This game grows increasingly frustrating for me...

[DarKBladE09]

So Quicksilver can play his 1F special, which allows you to make 1 additional attack at +2 or 2 attacks +1. It would seem to me this means those attacks must be numerical, but apparently you can do one numerical at +1 and then a non-numerical at +1? That one isn't so bad, but seems like it's reaching a bit when the second follow up is "Opponent must discard all Universe Cards".

The one that really burst my buttons tonight was finding out that Professor X's special that says "No specials may be played against Professor X for remainder of battle" apparently does not work on attacks made by Professor X?!? So you can use a special or activator against him if it's on defense?! WTF?!, The card specifically says that cannot happen. This was brought up when I tried to negate Gambit's "May not be attacked for remainder of battle" which was played defensively against Hawkeye who was using a Baron Mordo activator to negate it and the negate says "Negates any one special card played against Baron Mordo". My argument was that if the Gambit card was played offensively, it would not be able to be negated by Hawkeye, or if Hawkeye had been KO'd between the defensive play and my next attack.

I was sort of able to swallow not being able to negate the lock card, even though I thought my argument was solid, but the Prof X ruling?! F that. Who ever made that rule standard is a big fat pussy. And I'm sick of running into these rules that violate the words that are written on the cards. We need a rules committee to overrule some of the outrageous and ridiculous rulings that have become standard in a game that had a good premise but ultimately failed due to unfavorable and complicated rulings. Just do what the cards say and stop putting restrictions on everything! Defensive is so damn overpowered that it makes the game a holdout instead of a battle, and I know you tourney players can agree with that. Thanks for reading my rant and please feel free to add your own.

[steve2275]

i disagree on the first paragraph
however i believe if http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/372.png is played when you select the 4 attacks options....non number attacks like  http://overpower.ca/cards/specials/1037.png can be played.
but not if the 3 2 or 1 attack options is selected
muir island(home)banshee COLOSSUS professor x special delivery event) latveria(battle site) comes to mind

Just do what the cards say and stop putting restrictions on everything! Defensive is so damn overpowered that it makes the game a holdout instead of a battle, and I know you tourney players can agree with that.

YEAH

[BigBadHarve]

So Quicksilver can play his 1F special, which allows you to make 1 additional attack at +2 or 2 attacks +1. It would seem to me this means those attacks must be numerical, but apparently you can do one numerical at +1 and then a non-numerical at +1? That one isn't so bad, but seems like it's reaching a bit when the second follow up is "Opponent must discard all Universe Cards".

The one that really burst my buttons tonight was finding out that Professor X's special that says "No specials may be played against Professor X for remainder of battle" apparently does not work on attacks made by Professor X?!? So you can use a special or activator against him if it's on defense?! WTF?!, The card specifically says that cannot happen. This was brought up when I tried to negate Gambit's "May not be attacked for remainder of battle" which was played defensively against Hawkeye who was using a Baron Mordo activator to negate it and the negate says "Negates any one special card played against Baron Mordo". My argument was that if the Gambit card was played offensively, it would not be able to be negated by Hawkeye, or if Hawkeye had been KO'd between the defensive play and my next attack.

I was sort of able to swallow not being able to negate the lock card, even though I thought my argument was solid, but the Prof X ruling?! F that. Who ever made that rule standard is a big fat pussy. And I'm sick of running into these rules that violate the words that are written on the cards. We need a rules committee to overrule some of the outrageous and ridiculous rulings that have become standard in a game that had a good premise but ultimately failed due to unfavorable and complicated rulings. Just do what the cards say and stop putting restrictions on everything! Defensive is so damn overpowered that it makes the game a holdout instead of a battle, and I know you tourney players can agree with that. Thanks for reading my rant and please feel free to add your own.

The follow up to the Quicksilver doesn't require a numerical option, but obviously you lose the bonus if it's non numerical. It just requires an attack. Rapid Rip off is an attack, ergo it's legal.

Regarding Prof. X's special - Of course it doesn't affect cards played BY the Professor, it never did.

The card may be used defensively but it doesn't affect your opponent's ability to defend, only what may or may not be used to attack the Professor. So you can use it to defend Prof. Against specials, as well as prevent further specials from being used against him... but it in no way affects how your opponent can defend attacks. So, your opponent may still use specials to defend attacks made by Prof. X.

Here's a further limitation that may come up - If I use a non-targeted  AI special (opponent must discard 1 placed card) you can't use that Prof X. card to defend it, because it's not technically targeting the Professor, but the opponent. If I use a targeted AI card, (Iceman, Ice tactics) then you CAN because it hits the Prof.

[DarKBladE09]

yea, the quicksilver one i can buy and I understand the AI specials and defense. Thats all plausible, and I can see how someone could argue for not being able to negate the gambit card, but not the playing defensive specials against Prof X. That just completely violates the plain english text on that card lol.

[BigBadHarve]

yea, the quicksilver one i can buy and I understand the AI specials and defense. Thats all plausible, and I can see how someone could argue for not being able to negate the gambit card, but not the playing defensive specials against Prof X. That just completely violates the plain english text on that card lol.

It doesn't violate it, though your interpretation isn't entirely off the wall.

First, this game is rife with such ridiculously bad wording and stupid errata. But until now, I have never seen anyone interpret this card as anything other than defensive. By the wording and the standard rules in this game there's nothing on the card to indicate it affects the opponent, just professor X.

Look at Mr. Fantastic's Object bounce (Opponent may not attack or defend against Universe cards played by Mr. F for remainder of battle). This card is NOT defensive but also affects what the opponent may use to defend, because it specifically mentions the opponent.

Prof X's card doesn't. It only mentions what can be played against Prof X... as in used to attack him. Yes, it should probably say 'No specials may be used to attack Professor X' for absolute clarity, but it's still pretty clear.

That being said, you do bring up and interesting point that CAN be interpreted the other way and would make a whole host of specials MUCH nastier - http://overpower.ca/tools/quickspecials.php

Type in the 'AH' code to see what cards would be a little bit tougher...

[DarKBladE09]

your explanation of the Prof X interpretation does make sense. I just never thought I was interpreting the card at all but just reading what it explicitly says. I guess standard "interpretation" of the word "against" in this game means used to attack that character, whereas I am using the actual definition for the word "against", which would mean both attack and defensive. I guess if the card was used in the way it reads, it would not be able to be played defensively to avoid a special attack (although I think it should be). But again, that brings me back to defensive being overpowered. This card being played in the way you describe, makes it worthless as an offensive card. But thanks for your explanation, as I do feel a little better about it, but not much

[KObossy]

Welcome to the game of Overpower where nothing is as it seems! I always enact the Overpower golden rule: Immediately translate card to your benefit and figure it out later...of course I AM the oldest brother of 4 so only I can get away with it.

[TheGeneral]

I agree with BBH

[teesaw]

If I were the judge, this is how I would rule:

You attack "against" a character (you can also attack a battlesite, an EB, etc) and you defend "against" an offensive action.   

Is that the basic principle of the metas on this stuff?