MUTANT REFUGE (B6) - Aspect

[NickW]

When I read it now, it's clear to me exactly how it should be played.  I agree, there can be some confusion, but I think it is only if you take certain words out of the order they were written.  I'm not sure if the reason I wrote what I did on my website was because someone else's confusion influenced my own understanding of the card or if something else was going on.  To be honest, I don't think we spent a lot of time on Aspects, playtesting them or editing the game text for issues like this.  We hoped that Aspects could become a larger part of the game in time, but 1 Aspect each for 22 different Locations was not going to be enough to do it in one expansion.  We focused on Specials, the major factor of the game.

[Palatinus]

When I read it now, it's clear to me exactly how it should be played.  I agree, there can be some confusion, but I think it is only if you take certain words out of the order they were written.  I'm not sure if the reason I wrote what I did on my website was because someone else's confusion influenced my own understanding of the card or if something else was going on.  To be honest, I don't think we spent a lot of time on Aspects, playtesting them or editing the game text for issues like this.  We hoped that Aspects could become a larger part of the game in time, but 1 Aspect each for 22 different Locations was not going to be enough to do it in one expansion.  We focused on Specials, the major factor of the game.

So is there a conclusion on how this card should be played?

[BigBadHarve]

So is there a conclusion on how this card should be played?

Yes - When the opponent of the player using Avalon plays an activator, both players simultaneously draw 1 card. Draw cards before resolving the opponent's action.

-BBH

[Demacus]

Meaning, Avalon team can still use a battlesite, but without the disadvantage of allowing their opponent card draws when THEY use activators themselves.  Advantage to the Avalon team, provided opponent pulls a dupe and Avalon team does not.

[gameplan.exe]

Meaning, Avalon team can still use a battlesite, but without the disadvantage of allowing their opponent card draws when THEY use activators themselves.  Advantage to the Avalon team, provided opponent pulls a dupe and Avalon team does not.

correct, much to my disappointment

I know that there can still be advantage to me when we both draw (mostly by limiting my own duplication rate in my deck build), but it's not nearly as straight-forward an advantage as it could've been. c'est la vie.

[steve2275]

I spoke to a Reserve about this, and to the best of his recollection they interpreted it internally as

"For the remainder of the game, if your opponent plays an activator, you draw a card. If you play an activator, your opponent draws a card."

Now everyone go try Avalon homebase with Any Heroes...

i thought you couldnt play any hero/char if u have a homebase?
or is it any hero/char if you have a battlesite?

[Kal-el]

It's battlesite. You're good to go with a base.

[steve2275]

ah yes
thanks

[thetrooper27]

This was a tight discussion guys.  Way to debate!

I would like to say that I agree with BBH's statement:

When dealing with an unknown variable, one can only use precedent as a guide. Hence my interpretation of the use of 'opponent' as it applies to the rest of the established cards. It's really all we have to go on.
-BBH

Only events (which I believe Nick mentioned) apply to both players, so anytime a special or aspect refers to an opponent, it will never be talking about the person who played the card.  Never.  Precedent is a GREAT guideline for how to rule ambiguously worded cards.  This conversation reminded me of the Substitute Death debate we had (and I wanted to dig all that up in Buffalo but I forgot:().  I lost that debate, and I'm still not sure if anyone understood where I was coming from.  I think everyone at least understood one another here, and that's important.  At least to me, it is. 

Hey, can anyone answer this question for me, and I've asked a couple times, though it's slipped by the board:

Can I attack my own teammate?

[gameplan.exe]

This was a tight discussion guys.  Way to debate!

I would like to say that I agree with BBH's statement:

When dealing with an unknown variable, one can only use precedent as a guide. Hence my interpretation of the use of 'opponent' as it applies to the rest of the established cards. It's really all we have to go on.
-BBH

Only events (which I believe Nick mentioned) apply to both players, so anytime a special or aspect refers to an opponent, it will never be talking about the person who played the card.  Never.  Precedent is a GREAT guideline for how to rule ambiguously worded cards.  This conversation reminded me of the Substitute Death debate we had (and I wanted to dig all that up in Buffalo but I forgot:().  I lost that debate, and I'm still not sure if anyone understood where I was coming from.  I think everyone at least understood one another here, and that's important.  At least to me, it is. 

Hey, can anyone answer this question for me, and I've asked a couple times, though it's slipped by the board:

Can I attack my own teammate?

It was a good debate. I'm sad it isn't the way I think it should be 

Also, there are only two cards that "attack" teammates:
DZ (see Nightcrawler)
and
IA (see White Queen)

[thetrooper27]

I was wondering... I chimed in on another discussion about Telepathic Coordinator.  I'm not sure either of those should be usable on your teammates.  They're offense oriented cards... I couldn't get anyone to comment further though.  I'll bump that thread if I can find it.