Palatinus' OverPower Forum

What I ment by I agree with everything else Ncann wrote I was referring to

Quote from: ncannelora on March 03, 2013, 03:40:25 PM
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...

contradiction->meta 134

do you not agree there's a contradiction?

I'm not sure about the meta rule, but I've been thinking and thinking about this thread, and the more I look at this conversation, I'm starting to believe that this is what they intended with OIAM:

Since it's a level 3 attack, they probably wanted you to defend the attack with a level 3 power card, not avoid the attack.

A power card defense compares the numerical value of the power card for the block.  OIAM doesn't enable, or otherwise grant permission to, a level 3 power card to do anything more than what it already is specifically designed to do defensively... which is numerically block the attack.  Based on this logic, if you buff the OIAM with a numerical bonus (say +1), you probably would have to also have a bonus for the power card that you're using to block.  And since you can only defend OIAM with a level 3 power card (that part I think is clear), you would have to have played the bonus for your defense prior to the attack, or get the bonus from an inherent ability on the defending character. 

Taskmaster's ability, or Crux, or the Event would grant permission other than the specific use of the power card for defending.  I believe in all of these examples, you're granted the ability to avoid one attack with the specified power card .  Avoiding is a defensive action, but I would say there is probably a difference in altogether avoiding an attack and defending with a numerical valued defense. 

I'm not 100% sure what you are getting at Bread.

I think you get it troop, but I did quote BBH from another thread that was pretty much asking the same question.  Since BBH and Jack seem to be the best authorities on how the game is actually played, rules speculation aside, I figured that BBH's explanation from the other post about OIAM would still apply here, since it's basically the same question.

what i'm getting at, is that you can write out lots of long reasons why OIAM can't be defended by the 1i, but it comes back to meta 134

-special says i can only defend with a 3
-event says i can defend any attack with a 1i
-these 2 statements contradict
-134 says event takes precedence

if you lock down a character with an AV, i can't just play a special, and say that it takes precedence since it's played later.  the character isn't allowed to play the special in the first place to activate meta 134. 

you could get around this with a card like invisible woman's team coordination, which allows each tm to make 1 additional attack

According to the overpower.ca, meta rule 134 falls under the category of cards that are "in play," as in, on the table, creating contradictory effects.  OIAM is not a card that is sitting "in play" it's an attack that's being played, that has very restrictive defense requirements.  The "In Play" meta rules are in reference to cards that are played and stay on the table, like the EBs, DoW, Vertigo, ect, ect.  OIAM does not generate an "in play" effect.  I'm not 100% certain meta 134 would apply in this case.  Of course, I could just be reading into Jack's organizational system improperly... 

That being said, your example of the AV lockdown, with the FE follow-up SHOULD actually allow the locked character to still make a follow-up attack, provided that the character locked with the AV is not the one who would play the FE, as the FE would be contradictory to the AV, and the FE, being played later, should take precedence... according to meta 134.

agreed, the FE should override the AV, according to the meta

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. On the other hand, Events always override the text of Specials.

events always override the text of specials

With FE, I understand what you guys are sayign about it overriding the AV, but when the special says "each teammate may make one additional attack", this is another of those instances where the card isn't clear on why you're being allowed the additional attack (kinda like when you draw cards, someone said you should always discard duplicates and unusables unless the card specifically allows you to... I agree, and that should be in the basic rules).  The lockdown card prevents attacking.  The FE wants you to make attacks out of turn, rather than give you the ability to attack after it's been taken away.  Cards don't really grant you the ability to attack... you're allowed to attack as a general rule, so when making additional attacks, its under the presumption that the conditions are proper and no restrictions are in place. 

Sure, it's probably legal to play this way, which is perfectly fine and I'm not debating against it, but I don't think that's what they intended to happen when an FE is played after an AV.  If the Blob is sitting on top of me, and Susan Richards calls for a team coordinated effort, I'm probably not gonna come thru for my team. *cough*  In my opinion (which is hardly relevant) unless it's avoided or negated, you shouldn't be able to attack at all with a character who's been AV'd. 

I just had a thought though... if someone plays Iron Curtain on Dr. Doom, would Doombots allow him to make 4 attacks??  Shrapnel Bomb and other cards like this would do the same thing, right?

Quote from: thetrooper27 on March 08, 2013, 01:10:31 PM
With FE, I understand what you guys are sayign about it overriding the AV, but when the special says "each teammate may make one additional attack", this is another of those instances where the card isn't clear on why you're being allowed the additional attack (kinda like when you draw cards, someone said you should always discard duplicates and unusables unless the card specifically allows you to... I agree, and that should be in the basic rules).  The lockdown card prevents attacking.  The FE wants you to make attacks out of turn, rather than give you the ability to attack after it's been taken away.  Cards don't really grant you the ability to attack... you're allowed to attack as a general rule, so when making additional attacks, its under the presumption that the conditions are proper and no restrictions are in place. 

Sure, it's probably legal to play this way, which is perfectly fine and I'm not debating against it, but I don't think that's what they intended to happen when an FE is played after an AV.  If the Blob is sitting on top of me, and Susan Richards calls for a team coordinated effort, I'm probably not gonna come thru for my team. *cough*  In my opinion (which is hardly relevant) unless it's avoided or negated, you shouldn't be able to attack at all with a character who's been AV'd. 

I just had a thought though... if someone plays Iron Curtain on Dr. Doom, would Doombots allow him to make 4 attacks??  Shrapnel Bomb and other cards like this would do the same thing, right?

I agree. If you read the 3rd Meta Rule regarding X-World, it makes it pretty clear.

I.A.: "X-World's Power card attacks are not affected by Special cards already in play"

Rules:
•Any attack made of the specified type cannot be affected by cards of the specified type which were already in play prior to the attack.
•Any cards, even ones of the specified type, may be played in reaction to the attack (provided it is legal to play it from all other circumstances)
•If a card of the specified type prevents the character with this Inherent to make an attack in the first place, then this Inherent would not come into effect - first the attack must be makeable. Once makeable, then it will not be affected by cards in play.
•A Power Card attack is an attack made with a power card only. It is not any attack made with a Power Card (such as a teamwork follow up).

So, even though the AV is already "in play" and it is a Special, the I.A. from X-World is ineffective.

If we look at the NJ-Special, though, there's no indication of this same restriction...

So, if an AV is played on Dazzler, should she be able to play her NJ, or not? I say not, because the way this game is supposed to be played, seems pretty clear from the third rule of X-World... but it's also not mentioned for NJ-Specials (or for the A3-Aspect)...

It seems to me that either the FE does NOT override an AV,
or
the NJ, and A3 cards are a lot better.

I really think this AV v FE is really a restriction v permission argument. AV wins, IMO 

i would say yes, doombots would slice right through an AV, since doombots itself is not an attack.

stonewall is interesting.  you'd have to discard 2 to play doombots, but then i would think you'd have to still discard 2/attack, as doombots and stonewall don't directly contradict

Doctor Doom may make 4 attacks, 3 attacks at +1 each, 2 attacks at +2 each, or 1 attack at +3. Bonus not applied to damage, or Venture total. (DU)

Play on target Character as an attack. For remainder of battle, Target Character may not attack or use Special cards unless Opponent also discards 2 cards per attack. Cards may be Placed or in Hand. (OD)

it seems to get more complicated with torch's marvels: Target Character may not attack or play Special cards for remainder of Battle. (FN)

seems if strategic burn is played against me, and then i initiate an FE, the character 'burned' could still attack, since the FE overrides the no attack portion, but not attack with a special

also, as i said before, i don't agree with the restriction vs permission at all, and the rule seems to support it.  restriction or permission is only determined by which of the cards is played latest.  that also seems to support my old argument about 'down but not out' vs 'fighting spirit lives', but that's just speculation, since the meta only mentions specials vs specials, and specials vs events.

I can't wait to have a verbal discussion in Buffalo.  Much excitement.  Ncannelora, I wish you could be there.

So what about the 3rd meta rule for Xworld?  How does that work with the AV/FE play?

Quote from: thetrooper27 on March 10, 2013, 12:23:17 AM
I can't wait to have a verbal discussion in Buffalo.  Much excitement.  Ncannelora, I wish you could be there.

So what about the 3rd meta rule for Xworld?  How does that work with the AV/FE play?

I wish I could go, too!

Breadmaster, what about X-World's rules? is it possible that it was given this ruling as a Homebase-specific restriction? like an errata? I mean, is the I.A. really that good?

seems to me that it shows the spirit of permission vs restriction...

Not to get the argument going again but... 

if Meta 134 states "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.  On the other hand, Events always override the text of specials."

and Meta #58: "Negates are considered a card being played defensively. If a Special indicates that it cannot be defended by a Special card, then a Negate cannot be used to defend the attack (although it may be used afterwards offensively to negate the effect). If a Special card indicates that it can only be defended by a specific type of card, then this excludes all other cards (including negates)."

Which Meta takes precedence?

In my opinion, by looking at the wording, meta 134 does not apply to OIAM, as OIAM is not setting up a condition that can be responded to by playing another Special, as it's "condition" only relates to how it can be defended.  Much like the AV specials "condition" prevents a character from attacking, which prevents said character from playing a contradicting special which can then override the AV, the OIAM prevents defense that is not a level 3 Power card, and even in the case of the Event, a level 1 Intellect Power card is not a level 3 Power card.  Meta 58 clearly states that this card cannot be defended by ANYTHING except what it says it CAN be defended by.

Meta 134 seems to apply only to specials that change the state of the game over-all, such as Zealot's Kherubim, or Green Lantern's Let's Get Medieval!  Both of these are special cards that change the state of the game and have effects that might already be in play when a contradicting Event might be played, which would then override the special.

Just another fine example of how the powers that be tended to confuse the issues by creating newer and newer meta rules instead of re-evaluating the existing ones.  These 2 rules SEEM to be in direct contradicton, especially due to the presented hypothetical situation.

Ultimately, it's up to whomever has the honor of making decisions at the tournaments, but I still lean towards the argument I had been making all along.

i think x-world sets a good precedence.  the cards may contradict, but i can't just play ANYTHING, igonoring what's been set up. 

that ties into the negate point too.  i can't just defend with the negate, ignoring any text on the attacking special.

nic, you don't think a character who is locked down should be able to attack if a teammate initiates an FE?

Quote from: breadmaster on March 10, 2013, 05:22:51 PM
i think x-world sets a good precedence.  the cards may contradict, but i can't just play ANYTHING, igonoring what's been set up. 

that ties into the negate point too.  i can't just defend with the negate, ignoring any text on the attacking special.

nic, you don't think a character who is locked down should be able to attack if a teammate initiates an FE?

I just want to add that all of these cards, the FE, Doombots, Fastball Special, Shrapnel Bomb, etc. grant either numerical bonus effects or chain attacks, both of which can only be applied to the standard ability to attack.  Though there isn't likely a rule to clarify, I think any card that says "make an attack" should generally mean as long as there aren't conditions preventing them from attacking.  Granting permission to attack with these cards seems to me a by product of the wording on a card, not the intention of the designer (and that's where intuition comes into play... playing a card around the most logical intent of the designer).  When they designed this game, I don't think they really ever thought it would go to tournament formats, so they just threw words on the cards to tell you how to play them. 

To comment on intent (and we went over this in another thread), a special that acts as a level 4 Fighting Power card attack ISN'T a level 4 Fighting Power card.  It can't be combined with Universe cards as a power card can, it can't be removed or avoided with XMan's EE, and it isn't discarded to the power pack to be reused when you reshuffle.  It's just wording on the card to describe what to view the card as.  It really could've just been blank.  The Fighting icon with a 4 on it, custom made for a specific character who's name was printed on the card, would communicate clearly that it's a special card, not a power card. 

All this to say, if the meta rules somehow state that you can follow up an FE if you've been thrown in the Fire Cage, the Iron Curtain, or whatever, then that's the way we will play.  But I really hope that just one person will chime in about the intent of the AV card, and the intent of all other cards that say "make an attack."  I can't be the only person in the OP world that thinks this.  

What I'm thinking is that the meta rule SHOULD read backwards...

The card played FIRST in the turn takes precedence over the later cards.  First come, first served.  This would not only clear up confusion, it would give events their rightful place setting the priority conditions of each turn.