MUTANT REFUGE (B6) - Aspect

[Onslaught]

Which reserverist?  Not that I doubt it is just that I would put more weight to the memory of Barth or Probe over some of the others.

It was Nick Williams, and the conversation was several years ago so it was only a little bit after the game had ended. I had some other really bizarre rules situations that he was able to clarify, maybe I can dig up the AIM log from my old computer.

The card's text is slightly ambiguous, but what is clear is that BOTH players must draw

For the remainder of game, both players must:
Draw 1 card from top of draw pile for each activator played by opponent. Draw card before resolving Opponent's action. Discard duplicates.

It's terribly worded but it makes perfect sense when you look at it like that.

Also I have no idea how you could think it would be better if both players drew whenever an activator was played. There would be no net gain or loss in card advantage by either player whenever an activator was played, so really the only thing that would happen is that you would put yourself at -1 card the turn you drew the aspect. It's significantly more powerful this way, aside from the gimmicky situations that you might set up with Tiffany's LX special from a battlesite.

[gameplan.exe]

The card's text is slightly ambiguous, but what is clear is that BOTH players must draw. It doesn't say one player must draw if the other plays an activator. The only question that comes up currently with the wording is whether it applies to both players when they play activators or only the opponent of the Avalon team.

Can things be slightly ambiguous? I thought it was more of a y/n scenario. Like "barely pregnant" still means a baby is there. Anyway, with the latest understanding, both players will still draw, provided the second part of the card is fulfilled. This statement is true for both players, "If my opponent plays an activator, I get to draw a card."

To say that only the opponent draws when the other player plays an activator pretty much makes this aspect only worthwhile if you are using an any-hero team. If you get to draw when I play an activator, that's a serious disadvantage to me. The team is already saddled with a detrimental inherent, but it can be worked around. But to give up card advantage when I play an activator, no way.

Well, obviously, you wouldn't use a Battlesite with this Aspect, but that's just it - a clear strategy. It gives Avalon a unique angle for Any Heroes over a Battlesite.

I like the aspect as is (or rather, as we have been playing it) - Both players draw when Avalon's opponent plays activators. It would be really awesome if both drew when either played an activator, but I just don't hold to that interpretation because, as I've said, the card says 'opponent,' which to me means 'Avalon's opponent' not 'the opponent of the player using the activator.'

Also, If that were the case, I suspect that (despite the designer's obstacles with wording certain cards) they would have worded it something like this - 'both players must draw when any activator is played by either player.'

For myself, I'm much more inclined to use the card now, with this new interpretation. And, while there are certainly ways to word the card differently to clarify its use, the same could be said for dozens and dozens of cards.

Although, it would be fun to try this scenario:

Playing the aspect so that both players draw 1 when any activator is played.

To Save the World event is in play, so one may draw when the other draws, which spikes the drawn cards when activators are played.

We're both using Avalon with the aspect in play, essentially meaning we draw 2 for each activator played, 1 for your aspect and 1 for mine. Then we draw an additional 2 for the event.

You play an activator to attack me. We draw 4. I play an activator to defend. We draw another 4. Rinse and repeat!  

That would be an amusing round. Though highly unlikely, still amusing.

-BBH

I can still see that this is a 3rd way to read the card. It can be both A & B at the same time but to me, this one seems the least likely intent. I guess we'll never really know... unless some one actually knows how to contact TPTB!  
lol

[drdeath25]

I think I have a solution that would make everyone happy on this one.

BBH, from what you have said in the past you use a ton of house rules. So if you don't like the official ruling because it makes the card too powerful, couldn't you just make another house rule and play it your own way?

I should be a official judge with rulings like this  

[Nostalgic]

I think I have a solution that would make everyone happy on this one.

BBH, from what you have said in the past you use a ton of house rules. So if you don't like the official ruling because it makes the card too powerful, couldn't you just make another house rule and play it your own way?

I should be a official judge with rulings like this  

Absolutely NOT! I think we should cling to every ambiguous, contradictory, nonsensical, yet apparently "divinely inspired" ruling 10 years after the fact lest Armageddon happen!    

[BigBadHarve]

Dr. Death - the way they're proposing doesn't make this card stronger, it in fact reduces it's potency.

Onslaught - I don't doubt that you had a conversation about it, but I am leery about trusting your memory about a series of emails from ten years ago.

Regardless, giving my opponent the ability to draw a card when I play an activator, when I get nothing, makes the card useless to anyone using a Battlesite. They would pretty much be required to play Any Heroes or not use the aspect.

Terribly worded? More or less... but if we break down the text on the card, the meaning is easy to follow:

For the remainder of game, both players[/b] must Draw 1 card from top of draw pile for each activator played by opponent. Draw card before resolving Opponent's action. Discard duplicates.

Both players.= Not one or the other, but both. At the same time. Otherwise why not say - when one player uses an activator, the other must draw a card.

Must draw = Mandatory. No option.

Opponent. = The opponent of the player using the aspect. This is consistent throughout OverPower. When you play a card that affects the 'opponent' it means YOUR opponent.

If they had wanted everyone to draw when any activator was played, it would have said both must draw when any activator is played.

-BBH

[gameplan.exe]

Dr. Death - the way they're proposing doesn't make this card stronger, it in fact reduces it's potency.

Onslaught - I don't doubt that you had a conversation about it, but I am leery about trusting your memory about a series of emails from ten years ago.

Regardless, giving my opponent the ability to draw a card when I play an activator, when I get nothing, makes the card useless to anyone using a Battlesite. They would pretty much be required to play Any Heroes or not use the aspect.

Terribly worded? More or less... but if we break down the text on the card, the meaning is easy to follow:

For the remainder of game, both players[/b] must Draw 1 card from top of draw pile for each activator played by opponent. Draw card before resolving Opponent's action. Discard duplicates.

Both players.= Not one or the other, but both. At the same time. Otherwise why not say - when one player uses an activator, the other must draw a card.

Must draw = Mandatory. No option.

Opponent. = The opponent of the player using the aspect. This is consistent throughout OverPower. When you play a card that affects the 'opponent' it means YOUR opponent.

If they had wanted everyone to draw when any activator was played, it would have said both must draw when any activator is played.

-BBH

First, it doesn't reduce its potency, it just changes its use. I'd say anytime I get to draw a card and my opponent doesn't, that's pretty powerful. If this Aspect was an Any Homebase Aspect, it would go a long, long way in balancing Any Hero decks with Battlesite decks. I'd be using Any Heroes way more often.

Second, the wording is always going to be ambiguous in this sentence. Without actually re-wording it, the best you could hope to do is add punctuation to clarify.

Third, I don't doubt any of the points that the card affects both players (by giving them both a new rule to follow) and that the drawing is a must (not optional). However, arguing that the word Opponent only applies to the "Opponent of the player playing the Aspect" is still an assumption. No other card in the game gives both players a rule to follow for the remainder of game, so we can't use precedent to determine the intent.

Fourth, arguing the way they "would have worded it" is futile. If they wanted it to be the way you've been playing it, they could have said, "For remainder of game, each time Opponent plays an Activator, both players must draw 1 card." We could both argue what they should have done to make their intent clear.

Without a verifiable souce for a ruling, I suppose we'll all have to determine for ourselves how it should be played.

[Onslaught]

Dr. Death - the way they're proposing doesn't make this card stronger, it in fact reduces it's potency.

It doesn't reduce its potency at all, and in fact it is strictly better with the Any Hero oriented ruling. In one scenario you have a net effect that will always be -1 for you, and in the other you gain +X for however many activators your opponent uses. 

Like it was mentioned earlier though, you already use house rules for everything else so I'm not sure why you're so worked up about the correct ruling for this particular bad card.

[BigBadHarve]

Yes, as an aspect for a strictly Any-Hero team, it's awesome. But under this interpretation it is completely worthless for a player wanting to use a battlesite with Avalon, which makes it extremely restrictive.

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.


@ Onslaught - I want to be clear on how all cards are played officially. Period. Yes, I play by a house system with willing players, but I strive to be solid with official rules.

-BBH

[Onslaught]

I did some poking around on ripayuheadoff's old site (it's down now, but it looks like Jack archived it - thanks Jack!), and in one of his strategy tips sections about aspects he just happens to mention the card in question.

Avalon  -  "For remainder of game, both players must draw 1 card from top of Draw Pile for each Activator card played by Opponent.  Draw card before resolving Opponent's action.  Discard if duplicate."  This Aspect may be a little confusing to read.  Here is an example of how it works - I have an Avalon Homebase and play this Aspect.  When I play an Activator, you draw 1 card.  When you play an Activator, I draw 1 card. 

http://overpower.ca/archive/Ripayuheadoff/op/part10.html#top

You play with The Marvels, and the spoiler/guide to playing Marvels specials came directly from this guy, so you should be able to take his interpretation as the final word.

[BigBadHarve]

I did some poking around on ripayuheadoff's old site (it's down now, but it looks like Jack archived it - thanks Jack!), and in one of his strategy tips sections about aspects he just happens to mention the card in question.

Avalon  -  "For remainder of game, both players must draw 1 card from top of Draw Pile for each Activator card played by Opponent.  Draw card before resolving Opponent's action.  Discard if duplicate."  This Aspect may be a little confusing to read.  Here is an example of how it works - I have an Avalon Homebase and play this Aspect.  When I play an Activator, you draw 1 card.  When you play an Activator, I draw 1 card. 

http://overpower.ca/archive/Ripayuheadoff/op/part10.html#top

You play with The Marvels, and the spoiler/guide to playing Marvels specials came directly from this guy, so you should be able to take his interpretation as the final word.

That's very interesting. Thanks for posting it.

I think it makes so sense in context of the printed text, but then that wouldn't be the first time in OP that has happened, but if it's in any way official then I'll keep it in mind for reference.

-BBH

[gameplan.exe]

I did some poking around on ripayuheadoff's old site (it's down now, but it looks like Jack archived it - thanks Jack!), and in one of his strategy tips sections about aspects he just happens to mention the card in question.

Avalon  -  "For remainder of game, both players must draw 1 card from top of Draw Pile for each Activator card played by Opponent.  Draw card before resolving Opponent's action.  Discard if duplicate."  This Aspect may be a little confusing to read.  Here is an example of how it works - I have an Avalon Homebase and play this Aspect.  When I play an Activator, you draw 1 card.  When you play an Activator, I draw 1 card. 

http://overpower.ca/archive/Ripayuheadoff/op/part10.html#top

You play with The Marvels, and the spoiler/guide to playing Marvels specials came directly from this guy, so you should be able to take his interpretation as the final word.

Cool. Thanks, Onslaught and Jack!

[BigBadHarve]

Okay, I have been in touch with Nick Williams, and he has confirmed what I suspected about how this aspect is played. It's played as it is written - both players draw when the opponent (as in Avalon's opponent) plays an activator.

This is what he had to say:

"The thing to remember is that this card only "affects" the player who plays it.  This means that when that player's opponent and ONLY that player's opponent plays an Activator, then both players draw 1 card.  It does not say and it does not mean "When either player plays an Activator then the other player draws 1 card.'"


As an added bonus, he seems to have signed up on the forum, so hopefully we'll see him around.

-BBH

[Overtime]

Okay, I have been in touch with Nick Williams, and he has confirmed what I suspected about how this aspect is played. It's played as it is written - both players draw when the opponent (as in Avalon's opponent) plays an activator.

This is what he had to say:

"The thing to remember is that this card only "affects" the player who plays it.  This means that when that player's opponent and ONLY that player's opponent plays an Activator, then both players draw 1 card.  It does not say and it does not mean "When either player plays an Activator then the other player draws 1 card.'"


As an added bonus, he seems to have signed up on the forum, so hopefully we'll see him around.

-BBH

-BBH

If the same source gives two opposing answers, doesn't that just mean we're back to square one? They sort of cancel each other out, I don't see why the newer one is "more correct" (if anything it might be a little less accurate since it's many years later from the posting on his own website?) Maybe he will weigh in here!

[NickW]

Whoa, I totally forgot that I had that card specifically mentioned on my site, and with that answer.  Right now, I don't see any reason why I would have put that up there.  This is strange.

[gameplan.exe]

Whoa, I totally forgot that I had that card specifically mentioned on my site, and with that answer.  Right now, I don't see any reason why I would have put that up there.  This is strange.

I can actually tell you why. It's because this card is written ambiguously. It cannot be played "as written"