Palatinus' OverPower Forum

Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 18, 2013, 01:40:36 PM
The second sentence is not a restriction. It is overriding the rules and setting a new set of rules. Normally, unusable cards are discarded. This allows you to keep them.  Just because that messes up your Longshot strategy doesn't make it a restriction.

The first sentence is a restriction: it limits the scope of what can be played under the normal ruleset. Of all the cards to be played and actions to be taken in the entire game, there is less than you can normally do. You can't play Strength PC

The second sentence is a permission: it expands the scope of what can be played under the normal ruleset. Of all the cards to be played and actions to be taken in the entire game, there is more than you can normally do. You can keep unusable Strength Power Cards.

...

Kinda pick-and-choose there. =)  If it were a tournament, I'd say "Thanks for showing me those cards. Put them back in your hand".  What if I was going second, and my event was Phoenix Risen from the Ashes? I don't want those PC recycled. What if, as you pointed out, were playing Longshot and had Purity of Thought. I don't want to give you extra discards. Etc.

If I am not allowed to discard my Strength Power cards, under the normal discard rules (as unusable), then that is decidedly not permission, it is restriction. This is how any person would define that scenario, who is not familiar with the game and rules of Overpower.

If you are reluctant to use the term "restriction" then perhaps "commission" is the most accurate word for this. Granting "permission" is not requiring anything. It is permitting something. It leaves it up to the person who has received permission. Giving a commission is not permitting, but rather committing a person to do something, which is, by definitition, also restricting them from doing other, contradicting or opposing, actions.

Back to the point of the JA-scenario I established, the Event commits the players to not discard duplicates, and it is very specific about when that is enforced, as "this battle." So, if you are holding duplicate level 1 Int Power cards, you cannot discard one of them to play the JA-Special with this Event in effect - not until you first get rid of one of the duplicates.

As for the other scenarios thetrooper27 mentioned, where playing a card creates a discard - there's a crucial element overlooked: cards in-play are not considered duplicate. Duplicates only exist in your hand or placed. Duplicates that are already "in play" are not considered duplicates at all. If you play one of the EB-Specials from The Marvels (like Captain Britain's), and the next hand you draw another, it's not a duplicate to the one that's remaining in play. So, if you have duplicates in your hand, as soon as you play one, the one you played is no longer a duplicate and it can be discarded as normal.

Quote from: ncannelora on February 19, 2013, 02:41:56 PM

Back to the point of the JA-scenario I established, the Event commits the players to not discard duplicates, and it is very specific about when that is enforced, as "this battle." So, if you are holding duplicate level 1 Int Power cards, you cannot discard one of them to play the JA-Special with this Event in effect - not until you first get rid of one of the duplicates.

That's-- bonkers. The card doesn't say "You may not discard Strength power cards". Where does it say that? It doesn't.  It's saying effected power cards are not discarded. Meaning that if those power cards are effected by "cannot play", then they are not discarded when that effect would matter-- which is when the Unusuable check monster comes around to eat your unusables.

Those PC can still be discarded to any other discard mechanism. I Power Leech you, they get discarded. You play a JA, you can discard one. Colossus comes around to stomp on your hand for 3 cards, those Strength cards can be discarded.

Quote
As for the other scenarios thetrooper27 mentioned, where playing a card creates a discard - there's a crucial element overlooked: cards in-play are not considered duplicate. Duplicates only exist in your hand or placed. Duplicates that are already "in play" are not considered duplicates at all. If you play one of the EB-Specials from The Marvels (like Captain Britain's), and the next hand you draw another, it's not a duplicate to the one that's remaining in play. So, if you have duplicates in your hand, as soon as you play one, the one you played is no longer a duplicate and it can be discarded as normal.

What? I cannot parse that.  "So, if you have duplicates in your hand, as soon as you play one, the one you played is no longer a duplicate and it can be discarded as normal." 

Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 21, 2013, 04:10:29 PM...
That's-- bonkers. The card doesn't say "You may not discard Strength power cards". Where does it say that? It doesn't.  It's saying effected power cards are not discarded. Meaning that if those power cards are effected by "cannot play", then they are not discarded when that effect would matter-- which is when the Unusuable check monster comes around to eat your unusables.

Those PC can still be discarded to any other discard mechanism. I Power Leech you, they get discarded. You play a JA, you can discard one. Colossus comes around to stomp on your hand for 3 cards, those Strength cards can be discarded.

...

What? I cannot parse that.  "So, if you have duplicates in your hand, as soon as you play one, the one you played is no longer a duplicate and it can be discarded as normal."

First, I agree that it's bonkers, but that's the ruling. This was discussed at great length somewhere in here before this (specifically the "cannot play X-type Power cards" and whether or not they could still be discarded). I don't remember where, but I think it was relative to either Danger Room or Longshot's HM, or maybe both... But like I said, in our circle, we absolutely still chuck those cards. Also, we play the other Event as thought it reads, "May keep duplicates for remainder of Battle." and we let it override HQ Specials and other Specials... I'm just asserting what the rules are and how they have been given to me from other more tenured players, specifically on this forum as well.

As for the second part, did you read thetrooper27's post earlier? He was saying you can't even play a duplicate, then, because you'd have to discard it, which you couldn't do... that's what I was clarifying. When a card is "in play" it is not considered a duplicate, so it could still be discarded. Read his question/concern and maybe my comment will make more sense to you. I hope it made sense to him, at least, but he hasn't replied...

Quote from: ncannelora on February 21, 2013, 06:11:20 PM
First, I agree that it's bonkers, but that's the ruling. This was discussed at great length somewhere in here before this (specifically the "cannot play X-type Power cards" and whether or not they could still be discarded). I don't remember where, but I think it was relative to either Danger Room or Longshot's HM, or maybe both... But like I said, in our circle, we absolutely still chuck those cards. Also, we play the other Event as thought it reads, "May keep duplicates for remainder of Battle." and we let it override HQ Specials and other Specials... I'm just asserting what the rules are and how they have been given to me from other more tenured players, specifically on this forum as well.

I'll read that thread if you can find it.

Quote
As for the second part, did you read thetrooper27's post earlier? He was saying you can't even play a duplicate, then, because you'd have to discard it, which you couldn't do... that's what I was clarifying. When a card is "in play" it is not considered a duplicate, so it could still be discarded. Read his question/concern and maybe my comment will make more sense to you. I hope it made sense to him, at least, but he hasn't replied...

Nope, still not clear. Can you give a gameplay example?  I don't get what cards being in play have to do with the "Cannot play X. Effected cards are not discarded" event.

In any case, the point stands that the event doesn't read "You may not discard effected cards at any point in the battle".  It means "Cards that are effected by this unplayable ongoing effect ignore the Unusable check, and are not discarded when the Unusable Monster comes around."

I think the point I was wanting to make was that discarding with a special card as a cost to generate its effect is different than any other discard, such as duplicate or unusable.  The JA, or the Absorbing Man special card ncann mentioned shouldn't really read "discard".  They should more be worded to the effect of "play with an intellect power card" or something like that (I think Ghost Rider and Omega Red have specials that play in this manner).  Discarding to play the JA isn't discarding, it's using the card, so however the event ruling works out, if I'm holding two intellect duplicates that can't be discarded, I should be able to play the JA.  The intuitive (my favorite word of all time) way to read the event might suggest that you keep duplicates from an HQ, but in no case at all is it suggesting you shouldn't be able to play the JA.  The meta rules (our worst enemy) are the cause of confusion here, I believe.

The Power Leech example is a good one... if the event is played, and I'm holding 3 Tunnel Worms in hand, and you play Power Leech targeting Maggot calling Energy, I wouldn't have to discard them even if they are the only Energy cards I'm holding because they can't be discarded ... all based on the specifications mentioned above. In the name of all fairness, I would have an issue with that, even though it's in my favor.  The events takes precedence over specials might not be good for this reason.

What I'm wondering is how do we reconcile these kinds of situations?  These are the bugs the killed this game in the first place, I believe.  And since the game is dead, I think its great to bring these kinds of situations to light, but in doing so, I would like to see the community come up with its own meta rules, or just simple errata's that prevent such roadblocks.  Without this community, most of these issues wouldn't come up, and if they did, we would make a house ruling and move on.  Do you guys think we should invoke particular rulings for inconsistencies in the established mechanics of OP?

@halcyon1234 - I can't effectively search from my iPhone, and I'm out of town, but aren't you friends with BBH? like, IRL friends? if so, please ask him about this issue of the "cannot play X power cards... not discard..." because I'm like, 90% sure he was in on that conversation arguing, or "teaching" me about it (love ya, BBH!)

@theyrooper27 -
I agree that the JA should be playable under BOTH Event types, but the JA clearly says you're "discarding," which is important, because of cards like Longshot's HM, where there's a purpose behind classifying "discards" as opposed to other forms of just "playing" cards.

- - -
I feel like I said this... I think these Events SHOULD be read as "may keep duplicates" or "discarding affected cards is not required"

Quote from: ncannelora on February 24, 2013, 10:09:38 PM
@halcyon1234 - I can't effectively search from my iPhone, and I'm out of town, but aren't you friends with BBH? like, IRL friends? if so, please ask him about this issue of the "cannot play X power cards... not discard..." because I'm like, 90% sure he was in on that conversation arguing, or "teaching" me about it (love ya, BBH!)

I'll ask him next time I see him.

Quote
@theyrooper27 -
I agree that the JA should be playable under BOTH Event types, but the JA clearly says you're "discarding," which is important, because of cards like Longshot's HM, where there's a purpose behind classifying "discards" as opposed to other forms of just "playing" cards.

Agreed, too. If it wasn't that some cards said "play with" other others "discard" it'd be different. But a discard is a discard, not a play.

Quote
I feel like I said this... I think these Events SHOULD be read as "may keep duplicates" or "discarding affected cards is not required"

Or "Effected cards are not discarded as unusable".

Quote from: halcyon1234 on February 25, 2013, 09:36:52 AM

Quote from: ncannelora on February 24, 2013, 10:09:38 PM
I feel like I said this... I think these Events SHOULD be read as "may keep duplicates" or "discarding affected cards is not required"

Or "Effected cards are not discarded as unusable".

I feel like that part was maybe addressed with BBH... I think he was telling me that if I had a duplicate that was NOT affected by the "can't play type-X" that I still had to discard that duplicate.

like I've said elsewhere, lots of these scenarios had no "official ruling" - or at least not a well documented one - so it really comes down to people being a good sport in 1v1 games, or electing an impartial judged (or panel) for tournaments.

I'm convinced that a situation will come up in Buffalo, and I'll just have to wear one to the house. 

I started a thread a while back about re-writing the meta rules, but that got misconstrued as a "let create a new rule set for the game" instead of a "let's clean up some of the confusions" and I'm pretty sure it's a dead thread now.

I think THAT is what is truly what caused this game to die.  If players played by their own interpritation of the rules then went to sanctioned tournaments and found out the hard way that they were playing the game incorrectly, these newly schooled players would either

1.) Learn from the experience and try again with the real rules.  or 
2.) Stop playing a game that doesn't make any sense.

I for one, am of the mind that OIAM can only be blocked by a level 3 power card, regardless of other effects on the field or in play.  I am also of the mind that the "No Discarding Dupes" event doesn't nessassarily only check for dupes at the discard phase, but any card draw throughout the battle, but I would still think that a JA special could be played, even if the power card "discarded" to play the JA was a dupe, should be considered a legal play.

A LOT of these issues could be cleared up by simply changing all specials which state "Discard x.  This card does something..."  to "Play this card with X.  Now this effect happens."

As for meta 134: If one Special sets up a condition and then a second Special comes along with text that directly contradicts the first Special, then the Special played later takes precedence.

This rule should be worded similar to the VS system rule, that "If a card or effect allows something to happen, but another card or effect does NOT allow something to happen, the can't always beats the can."  As this is currently written, if I play a "Target character cannot attack for remainder of battle" special, and it hits, my opponent could technically, under rule 134, still attack or play special cards with that character, as those special cards would contradict the one I played, and would be played "later" or after, there by undoing my special without the need of an avoid or negate.

Common sense tells us that this, clearly is not the case.  The problem with common sense is that what makes sense isn't common to everyone.

Dem-

I agree about the game's demise. I also agree about re-writing the meta-rules. seems like we could do well simply going rule by rule and checking for issues. Rule#1 seems ok, right? then move to rule#2, etc.

I feel pretty strongly that Events should supersede Specials, but I suppose I could concede that point if enough people felt that way.

as for the "discard" vs "play with"  I still feel like there should be a distinction for the sake of outer cards/mechanics (notably, if a JA is negated, you don't lose the Power Card. if you negate a BS from Multiple Man, he loses his Special and that first Power Card).

I also a free about the can vs can't argument, provided the cards are an equal tier (comparing 2 Events, or 2 I.A.s, or 2 Specials, etc).

I can understand the argument about what takes precidence over what, but again, if the cards were written the right way, there wouldn't be a question of precidence.  Just play the cards as written.  I think a lot of the issue with how people play now is that there is speculation as to what a card might mean.  Do you play a card "as written" or by "the letter of the card" or do you play it by "the spirit of the card?"  The next question then would be, who's the authority to decide what the "spirit" of a card is? 

As Jack pointed out, the only time the game rules check your hand for duplicates is in the discard phase of each hand, which happens before placeing and venturing.  Cards like the AT, which read "Draw 1 card.  Do not discard if duplicate" are technically redundant, as you only check for duplicates before that card would have a chance to be played.  The HQ cards would still HAVE to state that duplicates are discarded because at the time the HQ is played, it would be after the Dupe check had passed for that hand, and you wouldn't check for duplicates by the basic rules at a card draw that came after the discard phase, unless the card which allowed the draw TOLD you to check for dupes.

That is just ONE interpretation of how the game should be played.  I'm not saying it's a misinterpretation, but do we KNOW for a fact that this is what the creators intended?  If they only intended dupes to be checked during the discard phase, then why would the write "Do not discard duplicates" on the AT specials which were released in the original set?  There are points and counter-points and contradictions all over the place, either due to the creators being unclear on the rules themselves, or just trying to be overly careful with the wording that it came back to bite the game in the ass in later sets, or just plain carelessness or inability to see how the wording might be a problem depending on the player. 

In most cases, all this game needs is a "Keyword Golassary" to help define what each of the words mean as far as the game is concerned.  A great example from a thread I was catching up on yesterday.  I forget who it was, but there was a very upset post about the use of Professor X's Phsychic Shield, and how the word "against" is defined.  If the card were written with a keyword system, it might have been written as "Professor X cannot be attacked by Special cards for remainder of battle."  Instead we have "No Special cards may be played against Professor X for remainder of battle."  One could feasably argue that if Professor X were to attack a character, that a Special defense would be a Special card "against" Professor X.  Most of us have never looked at the card that way, but it COULD, reasonably be interpretted that way as a correct play.  Ultimately, though, the actual use of the card would have to come from the people who discussed and decided how to use it, but if the game was actually done correctly, everyone who reads the card should be able to see exactly how to use it.  You shouldn't need a guide on how to play your cards.  All the information on how to play a card SHOULD be available ON the card itself, if not covered in the basic rules of the game.  I may have gotten a bit off-topic with this rant, and I apologize, but THIS is where people need to get together and really try to figure out the simplest way to play a card, and not how the cards COULD be used, based on the wording.  Stop looking for loopholes, and just play the card as would make sense within the confines of the game.

One in a Million states that it can only be blocked by a level 3 power card.  Done.  No other factors should even be brought into the equation.  An event that states "X CAN happen" vs ANY other card that states "X cannot happen, IN THIS INSTANCE or otherwise" the "cannot" should always override the "can."  Keeps things easy and the game can continue without major debate. 

One more quick note about One in a Million and Into the Depths.  Since OIAM can't be negated defensively and you can't play an AG or AD to avoid it, how does re-writing level 1 power cards to act as an AD special work, when an AD special iteself does not?

Demacus, let me preface by saying, I really do agree with you in the larger point if "spirit" vs "letter" and I think one of the bigger problems with a lot of these scenarios is, as you said, people trying to find loopholes. unfortunately, it's human nature to rebel and, certainly in the US, it's in our culture to question and fight against most authority placed over us 

having said all that, these are the reasons I said that when you're playing 1v1, just don't be a jerk with your opponent. if the stakes are higher and the venue larger, establish a trustworthy judge(s) and have everyone agree on their rulings AT THAT TIME, and don't try to re-use those rulings later because they would be subject to subsequent reinterpretations - this is like real law is handled... anyway, that seems like a good idea to me...

as for the Events, I think they should override regular rules. I think that's what they're meant to due (per their description in the Rule Book). really, that's why I think the Events allow the OIAM to be blocked with a lv.1 intellect, or shifted to Reserve, etc.

Quote from: BigBadHarve on December 27, 2012, 11:24:15 PM
Meta #44: When a card specifies what cards may (or may not) be used to defend it, this includes ALL cards used in the defense.

So yes, you cannot play any card in defense that is not specified by the special - in the Longshot scenario, anything that is not a level 3 power card.

That also means, for example, that you can't use a battlesite to defend Captain America's BA (Super Soldier - may only be defended with a special) because in order to grab the special from the site you must play an activator, which itself is not a special)

As for cards already in play - that's different. Either of these COULD be stopped with an EB already in play, unless something prevented the shift to the special that will be absorbing it.

-BBH

I would still think this applies, even in the instance of the Event card.  The Event card states that "Level 1 Intellect Power cards may be used to avoid any numerical attack this battle."  What this means is that the Level 1 Intellect Power cards now also have the property "Avoid 1 numerical attack" added to their potential effects for the battle in which this event is in effect.  The OIAM is played.  OIAM states that it "can only be defended by a level 3 Power card."  Nothing about the wording of Into the Depths would make the Level 1 Intellect Power card act as a level 3 Power card, therefore the Level 1 Intellect Power card can not be used to defend the OIAM.  Taskmaster's I.A. states that he "May use Intellect Power cards to avoid any Fighting attack"  Again, if Taskmaster were to use any Intellect Power card that is not a level 3 Power card, then OIAM cannot be defended, as per the statement of restricted defense on OIAM.  Could Taskmaster use a level 3 Intellect Power card to defend the OIAM?  Sure, he could also use a level 3 Fighting or even a level 3 Multi-power.  The Event and I.A. specifically in question do not affect the wording on the special being played, and would not allow for a non-level 3 power card to be used for defense.  Just as Black Cat's Kiss of Death cannot be defended by a Male character, the level 1 Intellect power card cannot be used to defend Kiss of Death if the Level 1 Intellect power card is played by a male.

But I agree with everything else you wrote Ncann.

if you agree there's a contradiction, then you have to defer to the meta rule

so either you don't agree there's a contradiction, or you don't want to follow the meta.  either is fine