i know the player going first resolves their event first, but what if the player going second's event contradicts the first one?
Any examples?
--
Reading through the rules for events, if both players have the same event, then only one gets played.. So, if both players have The Crossing's KO Hero, only 1 hero gets KO'd. However, if there's The Crossing's and Brave and the Bold's KO hero events, 2 heroes gets killed.
I guess, by the rule, both would be in effect, the player going first gets resolved first. Would it be like a AH/CN type of conflict or something else?
i'm thinking more along the lines of
any specials in hand may be played by any character VS no specials may be played this battle
Quote from: breadmaster on October 08, 2011, 06:44:42 PM
i'm thinking more along the lines of
any specials in hand may be played by any character VS no specials may be played this battle
In that case I don't think either one overrides the other. So both are in play. So any special is usable by any character, but no specials can be played at all. (However, even if you had something like Legacy Regression in play, you wouldn't get the benefit of being able to use all the specials in your hand, because regression lets you ignore the event. But you'd still get your own.)
In the case of something like BEST LAID PLANS, certain events can screw you. If player one plays BLP, and player two plays NEW LEASE ON LIFE, then the Best laid plan is lost. But if player 1 played new Lease, and player 2 BLP, then the best laid plan isn't lost.
-BBH
i don't really get that
if both are in play, then why does only the 'no specials' event have it's effects felt?
here's the exact text: 'All special cards in your hand may be played by any hero for remainder of battle.'
if you honour that, then specials can be played. if you honour 'no specials', then no specials can be played. i don't see how both can take effect.
How I understand it:
Events change the default "settings" for a battle. So, the first event changes the fact that specials can only be played by certain characters and allows anyone to play any specials. The second event changes that no specials are allowed to be played. So, even if anyone's allowed to play every special, they can't.
We had a discussion topic about conflicts in my law class: In Canada, it's legal to sell your body for prostitution but illegal to tell people that you're doing it. Or similar for marijuana, it's legal to smoke it but illegal to possess it on your person.
So, with the specials, Character A can play Character D specials but no specials can be played.
i guess we have different opinions on the defenition of the word 'may'
if i was making the rules, i'd make it whichever event goes second is the one that counts
sounds conflicting
BBH and Jack make a very sound, logical point on how to read said events. I would have to back up their argument that both events would be completed as much as they can.
If this was VS system, they had a rule in place which stated that if "something" can happen, but something else played says that that same "something" cannot happen, cannot always wins. OP doesn't seem to have said restrictions, nor does it seem to need it.
In your example, it would seem that both events negate each other, but like BBH said, in the off-chance that you or your opponent has a character who cannot be affected by event cards, then he could still play specials, just not EVERYONE'S specials, only his own. Everyone else would be affected by both events at the same time, in essence changing all specials in your hand into "Any Character" specials, and yet preventing those specials from being played at all.
exactly...and that doesn't seem right
one event has 100% of it's effects felt, and the other, zero
Quote from: breadmaster on October 09, 2011, 07:27:52 PM
exactly...and that doesn't seem right
one event has 100% of it's effects felt, and the other, zero
Such is the way it is. There are many cards that simply trump other cards, however you slice it.
Now consider the odds of said two events actually coming up at the same time:
One player must have Fatal Attractions against another using Assault on Onslaught
Both players must be using those events.
Both events must come up in the exact same hand.
Jack? Care to give me the math on that statistical probably alone, never mind the chances of players using those missions and events? Assume two players with a 60 card deck. ;)
-BBH
i was thinking about this again, and there IS a way for both events to have effects felt
any specials that are placed CANNOT be played due to 'down but not out'
any specials that are in hand CAN be played due to 'fighting spirit lives'
what that means for activators...i don't know. does the special ever go IN your hand, or do you simply exchange the activator for the special, and play it immideately?
thoughts?
seems like these are still both able to be effective...
As noted above, Events are changing the normal rules or sequence of play.
- The normal rule is that characters can only play Special cards that belong to them. The FSL Event changes that rule.
- The other normal rule that's affected is that characters can play Specials at all, and the DBNO Event changes that rule.
The problem is that FSL is not "all-incluse" while DBNO is "all-exclusive."
- Let me give this example:
If FSL is in play, and some one is hit with a GA-Special (Target Character may not play Special cards for remainder of battle.), there is no exception to make based on FSL being in play; that character still cannot play Special cards because the GA has disabled them. Now, if FSL stated, "Characters may not be disabled from playing Special cards this battle." - that would be in direct conflict with DBNO, and create an escape from the GA-Special.
Let me draw another similar comparison...
Witchblade on the Scene (All PC may be played by any FL Character)
vs.
Mutant Rebels Held Captive (No Strength PC may be played)
In this case, the rules being affected are:
- Characters can only play PC as their Power Grids allow (Power Grid restriction is now lifted).
- Strength PC are allowed to be played in the course of a battle, provided the Character has the necessary Power Grid (now disallowed).
Even though the first Event would allow Professor X to play a 5S PC, the second Event disallows S PC, regardless of Power Grid abilities.
So, you might say FSL "changes" your FL Character's names to match the Specials in hand as needed, (allowing the use of any Special cards from hand) - just like WOTS does for Power Grids;
however,
DBNO says no one can play Special cards, regardless of whether or not their names' match the Specials, just like MRHC stops S PC, regardless of Power Grid allowances.
Exactly. Both events are in full effect. One does not trump the other, they are simply both in play. It would be a similar situation with FSL and Symbiotic Hero Captured, the maximum carnage event that states No "One-per-deck" cards can be played. That Mindwipe in your hand is dead, whether Xavier is still alive or not. But since both events are active, anyony can Psychic Shield, not just Prof X.
how is 'FSL' in effect if it has no impact on the battle?
it seems unanimous that people feel 'DBNO' overpowers any increased effects from other events (even taking into effect the place/hand scenario i pointed out) .
i don't play any CCGs, so is this a common theme, or just a statement on human nature in general. (ie: we believe prohibition is stronger than permission)
The thing is, there's no prohibition here. Both events are active. One changes the state of all specials in both hands into any character specials, the other keeps any specials from being played.
Also, like I said, in almost all other CCG's, whenever a card says that "something" CAN happen, and another card is played declaring that that same "something" CANNOT happen, the cannot usually wins. (i.e. Mr. F plays his HQ, his opponent responds with an AO. Mr. F CANNOT draw 3 cards, even though his card says he CAN.)
I guess, given the incredibly unlikely chance of these two events hitting the table on the same turn, then yes, DBNO would act as a negate for FSL, even though it doesn't say that outright.
Quote from: breadmaster on October 11, 2011, 04:42:42 PM
how is 'FSL' in effect if it has no impact on the battle?
it seems unanimous that people feel 'DBNO' overpowers any increased effects from other events (even taking into effect the place/hand scenario i pointed out) .
i don't play any CCGs, so is this a common theme, or just a statement on human nature in general. (ie: we believe prohibition is stronger than permission)
No, I do not believe prohibition is stronger than permission; however, you have to look at exactly what is being prohibited and/or permitted.
In these circumstances, I don't think FSL is guaranteeing a right to use Special cards. I think it is simply making it so that the Special cards in your hand are not restricted in their use, to the characters to whom they belong.
As I said above, if one of my characters is hit with a GA-Special while FSL is in play, I think they would be
unable to play any Specials, regardless of whether or not the Specials belong to them. So, if Batman is hit with a GA, he cannot later use his own AD to avoid a Power card, and neither can he play Nightwing's AD to avoid a Strength attack. Even if Batman was your last Character, the GA that landed on him isn't "negating" the FSL event.
In layman's terms, or for practical purposes, DBNO "trumps" FSL, in as much as, the FSL no longer "matters", but it is technically, or literally, still in effect.
On the flip side:A good example of the prohibition vs. permission from the other side, is Maverick's GI card. It says that he is not affected by Events. This is permission to continue each battle without adhering to the new guidelines, rules, allowances, or restrictions because of Events. That permission trumps any prohibition introduced through Events.
[/quote]
On the flip side:
A good example of the prohibition vs. permission from the other side, is Maverick's GI card. It says that he is not affected by Events. This is permission to continue each battle without adhering to the new guidelines, rules, allowances, or restrictions because of Events. That permission trumps any prohibition introduced through Events.
[/quote]
In the case of Maverick's GI, would he be immune to The Crossing's KO 1 active hero event? IF I only had 2 characters left alive, 1 was Mave with his GI in play and the other was Sabretooth, and I pulled my KO event, would I be forced to KO Sabretooth, since Mave is unaffected?
Quote from: Demacus on October 11, 2011, 05:01:42 PM
In the case of Maverick's GI, would he be immune to The Crossing's KO 1 active hero event? IF I only had 2 characters left alive, 1 was Mave with his GI in play and the other was Sabretooth, and I pulled my KO event, would I be forced to KO Sabretooth, since Mave is unaffected?
yes.
How come when I quote it doesn't put what I'm referencing in the nice blue box like it does for everyone else? I must be doing it wrong.
Quote from: Demacus on October 11, 2011, 05:11:58 PM
How come when I quote it doesn't put what I'm referencing in the nice blue box like it does for everyone else? I must be doing it wrong.
You're doing it wrong.
Quote from: Demacus on October 11, 2011, 05:11:58 PM
How come when I quote it doesn't put what I'm referencing in the nice blue box like it does for everyone else? I must be doing it wrong.
First, are you using the "quote" button on the top-right of the other person's post? try that.
Second, if you're in the middle of a post and you want to quote something, you can use the quote button in the toolbar above the text box.
Third, if you want to simply type out the command, start your quote with this (but no spaces): [ quote ]
and end it with this (but again, no spaces): [ /quote ]
:)
i see what you're saying, but you're changing the event to support your case
it doesn't say 'all specials become anyheroes'
it says 'All special cards in your hand may be played by any hero for remainder of battle.'
the effect on the battle may be the same, but it's not making them anys.
so, the special in my hand MAY be played, or it may NOT be played. it's not an anyhero that can't be played
may
1 [mey] Show IPA
auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or ( Archaic ) may·est or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might.
1. (used to express possibility): It may rain.
2. (used to express opportunity or permission): You may enter.
3. (used to express contingency, especially in clauses indicating condition, concession, purpose, result, etc.): I may be wrong but I think you would be wise to go. Times may change but human nature stays the same.
4. (used to express wish or prayer): May you live to an old age.
5. Archaic . (used to express ability or power.)
not
[not] Show IPA
adverb
1. (used to express negation, denial, refusal, or prohibition): You must not do that. It's not far from here.
2. U.S. Slang . (used jocularly as a postpositive interjection to indicate that a previous statement is untrue): That's a lovely dress. Not!
"May" when used in most games, is used in the second example. It's not granting permission, it's expressing an opportunity. So when "May," expressing an opportunity, meets "cannot," used to express negation, the "cannot" does not allow the opportunity to occur.
I really can't find another way to put this without looking like an asshole, but it is what it is.
by all means, be an asshole
i'm not defensive about it, nor do i care what the majority ultimately feels is the correct way to play it. i'm just curious why they feel that way
no offense meant, or taken
:-D I'm not trying to be offensive, and I appreciate that you aren't taking the arguement to heart. :-D
My experience in all the games I've played have shown me that this is how card games work. I think I'm done with this topic. lol
IF you find a ruling stating otherwise, please let me know.
Quote from: breadmaster on October 08, 2011, 06:44:42 PM
i'm thinking more along the lines of
any specials in hand may be played by any character VS no specials may be played this battle
play neither of em :)
Here's another way for me to state my position. Consider these 2 cards...
If Professor X has been hit with a GA Special
(Target cannot play Special cards for remainder of battle.)
But on my next turn, I use Spawn's LIVING COSTUME on Professor X
(Target Teammate may play any Spawn Special cards for remainder of game)
Does that mean that Professor can now play Spawn's Specials, but not his own? I don't think it does. I think the allowance of Spawn's card is affecting ProfessorX's ability to play some one else's Special cards - I don't think it's preserving (or restoring) his ability to play (certain) Special cards in general.
So, in the case of the Events, I think FSL is allowing your characters to play Special cards that do not belong to them - but I do not think it is protecting their ability to play Special cards under any circumstance. So, if a GA-Special comes into play, I think it's still effective, and if the DBNO Event comes into play, I think it is also still effective.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Having said all that, if you were going to say that these Events conflict with one another, I'd say that the last rule to go into effect is the rule that stands. So, if your playing group determines that only one of these can truly, practically, be effective, I'd say the last rule established is the one that is played.
Quote from: ncannelora on October 13, 2011, 03:01:16 PM
Here's another way for me to state my position. Consider these 2 cards...
If Professor X has been hit with a GA Special
(Target cannot play Special cards for remainder of battle.)
But on my next turn, I use Spawn's LIVING COSTUME on Professor X
(Target Teammate may play any Spawn Special cards for remainder of game)
Does that mean that Professor can now play Spawn's Specials, but not his own? I don't think it does. I think the allowance of Spawn's card is affecting ProfessorX's ability to play some one else's Special cards - I don't think it's preserving (or restoring) his ability to play (certain) Special cards in general.
So, in the case of the Events, I think FSL is allowing your characters to play Special cards that do not belong to them - but I do not think it is protecting their ability to play Special cards under any circumstance. So, if a GA-Special comes into play, I think it's still effective, and if the DBNO Event comes into play, I think it is also still effective.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Having said all that, if you were going to say that these Events conflict with one another, I'd say that the last rule to go into effect is the rule that stands. So, if your playing group determines that only one of these can truly, practically, be effective, I'd say the last rule established is the one that is played.
living costume wouldnt take affect till next turn since xavier cant play any specials
Quote from: steve2275 on October 14, 2011, 03:59:32 AM
Quote from: ncannelora on October 13, 2011, 03:01:16 PM
Here's another way for me to state my position. Consider these 2 cards...
If Professor X has been hit with a GA Special
(Target cannot play Special cards for remainder of battle.)
But on my next turn, I use Spawn's LIVING COSTUME on Professor X
(Target Teammate may play any Spawn Special cards for remainder of game)
Does that mean that Professor can now play Spawn's Specials, but not his own? I don't think it does. I think the allowance of Spawn's card is affecting ProfessorX's ability to play some one else's Special cards - I don't think it's preserving (or restoring) his ability to play (certain) Special cards in general.
So, in the case of the Events, I think FSL is allowing your characters to play Special cards that do not belong to them - but I do not think it is protecting their ability to play Special cards under any circumstance. So, if a GA-Special comes into play, I think it's still effective, and if the DBNO Event comes into play, I think it is also still effective.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Having said all that, if you were going to say that these Events conflict with one another, I'd say that the last rule to go into effect is the rule that stands. So, if your playing group determines that only one of these can truly, practically, be effective, I'd say the last rule established is the one that is played.
living costume wouldnt take affect till next turn since xavier cant play any specials
no, that's my point. Living Costume is, in fact, effective immediately upon it's successful play (i.e., if your opponent does not negate it); however, it is not
practically useful until the next hand (or until the GA is removed through some other means). In the same way, I'd say that FSL is
in effect, despite the DBNO, but it is not
practically useful.
It's just like my argument about playing DoW even when your opponent does not have a battlesite. Just because a card has no
practical use on the battle or that particular game, does not mean it is not still
affecting the game. ie., you don't have to feel the effects for them to still be there.
If I get shot in the chest, but my finger is also cutoff at the same time, my finger wound will not be felt, but it still affects my body. In light of the chest wound, it's practically unimportant, but it doesn't change the fact that I've still lost a finger.
i honestly dont care
so ill see myself out ;)