Palatinus' OverPower Forum

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 think that if an AV-type of "hold" is in play, then no, you shouldn't be able to make any attacks whatsoever. IMO, that hold is preventing all attacks by that character. think about this- if there are only 2 characters left, and both have an Univ:Ally placed, then an AV would be useless. characterA could play an Ally, which would REQUIRE that teammate to make another attack. for that matter, Teamwork cards would do the same thing, right?

I think that the a victim would have to deal with the AV Special itself, before making any attacks.

as for the FEs "allowing" a follow up, I think it's written that way because you aren't normally allowed to make follow up attacks, let alone follow-ups for teammates. I DO NOT think that an FE, or Ally, or A-Next, or anything else, should allow a held-character to make attacks with the hold still in place.

tws and allies wouldn't allow the attacks; i agree.  in theory, they should, but i don't think there's anything to support transfering a meta rule to a universe from a special

anext might overrule it, not exactly sure.  iirc, there are a few aspects that are indeed linked to meta rules.  i'll have to check it out.  then again, meta 134 specifically rules on contradictions between specials, and specials and events, so it may be pointless anyways

Quote from: breadmaster on March 11, 2013, 12:06:04 AM
tws and allies wouldn't allow the attacks; i agree.  in theory, they should, but i don't think there's anything to support transfering a meta rule to a universe from a special

anext might overrule it, not exactly sure.  iirc, there are a few aspects that are indeed linked to meta rules.  i'll have to check it out.  then again, meta 134 specifically rules on contradictions between specials, and specials and events, so it may be pointless anyways

Still, even considering ONLY Special cards, what about if a character had the Living Symbiote played on them? Would they be able to play Spawn's AR, even after being held by an AV?

I really don't think this is legit. You'll notice that Meta Rule 134 was never linked to the AV code... I really think this is because there is no direct way to play a contradictory Special to "May not attack for remainder of Battle." unless there was a card that said, "May attack for remainder of Battle." ... I just don't think I could ever see a circumstance where playing another card could side-step a hold (unless you're actually ridding the holding Special...)...

yeah, symbiote would let the locked character play any spawn attacks

as pointed out before, the GL isn't linked to meta 26, but i don't think anyone would argue that it shouldn't apply

and besides, it's not like i'm trying to shoehorn some irrelevant meta into the discussion.  meta 134 specifically deals with situations where contradictions between 2 specials, and specials and events arise

do you not think that 'Each Front Line teammate may make 1 additional attack' and 'Target character may not attack for remainder of battle' contradict?

There's a contradiction in the words, but not in how the cards are played.  Again, if you're locked down, and Cap yells "AVENGERS ASSEMBLE", there's nothing you can do until you aren't locked down anymore.  It's an accident due to the words and meta rules, not the intent of the designers.  Maybe they need a meta rule for AV's that specifies a character can't attack at all, unless the AV is removed from play.

Now if you took the "specials take precedence in the order they are played" approach, there wouldn't be room for confusion, rather it would alleviate confusion.  I think this would be a great rule revision.  Any thoughts?

I don't think there is an actual contradiction because the FE isn't changing the abilities of a teammate for the remainder of the battle (the way the AV is).

I could describe it like this:

The FE is changing when the teammate may attack, not changing that the teammate may attack.

Normally, TeammateB may make an attack.
Normally, when TeammateA makes an attack, TeammateB can do nothing.

These are two separate rules (at least to me). The FE changes the second rule to something more like this:

TeammateB is no longer restricted because of TeammateA's attack.

The FE allows for an attack out of sequence. However, if TeammateB is not able to attack in the first place, then the ability to attack out of sequence is irrelevant.

It's like multiplying by 0.
It's like, in an RPG, a character must first have the ability ATTACK, before the FE would add the special properties for HOW the character may attack (in this case, out of sequence).

Now, if a character was hit with this:

     * OUTNUMBER (NH) <XM> {C}
        Acts as a level 3 Fighting attack. If successful, Target Character may
            not make any follow up attacks from Teamwork or Special cards for
            remainder of battle.

And THEN the FE was played, I'd say the FE would override the NH.

i gotta go with the if you cant attack then you cant play cards like FE
it just sounds right

I need to ammend my last statement.

If a character was hit with the NH, I could "accept" the argument that the FE would override it, but really, any AA would also override it - so then the NH is losing half it's purpose (the Teamwork follow-ups would certainly be lost still, since there's no contradicting "Special"). In general, though, I'm a much bigger fan of the permission vs. restriction angle, as the default for settling this sort of dispute.

Again, the NH seems like a much closer "contradicting" Special than the AV (relative to an FE, that is).

I really like that breakdown except for the Outnumber part.  The purpose of that card is to prevent followups, and if the FE allows for a followup after the Outnumber, any other card would do the same thing and it would have a seemingly useless secondary effect.  If the second card played always overrides the previous cards, and all AA's and FE's specify "making" an additional attack, the Outnumber would always be overridden by these specials. 

I think any card preventing a character from attacking for remainder of battle should do just that for the duration of the battle UNLESS it is negated.  All characters are allowed to attack until they aren't allowed to attack.  Cards do not give the ability to attack, and in the case of any card granting a followup, it should always be considered whether or not they currently are able to make an attack.  Just my opinion. 

But I would really appreciate someone giving some feedback on specials taking precedence in the order they're played rather than last in overrides all previous specials played.  What would the pro's and con's be of specials being played on a first come, first served basis?  Can anyone think of some sticky situations under this guideline that would totally mess things up?

thetrooper27 - keep in mind, I'm only trying to pose a more direct contradiction. I still prefer the over-arching rule of restriction>permission. I think the Meta Rule raised here, regarding contradictions, seems like it might be more of the sort like 2 CD cards on the same character (which could even have its own argument).

I think the restriction over permission thing works, especially for this situation, but it's not the rule, is it?  What is the rule?

I skimmed the thread, but for all the esoteric situations coming up a good rule of thumb is: "Do what a card says, unless something else says you can't."

Example 1

"Keep duplicates" event is played. You play an HQ. You draw 3, then discard the duplicates because the HQ tells you to.

Example 2

"This can only be defended by a level 3 power card" - it can only be defended by a level 3 power card. It is essentially saying "you can't defend this with an avoid, you can't defend this with a level 5 powercard, you can't negate this..." and so on. So any modifications like the level 1 intellect avoid, the Taskmaster inherent, etc don't get around the Longshot special.

Quote-longshot says i can only defend with a 3
-event says i can defend anything with a 1
-they contradict, and the meta says the event overrules the special

The event doesn't say you can defend anything with a 1 intellect, it says you can avoid anything with a level 1 intellect. Longshot's 3 cannot be avoided. An event giving you the ability to do something doesn't change the effect of a card. The meta rule in question

Quotemeta 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.

does not apply, because there is no contradiction. Longshot's 3 cannot be avoided, the event lets you avoid stuff, no overlap is going on here that would cause Meta 134 to be applied. If Longshot's card said "acts as a level 3 attack. Cannot be avoided" then meta 134 would enter the discussion.

Example 3

"Fighting Spirit Lives" (all specials in hand may be played by any character this battle) is in effect. Opponent plays a GA on your Wolverine. Wolverine cannot play specials.

Example 4

You have a frontline of Invisible Woman, Rhino, and Nightwing. Opponent plays Python Hold on Rhino. You play Invisible Woman 3i. Do what the card says, unless something else says you cannot. Nightwing may make a followup, Rhino may not.

we'll agree to disagree then, since i'm on the other side of all 4 examples

i'll go with the meta rule specifically dealing with contradictions

Quote from: Onslaught on March 17, 2013, 04:44:33 AM
I skimmed the thread, but for all the esoteric situations coming up a good rule of thumb is: "Do what a card says, unless something else says you can't."

Example 1

"Keep duplicates" event is played. You play an HQ. You draw 3, then discard the duplicates because the HQ tells you to.

Example 2

"This can only be defended by a level 3 power card" - it can only be defended by a level 3 power card. It is essentially saying "you can't defend this with an avoid, you can't defend this with a level 5 powercard, you can't negate this..." and so on. So any modifications like the level 1 intellect avoid, the Taskmaster inherent, etc don't get around the Longshot special.

Quote-longshot says i can only defend with a 3
-event says i can defend anything with a 1
-they contradict, and the meta says the event overrules the special

The event doesn't say you can defend anything with a 1 intellect, it says you can avoid anything with a level 1 intellect. Longshot's 3 cannot be avoided. An event giving you the ability to do something doesn't change the effect of a card. The meta rule in question

Quotemeta 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.

does not apply, because there is no contradiction. Longshot's 3 cannot be avoided, the event lets you avoid stuff, no overlap is going on here that would cause Meta 134 to be applied. If Longshot's card said "acts as a level 3 attack. Cannot be avoided" then meta 134 would enter the discussion.

Example 3

"Fighting Spirit Lives" (all specials in hand may be played by any character this battle) is in effect. Opponent plays a GA on your Wolverine. Wolverine cannot play specials.

Example 4

You have a frontline of Invisible Woman, Rhino, and Nightwing. Opponent plays Python Hold on Rhino. You play Invisible Woman 3i. Do what the card says, unless something else says you cannot. Nightwing may make a followup, Rhino may not.

Do what it says unless something else says you can't is an easier way of saying restriction takes precedence over permission, I think.  And I like that as a rule.  Will the calls at the Buffalo event be made this way?

With that being said (or asked, maybe... ), I'm still not sure about these:

For example one, the meta rule states that the event overrides the text of the HQ, allowing in this situation to keep duplicates from the drawn 3.  Is this how it would be ruled at an event?

For example two, if it can ONLY be defended by a level 3 power card, and my opponent plays it against me with a +1, then I can't defend it at all, unless I have a bonus to defense in effect before the attack was made against me since I can't use anything except the 3 to defend, right?  Or does the level 3 power card defend the One In a Million even if they give it +2 and I have no bonuses on defense?  I'm still confused about that... earlier, I suggested that avoiding an attack didn't seem to be the same as defending an attack.  The level 3 power card might be enough to defend against a level 5 One In a Million, but I'm really not sure.

Quote from: thetrooper27 on March 17, 2013, 04:58:35 PM
For example two, if it can ONLY be defended by a level 3 power card, and my opponent plays it against me with a +1, then I can't defend it at all, unless I have a bonus to defense in effect before the attack was made against me since I can't use anything except the 3 to defend, right?

Correct.

Quote
Or does the level 3 power card defend the One In a Million even if they give it +2 and I have no bonuses on defense?  I'm still confused about that... earlier, I suggested that avoiding an attack didn't seem to be the same as defending an attack.  The level 3 power card might be enough to defend against a level 5 One In a Million, but I'm really not sure.

Nope, you would need a Level 3 power card pre-boosted to defend a Level 5 OIAM.