Quote from: BigBadHarve on August 08, 2010, 12:47:35 AM
It should be noted, though, that in a typical contradictory ruling (OverPower was plagued with these) cards with a penalty to the player who used them still carried the penalty even if the card was removed (though a negate always removed the penalty as well.) An example is Human Torch's 11 energy attack, which states that Human Torch can't attack for the remainder of the battle. That penalty applies to the player using Torch even if the attack is defended, or taken then removed. Only a negate cancels out the penalty on that card.
Clear as mud? ;)
-BBH
With rulings like that the tournament scene must have been...interesting back in the day. :D Thanks for the info.
Quote from: BigBadHarve on August 08, 2010, 12:47:35 AM
Quote from: Nostalgic on August 07, 2010, 10:57:17 PM
Also I have an unrelated question about what affects venture total. Once an attack lands its value counts toward the current battle's venture total. However, if it is removed later by a card like the morlock's special 'run from slaughter' which can remove a hit from the current battle, doesn't its value still count toward venture total. I believe the card removing the hit would have say it affects venture total like Hawkeye's 'Field Dressing' special for the value of the special to not count anymore. This also relates to a negate played to remove a special card that is in the character's 'hits from current battle.' Would the negate also take away the numerical value of the special as it counts toward venture total or only the damage to the character the hit was on?
No, only cards that are in play when the round is over are counted. So whether or not the special says 'may affect venture' any card that is removed from the hits to current battle no longer counts to venture. There was some debate over HD specials (Mojo - caught on film) at tournaments I played in, regarding removal of those cards. The secondary effect states that if successful the opponent is -4 to venture, and even if removed the -4 venture should remain. Ultimately it was ruled (officially) that removing any card also cancels out the secondary effect.
While looking at Jack's site I the meta rule below. I don't know the specific special it applies to, but it seems to refer to something similar to what I was getting at.
(91) Specials which affect damage done to a Character do not affect Venture Total unless they specifically say so.
Say for Cyclops' EN special:
(http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/316.jpg)
Thanks for the example. In looking over it again, I think the answer is in the fact that venture total is calculated when the battle is over and the hits as they stand at that point are what matter, not what was hit and then removed.
I would argue against BigBadHarve with a new understanding of the removed hit rule in conjunction with the meta rule #91. Since removing the hit would be affecting damage, it does not necessarily change what the venture total is.
Within our circle of play, we've established venture (aside from inherents and other non-special cards) as the sum total of hits that landed. Negates remove all traces of the card, including damage and effects.
There are really only 7 cards that would be contradicting:
(http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/866.png)(http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/815.png)(http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/235.png)(http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/253.png)(http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/824.png)(http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/896.png)(http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/1409.png)
Quote from: Jack on August 14, 2010, 06:29:03 PM
I would argue against BigBadHarve with a new understanding of the removed hit rule in conjunction with the meta rule #91. Since removing the hit would be affecting damage, it does not necessarily change what the venture total is.
Within our circle of play, we've established venture (aside from inherents and other non-special cards) as the sum total of hits that landed. Negates remove all traces of the card, including damage and effects.
That's a very interesting interpretation based on the existing meta-rules. It would certainly change the strategy behind those cards.
But you're right, if you adhere strictly to the printed rules outlined in the OP rulebook and the meta rules, any card removed from damage by one of those 7 seven examples (Don't forget Sentinel's Master Mold to that (And other equivalents), would NOT remove the venture gain, only the damage.
As far as I'm concerned (as well as almost any other OP player on this board, I'd warrant) only cards
in play when venture is added qualify to the venture.
-BBH
Yes, I forgot about EE's and some others, I only did a quick search for 'Current Battle' and picked out those. I'd like to hear Onslaught's thoughts.
I think that because there are specials that affect hits from the current battle which do specifically say they affect venture, because the meta rule states that unless the card says it affects venture that it does not, and because, although venture is calculated at the end of battle, the wording is actually "To figure out your Venture Total, add the Values of all of the Hits from the Current Battle inflicted on any of your opponent's Characters." This doesn't say hits from the current battle that are still in play. Added to this, when a hero is KO'd, the hits from the current battle that were on that hero are still counted toward venture. I think all of this makes a very strong case for removed cards still counting towards the venture. I would tend to agree that negated cards have ceased to exist for any purpose and so should not count.
Actually, I can further strengthen the argument that it doesn't apply to these cards, and venture would be removed with the hit.
If you look at the meta-rules associated with each of these cards, you'll see that Meta-rule #91 is not attached to any of them, ergo it doesn't apply to them. The meta rules only apply to the cards with which they are associated.
-BBH
But there are many meta rules that are like that, for example, with GL cards (Lady Deathstrike)
(http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/1102.png)
that should be attached to meta #26
Quote from: Meta #26When a Special allows one to look through a specific set of cards, it is for not more than one minute.
but is not.
Quote from: Jack on August 15, 2010, 10:48:20 AM
But there are many meta rules that are like that, for example, with GL cards (Lady Deathstrike) that should be attached to meta #26Quote from: Meta #26When a Special allows one to look through a specific set of cards, it is for not more than one minute.
but is not.
You could argue it one of two ways - either it's an oversight in the meta-rules or an oversight in the printing on the card. I would argue that the makers intended that they affect venture, and simply forgot to add the text 'may affect venture' and as such would qualify as an erratum. And there's plenty of precedent for the card makers goofing on the text of a card and fixing it after the fact. Either way, the simplest and most direct way to play is to simply play so that any card removed doesn't count for venture. It's logical, and trust me, will cause a lot less argument. Also - do you really want to de-power a bunch of good cards to make them unappealing, given the state of many other cards? I think there's enough of that already.
There are also plenty of examples where the meta rules contradict the text on a card or other meta rules. This is primarily the reason I HATE the meta rules. They are redundant, confusing and contradictory. Not to mention overwrought.
Let's take one of my beefs with rules in the book - the duration meta rule – (#145)
"Specials that do not indicate their duration by their game text should be considered Game lasting duration if they are One Per Deck and Battle lasting duration if they are non-OPD. Specials with Instant effects are instant duration regardless."
As a rule itself, it's good. I like it a lot, because if you play it straight up - then it actually strengthens some existing cards. But, like many rulings in Overpower, it seems to be arbitrary. It only applied to certain cards rather than being a blanket rule.
For example - Brood's Brood Spawn. "Play in front of Brood, Brood may not be attacked until that card is attacked."
A lot of people don't like these cards, but I think they're great. At least I did until some idiot told me that it only lasts a friggin' battle! But wait, there's a duration printed - it says 'until this card is attacked.' That implies that the card remains 'until this card is attacked,' it doesn't get much clearer. But no, I was told, it doesn't apply to that card. WTF?!? Same goes for Mole Man's Social Outcast which clearly states that all attacks must be made against him UNTIL HE IS KO'D or CANNOT BE ATTACKED.... but someone arbitrarily decided that it would only last the battle.
Another example is with Sabretooth's Blood Hunt - "Make one attack after opponent has conceded battle." It's an OPD! There's no duration printed, ergo, it should remain in play for the whole game - and thus giving Sabretooth a good OPD, as with Carnage and the Anyhero version - Urban Hunters. But again, in a moronic contradiction of that Meta rule, that answer is no.
You see what I'm getting at? Back in the tournament days, I would bet that if you argued that removed hits still count to venture, and even had a copy of the Meta rules on hand, it would still be ruled that the venture no longer applies once the hit is removed. Many people used these cards and removal as strategy.
Here's another good one for you - Meta rule #21 - "If a special calls for another card to be played with or after it, then the card must be playable by the character who contributes the card -
even if the special indicates otherwise." WTF!?! So, if a special says character A may follow up with character B's special card, you still may not follow up with character B's card because of this meta rule. Unless character A could also normally play Character B's cards. That would mean Black Panther could only play his own cards with his African Monarch card, to add to venture, instead of ANY special as the text would indicate. Grunge wouldn't be able to follow up his Martial artist with a teammate's special because they aren't playable by him - despite the text. The meta rule overrides the text on the card.
That would be the literal interpretation of the rule. Obviously, that's absolutely retarded. Common sense must be applied here.
One could also argue that the rule makes Marauder's Malice an illegal card. You exchange the card for another card not playable by Marauders and play immediately. Well, taking this rule literally, that action itself is an illegal action. Obviously, this rule is not meant to be applied to such cards, which is why the meta rule # doesn't appear on the list of rules that apply to Malice. Again, common sense needs to be applied.
Part of the problem with OverPower is that it got overly complicated with the stupid meta rules and an unending host of errata. I found trying to teach new players excruciating because I had to stop and inform them of a thousand little inconsistencies.
To add to that complication by saying that removed cards still count to the venture is uneccesary and as you can see, it's both supported AND contradicted by the rules themselves creating conflict and argument.
I say, keep it simple - if a card is present when venture it totalled, it counts. If not, it doesn't. There's no argument, no debate, just simple numbers.
My two cents, plus interest. ;)
-BBH
PS: If anyone is interested in my house rules, which basically chuck out the need for the meta rules for easier play, let me know, I'm happy to share. ;)
In regards to what BigBadHarve is saying, I feel like you are making a different, completely valid point about this discussion. On the one hand, there is the question of what best fits the rules as they are written, and on the other hand, there is the question of what makes the game easiest to play. I don't necessarily agree that having to keep track of the venture total separately from the cards that are in play is very difficult, but I do agree that it is important to come to a conclusion that makes the game better. For all we know, all the cards we are talking about not having the "affects venture total" on them would have been errated at some point to say that they do affect the venture total. Also, clearly, the rules exist to make the game consistent and fair. In that regard, so long as everyone can reasonably understand how something should be done and is aware of those rules upon deck construction, it should be fine. I still think that the discussion about how the rules apply can be had as a separate conversation. Part of that, though, is that I am heavy into rules theory about any system and therefore I enjoy these kinds of debates about rules, meta-rules, card texts, and such. I think there are strong points on both sides of what the rules intend.
If playing specials based solely on the text on the card, Dr. Doom's AH special (No Energy cards may be played against Doctor Doom for remainder of battle) would be used on an offensive turn. However, Vision's AH special (Avoid 1 attack with a Strength icon. No Strength Power cards may be played against Vision for remainder of battle), would be played defensively.
If we allow Dr. Doom's AH special to have a similar property as to Vision's AH special, we would open up a card to be more playable, this is good. This doesn't break the game, in fact it adds more to the game.
Using the same logic, if all current battle hit removing specials affect venture, then we would have a few more playable cards, which will increase the character pool, and ultimately more unique decks and strategies. Isn't this the overall goal of our small community?
Side note:
I believe the meta-rules (regarding specials) were created to assist judges with resolving disputes at tournaments. I never thought of them as an extension to the main-rules of the game. If every meta was applied universally across the specials, then there would be a lot of unplayable/contradicting specials, hence why they were grouped per code. They should be referenced when there is disagreement of how a certain special code should be played.
bamf!
Doom's AH special is playable defensively, even under official rules.
-BBH
Official rules, do you mean the table of meta where it list out offense/defense? If so, I always thought that defense=yes for AH code was referring to Vision's version of the special. However, applying defense=yes to all AH specials does make more playable cards, which is fine with me. Learned something new.
Maybe it was a bad example choice, but I was trying to say how we shouldn't take the card text too literally, especially if doing so shrinks the overall usable card/hero pool.
With that out of the way, the new understanding of how AH specials works got me thinking about other specials that are flagged defense=yes, and I came up with this.
Let say I have a Morlock Tunnels battlesite, with one hero left and I drew both a Storm and Dark Beast activators. You attack my hero with a powercard, I exchange Dark Beast for his CD special (Only attacks made with Universe cards may be played against Beast for remainder of battle.) and play it to avoid the powercard. On your next turn, since you are restricted to universe cards, you launch a teamwork on my hero, and I exchange Storm for her AH special (No Universe cards may be played against Storm for remainder of battle), successfully avoiding the attack. Is this played correctly? and if so, has my hero shut out all attacks for the battle, unless negated?
bamf!
Quote from: bamf! on August 15, 2010, 11:16:27 PM
Official rules, do you mean the table of meta where it list out offense/defense? If so, I always thought that defense=yes for AH code was referring to Vision's version of the special. However, applying defense=yes to all AH specials does make more playable cards, which is fine with me. Learned something new.
That list of attack/defense applies to all cards with that code.
Quote from: bamf! on August 15, 2010, 11:16:27 PM
With that out of the way, the new understanding of how AH specials works got me thinking about other specials that are flagged defense=yes, and I came up with this.
Let say I have a Morlock Tunnels battlesite, with one hero left and I drew both a Storm and Dark Beast activators. You attack my hero with a powercard, I exchange Dark Beast for his CD special (Only attacks made with Universe cards may be played against Beast for remainder of battle.) and play it to avoid the powercard. On your next turn, since you are restricted to universe cards, you launch a teamwork on my hero, and I exchange Storm for her AH special (No Universe cards may be played against Storm for remainder of battle), successfully avoiding the attack. Is this played correctly? and if so, has my hero shut out all attacks for the battle, unless negated?
Yup, that's exactly how it would work.
-BBH
Quote from: Jack on August 14, 2010, 07:42:26 PM
Yes, I forgot about EE's and some others, I only did a quick search for 'Current Battle' and picked out those. I'd like to hear Onslaught's thoughts.
Hits removed by an EE (or a negate, or whatever) were always ruled to not count towards venture total. This is also supported by the fact that it was specifically mentioned that you can remove hits from a dead character (the only reason to do so would be to keep them from counting to venture, so that's the only reason they would bring it up really). Hope this helps!
Going by what Onslaught says, it sounds like whether they intended it or not, all the remove hits cards were essentially erratted to indicate that they affect the venture. Onslaught, do you know if they printed a ruling anywhere to indicate this? If not, this would go back to the ease of play versus rules interpretation difference from earlier. Someone coming to the game cold with nothing but the written rules would still be faced with figuring this out if nothing was officially added. When my friends and I used to play, for example, we never would have thought to use a special as an avoid that didn't specifically say so. In fact, there is a whole ton of stuff that can be done as a defensive action that I've learned about nowadays that we had no idea about back then.
Two things on this.
1 - I can say for a fact that back in the tournament days Master Mold (EE) and Run From the Slaughter (Morlocks) where definately removing hits from both Venture and Current Battle and I used to attend in tournaments in three states with three different sets of judges/organizers. In fact one tournment I went too the winning deck was Sentinels, Holocaust, Morlocks and a big factor of its strategy was that all three heroes had a different way to remove a hit in the current battle and manipulate venture as it needed to win each battle.
2 - to Platinus. A general rule is if the special only mentions your hero it can be played defensively but if it mentions the opponent it has to be played offensively. So in the cases of Doom, Storm and Beast the Specials you named can be played defensively because they only names your hero and not the word "opponent". Conversely Mystiques Illusion of Ally or that Mr. Fantastic special with Universe cards no one plays (Object Bounce, i think) can only be played offensively because they have the word opponent on them. Likewise War Machine could make himself +2 to defense defensively, but Black Cat cannot make an opponent -2 to attack defensively. Another example of similar effects with different wording, Onslaught can play Cannon Fodder defensively to force attacks to a teammate, but KC specials cannot played defensively because they affect how the Opponent attacks. Also this rule extends to teamwide effects that only affect your team so for example Proffesor X's Telepathic Unity can be played defensively as well. (This is also why for most of the game's life Vertigo and Trick Transport could be played defensively as well - - and in fact in our circle we still play them that way).
I think in an earlier post you mentioned you stopped playing around Mission Control, and if I recall this rule wasn't really clarified until DC/IQ when new rulebooks were printed so hope this helps.
Post Merge: July 11, 2011, 06:27:10 PM
Harve,
You just mentioned my all time biggest pet peeve with the rules committee. It gives me Vietnam style flashbacks of annoyance.
I'm talking about the idiotic Brood Spawn ruling where they clearly contradict the text of the card, and in the process ruin a perfectly good pair of characters. And for what reason? Was there some phase of the game where Brood Spawn and Aquaman decks were running amuck ala FF Plaza and X-Babies-Marauders that I slept through? It seemed sometimes like they wanted to sabotage the game and limit playing options. No human being who speaks and understands English would ever make that interpretation of those cards based the text written on them.
The KC ruling was perhaps even stupider (although slightly less annoying only because I don't like Leader and Mole Man as much as Aquaman--who is probably my all time favorite DC Hero) in that people were actually trying to play Leader decks in tournaments before the stupidity from on-high. Then just to be a slap in the face they release Grunge in the next set as a nigh unkillable hero with this same special as a remainder of the game and the -2 built in. Well if he can have it and it isn't broken then why in God's name can't two lesser heros who will most likely be KO'd in three hits play it as written as well?
Thanks now that I had to remmeber all this again I need to go shower and wash the stupidity off me.
Thanks, The Dude, that definitely gives me a clearer picture of how things can be played. Since I started collecting and playing again it's been quite an eye-opener about how the game has changed. It took me days of searching to finally find out what an activator card was. But that was before this forum.
Quote from: The Dude on August 16, 2010, 10:52:42 AM
2 - to Platinus. A general rule is if the special only mentions your hero it can be played defensively but if it mentions the opponent it has to be played offensively. So in the cases of Doom, Storm and Beast the Specials you named can be played defensively because they only names your hero and not the word "opponent". Conversely Mystiques Illusion of Ally or that Mr. Fantastic special with Universe cards no one plays (Object Bounce, i think) can only be played offensively because they have the word opponent on them. Likewise War Machine could make himself +2 to defense defensively, but Black Cat cannot make an opponent -2 to attack defensively. Another example of similar effects with different wording, Onslaught can play Cannon Fodder defensively to force attacks to a teammate, but KC specials cannot played defensively because they affect how the Opponent attacks. Also this rule extends to teamwide effects that only affect your team so for example Proffesor X's Telepathic Unity can be played defensively as well. (This is also why for most of the game's life Vertigo and Trick Transport could be played defensively as well - - and in fact in our circle we still play them that way).
I have a gripe about that idea, that cards that have the word opponent may not be used defensively. If that's a blanket rule, then why would negates be omitted? If it applies to one then it must apply to all, otherwise confusion is created.
Now, I do understand what they were trying to do, but there are a few cards that affect the 'opponent' that should be playable defensively. Iceman's Snow Blind, for example, or the aforementioned 'Object Bounce.' I might even use 'The Unlucky At Love' Any hero if I could play it as a response. I think it's worth going through the cards to see how best to apply it.
I would say that, if the card has the word 'opponent' but affects any card being used to attack then it can be played defensively. So, if you attacked me with a teamwork, and I used Snow Blind to make all of your actions -1, and played a 5 to defend, that should be legal. Conversely, I wouldn't be allowed to play Colossus' 'Siberian Strength' to make you discard 3 cards from hand as a defense, because it doesn't affect the attacking card in any way.
Something I want to think on more, after looking at the cards that would possibly be affected.
As for trick transport, I don't mind the ruling that took away their defensive ability. All other 'target' cards are strictly attack oriented (excepting Spider Girl's Target Teammate defense). But it's a worthy argument either way. Vertigo I think should have been ruled OPD, but playable as written. I find it interesting that many people who agreed that vertigo was too powerful didn't want it to be OPD....
Quote from: The Dude on August 16, 2010, 11:07:51 AM
Harve,
You just mentioned my all time biggest pet peeve with the rules committee. It gives me Vietnam style flashbacks of annoyance.
I'm talking about the idiotic Brood Spawn ruling where they clearly contradict the text of the card, and in the process ruin a perfectly good pair of characters. And for what reason? Was there some phase of the game where Brood Spawn and Aquaman decks were running amuck ala FF Plaza and X-Babies-Marauders that I slept through? It seemed sometimes like they wanted to sabotage the game and limit playing options. No human being who speaks and understands English would ever make that interpretation of those cards based the text written on them.
The KC ruling was perhaps even stupider (although slightly less annoying only because I don't like Leader and Mole Man as much as Aquaman--who is probably my all time favorite DC Hero) in that people were actually trying to play Leader decks in tournaments before the stupidity from on-high. Then just to be a slap in the face they release Grunge in the next set as a nigh unkillable hero with this same special as a remainder of the game and the -2 built in. Well if he can have it and it isn't broken then why in God's name can't two lesser heros who will most likely be KO'd in three hits play it as written as well?
Thanks now that I had to remmeber all this again I need to go shower and wash the stupidity off me.
Don't forget behind the ears.... :P
I agree totally. Especially on the Mole Man/Leader issue. I can accept that their cards aren't defensive (they originally were) but Battle only? Come on! I liked Mole Man, I found him quite effective. Especially with a defensive team. Leader too, though Mole Man's negates are a selling point.
I took a Spawn, Grifter, Grunge and Spider woman team into a tournament (before the 'dead is dead' rule) and actually got yelled at by another player for creating such a cheesy team. With Grunge, I was able to absorb every single hit, and save all my avoids only for the multipower hits that would kill him. Every hit I let land just infuriated him more. That's a worse combo than the marauders/x-babies ever were. When we counted up the damage on Grunge at the end of the game it added to something like 87 pts of cumulative! The stack of cards in his record was ridiculous.
Oh, and for the record I agree 100% with the 'Dead is Dead' ruling. It really does bring a good amount of balance into the game without depowering characters with extra tough inherents or specials. No character should be unkillable. Wow, something the OP legion got right? Is that possible? :P
-BBH
Quote from: BigBadHarve on August 16, 2010, 01:57:16 PM
I took a Spawn, Grifter, Grunge and Spider woman team into a tournament (before the 'dead is dead' rule) and actually got yelled at by another player for creating such a cheesy team. With Grunge, I was able to absorb every single hit, and save all my avoids only for the multipower hits that would kill him. Every hit I let land just infuriated him more. That's a worse combo than the marauders/x-babies ever were. When we counted up the damage on Grunge at the end of the game it added to something like 87 pts of cumulative! The stack of cards in his record was ridiculous.
Oh, and for the record I agree 100% with the 'Dead is Dead' ruling. It really does bring a good amount of balance into the game without depowering characters with extra tough inherents or specials. No character should be unkillable. Wow, something the OP legion got right? Is that possible? :P
-BBH
The Grunge story is funny because not only is he sucking up all the offense, but if it goes to the power pack many cards won't be available to your opponent because they're in his permanent record. LOL! Who needs Holocaust's Devestate card if you can just absorb the entire dead pile! :D I pulled that off with Morph, in a non tournament game, using his specials to take on the power of his teammates Vision and Strong Guy so that he couldn't be spectrum or cumulative KO'd. ;D
I've enjoyed reading all the responses. The reason I asked the question in the first place is because I've become more interested in the 'theory' as Palatinus put it. I see different possibilities of combinations now that I just didn't think about back in Junior High and high school when I was playing regularly.
Anyway, I see both sides of argument and though I think all cards removing hits in the current battle may have been errataed to affect venture total, it is also possible that they could represent different 'power levels' among similar cards.
Let us look at it from the standpoint that general is sometimes more powerful than specific. A card that says, 'discard 1 placed universe card', is more 'powerful' (due to its broader use) than a card that says discard one placed ally card. However a 'discard 1 placed card' would be better than both. Of course if one card says target character and another says opponent, then the opponent card is more 'powerful' because it can't be avoided and can be used to affect the reserve character. Another example is 'avoid 1 attack' is obviously better than any 'avoid 1 E,F,S,I, Universe attack.'
On the other hand sometimes specific is better than general. For instance, 'avoid 1 attack that contains a E,F,S,I icon' is better than 'avoid 1 E,F,S,I attack.' My only point is than in this case perhaps the more specific cards that say they affect venture total, may just be 'better' than the others...
To Harve,
QuoteI have a gripe about that idea, that cards that have the word opponent may not be used defensively. If that's a blanket rule, then why would negates be omitted? If it applies to one then it must apply to all, otherwise confusion is created.
My intiial response is to say where any of the rules of ever applied consitently by the powers that be? But I definately recall the powers that by using that reasoning regarding Mr. Fantastic, Mystique and KC in almost weekly rules chat they published (as it seemed to come up repeatedly).
From a more logical point of view, the argument can be made that negates can be played defensively because they don't affect the opponent like most cards with that word do. You throw a level 7 AR special at me and I have a right to defend it so the negate is playable. I don't think it ever came up but I'd bet a negate couldn't be played defensively to affect an opponent. Example Hank Pym has Giant Man in play for three battles. He now attacks Beast with a level 7 powercard. I'd be extremely dubious of Beast using a negate in those circumstance.
Regarding Trick Transport. I honestly don't have a huge problem with it not being defensive, only because I always found it a little shaky as being playable on a teammate to begin with. To me the word "Target" sort of indicates an attack. (and the concept of playing it on yourself is even more dubious just looking at the word "target"—what can I say I was journalism/lit major so I'm something of a grammar nazi.) And in fact it wasn't until I got online in 1998 that I even learned people were playing it on teammates so I had a good two years of playing it only as an attack. Plus Nightcrawler has plenty of good stuff to fall back on so it's not a big deal. I do think however that making the related cards like Mutant Headmistress and its ilk offensive only is a choice for the worse. I certainly get the concern with lock decks but overall they were a flash in the pan who barely had their 15 minutes of fame, and the loss of those cards being played defensively created a few heroes who have no defensive specials at all now. Plus at the end of the day this goes into the ease of use / consistency concept that several other posters alluded to earlier in the thread. If the general rule is cards that affect only your heroes can be played defensively then I'm all for keeping it consistent to the point that I play cards that the rules committee for whatever reason never allowed defensively such as BQs that play immediately (but do include the phrase "on his/her turn") or cards that move a hero into reserve provided the incoming attack cannot hit a reserve hero.
I actually have a slightly unique perspective in that I just taught this game to an 11 (now 12) year old relative last year, (after what was probably 8 years of not playing myself at all) and the easiest way to teach it is just to play all cards as written (this goes back to the Brood Spawn, KC thing as well). The only errata I'm using is the FF Plaza one because in it's original form it's just ridiculously broken. I'd probably stick with the X-babies one too but by and large we don't play X-Babies unless I have new homemades that I think are tournament level that I want to test against some old school tourney staple deck. (Otherwise most of our games tend to center around actual popular heroes and fun characters).
With Vertigo I never it felt was too powerful. I certainly don't think it needs to be one-per-deck. On its own with normal characters Vertigo is certainly a very strong card for a non one-per-deck, but its not broken. Heck if both players have a perfect draw then as much as I can shift with Vertigo I'm taking one hit somewhere since you have an 8th card that I can't block I can only move. And since a lot of Vertigo decks were built around that card chances are it may duplicate once or twice too making the team two cards short if the opponent has a perfect draw. And of course it can always be negated and/or lil ice-man'd away. I actually think a better solution would have been to create a few more heroes with shifting cards and then an equal number of heroes with anti-shift cards ala Brass so that it would just be one more strategy element to consider during hero selection.
It's only with X-Babies that it becomes abusive, but I tend to find (pre-erata) X-Babies broken on their own, let alone with Vertigo. I think the more sensible solution is just to ban them (and probably likewise Grunge, those types of inherants are just poor character design choices from the start). Certainly it's a better solution than running around errating 19 other cards just to accommodate them (see Veritigo, Image Inducer, even the dead is dead rule is an ill-fit vs. just banning the little brats since it unnecessarily weakens a perfectly innocent Deadpool just because the X-Babies and Grunge are poorly designed).
So that's my two cents.
I agree that negates should be defensive (though it would make for some interesting matches if they weren't!) but the same rule should apply to various other cards.
Quote from: The Dude on August 18, 2010, 12:47:04 AM
I actually have a slightly unique perspective in that I just taught this game to an 11 (now 12) year old relative last year, (after what was probably 8 years of not playing myself at all) and the easiest way to teach it is just to play all cards as written (this goes back to the Brood Spawn, KC thing as well). The only errata I'm using is the FF Plaza one because in it's original form it's just ridiculously broken. I'd probably stick with the X-babies one too but by and large we don't play X-Babies unless I have new homemades that I think are tournament level that I want to test against some old school tourney staple deck. (Otherwise most of our games tend to center around actual popular heroes and fun characters).
With Vertigo I never it felt was too powerful. I certainly don't think it needs to be one-per-deck. On its own with normal characters Vertigo is certainly a very strong card for a non one-per-deck, but its not broken. Heck if both players have a perfect draw then as much as I can shift with Vertigo I'm taking one hit somewhere since you have an 8th card that I can't block I can only move. And since a lot of Vertigo decks were built around that card chances are it may duplicate once or twice too making the team two cards short if the opponent has a perfect draw. And of course it can always be negated and/or lil ice-man'd away. I actually think a better solution would have been to create a few more heroes with shifting cards and then an equal number of heroes with anti-shift cards ala Brass so that it would just be one more strategy element to consider during hero selection.
It's only with X-Babies that it becomes abusive, but I tend to find (pre-erata) X-Babies broken on their own, let alone with Vertigo. I think the more sensible solution is just to ban them (and probably likewise Grunge, those types of inherants are just poor character design choices from the start). Certainly it's a better solution than running around errating 19 other cards just to accommodate them (see Veritigo, Image Inducer, even the dead is dead rule is an ill-fit vs. just banning the little brats since it unnecessarily weakens a perfectly innocent Deadpool just because the X-Babies and Grunge are poorly designed).
So that's my two cents.
Not so unique, I've done the same. Trying to teach a new player with the official rules is a nightmare! Everyone I tried to get into the game with official rules just said to hell with it!
And yes, I am with you 100% - play all cards as written. It requires a few errata, and some tweaking of the rules, but it changes the game and takes it to a whole new level. But play as written, it's simple and fun, and many of the existing cards become that much better.
My solution for the Four Freedoms was to limit the defense after shifting - after shifting you must use a power card of 4 or less to defend. This basically ties the two inherents together, the shift and power card bonus. It's still strong, and a great starter team for a new player, but not too powerful or game breaking.
I still think Vertigo is too much, hence my thoughts on it being OPD. In the situation you described, perhaps it's not as potent, but you can still hammer an opponent's key character while distributing your hits as you see fit - even with one less hit to play, that's dangerous. But not all situations are perfectly equal like that. More often than not, the player with vertigo will load up and play when he's got a brutal series of attacks. And to be able to do that multiple times per game will more often than not give you the win.
I don't like the idea of spreading the wealth and giving a bunch of characters a vertigo equivalent, because then you'd still have the same problem - every single team would combine a shifting character with a damage resistant character. Even depowered - X-babies/Marauders is still effective. It would just replace Marauders with someone else. No, the best bet would be to leave Marauders with Vertigo as a unique card to them. In fact, THAT is the best solution, I feel - to have as many characters as possible with a card that's unique to them. That's the best way to add flavour.
I'm not a fan of banning anything. With the 'Dead is dead' ruling, the babies and Grunge aren't nearly so broken. Hell, the X-babies are quite vulnerable. Their inherent is good, but not unbeatable. Grunge is also good, but not unbeatable (anymore.) The image inducer didn't have its own errata, it simply fell under the duration meta rule, which works. Besides - how am I to create my Mojoworld homebase without the Babies? I mean, I CAN do it, but it's just not right, they belong with Mojoworld. :P
Incidentally, on another issue - regarding basic universe cards - Mojoworld's aspect is sooo much better if you recycle basic universe cards into the power pack after use. ;)
-BBH
I can certainly see your points and the logic behind them.
As I explained in my first post here I took the opposite route with FF Plaza. Once the card is limited to powercard block shifting I think its just fine in power-level and in fact spread the wealth to every other homebase gaining powercard shifting as well, while FF Plaza remains unique with its secondary level 4 powercard defense unique to them. To me its the easiest solution to what I considered the game's biggest flaw: that real comic teams can't compete because of incompatible powergrids. I really like the idea that the Avengers/X-men/Spiderman & the Black Cat on Daily Bugle, etc work better together as a team than some motley collection of Spawn-Marauders-X-Babies-Flash who exist not only never teamed the exist in 3 seperate universes (4 if you consider Mojo World another diminesion :) ).
In such an environment Vertigo is both unique because it allows shifting with hit stacking, which the homebases do not; but also less unique in that team shifting in general is far more common place. And so far I've only given Vertigo to Scooby Doo of all people in my homemades although I always thought Typhoid Mary would be a natural among existing heroes to play said card (with a name like "Induce Fever") while Polaris would be a natural for a "Malice Possessed" variant that could play non-opd Marauders specials since Malice is the leader of that team. So I'm not talking 70 million new Vertigo heroes but I could see having three of four more.
Needless to say the homebase shifting environment also makes Brass's card much more likey to be an effective strategy killer.
Anyway I'll post more in a ferw days about some of my make every card playable ideas, but for now I'm off for a family function for the next few days.s (at which point in the downtime there will be a few OP games played so woo-hoo)
Quote from: The Dude on August 18, 2010, 02:54:40 PM
As I explained in my first post here I took the opposite route with FF Plaza. Once the card is limited to powercard block shifting I think its just fine in power-level and in fact spread the wealth to every other homebase gaining powercard shifting as well, while FF Plaza remains unique with its secondary level 4 powercard defense unique to them. To me its the easiest solution to what I considered the game's biggest flaw: that real comic teams can't compete because of incompatible powergrids. I really like the idea that the Avengers/X-men/Spiderman & the Black Cat on Daily Bugle, etc work better together as a team than some motley collection of Spawn-Marauders-X-Babies-Flash who exist not only never teamed the exist in 3 seperate universes (4 if you consider Mojo World another diminesion :) ).
QFT !!!
In my opinion this is a house rule everyone still keeping the game alive should agree on. ;)
Quote from: BigBadHarve on August 18, 2010, 11:27:06 AM
I agree that negates should be defensive (though it would make for some interesting matches if they weren't!) but the same rule should apply to various other cards.
Quote from: The Dude on August 18, 2010, 12:47:04 AM
I actually have a slightly unique perspective in that I just taught this game to an 11 (now 12) year old relative last year, (after what was probably 8 years of not playing myself at all) and the easiest way to teach it is just to play all cards as written (this goes back to the Brood Spawn, KC thing as well). The only errata I'm using is the FF Plaza one because in it's original form it's just ridiculously broken. I'd probably stick with the X-babies one too but by and large we don't play X-Babies unless I have new homemades that I think are tournament level that I want to test against some old school tourney staple deck. (Otherwise most of our games tend to center around actual popular heroes and fun characters).
With Vertigo I never it felt was too powerful. I certainly don't think it needs to be one-per-deck. On its own with normal characters Vertigo is certainly a very strong card for a non one-per-deck, but its not broken. Heck if both players have a perfect draw then as much as I can shift with Vertigo I'm taking one hit somewhere since you have an 8th card that I can't block I can only move. And since a lot of Vertigo decks were built around that card chances are it may duplicate once or twice too making the team two cards short if the opponent has a perfect draw. And of course it can always be negated and/or lil ice-man'd away. I actually think a better solution would have been to create a few more heroes with shifting cards and then an equal number of heroes with anti-shift cards ala Brass so that it would just be one more strategy element to consider during hero selection.
It's only with X-Babies that it becomes abusive, but I tend to find (pre-erata) X-Babies broken on their own, let alone with Vertigo. I think the more sensible solution is just to ban them (and probably likewise Grunge, those types of inherants are just poor character design choices from the start). Certainly it's a better solution than running around errating 19 other cards just to accommodate them (see Veritigo, Image Inducer, even the dead is dead rule is an ill-fit vs. just banning the little brats since it unnecessarily weakens a perfectly innocent Deadpool just because the X-Babies and Grunge are poorly designed).
So that's my two cents.
...
The image inducer didn't have its own errata, it simply fell under the duration meta rule, which works.
...
-BBH
Is this to say that the Image Inducer only lasts a single battle, since it's not a OPD? That makes me kind of sad :-\
Can it be played defensively? I feel like it cannot... that also makes me sad :-\
You are correct on both counts.
Inducer can neither be played defensively, nor is it remainder of game.
The inducer is still useful and will save your butt. ;)
-BBH
Image inducer only last for remainder of battle? It seems like I saw it used over multiple turns in Buffalo, but I don't have the best memory...