meta rules and the intent of cards

[breadmaster]

does anyone know whether it was the intent of the creators to have cards like gambit's charm played defensively?  it seems to me it wasn't, as a card like blob's 'avoid one attack. cannot be attacked for remainder of battle' does the same thing.  it's unlikely just game evolution, as the reavers pretty boy goes back to the 'charm' wording.

it's the one's like namor's 'only energy attacks' that bug me.  seem too powerful to also be an avoid, and one can only imagine they were introduced to complement the limited 'avoid 1 energy attack' cards. (though namor isn't a very good example, as he seems to need all the help he can get )

[The Dude]

I kind of agree they weren't orginally intended to be played defensively. I know certainly didn't play them that way in the 3-stat days. But by the second rulebook (so DC, set 4) I'm fairly certain they clarified it so they could be. And ultimately it needed to be done. I can tell you it would be infuriating to have a card like that in hand while being attacked and unable to defend yourself, plus in the old pre-battlesite days heroes died a lot faster so defense really needed the boost of the rule clarification. Generally anything that makes a card more easily playable or flexible tends to be a good thing for the overall health of the game since that flexibility trickles through to make more characters and alternate strategies viable

[BigBadHarve]

I'm pretty sure it's what they intended from the beginning. The fundamental difference in playability is that cards like Pretty Boy and Charm are also playable on your turn, whereas Absorb Impact and Illusory Reality are only playable defensively, because they have the 'avoid' stipulation.

You'll find that Cards like Namor's are really useful, but not game breaking. Beast's Acrobatics is a staple in many a battlesite, which is where these cards get the best use. Many decks are built around a block-off strategy and these cards make it more viable.

-BBH