the obvious help, that I get to draw a card before deciding what to do (if anything) about my Activator... but if they also get a card, that essentially turns all of my opponent's Activators into DTRs... that seems like it would backfire as often as not...
The key to making Avalon successful is a prolonged fight. You can't hit and run because of your inherent, so you need to strategically play out any fight. The trick is to hammer your opponent into submission, so once that aspect is up, I like to throw all the big attacks that he needs to use his activators on. You'll find your opponent runs out of defense really fast because the battle is prolonged. And Avalon has a LOT of really nasty attacks.
If you design your deck well enough, you reduce your odds of discarding your own draw. I've found that with a streamlined team, I usually end up keeping anything I draw while about half the time I've noticed my opponent it pitching his draw. So it works out.
It's one of those cards that looks worthless at a glance, but in practice is really brutal.
-BBH
I just don't see what's difinitive about the wording, I guess. It seems to be very much ambiguous. It seems like it should either say,
"For remainder of game, both players must draw 1 card from top of Draw pile for each activator card played by [their] Opponent...." (to agree with A)
or
"For remainder of game, [Avalon's team and Opponent] must draw 1 card from top of Draw pile for each Activator played by Opponent. ..." (to agree with "B")
Or, to look at it almost mathmatically, it's the difference between
Both players (must draw 1 card from the top of Draw Pile for each Activator played by Opponent.)
or
(Both players must draw 1 card from the top of Draw Pile) for each Activator played by Opponent.
The semantics of the card can have the "both" apply to either the "must draw"; or apply to the "Opponent"; or it can even apply to the "must draw" and "Opponent."
I get what you're saying, but any card that states 'opponent' refers to the opponent of the player who is using the card. This is consistent throughout OverPower, I can't think of an example offhand where that's not the case.
So by that interpretation, it only applies when Avalon's opponent plays activators.
Believe me, I would rather the aspect apply to any activator played, then I wouldn't have to pitch the aspect against Any Heroes.
I did try Avalon as an any hero team, but I found I just couldn't make it work, though I have some ideas to fix that... but get that aspect up with DoW in play, and get a card each time your opponent hits the DoW... really brutal!
Yes he gets more as well, but if you're hitting him fast and hard enough, he won't have a team left by the time DoW is gone.
-BBH
And I'm sorry, BBH, but was this a Tournament ruling you know about, or is this how you determined to play it? Unfortunately, this is ambiguous, so it cannot simply be played as written :-\
QuoteI get what you're saying, but any card that states 'opponent' refers to the opponent of the player who is using the card. This is consistent throughout OverPower, I can't think of an example offhand where that's not the case.
True, except EVENTS, right? Because this is also the only card in the game that has players drawing cards in the middle of an opponent's turn, except for an EVENT.
Semantically, I honestly don't think there's anything to push it one way or the other.
The (absence of a) precendent with other cards doesn't convince me, i guess.
The only 2 clues that I can see are these
1. The card's name and context.
Mutant Refuge - during Fatal Attractions, Magneto was recruiting the mutants who attacked him. So, if my Opponent attacks me with an Activator, it makes sense to me that I could pause in the middle of the attack and try to do something about it - make my case, so to speak. Obviously this would go both ways if the card is played as "A)" in my initial post, but that would be stopped if I played Any Heroes.
2. Certain Home Bases (including AVALON), have negative Inherent Abilities to balance the potency that the Home Base allows you to pose (supposedly). Allo of the Aspect cards, however, give you a clear and distinct advantage over your adversary.
Post Merge: July 11, 2011, 06:24:05 PM
I guess I'll try it both ways. I pencilling out a team for AVALON and it was built with AnyHeroes (under the "A" premise above). It already had very limited duplicates anyway (because any time I can draw cards mid-battle, it's a good idea to limit that) - so maybe I'll leave the construction as-is and see how it goes.
It just seems like it'd be a much better, more "historically" accurate card to play it like the "A" circumstance I listed. Playing it like the "B" seems like you have another card that is very difficult to make good use (notice I didn't say it's unplayable, or useless).
Quote from: ncannelora on March 14, 2011, 07:16:25 PM
I guess I'll try it both ways. I pencilling out a team for AVALON and it was built with AnyHeroes (under the "A" premise above). It already had very limited duplicates anyway (because any time I can draw cards mid-battle, it's a good idea to limit that) - so maybe I'll leave the construction as-is and see how it goes.
It just seems like it'd be a much better, more "historically" accurate card to play it like the "A" circumstance I listed. Playing it like the "B" seems like you have another card that is very difficult to make good use (notice I didn't say it's unplayable, or useless).
No tournament ruling, I'm afraid. A choice had to be made, and since no one else I know actually uses Avalon or it's aspect (and the meta rules are no help) I had to base it on the standard way any other card is played. Events are very specific and unique, whereas aspects are played just like most other cards, so would fall under the general rules. Any card that refers to the 'opponent,' refers to the opponent of the character playing the card.
Honestly, however, if you can find anywhere it states that it applies to both players playing activators, not just the opponent, please let me know. As far as I'm concerned that makes that aspect even better. You get twice the bang for your buck.
-BBH
It would be better that way and I am always in favor or making cards better (except unblockable cards ;))
Anyway, despite the ambiguity of the semantics printed, it seems my circle is aligned with your logic regarding the mechanics of the game. So, I'll give your way a shot :)
I spoke to a Reserve about this, and to the best of his recollection they interpreted it internally as
"For the remainder of the game, if your opponent plays an activator, you draw a card. If you play an activator, your opponent draws a card."
Now everyone go try Avalon homebase with Any Heroes...
Which reserverist? Not that I doubt it is just that I would put more weight to the memory of Barth or Probe over some of the others.
Quote from: Onslaught on April 03, 2011, 06:56:10 PM
I spoke to a Reserve about this, and to the best of his recollection they interpreted it internally as
"For the remainder of the game, if your opponent plays an activator, you draw a card. If you play an activator, your opponent draws a card."
Now everyone go try Avalon homebase with Any Heroes...
I like this! Can anyone give a second reference?
Quote from: Onslaught on April 03, 2011, 06:56:10 PM
I spoke to a Reserve about this, and to the best of his recollection they interpreted it internally as
"For the remainder of the game, if your opponent plays an activator, you draw a card. If you play an activator, your opponent draws a card."
But that's not what the card says. If that's what they did intend, then why didn't they just say that on the card? No, that makes absolutely zero sense - that interpretation reduces the card's value significantly.
-BBH
Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 04, 2011, 12:42:39 PM
Quote from: Onslaught on April 03, 2011, 06:56:10 PM
I spoke to a Reserve about this, and to the best of his recollection they interpreted it internally as
"For the remainder of the game, if your opponent plays an activator, you draw a card. If you play an activator, your opponent draws a card."
But that's not what the card says. If that's what they did intend, then why didn't they just say that on the card? No, that makes absolutely zero sense - that interpretation reduces the card's value significantly.
-BBH
The card's text is ambiguous. Like so many other instances in this game, re-wording a card to either remove ambiguity or to clarify with specificity, would've been great. I guess the most obvious answer is that the game makers didn't use enough testing or that they weren't English majors.
Also, why do you think this is
less good? It seems like this makes the card more useful and easier to use because it gives a clear strategy...
Quote from: ncannelora on April 04, 2011, 01:12:00 PM
The card's text is ambiguous. Like so many other instances in this game, re-wording a card to either remove ambiguity or to clarify with specificity, would've been great. I guess the most obvious answer is that the game makers didn't use enough testing or that they weren't English majors.
Also, why do you think this is less good? It seems like this makes the card more useful and easier to use because it gives a clear strategy...
The card's text is slightly ambiguous, but what is clear is that BOTH players must draw. It doesn't say one player must draw if the other plays an activator. The only question that comes up currently with the wording is whether it applies to both players when they play activators or only the opponent of the Avalon team.
To say that only the opponent draws when the other player plays an activator pretty much makes this aspect only worthwhile if you are using an any-hero team. If you get to draw when I play an activator, that's a serious disadvantage to me. The team is already saddled with a detrimental inherent, but it can be worked around. But to give up card advantage when I play an activator, no way.
I like the aspect as is (or rather, as we have been playing it) - Both players draw when Avalon's opponent plays activators. It would be really awesome if both drew when either played an activator, but I just don't hold to that interpretation because, as I've said, the card says 'opponent,' which to me means 'Avalon's opponent' not 'the opponent of the player using the activator.'
Also, If that were the case, I suspect that (despite the designer's obstacles with wording certain cards) they would have worded it something like this - 'both players must draw when any activator is played by either player.'
Although, it would be fun to try this scenario:
Playing the aspect so that both players draw 1 when any activator is played.
To Save the World event is in play, so one may draw when the other draws, which spikes the drawn cards when activators are played.
We're both using Avalon with the aspect in play, essentially meaning we draw 2 for each activator played, 1 for your aspect and 1 for mine. Then we draw an additional 2 for the event.
You play an activator to attack me. We draw 4. I play an activator to defend. We draw another 4. Rinse and repeat! ;D
That would be an amusing round. Though highly unlikely, still amusing.
-BBH
Quote from: CoS on April 03, 2011, 07:19:09 PM
Which reserverist? Not that I doubt it is just that I would put more weight to the memory of Barth or Probe over some of the others.
It was Nick Williams, and the conversation was several years ago so it was only a little bit after the game had ended. I had some other really bizarre rules situations that he was able to clarify, maybe I can dig up the AIM log from my old computer.
Quote from: BBHThe card's text is slightly ambiguous, but what is clear is that BOTH players must draw
For the remainder of game, both players must:
Draw 1 card from top of draw pile for each activator played by opponent. Draw card before resolving Opponent's action. Discard duplicates.
It's terribly worded but it makes perfect sense when you look at it like that.
Also I have no idea how you could think it would be better if both players drew whenever an activator was played. There would be no net gain or loss in card advantage by either player whenever an activator was played, so really the only thing that would happen is that you would put yourself at -1 card the turn you drew the aspect. It's significantly more powerful this way, aside from the gimmicky situations that you might set up with Tiffany's LX special from a battlesite.
QuoteThe card's text is slightly ambiguous, but what is clear is that BOTH players must draw. It doesn't say one player must draw if the other plays an activator. The only question that comes up currently with the wording is whether it applies to both players when they play activators or only the opponent of the Avalon team.
Can things be slightly ambiguous? I thought it was more of a y/n scenario. Like "barely pregnant" still means a baby is there. Anyway, with the latest understanding, both players will still draw, provided the second part of the card is fulfilled. This statement is true for
both players, "If my opponent plays an activator, I get to draw a card."
QuoteTo say that only the opponent draws when the other player plays an activator pretty much makes this aspect only worthwhile if you are using an any-hero team. If you get to draw when I play an activator, that's a serious disadvantage to me. The team is already saddled with a detrimental inherent, but it can be worked around. But to give up card advantage when I play an activator, no way.
Well, obviously, you wouldn't use a Battlesite with this Aspect, but that's just it - a clear strategy. It gives Avalon a unique angle for Any Heroes over a Battlesite.
QuoteI like the aspect as is (or rather, as we have been playing it) - Both players draw when Avalon's opponent plays activators. It would be really awesome if both drew when either played an activator, but I just don't hold to that interpretation because, as I've said, the card says 'opponent,' which to me means 'Avalon's opponent' not 'the opponent of the player using the activator.'
Also, If that were the case, I suspect that (despite the designer's obstacles with wording certain cards) they would have worded it something like this - 'both players must draw when any activator is played by either player.'
For myself, I'm much more inclined to use the card now, with this new interpretation. And, while there are certainly ways to word the card differently to clarify its use, the same could be said for dozens and dozens of cards.
QuoteAlthough, it would be fun to try this scenario:
Playing the aspect so that both players draw 1 when any activator is played.
To Save the World event is in play, so one may draw when the other draws, which spikes the drawn cards when activators are played.
We're both using Avalon with the aspect in play, essentially meaning we draw 2 for each activator played, 1 for your aspect and 1 for mine. Then we draw an additional 2 for the event.
You play an activator to attack me. We draw 4. I play an activator to defend. We draw another 4. Rinse and repeat! ;D
That would be an amusing round. Though highly unlikely, still amusing.
-BBH
I can still see that this is a 3rd way to read the card. It can be both A & B at the same time but to me, this one seems the least likely intent. I guess we'll never really know... unless some one actually knows how to contact TPTB! :o
lol
I think I have a solution that would make everyone happy on this one.
BBH, from what you have said in the past you use a ton of house rules. So if you don't like the official ruling because it makes the card too powerful, couldn't you just make another house rule and play it your own way?
I should be a official judge with rulings like this ::)
Quote from: drdeath25 on April 04, 2011, 06:43:41 PM
I think I have a solution that would make everyone happy on this one.
BBH, from what you have said in the past you use a ton of house rules. So if you don't like the official ruling because it makes the card too powerful, couldn't you just make another house rule and play it your own way?
I should be a official judge with rulings like this ::)
Absolutely NOT! I think we should cling to every ambiguous, contradictory, nonsensical, yet apparently "divinely inspired" ruling 10 years after the fact lest Armageddon happen! ::) :D
Dr. Death - the way they're proposing doesn't make this card stronger, it in fact reduces it's potency.
Onslaught - I don't doubt that you had a conversation about it, but I am leery about trusting your memory about a series of emails from ten years ago.
Regardless, giving my opponent the ability to draw a card when I play an activator, when I get nothing, makes the card useless to anyone using a Battlesite. They would pretty much be required to play Any Heroes or not use the aspect.
Terribly worded? More or less... but if we break down the text on the card, the meaning is easy to follow:
For the remainder of game, both players[/b] must Draw 1 card from top of draw pile for each activator played by opponent. Draw card before resolving Opponent's action. Discard duplicates.
Both players.= Not one or the other, but both. At the same time. Otherwise why not say - when one player uses an activator, the other must draw a card.
Must draw = Mandatory. No option.
Opponent. = The opponent of the player using the aspect. This is consistent throughout OverPower. When you play a card that affects the 'opponent' it means YOUR opponent.
If they had wanted everyone to draw when any activator was played, it would have said both must draw when any activator is played.
-BBH
Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 05, 2011, 10:40:21 AM
Dr. Death - the way they're proposing doesn't make this card stronger, it in fact reduces it's potency.
Onslaught - I don't doubt that you had a conversation about it, but I am leery about trusting your memory about a series of emails from ten years ago.
Regardless, giving my opponent the ability to draw a card when I play an activator, when I get nothing, makes the card useless to anyone using a Battlesite. They would pretty much be required to play Any Heroes or not use the aspect.
Terribly worded? More or less... but if we break down the text on the card, the meaning is easy to follow:
For the remainder of game, both players[/b] must Draw 1 card from top of draw pile for each activator played by opponent. Draw card before resolving Opponent's action. Discard duplicates.
Both players.= Not one or the other, but both. At the same time. Otherwise why not say - when one player uses an activator, the other must draw a card.
Must draw = Mandatory. No option.
Opponent. = The opponent of the player using the aspect. This is consistent throughout OverPower. When you play a card that affects the 'opponent' it means YOUR opponent.
If they had wanted everyone to draw when any activator was played, it would have said both must draw when any activator is played.
-BBH
First, it doesn't reduce its potency, it just changes its use. I'd say anytime I get to draw a card and my opponent doesn't, that's pretty powerful. If this Aspect was an Any Homebase Aspect, it would go a long, long way in balancing Any Hero decks with Battlesite decks. I'd be using Any Heroes way more often.
Second, the wording is always going to be ambiguous in this sentence. Without actually re-wording it, the best you could hope to do is add punctuation to clarify.
Third, I don't doubt any of the points that the card affects both players (by giving them both a new rule to follow) and that the drawing is a must (not optional). However, arguing that the word Opponent only applies to the "Opponent of the player playing the Aspect" is still an assumption. No other card in the game gives both players a rule to follow for the remainder of game, so we can't use precedent to determine the intent.
Fourth, arguing the way they "would have worded it" is futile. If they wanted it to be the way you've been playing it, they could have said, "For remainder of game, each time Opponent plays an Activator, both players must draw 1 card." We could both argue what they should have done to make their intent clear.
Without a verifiable souce for a ruling, I suppose we'll all have to determine for ourselves how it should be played.
Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 05, 2011, 10:40:21 AM
Dr. Death - the way they're proposing doesn't make this card stronger, it in fact reduces it's potency.
It doesn't reduce its potency at all, and in fact it is strictly better with the Any Hero oriented ruling. In one scenario you have a net effect that will always be -1 for you, and in the other you gain +X for however many activators your opponent uses.
Like it was mentioned earlier though, you already use house rules for everything else so I'm not sure why you're so worked up about the correct ruling for this particular bad card.
Yes, as an aspect for a strictly Any-Hero team, it's awesome. But under this interpretation it is completely worthless for a player wanting to use a battlesite with Avalon, which makes it extremely restrictive.
When dealing with an unknown variable, one can only use precedent as a guide. Hence my interpretation of the use of 'opponent' as it applies to the rest of the established cards. It's really all we have to go on.
@ Onslaught - I want to be clear on how all cards are played officially. Period. Yes, I play by a house system with willing players, but I strive to be solid with official rules.
-BBH
I did some poking around on ripayuheadoff's old site (it's down now, but it looks like Jack archived it - thanks Jack!), and in one of his strategy tips sections about aspects he just happens to mention the card in question.
QuoteAvalon - "For remainder of game, both players must draw 1 card from top of Draw Pile for each Activator card played by Opponent. Draw card before resolving Opponent's action. Discard if duplicate." This Aspect may be a little confusing to read. Here is an example of how it works - I have an Avalon Homebase and play this Aspect. When I play an Activator, you draw 1 card. When you play an Activator, I draw 1 card.
http://overpower.ca/archive/Ripayuheadoff/op/part10.html#top
You play with The Marvels, and the spoiler/guide to playing Marvels specials came directly from this guy, so you should be able to take his interpretation as the final word.
Quote from: Onslaught on April 05, 2011, 12:29:38 PM
I did some poking around on ripayuheadoff's old site (it's down now, but it looks like Jack archived it - thanks Jack!), and in one of his strategy tips sections about aspects he just happens to mention the card in question.
QuoteAvalon - "For remainder of game, both players must draw 1 card from top of Draw Pile for each Activator card played by Opponent. Draw card before resolving Opponent's action. Discard if duplicate." This Aspect may be a little confusing to read. Here is an example of how it works - I have an Avalon Homebase and play this Aspect. When I play an Activator, you draw 1 card. When you play an Activator, I draw 1 card.
http://overpower.ca/archive/Ripayuheadoff/op/part10.html#top
You play with The Marvels, and the spoiler/guide to playing Marvels specials came directly from this guy, so you should be able to take his interpretation as the final word.
That's very interesting. Thanks for posting it.
I think it makes so sense in context of the printed text, but then that wouldn't be the first time in OP that has happened, but if it's in any way official then I'll keep it in mind for reference.
-BBH
Quote from: Onslaught on April 05, 2011, 12:29:38 PM
I did some poking around on ripayuheadoff's old site (it's down now, but it looks like Jack archived it - thanks Jack!), and in one of his strategy tips sections about aspects he just happens to mention the card in question.
QuoteAvalon - "For remainder of game, both players must draw 1 card from top of Draw Pile for each Activator card played by Opponent. Draw card before resolving Opponent's action. Discard if duplicate." This Aspect may be a little confusing to read. Here is an example of how it works - I have an Avalon Homebase and play this Aspect. When I play an Activator, you draw 1 card. When you play an Activator, I draw 1 card.
http://overpower.ca/archive/Ripayuheadoff/op/part10.html#top
You play with The Marvels, and the spoiler/guide to playing Marvels specials came directly from this guy, so you should be able to take his interpretation as the final word.
Cool. Thanks, Onslaught and Jack!
Okay, I have been in touch with Nick Williams, and he has confirmed what I suspected about how this aspect is played. It's played as it is written - both players draw when the opponent (as in Avalon's opponent) plays an activator.
This is what he had to say:
"The thing to remember is that this card only "affects" the player who plays it. This means that when that player's opponent and ONLY that player's opponent plays an Activator, then both players draw 1 card. It does not say and it does not mean "When either player plays an Activator then the other player draws 1 card.'"
As an added bonus, he seems to have signed up on the forum, so hopefully we'll see him around.
-BBH
Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 09, 2011, 01:33:28 AM
Okay, I have been in touch with Nick Williams, and he has confirmed what I suspected about how this aspect is played. It's played as it is written - both players draw when the opponent (as in Avalon's opponent) plays an activator.
This is what he had to say:
"The thing to remember is that this card only "affects" the player who plays it. This means that when that player's opponent and ONLY that player's opponent plays an Activator, then both players draw 1 card. It does not say and it does not mean "When either player plays an Activator then the other player draws 1 card.'"
As an added bonus, he seems to have signed up on the forum, so hopefully we'll see him around.
-BBH
-BBH
If the same source gives two opposing answers, doesn't that just mean we're back to square one? They sort of cancel each other out, I don't see why the newer one is "more correct" (if anything it might be a little less accurate since it's many years later from the posting on his own website?) Maybe he will weigh in here!
Whoa, I totally forgot that I had that card specifically mentioned on my site, and with that answer. Right now, I don't see any reason why I would have put that up there. This is strange.
Quote from: NickW on April 09, 2011, 11:30:03 PM
Whoa, I totally forgot that I had that card specifically mentioned on my site, and with that answer. Right now, I don't see any reason why I would have put that up there. This is strange.
I can actually tell you why. It's because this card is written ambiguously. It cannot be played "as written"
When I read it now, it's clear to me exactly how it should be played. I agree, there can be some confusion, but I think it is only if you take certain words out of the order they were written. I'm not sure if the reason I wrote what I did on my website was because someone else's confusion influenced my own understanding of the card or if something else was going on. To be honest, I don't think we spent a lot of time on Aspects, playtesting them or editing the game text for issues like this. We hoped that Aspects could become a larger part of the game in time, but 1 Aspect each for 22 different Locations was not going to be enough to do it in one expansion. We focused on Specials, the major factor of the game.
Quote from: NickW on April 10, 2011, 09:26:45 AM
When I read it now, it's clear to me exactly how it should be played. I agree, there can be some confusion, but I think it is only if you take certain words out of the order they were written. I'm not sure if the reason I wrote what I did on my website was because someone else's confusion influenced my own understanding of the card or if something else was going on. To be honest, I don't think we spent a lot of time on Aspects, playtesting them or editing the game text for issues like this. We hoped that Aspects could become a larger part of the game in time, but 1 Aspect each for 22 different Locations was not going to be enough to do it in one expansion. We focused on Specials, the major factor of the game.
So is there a conclusion on how this card should be played?
Quote from: Palatinus on April 11, 2011, 11:02:28 AM
So is there a conclusion on how this card should be played?
Yes - When the opponent of the player using Avalon plays an activator, both players simultaneously draw 1 card. Draw cards before resolving the opponent's action.
-BBH
Meaning, Avalon team can still use a battlesite, but without the disadvantage of allowing their opponent card draws when THEY use activators themselves. Advantage to the Avalon team, provided opponent pulls a dupe and Avalon team does not.
Quote from: Demacus on August 04, 2011, 03:43:25 PM
Meaning, Avalon team can still use a battlesite, but without the disadvantage of allowing their opponent card draws when THEY use activators themselves. Advantage to the Avalon team, provided opponent pulls a dupe and Avalon team does not.
correct, much to my disappointment
I know that there
can still be advantage to me when we both draw (mostly by limiting my own duplication rate in my deck build), but it's not nearly as straight-forward an advantage as it could've been. c'est la vie.
Quote from: Onslaught on April 03, 2011, 06:56:10 PM
I spoke to a Reserve about this, and to the best of his recollection they interpreted it internally as
"For the remainder of the game, if your opponent plays an activator, you draw a card. If you play an activator, your opponent draws a card."
Now everyone go try Avalon homebase with Any Heroes...
i thought you couldnt play any hero/char if u have a homebase?
or is it any hero/char if you have a battlesite?
It's battlesite. You're good to go with a base.
ah yes
thanks
This was a tight discussion guys. Way to debate!
I would like to say that I agree with BBH's statement:
Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 05, 2011, 12:17:46 PM
When dealing with an unknown variable, one can only use precedent as a guide. Hence my interpretation of the use of 'opponent' as it applies to the rest of the established cards. It's really all we have to go on.
-BBH
Only events (which I believe Nick mentioned) apply to both players, so anytime a special or aspect refers to an opponent, it will never be talking about the person who played the card. Never. Precedent is a GREAT guideline for how to rule ambiguously worded cards. This conversation reminded me of the Substitute Death debate we had (and I wanted to dig all that up in Buffalo but I forgot:(). I lost that debate, and I'm still not sure if anyone understood where I was coming from. I think everyone at least understood one another here, and that's important. At least to me, it is.
Hey, can anyone answer this question for me, and I've asked a couple times, though it's slipped by the board:
Can I attack my own teammate?
Quote from: thetrooper27 on April 25, 2013, 01:41:04 AM
This was a tight discussion guys. Way to debate!
I would like to say that I agree with BBH's statement:Quote from: BigBadHarve on April 05, 2011, 12:17:46 PM
When dealing with an unknown variable, one can only use precedent as a guide. Hence my interpretation of the use of 'opponent' as it applies to the rest of the established cards. It's really all we have to go on.
-BBH
Only events (which I believe Nick mentioned) apply to both players, so anytime a special or aspect refers to an opponent, it will never be talking about the person who played the card. Never. Precedent is a GREAT guideline for how to rule ambiguously worded cards. This conversation reminded me of the Substitute Death debate we had (and I wanted to dig all that up in Buffalo but I forgot:(). I lost that debate, and I'm still not sure if anyone understood where I was coming from. I think everyone at least understood one another here, and that's important. At least to me, it is.
Hey, can anyone answer this question for me, and I've asked a couple times, though it's slipped by the board:
Can I attack my own teammate?
It was a good debate. I'm sad it isn't the way I think it should be :P
Also, there are only two cards that "attack" teammates:
DZ (see Nightcrawler)
and
IA (see White Queen)
I was wondering... I chimed in on another discussion about Telepathic Coordinator. I'm not sure either of those should be usable on your teammates. They're offense oriented cards... I couldn't get anyone to comment further though. I'll bump that thread if I can find it.