Tourney Results

[gameplan.exe]

Unfortunately, my schedule doesn't allow me the time to play today. That being said, I'm going to have to forfeit my final match.

Or, let him actually forfeit, which would give me a win. He's "letting me bet7 and conceding" before we actually break out our cards.

what do you say?

[breadmaster]

i say i can't really allow it

how is that fair, supposing you make the top 4, and bump one the others out?

the only thing i can suggest, is getting approval from the top 3 (me, harv, oscorp) as well as the other players battling for the spot (onslaught, bios)

if all 5 ok it, i'll allow it.  but it must be unanimous.

EDIT: based on the stuff i've read on the rules page, for the remainder of the tournament, additional attacks DO stack.  i'll change it for future one's, but not this one.  also, classic inserts are allowed.  basically, everything in opo is allowed (except watchtower, but no one used that)

[Oscorp]

I agree with Harv about extending the deadline by a day or so.  The original deadline was created with a player pool of 8 people and having to play 7 matches over 7 days.  We added two more players and two more games after the deadline was created.  Also it seems as though Onslaught will be gone after tonight and unable to play his playoff matches right away if he gets through anyway.

I also understand Bread's point of view about trying to keep everything fair for everyone who played all of their games on time.  Bread you have been great through this.  Having to play the organizer/ref/babysitter/rules judge/scheduler to everyone here and still get the 2nd best round robin record is great!   

If we go with a no on extending the deadline then I would vote Yes on Dem conceding a victory to Ncan.  Dem had a 0-7 record and giving Ncan an auto loss seems a hard price to pay and a crappy way to have to lose out of a chance to advance.  He would still have to win out against Bios and Onslaught to get in, and if he can then he deserves to be there.

Just my 2 cents.

Great job again Bread.  Thanks for doing all this.

[gameplan.exe]

no worries. like I said, hopeully I can connect with him relatively shortly. About to leave work in a few, then I'll be on the hunt  (lol, that's my game face, I guess)

[NickW]

Round 6:  EVENT:  Shockwave Rocks the World

I drew a mitt full of D.  Getting Gaurdian, Confusion, Kinetic Absorbtion, DoW and no energy icons.  Nate has 3 discards.  I bet 3 for the win.  First go I hit him with DoW, locking up any defensive activators in hand.   He goes for Team X with an 8S, I block with KA and draw Web Headed Wizard.  I attack Beast with a Berserk Attack that lands and follow up with Combat Armour on Thing for the KO, blocked with a 5F.  Nate tosses an activator on his turn...  (I just realized that that may or may not be legal with Shockwave in play, a ruling from someone would be great)  I web head for another KA.  Nate passes, so I play my remaining attacks winning venture in the end for the battle and the game.

Yes, you can play an Activator against DoW with this event in play.  In this case, playing the Activator is not considered an attack because the action does not cross over to the opponent's side of the table.

Are you sure about this? It was always ruled back in the day that it was not allowed. The wording is quite clear, that in order to remove DoW you must attack it with activators. No cards with an energy icon being used to attack would prevent this.

I don't know a single person who hasn't interpreted it this way.

Very curious indeed.

-BBH

I'll admit, I've been out of OP for a long time, I may be a bit rusty.  But, the way I always ruled was that an "attack" was something that affected the opponent.  To illustrate, I would say imagine a line is drawn between the players.  There is your side of the table and there is your opponent's side of the table.  An "attack" is anything that crosses that line and affects the opponent, one or more of his/her characters, the battlesite, any card in play on that side of the table, etc.  This distinction was necessary to clarify other rulings and maintain some sort of consistency.

On your turn, you are allowed to make an attack against your opponent or you may play an offensive action that is not considered an attack.

The presence of the word "attack" in the game text of DoW is an unfortunate one.  Perhaps this was an oversight on the Reserves as we actually came up with this card and Ron approved it for the expansion.  You do not actually "attack" DoW with an Activator.  That specific text was probably used only because we could not think of any other way to describe it in the limited space available.  Playing an Activator against DoW should be considered an offensive action that is not an attack.

When scenarios like this came up after the cards were printed, we agreed that Activators should not be rendered completely useless if DoW and such an event or any other card are in play at the same time, whether DoW was already in play before or just came into play this battle.  Additionally, one can argue that the Activator could have been used to retrieve a non-attack special, therefore the Event would not prevent its play, but because DoW is in play the Activator counts towards one of the four and the special remains unplayed.


Then there is the whole argument that the icons on Activators are completely meaningless and they should really be considered to have no icons.  The only reason Activators have icons is because they created a reason for all those super common but useless character cards people had dozens of when you only needed one...

[BigBadHarve]

I'll admit, I've been out of OP for a long time, I may be a bit rusty.  But, the way I always ruled was that an "attack" was something that affected the opponent.  To illustrate, I would say imagine a line is drawn between the players.  There is your side of the table and there is your opponent's side of the table.  An "attack" is anything that crosses that line and affects the opponent, one or more of his/her characters, the battlesite, any card in play on that side of the table, etc.  This distinction was necessary to clarify other rulings and maintain some sort of consistency.

On your turn, you are allowed to make an attack against your opponent or you may play an offensive action that is not considered an attack.

The presence of the word "attack" in the game text of DoW is an unfortunate one.  Perhaps this was an oversight on the Reserves as we actually came up with this card and Ron approved it for the expansion.  You do not actually "attack" DoW with an Activator.  That specific text was probably used only because we could not think of any other way to describe it in the limited space available.  Playing an Activator against DoW should be considered an offensive action that is not an attack.

When scenarios like this came up after the cards were printed, we agreed that Activators should not be rendered completely useless if DoW and such an event or any other card are in play at the same time, whether DoW was already in play before or just came into play this battle.  Additionally, one can argue that the Activator could have been used to retrieve a non-attack special, therefore the Event would not prevent its play, but because DoW is in play the Activator counts towards one of the four and the special remains unplayed.


Then there is the whole argument that the icons on Activators are completely meaningless and they should really be considered to have no icons.  The only reason Activators have icons is because they created a reason for all those super common but useless character cards people had dozens of when you only needed one...

One of the great strategies is using DoW in conjunction with that event to cost your opponent a good chunk of activators. I certainly understand the flip side, but in the long run Any Heroes usually suffer against Sites without DoW.

The definition of 'attack' is nice and clear. But just out of curiosity - Does not a card with a lasting effect, that affects the 'opponent' (such as DoW) remain on the side of the table it was played on?

That's how it was explained to me when I first learned to play, and it made sense. Unlike 'targeted' attacks, which actually cross the battle line to affect characters, DoW or other cards like 'Snow Blind'  or 'Lil rogue' are played from your side of the table and the actual cards do not cross, even though the effect it generates does. So, if I have one of those cards in play, my opponent wouldn't be able to pass with a negate in hand (for example) because there's something on my side of the table that can be negated, which makes the negate an attack.

This is also what led to the interpretation for DoW. I play DoW and it sits on my side of the table, creating its effect, meaning that it needs to be 'attacked' with Activators. Hence the assumption that if icons are locked down, activators can't be used.

-BBH

[breadmaster]

ncannelora def bios

next up, ncann vs onslaught in a MUST WIN for ncann.  if he does, he guarantees a tiebreaker with onslaught (with the possibility of a match against dem to move ahead)

the ticking clock...

updated results

big bad harv 8-1
breadmaster 7-2
oscorp 6-3
onslaught 5-3 (ncannelora)
ncannelora 4-3 (demacus/onslaught)
bios 4-5
dr. death 4-5
nate grey 3-6
kyle 2-7
demacus 0-8 (ncannelora)

[Onslaught]

Squeezed in the ncannelora match before being away from computers for the next few days, in the end his Professor X died to an 8e powercard from Mags to give me the win.

[gameplan.exe]

Squeezed in the ncannelora match before being away from computers for the next few days, in the end his Professor X died to an 8e powercard from Mags to give me the win.

Good game, Onslaught. I'll post the card-by-card play-by-play for this loss and my win over Bios a little later.

ncannelora: 4-4 (demacus)
(outta top 4, but i'll still play'im later, so I hopefully finish w/better record than drdeath25  )

[Bios]

World OverPower Tournament

updated results

big bad harv 8-1
breadmaster 7-2
oscorp 6-3
onslaught 6-3
ncannelora 4-4 (demacus)
bios 4-5
dr. death 4-5
nate grey 3-6
kyle 2-7
demacus 0-8 (ncannelora)

[Kyle]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meLpuF9UMvk

[NickW]

One of the great strategies is using DoW in conjunction with that event to cost your opponent a good chunk of activators. I certainly understand the flip side, but in the long run Any Heroes usually suffer against Sites without DoW.

The definition of 'attack' is nice and clear. But just out of curiosity - Does not a card with a lasting effect, that affects the 'opponent' (such as DoW) remain on the side of the table it was played on?

That's how it was explained to me when I first learned to play, and it made sense. Unlike 'targeted' attacks, which actually cross the battle line to affect characters, DoW or other cards like 'Snow Blind'  or 'Lil rogue' are played from your side of the table and the actual cards do not cross, even though the effect it generates does. So, if I have one of those cards in play, my opponent wouldn't be able to pass with a negate in hand (for example) because there's something on my side of the table that can be negated, which makes the negate an attack.

This is also what led to the interpretation for DoW. I play DoW and it sits on my side of the table, creating its effect, meaning that it needs to be 'attacked' with Activators. Hence the assumption that if icons are locked down, activators can't be used.

-BBH

But DoW is an attack, it crosses the line to the opponent's side of the table.  It should remain in play on the opponent's side, ideally near the battlesite to remind both players that it is in play, and not returned back to the player's side of the table.

Snow Blind and Lil Rogue should both be considered attacks.  The very mention of the word "Opponent" in the game text implies that it affects the opponent and is therefore an attack.  They may not target a specific character of the opponent, but that does not make them any less of an attack.  Your opponent is a valid target if the game text on the card reads that way.  There was a big debacle in the first year or two of OP where a few cards were printed "Target Opponent" when they probably should have said "Target Character."  (Scarlet Witch's AI)

To expand on Snow Blind, there is a very big difference between it and Professor X's Team is +2 to All Actions (besides the fact that one is -1 and one is +2).  Essentially, they have the same kind of effect, a bonus or a penalty to the value of every numerical attack.  But, Snow Blind is an attack and can only be played offensively because it affects the opponent.  Telepathic Coordination may be played as an attack with another card, as an offensive action by itself, or defensively with a power card.  Telepathic Coordination directly affects the player, so it does not cross the line and stays on your side of the table.  The down side is of course that if you play it with an attack and any part of the attack is defended, then it is removed from play.

Yes, if you have Telepathic Coordination in play, then your opponent cannot pass with a Negate in hand.
No, if you have Snow Blind in play, your opponent is not forced to play a Negate against it and may pass if there are no other legal attacks.

[gameplan.exe]

Details on the match of ncannelora vs. Bios

Hand 1
I have no discards // he discards 2
We each place 6
I venture 3 - he keeps // He ventures 1 and concedes
me: 3-4-0, him: 0-6-1

Hand 2
I have no discards // He discards 1
I place 0 // He places 2
I venture 2 // He ventures 1
I play HQ - drew AH, AQ & Book of Darkhold
He plays Super Soldier Serum on X-Babies
I play Book of Darkhold on Colossus
He attacks ProfX w/3M PC, blocked w/4I PC
I play 4F AA on Spawn, blocked w/5M PC
followed by 4E AA on Spawn, blocked w/Bamf!
followed by 8M AQ on X-babies, Flight'd
He concedes
me: 5-2-0, him 0-5-2

Hand 3
WE have no discards
I place 1 // He placed 3
I venture 1 // he ventures 3 - I draw Confusion
I play 3S ally on Spawn, lands
followed by Haymaker on Spawn, blocked w/Spawn's AD
He attacks Prof w/A-Next, blocked w/AG
followed by 3S DG on Prof, landed
followed by 5CC on Prof, landed
I play A-Next on Nightcrawler, landed
followed by AX on X-babies, landed (good for me, since they had HO & 4M placed)
He attacks Colossus w/Leech - AG'd
I play Mental Bolt on Spawn, landed
He plays Bastion to remove the Mental Bolt
I concede
me 5-1-1 // him 3-2-2

Hand 4
BLP...
WE have no discards
he placed 4 (including HQ to Ray, no small trouble later)
I placed 6
He ventured 3 - I kept ASPECT (which I had just stacked w/BLP)
I ventured 3 FTW - he kept
He plays 3S Ally on Colossus, landed
followed by DZ on Colossus, JLA'd to ProfX, landed
I play ASPECT
He plays ZY on Colossus, landed - locking up 2/3 of my FL - yikes! i did NOT expect that!
I play 4E on Spawn, blocked w/5E PC
he plays 6F TW on Shadowcat, landed,
followed by 4M from X-Babies on Colossus, blocked w/7A
I concede
me: 3-2-2, him 4-3-3

Hand 5
I have 0 discards // he has 2 discards
he placed 3 // I placed 2
he ventures 1, i venture 2 from the top
He plays 4F Death From Above on Colossus, played Prof's BG and 3I - Drew 6A CC for Shadowcat
I played 6S TW on NightC, landed,
followed by 8E on NightC, landed
followed by 6I, landed KO - this was a big turning point, since he had a TW and 7PC
He plays 7F TW on Colossus, landed
followed by 8E on Colossus, landed KO - A necessary sacrifice
I play Leech-STR on X-Babies, AO'd
he plays 1I on Prof, blocked w/1I - Drew 6E TW - this was a perfect draw
I immediately play my new 6E TW on Spawn, landed
followed by 5I on Spawn, landed KO - Good to get one of the max-8 down!
He plays 6SHO on Prof, landed
I play AL on Prof - remove the 5M CC off ProfX
he plays GammaT 7S on Prof, landed
I play 6A CC on X-babies, landed
he plays 6F PC on Prof, landed KO - A terrible punch, and waste of my AL play!
I play 6F on X-B, landed
he concedes
me 3-4-0, him 4-2-1

Hand 6
We both discard 1
We both place 2
I venture 1 // he ventures 2
I play 3E Ally on X-babies, blocked w/3M PC
follow up 5F HO on Ray, landed
he plays 6S HO on ShadowC, landed (I have Bastion, but I'm hoping to use it on his HQ on Ray)
I play 3F Ally on Ray, landed
followed by 9ES on Ray, landed - a consolation at first, a huge help later
He plays 6F PC on ShadowC, landed
I play GammaT on X-Babies, blocked w/7A CC
He plays 7F on ShadowC, landed KO - That's a bummer, but a small loss at this point
I play Loki - really hoping he'll play the HQ out of desperation...
He passes - no such fortune for me
I play Bastion to remove Lil'Colossus and take the Venture lead.
he concedes
me 4-3-0 // him 2-4-1

Hand 7
he discards 4 - I'm missing my 6&5I, and discard the 8E, but I think I can manage without...
I place 1, he places 0
I venture 1 // he ventures 2
I play 7A PC on Ray, blocked w/8E PC
he plays 7F PC on Cap'B, landed
I play 1I on Ray, blocked w/2S
he plays Draw 3, landed - but discards 3M PC
I play 2I on Ray, blocked w/3M
he plays 5M on Cap'B, landed
I play 3I on Ray, blocked w/4M
he plays 6F on Cap'B, landed
I play 4I on Ray, landed KO - huge help, taking him back down to max-7
but, he wins Venture
me 4-2-1 // him 3-4-0

Hand 8
I'm now missing my 4, 5, & 6 Int Power cards.
However, since we're both purely in the Power Pack, and we're both max-7, Bios graciously concedes the game to me, knowing that if I had all my Power cards, I'd draw to replace (ASPECT) and win by shear card advantage.

Very classy, Bios  You're a great competitor, thanks for the exciting game.

Deets on the Onslaught match, still to come 

[BigBadHarve]

But DoW is an attack, it crosses the line to the opponent's side of the table.  It should remain in play on the opponent's side, ideally near the battlesite to remind both players that it is in play, and not returned back to the player's side of the table.

Snow Blind and Lil Rogue should both be considered attacks.  The very mention of the word "Opponent" in the game text implies that it affects the opponent and is therefore an attack.  They may not target a specific character of the opponent, but that does not make them any less of an attack.  Your opponent is a valid target if the game text on the card reads that way.  There was a big debacle in the first year or two of OP where a few cards were printed "Target Opponent" when they probably should have said "Target Character."  (Scarlet Witch's AI)

To expand on Snow Blind, there is a very big difference between it and Professor X's Team is +2 to All Actions (besides the fact that one is -1 and one is +2).  Essentially, they have the same kind of effect, a bonus or a penalty to the value of every numerical attack.  But, Snow Blind is an attack and can only be played offensively because it affects the opponent.  Telepathic Coordination may be played as an attack with another card, as an offensive action by itself, or defensively with a power card.  Telepathic Coordination directly affects the player, so it does not cross the line and stays on your side of the table.  The down side is of course that if you play it with an attack and any part of the attack is defended, then it is removed from play.

Yes, if you have Telepathic Coordination in play, then your opponent cannot pass with a Negate in hand.
No, if you have Snow Blind in play, your opponent is not forced to play a Negate against it and may pass if there are no other legal attacks.

This is all good to have cleared up. Because, as I said, it was very clearly explained to me the opposite way (and even ruled on in tournaments that way) hence my interpretation of it.

It made sense too, that cards with no deliberate 'target' had nowhere to go (short of flinging them at the actual opposing player  ) so they generated their effect from my side.

The 'target opponent' wording was I believed all cleared up, every instance of it clearly means target, so there's no real confusion.

Since I have you - I am curious on your take on two other issues that have come up:

First: I am curious on another small matter regarding a 'Marvels' card and the usage of 'opponent.'

If, as you say any card that affect the 'opponent' is only usable as an attack, how come Invisible Woman's 'Conceal' is usable defensively according to lists? Was that an oversight? It does not conform to any standard of defensive actions (I know Marvels weren't 'official' but many of us use them because they're just so much fun!)

Second: Regarding BA coded specials such as Captain America's 'Super Soldier' or Red Skull's 'Evil Super Soldier' which can only be defended by the listed specific type of card.

Meta rule #44 stipulates that : When a card specifies what cards may (or may not) be used to defend it, this includes ALL cards used in the defense.

So, if i can only defend a card with a special - I cannot use a power card boosted by a special, because the power card is not a special, even if the special is part of the defense. This is clear. Likewise, no universe, tactic etc.

Likewise with a JW or JZ (not be defended with specials) I can't use a special to shift an attack to block with a power card, because the special played in response to shift (even though a shift is not a defense) because all cards played 'in response' must meet the specifications.

Now the question - If the attack can only be defended by a special, am I allowed to use an Activator to stop it?  If ALL cards played in the defense must meet the specification, that should  mean the activator is not valid.

Is this true?

-BBH

[Demacus]

I apologize for missing last night's deadline. I had plans for this evening with my family, but due to a schedule shift at work, everything got moved to last night, and since I had to work early today, there was no time for a game after returning home at 11p.m.  I should be floating around tonight if anyone's looking for a game.